Time Dilation, the Hubble Shift and God's Eternal Universe

It's not just the pseudoscience, they clearly do not understand the purpose of peer review.

You seem to be the one filled with hate. You have nothing I envy. And I've published in journals that had real peer review. If you want to do science then you have to actually do science.Sorry you didn't get the reception you were hoping for...

Well, this is not a spiritual site, so-called or otherwise.I read your paper. If you can't take criticisms, boohoo.

Besides, you need to keep your line free. The Nobel committee will be calling any time.

You know, insulting behavior is hardly what I normally expect from someone who just announced the publication of the paper that will completely change humanity's understanding of the Universe, cosmology, physics, and astrophysics forever. A bold claim, but of course you have absolutely no knowledge of what I understand or what I am seeing. I read the paper and I have not started being nasty, YET.You are the one who went on a rant making nasty assertions about my character. So, you're the one making ignorant, insulting, and false accusations about how I define science and blabbing about "truth", yet I am the one being nasty?If you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously, you need to tone down the insults and up the intellectual level of your discussion.So far, your explosion into a rant at the first criticism seems more likely to convince everyone that you are nothing but another crank.

Don't forget that "Simple fact is, he has forgotten more than you will ever know...."

And??? I guess you didn't realize that the peer review process does not end at publication. If you read scientific journals after a controversial paper is published you will see that there are often (sometimes lasting for years) letters and articles asking for clarifications and also maybe challenging specific or general conclusions.Peer review functions to improve a report so that all terminology is logically defined and all conclusions are supported by observations and evidence.Acting all insulted, when people ask questions or make critical comments is not going to help anyone understand what you are trying to communicate.Maybe your writing is not as clear and your conclusions are not as obvious to the readers as you think and attacking the reader's intelligence and character is hardly professional nor clarifying.

Well, soap is a pretty strong base. I haven't heard of a "bitter atheist" before, but what does any of that have to do with chemistry?

pH would only work if he was a sour or sweet atheist.

This is just weird, to me. It is not clear to me what you are talking about tying together here, quantum mechanics and astrophysics or science and religion Ok, so this is the biggest problem on the science side, what do you see as the biggest problem for the religion side?I have no idea what your story about acid has to do with your paper. Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are all out of alignment.

Me too, although I don't see any real communication happening.

OK, I wasn't thinking of churches and organized religion, but more what you call spirituality. This looks to me like you are getting ready to give us the pros and cons on the science side and on the spiritual side or do I still have it wrong?Ok, so this is the biggest problem on the science side, what do you see as the biggest problem for the religion side? Since this doesn't make any sense to me, I am going to ask some picky questions.
How exactly are you showing this?
How do you define manifested and simple self awareness?
Is there a scale of self awareness from simple to complex that I can use to measure self awareness to determine its level? This is incomprehensible to me, so I cannot even frame a question. That's really the molecubic or molecubicular alignment problem.

Ok, I'm done. I'll wait to read the Nobel Committee description of your discovery.

My question is why didn't the "peer reviewers" catch this error? I wonder if they forced any revisions in the "year of review?"