Leaderboard

Neither do I. But generally reviewers are anonymous, and sometimes the reviewer is not even allowed to know the identity of the author(s), such as for ""double-blind" review. If you somehow have access to the review, you may have clues to figure out the identity of the reviewer. Most directly if you find a pdf with the review, and the format of the pdf reveals explicitly from where it originated. Mostly though it is not realistic. Once I was a referee of a long paper written by a close colleague, who was incidentally also the external examiner at my M.Sc. examination. I wrote a long report on this paper, which obviously he got to read. It would have been an important result, but the paper contained a small but important mistake somewhere around page 60 or so, which could not be repaired, and the submission got rejected. I asked him later if he knew from the style of the report who the reviewer might have been, and he said no, and told me that lots of reviewers use too similar styles in their reports to make them identifiable. That may not be completely accurate. There are "predatory" journals that mainly exist because authors pay money for "submission fees", so that they can be nearly guaranteed to have their paper appear in print, which adds to their cv. Such a journal may ask for a few corrections of misprints and bad grammar, but they have no interest in rejecting a paper on scientific grounds, because that would cut into their revenue. This is an MDPI journal. Wikipedia says "The quality of MDPI's peer review has been disputed. MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014, but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal." I do not know the details. But I would be very cautious to trust a paper that has gone through the peer-review of an MDPI publication without first checking it carefully myself. Sometimes you can tell by googling the names of the authors. If we take the first author of your paper, Klee Irwin, we get from RationalWiki the information that Klee Irwin is a pseudoscience proponent and fraudster. He became widely known for his infomercials for "Dual Action Cleanse", a "natural" remedy, which was subject to numerous lawsuits. Some have reported being scammed by his company. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest you not be worried. This paper has not seen a peer-review in the ordinary sense of the word.

Having looked over your article in more detail. I hate to point this out but if you studied nucleon Spectrography which led to the discovery of quarks. You would recognize you have energy levels not covered by 0, 1/2,1 particles see electric charge of the quark family and learn the isospin correspondence. This will correspond to the cross sections which is extremely important in particle physics and cannot be ignored. You will also discover a symbol conflict (one of many) [math]\Gamma [/math] width of excited state/decay rate. This statement in section 8 conflicts with GR. Your theory is not Lorentz invariant interaction rates will vary depending on observer under relativity. Common example muon decay rates. Now even though no elementary particle has spins other than those mentioned you can have other spin values such as spin 3/2, spin 2, spin 5/2 etc. I would strongly suggest you look into spin in greater detail and what spin entails in the intrinsic magnetic moment Ie [math]\mu_s=g_e\frac {-e}{2m_e}S [/math] where g_e is the gyro magnetic factor of the electron. You will find that for example the gyro magnetic factor of the proton will be different. Yet both particles are spin 1/2. Then to confuse matters further the neutron will also have a different gyroscope magnetic moment. Can you identify why this is the case? Secondly can your theory explain why this is the case ?

Yes, though for larger areas, maintaining true laminar flow can be difficult in terms of inlet-outlet configuration for the ducts to avoid turbulence. Other systems, such as clean benches do the opposite, they maintain horizontal (mostly) laminar flow, in order to move particles away from items to be protected, but that would be exactly what we would want to avoid here.

In biosafety facilities the workspace usually has a laminar air flow (top down) to minimize circulation of droplets or aerosols. Horizontal flows would in most cases result in broader distribution. I would think that a similar circulation (i.e. top down) could theoretically reduce spread, but are probably difficult to employ at scale.

For the OP this is just a primer to help understand the basics of QFT and how force is applied. Keep in mind this is a workup I did on this forum a few years back but it saves a lot of latex. You should be able to get the gist of how QFT differentiates from QM. One difference to recognize and I didn't cover is that the Schrodinger equation is first order while the Klien Gordon is second order. (This is a conflict of QFT to QM that requires a seperate fix). The repair comes into play when you factor in particle number density... Just in case your not familiar with time derivatives (the overdots) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_derivative This paper is rather advance but it will give you a good idea of how the Langrangian is used to describe the standard model. https://www-d0.fnal.gov/results/publications_talks/thesis/nguyen/thesis.pdf It should give you a good idea of what you are up against...

There is an entire website dedicated to spurious correlations: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations You can use the data to make up your own.

MigL - You’re a good fella

No, no, no... The quote is "I’m funny how, I mean funny like I’m a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I’m here to fuckin’ amuse you? Waddya mean “funny”? Funny how? How am I funny?" Joe Pesci, as Tommy, in Goodfellas to Ray Liotta, as Henry.

The best strategy for anyone with very little science knowledge is to ask questions rather than assume a perceived flaw makes a theory invalid. "Am I right in thinking this is flawed?" is going to be more appropriate than "This theory is FLAWED!" Science knowledge is so layered that it's easy to make bad assumptions based on all the things you don't know. For discussion purposes, the conversations are always more meaningful when questions are being answered as opposed to assertions being debunked.

considering all the testimony and the fact the "tic tacs" were picked up on multiple rader, seen by multiple pilots and the radar of an aegis class ship and seen over the course of several days and assumed at first to be radar clutter and the radars were adjusted several times but the "Tic tacs" only became clearer and seen more often your explanation is "ridiculous" Doesn't make it an alien spacecraft but even the navy has admitted it was something real in the airspace that day and unexplained and several others have been seen now btw... BTW it was officially a UAP, not a UFO...

If you ask why the aliens spend so much energy to come here (trying not to be detected (unsuccessfully)), only to leave without so much as how do you do, or "mind if I take this"; then you might understand why your sentence makes no sense, much less common, without some sort of conspiracy.

I don't know what conflicts did you find in his statements, but I think that when he says: "Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological... that aircraft are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the US inventory nor in any foreign inventory that we are aware of" then any average person with a little common sense understand that he is talking about flying machines which were not built on earth. I don't understand how else you can interpret this. I'm having a very hard time with you. Occam's razor says that if you have several explanations for some phenomenon, then the simplest explanation is most likely the right one. You can call it evidence, you can call it opinion, you can call it whatever you want. I gave several strong points that are all pointing to a very simple explanation which is much simpler and earthy than a "superior technology that we don't know about". 1. The object shown in this particular video looks Too Stable to be external to the aircraft, it looks like it's glued/stuck to the lens. I saw many aircraft training videos and when you see other plane in front it's NEVER that stable in relation to the airplane sight. 2. It looks Too Blurry which suggests that it is Very close to the camera lens, an external objects would look much sharpen. 3. The pilot said that he didn't see the object from the window, but Only on the camera screen. If it's a real flying object in front of the aircraft then why didn't he see it also from his window? 4. When you carefully examine the object in the video, you can see something that looks very similar to an insect legs, as I showed here: https://i.ibb.co/X4X7spt/Tic-Tac-Bug.png And also it's shape reminds very much a shape of an insect: https://i.ibb.co/yNsf5Kv/Insect.png 5. We didn't see any video showing that particular event from the other aircraft, I think that it's very strange. If it really was an external object then I would expect that the two aircraft will see it in their cameras, not just one. Again, I think that my explanation is more simple and more logic than the explanation that they implies to.

He's saying what it does not appear to be. He is not telling you what it is. That is a conclusion that you are drawing, and via fallacious logic: appeal to personal incredulity — you can't think of any other options, so it must be aliens. You also appear to be superimposing an expectation of what the person should be saying, and inferring information from the difference between what they said and what you expect to hear. Can you rule out it being some kind of optical phenomenon? Your own conjecture is that it's a bug on the lens (and I recall seeing a video where that was indeed the case; it was obvious when they changed the focus). It could even conceivably be a smaller unmanned object that is a lot closer than expected, so it only seems to be maneuvering in an extreme way. But since there isn't enough evidence to tell, it's unidentified.