Dark Matter

[Loudmouth]

No, actually you made that up. The lensing occurs near the stellar infrastructures.

Near? The lensing is not consistent with the luminous matter in those infrastructures.

I don't have to falsify your now falsified galaxy mass estimates.

Estimates are estimates, not observations.

You have baryonic and dark matter separated out in the bullet cluster. That is evidence for exotic dark matter. If you think I am incorrect, then please tell me what the observations would look like if dark matter were truly non-interactive.

 

[Riberra]

Just for the record, you are jumping the plasma bandwagon altogether and jumping on the MOND ship, correct?

I have provided you a peer reviewed paper explaining the Bullet Cluster lensing without the need for Exotic Dark Matter as you have required

Can MOND take a bullet? Analytical comparisons of three versions of MOND beyond spherical symmetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_...r#cite_note-16

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html

Mordehai Milgrom, the original proposer of MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), has posted on-line a refutation[16] of claims that the Bullet Cluster proves the existence of dark matter. Milgrom claims that MOND correctly accounts for the dynamics of galaxies outside of galaxy clusters, and even in clusters such as the Bullet Cluster it removes the need for most dark matter, leaving only a factor of two which Milgrom expects to be simply unseen ordinary matter (non-luminous baryonic matter) rather than cold dark matter. Without MOND, or some similar theory, the matter discrepancy in galaxy clusters is a factor of 10, i.e. MOND reduces this discrepancy five-fold to a factor of 2. Another study in 2006[17] cautions against "simple interpretations of the analysis of weak lensing in the bullet cluster", leaving it open that even in the non-symmetrical case of the Bullet Cluster, MOND, or rather its relativistic version TeVeS (Tensor–vector–scalar gravity), could account for the observed gravitational lensing.
​

• Oxford Journals
• Mathematics & Physical Sciences
• MNRAS
• Volume 371 Issue 1
• Pp. 138-146

Can MOND take a bullet? Analytical comparisons of three versions of MOND beyond spherical symmetry

1. G. W. Angus1,*,
2. B. Famaey2,*,† and
3. H. S. Zhao1,*

1. 1SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS
2. 2Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CP 226, Boulevard du Triomphe, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium

1. ↵*E-mails: gwa2{at}st-andrews.ac.uk (GWA); bfamaey{at}ulb.ac.be (BF); hz4{at}st-andrews.ac.uk (HSZ)

• Accepted 2006 June 6.
• In original form 2006 June 4.

Abstract

A proper test of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) in systems of non-trivial geometries depends on modelling subtle differences in several versions of its postulated theories. This is especially true for lensing and dynamics of barely virialized galaxy clusters with typical gravity of scale a0. The original MOND formula, the classical single-field modification of the Poisson equation, and the multifield general relativistic theory of Bekenstein (tensor–vector–scalar, TeVeS) all lead to different predictions as we stray from spherical symmetry. In this paper, we study a class of analytical MONDian models for a system with a semi-Hernquist baryonic profile. After presenting the analytical distribution function of the baryons in spherical limits, we develop orbits and gravitational lensing of the models in non-spherical geometries. In particular, we can generate a multicentred baryonic system with a weak lensing signal resembling that of the merging galaxy cluster 1E 0657−56 with a bullet-like light distribution. We finally present analytical scale-free highly non-spherical models to show the subtle differences between the single-field classical MOND theory and the multifield TeVeS theory.


Free peer reviewed paper at Arxiv

[astro-ph/0606216] Can MOND take a bullet? Analytical comparisons of three versions of MOND beyond spherical symmetry

 

[Michael]

Near? The lensing is not consistent with the luminous matter in those infrastructures.

Yes, it is! I even highlighted the relevant parts from WIKI *and* quoted the authors for you. What do you want? Egg in your beer?

Estimates are estimates, not observations.

But you *blew* the stellar mass estimates. Galaxies are twice as bright as we first *imagined* due to all that inelastic scattering going on in plasma, *and* you folks botched your small star estimates (the ones we can't see) by a factor of *four*!

You have baryonic and dark matter separated out in the bullet cluster.

You have baryonic mass separation occurring based on density, velocity and charge. There's nothing magical about it. The stuff that "passes on through" is mostly composed of ordinary stars with concentrated matter, and *non charged* particles that didn't happen to slam *directly* into anything. It's certainly no big mystery as long as one accounts for *charge*, density and velocity. You folks bluntly *ignored* the charge aspect entirely and *grossly* underestimated the amount of mass in stars and black holes. It's no wonder you're confused and need *supernatural* constructs when you bluntly ignore the *charge* aspect entirely!

That is evidence for exotic dark matter.

Nope. It's just evidence that your mass estimation techniques were terrible, and that's been proven time and time again since 2006!

The evidence *against* your precious exotic matter came in the lab, three straight times in just the last 18 months. Are you just going to bury your head the sands of pure denial, and keep praying to that ever shrinking exotic matter of the gaps deity? Are you praying for a miracle in 2015 or what?

If you think I am incorrect, then please tell me what the observations would look like if dark matter were truly non-interactive.

Huh? It's not up to me to prove or disprove anything you say, nor is it up to me to tell you what 'supernatural powers' of walking through walls might look like.

I really don't get it. Why are you an atheist again? Your supernatural constructs took three straight lab hits in the last 18 months, and you're still emotionally and publicly attached to them for some reason. Even a *basic* concept of "God" includes some supposed 'effect' on real humans on Earth that we might at least try to measure in the lab (like Penrose). Only one of your supernatural claims even *can* be tested in a lab, and it's had three straight strikes against it. I don't get it. Enlighten me as to why one supernatural construct is acceptable to you and why a supernatural construct of "God" isn't?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have provided you a peer reviewed paper explaining the Bullet Cluster lensing without the need for Exotic Dark Matter as you have required

Can MOND take a bullet? Analytical comparisons of three versions of MOND beyond spherical symmetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_...r#cite_note-16

• Oxford Journals
• Mathematics & Physical Sciences
• MNRAS
• Volume 371 Issue 1
• Pp. 138-146

Can MOND take a bullet? Analytical comparisons of three versions of MOND beyond spherical symmetry

1. G. W. Angus1,*,
2. B. Famaey2,*,† and
3. H. S. Zhao1,*

1. 1SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS
2. 2Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CP 226, Boulevard du Triomphe, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium

1. ↵*E-mails: gwa2{at}st-andrews.ac.uk (GWA); bfamaey{at}ulb.ac.be (BF); hz4{at}st-andrews.ac.uk (HSZ)

• Accepted 2006 June 6.
• In original form 2006 June 4.

Abstract

A proper test of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) in systems of non-trivial geometries depends on modelling subtle differences in several versions of its postulated theories. This is especially true for lensing and dynamics of barely virialized galaxy clusters with typical gravity of scale a0. The original MOND formula, the classical single-field modification of the Poisson equation, and the multifield general relativistic theory of Bekenstein (tensor–vector–scalar, TeVeS) all lead to different predictions as we stray from spherical symmetry. In this paper, we study a class of analytical MONDian models for a system with a semi-Hernquist baryonic profile. After presenting the analytical distribution function of the baryons in spherical limits, we develop orbits and gravitational lensing of the models in non-spherical geometries. In particular, we can generate a multicentred baryonic system with a weak lensing signal resembling that of the merging galaxy cluster 1E 0657−56 with a bullet-like light distribution. We finally present analytical scale-free highly non-spherical models to show the subtle differences between the single-field classical MOND theory and the multifield TeVeS theory.


Free peer reviewed paper at Arxiv

[astro-ph/0606216] Can MOND take a bullet? Analytical comparisons of three versions of MOND beyond spherical symmetry

And you have to modify the gravitational formula that works just perfectly except when you want to apply it to galaxy rotation curves. But, if you took the electrical force into consideration in plasma, 99% of the universe, which is 10^39 powers stronger than the gravitational force, you wouldn't need dark matter, you wouldn't need to modify the gravitational formulas. Everything would work just fine with physics as we understand it today.

The problem with modifying the gravitational formulas, is you have to do it selectively. Those formulas work just fine in the solar system without need of modification, dark matter, dark energy or any of the Fairie Dust of modern astronomy. Modifying the formulas selectively is no different than adding Fairie Dust dark matter just where it is needed to make the math work. Just another gap-filler to make the math of a gravitational only theory fit a semblance of reality.

The universe is not gravitational only, and that is why Fairie Dust is needed. Plasma reacts strongly to EM forces, but those are not considered in current astronomical theories. Theories devised before we had an inkling of how dominant plasma was in the make-up of the universe. Tired, old theories that astronomers need to let die a quite death.

Dark matter, MOND, no difference between the two. Both are ad-hoc gap-fillers to keep a gravitational only theory alive.

 

[Michael]

It's definitely an EM field effect and a galaxy mass estimate problem IMO. They don't even *think about* the fact they have two current streams slamming into to each other. They don't account for the charge (or lack thereof). We *know* they botched the star estimates by a factor of four, and we *know* they didn't correctly account for the correct amount of inelastic scattering and the brightness of galaxies too.

They don't even *consider* the charge aspect when considering the separation aspect. A non charged dust particle would have to slam directly into some other particle in order to be deflected from it's path. On the other hand, any moving charged particle will be influenced by a whole field around other charged particles in *both* directions! It's no mystery as to why some mass passes on through and why some of it interacts due to EM field influences. If however you *blindly ignore* the EM field influences, viola, you need "magic matter' that can pass through walls!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The precession of Mercury's orbit was contradicted by Newton's Law of instantaneous gravitation. Newton's Laws being wrong did not make the precession in Mercury's orbit go away. It is the same in this case. The observations consistent with exotic dark matter do not go away if the theories meant to explain them are wrong. The observations are still there. What you do is produce a theory that DOES explain the observations.



Which of these directly tackle the observations of the Bullet Cluster? I am guessing none of them, right?

What does Mercury's orbit have to do with dark matter? Especially since its orbit can be explained just fine with standard physics and nothing else. So that is a rather weak strawman example.

A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury


Yes, the observations are still there, but since the theories are wrong, it certainly isn't exotic dark matter, but the EM force and plasma interactions.

You and astronomers on the other hand want to continue to believe in a theory shown to be incorrect instead of searching for a new one consisting of EM forces and plasma.

One would think it might be a good idea to investigate plasma interactions since 99% of the universe consists of plasma. One might also think it might be a good idea to study up on plasma since the universe consists of 99% plasma. Just a thought.

Today's astronomy is like deep sea divers setting up in the desert and expecting to understand the conditions in the sea. Without knowledge of what the universe is composed of, theories will always be wrong.

Can anyone on here honestly say plasma interactions are irrelevant when 99% of the universe is made of plasma? of course their theories were wrong, they ignore 99% of the universe. That's like saying water is irrelevant when studying the ocean.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Justa, how has the current model been "shown to be wrong"?

And no, the precession of Mercury's orbit cannot be explained by classical means. I glanced at your site and it is the typical work of a crank that wants to deny relativity.

The failures of EU are legion, its successes, almost nonexistent. That is why physicists ignore it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa, how has the current model been "shown to be wrong"?

And no, the precession of Mercury's orbit cannot be explained by classical means. I glanced at your site and it is the typical work of a crank that wants to deny relativity.

The failures of EU are legion, its successes, almost nonexistent. That is why physicists ignore it.

And yet you can not show one thing wrong with what he said. Just make the usual baseless claims of incorrectness, which is all you ever do. This is why you are ignored all the time. What you do is easy. You are wrong. See how easy that was.

No, they ignore it because like you, they can't prove him wrong either.

 

[Riberra]

And no, the precession of Mercury's orbit cannot be explained by classical means.

Can you point out any error(s) in Marmet's demonstration?
A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury

I glanced at your site and it is the typical work of a crank that wants to deny relativity.

Here Paul Marmet's achievements...The inventor of the High Resolution Electron Beams Device .
Paul Marmet
Down the page:
List of more than 100 Peer Reviewed Papers Published by Paul Marmet

1. "Perfectionnement d'un sélecteur d'électrons et étude de quelques ions moléculaires".P. Marmet. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Laval 1960
2. "An Improved Electrostatic Electron Selector" Paul Marmet and Larkin Kerwin.Can. J. Phys. 38, 787 (1960).
3. "Experimentally Measured Vibrational Levels in H[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE]+" P.Marmet and L.Kerwin.Can. J. Phys. 38, 972 (1960).
4. "Recent Appearance Potential Using an Electrostatic Electron Selector, "Larkin Kerwin and P. Marmet.Can. J. Phys. 31, 12 (1960).
5. "The Identification of Vibrational Levels in H[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] " L.Kerwin, P.Marmet and E.M.Clarke Can J. Phys. 39, 1240 (1961).
6. "A Mass Spectrometer for Ionization Efficiency Studies using an Electron Velocity Selector" P. Marmet and J. D. Morrison. J. Chem. Phys. 35, 746 (1961).
7. "Secondary Reactions in the Ion Chamber of a Mass Spectrometer" P. Marmet and J. D. Morrison.J. Chem. Phys. 36, 1238 (1962).
8. "Neutralization of Fringing Fields in the Ion Source of a Mass Spectrometer" P. Marmet, J. D. Morrison and D. L. Swingler. Rev. Sci. Instr. 33, 239 (1962).
9. "Recent Work with the Electrostatic Electron Selector" L. Kerwin, P. Marmet and E. M. Clarke. Advances in Mass Spectrometry, Volume 2 Pergamon Press, Oxford (1962)
10. "Opération d'un filtre de masse quadrupolaire en condition optimum", P. Marmet et P. Marchand. Can. J. Phys. 42, 1914 (1964).
11. "Effet des charges d'espace électronique sur les courbes de probabilité d'ionisation des gaz" P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 42, 2102 (1964)
12. "Near 100% Ion Detector for use with Quadrupole Mass Filter" P. Marchand C. Paquet and P. Marmet. Rev. Sci. Inst. 37, 1702 (1966).
13. "Simple System for Photoelectron Spectrum Determination" P. Marmet, P. Natalis and A. Dumont.Rev. Sci. Inst. 39, 683 (1968).
14. "New Type of Monovelocity Electron Source" Paul Marmet. Rev. Sci. Inst. 39, 1932 (1968).
15. "Threshold Behavior of the Cross Section for Ionization of He and Ar by Monoenergetic Electrons" P. Marchand, C. Paquet and P. Marmet.Phys. Rev. 180 123 (1969).
16. "High Resolution Electron Beams and their Applications" L.Kerwin, P.Marmet and J. D. Carette. Case studies in Atomic Collisions Physics Edited by E. W. McDaniel and M. R. C. Mc Dowell, North Holland Pub. Company(1969)
17. "Quadrupole Mass Analyzers" P. Marmet. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 8, 262 (1971).
18. "Formation of Ode NO par impact électronique" C. Paquet, P. Marchand and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 49, 2013(1971).
19. "Natural Line Shapes Resolved in the Ionization Yield of He below the n=2 Threshold" J. J. Quémener C. Paquet and P. Marmet. Phys. Rev. A4, 494 (1971).
20. "Electron-Impact Excitation of 3s3p nl States of Ar." E. Bolduc J. J. Quémener and P. Marmet.Can. J. Phys. 49, 3095 (1971).
21. "Energy Analyzer for Charged Particles" P. Marmet. Canadian Patent Office No:905567 July 18, 1972.
22. "Autoionizing and Negative Ion States of Xe and Kr below the P Limits" P. Marmet, E. Bolduc and J. J. Quémener. J. Chem. Phys. 56, 3463 (1972).
23. "Autoionizing 2s 2p 3s3l States of Ne and Related Ne Resonances" P. Marmet, J. J. Quémener and P. MarmetJ. Chem. Phys. 57, 1957 (1072).
24. "Autoionizing levels of N Converging to the A , and B Limits. R. Carbonneau and P. Marmet. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Phys. 10, 143 (1972).
25. "New Large Aperture Energy Analyzer" P. Marmet. Rev. Sci. Instr, 44, 67 (1973).
26. "Properties of a New Non-Differentiating Treatment of Experimental Data" R. Carbonneau, E. Bolduc and P. Marmet Can. J. Phys. 51, 505 (1973).
27. "Negative and Neutral Autoionizing States Detected in the Electroionization Curves in CO" R. Carbonneau and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 51, 2202 (1973).
28. "Theoretical and Experimental Line Profiles of Autoionizing States as Reflected in their Electroionization Curve" E. Bolduc and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 51, 2108 (1973).
29. "Electroionization Spectrum of O " R. Carbonneau and P. Marmet. Phys. Rev. A9, 1898 (1974).
30. "Optimizing Ion Injection Phase in Quadrupole Mass Filters" D. Lefaivre and P. Marmet. Rev. Sci. Inst. 45, 1134 (1974).
31. "The Electroionization Spectrum of Nitric Oxide" R. Carbonneau and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 52, 1885(1974).
32. "Ionization dissociative de N[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] "H. Wankenne, E. Bolduc and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 53, 770 (1975).
33. "Relative Cross Section in Electroionization" P. Marmet. J. Chem. Phys. 63, 249 (1975).
34. "Electron Excitation of Ar Between 26 and 34 eV"D. Lefaivre and P. Marmet. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. and Ion Phys. 18, 153 (1975).
35. "Resonance in the Total Electron Impact Excitation Cross Section of Metastable States of Helium Near 60 eV" E. Bolduc and P. Marmet. J. Phys. B8, 1241 (1975).
36. "Excitation de l'argon par impact électronique entre 43 et 60 eV" P. Marmet E. Bolduc and J. J. Quémener.Can. J. Phys. 53, 2438 (1975).
37. "Atomic Structure in Kr between 22 and 32 eV" M. Valin and P. Marmet.J. Phys. B8, 2953 (1975).
38. "Comparison of Techniques for Extracting Signals from Strong Background" H. Arsenaultand P. Marmet. Rev. Sci. Inst. 48, 512 (1977).
39. "On the Subject of Displaced Thresholds" P. Marchand, P. Veillette and P. Marmet. J. Chem. Phys. 67, 2908 (1977).
40. "Ionization and Dissociative Ionization of CO by Electron Impact" N. Bussières and P. Marmet, Can. J. Phys. 55, 1899 (1977).
41. "Formation du néon métastable entre 42 et 46 eV." D. Huard P. Marmet and E. Bolduc. Can. J. Phys. 56, 82 (1978).
42. "On the Heat of formation of CS" M.-J. Hubin-Franskin D. Huard and P. Marmet. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. and Ion Phys. 27, 263 (1978).
43. "New Digital Filter for the Analysis of Experimental Data"P. Marmet.Rev. Sci. Instr. 50, 79 (1979).
44. "Electroionization of D2O and H2O and Study of Fragments Hand OH " D. Lefaivre and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 56, 1549 (1978).

Paul Marmet
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have to. The fact that he could not get any phyicist to accept it speaks volumes.

Yes, even people that can write peer reviewed papers can go crazy at times.

Why didn't he get that work peer reviewed? He probably knows that he is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet you can not show one thing wrong with what he said. Just make the usual baseless claims of incorrectness, which is all you ever do. This is why you are ignored all the time. What you do is easy. You are wrong. See how easy that was.

No, they ignore it because like you, they can't prove him wrong either.

Again, I don't have to.

This is not the man's specialty. I am not going to go through the hours of work necessary to debunk garbage that could not pass peer review. And peer review is only the first step to acceptance.

 

[Riberra]

I don't have to. The fact that he could not get any phyicist to accept it speaks volumes.

Yes, even people that can write peer reviewed papers can go crazy at times.

Why didn't he get that work peer reviewed? He probably knows that he is wrong.

It was peer reviewed

1. “Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury” P. Marmet, Physics Essays, Vol 12, No 3, p. 468-487, 1999,
2. “Einstein’s Mercury Problem Solved in Galileo’s Coordinates”, P.Marmet,Galileo Back in Italy, Per il ritorno della razionality nella Scienza moderna. Istituto di Chimica “G.Ciamician” Via Selmi 2- Bologna, Italy, Societa Editrice Andromeda, Book of papers, P. 335-351, Maggio 1999,

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was peer reviewed

1. “Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury” P. Marmet, Physics Essays, Vol 12, No 3, p. 468-487, 1999,
2. “Einstein’s Mercury Problem Solved in Galileo’s Coordinates”, P.Marmet,Galileo Back in Italy, Per il ritorno della razionality nella Scienza moderna. Istituto di Chimica “G.Ciamician” Via Selmi 2- Bologna, Italy, Societa Editrice Andromeda, Book of papers, P. 335-351, Maggio 1999,

Where? Link it.

ETA:

And please, no vanity press sources.

 

[Riberra]

Where? Link it.

ETA:

And please, no vanity press sources.

What do you mean by vanity press sources?

Physics Essays - An International Journal Dedicated To Fundamental Questions In Physics
[SIZE=+1]
[SIZE=+1]Marmet's[/SIZE] paper has been published under the title: "Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury" in Physics Essays Volume 12, No: 3, 1999, P. 468-487.[/SIZE]
The copy you are looking for is here:
For the purchase of hard copies of back Volumes click here

If you don't want to pay
Free peer reviewed paper here:
A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean by vanity press sources?

Physics Essays - An International Journal Dedicated To Fundamental Questions In Physics
[SIZE=+1]
[SIZE=+1]Marmet's[/SIZE] paper has been published under the title: "Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury" in Physics Essays Volume 12, No: 3, 1999, P. 468-487.[/SIZE]
The copy you are looking for is here:
For the purchase of hard copies of back Volumes click here

If you don't want to pay
Free peer reviewed paper here:
A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury

Sites like "Physics Essays". When an author pays to publish his work it is usually in the vanity press.

The vanity press is not considered to be peer reviewed.

 

[Riberra]

Sites like "Physics Essays". When an author pays to publish his work it is usually in the vanity press.

Show us the text where it is mentioned that an author have to pay to publish an article in Physics Essays journal?
Physics Essays - An International Journal Dedicated To Fundamental Questions In Physics

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show us the text where it is mentioned that an author have to pay to publish an article in Physics Essays journal?
Physics Essays - An International Journal Dedicated To Fundamental Questions In Physics

I don't have to. You should be able to figure that out for yourself.

You pointed out that you could read the articles for free.

There are no ads in that journal.

Where do they get their money from?

 

[Riberra]

I don't have to. You should be able to figure that out for yourself.

You pointed out that you could read the articles for free.

There are no ads in that journal.

Where do they get their money from?

You have to pay 60 $US to have the copy at Physics Essays journal

http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/Sale-2009.pdf

Paul Marmet have published the peer reviewed paper freely on his website.A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps, but it is still an extremely low ranked "peer reviewed journal". Plus it seems they don't take their own "peer review" too seriously:

Articles submitted for publication will be reviewed by scientific peers. Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers' comments. Authors should judge which part of the reviewers' suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. The editor, who is responsible for the Journal, will allow a large degree of freedom to the authors in this process.

 

[Riberra]

Perhaps, but it is still an extremely low ranked "peer reviewed journal".

Again your dismissive tactic when a peer reviewed paper is presented.

Plus it seems they don't take their own "peer review" too seriously:
Articles submitted for publication will be reviewed by scientific peers. Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers' comments. Authors should judge which part of the reviewers' suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. The editor, who is responsible for the Journal, will allow a large degree of freedom to the authors in this process.

Well, it would have been better if you have included the full text:
Physics Essays is an international journal dedicated to theoretical and experimental aspects of fundamental problems in physics and, generally, to the advancement of basic knowledge of physics.

The Journal will endeavour to reflect the environment in which best research is carried out, by providing a stimulating publication outlet for both the expression of ideas and the reporting of results within the rigor of the scientific discipline with which the Journal is concerned.

Articles submitted for publication will be reviewed by scientific peers. Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers' comments. Authors should judge which part of the reviewers' suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. The editor, who is responsible for the Journal, will allow a large degree of freedom to the authors in this process.
_________
Different points of view will be accepted as long as they are logically sound and well balanced in their exposition, until the process of truth searching naturally reaches a stage of a convincing argument in favour of one point of view or the other.

The editorial board members will assist the editor in the formulation of editorial policies. They are scholars from several disciplines of physics, from spectroscopy to quantum mechanics, from electromagnetic theory to astrophysics, from space physics to mathematical methods in physics, from plasma physics to philosophical aspects of physics, from chemical physics to relativity. Their scientific competence will be called upon to advise the editor on subjects within their field of knowledge.
Source:
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND EDITORIAL POLICY
Physics Essays - An International Journal Dedicated To Fundamental Questions In Physics