Am 16.09.2014 20:16, schrieb Jos Bergervoet:
On 9/16/2014 7:42 AM, davd wrote:
I have submitted the paper "A Static Universe is Consistent with Type Ia
Supernovae Observations" ArXiv 1307.6589 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6589)
to seven journals an received the rejection notices:
[ ... ]
My comments:
Those that gave a reason basically said that we know the universe is
expanding thus this work is rubbish.

...

Such an argument implies that
the big bang paradigm should not or can not be challenged.

Yes


It can be challenged if you address all, or at least
the most crucial parts, of the evidence in favor of
this paradigm. The editors say you didn't do that,
so you just have to do more work to challenge it.


With one exception the editors make only claims without reasons.

...
My problem is that if these rejections are valid then the paper must
be invalid, but I have not received any comments about the arguments
and analysis in the paper.

The first one already writes "unclear if this effect
has been cherry-picked to lead to the results" so he
seems to question your method.

it's a good question, but without any further hint.


Naturally I believe the arguments are valid.
I am interested in comments that either support the paper or show that
there are serious problems with the arguments within it.

That is in fact the main task of the reviewers. About
a dozen or so have already spent their time on it, it
seems.

No, they have not; one can see, that only one reviewer spent some time:
I think at maximum one or two hours.