Cosmology scientific research CNRS

Langue de Bois

May 18, 2000

.In the spring of 1999, I submitted to section 14 of the CNRS, "Solar System and Distant Universe," which I oversee through my affiliated laboratory, the Observatory of Marseille, a report on my research activities, as every CNRS researcher must do each year. This report included a copy of a recent publication, co-authored by my colleague Pierre Midy, published in the high-level journal

International Journal of Modern Physics D, where articles are subject to referee review.

...The article, titled "Scale Invariant Cosmology", consisting of 19 pages, was published in the June 99 issue. The exact references are: Intern. Jr. of Mod. Phys. D Vol.8 pages 271-289

...The section entrusted my file to a referee, who was in charge of examining it. Unprecedentedly, this referee was named Alain Blanchard, then working at the University of Strasbourg, a specialist in theoretical cosmology. I could therefore hope that my file would be commented on by a specialist. In previous years, I had written twice to this researcher, proposing that he come and present my work in his laboratory, but he never had the courtesy to answer me.

...In the fall of 99, a meeting was held at the CNRS headquarters with all members of section 14, who listened, as every year, to the appointed rapporteurs, then deliberated before taking decisions regarding possible promotions, sanctions, or issuing recommendations to researchers under this section (astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, planetary scientists, etc). The section then tasked my rapporteur, Mr. Blanchard, with writing a personal message for me, which was transmitted by Mr. Pajot, the secretary. See the letter below:

..........

Section 14 is concerned about the state of your research activities. It reminds you that peer evaluation remains the basis of the validity of a theory. If your article proposals face publication difficulties, or even rejections, it is probably for good reasons. Challenging the value of these judgments by retreating outside the usual scientific evaluation circuits can only lead to complete marginalization. This marginalization may be satisfying for you in a logic of "I am right against the entire scientific world." But it is certainly counterproductive if you want your theories to be recognized one day. Now, if these discussions show that your theories have flaws, it is your duty to accept them without indulging in a persecution complex. The development of science has been achieved through the elaboration of numerous theories, which today would make a master's student laugh, for example the theory of the ether. Nevertheless, these theories allowed progress because their authors accepted to discuss them and acknowledge their limits. On the contrary, marginalization and refusal to discuss condemn a proposal to stagnation, or worse, to feed non-scientific pranks such as the pseudo-theories of Mr. Charon on the soul of the electron. It is up to you to decide in which logic you want to continue your activities. Section 14 can only encourage you to pursue them in a scientific logic and accept discussions with your peers.

............

Please accept, dear colleague, the expression of my best regards. François Pajot Scientific Secretary ________________________________________________________________________ Address : ** CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE **3, RUE MICHEL-ANGE 75794 PARIS CEDEX 16 TEL.01 44 96 40 00 - TELECOPIE 01 44 96 50 00

..........

Section 14 is concerned about the state of your research activities. It reminds you that peer evaluation remains the basis of the validity of a theory. If your article proposals face publication difficulties, or even rejections, it is probably for good reasons. Challenging the value of these judgments by retreating outside the usual scientific evaluation circuits can only lead to complete marginalization. This marginalization may be satisfying for you in a logic of "I am right against the entire scientific world." But it is certainly counterproductive if you want your theories to be recognized one day. Now, if these discussions show that your theories have flaws, it is your duty to accept them without indulging in a persecution complex. The development of science has been achieved through the elaboration of numerous theories, which today would make a master's student laugh, for example the theory of the ether. Nevertheless, these theories allowed progress because their authors accepted to discuss them and acknowledge their limits. On the contrary, marginalization and refusal to discuss condemn a proposal to stagnation, or worse, to feed non-scientific pranks such as the pseudo-theories of Mr. Charon on the soul of the electron. It is up to you to decide in which logic you want to continue your activities. Section 14 can only encourage you to pursue them in a scientific logic and accept discussions with your peers.

............

...I sent a letter to Mr. Blanchard, by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, dated May 18, 2000, but this time, it will be an "open letter" since you will find a copy below:

Jean-Pierre Petit

Research Director at CNRS

......................................................................................

May 18, 2000

....................................................................................

To Mr. A. Blanchard

................................................................................

Laboratory of Astrophysics

......................................................................................................................

Midi-Pyrénées

................................................................................................................

University of Toulouse III

...........................................................................................................

14 av. E. Belin 31400 Toulouse

Copy to the head of my

Affiliated laboratory

The Observatory of Marseille

Sir,

.....

Unless I am mistaken, you were the rapporteur designated by section 14 to examine my file in the fall of 99. If this is the case, you would therefore be the author of the "personal message" that Mr. F. Pajot, secretary of this section, transmitted to me on March 15, 2000, and therefore I attach a copy.

....

I would like to recall two things:

• You had in your hands, when this autumn meeting of the section took place, the 19-page article, co-authored by my colleague Pierre Midy, which I had published in June 99, titled "Scale Invariant Cosmology," with the following references:

International Journal of Modern Physics D, Vol.8, June 99, pp. 271-289

This would make me "a marginal who publishes in good peer-reviewed journals, submitting to the referee system."

• I wrote to you twice, when you were at Strasbourg, proposing that you come and give a seminar in your laboratory to present my theoretical cosmology work. You never had the courtesy to answer me.

I would therefore also be "a marginal who avoids the criticism of his peers, while seeking it."

....

Is all this not somewhat... inconsistent?

....

I therefore re-propose that you come and present my work to you and your team, in a seminar, but this time in the form of an "open letter" since you will be able to find this letter reproduced on my website http://www.jp-petit.com

..........................................

Where you want, whenever you want.

..........

......................................................................................

Jean-Pierre Petit

This site is open to any criticism or comment regarding my work.

I will then have the right to reproduce them on the site.

Reset on May 4, 2000 after 400 connections: