Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 339

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    No because it’s a mixture of the private and the public sector. Any corporation can pitch in for this simple and important experiment.

    So I am bypassing all of the hierarchical academic structure.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Also I think the theory is mature enough to be tested and will only make the derived publication convincing.

    If I publish the theory in another 5 years then chances are it will get lost for another 50 years in the archives.

    It’s like a chicken and egg problem. But I prefer the former alternative.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,386
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    No because it’s a mixture of the private and the public sector. Any corporation can pitch in for this simple and important experiment.

    So I am bypassing all of the hierarchical academic structure.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My bold. Importance is in the eyes of the beholder. The burden remains on you to convince someone that it is important enough to justify a suitable mission that the person or institution in question is capable of financing and launching.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    My bold. Importance is in the eyes of the beholder. The burden remains on you to convince someone that it is important enough to justify a suitable mission that the person or institution in question is capable of financing and launching.
    Yes, that’s what it comes down to.

    But this time I have some professional help and the Return Of Investment (ROI) makes it that important.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I suspect that a proposal that is based on a not published in the scientific literature theory is unlikely to be accepted. This is a federal agency that has to justify expenditure. They will put established science and technology first.
    I'm not at all sure that that is true. One of the missions of CASIS is to promote STEM education, so essentially PR work can be one of their activities. There are these things like high school projects selected to go onto the ISS, and it's not necessarily for hard science but to get young people interested in science. And I think I advised Phillipe from the outset that going through that kind of channel would probably be much more productive than trying to go the academic route. I would find it easy to justify, "we know that light travels at the same speed, but we have never tested it in space." They will teach people about interferometers and Einstein, so why not.
    As above, so below

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I would find it easy to justify, "we know that light travels at the same speed, but we have never tested it in space."
    Except I think it would be more accurate to say there have been various kinds of tests of the speed of light in space, but what might be more of an issue are the limitations of the various tests, and whether a different proposed test would have some unique properties that would make it worthwhile.

    They will teach people about interferometers and Einstein, so why not.
    Again, depending on the nature of any proposed test (which we shouldn't get into here). On the subject of interferometers, though, I wonder what can be said based on, for instance, LISA Pathfinder? The full LISA project would probably have much more to say on the subject, but unfortunately, we'll have to wait until the 2030s for that.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,489
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Sorry I meant: CASIS. They already have:
    - A team to pre-approve the theory
    - A mechanism in place to seek sponsorship
    - Partners to examine the feasibility of the apparatus
    - Do the actual experiment

    So they got everything in place already. I am going to talk to them directly this Friday to clarify certain things.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I assume you submitted a proposal via their website (https://www.issnationallab.org/resea...s/proposals/)? Did they tell you what the evaluation score was for your submission? Have they confirmed that is has been accepted?

    Are you saying they have the things in your list specifically for your theory or this is just what they do for any (accepted) submissions?

    What does "pre-approve a theory" mean?

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I assume you submitted a proposal via their website (https://www.issnationallab.org/resea...s/proposals/)? Did they tell you what the evaluation score was for your submission? Have they confirmed that is has been accepted?

    Are you saying they have the things in your list specifically for your theory or this is just what they do for any (accepted) submissions?

    What does "pre-approve a theory" mean?
    - Their website had technical problems so I contacted them directly and filled up an official form

    - I do not know the exact score but apparently only high scores will benefit from their sponsorship and venture capitalist support and that’s what happens in my case

    - I am at the feasibility stage already so that confirms the theory is pre-approved

    - By the “things” you mean the apparatus? No they don’t have it and it needs to be purchased for $100k, hence the need for funding

    - “Pre-approved” means the theory was reviewed by a small group of scientists and it was found to be mature enough to be tested


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,436
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    <snip>

    - I am at the feasibility stage already so that confirms the theory is pre-approved
    ...
    ...

    - “Pre-approved” means the theory was reviewed by a small group of scientists and it was found to be mature enough to be tested
    This doesn't make any sense to me. Theories aren't "approved" and they certainly aren't "pre-approved", and a governmental (or semi-governmental) agency isn't going to do it.

    I suspect what is actually pre-approved is your proposed experiment. But even if they approve your experiment, it doesn't mean your theory is approved. It is quite possible that the experiment will completely disprove your theory, that's why the experiment is being done.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443

    Journal for completely new gravitational theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    This doesn't make any sense to me. Theories aren't "approved" and they certainly aren't "pre-approved", and a governmental (or semi-governmental) agency isn't going to do it.

    I suspect what is actually pre-approved is your proposed experiment. But even if they approve your experiment, it doesn't mean your theory is approved. It is quite possible that the experiment will completely disprove your theory, that's why the experiment is being done.
    Maybe they don’t care about the theory but the experiment is manifold:

    - It can find SR to be right thus the theory to be wrong

    - It can find SR to be wrong and the theory to be wrong also

    - It can find SR to be wrong and the theory to be right

    But the economic benefits of the latter case it too great to be dismissed (we’ll make “Starfleet” a reality).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So I am bypassing all of the hierarchical academic structure.
    Actually you are trying to bypass the peer review to establish the credibility of your theory that this thread is about. It is that which massively lowers the chances of your CASIS proposal succeeding. They are not going to spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to send an unsupported experiment from a random person to the ISS. Experiments based on peer reviewed science from scientists and companies will go up before your experiment.

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I'm not at all sure that that is true. One of the missions of CASIS is to promote STEM education, so essentially PR work can be one of their activities. There are these things like high school projects selected to go onto the ISS, and it's not necessarily for hard science but to get young people interested in science.
    This is a good point. Forget about the unverified theory behind the experiment. CASIS may send it up to the ISS as an educational tool using standard apparatus to demonstrate relativity.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443

    Journal for completely new gravitational theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Actually you are trying to bypass the peer review to establish the credibility of your theory that this thread is about. It is that which massively lowers the chances of your CASIS proposal succeeding. They are not going to spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to send an unsupported experiment from a random person to the ISS. Experiments based on peer reviewed science from scientists and companies will go up before your experiment.
    US taxpayers aren’t going to pay for it but corporations who are willing to take advantage of the momentum to be “noticed”.

    Like I said before the experiment needs to be done before I publish the results so that it is more credible.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I am at the feasibility stage already so that confirms the theory is pre-approved
    The "theory is pre-approved" mistake again. You have no evidence that anyone looked at your theory or "pre-approved" it. A feasibility stage suggests is that there is no reason to reject the experiment based on the proposal and now they can look at whether it can be sent to and can be done at the ISS. They will be asking whether the apparatus can survive the g-forces of launch, whether they will work in micro-gravity, what instructions will the astronauts need, how to return the data, etc.
    The Proposal Submission Process
    • Scientific and technical merit, to justify the use of the space station as a research platform.
    • Operational feasibility, to ensure the project can be conducted safely and effectively on station.
    • Funding commitments and requests, to ensure the project can be completed with defined resources.
    • Potential economic and commercial impact, to assess resulting value to the American taxpayer.

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The "theory is pre-approved" mistake again. You have no evidence that anyone looked at your theory or "pre-approved" it. A feasibility stage suggests is that there is no reason to reject the experiment based on the proposal and now they can look at whether it can be sent to and can be done at the ISS. They will be asking whether the apparatus can survive the g-forces of launch, whether they will work in micro-gravity, what instructions will the astronauts need, how to return the data, etc.
    The Proposal Submission Process
    Well the “scientific and technical merit” is the pre-approval I am referring to.

    Please stay tuned for tomorrow’s decision.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    US taxpayers aren’t going to pay for it but corporations who are willing to take advantage of the momentum to be “noticed”.
    You missed the point.
    First your proposal has to be valid enough that CASIS will accept it as in The Proposal Submission Process which however does not list educational merit. The lack of peer review for your theory makes this success unlikely.
    Next you have to get funding. Taxpayers might pay for an unsupported experiment for educational purposes. Corporations are much less interested because they want profits. They do not want to be"noticed" by their stockholders for risking their money. An experiment vastly unlikely to produce anything but the expected results is a high risk venture. Remember that special relativity works and the stockholders will know this!

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Well the “scientific and technical merit” is the pre-approval I am referring to.

    Please stay tuned for tomorrow’s decision
    How do you know that the scientific and technical merit of your experiment (not your theory) has been approved when you do not know the decision yet?

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    How do you know that the scientific and technical merit of your experiment (not your theory) has been approved when you do not know the decision yet?
    - They said they will help me out get sponsorship and only those with high scores have that privilege.

    - I’ve been “ghosted” multiple times in the past but now they do follow up.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    - They said they will help me out get sponsorship and only those with high scores have that privilege
    It may be that you are misunderstanding them. You wrote that a decision will be made tomorrow. This post implies that a decision has been made. This sounds like a general statement that once a proposal has been scored, they will help proposals with high scores to get sponsorship.

    Easily resolved though, philippeb8: What is your score? Please give a reference to the score level needed for sponsorship help.

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It may be that you are misunderstanding them. You wrote that a decision will be made tomorrow. This post implies that a decision has been made. This sounds like a general statement that once a proposal has been scored, they will help proposals with high scores to get sponsorship.

    Easily resolved though, philippeb8: What is your score? Please give a reference to the score level needed for sponsorship help.
    Sorry I didn’t explain correctly. The first stage approves the second. The second stage approves the third. And so on.

    Right now I’m just at the “first stage approves the second” step. I will let you know if I am able to get approved for the next step.

    Also I’ll ask them my score or my grade and I’ll let you know as well when I get an answer.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #320
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    ...Also I’ll ask them my score or my grade and I’ll let you know as well when I get an answer.
    Thanks for clarifying that you do not know your score and thus you have no idea whether you will get help to be sponsored. The vagueness of "stage after stage " suggests that not even the scientific and technical merit of your experiment has been evaluated yet. Your score should be a result of evaluating all aspects of the experiment.
    The Proposal Submission Process is the online process but you say you could not submit using that web site.
    Have you got past the "Upon requesting a copy of these guidelines, an ISS National Lab team member will contact you to discuss your project idea(s)." stage?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Feb-08 at 03:43 AM.

  21. #321
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Thanks for clarifying that you do not know your score and thus you have no idea whether you will get help to be sponsored. The vagueness of "stage after stage " suggests that not even the scientific and technical merit of your experiment has been evaluated yet. Your score should be a result of evaluating all aspects of the experiment.
    The Proposal Submission Process is the online process but you say you could not submit using that web site.
    Have you got past the "Upon requesting a copy of these guidelines, an ISS National Lab team member will contact you to discuss your project idea(s)." stage?
    Of course; we’ve been exchanging emails for the last 2 weeks. Now I will talk directly to somebody tomorrow to discuss the feasibility of the experiment.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. #322
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443

    Journal for completely new gravitational theory

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Of course; we’ve been exchanging emails for the last 2 weeks. Now I will talk directly to somebody tomorrow to discuss the feasibility of the experiment.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So they haven’t graded it yet because they’re worrying about legal issues. So:

    - They might talk to the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) to pass it on

    - I might need a US citizen with a better understanding of the subject

    - They might talk directly to PetersCreek or tusenfem


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2019-Feb-08 at 07:06 PM.

  23. #323
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Of course; we’ve been exchanging emails for the last 2 weeks. Now I will talk directly to somebody tomorrow to discuss the feasibility of the experiment.
    You have not even submitted your proposal so the "preapproval" stuff is wrong. You arc a standard pre-submission filtering stage.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Feb-10 at 07:41 PM.

  24. #324
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So they haven’t graded it yet because they’re worrying about legal issues.
    The Proposal Submission Process is clear that "The ISS National Lab will not consider proposals received from a non-U.S. person as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)". It looks like you need to get around that, e.g. a US citizen submits the proposal for you.

  25. #325
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The Proposal Submission Process is clear that "The ISS National Lab will not consider proposals received from a non-U.S. person as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)". It looks like you need to get around that, e.g. a US citizen submits the proposal for you.
    It’s more than that because the Principal Investigator (PI) needs to be in the US as well. So I might have to move back to the US myself.

    Luckily my employer got offices in the US so I can ask to be transferred easily. They’ll let me know the next step soon...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #326
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    It’s more than that because the Principal Investigator (PI) needs to be in the US as well. So I might have to move back to the US myself.

    Luckily my employer got offices in the US so I can ask to be transferred easily. They’ll let me know the next step soon...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ok good news: I found a US citizen and physicist willing to be the PI.

    I believe only Shaula and Reality Check understand the whole theory but they are not US citizen and the experiment being a subset of the whole theory can be easily understood by any physicist.

    So anyway it is officially submitted now and I am waiting for an official approval.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  27. #327
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok good news: I found a US citizen and physicist willing to be the PI.

    I believe only Shaula and Reality Check understand the whole theory but they are not US citizen and the experiment being a subset of the whole theory can be easily understood by any physicist.
    What you have is a PI who is only aware of the experiment and not as Shaula and Reality Check understand inspired by an invalid, unpublished theory (an ATM idea so we cannot discuss it here). The experiment is not "a subset of the whole theory". The experiment is basically the mainstream Mickelson-Morley experiment. The change is that you want to be done on the ISS. The Mickelson-Morley experiment is understood by undergraduate physics students and so of course easily understood by any physicist. The complexities here are designing the experiment to be launched to and run at the ISS.

  28. #328
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    What you have is a PI who is only aware of the experiment and not as Shaula and Reality Check understand inspired by an invalid, unpublished theory (an ATM idea so we cannot discuss it here). The experiment is not "a subset of the whole theory". The experiment is basically the mainstream Mickelson-Morley experiment. The change is that you want to be done on the ISS. The Mickelson-Morley experiment is understood by undergraduate physics students and so of course easily understood by any physicist. The complexities here are designing the experiment to be launched to and run at the ISS.
    There are theoretical differences with MM I cannot discuss here but like I said before having followed the academic way I would have to wait another 50 years, if even possible to publish it at all, and by that time the ISS would have been long gone.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  29. #329
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    There are theoretical differences with MM I cannot discuss here but like I said before having followed the academic way I would have to wait another 50 years, if even possible to publish it at all, and by that time the ISS would have been long gone.
    The academic way is to produce scientific theories that can convince other scientists that the theory is correct. There is informal peer review of the theory. The theory is discussed with colleagues. The theory is presented at conferences. Then the theory is submitted to a journal where there is official peer review to see if it is good enough to be published. A published theory is then peer reviewed throughout its life by scientist reading the paper. If you had followed the academic way, your theory would already be published!

    You may not even need the ISS or any replacement stations. If your experiment was valid enough then it could be launched stand alone in a satellite.

  30. #330
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The academic way is to produce scientific theories that can convince other scientists that the theory is correct. There is informal peer review of the theory. The theory is discussed with colleagues. The theory is presented at conferences. Then the theory is submitted to a journal where there is official peer review to see if it is good enough to be published. A published theory is then peer reviewed throughout its life by scientist reading the paper. If you had followed the academic way, your theory would already be published!

    You may not even need the ISS or any replacement stations. If your experiment was valid enough then it could be launched stand alone in a satellite.
    I’m not sure I could publish it so easily because the theory encompasses the equivalent of 5 other PhD studies.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •