Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 145

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I am able to get the predictions of Dr. Einstein right and to deduct more stuff than Dr. Hawking was ever able to, but I can't talk about the details here.
    The fact that your paper has been rejected for various reasons suggests that statement is incorrect. To duplicate the predictions of GR you have to have a theory just as good as GR and that would be recognized by the editors and reviewers. A journal that covered a different area than GR would jump at the chance of publishing an astounding GR paper.

    The ATM thread(s) here about Finite Theory show that it is fundamentally flawed. They are from 2011 and 2012 so that may have changed. The last I saw in 2015 was that you still had a "fudge factor" h that you basically changed to suit what you wanted. It would be a just about automatic rejection from a science journal.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-May-21 at 09:34 PM.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I am able to get the predictions of Dr. Einstein right and to deduct more stuff than Dr. Hawking was ever able to, but I can't talk about the details here.
    The fact that your paper has been rejected for various reasons suggests that statement is incorrect. To duplicate the predictions of GR you have to have a theory just as good as GR and that would be recognized by the editors and reviewers. A journal that covered a different area than GR would jump at the chance of publishing an astounding GR paper.

    The ATM thread(s) here about Finite Theory show that it is fundamentally flawed. They are from 2011 and 2012 so that may have changed. The last I saw in 2015 was that you still had a "fudge factor" h that you basically changed to suit what you wanted. It would be a just about automatic rejection from a science journal.


    This isn't the ATM forum and therefore is not the place to tout or critique the substance of those theories. Please stick to nuts and bolts of publishing.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If that doesn't work then I'll try the following one, which is a Canadian journal I think:
    https://physicsessays.org/
    Or any journal in the "mathematical physics" subbranch:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics

    Because it is primarily mathematics.


    Regards,
    philippeb8

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,733
    I also really think that you need to rethink your approach. Honestly, I don't think you will find a reputable journal that will accept the paper. If your goal is to get the observational data, I really think a better approach is to try to get it accepted in some civilian science project as a way to test frame dragging or something like that. And then, in the IMHO unlikely chance that you get the results you want, you will be able to write a paper based on observational data.
    As above, so below

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I also really think that you need to rethink your approach. Honestly, I don't think you will find a reputable journal that will accept the paper. If your goal is to get the observational data, I really think a better approach is to try to get it accepted in some civilian science project as a way to test frame dragging or something like that. And then, in the IMHO unlikely chance that you get the results you want, you will be able to write a paper based on observational data.
    Thanks for the comment but that was my goal initially by contacting NASA directly but they decided to “ghost” me all of the sudden (like if they have any better experiment to do on the ISS). So I’m back to the starting point.

    I don’t understand why this is so complicated... apparently “flat Earth experiments” get more attention than fundamental experiments these days.


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I just submitted it to Nature Physics. If it's a serious journal then they'll accept it otherwise I'll look elsewhere.

    Thanks for your time CQ! I would really want to share which journal will accept my manuscript to break the vicious circle we're all in.


    Regards,
    philippeb8
    Apparently:

    “In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, we regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.”

    So I’ll try that Canadian journal or other mathematical physics journals.


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    You’ll notice the same pattern: they can’t say my paper is wrong but that it “does not warrant publication”. I still think they have a partial judgment but that’s my personal opinion.


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,003
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    You’ll notice the same pattern: they can’t say my paper is wrong but that it “does not warrant publication”. I still think they have a partial judgment but that’s my personal opinion.
    The pattern I'm seeing is one of rejection very early in the review process, or before the paper has even been seen by academic reviewers. That usually means there is something glaringly wrong with the paper, or that you've sent it to completely the wrong journal. If you ever receive a detailed critique pointing out errors and asking for clarifications, it means you're finally getting somewhere.

    Grant Hutchison

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The pattern I'm seeing is one of rejection very early in the review process, or before the paper has even been seen by academic reviewers. That usually means there is something glaringly wrong with the paper, or that you've sent it to completely the wrong journal. If you ever receive a detailed critique pointing out errors and asking for clarifications, it means you're finally getting somewhere.

    Grant Hutchison
    If I am able to get the high level conclusions I get then I must have something right... It’s probably yet the wrong journal again.


    Sincerely,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,003
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If I am able to get the high level conclusions I get then I must have something right...
    And yet over in ATM at the moment, we have someone who is retrieving the dimensions of planetary orbits from the dimensions of the pyramids of Egypt. Exactly.
    In matters of plausibility, the results count for nothing and the methods for everything.

    Grant Hutchison

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,277
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    You’ll notice the same pattern: they can’t say my paper is wrong but that it “does not warrant publication”. I still think they have a partial judgment but that’s my personal opinion.


    Regards,
    philippeb8
    I'm sorry to be blunt again, but to me this is almost a defining characteristic of bad science versus good science.

    Bad science: Every journal I send this to (and every time I present this idea in ATM) I get the same response (rejection) and the same criticisms, therefore I must be right and everyone else is wrong and is against me (or can't handle new ideas).

    Good science: Every journal I send this to (and every time I present this idea in ATM) I get the same response (rejection) and the same criticisms, therefore I must not be presenting my idea clearly, or there is some fundamental problem with my method or conclusions - I better take another look at this.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Anyway if I am able to find 1 decent journal that accepts and publishes my manuscript then that means all of those who rejected it in the past had a partial judgment indeed.


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,003
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Anyway if I am able to find 1 decent journal that accepts and publishes my manuscript then that means all of those who rejected it in the past had a partial judgment indeed.
    Nor is that true. Different journals have differing publication policies.

    Grant Hutchison

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,733
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Anyway if I am able to find 1 decent journal that accepts and publishes my manuscript then that means all of those who rejected it in the past had a partial judgment indeed.
    That's quite uninformed. The fact is, journals like Nature Physics have acceptance rates often less than 10%. So they are rejecting 90% of the manuscripts that come to them. And in many cases those papers end up being published elsewhere. For example, people submit to Nature Communications, which has a good impact factor, but get rejected and end up submitting to Scientific Reports, which has a much lower impact factor.
    As above, so below

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,733
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If I am able to get the high level conclusions I get then I must have something right... It’s probably yet the wrong journal again.
    I'm sorry to say this but they are being kind with the rejection letters. No editor will be mean enough to say "I can't understand what you are saying" or something like that, even when they don't understand a paper, partly because they are generally speaking nice people and partly because there is no point in enraging somebody who for all you know might not be completely stable emotionally. So the fact that people don't tell you outright that you are wrong doesn't necessarily mean they don't think so. It might be that they just saw early on that there was little point in reading all the way through the paper. It might be. In fact I have no idea what they thought.
    As above, so below

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I'm sorry to say this but they are being kind with the rejection letters. No editor will be mean enough to say "I can't understand what you are saying" or something like that, even when they don't understand a paper, partly because they are generally speaking nice people and partly because there is no point in enraging somebody who for all you know might not be completely stable emotionally. So the fact that people don't tell you outright that you are wrong doesn't necessarily mean they don't think so. It might be that they just saw early on that there was little point in reading all the way through the paper. It might be. In fact I have no idea what they thought.
    They probably receive a huge amount of conventional papers so they don’t really care about ATM theories and put their reputation at risk. That is pretty sad.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    They probably receive a huge amount of conventional papers so they don’t really care about ATM theories and put their reputation at risk.
    That is not the full story. Journals really want valid ATM papers because publishing groundbreaking papers is what makes their reputations. What they do not want to do is publish any kind of invalid papers because that damages their reputations. This is why peer review exists. Editors act as a first line of review because reputations also go down if reviewers get obviously invalid papers.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is not the full story. Journals really want valid ATM papers because publishing groundbreaking papers is what makes their reputations. What they do not want to do is publish any kind of invalid papers because that damages their reputations. This is why peer review exists. Editors act as a first line of review because reputations also go down if reviewers get obviously invalid papers.
    Well they can’t tell whether it’s right or wrong because it hasn’t been tested yet.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If that doesn't work then I'll try the following one, which is a Canadian journal I think:
    https://physicsessays.org/


    Regards,
    philippeb8
    BTW I have submitted it there, let’s see what happens. I am now targeting mathematical physics journal... they probably can handle maths of all sort.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Well they can’t tell whether it’s right or wrong because it hasn’t been tested yet.
    It is the content of your paper that is being tested. An editor can tell whether a paper is inappropriate for a journal because they can read it. An editor or peer reviewer can tell if a paper is invalid when it contains invalid science. This is true for any scientific paper thus what I wrote
    That is not the full story. Journals really want valid ATM papers because publishing groundbreaking papers is what makes their reputations. What they do not want to do is publish any kind of invalid papers because that damages their reputations. This is why peer review exists. Editors act as a first line of review because reputations also go down if reviewers get obviously invalid papers.
    ETA: About your next post.
    All physics journals can handle math because that is the language of physics. A mathematical physics journal will do more vigorous review of the paper's math.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-May-30 at 04:25 AM.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It is the content of your paper that is being tested. An editor can tell whether a paper is inappropriate for a journal because they can read it. An editor or peer reviewer can tell if a paper is invalid when it contains invalid science. This is true for any scientific paper thus what I wrote
    It takes in average a week or two before I get an answer. They don’t have time to review all the predictions. They probably see the word “ether” and flag it as a risky theory and get rid of it right off the bat.

    I appreciate your input but you seem to suggest my theory is wrong from A to Z and that reviewers are able to tell within a week that is the case but you blocked me so this means you are obviously unwilling to see any update. I apologize in advance if I said anything offensive in the past.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,074
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    It takes in average a week or two before I get an answer. They don’t have time to review all the predictions. They probably see the word “ether” and flag it as a risky theory and get rid of it right off the bat.

    I appreciate your input but you seem to suggest my theory is wrong from A to Z and that reviewers are able to tell within a week that is the case but you blocked me so this means you are obviously unwilling to see any update. I apologize in advance if I said anything offensive in the past.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Since you are not sharing a copy of your paper with us, it would be unfair for us to criticize the journals for their rejections.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Since you are not sharing a copy of your paper with us, it would be unfair for us to criticize the journals for their rejections.
    Please PM me if interested because I am unwilling to spam people.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Please PM me if interested because I am unwilling to spam people.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Nobody wants to be wrong but I can say this theory is 1 amongst 3 other important ideas I had that you will hear about so I likely know what I am doing.

    Also I apologize again to the former debaters if I ever was rude but that’s because my patience is very limited given the side effects of a head injury I have.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    It takes in average a week or two before I get an answer. They don’t have time to review all the predictions. They probably see the word “ether” and flag it as a risky theory and get rid of it right off the bat.

    I appreciate your input but you seem to suggest my theory is wrong from A to Z and that reviewers are able to tell within a week that is the case but you blocked me so this means you are obviously unwilling to see any update. I apologize in advance if I said anything offensive in the past.
    That is not what I suggested in either of my posts. If your paper got to peer review then any rejection would come with the reviewer comments after they had read your paper. But you have now shown that this did not happen. A week is too short. You do not mention any reviewer comments. Thus you are being rejected by the journal staff (an editor or sub-editor).

    An editor would reject your paper for the standard reasons.
    It is not appropriate to the journal (that is what you have been implying with your posts).
    It is very obviously wrong, e.g. many small flaws throughout the paper or a single big one at the front that means that the rest of the paper does not need to be read, conclusions obviously not supported by the body of the paper.
    The paper itself is too bad to waste reviewer time, e.g. not clear enough to be understood, too badly formatted.

    They will read the word “ether" and keep on reading to see what the word means in your paper. If it means luminiferous aether then your paper might be rejected because of the large body of evidence that it does not exist. If it means a field as in the published Einstein aether theory then there is no problem. If it means something else then there will probably be no problem.

    As an aside: I put you on my ignore list because it was impossible to educate you about the obvious flaws in the theory you presented 3 years ago and some offensive remarks. If you have fixed those flaws then PM me a copy of the updated paper.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    As an aside: I put you on my ignore list because it was impossible to educate you about the obvious flaws in the theory you presented 3 years ago and some offensive remarks. If you have fixed those flaws then PM me a copy of the updated paper.
    Ok I sent the final paper to: Grant Hutchison, Hornblower, Jens, Reality Check & Shaula.

    I am not sure if the flaws you perceived are answered because the message exchange was spaghetti & included a lot of unnecessary qualifiers but you sure have clear deductive solutions.

    The faith of the world is now in your hands.


    Sincerely,
    philippeb8

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,143
    You might want to try a different approach. Instead of trying to prove your theory is correct, try to prove that the others are incorrect. Science is not about proving yourself correct. It's about proving the previous theory to be wrong. You keep looking for verification when you should be looking for falsification.

    Does your theory make any new predictions which can be tested? Are there any existing observations which don't match current theory(for example: dark matter) that your theory accounts for?

    Reminds me of the 'Arago spot'. Short story is that someone suggested that light is wave. Arago said this is ridiculous because it implies there would be a bright spot on the screen behind a circular obstruction. The spot was found. That's how science works. You make predictions which can be tested.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinAce View Post
    You might want to try a different approach. Instead of trying to prove your theory is correct, try to prove that the others are incorrect. Science is not about proving yourself correct. It's about proving the previous theory to be wrong. You keep looking for verification when you should be looking for falsification.

    Does your theory make any new predictions which can be tested? Are there any existing observations which don't match current theory(for example: dark matter) that your theory accounts for?

    Reminds me of the 'Arago spot'. Short story is that someone suggested that light is wave. Arago said this is ridiculous because it implies there would be a bright spot on the screen behind a circular obstruction. The spot was found. That's how science works. You make predictions which can be tested.
    Of course it can be tested. I forwarded you the message.


    Regards,
    philippeb8

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,770
    The paper may be rejected by the editor of a mathematical physics journal just on the basis of the title: "Proposal for Wavelength Meter in Motion to Test the Invariance of Light Speed".

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The paper may be rejected by the editor of a mathematical physics journal just on the basis of the title: "Proposal for Wavelength Meter in Motion to Test the Invariance of Light Speed".
    Ok thanks a lot for your review Reality Check, it's hard to believe they would be so selective and that I have no second chance (a little harsh IMHO)!

    I guess I'll have to have the introduction rewritten as well.


    Sincerely,
    philippeb8

Posting Permissions

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