Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 291

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    An almost impossible possibility, philippeb8, since you should be submitting your paper to journals whose peer review includes experts in the field that you are writing about.
    Even if this was correct then this is a problem with your paper, not the reviewers. A fundamental property of a scientific paper is clarity. If no one except an author can understand a paper then it is not science. Not being understandable is a reason for rejection and none of your posts have indicated this.
    I know what to do. Using my equations:
    - I’ll start by representing the classical “curved spacetime” of the solar system
    - I’ll then zoom out the picture up to the “curved spacetime” of the whole universe

    (“Curved spacetime” is quoted here because this is what people understand but its definition isn’t part of my theory)

    So I’ll create a Youtube video for online presentations and snapshots of the video for the manuscript. I already have the equation to represent it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,950
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I know what to do. ...
    A waste of your time, philippeb8. If you cannot explain the science to experts in the field with words and math in the paper then the paper is unlikely to be published.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A waste of your time, philippeb8. If you cannot explain the science to experts in the field with words and math in the paper then the paper is unlikely to be published.
    I’m using GR as a trampoline to explain it visually.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,144
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I know what to do. Using my equations:
    - I’ll start by representing the classical “curved spacetime” of the solar system
    - I’ll then zoom out the picture up to the “curved spacetime” of the whole universe

    (“Curved spacetime” is quoted here because this is what people understand but its definition isn’t part of my theory)

    So I’ll create a Youtube video for online presentations and snapshots of the video for the manuscript. I already have the equation to represent it.
    As Reality Check said, no serious journal is going to go look at your YouTube video. If you can't explain it in the paper, you are not going to be taken seriously. If I was a journal editor, a submission that relied on a YouTube video would probably be automatically rejected.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    If I was a journal editor, a submission that relied on a YouTube video would probably be automatically rejected.
    And Philippe, since Swift is an actual scientist, he knows from journals.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    As Reality Check said, no serious journal is going to go look at your YouTube video. If you can't explain it in the paper, you are not going to be taken seriously. If I was a journal editor, a submission that relied on a YouTube video would probably be automatically rejected.
    Sorry I meant that I will include 1 or 2 snapshots at different scales of the “curved spacetime”; not the whole video.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    And Philippe, since Swift is an actual scientist, he knows from journals.
    Oh... I didn’t know.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I know what to do. Using my equations:
    - I’ll start by representing the classical “curved spacetime” of the solar system
    - I’ll then zoom out the picture up to the “curved spacetime” of the whole universe

    (“Curved spacetime” is quoted here because this is what people understand but its definition isn’t part of my theory)

    So I’ll create a Youtube video for online presentations and snapshots of the video for the manuscript. I already have the equation to represent it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My 8 seconds long video is ready and is very descriptive. I’ll ask if I can reopen my ATM thread after my paper gets rejected from GRG.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,950
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I’m using GR as a trampoline to explain it visually.
    This may be an even worse waste of your time, philippeb8. The language of science is mathematics and words. If you want to use GR as a trampoline then you need to start with the mathematics of GR in your paper. Otherwise you seem to be taking the phrase "curved spacetime", making up visual aids and referring reviewers to them. This will not sit well with GR peer reviewers who have detailed knowledge about curved spacetime. Your paper should be targeted at the level of expertise of the reviewers.

    Similarly for the later promise of snapshots from your video included in the paper. The reviewers should ask for the equations that generated the "curved spacetime" graphics. Any lack of equations would be a problem leading to possible rejection. If your paper does not include this "curved spacetime" then the graphics are irrelevant.

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This may be an even worse waste of your time, philippeb8. The language of science is mathematics and words. If you want to use GR as a trampoline then you need to start with the mathematics of GR in your paper. Otherwise you seem to be taking the phrase "curved spacetime", making up visual aids and referring reviewers to them. This will not sit well with GR peer reviewers who have detailed knowledge about curved spacetime. Your paper should be targeted at the level of expertise of the reviewers.

    Similarly for the later promise of snapshots from your video included in the paper. The reviewers should ask for the equations that generated the "curved spacetime" graphics. Any lack of equations would be a problem leading to possible rejection. If your paper does not include this "curved spacetime" then the graphics are irrelevant.
    (Perfection is not easily achieved!)

    Then I will not use the term “curved spacetime” but the equivalent term used by my theory.

    I will provide the full equation as well but it’s a pretty long one.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,393
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So I’ll create a Youtube video
    No. No. No.

    I already have the equation to represent it.
    Good. So from that you can show that your model matches observation. That would be a good start. Does you paper do that?

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,393
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    My 8 seconds long video is ready and is very descriptive. I’ll ask if I can reopen my ATM thread after my paper gets rejected from GRG.
    If you are given permission to open an ATM thread on this and then post a video I will ask for it to be closed immediately!

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,629
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    My 8 seconds long video is ready and is very descriptive. I’ll ask if I can reopen my ATM thread after my paper gets rejected from GRG.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    You need to show your work. Don't make it simple, make it complete. Give all the vital details. Hard math and all.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Good. So from that you can show that your model matches observation. That would be a good start. Does you paper do that?
    Not yet. But I will add it.

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    You need to show your work. Don't make it simple, make it complete. Give all the vital details. Hard math and all.
    Ok, got it. I will just show its applicability as the solar system, cluster, supercluster, and visible universe scales in the paper.

  16. #256
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,950
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I will provide the full equation as well but it’s a pretty long one.
    Make sure that you give how you worked out this "pretty long" equation correctly from the physics you regard as valid (standard "show your working"). Add a statement showing how this equation and its graph(s) are relevant to your paper. For example where is the equation already used in the paper?

  17. #257
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Make sure that you give how you worked out this "pretty long" equation correctly from the physics you regard as valid (standard "show your working"). Add a statement showing how this equation and its graph(s) are relevant to your paper. For example where is the equation already used in the paper?
    It will help visualize greater scales that I refer to at the end of the manuscript.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #258
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,950
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    It will help visualize greater scales that I refer to at the end of the manuscript.
    The point is that you cannot just throw in an arbitrary equation and graphics into your paper. The science in your paper has to be:
    1. Relevant.
    2. Derived from valid physics.
    3. Correctly derived from valid physics.

    Irrelevant, unclear or incorrect science in a paper will lead to the paper being rejected. You will be asked to remove irrelevant stuff. Or you will be asked to show your work. Or you will be asked to correct your work.

  19. #259
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,629
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    It will help visualize greater scales that I refer to at the end of the manuscript.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Visualizing scales is usually not a problem for astrophysicists. What they'll need to know, is how your hypothesis explains existing data (experiments and observations) better than the models currently in use. Explained in as much mathematical detail and accuracy as you have enough room or patience to provide.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #260
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Visualizing scales is usually not a problem for astrophysicists. What they'll need to know, is how your hypothesis explains existing data (experiments and observations) better than the models currently in use. Explained in as much mathematical detail and accuracy as you have enough room or patience to provide.
    So it’s better to have too much than not enough.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  21. #261
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,629
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So it’s better to have too much than not enough.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Absolutely.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  22. #262
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The point is that you cannot just throw in an arbitrary equation and graphics into your paper. The science in your paper has to be:
    1. Relevant.
    2. Derived from valid physics.
    3. Correctly derived from valid physics.

    Irrelevant, unclear or incorrect science in a paper will lead to the paper being rejected. You will be asked to remove irrelevant stuff. Or you will be asked to show your work. Or you will be asked to correct your work.
    So basically I need to talk about all of the 100 years of experiments?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #263
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So basically I need to talk about all of the 100 years of experiments?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ok but I’ll cut the corners.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  24. #264
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,393
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So basically I need to talk about all of the 100 years of experiments?
    You certainly need to show that your model produces results that are consistent with them. As an absolute minimum requirement.

  25. #265
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You certainly need to show that your model produces results that are consistent with them. As an absolute minimum requirement.
    Ok got it.

    It’s much harder than I thought but at least the worse is already done.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #266
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,393
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok got it.

    It’s much harder than I thought but at least the worse is already done.
    I would hope you have done a significant number of such checks already. Otherwise how do you know your model is correct?

  27. #267
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420

    Journal for completely new gravitational theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I would hope you have done a significant number of such checks already. Otherwise how do you know your model is correct?
    I already did double checked:
    - the accelerated particles
    - the galactic rotation curve

    The former is quite easy to add as it is more statistical based for high velocities but the latter is vague as there are many effects in question.

    Note to the mods: I’m talking about what’s not present in the manuscript so I’m not trying to promote anything.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  28. #268
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,950
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So basically I need to talk about all of the 100 years of experiments?
    No. You should do what I wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The point is that you cannot just throw in an arbitrary equation and graphics into your paper. The science in your paper has to be:
    1. Relevant.
    2. Derived from valid physics.
    3. Correctly derived from valid physics.

    Irrelevant, unclear or incorrect science in a paper will lead to the paper being rejected. You will be asked to remove irrelevant stuff. Or you will be asked to show your work. Or you will be asked to correct your work.
    But you bring up a point. It is not good to imply that the reviewers are ignorant about their field (those "100 years of experiments"). The reviewers have years or decades of education and experience. They know freshman physics. So do not repeat basic physics or the history of physics to them in your paper.

  29. #269
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    No. You should do what I wrote:


    But you bring up a point. It is not good to imply that the reviewers are ignorant about their field (those "100 years of experiments"). The reviewers have years or decades of education and experience. They know freshman physics. So do not repeat basic physics or the history of physics to them in your paper.
    Good point... thanks!

    I’ll hire a CERN physicist I already am in touch with in order to integrate the theory with latest experiments. I’ll try to do the same with the rest.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  30. #270
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,066
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Good point... thanks!

    I’ll hire a CERN physicist I already am in touch with in order to integrate the theory with latest experiments. I’ll try to do the same with the rest.
    Just a friendly warning here. There are a lot of ethical issues that you have to consider. I work for a scientific institute but as an administrative staff, and even we have to take classes on scientific ethics. If you hire somebody to do work for you that is an actual contribution to the work, for example through analysis of data, then you have to give them credit as a co-author. Because otherwise it's plagiarism. if the person is just proofreading your paper, then an acknowledgement is the correct thing to do.
    As above, so below

Posting Permissions

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