Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 271 to 291 of 291

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,629
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So basically I need to talk about all of the 100 years of experiments?
    The latest replicated experimental results as they support current models, anyway.

    ADDED: And any relevant older experiments whose results have not been superseded.
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2018-Sep-26 at 02:00 AM.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    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.
    Thanks for the notification but people on Upwork.com want to stay anonymous, just like here on CQ. I already tried to get their information but they are unwilling to share it. But what I will ask is very basic stuff regarding accelerated particles like latest experiments and proofreading my collection of statistics.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,066
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Thanks for the notification but people on Upwork.com want to stay anonymous, just like here on CQ. I already tried to get their information but they are unwilling to share it. But what I will ask is very basic stuff regarding accelerated particles like latest experiments and proofreading my collection of statistics.
    Just to clarify, checking your work is no problem at all, and doesn't need to be mentioned. If they actually do the work for you, then it is an ethical problem. So in other words, if you ask somebody to do the calculations on a different galaxy, and then publish the calculations as if they are your work, with no attribution, then it is a problem.
    As above, so below

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Just to clarify, checking your work is no problem at all, and doesn't need to be mentioned. If they actually do the work for you, then it is an ethical problem. So in other words, if you ask somebody to do the calculations on a different galaxy, and then publish the calculations as if they are your work, with no attribution, then it is a problem.
    No I do all the hardwork and use citations when necessary. I just need the latest and greatest experiments, some proofreading and formatting.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    BTW thanks again to everybody in this one-of-a-kind constructive thread!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Just to clarify, checking your work is no problem at all, and doesn't need to be mentioned. If they actually do the work for you, then it is an ethical problem. So in other words, if you ask somebody to do the calculations on a different galaxy, and then publish the calculations as if they are your work, with no attribution, then it is a problem.
    I would assume that, if they want to remain anonymous, it would be ok to reference them by their username. Or perhaps something like "an online collaborator who wishes to remain anonymous". Just to avoid any possible claims of plagiarism.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420

    Journal for completely new gravitational theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I would assume that, if they want to remain anonymous, it would be ok to reference them by their username. Or perhaps something like "an online collaborator who wishes to remain anonymous". Just to avoid any possible claims of plagiarism.
    Probably in the acknowledgement section. Should I also thank CQ or will online discussions backfire?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,629
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Probably in the acknowledgement section. Should I also thank CQ or will online discussions backfire?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I don't see how they could backfire. They'll be judging the calculations and predictive accuracy, not who the author talked to about it.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,629
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    BTW thanks again to everybody in this one-of-a-kind constructive thread!


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

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Happy to help.
    Yeah I just wish things would be moving more rapidly but that’s why I have 2 or 3 projects running in parallel... to keep myself busy!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,144
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Should I also thank CQ or will online discussions backfire?
    In my undergraduate thesis I thanked "The Chem Fairies" for their help (they magically obtained supplies I needed).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I just submitted it to General Relativity and Gravitation:
    https://link.springer.com/journal/10714

    Because it is indexed by InspireHEP (maybe I panicked yesterday).
    Good news! My paper finally got rejected from GRG:

    The technical and conceptual level of this paper is far below that of articles that normally appear in international research journals such as GRG. Therefore I recommend rejection.

    So you were absolutely right when you said my paper lacks objectivity!

    Thus I will try to hire somebody to help me out with the latest experiments and proofread the paper, etc.

    Furthermore after reconsideration, I don't think asking to reopen the ATM thread is worth it unless you are really interested. People are always welcome to PM me if they want the latest version of the paper.

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Furthermore after reconsideration, I don't think asking to reopen the ATM thread is worth it unless you are really interested.
    After re-reconsideration, I just found some interesting solution to the galactic rotation curve and is perhaps worth debating.

    I do not have much spare time these days but I guess it'll have to be done sooner than later.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,629
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    After re-reconsideration, I just found some interesting solution to the galactic rotation curve and is perhaps worth debating.

    I do not have much spare time these days but I guess it'll have to be done sooner than later.
    Just make sure you include plenty of nice, crunchy math!
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Just make sure you include plenty of nice, crunchy math!
    I do have very large conditional equations.

    People will be surprised I have the exact solution this time!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #286
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,066
    Just in caveat: if you just say, I discovered a math formula that fits the curve, nobody will pay attention because at that point it is just numerology. You need to have at least a plausible hypothesis of why it fits the curve, or what it means physically.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  17. #287
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Just in caveat: if you just say, I discovered a math formula that fits the curve, nobody will pay attention because at that point it is just numerology. You need to have at least a plausible hypothesis of why it fits the curve, or what it means physically.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It highlights an important physical hypothesis of my theory that I cannot mention here. There’s no random factor and works at large scales this time.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #288
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I just submitted it to General Relativity and Gravitation:
    https://link.springer.com/journal/10714

    Because it is indexed by InspireHEP (maybe I panicked yesterday).
    After I've confirmed my latest findings through a debate, I'll submit my manuscript to Scientific Reports which has an acceptance rate of 60% and includes the InspireHEP database!
    https://transfers.springer.com/selec...ournalId=41598

  19. #289
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,629
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    After I've confirmed my latest findings through a debate, I'll submit my manuscript to Scientific Reports which has an acceptance rate of 60% and includes the InspireHEP database!
    https://transfers.springer.com/selec...ournalId=41598
    Well, normally, one would confirm a scientific conclusion through new supporting data, either observational or experimental. A debate online can merely tell you if it's in the correct form for presentation or if your logic is sound.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #290
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Well, normally, one would confirm a scientific conclusion through new supporting data, either observational or experimental. A debate online can merely tell you if it's in the correct form for presentation or if your logic is sound.
    Then I think it is preferable to debate the galactic rotation curve because I have a factor off ten times and another one off two times. They are not huge discrepancies given the scale but worth debating.

    You'll see also that the logic is simple, makes sense and that the factors will tend to agree in favor of my theory.

  21. #291
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,232
    phillipeb8, you may use this thread to update and discuss your travails in getting your paper published, but as long as that paper remains ATM, please do NOT use this thread (or any thread outside of the ATM Forum) to PROMOTE or ADVERTISE that paper or its concept.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

Posting Permissions

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