Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 331 to 339 of 339

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #331
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I’m not sure I could publish it so easily because the theory encompasses the equivalent of 5 other PhD studies.
    Whatever you think the size of your complete theory to be, you can still publish relevant parts. For example, your paper that this thread is about!
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Is there a journal out there for “experimental and theoretical physics” which will accept completely new gravitational theories?

    I just tried to publish to the “Progress of Experimental and Theoretical Physics” and they arrogantly rejected my paper because I am rewriting from scratch everything.
    Rejected because the postulates in your theory were unfounded, not because your paper was 500 pages long (most dissertations were around 100 to 200 pages).

    There is no sign that other rejections from journals were because of the size of the paper.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Feb-13 at 11:49 PM.

  2. #332
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    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
    Regardless, the aforementioned journal with a minimum of credibility is my last chance to get it published and if I can get the experiment done then I could include the results in the draft before the submission.

    I also have very strong one-liner arguments to get the attention of the journal editor.

    So I am maximizing the chances of acceptance the best I can this time because the theory challenges 4 famous physicists.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #333
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Regardless, the aforementioned journal with a minimum of credibility is my last chance to get it published ...
    That is a submission of a paper with some of your theory and an experiment back in 2018-Oct-11. That is 3 months ago. That does not bode well for your paper but they may just be slow. A promise of "one-liner arguments to get the attention of the journal editor" is not good. You need to present scientific arguments and evidence not one-liners. Even "get the attention" is dubious. Part of a journal editor's job is as a first line check for a paper. Is the paper appropriate? Does the paper fit their guidelines? Is the paper so obviously flawed that the editor can reject it? A discussion of the paper with an author would be rare.

    A "challenges 4 famous physicists" statement is irrelevant. Scientific papers do not challenge people, they challenge the science. Modern physics has been established by the work of thousands of physicists, not 4.

  4. #334
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443

    Journal for completely new gravitational theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is a submission of a paper with some of your theory and an experiment back in 2018-Oct-11. That is 3 months ago. That does not bode well for your paper but they may just be slow. A promise of "one-liner arguments to get the attention of the journal editor" is not good. You need to present scientific arguments and evidence not one-liners. Even "get the attention" is dubious. Part of a journal editor's job is as a first line check for a paper. Is the paper appropriate? Does the paper fit their guidelines? Is the paper so obviously flawed that the editor can reject it? A discussion of the paper with an author would be rare.

    A "challenges 4 famous physicists" statement is irrelevant. Scientific papers do not challenge people, they challenge the science. Modern physics has been established by the work of thousands of physicists, not 4.
    No I did not submit it yet but I am making sure my next formal submission contains experimental evidence.

    Regarding these 4 famous physicists, they are the spine of modern physics. Proving them wrong will explain why physics is stagnant.

    Bear in mind also that I’ll have to promote the results of the experiment myself so the publication will help me accomplish this task.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #335
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    No I did not submit it yet but I am making sure my next formal submission contains experimental evidence.
    If you get the results that you want which is extremely unlikely. We have 113 years of experimental data that confirms SR. The most likely outcome is confirmation of SR.

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Regarding these 4 famous physicists, they are the spine of modern physics. Proving them wrong will explain why physics is stagnant.
    Whoever you think these "4 famous physicists" are, the spine of modern physics is still over a century of science by thousands of physicists. People who look at physics know that it is a dynamic, not stagnant field.

    Bear in mind that a valid published ground-breaking experiment promotes itself. An author promoting an experiment that is invalid, dubious or trivial tends to emphasis why it is invalid, dubious or trivial.

  6. #336
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    If you get the results that you want which is extremely unlikely. We have 113 years of experimental data that confirms SR. The most likely outcome is confirmation of SR.


    Whoever you think these "4 famous physicists" are, the spine of modern physics is still over a century of science by thousands of physicists. People who look at physics know that it is a dynamic, not stagnant field.

    Bear in mind that a valid published ground-breaking experiment promotes itself. An author promoting an experiment that is invalid, dubious or trivial tends to emphasis why it is invalid, dubious or trivial.
    I could disprove the last 300 years of physics with a one-liner right now but we all know we can’t discuss this here.

    If I have to promote the experiment myself it will be both the private sector and the academic way. But I can guarantee you the private sector way will be much faster because companies like SpaceX will profit from it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #337
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I could disprove the last 300 years of physics with a one-liner right now but we all know we can’t discuss this here.
    We know that is impossible because a one-liner is not scientific evidence. There is possible relevance to this thread - if your paper relies on these impossible one-liners then that will be a reason why it is being rejected. Scientific papers that argue aganct accepted science, contain evidence.

    Companies like SpaceX will not profit from a mainstream Mickelson-Morley experiment done on the ISS. They do not profit from Special Relativity for the simple reason that rockets are non-relativistic. Any deviations from SR the experiment finds will not magically make launches cheaper!
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Feb-14 at 07:56 PM.

  8. #338
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    We know that is impossible because a one-liner is not scientific evidence. There is possible relevance to this thread - if your paper relies on these impossible one-liners then that will be a reason why it is being rejected. Scientific papers that argue aganct accepted science, contain evidence.

    Companies like SpaceX will not profit from a mainstream Mickelson-Morley experiment done on the ISS. They do not profit from Special Relativity for the simple reason that rockets are non-relativistic. Any deviations from SR the experiment finds will not magically make launches cheaper!
    A logical one-liner like 1 + 1 = 2 is scientific evidence.

    I know SpaceX is doing a lot of R&D in parallel with NASA but if they have the right theory then they will find solutions much faster.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #339
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,445
    OK, this thread is done.

    If it served any useful purpose, it was to tell the experience of how to get something published, particularly outside of traditional physics. That purpose seems to have evaporated a long time ago. Now it has become a vehicle for philippeb8 to self-promote how he is going to conquer all of physics and to bad mouth physics and academia, for Reality Check to bait him into getting into trouble, and for both of you to keep talking about how you're not supposed to talk about the ATM idea, but respectively promoting and bashing it.

    philippeb8, do not bring up any part or aspect of this topic anywhere on CQ without prior permission of the Moderation Team or you will be infracted one point shy of permanent banning. At the point you actually publish in a referred journal, or your experiment actually flies, we might consider reopening this thread.

    You are both received zero pointers for Rule 14 violations.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

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