Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 259

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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)
    It is reasonable that a journal on mathematic physics will not publish a paper proposing an experiment. That is the subject for a journal on experimental physics. Or if you have a mixture, a more general physics journal. Another possibility is editors being polite and rejecting on subject matter when the paper not good enough to review or publish, e.g. the language is not clear, the math is wrong, the physics is wrong, the experiment is not a competent proposal.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-May-31 at 04:16 AM.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227

    Journal for completely new gravitational theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It is reasonable that a journal on mathematic physics will not publish a paper proposing an experiment. That is the subject for a journal on experimental physics. Or if you have a mixture, a more general physics journal. Another possibility is editors being polite and rejecting on subject matter when the paper not good enough to review or publish, e.g. the language is not clear, the math is wrong, the physics is wrong, the experiment is not a competent proposal.
    The language is not clear in my case so the chances it’ll be rejected by Physics Essays are high.

    So I will rewrite the text using professional terms and I will resubmit it elsewhere.

    Thanks again for the clarifications on the journals Reality Check!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,952
    Also, there is something I forgot to mention but it is probably quite important (I have MC'd workshops with journal editors for scientists, and they basically all say this), which is that the cover letter is critical. I think that especially in a case like yours it would be. Because you don't have credentials, people are not going to take you seriously, so you really would need to explain why they should. "I realize that I am only an amateur scientist, but please note that I have a full grasp of the current literature, as you can see by the fact that I have referenced important papers in this area, and I have had discussions..." Editors do read cover letters, and it you simply repeat the abstract in the letter they will be thinking, "Doesn't this guy even have the time to write me a good explanation of why I should be interested in the paper?"
    As above, so below

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Also, there is something I forgot to mention but it is probably quite important (I have MC'd workshops with journal editors for scientists, and they basically all say this), which is that the cover letter is critical. I think that especially in a case like yours it would be. Because you don't have credentials, people are not going to take you seriously, so you really would need to explain why they should. "I realize that I am only an amateur scientist, but please note that I have a full grasp of the current literature, as you can see by the fact that I have referenced important papers in this area, and I have had discussions..." Editors do read cover letters, and it you simply repeat the abstract in the letter they will be thinking, "Doesn't this guy even have the time to write me a good explanation of why I should be interested in the paper?"
    I suspected that they won't take me seriously because I have no PhD. I need to get into their shoes...!

    Thanks for the hint, Jens!

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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.
    Mark C. Lee doesn't seem to be working at NASA anymore which explains why he stopped replying!

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Mark C. Lee doesn't seem to be working at NASA anymore which explains why he stopped replying!
    Apparently, the US government got other fundings for such research which is supposedly "fair":
    https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ...5439&from=home

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,193
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Apparently, the US government got other fundings for such research which is supposedly "fair":
    https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ...5439&from=home
    You are coming very close to a line you must not cross.
    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)

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    BTW I have submitted it there [Physics Essays], let’s see what happens. I am now targeting mathematical physics journal... they probably can handle maths of all sort.
    Actually, I read the following:
    wikipedia talk page

    And they say Foundations of Physics is better for new gravitational theories:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics

    Perhaps they are right...?!?
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2018-Jun-04 at 11:07 PM.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    And they say Foundations of Physics is better for new gravitational theories:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics
    Actually, Foundations of Physics is archived by INSPIRE-HEP which makes it eligible for an eventual Breakthrough Prize in Astrophysics.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,144
    If testing your theory is as simple as measuring light speed in a reference frame other than Earth's rotation, then I fear you've falsified your own theory.

    Calculate the time deviation, from general relativity, for GPS satellites. Now calculate the time deviation, from your theory, for those same satellites. Is the discrepancy consistent with GR or your theory? The data is out there.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinAce View Post
    If testing your theory is as simple as measuring light speed in a reference frame other than Earth's rotation, then I fear you've falsified your own theory.

    Calculate the time deviation, from general relativity, for GPS satellites. Now calculate the time deviation, from your theory, for those same satellites. Is the discrepancy consistent with GR or your theory? The data is out there.
    It's more precise to experiment on the ISS because its altitude is only 408 km. The GPS satellites got an altitude of 20,200 km. This means in the case of GR the Sagnac effect plays a role because multiple frames of reference are interacting, etc.

    I will look into this but it came to my attention Ron Hatch already claims to be able to disprove Relativity with GPS data. Once again on one's end, it's a conspiracy and on the other's end, he's a crackpot.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I will look into this but it came to my attention Ron Hatch already claims to be able to disprove Relativity with GPS data. Once again on one's end, it's a conspiracy and on the other's end, he's a crackpot.
    Here's his biography:
    http://www.bmotion.com/navcom/about/bios.htm

    I tend to trust more people in the industry rather than people in the academia because the latter can easily lose their job if they dare challenge the authority.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,047

    Okay, let's stop the side discussions, this is about philippeb8 finding a journal, so not to discuss what is in his paper, nor to discuss what a certain Hatch is saying, or about whether academia is allowed to "challenge authority".
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    I apologize in advance if it takes me some time to reply but the longer it takes the better it is because it means the paper is being reviewed in depth.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    BTW I have submitted it there [Physics Essays], let’s see what happens. I am now targeting mathematical physics journal... they probably can handle maths of all sort.
    It is now officially withdrawn from Physics Essays because it is being processed by Foundations of Physics.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,952
    Actually, if it gets rejected by Foundations of Physics, I have another suggestion. You could certainly try Scientific Reports, which is a very low-impact journal published by Nature, basically for papers that are not worthy of publication elsewhere. The impact factor isn't so terrible, like 4.5, and my understanding is that they basically will publish anything that is scientifically valid, regardless of the significance. And it might be that it requires only one peer reviewer, so the hurdle is not so high. If you get rejected by them it's a good sign that there is something significantly wrong with the paper. There is a publication fee of about 2,000 US dollars, but lots of people publish there (they publish I would say almost 100 papers per day...). And it covers all areas of natural science, so anything is valid.
    As above, so below

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Actually, if it gets rejected by Foundations of Physics, I have another suggestion. You could certainly try Scientific Reports, which is a very low-impact journal published by Nature, basically for papers that are not worthy of publication elsewhere. The impact factor isn't so terrible, like 4.5, and my understanding is that they basically will publish anything that is scientifically valid, regardless of the significance. And it might be that it requires only one peer reviewer, so the hurdle is not so high. If you get rejected by them it's a good sign that there is something significantly wrong with the paper. There is a publication fee of about 2,000 US dollars, but lots of people publish there (they publish I would say almost 100 papers per day...). And it covers all areas of natural science, so anything is valid.
    Thanks I’ll do that; although the importance and the impact of my paper is pretty high.

    Some people say there should be no processing fee but if you’re against the mainstream and you’re in the 21st century then it looks like it’s better this way.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,047
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Thanks I’ll do that; although the importance and the impact of my paper is pretty high.

    Some people say there should be no processing fee but if you’re against the mainstream and you’re in the 21st century then it looks like it’s better this way.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    there are only very few (real) journals that do not require publication fees, which has nothing to do with a paper being "atm" or being in tbe 21st century. publications cost, that is a fact
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,952
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Thanks I’ll do that; although the importance and the impact of my paper is pretty high.
    You’re not the proper person to judge that. All authors think their work is important.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    I kind of like Springer because of many things including their neat web interface. If I sort their journals:
    https://link.springer.com/search?fac...=%22Journal%22

    Then I can find this one:
    https://link.springer.com/journal/40668

    Which accepts anything that "make[s] predictions in astronomy, cosmology and planetary sciences.". This is a perfect fit for my theory because it can be implemented easily in simulators given its Euclidean geometry and its predictability. I'll give it a try also.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,952
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I kind of like Springer because of many things including their neat web interface. If I sort their journals:
    https://link.springer.com/search?fac...=%22Journal%22

    Then I can find this one:
    https://link.springer.com/journal/40668

    Which accepts anything that "make[s] predictions in astronomy, cosmology and planetary sciences.". This is a perfect fit for my theory because it can be implemented easily in simulators given its Euclidean geometry and its predictability. I'll give it a try also.
    To be honest, I really doubt you have any chance there, because I looked at the articles and they all seem to be about simulations (i.e., using computers).
    As above, so below

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Then I can find this one:
    https://link.springer.com/journal/40668

    Which accepts anything that "make[s] predictions in astronomy, cosmology and planetary sciences.".
    This is the rather new (since 2014) Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology. The problem is that you do not have any computational astrophysics or cosmology in your paper. As you state, you have a new gravitational theory. This is a journal about computations in existing astrophysics and cosmology. This is the about page
    Computational astrophysics opens new windows in the way we perceive and study the heavens. This rapidly growing new discipline in astronomy combines modern computational methods, novel hardware design, advanced algorithms for both simulations and data analysis, original software implementations and associated technologies to discover new phenomena, and to make predictions in astronomy, cosmology and planetary sciences.
    Also look at the requirement for source code.

    The 4 issues of this journal have papers on standard astrophysics and cosmology.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Jun-11 at 12:09 AM.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Ok thanks, I'll forget about this one (I imagined they needed a theory before writing the code first).

    Not much is left from this list:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Physics_journals

    But there is also Springer's Astrophysics and Space Science:
    https://link.springer.com/journal/10509

    And OMICS' Journal of Physical Mathematics:
    https://www.omicsonline.org/physical-mathematics.php

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Here are other journals that seem to publish unified theories (in order of precedence):

    World Scientific's International Journal of Modern Physics A:
    https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscinet/ijmpa

    Canadian Journal of Physics:
    http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/journal/cjp

    SCIRP's Journal of Modern Physics:
    http://www.scirp.org/journal/JMP/

    eSciPub's International Journal of Natural Science and Reviews:
    http://escipub.com/international-jou...sical-sciences

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    There is also:

    IOPScience's Classical and Quantum Gravity:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0264-9381

    AMS' Bulletin of American Mathematical Society:
    http://www.ams.org/publications/jour...framework/bull

    But their indexing is weak (no INSPIRE-HEP).

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    And they say Foundations of Physics is better for new gravitational theories:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics
    Ironically it was rejected by FOP:

    "The author of this manuscript fails to make clear how his/her work relates to current discussions in the foundations of physics. Regrettably, this fact places the current submission outside the scope of Foundations of Physics. Perhaps a theoretical physics journal?"

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    "J'ai besoin d'attacher ma tuque" because it's not that easy to publish!

    I'll try the "International Journal of Theoretical Physics" which is indexed by INSPIRE:
    https://link.springer.com/journal/10773

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Another way of getting published is by attending a conference on the subject, such as:
    https://waset.org/conference/2018/08/new-york/ICTP

    And letting the proceeding publish your paper. But I am not sure if it is really peer-reviewed as I have done so in the past and it wasn't.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ironically it was rejected by FOP:
    Not sure what the irony is. The reason is clearly that your paper as written is not suitable for the journal. You do not connect the paper to the foundations of physics (the journal title and purpose).
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Jun-24 at 11:39 PM.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    And letting the proceeding publish your paper. But I am not sure if it is really peer-reviewed as I have done so in the past and it wasn't.
    Your doubts are correct. Conference proceedings are a written record of conference presentations and have no peer review at all.
    Presentations are good quality research relevant to the conference, submitted before the conference, some review by the organizers and part of the conference agenda. Your paper is unlikely to be accepted as presentation given the number of rejections by journals. However you can always put it up as a poster (an area usually outside the conference rooms where anyone can put up a poster describing their work).

Posting Permissions

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