Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 95 of 95

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    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
    11,924
    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
    1,061
    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
    12,714
    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
    1,061
    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

Posting Permissions

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