Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 291

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Just a little hint, but you shouldn't submit papers without properly formatting it for the journal. Editors may take that to mean you are not really serious and will encourage them to reject it right away. Another thing: you shouldn't just submit the same paper to journal after journal without thinking about the content. For example, Monthly Notices is an astronomy or astrophysics journal, so I doubt that they would publish a paper that is purely a theoretical work on gravity. I think it would need to have some calculation of a real galaxy or something like that. You really need to submit to the journal that is most appropriate. I don't know how your paper is structured, but if it is purely theoretical (i.e., gravity works like this), then I think it would be better to submit to APJ or Physical Review D. But if you are doing calculations on actual astronomical objects, then Monthly Notices would probably be OK.
    Thanks for the notifications but Monthly Notices has a “cosmology: theory” category and I must have submitted 5 times previous drafts to Physical Review D so now I get rejected automatically there...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,997
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Thanks for the notifications but Monthly Notices has a “cosmology: theory” category and I must have submitted 5 times previous drafts to Physical Review D so now I get rejected automatically there...
    I understand. I was just trying to advise you to be careful. If they have a cosmology theory category, that's fine, but remember that gravity is not just about cosmology, so for example I think a new theory of gravity, for example, emergent gravity or quantum gravity, might be considered fundamental physics rather than cosmology (since it deals with one of the fundamental forces). If they accept it, that's great, but if they reject it, it might be because they don't consider it to fit into their domain.
    As above, so below

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I understand. I was just trying to advise you to be careful. If they have a cosmology theory category, that's fine, but remember that gravity is not just about cosmology, so for example I think a new theory of gravity, for example, emergent gravity or quantum gravity, might be considered fundamental physics rather than cosmology (since it deals with one of the fundamental forces). If they accept it, that's great, but if they reject it, it might be because they don't consider it to fit into their domain.
    Thanks Jens but it’s been 2 days now and it wasn’t rejected yet! We’ll see...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263

    Journal for completely new gravitational theory

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I will answer my own question and this might be a useful reference for other people at the same time:
    https://scholar.google.com/citations...myastrophysics
    As a reference, there’s also the Journal of High Energy Physics that publishes new theories as they just published Dr. Hawking’s new theory:
    https://link.springer.com/journal/13130


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    As a reference, there’s also the Journal of High Energy Physics that publishes new theories as they just published Dr. Hawking’s new theory:
    https://link.springer.com/journal/13130
    Apparently theoretical astrophysics is referred to as “high energy astrophysics” and related journals sorted by their ranking can be found here:
    http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3106


    Thanks a lot philippeb8!
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Apparently theoretical astrophysics is referred to as “high energy astrophysics” and related journals sorted by their ranking can be found here:
    http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3106
    Doing a quick search leads to Physics Letters B:
    https://www.journals.elsevier.com/physics-letters-b/

    As one of the most important journal in the subject!

    If Monthly Notices rejects my manuscript then I know where to go!

    This puzzle is finally over.


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,997
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Apparently theoretical astrophysics is referred to as “high energy astrophysics” and related journals sorted by their ranking can be found here:
    http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3106
    It's called "high energy astrophysics" because at the time right after the big bang, there was very high energy. If you made a gravitational theory that rejected the big bang, then I don't think it would fit in that category.
    As above, so below

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,997
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Doing a quick search leads to Physics Letters B:
    https://www.journals.elsevier.com/physics-letters-b/
    I was going to suggest that. The hurdles are pretty high though. Physical Review Letters is also good, as they publish in various fields of physics. Physics Letters B is more specialized.
    As above, so below

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I was going to suggest that. The hurdles are pretty high though. Physical Review Letters is also good, as they publish in various fields of physics. Physics Letters B is more specialized.
    Thanks Jens!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    It's called "high energy astrophysics" because at the time right after the big bang, there was very high energy. If you made a gravitational theory that rejected the big bang, then I don't think it would fit in that category.
    It doesn’t reject the Big Bang and agrees with the multiverse at the same time.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Doing a quick search leads to Physics Letters B:
    https://www.journals.elsevier.com/physics-letters-b/

    As one of the most important journal in the subject!

    If Monthly Notices rejects my manuscript then I know where to go!
    Ok it was rejected by Monthly Notices but they are extremely polite by saying:

    “This paper proposes a method to test for variability in the speed of light. The theory and analysis proposed seems very strange, but in any case the subject matter is that of fundamental physics, rather than astrophysics which is the remit of MNRAS. We recommend that the paper is Withdrawn and submitted to a journal more appropriate to speculation on fundamental physics.”


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok it was rejected by Monthly Notices but they are extremely polite by saying:

    “This paper proposes a method to test for variability in the speed of light. The theory and analysis proposed seems very strange, but in any case the subject matter is that of fundamental physics, rather than astrophysics which is the remit of MNRAS. We recommend that the paper is Withdrawn and submitted to a journal more appropriate to speculation on fundamental physics.”


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    And... Physics Letters B also rejected it:

    “as the journal that you have submitted your paper to deals with particle physics (theory and experiment), but not with topics related to general relativity, I regret to inform you that your paper cannot be published in Physics Letters B.

    Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.”

    This makes no sense. Nobody is willing to question Relativity! What is that?!?


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,638
    You submitted an article about general relativity to a journal that deals with quantum mechanics. Why would you do that? You might as well send it to a medical journal.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    You submitted an article about general relativity to a journal that deals with quantum mechanics. Why would you do that? You might as well send it to a medical journal.

    Grant Hutchison
    The responsible referee was specializing in “experimental high energy physics”. I thought quantum mechanics was small scale stuff, no?

    I hope others are learning from this experience!

    But it’s starting to be irritating on my end...


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,638
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    The responsible referee was specializing in “experimental high energy physics”. I thought quantum mechanics was small scale stuff, no?
    Well, no.
    High energy physics is what they do with the Large Hadron Collider - banging particles together to investigate the implications of Quantum Field Theory.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Well, no.
    High energy physics is what they do with the Large Hadron Collider - banging particles together to investigate the implications of Quantum Field Theory.

    Grant Hutchison
    Oh wow this is confusing!

    I’ll try Physical Review D again but I’ll spend some time formatting the paper correctly first.


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    The responsible referee was specializing in “experimental high energy physics”. I thought quantum mechanics was small scale stuff, no?
    In physics jargon high energies tend to relate to small scales.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,623
    The journal you need is Classical and Quantum Gravity, edited by Clifford Will. It is pretty much the standard these days for gravity research.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0264-9381

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by loglo View Post
    The journal you need is Classical and Quantum Gravity, edited by Clifford Will. It is pretty much the standard these days for gravity research.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0264-9381
    Oh thank you so much! I owe you one...


    Regards,
    philippeb8


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by loglo View Post
    The journal you need is Classical and Quantum Gravity, edited by Clifford Will. It is pretty much the standard these days for gravity research.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0264-9381
    Their decision is as follows with no formal reason:

    "After assessing this manuscript, I agree that this paper is not suitable for refereeing or publication."

    "Not suitable" is vague but I can deduce myself no journal is willing to have the burden to challenge the very foundations of Special Relativity.


    Regards,
    philippeb8

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Their decision is as follows with no formal reason:

    "After assessing this manuscript, I agree that this paper is not suitable for refereeing or publication."

    "Not suitable" is vague but I can deduce myself no journal is willing to have the burden to challenge the very foundations of Special Relativity.


    Regards,
    philippeb8
    No, I would venture a guess that they find your challenge to be unconvincing. Perhaps you should emulate Einstein and assume the burden of learning the necessary math and physics to test your idea. If it takes ten years, so be it.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,863
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    "Not suitable" is vague but I can deduce myself no journal is willing to have the burden to challenge the very foundations of Special Relativity.
    You really think that journal editors would miss a good opportunity to publish a ground-breaking article? Maybe the problem isn't that it challenges Special Relativity, but that it doesn't, or at least doesn't do a good job of it. I'm sorry if that is blunt, but that seems much more likely than "the world is against me" attitude.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    No, I would venture a guess that they find your challenge to be unconvincing. Perhaps you should emulate Einstein and assume the burden of learning the necessary math and physics to test your idea. If it takes ten years, so be it.
    Their judgment is partial because can't they see I can explain the whole universe with simple calculus?

    Anyway I'll try some journals I find on the internet and I'll let you know which one accepts new gravitational theories that are testable. Any help is always welcome!


    Regards,
    philippeb8

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    You really think that journal editors would miss a good opportunity to publish a ground-breaking article? Maybe the problem isn't that it challenges Special Relativity, but that it doesn't, or at least doesn't do a good job of it. I'm sorry if that is blunt, but that seems much more likely than "the world is against me" attitude.
    Apparently, I am forced to go through the peer-review system but anybody who understands calculus can understand my paper easily. And having no information on why my manuscript was rejected is unprofessional in my view.

    I don't think the world is against me but I do think this system is not perfect either because of these partial judgments. I am unfamiliar with the "prestige dogma" but I know it plays a role here. On my end all I care about is getting the job done and quick.


    Regards,
    philippeb8

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Anyway I'll try some journals I find on the internet and I'll let you know which one accepts new gravitational theories that are testable. Any help is always welcome!
    I just submitted it to Nature Physics. If it's a serious journal then they'll accept it otherwise I'll look elsewhere.

    Thanks for your time CQ! I would really want to share which journal will accept my manuscript to break the vicious circle we're all in.


    Regards,
    philippeb8

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I just submitted it to Nature Physics. If it's a serious journal then they'll accept it otherwise I'll look elsewhere.
    Wait... are you saying if they reject your paper, than, in your opinion Nature Physics is not a serious journal?

    -- Dennis
    Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. - Niels Bohr

    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit

    Hint: this is at heart a scientific forum, and underneath the fooling around there are some diamond-hard minds hanging about, ready to tear you to shreads. -- Mike Alexander

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by BetaDust View Post
    Wait... are you saying if they reject your paper, than, in your opinion Nature Physics is not a serious journal?
    Yes but I think Nature Physics can afford to publish ATM theories because they're not struggling to be the most politically correct journal ever. They already published ATM stuff back in the days...


    Regards,
    philippeb8
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2018-May-21 at 07:17 PM.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I just submitted it to Nature Physics.
    If that doesn't work then I'll try the following one, which is a Canadian journal I think:
    https://physicsessays.org/


    Regards,
    philippeb8

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,340
    No. This not about publishing an ATM paper, or being poliically correct, it is about your paper.
    A lot of editors have read and rejected your paper, is it not concivible that your ATM is wrong, or has at least some major shortcomings?

    -- Dennis
    Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. - Niels Bohr

    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit

    Hint: this is at heart a scientific forum, and underneath the fooling around there are some diamond-hard minds hanging about, ready to tear you to shreads. -- Mike Alexander

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by BetaDust View Post
    No. This not about publishing an ATM paper, or being poliically correct, it is about your paper.
    A lot of editors have read and rejected your paper, is it not concivible that your ATM is wrong, or has at least some major shortcomings?
    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.

    I am a professional computer scientist / software engineer and I don't like to waste my time or other people's time.


    Regards,
    philippeb8

Posting Permissions

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