Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 211 to 239 of 239

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think there is another possibility that you failed to mention, which may be the correct one:

    My manuscript is not written clearly enough to allow readers to understand precisely the finding that I am presenting, regardless of whether it is correct or not. They might have jumped to the references and seen that you fail to quote other important papers in the literature.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well then all I can do is rehire some physicist to rewrite the text because I will never be able to figure out what's in a physicist's mind. It's like guessing if they prefer Windows, Mac or Linux.

    Oh wait! I have exhausted all journals publishing in InspireHEP... So if my theory is right then humankind isn't going anywhere soon.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So if my theory is right then humankind isn't going anywhere soon.
    We can all agree the "system" does not handle this case very well.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,486
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    We can all agree the "system" does not handle this case very well.
    I can't agree to that. The system could be handling things very well, just not to your satisfaction.

    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.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I can't agree to that. The system could be handling things very well, just not to your satisfaction.
    We need a jury and a judge to decide this but AFAIK:
    - There is the strong possibility GR is completely wrong, if not refuted already
    - The scientific community is making it impossible for all outsiders to publish anything
    - They have the Breakthrough Prize, the Nobel Prize, etc. but again it's impossible for an outsider to apply for such a prize
    - Most of the outsiders really don't have 10 years to spend on personal research
    - The mainstream media (brainwashing machine) is not helping either because they repeatedly talk about GR's confirmations of insignificant experiments (eg.: equivalence principle)
    - ...

    CQ is the only gateway outsiders can have but they do not handle the case where someone might be right.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,941
    It is quite funny that you have such a completely dogmatic belief in your own ideas that you are willing to postulate all kinds of things to explain why you have not been published, while simultaneously claiming that the scientific community can't stomach the idea that their theories might be wrong.

    You should at least try to apply consistent standards - if it is OK for you to reject all evidence that you are wrong then you can hardly complain that it is unfair of the scientific community to do the same*.

    *Which they don't, this is a simply part of your 'misunderstood genius' narrative.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    It is quite funny that you have such a completely dogmatic belief in your own ideas that you are willing to postulate all kinds of things to explain why you have not been published, while simultaneously claiming that the scientific community can't stomach the idea that their theories might be wrong.

    You should at least try to apply consistent standards - if it is OK for you to reject all evidence that you are wrong then you can hardly complain that it is unfair of the scientific community to do the same*.

    *Which they don't, this is a simply part of your 'misunderstood genius' narrative.
    My vision of things is not really philippeb8 vs. the scientific community but more like the following example:

    If theoretical physics was a company then people would care about alternatives if the main idea isn't working properly because if you want to sell, things need to work at a 100%.

    Alas, this is not the case and theoretical physics have been advancing very slowly in the last 100 years.

    But worse case we'll spend billions of taxdollars researching the dark matter and dark energy until... well forever. Because I don't put all "my eggs in the same basket" and I have more lucrative options.

    It's a sad ending but it is what it is.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,304
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    We need a jury and a judge to decide this but AFAIK:
    - There is the strong possibility GR is completely wrong, if not refuted already
    There is no evidence for that.

    - The scientific community is making it impossible for all outsiders to publish anything
    It is a high bar, but papers do get published by "outsiders".
    https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/art...tsider-science

    - They have the Breakthrough Prize, the Nobel Prize, etc. but again it's impossible for an outsider to apply for such a prize
    No one can apply for these prizes.

    - Most of the outsiders really don't have 10 years to spend on personal research
    The problem is more that some outsiders do spend decades on personal research. What they should do is spend a few years studying first.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,304
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If theoretical physics was a company then people would care about alternatives if the main idea isn't working properly because if you want to sell, things need to work at a 100%.
    And that is pretty much what happens. People are working on hundreds of explanations for dark energy and dark matter, dozens of quantum gravity models, etc.

    Alas, this is not the case and theoretical physics have been advancing very slowly in the last 100 years.
    That is because most of the easy problems have been solved and the current problems are HARD.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There is no evidence for that.
    http://futurism.com/universes-expans...e-new-physics/

    It is a high bar, but papers do get published by "outsiders".
    https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/art...tsider-science
    I can try Physical Review Letters but I think "Letters" means 5 pages or less which opts out my manuscript.

    No one can apply for these prizes.
    Well to ask somebody else to recommend your work. That's how the Breakthrough Prize works.

    The problem is more that some outsiders do spend decades on personal research. What they should do is spend a few years studying first.
    You're dismissing the case where what they teach is wrong.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    That is because most of the easy problems have been solved and the current problems are HARD.
    My perspective is that is it extremely hard because it is wrong. I mean the Superstring Theory involves 11 dimensions... seriously?

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,304
    That is not evidence that GR is wrong. But it is yet another example of people looking for new physics.

    You're dismissing the case where what they teach is wrong.
    No. But you do need a thorough understanding of those theories before you can say they might be wrong. And this lack may be the reason why your paper is getting repeatedly rejected.

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,304
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    My perspective is that is it extremely hard because it is wrong. I mean the Superstring Theory involves 11 dimensions... seriously?
    Incredulity is not evidence.

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Incredulity is not evidence.
    The Superstring Theory is lacking common sense, objectivity, rationality, predictability and it isn't a deductive theory. Chances are theories like these are misleading.

    That's all I have to say.

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,179
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    The Superstring Theory is lacking common sense, objectivity, rationality, predictability and it isn't a deductive theory. Chances are theories like these are misleading.

    That's all I have to say.
    Yes, please make this your last post in this thread that advocates your ATM theory, rails against the mainstream, or suggests some systemic conspiracy to suppress your ideas. This thread is about getting your paper published in a journal...or not...and only that. If you engage in ATM and/or CT sidetracks again, you risk infraction.
    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. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  15. #225
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,070
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    We need a jury and a judge to decide this but AFAIK:
    - There is the strong possibility GR is completely wrong, if not refuted already
    - The scientific community is making it impossible for all outsiders to publish anything
    - They have the Breakthrough Prize, the Nobel Prize, etc. but again it's impossible for an outsider to apply for such a prize
    - Most of the outsiders really don't have 10 years to spend on personal research
    I'm not so sure about that, most of the outsiders come from the insiders, and we're lucky that they have forty years to do research
    - The mainstream media (brainwashing machine) is not helping either because they repeatedly talk about GR's confirmations of insignificant experiments (eg.: equivalence principle)
    - ...

    CQ is the only gateway outsiders can have but they do not handle the case where someone might be right.

  16. #226
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    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).

  17. #227
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    (maybe I panicked yesterday).
    Oh and BTW Mark C Lee. doesn't work at NASA anymore so that explains their silence. Sorry for misleading you.

  18. #228
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,195
    Philippe, if you are confident that you have a good theory and that the establishment journals are just being hidebound and doctrinaire, why don't you just write a good clean copy, get it copyrighted, and publish it online yourself? Please refresh my feeble brain on what is wrong with that. I don't feel like wading through 227 posts of this thread to try to dope it out.

  19. #229
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Philippe, if you are confident that you have a good theory and that the establishment journals are just being hidebound and doctrinaire, why don't you just write a good clean copy, get it copyrighted, and publish it online yourself? Please refresh my feeble brain on what is wrong with that. I don't feel like wading through 227 posts of this thread to try to dope it out.
    Oh I will but I canít copyright or patent a scientific idea. It will get known indirectly after I get known with my company whether the mainstream likes it or not.

    Meanwhile I am trying to prove to others whether the politically correct way works or not.

    But for those type of questions please PM me because I was told only to talk about whether my submissions were accepted or not.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #230
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,836
    In my limited experience of journal publishing (I am part way through one now) there are several factors for your OP. There are journals that amount to vanity publishing but if you want a decent journal your paper must be within its scope, then accepted by an editor as original work, they check of course using algorithms, then sent out for peer review. Do you have any idea who would be reviewers? If its really new the editor may ask you to offer three to six names of potential reviewers. One negative review probably stops the process although the editor has discretion. Finally the good journals have got cold feet from bad papers that got published so it's tough to start a new idea. Have you thought of offering an opinion piece? Many journals have that possibility and it's not peer reviewed. If you publish yourself you may also make later journal publication difficult. It's like a catch22 but published stuff is supposed to be novel as well as acceptable to the mainstream. You might also be accused of self plagiarisation if you publish first.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  21. #231
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    In my limited experience of journal publishing (I am part way through one now) there are several factors for your OP. There are journals that amount to vanity publishing but if you want a decent journal your paper must be within its scope, then accepted by an editor as original work, they check of course using algorithms, then sent out for peer review. Do you have any idea who would be reviewers? If its really new the editor may ask you to offer three to six names of potential reviewers. One negative review probably stops the process although the editor has discretion. Finally the good journals have got cold feet from bad papers that got published so it's tough to start a new idea. Have you thought of offering an opinion piece? Many journals have that possibility and it's not peer reviewed. If you publish yourself you may also make later journal publication difficult. It's like a catch22 but published stuff is supposed to be novel as well as acceptable to the mainstream. You might also be accused of self plagiarisation if you publish first.
    Thanks for your input.

    I will submit to all InspireHEP related journals because the Breakthrough Prize only accepts papers stored there and in arXiv.

    Once Iíve exhausted all options then I will promote it commercially.

    This is because itís pointless to go on and publish it at the wrong place or somewhere where you canít win any prize. Iíll be doomed if I do that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. #232
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Oh and BTW Mark C Lee. doesn't work at NASA anymore so that explains their silence. Sorry for misleading you.
    Maybe Iím the only one on this planet who understands my own theory as a whole and thatís why I keep being rejected.

    That would explain the real problem. Itís a possibility.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #233
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,836
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8
    ; snip



    I can try Physical Review Letters but I think "Letters" means 5 pages or less which opts out my manuscript.



    .
    I think I should challenge you to express the idea in less, even complex ideas can be condensed to one or two pages in order to get the idea across. I know some maths proofs take many pages and can only be assessed by experts but it is a valuable intellectual exercise to reduce the idea to a few steps that an educated person can follow.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  24. #234
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I think I should challenge you to express the idea in less, even complex ideas can be condensed to one or two pages in order to get the idea across. I know some maths proofs take many pages and can only be assessed by experts but it is a valuable intellectual exercise to reduce the idea to a few steps that an educated person can follow.
    Yes because I donít see how a peer-reviewer can understand 15 pages of a completely new idea in a few days. That make sense.

    But I am not sure either how I can compress my manuscript to a letter (< 5 pages).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #235
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Yes because I donít see how a peer-reviewer can understand 15 pages of a completely new idea in a few days. That make sense.

    But I am not sure either how I can compress my manuscript to a letter (< 5 pages).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Maybe the real solution would be to have some sort of Q&A session in the form of an ATM debate extension here on CQ.

    Why here? Because I think Shaula and Reality Check are pretty smart and they already know a big part of the theory.

    One of the criteria of ATM forum is to be prepared and I think I am very well prepared compared to the others over there.

    But thatís just an idea because I donít see any other solution to the fact my theory still might be possibly right.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #236
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,179
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Maybe the real solution would be to have some sort of Q&A session in the form of an ATM debate extension here on CQ.
    This thread also isn't about proposing changes to how we do things on CQ. If you want to discuss that, start a thread in the Feedback forum. In this thread, stick to the topic of this thread.
    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. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  27. #237
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    This thread also isn't about proposing changes to how we do things on CQ. If you want to discuss that, start a thread in the Feedback forum. In this thread, stick to the topic of this thread.
    Done:
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-Q-amp-A-forum

  28. #238
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,936
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    This is because it’s pointless to go on and publish it at the wrong place or somewhere where you can’t win any prize. I’ll be doomed if I do that.
    I don't understand what the big deal is about winning a prize. Most scientists never win big prizes like that. They are interested in discovering something, and even if they don't get a big prize they still do it.
    As above, so below

  29. #239
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Now the possibilities:
    1) I do not understand simple calculus and my manuscript is a joke
    2) My manuscript got the right solution but no one wants to admit the solution is that simple
    3) My manuscript got the right solution but no one wants to admit they're wrong
    Honestly if those are the only options we have, then yes #1 is by FAR the most likely. It is far, FAR more likely that you just don't understand the math and/or physics then that the entire scientific industry is all in on a massive conspiracy to keep your "correct" theory quiet so nobody learns the truth. How could you possibly think that it's more likely that the entire planet is in on a conspiracy against YOU personally then that you just happen to be wrong about something? Arrogant is the only word I can think of that would describe such an attitude.

Posting Permissions

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