Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 186

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Journal for completely new gravitational theory

    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.

    What’s up with that attitude that is completely unprofessional?

    Anyways I just want to know if there is any journal that will accept new gravitational theories? Thanks!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,262
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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.
    Is that what they said? Or have you invented that as an excuse?

    Anyways I just want to know if there is any journal that will accept new gravitational theories? Thanks!
    You could try some of these: https://beallslist.weebly.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Is that what they said? Or have you invented that as an excuse?



    You could try some of these: https://beallslist.weebly.com
    They said my postulates are unfounded. Postulates are postulates and need no explanation AFAIK. They just skipped the part where I explain everything else with calculus.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,262
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    They said my postulates are unfounded. Postulates are postulates and need no explanation AFAIK.
    Not really. One could start a paper with the postulate that there is an invisible pink flying unicorn on the dark side of the moon. That seems a pretty good reason to reject any argument based on it.

    On the other hand, we can postulate that the speed of light is invariant because there is both theoretical and evidential support for it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,372
    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.

    What’s up with that attitude that is completely unprofessional?

    Anyways I just want to know if there is any journal that will accept new gravitational theories? Thanks!
    My Bold

    philippeb8

    Your ongoing battle with journals is getting old. You want to ask for suggestions about journals to submit papers to, that's fine. But leave out the editorial comments, such as the ones I bolded above.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Not really. One could start a paper with the postulate that there is an invisible pink flying unicorn on the dark side of the moon. That seems a pretty good reason to reject any argument based on it.

    On the other hand, we can postulate that the speed of light is invariant because there is both theoretical and evidential support for it.
    Well if the pink unicorn can explain the whole universe then I think it is right. But obviously I’m not going that far...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    My Bold

    philippeb8

    Your ongoing battle with journals is getting old. You want to ask for suggestions about journals to submit papers to, that's fine. But leave out the editorial comments, such as the ones I bolded above.
    Ok got it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,641
    philippeb8 You'll get a read here......SEE:https://www.gravityresearchfoundatio...n-gravitation/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124
    Ok thank you all for the links! Hopefully this thread can serve as a reference as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,119
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok thank you all for the links! Hopefully this thread can serve as a reference as well.
    Just to be clear, Strange's link is something of a joke.
    Many of the journals on that list will accept articles about anything, no matter how nonsensical, and will "publish" it for a fee.
    If you want genuine peer review, you'll avoid them. (I'm assuming you actually want genuine peer review - in which case you do have to accept and reflect upon comments about your postulates being unfounded.)

    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Just to be clear, Strange's link is something of a joke.
    Many of the journals on that list will accept articles about anything, no matter how nonsensical, and will "publish" it for a fee.
    If you want genuine peer review, you'll avoid them. (I'm assuming you actually want genuine peer review - in which case you do have to accept and reflect upon comments about your postulates being unfounded.)

    Grant Hutchison
    Then I don’t think the peer-review system really is serious. I’m asking Quora at the same time and nobody can give a clear answer to this question.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,372
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Then I don’t think the peer-review system really is serious. I’m asking Quora at the same time and nobody can give a clear answer to this question.
    And I'm sorry, but given that respond, I can't take you seriously. You wish for your ideas to be given serious consideration in a science journal, but you dismiss any criticism of your ideas and that just be accepted because you say so. A peer reviewed journal didn't accept my paper, so there must be something wrong with the entire system.

    That's not how real science works.

    "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    And I'm sorry, but given that respond, I can't take you seriously. You wish for your ideas to be given serious consideration in a science journal, but you dismiss any criticism of your ideas and that just be accepted because you say so. A peer reviewed journal didn't accept my paper, so there must be something wrong with the entire system.

    That's not how real science works.

    "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)
    Nice quote but the probability:
    - to come up with the correct ATM theory (because there is a flaw somewhere in the mainstream)
    - in your spare time (because the academia is mainstream)
    - to find the correct journal that will accept ATM ideas

    = 0 so therefore humankind will not evolve anytime soon and Hawking urged the need to explore other solar systems so this is a logical deadlock.

    I’m just saying. But I appreciate your answers.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,485
    perhaps there should be a 'wild side' box/page in papers like NewScientists, with links to interesting ATM pages/PDFs..
    Formerly Frog march..............

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,262
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Nice quote but the probability:
    - to come up with the correct ATM theory (because there is a flaw somewhere in the mainstream)
    - in your spare time (because the academia is mainstream)
    - to find the correct journal that will accept ATM ideas

    = 0
    I agree that the ability of someone with a superficial understanding of the subject to contribute is negligible.. (For complex reasons to do with the level of understanding and cooperation needed to develop new theories in this area, which are not likely to be available to "amateurs".)

    Note that there is not a problem with journals accepting "ATM ideas". Remember that many accepted theories were "ATM" or novel when they were first published. Otherwise science would never have progressed. The problem, in your case, is likely to be that the idea is insufficiently theoretically rigorous or evidence-based to be accepted.

    As Grant says, you need to consider the review feedback and improve your work based on that. They have no duty to publish your ideas. But you do have a duty to listen to expert feedback and take it into account. (This refusal to listen to feedback is typical of the threads in the ATM forum here, for example. Non-scientists seems to get so emotionally attached to their ideas, that nothing can persuade them to change or drop them.)

    For example, if your postulates are not acceptable, then perhaps you need to find some evidence or theoretical basis for them. You can't just assert something that you wish to be true and expect to be accepted. Einstein postulated the invariance of the speed of light partly based on Maxwell's equations and the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. So there were reasons for the postulates; they were not arbitrary wishes like unicorns.

    If you cannot provide any basis for your postulates, then maybe you need to reconsider whether they are reasonable or not.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    525
    Phillipeb8,

    It is very difficult for a private researcher even to get a reasonable ATM proposal published. It seems that the editors will weigh up the chances of themselves looking silly if they publish something 'wrong' against the chances of themselves looking silly if they miss something that was 'right'. Same with reviewers.

    They will look at your name, presentation, your institution, whether it supports mainstream or not and usually be inclined to reject before even thinking properly about the proposal.

    They then make a decision from self interest, rather than really thinking about the physics.

    For example a paper with a postulate called equation (2), was submitted, which led to some interesting results matching observations. One editor said he didn't think equation (2) could be right and I would need to show it was even possible. So after attaching an appendix B showing how equation (2) was possible it was resubmitted...but still rejected without a proper reason.

    When you are getting different reasons from different editors/reviewers it's a sign they are just rejecting as it's too risky for them. If a reviewers comments are wrong because they haven't read properly or understood the paper, it doesn't help to point it out to the editor.

    This

    Quote Originally Posted by WaxRubiks View Post
    perhaps there should be a 'wild side' box/page in papers like NewScientists, with links to interesting ATM pages/PDFs..
    is a good idea... and http://vixra.org/ publish anything, started by a serious mathematician who couldn't get his work on arxiv, then you'd have a link to it, if you want to discuss with anyone, perhaps on the 'Against The Mainstream' section of this (CosmoQuest) site.

    The problem at the moment, is that the whole community isn't getting to consider unusual ideas, which might inspire others with various skills to develop their own ideas. Editors/reviewers are scientists who have worked in support of the mainstream and (perhaps subconsciously) act as kind of guardians of it. They don't seem to accept the start of an interesting new approach, from an independent researcher, which others with expertise in other areas might then develop and improve. They would only accept a fully fledged (in your case) theory of gravity, with all details fully worked out - it's unrealistic to expect that from one person.

    Rant nearly over! But have you noticed how many authors are now appearing on papers..this https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01589 has about 250 and it seems to be the modern trend. Hope you manage it as a single author with a new idea.

    Some journals, but only a few, are starting the 'double blind' review system, you could consider them.

    Good luck with your research.
    Last edited by john hunter; 2018-Feb-24 at 09:41 AM.
    "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,867
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    They will look at your name, presentation, your institution, whether it supports mainstream or not and usually be inclined to reject before even thinking properly about the proposal.
    They then make a decision from self interest, rather than really thinking about the physics.
    You overemphasise this problem. It is a recognised issue that people take short cuts when they are busy, which can lead to an unfair bias towards established academic institutions. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this isn't something the community is aware of. Despite this you do see papers by smaller groups, papers by independents and unusual and speculative ideas in a fair number of peer reviewed journals. The bar might be a little higher but good papers still get through.

    The other thing to bear in mind is that frequently the author of the paper is just about the worst person to judge its value. It may feel like you are being rejected for unfair reasons to you - but often that is your own bias showing. Of course you think your idea is right. You had it, you have worked on it, you are emotionally invested in it. Avoiding getting to that point is a big part of the reason academics are so keen to bounce their ideas around early in the process of developing it.

    Part of the issue here is the scope of what a lot of 'new theory' papers are trying to do. I see a lot of them claiming to completely reinvent physics and overturn everything. Well, good for them. But the burden of proof on that is huge. One of the reasons academics get published is because they understand that. And they break their ideas down into sub-units that can be assessed on their own, writing smaller, bounded papers showing things like consistency of the idea, cases where the results reduce to already tested models and so on. Once they have established that their ideas align with observations in the cases where they'd expect them to they go on to look at the predictions that would allow the model to be tested and that would produce new results.

    New ideas are easy. The job of someone who wants the idea to be taken seriously is to show that it is worth considering. That is absolutely not the same as presenting a complete model. It is, however, the stage most ATM proponents skip because in their mind the idea is 'obviously' worth considering. The common misconception seem to be that the idea needs to solve everything to be worth looking at. But that is not the case. Look at the Entropic gravity development history, or even MOND. In each of these cases the idea was presented in bits in a number of presentations, papers and so on. It was developed. It took feedback. It changed.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,119
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Nice quote but the probability:
    - to come up with the correct ATM theory (because there is a flaw somewhere in the mainstream)
    - in your spare time (because the academia is mainstream)
    - to find the correct journal that will accept ATM ideas

    = 0 so therefore humankind will not evolve anytime soon and Hawking urged the need to explore other solar systems so this is a logical deadlock.
    And yet new ideas are published every week. Journals like new ideas - indeed, that particular selection bias in scientific publishing is well known and has created a huge skew in the content of the medical literature (the area I know best).
    So that's not why your paper wasn't accepted.

    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,119
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    When you are getting different reasons from different editors/reviewers it's a sign they are just rejecting as it's too risky for them.
    That actually isn't necessarily true. And I speak as someone who has had more than one completely mainstream paper rejected by several journals, with multiple reasons given by multiple editors and reviewers. The problem was that there were multiple things wrong with the papers. The competition for space in reputable journals is so intense, and reviewer and editor time so constrained, that they only need to pick out a couple of significant faults in the paper and their job is done - the paper is rejected on sufficient grounds.
    I got both my problematic papers published eventually, in reputable journals - and I did so by paying attention to the comments I had received, making the necessary revisions, and interpreting the feedback as being intended to improve my contribution to the scientific literature, not as an effort to exclude me.

    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,372
    This thread has diverted from the intent of Q&A (mainstream answers to science questions) and become a debate about journals, and so I'm moving it to S&T.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,372
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    <snip>
    They will look at your name, presentation, your institution, whether it supports mainstream or not and usually be inclined to reject before even thinking properly about the proposal.

    They then make a decision from self interest, rather than really thinking about the physics.
    Really? Do you have any evidence for this? How many journals have you been an editor or reviewer on? How many editors or reviewers have you interacted with? How many papers have you submitted or had published?

    Maybe the system isn't biased. Maybe it is working perfectly and it is doing its job of keeping out undemonstrated nonsense.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124
    Postulate: Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom.

    Therefore a postulate cannot be proven! Something’s wrong with the system.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,867
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Postulate: Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom.

    Therefore a postulate cannot be proven! Something’s wrong with the system.
    The usual use of a postulate is to provide a foundation on which to build a theory. You use the theory to make predictions based on those postulates. If the theory works well then the postulates can the taken as proven.

    But you said that the feedback was that the postulates are unfounded. That is quite a different thing. Normally I would describe a postulate as unfounded if it leads directly to logical or observational contradictions which the main theory then chooses to ignore. In other words it is a postulate not backed up by the available evidence. For example postulating that our galaxy is actually 10x bigger than currently thought and spherical fixes the rotation curve issue without dark matter. But it contradicts observations of the size and shape of our galaxy. And you can't just pretend it doesn't by labelling it a postulate of your theory.

    There are some issues with the system but a refusal to publish your paper just because you think they should is not one of them.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,119
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Postulate: Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom.

    Therefore a postulate cannot be proven! Something’s wrong with the system.
    Or something's wrong with your postulate. Just within the definition you've offered, I can suggest that either it was not self-evident, and therefore it requires a derivation from simpler postulates which you have not provided; or you have assumed it to be true, while it is actually demonstrably false, or incompatible with existing theory in a way you have not addressed.

    Once again - you need to take the feedback seriously, and stop blaming the system.

    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.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124
    My theory consists of 4 simple postulates I wish I could post. There is no way I can simplify them even more and the theory based on the postulates works well.

    I think Grant is in medicine but theoretical astrophysics advances much more slowly than medicine and I’ve witnessed corruption all over North-America and there is the possibility of corruption in science as well for reasons I cannot explain yet (but I don’t want to enter that subject in this thread here because it belongs to the conspiracy section).

    The String Theory and MOND don’t predict anything and are part of the mainstream because back in the 80s they were still accepting radical theories but nowadays the system tightened the screws making it impossible to suggest anything radical even if the maths are right.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,119
    Yes, there's either a huge decades-long conspiracy to suppress new science (which would bring fame and reward to the first journal editor who broke ranks), or there's something wrong with your postulates.

    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.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,262
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Postulate: Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom.

    Therefore a postulate cannot be proven! Something’s wrong with the system.
    If you reported them correctly, they were not asking for it to be proven; they said it was unfounded. I would guess this means they didn't think it was self-evident. See, for example, Euclid's axioms. Hence my unicorn example earlier. Your postulates may appear "obvious" to you, but if they are not self evident to what the English courts refer to as a "reasonable man" then you may need to rethink them.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,262
    As far as I can see, you have never actually posted your theory here (because you refused to follow the rules and post it here, rather than just posting links) so you could ask the mods if you would be allowed to start a thread where you present this idea, starting from the postulates, in order for people to give more useful feedback. (It is hard to be constructive when we are constrained to talking about generic unfounded postulates.)

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,867
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    The String Theory and MOND don’t predict anything and are part of the mainstream because back in the 80s they were still accepting radical theories but nowadays the system tightened the screws making it impossible to suggest anything radical even if the maths are right.
    Let's see....

    Entropic gravity
    Walking Technicolor
    CDT
    TeVeS
    Extended Higgs Sector theories
    Fischer information quantum theories
    Later Quintessence theories
    Unparticle physics
    And many more.

    You are simply wrong that new and radical theories are not welcome. Do you actually follow any physics journals? Or are you just going from the fact that your ideas are not being accepted for publication to the conclusion that no ideas are being accepted for publication?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    As far as I can see, you have never actually posted your theory here (because you refused to follow the rules and post it here, rather than just posting links) so you could ask the mods if you would be allowed to start a thread where you present this idea, starting from the postulates, in order for people to give more useful feedback. (It is hard to be constructive when we are constrained to talking about generic unfounded postulates.)
    I already am on the edge with all my warnings and infractions that I wouldn’t dare to post my postulates here unless I am explicitly allowed by the mods.


    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
  •