PDA

View Full Version : Journal for completely new gravitational theory



Pages : [1] 2

philippeb8
2018-Feb-23, 06:20 PM
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

Strange
2018-Feb-23, 06:25 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-Feb-23, 06:28 PM
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

Strange
2018-Feb-23, 06:33 PM
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.

Swift
2018-Feb-23, 06:38 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Feb-23, 06:41 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-Feb-23, 06:43 PM
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

trinitree88
2018-Feb-23, 06:55 PM
philippeb8 You'll get a read here......SEE:https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/2017-awards-for-essays-on-gravitation/

philippeb8
2018-Feb-23, 07:36 PM
Ok thank you all for the links! Hopefully this thread can serve as a reference as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

grant hutchison
2018-Feb-24, 12:36 AM
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

philippeb8
2018-Feb-24, 03:06 AM
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

Swift
2018-Feb-24, 03:14 AM
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)

philippeb8
2018-Feb-24, 03:26 AM
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

WaxRubiks
2018-Feb-24, 04:11 AM
perhaps there should be a 'wild side' box/page in papers like NewScientists, with links to interesting ATM pages/PDFs..

Strange
2018-Feb-24, 08:01 AM
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.

john hunter
2018-Feb-24, 09:16 AM
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


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.

Shaula
2018-Feb-24, 11:20 AM
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.

grant hutchison
2018-Feb-24, 02:07 PM
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

grant hutchison
2018-Feb-24, 02:20 PM
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

Swift
2018-Feb-24, 02:41 PM
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.

Swift
2018-Feb-24, 02:49 PM
<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.

philippeb8
2018-Feb-24, 05:01 PM
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

Shaula
2018-Feb-24, 05:23 PM
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.

grant hutchison
2018-Feb-24, 05:32 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-Feb-24, 06:11 PM
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

grant hutchison
2018-Feb-24, 06:57 PM
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

Strange
2018-Feb-24, 07:03 PM
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.

Strange
2018-Feb-24, 07:08 PM
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.)

Shaula
2018-Feb-24, 07:25 PM
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?

philippeb8
2018-Feb-24, 10:04 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-Feb-24, 10:24 PM
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?

I saw some theories that are not testable and they were published. Mine is testable and I can’t break the ice. There must be some informal explanation to this. I can explain a lot of things but not this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Strange
2018-Feb-24, 11:16 PM
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.

Which is why I suggested asking. (Sheesh.)

Strange
2018-Feb-24, 11:17 PM
There must be some informal explanation to this. I can explain a lot of things but not this.

You have been given several plausible explanations. Predictably, you are rejecting them ... just as you are rejecting reviewer feedback. Do you see a pattern in your behaviour?

philippeb8
2018-Feb-24, 11:17 PM
Which is why I suggested asking. (Sheesh.)

I will ask tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

grant hutchison
2018-Feb-25, 12:00 AM
I saw some theories that are not testable and they were published. Mine is testable and I can’t break the ice. There must be some informal explanation to this.Here's a suggestion - that the reviewers are correct when they say that there is something wrong with your postulates.
If the postulates don't work, then no amount of testability will rescue inferences drawn from those postulates - it doesn't matter what the test results are, the inferences are wrong and no-one is ever going to be interested.
Whereas apparently untestable hypotheses based on valid postulates might turn out to be testable in future, if enough people think about them.

Grant Hutchison

Jens
2018-Feb-25, 04:35 AM
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.


In support of that, interestingly the highest retraction rates are in high impact journals like Nature and Science, because they go out of their way to publish sensational papers. So nobody is going to reject something because it overturns ideas.

Shaula
2018-Feb-25, 05:45 AM
I saw some theories that are not testable and they were published. Mine is testable and I can’t break the ice. There must be some informal explanation to this. I can explain a lot of things but not this.
There are several possibilities as to why a testable theory might be rejected without doing the tests the author of the theory regards as the required ones. And I am sure you will regard all of them as inconceivable. But that is why we have review - you are biased about your own ideas and, from experience on this board, unable to accept that they may be wrong.
1) Your ideas are at odds with other observations in fairly trivial and simple ways
2) Your ideas are simply not useful, scientifically, as they are a bunch of ad hoc fits
3) Your ideas are internally logically inconsistent
4) Your ideas based on demonstrably false postulates

john hunter
2018-Feb-25, 09:40 AM
Grant, Shaula and Swift,

You are right that the authors should consider feedback carefully and improve their papers. That's true and most authors do that as they seriously want their ideas to be consistent with observations and logically consistent too. On balance the middle ground in this debate seems about right

A: Philippeb8, you said "but nowadays the system tightened the screws making it impossible to suggest anything radical even if the maths are right."

and this view seems close, but could be... "but nowadays the system tightened the screws making it [almost] impossible to suggest anything radical even if the maths are right, [if you are an independent researcher]."

----
B:

Maybe the system isn't biased. Maybe it is working perfectly and it is doing its job of keeping out undemonstrated nonsense.
It probably does keep out nonsense, but it's keeping out good work too. The "perfectly" word above seems particularly complacent.

----------------------------------------------------

JCAP asks for an arxiv identifier before you can submit to it. Arxiv wants your work to have been published in a reputable journal before it will be published (they won't give a list of which jounals count). So that journal is operating a "Catch 22" excluding everyone not already published. Arxiv also wants the author to have "endorsement" by a professional, which can be got, if you try (philippeb8), but is much easier to get if you are a professional with a supervisor to act as endorser. This creates a bias towards authors merely continuing a superivsor's work and against new proposals from outsiders.

It's true that a lot of papers are rejected as they are simply too low a standard, but anything even slightly speculative is barred (for some authors), whilst others can pontificate about 26 dimensional colliding brane-worlds, or parallel universes! Why is that? Is there a bias for high level mathematical papers, even if short on real substance?

Shaula
2018-Feb-25, 10:36 AM
B:
It probably does keep out nonsense, but it's keeping out good work too. The "perfectly" word above seems particularly complacent.
It comes down to SNR. If 1 in 5 papers from academic institutions are good pieces of work (including revolutionary ideas, new theories etc) versus 1 in 100 papers from independent researchers (and from what I've seen on places like vixra and predatory publishing journals this is a generous number) you get more benefit focusing on academic institutions. Journals are not a charity, they have to make enough people find them useful to justify the cost of running them. And dealing with papers that have not been through academic QC is expensive.


This creates a bias towards authors merely continuing a superivsor's work and against new proposals from outsiders.
Of the 7 or 8 people I work with who have PhDs I know the topic of only maybe half were following on from their supervisors work. If that. Supervisors like to see their own work developed, yes. But they also like to see good science being done and new ideas coming out.


It's true that a lot of papers are rejected as they are simply too low a standard, but anything even slightly speculative is barred (for some authors), whilst others can pontificate about 26 dimensional colliding brane-worlds, or parallel universes! Why is that? Is there a bias for high level mathematical papers, even if short on real substance?
That would be because they are working towards physics theories. The debate about string theory is an active one and has been for some time. Which is why you see a lot of papers about alternatives these days. String theory looked like a promising avenue of approach built on solid mathematical principles. I have fallen out of love with it significantly since my teens (when it all seemed to promising) but the corpus of theory, technique and modelling effort behind it is still streets ahead of most of the "I have a new theory of physics that changed EVERYTHING" papers I have seen.

philippeb8
2018-Feb-26, 02:06 AM
I will ask tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The request was submitted today...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality Check
2018-Feb-26, 02:26 AM
Arxiv wants your work to have been published in a reputable journal before it will be published
Arxiv (https://arxiv.org/help/general) is primarily a pre-print archive. It accepts submission of papers before they are published in any journal.
Endorsement requirement (https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement)

Since January 17, 2004 arXiv has required that users be endorsed before submitting their first paper to a category or subject class.
This is not an endorsement of the author. It is an endorsement of the first pre-print submitted to a category.

The endorser (https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement) need not be (but probably is) a professional.

Endorsers must have authored a certain number of papers within the endorsement domain of a subject area. The number of papers depends on the particular subject area, but has been set so that any active scientist who has been working in her field for a few years should be able to endorse if her work has been submitted to arXiv and if she is registered as an author of her papers. Endorsement domains have been chosen to reflect related subject areas and ensure that it will be easy for people to find endorsements: most high-level subject areas (e.g., hep-th, cond-mat, q-bio) are currently endorsement domains, with the notable exception of physics, in which individual subject classes (e.g., phys.acc-phys, phys.med-ph) are endorsement domains. To ensure that endorsers are active members of the community, we only count papers that have been submitted between three months and five years ago.*
This does not rule out an amateur who has authored several papers within a domain from being an endorser. There is not even an explicit requirement for the papers to have been published.

That page (https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement) emphasizes that The endorsement process is not peer review.

Jens
2018-Feb-26, 06:53 AM
Some journals, but only a few, are starting the 'double blind' review system, you could consider them.


I think that the "double blind" review system is a good thing, but I don't think it would be of much help in this case. I think ironically that double-blind peer review may actually be more helpful in stopping a different (opposite) problem, that for example a journal might be inclined to publish a strange paper by Stephen Hawking simply because it's him, in the same way that newspapers will cover even weird ideas by him because it is him. So I think that double-blinding peer review would be helpful in stopping that, but probably wouldn't be helpful for somebody who writes a paper that is based on their own ideas and has little reference to the previous literature, because the reviewers will understand that the person hasn't read the literature.

john hunter
2018-Feb-26, 12:09 PM
Reality Check,

Your link was interesting but here is a quote from it

"arXiv may give some people automatic endorsements based on subject area, topic, previous submissions, and academic affiliation. In most cases, automatic endorsement is given to authors from known academic institutions and research facilities. arXiv submitters are therefore encouraged to associate an institutional email address, if they have one, with their arXiv account (see author registration help). This will expedite the endorsement process."

In other words, they have created an extra hurdle for independent researchers...but it's not just that - if you PM scientists and manage to get an endorsement for your paper, then submit it, arxiv can also choose to remove it. It's judged by 'volunteer moderators' who (quite possibly) also take into account the authors institution when deciding whether to remove, in a similar way to the above.

If you appeal the removal then arxiv isn't a preprint service any more for you...it's becomes a requirement that the paper should have been published in a peer reviewed journal first. If it has been, then they also can question the quality of the journal. If you ask for a list of which journals would be acceptable, they say "we don't maintain such a list".

So although it is possible for independent researchers to get their work published in a journal or on arxiv, it seems there is a bias - at least that's one experience and Philippeb8 has the right to hear things from all sides.

It would be interesting (Philippeb8) to see your proposal on ATM, if allowed.

Cougar
2018-Feb-26, 01:22 PM
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!

Are your postulates self-evident?

philippeb8
2018-Feb-26, 01:37 PM
Are your postulates self-evident?

Yes of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

John Mendenhall
2018-Feb-26, 05:41 PM
Yes of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is an elephant in the room here in this thread which no one wishes to discuss, and under the ATM rules we cannot discuss,

The paper is available free online. Wih Philippe's permission and that of he Moderators, I will be glad to post the link.

Remember, no ATM here. PM's work fine.

Swift
2018-Feb-26, 05:49 PM
There is an elephant in the room here in this thread which no one wishes to discuss, and under the ATM rules we cannot discuss,

The paper is available free online. Wih Philippe's permission and that of he Moderators, I will be glad to post the link.

Remember, no ATM here. PM's work fine.
Do not post the link. This thread is already too much of a debate about philippeb8's ideas, and not the original question about how to publish something.

philippeb8 has asked the Moderation Team about posting his postulates on CQ. We are discussing it. That may take sometime. If that wait stifles some aspects of this discussion, so be it. If that leaves nothing else to say, then that's fine too.

Reality Check
2018-Feb-26, 08:00 PM
"arXiv may give some people automatic endorsements based on subject area, topic, previous submissions, and academic affiliation. In most cases, automatic endorsement is given to authors from known academic institutions and research facilities. arXiv submitters are therefore encouraged to associate an institutional email address, if they have one, with their arXiv account (see author registration help). This will expedite the endorsement process."

In other words, they have created an extra hurdle for independent researchers...
"some people" does not exclude independent researchers. Independent researchers that submit papers in a subject area, topic, or have previous submissions may get automated endorsement. Of course academic affiliation does not apply to them.
This is the endorsement requirement (https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement) page. No "moderator" or "remove" in it.
This is the arXiv moderation system (https://arxiv.org/help/moderation)

The arXiv moderators are experts in their fields and in the types of submissions that are appropriate for their subject classifications. They evaluate based on the content of the submission and the policies of arXiv.
arXiv moderators may recommend reclassification or removal of a submission. Reclassification is frequently suggested for subject classifications that are highly similar, in order to make sure that submissions are posted first to the most appropriate archive. Cross-lists may then be suggested for other archives that are also appropriate classifications. A submission that is cross-listed to another archive will still be announced in the mailings to the alternative archive.

arXiv moderators will suggest the removal of a submission that violates arXiv policies in some way. Potential reasons for removal are:
•Unrefereeable content. arXiv accepts only submissions in the form of an article that would be refereeable by a conventional publication venue. Papers that do not contain original or substantive research, including undergraduate research, course projects, and research proposals may be removed. Papers that contain inflammatory or fictitious content, papers that use highly dramatic and mis-representative titles/abstracts/introductions, or papers in need of significant review and revision may be removed.
•Inappropriate format. Abstract-only submissions, presentations, book announcements, book reviews, submissions without references, calls for papers, or advertisements may be removed. We do not accept submissions with line numbers, or submissions with watermarks.
•Inappropriate topic. While arXiv serves a variety of scientific communities, not all subjects are currently covered. Submissions that do not fit well into our current classification scheme may be removed and, where possible, redirected to a more appropriate repository.
•Duplicated content. If a moderator notices that a user has made many very similar submissions in a short amount of time, or that a new submission is really a revision of a recent submission, the moderator may request that the user consolidate the new submission into a replacement of the previous submission. This helps ensure that arXiv is as useful as possible for all of the various communities publishing here, and it can often help the author present a more unified body of research.
•Submission of copyrighted material. Authors must hold copyright over the entirety of the submission when the files are uploaded to arXiv. arXiv cannot accept PDFs that have been downloaded from a publisher's website and contain a copyright statement or papers that contain material written by someone who has not authorized that content to be distributed on arXiv (including comments by referees and, of course, plagiarized material).
•Excessive submission rate. Articles submitted to arXiv must be of refereeable quality, and there is a practical limit to the rate at which appropriate, independent submissions can be produced by any one person. Moderators may request that a particular author limit his or her submission rate if this author has a history of many submissions to inappropriate areas or of doubtful refereeability.

No "authors affiliation" there.

If a removed paper is appealed than it is an appeal of a preprint and in no way related to whether the paper is published in a peer reviewed journal.

arXiv has no requirement that a submitted paper be published.
arXiv does not look at the quality of the journal in which a paper has been published.
arXiv does not exclude or have a bias against independent researchers. An academic affiliation is optional. The contents of papers are not peer reviewed. All that an independent researcher has to do is follow common scientific practices. Write in good scholarly language (no hype). Be polite. Be careful in using copyrighted material. Write so that your work can be referred for peer review. And submit a paper that can fit one of arXiv 's subject areas (getting placed in the general physics category means that fewer people will read it).

Swift
2018-Feb-26, 08:06 PM
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
philippeb8 made this request to the Moderation Team

After much discussion among the Moderation Team, we have decided that he may post his Postulates, but he may only do so in the ATM sub-forum. And, as such, all the usual rules and requirements will apply. We consider this an extraordinary allowance, since we do not usually allow ATM ideas to be presented again. The new ATM thread should focus on the Postulates and not on the general idea.

philippeb8
2018-Feb-26, 10:46 PM
philippeb8 made this request to the Moderation Team

After much discussion among the Moderation Team, we have decided that he may post his Postulates, but he may only do so in the ATM sub-forum. And, as such, all the usual rules and requirements will apply. We consider this an extraordinary allowance, since we do not usually allow ATM ideas to be presented again. The new ATM thread should focus on the Postulates and not on the general idea.


Thank you Swift. Here is the new ATM thread:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?168048-Finite-Theory-s-4-new-postulates

Reality Check
2018-Feb-28, 03:38 AM
JCAP asks for an arxiv identifier before you can submit to it.
I thought that is was strange that JCAP required an arxiv identifier and it turns out that this may not be the case. The JCAP Help page (https://jcap.sissa.it/jcap/help/helpLoader.jsp?pgType=author#submission) lists 2 ways to submit papers.
A) Submission from the arXiv (button 'submit from arXiv')
B) Submission via web upload (button 'upload your file')
The first obviously needs an arxiv identifier.
The second should not need an arxiv identifier. I say should because there is "Please check the metadata for your paper (they have been automatically downloaded from the arXiv) and edit them as necessary.". I suspect that is text copied from section A.

philippeb8
2018-Apr-29, 05:44 PM
Is there a journal out there for “experimental and theoretical physics” which will accept completely new gravitational theories?

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?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=phy_astronomyastrophysics


Regards,
philippeb8

John Mendenhall
2018-Apr-30, 12:42 AM
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?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=phy_astronomyastrophysics


Regards,
philippeb8

Are you proposing Scholar Google as a place to publish? :confused:

philippeb8
2018-Apr-30, 12:45 AM
Are you proposing Scholar Google as a place to publish? :confused:

You're welcome to click on the link; it shows a list of astrophysics journals, sorted by their popularity.

John Mendenhall
2018-Apr-30, 02:04 AM
You're welcome to click on the link; it shows a list of astrophysics journals, sorted by their popularity.

I have; your OP was for a place to publish; I don't think any of these journals will publish for you.

Wha question are you trying to answer?.

philippeb8
2018-Apr-30, 03:23 AM
I have; your OP was for a place to publish; I don't think any of these journals will publish for you.

Wha question are you trying to answer?.

Publishing is an extremely slow process but one of these journals didn't reject the content of my manuscript yet so I think this is good news. Plus they don't all require a PhD to publish.

Reality Check
2018-Apr-30, 04:09 AM
There are a lot of journals with varying credibility from prestigious to predatory. So finding one to publish any paper is not hard. You have not given evidence that any journals require a PhD to publish.
Publication in science is not usually what people would consider an "extremely slow process". It is considered an appropriately slow process because there is peer review. What slows things down is usually interchange between the authors and peer reviewers as issues are worked out. A journal with very short times (days) between submission and publication would be thought dubious because that implies no peer review.

Cougar
2018-Apr-30, 01:00 PM
Postulate: ....being self-evident.

So your postulates are self-evident? Apparently not so much.

philippeb8
2018-Apr-30, 01:08 PM
So your postulates are self-evident? Apparently not so much.

They’re now hypotheses and were rewritten. I messed up previous submissions explaining the slow process. My bad.

Usually I submit the paper without formatting it because journals all have different standards. Usually it gets rejected before they ask to reformat it but now they asked me to reformat it first before rejecting its contents. The journal in question is: “Monthly Notices ...”

That’s why I am saying it’s good news.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jens
2018-May-01, 01:11 AM
Usually I submit the paper without formatting it because journals all have different standards. Usually it gets rejected before they ask to reformat it but now they asked me to reformat it first before rejecting its contents. The journal in question is: “Monthly Notices ...”



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.

philippeb8
2018-May-01, 01:17 AM
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

Jens
2018-May-01, 02:16 AM
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.

philippeb8
2018-May-01, 01:00 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-02, 06:03 PM
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?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=phy_astronomyastrophysics

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

philippeb8
2018-May-08, 08:20 AM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-08, 08:39 AM
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

Jens
2018-May-08, 09:04 AM
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.

Jens
2018-May-08, 09:05 AM
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.

philippeb8
2018-May-08, 09:08 AM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-08, 09:11 AM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-08, 02:57 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-15, 04:42 PM
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

grant hutchison
2018-May-15, 04:47 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-15, 04:56 PM
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

grant hutchison
2018-May-15, 06:22 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-15, 06:29 PM
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

Shaula
2018-May-16, 04:23 AM
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.

loglo
2018-May-16, 08:01 AM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-17, 01:18 AM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-21, 04:13 PM
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

Hornblower
2018-May-21, 05:02 PM
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.

Swift
2018-May-21, 05:05 PM
"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.

philippeb8
2018-May-21, 05:10 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-21, 05:29 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-21, 06:58 PM
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

BetaDust
2018-May-21, 07:06 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-21, 07:15 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-21, 07:22 PM
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

BetaDust
2018-May-21, 07:31 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-21, 07:41 PM
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

Reality Check
2018-May-21, 09:21 PM
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.

PetersCreek
2018-May-21, 10:17 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-May-22, 12:32 AM
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

Jens
2018-May-22, 02:53 AM
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.

philippeb8
2018-May-22, 03:21 AM
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

philippeb8
2018-May-29, 02:12 PM
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

Apparently:

“In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, we regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.”

So I’ll try that Canadian journal or other mathematical physics journals.


Regards,
philippeb8


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-May-29, 02:51 PM
You’ll notice the same pattern: they can’t say my paper is wrong but that it “does not warrant publication”. I still think they have a partial judgment but that’s my personal opinion.


Regards,
philippeb8


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

grant hutchison
2018-May-29, 03:04 PM
You’ll notice the same pattern: they can’t say my paper is wrong but that it “does not warrant publication”. I still think they have a partial judgment but that’s my personal opinion.The pattern I'm seeing is one of rejection very early in the review process, or before the paper has even been seen by academic reviewers. That usually means there is something glaringly wrong with the paper, or that you've sent it to completely the wrong journal. If you ever receive a detailed critique pointing out errors and asking for clarifications, it means you're finally getting somewhere.

Grant Hutchison

philippeb8
2018-May-29, 03:12 PM
The pattern I'm seeing is one of rejection very early in the review process, or before the paper has even been seen by academic reviewers. That usually means there is something glaringly wrong with the paper, or that you've sent it to completely the wrong journal. If you ever receive a detailed critique pointing out errors and asking for clarifications, it means you're finally getting somewhere.

Grant Hutchison

If I am able to get the high level conclusions I get then I must have something right... It’s probably yet the wrong journal again.


Sincerely,
philippeb8


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

grant hutchison
2018-May-29, 03:17 PM
If I am able to get the high level conclusions I get then I must have something right... And yet over in ATM at the moment, we have someone who is retrieving the dimensions of planetary orbits from the dimensions of the pyramids of Egypt. Exactly.
In matters of plausibility, the results count for nothing and the methods for everything.

Grant Hutchison

Swift
2018-May-29, 03:28 PM
You’ll notice the same pattern: they can’t say my paper is wrong but that it “does not warrant publication”. I still think they have a partial judgment but that’s my personal opinion.


Regards,
philippeb8

I'm sorry to be blunt again, but to me this is almost a defining characteristic of bad science versus good science.

Bad science: Every journal I send this to (and every time I present this idea in ATM) I get the same response (rejection) and the same criticisms, therefore I must be right and everyone else is wrong and is against me (or can't handle new ideas).

Good science: Every journal I send this to (and every time I present this idea in ATM) I get the same response (rejection) and the same criticisms, therefore I must not be presenting my idea clearly, or there is some fundamental problem with my method or conclusions - I better take another look at this.

philippeb8
2018-May-29, 03:48 PM
Anyway if I am able to find 1 decent journal that accepts and publishes my manuscript then that means all of those who rejected it in the past had a partial judgment indeed.


Regards,
philippeb8


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

grant hutchison
2018-May-29, 03:59 PM
Anyway if I am able to find 1 decent journal that accepts and publishes my manuscript then that means all of those who rejected it in the past had a partial judgment indeed.Nor is that true. Different journals have differing publication policies.

Grant Hutchison

Jens
2018-May-29, 11:54 PM
Anyway if I am able to find 1 decent journal that accepts and publishes my manuscript then that means all of those who rejected it in the past had a partial judgment indeed.



That's quite uninformed. The fact is, journals like Nature Physics have acceptance rates often less than 10%. So they are rejecting 90% of the manuscripts that come to them. And in many cases those papers end up being published elsewhere. For example, people submit to Nature Communications, which has a good impact factor, but get rejected and end up submitting to Scientific Reports, which has a much lower impact factor.

Jens
2018-May-29, 11:58 PM
If I am able to get the high level conclusions I get then I must have something right... It’s probably yet the wrong journal again.



I'm sorry to say this but they are being kind with the rejection letters. No editor will be mean enough to say "I can't understand what you are saying" or something like that, even when they don't understand a paper, partly because they are generally speaking nice people and partly because there is no point in enraging somebody who for all you know might not be completely stable emotionally. So the fact that people don't tell you outright that you are wrong doesn't necessarily mean they don't think so. It might be that they just saw early on that there was little point in reading all the way through the paper. It might be. In fact I have no idea what they thought.

philippeb8
2018-May-30, 02:53 AM
I'm sorry to say this but they are being kind with the rejection letters. No editor will be mean enough to say "I can't understand what you are saying" or something like that, even when they don't understand a paper, partly because they are generally speaking nice people and partly because there is no point in enraging somebody who for all you know might not be completely stable emotionally. So the fact that people don't tell you outright that you are wrong doesn't necessarily mean they don't think so. It might be that they just saw early on that there was little point in reading all the way through the paper. It might be. In fact I have no idea what they thought.

They probably receive a huge amount of conventional papers so they don’t really care about ATM theories and put their reputation at risk. That is pretty sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality Check
2018-May-30, 03:10 AM
They probably receive a huge amount of conventional papers so they don’t really care about ATM theories and put their reputation at risk.
That is not the full story. Journals really want valid ATM papers because publishing groundbreaking papers is what makes their reputations. What they do not want to do is publish any kind of invalid papers because that damages their reputations. This is why peer review exists. Editors act as a first line of review because reputations also go down if reviewers get obviously invalid papers.

philippeb8
2018-May-30, 03:17 AM
That is not the full story. Journals really want valid ATM papers because publishing groundbreaking papers is what makes their reputations. What they do not want to do is publish any kind of invalid papers because that damages their reputations. This is why peer review exists. Editors act as a first line of review because reputations also go down if reviewers get obviously invalid papers.

Well they can’t tell whether it’s right or wrong because it hasn’t been tested yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-May-30, 03:25 AM
If that doesn't work then I'll try the following one, which is a Canadian journal I think:
https://physicsessays.org/


Regards,
philippeb8

BTW I have submitted it there, let’s see what happens. I am now targeting mathematical physics journal... they probably can handle maths of all sort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality Check
2018-May-30, 04:21 AM
Well they can’t tell whether it’s right or wrong because it hasn’t been tested yet.
It is the content of your paper that is being tested. An editor can tell whether a paper is inappropriate for a journal because they can read it. An editor or peer reviewer can tell if a paper is invalid when it contains invalid science. This is true for any scientific paper thus what I wrote (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?p=2450610#post2450610)

That is not the full story. Journals really want valid ATM papers because publishing groundbreaking papers is what makes their reputations. What they do not want to do is publish any kind of invalid papers because that damages their reputations. This is why peer review exists. Editors act as a first line of review because reputations also go down if reviewers get obviously invalid papers.

ETA: About your next post.
All physics journals can handle math because that is the language of physics. A mathematical physics journal will do more vigorous review of the paper's math.

philippeb8
2018-May-30, 04:54 PM
It is the content of your paper that is being tested. An editor can tell whether a paper is inappropriate for a journal because they can read it. An editor or peer reviewer can tell if a paper is invalid when it contains invalid science. This is true for any scientific paper thus what I wrote (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?p=2450610#post2450610)


It takes in average a week or two before I get an answer. They don’t have time to review all the predictions. They probably see the word “ether” and flag it as a risky theory and get rid of it right off the bat.

I appreciate your input but you seem to suggest my theory is wrong from A to Z and that reviewers are able to tell within a week that is the case but you blocked me so this means you are obviously unwilling to see any update. I apologize in advance if I said anything offensive in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hornblower
2018-May-30, 05:20 PM
It takes in average a week or two before I get an answer. They don’t have time to review all the predictions. They probably see the word “ether” and flag it as a risky theory and get rid of it right off the bat.

I appreciate your input but you seem to suggest my theory is wrong from A to Z and that reviewers are able to tell within a week that is the case but you blocked me so this means you are obviously unwilling to see any update. I apologize in advance if I said anything offensive in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since you are not sharing a copy of your paper with us, it would be unfair for us to criticize the journals for their rejections.

philippeb8
2018-May-30, 05:35 PM
Since you are not sharing a copy of your paper with us, it would be unfair for us to criticize the journals for their rejections.

Please PM me if interested because I am unwilling to spam people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-May-30, 08:46 PM
Please PM me if interested because I am unwilling to spam people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody wants to be wrong but I can say this theory is 1 amongst 3 other important ideas I had that you will hear about so I likely know what I am doing.

Also I apologize again to the former debaters if I ever was rude but that’s because my patience is very limited given the side effects of a head injury I have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality Check
2018-May-30, 09:50 PM
It takes in average a week or two before I get an answer. They don’t have time to review all the predictions. They probably see the word “ether” and flag it as a risky theory and get rid of it right off the bat.

I appreciate your input but you seem to suggest my theory is wrong from A to Z and that reviewers are able to tell within a week that is the case but you blocked me so this means you are obviously unwilling to see any update. I apologize in advance if I said anything offensive in the past.
That is not what I suggested in either of my posts. If your paper got to peer review then any rejection would come with the reviewer comments after they had read your paper. But you have now shown that this did not happen. A week is too short. You do not mention any reviewer comments. Thus you are being rejected by the journal staff (an editor or sub-editor).

An editor would reject your paper for the standard reasons.
It is not appropriate to the journal (that is what you have been implying with your posts).
It is very obviously wrong, e.g. many small flaws throughout the paper or a single big one at the front that means that the rest of the paper does not need to be read, conclusions obviously not supported by the body of the paper.
The paper itself is too bad to waste reviewer time, e.g. not clear enough to be understood, too badly formatted.

They will read the word “ether" and keep on reading to see what the word means in your paper. If it means luminiferous aether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether) then your paper might be rejected because of the large body of evidence that it does not exist. If it means a field as in the published Einstein aether theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory) then there is no problem. If it means something else then there will probably be no problem.

As an aside: I put you on my ignore list because it was impossible to educate you about the obvious flaws in the theory you presented 3 years ago and some offensive remarks. If you have fixed those flaws then PM me a copy of the updated paper.

philippeb8
2018-May-30, 11:00 PM
As an aside: I put you on my ignore list because it was impossible to educate you about the obvious flaws in the theory you presented 3 years ago and some offensive remarks. If you have fixed those flaws then PM me a copy of the updated paper.

Ok I sent the final paper to: Grant Hutchison, Hornblower, Jens, Reality Check & Shaula.

I am not sure if the flaws you perceived are answered because the message exchange was spaghetti & included a lot of unnecessary qualifiers but you sure have clear deductive solutions.

The faith of the world is now in your hands.


Sincerely,
philippeb8

ShinAce
2018-May-30, 11:35 PM
You might want to try a different approach. Instead of trying to prove your theory is correct, try to prove that the others are incorrect. Science is not about proving yourself correct. It's about proving the previous theory to be wrong. You keep looking for verification when you should be looking for falsification.

Does your theory make any new predictions which can be tested? Are there any existing observations which don't match current theory(for example: dark matter) that your theory accounts for?

Reminds me of the 'Arago spot'. Short story is that someone suggested that light is wave. Arago said this is ridiculous because it implies there would be a bright spot on the screen behind a circular obstruction. The spot was found. That's how science works. You make predictions which can be tested.

philippeb8
2018-May-30, 11:38 PM
You might want to try a different approach. Instead of trying to prove your theory is correct, try to prove that the others are incorrect. Science is not about proving yourself correct. It's about proving the previous theory to be wrong. You keep looking for verification when you should be looking for falsification.

Does your theory make any new predictions which can be tested? Are there any existing observations which don't match current theory(for example: dark matter) that your theory accounts for?

Reminds me of the 'Arago spot'. Short story is that someone suggested that light is wave. Arago said this is ridiculous because it implies there would be a bright spot on the screen behind a circular obstruction. The spot was found. That's how science works. You make predictions which can be tested.

Of course it can be tested. I forwarded you the message.


Regards,
philippeb8

Reality Check
2018-May-31, 01:23 AM
The paper may be rejected by the editor of a mathematical physics journal just on the basis of the title: "Proposal for Wavelength Meter in Motion to Test the Invariance of Light Speed".

philippeb8
2018-May-31, 03:54 AM
The paper may be rejected by the editor of a mathematical physics journal just on the basis of the title: "Proposal for Wavelength Meter in Motion to Test the Invariance of Light Speed".

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)!

I guess I'll have to have the introduction rewritten as well.


Sincerely,
philippeb8

Reality Check
2018-May-31, 04:06 AM
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.

philippeb8
2018-May-31, 12:15 PM
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

Jens
2018-Jun-01, 04:09 AM
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?"

philippeb8
2018-Jun-01, 11:16 AM
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!

philippeb8
2018-Jun-01, 11:43 AM
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!

philippeb8
2018-Jun-02, 04:18 AM
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.jsp?pims_id=505439&from=home

PetersCreek
2018-Jun-02, 07:31 AM
Apparently, the US government got other fundings for such research which is supposedly "fair":
https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505439&from=home

You are coming very close to a line you must not cross.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-04, 10:46 PM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism/Pseudoscience/Archive_2#Physics_Essays_(and_other_%22journals%22 ))

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

Perhaps they are right...?!?

philippeb8
2018-Jun-04, 11:21 PM
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.

ShinAce
2018-Jun-05, 11:58 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-06, 02:48 AM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-06, 03:11 AM
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.

tusenfem
2018-Jun-06, 06:33 AM
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".

philippeb8
2018-Jun-06, 04:45 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-Jun-08, 03:41 AM
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.

Jens
2018-Jun-08, 02:46 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-08, 04:17 PM
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

tusenfem
2018-Jun-09, 03:07 PM
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

Jens
2018-Jun-10, 02:05 AM
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

philippeb8
2018-Jun-10, 10:25 PM
I kind of like Springer because of many things including their neat web interface. If I sort their journals:
https://link.springer.com/search?facet-sub-discipline=%22Astronomy%2C+Astrophysics+and+Cosmol ogy%22&facet-discipline=%22Physics%22&facet-content-type=%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.

Jens
2018-Jun-10, 11:58 PM
I kind of like Springer because of many things including their neat web interface. If I sort their journals:
https://link.springer.com/search?facet-sub-discipline=%22Astronomy%2C+Astrophysics+and+Cosmol ogy%22&facet-discipline=%22Physics%22&facet-content-type=%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).

Reality Check
2018-Jun-11, 12:06 AM
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 (https://link.springer.com/journal/40668). 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 (https://www.springer.com/astronomy/astrophysics+and+astroparticles/journal/40668)

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.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-11, 12:35 AM
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

philippeb8
2018-Jun-11, 09:52 PM
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-journal-of-natural-science-and-reviews/?tx_category=physical-sciences

philippeb8
2018-Jun-13, 01:53 AM
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/journals/journalsframework/bull

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

philippeb8
2018-Jun-22, 11:14 AM
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?"

philippeb8
2018-Jun-22, 02:30 PM
"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

philippeb8
2018-Jun-23, 08:32 PM
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.

Reality Check
2018-Jun-24, 11:37 PM
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).

Reality Check
2018-Jun-24, 11:47 PM
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).

Swift
2018-Jun-25, 12:29 AM
<snip>
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).
I wonder if this is a difference between chemistry and physics conferences. At any of the chemistry conferences I have attended over the many years, I've never seen one where anyone, or even any attendee, can put up a poster. Usually the criteria for posters are pretty relaxed, but you still need to submit the request in advance of the conference (usually by submitting an abstract) and it must be approved. Usually there will a time during the conference, usually during a happy hour reception, when the author of the poster is expected to be by their poster for a couple of hours, to answer questions. Usually the poster abstracts are included in the conference proceedings.

grant hutchison
2018-Jun-25, 12:42 AM
I wonder if this is a difference between chemistry and physics conferences.Likewise in medicine. There's a degree of crossover between poster and presentation (sometimes you submit a poster and are invited to make a presentation, sometimes you submit a presentation and are invited to produce a poster), but both are peer-reviewed (the joy of reviewing 200 poster submissions against a deadline simply cannot be described). Often, posters are published either in a booklet for the attendees, or in a supplement to the official journal of the organisation hosting the meeting.
The pecking order on the CV is publication/presentation/poster.
But there's no way you can turn up on the day with a poster and hope to be given space for it. How could that work?

Grant Hutchison

Swift
2018-Jun-25, 01:02 AM
<snip>
The pecking order on the CV is publication/presentation/poster.

I would completely agree. Still, a poster at an appropriate conference (or at an appropriate session in a larger conference) might be a good "foot in the door". It can give you a nice opportunity to chat with people in the field.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-25, 01:21 AM
I would completely agree. Still, a poster at an appropriate conference (or at an appropriate session in a larger conference) might be a good "foot in the door". It can give you a nice opportunity to chat with people in the field.

Either that or the ISS-CASIS one, where I could ask them some updates:
https://www.issconference.org

The former is more theoretical and the latter is more practical. But I am not sure which one is more important given both aspects matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality Check
2018-Jun-25, 03:25 AM
I wonder if this is a difference between chemistry and physics conferences.
I am going by the one physics conference that I attended many years ago where there was no advance request for an abstract that I was aware of (though maybe my thesis advisor handled it).
My understanding is that anyone who registers for a conference and declares their intention to post their research can, subject to other conference requirements such as acceptance of the abstract as mentioned, put up a poster.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-27, 04:50 PM
https://waset.org/conference/2018/08/new-york/ICTP

Ok so I've applied for a poster and I was accepted so my paper will finally be published somewhere.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a real peer-review here:
https://link.springer.com/journal/10773

And I plan to attend the ISS-CASIS conference:
https://www.issconference.org/

So my theory will be known this year, it's inevitable.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-28, 03:19 AM
Ok, I'm confused. It turns out the aforementioned conference seems to have a serious peer-review system (and in my case it was accepted):

A-Refereed Papers
1- Papers are sent to three reviewers identified as experts in the area of
research. The anonymous reviewers are from different universities around the
world.
2- Papers are deemed acceptable once at least two reviewers give positive
evaluation.
3- The authors get an acceptance letter and review form from the reviewers
through the peer review system.
4- The authors are then advised to address the comments made by the
reviewers.
5- On corresponding, the paper is referred back to the reviewers to check
whether the comments are addressed. If the comments are not addressed, the
paper is referred back to the authors to make good revisions.

B-Edited Papers
The accepted papers are then edited by the Editorial Board to remove the
minor mistakes in punctuation, grammar and scientific format.


And I need to make sure that:

1. This paper has not been published in the same form elsewhere.
2. It will not be submitted anywhere else for publication prior to acceptance/rejection by Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology.
3. A copyright permission is obtained for materials published elsewhere and which require this permission for
reproduction.


Sincerely,
International Scientific Committee
ICTP 2018 : International Conference on Theoretical Physics
New York, USA.


It seems that I should cancel my submission to the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, given the International Conference on Theoretical Physics is better?

Reality Check
2018-Jun-28, 04:16 AM
Ok, I'm confused. It turns out the aforementioned conference seems to have a serious peer-review system (and in my case it was accepted):
What you quote says "papers" not posters or abstracts which may be treated differently. Where did you get that information?

philippeb8
2018-Jun-28, 04:28 AM
What you quote says "papers" not posters or abstracts which may be treated differently. Where did you get that information?

From their website but you need to have an account and login:

https://waset.org/pdf/PeerReviewProcess?paperCode=18US080345&time=1530154690


I also received a letter saying it will be included in the proceedings:

Herewith, the international scientific committee is happy to inform you that the peer-
reviewed draft paper code 18US080345 entitled ([...]) has been
accepted for poster presentation as well as inclusion in the conference proceedings of
the ICTP 2018 : 20th International Conference on Theoretical Physics to be held in New
York, USA during August, 27-28, 2018. The high-impact conference papers will also be
considered for publication in the special journal issues at http://waset.org/Publications.

Reality Check
2018-Jun-28, 04:53 AM
From their website but you need to have an account and login:
There is a big difference between a full text paper that is presented to be definitely published (as in this conference) and an abstract paper or poster. The first needs strict peer review. An abstract paper is a summery. As a general rule, papers have many pages and a summary will not have enough information for good peer review.

A clue that your abstract was probably not peer reviewed by external reviewers is that it was accepted in about 3 days. Thus "peer-reviewed draft paper" looks like conference peer review of a draft paper.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-28, 05:00 AM
A clue that your abstract was probably not peer reviewed by external reviewers is that it was accepted in about 3 days.

Their review was pretty efficient and I made 2 to 3 corrections each day for 2 days. If they are 3 experts for each paper then I think that is enough to review a simple abstract, no?

Reality Check
2018-Jun-28, 05:18 AM
Their review was pretty efficient and I made 2 to 3 corrections each day for 2 days. If they are 3 experts for each paper then I think that is enough to review a simple abstract, no?
As I wrote, a simple abstract cannot be strictly peer reviewed because summaries lack the full evidence. Otherwise no one would ever submit a full scientific paper, just their abstracts!

Also think about the time needed for the 3 to 6 corrections to be reviewed by 3 external peer reviewers who are full time scientists fitting yours and other reviews into whatever time they have. It could be done but it is more likely that you were communicating with the conference equivalent of a journal editor.

Shaula
2018-Jun-28, 06:01 AM
Their review was pretty efficient and I made 2 to 3 corrections each day for 2 days. If they are 3 experts for each paper then I think that is enough to review a simple abstract, no?
The way the conference review system works is usually:
Paper appears to be of high interest, high scientific value and high impact: Accept and peer review for inclusion as a paper
Paper appears to be interesting, have scientific value and may have impact: Accept, peer review abstract, include as presentation only
Paper may be interesting, might have scientific value, might have impact: Accept, QC abstract, accept as poster

What you have submitted has not been fully peer reviewed and this is not the same as it being published in a peer reviewed journal. As Reality Check says a review of the abstract cannot be thorough as it doesn't look at the full evidence in the paper. Think of this poster as an opportunity to make your case and garner interest in your idea. It is more like posting in the ATM forum here but with a couple of quality checks to be sure you are not presenting something obviously incoherent.

Good luck.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-28, 03:46 PM
Good luck.

Thanks but they now actually are reviewing the whole text and they found the occurrences of previous versions of my manuscript all over the web and they say I cannot self-plagiarize. Self-plagiarism is considered plagiarism? Oh wow so now I need to reword the whole text!

I guess deleting the previous versions won't be enough because I know the web is cached (https://archive.org/web/).

I thought self-publishing over the web had no impact but apparently, it does!

But that gives you an idea of how serious they are. It looks like I'll have to cancel my submission to the International Journal of Theoretical Physics very soon!

grant hutchison
2018-Jun-28, 03:53 PM
Thanks but they now actually are reviewing the whole text and they found the occurrences of previous versions of my manuscript all over the web and they say I cannot self-plagiarize. Self-plagiarism is considered plagiarism? Oh wow so now I need to reword the whole text!

I guess deleting the previous versions won't be enough because I know the web is cached (https://archive.org/web/).

I thought self-publishing over the web had no impact but apparently, it does! Of course it does. If you scatter versions of the text all over the internet, journal editors will find it, and will reject your paper on the grounds that it is "previously published". And you need to rewrite anyway - the appropriate text for a paper is not the appropriate text for a poster.


But that gives you an idea of how serious they are. It looks like I'll have to cancel my submission to the International Journal of Theoretical Physics very soon!Like, now. Before a referee for that journal recognizes the content of your poster abstract.

I don't know what it's like for this particular meeting, but in my field having a poster presentation did not necessarily guarantee publication in the proceedings of the meeting. Over the years I've seen judges reject the text at the presentation stage and have it withdrawn from the proceedings.

Grant Hutchison

philippeb8
2018-Jun-28, 04:48 PM
Like, now. Before a referee for that journal recognizes the content of your poster abstract.

Done.

Swift
2018-Jun-28, 07:12 PM
And you need to rewrite anyway - the appropriate text for a paper is not the appropriate text for a poster.

Again, maybe things in chemistry are different than they are in physics and cosmology, but in chemistry, a poster is not supposed to be just your paper typed out and posted to a poster board. The format of a poster is more like a PowerPoint presentation than a paper. At a chemistry meeting, if you just have a bunch of typed pages posted, no one is going to stop and read them. A poster is much more a visual presentation than an oral or written one.

A couple of seconds of googling will find lots of suggestions about poster presentations; I suggest you seek them out.

philippeb8
2018-Jun-28, 07:15 PM
A couple of seconds of googling will find lots of suggestions about poster presentations; I suggest you seek them out.

Thanks I will!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jens
2018-Jun-28, 10:31 PM
I’d also point out that you can’t overcome the problem of plagiarism by rewording. It has to have new findings or ideas that are not in the earlier paper. I think the best thing you can do is unpublished it but be honest about it and tell editors that you put it on your website before due to not knowing because you lacked academic training.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-Jun-29, 03:49 AM
I’d also point out that you can’t overcome the problem of plagiarism by rewording. It has to have new findings or ideas that are not in the earlier paper. I think the best thing you can do is unpublished it but be honest about it and tell editors that you put it on your website before due to not knowing because you lacked academic training.

They know I am not a doctor but a CTO nonetheless, according to my signature.

They said I'll have to reword the text and cite an earlier version of my own paper. Like I said I can't unpublish my work because it's all over the place, already cited by other papers and the web is archived anyways.

philippeb8
2018-Jul-07, 02:17 AM
They said I'll have to reword the text and cite an earlier version of my own paper.

(Rewording is not bad after all because it needed a lot of improvements).

slang
2018-Jul-07, 08:54 AM
(Rewording is not bad after all because it needed a lot of improvements).

I think that already was the consensus here for a long, long time :)

philippeb8
2018-Jul-07, 01:26 PM
I think that already was the consensus here for a long, long time :)

Reality Check made that point but now you know I'll never be able to write a novel.

slang
2018-Jul-07, 03:38 PM
Reality Check made that point but now you know I'll never be able to write a novel.

It was just a joke, Philippe, just a joke. No worries.

philippeb8
2018-Jul-07, 03:40 PM
It was just a joke, Philippe, just a joke. No worries.

Of course ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-Jul-10, 11:17 PM
Alright, my reworded manuscript is now camera-ready and it might be published online later.

Question:

If it is published online, am I eligible to post its link here on CQ since it'll be considered mainstream now (I am not looking for publicity because the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology will publicise it, I am just looking to conclude my adventure here on CQ)?

Thanks to CQ either way and I will contribute back as soon as possible like I promised!

PetersCreek
2018-Jul-11, 12:19 AM
If it is published online, am I eligible to post its link here on CQ since it'll be considered mainstream now [...]

I believe this has been explained to on previous occasions: simply having your paper published does not make it mainstream, so no, you will not be able to cite it as a mainstream reference.

philippeb8
2018-Jul-11, 12:56 AM
I believe this has been explained to on previous occasions: simply having your paper published does not make it mainstream, so no, you will not be able to cite it as a mainstream reference.

Ok thanks for the clarification.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shaula
2018-Jul-11, 05:26 AM
Philippe, did you read up on WASET before you went to them? Other sources, not their website. You might want to have a quick google.

http://min-eng.blogspot.com/2013/04/are-these-waset-conferences-just-scam.html
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_about_the_conferences_conduct ed_by_world_academy_of_Science_Engineering_and_Tec hnologyWASET
https://wasetwatch.wordpress.com/

There are more. Obviously it is up to you to read what each side says and decide what you think is most likely to actually be happening. I have no personal experience of the conference so I can't really say either way.

grant hutchison
2018-Jul-11, 11:11 AM
Philippe, did you read up on WASET before you went to them? Other sources, not their website. You might want to have a quick google.

http://min-eng.blogspot.com/2013/04/are-these-waset-conferences-just-scam.html
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_about_the_conferences_conduct ed_by_world_academy_of_Science_Engineering_and_Tec hnologyWASET
https://wasetwatch.wordpress.com/

There are more. Obviously it is up to you to read what each side says and decide what you think is most likely to actually be happening. I have no personal experience of the conference so I can't really say either way.Oh dear. The other thing to do is to check that the conference venue actually exists. (Though this would appear to be a predatory conference rather than a complete scam.) Sometimes scam meetings show a photograph of a hotel or conference centre, but give a non-existent address, or an address that turns out to be in the middle of an industrial estate or a residential area when checked on Google Street View. More then one academic has been dumped by a taxi in the middle of nowhere while trying to attend a non-existent conference - and the proportion who are prepared to admit that fact is probably exceeded by an order of magnitude by those who just keep quiet about it.

Grant Hutchison

philippeb8
2018-Jul-11, 01:45 PM
Oh dear. The other thing to do is to check that the conference venue actually exists. (Though this would appear to be a predatory conference rather than a complete scam.)

Oh wow, even the Wikipage says it is predatory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Academy_of_Science,_Engineering_and_Technolo gy

The good news is I didn't pay the conference fees yet but I did sign a copyright transfer form but I still can cancel everything one way or the other.

Furthermore they did force me to rewrite the text so now my manuscript is even better than before.

Why isn't there more control in science? It feels like walking in quicksands!

Swift
2018-Jul-11, 03:37 PM
Why isn't there more control in science? It feels like walking in quicksands!
Because then people would complain that Big Science was too controlling and they were trying to suppress people outside of the Science Establishment. (I'm only slightly kidding)

Because Science has no central authority. But I personally would be leary of anything not sponsored by a recognized science organization, such as the American Chemical Society. I don't know what the equivalents are in physics and cosmology, but I'm sure they exist.

Why should science be that different than any other human endeavor, almost all of which are plagued by people trying to make money off of the unsuspecting?

philippeb8
2018-Jul-11, 04:38 PM
Oh wow, even the Wikipage says it is predatory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Academy_of_Science,_Engineering_and_Technolo gy


Just to confirm, I just called the Hotel Pennsylvania in NYC and they do host the WASET conference on August 27-28:

https://waset.org/conference/2018/08/new-york/ICTP

So it is likely predatory. They probably have money now to properly format the papers, like they did to mine. This is scary because they might gain a greater momentum than the mainstream itself!

Shaula
2018-Jul-11, 05:02 PM
Oh wow, even the Wikipage says it is predatory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Academy_of_Science,_Engineering_and_Technolo gy
Yeah, sorry to pour cold water on your efforts. From other comments expect to see them publish your work anyway, there doesn't seem to be much that stops them using your work as material to fill their proceedings.

I debated about mentioning this as I know you have a lot invested in publishing this and this conference would have published you. Just not with any real impact or in a meaningful way. Thought it was up to you to decide in the end.

philippeb8
2018-Jul-11, 05:23 PM
Yeah, sorry to pour cold water on your efforts. From other comments expect to see them publish your work anyway, there doesn't seem to be much that stops them using your work as material to fill their proceedings.

I debated about mentioning this as I know you have a lot invested in publishing this and this conference would have published you. Just not with any real impact or in a meaningful way. Thought it was up to you to decide in the end.

I should have sticked to my initial decision on whether INSPIRE indexes it or not.

But thanks anyways Shaula, it's better to know now than never because I didn't pay the registration yet. I'll politely ask for a cancellation like it is stated in the contract I signed and I'll try to resume my submission with the International Journal of Theoretical Physics.

philippeb8
2018-Jul-11, 08:50 PM
I'll politely ask for a cancellation like it is stated in the contract I signed and I'll try to resume my submission with the International Journal of Theoretical Physics.

Done.

philippeb8
2018-Jul-22, 10:45 PM
Done.

I just want the whole world to know that a day after I've withdrawn my manuscript from WASET, I received an email claiming they know my password and saying:


[...]
Well, in my opinion, $2900 is a reasonable price tag for our little secret. You'll make the payment via Bitcoin (if you don't know this, search "how to buy bitcoin" in Google).

BTC Address: 18sZQbNEsAyxwUQhwMKzHnNKjkoyFpXcsW
(It is cAsE sensitive, so copy and paste it)

Note:
You have one day to make the payment. (I have a special pixel within this e-mail, and now I know that you have read through this e-mail). If I don't get the BitCoins
[...]

The funny thing is the password they claimed to know is exactly the same dummy password I used on their website!

That means they probably store credit card info as well, etc. This organization is like the Mafia!

Reality Check
2018-Jul-23, 02:34 AM
...This organization is like the Mafia!
That is a fraudster wanting to get money from you (not WASET). They guess at a password people may have used and send out millions of these emails. Some of the guesses will be correct and some people are gullible enough to pay them.

pzkpfw
2018-Jul-23, 04:10 AM
That is a fraudster wanting to get money from you (not WASET). They guess at a password people may have used and send out millions of these emails. Some of the guesses will be correct and some people are gullible enough to pay them.

They don't need to guess. Passwords have been harvested from compromised web sites (along with the associated email address) and are used in these kinds of scam-demands to lend authenticity.

The question is: was the password used in this case only ever used on the WASET website? I'd guess not.



(Reality Check: you're from NZ, if you're a Trade Me member, see this recent thread: https://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=1763661&topic=3 )

philippeb8
2018-Jul-23, 04:15 AM
The question is: was the password used in this case only ever used on the WASET website? I'd guess not.

I used this dummy password 2 times in the last 20 years, one including WASET. They also used the same email address (I have 4).

The probabilities all point to the WASET website.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

pzkpfw
2018-Jul-23, 04:16 AM
I used this dummy password 2 times in the last 20 years, one including WASET. They also used the same email address (I have 4).

The probabilities all point to the WASET website.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was their threat? What was the "secret"?


Googling some of the content of your email shows many hits (Google for "Well, in my opinion, $2900 is a reasonable price tag for our little secret" including the quotes).

I really doubt all those people used the WASET website.

(It's possible the WASET website is badly built, and could be a very recent target of harvesting.)

Reality Check
2018-Jul-23, 04:20 AM
They don't need to guess.
I am going by my experience where I got the same email where they guessed that my password is the name of the company that I work for. That is not a password I have ever used. But as you point out, more sophisticated scam-demands could have actually stolen passwords.
Their "demand" was a vague threat to reveal embarrassing information ("I know what you did last summer and where you browsed" stuff).

philippeb8
2018-Jul-23, 04:23 AM
What was their threat? What was the "secret"?

They claimed they have hacked my computer and all personal contacts and that they’re going to send data to my contacts.

First of all I don’t use Windows; I use Linux so their worm would not have worked under Linux.

Second the data they claim to have is inexistant.

So their threat is false but if it really WASET then they do have my physical address. So I do worry a little.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

pzkpfw
2018-Jul-23, 04:24 AM
I am going by my experience where I got the same email where they guessed that my password is the name of the company that I work for. That is not a password I have ever used. But as you point out, more sophisticated scam-demands could have actually stolen passwords.
Their "demand" was a vague threat to reveal embarrassing information ("I know what you did last summer and where you browsed" stuff).

Wow. Even with all the common passwords and ways to choose passwords, that seems an amazingly inefficient way to spam (even with the millions sent).


For general note:

"Have I Been Pwned? (HIBP) is a website that allows internet users to check if their personal data has been compromised by data breaches."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_I_Been_Pwned%3F

https://haveibeenpwned.com/

tusenfem
2018-Jul-23, 01:17 PM
Interestingly, last week a report in the German speaking science community was presented on papers being published in these predatory journals and meetings. For those who speak German, it is here (https://derstandard.at/2000083778590-629/Tausende-Wissenschaftler-veroeffentlichen-in-Pseudo-Fachzeitschriften).

Today I got a message from the president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences also warning against such journals and meetings and WASET was in there by name (as well as OMICS and SCIRP).

philippeb8
2018-Jul-23, 01:19 PM
Today I got a message from the president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences also warning against such journals and meetings and WASET was in there by name (as well as OMICS and SCIRP).

Interesting...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality Check
2018-Jul-23, 10:08 PM
Wow. Even with all the common passwords and ways to choose passwords, that seems an amazingly inefficient way to spam (even with the millions sent).
Getting off topic but millions of emails is fairly cheap. I have seen 190 USD for 1 million emails (or $780 for 10 million) from a legitimate, commercial provider. 1 in a million person people falling for the scam would make it profitable. Illegal email providers should be even cheaper. An automated process to send out the emails world taking a list of emails addresses, look for web content related to them, extract a significant word from the content and plug that into the template. For example, someone who uses a pet name for their password and mentions the pet frequently will see what looks like a security breach. I have my CV online and that is probably why my company name popped up.
This does not rule out a compromised web site allowing the scammer to also include actual security breaches.

slang
2018-Jul-23, 10:55 PM
Getting off topic but [...]

Great post. If it stopped there. Stop the hack discussion please, it is off-topic for this thread.

Dave241
2018-Jul-27, 12:27 AM
Just to confirm, I just called the Hotel Pennsylvania in NYC and they do host the WASET conference on August 27-28:

Hello, I happen to work as a manager at a hotel and I can tell you that if I ever found out that some group was renting out our meeting room for fraudulent or predatory purposes and that was actively trying to extort people for money I would cancel their reservation immediately, refuse to allow them to use any of our spaces and forward their information along to the appropriate authorities. If you contact the manager of this hotel and pass along the threatening e-mail you got from them they may take some action. I'm not saying they definitely will, just that me personally I would never allow this to happen in my hotel. Just something you may want to do, especially with that e-mail that was trying to actively bribe you.

philippeb8
2018-Aug-06, 06:16 PM
Hello, I happen to work as a manager at a hotel and I can tell you that if I ever found out that some group was renting out our meeting room for fraudulent or predatory purposes and that was actively trying to extort people for money I would cancel their reservation immediately, refuse to allow them to use any of our spaces and forward their information along to the appropriate authorities. If you contact the manager of this hotel and pass along the threatening e-mail you got from them they may take some action. I'm not saying they definitely will, just that me personally I would never allow this to happen in my hotel. Just something you may want to do, especially with that e-mail that was trying to actively bribe you.

Yeah I got a second email saying something similar. Thanks for the advice, I'll send the hotel a note by email.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-07, 11:47 AM
Ok so I've applied for a poster and I was accepted so my paper will finally be published somewhere.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a real peer-review here:
https://link.springer.com/journal/10773

And I plan to attend the ISS-CASIS conference:
https://www.issconference.org/

So my theory will be known this year, it's inevitable.

Maybe not after all; my paper was rejected for no clear reason:


We thank you for your kind offer to let us publish your manuscript, but regret to inform you that we have decided not to accept your offer. The paper did not undergo technical review and is not being declined for any technical error.
We wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication.

Maybe it's because I tried to publish it first, withdrawn it and publish it again at the same place?

Oh wow! I can't believe it!

philippeb8
2018-Sep-07, 04:08 PM
Of course! If I want my manuscript to be published in the InspireHEP database then all I need to do is to browse its associated journals:

http://inspirehep.net/search?ln=en&cc=Journals&p=theoretical+physics&action_search=Search


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-Sep-07, 08:37 PM
Of course! If I want my manuscript to be published in the InspireHEP database then all I need to do is to browse its associated journals:

http://inspirehep.net/search?ln=en&cc=Journals&p=theoretical+physics&action_search=Search


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aka “reverse lookup”!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jens
2018-Sep-07, 11:42 PM
Maybe not after all; my paper was rejected for no clear reason:



Maybe it's because I tried to publish it first, withdrawn it and publish it again at the same place?

Oh wow! I can't believe it!

No, I suspect it’s because the editor who looked at it realized it was not adequate to pass peer review and rejected it, that’s quite common.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 12:31 AM
No, I suspect it’s because the editor who looked at it realized it was not adequate to pass peer review and rejected it, that’s quite common.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if a theoretical physics journal doesn't publish theoretical physics manuscripts then I think there's a serious problem.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 01:58 AM
Of course! If I want my manuscript to be published in the InspireHEP database then all I need to do is to browse its associated journals:

http://inspirehep.net/search?ln=en&cc=Journals&p=theoretical+physics&action_search=Search


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I may have already exhausted all my options because not all journals are really indexed by InspireHEP!

Swift
2018-Sep-08, 02:22 AM
Well if a theoretical physics journal doesn't publish theoretical physics manuscripts then I think there's a serious problem.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves"

I hate to tell you this, but maybe the reason no one wants to publish your paper is that it isn't a very good paper.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 02:53 AM
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves"

I hate to tell you this, but maybe the reason no one wants to publish your paper is that it isn't a very good paper.

Let's put all the cards on the table and explore the possibilities:
- I've got 20 years of experience in the commercial IT sector
- I am starting my own business
- I will patent my own invention
- I have important associates already (CEO, CFO, CMO, etc.)

So this is me... I like to finish what I started. 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

If I didn't understand calculus 1) I wouldn't have my degree and quite honestly calculus is very easy compared to advanced probabilities and statistics. So I tend to believe the answer oscillates between 2) and 3). I also sent an article in a different thread proving GR cannot explain the expansion of the universe w/ two different techniques.

So if I am right then it doesn't matter because I will denounce the problem sooner or later after I get known by the industry. NASA is also trying to ghost me.

If I am wrong then let's wait another 500 years to explain dark matter and dark energy.

Jens
2018-Sep-08, 04:15 AM
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

Shaula
2018-Sep-08, 05:48 AM
So this is me... I like to finish what I started. 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
4) You understand the maths fine but are misapplying it
5) You understand the maths fine but not the physics
6) You are so bought into the theory that you can't see its flaws
7) The structure of the theory is essentially arbitrary and results are exception driven
etc
etc

I'm not saying what possibility is most likely, I am just pointing out that your list is woefully incomplete because you are setting up a false dichotomy ("Either the maths is wrong or my theory is right")

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 04:56 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 05:06 PM
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.

grant hutchison
2018-Sep-08, 05:12 PM
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

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 05:33 PM
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.

Shaula
2018-Sep-08, 06:31 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 07:21 PM
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.

Strange
2018-Sep-08, 08:25 PM
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/article/marchapril-2008/outsider-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.

Strange
2018-Sep-08, 08:27 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 08:50 PM
There is no evidence for that.

http://futurism.com/universes-expansion-rate-new-physics/


It is a high bar, but papers do get published by "outsiders".
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/marchapril-2008/outsider-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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 08:52 PM
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?

Strange
2018-Sep-08, 09:01 PM
http://futurism.com/universes-expansion-rate-new-physics/

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.

Strange
2018-Sep-08, 09:02 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-08, 09:13 PM
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.

PetersCreek
2018-Sep-08, 09:57 PM
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.

grapes
2018-Sep-09, 12:55 AM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-09, 06:21 PM
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).

philippeb8
2018-Sep-09, 06:35 PM
(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.

Hornblower
2018-Sep-10, 12:42 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-10, 01:41 PM
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 can’t 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

profloater
2018-Sep-10, 02:00 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-10, 04:10 PM
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 I’ve exhausted all options then I will promote it commercially.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-Sep-10, 04:34 PM
Oh and BTW Mark C Lee. doesn't work at NASA anymore so that explains their silence. Sorry for misleading you.

Maybe I’m the only one on this planet who understands my own theory as a whole and that’s why I keep being rejected.

That would explain the real problem. It’s a possibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

profloater
2018-Sep-10, 04:44 PM
; 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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-10, 04:49 PM
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 don’t 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

philippeb8
2018-Sep-10, 06:55 PM
Yes because I don’t 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 that’s just an idea because I don’t see any other solution to the fact my theory still might be possibly right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PetersCreek
2018-Sep-10, 08:04 PM
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.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-11, 12:09 AM
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/showthread.php?169838-Passive-Q-amp-A-forum

Jens
2018-Sep-11, 01:27 AM
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.

Dave241
2018-Sep-13, 02:32 AM
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.

Reality Check
2018-Sep-23, 10:43 PM
Maybe I’m the only one on this planet who understands my own theory as a whole and that’s why I keep being rejected.

That would explain the real problem. It’s a possibility.
An almost impossible possibility, philippeb8, since you should be submitting your paper to journals whose peer review includes experts in the field that you are writing about.
Even if this was correct then this is a problem with your paper, not the reviewers. A fundamental property of a scientific paper is clarity. If no one except an author can understand a paper then it is not science. Not being understandable is a reason for rejection and none of your posts have indicated this.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-24, 12:31 AM
An almost impossible possibility, philippeb8, since you should be submitting your paper to journals whose peer review includes experts in the field that you are writing about.
Even if this was correct then this is a problem with your paper, not the reviewers. A fundamental property of a scientific paper is clarity. If no one except an author can understand a paper then it is not science. Not being understandable is a reason for rejection and none of your posts have indicated this.

I know what to do. Using my equations:
- I’ll start by representing the classical “curved spacetime” of the solar system
- I’ll then zoom out the picture up to the “curved spacetime” of the whole universe

(“Curved spacetime” is quoted here because this is what people understand but its definition isn’t part of my theory)

So I’ll create a Youtube video for online presentations and snapshots of the video for the manuscript. I already have the equation to represent it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality Check
2018-Sep-24, 12:50 AM
I know what to do. ...
A waste of your time, philippeb8. If you cannot explain the science to experts in the field with words and math in the paper then the paper is unlikely to be published.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-24, 12:52 AM
A waste of your time, philippeb8. If you cannot explain the science to experts in the field with words and math in the paper then the paper is unlikely to be published.

I’m using GR as a trampoline to explain it visually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Swift
2018-Sep-24, 02:16 AM
I know what to do. Using my equations:
- I’ll start by representing the classical “curved spacetime” of the solar system
- I’ll then zoom out the picture up to the “curved spacetime” of the whole universe

(“Curved spacetime” is quoted here because this is what people understand but its definition isn’t part of my theory)

So I’ll create a Youtube video for online presentations and snapshots of the video for the manuscript. I already have the equation to represent it.

As Reality Check said, no serious journal is going to go look at your YouTube video. If you can't explain it in the paper, you are not going to be taken seriously. If I was a journal editor, a submission that relied on a YouTube video would probably be automatically rejected.

Noclevername
2018-Sep-24, 02:19 AM
If I was a journal editor, a submission that relied on a YouTube video would probably be automatically rejected.

And Philippe, since Swift is an actual scientist, he knows from journals.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-24, 02:20 AM
As Reality Check said, no serious journal is going to go look at your YouTube video. If you can't explain it in the paper, you are not going to be taken seriously. If I was a journal editor, a submission that relied on a YouTube video would probably be automatically rejected.

Sorry I meant that I will include 1 or 2 snapshots at different scales of the “curved spacetime”; not the whole video.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-Sep-24, 02:21 AM
And Philippe, since Swift is an actual scientist, he knows from journals.

Oh... I didn’t know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

philippeb8
2018-Sep-24, 03:33 AM
I know what to do. Using my equations:
- I’ll start by representing the classical “curved spacetime” of the solar system
- I’ll then zoom out the picture up to the “curved spacetime” of the whole universe

(“Curved spacetime” is quoted here because this is what people understand but its definition isn’t part of my theory)

So I’ll create a Youtube video for online presentations and snapshots of the video for the manuscript. I already have the equation to represent it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My 8 seconds long video is ready and is very descriptive. I’ll ask if I can reopen my ATM thread after my paper gets rejected from GRG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality Check
2018-Sep-24, 04:16 AM
I’m using GR as a trampoline to explain it visually.
This may be an even worse waste of your time, philippeb8. The language of science is mathematics and words. If you want to use GR as a trampoline then you need to start with the mathematics of GR in your paper. Otherwise you seem to be taking the phrase "curved spacetime", making up visual aids and referring reviewers to them. This will not sit well with GR peer reviewers who have detailed knowledge about curved spacetime. Your paper should be targeted at the level of expertise of the reviewers.

Similarly for the later promise of snapshots from your video included in the paper. The reviewers should ask for the equations that generated the "curved spacetime" graphics. Any lack of equations would be a problem leading to possible rejection. If your paper does not include this "curved spacetime" then the graphics are irrelevant.

philippeb8
2018-Sep-24, 04:24 AM
This may be an even worse waste of your time, philippeb8. The language of science is mathematics and words. If you want to use GR as a trampoline then you need to start with the mathematics of GR in your paper. Otherwise you seem to be taking the phrase "curved spacetime", making up visual aids and referring reviewers to them. This will not sit well with GR peer reviewers who have detailed knowledge about curved spacetime. Your paper should be targeted at the level of expertise of the reviewers.

Similarly for the later promise of snapshots from your video included in the paper. The reviewers should ask for the equations that generated the "curved spacetime" graphics. Any lack of equations would be a problem leading to possible rejection. If your paper does not include this "curved spacetime" then the graphics are irrelevant.

(Perfection is not easily achieved!)

Then I will not use the term “curved spacetime” but the equivalent term used by my theory.

I will provide the full equation as well but it’s a pretty long one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk