Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: Experiment proposal, CASIS & ISS

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568

    Experiment proposal, CASIS & ISS

    So in order to prove my theory, I need to prove it experimentally.

    So I have sent my experiment proposal to CASIS for it to be sent to the ISS and they have stopped responding their emails and phone calls.

    I am stucked. Who supervises CASIS?
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2014-Jul-05 at 03:35 AM. Reason: Typo

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,154
    NASA.

    If CASIS is not interested then your proposal is not up to spec. It would be better to work on a better proposal than to try to force them to accept one they deem sub-par. Or to work on being published - having a peer reviewed paper on the theory would add weight to your request for their help. The odds are they get a lot of "can you try this?" requests - you need to make yours look worth trying to them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Well I will try to contact NASA, thanks.

    But they deal with the public, not the academia so getting peer-reviewed is almost impossible for the public. Furthermore my experiment is a lot more interesting than their ecology experiments they are currently doing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,154
    Getting peer review is not impossible at all for the public. There is even a thread on how to do it on this forum.

    And you have to acknowledge the fact that while you may think your experiment is more interesting than what they are doing that is just your opinion. And hardly a surprising one, it is your idea after all. I can pretty confidently say that unless you have an idea that is presented in considerably more detail and is much better structured than your last ATM thread you are basically wasting yours and NASA's time. Rather than trying to go over CASIS' head I would suggest you spend the time writing a better proposal.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    My experiment proposal is perfect given the speed of the ISS and the necessary equipment exists (wavemeter to the 1.5 pm).

    Maybe I can link my experiment proposal on an indirect website to prove it.

    (About my ATM thread, I will need to figure out why the mass of the galaxy returned my the perihelion precession disparity is different from the one returned by the galactic rotation curve)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    In my proposal I conclude the following:

    "For a wavelength meter having an accuracy of 1.5 pm we should be able to confirm whether the change in wavelength occurs for the experiment in motion. The predicted difference of 1.3x10^-11 m (λ1 - λ2) is large enough to be detected."

    Luna, PHOENIX 1200 Tunable Laser Module & Wavemeter. Retrieved October 4, 2013, from http://ir.lunainnovations.com/phoeni...cle&id=1267885

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,154
    It doesn't matter how 'perfect' your core experimental proposal is if the theory it is based on is unreviewed. You are asking them to spend time (and therefore money) on a pointless test. They may as well test if cabbages turn into unicorns in zero gee. Or how about they test if oxygen has more protons in orbit than it does on Earth? Or... You get the picture?

    Unless you can build a compelling case for why your proposal should be considered then it is far from perfect. In fact it is bad, not worth their time. And no amount of petitioning is going to do that. As I said. Go get the theory reviewed. Get it published. Use that evidence to build a case for it to be a worthwhile experiment. Or expect rejection.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    My theory is published on Elsevier but it is not peer-reviewed. I cannot republish it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,154
    Elsevier is either a publishing house or a Dutch news magazine. If you submitted it to one of the non-reviewed journals Elsevier publish then it counts as vanity publishing.

    And of course you can republish it. You can put out as many papers as you like about the core theory. Just rewrite it or use some other examples and submit it to a real science journal.

    Or, you know, you could just carry on with this rather futile waste of your time complaining to ever higher organisations that CASIS rejected your proposal despite you being unable to provide any evidence giving them a reason for them to accept it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Well it was the proceeding of the Integrity Research Institute:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...75389212025126

    I can try to republish it here:
    http://papersubmission.scirp.org/pap...r?journalID=19

    Thanks Shaula, I appreciate your advice!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,154
    I wouldn't: http://academia.stackexchange.com/qu...scirp-journals

    Pick a journal that promises to make it tough for you. One with high editorial standards and an attack-dog style board of reviewers. If you can get through them then you have something worth other people's time to evaluate. Also avoid anything on this list: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/be...blishers-2013/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Well I will try to contact NASA, thanks.
    That is an extraordinarily bad idea! Your proposal was rejected for any number of possible reasons, and perhaps summarily rejected if the agency did not even bother to inform you formally of the rejection. Attempting to pressure them is not going to help you--but it most assuredly will hurt you should you attempt to secure funding or access to observational resources in the future. Those agencies tend to have long memories.

    Given the general intellectual content of your proposal, you have a very steep mountain to climb before you can realistically hope to be granted observational time of the kind requested.

    Best regards,
    ES

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Yeah I wish I could publish here on arxiv.org or inspirehep.net but I think the former requires somebody who had previously published there; I'm not sure about the latter.
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2014-Jul-05 at 05:20 PM. Reason: Wrong wording

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by EigenState View Post
    Greetings,
    Your proposal was rejected for any number of possible reasons, and perhaps summarily rejected if the agency did not even bother to inform you formally of the rejection.
    I kept sending them reasons on why my theory is correct such as the failure of the LUX experiment, etc. Maybe they didn't like to get spammed, maybe they don't like to challenge the mainstream for political reasons or maybe I needed to get peer-reviewed but they never mentioned it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,735
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I kept sending them reasons on why my theory is correct ...
    To be blunt, that sounds like a reason it would get rejected. Both the "kept sending" and "is correct" parts.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    To be blunt, that sounds like a reason it would get rejected. Both the "kept sending" and "is correct" parts.
    They deal with the public so they should have a higher tolerance.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,154
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    They deal with the public so they should have a higher tolerance.
    It also means they get a LOT of crank, wrong or just plain mad stuff pour in. From my limited personal experience public outreach is a thankless and often demoralising task. I avoid it wherever possible. If you want even a chance at getting their attention you have to show evidence that you are making a strong case. Spamming them with endless assertions about how right you are is not going to help your case. Claiming that they are doing it for political or close-minded reasons will not help your case. Trying to go over their heads will not help your case.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    It also means they get a LOT of crank, wrong or just plain mad stuff pour in. From my limited personal experience public outreach is a thankless and often demoralising task. I avoid it wherever possible. If you want even a chance at getting their attention you have to show evidence that you are making a strong case. Spamming them with endless assertions about how right you are is not going to help your case. Claiming that they are doing it for political or close-minded reasons will not help your case. Trying to go over their heads will not help your case.
    Lol, ok I got it.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I kept sending them reasons on why my theory is correct such as the failure of the LUX experiment, etc. Maybe they didn't like to get spammed, maybe they don't like to challenge the mainstream for political reasons or maybe I needed to get peer-reviewed but they never mentioned it.
    When you are asking others for funding or access to instrumentation, you need to play by their rules and satisfy their criteria. Of course they did not want to hear repeatedly from you, or from any others who submitted proposals unless the agency explicitly requested additional information.

    Apparently you have little or no established record within the field. On that basis alone the odds were against you and that remains true going forward until you establish a track record of scholarly accomplishments within the field.

    Funding is a matter of investment of precious and limited resources--it is not an expenditure. You need to clearly establish that your ideas constitute a meritorious investment opportunity for the funding source such that they can reasonably anticipate a good return on their investment. Undeveloped ATM hypotheses are extremely unlikely to be deemed competitive investment opportunities--and that is exactly as it should be.

    I am not surprised in the least that you never heard from them regarding your proposal. In fact I will go so far as to say that I would be surprised if it was read beyond the abstract. Securing funding or resources is difficult to say the least even for those professionals with an existing track record of accomplishments within the field. You really have nothing to complain about whatsoever.

    Best regards,
    ES

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by EigenState View Post
    Apparently you have little or no established record within the field. On that basis alone the odds were against you and that remains true going forward until you establish a track record of scholarly accomplishments within the field.
    You see, I did try to get the interest of professors to mentor graduate studies but nobody is willing to go against the mainstream as far as I do. But I do have a track record of freshman physics and undergraduate mathematics and apparently that's all I need to explain the entire universe.

    Mathematicians can understand my theory quite easily so it would cost maybe $100 / hr * 16 hr for a mathematician to review my work. This is compared to the billions they invest blindly in LUX, Snolab, etc. So it is cost beneficial. I'm just saying.

    Besides that the possible quantum teleportation and the simulator (http://www.illustris-project.org/) that can't represent the universe correctly using GR should ring a bell or whatsoever.
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2014-Jul-05 at 06:45 PM. Reason: Syntax error

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Yeah I wish I could publish here on arxiv.org or inspirehep.net but I think the former requires somebody who had previously published there; I'm not sure about the latter.
    ... or http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    You see, I did try to get the interest of professor to mentor graduate studies but nobody is willing to go against the mainstream as far as I do.
    Perhaps, just perhaps, those that you claim are not "willing to go against the mainstream as far as I do" have the experience and physical insight to recognize objectively that your ideas are unsound. Dismiss that possibility at your own peril.

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    But I do have a track record of freshman physics and undergraduate mathematics and apparently that's all I need to explain the entire universe.
    Given that level of arrogance, I am hardly surprised that you have been unsuccessful with your efforts to secure either collaborators or funding.

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Mathematicians can understand my theory quite easily so it would cost maybe $100 / hr * 16 hr for a mathematician to review my work. This is compared to the billions they invest blindly in LUX, Snolab, etc. So it is cost beneficial. I'm just saying.

    Besides that the possible quantum teleportation and the simulator (http://www.illustris-project.org/) that can't represent the universe correctly using GR should ring a bell or whatsoever.
    If I recall correctly, you failed to get your ideas past the respondents here within ATM. That task is simplicity itself compared to what you are attempting within the professional community.

    Best regards,
    ES

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by EigenState View Post
    Greetings,
    Perhaps, just perhaps, those that you claim are not "willing to go against the mainstream as far as I do" have the experience and physical insight to recognize objectively that your ideas are unsound. Dismiss that possibility at your own peril.
    No they are just not willing to risk their own reputation. I have relatives who are professors and that's what they told me.

    Given that level of arrogance, I am hardly surprised that you have been unsuccessful with your efforts to secure either collaborators or funding.
    Sorry I meant: + 5 years of research on my own every week.

    If I recall correctly, you failed to get your ideas past the respondents here within ATM. That task is simplicity itself compared to what you are attempting within the professional community.
    I didn't fail, I just got blocked with the mass of the galaxy returned by the perihelion precession disparity and the galactic rotation curve. But I'll figure that out later. Also I do work for the smart TV industry which is already stressful.
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2014-Jul-05 at 07:06 PM. Reason: Parse error

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,154
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    No they are just not willing to risk their own reputation. I have relatives who are professors and that's what they told me.
    I think most scientists would love to be the one who comes up with a revolutionary, ground breaking new theory. Your relatives must be rather unrepresentative examples of scientists if that is how they feel. It is certainly not how any of my academic acquaintances feel.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I think most scientists would love to be the one who comes up with a revolutionary, ground breaking new theory. Your relatives must be rather unrepresentative examples of scientists if that is how they feel. It is certainly not how any of my academic acquaintances feel.
    Well they are associate professors in physics but not astrophysics so they do not fully understand my theory. I sent countless emails to UCSD, UCLA, UCSB, Michio Kaku in NY, Carleton, Ottawa, Plank Institute,... and I feel that only few people here on Cosmoquest fully understand my theory after 20 days of debating it.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,154
    This has strayed a long way from the initial question. I am going to drop out here because it is pretty obvious that you are just making excuses now. Nothing you have said gets past the core issue: Your ideas are not well enough articulated, or just plain wrong. The only way to get them taken seriously is to work on that. Not to spam anyone you can think of and insist they listen to you. Not to claim anyone who does not believe clearly does not understand.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    This has strayed a long way from the initial question. I am going to drop out here because it is pretty obvious that you are just making excuses now. Nothing you have said gets past the core issue: Your ideas are not well enough articulated, or just plain wrong. The only way to get them taken seriously is to work on that. Not to spam anyone you can think of and insist they listen to you. Not to claim anyone who does not believe clearly does not understand.
    Ok thanks Shaula. There is that 100 Year Starship who might be interested.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok I just submitted there (NJP-101378).

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok I just submitted there (NJP-101378).
    So my submission was rejected on the basis that:

    "Submissions should clearly demonstrate scientific rigour, extensive literature research and a careful assessment of the validity of any conclusions presented in the manuscript. "

    So if for a second my work was right then we're in trouble because the "quality" threshold of the journals is way too high nowadays.
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2014-Jul-09 at 02:53 AM. Reason: Clarification

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    So my submission was rejected on the basis that:

    "Submissions should clearly demonstrate scientific rigour, extensive literature research and a careful assessment of the validity of any conclusions presented in the manuscript. "

    So if for a second my work was right then we're in trouble because the "quality" threshold of the journals is way too high.
    The quality standards of the journals are just fine.

    Best regards,
    ES

Posting Permissions

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