request for help

[snowflakeuniverse]

This posting is a request for help.

I would like to be an invited speaker at the next American Astronomical Society’s meeting.

The Presentation topic
The presentation would be in two parts. The first part would describe a theoretical model based upon a specific geometric expansion of spacetime. The second part would be the application of the model to predict the luminosity of type 1a supernovas verses the observed cosmological red shift. The theory requires no cosmological constant or “dark energy” to be conformant to observation. It is all described by an astoundingly simple geometry.

Presentation options
Typically a “first timer” at an American Astronomical Society meeting would be allotted a poster board presentation, assuming one was able to convince a member to be a sponsor. (Finding a sponsor is also not that easy.)

The next step up in presentation options is the 5-minute presentation, assuming the background credentials were good, and the topic was of interest to the review board.

Finally, the next presentation option is the “invited speaker”. There are two types of “invited speaker” time allotments. One is for 40 minutes the other is for 35. The longer is preferred.

Seriously considered
As indicated by the above presentation options, an “invited speaker” is a carefully screened individual. For an “outsider”, it is nearly impossible to have one’s work taken to this level of review. Actually, anyone with original ideas, even if they are in the “mainstream”, also has difficulty in being taken seriously. It is just 10 times more difficult for us outside the “ivory tower”.

I have struggled with this recognition issue for a while, and I would not expect the American Astronomical Society to just allow me 40 minutes to speak because I asked for it. There would have to be some kind of initial screening process first. To that issue I would like to offer the following opportunity.

The challenge / opportunity
Astronomy / Physics Professors,
I would like the opportunity to present my Uniform Expansion theory to a college or university physics class. After the 45-minute presentation, the students would then debate the merits of the work. If they decide that others more experienced in the field should review the work, they can help me by signing a request stating the same. If they find serious faults in the work, their ideas could be posted here at the Bad Astronomy site for my edification as well as the members who have so patiently put up with my postings over the past few years.

Note, Over the years I have “taught” my theory to honors High School Students here in Connecticut and have never failed in receiving their endorsements, including that of the teacher.

Please help the advancement of science. Accept the challenge.

John M. Kulick –
A.K.A Snowflake

[Cougar]

You have stated in other threads....

The mainstream model assumes that the expansion of spacetime is limited in that the expansion of spacetime stops at the boundary of galaxies..."

This is really a horrible misrepresentation, and if I was reviewing your material for possible inclusion in a program, the above claim alone would likely result in your paper finding its way to the trash can. Most papers include an Introduction that summarizes the current state of a subject and puts it in context -- what is known about it and perhaps what is not known. The Introduction is often rather common knowledge and is historically verifiable, and it has to be right! If it's not right, it is not likely to matter how profound the rest of the paper is....

It is my unprofessional understanding that "the mainstream model" makes no claims that the spacetime between your ears and the spacetime between here and a very distant galaxy is any different! Obviously the expansion of the spacetime between your ears is ridiculously negligible because there's a BIG difference in distance between ears and distant galaxies. That, however, does not mean that there is "zero" expansion between your ears (although in your case, you may just provide anecdotal evidence to the contrary).

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]
The challenge / opportunity
Astronomy / Physics Professors,
I would like the opportunity to present my Uniform Expansion theory to a college or university physics class. After the 45-minute presentation, the students would then debate the merits of the work.

By presenting your ideas here and linking to them you have done better than you could with a mere 45-minute presentation. There are people here with knowledge and expertise at the college level and beyond, and they have had time to read your website at leisure. The merits of your work have been debated. Have you followed through on any of the criticism and suggestions given here? Do you now understand what a dimension is and why your "absolute" and "relative" times are really just different parametrizations of of the one and only time dimension?

If they decide that others more experienced in the field should review the work, they can help me by signing a request stating the same. If they find serious faults in the work, their ideas could be posted here at the Bad Astronomy site for my edification as well as the members who have so patiently put up with my postings over the past few years.

Of course, as wonderful as BAUTForum is, it is not a venue of standing and record. Sorry.

Note, Over the years I have “taught” my theory to honors High School Students here in Connecticut and have never failed in receiving their endorsements, including that of the teacher.[Snip!]

A high school audience, even the teachers of said high school, do not have the knowledge or expertise required to pass judgment on scientific theories. The only thing that they would be qualified to judge is the presentation.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Cougar

Good to hear from you again.

You said
It is my unprofessional understanding that "the mainstream model" makes no claims that the spacetime between your ears and the spacetime between here and a very distant galaxy is any different! Obviously the expansion of the spacetime between your ears is ridiculously negligible because there's a BIG difference in distance between ears and distant galaxies. That, however, does not mean that there is "zero" expansion between your ears (although in your case, you may just provide anecdotal evidence to the contrary).

One of the most “mainstream” texts used to teach gravity at the University level is “Gravitation” by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. If you have the text, please turn to page 719. You may have instead Wheeler’s book “A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime”, if you have that text, please read page 228 and 229.”

Quoting a sentence from “Gravitation”.

“Only the distance between cluster of galaxies and greater distance are subject to the expansion.”

From “a journey…”
“Atoms do not expand”.


I am not making a “horrible misrepresentation” as you accuse me of. In this regard I am accurate.

One of the arguments Wheeler makes against a uniform expansion is that everything would remain the same; double the size of all the objects including the rulers, nothing changes so the model becomes meaningless. However, density becomes a function of time in such a model, in the past the density of systems would be greater and hence the effect of gravity would be greater. If the Earth were 1/2 its present diameter the effect of gravity on the surface would increase 4 times.

As I have stated before, both Dirac and Gamow believed that the effect of gravity diminished over time. They never derived a viable geometric model. I have.

What I find interesting in your post is that on a gut level you believe that the expansion of spacetime must be a continuous and uniform process. You believe in the model.

Thank you for your posting

Snowflake

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Celestial Mechanic
Value of Forum
You said,
By presenting your ideas here and linking to them you have done better than you could with a mere 45-minute presentation. There are people here with knowledge and expertise at the college level and beyond, and they have had time to read your website at leisure. The merits of your work have been debated.

You are absolutely right and I am extremely grateful for the input I have received from others. I cannot over emphasize how much this has meant to me. The questions and critiques you and others have poised over the years have helped me immensely and I am grateful.

The reason for the 45-minute presentation is that I thought that that would be the next step to the main goal of being an invited speaker at the next American Astronomical Societies meeting. If I could skip that step and go directly to being an invited speaker from this forum so much the better.

Two dimensions of Time
You said,
Do you now understand what a dimension is and why your "absolute" and "relative" times are really just different parametrizations of of the one and only time dimension?

This is part of a different topic we have been discussing, which I have not kept up with. It took me longer than I thought to work out the rough draft of my Type 1a supernova paper. I am sorry for the delay. I will be returning to this topic soon. I have not explained the model with two dimensions of time completely and until I do so you are justified to believe I am only using a model with one dimension of time.

You said,
Of course, as wonderful as BAUTForum is, it is not a venue of standing and record. Sorry.

Technically it is a record. But your statement proves my cause. I need to be an invited speaker at the next American Astronomical Societies meeting.

You said
A high school audience, even the teachers of said high school, do not have the knowledge or expertise required to pass judgment on scientific theories. The only thing that they would be qualified to judge is the presentation.

Actually they signed a statement that the model makes sense and those with more expertise in the field should review the work. Some individual students have been very enthusiastic and think they are witnessing a major advancement in physics. I have had this same enthusiastic reaction from some students at MIT.

None the less, Again your statement proves my cause. I need to be an invited speaker at the next American Astronomical Societies meeting.

Snowflake.

[Cougar]

I am not making a “horrible misrepresentation” as you accuse me of. In this regard I am accurate.... Quoting a sentence from “Gravitation”.
“Only the distance between cluster of galaxies and greater distance are subject to the expansion.”

This authoritative statement is lacking a context. With further reading, I expect you will not find the authors claiming that the composition of space is any different between clusters and within galaxies or even solar systems. It's just that the effect is so small, there is essentially no effect. It only "comes into play" on extremely large scales.

From “a journey…”
“Atoms do not expand”.

Of course not. They're quantized. Electrons only change their orbits in leaps. And besides, the distance between a nucleus and its electrons is rather the opposite of an "extremely large scale."

As I have stated before, both Dirac and Gamow believed that the effect of gravity diminished over time.

Yes, and for years Hoyle believed that stars were fueled by streaming through the galaxy and scooping up the gas and dust.

Actually they signed a statement that the model makes sense and those with more expertise in the field should review the work. Some individual students have been very enthusiastic and think they are witnessing a major advancement in physics. I have had this same enthusiastic reaction from some students at MIT.... I need to be an invited speaker at the next American Astronomical Societies meeting.

You know, I've read (or at least looked at) quite a few scientific papers. I've been to conferences and listened to presentations. It seems to me that actual working, researching scientists are never presenting large conceptual theories with hifalutin names like "The Uniform Expansion Theory" or "The Electric Universe" or "Plasma Cosmology". That just doesn't seem to be the way that science is done. Hubble's original expansion paper was just 6 pages and modestly titled "A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebulae." Of course the finding was based on data he had himself collected.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]You said:

A high school audience, even the teachers of said high school, do not have the knowledge or expertise required to pass judgment on scientific theories. The only thing that they would be qualified to judge is the presentation.

Actually they signed a statement that the model makes sense and those with more expertise in the field should review the work. Some individual students have been very enthusiastic and think they are witnessing a major advancement in physics.

Well, whoop-de-doo! So they signed a statement! A statement signed by people unqualified to judge is a meaningless statement, not worth the paper it is printed on.

I have had this same enthusiastic reaction from some students at MIT.

And the reaction from the professors ... and possibly the grad students, you know people who are qualified to judge?

None the less, again your statement proves my cause. I need to be an invited speaker at the next American Astronomical Societies meeting.

No, it means that you need to get your papers published in a real journal of record (Astronomy and Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal, General Relativity and Gravitation, etc.) You must get it critiqued by people who are qualified to judge. But you know what? They are going to be telling you the same things I've been telling you already.

And you know what else? Even if you do get to speak for 45 minutes, what sort of questions do you think will be asked? Probably the same ones I've been asking.

To recap, science is not done by audience votes like "American Idol", it is not done by dramatic speeches, it is done by published papers. Get published!

[Nereid]

This posting is a request for help.

I would like to be an invited speaker at the next American Astronomical Society’s meeting.

The Presentation topic
The presentation would be in two parts. The first part would describe a theoretical model based upon a specific geometric expansion of spacetime. The second part would be the application of the model to predict the luminosity of type 1a supernovas verses the observed cosmological red shift. The theory requires no cosmological constant or “dark energy” to be conformant to observation. It is all described by an astoundingly simple geometry.

I second Celestial Mechanic's advice - get your idea published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you are an independent researcher, you might find some useful ideas on how to do this here. You may find it easier to get published in a lesser-known journal, than ApJ (say).

So far as your proposed presentation is concerned, I feel that your idea is not ready for prime time yet ... if it's got no further than the BAUT thread devoted to attacking it, as Celestial Mechanic already mentioned (and you've agreed), there are some serious, highly pertinent, questions which remain unanswered (and your Type 1a SNe thread is far too recent for anyone to say if this part of your idea has legs).

[Thanatos]

Show the math. So far I have no idea what you are talking about. Put your math side by side against the 'opposition'.

[Fr. Wayne]

Do a CD presentation and get some friends to jazz it up. Mail it everywhere and start a web site. Maybe England will respond before America does. Who cares? Got to put your money where your mouth is, so to peak. Do it before the right cynic comes along and neutralizes your initiative. There are many Physics majors out there whose cool idea never got to first base. Life moves on too fast, so at least have fun doing it.

[john hunter]

Dear Snowflake,

Just a note of support.

It seems in this current climate of problems and dilemas for physics and astronomy, there should be more tolerance of people with ideas 'Against the mainstream'. Finding a way through these problems should be a communal effort.

So good luck with your endevour. Those who contribute to ATM should occasionally post supporting arguments for ATM theories, to help the original poster develop them.

Maybe Institutions such as APS might reserve a few slots for such ideas. At the moment journals are not approachable with new ideas, and the whole set up is too concerned with 'who you know'. This is probably why there are hundreds of papers on whether the Big Bang was caused by two colliding 11 dimensional surfaces. But no space for your ideas. Its a shameful period for physics and astronomy.

All the best,

John Hunter.

[papageno]

It seems in this current climate of problems and dilemas for physics and astronomy, there should be more tolerance of people with ideas 'Against the mainstream'. Finding a way through these problems should be a communal effort.

So good luck with your endevour. Those who contribute to ATM should occasionally post supporting arguments for ATM theories, to help the original poster develop them.

The best support ATM proponents can get, is to have their ideas examined and the eventual errors pointed out.
This is what happens in the ATM forum.
But it is up to the ATM proponents to accept the crtiques and correct eventual errors.

[dgruss23]

Snowflake,

I think you need to take the advice provided here:

1. Approval from high school students and college undergraduates is meaningless.
2. Submit your ideas for peer review at an appropriate journal.
3. If your papers pass peer review, then you might be invited to speak at a conference - but don't count on it.

[Tim Thompson]

You can't come out of "nowhere", asking for an invitation, to talk on a totally untested idea, and expect to be taken seriously. The fact that you are asking is probably sufficient to virtually guarantee that it won't happen. Besides, even a "mainstreamer", who asks to be invited would likely be judged by most to be uncomfortably egotistical.

People get to earn invitations by working their way up the ladder, and you are no different. If you are not willing to submit your idea for publication, then you simply don't deserve an invitation. If your idea is really so simple, then write a paper for the American Journal of Physics (AJP), or the European Journal of Physics (EJP). They are both pedagogical publications; AJP is published by the American Association of Physics Teachers. If you think your idea is a radically new approach, then try something like the European journal Physics Letters, or Astrophysics and Space Science. If you really think there is no way your idea could be anything but right, go for the gold and submit something to Physical Review, the flagship journal of the American Physical Society.

You only have to be aware of the editorial requirements for the journal you want to submit to, especially the format they expect. And most journals don't take really long papers, so you do have to ficure out how to be succinct without losing clarity.

[korjik]

A few comments from someone just at the start of a career in presenting.

1. Make your math airtight and your assumpions logical. If you cant shut us up here by showing us where you are right and we arent, you will get torn apart by the professionals.

2. show the math

3. John Hunter is wrong. If you send an abstract, or your paper, to a professor, most I have known will at least start to read it. If you explain how you are right and show why (with the math) they will generally take you seriously. If you dont have the proof tho, the paper will get trashed.

4 show the math (and be right)

5. Trying to get invited to talk without ever having presented before is a bit pretentious. Making a good poster presentation, or a short talk, and being to coherently answer the questions (and showing the math) will get you in the door. If your theory makes sense, it will get slowly accepted. You cannot expect the nobel prize next year even if you are 110% correct.

6 show the math.

you may have noticed my theme in my suggestions. If you have an ATM proposal you have two choices to get acceptance. you can either show a reproduceable experiment, to show airtight math. Without one or the other, you cannot prove your point.

[korjik]

also, I wouldnt put too much stock in even senior undergrads giving you support. I actually have fun crushing undergrads with crazy ideas.

[Monique]

also, I wouldnt put too much stock in even senior undergrads giving you support. I actually have fun crushing undergrads with crazy ideas.

Is bad form to show too much pleasure in such sport.

[papageno]

Is bad form to show too much pleasure in such sport.

That's not fair!
I never got the chance to do it.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi cougar.

You still question my assertion that the “mainstream” assumes the expansion of spacetime stops at the boundary of galaxies and you continue to insist that the expansion “between my ears” is just too insignificant to consider.

I thought my few sentences and references would be sufficient. It appears you have none of the text books to read this for yourself. This is an unfortunate consequence of a Goggle education.

From John Archibald Wheeler we have the following statement from the “Gravitation” text, (which is the book on relativity used by most of the physics students in the world studying physics at the advanced undergraduate level to graduate level).

The descriptor or title of the paragraph is “What expands in the universe and what does not”
. (see page 719)

“Of all the disturbing implications of “the expansion of the universe,” none is more upsetting to many a student on first encounter than the nonsense of this idea. The universe expands, the distance between one cluster of galaxies and another cluster expands, the atom expands? Then how can it make any sense to speak of any expansion at all? Expansion relative to what? Expansion relative to nonsense! Only later does he realize that the atom does not expand, the meter stick does not expand, the distance between the sun and earth does not expand. Only distances between clusters of galaxies and greater distances are subject to the expansion. Only at this gigantic scale of averaging does the notion of homogeneity make sense. Not so at smaller distance. No model more quickly illustrates the actual situation than a rubber balloon with pennies affixed to it, each by a drop of glue. As the balloon is inflated (Figure 27.2) the pennies increase their separation one from another but not a single one of them expands!. “

This is the standard model; the expansion stops at the boundary of galaxies.

You stated that the expansion is just too small to be of any consequence. If a sun were expanding, even if the rate were slow ( 2 x 10^-18 meters per second per meter) , over billions of years the small effect would be significant. Stars would be denser in the past, so the effect of gravity would be more powerful in the past. This increased effect of gravity would accelerate the evolution of stars and galaxies. Nowhere will you find in any kind of increased gravitational effects due to the denser state matter in the past, other than from me.

Again thanks for your post.

Snowflake.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Celestial Mechanic

Thanks for your post,

When I stated that the High School students
“signed a statement that the model makes sense and those with more expertise in the field should review the work. Some individual students have been very enthusiastic and think they are witnessing a major advancement in physics.”

You responded with,
“Well, whoop-de-doo! So they signed a statement! A statement signed by people unqualified to judge is a meaningless statement, not worth the paper it is printed on.”


The classes I have presented in are all advanced placement high school students. The have all had calculus by the time they are 15 year old and they receive college credit for their physics course. These are some of the brightest students in the state. Your dismal of their intellect, and their request, is mean.

Snowflake.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Getting published, and "what do I do?"

Two topics in this post, issues with publishing and “what do I do?”

There is a consistent thread through a number of the previous postings concerning publishing.

Celestial Mechanic
No, it means that you need to get your papers published in a real journal of record (Astronomy and Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal, General Relativity and Gravitation, etc.) You must get it critiqued by people who are qualified to judge. But you know what? They are going to be telling you the same things I've been telling you already.

Nereid
I second Celestial Mechanic's advice - get your idea published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you are an independent researcher, you might find some useful ideas on how to do this here.


Dgruss23
2. Submit your ideas for peer review at an appropriate journal.
3. If your papers pass peer review, then you might be invited to speak at a conference - but don't count on it.

Tim Thompson
People get to earn invitations by working their way up the ladder, and you are no different. If you are not willing to submit your idea for publication, then you simply don't deserve an invitation. If your idea is really so simple, then write a paper for the American Journal of Physics (AJP), or the European Journal of Physics (EJP). They are both pedagogical publications; AJP is published by the American Association of Physics Teachers. If you think your idea is a radically new approach, then try something like the European journal Physics Letters, or Astrophysics and Space Science. If you really think there is no way your idea could be anything but right, go for the gold and submit something to Physical Review, the flagship journal of the American Physical Society.


The reality.

Hunter said
At the moment journals are not approachable with new ideas, and the whole set up is too concerned with 'who you know'. This is probably why there are hundreds of papers on whether the Big Bang was caused by two colliding 11 dimensional surfaces. But no space for your ideas. Its a shameful period for physics and astronomy.

To which

Korjik said
John Hunter is wrong. If you send an abstract, or your paper, to a professor, most I have known will at least start to read it. If you explain how you are right and show why (with the math) they will generally take you seriously. If you dont have the proof tho, the paper will get trashed.

All I can testify to is my experience and I have learned Hunter is right.

1. I asked a local professor in astronomy to look over my paper, he said he was too busy and would not even make eye contact with me. Another professor would not even call me back.
2. Several of the staff at a famous museum of Natural History refused to look at the work. (“I must get 40 of these a year, I’ve made up my mind not to look at them.”. This was stated with arms crossed and head pulled back so he “looked down his nose” at me. My family was surprised.
3. I sent emails to over 30 astronomers for their help looking over my work, no response, or “not my field”.
4. I sent my paper to a couple of journals. Physics Journal D was one of them. The only response I got from a reviewer was from the Physics Journal D, (after 4 months of requests). He stated that “anything this simple has to be wrong. I have 30 years experience and there is always something simple that was missed.” Also the reviewer stated that “it would be impossible to find anyone familiar with the work to review the paper”

I have been asked by one journal to submit my paper as they were interested in it’s publication. I presented a paper at the Natural Philosophy Association, but the journal reviewers there have a history of accepting papers critical to Relativity and that would have implied to many that my work did not believe in relativity, which is not the case whatsoever. The geometric relationship of space and time are fundamental to the work.



So what do I do?
I can’t get my work published in a respected journal, “it would be impossible to find anyone familiar with the field to review the paper”. And if I picked a journal of less respect, the paper would just be ignored.

So what do I do?
I post my work here.
The following is a list of papers I have made available for review at this forum .

The development of the formulas I call the Ratios of time. (Which predicts that the effect of gravity varies with time (As believed by Gamow and Dirac) at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18805

A “proof” that all relative measures of distance and time keep their relative measures at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32067

A discussion that reviews some of the evidence the sun blew up 5 billion years ago at

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=8677

A calculation showing how to get the energy production from a quasar without a super massive black hole at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=8543

A discussion of the evidence that some stars in globular clusters are older than the universe at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=9052

And a discussion as to the problem of a lack of time dilation associated with red shift from the energy production from quasars at:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=11559

The latest posting regards the observed brightness of type 1a supernovas verses cosmological red shift. Since the effect of gravity was stronger in the past (as well as the properties of inertia) the size of a type 1a supernova would be smaller and hence dimmer in the past. If this effect is accounted for, the observed luminosity of these supernova conforms their cosmological red shift if the expansion of the universe were “flat” with no cosmological constant and with no dark energy.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37173



So what do I do?
I have presented a paper at the NPA meeting at Storrs, a paper at Wake Forest, another paper at the University of Connecticut, two papers at MIT, and two at the American Physical Societies annual meeting. I know I get a lot more feed back in this forum than at any conferences I have gone to. (This is not to say I found going to the Conferences a waste of time, It was enlightening and it helped focus my work for oral presentations, something I find personally stressful to do but something I have to learn how to do. I also have met a few people who eventually may be helpful, especially the graduate students, (professors assume they already know everything), and astronomers are more interested in my work than are physicists.) I might go to a gravitational conference in California if I can muster the time.

So what do I do?
I teach my theory to students, from High School to Undergrads at Harvard and MIT. The response at the college level is 50% questioning and 50 % enthusiastic. Eventually I will teach enough students the truth that they will become the “mainstream”.

So what do I do?
I tell everyone I meet that I have discovered one of the greatest advances in theoretical physics. And it is amazingly simple.

So what do I do?
I wait until I become an invited speaker at the American Astronomical Society.

Snowflake

[Monique]

So what do I do?
I teach my theory to students, from High School to Undergrads at Harvard and MIT. The response at the college level is 50% questioning and 50 % enthusiastic. Eventually I will teach enough students the truth that they will become the “mainstream”.

So what do I do?
I tell everyone I meet that I have discovered one of the greatest advances in theoretical physics. And it is amazingly simple.

So what do I do?
I wait until I become an invited speaker at the American Astronomical Society.

Snowflake

I do not know why I let myself get draw back here...

You ask people here for advice. They tell you what your presentation of theory and papers have missing. They tell you what is missing for invitation you wish. You ignore all advice they say to you for page and page and page of posts. People work very hard for be fair to ATM idea. Some time make me angry. Give you more chance than should have!! I give no sympathy to you!!

You ask what you do now. You answer, teach theory to undergraduates, wait for invitation to very prestigious conference.

What is left to say? Enjoy teaching... if AAS similar for organizations I am familiar to, you have very, very, very, very long wait. You think is harsh?? Is very harsh in academic forum. Is more harsh for me as woman!! I am Monique who do not talk mathematics, who flirt, who say bad jokes. I also am Dr. Reinhard, do not underestimate me at conference I cut you to strings!!! Is way of world... you do not like, go find other way to spend your time.

If not such a fool, I leave university, make money have time for my "partners". I stay..... I make rules work for me!! You wish to stay, suggest you consider same!!



Couger, I thank you for dictionary references, most helpful...




Embarrassing!! Edit to correct spelling of name!!

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]When I stated that the High School students
“signed a statement that the model makes sense and those with more expertise in the field should review the work. Some individual students have been very enthusiastic and think they are witnessing a major advancement in physics.”

You responded with,

“Well, whoop-de-doo! So they signed a statement! A statement signed by people unqualified to judge is a meaningless statement, not worth the paper it is printed on.”

The classes I have presented in are all advanced placement high school students. The have all had calculus by the time they are 15 year old and they receive college credit for their physics course. These are some of the brightest students in the state. Your dism[iss]al of their intellect, and their request, is mean.

The fact that they are slightly better qualified than their fellow classmates still does not give them sufficient qualification to judge a purported "major advancement in physics". I too had absorbed calculus and differential equations by the age of 15 but my knowledge of contemporary physics (1968) was vastly insufficient for me to judge it.

[Nereid]

Getting published, and "what do I do?"

Two topics in this post, issues with publishing and “what do I do?”

There is a consistent thread through a number of the previous postings concerning publishing.

Celestial Mechanic
No, it means that you need to get your papers published in a real journal of record (Astronomy and Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal, General Relativity and Gravitation, etc.) You must get it critiqued by people who are qualified to judge. But you know what? They are going to be telling you the same things I've been telling you already.

Nereid
I second Celestial Mechanic's advice - get your idea published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you are an independent researcher, you might find some useful ideas on how to do this here.


Dgruss23
2. Submit your ideas for peer review at an appropriate journal.
3. If your papers pass peer review, then you might be invited to speak at a conference - but don't count on it.

Tim Thompson
People get to earn invitations by working their way up the ladder, and you are no different. If you are not willing to submit your idea for publication, then you simply don't deserve an invitation. If your idea is really so simple, then write a paper for the American Journal of Physics (AJP), or the European Journal of Physics (EJP). They are both pedagogical publications; AJP is published by the American Association of Physics Teachers. If you think your idea is a radically new approach, then try something like the European journal Physics Letters, or Astrophysics and Space Science. If you really think there is no way your idea could be anything but right, go for the gold and submit something to Physical Review, the flagship journal of the American Physical Society.


The reality.

Hunter said
At the moment journals are not approachable with new ideas, and the whole set up is too concerned with 'who you know'. This is probably why there are hundreds of papers on whether the Big Bang was caused by two colliding 11 dimensional surfaces. But no space for your ideas. Its a shameful period for physics and astronomy.

To which

Korjik said
John Hunter is wrong. If you send an abstract, or your paper, to a professor, most I have known will at least start to read it. If you explain how you are right and show why (with the math) they will generally take you seriously. If you dont have the proof tho, the paper will get trashed.

All I can testify to is my experience and I have learned Hunter is right.

1. I asked a local professor in astronomy to look over my paper, he said he was too busy and would not even make eye contact with me. Another professor would not even call me back.
2. Several of the staff at a famous museum of Natural History refused to look at the work. (“I must get 40 of these a year, I’ve made up my mind not to look at them.”. This was stated with arms crossed and head pulled back so he “looked down his nose” at me. My family was surprised.
3. I sent emails to over 30 astronomers for their help looking over my work, no response, or “not my field”.
4. I sent my paper to a couple of journals. Physics Journal D was one of them. The only response I got from a reviewer was from the Physics Journal D, (after 4 months of requests). He stated that “anything this simple has to be wrong. I have 30 years experience and there is always something simple that was missed.” Also the reviewer stated that “it would be impossible to find anyone familiar with the work to review the paper”

I have been asked by one journal to submit my paper as they were interested in it’s publication. I presented a paper at the Natural Philosophy Association, but the journal reviewers there have a history of accepting papers critical to Relativity and that would have implied to many that my work did not believe in relativity, which is not the case whatsoever. The geometric relationship of space and time are fundamental to the work.

You asked for advice snowflakeuniverse, here in the ATM section of BAUT (which is here for a purpose other than giving advice to ATMers - see the ATM rules).

Several people gave you advice. You may choose to take the advice given you, or not; it's up to you.

[snip]
So what do I do?
I post my work here.
The following is a list of papers I have made available for review at this forum .

The development of the formulas I call the Ratios of time. (Which predicts that the effect of gravity varies with time (As believed by Gamow and Dirac) at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18805

Which ends with a post asking you some specific questions (which you seem to have not answered).

A “proof” that all relative measures of distance and time keep their relative measures at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32067

To what extent is the content of this thread different from your Two dimensions of time thread (which you acknowledge contains important, unanswered questions)?

A discussion that reviews some of the evidence the sun blew up 5 billion years ago at

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=8677

Indeed. And the discussion ended up as 'Dr Manuel's work is the best evidence; Dr Manuel's work has been thoroughly debunked'.

A calculation showing how to get the energy production from a quasar without a super massive black hole at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=8543

That is a new one to me - would you say it's worth reviving (or is the content now well covered in the two dimensions of time thread)?

A discussion of the evidence that some stars in globular clusters are older than the universe at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=9052

Questions about which are still open in the two dimensions of time thread.

And a discussion as to the problem of a lack of time dilation associated with red shift from the energy production from quasars at:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=11559

Another older thread - would you say it's worth reviving (or is the content now well covered in other threads)?

The latest posting regards the observed brightness of type 1a supernovas verses cosmological red shift. Since the effect of gravity was stronger in the past (as well as the properties of inertia) the size of a type 1a supernova would be smaller and hence dimmer in the past. If this effect is accounted for, the observed luminosity of these supernova conforms their cosmological red shift if the expansion of the universe were “flat” with no cosmological constant and with no dark energy.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37173

How accurate is it to say that the key thread is the two dimensions of time one? By key I mean that this thread contains the core of your idea, with other threads being primarily applications of the idea to various astronomical arenas?

[snip]

So what do I do?
I tell everyone I meet that I have discovered one of the greatest advances in theoretical physics. And it is amazingly simple.

I believe several folk have given you some advice concerning the making of statements like this.

snowflakeuniverse, if you want to continue recounting your experiences, please do so elsewhere (not in this ATM section of BAUT).

If you wish to continue discussion of your idea in one or more of the threads you mentioned, please indicate which (and BAUT members may then attack your ideas with glee and fervour, for that is what this section of BAUT is for).

[trinitree88]

Snowflake. Part of the problem comes from formatting rules. Most universities have support staff that do the word processing for several professors for different journals. each journal has it's own formatting rules. With years of expertise of running the gamut between submitted articles, the professor's corrections to the reviewers, and the editors, they are an invaluable resource....but not cheap. They get paid for their work. Find out who handles the journal you're interested in. Tim was correct in his suggestions....one of the best for you would be The American Journal of Physics. At a talk years ago by the editor at Umass, Amherst, he said " they kind of pride themselves in taking chances on some of the more radical ideas that other journals reject..". After an initial success, you might tackle the formatting yourself. It's a project.

[Celestial Mechanic]

I've just submitted a "treatment" (soon to be a major motion picture!) to Hollywood. See what you think:

A Star is Born--2006

A handsome young amateur physicist/astronomer, Johnny Kaye (played by Brad Pitt) has a dream. He dreams of making a major development of physics. But not having gone through graduate school, he is reduced to teaching his revolutionary theory to gifted high-school students and an occasional university audience.

Every story needs a villain; in this story it is played by Charlie Mohr (played by Johnny Depp). Charlie asks deep, insightful questions about Johnny's theory, calling into question its basic concepts.

Johnny Kaye's love interest is played by Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Anniston. (Or maybe even Jennifer Lopez! Take your pick!)

Maybe we could get Enya to do the soundtrack?

I realize that this scenario isn't exactly like real life; this is what plays in Hollywood, after all.

The movie revolves around the machinations of Charlie Mohr to keep Johnny Kaye from being invited to speak at an American Astronomical Society meeting. Charlie is generally successful. Johnny is reduced to waiting in the wings backstage. But wait! The backstage manager informs Johnny that the invited speaker is ill and cannot be present. Johnny must fill in. The manager tells him, "Kid, you're going out there a nobody, but you've got to come back a star!"

Johnny Kaye takes the stage. He starts out nervously, hesitantly, but soon hits his stride and has the audience in his hands. At the end of his 45 minutes he receives a standing ovation!

"This is a major development in physics!", yells a professor.

"This is a paradigm shift!", yells the graduate student next to the professor.

"He still has not demonstrated that his so-called 'two dimensions of time' are truly a two-dimensional manifold! His two times are just parametrizations of the one time dimension!", shouts Charlie Mohr. An usher taps him on the shoulder.

Johnny Kaye goes backstage and asks the manager, "How did I do?"

"You knocked 'em dead kid. How does Stockholm in October sound to you?"

Alas, this probably could be a major motion picture! But it's not life, and it's not how science is done.

Remember, science has high standards, Hollywood has low standards.

[Monique]

Celestial Mechanic -- I wish to hear if presentation has math in it, but I do not think Holywood want to confuse viewer. I presume math not include.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Celestial Mechanic -- I wonder if the presentation has any math in it, but I do not think Hollywood would want to confuse viewers. I presume math would not be included.

Math would have to be excluded, it just doesn't play well. Instead he would have a multimedia program displaying all sorts of cool computer-generated graphics up on the screen while he spoke. This is Hollywood after all!

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Celestial Mechanic

Your last post was nice. It is good to see your “lighter” side. It made me laugh.

Thank you.
Snowflake.
(Although my fear is that the movie “Amadeus” might be more accurate.)

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Monique

Thanks for your interest.

I am writing my response to Nereid and part of it addresses your question as to the math of the model.

The main and primary posts that presents the geometry of the model are
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18805 and http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32067

If someone wants to attack the underlying geometry of the model, either of these two postings would be good. The first posting develops the formulas of the model, the second posting is an integral part of the above posting since it “proves” or actually shows how the model “predicts” that all local clocks or physical processes keep their proportional measures in a uniformly expanding spacetime field.

Again, Thanks for your interest.
Snowflake