Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by hansda, Jul 26, 2013.
Seems like a pretty unambiguous rejection.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
This doesn't tell me anything. In particular, you're continuing to talk about how you have a "mathematical proof". How can you have a mathematical proof for a physical theory? It doesn't work that way.
It seems like the editor didn't recognise your manuscript as something potentially publishable. They didn't send it to referees and didn't even bother with a detailed response. If an editor thinks you've done work that is potentially publishable somewhere but doesn't meet their own journal's standard, in my experience they'll usually say so in a few lines and advise you to try a "more specialised" journal. In your case, they just said "nope".
I think this has some similarity with Newton's discovery of "gravity". Newton observed the apple falling down on the Earth and asked the question: "Why apple falls down and not going up?" In the attempt to find answer for this question he discovered "gravity", that 'two mass attracts each other'.
Similarly i had some questions. While trying to find answer to these questions I discovered this theory.
Every physical event can be explained by mathematics. A 'physical theory' only explains a 'physical event'. So, why a 'physical theory' should not have a "mathematical proof"?
OR, you also may be willing to see my "mathematical proof".
May be you are right. But in this letter the Editor did not mention any specific reason for "non acceptance" of my paper.
What do you think "they" means here? Who are the persons other than the Editor?
No, its nothing like Newton's discovery gravity. Newton developed a precise mathematical model based on the observations of scientists such as Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus. The "apple" story may or may not be apocryphal, but it doesn't matter. Newton's model made predictions that could be verified. Does yours make any predictions that can be tested?
Because, physics, like any science, attempts to model the physical world. Models are developed using mathematics to account for observations and predict new phenomena. But they can't be "proven". New observations eventually emerge beyond current technological capability and then models are updated. Mathematical proofs are rooted in axioms, and so they don't have a place in a physical theory.
Please share it.
Yes by all means. If you print your stuff here, you will have proof that you presented it first.
Well there's no point in bringing it up at all unless you're going to. So if you insist on talking about Your Theory here, I'd say spit it out.
You got a one-liner rejection and no referee comments because the editor didn't think your manuscript was even worth a detailed review. It's about the least encouraging response you could have received.
"They" doesn't always mean more than one person. It's also the gender neutral version of "he" or "she". Like most journals, Physical Review A has more than one editor and it doesn't particularly matter which one of them composed and signed the letter you received -- the editor who wrote to you was speaking on behalf of the journal and its editorial staff.
Who to say you wont get a more thorough review, handsa, by putting your thoughts here instead of vixra?
Again you are mis-interpreting my statement. I said, 'the way Newton discovered gravity' and 'the way i discovered my theory' are similar. I am not comparing "my theory" with "Newton's gravity".
Newton's gravity is more specific. My theory is more general.
My theory predicts that, every action has a technique and this technique is unique. My theory can be tested for any action.
If you dont like the word "mathematical proof", it can be considered as 'mathematical explanation' or simply mathematics for "my theory". The way Newton and Einstein developed mathematics for "gravity", similarly i also developed a 'mathematical explanation' or mathematics for "my theory".
I was surprised to know that Einstein was also trying to develope a "mathematical theory of success". He even developed a mathematical equation for success. Here is a link. I dont know, how reliable is this link.
I received another copy(unsigned) of a letter from the editor, which mentioned "formatting" and "explanation" as reasons for not acceptance of my paper.
So where is your theory? Let's see it.
I have already posted my theory. I have also explained 'how i developed this theory'. I haven't yet posted the 'mathematical explanation' for this theory. I am just thinking whether i should post the mathematics here or try with some peer-review journal.
Hansda, it isn't going to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. You already were rejected without a thought. No serious journal is going to take it.
However, I thoroughly encourage you to post the proof here. I'm not saying you don't have an all-encompassing proof for your theory.....but you don't.
Just post your stuff.
Start a dialogue.
Only my paper was not considered suitable for publication. I understood the mistakes with my paper. Correcting those mistakes, i can try with some other journals.
This(non-acceptance) does not mean that "my theory" is wrong. Or, does it mean? Anyway I don't think if you can prove my theory wrong either.
Rejection by itself doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it does mean that it isn't a scientific theory. It's just some philosophical statement.
Hansda, why do you keep dancing around the question of your proof? Why not post it? If you did have one, It would have been the first thing you posted. That's why I know you don't have any mathematics, correct or incorrect.
Of course not, no one has ever managed to disprove a crackpot theory.
There can be many factors for non-acceptance of a paper. It also can be my wrong choice of journal.
What is the difference between a "philosophical statement" and a "scientific statement"?
Since my paper is not published and i dont have copyright for this theory, i think it may be risky if i post my mathematics now.
So, you are admitting that you can not prove my theory wrong. As you dont want to accept it, you are using crack-pottery to deny it.
No one knows what the heck your theory is.
You refuse to post anything relevant and just arm wave.
No one can disprove something that you did not publish. But knowing your type of posts I can tell with very high probability that it is crackpoterry.
Separate names with a comma.