No major journal today is going to consider anything that challenges general relativity period. Well maybe Hawking could do it but I doubt it.
And you're basing this on your extensive experience in the research community? Oh wait, you don't have any. The fact is cranks get shot down because they fail to provide even basic evidence and methodology for their claims. But rather than accepting its their fault they all cry "Conspiracy!!". Take a little responsibility and accept that its not everyone else's fault you're crap at science
its yours.
Your reasoning is illogical there too. When GR was published there was only one existing observation that Newton didn’t predict whereas GR did, the anomalous perihelion of Mercury. But even that wouldn’t have been needed for GR to be publishable. Even without the Mercury observation, GR made a strong case that it was better than Newton's theory of gravity.
When there's only a little bit of experimental data which can be used to evaluate two different models then the new proposed one needs to spend more time explaining why its conceptually better and likely to be worthy of more investigation, which Einstein did. You're arguing against yourself here, seeing as you are aware of the way in which GR was presented in comparison to Newtonian gravity and yet you haven't provided similar comparisons between your own claims and GR. You know where the bar is and yet you made no attempt to reach it!
Scientifically speaking, a paper that challenges GR (or any other generally accepted theory) need only show logical proof of invalidity of the other theory. No replacement theory or overall demonstration of understanding of the generally accepted theory is needed. As a hypothetical example, showing a divide-by-zero error would be sufficient. But no major journal today would read past the abstract on a paper purportedly showing invalidity of GR, even assuming the paper is correct and otherwise perfect.
True, to kill a theory you do not need to replace it. I've yet to see a crank who claims SR or GR is inconsistent show they have even university level understanding of either. Look at Jack and MotorDaddy, they make claims about things they have no understanding of and then refuse to accept they are in over their heads.
GR is a difficult theory to level, even for those people who've spent several years doing maths or physics at university. It's not taught till 3rd or commonly 4th year, if to undergraduates at all. And even after doing the courses in an undergraduate degree you're a long long long way from having any real intuitive grasp of the underlying principles, you're still mostly in the "Shut up and calculate" stage. Not till you're doing research do you enter into the more conceptual understanding stage. And I say that having done research into curved space-time and knowing plenty of others who have done specifically GR research. I'm 8 years into university doing mathematical physics and I'd not dare go toe to toe with the majority of GR researchers and yet all the cranks online, whose experience with GR amounts to reading Wikipedia for 20 minutes, think they spot something new and novel. Of course one might ask oneself how they know this when they haven't read any books on relativity to find out what 'new and novel' results are actually in chapter 1 of an introductory textbook.....
To show there's some fundamental flaw in SR you're basically going to have to prove geometry is wrong. Not just non-Euclidean geometry but Euclidean geometry too. GR is the application of Riemannian geometry to physics. The only points where the maths and physics diverge are when you consider space-times with singularities. Physically that's not right but mathematically they are quite interesting. You
aren't going to show GR is inconsistent with itself by doing some convoluted clock on a rocket on roller skates carrying a torch while spinning thought experiment. When you stripe down such experiments to their fundamentals you're just asking about the mathematical structure of the symmetries of space-time, which are not only looked at by physicists but also mathematicians and their consistency is well established in mathematics.
You'll kill SR or GR not by showing a mathematical inconsistency but by showing they fail to predict the correct result for some experiment. And this means you'll need to do some experiments. I've yet to come across a crank who does experiments.
What isn't scientific is when journals declare a theory sacrosanct even where it's not experimentally confirmed. No one can argue in a journal against the validity of black holes now, for example, even though they aren't experimentally confirmed and therefore could be the result of a problem in the theory. Their assumed validity is locked in stone.
And
you are assuming
that. There's plenty of observational evidence for black holes. You seem to be under the impression that journals just accept things if they were predicted long enough ago. No, they accept things as good models when there's plenty of evidence to support them. If you do a billion different experiments and GR passes all of them then you haven't confirmed its right but you have confirmed it is
extremely close to right for a wide range of phenomena. This gives you confidence that although you might not be able to test other predictions at present you feel they are worth heeding. But no one declares them taken for granted and not worthy of being tested when the ability arises.
Every such observation depends on the validity of GR. They’re plugging values from those observations into the theory to see if it predicts a black hole. That’s okay, but it’s not confirmation by any stretch of reason. It's probably true though that 98% of physics grads today erroneously believe that black holes are experimentally confirmed.
And 87% of statistics are made up on the spot, 46% of people know that. The objects seen in systems like Cygnus X-1 have their mass measured by the motion of their partner, their size measured by the accretion disks and that lets you know if you've got what GR would consider to be a black hole, ie a mass within its Schwarzchild radius. The specific behaviour of the accretion disk, if GR is right, can then be modelled and compared with observation. This is a test of GR in regards to black holes. If we can literally see the object then its not a black hole and GR fails. If we can't but the radius is wrong for the mass then GR fails. If the radius matches the mass prediction then GR's Schwarzchild prediction is vindicated. The specific dynamics of the accretion disk and the radiation coming off it depends an enormous amount on subtle things like the charge and rotation of the black hole (so its not really Schwarzchild, its as Kerr-Newman black hole) which then test models of accretion disks, relativity, magnetohydrodynamics/plasma physics and cosmology. The more models you have to combine the more likely your prediction will differ from observation as you're introducing more possibly not right components. When the observation matches prediction then you get an enormous vindication of the accuracy of all the models. The behaviour of such systems and the cores of galaxies are in line with black hole models. Yes, you can argue this doesn't prove black holes exist but then you can argue that any indirect model can be explained by anything else, such as gravity really being invisible fairies which push people towards the Earth. Measuring the GPS time dilation doesn't disprove this but I doubt many people take it seriously.
What dream? Don’t pollute this thread with your crap. Go to the appropriate thread.
Did you forget
this thread? I guess that confirmed my suspicion you simply made up an excuse to post your BS here, a way to get initial attention, and now you're forgetting your lie and contradicting yourself. That's the problem with being a crank, you have to work to keep your nonsense consistent.
It became pretty clear you weren't some vaguely interested person who believed his dreams, you were someone who put in effort coming up with nonsense and wanted people to look at it. The chip on your shoulder about the scientific community and peer review demonstrated that.
I once had a discussion with the editor of a major physics journal, easily one of the top 3, and nothing to do with a submission. Went like this:
Me: “blah blah relativity blah”
Editor: It always amazes me how cranks come to journals to pitch their claims… If you spent some time reading up about the scientific method you'd know more about…
Me: Uh, the whole thing you responded to was a direct quote from the authors of the authoritative book Gravitation, as I noted.
Editor: <end of discussion>
You'll forgive me if I don't consider your 'paraphrasing' as worth listening to. If you provide the entire conversation maybe I'll listen but its also my experience that when a nut paraphrases someone it often comes out the opposite to how it went in.
Besides, even if journals rejected things like that this does nothing to detract from the fact your work
is junk. You're doing the common thing of attacking the review process rather than realising your work fails to meet
any standards of the review processes. Even if the review process gave serious unbiased consideration to all submitted work there would still be a minimal level of quality and you fail to meet it. No amount of lobbying for unbiased journals will remove that.
Who can blame them really? They get bombarded with junk. So they'd become biased against new ideas and the babies would get thrown out with the bath water. I’m just pointing out that peer review isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It may in fact do more harm than good to science. One thing’s for sure, science did fine without it.
So you accept they are bombarded with junk. Now if you only realised your work
is junk maybe you'd make some progress.