Illogical. Par for your "science" though. This is all you get from me, since you don't really engage in discussion, ignore my questions, and repeat your points over & over in multiple threads.
I have to repeat myself because you don't seem to be getting the point.
If someone were purporting to have found an algebraic demonstration which showed GR basically said 2=1 then they need only produce that demonstration. You're not, you're giving an extremely wordy argument and thus its important
you demonstrate you have a good grasp of the relevant concepts
as well as being mathematically capable. For instance, you claim to have solved a number of issues in cosmology which GR supposedly has. As such its entirely reasonable for anyone to ask you to clearly explain the relevant area of GR, explain your work's take on it, compare predictions and then discuss the implications.
Yes, the validity of a claim is not based on how much or how little someone wants to explain it but to be asked to explain it is not unreasonable.
I'm insulting his/her science, not the entire field. Alpha is routinely illogical and not scientific.
Firstly I'm a 'he'. And secondly you haven't demonstrated that, you've demonstrate your illogical nature and unwillingness to be scientific. I've explained the criteria I'd expect of someone making big claims and it basically boils down to "They should possess relevant knowledge, explain in detail their methodology, compare new ideas with the old ones and demonstrate their new work is experimentally viable.". What precisely about this is not scientific? Do you think its unscientific that you be asked to explain yourself a little more? Do you think its unscientific is someone says "I don't quite see how you got from X to Y, can you elaborate?". Publishable papers are more than just a list of results, they include the derivation of the results, the explanation of the author's methods, a discussion of the work's place within the larger area of research and an honest evaluation of any assumptions made or suggested results which need further justification. Even if I were to agree with your claims I'd still reject your work for publication on the grounds of poor explanations, unexplained or even acknowledged assumptions, lack of justification for certain said assumptions and failure to provide quantitative details. Work can be right but if the presentation is poor it'll be rejected or at least asked to be rewritten and then resubmitted. I've had both things happen to me; one paper needed to have a section reworded due to lack of explanation and another paper required an entire justification for a particular result to be added, despite the reviewer saying "I agree with the result but you must explain how you got it".
The larger the claim being made the more detail, explanation, justification, workings and discussion must be given by the author. You are making a huge claim and even if you weren't wrong you fail to meet the literary standards expected of journals.
And I'm wondering if you're just desperate or just stupid for calling me unscientific and illogical. You started this thread claiming your work came to you in a dream! How much more illogical can you get?!
If I'm told in advance the work isn't wanted and won't be considered, I'd be foolish to bother submitting it.
Your work isn't wanted but that's not synonymous with what you claim it means, that
any work which challenges GR will not be considered. I suggest you read my last post since despite you complaining I've told you such things before you
still don't seem to be getting it. You're arguing with at least 2 people who have both reviewed for journals and who have been reviewed by journals on a subject area both of them have a lot of experience and knowledge of and you're calling
me illogical?!
Then they can keep getting that grant money from taxpayers for their superfluous activities.
Ah yes, the "They are only in it for the money" conspiracy theory of the desperate hack. If you weren't so ignorant of the history of physics you'd know that research activity and money
increases immediately after a paradigm is destroyed because everyone scrambles to understand how and why it failed and to then come up with a replacement. If you think physicists are just egotistical money grabbers then they'd
want GR to be killed because one (or more) of them might then end up being the next Einstein. Standard textbooks don't make their authors much money but if you've just destroyed and rebuilt our understanding of gravity then you'd make a lot of money writing books on it, mostly pop science ones. Besides, academic salaries are nothing to write home about, someone who knows say financial stochastic mathematics can earn tens, hundreds even thousands of times more money going into investment banking. Similarly, other areas of maths and physics are in high demand in industry and pay more.
You don't go into academia for the money but for the intellectual stimulation and challenges and the opportunities to teach others. Just this week someone I work with decided to leave his job and apply for research positions. He's risking not getting a position and finding himself unemployed in 6 months at a time when jobs are hard to find. If he does get it he'll get a large pay
cut compared to at present and like all other researchers who aren't academics he'll have to reapply for positions every 3 or so years till he's got a permanent position somewhere. Which could be 10~12 years away. And why is he throwing away job security and a large chunk of salary? Because he loves the research and wants to teach people to enjoy physics as much as he does.
You hacks have some naive notion that the jobs of researchers depends on their work never being refuted and hence their unwillingness to accept such work. That is utter bullshit. We know pretty much all physics from before 1900 is wrong on some level or other but we don't think of Newton as useless or Maxwell as a failure. When the 1919 eclipse demonstrated GR superior to Newtonian gravity the physics departments of the world weren't flushed clean and all physicists stripped of their titles, jobs and accomplishments. No, they changed their work to investigate this new and brilliant model and its achievements.
You're coming up with pathetic excuses to try and convince
yourself why you've failed utterly to achieve anything in physics and you're
idiotic enough to try to tell researchers the nature of their job and the world they work in, a world you have no experience of.
