PSI Blog 20230807 Publishing Theoretical Physics in The Age of Censorship
Advice
for students contemplating a career challenging the current cosmogonical
paradigm.
I
just got this query from an obviously brilliant Masters student in physics. He
is especially interested and quite knowledgeable in theoretical physics:
“Dear
Glenn,
Where
do you, as a dissident scientist publish your works as the mainstream censors
dissident scientific works not to say of publishing them in their journals?”
[GB:
Dear Anon: That is an excellent question—one for the ages. After publishing
over 500 pubs in mainstream science, I have received only one rejection. And
that was only because our theory contradicted the erroneous one promoted by
consultants for the developer. One other one was rejected by a review from a
competing lab that was about to be scooped, but ultimately accepted by an
astute editor.
That
little “experiment” shows how censorship in science really works. Publishing
what Kuhn called “ordinary science” is relatively easy, while trying to publish
“revolutionary science” is difficult. Few scientists favor promoting theories
they believe to be false, especially if one of those happens to contradict one
of theirs.
Here
are some links to Blog posts at which I gave more details about censorship:
https://gborc.com/student-disgusted]
“Then
if the mainstream would not pay heed to my theory, is my decision of doing a
masters and then a PhD a good decision?”
[GB:
That is another tough question. Doing a Masters and a PhD is always a good
decision. The difficult part would be finding an amenable advisor in an
amenable department. Someday, probably during your lifetime, the Last
Cosmological Revolution will occur along with the demise of the “Last Creation
Myth.” For that to happen, relativity and its currently regressive physics must
be rejected first. I doubt that can be spear-headed by the U.S., because of its
huge investment in religion and cosmogony. Countries such as India and China
can seize the upper hand instead.
All
this means there is an opportunity for students of theoretical physics to
achieve either greatness or temporary failure like the 10,000 dissidents who
have experienced that so far. One way to get around some of that is to go into
experimental physics. What you do is to work with some prof on the cutting edge—preferably
with access to some newly invented equipment. I did that when I did my PhD on
neutron activation analysis, which used our new TRIGA nuclear reactor at OSU. As
a result, I also got a postdoc using one in Denver and eventually the offer of
a professorship teaching nuclear physics in Brazil, which I turned down.]
“Can
one publish scientific research without having masters and PhD degrees?”
[GB:
Short answer: of course. But it can be more difficult. For instance, I knew one
fellow who had only a Masters degree. He worked well alongside Ph.D. folks, did
great work equivalent to that of any of his colleagues, but seemed to regret he
had no Ph.D. to go with it, probably because the salary was not commensurate.]
“If
yes, then where and how so that his/her research gets noticed by both the
dissident world as well as the mainstream world?”
[GB:
Another good one. Dissident pubs include: Physics Essays, General Science
Journal, etc. There are conferences like those once put on by NPA and now done
occasionally by CNPS. Instant publication can be done in various archives, with
viXra, Rearchgate.net, and Academia.edu welcoming dissidents. The problem with
all these is that peer review is spotty at the least. The predatory journals I
have warned about are the worst (https://gborc.com/predatory-pubs. They only are
interested in profit, are extremely expensive, and seldom lead to citations,
which is what makes a career in science successful. Some of the papers found in
these are quite far-out, with claims often more absurd than those in regressive
physics. That makes it easy for the mainstream to reject those journals entirely.
Look
at it this way: Science is the search for truth. Publishers’ reputations depend
on how well they do that. A medical journal, for instance, cannot print
fabricated data or paralogistical interpretations. People could be harmed or
even die if that was the case. Peer review is supposed to guarantee that does
not happen.
People
who hang out with liars or criminals also become suspects even though they may
be entirely innocent. Witnesses proven to have told a lie in court, can have
their entire testimonies dismissed. (Our jury once returned a guilty verdict
after having to choose between two opposing testimonies.) Lawyers and scientists
need to assume written material contains no lies or fabricated data. A journal
that allows that to happen risks losing its good reputation and reason for
being.
That
brings up another problem for dissidents: It is easiest to get published in a
highly regarded journal when your paper includes a lot of data. A “with and
without” table is always impressive. Theoretical physics, by definition, does
not have original data. Otherwise, we would call it “experimental physics.”
That is why fundamental assumptions are so important. For example, there is no
way one could get acceptance in today’s mainstream cosmology without assuming the
universe had a beginning.
One way to get around that is to tie your critique of regressive physics to some discipline outside of theoretical physics, like Steve Bryant did:
Bryant,
Steven. 2023. "Assessing GPT-4’S role as a co-collaborator in scientific
research: a case study analyzing Einstein’s special theory
of relativity." Discover Artificial Intelligence 3 (1): 26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00075-3.
I
find the best place to publish books without enflaming the guardians of theoretical physics is with KDP on Amazon. It is free, and you can set royalties as high as 70%. There is no technical review
except for layout problems. You have to get peer reviews by
yourself, if at all. Good luck finding reviewers who can
accept your fundamental assumptions.
Of course, mainstream publishers are preferred, but they tend to shy away from anything controversial. In 1980 my agent shopped “The Scientific Worldview” to a dozen major publishers with no luck. The most encouraging rejection was from Macmillan, who wrote something like this: “Brilliant work, but too difficult for the layman and too controversial for the scientist.” Even if accepted, the second crucial part of publishing involves advertising and distribution. Vigorous support only goes to best sellers whose sales can support the costs.
There
are many other ways to get the word out. For instance, our PSI Blog has over
600 entries and about 80 followers. Medium.com appears more successful. In our
first year, we had over 6,000 views for our most popular post and now have over
a thousand followers.
Another
problem with dissident publishing: Dissidents seldom cite each other’s papers,
mostly because they seldom agree. While regressive physicists can get hundreds
of co-authors, a reformist is unlikely to get any. That is
because the whole of theoretical physics is beset by philosophical
disagreements based on differing fundamental assumptions. (That is why I always
emphasize The Ten Assumptions of Science as a first step in doing theoretical
physics or cosmology.)
At
the moment, well established older theoretical physicists are unlikely to read
any dissident stuff at all. Papers submitted to mainstream journals get the circular
file unless they have some actual data in support. Associate Editors tend to be
young (like I was during my ten-year stint), but are unlikely to throw out the
entire paradigm implied by a dissident submission.
Eventually,
all this will change as the contradictions accumulate and the ad hocs become
ever-sillier (e.g., perfectly empty space pushing galaxies apart at greater
than c). Read "Religious Roots of Relativity" if you
want to learn what we really are up against. But don’t despair too much. I
predict you will be around when the Big Bang Theory crumbles in the next 30
years as population growth and commensurate economic growth slows to a crawl. The
anguish to be produced by that will cause thinking people to question authority
once again. The Last Cosmological Revolution and the eventual acceptance of Infinite Universe Theory will be a big deal. Hope you can be a
part of it!]
Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment