Publishing Theoretical Physics in The Age of Censorship

PSI Blog 20230807 Publishing Theoretical Physics in The Age of Censorship

 

Advice for students contemplating a career challenging the current cosmogonical paradigm.

 Photo by JESHOOTS.COM on Unsplash

 

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/RefPhy

 

https://gborc.com/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.”