DiamondGeezer
- 126
- 0
I have written a report on the Schwarzschild Metric, where I derive a version of it that I have never seen before in the literature. I have no idea whether it is correct or not.
I would like to submit it for publication except that I would first like someone much more competent than I to review it first and tell me if and where its wrong (probably the first sentence).
No, I am not a crackpot trying to prove Einstein wrong. Einstein was not wrong (at least about Relativity). Yes, I can spell Hawking and Feynman correctly. No I don't compare myself with them - or Galileo.
The great problem is that this is the Internet and there are millions of loons who think they've discovered something that has eluded other mere mortals. I am not one of those people.
The other problem with cranks is that they waste huge amounts of time, if allowed. A review of this paper should be able to identify mistakes quickly and easily within the time it takes to read the paper (about 15-20 minutes) and I do not wish to engage in a long rambling discourse on why you'll be jealous when I win the Nobel Prize.
I'm simply trying to grasp General Relativity and think I might have found something original (but I probably haven't). I've probably stumbled into an error and I'd like a kind professor or PhD to tell me where I've gone wrong so I can learn from my mistakes and so I don't send a fundamentally flawed paper off to a journal and make a complete *** of myself.
I'm asking for peer review except the peer I'm seeking knows what they're talking about. If I can grasp the concept of where I've erred then this should be all over in an hour.
If there are willing academics out there willing to spare me a few minutes of their time to explain where I went wrong, then could they please send me a PM with their e-mail address and by return I'll send the paper.
No, I don't want to discuss the paper on the Forum - I'm embarrassed enough as it is.
I would like to submit it for publication except that I would first like someone much more competent than I to review it first and tell me if and where its wrong (probably the first sentence).
No, I am not a crackpot trying to prove Einstein wrong. Einstein was not wrong (at least about Relativity). Yes, I can spell Hawking and Feynman correctly. No I don't compare myself with them - or Galileo.
The great problem is that this is the Internet and there are millions of loons who think they've discovered something that has eluded other mere mortals. I am not one of those people.
The other problem with cranks is that they waste huge amounts of time, if allowed. A review of this paper should be able to identify mistakes quickly and easily within the time it takes to read the paper (about 15-20 minutes) and I do not wish to engage in a long rambling discourse on why you'll be jealous when I win the Nobel Prize.
I'm simply trying to grasp General Relativity and think I might have found something original (but I probably haven't). I've probably stumbled into an error and I'd like a kind professor or PhD to tell me where I've gone wrong so I can learn from my mistakes and so I don't send a fundamentally flawed paper off to a journal and make a complete *** of myself.
I'm asking for peer review except the peer I'm seeking knows what they're talking about. If I can grasp the concept of where I've erred then this should be all over in an hour.
If there are willing academics out there willing to spare me a few minutes of their time to explain where I went wrong, then could they please send me a PM with their e-mail address and by return I'll send the paper.
No, I don't want to discuss the paper on the Forum - I'm embarrassed enough as it is.