Cosmological Discoveries: Seeking Verification and Guidance

[Luminescent]

Hello everyone,

Can anyone assist me with the following;

I have derived some very interesting cosmological quantities within regard to radiation as it moves through space. I am looking for someone trustworthy who can help me verify my work and point me in the right direction without claiming it as their own, if on the off chance it is correct (which statistically is unlikely without some sort of revision or cited adjustments) I am currently not a student, nor do I have a degree in the fields of physics or cosmological. Do I go about publishing a paper? If so, how? Do I even need it directly verified before I publish? Any advice anyone can give would be greatly appreciated.

I am also very hesitantant to just walk into a school or university looking to get a second opinion because I'm afraid I won't be taken seriously, or even worse possibly give clues as to the direction of my work without the proper backing.

Any thoughts? my options?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

To publish a paper, you submit to a peer-reviewed journal. They will arrange for peer review.

To establish priority, you can post to arXiv at any point you feel it is ready.

 

[Luminescent]

To publish a paper, you submit to a peer-reviewed journal. They will arrange for peer review.

To establish priority, you can post to arXiv at any point you feel it is ready.

Thank you Dr. Courtney for you reply.

However, is publishing without at least a second set of eyes having looked at it first really my best option? I'm not yet so sure...

Any verified publishing "peer reviewed journals" you can recommend ?

 

[Choppy]

Usually you would publish in the journals that you're reading on a regular basis. If you're not reading any particular journal on a regular basis, your right in that the odds are against you that you've done something worth publishing.

You have to remember that the people who author these articles have spent years going over the basics and building a foundation in the field. Then they've gone on to specialize. They've had dedicated mentors and passed through comprehensive examinations, committee inspections, presented their ideas at conferences, spent lots of time with others who study their material. They spend years wrestling with their problems, following little ideas that turn out to be dead ends, refining their work, reading up on what the other people in their field are doing, and THEN coming up with a little piece of a puzzle that fits in with the current frontier of knowledge in the field.

Skipping all of that doesn't mean that making a novel contribution in impossible. But it does make in highly improbable.

And then you have to think about the time of the people who have done all of this, who you want to review your ideas. Not to say that you won't have any takers, but a lot of them you'll find will be struggling to get time to work on their own ideas. Time for reviewing other peoples' work usually is dedicated to reviewing for journals or mentoring students.

I think it's great that you have an idea and you're trying to figure out if it's viable and maybe you will find someone willing to look it over. But really, the most realistic way of going about this, is to start down the academic path yourself.

 

[Luminescent]

Usually you would publish in the journals that you're reading on a regular basis. If you're not reading any particular journal on a regular basis, your right in that the odds are against you that you've done something worth publishing.

You have to remember that the people who author these articles have spent years going over the basics and building a foundation in the field. Then they've gone on to specialize. They've had dedicated mentors and passed through comprehensive examinations, committee inspections, presented their ideas at conferences, spent lots of time with others who study their material. They spend years wrestling with their problems, following little ideas that turn out to be dead ends, refining their work, reading up on what the other people in their field are doing, and THEN coming up with a little piece of a puzzle that fits in with the current frontier of knowledge in the field.

Skipping all of that doesn't mean that making a novel contribution in impossible. But it does make in highly improbable.

And then you have to think about the time of the people who have done all of this, who you want to review your ideas. Not to say that you won't have any takers, but a lot of them you'll find will be struggling to get time to work on their own ideas. Time for reviewing other peoples' work usually is dedicated to reviewing for journals or mentoring students.

I think it's great that you have an idea and you're trying to figure out if it's viable and maybe you will find someone willing to look it over. But really, the most realistic way of going about this, is to start down the academic path yourself.

Choppy thank you for your response.

While everything you said I agree with entirely, including the bit about looking into heading down an academic path ...just so we are clear;..within regard to the background relating to the current work I speak of; I have studied the physical mechanics of systems which make up the constraints and quantities of my formulas, as well as the methods of their derivation for quite some time now...of this I can deeply assure you. I am coming forth from a highly mathematical point of view, I did not just wake up one day and say to myself, "I have an idea how radiation propagates, it goes like this..." If such were the case it would be rather likely I would need my head checked. Lol now, with that being said, I am looking for concrete answers, possibly someone on this forum willing to cite my work, or collaborate with..to help form a more accurate description of that which I have derived.
...logically and preferably someone who is either a teacher or a student in the field of physics, thus having possibly a more solidified view of the certain cosmological mechanics of my work.

 

[Dale]

However, is publishing without at least a second set of eyes having looked at it first really my best option?

Definitely not. The more people who review a paper before submission, the better. If you cannot trust people to review it then you will not have a good paper.

PF is not a place for developing personal theories. We have given all the advice that we can within the rules.

Thread closed.