How can I submit for comments to STR and GTR experts my work

[EagleH]

I have a third circle degree in Physics and I used to be in Theoretical Physics research. Since long, I work in a different field. Therefore, I have no contacts with the international scientific community. I prepared a paper with title “A Heraclitean approach to the Relativity Theories” and Abstract:

“Fragments of the book “On Nature” written by the pre-classic Greek thinker Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 535 – c. 475 BCE), a native of the Greek city Ephesus of Ionia on the coast of Asia Minor, have been rescued and catalogued (Diels & Kranz [1903]).

Following understanding by Axelos ([1976]) that in the teaching of Heraclitus there is indication of the laws of Nature, some fragments are considered with a contemporary physicist’s approach. This leads to the formulation of hypotheses, on the basis of which are mathematically deduced equations formally identical to the Einstein’s:

· 1905 CE Lorenz Transformations of the Special Theory of Relativity and

· 1916 CE Field Equation of the General Theory of Relativity”.

I submitted it for publication to three journals. It was not accepted, without any comment regarding its scientific correctness. Of course, I think it is correct and interesting from the point of view of History and Foundations of Physics. However, without comments from colleagues I cannot be sure about it.

I would much appreciate if someone could advise me, if there is a way to submit it to Special and General Relativity experts for their comments.

 

[fresh_42]

The step from Heraclit to Einstein is, hmmm, huge. The mathematical language gap alone suggests that it is impossible. Heraclit and EFE? 2,400 years?? 200 years before Archimedes and Euclid? Not to mention Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, Legendre, Gauss, Liouville, Riemann and many others.
I suspect that nobody wants to waste time on such a connection, since it looks like pure nonsense.

This would need a really big, big hook to get someone reading it. And I suppose that even historians have their reasonable doubts. Me, too, by the way.

 

[Dale]

I submitted it for publication to three journals. It was not accepted, without any comment regarding its scientific correctness. Of course, I think it is correct and interesting from the point of view of History and Foundations of Physics. However, without comments from colleagues I cannot be sure about it.

It seems like a history paper, rather than a science paper. It probably is not a good fit for the journals you have tried. Journals will not typically review papers that the editor decides are not a good fit for the journal.

I would recommend looking for a history or even philosophy journal rather than a scientific journal. Consider what journals you referenced the most in your paper. Also, consider which journals have already published similar papers.

 

[micromass]

“Fragments of the book “On Nature” written by the pre-classic Greek thinker Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 535 – c. 475 BCE), a native of the Greek city Ephesus of Ionia on the coast of Asia Minor, have been rescued and catalogued (Diels & Kranz [1903]).

Following understanding by Axelos ([1976]) that in the teaching of Heraclitus there is indication of the laws of Nature, some fragments are considered with a contemporary physicist’s approach. This leads to the formulation of hypotheses, on the basis of which are mathematically deduced equations formally identical to the Einstein’s:

· 1905 CE Lorenz Transformations of the Special Theory of Relativity and

· 1916 CE Field Equation of the General Theory of Relativity”.

I'm sorry, but this abstract looks like complete garbage. And I'm being nice. You won't find any reputable journal to post this in.

 

[EagleH]

Thanks Fresh_42,

7 rescued fragments of Heraclitus are considered and the following 8 hypotheses about the world derived from them. These are:

1. The world is one and the same for all.

2. The world is the expression of logos.

3. Logos is common.

4. Logos is knowable by humans.

5. Logos is describable with mathematics.

6. Things are identifiable through the values of measurable defining quantities.

7. Knowledge of the measurement of a thing in a frame of reference, leads through logos to the knowledge of the unique corresponding measurement of the same thing in any frame of reference.

8. Any thing is connected to any other thing.

In addition are assumed:

The homogeneity of the 3dimensional space and time;

The isotropy of 3dimensional space are;

The reducibility of any measurement to 3dimensional space and time coincidences.

Modern mathematics including Riemannian geometry applied on the above, lead to the Lorenz Transformations of the Special Theory of Relativity and the Field Equation of the General Theory of Relativity.Thanks Dale,

My references are:

Axelos, K. [1976]: ‘Ο Ηράκλειτος και η φιλοσοφία’, Athens: Exandas.
Caldirola, P. [1966]: ‘Istituzioni di fisica teorica’, Milano: Editrice Viscontea.
Diels, H., Kranz, W. [1903]: ‘Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker griechisch und deutsch’, Berlin: Weidmannsche buchhandlung.
Kirk G.S.[1954]: ‘Heraclitus, the cosmic fragments’, Cambridge: University Press.

Too limited as no one, that I know, worked on this subject before.Thanks micromass,

For being nice. I would be happy if you might also be interested.

 

[Dale]

no one, that I know, worked on this subject before.

Then it is unlikely to fit in any journal.

Unfortunately, it also doesn't fit well on PF, so we will close the thread at this point.