Possible to publish a paper that contradicts Einstein's special relativity?

[georgechen]

What experimental tests do you have that your theory is valid?

My theory is in harmony with all existing experiments as I knew and provides mathematical explanation of all following experiments. The contradiction is not on any experiment, it just had a different explanation compared to SR.
Sagnac effect; Stellar aberration; Observed Time dilation; Twin Paradox; Doppler effect; Barnett experiement Lorentz force law; Maxwell’s wave equations; Momentum to acceleration ratio; Mass-Energy relationship; Mass of moving particle; M-M experiment; one-way light speed; cosmological redshift; no red-shift for circular motion.

 

[PeroK]

My theory is in harmony with all existing experiments as I knew and provides mathematical explanation of all following experiments. The contradiction is not on any experiment, it just had a different explanation compared to SR.
Sagnac effect; Stellar aberration; Observed Time dilation; Twin Paradox; Doppler effect; Barnett experiement Lorentz force law; Maxwell’s wave equations; Momentum to acceleration ratio; Mass-Energy relationship; Mass of moving particle; M-M experiment; one-way light speed; cosmological redshift; no red-shift for circular motion.

I'll look out for you in Stockholm!

 

[georgechen]

I'll look out for you in Stockholm!

First, I need to look out for someone open minded enough to take a look.

 

[PeroK]

First, I need to look out for someone open minded enough to take a look.

Why not pay someone? Lots of physics grad students could use a bob of two (that's UK slang for a bit of extra cash). Get them to sign a legally-binding non-disclosure agreement beforehand.

 

[georgechen]

Again, any suggestion for potential reviewer or Journal is really appreciated. I just want a chance of review.

 

[georgechen]

Why not pay someone? Lots of physics grad students could use a bob of two (that's UK slang for a bit of extra cash). Get them to sign a legally-binding non-disclosure agreement beforehand.

I got my Ph.D. 20 years ago, published many papers and served as referee for years. You knew what I meant for "take a look". If you like kidding, so be it.

 

[PeroK]

Again, any suggestion for potential reviewer or Journal is really appreciated. I just want a chance of review.

No serious scientific journal is going to look at it. Predatory publishers will publish it whatever it says.

I would pay a graduate student to review it - after signing a non-disclosure agreement. I think you'd get an honest answer for your money.

 

[georgechen]

No serious scientific journal is going to look at it. Predatory publishers will publish it whatever it says.

I would pay a graduate student to review it - after signing a non-disclosure agreement. I think you'd get an honest answer for your money.

I am just curious how did Einstein, an undergraduate patent reviewer, publish his SR paper against Newton 100 years ago. People then appears to have more scientific spirit compared to today.

 

[russ_watters]

I am just curious how did Einstein, an undergraduate patent reviewer, publish his SR paper against Newton 100 years ago. People then appears to have more scientific spirit compared to today.

Einstein was not an undergrad when he published his seminal papers.

To be honest, now that you've shown your hand a bit in the Relativity forum, it is clear that your ideas are obviously wrong and the product of stubbornness. The error you were making is about something long predating Einstein and that anyone who has ever walked or talked on a plane or train understands intuitively. It was a really odd choice of a hill to die on.

This stuff is not hard to learn if you chose to, and if you want to skip learning it, you have no hope of being published in a reputable journal. Not because scientists are closed minded,, but because you are. And appealing to Einstein is a real red flag. You're definitely not the next Einstein.

 

[georgechen]

First, let me correct the undergraduate to bachelor degree.
Secondly, are you someone who we called judgmental? Did you know me? Did you see my paper? I asked a simple question, why is there not any experiment for moving observers. And you can't provide a straightforward answer.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[Nugatory]

I am just curious how did Einstein, an undergraduate patent reviewer, publish his SR paper against Newton 100 years ago. People then appears to have more scientific spirit compared to today.

Although Einstein was employed as a patent examiner at the time, he had completed an advanced physics program comparable to a modern PhD, was corresponding with many contemporary physicists, was qualified for and actively seeking a university position, and was completely up to speed on the then-open problems in physics. Thus he was already at the frontiers of knowledge, so knew enough to advance them. And of course his SR paper was not “against Newton”, it was a proposed solution to the great unsolved problem of 19th century physics, namely the troublesome fit between electrodynamics and Galilean relativity.

 

[PeterDonis]

how did Einstein, an undergraduate patent reviewer, publish his SR paper against Newton 100 years ago.

Because he was not just a "patent reviewer". He was pursuing a Ph.D. in physics (in fact, it had been awarded by the time the SR paper was published, as @Nugatory notes), and he was well known to the editors of Annalen der Physik, the journal that published his papers, because he had exchanged numerous letters with many prominent physicists of the day, discussing various issues, including the ones that led to his relativity paper. Note, btw, that he also published papers on the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion in the same year, 1905; he was also well known to the experimentalists who were investigating those phenomena, and indeed made use of their data in formulating the theoretical models expounded in those papers.

In short, Einstein was able to publish his papers because he had given plenty of prior evidence that he was thoroughly knowledgeable in the subjects of those papers. You have not shown us any such evidence; in fact, you have shown us evidence to the contrary, by persisting in asking questions like this:

why is there not any experiment for moving observers

As I remarked in your other thread on this topic, this is like knowing that $2 + 3 = 5$ but then asking why no one has checked to see if $3 + 2 = 5$.

As with that other thread, it does not seem like there is any further progress to be made in this discussion. Your question has been answered; you might not like the answer, but it is the answer, and it is not going to change.

Thread will remain closed.