Thread 16742297

So I've a few theories under my "belt" but I don't know where to published said theories since I'm not affiliated with Academia.
Anyone from /sci/ has a recommendation where I could go to published stuff without being cock-blocked by some random tranny or DEI hired?
I mean, I got my paper reject without they giving a proper reading from Nature and it was a literal tranny e-mailing me back with pronouns and everything!
I immediately request to delete my account.
Imagine being denied publication by a literal mentally ill individual? Nature just lost any and all respect they had with me.
The theory I'm trying to publish is about light, but I've other stuff that I wish to publish too not necessarily involving physics.
So I come to ask the anons on /sci/ what are my options!
My theory about light debunk things like ΛCDM, basically the cosmological model that let's be real was not standing in "solid" ground to begin with.
I can prove that the Universe is in fact not expanding but I guess this is too Heretical for the Ecclesiastes of Science in Europe.
At least the Americans from the AAS read my paper, hurray! I'm from the country with the biggest Eagle, Spider, Swamp and River in the World.
They gave me a slight tip in between the lines of being rejected.
It was base on some minor time on a paper of 2024 on supernovae.
So I assume I must also debunk any and all credible paper under the ΛCDM with is ridiculous, but oh well.
Is always hard to fight against the current is not wonder many great ideas and thinkers are forgotten and dismiss while they live on the current molds of Academia.

Waiting for the help of fellow anons.

>schizo sees himself as a genius
>uses chatgpt to formalize his schizophrenic musings
>comes to 4chan asking where to post it
>doesn't occur to this genius to ask chatgpt where to publish

>>16742309
Thanks? I actually used Grook to help coding the simulations in Python. You've a problem with that?
You may seeth, cope and dilated tranny, but my model actually match the data far better than the ΛCDM.
You understand that LLM AI were idealized first over a decade ago to be Research Assistants?
Yes, it has recommended places that require recommendation to published like arxiv.org and or work on cliques like the case of Nature.
Thanks for the non-existent help, btw.
I'm actually thankful for the existence of said Assistants, since I never qualified to be a Cleric of Science that by your butt-hurt replied you must be a part of it.
So I never had the opportunity to developed said ideas.
Again, the ones on foundations of sand is you, my foundation is solid like a perfect geometric crystal.

>>16742297 (OP)
There's a place for visionaries like you:

viXra.org

>>16742297 (OP)
Hello, me. Still working out the kinks of the experiment. Gonna give the Professor another call and see if he’s responded yet to my three replies. Once we get the experiment funded and the results are in, the next step will be moving towards publishing the theory officially.

As for trannies — the irony they fail to grasp, as of yet, is that my theory will revolutionize technology and medicine in such a way that they’ll finally be able to “affirm” their desired identity in a scientifically valid way, without the need for mutilating their bodies in a non-functional way. Further point of irony: gender is indeed more than just biological sex. It takes more to be a man or a woman than just XY/XX chromosomes, more than a functional reproductive system, more than hormones, more than physiognomy. From my own encounter with a self-proclaimed transman — a “man” in a female body, I would say this person has a long way to go before becoming a man. Because if such a person could turn now into a biological male, he would be a criminal, a rapist, a liar, a manipulator, an abuser of women. Everyone can be rehabilitated, but the first step is taking responsibility and admitting one has a problem rather than denying reality. Because a real man is responsible for those around him.

>>16742357
Hahaha, hilarious. Picrel btw.
>>16742386
Why are you running a replied to me with a AI generate text? "—" is a dead give away, tranny.

I didn't know there was only trolls and retards on this board. I thought anons here were eager to find out the true. Guess I was mistaken.

You have two options if you are serious:

1) publish it anywhere. ViXra, a personal website.

2) Spend the next 10 years getting a degree and PhD to become a physicist, and work on cosmology. This is the only way you will publish it in a legit physics journal. Academics get weekly emails from people who claim to have solved the universe, all in completely contradictory ways. Replying to all of them would be a waste of time, you will find most people ignore your emails. It has become even worse since the advent of LLMs, as your average crank can fire out a 300 page thesis in 20 minutes.

No one is going to do experiments to test non-existent theory. It's literally bad science to write down the model after taking the data.

>>16742316
>Thanks? I actually used Grook to help coding the simulations in Python.

>>16742505
Yes, faggot. Not everyone on the planet has a degree and is part of the cleric, I didn't had code lessons on university and never embark on the #learntocode train.
But the code itself was not hard, I end up executing several codes with successful simulation results using the public data.
And I could pretty much read the code and knew it was doing what I ask for it to do in relation with my theory.
Are you saying it's unable to do simple codes for research?
>>16742504
Yeah, and that's the real problem. Science is too dogmatic and restricted. Too corrupted by it means.
There's no real archive with a integral way to analysis every publishing attempt.
I don't have the interest, really, after all I'm a millennial so my young days are over, for now. And I didn't claim to find the answer to the Universe, just the answer to the cosmological problem.
I understand, if I was part of the clique and even had 'high rank respect' I could've published on the same day that I submitted.
But since I'm a nobody, things turn out like this.
But I actually wrote a real paper and I said on OP, I was rejected on AAS but on technicality, I'll try to sieve with LLM AI next all the prominent paper on ΛCDM and "confront" with my on theory.
My theory is very grounded and I was always worry about alligment with the data.
ΛCDM doesn't allign with data with a bigger accuracy than my theory and also needs several weird notions to make it fit with the data.
So I would say there's no theory matching the data.
Mine is simple and precise.
I will end up creating my own archive in the future then, what a man can do when he's not part of any clique? Sight. At least I make my own fun.
I didn't look at the data before developing my model, by the way, I test it, and pass with flying colors, the ΛCDM could only dream of reaching the same rate of success.

>>16742569
>But I actually wrote a real paper and I said on OP
Then publish it on viXra and post it here.

>>16742297 (OP)
Can you disprove your mom being fat?

>>16742297 (OP)
From what I understand, Substack is where all you middling cranks self publish your widely rejected nonsense.

>>16742297 (OP)
I'll try to answer with as much of a straight face as possible:
1: If you are proposing a new fundamental theory, it must not disagree with, and explain with equal accuracy, any empirical findings verified under the current model. If your theory cannot explain something their theory can, yours will be thrown out immediately on those grounds. Make sure you have accounted for everything.
2: Citations citations citations. Redundant citations, even, will be a benefit because the more contemporary researchers you cite, the more likely one of them is going to be on the review board and they like seeing themselves cited. Any statement that currently exists anywhere else in scientific literature deserves a citation. We're well past the days of Einstein where you could gloss over your sources because "everyone reading this already knows this information." Cite it anyway.
3: If you get a reply stating you're wrong about something and your paper is being rejected on those grounds, either modify the paper such that the error is no longer present or include a section justifying the claim you made. It may even be worth writing an entirely different paper justifying that claim and publishing that first so you can cite it in the work you actually want published.
4. Accept being wrong if you're actually wrong. If you're right and everyone thinks you're wrong, learn to communicate more effectively.
5: Here's a list of physics journals: https://journals.aps.org/all_journals

As a general rule: open access journals are easier to get published in but will charge you more for the review process. The inverse is true for closed access journals.

>>16742504
How do I maximize the chance of a reply?

I have a 10,000 word paper that has legit solved some serious problem in physics. Just shame no one takes you on your merits these days.

>>16742297 (OP)
>I don't know where to published said theories since I'm not affiliated with Academia.
You know you can like... go to school? Like go to a university and take classes and if you do well there (which should be easy for a genius such as yourself :) ) then you can get into a graduate program and publish your work with an established ethos. If you truly are a one in a billion level genius who's able to reinvent the foundations of physics without a proper education then just image what you'd be capable of with a degree and credibility from a university.

But young nigga original poster.... There's a problem mr nigga.... It's uhm...... That Uh...... Well it's not gonna be easy to hear but here goes... *GULP*

You're a fucking retard.

>>16744070
In the retard's defense, there is genuine time and monetary investment involved there that he might not have at his disposal. But it's the toll that pretty much every great thinker since the ancient Greeks had to pay so he's not getting any special pass for it.

>>16742297 (OP)
>muh academic papers
Oh god another one in the pile of literally billions of papers that even contradict each other lots of times that not even the strongest AI can sort out or make sense of.