My words are coherent and intelligible. My arguments are valid and sound. It is nonsense to accuse me of being a crackpot simply because you do not wish to hear what I have to say. Please remove the duplicate tag on this post?

I have discovered a mistaken assumption that was made three centuries ago and has somehow been overlooked since then. It is a principle that was initially and remains to this day "proven" by a perceptual error. If we put the demonstrations and examples to the test of measurement, it is clear that the principle is mistaken. It has deep rooted effects on almost every aspect of science.

It is actually a very simple problem which makes my task more difficult because I face the argument that the theoretical physics papers I have produced are too short to be of importance. This is nonsense. Bear in mind that there is no restriction on the minimum length of a physics paper and I have discovered that the more material that is available to a person who is determined not to accept something, the more hooks there are available for a confirmation bias to manifest. I have discovered through my attempts that brevity is key to overcoming confirmation bias. There is good reason that there is no restriction on the minimum length of a physics paper. Unfortunately, I have not yet discovered the key to overcoming the cognitive dissonance that confirmation bias quickly evolves into.

My papers have been rejected without peer review more than a hundred times despite having had them professionally edited to ensure that they are properly formatted and error free.

I am censored on every science forum upon which I have tried to post anything related to this in most cases before any discussion has taken place. This post itself is being marked as a duplicate with nonsensical reasoning.

It is bad science to reject a submission without even addressing the presented argument. It is bad science to reject a logical proof without showing that the premisses are false or the deduction flawed. It is bad science to base your beliefs on tradition and ignore and censor any information which might conflict with them. It is bad science to immediately accuse someone of crackpotism the moment they say something which threatens your beliefs. It is bad science to drown someone out with ad-hominem, ridicule and mockery in order to prevent that anyone else might hear what he has to say lest they be open to correct thinking.

This is a very important issue and I am not prepared to give up on it because people would prefer not to hear it.

Once the denial is overcome, this will resolve many of the anomalies that are floating around in the world of physics. Not only that, but many of the worlds greatest minds are wasting time on problems that are a result of this mistaken assumption and once they realise that, their attention can be applied to issues that are realistic instead and this might result in progress the likes of which we have not seen in many years.

It is extremely important.

How do I get my arguments properly addressed?

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – StrongBad Sep 30 '19 at 16:12

How does one get a scientist to listen to what the scientist doesn't want to hear? By providing overwhelming evidence.

In the case of physics, overwhelming evidence will be experimental data. Design an experiment where your claim can be tested, carry out the experiment and report the results.

Carefully identify possible sources of errors and uncertainties. As your claim goes against what is traditionally predicted, you should check whether the data is consistent with the predictions of textbook physics, your work, or perhaps both or neither.

Notice that even if everything else goes well, a single experiment with unexpected results will not be enough to cause a paradigm shift. The experiment must be repeated by different research groups and the results must agree before something like that is possible.


I do understand where you are coming from and can provide some pointers:

(1) Are you talking to the right people/submitting to the right journals? It might not be effective to try to demonstrate some premises are wrong in a journal which publishes primarily in a sub-field where said premises are taken for granted. Evidently, the work that has been built on top of said premises is effective and likely shown useful in real-world scenarios. Therefore, it is very likely questioning said premises could be be considered 'out of scope' in such journals, which can result in desk rejects.

(2) It is easy to argue other people have committed a certain fallacy in their reasoning. However, try to be open to the fact that you might be doing the same. Possibly there are some underlying assumptions you are making to disprove this 'mistaken assumption' which you are not communicating clearly, and which might even be widely accepted/proven to be erroneous. Listen to the reviews you do receive, and use them to better tailor your argument to a specific audience. Elaborate where needed by reading up on related work where previous people have originally proven this 'mistaken assumption'.

  • 1) Most of my rejection letters can be found here: baur-research.com/Physics/rejections.txt – John Jun 4 '18 at 8:11
  • 2) It is not easy to argue that others have committed a fallacy in their reasoning. As far as I understand it, if a logical proof is presented, it must be shown that the premisses are false or the deduction flawed before the proof can be rejected. My proofs have been rejected irrationally. I have not received any reviews (see the rejections). There have been a few people who have pointed out this mistake, but they have all been treated with hostility to the extent that they gave up. I am not able to quit because this is important. – John Jun 4 '18 at 8:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.