Question Should an amateur theorist post/share some controversial scientific theory.?

Jan 5, 2020
15
4
15
I am an amateur theorists whom for the last 20 years has been developing some scientific theory to try to explain how energy or quanta may not only give rise to physical spacial area but also to try to explain how energy or quanta may give rise to the space-time continuum. In turn I am looking to share/post some of this scientific theory. The problem here is that some of this scientific theory might be in opposition to the present scientific way of thinking. At the same time though I have nothing but respect & admiration for all Mathematicians, Scientists and or Physicists in all fields of study, as I define people like these as being my intellectual betters. In turn it is because of this that I don't want to post/share something that might make them feel like I am trying to challenge their intectual prowess. So what does a person do in a situation like this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Jan 7, 2020
105
37
110
I am unsure how we will be able to progress in science at this point, especially given the fact that the Black Hole Image Data was fabricated and the amount of fraud. The only way to progress is to find a backer and a team to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. SAFIRE would be an example of a project that is similar to what you are talking about. We should also remember that everyone in these fields have a vested interest in not proving their lives work wrong and worthless. They would lose their funding and end up having to deal with the fact they wasted 10+ years in almost every case learning things that were wrong. I am actively fighting them because they get butt hurt when they cannot answer a question and there are a lot of problems. They have no lab evidence in most cases and have to invoke magic like dark matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Nov 16, 2019
137
53
160
I am an amateur theorists whom for the last 20 years has been developing some scientific theory to try to explain how energy or quanta may not only give rise to physical spacial area but also to try to explain how energy or quanta may give rise to the space-time continuum. In turn I am looking to share/post some of this scientific theory. The problem here is that some of this scientific theory might be in opposition to the present scientific way of thinking. At the same time though I have nothing but respect & admiration for all Mathematicians, Scientists and or Physicists in all fields of study, as I define people like these as being my intellectual betters. In turn it is because of this that I don't want to post/share something that might make them feel like I am trying to challenge their intectual prowess. So what does a person do in a situation like this?
This is a public forum, you can post whatever you want. I'm curious how it violates "current scientific" thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bruzote
Jan 7, 2020
105
37
110
Please understand that we have to step on toes and that we cannot allow actual mistakes to hold back science. Many people think science is about being right, I say it is more correct to say it is about what you can and cannot do. We do not have to fix their broken ideas to prove they are broken.
 
Sep 11, 2020
58
14
35
Theories are presented and stand or fall. If we only followed established beliefs we would still be Looking for the edge of the earth.
 
Mar 5, 2020
345
47
210
Theories are presented and stand or fall. If we only followed established beliefs we would still be Looking for the edge of the earth.
That would not be true if the powerful had something to gain or lose from a particular theory. Prestige is manufactured by the powerful and given to the willing, merit may not have any bearing on how far a scientist rises.

If you discuss a theory with other scientists and then they try to kill you. Would you still be considered an amateur? I am just asking for a friend.
 
Sep 11, 2020
58
14
35
As an amateur I am all for posting any and all theories. I enjoy reading them all. There have been many theories that sat for 30+ years before someone else took another look and brought them into the mainstream.
 
Post away, only fact that can be held true is that everything science knows is wrong and will be proven wrong at some point. Your theory and mine about quantum fluctuation/time will probably be wrong also but might be less wrong :)
Anyone that takes a hard line stance on science is a fool and will be proven a fool at some point. :)
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
Post away, only fact that can be held true is that everything science knows is wrong and will be proven wrong at some point. Your theory and mine about quantum fluctuation/time will probably be wrong also but might be less wrong :)
Anyone that takes a hard line stance on science is a fool and will be proven a fool at some point. :)
This is nonsense. Yes, some folks can be over confident in accepting scientific theories, but to say they are all wrong is a gross misstatement. Science is self-improving because it has the ability to see where it is both weak and strong. This sometimes take more time to determine than we would like. Engineers know what works (laws for normal environments and circumstances) and technological advances give us a greatly improved standard of living.
 
Mar 5, 2020
345
47
210
What if a single experiment could bring down the entire corrupt scientific establishment on this planet? A scientific revolution only requires one piece of experimental data which the Empire cannot explain away. An experimental result that the Empire has taught everyone to believe is impossible.

I suggest a violation of General Relativity that everyone could hold in their hands.

A 2021 Christmas toy incorporating the Empire’s massless propulsion system. 75 years of Imperial efforts to take over the world smashed by a toy.

technological advances give us a greatly improved standard of living.
Who is us?
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
279
106
360
The OP who started this thread is no longer a member on the site (he/she de-activated the account). That being said, if members want to pose scientific theories, then by all means do so.

Like all theoretical discussions, members should be prepared to have those theories rigorously debated by other members.
 
This is nonsense. Yes, some folks can be over confident in accepting scientific theories, but to say they are all wrong is a gross misstatement. Science is self-improving because it has the ability to see where it is both weak and strong. This sometimes take more time to determine than we would like. Engineers know what works (laws for normal environments and circumstances) and technological advances give us a greatly improved standard of living.
Best guess is all we can hope for.
The reality of the universe and it's true laws are not understood and probably never will be so how can anything be more than a guess? with math based on another guess,
We would like to believe that what we know is fact but it was 20 years ago also and everything we understand now will be on shaky ground in another 20.
Best to just keep an open mind and hope science understanding isn't on a dead end that we have to start over.
JMO
 
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
What if a single experiment could bring down the entire corrupt scientific establishment on this planet?
That would be great because it would be helpful for the majority of science that is not corrupt.

Any falsification of a specific theory that applies to, say, bridges will not suddenly collapse all the world's bridges, right? I don't think there are any theories science hold as absolutes. Indeed, all theories have a requirement that further testing would allow them to falsify the theory. Theories also can never be proven.

A scientific revolution only requires one piece of experimental data which the Empire cannot explain away. An experimental result that the Empire has taught everyone to believe is impossible.
Right, and most scientists love the idea of such an event since it means they have new territory to explore.

Who is us?
The world. I was once told that the number of hunter-gatherers in Texas could only survive with a population of a few hundred thousand. Agriculture with improved technology keeps food costs low and production high, so much so that no small amount goes out to support those who are suffering. The internet is another example since all of us benefit from it. But no technology should be considered a panacea since their are pros and cons to almost everything.
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
Best guess is all we can hope for.
Yes, however, guesses are the first steps for real science.

The reality of the universe and it's true laws are not understood and probably never will be so how can anything be more than a guess?
That is the best kind of question to help understand what science is and what it is not.

Science is objective-based, not subjective-based (e.g. philosophy). Ideas, like guesses, are subjective. They may begin the process but science requires objective evidence either to support the guesses or to allow by specific tests that would falsify them. Usually both are required. In some cases, the tests are so obvious or thorough that they become laws. Gravity is the common example since Newton's "ideas" were so remarkably accurate and they were also, apparently, universal -- to gave us orbital solutions and explained their eccentricity.

Then came GR that advanced this to a new level, so Newton's theory was not only not proven but it was falsified, yet only partially since most engineers still use Newton when relativity issues are not applicable.

We would like to believe that what we know is fact...
Yes, this is important. We all tend to believe what we want to believe and it's not that hard to fool ourselves. [Feynman made a big deal about this.] We can't allow scientism to creep in and attempt control over science and the SM (Scientific Method). It's too easy for non-scientists with authority to use that authority unwisely.
 
Yes, however, guesses are the first steps for real science.

That is the best kind of question to help understand what science is and what it is not.

Science is objective-based, not subjective-based (e.g. philosophy). Ideas, like guesses, are subjective. They may begin the process but science requires objective evidence either to support the guesses or to allow by specific tests that would falsify them. Usually both are required. In some cases, the tests are so obvious or thorough that they become laws. Gravity is the common example since Newton's "ideas" were so remarkably accurate and they were also, apparently, universal -- to gave us orbital solutions and explained their eccentricity.

Then came GR that advanced this to a new level, so Newton's theory was not only not proven but it was falsified, yet only partially since most engineers still use Newton when relativity issues are not applicable.

Yes, this is important. We all tend to believe what we want to believe and it's not that hard to fool ourselves. [Feynman made a big deal about this.] We can't allow scientism to creep in and attempt control over science and the SM (Scientific Method). It's too easy for non-scientists with authority to use that authority unwisely.
For sure it's all guess work.
Every scientist should remember that before they get obnoxious about a guess and math that supports it that is another guess.
Reality is probably a pretty long way from what we understand.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts