Where to formally submit a theory?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by cosmictotem, Feb 14, 2012.

  1. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,484
    Make an appointment, in the nearest university, with the dean of the department in which your theory belongs. He can set you up with a graduate student who can evaluate it for you.
     
    cosmictotem and ajanta like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dean64 Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Don't hold out on us. What good is your theory if you can't open it up for discussion? I promise we'll give you all the credit. After all, you posted it here first! Here is my theory:

    The Big Bang theory is correct but it exists as part of a much larger scale, one that we cannot begin to comprehend. There are an infinite number of galaxy's but they are likely too far apart from each other to have any relation to a neighbouring galaxy. Each one of these galaxies exist as part of a "Big Bang/Big Crunch" cycle. These cycles do not exist as a single event in our universe or any other universe but only one of an infinite amount of repeating events. To say the "Big Crunch" and the "Big Bang" has happened a million times over in our (or any other) universe is likely a gross understatement. Time as we perceive it, is moving on a very slow pace, almost at a standstill. In order to comprehend these events, imagine our universe and everything in it, the Big Bang, and the Big Crunch, as being one power stroke inside of one piston, in one engine, in one car, on our planet. All over and repeated again in a split second. Also, time and history repeats itself, to a certain extent, as the universe expands and contracts.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,576
    The first thing to do is to make sure your theory is a theory in the same sense of the word as is used in science.

    A "scientific theory" is a communicable framework which precisely describes the observable behavior of a large domain of related phenomena.

    So writing the paper usually begins with describing at least one phenomenon, explaining why the state-of-the-art theories are unsatisfactory (which perforce requires the ability to work with those state-of-the-art theories) and then introducing your hypothetical framework and explaining how it does a better job. Bonus points for giving other examples of phenomena and precisely comparing observation and theory.

    1) The basic big bang theory is that GR and the other laws of physics are consistent with a history of the universe that used to be absurdly hotter and denser in the finite past and these initial conditions give rise to primordial nuclide abundances, cosmic microwave background radiation with a thermal spectrum which cools over time, and Hubble expansion.
    2) At no point do you give a communicable framework for precisely predicting any behavior.
    3) At no point to you connect with observable behavior of phenomena, as you postulate that billions of years of observation are needed to track your theory.
    4) Your theory flies in the face of the three main observational pillars of basic big bang theory, therefore observation defeats your theory.
    5) Your theory flies in the face of the morphological distribution of millions of observed galaxies as none are imploding.
    6) Your theory flies in the face of the evidence that galaxies collide and Andromeda is currently crashing into us.
    7) Your theory does not explain the observational success of basic big bang theory when you have to throw out at least GR and probably other laws of physics to make it work. Physical laws don't just switch off because they are philosophically inconvenient, therefore you need to rewrite all of physics before you have a hypothesis without large observational gaps left unexplained.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page