The difference between you and me is that you regurgitate that what has already been written, whereas I venture out on a limb and posit a speculative perspective on what is known about a subject.
I think you'll find that in almost every case where scientific advance is made, it is made by somebody who has an exquisite understanding of the current state of scientific thought on the matter. When it comes to speculation, I might venture that there are two types: fantastical speculation and realistic speculation. In fantastical speculation, anything goes. Fantastical ideas don't need to conform to what is already known about the world. Magic is allowed in the world of Harry Potter by "speculating" about how magic might work
if we were free to ignore all the evidence that our real world doesn't allow magic of that kind. Realistic speculation, on the other hand, requires a deep understanding about what is and isn't possible, based on a knowledge of the constraints imposed by what we already know about our world. Realistic speculation then takes that small subset (of things that may be possible) and proposes reasonable hypotheses about how things might go, which can, and perhaps will, be ultimately tested to see whether such speculation was justified.
If you have vaguely come across the term "toroidal universe" somewhere, you are free - of course - to go off into wild speculative fantasies about what such a universe might look like and what might be possible within that fantasy world. But that kind of speculation won't lead to any new science. To do new science, you will need to learn about universe topologies
in general, and then the specific mathematical description of the toroidal varieties, and about what is theoretically possible in a toroidal universe.
Then, with the appropriate background under your belt, you
might be in a position to expand on the theory you have already learned to make some
intelligent guesses (hypotheses) about
novel properties that toroidal universes might have, and to suggest appropriate tests that could confirm or refute your hypothesis.
To take another example, consider Magical Realist and his UFO crusade on this forum. He, like you, likes to "posit a speculative perspective on ... a subject". So he speculates (fantastical speculation) about how lights in the sky might be time travellers from a future Mars, or whatever, and none of it is the least bit scientific or likely to provide any useful insights into the UFO "phenomenon". At the same time, he ignores everything that is known about the fallibility of human perception from science, and much else besides. And he can't be bothered to do the leg work required to get up to speed with any of that stuff, because - let's face it - realistic speculation takes so much more effort than fantastical speculation. It's easier to just tune into to entertaining stuff on youtube.
Yeahhh, isn't it something that might be fun to consider? Can you actually definitively claim that posit false or can you perhaps take that ball and run with it? Offer a variation on a theme?
The claim you want me to falsify is ... what? Your throw-away idea that a toroidal universe might be 'infinitely recycling' (whatever that might mean), and that it might therefore include 'white holes' (whatever those might be)?
Can you not see how hopelessly nonspecific your "hypothesis" is? You haven't defined your terms. You haven't outlined any mechanism by which your idea would bear its white-hole 'fruit'. We might as well talk about how Luke Skywalker's landspeeder can float above the ground. Answer: fantastical speculation, so anything goes! It just has to be fun!
Don't get me wrong. I like watching Star Wars as much as the next guy, but I don't need to kid myself that it's teaching me about science when I watch it.
Perhaps it is my 15 years of playing jazz that has given me a penchant for seeking "variations on a theme".
Theories are not fashioned by refraining from speculation. On the contrary, most theories are achieved with vigorous debate about possible solutions, until some consensus emerges and the focus shifts to providing proof.
That vigorous debate you mention is part of what I called realistic speculation, above.
I compare you to a musician playing in a large orchestra (no room for improvisation) whereas I like small free-flowing combos (allowing plenty of supporting improvisation).
Just a difference in style, that's all.
I don't think you understand what working research scientists do when they go to work each day. Do you think, for instance, that no "improvisation" was involved in the invention of vaccines for Covid 19? It wasn't the writers of Star Wars who came up with those vaccines, you know. It was scientists who have all done the hard yards in getting themselves up to speed with a lot of "boring, mundane" science that is already established. I guess you'd argue they are the type of people who, like me, simply "regurgitate what is already written". But then the obvious question arises: how do people like us ever produce anything new? Perhaps Lady Gaga dropped by the lab and imagined up a corona vaccine to spite the unimaginative scientists who were taught never to speculate? Is that what you think?
By the way, I play music too, including jazz. And yes, I improvise. I don't pretend I'm doing science while I'm playing, though.
