When you say 'theory'...

[cran]

"When you say 'theory'..." what do you really mean? Thank you, Nereid, that was the gem I was looking for...

I imagine that many of us have dreamed of going down in history because of an idea that completely revolutionised the way we see the universe...names immortalised alongside Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, etc... :D

I imagine that most of us have personal heroes, icons, role-models in the scientific community B) ...and feel the urge to take umbrage at any criticisms of these persons, or their ideas... :o :angry:

I imagine that many of us have our own, personal interpretation or definition of a number of fundamental concepts...space, time, dimension, evolution, gravity, redshift, relativity, quantum uncertainty, etc... :blink:

I imagine that most of us have questions about the raft of currently accepted theories... validity or uniqueness of preconditional assumptions, applicability to certain observations/ interpretations/ experiments... :unsure:

I imagine that when such a question is asked, it is either: to gain a greater personal understanding of the concept (or how the concept was constructed)... :huh: ;
or to highlight a potentially non-unique assumption upon which the concept is founded... :)

I imagine that most of us have no desire to overthrow the scientific method, or to bypass due diligence and rigorous scrutiny... :ph34r:

I imagine that when an idea is offered, it is either: a different interpretation of some data, rather than an attempt to overthrow the establishment... :ph34r: ;
or, it is a carefully constructed, self-consistent, RAVE* essay which really does offer a clearer insight into that part of the universe it seeks to address... :D

I imagine that the last, and only the last, might eventually be considered a theory... <_<

Of course, all of this is simply my imagination... :P

I have questions, I have personal interpretations and definitions, but I will offer nothing which might be considered a theory, alternative or otherwise...so, if I ever say &#39;my theory is...&#39;, feel free to smack me down... :ph34r:

If I say &#39;why is it that...&#39;, or &#39;what if...&#39;, or &#39;I think...&#39;, then feel free to take it or leave it, challenge it, or seek clarification... :) ...but don&#39;t try and tell me it&#39;s my &#39;theory&#39;... <_<

okay?

*RAVE = relevant, accurate, valid, erudite

[Nereid]

I have personal interpretations and definitions
And have you posted these, here in AT, for us to discuss?

In any case, what I find particularly helpful, when folk post their ideas, is a statement which covers the following:
a ) whether the idea requires any &#39;new physics&#39; (i.e. something not in mainstream physics), or not; "don&#39;t know yet" would also be helpful (if true)
b ) whether or not a critique of the idea, based on standard physics, would be considered relevant
c ) what domain the idea seeks to cover (and/or what not). E.g. galaxies and larger scale things, but not stars and smaller
d ) whether the idea has been quantified, even to an OOM level or not
e ) the extent to which the idea is consistent with good observational results; "no such consistency exercise has yet been undertaken" (or similar) would also be helpful
f ) what material on the idea has been published; if there is some, then references.

[cran]

And have you posted these, here in AT, for us to discuss?
Not in so many words, Nereid... I haven&#39;t been here very long, and I&#39;ve barely scratched the surface of what might have already been &#39;covered&#39; or &#39;blown out of the water&#39; (no sense in betraying any more ignorance than I absolutely must... <_< ) ... let&#39;s face it, I&#39;m not >gulp< brave enough, just yet :(

And whilst I have little confidence in BB (as I &#39;understand&#39; it... which must be a qualifier... ;) ) ... I do find myself pondering certain aspects ... such as a &#39;bi-lobal&#39; geometry to account for the apparent matter/antimatter imbalance - I think I dropped that in as a question somewhere... :huh: ... or wondering what happened to all of the accumulated radiation between us and the observed CMB ... I think you helped to answer that one :D

And... some excellent guidelines, Nereid&#33; :D that&#39;s the sort of thing I was hoping for&#33;

Actually, I&#39;m hoping that this thread might pull together a set of guidelines for all of us to be able to refer to when presenting or critiquing ideas ... if such already exists, can someone drop a link to it here? :unsure:

Personally, I hear alarm bells and &#39;danger&#33;&#39; calls whenever I read the phrase "my theory" or "I have a theory" or "everybody else is just wrong&#33;" - I believe that most, if not all scientists get into their profession because they are determined to make new discoveries... whatever their personal motives might be... and therefore, most scientists will seek new or better theories (or refinements) to explain the natural universe... and whilst there have been fools (&#39;everything worth discovering has been discovered&#39;) or those whose apparent ignorance is exceeded only by their apparent arrogance (and this is not restricted to science, more&#39;s the pity)... there are not so many who&#39;s lives and careers really depend upon maintaining &#39;tradition&#39; or the &#39;status quo&#39;; most would clutch at any chance to be associated with the next Nobel Prize for whatever...

My biggest concern about launching out with my own thoughts, is the possiblity of being accused of plagiarism, because someone else had already published the same idea... :(

That may well have happened over &#39;AIT&#39; (accretion-in-transit), which was an idea I came up with to explain the initial phases of planetary formation (and which has since gained some ground with recent observations and analyses of presolar material, I understand B) ) ... because I&#39;d been told in 2000 that this part of the process was not fully understood or explained... since joining UT, I&#39;ve learned the virtually the same idea had been published in the 1950&#39;s&#33;

When I was studying &#39;snowball earth&#39; theories and mass extinctions in the geologic record, I built upon the work of Leitch and Vasicht (1997?) (with due credit, of course) and presented my findings/conclusions in a series of essays in 2001 (which also included AIT); the result earned me a high distinction, but my supervisor&#39;s written comment was "I am not qualified to really judge this..." :blink: so I remain uncertain about my findings and my conclusions... and for all I know, someone else has already published the same ideas - but has done so after completing all of the necessary research... :unsure:

Another question I have asked is about the accuracy or margin of error regarding the &#39;5 billion years&#39; of observed &#39;accelerated universal expansion&#39; - simply because it triggered a light bulb in my head; and fits rather neatly with an idea I&#39;ve been toying with for nearly 30 years... it&#39;s the piece of observation that I figured must be there for the idea (I won&#39;t call it mine, because I think some others have very similar thoughts), but I&#39;ve been burned before on "rough estimates" being put forward as absolutes (&#39;glacials and interglacials&#39; is a prime example&#33;)...

I don&#39;t really care about being hailed as &#39;the next Einstein&#39; - it would be nice ;) ... but not what I am on about - I have long since adopted the policy "it doesn&#39;t matter who gets the credit, as long as the goal is achieved" - we used it a lot in politics, where we (as a very small but vocal party) put forward position statements and goals for the state ... and the big parties then picked up the ball and ran with it - result, some of what we wanted to achieve for South Australia is now state policy&#33; :)

It&#39;s a bit of a buzz, being able to hear about some new initiative being announced in state parliament, and Megan and I would grin at each other, "sound familiar?" ;)
just as I imagine it would be a bit of a buzz to be able to say "yeah I knew such-and-such, and discussed that idea in UT... before it took the scientific world by storm&#33; :D ... and then we would all argue over who gave that vital clue that turned such-and-such&#39;s simple idea into a radical new theory that revolutionised our view of the universe ... or united QT and GR ... or proved beyond doubt the existence of (insert your favourite unproven item here...) :lol: