If not here, where can I get feedback on new theory?

[Marion Hollowa]

I accept that this forum's policy ("If you have a new theory or idea, this is not the place to look for feedback on it...") without question, and I am not asking for that kind of feedback. I am asking if there is anywhere to get feedback on a new unpublished theory? Thanking you in advance for any suggestions.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Do a google search for other science communities.

 

[Marion Hollowa]

Thanks. I just did, and found one. Thanks again.

 

[Evo]

Be careful, an online forum that let's anyone post anything to be answered by anyone is a bit dubious.

 

[Marion Hollowa]

Thanks for the advice. I never expected that it would be so difficult to have a new idea read by an expert in Physics. Are there so many new untested theories that it would waste too much time to read them all? Assuming there are thousands that are baseless and one that is valid, I am wondering how the one good idea gets through. Do you believe there are any reputable physicist that would agree to read it if they were paid to do so?

 

[mfb]

Are there so many new untested theories that it would waste too much time to read them all?

There are some many texts (not theories) that it would be a waste of time to read them all.

Actual theories are read. They come from physicists who do not have issues to contact other physicists.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thanks for the advice. I never expected that it would be so difficult to have a new idea read by an expert in Physics. Are there so many new untested theories that it would waste too much time to read them all? Assuming there are thousands that are baseless and one that is valid, I am wondering how the one good idea gets through. Do you believe there are any reputable physicist that would agree to read it if they were paid to do so?

Literally anyone can write something and post it online heralding it as a new "theory". It would be a waste of time for experts to try and read through all the rubbish just in case. If something is worth reading then it most likely was written by someone with qualifications and experience (otherwise how would they know what to write?) and as such is far more likely to be published in peer-reviewed literature.

The best place to get feedback on your ideas is peer-reviewed literature. Choose an applicable journal that you've been reading papers from during the course of your research and write up your paper to their admission guidelines to submit it. If you don't know of any journals then your research wasn't thorough enough by far and your "theory" most likely worthless. I'm not trying to cause offence, just telling the truth.

This recent similar thread might be of interest to you
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=683075

 

[ZapperZ]

Thanks for the advice. I never expected that it would be so difficult to have a new idea read by an expert in Physics. Are there so many new untested theories that it would waste too much time to read them all? Assuming there are thousands that are baseless and one that is valid, I am wondering how the one good idea gets through. Do you believe there are any reputable physicist that would agree to read it if they were paid to do so?

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2979

In particular:

That is like keeping a broken vase, rather than throwing it out, with the hope that it will reassemble into its original self! Sure, the phase space for that happening isn't zero, but I'll be darn if it has happened before!

You don't plan your life around something that has such a low probability of happening that it might as well not happen. So why should you demand that out of physicists?

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Are there so many new untested theories that it would waste too much time to read them all?

Often these ideas are not new. We regularly get people who disregard the rules and post "their" "new" theory of gravity, even though it was proposed in 1690.

Do you believe there are any reputable physicist that would agree to read it if they were paid to do so?

If you dealt one-on-one, you would probably have to pay in advance. When faced with a negative assessment of their theory, people might refuse to pay. You could go to a National Lab, under a Work-For-Others Agreement, but it would not be cheap. I'd estimate $4000.

 

[Marion Hollowa]

Thank you to every one that responded. This is a real learning experience and I am grateful for the time taken and the thoughtfulness of the responses. I can see your points and understand the probability of my friend's "theory" being valid is very small. If he did not have such a convincing case that fully supports experimental results, and even explains things like the voyager paradox all with the formulas to predict it, I would have given up by now. So, I will follow your advise and try to find a peer-reviewed literature site. He is a modest guy (you can see I am doing his bidding) and really only wants someone to find the flaw his logic, and math, because otherwise he will be left thinking "what if".

 

[micromass]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

 

[strangerep]

[...] wants someone to find the flaw his logic, and math [...]

It's always prudent to calculate one's score on the John Baez crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html