Discovered something: what to do, whom to tell?

[tris_d]

So I believe to have made some discovery, what now? I guess people will say to write a paper, but I don't have any credentials, will they take me seriously? And considering that, what would be some of the best places where to send it for a review?

I would also like to confirm my findings more rigorously first, and since I never published any papers I'd need some help on how to go about it. What do I do?

 

[Klungo]

What exactly is the discovery in? Physics? Math? Disney world?

Feel free what to mention what your discovery covers. Say, if it is some calculus discovery on derivatives, or some number theory prime number thingy without explicitly revealing anything you're not comfortable doing so.

 

[tris_d]

What exactly is the discovery in? Physics? Math? Disney world?

Feel free what to mention what your discovery covers. Say, if it is some calculus discovery on derivatives, or some number theory prime number thingy without explicitly revealing anything you're not comfortable doing so.

It's about Olbers' paradox: "why is the night sky dark?". I spoke before with some people working in Astronomy/Cosmology field and they are not receptive to consider it as they seem to think it would contradict mainstream theory.

I posted about it in Astronomy forum, but for the above reason I was very brief as I am afraid people would think I am arguing against mainstream. I'd be happy to tell you all about it, and I don't care if I am right or wrong, I just want to know for certain.

 

[ZapperZ]

Unfortunately, unless you can find some who is willing to look at what you did, this cannot be discussed in this forum, per the PF rules that you had agreed to.

Zz.

 

[tris_d]

Unfortunately, unless you can find some who is willing to look at what you did, this cannot be discussed in this forum, per the PF rules that you had agreed to.

Zz.

Yes, I understand that. The thing is I don't have any new theory nor I make any assumptions to arrive at my conclusion, and I do not think it actually contradicts anything. I think inverse square law explains the paradox if we only include sensor surface area in the treatment and model light as photons. That's all. Just another, more complete, way to look at it.

Does that sound like something we could discuss here?

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, I understand that. The thing is I don't have any new theory nor I make any assumptions to arrive at my conclusion, and I do not think it actually contradicts anything. I think inverse square law explains the paradox if we only include sensor surface area in the treatment and model light as photons. That's all. Just another, more complete, way to look at it.

Does that sound like something we could discuss here?

No.

Zz.

 

[D H]

No.

That's as good a place as any to close this thread.

Thread closed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

And you already have one thread open on this.

And it's not career guidance.