Discovered something: what to do, whom to tell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tris_d
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around an individual's claim of a discovery related to Olbers' paradox, specifically exploring the darkness of the night sky. The participant seeks guidance on how to validate their findings and the appropriate channels for publication, while expressing concerns about their lack of credentials and the reception of their ideas within the scientific community.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how to proceed with their discovery, questioning whether they will be taken seriously without credentials and seeking advice on publication.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on the nature of the discovery, suggesting it could relate to various fields such as physics or mathematics.
  • The original poster mentions their discovery pertains to Olbers' paradox and describes their interaction with professionals in astronomy who are reportedly unreceptive to their ideas, fearing contradiction of mainstream theory.
  • The original poster believes that the inverse square law can explain Olbers' paradox by considering sensor surface area and modeling light as photons, presenting this as a more complete perspective.
  • Some participants indicate that the discussion of the discovery cannot proceed in the forum due to rules regarding unverified claims.
  • There is a reiteration that the original poster does not have a new theory or assumptions, but rather a different interpretation of existing concepts.
  • A participant ultimately closes the thread, indicating that the topic cannot be discussed further in the forum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the discussion cannot continue within the forum's guidelines. However, there is disagreement regarding the validity and reception of the original poster's ideas, as well as the potential for further exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is limited by the forum's rules on unverified claims, and the original poster's ideas are not fully explored due to concerns about acceptance within the scientific community.

tris_d
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
Klungo said:
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.
 
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.
 
ZapperZ said:
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?
 
tris_d said:
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.
 
ZapperZ said:
No.
That's as good a place as any to close this thread.

Thread closed.
 
And you already have one thread open on this.

And it's not career guidance.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
5K