- #1
harryjoon
- 20
- 0
In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.
Actually it is easy to criticize what others have theorized, that hard thing is to come up with something better.harryjoon said:In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.
MeJennifer said:Actually it is easy to criticize what others have theorized, that hard thing is to come up with something better.
If you have a new theory, there are 4 ways how your theory can be taken seriously by experts community:harryjoon said:That is actually what I meant. How to dare criticize in order to replace it with something new and be taken seriously as an alternative to the expert opinion.
harryjoon said:In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.
harryjoon said:That is actually what I meant. How to dare criticize in order to replace it with something new and be taken seriously as an alternative to the expert opinion.
Poop-Loops said:Criticizing scientists would be totally fine if it weren't for all the crackpots who make it look ridiculous.
http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main/
Evo said:Are you able, without doubt, to prove your ideas correct? If you are, e-mail the scientists involved. If you truly are correct, I am sure they will listen. If all you have is an opinion but no proof, don't expect much.
As others have mentioned, one has to have some competence and expertise in order to be able to make a valid criticism of whatever is being criticized. If one identifies an error in something, a bit of math or a scientific theory, then one simply brings it to the attention of someone(s) in that field then present the evidence of why the math or theory is wrong (the contradiction) and then a proposed correction.harryjoon said:That is actually what I meant. How to dare criticize in order to replace it with something new and be taken seriously as an alternative to the expert opinion.
One can click on one's profile and select find posts.harryjoon said:Originally I posted this question in the physics section hoping to get the views of the peers who have crossed the line and are now looking from the other side of the glass. It has been moved so many times that I can't even find the thread any more let alone who is reading or replying to it, not that their opinion is any less appriciated. My problem is that I am in a catch 22 situation. I have been away from accademic field so long (rasing a family) that I am now considered an amature (no published work and no accademic resume). My kids have now left the nest and I am trying finish what I started almost 30 years ago. I have formulated a complete and logical theory with ample scientific proofs and experimental verification. It is however, substantially different from the main stream physics, both in content and language. I feel in order to translate it into the modern language, I would have to learn a lot of things which would be redundant, once I have turned everyone to my way. In addition, the lesser experts do not dare put their name on my work for fear of losing their position. The proper experts do not have the time nor the inclination to even give me a second of their time, for more or less the same reasons, in addition to the undeclared belief that If it was right we would have thought of it. If we can't or didn't it proves that it is wrong. In short I can not get even reviewed let alone get published. There are other reasons this lack of response, least of which is perhaps as our friend mentions is the action of the crackpots which perhaps I am one. There are also borderline bias.
Astronuc said:One can click on one's profile and select find posts.
If you work is 'substantially' different from established theory, then it is a matter of presenting the evidence to a knowledgeable group, such as we have here at PF.
When one mentions, "translate it into the modern language", I have to wonder about that? Math and physics have evolved with a history or legacy, and the language has evolved with knew ideas and understanding.
If one's work contradicts observation, then obviously there is a flaw in one's work.
The universe is what it is, and the challenge before us is to understand it, and perhaps appreciate it.
Schrodinger's Dog said:I think you forgot the unification of electricity and magnetism. They were discreet originally believe it or not. Just to be extraordinarily pedantic.
harryjoon said:In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.
harryjoon said:In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.
wolram said:Just get it published in any old mag, you will get get feed back if you are right.
harryjoon said:I thank you for your comments. Let me explain my problem a little more without lecturing you about my theory, which I believe is against the rules here.
There a number of very important experiments in 20th century. One of them being the Michelson and Morley experiment which essentially led to the special theory of relativity. The modern unification theories predict a violation of the postulates of STR. The above mentioned important experiments, called violation tests of STR, are also interpreted as verification of STR, since they have all produced a null result. This further fuels the problem of unification. Faced with this difficulty, a lot of ingenious people have put forward a lot of ingenious theories with the appropriate mathematics which is unbelievable complicated, to an extent that no one knows what they actually mean physically. This trend by no means at an end and it is generally believed that either some new mathematics or some new observation (physical data) is needed (short of a miracle!).
What I have found is that there is a pattern in all of those experiments, and I mean all not just some, by retracing the development of modern physics to its origin. The pattern is series erroneous assumptions. Based on these corrections, all of those experiments can be modified slightly to produce the expected positive result.
Here is where the plot thickens. It is universally believed that a positive result of any of these experiment contradicts or violates the STR. Even though I have clearly proved that it does not, No one wants to read it. The same erroneous assumption have been carried over into GR and Quantum Mechanics, atomic physics and a vast part of physics, preventing a unified theory.
Such is the scope of the theory, that leads almost every one, sometimes myself included, to think that it can not be possible, and it must almost certainly be a delusion. But the proof is in the underlying thread, or the pattern, which is undeniably there for all to theoretically see, and experimentally verify.
I guess by now you are wondering what is this secret of life that you have discovered despite all the ingenious minds and experiments that have examined them. The final problem I have is the very simplicity of these erroneous assumptions, to a point that at first they perhaps appear almost trivial.
Schrodinger's Dog said:Scientific American assuming you're in the US would be your best bet. It's laymen accessible without being too journal like.
rewebster said:OK, Z
Why don't you list ALL of the properly conducted experiments that Einstein did
Einstein was primarily a theoretician who worked in conjunction with experimentalists. There was a lot of communication among many physicists, as well as many conferences in which theoretical and experimental physicists gathered to discuss their work.rewebster said:OK, Z
Why don't you list ALL of the properly conducted experiments that Einstein did
http://www.allaboutscience.org/Albert-einstein-faq.htmIn 1921, Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics. It was given to him, not for his theories of relativity, but for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect. This scientific law explained how and why some metals give off electrons after light falls on their surfaces. The discovery led to the development of modern electronics, including radio and television. In one paper, he stated that light travels both in waves and in particles, called photons. This idea is an important part of what is called the quantum theory. Another paper was about the motion of small particles suspended in a liquid or gas called Brownian motion. It confirmed the atomic theory of matter.
harryjoon said:In a world so diversified and specialised, where it is almost impossible to be an expert in a fraction of a field, how can anyone make a contribution which might be critical of ideas in a number of different fields.
Please tell us. http://www.einstein-website.de/z_physics/wisspub-e.htmlrewebster said:yes---but the point is, how many experiments did Einstein do, himself, relating to his theories before he published his paper(s) , or to 'prove' his paper(s)?
Asking anyone who has a hypothesis/theory to prove 'by experiment' that theory isn't necessary. It just has to have merits (and still may not be 'right'--it's just got to be 'more right' than the existing ones) that may or can be proved later, as in string theory (which still may never be proved).
There was a period of 'years' between the hypothesis and the experiment for the starlight bending around the sun---and, still, Einstein did not do the experiment himself.
rewebster said:OK, Z
Why don't you list ALL of the properly conducted experiments that Einstein did
Making an original contribution means creating new knowledge or ideas that have not been previously explored or discovered. It involves conducting research and experiments to generate new insights or solutions to a problem.
While being an expert in a particular field can certainly help in making an original contribution, it is not a requirement. Anyone with a curious and open mind, and a willingness to learn and explore can make an original contribution.
Yes, a non-scientist can make an original contribution. Science is a collaborative field and often involves interdisciplinary research. Non-scientists can bring unique perspectives and ideas to the table, leading to original contributions.
Yes, making an original contribution is crucial in science as it drives progress and innovation. Without original contributions, scientific knowledge and understanding would not advance, and we would not be able to solve complex problems or make groundbreaking discoveries.
To make an original contribution as a scientist, you can start by identifying a research question or problem that interests you. Then, conduct thorough research and experiments to generate new insights or solutions. Collaborating with other scientists and staying up-to-date with current research in your field can also help in making an original contribution.