How can I safely share my new theory with the physics community?

[Gravitron]

If one wished to put a new theory in front of the physics community, but was not currently in any academic position, and did not work in the field currently, how should they proceed. All while keeping their theory safe from robbers.

Please help, any insight would be helpful.

G

 

[diazona]

First step I would suggest: find someone who does research in the area of physics your theory deals with, and see what they think of it.

People stealing your theory is not something you have to worry about - it's quite rare for that to happen.

 

[Pengwuino]

My god this is almost a topic worthy of a sticky.

Do you have an idea where you want to publish your paper?

 

[Gravitron]

My god this is almost a topic worthy of a sticky.

Do you have an idea where you want to publish your paper?

Yes, however I have no idea where to start. I have almost a complete abstract, the math already exists, I just need to get it out there. IT IS BIG! imho anyway. But, I can explain the solar system formation to a tee that makes the simplest of sense (like the universe likes it) and it is one of those OMG how could we have missed this? It is soooooo simple.

Why are gas giants in the outer solar system and dense rocky planets near the middle? I can answer that with this.
Why do the planets spin? I can answer that with this
What causes a black hole? I have the answer
and all so definitive most everyone, even skeptics will go... Duh! of course!

Now, how do I go about telling everyone. and getting this in front of some human calculators to verify. I work for a living, and that makes time management tough. I will have the Abstract Copyrighted and submitted intellectual protection, but mainly I want this out there, and I want people to know how truly simple the universe wants to be.

Thank you in advance for any guidance.

 

[Pengwuino]

Do you actually have the paper written? Abstracts are typically short and contain few details so by themselves they aren't great. Do you know anyone in academia? It seems a typical way of publicizing a paper that you're afraid of being stolen (which is actually a silly fear) is to post it on the pre-print of arxiv. However, apparently you need a .edu email or a sponsor.

 

[Gravitron]

Do you actually have the paper written? Abstracts are typically short and contain few details so by themselves they aren't great. Do you know anyone in academia? It seems a typical way of publicizing a paper that you're afraid of being stolen (which is actually a silly fear) is to post it on the pre-print of arxiv. However, apparently you need a .edu email or a sponsor.

I know I am a bit paranoid, but my sister is a professor at a SE college, and she said there was some experience of a person taking credit for someone else's work, and it was pretty painful. I probably have nothing to fear.

The difficulty with this issue, is that all the math currently exists, it just hasn't been applied in this way. So , there is more example of the processes than long mathematical dialog for each and every one. I would like to have the fundamental math verified by a third party before presentation, but I am unsure of how to do that as well. Are there people that contract out for that type of work? Am I protected if I do that. The only reason I worry about it, is that there are huge implications associated with this application. Possibly very profitable ones. So I need to be sure I am on the right path.

Thanks!

G

 

[Pengwuino]

If your sister is a professor, she should know how publishing works and could probably point you in the right direction. Once published or at least submitted, it's verifiable that it's your work first.

 

[Gravitron]

If your sister is a professor, she should know how publishing works and could probably point you in the right direction. Once published or at least submitted, it's verifiable that it's your work first.

You would think wouldn't you? She is not very helpful in this realm. I require insight into submitting this work into the community from a non-academic point of view. I am not in the academic world, so I would be coming in from the outside. A "know-nothing" that is trying to submit something as big as the theory of Gravity. Some, if not most may find that laughable and ridiculous. That is my fear. But this is so simple, I could walk into a meeting room of experts, and 1/2 hour later, the world might change.

And believe me, I'm the ultimate skeptic, so I know how it is sometimes. If there is anyone on this site that can point me in the right direction, please help. I can fly pretty much anywhere, anytime if that will get me in front of someone.

 

[eri]

I suggest seeing if your sister can introduce you to an astronomer or physicist at her college who might be able to help you flesh out your ideas. Without the math in place, I find it hard to believe your ideas could really do a better job of predicting what's going on than the current theories. Are you familiar with the current research in the field, and why we think planets spin, disks form the way they do, and where black holes come from? Do your ideas agree with the observations that have been done? If your ideas involve overturning current theories, they must explain all that the current theories do and do a better job of it. But please don't mass-mail (or email) every astronomer you've heard of and some you haven't about your ideas (not that you seem like the type); you'll get get ignored. Trying to make individual contact with someone might work better.

 

[turbo]

If you want proof of authorship, (the cheap way) print out a copy of your paper and mail it to yourself via certified mail. DON'T open it when you get it - save it aside in a safe place - the seal and postmark are your friends. Figure out where the paper ought to be published, carefully follow the formatting and submission guidelines for the journal(s), and send it in.

 

[Pengwuino]

What you're eventually going to get to is people asking how you can be so sure you have discovered anything if you obviously don't know what the current research shows (otherwise you would know where to publish and how). Do you even know what journals are out there in the field you're interested in?

 

[vociferous]

If you do not have the professional background, then I would suggest at least running it by some people with PhDs in the fields you are looking at. If your paper is genuinely quality work, you can try submitting it to a journal directly (peer review journals publish information on formatting and other minutiae required for submission), but I strongly suggest you get some expert opinions first. Even a graduate student would probably run papers by his adviser (or a similarly competent individual) before trying to get them published. Also, an expert in the field would be in a position to tell you if similar papers have already been published.

 

[Choppy]

It's suprising how often this question gets asked around here.

My advice would be to start reading the journals that are relevant to this field. If you don't know what these are, or don't understand them, then you need to advance your education (formal or otherwise) until you do.

Once you're familiar with the relevant literature, then you will know where your idea stands in relation to what else is out there. The extreme vast majority of publications are not publications of grand theories that re-explain the universe, rather they are small, incremental advancements in our knowledge based on rigourous study, logic and repeated testing.

 

[Gravitron]

Would anyone here happen to be in a position to want to read my paper after I get done with the legal? Perhaps you may know someone who would be willing?
BTW, this theory does not re-think current laws or try to change all of the current theories, but I'm sure it will cause some excitement. And since all the math has already been figured out, easy to plug in the numbers and see if it is really something. Best of all, only 11 pages long. It is worth it to try and change modern science by reading 11 pages.

Let me know.

G

 

[vanesch]

Best of all, only 11 pages long. It is worth it to try and change modern science by reading 11 pages.

You know, I'm going to be pessimistic. I don't know you, I don't know what you have done, it is not logically excluded that you ARE on something, but... just from what I read here, almost all red indicators light up: you seem to be very sure of the value of what you've done, while being outside of the field professionally, and without having contacted people within the field to have a second opinion - even without knowing the relevant litterature. That is not the most optimistic scenario for a truly relevant contribution.

When you say things like:

But this is so simple, I could walk into a meeting room of experts, and 1/2 hour later, the world might change.

my red alerts go off.

Mind you, things like that have happened in the past. Say, once or twice a century.
On the other hand, I've seen statements like that by crackpots thousands of times. So my Bayesian estimator, with the relatively low information content I have about it, swings way in the red zone...

 

[Pengwuino]

Also, what is your educational background?

You are sending up a lot of red flags, unfortunately. There is a pretty common MO for crackpots. It seems to be paranoia around someone stealing their idea, their lack of academic establishment, lack of understanding how to publish, belief their idea is revolutionary (thank god you haven't compared yourself to Einstein or Newton yet... inside joke ;) ), and they don't give any real insight into what they're working on.

 

[Gravitron]

Also, what is your educational background?

You are sending up a lot of red flags, unfortunately. There is a pretty common MO for crackpots. It seems to be paranoia around someone stealing their idea, their lack of academic establishment, lack of understanding how to publish, belief their idea is revolutionary (thank god you haven't compared yourself to Einstein or Newton yet... inside joke ;) ), and they don't give any real insight into what they're working on.

Ok, you called me out on the table. I'm going all in...

see the next post.

G

 

[Vanadium 50]

Two comments. One is that this idea is neither new nor original. Google "push gravity" and you will see dozens or hundreds of crackpots and cranks pushing (no pun intended) this idea. The idea goes back at least as far back as 1690 with Nicholas Facio.

The second is that your writing style will score big points on the Baez index; if you ever develop another theory, it would be worth keeping in mind.

 

[DukeofDuke]

All right here you go. This is what I have. in PDF attached
Please read the whole document before you make judgements. Also, please keep in mind that this is not intended to scare anyone off or try and change the basic laws, it just makes the most sense, so I followed through. Check the math and run a few numbers, it would be great to get verification. and forgive spelling, as you called me out, so I have to submit before it was double checked.

feel free to call me or send an email with ? or comments. info at bottom.

G

Heh, well you got at least one thing right. The universe is pretty lazy.

http://www.eftaylor.com/software/ActionApplets/LeastAction.html

Turns out, stuff always takes the path from A to B that requires least kinetic energy. In other words, takes the path of least resistance...

By the way, your theory on fluid systems kind of reminds me of Leibniz's swirling vortices.

But, you should know, that your aether theory really doesn't make sense. Even using what I know about fluid dynamics (first year physics anyone?) I can tell you your theory is extremely flawed. The only reason there's "pressure" as you dive further in the ocean is because of GRAVITY. if you took all that water and suspended it somewhere in outer space with no large masses nearby, the molecules at the very top wouldn't push down on the molecules in the middle because there's no gravity pushing them down (I am not counting the random jarring, but am talking about the concentrated push we see in, well, the ocean)! Compounding pressure is not an inherent characteristic of fluids. The pressure we observe in the ocean, which you used to justify your theory, only comes about because gravity pulls on all the particles above you, causing all of them to push down on you, not just the ones in your vicinity. If some force is not applied to the entire fluid body, like gravity, you wouldn't have the compounding pressure effect that gets bigger as you go down further. Instead, you'd always only be affected by the water in your locality, only by its random jarring, not by its concentrated push downwards (which...comes from that force on it!).

So the example you extrapolated the nonexistence of gravity from requires gravity. If you want to disprove gravity, you can't use a phenomenon which we understand through gravity...you have to explain first how that phenomenon works w/o gravity. amirite?

Think about it this way. The universe is lazy right? Why should particles in an aether way way out there be bothered to push down on us all the way over here? Why should the molecules at the top of the ocean care about us, halfway down? That kind of crazy action at a distance isn't "simple". You've got to force those particles to care...suspend them in outer space and they'd just float on...if you leave out gravity, you can forget about pressures that add up in any meaningful way besides local jarring.

Its good that your thinking. Thinking is always good. But I recommend you take some courses in mechanics and E&M at your local university. Everybody loves jumping into quantum mechanics and relativity, but I got to be honest, if you really want to understand them you have to spend some time with my buddy Maxwell and his equations. And if you want to not make silly mistakes you have to know your classical mechanics! Sometimes theories just don't make sense and you have to know what we know well already in order to determine if this is the case or not!

 

[cristo]

Personal theories are only permitted in the Independent Research forum. If you wish to discuss this work any more, then you must post it there. Trying to circumvent the rules by adding your work onto a thread in the advice forum is not permitted.