How to present a new scientific idea

Welcome to PF!

The steps are quite daunting actually. If you simply write your paper then it will be ignored by many in the science community. In order to gain acceptance, you would first have to establish yourself as a valid physicist with a PhD and speak in the same language ie mathematics as they do when they write papers. Becoming a physicist can take many years of hard study.

Next you would need to submit your paper to an established scientific journal which means it will get peer reviewed before it will be published. After making whatever corrections or changes needed, the journal will publish your paper for the whole scientific community to read. From there you will face a lot of criticism both pro and con and will need to defend your ideas until they are accepted or proven wrong.

It can be a very risky business where your credibility as a physicist is put on the line and can make or break careers.

 

You will find some other threads here discussing the general question: "I think I have a new discovery. What do I do with it?", such as this one https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-publish-a-new-theorem.770922/ The general answer is to publish your idea in a suitable peer-reviewed journal.

However, a dose of reality is called for here. If you don't already know what the peer-reviewed journals in this area are, then you aren't reading them. And if you aren't reading them, then you cannot be aware of more than a tiny fraction of the work that has been done in this area in the past century.

 

But not this one! Physics Forums is not in the peer-review business, and our rules explicitly prohibit posting personal theories not already supported by the peer-reviewed literature and/or standard textbooks.

 

Yes you can post that.

 

Yes one such featured thread covers the issue with some twists:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/twin-paradox-with-a-twist.791673/

 

While some gave the direct answers to the question, I don't think those are really the answers the OP needs. In general, the most useful thing for a layperson to do when they find a flaw in GR is to assume they made a mistake, set aside their idea, and go learn GR from scratch so they can find their mistake (or, upon learning it, realize they don't even need to bother picking their idea back up).

 

The question has been answered and we can close the thread.

Russ's observation about learning GR is spot-on.