Is Theory Development on Physics Forum Limited to Professional Backed Theories?

  • Thread starter Thread starter elas
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights concerns about the limitations imposed on theory development within the Physics Forum, particularly regarding the treatment of speculative ideas. Users face challenges in presenting their theories, as overly speculative posts are moved to a subforum where they cannot initiate threads. The conversation critiques the apparent bias against non-professionally backed theories, contrasting this with the acceptance of string theory despite its speculative nature. Participants express frustration over the lack of clear criteria from mentors on what constitutes speculation and call for a more open-minded approach to theory evaluation. The need for mentors to engage constructively with all theories, regardless of their origins, is emphasized for fostering innovation in the field.
elas
Posts or threads of an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice,
. Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum.

This is a 'Catch 22' situation; I was awarded 7 points out of a maximum of 15, because I mentioned my theory on the 'Particles and atoms forum' etc, so the only way I can get my work on Theory Development is by accumulating warning points and even then it may closed done for being to speculative.

Its a good thing Einstein was not born today, as a failed student working as a clerk, his chances of getting 'Relativity' on Physics Forum would be zero.

Yet 'String Theory' which is pure mathematical speculation, it does not even come within the definition of the term 'science'; but, because it has professional backing, it is allowed not merely on Theory Development, but given its own forum.

How do Mentors determine what is speculative?

Lets have a debate on the rules please.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is most dissapointing to note that while mentors are prepared to engage in expressing their personal opinions on other forums, they are not prepared to get down to giving a reasoned reply to my question, or give references or quotations to support their claim that my proposed development theory is a 'crackpot' theory.

While waiting for a reply I have reread Stephens Hawking definition of QT (he states it is all hypothetical) and his explanation of what constitutes a theory (nothing there that my theory does not match up to). Hawking also outlines the need for a theory that converts QT hypothesis into QT non-hypothesis, which is exactly what I attempt to do. ( see "A Brief History of Time').

What Theory Development forum needs is free thinking mentors who are prepared to steer 'crackpots' back onto the straight and narrow path as defined by Hawking and others and not ban subscribers on the grounds of their own personal bias.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We've gone through all this already. Give it up.

- Warren
 

Similar threads

Where to Discuss a Unified Theory of Energy on Physics Forums?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Personal Theories: Forum Policy & Discussion | Physics Forums
Replies
19
Views
3K
Debunking alternative physics theories
Replies
20
Views
2K
Suggestion Yet another solution to the Einstein field equations
Replies
3
Views
2K
Discussing Non-Mainstream Physics on Physics Forums
Replies
10
Views
3K
A Is gravity simply an interaction in the gauge theory of gravity?
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
Admissions Statement of purpose critique request (high-energy theory PhD)
Replies
0
Views
2K
B Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
Replies
47
Views
8K
Suggestion New forum: PF Lounge > Peer Review
Replies
14
Views
4K
Physical theory a pre-requisite for asking questions?
Replies
13
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top