Is There a Section for Submitting Alternative Theory Papers on Physics Forums?

[somasimple]

Hi All,

On some other scientific forums, it is possible to submit alternative theories papers. These papers are of course, discussed following the scientific rule "All things being equal...".

Is there such a section in Physics Forums?

 

[humanino]

Hi,

did you notice https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301 ?
I suggest you don't skip the reading of "[MUST READ] Rules for submission to this forum."

 

[somasimple]

Disagreement with Prior Experiments

Items of Submitted Research must not be inconsistent with known experiments (Tier 2, Rule 2). If the quantitative predictions of an item have already been found false beyond a reasonable doubt by an experiment that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then the thread should be rejected.

Erroneous Disagreement with Accepted Science

While we should not assume a priori that an item of Submitted Research is wrong just because it disagrees with accepted scientific theories, it is undeniably the case that currently accepted theories are known to have a domain of applicability in which they yield reliable predictions. If an item contains fundamental flaws regarding such scientific knowledge, then it should be rejected (Tier 2, Rule 1). Items of Submitted Research are expected to disagree with accepted science. But the root of the disagreement must not lie in a misunderstanding of the latter.

Unfortunately, the theory points out some errors in the accepted and actual one. How is it possible to post a new theory about a phenomenon without contradicting the previous ones?

 

[humanino]

Unfortunately, the theory points out some errors in the accepted and actual one. How is it possible to post a new theory about a phenomenon without contradicting the previous ones?

If your theory is in disagreement with known experiments, you will not be able to post about it here.

If your theory is in disagreement with current accepted theories, about testable predictions, it is quite good news for you !

If your theory is in disagreement with current accepted theories, about practically untestable predictions, it is rather bad news, but may be worth further examination to look for testable predictions.

 

[somasimple]

If your theory is in disagreement with known experiments, you will not be able to post about it here.

If the previous experiment omitted an important fact that makes the previous experiment conclusions different?

 

[humanino]

If the previous experiment omitted an important fact that makes the previous experiment conclusions different?

I'm not sure I'm following you. An experiment can not be wrong by itself. The interpretation of the data can be erroneous in view of a new theory, but that's probably not going to be a test for your theory.

Theory : The Sun orbits around the Earth.
Experiment : We can see the Sun moving around every day.

New theory : The Earth orbits around the Sun.
Same experiment can not decide between the two.

Do I make sense ?

 

[somasimple]

Yes.

I do not contest the experiment itself but its primary conclusions: If a experiment has two different "phases" but only one was discussed and the first was at the origin of the conclusion but the the second phase contests the first conclusion ?

 

[humanino]

Yes.

I do not contest the experiment itself but its primary conclusions: If a experiment has two different "phases" but only one was discussed and the first was at the origin of the conclusion but the the second phase contests the first conclusion ?

So I gather you are in the case of the fixed-Sun theory. If there was not any other observation, namely if there was not the entire complex model of epicycloids everybody is happy to forget, nobody would buy it.

If you contest the interpretation but not the experimental facts, you are in good shape with regards to the fact that your theory has not been proven wrong. But you are in trouble with regards to the fact that you need (at least) another prediction to test your theory against the currently accepted one.

Is it true that your theory contests only interpretation and not experimental facts ?

 

[somasimple]

yes.
I do not need any fact but I could and will provide them.
The actual facts show the problem but there is no discussion at all since the first fact was proved it was concluded the second was to.