Pet Theories: Seeking Answers in Probability & Statistics

[Maaruk]

So, I'm not here to peddle my pet theories. I came here for the community because my knowledge is, and always will be incomplete. I have a question, maybe multiple questions about whether or not this proof I'm thinking about will work. Basically if the hypothesis matches up with reality then I would feel comfortable moving forward more strongly with the hypothesis. I have tried with my limited knowledge of probability and statistics to come up with a model but it doesn't seem to be working out. I'm certain it's my lack of knowledge of the subject, and at this time in my life, and likely into the future I'm not going to have time to go back to school to learn a whole new field although I may. My hesitance is that I'm 39, I can feel my scheme of information already calcifying so I don't know how effective it would be to go back to school, I digress.

So, the point being is I am new here. I don't want to put anyone off. I've done it in the past. I know very well the plethora of pet theories out there and the people who imagine them (myself included) have a strong sentimental attachment to them. PF has good values, I have to stare at them every time I post and I'm certain the community holds one another accountable to them. So I am aware of the first point, that the community values science published in real journals and textbooks and as far as I know I haven't gained any information from any unreliable sources. (I will admit an intense sympathy for the new age QM crowd.) This is I hope a quality hypothesis. I am an educated philosopher, I did my undergrad but have continued with my studies for 4 years now. I read and write more now than I ever did during my undergrad and I have chosen not to pursue further education as there is no course study for my main area of interest (although there will likely be one in the next few years if my ideas catch on). Philosophy, and especially political philosophy is somewhat of a bullshit degree for most people. It's interesting to study and it has limited usefulness for most people. It has much more utility for myself as I have an agenda.

So, I'm not even going to post it until I have a better feeling for how I should go about it. I've been struggling with how I could ask my question without explaining why I'm asking it. So there you have it, any suggestions are welcome up to and including telling me I need to piss off. I would have put it in the Set Theory, Logic, Probability and Statistics section since the proof (I use the term with hesitance knowing my audience) requires knowledge of probability and statistics.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If you abide by our guidelines then you should not fear asking any questions. Good luck!

 

[Drakkith]

The only real advice I can give you is to make sure that the most basic premises of your ideas are valid and try to work up from there. Of course, you may have already done so, so that may be of no help. Other than that I'd say your best bet is not to show how your ideas are correct, but to figure out what makes them incorrect. Too many people develop their own personal theories without ever figuring out where, how, and why their theories might fail. And that's usually their downfall.

 

[Maaruk]

Well, it got deleted as soon as an admin woke up. This is what I figured what was going to happen. Not that I blame you guys, as far as I know I didn't break any of the forum rules except the "non-mainstream theories" hence why I posted this asking before I even posted it. The premises are all within accepted science, regardless my question was whether or not you can construct a proof.

DO NOT STRAY FROM THE PARADIGM. lol

Anyways, thanks for the help on the time dilation experiment it was very helpful.

 

[Maaruk]

Well, after doing my morning errands I'm still annoyed but less so. It took me like 3 hours to write and edit that post trying to be as respectful as possible to the forum rules only to have to have to summarily deleted. I will live.

 

[phinds]

... as far as I know I didn't break any of the forum rules except the "non-mainstream theories"

So, what you are saying is that you didn't break any of the rules except for the one you broke

You have discovered the hard way that the Physics Forum
(1) takes the rules serisoulsy
(2) has a rule against speculation ("non-mainstream")

Glad to hear you'll live.

 

[Maaruk]

Yeah don't worry I won't be straying from the paradigm again anytime soon.