Why is it not allowed to question General Relativity?

[nataliaeggers]

I understand that academics have a hard time in overcoming paradigms, but when my question at the Reddit sub AskPhysics “is it possible that General Relativity could not be 100% perfect?” is flagged for being “sensationalists”, then, something is fundamentally wrong about how scientists treat scientific theories — it starts to look more like a religion than to something humans use to seek the truth about the reality of our universe. It is most likely for this question to be taken down than to be properly answered, i.e., without aggression. This simple question should not offend anyone…

 

[berkeman]

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/

EDIT: Fixed link.

 

[DaveE]

I understand that academics have a hard time in overcoming paradigms, but when my question at the Reddit sub AskPhysics “is it possible that General Relativity could not be 100% perfect?” is flagged for being “sensationalists”, then, something is fundamentally wrong about how scientists treat scientific theories — it starts to look more like a religion than to something humans use to seek the truth about the reality of our universe. It is most likely for this question to be taken down than to be properly answered, i.e., without aggression. This simple question should not offend anyone…

Physicists already know that GR doesn't work with Quantum Mechanics. It isn't 100% correct. Many are trying to figure this out. So, it's not really about if you are questioning GR, it's about how you are questioning it.

If your doubts about theories aren't up to speed with current knowledge, then you aren't likely to be taken seriously. This is not a simple undertaking, you are unlikely to parachute in with a bold new theory without years of study. Those "paradigms" have a lot of supporting evidence that can't be ignored.

I don't think it's about offending people, I think it's more like another tiresome waste of time from their perspective. Your questioning of the current paradigm has to break through this bias by showing that you understand the current theories and by presenting an interesting new approach that addresses problems with the existing theories which is fully compatible with the existing observations of the real world.

Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote some seminal papers in physics. Then the academy did take him quite seriously. Same with Ramanujan in math; he wasn't known until after he showed his work. I believe it can be done, but it's pretty rare.

Finally, there's no point in complaining about Reddit moderation at Physics Forums. We didn't do it (yet). We don't even really know what your complaining about.

 

[russ_watters]

Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote some seminal papers in physics. Then the academy did take him quite seriously. Same with Ramanujan in math; he wasn't known until after he showed his work. I believe it can be done, but it's pretty rare.

Einstein was taken seriously because he was a PhD physicist - that's normal, not rare. His day job at the time is a red herring.

 

[martinbn]

I understand that academics have a hard time in overcoming paradigms, but when my question at the Reddit sub AskPhysics “is it possible that General Relativity could not be 100% perfect?” is flagged for being “sensationalists”, then, something is fundamentally wrong about how scientists treat scientific theories — it starts to look more like a religion than to something humans use to seek the truth about the reality of our universe. It is most likely for this question to be taken down than to be properly answered, i.e., without aggression. This simple question should not offend anyone…

Do you have any specific reasons to ask that question?

 

[nataliaeggers]

Physicists already know that GR doesn't work with Quantum Mechanics. It isn't 100% correct. Many are trying to figure this out. So, it's not really about if you are questioning GR, it's about how you are questioning it.

If your doubts about theories aren't up to speed with current knowledge, then you aren't likely to be taken seriously. This is not a simple undertaking, you are unlikely to parachute in with a bold new theory without years of study. Those "paradigms" have a lot of supporting evidence that can't be ignored.

I don't think it's about offending people, I think it's more like another tiresome waste of time from their perspective. Your questioning of the current paradigm has to break through this bias by showing that you understand the current theories and by presenting an interesting new approach that addresses problems with the existing theories which is fully compatible with the existing observations of the real world.

Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote some seminal papers in physics. Then the academy did take him quite seriously. Same with Ramanujan in math; he wasn't known until after he showed his work. I believe it can be done, but it's pretty rare.

Finally, there's no point in complaining about Reddit moderation at Physics Forums. We didn't do it (yet). We don't even really know what your complaining about.

So would it be ok if I show you a paper that is entirely empirical based, which is the result of more than 5 years of study?
As far as I could understand, empirical observations match your saying as a quote: “fully compatible with the existing observations of the real world.”

 

[Hill]

more than 5 years of study

Adding this phrase is a red flag.

 

[nataliaeggers]

https://www.physicsforums.com/insig...rums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/heory/

The link is not working. I even tried to remove the duplicate link but it also did not work. However, by the “won’t look new theory”, does it imply “we won’t see empirical refutation of established theories” as well? Thank you for your time.

 

[DaveC426913]

Two things here:

1. Why is was knocked down on Reddit.
2. Why it will be knocked down here of PF.

We need only speak to the latter. PF is a forum for discussing mainstream physics as taught in schools and published in peer-reviewed journals. It's focus is on helping students and professionals with current, established physics.

There are plenty of science fora out there that will entertain theories that have not been peer-reviewed, it's just that PF is not one of them. No forum can be all things to all people.

 

[DaveC426913]

The link is not working. However, by the “won’t look new theory”, does it imply “we won’t see empirical refutation of established theories” as well?

Full title:
Why won't you look at my new theory?
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/

 

[nataliaeggers]

Adding this phrase is a red flag.

Why? He asked for time of study, then, why responding it with the actual time the study took to be developed is a “red flag”? I did not even posted no link nor anything about it yet. It’s not a new theory per se, it’s empirical observation that may contradict established theories (the black swan form Popper’s philosophy of science).

 

[nataliaeggers]

Two things here:

1. Why is was knocked down on Reddit.
2. Why it will be knocked down here of PF.

We need only speak to the latter. PF is a forum for discussing mainstream physics as taught in schools and published in peer-reviewed journals. It's focus is on helping students and professionals with current, established physics.

There are plenty of science fora out there that will entertain theories that have not been peer-reviewed, it's just that PF is not one of them. No forum can be all things to all people.

I appreciate your time, however, that’s exactly what the paper is about: not new theory, but empirical confrontation to established theories.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why? He asked for time of study,

He did? Who? Where?

 

[DaveC426913]

I appreciate your time, however, that’s exactly what the paper is about: not new theory, but empirical confrontation to established theories.

Is it peer-reviewed? Have you tried? If not, why not?

 

[martinbn]

Is the paper published in a peer reviewed journal?

 

[nataliaeggers]

Do you have any specific reasons to ask that question?

Sure. Thanks for asking. I have empirical evidence that contradicts established scientific theories.
It’s all experiments anyone can replicate easily to verify if it is a “black swan” from Popper’s perspective.
It’s not speculative, it’s purely empirical — it’s something that should trigger scientists curiosity and, if wrong, it shouldn’t be hard to disprove.

 

[nataliaeggers]

Is it peer-reviewed? Have you tried? If not, why not?

Thanks again.
I’m here exactly in order to find guidance.
I’m not a “real” doctor (I’m a medical doctor though), so I need even more peer-review from physicists doctors.
Where else could I find peers to review than here?

 

[berkeman]

The link is not working.

Sorry, I've fixed it now, and Dave has also posted the correct link.

 

[nataliaeggers]

Is the paper published in a peer reviewed journal?

Thanks for your time.
Since the work is purely empirical based, it would be simple for any PhD to disprove it if it is false.
The paper puts some real questions on established scientific theories.
For you it most certainly would be fairly easy to understand, replicate or refute.
This may probably be another nonsense but it might be real.

 

[berkeman]

Where else could I find peers to review than here?

I will send you a DM with some other forums that allow speculation. PF definitely does not, so this thread is now closed.