Insights Why Won't You Look at My New Theory? - Comments

[russ_watters]

His view of the universe was fundamentally different than most people's. He was a loon. He used to polish his silver spoons, then use each one for one bite. He was a crackpot, and a genius.

Being crazy is nowhere close to the same thing as being a crackpot. The scary thing is that many crackpots seem otherwise to be perfectly normal!

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Being crazy is nowhere close to the same thing as being a crackpot. The scary thing is that many crackpots seem otherwise to be perfectly normal!

If you define crackpottery as being wrong, then of course no crackpots ever overthrew science. They were wrong after all.

I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.

Even a broken watch is right twice a day. People who see the world differently (I hold myself in this group, BTW) are usually wrong. But only usually. The ones who are right often change the world.

 

[houlahound]

Context based teaching is a fad with no evidence it works.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

So what is the correct nomenclature?

We are discussing those on the fringes of standard science. What is a good word to group them (us?, I'm not always the sharpest tool... ).

I certainly don't want to demean anyone. The people I listed are people I deeply admire. They achieved greatness often despite long suffering. There are thousands more who suffer and burn out without accomplishment so a few can change the world for the better.

This site is dedicated to teaching and promoting standard science, and that's a good thing. For how can anyone make advances without knowing what went before. Incremental knowledge is critically important. But change comes from those who dare to be different.

 

[russ_watters]

If you define crackpottery as being wrong, then of course no crackpots ever overthrew science. They were wrong after all.

I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.

I would define it the same way you do (though more strongly than that) -- which has nothing to do with being "crazy". So that was a strange that you equated crazy with crackpottery and in any case, it means your example of Tesla isn't correct.

 

[Drakkith]

I would define it as holding a non-standard idea without sufficient evidence.

Wikipedia's article on crank (crackpot is a common synonym): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.

Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term, however, does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.

Note that the basic idea here is that a person holds an unshakable belief in something and there is essentially nothing can convince them otherwise. Having a non-standard idea does not necessarily make your a crackpot, even if you have no evidence for your idea. The key is that you ignore or dismiss evidence against your idea and you cannot have a rational discussion about it. You can read the article for more details. Just see the "common characteristics of cranks" section.

 

[Isaac0427]

I still do this all the time. I just try to avoid doing it here. (I have lots of crazy, crackpottery that no one wants to hear.)

Oh, I do too.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Still, if you think Electrical Engineering shouldn't have a Forum here,

I don't like spending too much time on Classification because it is often wasted effort and many things just don't fit. But Tesla's usefulness was not in his loopy theories; it was from essentially practical things like AC Power transmission. The way he described how his things 'worked' was so outside our mainstream appreciation that it often reads like BS. I'd say he was a successful EE but, as a Scientist, he was just not reliable.

The Scientific Community can be very hard on people, though. Laithwaite was a successful Engineer and Professor and a legend for his development of the Linear Motor. He then started looking into gyroscopes and thought he'd found reactionless drive. He (genuinely, I think) asked for help with the Maths of the subject but it was so type B that everyone took a step backwards and left him outside in the cold. They just didn't want to be associated with 'that sort of thing' when there were many who could have painlessly put the subject to bed by doing the right Maths. A sad case.

 

[mfb]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Now add a GPS function and weather forecast, and see how often it will be right. Still more often than crackpots with no education.

 

[Dale]

Personally, I have nothing against Tesla. Unfortunately mental illness affects individuals in all walks of life and communities, including the scientific community.

However, when a person today references Tesla as a source, it is almost always a bad sign.

 

[Charles Link]

As I mentioned previously, (post #40), there are still a few topics where the standard textbook material is not completely thorough in the presentation of some of the subjects. If an improved explanation is given in one of these areas, hopefully it doesn't immediately get pushed into the category of "personal theory". Part of the adventure of physics is figuring things out, and on occasion, coming up with improved explanations. Sometimes the textbooks and even a "google" does not have all the answers to even some of the standard textbook material.

 

[OmCheeto]

Great article! I admit that a year ago I was guilty of this (but being 12-13 and all, I think I get a little slack, right?) but I don't do it anymore.

Speaking of that, I've got this great new theory that completely undermines General Relativity because the Brian Greene book I am reading says that there are problems with GR. Anyone interested in hearing it?

I'd be very interested.
If you PM me your idea, I will send you blueprints of my warp drive engine.
There's no math, so it's really easy to understand.

 

[PeterDonis]

As I mentioned previously, (post #40), there are still a few topics where the standard textbook material is not completely thorough in the presentation of some of the subjects. If an improved explanation is given in one of these areas, hopefully it doesn't immediately get pushed into the category of "personal theory".

Even if a standard textbook doesn't treat a particular subject, there should be some acceptable source that does--a monograph, or a peer-reviewed paper, or something like that. If there is, you can just refer to it, and give your own summary of what it says. If there isn't, then how do you know your own personal version is an "improved explanation"?

It would help, btw, if you could give a specific example rather than speaking in generalities.

 

[sophiecentaur]

This thread seems to have lost it's way in an attempt to be fair to the very rare example of an untutored genius who has something of great importance to Science but can't get it published. The probability of this is, I think, less than the probability of an accepted genius in an established institution who gets knocked down by a bus on the way to the office when he / she was planning to pen an Earth shattering paper which everyone would accept with no problems. Either way, we missed out - a bit - but next year / decade / century, someone else will produce the same thing. Mostly, it will be within a very few years at worst.

 

[mfb]

This thread seems to have lost it's way in an attempt to be fair to the very rare example of an untutored genius who has something of great importance to Science but can't get it published.

We still have to find the first example of this.

 

[Isaac0427]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

 

[sophiecentaur]

We still have to find the first example of this.

On PF, you mean? I don't think (s)he'd have been recognised.

 

[Charles Link]

We still have to find the first example of this.

The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied. When the OP gives the response of "thank you, that helped to clarify the matter", it appears the "personal theory" might be worthy of some merit. There is always the trade-off that the Forum could become a circus of personal theories and inaccurate information, but good physics often comes with a series of iterations. Perhaps this has already been tried and it didn't work, thereby the need for the tighter control.

 

[CWatters]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

Questions are generally welcome provided you show some effort has been made to find your own answer first. Otherwise the first reply you get will be...What do you think and why?

 

[OmCheeto]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

I asked almost the exact same question about 8 years ago.
I got some awesome answers: What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?

Funny thing is, I never asked the question that I was referring to.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied. When the OP gives the response of "thank you, that helped to clarify the matter", it appears the "personal theory" might be worthy of some merit. There is always the trade-off that the Forum could become a circus of personal theories and inaccurate information, but good physics often comes with a series of iterations. Perhaps this has already been tried and it didn't work, thereby the need for the tighter control.

I don't think that the sort of person you are referring to it would ever commit a 'personal theory' offence. In fact, a small advance would be unlikely to be classed as a type B idea. They would start by having a conventional conversation and establish some cred before leaping in with the Type B Bomb. So I think the Forum is already open to them.
This would assume, of course, that their posts were of a reasonable standard of politeness and presentation and not the sort of gauche rantings that we sometimes get. A personal theory written in text speak would never get off the ground.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I asked almost the exact same question about 8 years ago.
I got some awesome answers: What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?

Funny thing is, I never asked the question that I was referring to.

But people are very fond of your off the wall contributions and have been for the past years. You can get as kookie as you like and you get away with it.

 

[Charles Link]

I don't think that the sort of person you are referring to it would ever commit a 'personal theory' offence. In fact, a small advance would be unlikely to be classed as a type B idea. They would start by having a conventional conversation and establish some cred before leaping in with the Type B Bomb. So I think the Forum is already open to them.
This would assume, of course, that their posts were of a reasonable standard of politeness and presentation and not the sort of gauche rantings that we sometimes get. A personal theory written in text speak would never get off the ground.

I am still quite new to the website, but was scolded for it before I established any significant credibility. I still think those posts had some scientific merit, but I am more careful in introducing any subject matter that might be deemed controversial.

 

[OmCheeto]

But people are very fond of your off the wall contributions and have been for the past years. You can get as kookie as you like and you get away with it.

hmmmm... Maybe I'll run over to the High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics section, and finally ask the question.
Hopefully they don't ask why I'm asking, as it involves, gulp, warp drive...

 

[Drakkith]

I actually have a question regarding the forum rules with stuff like this. I have a few questions about things that seem like an interesting idea and I want to know if there is any scientific possibility of it. Would those questions be allowed on here?

You can always PM myself, another mentor, or Greg himself.

 

[mfb]

On PF, you mean? I don't think (s)he'd have been recognised.

No, in general. There is always the argument "but this group has such a hard time" where this group is simply nonexistent.

The untutored genius is not likely to appear here, but I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied.

Those threads are usually fine, and not personal theories. There are publications explicitely mentioning discussion here. That is not the "what if gravity is really [random word]" style this insight article is about.

 

[PeterDonis]

I do think the Forum could be open to people with good academic backgrounds being able to make small advances without needing to have the "personal theory" restriction applied.

Once again: is the "small advance" just explaining something that is part of accepted science, but isn't covered in textbooks? There are many, many such things. As I said before, if it's accepted science, there will be some source you can point to, and then summarize in your own words if you think that will help the questioner understand. This is all well within the PF rules, and in fact it happens regularly, particularly in the forums like Beyond the Standard Model where a lot of the science being discussed is too new to have made it into textbooks.

OTOH, if the "small advance" is something that isn't part of accepted science, but you think it ought to be, then PF is not the place to make that case. The best you could possibly do would be to get the attention of a PF member who happens to also have the ability and willingness to help you get your new idea written up in a form in which it could get proper review. But that process won't take place here on PF; that's not what PF is for.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am still quite new to the website, but was scolded for it before I established any significant credibility. I still think those posts had some scientific merit

Can you give specific examples? Feel free to PM me links to them if you would prefer not to link to them in a public discussion thread.

 

[Charles Link]

Can you give specific examples? Feel free to PM me links to them if you would prefer not to link to them in a public discussion thread.

PM is much better for this. I think I have some interesting physics which i just sent you a PM and a "link".

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'm afraid that this thread has now strayed into the 'Galileo and the Spanish Inquisition' neck of the woods. PF is perfectly tolerant of almost anything as long as it's presented in a non-loony and polite way. It's always quite possible use the 'my friend thinks XYZ and I am trying to put him right' approach, if you think you're pushing your luck. Frankly, if somebody can't present the 'new' idea in a reasonable way, it probably really is nonsense and it's no great loss for PF or the World.
I think I'm out of here.

 

[Giovanniontheweb]

Human is indeed a motivation-driven being, if I’m spending my time typing on this small keyboard is not because I care about transmitting to you any useful information but because I do care about my inner integrity.
I did appreciate few last posts about pop science that I’ve found well done, with care and relevant background, as you can share when you are around 18 with friends of yours.
I’ve been surprised lately about how many questions coming from kids I could’t answer when my clock says 50 turns, neither I feel confortable to say that courious pop science people are less knowledgeble than myself . I do understand bad engineering as it comes around and, by axtrapolation I might understand scientist’s mood. As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake and the following points look clear to me
a) Detecting scientific mistakes happen in the labs where common people spend very limited time
b) The so called scientists are very much format in their own thinking path that makes them at the same time very clever and very limited
Well, nothing is lost, common to all beings, including the so called animals, looks to be curiosity, I hope I’ll be able to deal with my neibour’s kid next question, maybe we will have less pop science in the future and more real scientists..

 

[Drakkith]

As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake

I'd disagree with this. While there are "accidental" discoveries, I'd say the vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from discoveries made by people who devoted years of their time to something. In other words, they were actively investigating something in an attempt to understand it.

b) The so called scientists are very much format in their own thinking path that makes them at the same time very clever and very limited

I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner. The fact is that scientists are all individuals with a wide variety of skills, interests, ways of thinking, and attitudes. They run the entire spectrum of personalities and morality, just like the rest of the population. The only difference between a scientist and a non-scientist is the former is usually in a profession dedicated to science, while the latter is usually not. There is nothing inherently limiting about scientists that isn't present everywhere else in humanity.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

I'd disagree with this. While there are "accidental" discoveries, I'd say the vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from discoveries made by people who devoted years of their time to something. In other words, they were actively investigating something in an attempt to understand it.
I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner. The fact is that scientists are all individuals with a wide variety of skills, interests, ways of thinking, and attitudes. They run the entire spectrum of personalities and morality, just like the rest of the population. The only difference between a scientist and a non-scientist is the former is usually in a profession dedicated to science, while the latter is usually not. There is nothing inherently limiting about scientists that isn't present everywhere else in humanity.

While incremental discoveries are made throughout scientists' lives, important theoretical breakthroughs tend to be concentrated in young scientists before they become too set in their ways. Of course there are lots of exceptions and caveats, but the period between learning and teaching seems critical to understanding new ideas.

"I don't understand why..." seems critical to breakthroughs.

 

[ebos]

I like to think that most people have a teeny bit of the "B" type inside. Just like the Rock Star scenario... or the potential Cult Hero. Yeah, I think that's me - the Cult Hero. Although shredding that Fender Strat in front of 100,000 screaming fans does run a close second. Anyways, now I can also accept the "B" Side scientist ; )

 

[nasu]

As well, I do acknowledge most of the relevant humans’ discoveries happen by mistake and the following points look clear to me

This may be true in some areas of knowledge (like America was discovered by "mistake", for example).
But this thread started as a discussion about theories in science. These are not discovered by accident. Actually they are not even "discovered". They are created by people with a purpose in mind.
Not all of human achievement is due to "discovery", accidental or purposeful.
A lot is due to creative work. And this includes not only literature, arts, music etc. but scientific theories as well.
A good theory does not require less creativity than a good novel. And usually more time, hard work and some genius too.

 

[Drakkith]

While incremental discoveries are made throughout scientists' lives, important theoretical breakthroughs tend to be concentrated in young scientists before they become too set in their ways.

Even if these breakthroughs are concentrated in young scientists, I don't agree that the main reason is because they aren't set in their ways. I think there are plenty of other possibilities. Older scientists tend to take on supervisory or managerial roles for one thing. And I don't necessarily agree that these breakthroughs are concentrated in younger scientists. But I admit I haven't delved into the details of this subject before.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Even if these breakthroughs are concentrated in young scientists, I don't agree that the main reason is because they aren't set in their ways. I think there are plenty of other possibilities. Older scientists tend to take on supervisory or managerial roles for one thing. And I don't necessarily agree that these breakthroughs are concentrated in younger scientists. But I admit I haven't delved into the details of this subject before.

Many breakthroughs by one individual (there were far more groups in breakthroughs) came from those that struggled to learn in the same way as others typically do. Some didn't have good or normal childhoods. They were deeply curious, focused, and driven. Devoted many years of their lives to asking a question.

The "prime" age has lengthened considerably with better health and longer lifespans nowadays. Much to do with why the elderly may produce less could be their belief system about aging, that they should stop playing and learning, and allowed social/familial responsibilities to take their itching away? Who knows?

Or, they may have simply lost their inner child and become set in their ways...

 

[Drakkith]

Many breakthroughs by one individual (there were far more groups in breakthroughs) came from those that struggled to learn in the same way as others typically do. Some didn't have good or normal childhoods. They were deeply curious, focused, and driven. Devoted many years of their lives to asking a question.

Perhaps. It could also be that these types of people just stand out in peoples minds more.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

I would like to reemphasize that the vast majority of science is incremental. The new theories inevitably make use of decades and centuries of other scientists' work.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I strongly disagree with this as well and I caution people about criticizing scientists as a whole in this manner.

Sounds rather a 'cross' reaction for you, Drakkith. Don't let 'em wind you up!
I really don't t think it's up to Scientists to defend themselves at all in this matter. Fact is that, without a Scientific Approach, we would still be kicking about in the pre-enlightenment dirt. The (many of them, brilliant) Engineers would not have the the use of the ideas that the Scientists have developed. But that's a daft statement because the brilliant Engineers would have put their Scientist hats on and got there anyway. So Engineering and the Science are just descriptions of Processes and not the people involved.
I promised myself not to get involved with this thread again but here I am.

 

[votingmachine]

One thing I've wondered: suppose somebody is not crazy, but is also not in the physics community, but has read a lot and think they have come up with something new. How do they get people to read it, to help them figure out whether their idea is right or wrong? Pretty much every serious online physics community has rules against this. They can write up a paper and submit it to a journal, but the role of peer review isn't really to be a first-pass vet of peoples' ideas, and a person not in the field will likely have papers rejected pretty quickly. So where should non-crazy people turn to, to get help?

I would say that is laziness on the part of the idea generator. How does one distinguish the monkey that typed Shakespeare, if one is obliged to read millions of pages of gibberish? If a new idea has merit, then it should be possible for the individual generating it to show that it is right or wrong. If the generator of the idea cannot do that, then why is it an idea at all?

We all have ideas. Why should a physicist stop working on his, to help you with yours? What I found in graduate school in biochemistry was that everyone was willing to give you ideas to work on. And I freely suggested things for everyone else. But time and money are limited. I worked on my stuff and everyone else worked on their stuff.

I have never submitted a physics article, but I would have thought that an article which is clearly written and mathematically right would have a chance at getting accepted into some journal. Journals do have "big name" bias, but I think they also do an acceptable job of reviewing submissions.

There may be only one path for an individual with a legitimate contribution ... do the work. Do the math. Learn the stuff that applies and apply it. It does suck that we live in an age when it takes so much to merely be proficient, and often much more time and money to actually show an idea is right or wrong. But it is what it is. You have to turn to yourself.

 

[votingmachine]

If you say the gravitational force moves at the speed of light and obeys a "delayed" force law, conservation of angular momentum breaks down. In other words, suppose each a particle is attracted to where it would see each other particle was, feeling an inverse square force. Then the particles are not attracted toward their current center of mass! This means angular momentum is not conserved. Orbits would spiral down.

I will read the link later, but my intuition is boggled. I would think things would spiral away from each other. The time delay seems to spread the center of mass continuously (again, just intuition, not yet looking at the math).

 

[votingmachine]

One thing I've wondered: suppose somebody is not crazy, but is also not in the physics community, but has read a lot and think they have come up with something new. How do they get people to read it, to help them figure out whether their idea is right or wrong? Pretty much every serious online physics community has rules against this. They can write up a paper and submit it to a journal, but the role of peer review isn't really to be a first-pass vet of peoples' ideas, and a person not in the field will likely have papers rejected pretty quickly. So where should non-crazy people turn to, to get help?

I would say that is laziness on the part of the idea generator. How does one distinguish the monkey that typed Shakespeare, if one is obliged to read millions of pages of gibberish? If a new idea has merit, then it should be possible for the individual generating it to show that it is right or wrong. If the generator of the idea cannot do that, then why is it an idea at all?

We all have ideas. Why should a physicist stop working on his, to help you with yours? What I found in graduate school in biochemistry was that everyone was willing to give you ideas to work on. And I freely suggested things for everyone else. But time and money are limited. I worked on my stuff and everyone else worked on their stuff.

I have never submitted a physics article, but I would have thought that an article which is clearly written and mathematically right would have a chance at getting accepted into some journal. Journals do have "big name" bias, but I think they also do an acceptable job of reviewing submissions.

There may be only one path for an individual with a legitimate contribution ... do the work. Do the math. Learn the stuff that applies and apply it. It does suck that we live in an age when it takes so much to merely be proficient, and often much more time and money to actually show an idea is right or wrong. But it is what it is. You have to turn to yourself.

I would add that in biochemistry labs, good ideas are plentiful, and most often wrong. Often with difficult lab experiments to reach the end result that the idea is wrong.

There are still problems. Barbara McClintock had a PhD in botany, and absolutely stunning evidence of non-hereditary genetics, in her transposon work. Increasing skepticism led to her ceasing to publish in 1953. She won her Nobel in 1983. She was basically FIRED from the University of Missouri, where her work had only one important supporter (and he retired).

But she did the work herself. She developed a theory of mobile gene elements, and did the work, ad published the data and conclusions. Mobile genetic elements just was an unaccepted idea for a long time.

 

[DianaHerberg]

Enjoyed the article... one further comment... there are those of us who were (at least somewhat) trained as scientists but moved to other fields, and when inspiration strikes, we make posts on forums like these in the hopes that a scientist will see potential and develop it somehow. I have no idea what percentage of those who post we are, but I'm included in that count.

 

[PeterDonis]

when inspiration strikes, we make posts on forums like these in the hopes that a scientist will see potential and develop it somehow

Whether or not this is likely to be a fruitful strategy in general (I don't think it is), it isn't here. PF's purpose is to discuss already established science, not to try to discover new science.

 

[DianaHerberg]

I see. My apologies... I will exit stage left.

 

[DianaHerberg]

Is it wrong to say, if you are this interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you'd need?

Can't let this go - there are endless reasons, but they can all be simply summed up as follows: obligations considered to be a higher priority, or of equal (or greater) value.

 

[Wee-Lamm]

Is it wrong to say, if you are this interested in a subject, why are you not studying at an education institution which would have the resources you'd need?

Not entirely wrong, but it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically. Vetting out crackpot ideas, due to the lack of academic standing of the poser, may be preferred in the majority of cases but it should not be the only reason a notion is dismissed.

 

[PeterDonis]

it does seem restrictive to limit the allowance of creative thought to only those who have proven themselves scholastically.

I sympathize with the sentiment underlying this: the idea that everybody deserves a fair hearing, and arbitrary credentials shouldn't be allowed to prevent that.

However, at least with regard to science, the sentiment is unjusfied, however attractive it might be. Here's the brutal truth: until you've done the work to understand what we currently know, your new idea does not deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't deserve a hearing at all. There simply isn't world enough and time to consider everybody's idea. That's why we put the burden on you, the person with the idea, to do the work to understand what we currently know, before allowing you to propose the idea to anyone else.

In fact, I can even justify that position by using the same fairness idea. By asking experts to pay attention to you when you aren't knowledgeable yourself in the field, you are asking them to put in the time and effort for your idea that you aren't willing to put in yourself. That is not fair.

 

[eltodesukane]

This is absolutely true. The scientific definition and use of a theory is vastly different than what a layman thinks. To many layman, theory means a "guess" which could have conceivably come by way of day dreaming. It's immensely frustrating.

There is also much confusion over the difference of a theory and a law.

How many times someone told me "evolution is just a theory" ..