Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: bodhizafa418 on 13/05/2009 22:27:10
-
How does one go about getting a theory heard......having other people in the science community read it, getting credit for it, having nobody steal the idea...........what's the procedure? This is in lines with say, Einstein, and his proposals.........once you start saying your conclusions........you open the bag.......so how does one insure himself, and yet get heard.......especially when actual proof, as was Einstein's predictions, probably years away from anyone taking them really seriously until they can actually view such phenomenon, and explain some unexplained physics we are still searching for answers to............I mean I would be happy to just start blurting it out........but some will say it makes sense.......and it will work its way through the scientific community.....without proof, and having it in a prestigious science journal, how does it get credited to me with all the original conclusions? Any other theorists out there have this dilemma? ( let me add that I don't mean to sound skeptical and distrusting of the world, but in my first two patents, i went years knocking on thousands of doors, the biggest corporatons, and met nothing but greed, and corruption.....it's a whole new world........)
-
The greatest problem with any new idea that goes against the established theories will be getting people with the capacity to understand it to understand it. You can get a good feel for the kind of reception an idea will get by giving a general description of it.
Scientific ideas are generally shared. The overwhelming majority of them are wrong at their foundation. Established theories are held as long as they are useful to predict how real things will react in their natural environment. For example General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are mutually exclusive. They cannot both represent reality. Yet both are useful to predict nature. So we gladly use both.
-
The only way is to publish it in a recognised peer-reviewed journal If it passes this peer-review process, there is a reasonable bet that firstly the idea is credible, and secondly that it will be broadcast to appropriate scientists.
-
I think you'll find it should be called a new hypothesis and NOT a new theory, for example, electron theory theory is supported by data and appears to accurately predict the behaviour of electrons.
If you have a new idea it should start as a hypothesis until you have data that supports it.
For example, "I hypothesis that some portion of obesity is due to having the central heating turned up"
You could then show data that suggests the higher the differential temperature between you and your environment the more calories you burn, if this is true then it adds weight to the hypothesis, when and only when there is NO contradictory data to your hypothesis can you begin to suggest it is a theory.
-
You could then show data that suggests the higher the differential temperature between you and your environment the more calories you burn, if this is true then it adds weight to the hypothesis, when and only when there is NO contradictory data to your hypothesis can you begin to suggest it is a theory.
So true. No matter the amount of evidence there exists in support of a hypothesis, a single piece of evidence to the contrary kills it in its present form.
-
This subject also fascinates me. Perhaps you need to define your objects. If your intention is to capitalise on a theory - then patenting is the route. If your intention is to share knowledge, then presumably one must publish in a peer reviewed journal.
With regard to Vern's statement that 'a single piece of evidence to the contrary kills' I question this. Current flow is widely considered to be the result of a 'flow of electrons'. This contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle as electrons are leptons and therefore not able to 'share a path'. But the concept holds through the most extraordinary logical and natural contradictions.
I have personal experience of this somewhat circular condition. I have a unifying field model. I need some experimental predicitve proof the the model. Therefore I prove it on experimental apparatus being a simple switching circuit. The results, as required, exceed unity - meaning that more energy is dissipated than delivered. I show this to sundry electrical engineers in business. They need academic proof. Academics wont consider the experiment without prior publication in a reviewed journal. The paper, submitted to the IET hits a new barrier. They, the IET personnel wont forward the paper for review because it has no citations. There are no citations because no-one, historically, has submitted a paper that defeats Thermodynamic Laws. Then - to justify their refusal is a full on attack of my character. To introduce a new model - no matter it's scope is fraught.
-
With regard to Vern's statement that 'a single piece of evidence to the contrary kills' I question this. Current flow is widely considered to be the result of a 'flow of electrons'. This contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle as electrons are leptons and therefore not able to 'share a path'. But the concept holds through the most extraordinary logical and natural contradictions.
I think you will find that any one fact that contradicts a theory will supersede any number of facts that support it. [:)]
The movement of electrons within a conductor do not contradict Pauli's exclusion principle. The electrons need not occupy the same state in order to share a path through the conductor. They may go in tandem one behind the other.
I am interested in your over-unity device. I used to publish a journal that featured such things. One of the most submitted types was a generator turned by a motor that got its power from the generator.
I am an electronics engineer. I don't need academic proof for anything. The academic community simply produces tools that I use. To the extent that they are useful, I use them. When they produce garbage, I ignore it. Most of the time they are well disciplined and produce very useful stuff.
-
If you'd care to tell us the quantum numbers involved with electrons moving through a wife, we wouldbe very impressed. As they are in different places in the wire, then I'd suggest they have different potentials- so different energy state.
This is yet another example of someone looking to blame Science for something they have not understood.
-
If you'd care to tell us the quantum numbers involved with electrons moving through a wife
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Flol%2F18.gif&hash=00f5afe61fb2d5b8397083ccd8e0d46e)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Flol%2F3.gif&hash=4a73471b3f75f56b8b692ee78b853504)
FOG
-
That might turn her on?
-
So, it is a FOG. I've been puzzling over that all day. [:)]
-
I don't know, maybe he likes passing electrons through his wife and then telling her the quantum numbers.
-
Wiki definition of current flow requires 'free floating electrons'. Given that these electrons that come from - somewhere? - also somehow 'attach' to a wire or any such conductive circuit components then can someone please explain this scenario. Take a battery as a DC power supply. If the electrons 'travel' where do they go once they've reached the opposite terminal? Through the battery courtesy the 'pump action' provided by the battery?
Now Wiki explains that batteries have 'free floating protons'. This gets ever more interesting. If the electrons attach to the protons during their journey through the battery - then we get simple hydrogen atoms. The battery would then, theoretically, become a repository of pure hydrogen or subtle variations of this, each state - deuterium - tritium - becoming progressively more explosive than the last.
If the quantum of electrons on the 'dare I say it' wire, exceeds the number of free floating protons - then we have a problem with that 'cluster' of electrons that cannot get past the terminal.
If by some happy accident the number of 'free floating' electrons precisely equals the number of 'free floating' protons then 'attachment' would result not in a reduction in potential difference but in an increase. This is because hydrogen - apart from being highly combustible in any condition - is also an ionised atom. Therefore the increased ionisation would also result in an increase in the potential difference measured across the battery. It would not result in a decrease. What then accounts for the decrease is the actual measured result of current flow?
If, on the other hand - given that these innate logical contradictions were somehow answered by some force not yet incorporated in conventional explanations of current flow - but yet requires the flow of electrons - then the speed at which the electrons again 'detach' from the structure of those protons - would in no way equal the rate at which current is measured to flow through circuitry.
Then, assuming that the potential difference is reduced, notwithstanding the increase in the ionised state of these hydrogen atoms, and over time the battery indeed becomes flat - we recharge it - how? By adding more 'free floating electrons' or 'free floating protons?
So I put it to you that the 'flow of electrons' is logically inconsistent with the known properties of current flow. Here's the thing. The 'flow of electrons' was proposed as an enabling image - never a fact. That it then became incorporated into classical definition as 'a fact' is a sad reflection on the willingness of scientists to grapple with the unknown. Rather do they just accept all such explanations, the more obtuse the explanation, the greater the proof of their 'intelligence' to understand all things physical. It hearkens to the story of the king's invisible cloak. At some point someone must point out the obvious.
-
Vern, in answer to your question, I would prefer to keep anonymous but am tempted to post the paper on this forum. You've been using this for a while and I'm a beginner. Please advise me. Would publication then prevent the paper ever getting reviewed? Secondly, I would not mind this if I could be certain that others would replicate the test. It's very simple to set up. If the replication was sufficiently broad then the results would be dependable. If it's restricted to the apparent readership of participants in this thread it might not be sufficiently widely disseminated and therefore not considered dependable.
The results have been variously accredited but never by academics who are most anxious to be entirely disassociated from the claim - for obvious reasons. But various engineers from industry have even gone so far as to offer bursary awards for its progression. All politely refused - not sure if its a lack of students or a lack of interest or an overriding lack of credibility. All understandable.
Let me know what you think. Obviously I assume that you too, entirely doubt the validity - which also is entirely understandable. And no, it does not require motors - and nor do I claim 'perpetual motion'. Just a new take on current flow and magnetic fields generally.
-
Let me know what you think. Obviously I assume that you too, entirely doubt the validity - which is entirely understandable. And no, it does not require motors - and nor do I claim 'perpetual motion'. Just a new take on current flow and magnetic fields generally.
The only reason I doubt the validity is that you seem to have problems with well-understood principles of current flow that are not problematic. However, I would like to understand your concept, even though I might not agree with it.
You don't have to post the whole paper to explain the concept. Just a short sentence that explains the main idea would work.
-
I have no idea how to explain the idea in a short sentence. In fact this entirely defeats me. But my concept of current flow is only proven by the experimental apparatus. That's my question. What would happen if I posted the details of that paper on the experiment? I would never presume to post the field model. It's way too long. I have an entirely separate paper that I submitted to the IET. They refused to forward it for review. I'm battling with their Board of Trustees to find out their justification for this. Meanwhile if I did publish, as has been suggested by Chris, would that result in my never being able to represent it for publication in a reviewed journal belonging to the IET?
-
I have this theory that the less an idea represents reality, the more words are required to explain it. Also the more words in a post, the less likely it is that anyone will read it.[:)]
The Institution of Engineering and Technology is probably no exception. My theory probably applies there as well.
-
Golly. Is that fair? The IET were presented with a paper that is precisely as long as is allowable and recommended. Let me try and explain this more clearly. I have a magnetic field model. That's an exercise all on its own. I can prove it in two ways. The one is that it reconciles the size/mass ratio of the proton to the electron. At best this is a nicety and really of no great significance. It answers questions related to superluminal communication. Another nicity.
However, I can also prove the concepts by default by getting circuit apparatus to achieve energy efficiencies that exceed prescribed allowances in terms of Thermodyamic Laws. That way - I can hopefully state OK if these results are possible then, presumably, whatever rules are applied to the electromagnetic interaction, they are not fully explained in terms of conventional models.
The paper, that details that test, is not long. It's of very average length and to the point. It's actually relatively boring. It deascribes the circuit apparatus and is designed as an effort to transparently explain the scope of the claim - the protocol applied - and the results. This is the paper that I am referring to. I would very much like to make it available through this podcast - provided that I can reasonably assume that others will then replicate that experiment. It's a simple switching circuit -not at all difficult to duplicate. But having posted it - will I then be precluded from getting the paper reviewed in the normal way? is all.
I have no axe to grind here - other than an absurd hope that my experiment will eventually get disproved - or not. That, after all, is in the the traditions of good science. My beef with the IET is that they will not even forward the paper for review. That is not in the interest of good science.
-
It's a simple switching circuit -not at all difficult to duplicate. But having posted it - will I then be precluded from getting the paper reviewed in the normal way? is all.
I don't know of any rules that would preclude publication elsewhere if you first disclosed the circuit here.
-
OK - that's what Chris recommended. I'll ask him to post it as I have no idea how to do the circuit diagram and sundry charts. Possibly needs a new subject? Whatever. Will you duplicate it once posted? I'd like that. It also has an over view of my own take on current flow. I'll write to him tonight. Bit scared actually. I'm braced for a howl of protest. But that's good - provided it's replicated and disproved.
I've seen your interest in astrophysics. You may be interested in the model. But first things first is this test. We exceed unity by a factor of 16 on the published circuit - which is way over unity and beyond reasonable margin errors. But we have also proved it on many variations - always with efficiencies upwards of 100%. It's quite contentious because it's a really well known circuit. Shunt circuit principle - but designed to generate heat rather than motion. Certain constraints to commercialise it related to the solid state switching device. It's got limited output potentials. But once 'proven' 'reviewed' whatever, then this may encourage some development in this art.
-
OK - that's what Chris recommended. I'll ask him to post it as I have no idea how to do the circuit diagram and sundry charts. Possibly needs a new subject? Whatever. Will you duplicate it once posted? I'd like that. It also has an over view of my own take on current flow. I'll write to him tonight. Bit scared actually. I'm braced for a howl of protest. But that's good - provided it's replicated and disproved.
You may find it difficult to get someone to work that out for you. So far the notion doesn't seem convincing. You have a switching circuit that produces something, I guess heat, that is over unity. That is a turn off right away. The overwhelming probability is that you have made some wrong assumptions.
-
'You have a switching circuit that produces something, I guess heat,'
Nothing to guess at. I wrote that.
'That is a turn off right away. The overwhelming probability is that you have made some wrong assumptions.'
I'm not sure how to answer this. Yes perhaps I have made some wrong assumptions. And then again, perhaps I haven't. Either way it's speculative or philosphical - whatever. What you 'suppose' has nothing to do with good science. The actual test as to whether I've made wrong assumptions rests with the results of that test. Duplicate the test and prove me wrong and then you'd be over qualified to state that I've made wrong assumptions. Until then you'd only be parading a presumption or a prejudice.
This thread was generated by someone's enquirey as to how to present new theories. This entire forum deals with new ideas. I've explored both objects and was persuaded, by you, that my publication of a test through this forum would be appropriate. Are you now suggesting that I'd be wasting my time as all of you only intend commenting on the possiblity that the results may be wrong rather than proving them wrong? Surely this smacks of a prejudice that goes way past the need for robust scientific analysis?
If the subject was trivial - I'd be inclined to agree. But it is not trivial. The results of these tests go to the throat of generations of scientific laws that precisely preclude any such claim. So. Protect those laws - as is appropriate. I respectfully suggest that any supposition of the claim is not entirely appropriate. It's a blunt tool - no more appropriate than the Church's refusal to look through Galileo's telescope. But duplicate the test and prove me wrong and indeed - you've got an argument.
That's all I ask. The experiment would cost - at the most - $10.00 to set up. Perhaps a little more to afford plantinum based probes. But from an academic environment it would cost nothing at all. No unusual circuit components. Surely classical and quantum physics is robust enough in its fundamentals to allow such tests and to know that any such would be readily dispoved?
-
As far as a test goes, I would want to see the circuit. I've been around enough to know pretty well how it would perform. If it has promise, I might make one. If it does not have promise, I'll try to explain its weaknesses.
-
I found that delete button. Thanks for that. I would be interested of course, in your analysis of the 'weakness' in the paper. But only on a personal level. The test needs replication. Anything short of that is a waste of time. I've tried to explain it - ad nauseum. So let me know, again, is there any chance that any member of the forum is likely to replicate? If not, then obviously there's no point in publishing it here.
-
Sorry Vern, I see you undertook to duplicate if you assessed the test has promise. I can live with that. I promise you that the results are unequivocal and that they way exceed unity. And the measurments protocol is strictly classical. So watch this space. I'll see if Chris can help with the posting. If not I'll make a plan.
-
I'll watch for it.
-
It is very difficult to get a theory heard. If you post it in many places, the internet time will specify when you posted it.
I always copyright my manuscripts. It costs $45. That establishes you as the creator of the work. Then I send the work to many universities. The last group of 100 universities cost me $1000 to send out.
Then I email the professors for a response. Some respond. Many do not. If I get 5 to 10 responses I am lucky. Most will only give it a very quick response. Some will send me letters.
In general their comments destroy the basic theory. Sometimes they want more concrete ideas. For example I produced a model of the proton from my dot-wave theory. They were not happy. They wanted to know how to calculate the magnetic moment. Others demanded that I use the work of prior scientists.
By the time they destroy my work, I already have. I think I have the answers but after a few months I find flaws in it. I have been doing this for 28 years.
My old high school geometry teacher Mr. Callahan from Brookly Tech High School told us in 1953 that
"The sweaky wheel gets the greese". That is the most important thing anyone could learn.
No one here is going to steal your work. Just sweak all over.
Anyway I just finished my millionth rewrite of my theory and will post shortly. I will only send out a few copies to those Professors who made some comments.
Forest Gump ran and ran and then finally stopped for no apparent reason. I am getting to the point where I cannot keep modifying my theory continuously.
Anyway post you work and let us rip it apart. The sad thing is that we all think we have great ideas but most do not work that well.
-
Anyway post you work and let us rip it apart. The sad thing is that we all think we have great ideas but most do not work that well.
It is only sad if you don't enjoy doing it. [:)]