Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: ScientificBoysClub on 08/07/2009 13:26:06
-
Could some one please tell me How can I publish my Ideas to the scientific community.
I have some stuff to prove my self . so, I need to find a way to publish with some security...!!
so that no one would copy it . there were so many cases in the past whose Ideas were stolen like it happened with lise meitner and otto hahn..
Is there any online Publication ...??
[;D]
could some one PLZ for the sake of Physics Knowledge ..
Guide me How to publish a scientific paper ?
can I send it to.... http://journals.aip.org/
(http://journals.aip.org/)
what is Journals ??
How should I present my theory ?
Does Advanced Math is important if my theory goes beyond basic math ?
What should be the structure of my scientific papers ?
-
There is no way of publicising any real scientific discoveries with security. You must submit them fully worked out with no mistakes with clear experimental evidence supporting them for to a major scientific journal, for example Nature or one of the relevant specialist journals. Before publication they will be submitted by the magazine for peer review by other experts in the same field and only when they have been convinced that they are valid and relevant they will be published for all to read.
-
If your idea has practical application, then you could file a patent on the concept - but you would probably need a patent-lawyer to help you though the process - and it'll cost you money. This gives you legal protection against anyone else exploiting your idea for commercial gain - although of course the patent document itself, the "information disclosure" becomes public - albeit with your name on it.
Although in principle scientific journals will accept articles for publication based on merit alone, it will help considerably if you already have affiliations with recognised research-groups in the field - or at the very least if you are familiar with the journals' style and language, and reference other relevant papers in the field.
Unless you've been a student in the subject and/or know a lecturer to get a foot in the door, I can imagine it could be very difficult in practice.
The problem is that there are an awful lot of 'cranks' who think they have a new and clever idea, but actually have no understanding of the existing theory and experiments which led to it, and whose own ideas are very woolly/imprecise/contradict known experiment at the first hurdle. The scientific community simply cannot waste their time on such people - it would take every waking hour of their lives to refute all these crazy ideas in any detail - and the proponents still would think they were getting a rough deal.
Science is evidence-based knowledge. A theory is nothing unless it explains evidence (in the form of experimental results), and in detail. Scientific progress is made when a new theory is consistent with an old theory as far as the old theory works, but is more accurate or more complete or more comprehensive or has a wider scope (or is otherwise "neater") than the preceeding theory.
A scientific idea is falsifiable. Wiki: "falsifiable" is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown to be false by an observation or a physical experiment.
That is, a theory will lead to predictions of specific outcomes for given experiments (set of conditions or whatever). If those outcomes are not obtained then the theory is wrong, and must be abandoned (or at the very least, revised).
A new theory must explain all existing data/results/outcomes (at least as well as any prior theory) to be taken seriously. If it doesn't then the proponent hasn't done their homework.
Your idea cannot be accepted by the scientific community unless it is revealed in full. If the theory is genuinely useful, it should be possible for you to present it (on typically no more than 3-4 sides of paper) such that its merit is self-evident to people familiar with the field.
Your question about "should you include maths" or "how complicated should the maths be" is rather absurd. If your theory is properly worked through, it should be self-evident about what level of maths (if any) is required - and it will depend on the subject. If you're not sure what level of maths is needed, this probably indicates that your idea is not yet fully worked out.
Academics are usually pretty good about giving credit where credit is due, but if you're really worried you could always write your ideas down (or make printouts), seal them in brown envelopes, and file them with banks/solicitors who would date and sign them so that in the event of a future dispute you could go to that trusted person and 'prove' your priority on the claim to the idea.
-
I am new here I was diagnosed as gifted as a child and I believe I can explain what dark matter is but I dont know how to go about it as I didnt have the oportunities to go to university
-
sorry I ment to say how to publish or how to get it recognised without someone taking credit for it
-
Several thoughts for you, to assist in getting yourself taken seriously:
1. Dark matter is not my field, and I don't know enough to critique in any more comprehensive way your theory as described here... but "Dark matter is Hydrogen without its electron" just isn't true. A proton is hydrogen without its electron and a proton is not dark matter. This may be an issue with your presentation, or it may not, but no one will take you seriously with an assertion like that.
2. Don't post, on the internet, with what is presumably your full, real name, anything you very obviously haven't run through a spell checker (and ideally past a(nother) native English speaker to check for homophones or words otherwise misused.
3. Do the leg work on your theory. Find out as much as you can about the experimental data your experiment will have to explain, how the currently favoured theories explain it and how your theory would explain it, and your theory would have to explain the known facts, quantitatively where relevant, better than the current ones. Ideally you would have to suggest experiments not yet carried out which would give different results under your theory as against the current theory so that they could be compared and the one which better fits the results selected. You might have to work quite hard on this, in the UK you would probably need to go to use the British Library, I'm not sure about other countries.
4. Present all of your work in a clear format with high quality diagrams and a carefully thought out structure to convey your ideas as clearly and concisely as possible. Look at critically some published papers in your field to form an idea about how to do this - I don't say all published papers are any good, many are dreadful, but you will need to form your own opinion on how your theory might best be presented in approximately that format as it is what academic scientists are used to reading.
Incidentally, going about announcing you were a "gifted" child won't cut much ice with most people. I was a "gifted" child. I'm nothing special as an adult.
-
Aldaman as rosy says your hypotheses about dark matter contain so many errors of understanding that it is just not worth my time explaining them all to you and you probably would not understand them if I did. Before you can start to work on a new idea you have to understand what is well known first so if you are really interested read and understand some good university maths and physics text books. do some exercises or enrol in a further education course on the subject.
One of the problems nowadays is that there is so much science fiction and fantasy literature around that many young people cannot distinguish between the vague non scientific ideas that justify an environment into which an interesting story involving various characters interacting is created. Real science isn't like that it is mostly very hard work on the fine detail of a tiny part of an idea nowadays.
-
you ae right I got ahead of myself, I have only just started learning about chenistry to explain whats in my head,
Negative particle represent matter so anti matter would mean the absents of negative matter like electrons neutrons and down quarks, this would mean the existents of an undiscovered Hadron that is tasteless, weightless and invisible and consist of only 2 up quarks.
being a positive hadron it would repel any element that would have an electron, nuetron or down quark thus acting as a powerfull yet invisable force. I beleive when Hydrogen comes in contact with a singularity it loses all negative particles into the event horizon leaving only posative matter and in the case of hydrogen it is the only element that consists of 1 proton making it the most likely candidate.
-
Policy of population of the Earth is not ready to accept an opening. Therefore we should stop development of science.
-
Policy of population of the Earth is not ready to accept an opening. Therefore we should stop development of science.
Que, Mr Fawlty?
-
Que, Mr Fawlty?
[/quote]I do not know Mr Fawlty.
-
I do not know Mr Fawlty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawlty_Towers#Manuel
-
Use vixra.
Here is the protocol.
http://fs23.formsite.com/viXra/form2/index.html
Major science journals ignore people who are not in the "in groups" or the "club" as George Carlin put it. Remember, they are only interested in safe papers that do not threaten the careers of its members, editors and readers. It is considered offensive to publish ideas which rail against their current dogma.
Your papers and ideas will be time stamped on vixra, plus many thousands of people read those articles. So if your writing has some value to it, it will be noticed for sure.
Do not bother with academia. They are a waste of time.
-
Do not bother with academia. They are a waste of time.
Apart from doing things like creating this website, for example...