If someone who doesn't have a degree were to have a theory.. and were able to create a scientific theory based on it, what would be the best way for them to release it for scientific scrutiny? While I have friends and family who are active scientists.. I don't really know how to go about getting my idea out there. I don't really know of any organizations or sites that I could send it to that would do something with it without me having some sort of degree. I've found sites where you can submit papers.. but most of those sites are flooded with pseudoscience theories. Reason I am asking, obviously, is because I've had a theory for awhile and feel like I've been able to turn it into a scientific theory. It's falsifiable and testable.. it has predictions and so far, looks like one of those predictions is correct.. and takes into account scientific observations. So how would an everyday citizen release their theory to be looked at and hopefully one day be a scientific theory? I would more than likely have an uphill battle with it as there is a current scientific theory in its place, but I feel as if that has already been falsified and is taking awhile to be acknowledged as so due to the human ego of scientists and the fact that there isn't a decent competitor to take its place if it was declared null. I just don't really know where to take the first step for my uphill battle..
Distant Origin (episode) Heresy against doctrine Keep in mind anything you put forward is likely to challenge somebody else's pet theory and they will protect their theory and the reputation linked to it at all cost and who the hell are you a no degree nobody to pretend to know squat about their pet subject. The HAB Theory, Cataclysms of the Earth, Polar Shift, Crust Displacement and other fun stuff. Here is my favorite subject and it's been vetted by the worlds greatest scientist, Albert Einstein and it's gotten swept under the rug as well. Look up the Hapgood-Einstine papers-letters. BNW
That is a good question. It is unfortunate that ideas without the stamp of a degree. Is it a theory or a hypothesis? Perhaps write a thesis, lay out your evidence, sources or lines of reasoning and contact some local experts in the field, maybe they could offer some help or critique it. If you sustain their critiques maybe ask them to write a small forward to your thesis? Let me know what you decide and how things go. Best wishes
Yeah, I was thinking of just reaching out to those in the field.. sending it to whoever I can dig up. Just wasn't sure if anyone had any extra advice. I seem to remember a site where one could submit something if they had at least one or two people with degrees in the field sign off on it.. but forget the site. It's a theory.. one that I've been working on for ages now, we've discussed it before. I think I've got it to the point now where I could get it considered as a working theory and am putting that together. Kind of excited actually cause I charted some of the data and it lined up how I was hoping.. but I honestly can't say if it'll turn out to just be a correlation or is indeed a causation.
Write a paper. Outline your theory, show and reference understanding of the work that has gone on in the field before hand and how your work relates to it, make predictions, discuss how you are going to test it, do it, analyse your results, draw conclusions, discuss and evaluate the limitations of your method, repeat the test, do you get the same results? send your paper to a journal in the field. the journal will evaluate you on 2 things a) Does anyone care- if theyve got more interesting or more important papers then they'll get the pages first, so dont overshoot and go for too prestigious a publication, find a more specialist one. b) Your scientific method, if that sucks it dies here. You need to show that you've identified and worked to eliminate variables (taking note where they can not be reasonably eliminated and baring them in your conclusions) and contain enough information that an independent scientist could carry out your experiment, get the same results and come to the same conclusions working solely from what you publish. from there they send it out to peer review, experts in the field (and their research groups) will read it, consider your conclusions, double check your analysis, try to recreate your experiment and analyse their results both individually and in context with yours. It can come back as either Yes what he did is true publish it, no we can't get the same results either the method is incomplete or the initial test was a fluke (or under the influence of a variable not identified), or yeah theres some validity to it but we'd like to see some more work on this bit before we publish good luck
You don't need to have a degree or be in academia to publish a scientific paper. If the manuscript meets the standards of science for that journal and passes the scrutiny of your peers, then it will be published. You've never published a scientific peer reviewed paper, so you don't really understand how to put one together. This is the reason people "get a degree". You learn exactly this process. You learn how to write and communicate your research and ideas. Ultimately it is a skill that takes a lifetime to learn.
If everyone was honest and not bias then your statement seems very logical . Science seems to have been corrupted by governments and beliefs and have ignored facts and seem to support theories that science itself proves the theory couldnt be possible .. Evolution teaches the earth has been spinning the same speed for millions of years . Does it really make sense that is even possible when the earth rotated in a gravitational field . I cant make a toy top spin for a year , how can the earth spin at the same speed for a billion years ? Basic common sense wipes out most theory's connected to evolution . Big bang theory doesn't work because two planets are spinning backward . For one we know that their was highly educated people who made all the pyramids around the world . That alone doesn't fit into evolution . We should of been less evolved six thousand years ago...… How do you move 400 ton granite blocks without heavy equipment ? . Lots of questions and the truth is no one was their that is living now . We don't have eye witness accounts . Science is like a religion , people who believe in God and are scientized try to only support scientific facts that fit into the theory of we were created . Scientist who believe in evolution only try to use scientific facts that support their beliefs in evolution .
Why do some planets have reverse rotation? Almost all celestial rotation in our solar system is from West to East, or counterclockwise when looking down from the North pole. All planets orbit the Sun in this direction; the Sun itself, as well as all but two planets rotate in this way. This is not too surprising, since the angular momentum associated with all this rotation is the same as the total angular momentum of the primordial solar nebula from which the sun and all planets formed. The two exceptions are Venus and Uranus. Uranus' rotational axis is tilted by slightly more than 90 degrees with respect to its orbital plane, i.e. it is rotating “on its side”. Venus is the only planet in the solar system that truly exhibits reverse rotation, spinning in the opposite direction to its orbital motion. It is thought that this anomalous rotation was caused by a collision with a very large asteroid, or even a planetoid, early on in the history of our solar system. The collision would have destroyed the asteroid, but the impact could have changed the orientation of the orbital rotation axis. why do some planets have reverse rotation [Ask An Astronomer] Doesn't disprove evolution or the big bang at all.
Yes it does . If the big bang theory is even possible all the planets would be spinning in the same direction ..
That doesn't account for collisions etc. Edited to add another theory: Please post a link as to why or how you believe it disproves it. Why Venus Spins the Wrong Way Now Alexandre Correira and Jacques Laskar suggest that Venus may not have flipped at all. They propose instead that its rotation slowed to a standstill and then reversed direction. Taking into account the factors mentioned above, as well as tidal effects from other planets, the team concluded that Venus's axis could have shifted to a variety of positions throughout the planet's evolution. Regardless of whether it flipped or not, it is bound to settle into one of four stable rotation statestwo in either direction. The researchers add that Venus would be more stable in one of the two retrograde rotational states. So in essence, it was just a question of time before Venus started spinning the wrong way.
Yes it does when everything is supposed to be spinning in the same direction tp begin with .. Put a bunch of kids on a merry go round and spin the merry go round until the kids fly off . They are all spinning the same direction and no one is colliding in mid air or in mid space .. The direction they spin depends if they are in a friction or non friction environment .
Is not Venus and Uranus part of our solar system? All planets and solar systems in our galaxy travel in the same direction. A few as noted may spin differently, but I still don't see how you can casually discount it. Evolution could happen without a big bang. Please see the edited version of my previous post.
You are correct Venus and Uranus is part of this solar system as far as science knows , that's why the big bang theory is just a theory and is not factual . If you believe in the big bang theory then you believe you were created from a rock ……. That is what evolution teaches. Cosmic soup brother .
Science may hold many things that we don't fully understand. Gases came before rocks. The Big Bang theory may or may not be accurate, however that does not disprove the existence of God. An omnipotent being could easily have set up a series of events that it new the results of before triggering the action to set the wheels in motion. Without the series of events that occurred on Earth that prepared all the oil, gases, and other natural resources for our future usage, we would have no where near the quality of life that is currently possible. Perhaps some being understood this and developed our little home for us before initiating our own development. I really would like a source for your theory.
Science Is my source, It starts off with the study of centrifugal force in a non friction environment . How is not agreeing with the big Bang theory makes me trying to disprove Gods existence ? Very easy to get off on a dozen rabbit trails , like what about this or that. Honestly we shouldn't bring in our own personal beliefs when talking about any theory . Every theory must have scientific facts backing it or its just a theory . The beginning of the big bang theory is every thing in the universe was sucked together into one small mass . Then it says the mass could of been as small as a pin head . << Straight up I am calling BS on that . Then the mass started to spin to the point it was exploded . At that point or solar system was created . Everything flying off the mass spins in the same direction … and that is a scientific fact . With everything flying the same direction and spinning the same direction nothing colliding could make any of the planets spin backwards . Even if someone says that is possible the collision would of been so violent the planets would of been destroyed or have giant collision marks on the planet...…..
I could of , but I was trying to stay with just the topic of the Big Bang Theory and the direction the planets spin . If someone believes in creation then creation should be able to be backed by science . I ask you can you back creation with science ? If someone believes in the big bang theory and evolution why do they believed the UFO;s are from a advanced alien race ? Doesn't fact dictate creation ? Either that or all the governments around the worlds made all the UFO's
I can as I stated in post #15. There is no reason to discredit the idea that creation could not have happened through evolution. To believe in evolution does not necessarily equate into believing or dis-believing in alien life. The obvious exceptions are those that strictly believe the Bible is a literal timeline of events, I do not. The only thought on there being an advanced alien race would be if they are operating said UFO's. But then it would be an identified alien craft, one that definitely has better technology to have made the journey. Yet, if they crashed it wasn't perfected technology.
One must have the passion for the truth on how we got here how the earth got here and why are we here . I have theories that I believe are true but being able to sit down and research and discuss these theories has never happened in my life time . One problem is your looking at years of research and doing our own testing and research. Plus the amount of money needed in equipment . Truth is who can you really believe ? governments have made it very clear they control what is being taught in school .