Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: How do I publicize a theory?

  1. #1 How do I publicize a theory? 
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Done it before? Know how to? Please post.


    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: How do I publicize a theory? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Le Ch√Ęteau de Moulinsart
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    Done it before? Know how to? Please post.
    A journal in your university for the first place.


    We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    1. Get a job in a laboratory in that field.
    2. Apply for funding to research and test your theory.
    3. Research and test your theory.
    4. Write a paper based your test and results and submit it for publication to a peer reviewed journal.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    7
    What if the theory cannot be tested?
    Something like a theory about multiverses or somesuch.
    Demons flourish amongst the streaming minds-eye,
    they feed on the scum that grows from rocks,
    thoughtful detritus from the airy garden falling,
    covering all of us in the sins of others.
    We donít stop, we feel their fiery temperament,
    We enjoy it, we use it, we need it we think.
    But out of the scum comes the shining ones,
    covered in ash, they have fallen from the future,
    thought far-seeing, prescient pathfinders,
    As alluring as the demons ever were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by universaldistress
    What if the theory cannot be tested?
    Something like a theory about multiverses or somesuch.
    If it's truly impossible to test, then it isn't science. Even if something cannot be directly measured that doesn't mean it can't be tested. If you have a theory about multiverses, what does that theory predict about how different universes would affect each other? What does that theory predict about how different universes would affect observable astronomical phenomenon? Things like that.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    1. Get a job in a laboratory in that field.
    2. Apply for funding to research and test your theory.
    3. Research and test your theory.
    4. Write a paper based your test and results and submit it for publication to a peer reviewed journal.
    Thats easier said than done.

    Heres what I'd do.

    1. Make it fool proof. Ensure that all mathematics back everything in your theory, weave that maths with the physics and the theory so it explains anything using your theory that may be contradicted by already proven science.

    2. Try and get supporters first. See if people can see the light your theory will have to offer. Get them to see its limits and boundaries, get them to see how far it can go. Trust me, you'll need friends in high places.

    3. Furthur research your theory in as many ways as possible to weed out any flaws in it. If found ensure that they are explained using your theory (and remember, if its really good, it should be able to).

    4. Test results are vital. But remember that publisicing something is just like working on a project. You have to put yourself in the shoes of a person that is going to know nothing about your theory. Imagine how Einstein would have explained SR and GR to the world. He was lucky he had Minkowski as support.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    7
    A Multiverse theory would have to work in sync with all existing theories so it could be extremely hard to find defining/measurable properties.

    What if Universes don't affect each other on any scale we could measure by, due to the scales and our points of reference.

    Surely all existing Multiverse theory is highly speculative. Anyone who has previously tried to test on the subject seems to have been clutching at straws.

    So if it isn't testable (at present) it may not be science (yet)? But does that mean it is of no value discussing these theories, does this thread belong in the science fiction forum?

    But back to the subject. How can one publicise any theory tested or not?
    I would suggest the same way one would approach publication of any writing. First secure copyright.
    Yes we know that the work is automatically copyrighted but recording the work with a solicitor/lawyer is a clever move to secure it from possible plagiarism.

    Then approach people who would be willing to circulate the theory/work, be it scientific magazines, publishers or university professors.
    Also you could self publish on the net then try to attract hits from the relevant experts.

    I think that factual or fictional it is always hard to acquire an audience without contacts/relevant track record.
    Demons flourish amongst the streaming minds-eye,
    they feed on the scum that grows from rocks,
    thoughtful detritus from the airy garden falling,
    covering all of us in the sins of others.
    We donít stop, we feel their fiery temperament,
    We enjoy it, we use it, we need it we think.
    But out of the scum comes the shining ones,
    covered in ash, they have fallen from the future,
    thought far-seeing, prescient pathfinders,
    As alluring as the demons ever were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I said, if it's truly impossible to test. Not having the required knowledge or technology to discover and make testable measurements at this point in time doesn't necessarily mean testing is impossible. But if that is an issue with your theory, that is the first thing you need to tackle.

    If you're not in a position to do any of this research or testing yourself, your best bet to get published in a scholarly journal is to center your writing around previously published data, and perhaps present a review or new synthesis/analysis. If this isn't what you're looking to do, than try to get yourself interviewed by a magazine, or try to line up a book deal. And of course there's always internet self-publishing, as universal mentioned.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    7
    So if I can't test my theory yet but may due to scientific advances be able to test it in the future then this subject can be encompassed by science.
    Doesn't this approach not only seem vague but also run the risk of opening the floodgates to many subjects that don't deserve to be scientifically discussed?

    e.g. Is their a place for the discussion of possible theories that explore ideas pertaining to the explanation of scientific principles that could prove the existence of God, that work seamlessly within the laws of physics (forget religion) and in fact are essential for reality to work?

    Are we in essence admitting that the lines of Science are not fixed as many a scientist is willing to argue? And in fact risking crackpot creationist theories gaining unwarranted airtime?
    Demons flourish amongst the streaming minds-eye,
    they feed on the scum that grows from rocks,
    thoughtful detritus from the airy garden falling,
    covering all of us in the sins of others.
    We donít stop, we feel their fiery temperament,
    We enjoy it, we use it, we need it we think.
    But out of the scum comes the shining ones,
    covered in ash, they have fallen from the future,
    thought far-seeing, prescient pathfinders,
    As alluring as the demons ever were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Sigh. I guess I can see where people are coming from, but I have to admit it pains me whenever people start talking about how rigid and closed and dogmatic and establishmentarian etc etc science is.

    Science is a process. If you follow that process in pursuit of greater knowledge, then you are in the realm of science.

    Thus, the true realm of science is huge. For practicality's sake if nothing else, before a school or a journal or a professor is going to begin to devote time and money to an idea, they will want to see that this process has been used, and that there is a fair chance that conclusions reasonably well supported by evidence will come of it, and that it will in some way help the progression of other ideas through this process as well.

    Creationist theories attempt to follow the process, but the process disproves them. Yet their proponents forge ahead anyway, and try to fly in the face of an ever growing mountain of empirical evidence. Thus, no longer science.

    If you want to call that a fixed line, then fine. A fixed line it is.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    7
    Ok yes I am a person, or a member of a group that could be called people :wink:
    So essentially if it can be convincingly disproved then it can't be Science. I'd go along with that.

    But the existence of God, the devil or aliens cannot be disproved -Just as something that is unreachable (at present) is unmeasurable- so I suppose people will always seek these things out shouting that no evidence or contrary evidence doesn't disprove their ideas.

    So does a theory that allows intelligent design to be undisprovable have the right to be encompassed and accepted by scientists?
    Demons flourish amongst the streaming minds-eye,
    they feed on the scum that grows from rocks,
    thoughtful detritus from the airy garden falling,
    covering all of us in the sins of others.
    We donít stop, we feel their fiery temperament,
    We enjoy it, we use it, we need it we think.
    But out of the scum comes the shining ones,
    covered in ash, they have fallen from the future,
    thought far-seeing, prescient pathfinders,
    As alluring as the demons ever were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by universaldistress
    Ok yes I am a person, or a member of a group that could be called people :wink:
    So essentially if it can be convincingly disproved then it can't be Science. I'd go along with that.

    But the existence of God, the devil or aliens cannot be disproved -Just as something that is unreachable (at present) is unmeasurable- so I suppose people will always seek these things out shouting that no evidence or contrary evidence doesn't disprove their ideas.

    So does a theory that allows intelligent design to be undisprovable have the right to be encompassed and accepted by scientists?
    If something can be disproved, it is science - even if it has been shown to be wrong. It is one of the crucial requirements of a scientific theory that it must have the potential to be disproved. Therefore, any hypotheses, claims or statements that cannot be disproved (God, intelligent design) do not qualify to be called scientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    7
    Yes but that brings us back to the previous points above (did you read them?) that how can multiverse theory -that is impossible at present to disprove just as the existence of aliens or God are at present impossible to disprove- be classified as science. It is classified as science so ... How can we say that the existence of the afore mentioned cannot be included in science as long as they are not disproved by it. A theory of aliens that cannot be disproved by science is treated as science so surely a theory that fits into science and allows the existence of God that cannot be disproved would be something we could in the future seek out and test for until it is disproved?

    I think lots of scientists just have an atheistictic view that causes an aversion to the possibility of a design. I'm not talking about God upon high smoting us down with thunderbolts just the possibility that there is a design/simulation that we are involved in that reigns from outside our Universe/plane of existence.

    I am a scientist and I do not necessarily believe in God but I do not turn away from the idea that the Universe could be designed because that would be closing off from the possible truth. This kind of approach could blinker future advance?
    Of course all lines of thought have to fit into and be backed up (at some juncture) by convential Science.

    I remain as ever open to all interesting lines of thought. :wink:
    Demons flourish amongst the streaming minds-eye,
    they feed on the scum that grows from rocks,
    thoughtful detritus from the airy garden falling,
    covering all of us in the sins of others.
    We donít stop, we feel their fiery temperament,
    We enjoy it, we use it, we need it we think.
    But out of the scum comes the shining ones,
    covered in ash, they have fallen from the future,
    thought far-seeing, prescient pathfinders,
    As alluring as the demons ever were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •