Submit a New Theory in Physics - Securely and Legitimately

[Lapin Dormant]

This isn't a question of intelligence; it's about whether or not you understand the field in which you are formulating your theory. The best auto mechanic in the country couldn't design an airliner without studying aeronautical engineering first. It would never cross my mind to question the intelligence of either Moonbear or Zapper, but I bet that neither one of them would be able to present a paper in the other's specialty.

edit: Sorry, folks. I had a bit of a display glitch and didn't see more than the first page before posting this.

Then it becomes a question of Knowledge, as in what amount of study time (and what was it Dr. Einstein Said "Thought about it more") and upon what diversity of topics, inasmuch as anyone who could find a complete answer must cover pretty much everything.

As it is stated, "If you learn from a Genius you will have a Genius's knowledge" but that doesn't make you the Genius, then, if everyone can learn that, then everyone can have a Genius's Knowledge and it becomes a Common thing.

L.D.
Climbs up onto his turtle, and takes a Nap, balancing the coffee cup on the turtles tail, as he knows, the turtle likes that, it's fun.

 

[quantumdude]

Sweetser, since you've posted over here, I just wanted to comment that I'm glad you've bravely stepped forward and set a good example in the new independent research forum!

Seconded heartily! Thanks Doug for your excellent submission. I hope that PF can be helpful to you in developing your interesting idea.

Having a model to point to also makes it easier to write those rejection letters.

Hey, yeah! It's been a while since I checked that forum but I'm glad to see someone finally met the requirements and got a discussion going.

Yes, I was worried for a while. All the stuff that came in prior to (and since) sweetser's submission was...well...found wanting, to put it nicely.

We are definitely on our way to proving that IR is a viable concept. Now, if only we could convince Zanket to post his theory.

Well, the the obstacles that he cited are out of the way now.

I would also like to see submissions from Garth and Aether. In fact, I might submit something myself. Hope I get accepted! (seriously, I would not participate in the review of my own thread).

 

[Moonbear]

In fact, I might submit something myself. Hope I get accepted! (seriously, I would not participate in the review of my own thread).

Who gets to send you the rejection letter? *starts counting "Get out of Banning Free" cards*

 

[quantumdude]

Who gets to send you the rejection letter?

I'd appoint someone, probably Zapper.

On second thought, no, anyone BUT Zapper!

 

[ZapperZ]

I'd appoint someone, probably Zapper.

On second thought, no, anyone BUT Zapper!

HARUMPH!

Zz.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Ahem?

LD Slides off of His turtle, snags his cup of Coffee, waits as turtle fills it and mixes in the 'additions', Sips his brew Ahhhhhhh

Must note that in this thread I seem to have noticed firstly, persons defending Dr. Einsteins' Academic Reputation, His achievment, Scholastically, yet when it comes to who gets accreditation for the efforts put into the Independant Research Posts-postings, there seems almost a belief, or a consensus that it is not really a 'Proof' of greater intelligence, and that it isn't seemingly important Who gets the Credit...appears as at odds with itself, those two expressions of personal opinions.

Personaly I am probably more inclined to agree with this gentlemans expressed signature:

Getting the 'right' answer is important, but understanding how to solve the problem (i.e. how you get the right answer) is just as important, if not more so.

As even the best 'Garage Mechanic' or 'Aviation Engineer' needs to have the Problem Solving Skills that only come from the experiantial, as that is where the 'understandings' are best gained, in the 'twinned' (Books and Working Skills) approch to learning.

If the person who 'solves the problem' doesn't get the accreditation, there is NO motivation to continue, even worse if that person ends up feeling robbed of it, psychologically worse, aside from the obviousness of setting up a false representation, persons too? of What transpired, Not the best practising of Scientific Ethics, nor in keeping with the proper rules for scientific accounting and, or, reporting.

If not for the Credit, then Why did you become a scientist? Just to keep it to yourself, right? otherwise?

There is a thread in which a Person describes a Family member, one who shows tremendous Conceptual Skills inasmuch as the description affords insight into the inner workings of the persons mind, as evidenced by the application to problem solving that is involved in the excersize-excerisizing of those skills, Smart person, from Both methods, but I couldn't find it again, alas.

LD Hops back up onto his turtle, to sleep

 

[Moonbear]

If the person who 'solves the problem' doesn't get the accreditation, there is NO motivation to continue, even worse if that person ends up feeling robbed of it, psychologically worse, aside from the obviousness of setting up a false representation, persons too? of What transpired, Not the best practising of Scientific Ethics, nor in keeping with the proper rules for scientific accounting and, or, reporting.

Honestly, I'd be happy to continue my research even if I had to publish everything anonymously. I would still enjoy what I do and still want to publish it to advance knowledge and get the information out "there." The problem with this approach is that university administrators don't see it quite the same way. As long as research is my career and I need to bring in external funding, I need to have a "track record" of publications, so it is in the interest of my survival and ability to continue doing research to get the credit for my work and ideas.

If not for the Credit, then Why did you become a scientist? Just to keep it to yourself, right? otherwise?

No, the opposite of taking credit is not keeping it to yourself. One could give the credit to someone else or publish anonymously, except for the reasons I just stated above. The real reason to be a scientist is the fascination with discovery, the thrill of finding out new things nobody ever knew before you. There are some scientists with big egos who probably view it all as some sort of competition and enjoy seeing their names in print and the ego boost it gives them to beat someone else to the punch, but at least in my experience, they are not the norm.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Bottom Line?

Honestly, I'd be happy to continue my research even if I had to publish everything anonymously. I would still enjoy what I do and still want to publish it to advance knowledge and get the information out "there." The problem with this approach is that university administrators don't see it quite the same way. As long as research is my career and I need to bring in external funding, I need to have a "track record" of publications, so it is in the interest of my survival and ability to continue doing research to get the credit for my work and ideas.

So as long as you can still 'make a Living' your not worried about accreditation, yet it is from that that you can 'earn your living'.

No, the opposite of taking credit is not keeping it to yourself. One could give the credit to someone else or publish anonymously, except for the reasons I just stated above. The real reason to be a scientist is the fascination with discovery, the thrill of finding out new things nobody ever knew before you. There are some scientists with big egos who probably view it all as some sort of competition and enjoy seeing their names in print and the ego boost it gives them to beat someone else to the punch, but at least in my experience, they are not the norm.

Personally I don't get that it is all About 'Big Egos' Dr. Einstein didn't seem to be a Person of the Biggest Ego, Neither do lots of Others, Accredited in History, for their Works, just that it makes them slightly more 'sought after' concerning their Opinions, inasmuch as they are, from reportage of there accomplishments, Known to be someone who might know something on the given subject matter.

How some of them 'Earn A Living'

 

[Moonbear]

So as long as you can still 'make a Living' your not worried about accreditation, yet it is from that that you can 'earn your living'.

A bit of a catch-22, isn't it? It's still a "publish or perish" world, but when you're getting your funding from public sources, you need to show you're doing worthwhile things with their money.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

I Agree...Had to add those 'rabbit droppings' cause the computer, cybergerrrr told me to, saying "I agree" was simply too short a message...if you don't believe me that those are droppings, try 'scratch and sniff'


LD
Sounds of a Rabbit, and a turtle, laughing their heads off

 

[Moonbear]

I Agree...Had to add those 'rabbit droppings' cause the computer, cybergerrrr told me to, saying "I agree" was simply too short a message...if you don't believe me that those are droppings, try 'scratch and sniff'


LD
Sounds of a Rabbit, and a turtle, laughing their heads off

I need some of whatever you mixed into your coffee.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Then just pick them off of the screen...

LD
(Ouch! Hu'rtin myself)

 

[Lapin Dormant]

A little more perhaps

Just in case anyones uncertain of the value of getting the Accreditation for one's Work https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=92234&highlight=nobel+prize as expressed by another poster who seems to believe that the Credit is worth something.

Then again, I too have had that wonderful feeling of 'Discovery', but I laugh at myself over that one, sometimes, cause some of them, the discoveries, weren't, even thought it arose within me as such, I later found out they were "somethings" that were already known just not to broadly, in society, others? well, still waiting on some of those. :zzz:

But it is still best NOT to let another get the credit, as that sets up everyone who thereafter "believes falsely, in them".