New theories are trash ?????

[mephestopheles]

Someone, Possibly a Moderator , please tell me why New thoughts and new ways of looking at things are "Trash" ?

[swansont]

Someone, Possibly a Moderator , please tell me why New thoughts and new ways of looking at things are "Trash" ?

 

That would be difficult, since they aren't.

[timo]

 

That would be difficult, since they aren't.

Not new or not trash? I might agree on the majority of "new ideas" being presented not being new at all. Not sure if I agree that they are not trash, at least for the many of those sold on sfn as "new thoughts". The few interesting new thoughts I see here are usually not labelled as such, but tend to come along in more modest clothing. Reasons for self-proclaimed "new thoughts" being forum-trash usually are:

- arrogance (being certain that an idea is new because it is new to me)

- ignorance to the fact that a lot of other people spend a lot of time working on scientific ideas

- delusions of grandeur ("... but those other people are not as smart as me")

- being a social asshole (pretending humility despite actually being arrogant, ignorant and delusional)

- a qualitative understanding of probabilities (requesting for my ideas to be taken seriously because the chance of it being valuable is not mathematically zero)

- and possibly most importantly a lack of a scientific background, implying (a) not knowing the actual state of the field I talk about and (b) not having been trained to be critical towards my own ideas/results

 

Luckily, this was a general question by a new member not relating to any specific post. If someone feels offended by this: Don't worry, I did not mean you. Your new ideas posted here are different, of course

[Phi for All]

On the front page, the Trash Can is listed as a subset of Speculations. It's just a placeholder. Posts that go in the Trash are usually hijacks inappropriately placed or worded, and they can come from any subsection. We don't like deletion; we either hide posts that repeatedly break the rules, or we put them in the Trash where everyone can see why.

 

Speculations is a bit less rigorous, but we need standards there too. New ideas are great, and hopefully those who pose them understand that any criticism is to help put the idea on more solid ground. Speculation needs a good foundation if you want to discuss an idea meaningfully.

[mephestopheles]

I have looked at several Physics discussion site and I have tried to post to them with no success.

ANY thoughts outside of the currently "known" or that which has been mathematically proven are Taboo.
At least on those sites.
I WANT / NEED criticism of the theory I would like to posit.
After much thought ( experimentation ? ) I have a theory which I feel unifies everything.
From the Beginning till now and onward for about 200+ Billion years.
From beginning I mean what is called the "Big Bang" but, in mind was not, an almost entirely different process took place in my theory.
I have an IQ of nearly 160. I do not have any advanced classes in Mathematics or Physics.
I do not even have a Proper High School Diploma, just a GED.
I think that perhaps my theory has some degree of plausibility because I see things from a different perspective than many people do.
I see them in my mind.
I hope I might have a chance to present my thoughts and have civil rebuttal concerning them , if that is allowed on this site.
Thank you for the prompt replies I have already recieved and I look forward to hearing from you all again.

[Klaynos]

I'd recommend reading the speculations forum rules and the writing a brief, concise description of one prediction that you're idea makes and how that prediction is derived.

 

You are likely going to be asked about maths as that is the method for making accurate predictions.

 

My chosen scenario for ideas that claim to be theories of everything us to show how the altitude of a geostationary orbit is found using the idea presented.

[mephestopheles]

Klaynos,
I once had very smart guy, OK, maybe not the brightest bulb in the string ( He was a RadioShack District Manager ) told me that knowing everything was not what was most important , Knowing where to find it was though.
I have to ask, so I know how to proceed , what idea was presented and what does a geostationary orbit that is based on centripetal force have to do with it.
I'm sure I can Google the maths for a Geostationary orbit , but, I don't understand what that might have to do with an as yet unexpressed idea ?
There are also unknown variables to the Geostationary orbit. What is orbiting ?
How much mass does it have.
What color is it ?
I ask for color because over a period of time an orbiting object with a high reflective factor would get pushed out of its Geostationary orbit by Sunlight. Each pass in the direct path of the light would push it a little further and a little further into or out of the Earth's gravitational pull and it would eventually completely lose orbit and either ascend into space or descend into the atmosphere.
Mass is needed as well due to the gravitational "pull" that the Moon would express on the object as Tidal gravity. Again each pass would pull on one side of the Earth away from it and on the other side it pull into the Earth's gravity at a higher level.
So, the orbit might be temporarily Geosynchronous but it would eventually decay to a point where it would as I stated above ,fall into the Earths atmosphere or ascend out of orbit and "float" away into space.
Knowing these variables would allow for intermittent adjustments to be made to prolong the orbit till fuel or electro / mechanical failure resulted in a Failure to adjust and the decay into the earth or ascension away from the Earth would again begin.
So, given that the object would eventually fall or leave orbit outward in one way or another it would be safe to say that a True geostationary orbit cannot with total accuracy be calculated.
Even the Moon is moving away a little each year.
This still leaves the question in my mind , what has this to do with an idea or theory that I have as yet to express ??

[Bignose]

I have to ask, so I know how to proceed , what idea was presented and what does a geostationary orbit that is based on centripetal force have to do with it.

I'm sure I can Google the maths for a Geostationary orbit , but, I don't understand what that might have to do with an as yet unexpressed idea ?

This is more a good example when someone comes on the forum and claims that gravity and magnetism are the same thing. Or gravity is a push, not a pull. So, it's like, "ok, then show us how your push (magnetic force) idea makes predictions the agree with observations, in this case the observation being what conditions are necessary for a geostationary orbit?". This is a nice problem because it is something that any 1st semester university physics student should be able to do, has a known solution and observation, and really an opportunity to showcase the difference between the currently accepted idea and someone's new idea. Maybe Klaynos has any example, but despite how much good doing such an example would be, I have never seen someone who claims to have a new idea fulfill the above request.

 

After much thought ( experimentation ? ) I have a theory which I feel unifies everything.

If you are going to claim this, then it needs to be demonstrated. Actually, the above example isn't a terrible one. If you can 'unify everything' then start with your the first principles in your idea and end up deriving the equations for a geostationary orbit. This isn't just Googling them and copying them. I would like to see this proposed unification and how it brings together 'everything'.

 

Then, since this is a unification of everything, please demonstrate how using those same principles reduce to the currently accepted equations used in quantum mechanics.

 

This answers your bigger question, too, on how to present your ideas. If you wish to present them in a scientific manner -- and the fact that you're on a science forum indicates to me that you do -- then know that science is almost wholly about prediction and measurement. And the main metric in science that determines how well accepted an idea is is simply how accurately the predictions based on that idea are when compared to measurement.

 

So, conceptually, it is very easy to understand what makes an idea better scientifically: a new idea will be considered better if it predicts more things than the old idea, it predicts things more accurately than the old idea, or both. Practically, this is typically very hard to actually do. Again, as an example, no one who has come on here with a so-called 'better' idea for gravity, relativity, cold fusion, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, astrophysics, or many others have actually demonstrated better predictions than the current ones based on their ideas. That because, well, we have had a lot of smart, hard-working people who have been able to come up with ideas that make very accurate predictions.

 

Now, there are still plenty of things that we don't have good predictions for. Such as, a single good idea that makes predictions at both very large and very small scales. This is why I asked the question above: use your unification to show us how it makes predictions at the large scale (geostationary orbit around a planetary body) and the small scale (quantum mechanics). If your idea can actually do this, then it fulfills the criteria I said out above: it makes more predictions that the current best ideas do.

 

So, all that said, I look forward to seeing your idea posted here.

 

Lastly, I hope that you will understand my and many other people's skepticism to this claim. Basically, this is an extremely extraordinary claim. You're going to have to present a great deal of extraordinary evidence -- accurate predictions to measurements based on your idea -- to convince people. There have been many people who have claimed what you have. And when people start to point out inconsistencies or inadequacies in your idea, please don't take it personally. We are all posting on this forum because we enjoy science, and all ideas in science are examined very thoroughly to test their mettle. Peer review, where other people dig very deep into an idea to find any flaw is common in science. This is just a random anonymous internet forum, figuratively a cake walk compared to the minefield of presenting a paper at a conference or submitting a paper to peer review before publication. The biggest thing is that when someone points out an error on your part, use it as a chance to learn something, and improve your idea. And ultimately, don't be afraid to abandon parts of your idea if the evidence just isn't there. That is all part of science -- trying something and if its predictions just don't agree with measurements, then it doesn't matter how logical, easy, simple, straightforward, elegant, or beautiful it is... it just doesn't have merit scientifically. Science is all about accurate predictions.

[Essay]

F'n touch screen! Can somebody erase the -1 rep, and change it to +1, for the previous post.

Sorry....

 

~ Thanks!

[Phi for All]

F'n touch screen! Can somebody erase the -1 rep, and change it to +1, for the previous post.

Sorry....

 

~ Thanks!

 

I got it to 0, someone else will have to add +1.

 

And can someone add a +1 to the post for me, too? Thanks for a great perspective, Bignose.

[Essay]

I got it to 0, someone else will have to add +1.

 

And can someone add a +1 to the post for me, too? Thanks for a great perspective, Bignose.

Thanks for fixing that ...as much as possible....

 

In addition to those qualities, which a good theory needs, I'd also hope a simple equation or descriptive sentence could be offered up as a clue or indication about the new unifying perspective or paradigm shift.

 

...especially for any other folks who can "see them in" their minds too.

 

~

Edited September 20, 2014 by Essay

[Klaynos]

I don't think I can add much to waist

What Bignose has written.

 

One small point of that having unknowns in the final equation (colour, reflectivity, mass, etc...) Would not be bad as long as it could be then compared to an experiment where all those unknowns could be measured.

[mephestopheles]

Bignose & Klaynos, I would like firstly to Thank you for your responses.
Second though I have to repeat that what education I have is mostly self taught.
"I have an IQ of nearly 160. I do not have any advanced classes in Mathematics or Physics."
I suppose to be most accurate in this quest for knowledge and recognition of my Idea I need collaboration.
​So, without further adieu I will try to verbalize my Ideas and if someone is interested in commenting OR helping by way of mathematical proofs I would appreciate it Very much . And Please remember , NO ONE has ever just sat down and written out a complete fully fleshed out Theory with Mathematical and Physiological Proofs in one sitting.
Some have a gift - an Eidetic memory. Some have other gifts and are called Savants because the one thing they can do is done with no training and yet is done flawlessly. One instance I might cite is a young Gentleman ( I forget his name ) who was flown over NY City and afterwards sat down and drew a picture of the City and every window was where it was supposed to be every building scaled to proper height, width and depth in perspective as they got further away from his chosen vantage point to begin the drawing, Streets, street signs, window banners etc. were in the perfect places as they were seen from the air in his fly over.
I mention this because Science isn't all about equations , mathematical formulas, and so many things that cause great ideas to be rejected because the person couldn't do the math.
Science is first and foremost about Ideas. DaVinci had an Idea, Lister had an Idea, Galileo had an Idea, Einstein had an Idea.
From there the rest was fleshed out but first there was the raw mental picture of things as they are and not as someone says they should be ( i.e. "the Earth is flat " ) .
With your permission i hope to do just that. Present a raw idea. I see it in my mind and I can try to express it in the most clear and succinct manner of which I am capable.
Your permission to be heard is all I seek. I may be a fool, I may be onto something that will change everything or I may not have the foggiest concerning what I want to express.
But, until I do so, neither you or I will be able to determine if this has merit or if it is just so much "Hogwash".

Here in a nutshell is the Idea of which I speak, disintegration.
Disintegration being defined as breaking a thing let's say a Proton down into the smallest possible pieces ( I use pieces instead of quarks or muons or any of the other sub-sub atomic particles because those particles in disintegration would be broken down into their smallest constituent "pieces" ) to the point that they would no longer retain the properties of either matter or energy. For instance - in the LHC single protons collide at almost the speed of light and explode. Out of this there are many different particles generated which make up a single proton. Among them a very special particle that at first was only Theorised and now is known to exist - the higgs boson .
It is 3:30 am here and I can hardly hold my eyes open,
I'll continue later.

[ajb]

I mention this because Science isn't all about equations , mathematical formulas, and so many things that cause great ideas to be rejected because the person couldn't do the math.

It depends on the subject here. If we are talking about physics, then most of then most if not all of the concepts really take on their full meaning in the mathematics.

 

Mass, is a simple example. The ideas is that mass should be "the amount of stuff". And of course it is, but only when you see the role it plays in the mathematical formulation of Newtonian mechanics do you really get a deeper understanding of mass and its relation to inertia. Then you see how it plays a role as the "charge" in Newtonian gravity. After than you see what role it plays in special relativity "E = mc^2" etc and then you see the subtleties of what mass means in general relativity. And that's all classical, you may also wonder what mass means in quantum field theory (it is related to the poles of propagators).

 

So, the very intuitive idea of mass as the "amount of stuff" does not really capture all that mass "is". You need mathematical frameworks to understand the role of mass.

 

 

Science is first and foremost about Ideas.

Again this will depend on the subject. In physics one is so used to thinking in terms of mathematical models that I doubt it is at all clear how one can really separate a "pure idea" from a "mathematical idea". Physicists speak and think mathematically.

 

... Einstein had an Idea.

Einstein had many ideas and all were based on a good understanding of the contemporary physics at the time and its mathematical formulation.

 

I see it in my mind and I can try to express it in the most clear and succinct manner of which I am capable.

In the context of physics it may just not be understandable without some mathematical model at hand, even if that model is not so well posed or fully constructed.

 

But, until I do so, neither you or I will be able to determine if this has merit or if it is just so much "Hogwash".

Well, please start a thread on your ideas, presumably in the Speculations section.

[StringJunky]

Theories are nothing without maths because the essence of a theory, particularly physical ones, is that it can make predictions i.e. describe events under varying conditions.or parameters. There's no other effective way to describe quantitative phenomena really.

 

By asking someone to put the numbers to your hypothesis you are basically asking them to do the most important and difficult work. Dreaming up visually or verbally expressed ideas is the easy part.

Edited September 20, 2014 by StringJunky

[Essay]

"...they would no longer retain the properties of either matter or energy."

 

Well that certainly sounds outside of the box. But painting a picture with languages can be fun.

 

Good luck!

~

[swansont]

Not new or not trash? I might agree on the majority of "new ideas" being presented not being new at all. Not sure if I agree that they are not trash, at least for the many of those sold on sfn as "new thoughts". The few interesting new thoughts I see here are usually not labelled as such, but tend to come along in more modest clothing. Reasons for self-proclaimed "new thoughts" being forum-trash usually are:

- arrogance (being certain that an idea is new because it is new to me)

- ignorance to the fact that a lot of other people spend a lot of time working on scientific ideas

- delusions of grandeur ("... but those other people are not as smart as me")

- being a social asshole (pretending humility despite actually being arrogant, ignorant and delusional)

- a qualitative understanding of probabilities (requesting for my ideas to be taken seriously because the chance of it being valuable is not mathematically zero)

- and possibly most importantly a lack of a scientific background, implying (a) not knowing the actual state of the field I talk about and (b) not having been trained to be critical towards my own ideas/results

 

Luckily, this was a general question by a new member not relating to any specific post. If someone feels offended by this: Don't worry, I did not mean you. Your new ideas posted here are different, of course

 

I don't disagree with the assessment, but ideas are judged on their merit. As Phi has posted, the suspicion is that the trash can being a subset of speculations is the trigger here.

 

Most speculative ideas will end up being wrong. Ideas that are sent to the trash are ones where the "rules of engagement" have been violated — they are hijacks or the thread starter has failed to address criticism or engage in science of some sort, as the speculations rules demand.

[Bignose]

Science is first and foremost about Ideas.

I disagree, as per my post above. Science is about accurate prediction. An idea can be a kernel to begin on the path to accurate prediction, but I am sorry, an idea alone is just story telling.

 

Regarding math, I agree it is not completely 100% absolutely necessary. However, what a framework it gives us for prediction making!

 

Quite simply, words are fungible. The same word means different things to different people based on each's history, experiences, culture, and perspective. And this is what makes words great, actually. The best works of literature are constantly being reread and reinterpreted each generation as each new perspective is applied to it.

 

But this doesn't work for science in terms of creating objective, clear-cut, metrics on how accurate a prediction is.

 

Here is a favorite example I like to bring up: I walk into your room carrying a box, set the box down, and say "Whew! That box is heavy." What does this really mean? I am a Olympic weightlifter? A toll booth attendant? A ballet dancer? A man or a woman? Young, middle aged, or older? Etc. The problem here is the word 'heavy.' A mass I struggle to lift may be easy for you to lift. Scientifically, describing the box as heavy is almost meaningless.

 

Compare that to "That box takes 50 N of force to lift." Now we have something. We have all agreed on what a Newton of force is, so whether you can exert 50 N of force easily or difficultly becomes immaterial.

 

Now, let's frame this is concept of science and predictions. Say you and I both had an idea. My idea predicts that the box should take 39.4 N of force to lift. Your idea predicts that it will take 54.9 N of force to lift. Comparatively, my prediction has more than twice the error your prediction has. Scientifically, your prediction is better. And, if someone else comes along with an idea that predicts the box will take 49.1 N of force to lift, well, their idea makes predictions with even less error.

 

This is why science so very, very often works in the framework of math. Because we can make predictions using math and directly calculate how much error they have.

 

Let's look at one of the words you use 'disintegration'. That's fine, but we all could have a different idea of what that really is. What a good scientific idea would do is tell us about the disintegration. How quickly does it happen? How often? How to the conditions of the event change the answers to those first two questions? What are the results of the disintegration? As in, how much energy is released? How much mass is left? As you even alluded to, there is a wealth of data published from the super colliders, how well does the predictions based on your ideas match what has been observed to date?

 

An so on. As I've written above. The idea is the kernel to start down the path of actually doing science. But unless specific testable, objective, clear-cut predictions are made, most ideas -- as you've presented here -- are more akin to story telling than anything scientific.

 

Lastly, like my last paragraph above, I hope you don't take this criticism personally. It seems to me that you are excited about this idea and excited about exploring it scientifically. That's great. But, you need to start taking this idea and turning it into specific predictions. math is not absolutely needed to achieve that, but math makes this goal tremendously easier to achieve.

 

p.s. As a suggestion, I would also drop the narrative of what your education and IQ level are and so on. It is just a distraction from the scientific merit of your idea. Science itself is very blind to the pedigree of the person who thought up an idea. The primary metric of how good an idea is scientifically is how accurate its predictions are. We are well past the days of when scientists would accept the word of someone because they had the right degree, bloodline, belonged to the right church, had the favor of the king, etc. Science doesn't care if you didn't pass kindergarten or have been awarded 15 doctorates. You just have to demonstrate that predictions based on your idea are better than the current best predictions, and you will receive a great deal of attention about your idea. It really is that simple.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Bignose

[mephestopheles]

I submit to not having the education many if not all of you do on this forum.
I am incapable of performing the mathematical functions to satisfactorily arouse your interest.
I will bow out and close / delete my account.
Thank you for your time and patience with my ignorance .

I had written a LONG explanation of many of the things I wanted to discuss but after thinking about it I just deleted it.
I see that iNow appreciates not having to endure the tedious practice of understanding language as opposed to pure logical mathematics.

Bignose thanks for the advise , I am excited about my theory, now I just need to take the time to learn Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus, all the various form of Mathematical theory and come back with something you guys can sink your teeth into.
Disintegrated means not integrated, integrated being a state in which things are together and joined by some bond or common force such as Gravity or Magnetism or the Higgs field. Something that is so broken down that there are NO connections between particles / antiparticles / dark matter-energy , etc, this is a state in which "normal" matter does not exist because it is not joined with any of the forces ( gravitational, electrical, magnetic, higgs .... ) in this state it is dis integrated. That's what I meant by that term - Disintegrated.
I have no mathematical proofs of this. However Stephen Hawking has just published a paper on what is known now as Hawking Radiation. His theory basically states that at the edge of the Event horizon of a Black Hole matter is literally torn apart to the point where it's energy is radiated away from the Black Hole while it's mass is drawn into the hole. It disintegrates.

I have not been able to find a way to delete or unsubscribe from this Forum so I will just Sign out .
Again, Thank you for your time.

Edited September 20, 2014 by mephestopheles

[iNow]

^Bravo. The posts in this thread should be pinned somewhere for future reference. So clear and accurate and accessible. Well done!

 

Edit: This comment was cross-posted and meant for bignose. I fear mephestopheles may be missing the more important points by responding with a request to delete their account instead of a desire to make their ideas more robust.

 

mephestopheles - Nobody here cares about how educated or how intelligent you are. We are all on equal footing and the focus is on the idea. The point is that all of us want our models of the cosmos to be accurate and useful. These suggestions should be received warmly, not as an insult to your character, abilities, or ego.

Edited September 20, 2014 by iNow

[Bignose]

Bignose thanks for the advise , I am excited about my theory, now I just need to take the time to learn Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus, all the various form of Mathematical theory and come back with something you guys can sink your teeth into.

I hope this it true as opposed to 'bowing out' as the bit about this quoted bit says.

 

It is no shame in not knowing the math. None of us knew it when we started. And despite the title they gave me 'Maths Expert', I can tell you that there is a great, great deal of math I don't know either.

 

It takes time to understand what the current ideas are saying and how they are expressed in math and why they have become the current best ideas. When you have questions along the way, use this forum as a resource. We have lots of people willing to answer questions and help along the way. If you stay on this path, I am sure you'll be on your way to expressing your idea scientifically.

[iNow]

I see that iNow appreciates not having to endure the tedious practice of understanding language as opposed to pure logical mathematics.

Wait, what?

[mephestopheles]

INow --
"^Bravo. The posts in this thread should be pinned somewhere for future reference. So clear and accurate and accessible. Well done! "
mephestopheles --

" I see that iNow appreciates not having to endure the tedious practice of understanding language as opposed to pure logical mathematics."

iNow --
" Wait, What ? "
I suppose "somewhere for future reference would be the * Trash Bin * , iNow ?
I did not come to this forum for my health. Nor did I come looking for Immediate acceptance . I expect ridicule and disbelief and criticism . As I said at the outset , I have taken a look at quite a few other forums where discussions concerning Physics and "how the universe works" was the Prime topic of discussion .
I did think that I would at least be able to present my belief in layman's terms and there would be Some degree of understanding within a group of individuals who are probably of the "upper crust " intellectually rather than of a more base nature and lacking in abilities to visualize concepts mentally.
I will at this point ask if the Mathematical portion is so important then why....... are graphics used with virtually every new discovery to allow visualization of the subject matter ?
Surely E=mc ^2 should be sufficient to explain that the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body comes from the energy of motion of the body—that is, its kinetic energy (E)—divided by the speed of light squared (c^2) without ever translating it into terms which could be expressed linguistically . Wouldn't ya think ??
So, at this point I am a little disappointed at the reception I have received and feel perhaps I should just start over . Possibly elsewhere,.... that remains to be seen.

Hello, my name .... doesn't matter , you can call me Mephestopheles ( misspelling IS intentional ) .

I am interested in presenting ideas to this group. Not necessarily for acceptance but rather to test the waters and see if the Ideas "float" or not .
​I will try to use mathematics where I can and where I can't I would beg your indulgence in trying to mentally visualize just what I am trying to say.

Edited September 22, 2014 by mephestopheles

[physica]

Surely E=mc ^2 should be sufficient to explain that the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body comes from the energy of motion of the body—that is, its kinetic energy (E)—divided by the speed of light squared (c^2) without ever translating it into terms which could be expressed linguistically . Wouldn't ya think ??

This just shows your limited knowledge of physics. The maths does a lot more than simply describe. Manipulation of the equation will tell you more. The mathematical curl an equation will tell you if there's rotation. Differentiating an equation with respect to time will give us points where there's no rate of change or tell us that there is never any rate of change. I can't visualize 4 dimensions but thanks to math i can describe them.

 

give a 2 year old a drum and he will bang on it happily, give a professional drum player a drum and he will ask you what style and beat you want

 

give someone with low knowledge of physics an equation and they will happily use it to put numbers in to get numbers out with a little algebraic manipulation to make something the subject. Give someone who knows physics an equation and they will want to know context, parameters and will ask you what you're trying to derive.

 

In my experience people who don't really understand maths don't understand the nuances that maths brings.

[Phi for All]

I did think that I would at least be able to present my belief in layman's terms and there would be Some degree of understanding within a group of individuals who are probably of the "upper crust " intellectually rather than of a more base nature and lacking in abilities to visualize concepts mentally.

 

Let me give you just a peek into the future of a lingual description of your idea and the problems you may encounter, using the above quote as an example.

 

First, you call it a "belief". To me, that says it's an opinion, not an explanation supported by a preponderance of evidence in its favor.

 

You capitalized the letter S in "some". Is there an importance attached to this?

 

Your use of the term "upper crust", particularly in quotes, could suggest either its use as a offhanded colloquialism, or it could be a euphemism for a harsher term like "eggheads" or "know-it-alls".

 

I'm not criticizing your style, and certainly not you personally. I just want to show how the use of words to describe anything requires a lot of agreement on definitions and context. And the problem specifically is that most people here will be using terminology they learned from mainstream science, while you'll be using other terms known only to yourself to describe what you've been visualizing.

 

I will at this point ask if the Mathematical portion is so important then why....... are graphics used with virtually every new discovery to allow visualization of the subject matter ?

 

 

Because most people get their science from pop culture sources, in small, digestible bites with lots of cool graphics. Science journalism is still trying to sell ad space, not science. Many concepts are poorly understood by laymen because they listened to a more palatable sound byte rather than read up on a study themselves to see if it has merit.

 

Seriously, when a journalist asks a scientist if they can tell the readers, in laymen's terms, exactly what their new theory means, I wish the scientist would just say, "No, I can't, you need too much specialized knowledge in a variety of disciplines to understand this." I think there's a video circulating around like this.