Does a speculation if proven become accepted science?

[Robittybob1]

Does a speculation if proven become accepted science?

 

I am having a debate over the 3D structure of a gravitational wave and I feel the speculation is proven. Can I then use that result in another thread as science fact?

[John Cuthber]

Only to the extent that the proof is valid, and accepted as such.
I suspect that means "no"

[Robittybob1]

Only to the extent that the proof is valid, and accepted as such.

I suspect that means "no"

It felt a bit like the peer review process at its beginning. I would imagine most scientists are working in a team, someone has an idea they discuss it and if the speculation can't be disproven they might examine it in greater depth.

To the point where a paper is written and published.

Then the whole scientific community can either cite that paper or write another disagreeing with the concept. On it goes.

 

I view the forum like the initial team of scientists. I would like to think we can make scientific progress after all the effort we put in.

On this forum if someone agrees with a speculation they are just going to say nothing. If they disagree but can't disprove it they will just say nothing. So when a speculation is no longer being pulled to bits I was trying to understand whether it is accepted or not.

 

I suppose no one likes to step out into the unknown but the whole process is one of doing that, when someone cites my speculation or when I use it myself in another thread then that will reveal whether it has gained acceptance on the level of the forum at least.

Something Strange wrote in another active thread seemed relevant to this discussion:

 

 

There is no "proof" of expansion. There is no proof of anything in science.

 

WE could take that further, "there is no "proof" of the speculation. There is no proof of anything in science".

So the premise of the speculation is valid until proven wrong or falsified.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Robittybob1

[StringJunky]

On this forum, now and the past, we have/have had some very experienced scientists. In the six years I've been coming here, not one has claimed to have altered the paradigm in some aspect of their field... what makes you think you can do it with no formal training?

 

It seems, to me, that the less one knows, the more that is possible. I think you exemplify this.

Edited March 25, 2016 by StringJunky

[Robittybob1]

On this forum, now and the past, we have/have had some very experienced scientists. In the six years I've been coming here, not one has claimed to have altered the paradigm in some aspect of their field... what makes you think you can do it with no formal training?

I don't take big bites at any paradigm. I'm not tackling the big one e.g "the expansion of the universe" but just a minor idea like "the 3D structure of a Gravitational Wave".

I notice in "Speculations" generally they are the big ticket items, for instance "the Theory of Everything" as the extreme example, but with "my training" (day after day of science learning and discussion) I might look at something rather small in comparison.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

Does a speculation if proven become accepted science?

 

I am having a debate over the 3D structure of a gravitational wave and I feel the speculation is proven.

 

Which peer-reviewed journal is this proof published in?

So the premise of the speculation is valid until proven wrong or falsified.

 

That is not how it works. Otherwise I can claim that black holes are full of chocolate, and demand that you accept it unless you can prove it wrong.

It seems, to me, that the less one knows, the more that is possible. I think you exemplify this.

 

It is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Robittybob1]

I am needing that advance (a minor change of paradigm) to go to the next level of my understanding of the physics.

For these threads and there has been many of them, each has been a result of being stuck on a problem, so I start another thread, but we never get anywhere for we just seem to be going deeper and deeper into a pile of threads.

I think this was my reluctance that caused my issue the other week, for when I was asked to start another thread, my mind just resisted, and said "no, not another thread". It would have been so easy to do that, for I'm really proficient at starting threads, but we can't rewind time and do it another way.

[Phi for All]

The idea has always been that if someone supports a speculation well enough that none here can refute it, we'll move it into the appropriate mainstream section and continue discussion there. I've never seen anyone come close. Mostly, they just toss out guesses with little evidence to support the ideas, then ignore everyone who refutes their arguments.

 

Or they ask the same questions over and over, like they either don't like the answers or they can't hold more than two things in their head at a time. This type of person typically bulldozes his way through thoughtful, intelligent replies like a rhino through lace, cherry-picking what they like and ignoring all else. It's still all unsupported guesswork, and we wouldn't mind talking about it so much if we thought there was a chance this person might actually listen to replies.

[Robittybob1]

 

Which peer-reviewed journal is this proof published in?

 

That is not how it works. Otherwise I can claim that black holes are full of chocolate, and demand that you accept it unless you can prove it wrong.

 

It is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

But I would simply ask you where does all the chocolate come from? It has the potential to be written up as a paper. I have not claimed it is written up. Don't make it too complicated please.

The idea has always been that if someone supports a speculation well enough that none here can refute it, we'll move it into the appropriate mainstream section and continue discussion there. I've never seen anyone come close. Mostly, they just toss out guesses with little evidence to support the ideas, then ignore everyone who refutes their arguments.

 

Or they ask the same questions over and over, like they either don't like the answers or they can't hold more than two things in their head at a time. This type of person typically bulldozes his way through thoughtful, intelligent replies like a rhino through lace, cherry-picking what they like and ignoring all else. It's still all unsupported guesswork, and we wouldn't mind talking about it so much if we thought there was a chance this person might actually listen to replies.

Well would you like to do that to that speculation thread please?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94060-what-is-the-best-3d-description-of-gravitational-waves/

[EdEarl]

I love chocolate:) There are known unknowns, for example how does space-time compress and expand, is it a continuous field or a mess of quanta acting as an ideal gas--poor. To make any progress on one of these unknowns, one must learn everything there is to know about it, so you don't make obvious mistakes, so your hypothesis fits all that is known, or you know enough to challenge something that has a consensus. Many scientists have already spent years thinking about these things; thus, it would be remarkable if someone here actually makes a contribution.

[StringJunky]

It is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I thought I had an original thought then. <sulks>

[EdEarl]

I thought I had an original thought then. <sulks>

I thought I had an original thought, then learned someone in history beat me to it.

[Robittybob1]

I thought I had an original thought, then learned someone in history beat me to it.

I've had this as well, I rediscovered Fermat's factorization.

 

Pierre de Fermat (French: [pjɛːʁ dəfɛʁma]; 17[2] August 1601 (or 1607) – 12 January 1665)

He only beat me by 350 years

I love chocolate:) There are known unknowns, for example how does space-time compress and expand, is it a continuous field or a mess of quanta acting as an ideal gas--poor. To make any progress on one of these unknowns, one must learn everything there is to know about it, so you don't make obvious mistakes, so your hypothesis fits all that is known, or you know enough to challenge something that has a consensus. Many scientists have already spent years thinking about these things; thus, it would be remarkable if someone here actually makes a contribution.

It is teamwork. If you have an idea and try and get it past brilliant minds as they are here, it is really challenging. Silly ideas are screened out rather quickly.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

Does a speculation if proven become accepted science?

 

I am having a debate over the 3D structure of a gravitational wave and I feel the speculation is proven. Can I then use that result in another thread as science fact?

Your "speculation" is you trying to visualize gravitational waves. In essence, finding an analogy that works for you. That's not something that becomes "accepted science". Even if it was, nothing in the thread was settled. You have your view, and you keep telling other people that they're wrong, even though they're giving you solid information.

[John Cuthber]

It felt a bit like the peer review process at its beginning. I would imagine most scientists are working in a team, someone has an idea they discuss it and if the speculation can't be disproven they might examine it in greater depth.

To the point where a paper is written and published.

Then the whole scientific community can either cite that paper or write another disagreeing with the concept. On it goes.

 

I view the forum like the initial team of scientists. I would like to think we can make scientific progress after all the effort we put in.

On this forum if someone agrees with a speculation they are just going to say nothing. If they disagree but can't disprove it they will just say nothing. So when a speculation is no longer being pulled to bits I was trying to understand whether it is accepted or not.

 

I suppose no one likes to step out into the unknown but the whole process is one of doing that, when someone cites my speculation or when I use it myself in another thread then that will reveal whether it has gained acceptance on the level of the forum at least.

Something Strange wrote in another active thread seemed relevant to this discussion:

 

 

WE could take that further, "there is no "proof" of the speculation. There is no proof of anything in science".

So the premise of the speculation is valid until proven wrong or falsified.

https://xkcd.com/675/

[Strange]

But I would simply ask you where does all the chocolate come from?

 

But that is not what you said: you said your idea was valid until proven wrong.

 

You have now moved on to a more scientific approach: challenge the idea, demand convincing evidence.

[Robittybob1]

 

But that is not what you said: you said your idea was valid until proven wrong.

 

You have now moved on to a more scientific approach: challenge the idea, demand convincing evidence.

Exactly, you can't just closedown all new ideas. So how do you progress them.

Step 1. Start the idea in a speculation thread. Develop model or math to support it.

Step 2. See what sort of analysis it gets. Is it falsified?

Step 3. Transfer the thread to a science section of the forum.

Step 4. See what sort of analysis it gets. Is it falsified?

.....

Edited March 26, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

If you had an actual hypothesis, we'd want to have a model and compare it to experiment.

[imatfaal]

Exactly, you can't just closedown all new ideas. .

 

Just as a theoretical question - why not? This site - like many science sites on the internet - could exist solely to educate and explain; ie everything written would either be a question or established physics. We decided to indulge those who wish to have their own notions tested in a scientific arena - but we set very strict rules. We are fairly confident that any new and important idea is both very unlikely and will be spotted within seconds by the university level teachers who roam these halls.

 

Your speculations are a case in point - they are so poorly founded that it is soon obvious that any correct ideas are more by luck than by good judgment. They do not have good grounding in science - we take small steps from the known to the unknown; whereas your speculations are based on misunderstandings or popularisations.

[Robittybob1]

If you had an actual hypothesis, we'd want to have a model and compare it to experiment.

That seems a very high bar to get a thread moved from speculations. So are you questioning whether I have even made an hypothesis about the 3D shape of a BBH gravity wave?

Do I have "an actual hypothesis"?

 

Just as a theoretical question - why not? This site - like many science sites on the internet - could exist solely to educate and explain; ie everything written would either be a question or established physics. We decided to indulge those who wish to have their own notions tested in a scientific arena - but we set very strict rules. We are fairly confident that any new and important idea is both very unlikely and will be spotted within seconds by the university level teachers who roam these halls.

 

Your speculations are a case in point - they are so poorly founded that it is soon obvious that any correct ideas are more by luck than by good judgment. They do not have good grounding in science - we take small steps from the known to the unknown; whereas your speculations are based on misunderstandings or popularisations.

There wasn't that much criticism on the actual thread in question, so I was wondering what that meant.

Yes you can operate the forum however the owners want it to.

I have no idea who various people here are in their daily lives.

 

The steps #17 are good. I am happy with that opportunity.

There was no way I could have started the 3D structure thread in any other forum for the 3D nature of GWs did not seem to have been discussed anywhere. I came to this conclusion after my extensive search for them.

I have added an hypothesis.

 

 

Hypothesis:

Binary orbiting masses produce gravitational waves that have a 3D structure. It is hypothesized this is a 3D spiral with the wavefronts moving outward at the speed of light.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Phi for All]

Well would you like to do that to that speculation thread please?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94060-what-is-the-best-3d-description-of-gravitational-waves/

 

We have an Official Jokes section we could move it into. Bit of a compromise. Not really mainstream science, but not really funny either.

[Robittybob1]

 

We have an Official Jokes section we could move it into. Bit of a compromise. Not really mainstream science, but not really funny either.

Well that post was funny. It made me laugh.

[Strange]

That seems a very high bar to get a thread moved from speculations.

 

 

It is a very low bar, as it doesn't require formal peer-review.

 

Do I have "an actual hypothesis"?

 

No.

[Robittybob1]

 

It is a very low bar, as it doesn't require formal peer-review.

 

 

No.

I have added an hypothesis. I notice a lot of speculative threads are started in the main science sections so they don't have that difficulty.

The forum members are the peers that do the review on this site.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

I have added an hypothesis.

 

You may have added another random guess. There is no model and no quantitatively testable predictions. Therefore no hypothesis.