Einstein,
Excellent!
Now to add it to the current field of knowledge there are some constraints - which are the same constraints that were placed on your namesake.
AE did, in fact, falsify Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity. But physics itself wasn't changed one whit. The "real" physics was always there waiting be be better and more fully described.
Einstein, with Special Relativity and then General Relativity had to account for Newton because Newton very accurately describes how the universe works. And he indeed did account for Newton. Newton is retained in Einstein's two theories of relativity as a limiting case.
Any new theory likewise has to account for every aspect of Newton and Einstein and incorporate those theories as limiting cases because they would still accurately describe the universe within certain limits. This is the point that Rainman is making in his most recent post.
As I've told you in the past, my major took me inside the Department of Psychology at UCSB. But my emphasis was Experimental Psych. The vast majority of my classroom time within the major was spent doing experimental design. Psychology itself was almost an aside.
One lesson that was constantly hammered into us was the it was our moral and ethical responsibility to self-criticize our design and finely sift through it for sources of "noise." Once we had the handle on the noise factor it was our further moral and ethical responsibility to vigorously and honestly try to prove that our "theory" (or experimental results) was wrong and to approach it from every possible angle.
The problem that some reseachers have is that they fall in love with their theory, get married to it, put love goggles on to look at it, get it pregnant, profer a daughter theory based on it and refuse to see the blemishes on any of it.
Though it wasn't a science research project here's an excellent example relative to falling blindly in love with a project:
By 1979 Michael Cimino was the hottest young director in Hollywood. In 1978 his movie "The Deer Hunter" won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It's still one of the best movies ever made. His direction of Robert DeNiro, Meryl Streep and John Savage was nothing short of genius.
So, being the Number One director in Hollywood, he was hired to produce/direct "Heaven's Gate" in 1979. He fell in love with the project. It was a western and he wanted it to be authentic...right down to buttons on shirts and nails in buildings. He didn't want to rent coaches and wagons from the studios - he wanted to build new fully functional and absolutely authentic 1870's vehicles. False front buildings? No way. He wanted entire buildings built for his western town and built to perfect specs for the year that the scene was supposed to depict, not just the general historical period. Everything on his sets was built from scratch and to spec.
He had a budget. He spent $40,000,000 in 1980 dollars. Needless to say, his budget was just a bit less than what he spent - quite a bit actually.
The movie flopped with the critics, with his bosses and at the box office. There were entire countries in 1980 that had tax bases that were less than the money that the "Heaven's Gate" investors lost.
That was the last important project that he was ever offered. He wasn't offered anything at all until 1985. He hasn't been offered anything else since 1990. Instead of becoming a giant he became just one more one hit wonder. (I don't think that anyone will ever consider "Footloose" as important other than with regards to Kenny Loggins. Its a long fall from a classic like "The Deer Hunter" to a teenie bop piece of fluff like "Footloose".)
Yep, I know - that's entertainment...what that have to do with science?
Scientific theorists sometimes have the same problems and can suffer the same consequences. If they toss out a theory that they have blindly fallen in love with and have not done the above homework they will soon find themselves standing in the unemployment line right behind Michael Cimino. They only get one chance to throw out a poorly researched project and their career is no more because, (1) as was the case with "Heaven's Gate" they are playing with someone else's money, (2) a reputation for integrity is the sole credit card that they have to play if they are to secure research funding and have the right people listen to what they have to publish and (3) any loss of reputation similarly affects the reputation of those who supported the research by providing funding and facilities.
Remember that talent isn't enough. Cimino obviously has an abundance of talent. If your theory has any validity then it is an important addition to the body of science. The time would come when working out of the garage "lab" won't suffice and you would have to move to a professional research lab.
A reputation for scientific integrity coupled with talent, proper documentation and an important project is the only way that you will make that move.
