As a former science writer, I occasionally get sent various theories from non-scientists, I guess with the intention that I'll somehow recognize true genius and publicize the radical newfound knowledge. This sadly is not the case. I think I am one of the last resort when the theory has been sent to a bunch of scientists (and higher profile science writers) and either ignored completely, ripped apart, or simply laughed at.

Here is the latest theory sent my way.

Here was my response:

wow dude. I hope you are not sending this to actual scientists (I'm just a writer), you won't be taken seriously. And I feel bad for you because you seem to be quite in earnest. Here is why I believe it's just woo (and scientists will think so as well):

1. most of what you have written is preamble for why past scientific theories were wrong and new theories were ridiculed. Scientists aren't the least bit interested in that (they are already aware of it), and it does nothing to prop up your argument. It's just an extended, irritating jab that says "I'm smarter than you", without anything substantial backing it up

2. there are a ton of metaphors employed to support your argument. This is fine if you are explaining a proven scientific theory to lay people, but if you want to be taken seriously by actual scientists, nix the metaphors and stick to math to support your argument

3. you claim that light is held together by a magnetic aether (photons are the electromagnetic carrier particle so you are saying light is held together by light)

4. you state that light traveling at the speed of light violates a law of physics (it does not, and you do not state which law of physics it supposedly violates. And in fact light can and does travel slower than the speed of light when not in a perfect vacuum)

5. you provide no testable hypotheses

6. you provide no equation(s) to back up your theory

7. your offhand, one-sentence refutation of the big bang further discredits your idea (and doesn't seem to have any connection with your theory)

It appears you have little or no understanding of quantum physics (in particular, you don't seem to understand wave/particle duality. In all fairness, most people don't get it, but you are basing your theory on a redescription of light's fundamental properties while completely ignoring tested behavior). Your description of nuclei as being vortexes of magnetic energy also shows that you have little or no knowledge of particle physics (do you even know what the strong and weak forces are? What about quarks?)

If you are going to be spreading your hypothesis around, and before you refute anything and everything that thousands of scientists have proven, please try first to learn about light (photons) and quantum mechanics. This means you have to go beyond lay books, and probably take some physics courses at a university (second year physics usually takes on rudimentary particle physics, which is what you don't currently have a grasp on). If you want to stick to lay books, I highly suggest Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos" with which to start. You should also build some working affinity for at least calculus. Math is your friend in science. Equations are used because they provide precises descriptions and aid in testing and proving a hypothesis (they are essential in other words).

Too harsh? Maybe I just shouldn't respond to these. The thing is, science isn't accessible to most people without a lot of hard work. While I think people should be encouraged to think about science, they should also be aware of the high standards set for new theories. It is difficult to prove a new theory simply because that's the best way to shake it down so to speak.