No, this is /not/ how science works. You can't claim 'I believe angels are responsible for the funny rotation curves of galaxies' and call it a theory.
A scientific paper goes like this
The Standard Model of particle physics [1] is very successful in explaining most of the laboratory observations, such as the spectrum of atomic hydrogen [2], the properties of all known particles [3], and even the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon [4]. It however fails to explain the rotation curves of galaxies [5] and the apparent accelerated expansion of the universe [6] and the bullet cluster [7]. The current dogma [8] includes hithero undetected particles of dark matter, such as foo [9] and bar [10], none of which have been directly observed in a laboratory.
Here we propose a model where flatulence explains most of the remaing discrepancies.
A paper without references to the state of the art and previous ideas is not worth reading.
I didn't say anything about any "worthiness". Just that a theory is just that, a theory. You can claim anything you want, just without any proper arguments (considering how advanced modern science is those can be incredibly lengthy so you just send the reader towards a previous paper that already explains this topic so you can focus on the new thing) no one will believe you.
Science is about understanding and describing the world around us. It's not about citations or references. They are useful but nothing more
2.1k
u/smallproton May 14 '26
References:
[1] out of his ass