haroonkhan87

With due respect, rejecting a hypothesis without debate or identifiable reasoning is not science — it’s dismissal. If those responding here identify as scientists, then proper scientific conduct requires explanation and reference, not opinion or ridicule. I have not seen a single counter supported by data, models, or falsifiable reasoning — only tone and authority. Standing for one’s own dignity against personal mockery is not “ego” or “threatening.” You may review the comment history yourself and judge the civility of replies before making that accusation. Science advances by critique, not contempt — and by reasoning, not rank. I appreciate your respectful and constructive tone — that’s the spirit of real scientific exchange. I’ll review the book you suggested (“Atmosphere and Ocean: Our Fluid Environment”) and would be glad to analyze a definite example together. The underlying concept I’m exploring — dimensional nodes and energetic gateways influencing airflow — remains central, but I’m open to discussing how these might interface with the established atmospheric dynamics described in your reference. I appreciate your wording, but bluntly calling a theory “nonsense” or “hocus-pocus” is neither constructive nor suitable for a science forum intended for debate. According to the forum rules, I presented my theory clearly and referenced supporting concepts. Instead of addressing the scientific points, the focus was repeatedly on metaphors, background, or personal commentary — without providing actual scientific references to counter the hypothesis.

That question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I never implied any book is worth burning - there is none. Let’s focus on the scientific topic rather than sidetracking into unrelated hypotheticals.

Official Warning to All Members: Over the past five days, instead of debating ideas, I have faced personal attacks, mockery, and discrimination. Let this be clear: I will no longer tolerate such behavior. Any future instances will be reported immediately through all available channels, including the forum’s reporting system, public records, and relevant authorities. Discussion must remain focused on ideas, evidence, and reasoning. Attempts to demean or harass me personally will have consequences. Civility is mandatory. This is your final notice.

@exchemist I will respond clearly: dismissing a documented hypothesis as “nonsense” without addressing the content, evidence, or reasoning is disrespectful and unscientific. My work is publicly verified via ORCID and Authorea, and I have engaged every critique with logic and references. If you wish to challenge the theory, focus on the reasoning, calculations, or evidence — not personal insults. Calling something “nonsense” is not argumentation; it is deliberate belittling. I am happy to continue discussion on conceptual or experimental points, but personal attacks will not be entertained.

@swansont , let’s address this carefully. You repeatedly assert that I must present finalized, fully-tested science, but the ScienceForums.net guidelines themselves contradict your position. Section 1 and 2 of the official guidelines clearly state: “ScienceForums.net is dedicated to providing a forum for the discussion of all things scientific with the highest degree of integrity and respectability. We aim to provide all individuals, regardless of their education level, a forum to express their ideas and love of science… You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model.” Nowhere does it require that ideas be finalized with complete experimental validation. Conceptual frameworks, early-stage hypotheses, and thought experiments are explicitly welcomed, provided they are logically constructed and open to discussion — which my posts clearly are. Regarding your claim that I ignored fundamental atmospheric physics: my opening abstract and introduction outline the conceptual premise — it is intentionally presented as a theoretical framework. Once the framework is understood, the theory expands into specific mechanisms, including the dimensional kinetic energy approach. Abstracts and introductions always start with highlighting questions and reasoning before presenting detailed theory points, which is standard scientific practice. As for the ORCID point, you wrote: “As @TheVat points out, you can ‘publish’ any old rubbish on them. They tell you nothing at all about the credibility of the material.” Have you personally investigated ORCID’s credibility, or is this objection motivated by offense at a reference I included? ORCID provides persistent, globally recognized identifiers linking researchers to verifiable works. Authorea and Figshare are legitimate platforms used worldwide for drafting, collaboration, and preprint publication — my work is public, traceable, and associated with my name. This is verifiable for anyone who takes a moment to check. Finally, your repeated insistence that my background or “offense” invalidates the theory is irrelevant. The issue is not my religion, nationality, or use of metaphor — the issue is the logic, consistency, and testable predictions of the framework, which I have laid out systematically. Historical precedent shows all authentic scientific ideas start as conceptual frameworks: Thales, Aristotle, Newton, Tesla, Einstein — none were immediately finalized or universally accepted, yet their ideas reshaped science. If, after this, the argument still focuses on my credentials, religion, or adherence to textbook norms, the problem is not with the theory but with your bias. My posts follow forum rules: they present a model, include evidence, and invite constructive discussion — which is exactly what ScienceForums.net allows.

I’d like to clarify the structure and intent of my paper, which might help resolve this apparent contradiction. The statement you quoted appears in the Abstract and Introduction, which are meant to highlight observed inconsistencies and open questions, rather than to present finalized conclusions. At that stage, the goal is to frame the problem and motivate the exploration. The subsequent sections - Observations, Logical Points, and Theoretical Framework - explicitly recognize atmospheric physics, including pressure decrease with altitude, while proposing additional dynamics (Kinetic-Dimensional Energy and dimensional nodes) that might supplement current explanations where they appear incomplete or inconsistent. So the initial phrasing was not a denial of fundamental atmospheric science, but a starting point for inquiry -the “what is unexplained” that motivates the theory. The formal theory respects known physics and builds on it. I hope this clarifies the context of those statements and shows that the argument is intentionally layered, rather than contradictory.

To clarify, my earlier statement regarding air thinning with altitude was not meant to dispute standard atmospheric physics. I fully recognize that air pressure decreases with height due to gravity and the weight of the air column above. The point I am raising is about gaps in explaining localized wind behavior: Certain deserts, seas, or high-altitude regions display highly variable or unique wind patterns despite similar pressure and temperature gradients. Micro-regional wind signatures often repeat over decades, but conventional models cannot fully predict or explain them. The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis does not reject the known physics of pressure, temperature, or atmospheric dynamics. Instead, it supplements them with the idea of Kinetic-Dimensional Energy entering through energetic nodes, which could account for the irregularities and unexplained variations in airflow. Put simply: the classical models explain some of what we observe, but not all. My framework aims to explore the aspects that remain unaccounted for. This approach is in line with how major scientific ideas historically began — with conceptual reasoning and observation, before formal modeling and experimentation. The goal here is discussion and exploration, not denial of fundamentals. If we focus only on established explanations, we risk ignoring phenomena that may point toward a broader understanding.

I am fully aware of standard atmospheric physics, including thinning air with altitude. My work does not reject pressure or temperature effects — it explores whether these alone explain observed wind anomalies, like regional inconsistencies and altitude behavior. These are phenomena that standard models describe statistically, but not mechanistically, which my hypothesis addresses. Ockham’s Razor favors simplicity, but science expands when reasoning or evidence demands it. Concepts like gravity, electromagnetism, and Higgs fields were “unnecessary” before discovery. Extra dimensions and portals are considered in modern theoretical physics (String Theory, M-Theory). Extending this framework to airflow is a valid conceptual hypothesis. As @TheVat points out, you can "publish" anything on open repositories, but did you check ORCID’s credibility? My paper, The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis, is on Authorea with a DOI via ORCID (doi: 10.22541/au.176063115.57976735/v1). ORCID is a globally recognized nonprofit that provides persistent, verifiable researcher IDs. Anyone can verify authorship and timestamp. Publication there is not casual blogging, it is transparent and trackable. All major scientific ideas begin conceptually. Newton observed the apple, Tesla proposed wireless electricity, Einstein built on experimental confirmations. Immediate formal proof is not required to present a valid hypothesis, as history consistently shows. Acknowledging metaphors like the “veil” is not imposing religion. It illustrates limits of perception in understanding unseen phenomena. Using a Quranic reference does not replace logical reasoning — the hypothesis is based on observable, physical consequences. Yes, I used AI to refine my writing, but it did not generate the theory itself — the ideas, reasoning, and observations are fully mine. In conclusion: dismissing this hypothesis because it is unconventional, or because of my background, ignores history, reasoning, and verifiable publication. If after reviewing this you still reject it, the issue is not with the theory — it is with the unwillingness to engage with non-textbook approaches.

As the scienceforum.net itself states: “You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model.” Nowhere does it say that ideas must be presented only at a fully finalized stage — conceptual frameworks and early-stage theories are welcome for discussion. Let me clarify a few points for anyone still questioning the credibility or relevance of this work. 1. Authorea and ORCID Verification My paper, The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis, has been publicly published on Authorea and assigned a DOI via ORCID. Authorea is a legitimate platform for drafting, collaboration, and preprint publication within the scientific community, and ORCID is a globally recognized nonprofit providing persistent identifiers for researchers. The DOI ensures authorship and establishes traceable contribution - this is verifiable by anyone. If there is doubt, you can check the record yourself; it is fully transparent. 2. Conceptual Stage vs. Finalized Science Science always begins with ideas. No major discovery was presented fully formed with equations, experiments, and proofs on day one. Newton observed an apple drop and formulated the theory of gravity - he was mocked for it. Tesla proposed wireless electricity concepts long before devices could implement them. Einstein’s 1905 work built on earlier experimental confirmations, and even then his insights were debated before acceptance. To dismiss a conceptual framework at the idea stage ignores how every authentic scientific progression begins. 3. Historical Precedent The first genuine theorists, from Thales of Miletus to Aristotle, worked in ways that parallel this process: • Thales (c. 624–545 BCE) proposed that water is the fundamental element of the cosmos - a rational, non-mythological explanation. He lacked formal experimentation as we define it today. • Aristotle (384–322 BCE) systematically observed nature, classified animals, and developed physics and metaphysics. His approach was logical and structured, even without modern experimentation or quantification. The lesson is clear: major theories always start with observation and reasoning, then evolve through testing and formalization. 4. The Theory in Context My work proposes that air and wind may not be fully explained by conventional atmospheric physics alone. Instead, I introduce the concept of Kinetic-Dimensional Energy entering our observable dimension through energetic nodes. Variations in wind behavior, altitude inconsistencies, and unique environmental patterns may reflect interactions with this underlying dimensional lattice. 5. Relation to Modern Theoretical Physics Extra dimensions and interactions beyond our perception are already part of theoretical physics discussions: • String Theory/M-Theory suggests additional spatial dimensions that are compactified or warped. • Concepts like “portals” in these models describe points where fields or particles from hidden dimensions might interact with ours. • The idea of energy leakage or dimensional influence is not rejected outright by theoretical frameworks; it simply lacks experimental confirmation, as do many frontier physics hypotheses. My theory extends these ideas into observable phenomena (wind patterns, airflow inconsistencies) in a way that can be explored further experimentally. If theories like M-Theory or relativity can start from conceptual reasoning and mathematical inference, why is it invalid to explore an idea in atmospheric behavior using a similar approach? 6. The Core Argument The focus should be on evaluating the logical consistency and potential of the hypothesis, rather than dismissing it for not yet having fully measurable proofs or textbook familiarity. Open discussion, critique, and experimentation are what allow new ideas to evolve into established science - exactly as history has repeatedly shown. In conclusion: the paper is publicly documented, verifiable, and intended as a framework for discussion. Critique is welcome, but dismissal based on procedural technicalities rather than reasoning does not advance understanding. If after all this detailed explanation you still reject it, then the issue is not with the theory - it’s with me, because I don’t come from your textbook culture. But let me give an example: some read textbooks to gain knowledge, while others create knowledge that later gets printed in textbooks. The choice is always yours which side you want to stand on.

The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis The Dimensional Overlap Hypothesis: For those still doubting credibility — even the so-called “chatbot” has its work verified and published on Authorea. Evidence is stronger than assumptions.

I understand that new ideas can be challenging, especially when they step outside familiar frameworks. However, for clarity - this isn’t an unverified post; it’s a documented paper. It has been publicly published and assigned a DOI via Figshare and ORCID under my name (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30373507). If the concept were irrelevant or without merit, it would not have passed that stage of publication. I welcome constructive debate on the idea itself — not personal opinions or attempts to silence discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss the framework, I’m open to thoughtful analysis and counterpoints — that’s how theories evolve.

I get it, though I hope the idea itself can still be part of the discussion. That’s how new perspectives grow. Thanks for pointing that out - and I understand your concern about keeping things within forum guidelines. My intention wasn’t to reintroduce the earlier thread inappropriately, but to clarify and refine parts that were misunderstood before. Regarding Einstein’s 1905 work - you’re absolutely right that it built on experimental results already available, like the Michelson–Morley findings and Maxwell’s equations. My point was simply that his interpretation - the leap to special relativity - was theoretical at its core and only later validated more directly. In that sense, I was drawing a parallel between how new theoretical thinking often emerges before formal confirmation. I genuinely appreciate the corrections and discussion. I’ll make sure to respond more directly to technical points and stay aligned with forum standards. I’m not here to challenge the rules - just to exchange ideas and learn through open dialogue.

I appreciate the feedback from everyone here. I want to clarify something - I’m not presenting this theory as a finalized or proven model, but as an early conceptual framework to discuss and refine, exactly as every major scientific idea began. It seems I’m being pushed toward the edge simply because this doesn’t fit into existing textbook categories. But the foundations of science were built by those who began before formal proof existed. Early scientists weren’t degree-holders following a structure - they were observers, thinkers, and risk-takers. They noticed something different, proposed it, and only then developed measurable models over time. If we look back, many great theories started as conceptual - Tesla’s wireless electricity, Einstein’s early formulation of relativity and even E=mc² - these took years of refinement and critique before experimental confirmation. Dismissing a developing concept as “speculation” without exploring its logical base risks discouraging inquiry itself. All I’m asking for is engagement with the idea - to question the logic, the gaps, or possible directions for testing - not to silence it for being new. That’s how science actually grows: by challenging what seems settled and allowing new interpretations a space to breathe.

I appreciate your comments. I understand the importance of falsifiability and measurement - those are indeed the core of scientific development. But we can’t reach that stage until a conceptual framework exists to guide what’s worth measuring. Every experiment begins with a structured thought, not a formula. My focus here is to establish that missing conceptual step - a structured hypothesis that could inspire measurable paths forward. If this is what you define as a “framework,” I’ll gladly accept that title - because every theory began as one.

I understand your point, and I completely respect that everyone approaches such ideas through their own framework. My mention of the divine reference isn’t meant to impose belief, but simply to recognize that throughout history, many scientific explorations began as intuitive or philosophical observations before they became formally measurable. However, I wouldn’t describe this as speculation - it’s a theory derived from consistent reasoning and observation. Every scientific principle we now consider “mainstream” once began as a challenge to existing interpretation. My approach doesn’t reject measurable physics like pressure or temperature; it simply questions whether these factors tell the whole story, or if there’s an overlooked dynamic at play. I’m open to discussion and critique - that’s how theories evolve. But labeling new ideas as “speculation” before examining their logic only repeats the same cycle that once delayed progress for earlier thinkers.

Abstract For centuries, wind and air have been attributed to atmospheric pressure, temperature gradients, and Earth’s rotation. Yet, even with these explanations, gaps remain. Why do winds behave inconsistently across regions and altitudes? Why does air thin with height if “pressure” is its cause, and why do certain regions—desert plains, open seas, glaciers—show unique, unrepeatable wind signatures? This paper proposes a new interpretation: that air and wind may not solely originate from within Earth’s atmosphere but enter our observable dimension through invisible energetic gateways or dimensional nodes. These nodes release what I define as Kinetic-Dimensional Energy—an unseen but interactive layer of motion that, once crossing into our dimension, loses its structured form and becomes what we experience as “air movement.” Introduction We can feel the wind, we can hear it, and we can measure its impact—but we cannot see its origin. Science defines air as a mixture of gases moved by differences in temperature and pressure. Yet, pressure and temperature themselves are effects—not causes. When we ascend to higher altitudes, air becomes thinner and pressure decreases. Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish. Similarly, vast oceanic regions lack wind activity while deserts overflow with violent gusts. This inconsistency implies that something else—beyond known physics—may be influencing the local creation and disappearance of airflow. Observations & Logical Points Uneven Wind Distribution: At equal latitudes, some areas experience constant wind while others remain still. Atmospheric models fail to explain micro-regional variations that appear random yet repeat over decades. Altitude Paradox: Air density decreases with height. Yet, if “air pressure” were merely compressive, the upper layers should sustain higher compression. The absence of this effect suggests the entry points of airflow may exist within Earth’s lower dimensional layer. Wind Marks & Patterns: From sand dunes to glaciers, wind leaves different geometrical traces—waves, hollows, spirals—each unique to the environment. These may represent localized dimensional flux patterns, showing where energy converts into physical airflow. Marine Inconsistency: At sea, large sections experience no wind, while nearby regions have intense bursts. This may correspond to inactive or suppressed dimensional nodes over oceans and active gateways over land. Sensory Paradox: Humans cannot see air, only its consequences. Like sound waves or light outside visible spectra, air may contain unseen structured patterns that our perception can’t decode—supporting the idea that air exists in an overlapping energetic frequency, not a single-state medium. Theoretical Framework I propose that Earth is surrounded by an invisible lattice of energy layers that intersect with our three-dimensional world. At specific nodes—whether natural or cosmic—energy from adjacent dimensions interacts with our environment, manifesting as motion, flow, or “air.” This energy, when entering our observable range, degrades from a structured to an unstructured state, losing visible form but retaining kinetic properties. Hence: “Air” is not a constant substance but a dimensional phenomenon expressed as continuous energy leakage through Earth’s energetic lattice. The apparent randomness of wind is thus a projection of deeper-dimensional order—similar to how radio waves are invisible but structured, awaiting a receiver tuned to their frequency. Hypothesis Summary Airflow originates from multiple unseen dimensional gateways rather than atmospheric pressure alone. Each gateway emits Kinetic-Dimensional Energy, which upon entering our dimension, loses visible structure and manifests as wind or breeze. Variations in air behavior (altitude, temperature, geography) result from the strength or suppression of these gateways. The uneven wind distribution across deserts, seas, and mountains represents the surface patterns of this deeper dimensional interaction. Philosophical Note Religious verses often mention a veil placed upon humans, preventing them from seeing the realities surrounding them. Another verse says, “How many of the signs of your Lord will you deny?” In this context, air may itself be one such hidden sign—a constant reminder of unseen mechanisms sustaining life, existing between seen and unseen realms. If humans could perceive the full spectrum of energy surrounding them, perhaps we would no longer experience “wind” as invisible pressure but as moving streams of structured, living energy—each carrying the fingerprint of creation itself. Closing Statement This theory is not a rejection of established physics but an expansion of it. It calls for experimental physicists to examine localized air anomalies, magnetic flux disturbances, and energy gradients near wind-intensive regions to test for extra-dimensional consistency. Whether accepted or not, one fact remains: we feel the air, we live within it, and yet we don’t know what it truly is. Until that is understood, our understanding of the physical world remains half-complete. — Haroon Khan Independent Theorist, Observer of Perceptual & Dimensional Physics The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis.pdf

That’s exactly the kind of thoughtful clarification I appreciate - thank you. Yes, I completely agree that perception alone doesn’t establish truth. It’s only the starting point that alerts us to something worth investigating. What I’m trying to highlight is that every verified phenomenon - from gravity to quantum behavior - started as a raw human experience or observation before instruments or models refined it. The tools give structure to what perception first revealed. So in that sense, perception and verification are two halves of the same process: one awakens curiosity, the other confirms reality. Both are essential.

Thank you all for your perspectives. I want to clarify my point carefully, because I think there’s been a misunderstanding. When I talk about perception, I do not mean it is automatically correct or sufficient as proof. I mean it is the first spark of inquiry. Before there were instruments, experiments, or textbooks, someone had to notice a pattern, ask a question, or sense that something was happening. That is perception in the broadest sense, awareness and recognition, even if imperfect. History shows this clearly: the heliocentric system, atomic theory, germ theory, and quantum mechanics all started with observations, intuitions, or questions that were incomplete or misinterpreted at first. Tools and experiments came later to confirm, measure, and formalize these ideas. Perception did not give the final answer, but without it, the process of discovery never starts. To say textbooks or instruments are the beginning is to ignore the human noticing, thinking, and wondering that preceded them. Textbooks collect and formalize knowledge, but every single line in them was once an idea in someone’s mind, first perceived, first questioned, first explored. So yes, perception can be wrong in detail, but it is always the origin of inquiry. Science itself evolved by turning perception and curiosity into observation, measurement, and proof. Denying that step is to deny the history of every discovery that led to what we call established knowledge today.

I see your point about things we have no perception of until someone teaches us. I’ve had teachers myself, and they were essential for understanding things I couldn’t grasp on my own, like integrals or more complex concepts. But even in your example, perception still plays a role. When people observed the Sun rising and setting, they didn’t understand the heliocentric system or the motion of planets, but their perception of motion existed. That observation, even if misinterpreted, was the first spark that eventually led to deeper understanding and teaching. Technically, the Sun, planets, and the entire solar system are moving through space, so there is a kernel of reality in what they noticed. In my theory, this is exactly the stage I’m highlighting: perception is the initial step, the pointer toward phenomena that can later be explored, measured, and understood. Teaching refines it, experiments confirm it, but without that first perception, curiosity and discovery never begin. Even if early perceptions are wrong in detail, they are never entirely meaningless, they start the chain that leads to real understanding. I see your point about textbooks, they give us organized, confirmed knowledge, and that’s valuable. But textbooks are not the final word. They are updated edition by edition, reflecting what the current scientific community accepts, not everything that happened over centuries of observation, debate, and experiment. Every discovery recorded in a textbook started as perception, intuition, or questioning. Textbooks show the result, but not the journey, the mistakes, or the overlooked clues. So while textbooks are useful, they cannot replace the process of noticing, thinking, and exploring, which is where all science truly begins.

True, and I fully agree, today’s science depends on powerful instruments and peer review to confirm what’s real. What I meant was the starting point before all that, every instrument we built came from someone’s first perception or curiosity about what might exist beyond sight. So while the tools now do the heavy lifting, the spark that led to creating those tools still began with human perception and imagination.

Thanks, @studiot I understand what you mean. I used “always” because every discovery begins with perception, we first notice something before we try to explain or prove it. In the geocentric view, yes, people thought Earth was still and everything moved around it. That part was wrong. But the perception that the Sun and stars move across the sky was still real, they just misunderstood how it happened. So I feel “always” fits better, because perception is the first spark, it might be wrong in detail, but it always starts the process of discovery.

Thanks, Phi, that’s a fair point. What I meant was that human perception often recognizes a pattern long before science can fully explain it. People once noticed invisible pulls, lights in the sky, or things falling from above. Their interpretations, like Earth being the center or gravity being just a guess, were incomplete, but the perceptions themselves were real experiences. Over time, observation and testing turned those same perceptions into measurable facts. That’s really what my theory explores, the space between what we sense and what we later understand. Perception isn’t evidence by itself, but it’s often the first clue that something real is waiting to be discovered.

Since you asked, people once thought Earth was the center of the universe, gravity was just a guess, and meteorites were myths, all once “perception,” now proven science. As an independent theorist, not a full-time physicist, I may not have spent years in formal study, but I still observe the same reality that physics tries to decode. Consciousness itself can spark insights before they’re ready for instruments to test. I understand the rule about testability, and that’s fair, but some ideas begin as frameworks waiting for the right tools or perspective. The curiosity to ask “what if” has always been the first step before “how to prove.”

Thanks, MigL, I appreciate the lesson on perception and observation. It’s always useful to be reminded of basic concepts, even when we already apply them differently. My theory never aimed to replace observation with perception, just to point out that sometimes what we call “objective” can still pass through the filters of the mind that observes it. Funny thing about science, many ideas once called “just perception” later became accepted observation. So I’ll take your comment as a reminder that maybe we’re both observing the same thing, just standing on slightly different sides of it. I get what you mean, though I think you might be looking at it strictly from a physicist’s framework. Theorists work a bit differently, we build around observation, but our focus is often on the idea before it’s testable. That’s the fun part. Testing, proving, or disproving usually comes later and sometimes by others entirely. So maybe I’m just seeing the same “rod” from another angle.

Thank you for taking the time to read my work. The universe does not need my perception or sensitivity to function, that much is clear. But science itself begins with perception, with someone choosing to observe what others overlook. My theory does not place humanity at the center of the universe, it studies how consciousness interacts with it. You have read my entire paper, which means you saw that my intention was to connect physics and perception through observation, not to claim that the universe bends around me. Calling it unrelated to science because it introduces an unfamiliar angle is exactly how many early thinkers were dismissed. History repeats that pattern each time someone challenges the conventional frame of thinking. Every discovery began as a question someone dared to ask even when others laughed or rejected it. So no, I do not think I am special. I simply think differently, and I am not afraid to explore possibilities beyond the boundary of what others have already accepted. Whether my theory is proven or not, it exists as an honest attempt to expand the conversation, not to end it.