It doesn't take a mathematician to know when theories are incomplete, inconsistent, incompatible, or even wrong. Other mathematicians and theoretical physicists quickly let the cat out of the bag. There are many current issues in physics and cosmology that are based on known inconsistencies and incompatibilities. Listen to those professionals who are already well established and who are talking about the issues. They write books, give talks, and write papers, and give us some insight as to where the future of science, physics and cosmology may be going. Do you want that talk to take place in the Fringe forums, then go there to discuss the ideas you insist be started out there. That isn't the norm, except for a few who have taken up an issue before it got moved out there. Then they will linger for awhile in AltTheory, on that thread, until they don't get a response from the OP. But back to the issues. When issues in physics and cosmology are evident, then it is back to the drawing board, where ideas lead to hypotheses. If an hypothesis seems to have merit, the mathematicians will be able to quantify it in the language of physics so the professionals are talking about the same specifics, and the idea can be vetted, tests can be modeled and carried out, and results can be analyzed and debated. All of that process is worthy of discussion. Too bad some good ideas cannot be tested, and so the impact they would have if they were correct does not enter into the discussion. Science forums can bring together interested science enthusiasts from all ranks, professionals and laymen, to discuss the part that is about brainstorming ideas and hypotheses. Both smart professionals and smart laymen who frequent forums can put forward ideas. The "experts" are all over "dumb" ideas, but does a good idea, and there have to be some because ideas are driven by current problems, get acknowledged and worked on? The mystery of Dark Energy is an example. It might be able to be explained if a higher density portion of the universe is surrounded by lower energy density space. Then the expansion is explained by energy density equalization, and the acceleration of expansion might be explained by the growing imbalance between the force of energy density equalization and the force of gravity, since equalization might lead to objects moving away from each other, and gravity has an inverse relationship to distance. The problem: low energy density space outside the high energy density ball known as our universe is not allowed because the existing consensus requires that everything must be causally connected to the implied initial event, the beginning of the universe, and any good solution to the mysteries of the universe must be found from within the expanding universe. Vacuum energy density, the cosmological constant, expansion and accelerating expansion, all must be driven from within? We don't seem to ever have any professionals here that are talking about the current problematic issues, or about those books and papers, offering their own opinions on the issues. How many of you that complain about the type of threads in P&M have started a discussion about a current controversial topic? You want to improve things, come away from the attacks and incivility, and bring up something worth reading and talking about. Start a thread on brainstorming a problem like dark energy or any other current issue; there are professionals working on them and they must be considering all solutions; what are they saying? Why aren't many issues like that of any interest here?