A believable theory should show a complete picture of operation. The picture or model should have a power source and function of power lose. Mystical and magical assumptions should be held to a minimum. Experimental proof of claims are desirable. Quoting other people interpretation of those experiments may not be desirable and obstruct the true picture or model. Case in point "airfoils produce lift and make airplanes fly" You agree? Bernoulli's interpretation is air foils cause vacuum over top of foil and high pressure on the bottom moving the foil upward producing lift. This model of flight is in every science book. How ever this blindly excepted theory is wrong. Planes could not fly upside down with out being sucked into the ground if it were true. In WW1 pilots were afraid to fly their biplanes upside down till necessity of dog fighting proved differently. Also a bi-wing and tri-wing plane would not work because the vacuum of the bottom wing would reduce the lift on the second wing. Of course planes can fly upside down and biplanes and tri-planes work. The airfoil is to reduce air drag. Lift comes from air mass displacement caused by the angle of attach of the wing through the surrounding air. Most modern wing designs are tear drop symmetrical. If I write on theory of flight and use Bernoulli's flight interpretation to enforce my conclusion I'd be walking down the wrong path. How ever his experiments were valid and showed the vacuum caused by the foil pulls air molecules around the front of the foil and if the curve is correct these air molecules miss colliding and imparting their inertia to the foil surface which would cause air drag. In fairness to Bernoulli at the time of his discovery airplanes did not possess the high horse power to low weight like today so it appeared to him wing foil design made planes fly. The problem is scientists can not get over it and move on. Today highschool children have access to more knowledge then the most advanced colleges of the early 1900's the scientist of the time had brilliant ideas. Some good and some that don't hold water. We need to stand back look at the big picture and sort what is probable and what is not probable out, then move on. I chose this ex-sample because it is easy to see flaws in it even though we teach it to our kid today.

Other ideas that don't hold water. Photons can not exist as defined today . Photons leaving a distant star like small pellets shot from a shot gun even at billionths of degree differences, would be so spread out on arriving at earth they would not hit anybodies eyes and be seen. It would take infinite photon emission by a distant star to saturate the diameter distant of the earth, not to mention the distance of the earth sun orbit. But at any of these points we can simultaneously view the same star. There is another answer. Maybe a atom to atom chain reaction relay of EMF disturbance, could effect so much area of space.

The sun is not all hydrogen and fusion is probably responsible for solar flares but not the basic energy that keeps the sun hot. The books say 100 tons of space dust and ice drop on the earth each day . In defense of this, oceans have rased 15000 ft and gas and oil deposits are buried 5000 ft and 10000 ft deep. surely the sun most have collected thousands of time more space debris then the earth does. What ever is heating the sun is heating the earth also. The earths' crust is only 5 to 25 miles thick the rest of the earth is hot jellow to liquid rock and the earth is getting hotter. The collection of space debris mass, may correlate better with the vary small rise of earth's global warming. If we were to be visited by a alien race they would laugh at us, fighting wars over energy, when we are setting on a miniature sun with enough inexhaustible heat energy to rid our selves of pollution and hunger, being so close by.

These are just a few samples we could come up with more and will. This system science operates under has to evolve to better represent the big picture of what is really going on in this universe. Our kids need to be taught the updated most probable theories, based on facts not university politics, A good idea can be written badly. Most of our famous inventors were not good writer.