cute cat pic and funny juxtaposition, but real talk:
In the scientific context (in which the subject is speaking because they reference both physics and a place of education) one does not have “theories”, because theory is the plural of theorem, and a theorem is a collection of related facts which conclusively describe, with predictive accuracy, the causes and effects of a phenomenon.
But if one does indeed wish to present one theorem or more to the scientific community, one may attempt to publish a paper - not to a college, but to a scientific journal. Then, other scientists from around the world will be able to attempt to experimentally reproduce the cause and effect relationships which your theory attempted to describe, and a consensus will form as to whether each theorem is, or is not, bunk.
cute cat pic and funny juxtaposition, but real talk:
In the scientific context (in which the subject is speaking because they reference both physics and a place of education) one does not have “theories”, because theory is the plural of theorem, and a theorem is a collection of related facts which conclusively describe, with predictive accuracy, the causes and effects of a phenomenon.
But if one does indeed wish to present one theorem or more to the scientific community, one may attempt to publish a paper - not to a college, but to a scientific journal. Then, other scientists from around the world will be able to attempt to experimentally reproduce the cause and effect relationships which your theory attempted to describe, and a consensus will form as to whether each theorem is, or is not, bunk.
That’s not the way the term “theory” is used here. You should look up etymological fallacy.
Edit: it’s not even true etymologically. The etymological plural of theorem (or rather theorema) is theoremata.
The singular of “theory” isnt “theorem”. Its “theory”, and the plural is “theories”.
More of a hypothesis isnt it?