Comment by absurdo
19 days ago
I am going to nitpick this but I’ve come to expect this kind of posting style from medium, substack and others.
It has no coherent thesis, it throws way too many links, it uses meta titles that reference memes. The SNR is incredibly low for what should be a technical synopsis because the words get in the way of information.
What I want to see: I don’t care what you call it, “blowtorch” is meaningless. Tell me concretely what is it, what does it address, and how does the current widely accepted theory fail to account for certain things. I don’t need detours into minutae so the author can have their r/iamverysmart moment. I want to see the list of experiments with data points that validate hunches and disprove others. We can reduce it down to simpler terms for laymen if we start with good information. As it stands, it’s noise.
It also made predictions about the early universe, in advance of the James Webb space telescope sending back any data:
https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the...
And those predictions were later confirmed by the James Webb:
Https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supermassive
Which is a data point worth pondering.
I'm not sure I agree. The first few sections are clear, concise, supported by links to observations you expect, and cover exactly what you say is missing:
> THE PROBLEM
> THE CURRENT, PASSIVE, ANSWER
> AN ALTERNATIVE, ACTIVE, ANSWER
> A MORE FRUGAL ANSWER
> SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE
Here's a direct link to that last section:
https://theeggandtherock.com/i/158515951/supportive-evidence
Edit: Alright, as I get further into the article I see more and more what you're mentioning...
> Edit: Alright, as I get further into the article I see more and more what you're mentioning...
I was waiting for this edit but didn’t want to be mean about it :-)
Appreciate your patience! :-)
This doesn't feel like a good faith engagement with the ideas presented in the theory.
> It has no coherent thesis
It's literally in the subtitle: How early, sustained, supermassive black hole jets carved out cosmic voids, shaped filaments, and generated magnetic fields
> it throws way too many links
It cites its sources and provides links to the referenced research or other writings on the subjects. I suspect if it didn't do this, that might be a criticism as well?
> it uses meta titles that reference memes
Alternatively, it could've been written in the jargon of a specific subfield of science that very few people understand, but that doesn't seem like the most effective way of sharing ideas across broad audiences.
Everything you've asked for in the last paragraph is provided in the article you're discrediting, which makes it clear you didn't read it. Ostensibly, this is because the "words get in the way of information," but I'm not sure how the ideas being explored here could be expressed using only pictures and mathematical formulas.
Perhaps you could explain why you feel alternatives to the "widely accepted" theory that fails to accurately model cosmology as we're observing it aren't worth being explored? Or maybe what specific format those ideas should be expressed that don't involve too many words for people to have to read?
>aren't worth being explored
There is no math in this article. In the fields of physics, how else do you explore an idea other than building models to test if those ideas hold any water?
I missed the part where Gough claimed to be a mathematician.
How do you propose we get to a mathematical model or testable simulation without considering the theory first? Must all theories be mathematically complete before they're presented to the world?
9 replies →