Comment by WhitneyLand
18 days ago
There’s no math.
Modern cosmology requires simulations, simulations require mathematical models.
It’s well researched and points out legitimate shortcomings in current theories.
But without the math you don’t know if everything is really adding up and we’re kind of left with cool story bro.
I understand your critique. But it proposes a sequencing of events which is novel, and testable.
For example, it made these predictions in advance of the James Web’s first data:
https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the...
And these were later validated by the James Webb:
https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supe...
>For example, it made these predictions in advance of the James Web’s first data:
This isn't how any of this works. Actual models predict things by being models, you know, equations and numbers that output more equations and numbers.
What you have is vague speculation and hand waving ideas.
To be fair, predictions are the final gold standard, but not all predictions are equal.
The math would allow for the predictions to be precise, quantifiable, and directly falsifiable.
As is the predictions qualify as interesting, but there are also weaknesses. Some of it was already predicted by others, some needs more verification, some of the claims were more broad “lots of jets, lots of quasars” so they say less than more precise predictions would.
7 replies →
Actual models do usually start as speculation and hand waving. As others have pointed out, it seems like the LCDM models actually never STOPPED being speculation and hand waving. Lots of math can hide the fact that a theory is literally just handwaving (LCDM) and a lack of math can indicate a robust theory is in its infancy and needs more math people working on it (blowtorch).
Oh man, if you like math, you should check out this paper by Gardner and Conlon: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.21446 where they did the math for CNS. I'll admit, it's beyond me.
There's also this research (cited by the author of Blowtorch Theory, if I'm not mistaken) supporting direct-collapse SMBH in the early cosmos here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.04042