Comment by colechristensen
18 days ago
>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.
[flagged]
No?
Im not sure what you’re disagreeing with. It seems like selective quoting to sidestep my point about quality of predictions and pivot to ridiculing the original theory which I actually was originally critical of.
I don’t feel any need to shame the author. There’s clearly a good faith effort to contribute and I think the most constructive feedback is to suggest how it could be stronger.
1 reply →
[flagged]
3 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).