Comment by WhitneyLand
19 days ago
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.
Predictions – quantifiable predictions based on mathematical models – are not the final gold standard, they are the admission for entry.
Perhaps if you are an established physicist with a history of significant contributions then your vague predictions might hold some interest, but the author studied English and philosophy and has a career to match, and it is clear from reading that they have no actual experience developing physics theory.
[flagged]
@dang there are several brand new accounts created today which have only commented on this post which I find rather suspicious
1 reply →