← Back to context

Comment by JSchneider321

18 days ago

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?

11 comments

JSchneider321

Reply
jplusequalt  18 days ago

>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?

  • JSchneider321  17 days ago

    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?

    • jplusequalt  17 days ago

      I find it strange that an account created 21 hours ago and which has seemingly only commented on this post is so adamantly defending the author and their work. It's almost like someone created a second account to help shush naysayers?

      1 reply →