3 ms·
1. It's clear you did not read the paper and are ignorant that the author is high profile physicist and cosmologist famous for developing measurement methods.
by jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
1. It's clear you did not read the paper and are ignorant that the author is high profile physicist and cosmologist famous for developing measurement methods.
2. The view of science you are parroting is naive and mistaken. Theorizing and experiment are both necessary and inform and constrict each other.
- shasta 11y agoThere are plenty of great scientists who have nutty ideas about things outside of their specialty. I've only read the OP, but that's the vibe it gives me.
- explorer666 11y agoWhich is good, isn't it? I mean, how nutty was the idea that matter could bend space(time)? What about time dilation? Black holes? Particle/wave duality? The brilliant dots in the sky being immense balls of burning gas? Big discoveries begin with a nutty hypothesis.
- sgt101 11y ago1. I don't care who he is, and nor should you, this is science and not the middle ages. I will not bow to a Barron, and I will not accept what an MIT professor says without applying my critical facilities to it. The paper is extremely difficult to read and extremely long, very few people will have the time or comprehensive knowledge required to read it completely. This is a fault of the paper, not the readers. 2. Theorizing is great, ideas are free, but that is because their value is very low without proof.