2 ms·
Not subscribing to consensus is not an argument against her. Not addressing that there are non-model-dependent detections (ie not in danger of p-hacking) and he
by ivalm 7y ago
Not subscribing to consensus is not an argument against her. Not addressing that there are non-model-dependent detections (ie not in danger of p-hacking) and her support of much disproved (experimentally) tired light are why people don't take her seriously.
There are plenty of things wrong with high energy physics and cosmology, the fact that most theory is not-even-wrong is a big one. She is, however, often barking up the wrong tree.
- nixtaken 7y agoThe only mention of tired light in this article was here: >This story has elements of self-consistency and inconsistency; WIMPs + tired light and the Higgs + big bang are two ways to say the same thing, but why do physicists insist on speaking in five, different languages at the same time? It is as though the tower of Babel fell down when the first nuclear bomb went off.
- blix 7y agoIt sounds like you are more familiar with her beliefs and this subject material than me. Would you mind elaborating on your disagreements? Personally, I don't think any measurement is non-model-dependent. It's a question of which model. You need a model to turn some physical phenomenon into bits in memory and yet another model to interpret these bits. I am also not convinced tired light is any more falsifiable than any other cosmology. I'm sure all it's problems could be rectified by adding enough terms that depend on variables we cannot ever measure. A version of it may be falsified, but there could always be another version with dark-whatever that explains any deviation. I feel this is just another way of expressing dismissal by non-adherence to consensus.