4 ms·

This is basically equivalent to any other crackpot theory. You can’t through together a bunch of impressive sounding words and expect to get anything out of it.

This is basically equivalent to any other crackpot theory. You can’t through together a bunch of impressive sounding words and expect to get anything out of it. The one prediction I noticed that you made that “ dark matter would then be concentrated in the areas of our universe with sparse amounts of normal matter“ has already been proven to not be true. Dark matter is concentrated in galaxies.

arminiusreturns 6y ago
Yep, I get shit on anytime I mention it, despite the disclaimers. Whatever, it's just a fucking thought experiment.
- jdmichal 6y ago
  It's not fair to write that you have a "theory", then suddenly convert it to a "thought experiment" when someone points out the the one testable prediction you propose is already disproven. This is equivalent, though obviously lower stakes, to making a racist comment then saying it's "just a joke" when it's received badly. If you want things to be received as a thought experiment, call it that up front. You'll get people thinking and talking about it. But the response you received is in line with what the word "theory" means in the scientific community.
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    > I'm no physicist, theory was developed while doing Einstein inspired imagination visualization/simulation of the big bang. I know it's probably so wrong in so many ways it's not worth a normal physicist to respond to, just thought I'd share. Not sure how much more clear it can be... If the single word "theory" misapplied can't be seen through by such intelligences well what else is there to say than I'm sorry and I'll never mention it again. I'll stick to the theories I'm good at.
- Google234 6y ago
  When you use word with mostly clear Technical definitions and meanings, you open yourself up to refutation. What you wrote is almost equivalent to saying 2+2=47374636628

arminiusreturns 6y ago

Yep, I get shit on anytime I mention it, despite the disclaimers. Whatever, it's just a fucking thought experiment.

jdmichal 6y ago
It's not fair to write that you have a "theory", then suddenly convert it to a "thought experiment" when someone points out the the one testable prediction you propose is already disproven. This is equivalent, though obviously lower stakes, to making a racist comment then saying it's "just a joke" when it's received badly. If you want things to be received as a thought experiment, call it that up front. You'll get people thinking and talking about it. But the response you received is in line with what the word "theory" means in the scientific community.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  > I'm no physicist, theory was developed while doing Einstein inspired imagination visualization/simulation of the big bang. I know it's probably so wrong in so many ways it's not worth a normal physicist to respond to, just thought I'd share. Not sure how much more clear it can be... If the single word "theory" misapplied can't be seen through by such intelligences well what else is there to say than I'm sorry and I'll never mention it again. I'll stick to the theories I'm good at.
Google234 6y ago
When you use word with mostly clear Technical definitions and meanings, you open yourself up to refutation. What you wrote is almost equivalent to saying 2+2=47374636628