3 ms·
> You make it sound as if the theory is pure quack My apologies. I tried to phrase neutrally, and give good references. What can you do, when an idea sounds in
by sampo 5y ago
> You make it sound as if the theory is pure quack
My apologies. I tried to phrase neutrally, and give good references. What can you do, when an idea sounds interesting, but is quite clearly rejected by current mainstream science?
Personally, I agree with you. But the topic goes above my level of experience in fluid mechanics and numerical meteorology. Some of the best minds in numerical atmospheric fluid mechanics should thoroughly examine the proposed theory. Like you say, the potential implications could be big. But the current short attention span of science funding does not support or reward such work.
- jgilias 5y agoThat's the thing though. The theory is commonly rejected, but not debunked. And after reading the peer review[1] I came away even more convinced that the reasons of why it is opposed are based in confirmation bias and preconceived notions. Frankly, the author seems to have a stronger grasp of the underlying physics and mathematics than the people criticizing the theory. [1] https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013-discussion.html https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039...