4 ms·

I understand your critique. But it proposes a sequencing of events which is novel, and testable. For example, it made these predictions in advance of the James

I understand your critique. But it proposes a sequencing of events which is novel, and testable. For example, it made these predictions in advance of the James Web’s first data: https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the-james-webb-space https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the... And these were later validated by the James Webb: https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supermassive https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supe...

colechristensen 1y ago
>For example, it made these predictions in advance of the James Web’s first data: This isn't how any of this works. Actual models predict things by being models, you know, equations and numbers that output more equations and numbers. What you have is vague speculation and hand waving ideas.
- WhitneyLand 1y ago
  To be fair, predictions are the final gold standard, but not all predictions are equal. The math would allow for the predictions to be precise, quantifiable, and directly falsifiable. As is the predictions qualify as interesting, but there are also weaknesses. Some of it was already predicted by others, some needs more verification, some of the claims were more broad “lots of jets, lots of quasars” so they say less than more precise predictions would.
  - colechristensen 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - JSchneider321 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - colechristensen 1y ago
        @dang there are several brand new accounts created today which have only commented on this post which I find rather suspicious
        JSchneider321 1y ago
        I'd never heard of the site before yesterday. Doesn't some day need to be the first day everyone starts posting? And can't a theory someone read about months ago and finds compelling be reason enough to seek out others to engage with on the subject? Are you suggesting I'm a bot or an alt from the author or something? Because that feels like an illogical leap to make based on someone posting enthusiastically about a subject. I do wonder if you'd suspect these accounts equally if the viewpoint expressed aligned with yours.
    - WhitneyLand 1y ago
      No? Im not sure what you’re disagreeing with. It seems like selective quoting to sidestep my point about quality of predictions and pivot to ridiculing the original theory which I actually was originally critical of. I don’t feel any need to shame the author. There’s clearly a good faith effort to contribute and I think the most constructive feedback is to suggest how it could be stronger.
      - colechristensen 1y ago
        Predictions – quantifiable predictions based on mathematical models – are not the final gold standard, they are the admission for entry. Perhaps if you are an established physicist with a history of significant contributions then your vague predictions might hold some interest, but the author studied English and philosophy and has a career to match, and it is clear from reading that they have no actual experience developing physics theory.
- auntieal 1y ago
  Actual models do usually start as speculation and hand waving. As others have pointed out, it seems like the LCDM models actually never STOPPED being speculation and hand waving. Lots of math can hide the fact that a theory is literally just handwaving (LCDM) and a lack of math can indicate a robust theory is in its infancy and needs more math people working on it (blowtorch).

colechristensen 1y ago

>For example, it made these predictions in advance of the James Web’s first data: This isn't how any of this works. Actual models predict things by being models, you know, equations and numbers that output more equations and numbers. What you have is vague speculation and hand waving ideas.

WhitneyLand 1y ago
To be fair, predictions are the final gold standard, but not all predictions are equal. The math would allow for the predictions to be precise, quantifiable, and directly falsifiable. As is the predictions qualify as interesting, but there are also weaknesses. Some of it was already predicted by others, some needs more verification, some of the claims were more broad “lots of jets, lots of quasars” so they say less than more precise predictions would.
- colechristensen 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - JSchneider321 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - colechristensen 1y ago
      @dang there are several brand new accounts created today which have only commented on this post which I find rather suspicious
      - JSchneider321 1y ago
        I'd never heard of the site before yesterday. Doesn't some day need to be the first day everyone starts posting? And can't a theory someone read about months ago and finds compelling be reason enough to seek out others to engage with on the subject? Are you suggesting I'm a bot or an alt from the author or something? Because that feels like an illogical leap to make based on someone posting enthusiastically about a subject. I do wonder if you'd suspect these accounts equally if the viewpoint expressed aligned with yours.
  - WhitneyLand 1y ago
    No? Im not sure what you’re disagreeing with. It seems like selective quoting to sidestep my point about quality of predictions and pivot to ridiculing the original theory which I actually was originally critical of. I don’t feel any need to shame the author. There’s clearly a good faith effort to contribute and I think the most constructive feedback is to suggest how it could be stronger.
    - colechristensen 1y ago
      Predictions – quantifiable predictions based on mathematical models – are not the final gold standard, they are the admission for entry. Perhaps if you are an established physicist with a history of significant contributions then your vague predictions might hold some interest, but the author studied English and philosophy and has a career to match, and it is clear from reading that they have no actual experience developing physics theory.
auntieal 1y ago
Actual models do usually start as speculation and hand waving. As others have pointed out, it seems like the LCDM models actually never STOPPED being speculation and hand waving. Lots of math can hide the fact that a theory is literally just handwaving (LCDM) and a lack of math can indicate a robust theory is in its infancy and needs more math people working on it (blowtorch).