1. I asked for a link, not a title. I googled 'Physics Review' and got several different sites.
Jesus, do you have your food chewed for you too? 'Physics Review' covers Physics Review A, B, C etc . I obviously gave you too much credit for having passing familiarity with the physics community.
I checked a couple, and they both required *affiliations*.
Please provide a link to the page where Physics Review says that they
require an author to have an academic affiliation and will absolutely not review any work from anyone else.
2. My model does not appear to require new physics. Or magic. Or strings. Or gods.
Your model doesn't require anything because it doesn't have anything to it other than "Because I say so". And it isn't a model. Simply calling it one doesn't make it so.
3. I assume most physicists understand known physics.
No, most physicists understand
some of known physics. Known physics is too large for any single person to 'know' to research level. You're showing your naivety.
4. I do not have the ability to describe the model mathematically as required for publication in physics journals.
Then your claims it explains things, models things, isn't contradicted by experiments etc are all utterly without justification.
And I can't do it here either. I was unaware I was required to do so to post on this forum.
You call it a 'model' so I've asked you to provide justification for that. If you'd called it a 'vague hypothesis' I'd not have asked. I expect models to
model and the way you do that is to have quantitative results. If you can't provide such things then stop using labels, like 'model', which imply you do. It's not my fault your ego is writing cheques your brain can't cover.
5. My model makes specific predictions. Several of them.
You make assertions about how you think the universe operates but you don't derive them from anything, you assume them. A 'model' whose predictions are also its assumptions is worthless.
You continue to insist it does not. You are in error. Please read post #111. You will find the predictions there. They are testable either through direct astronomical observation with existing instruments, or instruments soon to be deployed, or by mining existing astronomical data.
Can you provide a derivation for any of them from more basic assumptions?
I've already been over this with you. All your conclusions are just "Because I say so". There's no way for anyone else to develop your work because you haven't done any developing yourself. You haven't started with some basic postulates and worked through to your conclusions, you just start with conclusions. It's easy to then tailor your conclusions to match experiments, you can say whatever you want. A good model is one with as few and as basic a set of postulates as possible, which is then clearly developed through to accurate, detailed models of phenomena which are then experimentally validated. The hard part is finding the set of postulates, because its unclear initially what those postulates lead to. A tiny change in your postulates could utterly change your conclusions. Hence why starting with your conclusions is not a good approach, you have absolutely no way of knowing what postulates,
if any, lead to such conclusions.
6. My model is accompanied by numerous supporting science articles and papers from respected sources, and are generally peer-reviewed. Am I required to post a link to a research paper that fully confirms my model's hypotheses?
Citing other people's peer reviewed work has absolutely no bearing on the scientific viability of your work. Yes, other people have made models. Yes, other people have done experiments. That doesn't negate my criticisms. And it doesn't magically turn your work into a 'model'.
7. Your comments regarding string theory are in conflict with the principle researchers.
My thesis was in string theory, I'm more than a little familiar with it.
There are no experiments or observations that confirm string theory. There are no experiments or observations that even support string theory in any meaningful way.
Where did I say that? I said it had made predictions and there were ways to falsify it. String theory necessarily leads to general relativity as the weak field effective theory of gravity. If gravity didn't behave like general relativity at weak limits then string theory would be wrong.
According to Brian Green at Columbia, in a PBS interview from a couple years ago, string theory remains unfalsifiable.
It is unfalsifiable from its present position, in that the predictions it makes about things we have measured it has passed (ie general relativity). The next set of things string theory is unambiguous on are a long way out of our ability to test at present.
That's an important distinction. It makes lots of predictions. Those which are within our ability to test have been validated. Unfortunately there's a
huge gap between the weak field limit of gravity and the strong limit of quantum gravity. String theory is an attempt to model quantum gravity and thus the majority of what it says about the universe involves the Planck scale. But this shouldn't be surprising, since
any model of quantum gravity will be aimed at the Planck scale.
If Einstein hadn't gone GR in 1915 string theory would have lead to its discovery. Personally I find the derivation of the Einstein field equations in string theory much simpler and more elegant than the original derivation Einstein gave.
I am going to take his word over yours.
It's not a matter of my word versus his, its a matter of you not grasping the full picture. I've seen that PBS documentary, I watched it before I even took my first course in string theory. Since we're doing the "This famous guy says...." milarky, the person who lectured my string theory course was Michael Green, the person who has just taken over Hawking's (and Newton's) old position as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge. He appears in that documentary too, he and Schwarz developed the anomaly cancellation method and sparked one of the string theory revolutions. Someone once asked him in a lecture why he worked on string theory and his reply was the derivation of general relativity I just mentioned.
String theory is the
only model of gravity which has consistent quantum interactions and the experimentally verified weak field limit.
Green also goes on to say that the predictions string theory makes would not confirm strings because other equally valid theories make the same predictions.
In particular experiments yes, but that's why multiple experiments and multiple ways of testing predictions are always done.
The math provides for a minimum of 10^500 possible solutions. I have already posted the relevant excerpts from Green and others on this thread.
I'm well aware of the notion of the string landscape. My thesis was on the effect certain dualities have on the landscape. A collaborator and I came up with a way to parametrise huge numbers of them.
I have read no recent paper that changes the status of strings.
I question whether you've read any papers on string theory. You don't seem to understand the level of detail and the requirement of derivation and sound methodology in physics, which suggests you're quite unfamiliar with scientific papers. I question whether you even grasp undergraduate level physics, never mind high level string theory research.
You're making the same logical fallacy/approach that creationists do in regards to evolution. I've disagreed with you and rather than defending your work by providing evidence to justify your claims you're trying to attack something I support. Even if you could prove string theory wrong right here and now it wouldn't make a jot of difference as to the scientific merit/worth/validity of your work. I suggest you spend your time a little more wisely.
8. There is nothing random about my model. My hypotheses are logically and reasonably derived from astronomical observations, and the assumption that the known laws of physics are universal.
So where is the derivation? I keep asking you, you keep failing to provide. All you ever provide is just arm waving.
They are not wild, unjustified guesses, anymore than my working out the photometric transit method of exoplanet discovery was a wild, unjustified guess.
Superficial concepts are quite different from working models.
Copernicus realised the Earth goes around the Sun from observations. Is that a 'model of gravity'? No. It took decades, even centuries, for people to develop formal descriptions such that they could say "Ah, the reason the orbit is an ellipse is..." or "If you cube the radius of the orbit, you square its period". A little kid saying "The planet makes the star's image wobble" is a long way from a model of
how that wobble appears, when you take into account relative motions, interstellar distances, optical properties of the camera, spectral variation and dozens of other things.
You have a series of vague hypotheses based on extremely qualitative summaries you hear about work scientists have done. That's the first step on an extremely long road to a working model derived clearly and logically from a set of baser postulates which is verifiable by experiment and worth publishing.
Please elucidate the numerous known (or theorized) astronomical phenomena that could cause a periodic drop in luminosity.
Astrophysics 101 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable . They are the 'standard candle' used to measure distances precisely because we understand the relationship between their pulse periods and their brightness.
10. The most basic element of the model is ridiculously simple. The big bang was a centrifugal release of mass from a black hole containing all the mass contained within the Hubble volume. Suggesting that an astrophysicist, or cosmologist could not carry on research of this simple concept if I was hit by a bus is absurd. The conversations I have had with other scientists make it clear that they have little trouble grasping the basics. They may not agree with certain elements of it, but they do appear to understand it.
This is all arm waving. You've reached 'conclusions' without any reason to think they are logically consistent with one another or other observations or whether they can be derived from simpler concepts.
There's an enormous gulf between arm waving wordy ideas and actual models and theories.
11. You have yet to attempt to falsify any of my hypotheses. I can't help but notice you have had no such reluctance when addressing other 'cranks' theories.
You have nothing but your conclusions, which are so vague they cannot be critically analysed or you've tailored to match experiments you've heard of.
Let's consider what you just said, "
The big bang was a centrifugal release of mass from a black hole containing all the mass contained within the Hubble volume.". Now if someone like Hawking said that he'd provide a ton of equations, showing how he went from something like the Einstein field equations and some other assumptions and worked through to show that an inflating space-time is the necessary outcome of a particular configuration of matter within an event horizon of size associated to the rate of expansion. It'd be dozens of pages long, showing every step. It'd have a quantitative conclusion and then comments about how it might be put to the test.
In fact, Penrose
recently did something very much like that. Lots of derivation, a quantitative conclusion and then an analysis of observations to see if the predictions held any water. That can be analysed, it can be critiqued. For instance,
Lubos Motl examined the specifics of their work and concluded it was a result of the CMB power spectrum being a bit quirky.
Now compare that to what you have provided, a few lines of arm waving. It can't be critiqued, because its got no derivation and is just vague.
That's the problem with watered down shit, its hard to nail to the wall.
12. Contrary to your assertions, I do not think I know everything.
Where did I say that? I'd say you think you know a hell of a lot more than you actually do. For instance, you mentioned reading papers pertaining to string theory. I don't think you could understand any published string theory papers on any level that wasn't just reading the wordy parts (abstract, intro, conclusion).
I do think I am a fairly good observer of reality, though. However, if we are to go with your logic, no human in existence could ever know enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever about the form, structure and processes of the observable universe.
For a 'fairly good observer of reality' you sure do fail to grasp the scientific method and people's view of science.
13. I will be happy to debate or discuss any of the specific elements of my model with you or anyone else.
Select a phenomenon in the real world which you can model. State clearly your starting postulates, work through the derivation to a quantitative model and then demonstrate it indeed models said phenomenon, ie leads to predictions which closely correlate with data obtained by experiment. No arm waving, actual precise results/measurements.
14. If the requirements for posting now in pseudoscience are a mathematical description, including all the physics used to derive the hypotheses, then feel free to delete all my posts. I certainly can't stop you.
You called it a model. I'm asking to see you model
anything. If you'd called it a vague hypothesis or random idea or Ketamine induced vision I'd not have asked you to provide a
model.
You talk about journals, implying you want your work published. I'm not asking you for anything which a journal wouldn't. You claim to have results, predictions, derivations. I'm just following up those claims of yours. And I always find them lacking.
9. My claims of 'flaws' in theories are well-supported by the words of the researchers themselves, as articulated in the numerous science papers and articles included in the addendum at the bottom of post #111.
I'll look at that tomorrow.
