My delusions are internally consistent
They are only not 'not consistent' because you haven't formalised them sufficiently to be able to really test their internal structure for consistency. But because of that you also cannot say they are internally consistent either, as you have no single coherent formal construct which outputs said 'delusions'. Until you can demonstrate all of your conclusions can be put into a single formal construct you haven't got any justification in saying "They are internally consistent" as a physical model. I commented about how all of your outputs are also inputs. If you accept that complaint then you accept my criticism as a whole. If you don't accept it then it means you can derive some of your 'results' from more basic, less numerous, postulates. But you haven't provided such derivations and thus we're back to you not having grounds for saying they are internally consistent.
and not inconsistent with observations and data.
It's easy to come up with 'explanations' which are entirely consistent with experiments, you just claim every single experimental result is part of your work; "
Does my model say the universe is expanding? Well if experiments say it is then so does my model!". There, easy. But obviously simply listing all known experimental results is not really a good model. To make it something worth looking at I'd have to make some postulates and derive some of the experimental results from them.
Then I would have a scientific model/idea/hypothesis which is not inconsistent with observations and data.
And don't think I didn't notice how you phrased it. You didn't say "consistent with", you said "not inconsistent with....". Being not inconsistent with experiment is easy, you just only ever make predictions which can never be tested. Again, if you have only predictions which cannot ever be tested then you're not going about things right. This is further compounded if you have no derived predictions. If all your predictions are both untestable and just assertions without coming from more basic postulates then you're just making stuff up without any regard to the real world. That isn't science either.
Presently your work falls into that final category. You have no derived results, all your outputs are actually inputs and not applicable to the real world. This renders your work purely your opinion about unobservable things, no one else can possibly work on it without simply having to constantly ask you your opinions. This seems to be much the same for wlminex, hence why I'm actually typing this here rather in one of your threads.
The straw men you spew sound self righteous and haughty instead of being founded on having read and found the inconsistencies.
It's entirely possible to construct logically sound, consistent models which have
nothing to do with reality. I could give you any number of quantum field theories which are utterly untestable but are consistent. The fact both of you (as well as many other hacks) don't derive any results, don't construct a single working model of any real world phenomenon and wax lyrical about utterly untestable things you haven't even derived from postulates but rather just decided you like the sound of, relegates you to fiction writers. Such approaches fail to be scientific on every single level. You might not like hearing my explanations of why this is the case, you might think I sound self righteous and haughty but tough. You come to a science discussion forum and regularly post lengthy essays on your 'work', what did you expect to happen? That people who know a bit of science never say anything to you about your flawed approaches? Never say anything about how unjustified your claims are and how they fail to be scientific? Part of having a scientific discourse is to be prepared to accept criticism about ones work. If you, either of you, want to discuss science in even the more rudimentary of ways (you describe yourself as an enthusiast after all) then that's a price you have to pay. If you're really an enthusiast, really wanting to grasp little pieces of Nature and perhaps even help others to grasp it then you've gone about it the wrong way. If you aren't interested in expanding your understanding or helping others do likewise then it's perfectly reasonable for someone like myself to call you on it.
You want me to point out inconsistencies? Well provide an answer to my question so we can consider a specific example of your work. This goes for wlminex too.
Provide just a single working accurate predictive model of a single real phenomenon of your choice, along with its complete derivation from a set of clearly stated postulates within your 'work'. Put your best card on the table and we'll go from there. If you do not have a card to put on the table then my criticisms are demonstrated entirely accurate.
