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.

>predictions are the final gold standard

Uh... no having a model with quantifiable predictions is the minimum. This is just nothing. Like possibly up to the standard of a physicist speculating after a third drink with colleagues after a conference, and that's being generous.

This is like a dude with an idea for a new social network trying to do an IPO with only a pitch deck and zero work.

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.

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.

You're clearly either misrepresenting the author intentionally or out of good old fashioned ignorance. Gough is very well-educated and the ideas are carefully considered and are just an extension of Dr. Lee Smolin's CNS theory, which is itself based on sound science.

If you didn't finish reading the article, I really recommend you go back and give it another go. If you don't get caught up in trying to explain the mechanisms (which may be limited given our current limited understanding, ESPECIALLY of quantum gravity), I think you'll have to see that there's something there.

I mean for fuck's sake, y'all sound like religious zealots arguing against evolution.

@dang there are several brand new accounts created today which have only commented on this post which I find rather suspicious

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.