Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie
There is content in all of my posts that you could comment on. You could tell me why mainstream has rejected the possibilities that I propose.
|
This one's easy ... but of course I can only speak for myself ...
There are no "
possibilities"; there is only some word salad.
When you have developed the ideas to the point where you can sketch how they are consistent with special relativity (perhaps as an 'in the limit'), the first family of particles (electrons, electron neutrinos, up and down quarks; their antimatter counterparts; photons), quantum theory, and Newtonian gravity (as a 'limit case')*, a vague outline of some possibilities may emerge.
Until then ...
Quote:
If they have not addressed the ideas I propose we could discuss whether or not my speculations are responsible specutlations that the mainstream should address.
The ISU is about what the science mainstream is leaving on the table by refusing to consider preconditions to the big bang and by refusing to consider space beyond the big bang. Both the preconditions and the space beyond would change physics. Neither the preconditions nor the space beyond should be omitted from consideration and science needs to take them into consideration by amending the mainstream to say that the preconditions and space beyond would change things and here is how they might change.
|
At one level, no one could disagree with this.
However, I'm sure you'd agree that any such amendment needs to:
1) be internally consistent
2) be consistent with well-established theories, where the relevant domains of applicability overlap
3) (above all) be consistent with relevant good observational and experimental results.
In this regard, where do the ideas you've put on the table so far stand?
IMHO:
1) haven't even started (no quantification), or cannot be shown to be inconsistent (only word salad)
2) impossible to say - a determination of 'consistency' is, at best, uncertain (how could one establish that your ideas are inconsistent with SR, for example?)
3) ditto - your ideas have no phenomenology.
*
These are only meant as examples.