Speaking for myself … the phrase word salad implies to me that the user has chosen not to address the words and finds it easier to wave them off with that phrase.
If I found a way to adjust the carburetor on my car to increase miles per gallon, and I described how to do it, would you wave it off because I didn’t present any quantitative data? Or in hope that it might work would you think through the words I wrote and decide based on that review if they had merit? If you decided they didn’t have merit do you think you could put the reason you thought that into words that would convey your thoughts? Or do you just assume my words don’t have merit and dismiss them with “in my opinion they are word salad”. How am I or the readers to know that you read them and found then wanting? How do you expect to me to give up the ideas when it appears you are just waving them off without consideration?
They stand up in that regard.We don’t agree on the merits of my ideas and my approach. You are too quick to wave them off. I am too persistent in trying to get responses so I keep adding content that make sense to me, in a progressive fashion. If “A” is true then “B” is true then “C” is true, etc., without ever getting any input on “A”. If I had gotten input on “A” I could have worked on that input before going to “B”.

No one that I have seen on BAUT ATM tries harder to get responses. The harder I try the more silence I get. When someone who is important in the community waves off all of my work with two words, “word salad”, it just tells others in the community to stay away. Finally no one is willing to step up and take a shot at an exchange, repeat what I say to confirm understanding, and offer comments that relate to the content.

Only CM has ever even used the phrase “bottom up” in a post on any of my threads. I have said I am working on a bottom up analysis in almost every post on almost every thread. Does anyone under the concept of working on something from a new direction? You have to divorce yourself from everything but observation and proof. If I am talking about a unifying particle and working on what it would mean if there was such a particle, which is my bottom up approach, then I don’t try to say what is wrong with mainstream research or theory or proved hypotheses that deal in entirely different categories or at entirely different levels of energy. Things work differently when you add energy or acceleration or million dollar test equipment for that matter.

My work is baby steps. The ideas are basic, not hard at all to understand. Simple paragraphs that explain what I am doing and what conclusions I have reached. I accompany them with a simple request of content related input. I am dismayed by the word salad response; though I can see why you make that response when my posts are taken in bulk, I can not see why you let me get so much bulk without a comment for me to work with. Comments about content would avoid my conditioned response of adding more content before I get any comments.

That is my answer.

Now a general question to the community: If a unifying particle exists but we haven’t found it yet, would it make sense to work from a bottom up approach to try to figure out how it could be detected?

That is what I am doing.

Along with that, and I see the error of doing this, I have proposed sweeping impacts that finding and understanding such a particle would imply. That is why the word salad, and that is why it is so easy to wave my posts off, ignoring the unglamorous baby steps and focusing on the sweeping implications.

The baby steps are focused on the unifying particle. I start with the concept that all matter would be composed of that particle.

On that basis I see the particle having characteristics like:

“The EEP is the tiny self-contained pulsing quantum energy density fluctuation that makes up the energy density of space and that combines to form all particles and matter that exist and the pulses, displayed as expansion and contraction, provide the power source behind all of the energy of the universe.”

That is a statement of the scope of the discussion of a unifying particle. Those are the characteristics that provide the content for the bottom up approach search. This approach differs from the process of “back engineering" that is carried out by high energy physics. I make comparisons and contrasts between the two approaches all of the time.

Does such a particle exist? How can you say? You have to work form there step by step using ideas about what each characteristic means, how it would work within the constraints of what we observe in the universe around us.

If all particles were made up of unifying particle, matter would form from such a particle. That says that everything in the “soup” of the big bang would be made of such a particle or the even that the “soup” would consist of these particles and matter would form from them.

This means that the bottom up approach would differ from the BBT nucleosynthesis if the “soup” was actually unifying particles instead of a broth of various components.

If the soup was unifying particles, and if matter did not exists in the soup yet, then the accoutrements of matter, i.e. gravity and electromagnetic radiation would not be present.

In an environment of a soup of unifying particles before matter, before gravity and before EM, the soup would consist of unifying particles in space; I use the term energy density of space.

My step by step bottom up content develops like the above sequence. I have developed the sequence to the point that I have made the first estimates of the size and energy of the unifying particle. I received very few comments along the way that acknowledged what I was doing, that confirmed understanding of what I was doing or that saw any validity in the approach I was taking. The few who did contribute constructively never stuck with the development of the ideas. One comment and they were gone. A few hijacking attempts lead to extensive exchanges but those exchanges were not focused on my approach or content; they usually focused on the other individuals ideas and why mine didn’t fit with theirs. That is not unusual and I often went along because there were no real comments on the content to deal with.

When I got vocal about the lack of comments, when I kept adding more and more to the word salad without input, and when silence prevailed I was in check. My desire was to proceed but proceeding meant leaving the community further and further behind. That is how we got to where we are today.

I am hoping to regroup by having one active thread where I can start back at the beginning, relate the baby steps to the point where I am now, eliminating the word salad, and then get support from the community in this bottom up experiment.

What do you say?