Quote:
Originally Posted by NereidT
I have a question, which also serves as something of a comment.
In your document, you use terms such as "primary energy", "oscillates", and "concentrated state" (there are many more, this is just a sample). So far as I can tell, none of these terms is defined in a way that makes a connection with textbook physics (indeed, even references to contemporary cosmology and astrophysics - such as "the increasing speeds of cosmic objects" or "black holes" - are not explained, nor are any references to primary sources given).
Yet contemporary cosmology and astrophysics is inextricably linked to, and builds on, textbook physics. Today's physics is fundamentally quantitative, and has arguably been so since the time of Newton and Galileo. Words used in physics often look like ordinary, everyday words - think of "energy", "work", and "wave", for example - but they in fact differ, in many ways (of course, some physics terms have very little apparent commonality with everyday words, think of "field equation", for example). One consequence of these differences: it is not at all obvious how ideas developed in everyday English relate to physics, unless those ideas have been carefully examined, and a mapping (that may not be the best word) to textbook physics terms produced.
To over-simplify, if you'd like to develop your idea to the point where it can be discussed as a possible explanation of the billions (trillions?) of (quantitative) astronomical observations that have been published, you will need to first re-write it in the language of modern physics.
How far along are you with this re-writing?
|
I'd be even more specific.
A physical theory is a set of equations relating the behaviour of defined observable quantities. Words are all very well if they are defining the observables or explaining aspects of the equations, but it's the equations and observables that constitute the theory, not the words.
Sorry to rain on the author's parade, but my quick look at this tells me that it is all just words, and consequently not a physical theory at all.
It might be worthwhile philosophy, though I doubt it. I ultimately defer to a philosopher to make that judgement, however I would observe that since the rise of modern science and in the face of the power of physical theories, philosophers tend to leave explaining how the physical world works to scientists and stick to stuff like ethics and epistemology.