low-quality crackpottery. the idea is not even new and they show zero calculation leading to the predictions they claim to make
phys.org has fallen far
Strange tales ,bizarre stories ,weird publications ,myths ,legends and folklore
Fact or Fiction ? You Decide
Mythology
Archaeology
Paleontology
Cryptozoology
Extraterrestrial Life
UFO's
The Cosmos
History
Paranormal
In fact anything amusing, curious ,interesting, weird ,strange or bizarre
Rules : Be nice and follow the rules
[](https://mastodon.world/about
low-quality crackpottery. the idea is not even new and they show zero calculation leading to the predictions they claim to make
phys.org has fallen far
This is a remarkably short paper for the big claims it makes. For me it has the feel of starting at the answer and then working backwards to find the original question. Which is a perfectly valid approach, as long as there is at least some constraint or indication that was indeed the original question asked.
We've seen time and again in physics where people can create awesome mathematical frameworks that try to explain it all. Then every time the model disagrees with reality, the model or it's parameters are slightly tweaked so it's in line again. For me this isn't very useful, as we would like to use the model to make real predictions. Not just chase our tails.
The phys.org article has absolutely no information. At least it links the worldscientific article.
It's just a press release from the university.