Posted: Aug 12, 2014 7:15 am
Calilasseia wrote:If you know so much about this, you'll be able to present the relevant material to us, so we can evaluate it, won't you?
There's your next task.
Gee thanks for the assignment, Calilasseia.
No, I don't "know so much about this", and I am not the critic I am looking for or I wouldnt be asking around. But how about we start with this: He says his model unites the standard model and quantum mechanics, he says his model explains that the speed of light must be constant because if it wasn't , in a simulated, virtual reality, information would not move from frame to frame consistently and we would live in an intelligible place indeed. If his claims are true, I dont see why he isnt nominated for a Nobel. But I dont see anyone challenging him, and I am certainly not the person to do it. I am knew here and I have no idea who reads this. I rather doubt that many "peer reviewed" physicists do, but then I don't know that, it is why I am posting. And I suspect this is a well read intelligent lot on here who might be aware of criticisms of Campbells stuff, but I cant find anyone who has much to say. Pointing out that NASA might be working on something that doesn't work , doesn't count.