Most people would complain about Vacuous Criticism. I don't. Especially if I can pinpoint the source of that Vacuous Criticism.
Lately, I have been called an idiot
by Uncle Al.
Professor Sam Wormley
from the great University of Iowa told me that if I were his student, he would give me a pop-quiz on vacuum fields, vacuum states, zero-point fluctuations
etc...:) I rebutted by saying that that statement was pompous...:) self-important...:) During our discussion he made the effort to find out my name, as if it were relevant to a scientific discussion. Normally, I avoid putting myself ahead of my ideas because discussions should be about ideas. The only people that try to use your name (ethnic group), association, class or origin as part of an argument are normally members of despicable groups (racists, chauvinists, Ivory Tower Academicians, etc......:)
He is supposedly a professor of Astronomy or something along those lines. That would be exactly someone that I would love to hear from. Not as a challenge or macho crap but as a source of good arguments...
I am hopeful that he will engage me in a civilized scientific discussion. It belittles the academic position he is in if that turned out not to be the case...:)
Of course, if he find out that he was wrong that would also be a great accomplishment for him. It is always alright to wrong as long as you have a good argument.
In any event, Professor Wormley might provide some better criticism in the future. We just exchanged messages and I tried to clarify my position as someone who value immensely his opinion. Certainly, infinitely more than Uncle Al's.
By the way, I wouldn't be offended if Professor Wormley were to give it as a homework for his astronomy students...:)
In fact, I would toss in a Prize (a weekend trip to New York City to watch Steven Colbert Show - airplane tickets and hostel accommodations - I know that students love hostels - you would have to get your own free tickets to Steven Colbert....:) *
The rules for the Sam Wormley Competition would be to find a fatal flaw, something I cannot explain within reasonable standards on my theory.
For instance, there is a kappa which relates Fundamental Dilators for Electromagnetism and Gravitation which is a result of the theory and cannot be explained better than to say that there is a 3rd order term in the elasticity of the Fabric of Space - deforming space is not a perfectly modeled by the harmonic oscillator. Of course, with the value of kappa one can calculate what that coefficient is...:) thus Kappa would not be an example of a fatal flaw...:)
At this instance, I would like to minimize polemic and focus on the foundations of the theory and avoid applications of it (e.g. alternative explanation for the double slit experiment or action at distance) or even my model for time... otherwise one gets into a very complex part of science - one that few people will ever be able to understand...:)
Since I can't find a fatal flaw, I cannot provide a perfect example..:)
Since the theory is very extensive, I would have to restrict this challenge to the Cosmological Topology (lighspeed expanding hyperspherical shockwave universe) and the Grand Unification. Of course, this would include pseudo-time quantization, quantum lagrangian principle - which together creates the basis for Quantum Mechanics.
I would leave the Hypergeometrical Standard Model for later. This model is simply a compilation of assignments consistent with the corresponding decay reactions, since I didn't present the mass calculation yet...:)
Of course, since I have 23,000 readers scattered around the world, this competition would have to be restricted to Sam Wormley students or students within the US although some equivalent cash prize could be given to students outside the US, that is, some cash prize equivalent to the cost I am considering for the US students...
I would extend it to Stephen Hawkin, Leonard Suskind and the other big wigs...:) but you have to be a big wig...:)
If you are a big wig, please feel free to compete...:) but first let me know that you are competing...:)
* Valid where permitted..:) Winner if there is one to be disclosed two months after receiving 5 meaningful but defensible criticisms...:) which I would rebut in this blog.