Dear earnest wingnut,
Thank you for sending me a copy of your 20-page monograph containing your brilliant new paradigm which The Physics Establishment are seeking to squelch, Having been squashed at times by the T.P.E., I can heartily sympathize.
I am writing back to you because you don't seem as crazy or scary as most. Also, your paper had good spelling and grammer. Your elementary English teacher told the truth-- spelling matters. So I read the thing. And by 'read' I mean I fully read the first page and the conclusion, but sort of skimmed the middle. It'll have to do.
There are a few conceptual issues that make me hesitant about writing about it for my science column at the present time. I hope you read these comments as constructive criticism and that they assist you in further work.
In particular, references to the 'Physics Establishment' and the repeated assertion that the work is yours and is groundbreaking actually created a barrier for me in reading it. Either present your theory, or brag. If you're doing both, the reader will focus on the bragging and dismiss you. If your theory is strong enough to be accurate, you don't need the brag-- the theory will stand on its own.
Going to the concepts, the initial concept you are refuting is a bit out of date. At this point there are several new understandings. For example, [CURRENT KNOWLEDGE] is well quantified and well understood. Some of the work in that area might help you hone your own work further. I use Wikipedia for this, but don't tell the physicists in T.P.E., they'll mock me (even though they use it too).
You also seem to refute yourself. Your conclusion declares everything is related, yet earlier you emphasize that the current thought that everything is unified is wrong. That to me seems inconsistent, and requires either a rewrite of your theory or a better explanation.
Perhaps splitting your long work into shorter topical articles might make it more accessible. As it stands now, it covers disparate fields in a hopscotch manner. Writing where your overlying concept is applied to each field you tackle-- particle physics, biology, Earth climate, economics, sociology, and cosmology-- as a seperate piece could make for a stronger work.
I do have a few questions. First, how did you find my name? I mean, you sent it to my personal email, not my NASW one. Did you know I am a science writer, or was this luck? Finally, do you have my address, do I have to move again?
Good luck with your future work,
Tuesdays at The Satellite Diaries and Friday at The Daytime Astronomer (twitter @skyday)
Act now to get limited edition mission patches and flight pins for Project Calliope!
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- President Obama, Why Humans On Mars Right Now Are Bad For Science
- EPA Again Delays Report On Safety Of Glyphosate
- Physics Outreach With Music
- BPA-Free, With Regrets
- An Astronaut Gardener On The Moon - Summits Of Sunlight And Vast Lunar Caves In Low Gravity
- Americans Don't Know How Much Food They Waste
- Nitrate-Reducing Microbes Linked To Migraine Headaches
- "There is real music....... How masses of pseudoscalar mesons have symmetric position around mass..."
- "Well just look at this comments thread and the dozens of other comments. I've explained over and..."
- "So you can be absolutely certain that nibiru is not real and you wont change your mind about that..."
- "Mars is no new world. A better analogy is Antarctica. The early Antarctic explorers like Shackleton..."
- "No there isn't. What do exist are extra dwarf planets in the outer solar system - we know they..."
- If You Think Chiropractors Can't Kill You, Think Again
- Chiropractic Adjustments Can Kill
- Do Endocrine Disruptors Really Cost Us Hundreds Of Billions?
- Do Endocrine Disruptors Really Cost Us Billions?
- Predatory Open-Access Journals Sink To A New Low
- Polls Are Not Rigged, But They Also Aren't 'Scientific'