Dear Professional Physicist,
I have a new theory of the origin of the universe.
(You’re old theory vs my new theory)
I would like you to stop what you are doing and listen to my theory, which simultaneously explains why everything you know is wrong, but that’s OK, I know what is TRUE INSTEAD.
There are still some details to work out….
No, but seriously, check out this new book: The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook: (Or: How to Beat the Big Bang)
If you read a lot of books about cosmology and the universe, you will not find much new in this book, but you will find new ways to think about all that old stuff. If you really do have a new theory of everything, this book will give you some useful advice on how to buy your ticket into the physics game. Like, that you have to make sure your theory of everything works in a way that does not result in the night sky being as bright as the day sky, or makes light do something it does not do, and so on. Also, do not use many different TYPE FACES AND all caps in your write-up.
Interestingly, one of the things the actual-cosmologists-authors do NOT say is something I often hear from pro-physicists about TOE-pushers. They don’t say “if you don’t have a mathematical formula for your theory, it isn’t a theory.” I hear that all the time and I always thought there was something wrong with that. Seems to me that a totally wrong mathematical theory is too much of a likelihood.
The best overview of this book, which you SHOULD read, is from the authors themselves who made a video talking about the book. Here:
See? Visual proof that this is a good book. Check out The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook: (Or: How to Beat the Big Bang)
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
You’ve probably heard of Heim Theory. This attempt by maverick German physicist Burkhard Heim, published in 1957, was an attempt at a “theory of everything.” It seemed impressive because it claimed to calculate the masses of atoms from first principles.
Geoffrey Landis recounts its rise and fall.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com/Heim_theory.html
Too late to edit the original…
“masses of atoms” should read “masses of elementary particles.”
Also, Dr. Landis says the jury is still out on Heim Theory.
What is the use of thousands of different typefaces (what many people call “fonts”) if you are enjoined from using more than one in a communication? Whatever happened to evaluating something on its intrinsic merits? This restriction seems to me to be kin to “dress for success” and other dress codish, 1950ish pleas for mindless conformity. Phooey to that.