| There isn't one because it doesn't need to be said. It's also not true: the theory came out of questioning what would happen if you replaced one set of equations in the model with another, and whether that might make a more interesting (or accurate) model. It's simply expressed in informal language, but the formal (and completely sensible translation) is straightforward to anyone with the necessary background. As for why experts would care, anywhere from dinner conversation (as is likely to be the case for myself; not a physics expert, but my company is, and Im curious of the answer) to it strikes a cord related to their work by giving them a new analogy, allowing them to bring more expertise to bear on the project. For my professional work, some of the biggest influences have been questions by amateurs (and the subsequent trying to address them). If it were actually such a useless idea, you'd have spent less time just refuting it than with your unnecessarily negative posts. Instead, you were negative for no clear reason (though, several uncharitable reasons might be inferred). Please refrain from making such negative posts here. They make the community worse. |
Really?