Champagne bubble cosmology vs Big Bang (split)

[swansont]

One of the main issues with that is that if you demonstrate or admit that you don't understand the science, you have no credibility when it comes to critiquing it. Critiquing it in a non-scientific way means you have even less credibility.

 

One of the advantages of mathematical models is that you can filter out a lot of the disparate viewpoints and interpretations, because whether something fits the model is much closer to being a boolean state than a continuum.

 

In an unsafe environment where you know that you will get flamed at the stake for saying that the world is not flat but a sphere, only 10% emotionally would dare to do so, but might rationally choose not to. When observing a complicated phenomenon only the quick of mind with sufficient knowledge and experience, will have a sufficient chance of interpreting all the data in a way that leads to solving the problem.

 

History keeps repeating itself in the march of folly (Barbara Tuchman). In fact the brain creates a Bayesian inversion, under pressure 90% of all human populations on average will turn the world upside down in interpreting data in the way they are supposed to by their authoritative peers, peering through the telescope.

 

Because what you are doing is completely irrational. You place a far to high a norm on the issue because that is what the authoritative peers / the book in effect say so.

 

 

I'm sure statements like this make sense to people outside of science — it's how you imagine it to work, and it's a tidy little ideology. It probably gives comfort to people in some way, especially if they hold a crackpot view that's being rejected by "the establishment", because then the crackpot can convince himself he's right and merely being persecuted. But to people inside science, it's laughably wrong. On a very broad scale it implies that we never would have ever had any paradigm shifts in the last century or so, because people would not want to present those findings that ran contrary to classical physics, which is to ignore history. On a finer scale, one would not expect to see papers that present alternative models to anything, and yet these are published all the time!

[Spyman]

After reading through it all my first reaction is: how shore, and based on what evidence, are we that light outside any gravitational field travels in an absolutely straight line?

 

And second: how shore, and based on what evidence, are we that light doesn't very slowly red-shift outside any gravitational field?

Tired light has been ruled out by observations:

 

"Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed - these effects that should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism. Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

[kristalris]

One of the main issues with that is that if you demonstrate or admit that you don't understand the science, you have no credibility when it comes to critiquing it. Critiquing it in a non-scientific way means you have even less credibility.

 

One of the advantages of mathematical models is that you can filter out a lot of the disparate viewpoints and interpretations, because whether something fits the model is much closer to being a boolean state than a continuum.

 

 

I'm sure statements like this make sense to people outside of science — it's how you imagine it to work, and it's a tidy little ideology. It probably gives comfort to people in some way, especially if they hold a crackpot view that's being rejected by "the establishment", because then the crackpot can convince himself he's right and merely being persecuted. But to people inside science, it's laughably wrong. On a very broad scale it implies that we never would have ever had any paradigm shifts in the last century or so, because people would not want to present those findings that ran contrary to classical physics, which is to ignore history. On a finer scale, one would not expect to see papers that present alternative models to anything, and yet these are published all the time!

You imply that I oppose mathematical modeling. Of course not. Of course it must be done. What I'm saying is that science should determine which idea's are worth putting effort in in a scientific way. The science is already there and concerns that of basic psychology. These insights are BTW fairly new. Further more you clearly don't understand the psychology let alone not understand how that influences the way anyone so you included interpret data. And you make an error in reasoning thinking that what I state even implies that no paradigm shifts are possible. Of course they are yet discussing that is off topic. On topic is only the psychology as tool in interpreting data.

 

You call me a crackpot for proposing red-shift of photons without having a mathematical model first. Well I guess then that Fritz Zwicky was a crackpot too for he must of started off having a then crackpot idea before he got the mathematical model. So my idea wasn't that daft at all as you made it out to be. The trick is thus not to immediately trash these idea's but organize in getting them and quickly filtering them out.

 

I could go into the psychology on mirroring, but that would be off topic.

 

Now you will probably state that it has been relegated to the fringes of astrophysics.

[swansont]

You imply that I oppose mathematical modeling. Of course not. Of course it must be done.

I have stated that you have not provided one, and that it is necessary to do so. Arguing an idea solely by analogy is not science.

 

What I'm saying is that science should determine which idea's are worth putting effort in in a scientific way.

Which is not the topic under discussion.

 

The science is already there and concerns that of basic psychology. These insights are BTW fairly new. Further more you clearly don't understand the psychology let alone not understand how that influences the way anyone so you included interpret data. And you make an error in reasoning thinking that what I state even implies that no paradigm shifts are possible. Of course they are yet discussing that is off topic. On topic is only the psychology as tool in interpreting data.

If the model says predicts I will see a signal peak centered at 3 mV on my device, and we do a plot and see what the data shows, yes, I freely admit that I don't understand the psychology that would lead me to be able to conclude whatever answer I wanted to. Either the peak is there with statistical significance, or it isn't.

 

You call me a crackpot for proposing red-shift of photons without having a mathematical model first.

I have not called you a crackpot.

 

Well I guess then that Fritz Zwicky was a crackpot too for he must of started off having a then crackpot idea before he got the mathematical model. So my idea wasn't that daft at all as you made it out to be. The trick is thus not to immediately trash these idea's but organize in getting them and quickly filtering them out.

 

I could go into the psychology on mirroring, but that would be off topic.

 

Now you will probably state that it has been relegated to the fringes of astrophysics.

I thought I was clear about my mention of crackpots with regard to a certain ideology — that they often take rejection as evidence of persecution instead of acknowledging that they're wrong, so this is a gross mischaracterization/extrapolation of what I said. You have not shown that Zwicky felt persecuted, nor that he continued to advance his idea unchanged after problems were pointed out. Is that what happened?

 

[kristalris]

Tired light has been ruled out by observations:

 

"Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed - these effects that should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism. Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

 

Thank you again Spyman.

 

Reading through this Wikipedia on the way tired light has been falsified, am I correct in thinking that the primary problem is the inconsistency with blurring? I've not seen any mention of the other point I put forward namely that if light doesn't travel in an absolutely straight line you get lensing that could negate that problem.

 

In general, any "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must:

• admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band
• not exhibit blurring
• follow the detailed Hubble relation observed with supernova data (see accelerating universe)
• explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events.

 

Well a champagne bubble, tired light red-shift with lensing should be able to do that. That then begs the question has that already been modeled tested and falsified?

 

Because when the Higgs field provides the red-shifting it must work with all wavelengths.

A curved trajectory would have lensing and negate the blurring.

The Champagne bubble follows Hubble.

My verbal concept follows GR & SR (even marries GR to QM)

Edited January 24, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

You imply that I oppose mathematical modeling. Of course not. Of course it must be done.

I have stated that you have not provided one, and that it is necessary to do so. Arguing an idea solely by analogy is not science.

 

What I'm saying is that science should determine which idea's are worth putting effort in in a scientific way.

Which is not the topic under discussion.

 

The science is already there and concerns that of basic psychology. These insights are BTW fairly new. Further more you clearly don't understand the psychology let alone not understand how that influences the way anyone so you included interpret data. And you make an error in reasoning thinking that what I state even implies that no paradigm shifts are possible. Of course they are yet discussing that is off topic. On topic is only the psychology as tool in interpreting data.

If the model says predicts I will see a signal peak centered at 3 mV on my device, and we do a plot and see what the data shows, yes, I freely admit that I don't understand the psychology that would lead me to be able to conclude whatever answer I wanted to. Either the peak is there with statistical significance, or it isn't.

 

You call me a crackpot for proposing red-shift of photons without having a mathematical model first.

I have not called you a crackpot.

 

Well I guess then that Fritz Zwicky was a crackpot too for he must of started off having a then crackpot idea before he got the mathematical model. So my idea wasn't that daft at all as you made it out to be. The trick is thus not to immediately trash these idea's but organize in getting them and quickly filtering them out.

 

I could go into the psychology on mirroring, but that would be off topic.

 

Now you will probably state that it has been relegated to the fringes of astrophysics.

I thought I was clear about my mention of crackpots with regard to a certain ideology — that they often take rejection as evidence of persecution instead of acknowledging that they're wrong, so this is a gross mischaracterization/extrapolation of what I said. You have not shown that Zwicky felt persecuted, nor that he continued to advance his idea unchanged after problems were pointed out or new evidence was uncovered. Is that what happened?

 

[kristalris]

 

If the model says predicts I will see a signal peak centered at 3 mV on my device, and we do a plot and see what the data shows, yes, I freely admit that I don't understand the psychology that would lead me to be able to conclude whatever answer I wanted to. Either the peak is there with statistical significance, or it isn't.

 

You see the peak get statistical significance (=> authority driven brain: what does this IMO - probably! - mean to my peers? universe is expanding = fact =>) I observe that the universe is expanding.

You see the peak get statistical significance (=> creative goal driven brain: what does this - probably! - mean in relation to all relevant further evidence (pro AND con)?) => universe is probably not expanding yet might be expanding. I'll check both.

 

Oh BTW this bit between the (...) is intuitive in both cases. We are under the illusion that we are rational. Current research strongly points in the direction that the brain acts before you become aware of what actually happened.

 

Edit: One further point my credibility (= authority) is completely irrelevant other than as a prior odds assessment of the probability that what I have to say is probably correct.

Vetting me on this would only be in order when I claim to have found evidence. I don't.

Edited January 24, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

 

Vetting me on this would only be in order when I claim to have found evidence. I don't.

 

If you have no evidence for your model, why are we discussing it?

[kristalris]

 

If you have no evidence for your model, why are we discussing it?

Not acquired new evidence of course. If you claim new evidence then it is of course important to know that the person is trustworthy.

 

I have re-positioned all the pieces (i.e. evidence) of the puzzle and filled in the missing pieces as Bayes requires in such a way that all the apples are falling down again, in stead of up as is the case with DE, DM, GR not matching QM and an expanding universe. As you should when pieces of the puzzle are evidently missing. Because I use all existing evidence I'm on paradigm par.

[swansont]

Not acquired new evidence of course. If you claim new evidence then it is of course important to know that the person is trustworthy.

 

I have re-positioned all the pieces (i.e. evidence) of the puzzle and filled in the missing pieces as Bayes requires in such a way that all the apples are falling down again, in stead of up as is the case with DE, DM, GR not matching QM and an expanding universe. As you should when pieces of the puzzle are evidently missing. Because I use all existing evidence I'm on paradigm par.

 

But without a model, you haven't really done anything with regard to "re-positioning pieces". You claim, for example, that a creation that happens over a span of time is a better fit, but that's just a bald assertion. Neither you or michel have answered the question of how you get a distribution of matter that we see with acceleration. IOW, you have not shown, in any way, that the analogy actually works.

 

The reason I keep pushing on this is that there are implications. If the bang happened distributed in time or in space, how do you account for the uniformity of the CMB? That's not something you can hand-wave away — it needs to be worked out rigorously, to show you are actually making the same prediction.

 

But even that is small potatoes, because with a system that simply has acceleration, how does one account for recessional velocities that exceed c? BB theory has this covered, but with the Champagne bubble analogy/acceleration model, you run head-on into relativity, which would limit the speeds to < c. Or you get to declare relativity invalid based on nothing, since you have acknowledged you have no new evidence to present.

 

With this rather large hole and whopping contradiction, you can't declare that you're on equal footing with the BB and any descriptions of it. And while I don't see how your analogy represents something simpler, being simpler doesn't trump being wrong.

[kristalris]

 

But without a model, you haven't really done anything with regard to "re-positioning pieces". You claim, for example, that a creation that happens over a span of time is a better fit, but that's just a bald assertion. Neither you or michel have answered the question of how you get a distribution of matter that we see with acceleration. IOW, you have not shown, in any way, that the analogy actually works.

 

The reason I keep pushing on this is that there are implications. If the bang happened distributed in time or in space, how do you account for the uniformity of the CMB? That's not something you can hand-wave away — it needs to be worked out rigorously, to show you are actually making the same prediction.

 

But even that is small potatoes, because with a system that simply has acceleration, how does one account for recessional velocities that exceed c? BB theory has this covered, but with the Champagne bubble analogy/acceleration model, you run head-on into relativity, which would limit the speeds to < c. Or you get to declare relativity invalid based on nothing, since you have acknowledged you have no new evidence to present.

 

With this rather large hole and whopping contradiction, you can't declare that you're on equal footing with the BB and any descriptions of it. And while I don't see how your analogy represents something simpler, being simpler doesn't trump being wrong.

First of all you are comparing apples and oranges. As said earlier you can do that but then on the same denominator fruit. I.e. you must compare the verbal concept of the bubbles to a verbal concept of the BB. Everybody agrees that the latter has whopping holes in it: DE, DM etc etc. It isn't integral.

 

How to integrate the CMB? Well our universe (in the multi verse) if cut in half resembles that of earth cut in half. (Which is also nice BTW) The actual "BB" is a continuous shooting off of identical "actual atoms" as particles in spin like a CME of the sun. Yet to form a bubble/ galaxy. Just before coming to a halt in speed it is shot into the crust to form strings. These particles can exceed c when they become un-spun creating a varying CMB that we perceive as coming from all directions and is homogeneous. Because this is from the core of our universe. Whoppingly large dome beneath our little bubble. (magnetism BTW is also > c yet perceived by us as not being so like pushing against a heavy boat at first doesn't seem to have an effect. If you push against a dingy you would notice. At the moment we thus can't measure this because we don't have a dingy. The movement of the large boat we only notice and perceive magnetism < c) The CMB is thus older than the creation of first light.

 

The particles that much later form the strings that build the SM. These do not exceed the speed of light. This is where the bubbles / galaxies form and where the oldest light stems from. The bubbles slowly accelerate but will I guess already have disintegrated into a black hole in their center before 1/3 c. There is mounting entropy due to the acceleration. Ergo no problem with GR whatsoever.

 

Problem solved at a concept level I guess. I remind you that close is close enough and that tweaking is allowed. Under pressure of critique and better insights the concept has got better and better. I hadn't included the CMB yet, now I have. For I wasn't aware of a problem. So thanks for the critique.

[kristalris]

Rethinking this there must be a difference between the way radiation comes about from the core of our universe and radiation that stems from strings. The core will I guess continuously "leak" the larger of the two particles becoming un-spun. So also when there is no "big squirt" of a new bubble. A great part of this might fly past us slightly waving trough only one of the two dynamic crystals . A near total non event. Part of it will hit the larger particle crystal and start waving and spiraling. This is what we observe as CMB. Because it will be an unsorted spinning off in our floor beneath us we are emerged in the radiation.

 

As said it is work in progress.

Edited January 25, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

First of all you are comparing apples and oranges. As said earlier you can do that but then on the same denominator fruit. I.e. you must compare the verbal concept of the bubbles to a verbal concept of the BB. Everybody agrees that the latter has whopping holes in it: DE, DM etc etc. It isn't integral.

No, for science you compare models. What you have is the equivalent of a drunken late-night dorm room discussion, but this is speculations, and there are rules.

 

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

 

Simply stating that your concept is right, or on par with anything else, doesn't come close. "Evidence" and "proof" as used here mean scientific evidence/proof, i.e. data compared to models. As the rules states, you must provide a case that can be measured. Do you have that?

 

I hadn't included the CMB yet, now I have. For I wasn't aware of a problem.

That you could come up with a concept and think it correct without this awareness (plus the things spyman pointed out), boggles my mind.

[kristalris]

No, for science you compare models. What you have is the equivalent of a drunken late-night dorm room discussion, but this is speculations, and there are rules.

 

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

 

Simply stating that your concept is right, or on par with anything else, doesn't come close. "Evidence" and "proof" as used here mean scientific evidence/proof, i.e. data compared to models. As the rules states, you must provide a case that can be measured. Do you have that?

 

That you could come up with a concept and think it correct without this awareness (plus the things spyman pointed out), boggles my mind.

I abide by the rules. You interpret the rules in a way that no longer can be understood as a speculation. You use evidence in the sense of new evidence. Whereas according to the rules and scientific logic it may also include a rearrangement of existing evidence. Of course this is testable and measurable. Yet that requires a lot of work to be done to get new predictions.

 

You simply can't get your head round the difference between different sorts of suspects and a proven criminal. You only think in terms of the latter. What is in your opinion the difference between a scientific speculation and conflicting scientific theories? You have none. How do you envisage ever getting from an idea to a concept to a theory in a scientific way?

 

That it boggles your mind that I think something correct without knowing everything there is to know, and indeed being correct is possible via what basic psychology teaches us. I think it correct that this concept proves a prime suspect. You demand proof of a correct culprit. You simply don't / can't comprehend the difference.

 

In short it must boggle your mind I even thus came up with the concept of a tired photon, without ever have knowing that serious scientists had done that before me. Then you think Spyman shows that that is falsified. It isn't because as I've pointed out that falsification didn't include photons arcing as well preventing blurring. If you can't even in concept imagine that this potentially solves that problem, and that this can be shown via mathematics to work or not work, remains curious.

 

Ergo the idea of a speculation thread is to have people aid building the model or isn't it? If so don't trash it. BTW tired photons are still in the fringes of science according to main stream science. Well then that on that evidence belongs in speculations, because otherwise what is the use of having a speculations thread?

Edited January 25, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

I abide by the rules. You interpret the rules in a way that no longer can be understood as a speculation. You use evidence in the sense of new evidence. Whereas according to the rules and scientific logic it may also include a rearrangement of existing evidence. Of course this is testable and measurable. Yet that requires a lot of work to be done to get new predictions.

 

You can use existing evidence, but you have to show that your idea matches up with it. Just assuring everyone that it does will not suffice.

 

You simply can't get your head round the difference between different sorts of suspects and a proven criminal. You only think in terms of the latter.

To use your analogy, you have presented us with a suspect, and while you are sure he's guilty, you haven't actually secured a conviction, because the court in this case is science, and you need to present scientific evidence. What you don't get to do is arbitrarily change the rules.

 

What is in your opinion the difference between a scientific speculation and conflicting scientific theories? You have none. How do you envisage ever getting from an idea to a concept to a theory in a scientific way?

What conflicting science theories? That hasn't been a part of this discussion. And how are you able to determine my answer before I've had a chance to respond?

 

There are many pathways to get from idea to concept to theory. They all involve mathematical models and scientific evidence. I know you're familiar with Einstein's development of special relativity. That's one pathway.

 

Can you name a single physics theory that lacks these?

 

That it boggles your mind that I think something correct without knowing everything there is to know, and indeed being correct is possible via what basic psychology teaches us. I think it correct that this concept proves a prime suspect. You demand proof of a correct culprit. You simply don't / can't comprehend the difference.

 

In short it must boggle your mind I even thus came up with the concept of a tired photon, without ever have knowing that serious scientists had done that before me. Then you think Spyman shows that that is falsified. It isn't because as I've pointed out that falsification didn't include photons arcing as well preventing blurring. If you can't even in concept imagine that this potentially solves that problem, and that this can be shown via mathematics to work or not work, remains curious.

 

Except tired light is at best unproven (and has many reasons to doubt its validity), so how can it solve any problem. You have to independently show that tired light is correct before you can apply it anywhere else.

 

Ergo the idea of a speculation thread is to have people aid building the model or isn't it? If so don't trash it. BTW tired photons are still in the fringes of science according to main stream science. Well then that on that evidence belongs in speculations, because otherwise what is the use of having a speculations thread?

 

Speculations is where people can present alternative science, if it fits the bill of being science. The burden of proof is upon the presenter, and it is not generally a community barn-raising. The usual procedure for the others is, as with other areas of science, to try and find the flaws in it.

 

A science site is really under no obligation to discuss speculation. The primary purpose is to discuss actual science.

[Spyman]

I've not seen any mention of the other point I put forward namely that if light doesn't travel in an absolutely straight line you get lensing that could negate that problem.

Any mechanical interactions causing this "lensing" would also cause an blurring and other means would invalidate the theory of relativity which is considered as a cornerstone of modern physics with more than hundred years of experimental confirmations.

[kristalris]

Any mechanical interactions causing this "lensing" would also cause an blurring and other means would invalidate the theory of relativity which is considered as a cornerstone of modern physics with more than hundred years of experimental confirmations.

I'm a bit busy at the moment and still working on a reaction towards Swansont.

 

Yet I do have time to answer your point. My idea / concept is that of a double dynamic crystal. One with a smaller faster actual atom and one with a larger slower one. The latter builds the strings for building the SM. (This in the way a Polish guy on this forum has done, except for quarks. I can provide an extra string if required.) The larger one always moves in a curved way spiraling through the other crystal. A photon is built up of two counter rotating interlocked very small strings. It is superconductive. The spin of the larger one is induced in the center of the the universe like the winding up of a spring of a toy car.

 

Space is curved conforming to GR because larger => slower strings take up mass out of the crystal causing under pressure like little black holes slowly speeding the string SM particles up = DM & DE. Photons are already to fast, because so small to have the Higgs mechanism work yet are waving = bouncing through the crystal. This in an extremely accurate way as if on a railway track. Yet they are short tracked in the crystal like speed skaters. And so kept at c. They however accelerate in the curved space yet become un-winded = red-shifted = tired photon. The photon like a car that accelerates in a curve curb in at twice the Newtonian value = GR = also Newton. Newton: Brake your car curbs out, no gas you stay on the curve, give gas you curve inward with your car.

 

(Time doesn't slow down, your atom clock does in a way to set your atom clock to. Because it gets mass added and the faster it goes the more it gets per time unit.)

 

BTW we have never observed that photons are mass-less. Actually quite the contrary they exert great energy = moving mass. In my model they indeed don't exert gravity which is at odds with only the theory of GR. But we have never observed a photon exert gravity, it only follows out of the mathematics of GR which is otherwise to be seen as one of the best laws of physics we humans have ever had. A slight garbage in problem with GR. GR is however at odds with an other such law: QM, so a garbage in problem somewhere is to be expected. My concept isn't. Ergo both GR & QM stay upright as long as you use them within the respective fields where they apply in this concept, in effect thus marrying the two.

 

Now if we take a disk the size of a distant galaxy a group of photons emerging from the left and dito right will each be on a different curved railway track. This only fades once. A railway track implies no blurring because the tracks: left side disk and right side disk remain the same. (edit take a curved toy railway line, take the two metal rails out and they can intersect with any observation point on the line, without blurring.) It would however mean that one side should ever so slightly be more red-shifted than the other. This should - in principle - be measurable. (edit 2 problem will be of course hardly any long distant photon having been in no gravitational field.) Another prediction. (I have better ones concerning the heart of the concept.) => bubbles best concept => further investigation required by science and not laymen.

Edited January 27, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

I'm a bit busy at the moment and still working on a reaction towards Swansont.

 

It had better include maths or some kind of specific (i.e. quantitative) predictions. Because that what the rules require.