When is the confidence of a crackpot not a sign of crackpottery?
When you actually do have a complete theory, rather than the hypothetical speculation of the cutting edge, who hasn't had a complete theory since Relativity got broadsided by Freidmann, Heisenberg and Bhor.
That's what happens when you have a complete theory, (you actually do have the answers), and a final theory is what the following represents, or put your money where your mouth is:
You could call it a "safe" bet, but that LongBet prediction should not even be necessary, since Einstein's cosmology automatically takes theoretical precedence per the scientific method.
In other words, the simple mechanism that I discovered in Einstein's static model puts the contemporary cosmology under suspect review, since it can be shown that the problem that caused him to abandon this model does not exist.
The fact that theoretical precedence is willfully ignored by all the many cutting edge theorists that I have challenged to refute my physics, indicates that they are being theoretically righteous rather than scientific when they ignore the call from Occam and the scientific method. I would not be here if a single theorist had ever given me good reason to think that there is something wrong with my physics, but this never happens. Quite to the contrary, I get admissions from them that my physics is at least correct in context with Einstein's vacuum. Like I didn't know this, it's so simple that a 10th grader could grasp the validity.
The cosmo-logical implication then is that Einstein's unified field theory had merit, but the success of Quantum Theory causes theorists to assume that he was still somehow wrong, even though the naive approximation of QFT puts the energy of the vacuum at drastic odds with observation, whereas Einstein's model does not suffer this problem:
So the non-scientific theoretical righteousness of the cutting edge gives me the right to label them "cranks" who can't even follow the scientific method.
Like I said, you actually can answer the questions when you have a final theory, and it is magnitudes easier to answer the questions when the mechanism is as intuitive as it is classical.
When somebody asks about the arrow of time, I use this simple classical intuitive physics to answer them, simply by extending the thermodynamic process to its "completion".
When somebody asks about causality, I can answer them with a complete explanation.
When somebody wonders if there is a true cosmological principle that produces the structure of our universe, I can answer them with an energy conservation law that preserves causality, the arrow of time and the second law of thermodynamics... indefinitely... ... ... ... ...
When someone speculates about the process that drives accelerating expansion, I can answer them definitively, including an explanation for the apparent energy density of the vacuum.
Etceteras... and anybody can do it that bothers to pay attention to how it works as described in the above linked articles.
ALL using this simple little classical intuitive mechanism that should set off alarm bells to all of those who can't even come close to doing this.
Who would believe that any theorist could ignore anybody that could produce a valid cosmological principle that quite obviously resolves every single last problem that science is currently facing?
These people have earned the right to be labeled as crackpots, regardless of how much arrogance they can produce in lieu of a refutation of the physics, and I intend to use this blog to point this out...
What about the hole, that the "hole" left behind?... idiots.