and new ideas. And it would not be limited to Physics. Maybe this can help FQXi to support even more the alternative research in foundational questions. I have only discovered this site recently but have in that time been rather disappointed by the lack of activity on those pages. I do not know how many visitors read them but there appear to be only a few active contributors to discussions. It is a pity that the novel ideas are not being expressed and tested against the various challenges presented to see how they stand up to explaining various fundamental questions and puzzles arising from observation. I would like to see other models tested in this way to see where the weaknesses and strengths are. By doing this confusion, lack of clarity or errors can be discovered and models improved. If a model can explain all of the questions posed in a logical, self consistent way that retains correspondence to existing and accepted laws of physics (relativity too would be desirable) then in my opinion it is worthy of further pursuit. The problem with amalgamating all models together is one of volume and perhaps loosing a few valuable gems among the huge volume of semi precious stones and silt. Anonymous volunteer reviewers may well invalidate other peoples models, if they do not correspond to their own ideas or preferred methodology. Likewise some ideas may be validated because mathematical proofs and experimental results appear to do so but have been incorrectly interpreted.