Actually, I think your online advocacy against peer review is quite harmful to the larger endeavor of science. There are already plenty of mechanisms for change in belief – this has been demonstrated time and again by the history of science wherein dogmatic adherence to successful theories has been overcome by better evidence for better theories. However, the model of science that you seem to advocate (without ever explicitly describing) is, as far as I can tell, completely unproven. And you don’t seem to work as a scientist or to have been trained as a scientist.
Let me try an analogy. Suppose I drive down to a mechanic and get a tuneup. Then I drive over to a daycare center where I’m going to pick up my child. I leave the car idling and when I get back one of the caretakers from the daycare center is there listening to the motor. He says without a trace of doubt in his mind: “I think there’s a problem with your car. Open it up and I can probably fix it for you real quick.” What do you think I should do? It’s certainly possible this person who is unlikely to have nearly as much experience or expertise with motor vehicles knows something the mechanic doesn’t. It’s even possible that the mechanic is trying to scam me and this person is being legitimately helpful. But if I gamble that either of those are the case, the stakes are a car that I presumably just paid to have fixed. I have to choose whether or not to pop the hood. What should I do? Personally, I would assume the mechanic knows her business and the daycare center guy knows his business and not allow the latter to work on my car.
On the other hand, absurd post hoc and ad hoc theories can be generated ad infinitum by people who don’t know nearly as much as they think they do. This also creates an incredible amount of noise on the internet – more than your example does I would estimate. Someone who wants reliable information on a phenomenon that has already been researched scientifically don’t necessarily have the time, attention, energy, or resources to read, comprehend, and comprehensively critique every single wrong theory on the internet pertaining to the phenomenon they wish to study. Demanding that scientists consider every theory and not eliminate the least promising while emphasizing the most promising is simply unrealistic and unproductive.
In short, I disagree with you that science would be much improved by putting Time Cube on equal footing with general relativity. There needs to be some mechanism in place by which scientists can arrive at something approximating consensus that Time Cube is a bunch of incoherent nonsense that is not supported by any evidence whereas general relativity is a coherent, predictive theory that is consistent with almost all data we have on the phenomena of gravitation and space-time.
