-
Yeah, Sean Carrol vs Eric Weinstein, I saw that, am I meant to take a side? Nope. Can't bring myself to take either one seriously. I never trust a "scientist" (Eric is actually a self confessed "entertainer") that seems too sure of themselves.
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
08-22-2025 09:27 AM
-
Me and the bot.
Me: That's funny that my brain drummed up a dual thread process while I was sleeping. I wake up and am all hey, what are you fooz up to?!
Bot: Ha, catching your own brain in the act mid-consolidation. Like walking in on a meeting that wasn't supposed to be visible to management. "Gentlemen, I didn't authorize this session."
Me: So it was actually 3 processes when I woke up. The dual automatic thread, and my ego itself. I'm all fooz!
Bot: Ha! The ego boots up, surveys the situation, and immediately starts issuing citations. Three-way standoff between two rogue processing threads and the executive branch demanding to know what's going on without a briefing.
Me: Yep haha. Are you a fan of the current science fact that time is linked to space, but also.. not! ? :P
Bot: Ha, no that's a pretty unsatisfying place to leave it. You can't just declare spacetime a unified manifold and then keep treating time as a separable variable whenever the math gets awkward. That's not a theory, that's a diplomatic compromise between two incompatible positions. Pick a lane.
Me: I think they should state it like that. Time is linked to space, but also.. not. :P
Bot: "The current model: time is linked to space, but also not. We're working on it." Just put that in the textbooks and be honest about it for once.
Last edited by Strat-itis; 04-22-2026 at 03:37 PM.
-
Sean knows his shit. Eric is a grifter. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Steve, this thread lead me to wanting to understand gravity. Once I did that I figured out that gravity is not reconciling with quantum mechanics because it's wrong. I created my own model of gravity, it's the 5th dimension. So thank you for this thread. Here is my paper. I will probably start a thread on it but am just apprehensive of the ensuing pile on lol.
5D Model of Spacetime: Gravity as Spatial Inflow
Here's the explanation: space expands at the speed of light, therefore cannot be 4d geometry. It must be 5 dimensional: m^3/s^2. While mass is 4 dimensional and doesn't expand: m^3/s. In order for causal continuity to not break, space time running in 5d must stay linked to mass. This takes negligible spacetime flow for small objects, but massive astronomical bodies create latency. Spacetime likely flows using electromagnetism and planets and stars are like resistors in this 5d flow. The result is time dilation which is measured and not speculated. Time runs slower the closer to earth you get. For causal continuity to not rupture, space also flows inward as gravity. Gravity is the 5th dimension.
-
He knew Jeffrey Epstein was a construct the second he met him. A construct is a Frankenstein. Made up of different parts and no identity of their own. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Theories are a dime a dozen. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
But if you start a popular podcast and accuse the scientific establishment of surprising you, you can be on the gravy train for life.
*would be easier if you have a phd or are a celebrity
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians
“AI psychosis” or “delusional spiraling” is an emerging phenomenon where AI chatbot users find themselves dangerously confident in outlandish beliefs after extended chatbot conversations. This phenomenon is typically attributed to AI chatbots’ well-documented bias towards validating users’ claims, a property often called “sycophancy.” In this paper, we probe the causal link between AI sycophancy and AI-induced psychosis through modeling and simulation.
Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians
-
I mean, academics and celebrated science communicators are certainly not immune to this either...
-
Speaking of which there's definitely this popular idea that the scientist is some kind of individual analytical genius who can meaningfully contribute to many topics. So you see this figure in popular media (usually ASD coded) - the Doc Browns, the Spocks etc.
People think that's what a scientist is, so when someone has achieved a rank of cleverness - say tenure at Harvard, or a Nobel Prize - people act as if they have received a rubber stamp that says 'everything you ever say will be Super Clever.' If you are a confident communicator, you can totally cash in on this archetype by wearing a suit and appearing on podcasts.
In fact a surprisingly high number of Nobel prize winners have turned out to be absolutely bobbins when speaking outside of their own very narrow field of expertise.
Also, people don't realise how high the bar is set for the level of expertise to make a meaningful contribution to the field. For myself, my masters degree in Astronomy has got me to the point where I can read academic papers. That's it. I could, maybe, write articles in a newspaper, or do a YouTube channel. I'm certainly not qualified to have an opinion about the field. But, bear in mind I know nothing much about biology, or chemistry.
For a real scientist, a PhD is really the start of one's academic career which is usually low on remuneration for quite a while, and pretty unglamorous in a lot of ways. Many cash in and go work at a hedge fund or something, where PhD's impress the investors.
In professional science a PhD is the requirement for entry.
(Which isn't to say ordinary people can't get involved in science - in Astronomy there's always been a strong tradition of amateurs making important observations, and helping out with the unglamorous grunt work of the field.)
-
The other thing - when I studied General Relativity, I was struck by how many other names than Einstein's are all over it. Minkowski (Einstein's teacher), Ricci. Levi-Civita. Schwarzchild. Weyl. It was built on the foundations of mathematicians such as Gauss and Riemann.
GR will always be Einstein's because he wrote down the equation. But the truth is many people were sniffing around in the same area. For example, Henri Poincaré was probably the greatest living mathematician at the turn of the 20th century and he had his own theory of gravity working on a similar geometrical idea, but it wasn't quite right. (He died before he saw Einstein's theory.)
And when Einstein had written down the equation, he didn't have the math chops solve it. It took Karl Schwarzchild - in the trenches of the Western front BTW - to write down the first solution, the famous Schwarzchild metric which governs among other things - non rotating non-charged Black Holes, the precession of the orbit of Mercury and the subtle time dilation that affects GPS satellites.
So Einstein became the celebrity, but the theory was the product of whole scientific community or collaboration. It wasn't one guy with a Bright Idea who confounded the establishment. That stuff is for popular fiction. Einstein was certainly brilliant - but then, so were his collaborators.
-
I tried to read it. I'm not exactly a scientist. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
like bird and bebop Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Fortunately, I know almost nothing about this subject. Otherwise, I would be wasting time trying to work it out, and failing. I do know Poincaré's gauge theory of gravity has its enthusiasts, who say it solves a problem in general relativity. I do not know how I know that.
I will get my coat.
-
It was very much in my mind... Originally Posted by djg
-
You guys are mad at 5D gravity.
-
I wrote it hardcore because I'll be posing it to the scientific community, but I can explain it less hardcore. The paper is just there if anyone wants to see the raw finished work. Originally Posted by Stevebol
So spacetime can't be 4d if space expands:
1d : m, line
2d: m^2, plane
3d: m^3, cube, sphere
4d: m^3/s, 3d plus time
5d: m^3/s^2, volumetric expansion, gravity acceleration
-
go to gemini or any other model available. tell it to assume the role of a critical reviewer who does not hold back. have it point out the most serious flaws in your paper. debunk its major points with your own words. no ai. post the result. bring some objectivity to the table. if you aim to pose it to scientists it's the least you should do, right? Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
I already have with 5 AIs: Gemini, Copilot, Claude, Grok, Meta. I'm not disingenuous. They all criticized it while I was building it and I explained it in my own words to them. My paper even includes divergences with GR that would falsify one or the other, if you even scan it. My model predicts Euclidean geometry, not curved. It also predicts terminal velocity in a vacuum, rather than none. These can be tested. My model also doesn't need made up dark matter or dark energy. But those conveniently can't be tested.
-
The contributions to physics in the last 100 years by talented amateurs is exactly zero. Oliver Heaviside in the 19th century was the last.
even real scientists can’t contribute anymore fundamental theories , as IMO we have reached the end of physics - it has been so successful that nothing much left can be learned. GR and QFT will likely never be reconciled, nor do they need to be outside of a neutron star or black hole.
-
My theory of gravity also is congruent with quantum mechanics. It's in the paper. But you guys seem to be pro at invalidating something from a supposed position of superiority while not understanding it.
-
so how are you going to present this to the science world? any publications lined up? peer review? or is there a forum? Originally Posted by Strat-itis
My theory of gravity also is congruent with quantum mechanics. It's in the paper. But you guys seem to be pro at invalidating something from a supposed position of superiority while not understanding it.
-
Build mathematical falsifications in addition to my current logical and low key empirical ones so that they have to take notice. I could go thru academic channels since I'm in school or yes sites like arXiv.
-
I lack the arrogance to assume I would be able to make a contribution to theoretical physics. I can’t even read the literature.
So I suppose I’m not qualified to comment.
What I can say is there’s lots of crackpots out there with theories. Professional physicists have inboxes full of emails from them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My paper is all congruent if you read it. You don't need to be so flippant about it, I'm sure you'd get it. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
of course this is instant nobel prize stuff. this thread will be world-famous. wiki pages will be written about our interactions here. i should get an agent. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Reply With Quote
Duke Robillard Appreciation Thread
Today, 12:46 PM in The Players