-
that's the best that the brightest mind in the whole world can come up with?
Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
06-19-2026 09:19 AM
-
I'll write a 1 page summary for you guys since the full doc is making you mad. I'm sure you'll still be mad but I probably do need a shorter brief.
-
Clint, we don’t care bruv. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Practice your vibes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Fixing Einstein is actually more important than vibes.
-
dude. you're so far gone that you cant even read people anymore. nobody cares about your hallucinated paper. you are not the chosen one. this is the closest to an intervention that you can get from strangers. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
I'm sorry I engaged. I only read the abstract, fwiw, and it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to encourage you, because I agree with djg and Christian, but I will say that you could at least take a look at some other physics papers to see how they're structured and how the abstract has to be a quick and readable summary of the core idea.
I can't resist posting this oldie from Angela Collier, who has little patience for either amateur physics theories or misuse of AI.
-
Vibes, not vibe Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Fixing Einstein is actually more important than vibes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Great vid, Love that the Malazan books are behind her Originally Posted by CliffR
I see a lot of analogies to mastering music - I know just enough about physics to understand how much I don't know and how much time and effort it takes to master the subject and that no amateur will ever contribute anything worthwhile
-
I think it's probably time for The official mad-at-5D-Spacetime thread.
-
She does book reviews as well, although possibly via a separate youtube channel. I really enjoy her stuff: smart, thoughtful and often funny. Originally Posted by BWV
-
Speaking of crackpots, I quite enjoyed this video
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yikes! Regarding him owning the ideas of his employees, that's not unusual in my experience in industry. I first came across cellular automata in an implementation of Conway's Game Of Life on the ZX81 Originally Posted by Christian Miller
. The YouTuber's reinvention of the method to solve PDEs reminds me of the time when I got stoned and spent two-three days and nights optimising a some code to find the fastest route between all points on a graph, and inadvertently re-invented Dijkstra's algorithm.
I believe this was the crackpot Bingo Card Angela Collier mentioned:
Crackpot index
-
Good old Christian. Has to maintain intellectual supremacy but often resorts to preschool logic to do so! How does that work? Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Pretty sure deriving the speed of spacetime isn't vibe. But I guess everything could appear to be vibe if you can't understand the math.Vibes, not vibe.
-
Read people? You don't even experience empathy. Where do you get off calling me insane throughout a thread because you can't understand my paper? Originally Posted by djg
-
you mean why i don't buy you being the brightest mind on this planet? where shall i start? Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
Clint, I'm not sure what you want from me? Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Validation? Because it seems like it.
Re - intellectual superiority? Look - if I read my university notes I wouldn't understand them. I haven't done any physics problems, let alone ones in GR, for decades. I think I could just about read an astronomy paper, but certainly not any theoretical physics. I just don't have the math these days. I never did TBH (astrophysics and theoretical physics are different fields.)
So even if your theory was everything you say it is, I wouldn't be able to understand it anyway. Because it would have to be above my level mathematically.
And why would I be impressed by it knowing it was written by LLMs? I could do that myself if I wanted. It seems apt to have an LLM read and review the thing, TBH.
I mean, it is astronomically unlikely that it is what you say it is - but I'm not a gatekeeper in any case. I have no gate to keep. I'm just a bloke with a STEM degree, a working BS detector and some sense of how science actually operates.Last edited by Christian Miller; 06-19-2026 at 02:23 PM.
-
-
what would Wes and Jimmy Bruno have to about this?
-
as i said, history is in the making:
google gemini:
Yes, there are many similar alternative physics theories—often labeled as "crackpot" or fringe theories—floating around the web. In fact, the text you provided is a verbatim excerpt from a very recent fringe preprint titled "5D Model of Spacetime: Gravity as Spatial Inflow," uploaded to ResearchGate in early June 2026[1]. It is already being actively discussed and critiqued on random internet message boards (including, amusingly, a Jazz Guitar forum), where people have pointed out the glaring dimensional errors in its first few sentences[2]. For example, it treats the speed of light ( c c ) as an acceleration rather than a velocity, and attempts to measure mass in cubic meters per second ( m 3 / s m 3 /s ) instead of kilograms[2]. This specific paper belongs to a long, rich tradition of amateur physicists trying to rewrite General Relativity. Because standard GR relies on highly abstract, counterintuitive tensor calculus (Riemannian geometry), many people try to invent "common sense" mechanical models to replace it.
-
OK..I think I got it..but..just one quick question...
Do I have to ware a pocket protector with 6 pens on our lunch breaks??
They didn't serve me at Cafe 51 when I only had 5.
Now I understand how the universe expands.
It was easier to understand than symmetric harmony and that dame diminished scale.
-
I've delayed pointing this out, but if someone on this thread is displaying symptoms of mental illness it's you. What do you think a psychologist would say if you asked them if doing theoretical physics indicates mental unsoundness? They'd say absolutely not. What would they say if you asked them is it unsound if a person didn't like someone's essay and it caused them to compulsively harass the author as if it was a given response?.. They would minimum say that is unsound thinking, it could indicate the existence of an antisocial personality disorder, and that behavior like that can overlap with mental illness. You're being full retard. Originally Posted by djg
This is how Dunning-Kruger absurd you are. You're so stupid that you don't even get basic geometry that when the radius of a sphere increases linearly, its volume increases parabolically - it accelerates. Then you act like it's a point against me.as i said, history is in the making:
google gemini:
Yes, there are many similar alternative physics theories—often labeled as "crackpot" or fringe theories—floating around the web. In fact, the text you provided is a verbatim excerpt from a very recent fringe preprint titled "5D Model of Spacetime: Gravity as Spatial Inflow," uploaded to ResearchGate in early June 2026[1]. It is already being actively discussed and critiqued on random internet message boards (including, amusingly, a Jazz Guitar forum), where people have pointed out the glaring dimensional errors in its first few sentences[2]. For example, it treats the speed of light ( c c ) as an acceleration rather than a velocity, and attempts to measure mass in cubic meters per second ( m 3 / s m 3 /s ) instead of kilograms[2]. This specific paper belongs to a long, rich tradition of amateur physicists trying to rewrite General Relativity. Because standard GR relies on highly abstract, counterintuitive tensor calculus (Riemannian geometry), many people try to invent "common sense" mechanical models to replace it.
-
No man, I would never expect validation from you or this forum. I just defend myself when people are absurd to me. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Thanks for your honesty. I assumed some people would engage with the content I created on its level, but I guess I overestimated. That's kind of my fault for expecting positive discourse about it.Re - intellectual superiority? Look - if I read my university notes I wouldn't understand them. I haven't done any physics problems, let alone ones in GR, for decades. I think I could just about read an astronomy paper, but certainly not any theoretical physics. I just don't have the math these days. I never did TBH (astrophysics and theoretical physics are different fields.) So even if your theory was everything you say it is, I wouldn't be able to understand it anyway. Because it would have to be above my level mathematically.
You must be joking? I authored all the concepts. I used AI to draft the thing quickly for the purpose of stamping authorship. I knew it would be imperfect, but all my intended concepts are there, and I can manually improve things as I move foreward.And why would I be impressed by it knowing it was written by LLMs? I could do that myself if I wanted. It seems apt to have an LLM read and review the thing, TBH.
You would have to actually engage with its logic to know that.. I'm not saying it's proven. I am saying for certain that it's quite coherent and viable. And it doesn't have the glaring contradictions that GR has.I mean, it is astronomically unlikely that it is what you say it is - but I'm not a gatekeeper in any case. I have no gate to keep. I'm just a bloke with a STEM degree, a working BS detector and some sense of how science actually operates.
-
It's only new math if you're a 2020s man and you can't do Geometry, Algebra, and Calculus. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
Wes would probably mutter something unrelated and proceed to shred. Jimmy would probably yell at me like a blue collar guy. You think you know something with that rocket science?! Originally Posted by Scorch
Only if you can do the physics. Originally Posted by wolflen
Last edited by Strat-itis; 06-19-2026 at 07:18 PM.
-
you are argueing against the very chatbot that wrote your paper while you twisted his arm. and he says that Originally Posted by Strat-itis
the volume increases cubically, not parabolically. A parabola is strictly a quadratic function (t2t2).
To say a sphere's volume grows "parabolically" with its radius is a failure of middle-school geometry.
-
The volume still accelerates compared to the radius which puts it one derivative up. There's no prerequisite rate for acceleration to be a derivative of velocity. But I must commend you for controlling your emotions enough to engage logically.
Reply With Quote
Desmond/Bickert video
Today, 02:25 PM in The Players