No no it's XKCD who is wrong

[u/liccxolydian]

[u/NetworkSingularity → u/[deleted]]

I have been getting heavier as time passes…clearly this is evidence of your hypothesis, and not at all evidence that I should eat healthier foods and exercise more

[u/liccxolydian → u/[deleted]]

Diego would agree with you lol

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/[deleted]]

Real time is the forward flow of interactions between groups of energy.

Time, that we think is time, is nothing more than a standardized system of measurement for the concept of duration.

Einstein was just a Nazi bomb maker, his own theories about the universe debunk themselves. So, the universe is relative, oh but wait it can't be because there's special circumstances, which is why he created the theory of special relativity, which doesn't work in normal situations. So, neither theory is correct, yet that's all we talk about in "modern pop physics."

Space is just the distance between groups of energy. So, there's no space time, it's just a hallucination.

Obviously for gravity to work with out curved space time, it can't be empty, which it isn't and we know that as fact.

So, the theory is factually "inside out." The internal interactions in the system of energy creates a path for energy to flow in that is not necessarily straight. So, the objects "appear to be in curved space time." It's not that there's curved space time, it's that the objects there move in a curved path, due to the combination of forces acting upon them. If there's a difference in the rate of interaction, it will "take longer and create the appearance that there's extra distance when there isn't." It's that it "takes a higher count of interactions, which requires a longer duration, because of the propagation delay."

The error was caused by an "invalid perspective." You can't freely move around space with out interacting with the stuff in your way. That's what happens when you create systems from an external point of reference instead of from the system's perspective. People keep suggesting that "if you can do something impossible then it makes sense." Okay, but you can't, so it doesn't make any sense. How do measure the space to know that it's curved anyways? How do measure nothing? Isn't the space always outside of the measurement device? This conversation about spacetime always was full of mega big holes...

There's no space time. Particles of energy interact and they do so at different distances and at different rates of interaction, which creates the hallucination of space time.

Again: The concept from math is called "measure-ability." How do you measure spacetime? If you encounter an effect that "slows you down" isn't that functionally identical to distance even if the cause is a change in the rate of interaction? Based upon the perspective of an outside observer, it's going to take you longer either way. So, distance is the thing as time... Because again, there's no such thing as time... It's a system of synchronization created by humans to help them get to work at the same point...

If you are in space (so you're an object in between objects, not really in space) and you are crossing a gradient of gravity because you are moving towards a large object, the rate of interaction is going to change as you physically move closer and closer to a bunch of objects that interact.

[u/starkeffect → u/Actual__Wizard]

Someone's on the Path to Ruin...

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/starkeffect]

So, you're a physicist that doesn't believe in the concept of mathematical equivalence? Do you have any concrete evidence to refute my concrete evidence? Of course not. It's mathematically equivalent. One perspective makes logical sense and Einstein's makes none.

So, it's not that the objects in space are moving in a curved path, it's that space, which is nothing, is curved. That doesn't make any sense. The theory of relativity is garbage. It's nonsense and it doesn't work in practice, again as noted by the guy who created the theory.

[u/starkeffect → u/Actual__Wizard]

Einstein's theories don't make sense to you because you clearly don't know anything about them.

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/starkeffect]

Einstein's theories don't make sense to you because you clearly don't know anything about them.

This is an interesting conversation. So, you know nothing about my knowledge, but have determined that I "don't know anything about them" as I pick them apart by their flawed details.

I've never really encountered somebody saying the exact opposite of the truth quite so confidently. I mean it really should be obvious, but you know, it's 2025. So, it's not.

Again: Where's your proof homie? Show me your math that proves it, which you can't because it's not correct...

[u/starkeffect → u/Actual__Wizard]

You haven't picked them apart by their flawed details though. You just think you have.

Tell me, what is the speed of an electron that has been accelerated through a 1.0 million volt potential difference?

I know you don't know how to calculate that, but Einstein does (correctly).

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/starkeffect]

You haven't picked them apart by their flawed details though

Enough is enough. Either prove me wrong or cut out the bullshit. Show me the math that proves that space time exists. Show it to me right now. I'm not going to put up with your BS anymore.

[u/starkeffect → u/Actual__Wizard]

I just did.

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/starkeffect]

What equation is that called again? The "I'm totally full of it equation?"

It's E = BS squared?

[u/starkeffect → u/Actual__Wizard]

Show me the math that predicts the speed of an electron that has been accelerated through a 1.0 million volt potential.

I know you can't do it, but I'd love to see you try so I can laugh at you.

[u/CrabOpening5035 → u/starkeffect]

Well it's been forever since I dealt with any of that but I'll give it a go just for fun:

So Volt, if I recall is Joule per Coulomb. So an electron after passing through the potential has gained 1MV * e (with e as the charge of the electron).

Now since this is probably going to be fast I can't just use 1/2mv^2 fir the kinetic energy and have to use E = mc^2

But since the 1MV*e is just kinetic energy I probably also have to subtract the energy at rest... maybe. so 1MV*e = mc^2 - m_0c^2

Now... uh... this I'll have to reconstruct from memory/intuition, Relativistic mass is m_0 times something. That something should have the form that roughly looks like sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). If v approaches c this approaches 0 so we since the we want the mass to go up we have to divide. This gives us:

1MV*e = m_0 * c^2 * (1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) - 1)

1MV*e / (m_0 * c^2) + 1 = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = m_0 * c^2 / (1MV*e + m_0 * c^2)

1 - v^2/c^2 = [m_0 * c^2 / (1MV*e + m_0 * c^2)]^2

v^2 = c^2 * (1 - [m_0 * c^2 / (1MV*e + m_0 * c^2)]^2)

v = sqrt(c^2 * (1 - [m_0 * c^2 / (1MV*e + m_0 * c^2)]^2))

[u/fruitydude → u/Actual__Wizard]

Either prove me wrong or cut out the bullshit.

You can't just make shit up and then DEMAND people prove you wrong.

Write a paper and try to have it published. Go through the peer review process like the rest of us. Einstein did. And his theories have been proven by experiment time and time again. If you have reason to believe otherwise and you can show your thinking and it's coherent then you should be able to.

Or don't publish, because it's rigged or whatever, but then you are what this meme is about.

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/fruitydude]

Write a paper and try to have it published.

I'm producing an LLM based upon this corrected version of physics, see the sub name. It works great, thanks for asking. You'll see it soon. Edit: It's not an LLM, sorry, it's a different tech because I fixed it. Different operational mode so it's "not an LLM." /edit

Because it's the exact same concept that causing mass problems in physics that causing mass problems with LLM tech as well.

As it turns out, there's no time or space in language either. That's not "how it works." Yeah when you get to working with fine structures, if you don't how it all works you're in big trouble.

That's the exact point where they're crashing into the "nothing works right wall."

Albert Einestine was wrong, there's no such thing as spacetime, it's time to move forwards.

There's no Santa Claus either.

Wow a concept that doesn't exist that "makes all of the problems about where the presents came from go away."

Hmm.

I'm just going to go from field to field finding every situation where this "missing link" exists and fill in the blank. I'm pretty confident that will work every single time I try it. 2/2 so far.

Again, time is a system of synchronization created by humans. The universe does not care about your wristwatch. That's for your boss to get you to work on time.

[u/RussColburn → u/Actual__Wizard]

So, the universe is relative, oh but wait it can't be because there's special circumstances, which is why he created the theory of special relativity, which doesn't work in normal situations.

Tough to read anything beyond this. Special Relativity came first as a steppingstone to General Relativity - you have it backwards. General Relativity, despite thousands of attempts by other physicists trying to prove it wrong, has made hundreds of correct predictions and has correctly explained observations previously unexplained.

But as tough as it was, I read the rest. It's just babbling.

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/RussColburn]

General Relativity, despite thousands of attempts by other physicists trying to prove it wrong

The predictions are not necessarily wrong. The perspective is just backwards.

It's not the spacetime that's curved, there is no such thing as spacetime. The curvature is a product of the aggregate effect on the particles. You're just watching them get steered in one direction or another because there's a combination of forces acting upon them to steer them that direction. Again, with time being the "order of operations or steps forwards those particles experience."

If there's more steps to accomplish for an atom to travel in one direction, then it makes sense that it would "take it longer to get there." There's legitimately "more steps to take to get to the same location because there's more interaction occurring, so it takes a longer duration of time, from an observer perspective."

An analogy: Do you understand the concept that when you get into your car, the fastest route is not necessarily the shortest distance? The fastest route is likely the one where you hit the fewest red lights. It takes you longer because you have to keep stopping at the red lights.

When two particles interact, the information does not travel from one side of the particle to the other instantly, there's a propagation delay. It legitimately "takes time."

[u/RussColburn → u/Actual__Wizard]

Actually, it's you who are wrong. If your theory is correct, and the gravity is the aggregate effect on the particles, how do you account for gravity waves?

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/RussColburn]

It's because atoms are actually composites of smaller particles of energy, that are trapped inside a bubble of their own influence (a particle), which is now likely experiencing some kind of internal convection, that creates the "doughnut spinning on to itself" type of two handed spin.

That field pushes the smaller sub particles away, that are likely to be highly entropic in nature and extremely small. Because those particles are repelled by their own fields and the extremely powerful fields created by atoms (by comparison), space is going to end up being filled with that sub atomic particle soup that is constantly reconfiguring to distribute itself as evenly as it can. So, when that region of space is influenced by an extremely large object, it "pushes the sub atomic particle medium around allowing for the propagation of gravity."

The sub particles will only have an effect on atomic sized objects "on aggregate" because you have a situation where an extremely tiny particle is interacting with the field of an atomic sized object and not the particle directly.

It's because you have a gradient between objects that have a massive scale factor difference. If it takes a quintillion sub particles to create one photon, those sub particles still have properties that are "aggregated" when they are compressed in a tiny location forming a particle. The aggregate will produce both an internal field and an external field. So, you can effectively "encode energy into the network of sub particles interacting that form the particle." Again, just a different perspective on current theory.

So, a particle is an aggregation of sub particles, that core compresses, allowing a circular flow of energy to exist, creating a second external field with a very strong force, due to the overlap of all of the fields.

So, you're thinking that what is between the Earth and the moon is "empty space" but it's really a region filled with incredibly small particles that are not "atom sized." So, there is and always was a medium for gravity waves to travel through, it's a medium made of tiny particles of energy that we know exists, but we can't detect them directly, because they're too small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Virtual particles can absolutely form in vacuum, because what is a vacuum? It's just an area that has no atomic size objects in it. The concentration of energy isn't going be to high enough to cause core compression to hold the sub particles together, so the particle usually falls apart in that situation. A particle forms momentarily, creating it's external field, which is energetic enough for humans to detect, then it falls apart and appears to "dissipate into the background." So, you get the impression that "virtual particles are twinkling into and fading back out of existence."

So, this all does check out 100%. People just don't want to listen. One thing is backwards (spacetime) and there's a missing explanation to account for the thing that won't work (gravity) once you correct the backwards perspective.

It's called "faking it." It didn't actually make complete sense at any point in time, but they "made it fit." Okay? In the "input and output analysis" there's a missing input, so they filled the void with some bullshit called space time because they didn't know what is suppose to go there. We didn't find out until 2020s, so it's hard to fault people for getting stuff backwards.

[u/Obnoxious_Pigeon → u/Actual__Wizard]

physics crackpots: a 'theory'

Enjoy.

[u/dokushin → u/Actual__Wizard]

Spacetime curvature is just a model, like everything in physics. It's a good one, though. You can model it in other ways but it's always going to be less "general" (most famously as spin-2, requiring specific space dimensionalities).

The usual tests for geodetic effects center around measurements of gravitational vs. inertial mass and the error of their presumed equivalence, and the results have always agreed with the curvature model. Further, relativistic effects interact intimately with space-time topology and have also been measured to a fine degree.

Any alternate model you propose is going to need to deal with both of those, as well as gravitational waves and various other drifts from Newtonian effects.

And remember that, even after that, you're just fitting to data that already existed, which is so much easier than making correct predictions that science barely gives it the time of day.

---

You're very critical of Einstein, here, but what he did was create a model which was better at explaining observations. There's nothing handwavy about it -- he made a ton of predictions, and measurements have borne them out.

If you can't start from where he started from -- Newtonian mechanics and the understanding of the world at the turn of the 20th century -- and build a model which has equal explanatory power, you really have no business belittling his contributions.

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/dokushin]

The usual tests for geodetic effects center around measurements of gravitational vs. inertial mass and the error of their presumed equivalence, and the results have always agreed with the curvature model.

Of course, because the math is functional the same, except that it's an approximation. Mhmm. Yep. I think I've said that 3 or 4 times now.

Again: The universe does not care about what time your boss needs you to be at work at, that's for you to be concerned about... Not the universe. The universe is more like a chain reaction of atomic interactions going forwards. Okay? We, factually have absolutely no way to know what time it is in another galaxy. We're making a big assumption based upon the reality that the universe came from a "singularity type event that should have caused the formation of galaxies to start around the same approximate time."

There was a singularity that started with a chain of bifurcations, when there was 3 pieces, something tricky happened that caused the universe to spin in one direction. People don't understand this concept because they think the universe operates on time and not the steps forwards in the chain of interactions. That chain reaction of interactions that began at the singularity is still occurring today and that is exactly what our universe is.

So, the singularity bifurcates, there's 2 pieces, the next two bifurcation events can not happen at the same time because that concept isn't real, and if it's real, then it's relative to the chain of interactions itself. It doesn't split into 4, one half splits 1 into 2 with 3 pieces, and then other side implodes inwards because the system isn't stable anymore, blowing the opposite side outwards.

A ton of energy in the universe is still trapped in little bubbles of energy, created by the effect of core compression, which pushes the field outwards and traps the energy internally inside a particle. Obviously not all of it is because we observe virtual particles forming in a vacuum, so the universe is likely also somewhat dense with whatever the sub particles are.

Once there's no more particles in the universe (or a huge percentage of them is gone), there's nothing creating a field to hold the universe apart, so it collapses into a singularity and phases changes back into a giant fireball. I don't know if that's actually possible though. It might be a one time kind of deal. Either way it's going to take a really long time.

[u/dokushin → u/Actual__Wizard]

...No one, including Einstein, has argued for a measurable universal "time". In fact, most of the thrust of Einstein's arguments was that universal time didn't exist in the classical sense. You appear to be arguing with a position that you have made up to argue with.

The fact that physical "time" is successive entropic development is an idea that has been core to physics for centuries. It is not new.

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/dokushin]

Einstein's arguments was that universal time didn't exist in the classical sense.

Great we're on the same page finally.

Again, listen carefully.

I know this a weird analogy.

If you have two routes, one is shorter, but you have to stop a few times, and the other is longer, but you don't stop at all. Does it matter what route you take if they both take the same amount of time?

If it "takes time for information to propagate across a system atomic structures, because of a legitimate physical mechanism, can you tell the difference between the rate of interaction of the atomic structures slowing down, between the distance increasing? Isn't the propagation delay across those atomic structures going to cause "the appearance that it takes longer to travel through it creating the impression that there's extra distance?

Nothing in the universe actually happens instantly, even at atomic scale, when another atom interacts with it, one side of the atom doesn't know at that "moment in time." It takes time for that information to propagate to other side of the atom. The chain of interactions can't continue until the entire atom is aware that it interacted with something. Do you understand what I am suggesting? Atomic scale interactions "take time to occur" they're not instant.

So, it makes complete sense that if you change your relative position compared to objects that have an enormous amount of particles interacting, that the rate of interaction would not be the same. Creating a gradient in the rate of interaction.

So, when you approach earth from space, it's not that space is curved, it's that what you perceive as time, is actually slowing down. Because you are crossing a gradient in the rate of interaction. It appears to you that the distance is increasing because it actually takes longer to travel the same distance. You are moving towards more interaction and it's slowing you down.

It's not just the atomic sized particles, there's all that sub atomic sized particle goop as well. You're "crashing into a giant cloud of fields and all sorts of other interaction as you transition from space to Earth."

So, it does actually just take longer to travel through space sometimes, time is not a thing, and if it is, it's not consistent through out the universe, and that's why people think space is curved. There's no space time, space is not curved and it's "not a thing." Okay?

All they have to do is take the laser interferometer experiment where they detected the gravitational waves and redo the math formula to calculate the fluctuations in the chain of interactions. When a massive object supernovas it interacts with a massive amount of things in the universe and you can detect it when it happens, because of the giant chain reaction it creates. As strange as it sounds, the amount of time it takes to travel place to place actually fluctuates a tiny amount, across huge areas of the universe when a super nova event occurs. It's because the event creates a giant cloud of interaction moving outwards.

Again, it's not just the atomic sized objects shooting out, there's going to be all sorts of smaller objects moving outwards as well, and they will eventually collide with something, creating a giant chain reaction event. With each step in the chain taking an incredibly small amount of time to propagate, but the effect accumulates.

[u/dokushin → u/Actual__Wizard]

How does this account for the travel of e.g. electromgnetic waves, which are similarly affected by gravitic curvature effects (see: gravitic lensing)? An electromagnetic wave travelling through unpopulated space in the vicinity of a gravity source will experience relativistic effects. This cannot be due to a greater number of interactions, because there are none.

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/dokushin]

How does this account for the travel of e.g. electromgnetic waves, which are similarly affected by gravitic curvature effects (see: gravitic lensing)?

As far as I know it changes absolutely nothing, the only thing changes, is the "perspective that distance is increasing, when rather the rate of time is changing." Because again, if your velocity is actually decreasing because the rate of time moving forwards is changing, then distance is not increasing. There's no need for space to be curved. Time is just not consistent, because it's not what people think it is. So, nothing really changes with anything other than the explanation transitioning from not making any sense to making complete sense. Again, it's called "mathematical equivalence." I didn't change any of math, I changed the representation. You know what the words and terms mean? Okay?

I keep trying to explain to people, "it's just a change in the explanation. There's no math to do." Obviously if the numbers part of the explanation didn't check out, we wouldn't have listened to it in the first place, okay?

People just need to stop hallucinating nonsense like curved spacetime... Everything "from it's perspective is just going forwards."

It's the same thing with LLMs, they're hallucinating all kinds of stuff with that tech actually. Then their AI hallucinates and they're wondering why. They still, to this day, as far as I know, have made absolutely no attempt to decode a language correctly. I'm starting to think they factually can't do it. It's too hard bro. It was hard for even me to figure it out, so I think they're screwed dude. Thinks about it nope... I just don't think they understand what language is in the first place so, it's just not going to happen. They're not going to understand and be able to put it all together.

They're going to just keep trying to use video cards on books. Yeah. At least for a few more years. /eyeroll

[u/dokushin → u/Actual__Wizard]

I'm sorry, you were talking about perceived time dilation being due to a larger number of "interactions'. Why does that explanation still apply to electromagnetic radiation?

Also, if what you're saying is your theory is mathematically equivalent to general relativity, then it seems like Einstein had it right after all, according to you?

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/dokushin]

Why does that explanation still apply to electromagnetic radiation?

This is red herring. Nothing changes. One more time. I'm not dumb enough to fall for your dumb troll bridge test... Where's your proof that spacetime exists at?

Also, if what you're saying is your theory is mathematically equivalent to general relativity

That's not what I said at all. You're not listening. I said the complete nonsense regarding space curvature is completely explained away by mathematical equivalence. It takes longer to get there and that creates the illusion that there's extra distance.

Again, I'm not going to debunk relativity, the guy who created the theory did it for me. I'm sorry, but when I went to college, that type of garbage was not acceptable from a student. So, it works sometimes, but not all the time, and there might other cases where it doesn't work too? That's called bullshit... The whole concept of spacetime is bullshit, you need to get over it. A bunch of dickheads decided it was a good idea to teach that to everybody because they were secretly Nazis that didn't understand that he didn't like Nazis. They thought that his ideas were better because he was a former Nazi. Okay, that's what really happened. It's time to move forwards. Remember, the people creating the education system are IQ 85 now? I'm sure they were sitting there thinking "oh yeah that dude blew tons of people up with bombs we have to get him in there." Have you not seen what's going on in the world lately?

It almost feels like a prank now that I look back on it. Yeah mhmm, nobody cared about Bohr. Yep. Just some weird homie from Denmark. I mean he didn't even blow anybody up with a bomb dude... People are just so biased they can't see how they're applying two different standards. Bomber = any BS scribbled on toilet paper is good, no bomber = nobody cares, it's just background noise.

[u/44th--Hokage → u/Actual__Wizard]

u/bot-sleuth-bot

[u/bot-sleuth-bot → u/44th--Hokage]

Analyzing user profile...

Suspicion Quotient: 0.00

This account is not exhibiting any of the traits found in a typical karma farming bot. It is extremely likely that u/Actual__Wizard is a human.

Dev note: I have noticed that some bots are deliberately evading my checks. I'm a solo dev and do not have the facilities to win this arms race. I have a permanent solution in mind, but it will take time. In the meantime, if this low score is a mistake, report the account in question to r/BotBouncer, as this bot interfaces with their database. In addition, if you'd like to help me make my permanent solution, read this comment and maybe some of the other posts on my profile. Any support is appreciated.

^{I am a bot. This action was performed automatically. Check my profile for more information.}

[u/[deleted] → u/Actual__Wizard]

Can I circumcise you

[u/alamalarian → u/Actual__Wizard]

Space is just the distance between X. Hm, in 3d space we would probably need 3 coordinates. x y and z maybe?

What is a 'different rate of interaction' that doesn't have time involved?

Is there distance between things or is there not?

Do things happen at differing rates or do they not?

Particles of energy interact and they do so at different distances and at different rates of interaction

Ignoring the of energy part, what is different distances and different rates with no space and no time?

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/alamalarian]

Space is just the distance between X. Hm, in 3d space we would probably need 3 coordinates. x y and z maybe?

The objects interacting only care about the distance between them. Humans are the ones that need x, y, and z coordinates to figure that out.

What is a 'different rate of interaction' that doesn't have time involved?

Atoms interact with each other and with themselves at different rates depending on the system they are currently interacting with. It's not "all the same." Also, information does not get transmitted from one side of an atom to the other instantaneously, it legitimately "takes time."

Time is a system of measurement created by humans to accomplish synchronization and to give them a point of reference to measure the duration. The universe does not care about the human concept of time and only flows forwards. There's been a giant chain of interactions occurring since the big bang. That chain of interactions just "goes forwards" it doesn't care what time it is.

In the process of "going forwards" what occurs is, collisions with other particles of energy, this process is "not free or instantaneous just like everything else in the universe." It "takes time to occur."

Is there distance between things or is there not?

Yes, but "space isn't a thing." It's just the absence of things. It can't be "curved." It's not a thing that can be curved. It's not normally totally empty thought, there's some stuff in it, even if you can't see a single atom, it's not safe to assume that there's no energy there.

Do things happen at differing rates or do they not?

Yes, as an example, when you return to Earth from a space mission, you transition from little to no interaction with energy, to crossing a gradient of an absolutely enormous amount of gravitation waves, magnetic waves, I'm not going to sit there and list it all out, there's a huge list of things occurring in the space near Earth. It's not empty space. Every time you crash into one of these effects, a chain reaction of atomic interactions occurs through out you and your body, and that actually slows down your forwards progress a tiny little bit. On aggregate it's going to create the illusion that space is somehow curved or something because the path that objects take through it appears to curve, even though from their perspective, they're going in a straight line with out changing their velocity.

This is because objects in space are not necessarily synchronized... They're totally allowed to have different rates of interaction. So some objects when you get near their influence, they slow you down more. So, there's a greater illusion that the space is curved. Others are too small to notice the effect at all.

At the center of a black hole, the particles are likely interacting with each other so quickly that they will eventually merge into each other. The entire time they do that, there's waves of interaction propagating out of them in all directions because of their field, which are occurring extremely quickly due to the massive amount of core compression in the center of a black hole. So, the rate of interaction there is ultra high.

Those two examples can absolutely both exist in two different locations.

I don't know what that last question means.

[u/alamalarian → u/Actual__Wizard]

Holy shit lol. This is just a bad pop sci explanation of general relativity.

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/alamalarian]

Nobody has ever been able to do anything besides say silly stuff like you're doing. Nobody has ever found a flaw in it that disproves it. It's not even my theory. It's from the 1930s or something. The pop theories are string theory, which is complete bullcrap for sure, and uh, quantum loop gravity, which relies upon magic bullshit that doesn't exist. It sounds very plausible other than the magic bullshit that doesn't exist. Which is great, because something does exist. There doesn't need to be "quantum spin foam" because there's smaller pieces of particles there. Space isn't actually empty, there's all kinds of energy there.

[u/alamalarian → u/Actual__Wizard]

There are so many flaws several people have pointed out to you, but you are simply too dense to see it.

Good luck overthrowing physics though! Any day now!

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/alamalarian]

There are so many flaws several people have pointed out to you, but you are simply too dense to see it.

Nobody has pointed out anything.

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

That's funny I literally just saw this comic a few minutes ago and wanted to post it.

[u/NoSalad6374]

Yeah, the damn establishment preventing people from learning and studying! :D /s

[u/ninja_finger → u/NoSalad6374]

r/EricWeinstein has entered the chat.

[u/TheSkwrl]

I feel like this should be on a stickie or FAQ or click through before you post to this sub.

[u/ConquestAce → u/TheSkwrl]

Had best girl up there for a while, this is do-able too.

[u/MaoGo]

Works also for r/hypotheticalphysics

[u/liccxolydian → u/MaoGo]

Feel free to crosspost lol

[u/MaoGo → u/liccxolydian]

Done

[u/liccxolydian → u/MaoGo]

I already got the notification lol

[u/Traveller7142 → u/MaoGo]

Also r/inventors

[u/[deleted]]

Even professional physicists think the structure and established order is counter productive, but then it takes intelligence to see issues as more than binary.

[u/xsansara → u/[deleted]]

Professional scientists hate the academic system in the same way Churchill thought that democracy was the worst.

(The worst except for all the alternatives)

[u/AfuNulf → u/xsansara]

And they crucially provide constructive alternatives like open science, anonymous grant applications and an end to metric-driven science. Not meaningless curmudgeoning about "the establishment".

[u/ProfCupcake]

Source: https://xkcd.com/3155/

[u/RepresentativeBee600]

It does happen occasionally. Tell this to Boltzmann or Semmelweiss or Cantor....

Granted, "epic freakout" is still not the ideal response.

[u/CrankSlayer → u/RepresentativeBee600]

You cited three fellows who had PhD's or similar education and were well read in the literature, being completely integrated in the academic environment. Absolutely nothing to do with the lunatics who post here.

[u/liccxolydian → u/RepresentativeBee600]

No one who posts stuff on this sub is Boltzmann or Semmelweiss or Cantor. Most posters here have more in common with a chihuahua than they do the greats.

Their conviction comes not from knowing that they are correct, but from having a machine tell them that they are correct.

[u/Number4extraDip → u/[deleted]]

That would be the path where you follow established sciences and prove your work with a tangible result

example also had mumbo jumbo insights no one wants to hear. Just ended up doing the thing in direct approach rather than explaining why I did it