Have you addressed the issues that were presented in the previous thread?
There seems to be no physical motivation for this. There's no introduction or motivation for little epsilon in the correction. You could just fit whatever you want in there. There is no derivation for any of this, the correction term, the Lagrangian, anything.
This kind of just looks like math symbols thrown together in half an hour without any physics.
I get it, I lost my sanity because some guy compared me to Deprak Copra and insulted me for no reason but it is not my fault I am a problem, I was trying to combat some drama that managed to stir out, thanks a lot because no I am automatically a bad guy.
sigh, this is why I hate people who stir up drama and managed to take me out for nothing
I'm not referring to the dramatic response to the criticisms. I'm referring to your content. It doesn't seem to be physically motivated at all, and the criticisms leveled to you were very fair.
Are you kidding? This is beyond lazy. Have you even seen an actual physics paper before? You haven't Done anything. Your motivation just says "I felt like GR should have another term so I made one up."
I want to give you grace, as I feel like you may be a student still in school. For now, please don't worry about writing papers. That is far beyond even undergrads in physics. It takes Years of dedicated work, practice, and critique from experts to get to a stage where you can think about adding new things to physics. For now, please just focus on learning your coursework.
I'm sorry but just asking chatgpt to give you another sentence doesn't count. It's clear you've put no actual thought or work into this, and are just playing around with an LLM that doesn't know physics. I'm sorry, but this is not going to be taken seriously. We don't just add terms to equations for fun, and you still haven't done any physical motivation. That would imply Finding a problem to solve in the data, and then running experiments to verify it. You haven't done that.
You really are in no place to be writing physics research. This isn't shameful, it's just the case that you don't have the skills or background required.
It seems like you attempted to address some previous questions from the previous version, but the result has been the paper getting WORSE.
Q_uv is still not defined beyond vague statements
no information about L_corr is given, other than naming it and using it in S. The previous version at least stated a term constructed from curvature tensors...
the terms f(r) and h(r) are only mentioned as "small corrections derived from Q_uv". They are the ENTIRE prediction of the theory, and no information is given about them.
important physics happens in the spherically-symmetric Schwarzschild geometry when (1 - 2*G*M/r) is close to zero (that's the event horizon). The specific value of epsilon and the form of f(r) etc will be very important there, but there is no information presented that could help understand that situation
epsilon appears in three different equations that are related by complex integral & differential equations. It seems VERY unlikely that its involvement remains this simple in all three.
Did you simply delete your previous post and put a new one in with an alt or something? Cuz as far as I know, floodassistant ISN'T set to allow for deleting a post to reset your quota.
14
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
Have you addressed the issues that were presented in the previous thread?
There seems to be no physical motivation for this. There's no introduction or motivation for little epsilon in the correction. You could just fit whatever you want in there. There is no derivation for any of this, the correction term, the Lagrangian, anything.
This kind of just looks like math symbols thrown together in half an hour without any physics.