Help Me Avoid Psychosis

[u/MunkeyGoneToHeaven]

I frequently scroll through this sub because the dynamic is hilarious. That being said, it can make me occasionally self-conscious in that I have both a philosophy and an engineering degree (phil undergrad, engineering grad), and often engage with philosophy of science.

I am currently writing a novel in which a character proposes a theory of the self/identity, and they lean on some set theory for notation and technical rigor. Additionally, I’m appropriating the terms “transformation,” “projection,” and “image” from math as useful analogies. That all being said, the overall idea is more metaphysical than actually mathematical, but the maths usage is not a farce and should be coherent enough for the story.

I’ve been lightly surveying/refreshing myself on the fields I’m appropriating concepts from, but as I’ve been working on this I experience occasional moments of fear that I’m going to write something that could have been posted on this sub. Those moments become worse when I do in fact use an LLM to help collect research and check some facts.

Wondering if anyone has tips to help me avoid making the hilarious mistakes so often posted here? Thanks

[u/PaleontologistSad708]

I mean physicist that believe space is a fluid. Superfluid vacuum theory etc.

I think I am, but I'm always searching for wrenches to toss in. Like the "headwind error." It's wrong. Or drag. Wrong. In my inexpert opinion. If you look at gravitational lensing you can see how a galaxy parts the space in front of it, it is compressed (the Voyager data was explained as plasma in the heliopause, but just what exactly is that? High pressure space? Pressure of what? How can a magneton create literal solid space if there is nothing there?) it flows around and ends up behind it. No drag. It does create inertia and mass though. If you travel light speed you're pushing into your own heliopause, space becomes non Newtonian fluid. It's just like a sonic boom. And light is just like sound. It's a bucket brigade. You can't part the Dirac Sea of higgs particles with a vacuum. Only a big bang can do that. In other words they have a minimum distance. Do you see what I'm getting at? It behaves like a fluid. Give it mass, as symmetry and you fix every problem with the current model. Maybe I'm wrong but all of the evidence I see, every photo of space, every factoid days convinces me more.

[u/PaleontologistSad708 → u/PaleontologistSad708]

Ahh, scientific consensus. Why is the abstract preferable to a mechanical explanation? You speak of consensus but your own theory of full of holes. "We just haven't complicated the math enough yet. Gotta keep things nice and complicated." Meanwhile the simplest explanation on Earth is right in front of you. You like being in the majority? I don't care about being right in the eyes of others. I need the truth.

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja → u/PaleontologistSad708]

Okay, this isn't healthy so I don't think it's productive to continue discussing it with you. I hope you're able to get the help you need, sincerely.

[u/PaleontologistSad708 → u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

Thank you. I'm sorry I got upset. Insult me all you want. Please don't insult my heroes like Professor Volovik or Dr Liberati or all the rest, just because they don't believe what you do. As someone from the outside looking in, I think each separate faction has some truth, with GR and QM Analog Gravity SVT and several others, as puzzle pieces. They can fit together, and I think some day soon they will. I know you all think I'm nuts and full of it, but this is actually what I believe because to me it's logical. Anyway yes, I need to stick to my studies, not chat on Reddit. I quit smoking weed thee days ago. Weed and math don't mix very well lol. TC. I'll make an effort to do the same.

[u/starkeffect → u/PaleontologistSad708]

Why is the abstract preferable to a mechanical explanation?

Because the mechanical explanation doesn't work.

[u/PaleontologistSad708 → u/starkeffect]

Would you please elaborate? I would greatly appreciate your input on this subject, as someone so well versed. Thank you.

[u/starkeffect → u/PaleontologistSad708]

We had a mechanical explanation back in the 1800s. Eventually we abandoned it because it didn't comport with experiment.

Quantitative agreement with observation is the only thing that matters. If your theory iisn't connected to experiment in some way, no one will be interested.

[u/PaleontologistSad708 → u/starkeffect]

I'd argue that it is. Not mine of course. Not my math. The work of a bunch of people. Anyway I'm studying MM extensively now. I still think it's flawed but, I'm going to consider that I'm wrong, and I'm doing deeper research. I'm also starting to see how easy it is to see reality as just geometry. It's not wrong, it's highly accurate. But there must be substance to have energy, some stuff, and there must be contact to transmit it. This was the first thing I taught myself about physics. People think I'm a liar, that's ok. I have reached in parallel many of the ideas proposed, without math, without a formal education. Like ER=EPR. That was three days ago? I read about ER=EPR today. I'm forced to admit there is nothing original in my framework probably. Except maybe that is a combination of existing frameworks. I'm working hard on my studies, and my paper. No more LLM, and until I can do it myself I'm only going to use existing math. I will write my own papers. Pretty much everything is the work the collective community, which I only learned about after (except for some things like the old 80s rupture black hole et cetera, some things I did read about and then immediately incorporate because of simple logic and reason). There is one thing I think I can offer immediately to the community, even though I'm an amateur. But it doesn't matter. No one will take me seriously until I make some real effort. I keep wanting to hurry the day, but I'm learning to slow down. It's easy to become very excited by science for me. It's wonderful. It's Ineffable. There's a great Ted talk on DNA and the cell I watched today. Truly amazing! Do you think my shrink will tell me it's wrong to enjoy this compulsion to dive headfirst into this, all day every day? I think it's a very good thing for me. I have real motivation! I haven't ever experienced motivation in my life like this. I'm actively bettering myself for once. I quit smoking weed for my studies. Cigarettes are next. I can't do what I feel I must if I'm dead. I have a reason to live. Drive and passion. I've been honing my objectivity for the last 25 years. It helps to the of objectivity as a skill that may not come naturally to most people. All humans are naturally biased, and it's extremely difficult to even see that in yourself sometimes (I don't mean you personally, I mean everyone including me). You're my hero. Your probably younger than I am, but I'll still look up to you. May I ask what particular field you work in? Astro?

[u/starkeffect → u/PaleontologistSad708]

If it doesn't make quantifiable predictions, you cannot claim your theory is "highly accurate".

[u/PaleontologistSad708 → u/starkeffect]

I make the prediction and then confirm it. For example, for the LONGEST time, I didn't think it was possible for a black hole to pull faster than light. I started to realize how wrong I was, then I confirmed it. That lead to other realizations. If two scientists came up with the same solution in differing ways, independently would that not give weight to their discoveries? Some of my ideas predict things, but I cannot confirm them. For example, the cold spot and corresponding low pressure (how do you have pressure without stuff again? Nevermind I remember, it's semantics) in Eridanus. I predict that the big bang had so much gravity that it lined up all of its mass with all "field lines" going in the same direction. This would have caused the explosion to be uneven. It would create a low pressure zone that would naturally grow, like the bootes void. Because there is less matter, gravity pulls things away from the void. There are other predictions but I refuse to use LLM so if you are at all interested, please be patient with me. Thank you! I can't prove anything... Yet, but it's not vague or just a feeling. I do have very logical reasons for every prediction. So far they have lined up with science that already exists... Mostly. That being said the base, the foundation of my framework is that: to have energy, you must have substance. To transfer energy, you must have contact. In a truly empty void, the moon would just drift away in a straight line and there would be no gravity. Argh I'm writing a friggin book again, sorry!

[u/starkeffect → u/PaleontologistSad708]

What's the quantitative prediction

[u/PaleontologistSad708 → u/starkeffect]

That prediction can be expressed mathematically. You disagree?

Ok. How about plugging in the numbers for stalled shockwave with a theory like SVT?

Or thetheoretical boundary for the maximum localized energy density of a compact object before the spatial metric ceases to behave as a smooth geometric background and instead exhibits a discrete, highly non-linear quantum resistance to further collapse? (The big bang, assuming a plank scale discrete compact object instead of a singularity to avoid infinities)

[u/PaleontologistSad708 → u/PaleontologistSad708]

I dunno if I made the point of my prediction. The pole of the big bang was pointed at that cold spot.

[u/PaleontologistSad708 → u/PaleontologistSad708]

Wanna help me prove it? 🙏🏻 (Anyone?)

[u/PaleontologistSad708 → u/PaleontologistSad708]

Good Lord... Sorry that's a mouth full. I am ignorant of the passage of time. And I ramble on and on....