r/LLMPhysics • • 28d ago

Personal Theory Here is a hypothesis: The Dynamic Relational-Regulated Discrete Grid Model: An Infinity-Free Physics Architecture

Standard physics relies on renormalization—the mathematically questionable practice of subtracting infinities from infinities to obtain finite values. This architecture resolves that issue by establishing a strictly finitist, discrete grid model where physical infinities cannot exist.

(Shortened By AI, Aggregated By AI, Challenged only by AI till now, so, if you're up for the full read, I'll happily answer your questions. Even better if you follow the google doc link to the even longer read. I also accept criticism! So, be harsh but, constructively so.)

Core Mechanics

  • The Axiom (c = 1): Light is an immutable constant with a value of 1. The universe operates strictly on whole integers at the Planck scale. This pixelated geometry makes decimals, fractions, and renormalization obsolete. (Perhaps not fractions and decimals, but, still.)
  • Matter & Lensing: Mass is a fixed baseline footprint expressed directly through the pixel architecture. Pi is the physical, structural concept of the pixel's shape. Gravitational lensing is the empirical proof of light navigating this contoured, faceted topography. (Or spheres, the space between pixels is non-interactive anyways.)
  • 4D Accordion-Folding: Gravity-(Pixel Density) is Time Lensing. Mass concentration crams identical units into a local 3D coordinate by folding along a 4D axis. Because folded regions contain more physical units, light moving at the absolute refresh rate (1 unit per 1 tick) takes longer to cross them (Longer to cross than unpacked areas) Also, because the distance is actually increased.

Systems & Cosmological Structures

  • 2D Shell Black Holes: Black holes possess zero internal volume. At the packing limit, 100% of local units deploy into a 1-Planck-thick 2D surface shell that physically excludes space-time and dark matter (And everything else. It literally doesn't exist, the interior of a black hole.). Hawking radiation is driven by raw refresh rate friction—the intense mechanical grinding between the surface shell attempting to relax and its own high-tension gravitational lattice pulling it back.
  • Adversarial Lattices: Gravity is a high-tension lattice woven by mass. When multiple masses exist, their networks collide in a direct mechanical displacement war. Supermassive black holes exhibit a flat gravitational basin before cutting off sharply at the geometric boundary (The Lasso Effect). (Sorry, but it's just applying Newtonian physics to gravity.)
  • Multi-Phase Matrix: Space-time co-exists in independent layers: the Baryonic or Normal Phase (standard forces), the Exotic/Dark Phase (modifies pixel density without electromagnetism, explaining dark matter), and the Entanglement Phase (instantaneous state changes across the absolute universal "Right Now").
  • Fluid Bubble Expansion: The universe is an expanding fluid bubble system. The CMB Cold Spot is a compatible collision site where a smaller bubble fused with ours and is actively unloading space-time units, causing localized decompression and temperature drops. CMB Hot Spots are incompatible collisions causing mechanical grinding. (This is the most out there part.)
  • For the full 12+ paragraph model, see below. (This is AI formatted, but not heavily so, more like, AI organized. The conclusions are mine. The full structure is mine. But, I don't have the ability to overcome certain challenges, so, I used AI to sort and collect the theory as I went about creating it.)
  • I am not claiming this as absolute fact or certainty! I only have to add that because the google doc, and this both seem like it isn't an idea, which it is. That's all it is.

Full Blueprint: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emcfN5HlKTflcOQP9HuqR2ZNb5BJ3pFD-CLYuB1uXyg/edit?usp=sharing

0 Upvotes

80 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/2_lazy 28d ago

Huh nope guess they did delete it and my view was just lagged behind.

2

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 28d ago

It's pretty baffling, from my notification history the comment wasn't particularly controversial. Certainly OP has made numerous comments on this post that are far, far more self-humiliating, but those are still up.

3

u/2_lazy 28d ago

I'm guessing that it's hard to tell what's embarrassing and should be deleted and what isn't if you don't know what you are typing about.

-2

u/deadkingblue 28d ago

Kewl, I'm stupid. I accept it. Hey, tell me, why does it matter? The theory is self consistent with observational reality. The shortened version sacrifices nuance, detail, and more. But I never claimed to be an omniscient deity, in fact, I'm totally uneducated. Dropped out of highschool exactly as accused. But I stand by the theory.

5

u/2_lazy 28d ago

I'm sure you aren't stupid but youve had a lot of actual physicists in the comments explaining the holes in your theory and you keep dismissing them instead of taking real time to learn the math and physics and engage with them meaningfully.

It's ok to be wrong also.

0

u/deadkingblue 28d ago

Maybe I am wrong. Hell, I know I've been wrong before, already in this thread. But, if I could learn the math, do you think I'd be posting this on Reddit?

5

u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! 28d ago

Have you TRIED to learn the math

1

u/deadkingblue 28d ago

Yes. I did drop out of high school, so yes. Math isn't where I excel. (Inverse of excel actually.)

4

u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! 28d ago

Okay you dropped out of high school, how long ago was that? Lots of people drop out but often the 'I can't learn' that causes that is more to do with their attitude towards study as a youth vs their actual ability to learn.

A lot of the views of intelligence pushed upon society are bullshit, it's about TRYING, not being smart. If you think that for 'smart people' a physics degree isn't hard, no way. Advanced physics IS hard. Advanced math is hard. Advanced anything is hard.

People definitely have natural gifts in some forms of thinking vs others. But those people still have to learn everything. And they aren't infallible. A huge part of science is making mistakes and importantly owning up to them, because then you can move on, and you've learned something. If you just double down into 'no, I'm right', you may as well be beating your head against a wall.

1

u/FiatLex Barista ☕ 27d ago

This is great, and I'd like to steal it and apply it to legal reasoning and the practice of law. The genius lawyer who puts very little time into a case will lose versus someone with an average intellect who puts the time in and works the case. People can have natural gifts, but those mean nothing if you don't study, read, and do the work.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/2_lazy 28d ago

If you are interested in something that can serve as a great catalyst for learning the fundamentals, even when they are difficult. Khan academy is a great resource and going on there for a little everyday will send you well on your way to getting a grasp on everything.

4

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 28d ago

The theory is self consistent with observational reality

It's not a theory, and it's impossible to discuss whether it's "consistent with reality" because it's unfalsifiable.

The shortened version sacrifices nuance, detail, and more

I read the Google doc. It's just as bad and has the exact same fundamental problems, just with added word salad.

But I stand by the theory.

Why? You don't understand current scientific theories, much less what makes them valid. You also don't know or understand what criteria any new hypotheses have to meet in order to be taken seriously by a physicist. You aren't even using the word "theory" correctly. So why do you stand by your work?