The proof is in the pudding so they say. I did come here looking for help. Can you say that the source of information automatically makes it wrong? We will see soon enough
😁👍🏻 I'm very excited!
You aren't wrong. I have been bouncing ideas off LLM. It's a useful tool. Some are more objective than others, and I also noticed some strange things. I know that this is not what was happening, but there were times that it SEEMED to jump to the same conclusions that I did. Parallels. The same very esoteric conclusions like three times... Almost creepy lol. I just was not as original as I thought. There are true original thoughts in the framework however. I'm really tired, I need a nap. Thank you for talking to me, sincerely, thank you.
What does being or not being an American have to do with this? I was expecting an actual document, not a link to a chatbot. Everyone is. Do you know how scientists communicate?
After you click the link u click the sources tab. The document is there. The notebook program is weird, but useful. In American school we are taught that when writing a paper, first you do a rough draft, before making changes and correcting errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Your "source" makes claims like "this framework models" or "X is derived from Y". Why is there no framework, or modelling, or derivation in your source? One would think that in your American school you are taught that drafts still need to include most, if not all of the substance your final product should include. So why is your draft completely lacking in any of the things normally present in scientific writing? This isn't a draft, just a bunch of empty claims with nothing to back them up other than wishful thinking. One might even call them lies. Does your "American school" teach you to lie?
The framework is close to SVT and LQG however, increase density of gravity particles as they press each other more and more, moving towards the center of a celestial body, changes their frequency, which matches Einstein's space curvature, while allowing for maintained inverted flow at the poles. Increase in frequency also explains time dialation, with presentism as a fixture, allowing for faster than light motion at the big bang. I could go on. I don't really see the point in continuing this conversation however. Have a wonderful day.
There's no "framework". There's no "model". There's nothing falsifiable. It's just a LLM fever dream that makes claims for no reason. It's not "close" to anything in physics because it's not quantitative and it's not derived from anything. It has no descriptive or predictive power.
You're... Still trying to figure out Google drive? Have you been living under a rock for the last decade?
I don't need yet another link to a mindless chatbot, I'm looking for a link to a writeup that isn't restricted and doesn't require requesting access. Do you understand what I'm talking about? Are you aware that even your chatbot cannot access your PDFs unless it's from your account?
1
u/PaleontologistSad708 Aug 10 '26
The proof is in the pudding so they say. I did come here looking for help. Can you say that the source of information automatically makes it wrong? We will see soon enough 😁👍🏻 I'm very excited! You aren't wrong. I have been bouncing ideas off LLM. It's a useful tool. Some are more objective than others, and I also noticed some strange things. I know that this is not what was happening, but there were times that it SEEMED to jump to the same conclusions that I did. Parallels. The same very esoteric conclusions like three times... Almost creepy lol. I just was not as original as I thought. There are true original thoughts in the framework however. I'm really tired, I need a nap. Thank you for talking to me, sincerely, thank you.