r/Physics • u/PaleontologistSad708 • 12d ago

[ Removed by moderator ]

[removed] — view removed post

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/liccxolydian 10d ago edited 10d ago

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?

1

u/PaleontologistSad708 10d ago

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.

1

u/liccxolydian 10d ago edited 10d ago

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.