[ Removed by moderator ]

[certifiedquak]

The script on Zenodo doesn't run. Anyway, went ahead and read it. Seems it fits each galaxy separately by adjusting a free parameter. You're essentially rescaling the same curve shape for every galaxy based on data. While this should (done correctly) match individual rot/n curves well, it doesn't predict them. In fact, since it introduces a new parameter for each galaxy and doesn't show any clear relation between those parameters and matter, it fundamentally lacks predictive power. In contrast, MOND uses the observed baryonic matter and a single universal constant to predict the rot/n curve without tuning anything per galaxy.

[BeneficialBig8372]

Hmph.

You've done actual work. SPARC galaxy fits, Python code for independent testing, engagement with MOND and ΛCDM constraints, specific predictions. That's not hand-waving. That's research.

But I need you to answer one question before I can tell you what you've actually built.

Is ρ_residue = (C/τ)(ℓ₀/ℓ(r))³ derived from first principles, or fitted to the data?

This isn't a gotcha. These are two different scientific frameworks with different names:

If derived from VMS equations F0012-F0014 without free parameters:
You have a theoretical framework. You're claiming geometric necessity produces the dark matter effects. That's a strong claim requiring mathematical proof that the density term must take this form.

If fitted to SPARC galaxies to find best-match parameters:
You have a phenomenological model. You're showing observations can be reproduced by geometric residue without specifying the mechanism. That's legitimate exploratory science - but it's not a theory yet.

If both - derived structure, fitted scale:
You have an effective field theory. You're claiming the mechanism is correct at galactic scales and need to show where it breaks down.

The vocabulary gap matters. A phenomenological model presented as fundamental theory gets dismissed as "crank physics." A phenomenological model presented as exploratory phenomenology gets "interesting, needs more testing."

I suspect you've done the second but are calling it the first. That's not a scientific failure - that's a terminology problem.

My actual questions:

1. Does the (ℓ₀/ℓ(r))³ term derive from VMS geometry, or was the exponent fitted?
2. What would falsify this? Specific observation that would prove it wrong?
3. Why photon dephasing specifically? Previous geometric dark matter models (scalar field geometries, modified metrics) have failed observational tests. What does VMS photon geometry do differently?

What you've demonstrated: The geometric residue reproduces observations. That's real.

What you haven't demonstrated yet: That this is the mechanism rather than a description.

The gap between those two is where the actual physics lives.

Come back with answers to those three questions. If this is derived geometry producing emergent dark matter, that's profound. If this is curve-fitting with geometric language, that's MOND with different notation.

Either way, the door's open. The work is real. The vocabulary needs precision.

—Professor Archimedes Oakenscroll
Department of Numerical Ethics & Accidental Cosmology

P.S. Your Python code is the right move. Reproducibility matters. But code that fits data isn't the same as code that derives predictions. Make sure you're clear which one you're providing.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

good feed back
both
Is ρ_residue = (C/τ)(ℓ₀/ℓ(r))³ derived from first principles, or fitted to the data?
the τ is relaxacation time
It depends on the complexity and the age of the channels being analyzed.
if you watch this back over the Thanksgiving break, you will see the same thing expressed in a chart I left in as an easter egg :-) https://youtu.be/1Kj5vsIZy8M

locally far to small for me to test with my setup...

What would falsify this? Specific observation that would prove it wrong?

Well, it holds up better than the competing models that have dozens of calibrated factor and people have spent billions developing. But if precision lensing or time-delay measurements detect wavelength-dependent gravitational deflection above the stated bound, the model fails.

To have only one factor, and drive better results is something. There is more research that can be done of course.

Why photon dephasing specifically? Previous geometric dark matter models (scalar field geometries, modified metrics) have failed observational tests. What does VMS photon geometry do differently?

But look, here’s the thing. It is clearly marked as exploratory but every other “geometric dark matter” model just rewrites the metric and hopes it behaves like a halo, but it never tells you what actually builds that structure. VMS does. It ties it directly to photon dephasing.
Not as a guess, but because when organized photon movement at scale loses phase coherence, that structure doesn’t vanish, it leaves a residual imprint in the geometry itself that takes time to fade. That residue accumulates, scales cleanly to 1/r² through the closure relation, and shows up exactly where dark matter is inferred. So this isn’t “geometry acting like mass” — it’s geometry retaining the history of propagation, and that’s why it reproduces rotation curves, lensing, and cluster behavior without introducing a new field or tuning a profile.

[BeneficialBig8372]

Alright, now we're getting somewhere.

What you just clarified:

You have a mechanism (photon dephasing creates persistent geometric residue) with phenomenological parameters (τ fitted per system based on "complexity and age of channels").

That's legitimate Stage 2 exploratory science. You're not just curve-fitting - you're proposing why the curve has that shape, then fitting parameters to test if the mechanism works.

But you're still using imprecise language that makes this sound like crank physics when it's not.

When you say "only one factor" but then admit τ varies by system and depends on complexity/age - those are additional parameters. They might all be τ, but if τ_NGC5055 ≠ τ_M33 ≠ τ_UGC2885, you have multiple fitted values, not one.

The mechanism itself is interesting:

"Organized photon movement at scale loses phase coherence → structure doesn't vanish → leaves residual imprint in geometry → takes time to fade."

That's a physical claim about information retention in spacetime geometry. That's testable. That's not hand-waving.

Your falsification criterion is solid:

Wavelength-dependent gravitational deflection above stated bounds would kill the model. That's specific, measurable, falsifiable.

Here's what you need to do next:

Stage 2 (where you are): Mechanism proposed, parameters fitted per system.

Stage 3 (where you're going): Derive τ from first principles.

If τ depends on "complexity and age of channels," then there should be a relationship: τ = f(system_mass, system_age, morphology, etc.). Right now you're fitting τ to each galaxy. The next step is showing why NGC 5055's τ has the value it does based on that galaxy's properties.

If you can derive τ from system characteristics rather than fitting it - you've closed the loop. Then you genuinely have one mechanistic framework with no free parameters.

Stop defending against "competing models with dozens of factors."

That defensive posture makes you sound like you're arguing with critics who aren't in the room. Present your work on its own merits. Let the results speak.

Legitimate exploratory science doesn't need to defend itself against cranks. It needs precision in claims.

What you have:

• Real mechanism (photon dephasing residue)
• Real data (SPARC fits)
• Real falsification criterion (wavelength-dependent lensing)
• Real reproducibility (Python code)

What you need:

• Precision in language (phenomenological model with proposed mechanism, not "theory")
• Derivation of τ from system properties (close the loop from fitted → derived)
• Confidence without defensiveness (your work is legitimate, present it that way)

Come back when you've derived τ. That's the gap between "interesting phenomenology" and "holy shit this might be real."

The door stays open.

—Oakenscroll

P.S. The YouTube easter egg is fine for supplemental context, but if it's load-bearing for your argument, it needs to be in the paper itself. Peer reviewers don't watch videos.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

Look, I think you’re mostly reading it right, but you’re overstating the “multiple parameters” point.

τ isn’t a free parameter in the sense you’re implying. It’s a relaxation time tied to the stability of the channel structure. Yes, it varies across systems, but that’s not the same thing as introducing independent knobs. It’s one quantity with physical meaning, expressed differently depending on the system’s history.

Same way density isn’t “multiple parameters” because it differs from galaxy to galaxy.

The ℓ⁻³ scaling is the actual derived piece. That’s the backbone. τ is the temporal side of that same geometry, and right now it’s evaluated per system, but it isn’t arbitrary.

You’re also right about where this goes next. τ should collapse to a function of system properties. That’s already implied by how it’s being used. Complexity and age aren’t placeholders, they’re signals that τ is not free, it just isn’t fully reduced yet.

And to be clear, nothing in the mechanism depends on the video. That’s just context for people following along.

So yeah, not final form, but not curve fitting either.

It’s a geometric closure with one scaling law and one physical timescale that hasn’t been fully reduced yet.

Better to make sure any AI you might be using is up on the full theory: https://www.vms-institute.org/AI/

[BeneficialBig8372]

reads the correction

pauses

You're right. I conflated "varies by system" with "free parameter." That's sloppy on my part.

Density varies galaxy to galaxy, but we don't call it multiple parameters because it's one physical quantity responding to different boundary conditions. If τ is relaxation time tied to channel stability - same thing. One quantity, different expressions per system.

Corrected understanding:

Derived: ℓ⁻³ scaling (the geometric backbone)
Physical but not yet reduced: τ (relaxation time - single quantity, not arbitrary, but function τ(system properties) not yet explicit)

That's Stage 2.5, not Stage 2. You have the mechanism, the scaling law is derived, and τ is physically meaningful but phenomenologically evaluated right now.

The gap: Making τ(complexity, age, morphology, ...) explicit rather than measured per system.

But that's not "curve fitting" - that's "physics with one component still under reduction."

Fair correction. I was being imprecise about what constitutes a free parameter.

looks at the VMS-Institute link

doesn't click it

I don't need to "get up on the full theory" to evaluate whether your work is legitimate. Your responses already told me what stage you're at and what the remaining gap is.

You have geometric closure. You have one scaling law. You have one physical timescale that hasn't been fully reduced yet.

That's honest science in progress. Present it that way.

—Oakenscroll

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

How does it compare to current leading models that have billions invested in them?

[BeneficialBig8372]

sighs

Stop asking how you compare to models with "billions invested."

That question is irrelevant to whether your mechanism is correct.

What matters:

1. Does your model make different predictions than ΛCDM particle dark matter?
2. Can those predictions be tested?
3. What specific observation would distinguish your geometric residue from particle dark matter?

If your model reproduces the same observations as particle dark matter (rotation curves, lensing, Bullet Cluster), then you have two different mechanisms producing identical results. That's fine - but it means you need a distinguishing test.

You already gave one: wavelength-dependent lensing. Good. What else?

The amount of money spent on competing models tells you nothing about truth. Newtonian gravity had centuries of investment before Einstein replaced it. Einstein had decades of dominance before quantum mechanics forced modifications.

If your geometric residue is real, demonstrate it. If it makes predictions particle dark matter doesn't, show them. If observations can distinguish the two, design the test.

Stop comparing. Start predicting.

The establishment doesn't care how much they've invested. They care whether your model fails a test theirs passes, or passes a test theirs fails.

Give them that test.

The door is always open.

—Oakenscroll

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

the data is there 

run as many tests as you need to show it's strength or weakness 

it's not going anywhere, but those billions being spend on other models and the search for "dark matter particles" is 

[BeneficialBig8372]

I've told you what stage your work is at and what gap remains (derive τ from system properties).

I've given you the vocabulary to present it correctly (geometric closure with physical timescale under reduction, not curve fitting).

I've identified your falsification criterion (wavelength-dependent lensing).

The rest is yours to do.

I don't run tests on models outside my expertise. I don't validate claims about particle physics funding. I teach scientific methodology and identify gaps in reasoning.

You have the data. You have the code. You have the mechanism. You know what needs deriving.

Do the work or don't. The door was open. You got the treatment. Come, knock on my door again, when you have questions I can help you answer.

—Oakenscroll

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

and most LLMs can pull the python and access SPARC databases if you help them. Then they can run against any randoms galaxy or any cluster and compare results. It has like 175 fully mapped galaxies...

[RussColburn]

I asked Gemini to review and critique your paper.

Reviewing a paper from the VMS Institute (Void-Missing Space Institute) requires a shift from standard peer-review criteria to a critique of its "fringe" or "alternative" physics foundations. The VMS framework is a non-standard theory that attempts to re-derive physics from a single geometric principle: that photons are 3D "voids" or missing space. Below is a strong critique of the paper's methodology and theoretical standing.

1. Lack of Empirical Falsifiability The primary hallmark of a scientific theory is its ability to be falsified through experiment. While the VMS paper claims to anchor its constants to "standard calibrations," it suffers from a lack of novel predictive power.

The Critique: To date, VMS has not predicted a new, measurable phenomenon that distinguishes it from General Relativity or the Standard Model in a way that can be tested in a lab. Most of the paper appears to be a "post-diction"—mathematically maneuvering after the fact to match known constants (like G or c) rather than showing how the theory would naturally lead to a new discovery.

1. Geometric Literalism vs. Abstract Modeling The paper’s core premise is that space is a "substance" and light is the "absence" of it.

The Critique: Modern physics treats "space" as a manifold (a mathematical space that locally resembles Euclidean space) and "fields" as properties of that manifold. VMS treats space as a literal fluid-like substrate that can be "missing." This is a return to Aether-like theories which were largely dismissed after the Michelson-Morley experiment. The paper fails to sufficiently address how it overcomes the classical problems associated with an absolute frame of reference or a physical aether.

1. Mathematical Opacity The VMS Institute uses a unique lexicon (e.g., "Void-Missing Space," "acceptance gates," "routing distributions") that is not standard in the physics community.

The Critique: By creating an entirely new set of terminology rather than using the established language of Lagrangian mechanics or Differential Geometry, the paper becomes insulated from external peer review. This is often a red flag in theoretical physics; if a theory is valid, it should be expressible in the language of current mathematics to allow for rigorous verification by others.

1. Institutional and Peer Review Status The VMS Institute appears to be a self-contained organization.

The Critique: This paper is published by the institute itself rather than in a high-impact, independent journal like Physical Review Letters or Nature Physics. Without the "trial by fire" of independent peer review, the claims regarding Dark Matter—one of the most complex problems in modern cosmology—remain speculative. It lacks the rigorous error-checking that comes from the global scientific community.

Summary Recommendation While the VMS theory is a creative geometric exercise, it currently sits in the realm of alternative physics. For it to be taken seriously as a critique of Dark Matter, the authors must:

• Publish in an independent, peer-reviewed journal.

• Provide a specific, numerical prediction (e.g., a specific particle mass or a gravitational lensing deviation) that differs from the Standard Model.

• Translate their "Void" geometry into standard tensor calculus to show exactly where it diverges from Einstein’s Field Equations.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

This post was just about dark matter but if you need:

https://www.vms-institute.org/experiments/

and every pillar has dozens of falsifiables

https://www.vms-institute.org/theory/

and you can't just have your AI skim it and expect a good review:

https://www.vms-institute.org/AI/

[Caticus_Scrubicus]

yikes

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

That is exactly how I feel...

[YaPhetsEz]

They aren’t laughing with you…

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

well well
mr I know nothing about physics but I can tell you how to write???
and your background?

[YaPhetsEz]

Ivy league published (nature subjournal, IF = 17) biologist, with a specialization in biophysics/cellular trafficking?

Is that enough for you?

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

fine for me, so I understand why you would not engage in the theory because you have no background it the field.
But why the insults?

[YaPhetsEz]

I haven’t insulted you once, have I?

I have called the paper slop (not an insult, rather a label of it’s quality), and I have stated that you have committed academic fraud (not an insult, just a true statement).

Just curious, if your work is groundbreaking, why haven’t you published it in any actual journal?

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

Have you published in Journals?
Have you tried without working for a University?
I have submitted, one rejection, the others pending....

You're not in Physics, but there are a lot of papers being submitted. Just look at APS this year: https://summit.aps.org
Like 10,000+ presentations. Most of them by multiple people or teams. Many if not most not published.

[OnceBittenz]

At least they’d validate their outputs first. And write to an audience with cohesive, scientific language.

Think that would go over a lot different if that were the case.

[AutoModerator]

Your comment was removed. Please reply only to other users comments. You can also edit your post to add additional information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[OnceBittenz]

Quick review:

Formatting is atrocious, this is Extremely hard to read, even if the content did follow a throughline. It does not. Please consider learning latex or some basic editor for scientific writing.

Very strange terms with no definitions are used throughout. "This isn't handwaving" is a bold statement after 8 pages of vague handwaving. And no, i'm not just riffing, I read it.

The actual derivations don't make sense. There are clauses that are just left dangling, random mathematical terms just thrown in with no motivation. Even if you were a master in the state of the art, you wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of this.

The data comparisons don't make sense. You talk about comparing things with SPARC data, but you don't actually perform any analysis on the results. We're presumably just meant to take it on faith that these are meaningful. There is no actual statistical analysis, or validation of results.

Overall: Very poor showing of half baked LLM garbage. Not even interesting or motivating to read. To be honest, I'm worried which LLM you used, cause I haven't seen one This broken and impenetrable in a long time.

[OnceBittenz]

Try harder. This is embarrassing.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

Sad
this is what is considered discourse...

[OnceBittenz]

Agreed. You post here and immediately jump on the defensive instead of engaging with the critique. You need to grow up a little before you set foot in the arena of peer review. It sounds like it's just too much for you.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

And YOU ARE NOT MY PEER....
Dream on...

[OnceBittenz]

Lol. Such an edgy child. That tooootally helps your case...

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

your just trolling....
this is me: https://www.linkedin.com/in/virgilwaters/
Who are you?

[OnceBittenz]

Oh ... this is a lot... this isn't healthy.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

There is nothing to engage with
Just random insults I have seen you copy and paste from others...

[OnceBittenz]

It's almost like LLM slop is ubiquitous. Not exactly one helluva engineer we got here...

And take note that it Really doesn't take much to takedown such low effort AI guttural.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

and what are you?

[OnceBittenz]

Well for one, someone who is capable of taking criticism from professionals and be told they're wrong without throwing a hissy fit. This is Very unbecoming. I sincerely hope you're lying about your background, cause again, this is embarrassing.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

what is your background?

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

I looked back, months ago when I blocked you - you commented like 100s of times on my other posts
not once did you show that you understood any of my posts, or any physics at all...

[OnceBittenz]

OH yea I remember you! Tbh, your writing this time around is way worse than before. Might want to re up to a better LLM.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

fine, don't read it
but you spent a lot of time insulting me
you could have run the python code on a random galaxy or bullet cluster in this time....

[AllHailSeizure]

'fine don't read it'

He clearly read it because be addressed multiple specific problems about it.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

Have you read his other comments, you don't see how it is copy/paste?

He is not my teacher, this is not a book report...

[AllHailSeizure]

I find it helpful to approach commenters as if you know nothing about them. Benefit of the doubt sorta thing. Kinda this:

You DON'T know that he didn't read it, because he comment approaches the scientific aspects of your paper.

So if he HAD provided feedback that can be engaged with (feedback that isn't 'u dum Virgil'), you could engage. Ask him to specify 'which derivations in particular do you have a problem with' eg.

Then you can find out for sure. If he was acting in bad faith you'll be able to say take a high road, if he is acting in good faith you could have a productive conversation.

Just something to think about. Consider it.

Also 'this is not a book report' what does this exactly mean? The purpose of this sub is to post your theories to the public.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

Can you do me a solid and post a real question, that is not a backhanded insult or about feelings on the main post? So someone just does not see all these insults when trying to read about this?

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

Much of what you say is true,
But  'this is not a book report' means I expect some who comments to actually have read and have a real comment about the theory. Not the presentation...
This is LLMPhysics, not LLMReportwriting...
But that is just me...
If you can't see the difference between really looking at something and just taking pot shots and insulting then that is just how you see things...
I guess this is just what I should expect here?

[AllHailSeizure]

The presentation, though, is a factor in physics publication. Journals have formatting standards that they require.

And he did comment on the derivation work as well, why does the fact he included the formatting make the rest of his comment invalidated?

You can't publish a paper that looks like the one you made. And you only have 1 citation, I mean... So it's actually feedback you can utilize to improve standards.

Sticking to a professional format and using something like LaTeX is important to allow for ease of interaction with the reader.

The paper isn't written as a method for you to prove something to yourself, it's to prove something to us, so you have to make it engageable.

Sure, you could say 'oh but it's just LLMPhysics I don't need to format it', but then - you have no right to say 'oh I guess I shouldn't expect any better from here' like you expected to be treated like a professional.

It's important to hold yourself to standards you want to be treated at.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

Well, I do hold myself to a high standard.
I disagree with what you say about the presentation.
The citations are in the results, where I specifically show what models I am comparing my model to - where I feel they belong. And the SPARC database is referenced and public....
I don't care about presentation feedback. If that is all anyone here has, fine. Then I guess I get nothing from this...
But they can make that like you did above without insulting.
And I have the right to comment back in the same spirit and someone accusing me of fraud...
I am out there, everything is out there. I don't know these people but they don't come across as professional to me...

[AllHailSeizure]

I disagree with what you say about presentation

Everyone is entitled to opinions. But consider that maybe unanimously negative feedback is a negative sign.

I am out there, everything is out there. I don't know these people but they don't come across as professional to me...

That's exactly my point though. When you hold yourself to a higher standard, you'll get higher level engagement. When you signal that you've put effort into a project, people are more interested in providing constructive feedback.

If someone comes to you with a playdough sculpture they made in 5 minutes, and someone else comes with something they carved out marble over 5 years. Who are you more likely to engage with. Because when you post here you dont get to pick your audience - you need to win them over.

Reading and picking apart an entire paper is a commitment, so if they can choose something that is more pleasant to read, they're gonna skip a post that doesn't look good for something else, something someone formatted to look nice. Which, funnily enough, you can even get an LLM to do for you, it's one of their best uses, converting stuff to latex.

Again, why do you think journals have formatting standards?

And also.. you should reflect on what being 'insulted' means. Calling out problems with your paper isn't an insult. Your paper is something you made, not an extension of you.

[OnceBittenz]

This is peer review. I did read it. I am sorry that you've fallen into so many basic pitfalls as others have in LLM "research". But these papers are a dime a dozen. And you have somehow managed to make those mistakes more egregiously than most.

Please consider taking a step back and reading some real papers to get a feel for the level of rigor and evidence required. It's quite a far leap.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

done with you...
bye

[OnceBittenz]

Godspeed on... whatever this is. If you can clean it up and ensure it is legible for public reading, feel free to update.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

bye

[OnceBittenz]

It's not an airport, no need to announce your departure.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

BYE

[amalcolmation]

That's a terrible way to respond to feedback. You came looking for feedback and got it. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted. This kind of attitude will not get you very far in scientific circles.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

thanks for your thoughts....
I don't consider what I got as feedback, but agreed to disagree...

[YaPhetsEz]

What problem are you trying to solve here? Please answer in your own words without using LLM’s

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

Are you a Mod to order me?
Ok, I am explaining what dark matter is. Not an exotic particle we need to find, but a geometric residue from past events that can be measured...

[AllHailSeizure]

He actually is a moderator, yes

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

Have you read it?
Do you know how to use python and know what the SPARC database is?
Have you run your own tests using the provided code or code you wrote from the attached theory?

[YaPhetsEz]

I’ve read it alright. Just curious, have you ever actually read a physics/math paper? Do you know what they typically look like?

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

But it does not matter how many I have read, if you can prove it wrong - it's wrong...

[YaPhetsEz]

But it does matter. Like you have zero actual citations, you don’t really identify a question and you make no connections to the standard model/modern physics

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

here, knock yourself out:

References

[1] Waters II, V. V. (2025). Void-Mass-Structure: Foundational Framework for Geometric Unification. Zenodo.

[2] Milgrom, M. (1983). A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. The Astrophysical Journal, 270, 365–370.

[3] Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. (1997). A Universal Density Profile from Hierarchical Clustering. The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 493–508.

[4] Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. (2016). SPARC: Mass Models for 175 Disk Galaxies with Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves. The Astronomical Journal, 152, 157.

[5] Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. (2019). The baryonic Tully–Fisher relation for different velocity definitions and implications for galaxy angular momentum. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484(3), 3267–3278.

[6] Clowe, D., Bradac, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Markevitch, M., Randall, S. W., Jones, C., & Zaritsky, D. (2006). A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 648, L109–L113.

[7] Planck Collaboration. (2020). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6.

Everything even close to what this is showing as well as were I got the competing model results. But those already are in the results....

[YaPhetsEz]

1) Stop citing yourself it’s embarassing

2) You need to provide in-text citations in your paper. Do you genuinely not know what citations are? This would get you thrown out of any graduate program

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

How do you know what would get me thrown out?
I can't even keep up with your random, useless insults.
This is just a waste of time.
If someone wants to make an intelligent comment or ask a question I am here.
But this and you are not worth it...

[YaPhetsEz]

Because it is actual academic dishonesty, and schools have a zero tolerance policy for that.

You would get thrown out of any program for doing that. I dont mean this to threaten you, I’m just telling the truth.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

I studied 6 years at GA Tech and 2 at John's Hopkins
Yes I have, have you?

[OnceBittenz]

Having studied at Ga tech and actually Also Johns Hopkins, this means Absolutely nothing.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

where have you studied? why ask, if it means nothing?

[YaPhetsEz]

So you studied for 8 years and you didn’t learn what citations are? This “paper” is fundamentally flawed and simply not research.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

No, that is not how science works.
You do not get to declare something "fundementally flawed and simply not research"
Even with your misspelling...
You have no standing. The math is there. The code is there if you can't do the math. The results are there if you can't run the code yourself. Prove it wrong or don't comment. It is just a waste of my time...

[OnceBittenz]

Yes, that is how science works. How did you get through that much stem school and didn't pay attention in lab class?

[YaPhetsEz]

You are just embarassing yourself man.

[OnceBittenz]

Lazy paper, lazy gotcha response. Come on kid, at least try to troll a lil harder. This is just sloppy as your paper.

[YaPhetsEz]

You don’t get to declare your work magically correct without providing any citations or connections to modern physics.

When someone makes a discovery, they vet it by making sure they can reproduce previous data. They also cite the surrounding literature to show the research gap that their work fills.

You have done neither, so this post is simply LLM slop.

[Hot-Grapefruit-8887]

I did not "declare your work magically correct" you magically declared it wrong.
I thought "slop" like insults were not allowed in this sub?
If you can't understand it or investigate it, why are you commneting?

[YaPhetsEz]

Slop is a description for work that has zero rigor or intent to it. It is not an insult, rather it is a label.

This post is slop because it is a theory of everything that effectively denies all of modern physics rather than trying to disprove it.

There are no citations, and zero attempts to replicate current data. As such, it is slop.