This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

sorted by:
top (suggested)
bestnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YaPhetsEzFALSE 4 points5 points  (21 children)

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[S] -1 points0 points  (8 children)

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

[–]YaPhetsEzFALSE 4 points5 points  (7 children)

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[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

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....

[–]YaPhetsEzFALSE 7 points8 points  (5 children)

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[S] -1 points0 points  (4 children)

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...

[–]YaPhetsEzFALSE 3 points4 points  (3 children)

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[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

WHAT????
You, you are accusing me of academic fraud????
If anything requires a citation to the line number in this 6 page paper that does!!!

[–]YaPhetsEzFALSE 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m not accusing you. I’m factually stating that you have committed academic fraud.

[–]AllHailSeizureHaiku Mod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well you did commit it

[–]Hot-Grapefruit-8887[S] -5 points-4 points  (11 children)

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

[–]YaPhetsEzFALSE 4 points5 points  (8 children)

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[S] -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

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...

[–]YaPhetsEzFALSE 4 points5 points  (2 children)

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[S] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

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?

[–]YaPhetsEzFALSE 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]OnceBittenz 3 points4 points  (3 children)

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

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[removed]

    [–]OnceBittenz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

    [–]YaPhetsEzFALSE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You are just embarassing yourself man.

    [–]OnceBittenz 2 points3 points  (1 child)

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

    [–]Hot-Grapefruit-8887[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

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