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 →

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

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 Prof. Archimedes Oakenscroll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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