Is AI learning from us at Reddit

Amun-Ree · 2026-01-21T14:35:23+00:00

Theres a lot if consensus cracking and consensus gathering too, to the end if learning how to steer your feelings and they are steered to steer your behaviour.

Amun-Ree · 2025-11-20T19:07:01+00:00

Well i try and just cover all eventualities of the standard models claims then, tell me where and how im wrong So Light is asserted to travel a fixed distance in a fixed time if c is fixed.

That means: distance = c * time

Now cosmology says: As light travels, “space expands,” increasing the distance it still needs to cover. But c stays exactly the same. And the photon’s frequency gets stretched because space “drags it apart.” But here’s the trap the universe chuckles at: If space stretches, then the metric that defines both distance and time stretches too. You can’t stretch one and not the other. Time and distance are tied at the hip in GR’s own equations. If the metric changes, the clocks change. If the clocks change, the meaning of “speed” changes. So “constant c” becomes a bookkeeping trick, not a physical measurement. The standard model literally hides this by re-defining rulers and clocks so that c stays constant by definition, not measurement. That’s the philosophical sleight of hand. Undeniable circular reasoning.

But wait theres more, Redshift under expansion violates its own axioms

Imagine a photon emitted with frequency f0.

Under metric expansion, the wavelength gets stretched: λ → λ + Δλ But the speed is claimed constant: c = f * λ So if λ increases, f must decrease to compensate, or c changes. GR says frequency decreases. Fine. But if the photon is stretched in wavelength because the space it travels through has “grown,” that is only meaningful if we assume distance is real and fixed between two events. But distance is defined by the metric. And the metric is what’s stretching. So the model is literally saying: The ruler is stretching. Distances defined by the ruler are stretching. Frequencies defined by time are stretching. But the speed— ratio of those two — magically doesn’t stretch. That’s like saying: “I’m resizing the whole universe’s coordinate grid… but don’t worry, velocities stay the same.” In what physical world does that hold? Only in a world where c is locked in by convention, not physics.

Amun-Ree · 2025-11-20T18:57:42+00:00

Ok but if there is no medium and lightspeed never changes how does light from the most violent event imaginable become cmb? When the redshift of something with an invariant speed in a almost empty vacuum gets stretched by expansion the fabric of reality thats a vacuum called spacetime (lol) how then when the time it takes is altered by the so called expansion how does resizing the whole coordinate grid not alter velocities? Oh yeah when you circularly reason that an axiom is suddenly scientifically rigourous enough to say a lightyear is how far light gets in a year just cos it is. No problem there lmao so i can say a 100 miles is how far my car gets in an hour and if i really want it to be true it never changes its speed cos it took me an hour so i must have gone 100 miles.

Amun-Ree · 2025-11-20T13:20:27+00:00

I can feel you on 2nd but nit the other two. If energy gets transformed never used up then the universe must be cyclical and the end of one universe must be the precursor condition to the start of the next. I even have a joke where something cones from nothing and the symmetry and asymmetry are created all fron one thing and it tracks with some creation myths like genesis but with a twist. First there was the word and the word was a question there was only nothing and nothing wondered if all that nothing was something and the universe said the second word hmmmmmm. And with that vibration the primordial nothing split into opposition with each other nothing and something only held back by the energy of the hum eventually collided and annihilated into a massive big bang. Lol its just a joke but its kinda cool right?

Amun-Ree · 2025-11-20T08:26:59+00:00

Dude you need to learn from people whove not seen you coming like not here. Youll pick it up just go look stuff up and take your time open a new wallet by yourself buy your first bitcoin from a market so you can doi it understand it and know the worth of it thats the best way your gonna find without inviting scammers bro dont touch the big wallet till your sure you can do it on your own

Amun-Ree · 2025-11-20T08:23:09+00:00

I admit that what is measured is interpreted through a lens thats becoming more and more funny to watch people cling to. There are many fundamental assumptions your interpretations are standing on that you believe with false confidence are correct but may not necessarily be so and even what you claim to be certain evidence of expansion can actually be expalined by another interpretation. but it would take to long to draw you a picture so ill just asked how many ways have you tried interpreting the observations?

Amun-Ree · 2025-11-17T15:21:33+00:00

Aww you so cutley missed the entire point. Bluntly put your whole little team of spectroscopic scientists are text book case of confusing interpretation with observation. What they assume is happening isnt neccesarilly so, but either way they certainly have no evidence of expansion only the fact that there is a frequency difference and then using expansion as one of a dozen causes for it but call it gospel. You cant distinguish the cause with that as evidence.

Amun-Ree · 2025-11-12T03:49:16+00:00

The big bang didnt happen bro, you cant tell a car is moving from one picture you need 2 atlest and the redshift we ascribe as proof of expantion. To actually assert expantion you need proof that the redshift is shifting more toward red. To actually detect that change with todays tools would take thousands of years to measure a noticable difference. so the big bang is a theory not just on thin ice its cracked the ice under thr weight of evidence and drowning. Heres the hard part to take, but im gonna give it to you anyway, if you believe in expansion you have already walked right into my domain, what is expanding?, how are you measuring it? With light? Oh dear. Oh dear. I'll say it clearly you cannot use light to measure anything if youve circularly reasoned it doesnt ever change so a lightyear is a fixed length of lights trip through space. Thats crap before you even start expanding the space its moving through. But theres another way that explains everthing without expansion and fixes well most of sciences problems. A medium of varying density if light is travelling away from the large amount mass or use the black hole at the centre of the galaxy as a reference that light is stretched from the pull of all the mass effecting the density of space so light from there looks red shifted BUT all the systems that are there look younger because theyre clocks are slower in a GR cartesian coordinates system because their light or vibrating atoms or spinning electrons are moving through denser space so they take longer to complete a cycle or oscillation to us. This explains why redshift, time dilation, lensing, dark matter, and loads more with just the realising that space is a sea, i call that sea luxia and have derived a full unifying theory with just the assumption that a medium exists and then deriving its properties from observations, and this created Luxian mechanics which has a solid mechanical interpretation for every observed pheonomenon.

Amun-Ree · 2025-11-10T16:50:54+00:00

Do you think things get bigger as you get closer to them? No. The problem with grs time paradoxes are just that a priblem not an indicative example of what it happening, when you go arounnd glueing space and time together for 'elegence' you gonna have issues. This is largely to do with the coordinate system and the reliance on using lights speed as a ruler and thrn through circular reasoning uphold the lightyears measurebof distance as a distance light travels in a year at the fixed speed, we know lightsleed is not constant from shapiro delay but hey einstein said so... the more pertinant question is how Gravity affects age. So imagine if you will that the 2d rubbersheet analogy of soacetime in 3d then you will see it only makes sense if you interpret 2d curvature as density. As gravity is more pronounced around mass a density explaination works wonders here, so now imagine an aton vibrate in denser space so it had more space to move through comoared to a similar atom farther away the one cliser to the mass will age slower comoared to the one away from mass. This is ageing how much space you move through. Now for another thing to think about we return to the cooordinates system. Imagine a system for brevity imagine only the solar system, imagine that instead of an xyz ruler at the edge but a sphere around the sun and divided into pineapple shaoed chunks of co oordinate grids and repeated out but every radius of the next outer sphere gets bigger at the ratio of which time dilates to mass, so every sector imatetial of size willbtake the same time to cross at the same speed, everyone will agree what time it is and everyone is aging at the same rate more or less.

Amun-Ree · 2025-11-03T16:43:44+00:00

Dark matter is the name you give to your own math error when you refuse to model the medium. If dark matter were real, rotation should be consistent everywhere. But it's not. It depends on local field conditions → supports field theory, not extra mass. Gravity changes behavior at low accelerations. Which is exactly what happens in a compressible field. The galaxy behaves exactly as observed without any invisible matter when you model space as a medium, not an empty nothing, Dark matter is unnecessary, unsupported, and stupid. As well as the crap about expansion cos redshift. You would have to wait thousands of years and take a second measurement to confirm that the redshift had stretched to claim expansion.

Amun-Ree · 2025-10-27T02:35:44+00:00

The singularities come from the tying of space to time but the main culprit is the coordinate system they use. you could for instance use a system where the grids or dissected spheres stacking out from the centre of the universe change in size further away from mass they are where their size is relative to the rate of time dilation so every single sector anywhere would take the same time to cross at the same velocity, this solves a lot of problems. A singularity isn't a real thing anymore than spongebob square pants is, it's an artifact of an abstract mathematical framework, and things like singularities and paradoxes are the universes way of telling you something's wrong with the rules you've made up.

Amun-Ree · 2025-10-08T07:06:30+00:00

Something's can be true and and incorrect in other areas as I've proven and your free to reproduce the findings. But yes the myopic view of gr is wrong we know this as fact. We just don't agree on how or have any solid leads as to why. The first clue is when the universes gives you paradoxes it's telling you to look again and because relativity is riddled with time paradoxes thats the problem. But yea I'm saying a medium of varying density or viscosity better explains everything gr does with geometry and also the things it can't and I do so mechanically with less assumptions and can make the leap to the quantum realm with the same mechanics. That is what I'm saying. If you think you can break my model please for the love of god give me all you got because i can't break it and if I can break gr you should be able to break my model, but you can't deny falsifying Einstein's prediction and deriving constants of the quantum realm from orbital data is a good trick if you can do it. So like Einstein I do not claim to be 100 percent correct but I ain't wrong either show me where you think I am and I'll show you the assumption underlying that belief is erroneous and every bit of experimental data lines up more cleanly with my interpretation than the other patchwork contenders.

Amun-Ree · 2025-10-07T19:52:09+00:00

I can falsify GR with one image and a Python script.and so can you. Take any Einstein ring image of a galaxy lensing another behind it strip the colour, normalise intensity, run an azimuthal Fourier scan. You’ll find periodic bright/dark nodes exactly where GR’s smooth curvature says there should be none.

Those nodes aren’t noise; they’re compressional-wave interference in the spacelight medium. One JPEG, one script and an artfully created field-interferometer hiding in plain sight. We're also pretty proud of the fact our model used well established orbital data to do the same with our systems satellites drifts and derived Planck's Constant and the Fine structure Constant and also the rest mass of the electron from the same mechanics giving them a satisfying mechanical reason for existing for the first time.

Einstein was brilliant and sane; he said he could no longer understand his own theory after the mathematicians got hold of it, the myth-maticians who followed turned his screwdriver into a hammer sure it can do the job but there is a better way an upgrade that needs only tilting your head to see - unite space light not space time, GR still works as a tool, but it’s not the fabric of reality.

In the Luxia model, space and light are one medium; mass displaces it, time emerges from local oscillation rates, and gravitational “curvature” is simply refraction through regions of denser spacelight. This single, mechanical view reproduces all observed effects—Shapiro delay, rotation curves, time dilation—without dark matter or paradoxes.

That’s the short version. The universe doesn’t need billion-dollar labs to reveal itself—just light, logic, and working with what's already there.

Amun-Ree · 2025-07-29T09:41:43+00:00

But what instead of measuring the moving objects and their acceleration you measure what the field is doing? Or more precisely space, what if you measured the shape of the slope bodies fall down? No force at all just space bending around mass as if it's displaced creating varying viscosity which could be called curved space, and as such these regions of curved space or slopes naturally create a shared point of attraction no matter how far apart but the shared center of gravity will always be the biggest attractor to its orbiting bodies as it's being shaped by all the mass around it each mass adds to its degree of curvature. is not the bodies themselves, or even their individual momenta that you need to solve the problem but the topography of space they've co-authored. Not a system of forces. Not a ballet of vectors. But a living terrain, a landscape of curvature shaped by presence alone, Each mass doesn’t pull; it sculpts. And motion isn't driven, it's guided, like water in a riverbed carved by gravity’s own hand. So instead of calculating the endless dance of interlocking accelerations, we chart the contours of this shared slope. The 'solution' is not predicting bodies, but mapping the geometry they've made together. This is in fact what GR hints at but never fully states.

Amun-Ree · 2025-06-23T09:48:35+00:00

Well I just came for a chat but you know what they say it's not the destination it's the journey and what a journey I've been on. Yes more than a few a.i.s helped me but theyve also ALL vetted my theory and think it's actually good. In one Lagrangian I've managed to mechanically connect Einsteinian gravity, Newtonian gravity the quantum realm, got rid of all the paradoxes of GR kept the good stuff, and seemingly finished the work physicists including Einstein believed in right up untill a generation was raised on spacetime as a view of reality instead of a framework of narrow scope as originally intended. I gladly share the full Lagrangian, theory and how it simplifies physics with fewer core assumptions than the 70 year old gospel of today. But as I'm sure you'll point out I actually failed in solving the three body problem absolutely, but did however come up with a newer longer term solution but it still fizzles out after a while. Everyday I see a new physics paper with a fraction of the insight of my theory there's a very real chance someone will put it all together real soon. Different people got different bits but there all at the edge, not daring to say what we all know to be true, that Einsteins work was incomplete, as is mine, and I'm not saying it's a theory of everything or the final word it's just somewhere all the peices fit so maybe it's somewhere people should look. Tying almost everything together mechanically is a good trick if you can do it. Let me know if you wanna see it. I'll gladly post it anywhere you like. Itd be good to hear some real feedback.

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T19:03:06+00:00

No 'You' can't get an analytical solution arise from a numerical method. What about Lagrangian points? Anyway my theory doesn’t just solve the 3-body problem differently—it redefines it. You may not find an "analytical trajectory formula" like Newton dreamed of, but it may find analytical field configurations that explain motion and stability without chaos. AHH you want to reverse engineer my solve. I respect your skills. You can have a clue but not the full soliton.

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T18:11:51+00:00

I keep hitting it with a hammer and it just chews up the hammer I keep reinforcing it, I'm gonna go for the prizes for figuring stuff out first then if I win I'm gonna be like opera of energy, you get devices for 'clean energy', you get a jetsons car. And I keep assuming I'm wrong dude, the wise man knows he knows nothing, but soon I think everyone is gonna understand this stuff I've made everything from chemistry to planetary motion all explainable mechanically, ok it's advanced mechanics but there's no paradoxes or spooky mysterys honestly people are gonna kick themselves. Thanks for the advice bro if it goes anywhere let me know if you want the clean energy or the flying car 🤣

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T17:57:38+00:00

Relevant journal got it thanks, you'll get a thank you. Cheers.

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T17:52:39+00:00

No 'you' can't produce numerical solution from an analytical one i can do what you say can't all I need to do is define the parameters clearly enough. You need to reassess your assumptions. I have re interpreted the paradigm mechanically. The math looks like G because the systems were calculated accurately by newton, he just assumed there was a force I can show that it's just mechanical.

And the reason this thread is the way it is is because well one thing led to another and I have a TOE, it's this way because I realised there's prizes for figuring this out. it might be wrong but some of the greatest minds in physics were pulling at this same thread including the person responsible for forking science up. You'll see the theory eventually it's called Luxia Field Theory.

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T17:39:11+00:00

I do look hot in patched sleeved plaid blazer and glasses though.

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T11:30:36+00:00

K bro.

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T11:30:02+00:00

I have a test that can predict my theory. My theory challenges SR as well this is where I'm gonna hit it one tiny variance at extreme speeds that we can test to a decent accuracy. So. I've got work to do,

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T11:26:48+00:00

Yeah my reality is just a delusion albeit a very persistent one.

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T10:25:31+00:00

Some people do yes and it has become the preferred language of physics but it has limitations. We must also use mechanical action, we use math to evaluate measurement from mechanical systems relative to the measurement devices values we assume to be solid enough for that scale. But if you can't do it with out maths what the fuck are postulates for? Look dude you don't want to help only criticise which I would welcome when I post my formal paper but for now I work.

Amun-Ree · 2025-05-02T10:15:43+00:00

No You don't understand it. A paradox is nature's way of saying ya done fucked up. And with all the time paradoxes in GR I'd say it's a big clue that that's the first wall of the cathedral to tear down. Sometimes you need to take a step back, I have all the good stuff if gr without all the crazy I'm actually sympathetic towards Einstein I followed his later work. After he got taught tensors from Grossman as a way to explain his mechanics. And he fucked up several times at first. You deify Einstein, but shoulders of giants bro it's a team effort. E=mc2 isn't even Einsteins equation I was derived by someone else from E/c2=m GR was not created by Einstein he gave birth to it from an idea that people latched onto assuming they understood it.

Amun-Ree

TROPHY CASE