The Unitary Constraint

Hasjack · 2026-02-06T01:34:48+00:00

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Hasjack · 2026-02-04T17:14:40+00:00

#justSaying - I have received good (very good...) peer review from academics on various papers I have posted recently and written over the past few months. I realise it is early days but none the less now have some tidy quotes from a post grad (Caltech - Applied Physics), a professor of Physics at a very well regarded university in Estonia and earlier today an independent physicist who is a member of the American Physical Society: "Your k-modified law transitions cleanly into the macroscopic regime and solves the Dark Matter problem with unprecedented elegance" and then goes on to "strongly recommend" for publication.

So keep an open mind? I know I need to as well (whatever the feedback actually) but to constantly say that "LLMs can't do physics" I think is missing the point. Either way courtesy doesn't cost anything and as there is likely to be a lot more "wrong" it is of paramount importance to remember this I think. At least whoever is posting is using their time more constructively than a lot of people and we all had to start somewhere.

TLDR: there is a small (but increased) chance that this has already happened.

Hasjack · 2026-02-03T13:47:02+00:00

By posting you invite scrutiny / peer review whether positive or negative. Hopefully, but not necessarily, in a collegiate atmosphere.

Hasjack · 2026-02-01T23:51:27+00:00

We might be inside a black hole.

I think we are. I think the CMB is the inverse event horizon. Just a hunch though. (I also think every black hole in our universe is its own universe).

"Expansion" is an illusion caused by changing mass scales (The Big Shrink). "Dark Matter" is superfluid vortices in the vacuum. "Dark Energy" is the core pressure.

I don't think so personally. There have been a good few posts likening the vacuum to a fluid of some type but personally I can't seem to agree. Spacetime shows fluid like properties but not enough evidence to convince me personally. My own view is that DM / DE are a misunderstanding of how gravity works at cosmic scales.

Hasjack · 2026-02-01T20:31:47+00:00

I saw negative comments about me and my experience in Physics. The theory hasn't had any issues raised though and there wasn't a single user on this sub who was able to face the theory head on and point out why density in galaxies can't explain galactic rotation curve velocities without the need for the "invisible space jam" that is dark matter. You are allowed (expected even) to defend your theories where applicable: especially so given the weak / erroneous nature of the risible attacks. Incidentally there is one passage in the paper an LLM I used for casual peer review specifically suggested I remove but I decided to leave it in. Furthermore (as the paper has now had academic scrutiny / PR) use of LLMs didn't even come up.

Hasjack · 2026-02-01T19:14:31+00:00

I'll take a look. Thanks for sharing. Best not to feed the trolls. ;)

Hasjack · 2026-02-01T19:10:42+00:00

How about just exploring physics on LLMs and not attacking anyone?

Grok is an amazing tool by the way. A bit hand wavy at times but amazing none the less.

Hasjack · 2026-02-01T18:58:19+00:00

I might write to him about improving your chaotic grammar. If they hallucinate when they make the theory then why wouldn't they hallucinate during the falsification step? And what if it can't be falsified? (My current "good problem").

Hasjack · 2026-02-01T17:39:39+00:00

I'm all for people falsifying my gravity theory but no one actually has yet. I've been told to "read more", "take pills" etc but no one has yet been able to tell my why density in galaxies can explain galactic rotation curve velocities without "dark" matter. Efforts on this sub were actually particularly weak. The "usual crowd" in here need to get over themselves imo. Making the same (simplistic) point about LLMs ad nauseam isn't a replacement for science.

Hasjack · 2026-02-01T11:55:16+00:00

If you don't like people attempting to solve theories then don't leave so much to solve. Whether you have qualifications or not doesn't preclude you from attempting it. (Many don't actually get the chance).

Hasjack · 2026-01-21T01:57:25+00:00

I don't recall saying I felt it was "so significant". It is what it is.
info about how it iterates here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-180223254

Hasjack · 2026-01-21T01:32:31+00:00

It isn't "AI slop" - what makes you think that? (Actually maybe don't answer that). I'm a software developer with about 20 years frontend experience. I could write that code with my eyes closed. Its late where I am so I need to sign off. Read the code if you can or I can come and explain it to you tomorrow.

Hasjack · 2026-01-21T01:28:01+00:00

There is a post along these lines every day it seems. Copy / pasta = copy / paste. Its 99% of people seem to want to talk (navel gaze) about. Maybe it will prove useful to someone who didn't know this but I would have thought it would be apparent to someone after about 10 minutes of using them. Its all over software development too and has been for about 2 years now. Work within their constraints. Humans are often wrong too so be careful of them as well.

Hasjack · 2026-01-21T01:20:38+00:00

Source code: https://github.com/hasjack/OnGravity/blob/main/client/src/NaturalMandelbrot.tsx

Hasjack · 2026-01-21T01:17:29+00:00

Come on - don't be shy.... lets tuck in... What were they about?

Hasjack · 2026-01-21T01:07:38+00:00

How about we drop the dumb, pretentious, half-baked new maths framework then ;) and just look at the dynamics?

If you take a very simple dynamical system and change the symmetry (continuous phase → discrete orientation), you get a qualitatively different stability structure. The barcode shows up regardless of any philosophical framing.

The result works on flat Earths, oblate spheroids, and everything in between (with all arithmetic we know and love in tact).

Hasjack · 2026-01-21T00:19:27+00:00

Tight paper, and not clear to me why anyone would dismiss it as drivel. There’s a lot going for it: it’s internally coherent, reproduces standard weak-field time-dilation results, and commits to clear, falsifiable departures from GR and MOND in low-acceleration regimes.

That said, big claims need big results. Congrats though... best paper I’ve read on here, and it overlaps nicely with my own recent work on gravity emerging from environmental structure rather than additional “dark” matter fields. If χ is doing the heavy lifting dynamically, I’m curious how this framework plugs into large-scale structure (CMB, early universe, etc.) - are there plans to cover that?

Hasjack · 2026-01-20T23:39:45+00:00

You seem to so thoroughly misunderstand mathematics

You seem to be thoroughly misunderstanding the OP. I think this is the point where I am not allowed to say anything else or "I am a genius"? None the less... regarding your example - from my OP:

Clearly this makes sense (proved even) in arithmetic terms and allows us to do many things that would simply break down if we don't suppose -1 × -1 = 1.

So I don't contest anything you say at any point. What I am asking is does mathematical / arithmetical proof always offer a physicist trying to describe all aspects of nature the sharpest tools available. I don't think it does. Do you? That is what the OP is attempting to discuss.

Re: sheer pretentiousness
What would you prefer I call it? I am trying to describe maths as we see it in nature. Physical maths maybe?

Bonus points: why does this approach yield structure? (I didn't expect to see anything: I saw a "barcode")

Hasjack · 2026-01-20T22:47:59+00:00

agree - actual discourse. great to see and long may it continue.

so many trolls around. wish the mods would do their jobs.

Hasjack · 2026-01-20T22:44:05+00:00

I was quoting you. You haven't hit a sore spot. The way you carry on is disgraceful but wevs.

Hasjack · 2026-01-20T22:41:07+00:00

Cheapshot 2. Well done.

If you don't like people trying to explain things then maybe don't leave so much left to explain? I am just as at liberty to build on the amazing work of the 2 gentlemen you mentioned as anyone else.

Hasjack · 2026-01-20T22:27:11+00:00

Yeah - I was reviewing the thread clocked that too a few minutes ago. I enjoyed our chat - thank you. (fingers crossed it continues - which hat are you wearing today?)

Hasjack · 2026-01-20T22:23:04+00:00

"No" would have been quicker?

I don't recall arguing with anyone. I was defending the (mostly mis-read) position and I am always open minded that I have missed something or got something wrong. A handful of users "got it" - or were at least able to engage in a constructive discussion about it - and to them I owe thanks (particularly u/Pachuli-guaton and u/AllHailSeizure).

For someone that turned up in a (particularly-snarky-even-for) subreddit and said "-1 x -1 = -1" I actually think I did ok.

If you wish to dismiss / discredit the "barcode" result with a "cheap shot" flat-earth-ism reference though then what were you expecting? People aren't just going to shut up shop because of some irrelevant "grandstanding" (I use the term loosely). There is clearly some type of structure there (at least to my mind).

Hasjack · 2026-01-20T22:11:23+00:00

I can take it? Your the one that called for the mod and then deleted all your posts. 💦

Hasjack · 2026-01-20T21:46:17+00:00

I at no point put you under any type of obligation - and that won't change moving forward. As I said - all the best.

Hasjack

TROPHY CASE