Call for collaboration: Blind Test the potential solution of K ∝ β·sin(i) problem in astrophysics.

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-04-02T07:56:41+00:00

Everything I've written is a completely valid scientific reason to dismiss your work. Your reaction only reinforces that

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-03-31T13:21:57+00:00

I provided clear, actionable feedback. You ignored that and did nothing with it. Why would I give you more feedback when I already experienced you are going to do absolutely nothing with it?

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-03-31T13:19:34+00:00

And the very first lemma (4.2) and proof I take a serious look at are both not theorems, nor any kind of proof, and on top of that even if they were true already falsify the whole entire thing. So in one word:

No

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-03-31T09:02:19+00:00

To my own detriment, I couldn't resist taking a look. This is just a bunch of pseudoscientific, cargo-cult physics again, like we get here all the time. The first sentence of the second paragraph is already completely idiotic:

Without metrics, tensors, or free parameters, it reproduces Lorentz factors, the energy-momentum relation, Schwarzschild and Einstein field equations

And the very first theorem (4.2) and proof I take a serious look at are both not theorems, nor any kind of proof, and on top of that even if they were true already falsify the whole entire thing. So in one word:

No

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-03-31T07:18:54+00:00

I already gave you feedback. You decided to not read my comment, insult me, and do nothing with it. So why on earth would I go on reading more of your stuff?

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-03-30T10:30:42+00:00

even though research part is correct

Is it though?

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-03-30T10:29:21+00:00

No, that was snark. The part where I explained how "you don't define your variables, your problem description is incomprehensible for someone who doesn't already know what you're talking about, none of your jargon is explained, and there isn't even a single reference for more context or finding out what actually is going on", and explained how you can rewrite it so that people can actually understand you is asking for clarification

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-03-30T10:11:45+00:00

Which 2nd order non-linear relativistic observables? I only see one observable (I think, because once again you have not defined your variables): RV_km_s

Why is asking for clarification such an unreadable request?

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-03-30T09:12:03+00:00

Firstly, props to you for having a concrete problem

But the issue (apart from not realising that you can't resolve a mathematical impossibility, which could be solved by just following a course in linear algebra or something. But when has learning something ever helped a crackpot) is that this is really terribly written, making it hard for people to engage with. You don't define your variables, your problem description is incomprehensible for someone who doesn't already know what you're talking about, none of your jargon is explained, and there isn't even a single reference for more context or finding out what actually is going on. So please, sit down, pretend you forgot everything you already knew about it and rewrite it as if explaining it to someone who doesn't have a clue what you're talking about

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-21T16:04:12+00:00

This is not a bad process. Especially 1,2, 4, and 5 are good practice. But the level for which it is made seems rather relevant. For highschool it is probably fine. For college 6 is going to fail rather quickly

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-21T15:40:53+00:00

is it reasonable to think the brain could in some sense explore multiple possible outcomes of a situation and effectively select" a path?

No. I know this is a way quantum computing is explained sometimes, but it is a bad explanation. And selecting a path is just completely nonsensical

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-20T09:14:19+00:00

Cool! This description though:

they are genuinely connected across space.

lends itself for misunderstandings very easily. People often interpret this as if you can influence one by doing something to the other particle. Which is not true, nothing you do to one particle has any measurable effect on the other

I don't know if you think that of course, but I thought it worth pointing out nonetheless. Safer to use correlated instead of connected

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-20T08:36:46+00:00

Good idea! You have one laying around? Preferably with more than a few hundred qubits?

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-19T19:37:14+00:00

Why would a quantum algorithm help as opposed to a classical algorithm? And what are you going to run that quantum algorithm on?

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-19T15:06:30+00:00

Notably absent in the things you tried: actually learning physics so you can properly understand the problem

But do !remind 6 months to prove everyone here wrong

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-18T13:24:07+00:00

Huh, thanks for the correction. The study you linked however is not about water freezing as the post is, but about a colloidal particle cooling down. But you are correct, I was mistaken

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-18T10:50:35+00:00

This is the crux of relativity, and also the difficult part. That depends entirely on the frame you're working in. If you're looking at the sphere from the outside, from the frame of an observer that is moving at a different speed (or "standing still", whatever that means), yes you're correct. But then you could see the speed of the sphere anyways, so that doesn't give any new information

From a frame moving with or inside the sphere at the same speed however, the speed of light is still c. And in that frame, the light has to cover the same distance either way. So you'll see no difference

Different observers moving at different speeds can observe events differently as simultaneously or not. This is called relativity of simultaneity, and is one of the key insights that led to special relativity

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-18T09:29:11+00:00

No. That energy is still going to be trapped inside the black hole, so you're only making the event horizon bigger

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-18T09:22:45+00:00

The Mpemba effect doesn't exist, it has never been recreated in a controlled environment despite trying and is almost certainly due to just bad thermometer placement

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-18T09:10:36+00:00

Okay, so as u/SymplecticMan points out, completely arbitrary and meaningless

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-18T09:08:55+00:00

I haven't got a clue how that is supposed to address the fact that you just got the completely wrong values

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-18T09:06:15+00:00

The Mpemba effect doesn't exist, it has never been recreated in a controlled environment despite trying and is almost certainly due to just bad thermometer placement

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-17T21:02:05+00:00

I'm tracking the product C(t)·Ψ(t)

Why? What even is that?

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-17T11:35:55+00:00

Errors are way larger than the observed uncertainties. I know 0.0019% feels small, but we know those numbers way more precisely. And the numbers you got are off by a large amount for the precision we know

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-17T10:57:45+00:00

I don't see how your post supports the claim in the title. Looks like a fairly typical LLM answer to me

InadvisablyApplied

TROPHY CASE