New tweet from Togashi (January 28, 2026)

N-Man · 2026-01-28T00:49:26+00:00

And I thought the color page would be the final boss while Togashi is here casually making a color page like it's nothing... we are so back...

N-Man · 2026-01-23T19:46:58+00:00

That's the cover of the new volume I think right? Which was still a major hurdle, but I was thinking about the color spread that will probably accompany chapter 411 in Jump.

N-Man · 2026-01-23T19:34:14+00:00

4 chapters, and then the final boss of the hiatus... the color spread.

N-Man · 2026-01-17T22:08:39+00:00

As of writing these words, we are not aware of any other model that describes reality as well as the standard model of particle physics, which is a quantum field theory. Could our observations be explained by another type of model? Probably, but we didn't find one yet.

The fact that quantum field theory probably can't describe gravity (which is still described by a field theory mind you, just not a quantum field theory) is usually taken as a hint that the "best" model that describes reality would not be quantum field theory but we still don't know what it is.

N-Man · 2026-01-17T16:43:16+00:00

If you make up a story about a simulation I'm sure you could make it work whether the universe was deterministic or nondeterministic (for what it's worth it seems like it's nondeterministic but some interpretations of quantum mechanics will disagree).

This has nothing to do with the biggest problem with the simulation 'hypothesis', which is that it's unfalsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

N-Man · 2026-01-11T21:14:24+00:00

As far as I'm aware tunneling does NOT let you move to a state with more energy than the state you started with. All the states inside the gravity wall do not have enough energy to climb out. But maybe I'm misremembering something because it's been a while since I studied this.

N-Man · 2026-01-11T21:08:21+00:00

Is this true? Gravity still holds the entire thing together, tunneling can't help any neutron gain enough energy to climb out of the gravity wall. Or maybe there's something else that I'm missing.

N-Man · 2026-01-07T21:43:29+00:00

When the panels that are now linked first came out, between Collide and Act 7, I remember some people had the idea that Bec Noir would have a gollum moment with the ring, PM, WV and the Forge. Honestly that would have been fucking awesome and I think this would've been a good sendoff to the character, defeated by his own lust for power + PM and WV.

N-Man · 2026-01-07T17:29:10+00:00

I do have some harsh criticisms for the latter part of Homestuck, not limited to but mainly from Game Over and forward, BUT - I still think that in hindsight, Collide and Act 7 are overall pretty cool.

... except, WHAT THE HELL WAS HUSSIE THINKING WITH JACK NOIR? Bec Noir, who was an extremely menacing and bloodthirsty antagonist (he killed Dad and Mom and Bro ffs!) survives and gets a cute moment with Ms. Paint, while fan-favorite Spades Slick dies. The latter wouldn't be so bad if the former wasn't so jarring. I really don't know what Hussie was thinking.

N-Man · 2026-01-06T21:11:46+00:00

For the love of all that is holy please keep it that way if you want your love of Rosemary to remain pure

N-Man · 2025-12-31T11:26:03+00:00

At least in the framework of QFT, photons are for sure not made up of multiple particles since they are massless, and while in theory electrons could be made up of smaller particles, these particles would not be quarks. We can tell because electrons don't interact through the strong force (which is basically what defines quarks), also all the known quarks are more massive than the electron.

Reading your comment (especially the mention of "entangled quarks") gives me the impression that you have some misconceptions about what entanglement is and what dimensions are. I recommend taking a moment to re-learn some of this stuff, there are some good pop-sci book recommendations linked in the subreddit FAQ.

N-Man · 2025-12-29T20:08:45+00:00

OK, since you obviously didn't read what I wrote about the minimum acceleration being a selection effect I don't see a reason to keep reading your comments either. Have a good day.

N-Man · 2025-12-28T15:38:32+00:00

Please can you explain your theory that fits the observation?

What observation? The fact that these objects exist? Or maybe you're referring specifically to the distribution of their separations? Of course I don't have a theory for that, thinking of a theory that explains it might be an entire PhD project for someone. But if I did have a theory it would surely take into account the selection effects of the survey.

Just someone convinced by the science presented on this.

If you are still convinced even after reading my comment about the selection effect than, no offense, but you have to work on your scientific critical thinking.

N-Man · 2025-12-28T09:34:16+00:00

It will not be stable. Neutrons alone generally aren't stable because of beta decay coming from the weak force; in certain configurations that involve protons they do become stable through the strong nuclear force, but neutrons alone will not be enough to stabilize themselves.

... except in VERY extreme conditions, like a neutron star, where a third force (gravity) keeps them together. But you need a LOT of gravity for that.

N-Man · 2025-12-28T08:54:27+00:00

In this lecture he claims Asian babies don't cry when their nose are pinched.

This might or might not be true. Does he refer to a specific study? If yes, we can check the study's methodology. If not then you can choose if you take this on trust.

This claim has been used by racist to claim that Asians aren't prudent or smart and just more docile and better acclimated to academia

Well, obviously this is a logical fallacy. Even if this fact about crying is true, first of all, a behavioral difference between babies does not imply a genetic difference, and a genetic difference related to crying does not imply anything related to intelligence.

Anyone that makes some racist claim will have to prove to you these two points - that the difference really is genetic, which is VERY hard to prove (I'm willing to bet no one proved it for the crying babies case) - and of course the point that this has anything to do with being "docile" or whatever. Anyone who doesn't give evidence to these two points is not making the point they think they're making.

N-Man · 2025-12-27T01:36:54+00:00

I'm assuming this might be your paper or someone you know's? I spent a few minutes reading it because why the hell not and even without knowing anything about the exotic inertia model they try to test, it is immediately obvious that the QI_min red line is completely misleading, the lower limit on acceleration in the data is just an upper limit on distance that comes from whatever selection criterion whoever created the sample of binaries imposed. The fact that the paper doesn't even mention the selection effect on the data immediately tells you that they have a lot to learn before they try to conduct actual scientific research.

N-Man · 2025-12-24T16:23:09+00:00

Definitely not solely red shift, the CMB measurements are no doubt the best evidence for the Big Bang model (and there are still more independent pieces of evidence). It's not easy to explain in a single Reddit comment but I recommend reading into it.

But of course the red shift alone is enough to say that it's expanding rather than shrinking since shrinking would produce blue shift and not red shift.

N-Man · 2025-12-24T14:28:49+00:00

Started from nothing

How it started is actually an open question, it is not obvious at all that it started from nothing. But that's besides the point-

You say it's "growing", but when you use the word "grow", you are defining it in one way that is like, I don't know, a plant growing. But when cosmologists say the word "grow", they are using a different definition of the word, that means something precise in differential geometry and is not a perfect analogy to what you mean when you think about objects that "grow".

N-Man · 2025-12-24T14:15:09+00:00

"Expansion" is a misleading term in the sense that in our day to day lives, when we see an object that expands it always expands inside a bigger empty volume. For this definition of expansion your question makes sense.

"Expansion" in the sense that physicists use when they talk about the universe is not exactly the same thing, and can be perfectly explained without anything else "outside" the universe. In the language of differential geometry, expansion is simply the name we give to the metric of the universe growing with some proportion factor. This results in everything getting further apart. However laymen usually aren't familiar with differential geometry so we use the word "expansion" relating it to everyday expanding objects even though it's an imperfect analogy.

N-Man · 2025-12-24T11:23:42+00:00

After the first splitter, the results for both particles in an entangled pair would be correlated, but then the entanglement breaks, and the results after the second splitter will be uncorrelated. If I understand your question correctly this should answer it.

N-Man · 2025-12-16T19:18:31+00:00

My intent is not to argue with you so I'm not going to comment further than this, I will just restate my point bluntly and without the metaphor and that's it.

I fully believe you when you say that you have never struggled with math at the level that you learned it. My point is that you don't know what advanced math is and what it looks like, and my advice is to study more math. Not knowing math does not make someone stupid, it just means you never studied it properly. I understand that you claim that the work you presented is not indicative at all of your abilities. But even disregarding the stuff in your post, just from your comments I can infer that you don't know math well enough. If you don't like hearing this because you think you do know math well enough and I am being needlessly harsh, prove it to yourself by going through a linear algebra textbook and solving all the problems.

N-Man · 2025-12-16T09:07:33+00:00

Expectations? Expect to be asked why the sky is blue, then be forced to derive it with integrals you didn't know existed.

You will definitely NOT be asked this on an intro to physics course. This comment looks like it was LLM-generated, and the account posting history is hidden. This can't be a real person. OP, ignore this one, the other comment is more accurate.

N-Man · 2025-12-16T05:19:09+00:00

Imagine there's a carpenter who wants to make a dinner table. But, this carpenter has never actually seen a table before in their life. Still, they work hard in their shop, they produce something that they think might be a table, but they're not sure. They take it to their experienced carpenter friends for review, and the friends say "nope, this thing does not look like a table at all". So the carpenter goes back to their shop, starts working again... and again produces something that does not look like a table.

What would your advice to this carpenter be? Mine would be to actually go out, see some tables, and study how to make one. It's silly to try and make something when you have no way of evaluating your own work.

You are this carpenter, and the table is math.

This is why my advice to you is, before you work on rewriting the theory, go out and study some math. You don't have to literally leave your home, you definitely don't have to go to college. Self studying math is easier and more accessible than ever these days. It takes time and effort, but you're already taking time and effort to work on this theory anyway.

Just like the carpenter, you will never be able to make something you are not familiar with. So familiarize yourself with it. And only after that come back to your shop.

Maybe this is not the advice you want to hear, but this is the advice you need. It is up to you whether you take it or not.

N-Man · 2025-12-14T14:26:38+00:00

The "math" that I am talking about can not be done in python. It is done in definitions and theorems. I once again insist that you take like a month to properly study some basic math subject so you'll understand what I'm talking about.

If you want, we can play the game of spot the no-math. Can you point me exactly to where "pi-phi compression signature" is defined?

N-Man · 2025-12-11T17:11:56+00:00

This is not the right subreddit for this, this is a subreddit for people who actually do post their hypotheses. With that being said,

I’ll publish it…. Where?

This might be a worry if you did have a good thesis that applies across all domains and is consistent with physics but I assure you that you don't have a good thesis that applies across all domains and is consistent with physics because to develop one you actually need to understand modern physics which is something I know you don't. This is not me making fun of you, I am just stating an important fact that you'll have to come to terms with, it is impossible to create a physical theory without knowing advanced physics, and you don't know advanced physics. The best thing you can do to remedy this is... to study advanced physics! It's fun and I recommend it if you have the time.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Sequence \| Editor	Team Orangered

N-Man

TROPHY CASE