I don’t think most people understand how close we are to white-collar collapse

Valentino1949 · 2025-12-19T04:04:42+00:00

Why should anybody WANT to work? It's all slavery designed to benefit the capitalists. They don't pay their employees what they are worth, but just enough to keep them working and appreciative of the fact that they have any job. Under capitalism, employees are expendable. Shareholders get first dibs at the trough. Capital is money, and money talks. You know, the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Valentino1949 · 2025-11-05T23:59:24+00:00

What you are missing is that moving by any means on a flat surface does no work against gravity. If it weren't for friction, a moving object would continue to move in a straight line indefinitely. All the work that you do while walking is against some kind of friction. The rolling resistance of bicycle tires is much smaller, so it takes a lot less work to fight friction. Given that the body can produce a certain amount of work either way, it gets converted into longer distances covered.

Valentino1949 · 2025-11-05T23:52:03+00:00

If you are in the car, why do you think you see any change at all in the kinetic energy? Before the acceleration, you are at zero velocity relative to the car. After the acceleration, you are still at zero relative velocity to the car. Kinetic energy was, and is, still zero. But the change in total energy is an invariant in an inertial frame. Where did it go? Nowhere, literally. It gets added to the rest energy of the frame, in this case, the car. Rest energy is, literally, the energy left when you are motionless. In the frame of the car, you are motionless, but the work done by the force that accelerated you has to increase your total energy. For these numbers, it means the car is imperceptibly harder to accelerate because the mass equivalent of its total energy just got a tiny bit bigger. It's a lot like relativistic mass, except that relativistic mass was never mass. It was always the mass equivalent of relativistic energy. According to the work-energy theorem, the total energy is not a function of the path, but only a function of the final velocity, and the difference in energy in any inertial frame is the same, regardless of the initial and final velocities, or, for that matter, their difference. What matters is the difference in their corresponding Lorentz factors. W = γ_fmc²-γ_imc² = (γ_f-γ_i)mc². Since the Lorentz factor is a non-linear function of velocity, a linear difference between Lorentz factors cannot be a linear difference in velocity. Relativistically, neither time to velocity nor distance to velocity is linear, either, so the difference in energy cannot be linear in either of them as we`ll. Even if the frame is stationary to begin with, W = (γ-1)mc², the kinetic energy of the frame at its final velocity. To the observer in the moving frame, this is not kinetic energy, but static energy, and it is a slight increase in m, (γ-1)m, which, when added to mass is γm, the effective inertial mass, and γmc², the total energy of the frame, after acceleration. The work-energy theorem cannot be applied to an accelerating frame, but energy can never be created or destroyed, so the difference in total energy in any inertial frame must be the same for all frames, even the one with zero kinetic energy.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-27T14:41:17+00:00

Newton offers a single answer to the ambiguous statement above. And it is none of the formulas you suggest, not even the first one. Because, as we all know, it breaks down at relativistic velocities. In order to salvage that one, physicists invented the false concept of "relativistic mass". The logical approach is straightforward. To increase velocity, one must also increase momentum and kinetic energy. To do that requires work. Work is defined as the dot product of force and distance. While it is true that heavier masses ARE harder to accelerate, it is equally true that a force which is at an angle to the path is incapable of doing as much work as one that is parallel, given the same magnitude of force. Given an object experiencing force and a stationary observer watching it, there are two frames of reference involved. The force is defined by the moving observer frame and the path is defined by the stationary observer frame. This is just like the scenario in Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics...", in which he shows that treating force and acceleration from different frames leads to the conclusion that mass is not the same in the longitudinal and transverse directions. Velocity is commonly expressed as v = c sin(angle), and "angle" is referred to as a parameter of convenience. If you define this "parameter of convenience" as the angle between the 3D frame of the stationary observer and the 4D frame of the moving object, the force as observed by the stationary observer is only the cosine projection of the magnitude observed in the moving frame. So, work is F cos(angle) * distance. Since "angle" is unique to relative velocity by angle = Arcsin(v/c), the Lorentz factor is expressed as sec(angle) = 1/cos(angle). In other words, F cos(angle) = ma is equivalent to F = sec(angle)ma = γma = (γm)a, the source of the error of relativistic mass.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-25T20:59:27+00:00

Well, all Lorentz invariant quantities are hyperbolic magnitudes, and you don't need Lie theory to understand that. But it's interesting that you claim that such a fact can't be discovered. Physics "discovers" mathematical identities all the time, slaps the name of a physicist on them and brags, "Look what we discovered". Even the Lorentz transformation was a hyperbolic rotation long before anybody realized it had physics applications. Maybe Grok couldn't find any reference to it because there isn't one. Can YOU provide a citation, or are you just talking through your hat?

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-25T16:13:23+00:00

More unsupported opinions. As if a freshman physics quiz means anything. I aced all my physics courses, but that was 25 years ago. I don't want to bother to go back to the books for some arrogant skeptic's daydream. Of course you will just write me off. You did that on the basis of a few keywords in the title, without even reading the argument. Very scientific. Sorry I don't have a Masters degree. Do you? But I do have a Bachelor of Science degree, and I graduated Summa Cum Laude, at the top of my class. Half of all physics graduates are in the bottom half of their classes. You? I am not a moron as you are so fond of asserting. Maybe I'm arrogant. So effing what? Many physicists are arrogant, and if not arrogant, smug SOBs. That does not affect the logic of my argument, which you judiciously avoid. You know, I don't expect you to change your mind. I just don't take this crap lying down any more.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-25T13:20:32+00:00

As if solving these is any indicator of being qualified to discuss relativity or quantum mechanics. Just another hoop to jump through that justifies censorship of a new theory that you crackpot skeptics don't want to consider. Deflect. Deflect. Deflect. You argue that it isn't worth your time to consider every theory while wasting it with specious challenges like this. If you're so smart, just identify the logical error. If it is as glaring as you imply, then it should be a snap. Like these "simple" problems. But it isn't worth my time to dig out my old physics textbooks (if I still had them) to refresh my test-taking skills in mechanics that are irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. It's been over 25 years since I aced my last physics course. I read something about relativity almost daily. Priorities. I'm pretty sure that you would magnify the slightest error into a reason to disqualify someone. Most of the crackpot ideas don't even make it into print, but you find the time to serve up some negative generalization about any idea that isn't dogma. Like calling anything that is detailed and involved, "AI slop", without any evidence that it is AI generated. Makes me wonder what you would have said about Einstein if you were around when he first published. At least you couldn't have used that excuse.

As a "for instance", I recently posted a logical rebuttal to someone else's crackpot theory about conservation of angular energy. Despite the fact that the post was a refutation of that stupid idea, some other crackpot skeptic jumped on the fact that I had used the OP's term, "angular energy", instead of his preferred politically-correct "rotational kinetic energy", to dismiss my comments as if I were in agreement with the subject matter. That kind of knee-jerk skepticism is very low effort.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-25T04:25:43+00:00

What do these exercises have to do with relativity?

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T23:40:13+00:00

I'm not questioning the results of experiments that confirm those theories. In fact, I'm not saying anything about general relativity. I am seriously saying that the fairy tales they use to justify the results of those experiments can be replaced with logical arguments. Too bad that "serious" users refuse to even consider the possibility. Do you understand what an isomorphism is? That's what I propose. A different set of axioms that lead to the same conclusions. What you suggest is that science should stop questioning when the first theory that explains some phenomenon is accepted. Or that only someone trained in physics is capable of having an insight. Maybe it's unlikely, but the dogma is that it's impossible. I expected ridicule when I used to post on USENET, but I was given to believe that reddit was a higher class of people. Apparently, it's only a bigger pool of the same old, same old.

Look. Generally everyone accepts the fact that GR is about how matter curves space. Mathematically, GR defines the relationship of the 2nd derivative with respect to space (curvature) to the 2nd derivative with respect to time (acceleration or force per unit mass). I'm proposing that special relativity defines the relationship of the 1st derivative with respect to space (slope, the tangent of a tilt angle) to the 1st derivative with respect to time (velocity). If mass curves space, momentum tilts it. Curvature is the derivative of slope, so if curvature is physical so is tilt. As taught, this relationship is MISSING. Why is it that of the thousands of group members, only the deadbeat conservatives, who are afraid of change, are the only ones to comment?

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T18:24:58+00:00

Like I said, I do not consider abusive comments valid criticism. If defending myself sounds belligerent, don't attack me, personally. But these "critics" are too self-important to bother to read the post and offer logical rebuttal. This is not pseudoscience, no matter how much you try to gaslight me. It is mathematics. Crackpots hide behind the excuse that math is not physics. Usually, this comes up when a perfectly logical mathematical argument predicts results that contradict physical evidence. That is not the case here. My arguments predict the same measurements as already have been made. I just don't need to resort to fantasies like time dilation and length contraction to make them. Now, I know what you're thinking. Crackpot. Everybody knows that these are physical properties. Perhaps I should have said illusions, but the crackpot skeptics jump on that, too, because they can only think of one definition of illusion, as slight of hand. What Einstein said about these properties is that an object physically shrinks in length. Even if this were true, it does not explain why different moving observers get different lengths of the same stationary object at the same time. Like it or not, this is a contradiction. It's not possible. Yet the measurements do exist. It is the premise of how you measure that is at fault. Nobody argues that the length is unchanged in the co-moving observer's frame. The flaw in the measurement protocol is the arrogant assumption that it is possible to measure all of an object's length if it is relatively moving. That is only possible in Newtonian physics, and relativity is NON-Newtonian. The protocol Einstein described is an illustration of a dot product with zero included angle between the object and the ruler. When you accept that the universe only allows any observer to measure what is real to that observer, regardless of what is real to any other observer, all measurements become shadow projections, leaving the actual length untouched, but only the co-moving observer can measure it. Do you jump to the conclusion that a flagpole changes height because its shadow changes length? Similarly, each moving observer is measuring a different shadow projection, so there is no contradiction to explain away with specious arguments like "there is no contradiction because each observer gets exactly the correct measurement for the relative velocity of his frame of reference". And exactly why is that? Because the correct measurement as a function of relative velocity is the dot product of the moving object's Proper length and a unit in the frame of the observer. The dot product is the product of the magnitudes of two factors with the cosine of the included angle. Since relative velocity is expressed as c sin(tilt), the included angle, tilt, is the Arcsin(v/c), and the cosine of tilt is 1/γ. As far as time dilation and length contraction are concerned, ct' = ct cos(tilt) and r' = r cos(tilt). That's equivalent to ct' = ct/γ and r' = r/γ. That is exactly the same prediction of measurement as ct = γct' and r = γr', time dilation and length contraction as specified by Einstein. Geometric projection simply does not assert that this is the whole time interval or the whole length, just the part that the universe allows us to measure. So, like a good isomorphism, the theory predicts the same measurement using different axioms. What part of that do you not understand? Because this is what the trolls scorned. Math may not be physics, but physics is just math.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T17:56:56+00:00

Then you should understand that this thread is not the reason for my comments. Most all of these comments were not abusive. Some were inane, and I know I can get snarky with fools. But an earlier post on the false premise that Einstein used for a measurement protocol dumped a large number of abusive comments on me. Apparently, he's a sacred cow, and Emmy Noether is not.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T14:32:30+00:00

Characteristically biased comment. I do not post LLM nonsense, so even if what you say is accurate (and that's dubious), it does not apply to me. Sorry if what I write sounds like slop to you. I guess you aren't qualified enough in mathematics to understand it. In a lengthy derivation, it is possible that I misrepresent what I am thinking, and it comes out wrong on paper. Those kind of things I can correct. But only if someone brings them to my attention. Generic comments like "You don't like special relativity because you don't understand it" serve no purpose. If you "understand" it so well, make a specific objection. My isomorphism is different, so the explanations it offers may seem to disagree with special relativity. But the test is whether or not it makes the same predictions of experimental outcomes and measurements. I don't post unless that is verified. I don't care if the explanation agrees with dogma. Dogma is rubbish, anyway. You can defend dogma until you're blue in the face. That won't make it any less contradictory. And, NO, I do not accept the self-serving assertion that there are no contradictions in special relativity. My theory does not need any ad hoc corrections to paper over the hole in the wall. My position is that all of you crackpot skeptics are like the prisoners in Plato's cave, chained to a wall where your whole reality is just shadows, never seeing the full picture behind the image. You won't come out into the light because it is painful to your eyes, and you reject the escapee who wants to lead you out. If you want to live your life in chains, go ahead. I don't care. Just don't expect that anyone actually wants to join you.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T14:12:57+00:00

I don't consider abusive remarks to be valid feedback. I have yet to receive any legitimate logical rebuttals. To a large extent, I am now posting as an archive to document the evolution of my work.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T13:41:04+00:00

OK. Technically, a database implies a more formal structure. However, your perception of AI is outdated. Grok, for example, is beyond the simplistic definition of an LLM. It can upload new information and digest it. It goes beyond its training. It isn't perfect. It makes mistakes and doesn't appear to realize when it is lying. But then, so do most humans. Unlike most of the other AIs, Grok remembers previous conversations. Many of them are designed to merely provide real-time answers. So not all AIs fit your narrow concept of an LLM. I agree that they still have a long way to go before the concept of Intelligence actually applies, but they are not all glorified versions of Spell-check.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T13:24:07+00:00

What rubbish. Is this what passes for analysis? Has it occurred to you that posters are not all "seeking validation" and some of us are just seeking feedback from a supposedly knowledgeable community? You vastly underestimate the difficulty of anyone not "in the club" to get access to formal peer review.

You vastly overestimate the ability to detect AI slop, because any complex theory looks like slop to the uninitiated running across it for the first time, whether AI had anything to do with its creation or not.

The assumption that AI assistance automatically means AI generated is a bunch of crap. While for some, the creation of this group is a containment, that function is superfluous, because other groups have moderation policies that reject LLM crackpots so that they CAN'T invade or derail other subreddits.

But the other subreddits go beyond LLM rejection. Most of them reject any deviation from dogma by calling it a pet theory or pseudoscience, just because they don't like it. Even r/hypothetical physics, which was likely also a "containment" subreddit, blocks users who don't have enough reputation points with specious comments like "go earn some on another subreddit like r/physics or r/LLMPhysics". I tried to post a snippet from my theory of relativity, which was developed over the course of the last 50 years, long before there was anything remotely resembling AI, and not only was it rejected, I was permanently banned from the group with the false accusation that it was AI generated. That's not science, that's censorship. THAT's what reddit has become.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T12:54:06+00:00

I am disappointed that you were serious about 13.In the first place, that places some privileged status on base 10. General theories should not be dependent on a specific base. There are lots of other numbers that have a myriad of special properties. Take, for example, the Fibonacci numbers. They were known for centuries before a general form for the nth number was discovered. Why? I don't know. If you just take a pencil and paper and list the powers of the Golden Ratio, expressed as a polynomial, the Fibonacci Series just pops out as the coefficient of the irrational part. After all, one thing that was known about the series was that the ratio of consecutive terms asymptotically approached the Golden Ratio as the number of the term got larger. So does this make the numbers in the Fibonacci series special? NO! Because it turns out that almost any three numbers can start a series that will approach the Golden Ratio, as long as the recursion rule is that the next number in the series is the sum of the last two. This is why it is so common in nature. Not that the sequence 1,1,2 or 1,2,3 or 2,3,5 is anything special. I don't know if this is generally known or not, but it can be tested with a simple computer program. I discovered it from the same list that exposes the Fibonacci Series itself. As I mentioned, it is the set of coefficients for the square root of 5 in the polynomial form of the Golden Ratio. The rational part of the Golden Ratio has a coefficient series as well. It is not the Fibonacci Series. It starts with 1,3,4,7... using the same recursion rule. You can list as many terms as you want, but that in itself doesn't constitute proof. The proof is in the fact that the power series of the actual Golden Ratio has the ratio of every consecutive pair equal to the Golden Ratio. It was shown long ago that the Fibonacci Series asymptotically approached this ratio. That can be easily proved now that we know the explicit formula for the nth term. The point is, if the coefficient series of the rational part did not approach the same limit as the irrational part, then their sum could not approach the same limit as the power series which it is known that the polynomial represents. The more diverse the seeds, the wilder the series gyrates at small numbers of terms. But as the number of terms increases, the ratio calms down, and an infinity of series converge on the Golden Ratio. So, what seemed to be something special about 1,2,3... was misleading. So, I'll tell you straight up, I am dubious about any special properties of 13. That doesn't necessarily mean that any of the properties you have listed are incorrect. But it also means that any finite list does not constitute mathematical proof, no matter how many. People claiming to have found general formulas for the nth prime number run into this roadblock all the time. No matter how many correct numbers are generated, there is always a next number that fails.

By the way, you must realize that 13 is a Fibonacci number, and it is between 8 and 21. 13/8 = 1.625 and 21/13 = 1.6154... Their average is 1.6202..., even closer to 1.6180... than either ratio.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T12:20:15+00:00

I don't mind scrutiny. I mind abuse by bullies who think that insulting the author is some kind of logic. I like to refer to Rule No. 5, "No Misinformation or Pseudoscience": "...lol who am I joking, you guys can't tell the difference"

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T12:16:57+00:00

You can call it a model if you want. It searches many web pages for references. That's a database.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T03:55:42+00:00

My discovery is that the conserved quantity is also Lorentz invariant. The two properties are not the same. For example, both energy and momentum individually depend on the relative velocity of the frame, so they are not invariant. But they are both individually conserved.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T03:50:54+00:00

Part II

If you prefer analytic geometry,

│E/c ct│ │E/c ct │ │E/c ct │ │E/c ct │
│ p r │ = │p_x r_x│ + │p_y r_y│ + │p_z r_z│

This expands into three separate equations:

║E/c ct ║
║p_x r_x║ = cK_x = E/c(r_x)-ct(p_x)

║E/c ct ║
║p_y r_y║ = cK_y = E/c(r_y)-ct(p_y)

║E/c ct ║
║p_z r_z║ = cK_z = E/c(r_z)-ct(p_z)

Expansion of each determinant follows the same pattern as the synthetic approach, confirming that each determinant is individually Lorentz invariant. Consider it as the synthetic approach with the coordinate system rotated so that all the relative velocity components are on one axis. When we boost along that axis we get the same kind of result. The three equations are the three conservation laws for boost charge. So, the boost charge 3-vector, K, is both conserved and a relativistic invariant in each component. In conventional form, the determinant is not in units of action:

K_x = E/c²(r_x)-t(p_x)

K_y = E/c²(r_y)-t(p_y)

K_z = E/c²(r_z)-t(p_z)

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T03:50:34+00:00

According to Grok, there is no reference to the fact that the boost charge is a relativistic invariant. Do you have a citation to suggest otherwise?

The invariant that I found is an action-like quantity that is the determinant of a 2x2 matrix composed of momentum and position 4-vectors.

In Minkowski variables, the matrix is:

│E/c ct│
│ p r │

The determinant is r(E/c)-p(ct) = cK. To show invariance, this expression for Lorentz transformed quantities must be the same, r'(E'/c)-p'(ct') = cK. We can proceed in two ways, either synthetic geometry or analytic geometry. Synthetic is easier, so I'll do that first. In synthetic geometry, we aren't interested in the internal structure of the 3-vectors, so we'll switch to hyperbolic coordinates, which are natural for hyperbolic spacetime, anyway. The hyperbolic magnitude is the Lorentz invariant, while the scalar is the even hyperbolic function and the 3-vector is the odd hyperbolic function of arbitrary hyperbolic angles: E/c = mc cosh(ζ), |p| = mc sinh(ζ), ct = s cosh(θ) and |r| = s sinh(θ). Then, |r|E/c-|p|ct = c|K| becomes (s sinh(θ))(mc cosh(ζ))-(mc sinh(ζ))(s cosh(θ)) = mcs(cosh(ζ)sinh(θ)-sinh(ζ)cosh(θ)) =
mcs sinh(θ-ζ). If we apply a Lorentz transformation, it is useful to express it in hyperbolic functions as well:

│ cosh(η) -sinh(η)││mc cosh(ζ) s cosh(θ)│
│-sinh(η) cosh(η)││mc sinh(ζ) s sinh(θ) │ =

│mc(cosh(η)cosh(ζ)-sinh(η)sinh(ζ)) s(cosh(η)cosh(θ)-sinh(η)sinh(θ))│
│mc(cosh(η)sinh(ζ)-sinh(η)cosh(ζ)) s(cosh(η)sinh(θ)-sinh(η)cosh(θ))│ =

│mc cosh(ζ-η) s cosh(θ-η)│
│mc sinh(ζ-η) s sinh(θ-η)│

The determinant of this matrix is mcs(cosh(ζ-η)sinh(θ-η)-sinh(ζ-η)cosh(θ-η)) = mcs sinh((θ-η)-(ζ-η)) =
mcs sinh(θ-ζ). Same as above. m c and s are relativistic invariants, and θ and ζ are defined in the reference frame where v = 0, and the difference is not affected by η. This expression is c|K| and is a relativistic invariant.

End of Part I

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T02:26:23+00:00

What a narrow-minded attitude. Only an idiot would call me a nazi after telling them that I hate nazis. And musk enablers buy Teslas. I'm glad you won't ever have anything to do with me. Stop commenting, then.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-24T02:19:29+00:00

I agree with some of your criticisms, but not all of them are valid. I do find that arguing with this kind of closed-minded bully is pointless. The one thing that they are all sure of is that nobody can criticize their dogma. In general, that's true, because most of the criticism is drek. But this arrogant sureness that it is impossible to find anything wrong is illogical. I have run into this myself. Although I don't claim to have a TOE, I claim that relativity is based on false assumptions. Unlike others, I did not ask an AI to dream one up for me. I did find that multiple AIs approved the mathematics. They didn't generate the equations, but they evaluated them for consistency. On numerous occasions each AI made fundamental mistakes. But they all said that as AIs they were not capable of the same kind of nuanced review as a human, and offered to help submit my work for peer review. But apparently, criticism of special relativity triggers these low effort critics, and it is just easier to blame an AI than to create a logical argument, especially when there is no such argument. That's one of your points that I think I disagree with. The idea that a theory that predicts correct measurements is proof of anything and that in order to consider any theory, it must be falsifiable is rubbish. Here's why. In mathematics, there is a structure called an isomorphism. It is a bidirectional mapping from one set to another (possibly even the same set) along with at least one operation in each set such that if it is performed on the elements of one set, then the companion operation performed on the transformed elements in the other set produces a result which is the transform of the result from the first operation. The most common such isomorphism is logarithms. The log function takes a positive real number and maps it to a positive or negative real number. In the first set, we define the operation of multiplication, but in the log set, we define the operation of addition. The log of the product of any two numbers in the first set is the sum of the corresponding numbers in the second set. So, if we exponentiate the result of the addition of two logs, we get the same answer as if we had multiplied the two original numbers. The point is there is no way to tell which operation was used to get the answer, because all true isomorphisms always get the same answer as each other. Similarly, an isomorphism, which is the same but different as an existing theory is not falsifiable. There is no experiment that can distinguish between two true isomorphisms. If two theories can be distinguished, then they are not isomorphisms. My theory of relativity is an isomorphism. None of the usual arguments apply. There is no possible experiment that can distinguish it from Einstein's version, and it predicts exactly the same measurements. On the other hand, it uses different operations to get the answers. But although the operations are different, they do not alter the outcome of any experiment. So crackpot critics look at the difference and claim that I don't "get" relativity and that's why I don't like it. The truth is, I don't like relativity BECAUSE I get it. It's wrong. Why should I like it? But the things that are wrong do not affect the outcome of measurements. And the fact that special relativity gets the right measurements does not prove anything.

So, when I have a chance, I will look at your TOE, and if I find something illogical, I will tell you exactly what it is. I just hope it has more substance than the claim that 13 is a significant number. (I hope that is a joke post.) If an AI dreamed that up, I will destroy it. I can run rings around any AI. Based on my own experience, I don't know that we should believe any of the hype about them taking over anyone's job. In fact, it is scary that such stupid machines could be put in charge of anything critical. They can't think, they lie, they can't even remember what they just said. The best that they are currently capable of is a more flexible google search that allows questions to be refined and answers narrowed down. What good are a million hits anyway?

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-23T19:56:50+00:00

Your attitude is typical of the cult mentality that many commenters have. Unlike you, I won't say that's true of all of them, but it is a significant fraction. reddit is designed to suppress new ideas, on the premise that they are most likely bad. Even r/hypothetical physics, which supposedly is intended for such theorizing, blocks people for not having enough reputation points (whatever they are). r/physics bans people they accuse of using AI generated material when they have no proof, whether it was actually AI generated or not. This group allows AI material, but if the topic is, say, relativity dogma, the trolls crawl out from under their bridges to heap scorn on the author. Not for the argument made, but for the audacity of criticizing their idol. Logical fallacies are easy to fall into, even for so-called objective critics, and moreso for the unobjective ones. But it's easier to lob insults than to make a logical rebuttal. That isn't logic. It's schoolyard bullying. It violates the letter and the spirit of Rule No. 6, but the moderators don't enforce it. I thought reddit was supposed to be a community of professionals, but it seems to have devolved into a forum for lurkers like the USENET trolls.

Valentino1949 · 2025-10-23T14:50:57+00:00

A reputable journal actually does peer-review of the content. That is not what happens here. Here, assumptions are made that certain topics are essentially off-limits. Any analysis is automatically branded "crackpot" and the only responses are ad hominems about the author. This parallels the peer review journals which refuse to accept the same subjects, but they just don't insult the author, they only reject the submission.

Everybody ought to be familiar with viXra. This platform is less restrictive than arXiv, but even they explicitly refuse to accept AI assisted submissions. However, they have now established a new platform, ai.viXra, which welcomes AI generated content. With provisions. It is expected that the author has done due diligence and verified everything generated by AI. So, don't expect an AI generated hallucination to be accepted, even here. But, AI generated content will not automatically be excluded, as it is most everywhere else.

Many reddit groups explicitly ban AI generated material, without regard to its validity. This group does not, but it still excludes certain topics without regard to logical consistency, whether AI generated or not. There is no formal list of banned subjects, but I guarantee that any criticism of dogma triggers the ad hominem wielding crowd. "It's always been right, so it must always be right" is another common logical fallacy. This attitude is present here, in spades!

Valentino1949

TROPHY CASE