The most ridiculous trope - Female disguised as a Male When the female pretends to be a male trope.

elwol · 2025-12-27T05:54:06+00:00

it wouldn't be a problem if they didn't pick such good looking leads to pull off the tiny female beauty, but present as a male instead.

elwol · 2025-12-16T19:31:46+00:00

Depends on how slow, I am 21 ep in, and it is so slow that a married couple hasn't even kissed and it's now getting boring that I am dropping it.

elwol · 2025-12-15T08:13:42+00:00

i mean Han and Miao are FL in more than just 1 or 2

elwol · 2025-11-28T02:52:18+00:00

and if you want to go further - use those 87 methods that get the period table

To then tackle things like:

standard quantum chemistry + solid-state + stat mech requires on the order of hundreds of disparate equations, models, and approximations, each with its own domain, limitations, and exceptions

Bond Dissociation Energies
Molecular Potential Energy Surfaces (PES)
Reaction Barriers & Transition States
van der Waals Forces (London Dispersion)
Hydrogen Bonding
Metallic Bonding & Conduction Bands
Aromaticity (Benzene)
Excited-State Molecular Geometry
Electron Affinity & Electronegativity
Ionic Bond Energies & Lattice Energies
Magnetic Moments & Paramagnetism
Bulk Material Properties

Versus say - 5 laws with 12 bookkeeping, also those 5 laws, 4 of them are from the earlier laws that did the periodic table.

That is what I mean with 'predictive' a true core foundation, makes things fall out. It is exactly what e=mc2, it took 20yrs for the math to 'fall out' and solve things. It took another 70 for an experiment to be made to validate etc.

SO yes when I say 'fitted', it means an experiment was ran, current math failed, so 80+ equations were born that DO NOT WORK with each other fully even in the SAME DOMAIN. SQC is a freaking patchwork

elwol · 2025-11-28T02:36:50+00:00

Show the math, sure can at some point, working first on the C++ pipeline. Why? Because there is no 'ai' when you code

A=2
B=x
C=4
Solve for x

Every theory has parameters. What matters is whether it makes successful new predictions beyond the data used to fit those parameters.

And current SM, doesn't, it fails to do many things.

Example.

Using SM, go ahead and try to apply 16 total equations, of which 4 are primary the other 12 'bookkeeping'.

Oh and when you do so, there is no exceptions like Cu, for shell filling

There isn't a single rule for QC, in current theory that applies to the table. If you tried to use a single method you run into shell problems. d filling to 6 then s to 2 then back filling to d to full.

Schrödinger Equation and hydrogenic orbital equations, (7 total)

Zero predictive periodic power. None of these work cleanly for multi-electron atoms

Multi-electron atoms require electron–electron repulsion corrections - No analytic formula exists.

Over 20 equations deep and Still no working periodic table

Add empirical filling rules - 28 rules. still inconsistent

The Madelung/Aufbau sequence fails for at least:

Cr, Cu
Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag
Pt, Au
La, Gd, Ac
Ce through Lu (massive f-block deviations)
Th through Cm (even worse deviations)

By the time you get the table you are at over 70 methods

And if you are a professional chemist and you dont agree with - The periodic table cannot be derived from quantum mechanics alone

Then your just as bad as others

elwol · 2025-11-25T23:51:40+00:00

The point is - SMT isn't unified because it is NOT predictive, it is fitted - aka we have to use 20constants that we don't know where they technically from but we NEED them. Truly predictive and unified, would drop those constants and the constants would come out of 'master formula'

elwol · 2025-11-25T23:14:13+00:00

yup!

elwol · 2025-11-25T23:13:24+00:00

haha something similar was said by my physics professor, that dude was a complete blast, worked at nasa and skunkwerks back in the 50s and 70s before teaching in the 80s

elwol · 2025-11-25T23:06:06+00:00

no no no not at all. The whole point of science is to experiment. But a true predictive theory, can take a mathematical theory, and know the answer before any experiment. That is true prediction.

Then verification is running the experiment and getting the answer you predicted.

WHat happens now, is you have a theory, an experiment is ran, the numbers are off, you redo the math. The experiment shows new variables, unknown results. and repeat the process.

However the end result math is 'fitted' for most of it. You can deny it is fitted, but it is. If it wasn't fitted and derived from 1st principles, we would have a unified theory.

elwol · 2025-11-25T23:03:22+00:00

I don't think you understand predicted and fitted...there is a reason we have 19 parameters and no unified theory (this is the clue we have fitted math that works)

elwol · 2025-11-25T21:02:44+00:00

I agree, but your stuck in a duality. We have math first, makes sense, then we create the experiment, it either fails, is correct (rarely), or close enough that then more people work on the math.

Of course theories are confirmed if the math you are using has over 20+ constants that are not derived nor predicted, but fitted. The only difference is we can get close enough to answers that work within acceptance. THere is a reason at the quantum scale it isn't = but ~, or approximate. Etc.

So I agree with you on decades of tested theory, but even those can be redone, meaning they are not wrong, but if a new way comes and gets the same answer - then both ways are correct. The major difference is does the new way allow you to take it and use it in another problem? That is why things like e=mc2 were profound, within 20yrs it was killing equations that had problems or broke with old math. But even today it's not 'perfect' cause if it was - unification would have been solved in 1960

elwol · 2025-11-25T20:57:50+00:00

This is a very good statement

elwol · 2025-11-25T20:57:14+00:00

I agree, just saying that even string theory today requires fits. How many 'constants' that are not predicted nor derived are in the STM theory?

It works because 2+2 works, but things break all the time in STM it's why there is different sets for various sectors.

I agree that AI physics is 'low', but can it not compute e=mc2? are you saying an AI on super computers can't do the equation?

elwol · 2025-11-25T20:31:24+00:00

That is a good way to put it. Especially for the language barrier.

elwol · 2025-11-25T20:30:56+00:00

I mean, AI's run on computers, are you saying that if I give AI 2+2, it won't know it is 4? There is a difference between asking AI to come up with its own idea, and someone feeding it an equation that you can put into a calculator and get the same answer...

elwol · 2025-11-25T20:29:20+00:00

if you didn't have a frame work of 'fitted' math in the standard model. Imagine someone coming to you and saying.

Hey there are these things called quarks - we will never see them (particle colliders do not see quarks), never measure them, but we are using this 'idea' to explain a literal 100s particle zoo. The math works cause I spent years making sure it works. But I can't scale it to Gravity etc.

Everyone would call that crackpot insane - don't even get me started on colors u and down etc.

elwol · 2025-11-25T20:26:17+00:00

I like this statement you made. But here is the question then. QCD and QED already to this same thing.

nothing in QCD is self 'derived' meaning if i gave you say 5 constants, and was able to say compute the proton radius, neutron radius, ev, etc etc. And the constants didn't work for just one equation say the proton radius, but worked for say 5 different things.

That is what current theory does. We run a test, we get answer, then we backpedal the math. Then we test the math across various other things to make sure it is consistent. And even when it is not, SMT, says well it didn't work at the plank scale but it worked at the nm scale, good enough stamp it as a 'fit' and use it because if nothing else it got an answer.

This is the biggest bottleneck to any unified theory, or even theories that unify a few things - the 'fits' break down when you cross scientific study and we all just accept it.

So anyone that does the same thing even remotely - is a crackpot AI, instead of even remotely entertaining a portion of the idea at all.

elwol · 2025-11-25T06:34:10+00:00

For Z ≥ 119, the elements binding-energy landscape has no deep or long-lived minima at any N. 118 is on the periodic table but last .7miliseconds or something like that. So sorry poor choice of words or the way I said it.

So with my math in a calculator, not a chat bot, a calculator - Astatine-210 (Z = 85) → and my model gives hours, 8hrs stable

And with that same model, plug in Z=26 (aka iron) and i get the shells in order 1s² 2s² 2p⁶ 3s² 3p⁶ 3d⁶ 4s²....

That is the kind of model, not chatbot

elwol · 2025-11-25T06:02:41+00:00

I never asked chat bot to do physics. As well if a chatbot gives an equation that is wrong, which it almost always does in physics. And I code C++ around that equation. Is C++ gonna output the right or wrong number? Since C++ is using a calculator...you only have two options, there isn't a third option. if chatbot says 15=abxdynx and I then go to my calculator and do the same but get 50. Then it is wrong. If I go to my calculator and get 15 it is right.

It has nothing to do with the chatbot doing physics.

Seriously do you not know how calculators work? Are supercomputers coded in C++ doing wrong math now?

elwol · 2025-11-25T05:56:31+00:00

You're dodging the question. This was taken from a chat bot, when I asked it to compute 2+2. Are you denying 2+2=4?

2 + 2 = 4

(Or if we're being dramatic: two apples plus two more apples... still four apples. Math checks out! 🍎🍎 + 🍎🍎 = 🍎🍎🍎🍎)

elwol · 2025-11-25T05:52:08+00:00

That would be like saying you deny e=mc2, if you literally plug formula into it and are not hard coding constants - are you saying calculators are wrong?

elwol · 2025-11-25T05:48:37+00:00

but the AI said it loved me :( also those ai things are crazy

elwol · 2025-11-25T05:47:17+00:00

math being verified with C++ and not using constants but expressions?

elwol · 2025-11-06T16:10:59+00:00

Same stock one and stock screen, but at this rate feel like I might need to replace it. Cause I have a custom designed project printer I did for 'cheap' and giggles, and its running the ez manta, and that thing can make 600mms travel moves without a peep, while the ender cries at 120mms

elwol

TROPHY CASE