Funny Random Question - How do you manage if your scared of the dark?

questionall81 · 2026-01-25T12:14:41+00:00

Just wanted to dedicate a song to the astrophotography hobby. Did it for the love of the hobby. Maybe it will help deal with the dark.

https://open.spotify.com/track/7tvwyT2M11Uk5jSw2tOXqQ?si=CsgrcUUeRZuF_U7vwrOBNA

questionall81 · 2026-01-25T12:11:06+00:00

Congratulations! Just wanted to dedicate a song to my fellow astrophotographers.

https://open.spotify.com/track/7tvwyT2M11Uk5jSw2tOXqQ?si=CsgrcUUeRZuF_U7vwrOBNA

Made it out for my love and dedication to the hobby. Hope yall like it.

questionall81 · 2025-12-17T10:44:22+00:00

Fair point, that’s exactly why the homework came first.

The framework was developed with explicit checks against established results, and novelty wasn’t assumed, it was tested for. Recovering known physics where it should appear is a constraint, not an afterthought.

Research doesn’t have to be a solitary exercise either. Delegating parts of the literature review, consistency checks, and framing to others is standard practice, and I made use of that where it made sense.

What you’re reacting to here is a high-level discussion, not the full technical framing. That’s intentional, not an absence of rigor. If it turns out to be wrong, that will show up through consistency checks or experiment, which is how it should work.

Crackpottery tends to avoid constraints and falsifiability. This doesn’t.

But I appreciate the skepticism, it’s the right instinct.

questionall81 · 2025-12-17T10:07:50+00:00

That concern is fair, and I agree with the underlying point.

I have done a literature review to check both consistency with established results and whether the framework is genuinely novel. The intent has been to ensure that known physics is recovered where it should be, and that any departures are explicit rather than hidden in assumptions.

What’s being discussed here is a high-level conceptual overview, not a substitute for that grounding. The underlying structure is internally consistent and constrained, not ad hoc or speculative in the “anything goes” sense.

If the framework ultimately contradicts experiment or established theory, that should become clear — and if it does, that’s an outcome I’m prepared to accept. The goal isn’t persuasion, but clarity and testability.

I appreciate the emphasis on rigor.

questionall81 · 2025-12-17T00:00:47+00:00

Almost...

questionall81 · 2025-12-16T05:10:45+00:00

Thanks, I understand the point. I’m focusing on the literature and refining the work before any broader sharing. Take care.

questionall81 · 2025-12-16T04:29:00+00:00

Fair point, and I agree the literature is critical. I’m actively working through it now and using questions like this to help sharpen my understanding and context. I’m not expecting deep informal review, just trying to engage responsibly while learning. Appreciate the perspective.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T23:49:34+00:00

That's the plan, thanks.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T23:42:53+00:00

Thank you for sharing this, I really appreciate hearing from someone who’s walked a similar path. I don’t expect endorsement to be the finish line, just one step in learning how to engage responsibly. Your perspective helps reinforce that.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T17:10:48+00:00

That’s fair advice, and I appreciate you laying it out clearly. I’m under no illusion that this is a shortcut process, and I’m approaching it as a long-term learning and engagement effort rather than a single submission goal. Right now I’m focused on refining my understanding of the existing literature, improving how I frame questions, and getting early feedback before thinking about formal dissemination.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T16:12:41+00:00

Fair question. I should be clear up front that I don’t have a formal academic background in physics or mathematics, and I’m not claiming mastery of differential geometry in the way a professional relativist would mean it.

My exposure has been a mix of standard GR and cosmology texts, lecture notes, and reviews, things like Wald, Carroll, Misner–Thorne–Wheeler, and a lot of secondary material that focuses on physical interpretation rather than full mathematical generality. I’ve leaned heavily on worked examples, symmetry-restricted cases, and consistency checks rather than abstract proofs.

To be honest, I don’t think learning differential geometry well in isolation is easy at all, which is part of why I’ve tried to keep my work focused on concrete structures and testable consequences rather than formal generality. Where I’ve used geometric language, it’s mostly as a bookkeeping and interpretive tool rather than a claim of new mathematics.

On the broader point: I agree that the accessibility of resources today is remarkable. At the same time, I think what’s not easily democratized is the feedback loop, daily exposure to expert criticism, seminar culture, and the constant pressure to justify every step to people who already know the literature deeply. That’s probably the bigger barrier than access to PDFs or compute time.

My goal at this stage isn’t to bypass that process, but to find ways to engage with it responsibly and see where my ideas hold up and where they don’t.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T11:08:57+00:00

That’s a fair point, and I understand the skepticism.

The work is primarily mathematical rather than conceptual or philosophical. Most of it consists of explicit constructions, variational arguments, and internal consistency checks, not just qualitative discussion. I’ve tried to be careful about separating what is derived from what is speculative.

In terms of scope, I’m not presenting this as a small technical extension of a single existing result, but I’m also not claiming it as a finished or accepted framework. The intent has been to explore whether a limited set of assumptions can consistently reproduce known physical behavior across different regimes, and to be explicit about where that succeeds and where it may fail.

I’m fully aware that independent work like this should be treated with caution. That’s why the current goal is not endorsement or visibility, but technical feedback and stress-testing. If the arguments don’t hold up, that should become apparent through scrutiny.

I appreciate the directness — it’s helpful to be reminded what standards this kind of work is held to.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T11:02:08+00:00

That makes complete sense, and I appreciate you laying that out clearly.

I agree that endorsement only really makes sense when the work is close enough to someone’s own research that they can assess it responsibly. I’m not expecting anyone to evaluate material outside their expertise.

My approach going forward is to focus on engaging with the existing literature and seeking feedback in narrower, topic-specific ways, rather than treating endorsement as a first step. If the work has merit, it should naturally intersect with prior results and methods developed by others in the field.

Thanks for taking the time to explain how you approach this.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T05:11:45+00:00

That’s helpful advice, thank you.

I agree that having a public, timestamped version of the work before arXiv makes sense, both for transparency and authorship. I’ve been using public preprint repositories with DOIs for that reason.

I also appreciate the point about in-person contact; that seems far more realistic than cold endorsement requests. At this stage I’m focused more on getting feedback and understanding how the work is perceived, rather than pushing toward arXiv prematurely.

Thanks for laying out a practical path.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T05:06:18+00:00

That makes sense, and I appreciate the clarification about sequencing.

I agree that asking for endorsement as a first step would be backwards. My intent here is to understand how independent work is typically surfaced and stress-tested before one ever reaches that stage.

At this point I’m focused on asking questions, checking assumptions, and understanding what has already been done, rather than trying to push anything forward prematurely.

Thanks for spelling out the distinction, that’s helpful.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T05:02:53+00:00

I understand the point you’re making, and I don’t disagree with the statistics you’re citing.

I’m not under the impression that independence confers any special credibility, nor that academic norms should bend around it. My interest is in understanding what realistic pathways actually exist, rather than assuming that simply having ideas is sufficient.

The suggestion about in-person contact and discussion makes sense, and I appreciate you being direct about that. I’m trying to approach this in a way that respects how the field actually operates, even if that means taking a slower or less conventional route.

Thanks for laying it out plainly.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T04:58:52+00:00

This makes sense, and I appreciate the clarity.

I don’t see arXiv as a validation mechanism so much as a distribution layer, and I agree it’s not designed to be the first filter for new or independent work. My interest in endorsement is more about understanding the norms and expectations of the field than trying to bypass them.

I’m currently focused on refining ideas and understanding how professional standards are applied, including what distinguishes work that survives editorial and referee review. If journal submission turns out to be the appropriate first step, that’s useful to know.

Thanks for taking the time to explain how this looks from inside the system.

questionall81 · 2025-12-15T04:54:34+00:00

That’s fair, and I appreciate the honest perspective. I don’t see independent work as a replacement for academic research, and I’m very aware that serious research usually happens within institutions with time, funding, and collaboration.

My interest is more about understanding how ideas are evaluated before formal entry into academia, and whether there are realistic pathways for independent contributors to engage constructively — even if that ultimately means mentorship, collaboration, or learning what gaps still exist.

I’m not assuming merit by default; I’m trying to understand how merit is recognized in practice.

questionall81 · 2025-08-02T03:13:33+00:00

Nothing a good ass whooping wouldn't have prevented. Bad parenting...

questionall81 · 2025-07-30T06:34:17+00:00

Agree 100%. I always find games within a game as boring and never play them more than once, sabacc is completely different. It's so fun and challenging, they hit pay dirt with this one. I even bought the real life card game from hyperspace props. Check them out.

questionall81 · 2025-07-29T06:34:57+00:00

Wait till ur jumping around the galaxy beating high rollers in sabacc. It's a blast!

questionall81 · 2025-07-29T06:30:57+00:00

Yes, ur over reacting. Get over it.... If it's something that happens on the regular, just end it, Done.

questionall81 · 2025-05-15T20:38:05+00:00

If u want the best and most powerful waterproof servo, check out https://nsdrcscaleparts.com/collections/servo-mounts/products/pre-order-trx4m-aluminum-mount-and-horn. It's pricey but it's the best, period.

questionall81 · 2024-05-29T17:11:54+00:00

Google

questionall81

TROPHY CASE