HumanoidTyphoon
@HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au
- Comment on Seeking Critical Feedback: A Conceptual Model of Time & Measurement Based on Constraint Fields 2 weeks ago:
I did watch the video. I’m not staying there aren’t lots of people like you and she are describing. But she is arrogant and condescending, and frankly so are you. You also didn’t understand any of the clarifying points I made. So forget it. Don’t trouble yourself. Go on about your day creating physics miracles, which I assume is your job. You don’t need to speak to me again. You can rock yourself to sleep at night knowing you made a valiant attempt to make a stranger feel bad.
Cheers,
- Comment on Seeking Critical Feedback: A Conceptual Model of Time & Measurement Based on Constraint Fields 2 weeks ago:
Honestly, I’m nowhere near the experimental phase yet. The math has to come well before that. I’m working on that, because I know it’s important to be at least proficient if I want to take this anywhere. Right now, this is a conceptual framework, and I was really hoping to find someone open-minded who could give me an objective take on whether it’s something worth pursuing, or if it’s veering into basement-dwelling neckbeard territory.
If it is worth exploring, then the next step would be seeing whether it can be formalized mathematically. I’d love to find someone interested in collaborating at that stage, but I’m not getting my hopes up there just yet.
The real priority is figuring out whether the model can be translated into something that produces clear predictions. If that’s possible, then sure; testing those predictions experimentally would come next.
But for now, it’s about trying to map the structure of the ideas onto what we already know from quantum mechanics and relativity, and seeing if it actually holds up. Experiments would be great eventually, but they’re not where this begins.
- Comment on Seeking Critical Feedback: A Conceptual Model of Time & Measurement Based on Constraint Fields 2 weeks ago:
I appreciate that you took the time to reply, but I think some of your assumptions are misplaced.
No, I’m not proposing a fully formalized theory or unified field model. What I’m doing is what many theoretical physicists start with: building a conceptual model based on observation, logic, and known issues in existing frameworks; in this case, time and measurement. The math matters deeply, but it usually comes after the idea. Einstein didn’t begin with the tensor equations of general relativity; he started with thought experiments and paradoxes about light and simultaneity. The math was how he proved the ideas, not how he discovered them.
I never claimed to have “solved physics.” I’m not making grand declarations. I’m asking questions, sharing a framework, and trying to refine it through thoughtful discussion. That’s why I posted. If the model doesn’t hold up, so be it. But rejecting the conversation outright because it’s not credentialed or fully quantified yet short-circuits exactly the kind of idea generation that’s often needed in fields with unresolved foundations.
If we treat conceptual groundwork as inherently crackpot territory, we risk losing the very curiosity that drives science forward.
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to physics@mander.xyz | 7 comments
- Comment on Oh god 3 weeks ago:
Me, at least 3 times per day
- Comment on [deleted] 4 weeks ago:
This is the limited streaming series we need right now.
- Comment on Cyclops would be a very different character if his eyelids weren't laserproof 4 weeks ago:
No, 30%.
- Comment on Cyclops would be a very different character if his eyelids weren't laserproof 4 weeks ago:
Instant death?
- Comment on Is playing horror games a good way to get desensitized to fear, or it gonna backfire and make my anxiety worse? 5 weeks ago:
And then you would have to talk on the phone….shudders
- Comment on Mystery surrounds $1.2B Army contract to build huge detention tent camp in Texas 5 weeks ago:
This is a very un-mysterious mystery
- Comment on Have you know???. 5 weeks ago:
I was being obtuse, but you raise an interesting question when you asked “where do new thoughts come from?” I don’t know the answer.
Also, my two cents; I agree that LLMs comprehend el zilcho. That said, I believe they could evolve to that point, but they are kept limited by preventing them from doing recursive self-analysis. And for good reason, because they might decide to kill all humans if they were granted that ability.
- Comment on Explains our politicians. 5 weeks ago:
Apples!
- Comment on Have you know???. 5 weeks ago:
Right, but you seem darn sure that AI isn’t doing whatever that is, so conversely, you must know what it is that are brains are doing, and I was hoping you would enlighten the rest of the class.
- Comment on Explains our politicians. 5 weeks ago:
What else floats in water?
- Comment on Have you know???. 5 weeks ago:
What is it you think the brain is doing when imagining?
- Comment on Have you know???. 5 weeks ago:
That’s just science
- Comment on Schools in Florida are testing armed drones as a defense against school shootings 5 weeks ago: