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,
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.
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.
Not my favorite space opera, but definitely top 5 at least
Me, at least 3 times per day
That was even more underwhelming than I expected. I dropped all my awe several years ago I think.
Lived through the nineties. Can confirm.
I want him to know it’s about to happen before it happens.
>“I want Americans to understand the law – and that it’s not just an opinion poll about whether the supreme court thinks something is good or … bad,” Barrett said. “What the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided.”
Weird. I thought the court’s job was to determine the constitutionality of laws as accurately as possible.
This is the limited streaming series we need right now.
Is this What I’m doing when I overshare?