https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Seriously, take a look at the crackpot index.

My point is, that you cannot make any kind of informed conceptual model UNLESS you already have mastery of the equations of existing models. Einstein used conceptual models, but he fully understood the math of the older theories he was expanding on. It doesn’t seem you have the background for this.

And yes, it seems you are proposing something that is a kind of grand unified theory, whether you recognize it or not. You’re trying to upend the entire foundations of physics, but you lack the math knowledge to understand even existing theories. You can’t improve upon that which you do not understand. If you think physics is just a conceptual model, you don’t understand physics.

I’m sorry, but you need to have some humility here. You are trying to radically change an entire discipline that you lack even undergraduate-level knowledge in.

The math is not secondary; the math is primary. If you do not understand the math, you do not understand the basic language of physics. It’s like trying to publish a literary analysis on the works some ancient Athenian playright when you can’t even read ancient Greek. There is such a thing as prerequisite knowledge. And you need to have enough humility to realize you simply lack the knowledge. You wouldn’t expect to be able to win an Olympic medal having never played the sport. But many folks suffer from the misconception that they can revolutionize physics without ever putting in the years of effort to really understand it.

Again. You cannot improve what you do not understand. And if you do not understand the math of physics, then you do not understand the physics. Save yourself the pain now. Abandon this idea until you actually have the mathematical framework to look at it and see if there is actually anything of worth in your idea. Start with humility and let go of the hubris. Otherwise you will face nothing but frustration, anger, and tears, as you cannot get anyone to respect or consider your half baked conceptual models.

Seriously. Go watch that video. The post you made ticks all the boxes on crackpot theories.

If you don’t want to be called a Nazi, stop doing Nazi shit you sack of human shit.

Good old-fashioned robbery. Then when charged argue a defense of necessity.

To make such a defense, you have to show that the harm you sought to avoid exceeds the harmed caused by the crime you admit to performing. Robbing $40 from a random store obviously meets this threshold if the alternative is multiple people dying.

There are many cases where you can’t argue a defense of necessity. For example, if someone threatens to kill your family unless you kill some other person, you can’t argue a defense of necessity at your murder trial. You can’t sacrifice one life to save another. But if the crime you commit is obviously orders of magnitude less destructive than the alternative? Then yes, simply robbing a store for $40 to prevent multiple deaths could easily be argued as a necessity.

Hell, even if you’re not able to make that defense; it’s 40 bucks. What are the odds I’ll face anything other than probation for such a minor crime?

It’s the obvious answer, but sometimes the simplest answers are best. If I simply have to make 40 dollars within the next 3 hours, or people die? Yeah I’m just straight-up robbing somewhere.

https://archive.is/lY6lN

The world is objectively a better place with Charlie Kirk firmly in the cold, cold ground.

They’re just devil worshipers. If your religion leads you to hate, you’re not worshiping a benevolent god, you’re worshiping Satan.

One thing I’ve learned from Angela Collier is that your really can’t get far in physics with conceptual models. Those are largely the realm of crackpots.

The “conceptual” thing is the real red flag here. Have you actually defined your ideas mathematically, or are you arguing based on a hazy conceptual/qualitative model? Another big red flag is you’re proposing something that sounds like a unified field theory. Crackpots tend not to focus on unsolved but modest problems in physics; they tend to go straight for the grandest Einstein-level revelations. You don’t see people writing, “I have no degree in physics, but here is my new groundbreaking paper on the half life of neutrinos” You instead see people writing, “I have no degree in physics, but here is my new theory of everything.”

Physics is ultimately one hair’s breadth away from pure mathematics. And the mathematics behind theories like quantum mechanics and general relativity are very complex and difficult. For this reason, most people get their knowledge of advanced physics from pop-sci books and videos. (Nothing wrong with this, I’m not a physicist myself either.) These sources are not academic; they explain not through mathematics, but through analogy and qualitative descriptions. And while this method of explanation makes physics accessible to the lay public, it has a downside. People often confuse physics analogies for actual physics. They don’t understand the mathematics, so they form theories that are largely qualitative and are extensions of the analogies they learn in the popular science works.

My main questions would be:

1. Do you know how to perform rigorous calculations in general relativity?
2. Do you know how to perform rigorous calculations in quantum mechanics?
3. Is the theory you’ve developed an actual quantitative theory, composed of formal proof and mathematical argument, or merely one of qualitative analogy?

It’s fine if you don’t actually have a degree in physics. Maybe you’re a self-taught autodidact that’s gained a level of physics knowledge equivalent to at least a graduate student in physics, but without ever actually pursuing a degree in it. To have even the tiniest chance of your idea being valid, you need not have a degree in physics, but you do need to have physics and mathematical knowledge equivalent to those who do have these degrees. If you can’t, at a minimum, work through the equations of GM and quantum, then there’s not a snowball’s in Hell of building some new unified theory of everything.

Maybe you actually do have some mathematical model you’re trying to develop. But please, just realize, every physics professor of virtually any serious public profile gets a crackpot theory of everything emailed to them every week. Someone like Michio Kaku probably gets multiple candidate theories of everything emailed to him on a daily basis. It’s incredibly common for some reasonably intelligent people to fall down a rabbit hole and convince themselves they’ve created a new revolutionary theory redefining the very foundations of physics. But really, unless you, at a bare minimum, already understand the full mathematics behind existing theories, it’s really not worth your time to try dreaming up new theories. You simply don’t have the mathematical and physics understanding necessary to make a meaningful contribution to the field.

We hanged people like Charlie Kirk at Nuremberg. He didn’t deserve to be assassinated, but Kirk did deserve a life sentence in prison for crimes against humanity and incitement to genocide.

Don’t forget to fly both the Hamas flag and the IDF flag simultaneously.

I want to find someone that sells telescoping flag poles. I’m not talking something that bolts on the side of your house. I’m talking one of those big, free-standing, in-ground flag poles. I want to get one of those, but telescoping. The vast majority of the time, I fly the flag with the flag at the top of the undeployed mast. When someone deserving of memorializing dies, I lower the flag halfway down the mast. When some asshole like Charlie Kirk dies, I extend the telescoping pole and fly the flag at double mast.

Even worse if you have cats. Now any box can be kept based on the excuse that the cats can use it. And the thing is, they will use them! It’s just a balancing act of not having so many boxes you turn into a hoarder house.

And they get all worked up when you call them fascists and Nazis. Maybe stop doing Nazi shit if you don’t want to be called a Nazi.

Sorry. Don’t lecture to me about the dangers of political violence when we’re talking about someone that actively championed literal genocide. In a just world he would have been tried and hanged for crimes against humanity.

Kirk already engaged in political violence. He encouraged his followers to countless acts of violence. You’re just mad when people dare to fight back against their oppressors. You call it a two way street, but it was already a one-way street. Right wingers are allowed to plot literal genocide, and the rest of us are supposed to just sit back and pretend it’s just fine and normal.

No, sorry. Fuck everything about that. The world is a better place with Charlie Kirk firmly in the ground. He was a mass murderer.

Sorry. Maybe you’re just too comfortable as the member of a majority group, I don’t know. But for those who are targeted, they can understand that a threat to wipe out a group you are a member of is no different than a threat to kill you personally. You’re just engaging in sophistry.

Eh. Trump was able to make a very specific and tangible case to his voters for how he was going to directly improve their lives. Kamala was completely unwilling to do that. That’s why she lost.

Trump’s plan was evil, but it was clear and direct. His message was “I will deport a bunch of immigrants and slap up tariffs. This will make it easier for you to get a job and buy a home.” It’s a cynical, evil, and short-sighted plan, but it was actually a plan to directly improve the living standards of working class Americans.

What was Kamala’s equivalent? Nothing. She had some vague language about a tax credit that would just inflate the housing bubble higher, and she took the usual idiot liberal approach of attaching dozens of strings that made it so only select marginalized people would qualify for it. Kamala offered nothing. People were hurting, and she offered them nothing. She didn’t lose because of Gaza, no matter what Republican trolls on Lemmy like to say. She lost because she was unable to make a clear and specific case about how she was going to help the people that voted for her. Her only real core message was the defense of democracy, but it turns out that people see little reason to support a democracy that will do nothing to actually advance their interests.

Most conservatives worship Satan. They’re literally devil-worshipers. If your religion leads you to hate, you are not worshiping a benevolent god, you’re worshiping the Devil. Charlie Kirk was a devil worshiper and he’s now joined his master, where he will burn in the fires of Hell for all the misery he brought down upon his innocent victims. All billionaires go to Hell. Most Republicans go to Hell. Any “Christian” that preaches hate is bound for the the Pit.

And yet we are the only conscious beings on any of these heavenly bodies that are aware enough to give their existence any meaning at all.

You’re right. It’s a different crime. It’s not self-defense in the immediate criminal sense. But Charlie was absolutely guilty of incitement to genocide and crimes against humanity. We’ve literally hanged people at tribunals like Nuremberg for doing the exact same thing that Charlie spent his whole career doing. In just world, Charlie would be indicted on crimes against humanity, convicted, and hanged for his crimes.

“I didn’t plot to kill you, I just plotted to kill your entire family. You have no business complaining.”