why do we act like physics is not unfied?

[Anonymous No.11921965]

Can anyone refute this? I don't care about character attacks. The guy is not exactly Jesus Christ but can anyone refute the actual model??? https://youtu.be/WuXCS_K_8qM

[Anonymous No.11922021]

>>11921965

H8ers

Whateva

[Anonymous No.11922026]

>>11921965

He is not exactly Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior but whatever. Can you refute the model?

[Anonymous No.11922027]

>>11921965
seems like a pretty cool way to conceptualize a particle as a waveform, breddy good

[Anonymous No.11922033]

>>11922027

Right? How is this not unfied physics? And if it is unified physics then what?

[Anonymous No.11922038]

>>11922033
Are you the guy who made the video? At worst you've made a cool plaything. I wonder if it would be possible to make it into some cheap .io game people play in the browser

[Anonymous No.11922046]

>>11922038

I am not smart enough to program this outside Excel. I am old. But if you can that would be pretty cool!

[Anonymous No.11922050]

>>11922038
>>11922046

All it does is average randomly generated real numbers locally and then point to or from the greatest change depending on if positive or negative. If yiu thunk from the perspective of fluid dynamics its hard to go wrong. Just think, "how would an infinite, indiscrete, fluid behave?"

[Anonymous No.11922052]

>>11922050
>If yiu thunk

If you think

[Anonymous No.11922058]

>>11922033
>And if it is unified physics then what?
then nothing

[Anonymous No.11922061]

>>11922058
>then nothing

Fair point.

[Anonymous No.11922062]

>>11922046
I wish I could help you friend. It seems like a really great learning tool for your students. If you don't get any useful advice from /sci/ I hope you share it elsewhere. I would love to see a video that compares one specific real world phenomena to its analogue in the model. Good luck with your project

[Anonymous No.11922064]

>>11922058
>then nothing

After all if this model is true then the Universe sums to nothing as far as energymatter is concerned. Perfect balance of negative and positive.

[Anonymous No.11922068]

>>11922062
>I would love to see a video that compares one specific real world phenomena to its analogue in the model.

Gravity. The model shows two particles attracting by the square if their distance. Completely emergent. Actually that wasn't even seen until almost a year after simulated particles and electromagnetism were observed in the model.

Thank you for the kind words.

[El Arcón No.11922093]

Seems like a graphics engine more than a physics theory. Does Based Gary answer any questions with his Excel? Does it make any falsifiable predictions, even unoriginal ones?

[Anonymous No.11922119]

>>11922093

:-) i imagine that Gary would be honored if you help with that! The predictions of the theory are pretty extreme. No smallest particle. In fact the theory predicts infinite indiscrete depth... this is going to sound looney tunes but the theory actually predicts that complexity is at all scales... i.e. atoms are essentially... galaxies... from a different scale. Um... i know it sounds crazy :-/ but I cannot refute it. It is completely logical as far as I can see...

Finding particles within the compution is huge. If the theory is correct then the equation simulated at, say, super computer scale, will produce particles like the kind in your graphic. Of course this could all be a dead end but I assure you that Gary is completely convinced and this is not a scam or clout grab. He genuinely believes this is the unified equation.

[Anonymous No.11922129]

>>11922119
>atoms are essentially... galaxies... from a different scale.

Actually its even crazier than that... this theory predicts that every atom might be an entire universe relative to us... we will know more once we scale up the model using super computers and in 3d grids.

[El Arcón No.11922156]

I am fond of the gist that particles are like tiny universes. Indeed, if the hydrogen atom is an electron and three quarks, then it basically has all the building blocks needed to build an MCM cosmology. An electron is space crossed with regular time, and a quark is space crossed with special MCM time, so three quarks provides for the three varieties of special MCM time needed to construct the unit cell of the MCM cosmology.

Based Gary should write a paper though instead of YouTubing it.

[Anonymous No.11922163]

>>11922156
>Based Gary should write a paper though instead of YouTubing it.

Based Gary is not as smart as you. I need to sleep. Later.

[El Arcón No.11922169]

Based Gary seems pretty cool, in any case.

[Anonymous No.11923459]

ITS JUST HEAT

[Jerry No.11923465]

>>11922129
Bro I can do that do youwant me tp show you your model does nothing interesting but becomes a single value accross space if you do it n dimensionally?
It averages, thats all it does. Theres no fluid
theres no velocity
Theres nothing but heat

[Anonymous No.11923480]

>>11921965
Can anyone confirm this theory?
Is it falsifiable with our current knowledge of physics?

I have near zero knowledge of physics.
I would love to know if this has any substance.
I could be witnessing history in the making.

[Anonymous No.11923493]

>>11921965
>but can anyone refute the actual model???
he doesnt have an actual model to refute, just like the flat earthers
theres a rough idea of what they think, but no details nailed down

[Anonymous No.11923601]

>>11921965

What does this model predict? What phenomena does this model explain?
Serious post because I'm bored.

>General Concerns

>What do these values represent? Energy? Energy density? Charge? Mass?
>What does a stable state look like for this model? As far as I can tell the only stable state is a uniform field where all values are identical.
>Is the uncertainty principle satisfied in this model? Does a faster (more uncertain momentum) particle have a more definite location?
>Does this model predict the speed of light as a universal speed limit? Does it predict fields and photons will travel at this speed, while all other things will travel slower?

>Forces
The video claims that the model describes the four fundamental forces of nature. Some questions this model should be able to answer, but as far as I can tell, it can not.

>The force between two particles should be identical when treated in 1d, 2d. and 3d. However in this model that is not the case, due to averaging the "value" over a larger number of cells.
>The electrical force has Positive and Negative charge, Gravity has a scalar crs?harge, and the Strong force has neither, using three-fold color charge. How are these later two emergent from the, as stated in the video, requirement for all values to be inclusive to all real numbers?
>While electricity and Gravity behave very similarly over large distances, the strong and weak force do not. Is this an emergent property of the U = E / S rule?
>Does the model have magnetic fields as an emergent property of changing electrical fields? Bearing in mind that a charge changing in magnitude (or appearing / disappearing suddenly, as shown in the video) should create a magnetic field.

cont.

[Anonymous No.11923610]

>>11923601
>Particles
The video also makes claims as to the formation of stable particles.

>A "stable particle" is created by setting a cell's value to an arbitrary number, and then at a later time setting a group of cells values to a second arbitrary (0?) number. What is the justification for this? It certainly does not arise from the U = E / S rule.
>Why does the stable particle appear to expand as time goes on?
>What emergent rules, if any govern these particles? We observe particles to be quantized; only certain values of mass, charge, are allowed. Does this model require that? If this model predicts otherwise we should be able to verify that experimentally.
>How are different quantities carried by particles? With only a single number for each cell, how are mass, spin, charge, color charge, etc. carried by a particle?
>Can particles in this model move? Is this model able to simulate a single particle moving at a constant velocity? As far as I can tell it is not.
>In this video images comparing the model both to a "solar system" model of the atom (ie. the thumbnail) and to a more modern probabilistic model of atomic orbits. Why does the model show both, (one of which is experimentally inaccurate) without any modifications to the scale simulated or the model.
>Why is an "atom" simulated before other fundamental particles? Why do we not see the atom comprised of quarks, or even protons and neutrons?
>Why does the scale of an "atom" not conform to experimental observations?
>Why does the atomic nucleus appear to be uniform, circular (spherical) and stable, when this is not generally the case is experimental observations.

[Anonymous No.11924195]

[Anonymous No.11924221]

>The guy
Why do you quote yourself in third person

[Anonymous No.11924252]

>>11921965
That's actually pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.11924255]

>>11923601
>>11923610
Don't bother, you're questions won't get seriously answered. I asked for rigorous mathematical proofs of the theory and was given bs about watching the youtube video. This "theory" is just bullshit disguised as "truth" and goes no further than youtube videos. If this theory had actual indisputable math behind it then it would be the thing we talk about, but since it doesn't, it isn't. Their definition of mathematical rigor btw was just U = E / S. Whatever that means exactly.

[Anonymous No.11924286]

>>11921965
Can someone do this not in excel and something actually decent? 'cause that shit spazzes out with circular calcs, which is what he's doing.
Also, original value doesn't change, which sholud be, surely.
Also, has noone tried doing simulations using those equations before? Surely he's not the first one?
Or is he? If so, the guy needs funding and a team with some more competence

[Anonymous No.11924306]

>>11921965
just noticed, but his "particles" keep on growing as iterations progress.

[Anonymous No.11924307]

>>11922033
Is it unified physics though? Does it predict EVERYTHING we see in physics?
Remember that the standard model is based on group theory so once you start having symmetries you might end up finding something that resembles particles, but that doesn't mean those explain our world.

[Anonymous No.11924314]

>>11924286
>Can someone do this not in excel and something actually decent?
Anons have made these
shadertoy com/view/3lc3R7
anonfiles com/JaS2ycH4of/optimum_py

[Anonymous No.11924716]

>>11921965

Bump

[Anonymous No.11924728]

>>11921965
Unfortunately, refuting it would entail buying his 50 dollar seminar on the topic. I think I'll pass.

[Anonymous No.11924749]

>>11924306
well, the universe *is* expanding

[Anonymous No.11924753]

>>11924728
He's taking money out of the mouths of the children of the flatearth leadership with his optimum nonsense!

[Anonymous No.11924763]

>>11924728
It's now free at optimuminstitute.org/scholarship, though this isn't linked anywhere on his site so he can potentially scam any retard who stumbles across it. In the interest of saving people a lot of time I ran it through an AI subtitling program
https://pastebin.com/vhMCtuE8

[based gary No.11924767]

>>11921965
>Gary never left 4chan after the second round of optimumposting.
We’ve trapped him here.
I’m so sorry Gary.

[Anonymous No.11924815]

>>11924767

It's ok. I... kind of... like... it

[Anonymous No.11924826]

>but can anyone refute the actual model???
it's up to the guy who made the model to demonstrate that it accurately models reality, not to us to refute it.

[Anonymous No.11924992]

>>11924749
>well, the universe *is* expanding

This. And using this equation, and if the computer were powerful enough, we would see that the expansions increase in complexity. Basically tiny little "whirl pools" are generated in the expansion, inward forever.

[Anonymous No.11924999]

>>11924286
>If so, the guy needs funding and a team with some more competence

[Anonymous No.11925007]

>>11923610
>and then at a later time setting a group of cells values to a second arbitrary (0?) number.

The way Excel works you can reset the value of a cell by dragging down on it. Thats what he is doing. Its so that the original value follows the equation, while using the original input. It's just how it has to be done when using Excel.

[Anonymous No.11925014]

>>11923610
>What is the justification for this? It certainly does not arise from the U = E / S rule.

The u = e / s rule needs inputs "magnitudes" i.e. energymatter. Without input its just a function with nothing to function on.

[Anonymous No.11925019]

>>11923610
>>Can particles in this model move?

Yes. And they also attract by the square of their distance, but that seems to only happen when particles are in two clumps. Two particles do not seem to attract but two clumps of 4 particles in each clump have been observed to attract by exactly the square of their distance. Its entirely emergent. You can see that in the video. It's the two red blobs pulling together.

[Anonymous No.11925030]

>>11923610
>>In this video images comparing the model both to a "solar system" model of the atom (ie. the thumbnail) and to a more modern probabilistic model of atomic orbits. Why does the model show both, (one of which is experimentally inaccurate) without any modifications to the scale simulated or the model.

This model predicts that the Universe is self similar at infinite scales. The conversion factor is the universal calculating speed, c, the speed of light. Essentially c is conserved and energymatter is indiscrete, therefore shrinking, say, a galaxy down to the size of an atom would make the galaxy rotate at increased speed as it shrinks. By the time the galaxy is at atom scale it will be rotating at trillions of times per second relative to its original size - and its not just rotation that is "sped up" everything occurring in that galaxy will also be accellerated trillions fold, and yet c is always conserved and never broken.

[Anonymous No.11925047]

>>11923610
>How are different quantities carried by particles? With only a single number for each cell, how are mass, spin, charge, color charge, etc. carried by a particle?

All emergent through changing relative magnitudes across space. This model predicts that even the concept of a particle is emergent. All that truly exists is magnitude defusing and contracting across space at the calculation speed of c, and magnitude and space is entirely relative - they have no intrinsic properties other than their relationships to other magnitudes/ coordinates.

[Anonymous No.11925056]

>>11925047
>All emergent through changing relative magnitudes across space. This model predicts that even the concept of a particle is emergent. All that truly exists is magnitude defusing and contracting across space at the calculation speed of c, and magnitude and space is entirely relative - they have no intrinsic properties other than their relationships to other magnitudes/ coordinates.

So to continue, the grid used in the automaton is a human convention. It does not actually exist according to this model. There is no underlining grid. But there are scale factors which is what the grid is meant to represent.

[Anonymous No.11925064]

>>11923610
>Why is an "atom" simulated before other fundamental particles? Why do we not see the atom comprised of quarks, or even protons and neutrons?

The simulation is low resolution. Greater computing power will scale up the resolution. Also, this model predicts that the universe is self similar at infinite scale. A quark is an atom is a galaxy is a big bang. The only differences in these scales are relative motion since c is always conserved. And yes, I know how crazy this sounds.

[Anonymous No.11925099]

>>11923601
>What do these values represent? Energy? Energy density? Charge? Mass?

The real-number values represent "magnitude" or "energymatter". These are just human words, but they essentially represent a fundamental value of comparison with other values in other spacetime coordinates.

[Anonymous No.11925106]

>>11923601
>What does a stable state look like for this model?

It is never stable by definition. I might be misunderstanding how you are using that word, but the model predicts that the Universe's primary calculation is to reach an impossible equilibrium, impossible because an infinite system with a "starting" discrepancy can not reach equilibrium.

[Anonymous No.11925110]

>>11923601
>Is the uncertainty principle satisfied in this model?

Yes. This model predicts infinite depth and that particles are essentially just relative changes of magnitude through space. Fully "knowing" the "particle" would therefore require infinite computation which is theoretically impossible. We sidestep this by priming the automagon with random real-number values.

[Anonymous No.11925113]

>>11923601
>Does this model predict the speed of light as a universal speed limit?

Yes. Absolutely. But this model does not think of c as a speed in the trading sense, it's more like a clockspeed of the universes processor, and it is always c and at all times.

[Anonymous No.11925119]

>>11925113
>in the trading sense

In the traditional sense

[Anonymous No.11925120]

>>11923601
>Does it predict fields and photons will travel at this speed, while all other things will travel slower?

Yes. You can actually see it in the automaton.

[Anonymous No.11925129]

>>11923601
>Gravity has a scalar crs?harge, and the Strong force has neither, using three-fold color charge. How are these later two emergent from the, as stated in the video, requirement for all values to be inclusive to all real numbers?

Gravity and nuclear forces are emergent and not easy to put into words, they derive from the math so to speak. For example, newton and einstein equations are relatively easy to derive from u = e / s.

[Anonymous No.11925131]

>>11923601
>>Does the model have magnetic fields as an emergent property of changing electrical fields? Bearing in mind that a charge changing in magnitude (or appearing / disappearing suddenly, as shown in the video) should create a magnetic field.

The video has a few jump cuts. I imagine Gary was just trying to spare us from one of his tangents. The first video he made explaining the excel automaton was around an hour long. The jump cuts are not hiding any trickery, just believe me when I say that is is better to be spared from Gary the ranter.

[Anonymous No.11925137]

>>11925131

And yes, electromagnetism is emergent. Its a vector that derives from changing magnitudes.

[Anonymous No.11925457]

>>11922156
>to build an MCM cosmology

Had to google that. Wow that paper is something! I'm going to have to take your word for it!!! I am not that smart

[Anonymous No.11925475]

>>11923465
>>>11922129 (You) #
>Bro I can do that do youwant me tp show you your model does nothing interesting but becomes a single value accross space if you do it n dimensionally?
>It averages, thats all it does. Theres no fluid
>theres no velocity
>Theres nothing but heat

Jerry I'm just a random guy on the internet, but I'm getting better everyday and I know that interpersonal skills has been something I need to work on.

The automaton will essentially become a single value IF it is only positive real-numbers. Has to be positive and negative. More than that, the values should perfectly balance. The automaton should sum to 0.

It IS essentially heat in the sense that heat is a field of magnitude. Correct. I never said this was complicated. The complexity comes from its depth. Because the system is entirely relative, just as Einstein said, it is infinitely complex at all scales. Complexity comes from the relationships between each coordinate. Its... almost impossible for apes like us to comprehend... but I sincerely believe this is an accurate description of our reality.

So yes, it is like heat, almost exactly like heat, except there are no particles, only relationships / ratios.

[Anonymous No.11925479]

>>11923480
>I could be witnessing history in the making.

I sincerely believe that is accurate. But it might take time, if at all. Many advances are not acknowledged in their time, and sometimes advances are not allowed to be discussed for whatever reason - too dangerous for mass consumption etc... if this equation is accurate them anything, bar none, could be reverse engineered with it.

[Anonymous No.11925482]

>>11925479
>. if this equation is accurate them anything, bar none, could be reverse engineered with it.

But I have trust in humanity. I trust we are wise enough to know these things. And this research was conducted in good faith.

[Anonymous No.11925483]

>>11925482
>And this research was conducted in good faith.

Einstein, Hawking and so many more challenged our generation to do this. The first generation with all human knowledge at our finger tips. It makes sense that we would unify physics.

[Anonymous No.11925491]

>>11924767

You were the one who said, "you can never leave". I thought you were joking lololol!!!

[Anonymous No.11926878]

>>11921965
CA particles can only travel in discrete paths orthogonal to a universal coordinate system. Real particles aren't restricted in that way. Why do so many undergrads fall for this meme?

[Anonymous No.11926966]

>>11926878
>CA particles can only travel in discrete paths orthogonal to a universal coordinate system. Real particles aren't restricted in that way. Why do so many undergrads fall for this meme?

Please watch the video. These particles can travel in any direction even while being generated on a square grid. This is part of what makes this model so interesting.

[Anonymous No.11927010]

>>11922038
Has no previous experience with cellular automata

[Anonymous No.11927028]

How do you calculate anything with this. For example can we calculate the mass of a higs boson with this equation?

[Anonymous No.11927045]

>>11927028
>For example can we calculate the mass of a higs boson with this equation?

If you are putting enough conphtation power behind the sim then theoretically you can calculate anything with near perfect information. Because of uncertainty principle there are still limits though.

But this model is not necessarily for that. I would still suggest using more traditional mathematics.

When developing a vaccine one does not work solely with evolution theory. Different tools have different purposes.

[Anonymous No.11927047]

> Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger. — Richard Feynman

The fact that some fundamental equation came out of nowhere tells you how much is known about physics. Certainly, in a simulated environment, rules can change so long as to allow the presence of life.

[Anonymous No.11927048]

>>11927045
>conphtation

Computation

[Anonymous No.11927058]

>>11925129
>For example, newton and einstein equations are relatively easy to derive from u = e / s.
That's not an example you fucktard. Either derive one of the equations or you're a hack.

[Anonymous No.11927081]

>>11927047
>rules can change so long as to allow the presence of life.

This model has been used to derive original cellular reproduction, abiogenesis, without modifying the original assertions. It's a video lecture called Optimum Theory. Here is an except concerning abiogenesis.

https://youtu.be/lJc6tb9hYZ0

If this interests you the complete lecture is at www.optimumtheory.org/scholarship

[Anonymous No.11927124]

>>11927045
no i mean it describes why the mass of a higs boson is what the mass of the higs boson is. that an important part of a "theory of everything". see why things are the way they are.

[Anonymous No.11927151]

>>11927047
Absolutely pants-on-head retarded quote.
Schrodinger spent years trying to explain phenomena that could not be explained by classical physics. His inspiration for the wave nature of mechanics was not "from nowhere" as they had experimental evidence that small low-mass particles behave like waves. He postulated a general wave-mechanics equation with quantized energy levels and voila, the Schrodinger equation was proposed. And, don't forget, it's not perfectly accurate, either.
He also knew about Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, which is just a matrix formulation of the wave equation. However, matrix mechanics was (and is) impenetrably obtuse, and there has been no phenomenological relation between matrix mechanics and observations. It's much easier to discuss waves mechanics.

[Anonymous No.11927164]

If this "theory" is even remotely true, can someone use it to predict the dissociation energy of diatomic molecules?
A relatively rudimentary problem that is well described by very expensive multireference quantum mechanical methods (i.e., MRCI, CASSCF).
This should be easy to do, so show me it works even for simple, well-known systems with good experimental data.

[Anonymous No.11927211]

>>11927124
>no i mean it describes why the mass of a higs boson is what the mass of the higs boson is.

Can ot explain the "why and how"? Yes. I believe that is this theory's most important contribution. But it's cumbersome for practical use since it simulates everything. Better to use more specific equations for various tasks.

[Anonymous No.11927222]

>>11927164
nobody has ever been able to make gary understand that the quantitative requirements of a physics theory are like a million times more demanding than what he believes the standards are

[Anonymous No.11927250]

>>11927222
does this guy just ignore all demands for quantitative support for his "theory" or does he just post these Excel "simulations" on youtube for cum-guzzling pseuds?

[Anonymous No.11927309]

>>11927250
he ignores all requests for quant predictions and all general criticisms (e.g. we've known for 100 years that if "atoms were time galaxies" that electrons would radiate away energy as they orbit the nucleus and matter would be unstable...yet gary insists this parallel is true)

he tells himself anyone unimpressed by him is just sour grapes. there seems to be no getting past his ego here

and there are no pseuds. its just gary and gary pretending to be his own supporters.

[Anonymous No.11927483]

>>11927211
okay us how your model predicts the mass of a higs bosons

[Anonymous No.11927494]

>>11922026
He's not exactly Mohammed (peace be upon him) but whatever. Can you refute the model?

[Anonymous No.11927632]

>>11927494

He's not exactly Mot, our Lord of Death (we give thanks for everyday he does not devour us) but can you refute the theory?

[Anonymous No.11927682]

Behold! A universe!
https://haxiomic.github.io/GPU-Fluid-Experiments/html5/

[Anonymous No.11927751]

>>11927682

Sort of! Yeah! But there needs to be zero viscosity and an understanding that the "fluid" is not particle based, it's entirely relational. When you flick your finger and see the two opposite wirl pools form, that is almost exactly what is meant by this idea of "if you know the spin of one particle you know the spin of its opposite particle".

[Anonymous No.11927874]

>>11925113
>c as a speed in the trading sense, it's more like a clockspeed of the universes processor, and it is always c and at all times

C = clockspeed.

How fitting.

And I only just noticed.

I have thought this many times on this path... the simulation. God. The Universe everything. And the Messiah and Prophets.

They are on our side.

[Anonymous No.11927881]

>>11927494
>>11927632
>>11927682
>>11927751
>>11927874
would you please stop samefagging, Gary? please? it’s pathetic

[Anonymous No.11928092]

>>11921965
>guy accidentally rediscovers the method of relaxation and solves the poission equation
yawn

[Anonymous No.11928205]

>>11928092
That's impressive though

[Anonymous No.11928953]

>>11926966
I miswrote. Instead of orthogonal, I meant to say that the number of angles is limited, necessarily by the size of the CA structure. There's only a finite number of Knight-like moves. This is why ultrafinitism isn't taken seriously in general.

[Anonymous No.11928970]

>making your CA in fucking excel instead of golly or literally any of the software actually optimized for that purpose
but WHY

[Anonymous No.11929269]

>>11928970
fucking explain yourself gary, I KNOW you're reading this

[Anonymous No.11929400]

Please stop posting this faggotry, you are just a pseud. Open some physics books and study.

[Anonymous No.11929442]

>>11921965
>explains 3 physical dimensions, at least 1 time dimension, probably more, on a 2D static image
Really thumps the melon.

[Anonymous No.11929449]

>>11921965
we don't, it obviously is unified, that's why every physicist wants to find a unified theory

no luck yet though

[Anonymous No.11929455]

>>11929442
>probably more
hmm

[Anonymous No.11929479]

>>11928953
Understood. I imagine this is why the video says that using circles are better than squares, but squares are easier for the average person to understand. The theory is clear that the grid is just a tool and does not really exist.

[Anonymous No.11929491]

>>11928970
>golly

This automaton is continuous. It has a real-number grid structure. It is not a binary GOL type automaton. The colors and arrows are derived from underlining real- number data.

[Anonymous No.11929502]

>>11929479
>I imagine this is why the video says that using circles are better than squares, but squares are easier for the average person to understand.

Its not even really circles. The underlying concept is relativism, i.e. Einstein. You really should just watch the lecture www.optimuminstitute.org/scholarship

[Anonymous No.11929509]

>>11929449
>, that's why every physicist wants to find a unified theory

Have you wondered if maybe this is a funding thing? The public thinks physics is not unified which enables a massive funding apparatus involving 21 billion dollar super coliders etc.. ?

[Anonymous No.11929515]

Oh noes a Gary thread :(

[Anonymous No.11929517]

>>11929509
wow it must be a conspiracy

[Anonymous No.11929584]

>>11927874

You don't even have any gets tho

[Anonymous No.11929596]

>>11929584
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-speed-of-light-called-c

c = clockspeed of the Universe.

Let it henceforth be known sayith the great and powerful GAN

[Anonymous No.11929613]

>>11929596
it actually comes from constant

[Anonymous No.11929614]

>>11929515

[Anonymous No.11930148]

>>11921965
We are unable to truley mathmatically identify it and harness it like we can do with the other fundamental forces. I want a flying. Fucking. Car. Im still workin on it :p

[Anonymous No.11930880]

>>11930148
>I want a flying. Fucking. Car. Im still workin on it :p

*Lil John voice* YEEEEAAAHHHH!!!!

[Anonymous No.11931173]

>>11930880

Kanye confirmed Optimist. Wait for it. And also Wavy ~~~~~~~~

https://youtu.be/kt0g4dWxEBo

[Anonymous No.11931186]

>>11931173

Recognize when real brilliance is in your midst

[Anonymous No.11931201]

>>11931186

Vectors at play here that no one even realized. Science is intractable from politics / the human condition.

[Anonymous No.11931240]

>>11931201

"SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE REST / GOT THE FLAG TATTED ON MY CHEST / AND NOW HATERS GET THE BOOT / UNLESS THEY PLEDGE ALLIANCE AND SULUTE! / UNCLUTCH YOUR PEARLS / WE'RE NOT SNATCHING ON YOUR BLOCK / WE CAME TO STEAL THE WHOLE WORLD! /. SIGN OF THE TIMES / HISTORY DONT REPEAT / IT ONLY RYTHMES/ AND I SHOULD KNOW /. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS COMING OUT YOUR STEREO? / LIKE NEW PROPHET$ /. BASED. / GARY THE OPTIMIST."

[Anonymous No.11931319]

>>11921965
At least post gifs you wannabe schizo.

[Anonymous No.11931374]

>>11925475
Gary just be yourself why are you lying

[Anonymous No.11931383]

>>11927250
>>11927309
Theres a few schizos on youtube ready to believe it

[Anonymous No.11931425]

Gary you retard youre 98% the way there but theres a fatal error

Im only telling you this so if youre really intelligent you can figure it out and come to match me. But realistically im going to take your theory and run with it fully complete and take full credit

I figured how to run tests of basic Newtonian equations on your model. Requires at least at functionally 16000x16000 grid (functionally as you can use some computing shortcuts in it). With your model as existing it matches Newtonian equation predictions 83.22%, with my modification, it hits 99.99994%

Also works for calculating atomic energy and weight.

Bet you dont even have a clue how to get that from your own model gary

Its ok, ill tell the world you inspired me, but I will note that your ego held you back. Ironic since I have a big ego about this, but see, I get to because I win and you lose ;)

[Anonymous No.11931426]

>>11925491
You're here forever.

[Anonymous No.11931540]

>>11931425
>But realistically im going to take your theory and run with it fully complete and take full credit

[Anonymous No.11931549]

>>11931425
>>11931540

(Jus do eeeet)

[Anonymous No.11931551]

>>11931425
>Gary you retard youre 98% the way there
no hes not

[Anonymous No.11931556]

>>11931426

Yeah... especially if I have my way and we upload :-/ :-/ :-/

[El Arcón No.11931558]

>>11931540
Haha, Shia with his "Just kill Tooker already. memes. Haha, Shia. I won't forget you.

I won't forget your son, Bill Maher, and you neither.

[Anonymous No.11931641]

>>11931425
>Also works for calculating atomic energy and weight.

I have no doubt. Run with this sht. My blood is yours.

[Anonymous No.11931705]

>>11931641

THIS IS ABOUT OUR SPECIES. OUR BLOOD OF BILLIONS. OUR CHALLENGES ARE STILL INFINITE. GOD WILLING MAY THE REIN OF HOMO SAPIEN BE ETERNAL!!!!!!!!!

[El Arcón No.11931730]

Shia says, "He will not divide us." Jesus Christ says he will do just that.

[Anonymous No.11931737]

>>11931730

Friend, I know this passage. It is challenging. It has challenged me. To me this passage means that each new child is given a fresh start irregardless of parentage. All start equal.

[El Arcón No.11931746]

>>11931730
no doubt

[El Arcón No.11931754]

>>11931737
It means that the Lord will call people to kill their family members like pic related. Your interpretation is wrong.

[El Arcón No.11931759]

>>11931737
>To me this passage means that each new child is given a fresh start irregardless of parentage.
Dude, did you not see the Lord's dozens of promises to never forgive certain things and to punish the children for the sins of their ancestors? If you think God is going to renege on those promises, why do you think he would honor another promise?

[Anonymous No.11931766]

>>11931730
>>11931737

It means that all are in competition with each other and yet the Prophet, my Messiah, says that there is no slave or freeman or woman in His kingdom. And that all are cared for. All are equal. This kind of system is ideal to me and what I strive for. God bless you brother. I know who you are. I know you are brilliant. I know you have "sinned" (as have I) and I will never use those sins against you. I wish, truly, only for your happiness, health and success. I think you are smart enough to know that this reality is a construct and we are inscribed by our surroundings. Contact me at any time. Www.optimuminstitute.org/scholarship. If one wishes to use this for evil then of course I will deny ever being here, just as I will deny a snake asking for directions to a crib. Yours in good faith, Gary.

[Anonymous No.11931779]

>>11931754
>It means that the Lord will call people to kill their family members like pic related. Your interpretation is wrong.

Do not presume the will of the Lord, friend. The Lord has also said that we should not kill and that we should not sacrifice human flesh, or even animal flesh.

[El Arcón No.11931791]

>>11931779
If you think someone besides me is the Lord, then I am your mortal enemy, not your friend. If you think I'm not the Lord, I will kill your children.

[Anonymous No.11931801]

>>11931759
>Dude, did you not see the Lord's dozens of promises to never forgive certain things and to punish the children for the sins of their ancestors? If you think God is going to renege on those promises, why do you think he would honor another promise?

First of all, you act like I don't understand what the Scripture is. My direct blood wrote the Scripture. If confronted of course I will defend it. If you are speaking in good faith then so will I and admit that this is the work of humans. Fallible humans.

[Anonymous No.11931822]

I shouldn't do this, but since it's Gary thread I'll go ahead. I'll tell you the secret to getting this to work, which is also the same secret to getting generalized AI to work. It's analog computing. This is why this model works as oppose to traditional cellular automaton. It uses non-discrete percentages. This is absolutely necessary to represent the fractal nature of reality in that it has infinite smallness, and is also necessary for creating human like consciousness inside a computer which can have (hypothetically) infinite depth of thought. Even if we're not aware of the deeper levels of thought on a conscious level they do exist.

With analog computers your limited only by signal interference. With infinite fidelity you can have infinite information density, and infinite smallness. Abandoning analog computers in favor of digital transistor computers was a mistake. This technology has potential to redefine the human condition and it's been forgotten.

[Anonymous No.11931869]

>>11931822
>It's analog computing. This is why this model works as oppose to traditional cellular automaton. It uses non-discrete percentages. This is absolutely necessary to represent the fractal nature of reality in that it has infinite smallness, and is also necessary for creating human like consciousness inside a computer which can have (hypothetically) infinite depth of thought. Even if we're not aware of the deeper levels of thought on a conscious level they do exist.

Yes I completely agree. I could pull up videos I made like 6 months ago talking about this... I mean... If I were Gary :-/

Anyway, yeah well said

[Anonymous No.11932292]

I like how his “model” of the double slit experiment clearly doesn’t show the interference you see in the real world. Even in the diagram he shows as a comparison shows how the waves cross and overlap, where his model just kills two waves when they intersect

[Anonymous No.11932332]

>>11932292
You can put detection cells in the excel that sum magnitute over time and they recreate the graphs generated by the real double slit. It's fun. Being right is fun.

[Anonymous No.11932355]

>>11921965

I like how this guy obviously did unify physics on zero budget using excel and wingdings or at least develop something brilliantly novel within that category, and he has said on record dozens of times that if he had a budget of even $30,000 per year he could map the entire brain and pave the way for full scans, upload and IMMORTALITY but nah, spend 21 billion on a bigger collider. Spend 1 million per year JUST on the local school districts HR department staff. How funny. This guy has said he could make you all immortal for $30,000. Tradeoff is he needs autonomy to think. But no. Lololololol . Thats our world! All you can do is laugh, right?

[Anonymous No.11932362]

>>11932355

Its even funnier than that! Our system is structured in such a way (crabs in a bucket) that not only do you all insult him for unifying physics at his own expense, not only is it obvious that this guy is a genius who could do thinks that are essentually magic with the most modest budget, but I think the world hates its own so much that it would get greater pleasure from watching someone like that kill himself on livestream than in him solving immortality. Unreal.

[Anonymous No.11932372]

>>11932362

The world would rather watch this guy kill himself than give him a budget of even $30,000 per year and solve eternal life for EVERYONE.

[Anonymous No.11932385]

>>11932355
>>11932362
Scientific progress has been held back for approximately 100 years by faulty logic and teaching that academia provides. It's not accidental mind you, this is by design.
I would say people are mad because he managed to bypass a system designed to prevent people from doing what he's done, but not an accurate portrait of what's happening. It's a very select few who are mad, and they're channeling that anger and rage through the system they've build, and are pulling all the levers of power they've created to shush this discovery up and bury it any way possible. This is classic information control. It's been happening for 100 years. Thanks to the internet tho, more people have been dragged into it, and with that the chance of dragging the whole thing into the light of day.

[Anonymous No.11932404]

>>11932385
>Scientific progress has been held back for approximately 100 years by faulty logic and teaching that academia provides. It's not accidental mind you, this is by design.
>I would say people are mad because he managed to bypass a system designed to prevent people from doing what he's done, but not an accurate portrait of what's happening. It's a very select few who are mad, and they're channeling that anger and rage through the system they've build, and are pulling all the levers of power they've created to shush this discovery up and bury it any way possible. This is classic information control. It's been happening for 100 years. Thanks to the internet tho, more people have been dragged into it, and with that the chance of dragging the whole thing into the light of day.

[Anonymous No.11932499]

Why doesn't Tooker have children? He is brilliant and handsome. Mods will know that I am not Tooker by IP which shows general locality. I am Gary, obvs. But of course will deny if you try and use our right of free speak for evil like a fking snake. Tooker, and you reading... you deserve progeny. This system does not want. This system is optimizing to something like an ant or bee colony. Only a select few breed.. Not necessarily optimum.

[Anonymous No.11932501]

>>11932499
>you deserve progeny.

But to be clear Optimum Theory says that rape is evil. Optimist consent with other adults. Optimist must fortify our children - at all costs.

[Anonymous No.11932504]

lol Gary’s on shrooms again

[Anonymous No.11932506]

>>11932501

Optimists should breed 2. At least. To stabilize population. This goes deep. All who stand in the way of consensual reproduction between adults, and the raising of children, face actual and real death.

[Anonymous No.11932524]

>>11932501

They wonder why the West has population collapse. I say truly. You let us breed consentually and with adults, in a reasonable number, or we will fking kill you.

[Anonymous No.11932531]

>>11932524

This is the word of a messenger of God.

[Anonymous No.11932895]

>>11932524
>. I say truly. You let us breed consentually and with adults, in a reasonable number, or we will fking kill you.
>>>11932531 #

To be very clear. This is the word of your God. I know even now the forces of actual and real Satan manifest are tracking who posted this. This post is a paraphrase and vassal of GOD.

[Anonymous No.11932908]

>>11932524
>You let us breed consentually and with adults, in a reasonable number, or we will fking kill you.

This is the word of your Lord, God, Messiah, Prophet and Savior.

We will procreate. Reasonably and maturely in adult relationships.

All who barrier will face abject, real, true and materially horrific consequences.

[Anonymous No.11932918]

>>11932908

Not only will we, as mature adults, have children. We will endure indefinitely for generations for eternity. All who barrier us will face real and horrific consequences that cannot even be imagined and which Hollywood could not even visualize. Liveleak cannot even imagine what faces those who prevent us from conceptual breeding.

[Anonymous No.11932922]

>>11932918
>conceptual

Concentual

[Anonymous No.11932932]

>>11932922

Consentual lol.

But really.

Don't test humanity or the will of your God.

[Anonymous No.11934211]

>>11932531

No it isn't

[Anonymous No.11934243]

Mods love this schizo garbage

[Anonymous No.11934930]

>>11931540
>>11931549
It will take some time, keep a lookout though, more threads will occur
I might even feel so generous as to give hints
Fuck it why not one right now. Take a look at Wolframs theory. Hes dead wrong, but his way of deriving relativity from it is the same sort of way Ive tuned Garys model to near-perfection

>>11931551
Take another look

>>11931641
Gay gary

[Anonymous No.11935068]

>>11934930

GodSpeed Anon.

[Anonymous No.11935072]

>>11931425
>Its ok, ill tell the world you inspired me, but I will note that your ego held you back. Ironic since I have a big ego about this, but see, I get to because I win and you lose ;)

This would be fair.

[Anonymous No.11935075]

>>11935072

Any I mean that truly. See, world, this is what science is supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.11935751]

>>11922062
I would like to rescind this comment. At the time I didn't understand what a huckster this guy is. All this immortality talk is wannabe cult leader horseshit and he shouldn't be around kids

[Anonymous No.11936136]

>>11935751
>All this immortality talk is wannabe cult leader horseshit and he shouldn't be around kids

So... literally all religious people?

[Anonymous No.11936152]

>>11935751

I work for Elon Musk at Neuralink. Our plan includes mind uploading for eternal life. Am I a huckerster? Should I kill myself?

[Anonymous No.11936293]

>>11921965
Equations or revolt

[Anonymous No.11936296]

>>11922119
Answer his questions, retard.

[Anonymous No.11938053]

>>11922046
I've already programmed the basic part of Optimal Theory (which I derived myself) using Python, but there is no way to produce what is on that video using the basic method.

[Anonymous No.11938067]

>>11921965
yeah no shit everything is connected and the same thing.

The thing is u dont seem to realize its all in your head anyway, ike a holographic projection between us.

Dont make me become an actual scientist and btfo all the brainlets in the field at this current time.

Youre all idiots. Actual smart peolpe dont give a fuck and are chilling rich as fuck doing their own thing like me.

[Anonymous No.11938220]

>>11938053
https://blackholeeventhorizon.herokuapp.com/

[Anonymous No.11939352]

>>11938220
nice

[Anonymous No.11940729]

>>11938220
>https://blackholeeventhorizon.herokuapp.com/

Using circles is better than square grids... Agreed on that...

[Anonymous No.11940735]

>>11938220

You're calling each "cell" a dimension. Interesting... Okay... Then what do you call the spacial dimensions...? Or is there no distinction?... Maybe not... Hmm...

[Anonymous No.11940748]

>>11938220

I like that you included the moment of epiphany :-) I wish more scientists were willing to make science personal and human.

[Anonymous No.11940764]

>>11938220

The 3d grid is awesome! And it runs in a browser!

[Anonymous No.11940797]

>>11932918
>Not only will we, as mature adults, have children. We will endure indefinitely for generations for eternity. All who barrier us will face real and horrific consequences that cannot even be imagined and which Hollywood could not even visualize. Liveleak cannot even imagine what faces those who prevent us from conceptual breeding.

Careful with alcohol / drugs. Honestly it might be better to stop that entirely. Something that can help with that is to think in future terms, since time does not really even exist you can redefine yourself at any moment. For example, you might have been an alcoholic for decades, but that's not the future so when speaking of yourself define yourself as you want to be. It's essentially "The Secret" that corny book, but it's psychologically valid. So you can say, "I don't drink". You might think "WAIT A SECOND, but I do DRINK! In fact I'm an alcoholic!" No. That's the past. You are a new being in every moment. You don't drink. Period. And if anyone will judge you for that and try and hurt you for that then you are under no obligation to play fair with them. Here's a good response to a person or ad trying to pressure you to drink, "I don't drink because it just makes me tired." Now, you might know that you don't drink because it will spiral you and turn you into a raging a-hole, but they don't need to know everything, and besides it's none of their business.

Godspeed, Anon.

[Anonymous No.11940824]

>>11940797
>>11940797
>Careful with alcohol / drugs. Honestly it might be better to stop that entirely. Something that can help with that is to think in future terms, since time does not really even exist you can redefine yourself at any moment. For example, you might have been an alcoholic for decades, but that's not the future so when speaking of yourself define yourself as you want to be. It's essentially "The Secret" that corny book, but it's psychologically valid. So you can say, "I don't drink". You might think "WAIT A SECOND, but I do DRINK! In fact I'm an alcoholic!" No. That's the past. You are a new being in every moment. You don't drink. Period. And if anyone will judge you for that and try and hurt you for that then you are under no obligation to play fair with them. Here's a good response to a person or ad trying to pressure you to drink, "I don't drink because it just makes me tired." Now, you might know that you don't drink because it will spiral you and turn you into a raging a-hole, but they don't need to know everything, and besides it's none of their business.
>Godspeed, Anon.

This technique works with all habits. Understand that you are a system that can be hacked, but you can also "update your security software". So let's imagine you are trying to stop biting your nails or slouching, or whatever it is. Simply understand that is a program that can be deleted from your hard drive, as long as you think in terms of what you want that new program to be rather than your old programming. Don't think "I slouch! I have sloughed for years! How do I stop slouching?" Think, "I DON'T SLOUCH. Slouching is not me. That was some virus that hacked my brain for years. But it's gone now. I'm an uninstalling it. I don't slouch. I don't drink. I don't bite my nails." Etc...

[Anonymous No.11940844]

>>11938220

I like the second version of Optimal Theory (what we call it is not important) :-) Also be sure to give a shout out to your institute!

Cataphysical Research Society

https://cataphysical-research-society.herokuapp.com/

[Anonymous No.11941964]

>>11940844
>what we call it is not important

Fundamental science does not have a name. Names are useful, but fundamental reality "just is". It can be translated into any language and it still "just is". Tying something down with a name or supreme leader is what cults do, not us.

[Anonymous No.11943275]

>>11940735
Dimensions here refers to the size or aspect of the graph rather than the number of dimensions.

>>11940764
Yes, I built the graph using plotly. I enjoy attempting to push the limits of my ability with these tools.

I'm thankful you appreciate my work. I have many other apps and programs that are not listed with CRS. I plan to upgrade the main website and add them, but other less tedious projects keep getting in the way.