Did you read the paper?Which is not defined
Did you read the paper?Which is not defined
Well thanks for the feedback I just want feedback that’s why I posted it it’s a work in progress I just want to see if it has any value if any if it does then that’s great am going to run it mathematica.Which is not defined
Check out this version tell me what you thinkWhich is not defined
Which is not defined
I would not use ChatGPT for science concepts. If you want to learn about physics you need to read text books.Did you read the paper?
Nothing is stopping anyone from doing both the real issue with using AI is if you can’t tell when its making a mistake. You have to take charge and be the leader sort of like a parent, then AI actually becomes very useful even if there is one percent chance that there isn’t any significant fundamentals errors in the theory its worth at least a look, closed mindedness keeps you in a pure ego realm of thinking.I would not use ChatGPT for science concepts. If you want to learn about physics you need to read text books.
I will leave you to it.
Enough to know it's gibberish. But nice attempt at provocation.Too bad, hopefully it’s not because the math is wrong and its just because it’s a complex set of new math equations, and you don’t have enough physics and math background to verify if any of it, is correct.
Am here so you can look at the math.
The Q term appears to be wrong in your unified theory.Q is the fifth fundamental force in this unified field theory.
If you show your calculation that resulted 97% accuracy, I will be able to pinpoint your error. Thanks.So far I made a prediction using data from scientific literature and it was about 97 percent accurate about as accurate as gr/sr.
Well you don’t need to be a Diva ex chemist I was posting for a second or even third opinions, I actually believe there must be an error, if I believed there was no error you would have never seen any of my work. This is why a peer review process exist often you might not see your own error this is normal or else there won’t be a peer review process.Enough to know it's gibberish. But nice attempt at provocation.![]()
It is not YOUR error, it is nonsensical garbage spat out using ChatGTP, it is not even wrong.Well you don’t need to be a Diva ex chemist I was posting for a second or even third opinions, I actually believe there must be an error, if I believed there was no error you would have never seen any of my work. This is why a peer review process exist often you might not see your own error this is normal or else there won’t be a peer review process.
You have started six threads on this using this software.Well you don’t need to be a Diva ex chemist I was posting for a second or even third opinions, I actually believe there must be an error, if I believed there was no error you would have never seen any of my work. This is why a peer review process exist often you might not see your own error this is normal or else there won’t be a peer review process.
I'm glad you liked this post, but what would really help would be to show your calculations for how you got the 97% accuracy so we can get to the bottom of this.If you show your calculation that resulted 97% accuracy, I will be able to pinpoint your error. Thanks.
I was planning on doing that I just started taking this work seriously I wanted the opinions of geniuses first as to see you if you could be so kind to invest some time to catch errors.You have started six threads on this using this software.
Here is an example.
"To test this prediction, astronomers and cosmologists could conduct large-scale sky surveys and observations of cosmic structures, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters, using advanced telescopes and instruments."
What like the 90 or so space telescopes launched since the 1960s? The mountain of data those launches have yielded?
Why not apply that data to "your" equations?
Perhaps it can explain the recent binary star study?
The problem if course is you do not have a theory. You have a bunch of terms loosely lumped together, some cosmology terms some GR terms none of it derived, expanded or explained.
One list of references has, Dirac, Feynman, Bohr and Curie! From 1911?? Regarding QFT and a TOE!?
So, my suggestion is you stop using the site squirting out using the software, saying it's yours and ask intelligent questions instead.
I'm glad you liked this post, but what would really help would be to show your calculations for how you got the 97% accuracy so we can get to the bottom of this.
Thanks.
Thank you Origin, am not making any claims I am completely aware of the difficulties of this problem so being wrong doesn’t bother me at all as everyone so far has failed at solving this problem, I just love attempting to solve unsolved problems I was born this way it’s an intrinsic part of my identity. This is what makes me happy this is what I live for, this is what I do for fun, and for free.I'm glad you liked this post, but what would really help would be to show your calculations for how you got the 97% accuracy so we can get to the bottom of this.
Thanks.
Just the fact that I came here you all should take that as a compliment it shows I see value in your opinions, so no need to feel as this is a waste of time and if it is just tell me what you think. That is the meaning of life is to evolve, to complete the set. So nothing is wrong with me having fun with these problems after all if I had done all the fact checking myself and by some astronomical chance I was correct I would just keep the answers to myself and never share it with anyone, in my opinion that would be a lot more satisfying, but since my theory is speculative I decided not to care too much about it and reduce this to just a fun learning exercise!You have started six threads on this using this software.
Here is an example.
"To test this prediction, astronomers and cosmologists could conduct large-scale sky surveys and observations of cosmic structures, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters, using advanced telescopes and instruments."
What like the 90 or so space telescopes launched since the 1960s? The mountain of data those launches have yielded?
Why not apply that data to "your" equations?
Perhaps it can explain the recent binary star study?
The problem if course is you do not have a theory. You have a bunch of terms loosely lumped together, some cosmology terms some GR terms none of it derived, expanded or explained.
One list of references has, Dirac, Feynman, Bohr and Curie! From 1911?? Regarding QFT and a TOE!?
So, my suggestion is you stop using the site squirting out using the software, saying it's yours and ask intelligent questions instead.
Look it is great you like science and technology. It is great you are thinking about the big problems.Just the fact that I came here you all should take that as a compliment it shows I see value in your opinions, so no need to feel as this is a waste of time and if it is just tell me what you think. That is the meaning of life is to evolve, to complete the set. So nothing is wrong with me having fun with these problems after all if I had done all the fact checking myself and by some astronomical chance I was correct I would just keep the answers to myself and never share it with anyone, in my opinion that would be a lot more satisfying, but since my theory is speculative I decided not to care too much about it and reduce this to just a fun learning exercise!
Look it is great you like science and technology. It is great you are thinking about the big problems.
The reality is though, teams of professional researchers are working on this all over the globe.
They will not be using Wikipedia as this is not a totally robust resource. I use it because I am a technologist not a research scientist. It is good enough.
ChatGTP is amazing, what it can do. It is not good regarding science, not this current package.
Will it get to the stage where it will be used as a research tool? That is indeed a possibility.
In terms of your and my understanding, the way forward to really understand physics and the problems in physics is to learn what is already known first. Trust me that is a long time learning. Conceptually hard and in terms of volume.
I'm not a genius, few people are. Anyone can progress their own understanding with hard consistent work.I was planning on doing that I just started taking this work seriously I wanted the opinions of geniuses first as to see you if you could be so kind to invest some time to catch errors.