HyperGeometrical theory-proofs and debunks

This is 3 time i keep writing this, since this always resets so i can't go to and get references. I will be quick. I found this. It explains all Relativity does+ explains sereval other things. If anybody is able to refute this, i will be thankfull to him my whole life

Does it predict all relativity does: yes

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-hypergeometrical-universe-satisfy-Einsteins-GR-and-SR-tests/answer/Marco-Pereira-1?ch=10&share=7123b0a5&srid=jZL6o

Does it debunk relativity: yes

https://www.quora.com/How-would-anyone-defend-general-relativity-from-Marco-Pereiras-HU-challenge/answer/Marco-Pereira-1?ch=10&share=310c2b06&srid=jZL6o

Does it debunk L-CDM

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-status-as-of-2019-of-the-search-for-dark-matter/answer/Marco-Pereira-1?ch=10&share=801f5767&srid=jZL6o

Rest i can't link here, but it is in comment under this:

https://www.quora.com/q/hypergeometricaluniverse/Censorship-Question-Is-it-possible-to-succeed-outside-mainstream-theories?ch=10&share=0e978994

Response to Bob Keeter

Does it predict CBR with almost perfecr accuracy? Yes

https://www.quora.com/According-to-the-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory-HU-where-is-our-universe-within-the-hyperspherical-hypersurface/answer/Marco-Pereira-1?ch=10&share=93ced9e8&srid=jZL6o



Explenations of his theory: https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-thing-that-only-geniuses-IQ-of-140-can-do-or-understand/answer/Marco-Pereira-1?ch=10&share=945b0f0c&srid=jZL6o

See that of 80+ comments none were able to refute it?


Full list of his posts:
https://www.quora.com/q/hypergeometricaluniverse/https-www-quora-com-Are-all-the-objects-in-the-universe-really-moving-in-some-fourth-dimension-with-an-unchanging-velo?ch=10&share=bc992146

I accidentaly posted this on wrong board. Can mods move this thread to alt science, please?

Edit: thanks mods

Here are his papers:

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WSN-98-2018-127-139.pdf

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WSN-98-2018-127-139.pdf

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-96-1.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3399192

You might find the first peer reviews he received interesting:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hypergeometrical-universe-theory-has-review-marco-pereira/

You might find the first peer reviews he received interesting:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hypergeometrical-universe-theory-has-review-marco-pereira/

And he debunked it. Peer-reviewer didn't come back...

Also, he got censored on ArXiv, Quora ( 
https://www.quora.com/q/hypergeometricaluniverse/Censorship-Question-Is-it-possible-to-succeed-outside-mainstream-theories?ch=10&share=0e978994 ), reddit...

Quote from: Stash on December 21, 2020, 11:39:43 AM

You might find the first peer reviews he received interesting:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hypergeometrical-universe-theory-has-review-marco-pereira/

And he debunked it. Peer-reviewer didn't come back...

So what?

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on December 21, 2020, 11:47:24 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 21, 2020, 11:39:43 AM

You might find the first peer reviews he received interesting:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hypergeometrical-universe-theory-has-review-marco-pereira/

And he debunked it. Peer-reviewer didn't come back...

So what?

He debunked it. There are no valid debunks

Also, he got censored on ArXiv, Quora ( 
https://www.quora.com/q/hypergeometricaluniverse/Censorship-Question-Is-it-possible-to-succeed-outside-mainstream-theories?ch=10&share=0e978994 ), reddit...

"Censored" is an inappropriate term. His paper was "rejected", as many are I suspect. Just like a novelist submitting their manuscript to a publisher and it getting rejected for various reasons. Happens all of the time. It's not "censored". For instance, one publisher rejected it because if didn't come from an Astronomy dept. Well, that's part of their criteria.
Another rejection felt his theory wasn't applicable to real world observations. Again, that's within their right to accept or reject based upon their criteria.
Presumably others have been rejected for the same reason.

His credentials according to his LinkedIn page are:

"I seek to be challenged by new roles in Market and Credit Risk as well as other quant roles.
My experience spans fixed income derivatives, credit value adjustment (CVA), Credit Risk Analytics, modeling risk on exotic trades, Fixed Income Derivatives, LATAM products.
In the past, I worked a variety of fields: middle market MA, LBO, equity trading, molecular biophysics/genetics, physical-chemistry and nuclear physics.
High among my interests are statistical arbitrage, automated trading engines, fixed income derivatives, exotics pricing and credit derivatives risk modeling.
Specialties: Fixed Income Derivatives, Statistical Arbitrage, Risk Analytics, Counterparty Risk, Default Modeling, Data Science, AI, Matlab, Python, VBA, C++, R, XVA, CVA"

Seems like an odd skill set/set of interests in comparison to what he is proposing.

Not to mention his hubris in constantly stating how every other theory is a "failed" one except for his.

I don't see what the big deal is.

Quote from: Stash on December 21, 2020, 12:00:25 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on December 21, 2020, 11:47:24 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 21, 2020, 11:39:43 AM

You might find the first peer reviews he received interesting:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hypergeometrical-universe-theory-has-review-marco-pereira/

And he debunked it. Peer-reviewer didn't come back...

So what?

He debunked it. There are no valid debunks

So he says that there are no valid debunks. Maybe, simply, no one is really interested in his theory. Just because he's super into it doesn't mean everyone else has to take the time to dig in and put tons of effort into debunking it or supporting it. Lots of people around these parts and elsewhere have theories they feel haven't been debunked. Some times they are right, more often they are wrong and just don't accept the debunks.
This guy seems passionate about his work. Good for him. That doesn't automatically make him correct. Like I said, that doesn't require that other people must be just as passionate.

So fact he refuted all attempts at refuting doesn't make you go "ahh, maybie there is something intresting here"?

So fact he refuted all attempts at refuting doesn't make you go "ahh, maybie there is something intresting here"?

Being the last person to post doesn't win the argument.

So fact he refuted all attempts at refuting doesn't make you go "ahh, maybie there is something intresting here"?

Did he refute all of the refuting? Or did he just say he refuted all of the refuting?

And either way, no, it doesn't make me go, "ahh, maybie there is something intresting here". He's got an alternative theory to several theories, some of which have never been experimentally challenged, e.g., multiverses, and some that have, e.g., Relativity. Lots of people challenge both and all of those theories everyday and lots of people get their challenges published. Just because this guy isn't getting his stuff published doesn't mean anything. He is one of many. And I doubly don't really care about his theory when he is running around and proclaiming everywhere he can and to anyone who will listen that his theory is irrefutable and all others are failures. That's just a garbage stance out of the gate to begin with.

I honestly don't know why you're all hung up on this one guy. 

So fact he refuted all attempts at refuting doesn't make you go "ahh, maybie there is something intresting here"?

Αre you sure he "refuted" them and it's not just that it seems to you like he refuted them because you lack understanding of what is at play here?

I'm not saying that to insult you, it's just that people should really stop looking at random stuff like that and getting convinced there's "something interesting here" because physics is very complex and you have to have a very high level of understanding to even understand what is wrong with something.

There's so many of these people. So, so many. I even personally know one of these people who used to show up in my university trying to show math professors his brilliant proofs of important theorems. To an outsider they would probably make sense, or, at least, as much sense as math in general makes to them. But they were, in fact, nonsense. When they get rejected and ignored it's not because of a "conspiracy" or "censorship". It's because there's way too many of these people to give them the time of day.

Also peer reviewers don't usually have epic debate battles. They reject the paper and that's it, they move on to something else. The author submits another paper or modifies the paper they already have to address the complaints and then resubmits it. Now if the author just keeps spamming them with papers they keep rejecting, they may just bar him from submitting stuff. 

He has profile on ResearchGate if anyone is intrested

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco-Pereira

One debate:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_theory_can_predict_the_mass_distribution_in_the_Universe_observable_and_unobservable

There was larger debate somewhere but i lost link

Also:

https://join.slack.com/t/hypergeometri-lln8320/shared_invite/enQtODY5OTIxNDc1NDQzLTQ4MzliYzY0YjRjZDM1MzliMGJkY2U0NzhkYjA3NjY2ZmU3M2MwOWMyNTE0NjBhOWI2Njk1MDNmNjNlOGVlNGM

Also peer reviewers don't usually have epic debate battles

Sadly, yes. Others won't know why is it wrong. I have feeling that if thiese wierd theories were criticaly analysed, they will be found to be wrong. Sadly i can't find anybody adressing literaly anything cranky.

Αre you sure he "refuted" them and it's not just that it seems to you like he refuted them because you lack understanding of what is at play here?
 

Possibly. But looking at the posts it seems he dominated.

I'm not saying that to insult you, it's just that people should really stop looking at random stuff like that and getting convinced there's "something interesting here" because physics is very complex and you have to have a very high level of understanding to even understand what is wrong with something.
 

I can't stop, i have fallen in rabbit hole

I can't stop, i have fallen in rabbit hole

Have fun with that.

"Hypergeometrical" eh?

Well, it has to be better/greater - it has the prefix "Hyper" which clearly denotes that.

What is "the core" of this theory, if anyone can distill it down to that?

I find that theories that end up in the rubbish bin, and ones that are revered/hailed as "inspired" that, equally, produce no fruits of benefit to humanity often have something in common - they invoke (or otherwise mathematically describe) fiction / non-real entities.

It isn't to say that a non-real entity couldn't be discovered in this manner, but it won't be discovered by simply "theorizing" it as such.  It must be demonstrated through experiment.

Take relativity for instance.  Its tensor equations describe a real entity - space time / aether - which can be manipulated/contorted by mass (potentially by "forces").  The trouble with this is there is no space time that is demonstrable or experimentally validatable.  In the (regrettably) ongoing era of aether-mcarthyism, relativity describes nothing being affected by something (which is fundamentally unacceptable, anathema to all of physics, and is the driving REASON that einstein went to the trouble of creating relativity in the first place).

Does "hypergeometrical" theory also posit / mathmatically describe/formalize non-real entities which have no experimental (or merely empirical, in the case that is not applicable) support?

Take relativity for instance.  Its tensor equations describe a real entity - space time / aether - which can be manipulated/contorted by mass (potentially by "forces").  The trouble with this is there is no space time that is demonstrable or experimentally validatable.

Are you sure that there are no demonstrable or experimentally validatable efforts, experiments, observation regarding aspects and predictions of Relativity? Or are you just saying that because you haven't heard of any? Because a simple google search returns the contrary.

"Hypergeometrical" eh?

Well, it has to be better/greater - it has the prefix "Hyper" which clearly denotes that.

What is "the core" of this theory, if anyone can distill it down to that?

I find that theories that end up in the rubbish bin, and ones that are revered/hailed as "inspired" that, equally, produce no fruits of benefit to humanity often have something in common - they invoke (or otherwise mathematically describe) fiction / non-real entities.

It isn't to say that a non-real entity couldn't be discovered in this manner, but it won't be discovered by simply "theorizing" it as such.  It must be demonstrated through experiment.

Take relativity for instance.  Its tensor equations describe a real entity - space time / aether - which can be manipulated/contorted by mass (potentially by "forces").  The trouble with this is there is no space time that is demonstrable or experimentally validatable.  In the (regrettably) ongoing era of aether-mcarthyism, relativity describes nothing being affected by something (which is fundamentally unacceptable, anathema to all of physics, and is the driving REASON that einstein went to the trouble of creating relativity in the first place).

Does "hypergeometrical" theory also posit / mathmatically describe/formalize non-real entities which have no experimental (or merely empirical, in the case that is not applicable) support?

It is all explained in links in my main post. You will be able to easly navigate throught it

Here is what you asked for:
https://www.quora.com/q/hypergeometricaluniverse/Proof-of-an-Extra-Spatial-Dimension?ch=10&share=e52e8376

I made reddit post while ago on this subject

https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeAstronomy/comments/khohhm/debunking_einstein_and_showing_true_model_of/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

I can tell you that he's wrong.

In one of his writings, he claims he proves GR wrong by showing his variable-G model is right about supernova distances and redshift. Now, GR posits that redshift is linear with distance, and that this type of supernova has the same absolute brightness. Since apparent brightness decreases with the square of the distance, we end up with a nice and simple relationship that verifies GR and provides a precise value for this cosmological constant.

Now Marco "derives" a power law for the absolute brightness of supernovas, and a power law for G, and observes that his prediction matches observation. But it seems to me that if you add up the two power laws and you trivially get the linear law we already have evidence for - in other words, he presupposes the conclusion.

Hypergeometrical" eh?

Well, it has to be better/greater - it has the prefix "Hyper" which clearly denotes that.
 

It is called that beacause it states there is another dimension. And dimensions are geometry so... yeah

I made reddit post while ago on this subject

There is some sage advice in that thread. For example, this:

Oh, if you're just a teenager then I highly encourage you to avoid reading too much exciting crank garbage and instead follow more traditional teaching in physics and other sciences.

Before you start trying to tear down the foundations of modern physics, it's important to learn those foundation principles. Then you can learn how to test them. You can find where the weaknesses are. You will have had time to learn beyond the Pop-Science version of how some concepts are communicated to the masses. You might even have time to learn more advanced mathematics that you can apply to some of your own hypotheses about how to resolve some of the aforementioned weaknesses you may have found.

Posting around the internet saying "Hey, this dude talks a good game, I think the cut of his jib, everyone should take him more seriously" when you don't have anything other than gut instinct and a feeling of being overwhelmed by the amount of content someone has just thrown at you is going to drive you crazy - there's no shortage of wacko things that very confident and very poorly informed (or even possibly malicious) people will say just to ruffle feathers.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on March 06, 2021, 07:52:04 AM

I made reddit post while ago on this subject

There is some sage advice in that thread. For example, this:

Quote

Oh, if you're just a teenager then I highly encourage you to avoid reading too much exciting crank garbage and instead follow more traditional teaching in physics and other sciences.

Before you start trying to tear down the foundations of modern physics, it's important to learn those foundation principles. Then you can learn how to test them. You can find where the weaknesses are. You will have had time to learn beyond the Pop-Science version of how some concepts are communicated to the masses. You might even have time to learn more advanced mathematics that you can apply to some of your own hypotheses about how to resolve some of the aforementioned weaknesses you may have found.

Posting around the internet saying "Hey, this dude talks a good game, I think the cut of his jib, everyone should take him more seriously" when you don't have anything other than gut instinct and a feeling of being overwhelmed by the amount of content someone has just thrown at you is going to drive you crazy - there's no shortage of wacko things that very confident and very poorly informed (or even possibly malicious) people will say just to ruffle feathers.

You belive i don't want to follow that advice?

Dude, i got space book at the age of 3. I had intrest ever since. Why do you belive i WANT to follow seretain poster or any other wacky science?

I just want to give up. To forget about it. And i did that sereval times. If you look at my post history you will see gaps. May,June, August, September, Novemver, December and begining of February and now are times i go back at wacky science. There is SOMETHING which draws me back here? Is it intuition? God telling me that it is right? Just wierd psychology or that "phase"?

Something always sparks my intrest. For example, now i tried re-writing my notes where i kept links to works (in case i forget something). It is pretty chaotic, you know?

I want to give up, just to start beliving them, rather to spend weeks here. But on other side i won't throw childhood of dreaming to go to Space. You might know how some teenagers go and follow wacky things online? Like politics or 4Chan or whatewer. This is science for me. It it weren't my love for space i whoid belive stupid science i find online, like most flat Earthers do.

I want to travel back in time to end of 2019 so i can never find some link leading here which got me into it. I was then following "basic" FE. Well debunkers but it still counts. Thiese ideas pale in comparision to ideas i am into now.


I know some of you will stop responding to me beacause i am "just a stupid kid" and that there is no point in debating. Trust me atlest once, there is. You are helping me a lot

Quote from: boydster on March 18, 2021, 04:35:37 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on March 06, 2021, 07:52:04 AM

I made reddit post while ago on this subject

There is some sage advice in that thread. For example, this:

Quote

Oh, if you're just a teenager then I highly encourage you to avoid reading too much exciting crank garbage and instead follow more traditional teaching in physics and other sciences.

Before you start trying to tear down the foundations of modern physics, it's important to learn those foundation principles. Then you can learn how to test them. You can find where the weaknesses are. You will have had time to learn beyond the Pop-Science version of how some concepts are communicated to the masses. You might even have time to learn more advanced mathematics that you can apply to some of your own hypotheses about how to resolve some of the aforementioned weaknesses you may have found.

Posting around the internet saying "Hey, this dude talks a good game, I think the cut of his jib, everyone should take him more seriously" when you don't have anything other than gut instinct and a feeling of being overwhelmed by the amount of content someone has just thrown at you is going to drive you crazy - there's no shortage of wacko things that very confident and very poorly informed (or even possibly malicious) people will say just to ruffle feathers.

You belive i don't want to follow that advice?

Dude, i got space book at the age of 3. I had intrest ever since. Why do you belive i WANT to follow seretain poster or any other wacky science?

I just want to give up. To forget about it. And i did that sereval times. If you look at my post history you will see gaps. May,June, August, September, Novemver, December and begining of February and now are times i go back at wacky science. There is SOMETHING which draws me back here? Is it intuition? God telling me that it is right? Just wierd psychology or that "phase"?

Something always sparks my intrest. For example, now i tried re-writing my notes where i kept links to works (in case i forget something). It is pretty chaotic, you know?

I want to give up, just to start beliving them, rather to spend weeks here. But on other side i won't throw childhood of dreaming to go to Space. You might know how some teenagers go and follow wacky things online? Like politics or 4Chan or whatewer. This is science for me. It it weren't my love for space i whoid belive stupid science i find online, like most flat Earthers do.

I want to travel back in time to end of 2019 so i can never find some link leading here which got me into it. I was then following "basic" FE. Well debunkers but it still counts. Thiese ideas pale in comparision to ideas i am into now.


I know some of you will stop responding to me beacause i am "just a stupid kid" and that there is no point in debating. Trust me atlest once, there is. You are helping me a lot

Code, I think your interests here and in mainstream science/space and even the wackier stuff is awesome. I look at some of the interesting things you bring up because, well, because they are interesting. And it drives me to research some stuff I may have not known about or have looked into before. I mean you dove right into the deep end of Physics. Not for the faint of heart. Very complex stuff. I think your interests are far better and more enlightening than getting mired in some of that other stuff you mentioned, politics, 4chan, etc. Keep on keeping on.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on March 19, 2021, 08:59:26 AM

Quote from: boydster on March 18, 2021, 04:35:37 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on March 06, 2021, 07:52:04 AM

I made reddit post while ago on this subject

There is some sage advice in that thread. For example, this:

Quote

Oh, if you're just a teenager then I highly encourage you to avoid reading too much exciting crank garbage and instead follow more traditional teaching in physics and other sciences.

Before you start trying to tear down the foundations of modern physics, it's important to learn those foundation principles. Then you can learn how to test them. You can find where the weaknesses are. You will have had time to learn beyond the Pop-Science version of how some concepts are communicated to the masses. You might even have time to learn more advanced mathematics that you can apply to some of your own hypotheses about how to resolve some of the aforementioned weaknesses you may have found.

Posting around the internet saying "Hey, this dude talks a good game, I think the cut of his jib, everyone should take him more seriously" when you don't have anything other than gut instinct and a feeling of being overwhelmed by the amount of content someone has just thrown at you is going to drive you crazy - there's no shortage of wacko things that very confident and very poorly informed (or even possibly malicious) people will say just to ruffle feathers.

You belive i don't want to follow that advice?

Dude, i got space book at the age of 3. I had intrest ever since. Why do you belive i WANT to follow seretain poster or any other wacky science?

I just want to give up. To forget about it. And i did that sereval times. If you look at my post history you will see gaps. May,June, August, September, Novemver, December and begining of February and now are times i go back at wacky science. There is SOMETHING which draws me back here? Is it intuition? God telling me that it is right? Just wierd psychology or that "phase"?

Something always sparks my intrest. For example, now i tried re-writing my notes where i kept links to works (in case i forget something). It is pretty chaotic, you know?

I want to give up, just to start beliving them, rather to spend weeks here. But on other side i won't throw childhood of dreaming to go to Space. You might know how some teenagers go and follow wacky things online? Like politics or 4Chan or whatewer. This is science for me. It it weren't my love for space i whoid belive stupid science i find online, like most flat Earthers do.

I want to travel back in time to end of 2019 so i can never find some link leading here which got me into it. I was then following "basic" FE. Well debunkers but it still counts. Thiese ideas pale in comparision to ideas i am into now.


I know some of you will stop responding to me beacause i am "just a stupid kid" and that there is no point in debating. Trust me atlest once, there is. You are helping me a lot

Code, I think your interests here and in mainstream science/space and even the wackier stuff is awesome. I look at some of the interesting things you bring up because, well, because they are interesting. And it drives me to research some stuff I may have not known about or have looked into before. I mean you dove right into the deep end of Physics. Not for the faint of heart. Very complex stuff. I think your interests are far better and more enlightening than getting mired in some of that other stuff you mentioned, politics, 4chan, etc. Keep on keeping on.

Thanks. I didn't know you actualy belive my messages are intresting, i actualy belived it was opposite. And i mostly don't get things i am posting. I realy treat in simplefied way, like instead if  saying this paper is in support of isotropic speed of light and clock... i simply say "for Ashby" and the paper by other author as "debunking Ashby"... More like game of rock-paper-scissors than science realy

And i realy wanted this response to somehow tell me opposite, that i shoud look at the other things and keep my intrest in things i know about

Quote from: Stash on March 19, 2021, 11:40:14 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on March 19, 2021, 08:59:26 AM

Quote from: boydster on March 18, 2021, 04:35:37 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on March 06, 2021, 07:52:04 AM

I made reddit post while ago on this subject

There is some sage advice in that thread. For example, this:

Quote

Oh, if you're just a teenager then I highly encourage you to avoid reading too much exciting crank garbage and instead follow more traditional teaching in physics and other sciences.

Before you start trying to tear down the foundations of modern physics, it's important to learn those foundation principles. Then you can learn how to test them. You can find where the weaknesses are. You will have had time to learn beyond the Pop-Science version of how some concepts are communicated to the masses. You might even have time to learn more advanced mathematics that you can apply to some of your own hypotheses about how to resolve some of the aforementioned weaknesses you may have found.

Posting around the internet saying "Hey, this dude talks a good game, I think the cut of his jib, everyone should take him more seriously" when you don't have anything other than gut instinct and a feeling of being overwhelmed by the amount of content someone has just thrown at you is going to drive you crazy - there's no shortage of wacko things that very confident and very poorly informed (or even possibly malicious) people will say just to ruffle feathers.

You belive i don't want to follow that advice?

Dude, i got space book at the age of 3. I had intrest ever since. Why do you belive i WANT to follow seretain poster or any other wacky science?

I just want to give up. To forget about it. And i did that sereval times. If you look at my post history you will see gaps. May,June, August, September, Novemver, December and begining of February and now are times i go back at wacky science. There is SOMETHING which draws me back here? Is it intuition? God telling me that it is right? Just wierd psychology or that "phase"?

Something always sparks my intrest. For example, now i tried re-writing my notes where i kept links to works (in case i forget something). It is pretty chaotic, you know?

I want to give up, just to start beliving them, rather to spend weeks here. But on other side i won't throw childhood of dreaming to go to Space. You might know how some teenagers go and follow wacky things online? Like politics or 4Chan or whatewer. This is science for me. It it weren't my love for space i whoid belive stupid science i find online, like most flat Earthers do.

I want to travel back in time to end of 2019 so i can never find some link leading here which got me into it. I was then following "basic" FE. Well debunkers but it still counts. Thiese ideas pale in comparision to ideas i am into now.


I know some of you will stop responding to me beacause i am "just a stupid kid" and that there is no point in debating. Trust me atlest once, there is. You are helping me a lot

Code, I think your interests here and in mainstream science/space and even the wackier stuff is awesome. I look at some of the interesting things you bring up because, well, because they are interesting. And it drives me to research some stuff I may have not known about or have looked into before. I mean you dove right into the deep end of Physics. Not for the faint of heart. Very complex stuff. I think your interests are far better and more enlightening than getting mired in some of that other stuff you mentioned, politics, 4chan, etc. Keep on keeping on.

Thanks. I didn't know you actualy belive my messages are intresting, i actualy belived it was opposite. And i mostly don't get things i am posting. I realy treat in simplefied way, like instead if  saying this paper is in support of isotropic speed of light and clock... i simply say "for Ashby" and the paper by other author as "debunking Ashby"... More like game of rock-paper-scissors than science realy

And i realy wanted this response to somehow tell me opposite, that i shoud look at the other things and keep my intrest in things i know about

I may give you shit sometimes, disagree with you, but find most of your stuff interesting. I'll try and be less harsh so as not to stifle your creativity. And maximize the power of "and" - Keep looking at things you find interesting that you know about AND do the same for things you don't know about.

I should take that sage advice too. Because it's good to be open minded and not ignore the weird stuff. And it's also important to learn to already very well known, well tested, and more developed stuff, because that's been shown to have a lot of value.