The Ricci tensor assumes the role of helping us understand curvature. Within my Universal Theory research, the Ricci tensor unveils itself. I was pleased to find as detailed in my research document on the Grand Unified Theory Framework (of which advancements in technology are showing there may be more than one viable form of as science progresses)that the Ricci Tensor was typically vanishing to zero in relation to the schwarzschild metric as it should back when I was performing feasibility and speciousness checks via calculations with other experts and myself. But in practical applications of the Grand Unified Theory Framework, vanishing to zero unravels very intriguing consequences.
One of said consequences was something small and interesting I wanted to discuss. The purpose is to highlight the intricacies of implementing such a highly comprehensive concepts in practical settings such as code. To thus detail the challenges researchers may face when translating comprehensive physics and mathematics formulations into concrete applications. More often than not I have found it requiring innovative adaptations and problem-solving. I also want to hear if anyone has any experience with similar things and what their experience was.
My recent amd past ventures into authenticating the Universal Theory framework in code but also writing complex neural networking and AI code with it, as well as Quantum computing code had a lot of interesting hurdles. I immersed myself in the depths of this then encountered a peculiar happenstance. The vanishing of the Ricci tensor to zero in the code procceses. I didn't realize why a lot of the code wasn't working. It's because I was trying to run iterative artificial learning code. And since it incorporated the Universal Theory, and did so in a mathematically accurate way (also authenticating it in various ways via code this way is possible) I didn't realize that no matter what I did the code would never work with the full form of the theory, because the Ricci tensor would always vanish to zero in terms of the schwarzschild metric within the subsequent processes running off initial code. And while this was validating for my theory it was equally frustrating to realize it may be a massive hurdle to institutingnit in code.
This unexpected twist threw me into a world where certain possibilities seemed to evaporate into the ether. The task of setting values for the tensor g_ij (the einstein tensor form utilized in the Grand Unified Theory Framework) in code had to demand a lot of intricate modifications.
I found myself utterly lost. I thought the code was specious. Before I thought to check the ricci tensor calculations, Christoffel and Riemann formations and got it running. I think it's quite scary in a way that someone could have similar code with my own or another form of Unified Theory but if they didn't have THAT sufficient of knowledge on relativity, they may never know the code worked. I feel few have attempted to embrace the tangible variations of complex frameworks within code. I wanted to share this because I thought it was interesting as an example of multidisciplinary science. Coding and physics together is always interesting and there isn't a whole lot of support or information for people venturing into these waters sometimes.
I would like to know what everyone thinks of multidisciplinary issues such as this as well, wherein one may entirely miss valuable data by not knowing what to look for, and how that may affect final results and calculations of research and experimentation. In this situation, ultimately I had to employ some of the concepts in my research document to arrive at the Ricci tensor without any formations of Christoffel or Riemann symbols in the subsequent processes. I thought that was interesting from a physics and coding perspective too. Because I never would've know how to parse this code to get it functioning without knowledge of relativity.
Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed publications of your findings by which people can judge your claimed achievements. Have you tried submitting to any mainstream, reputable journals? (Social Texts might be interested.)
I have plenty of review of my achievements and no drive to be validated by others. One can simply utilize the principles to perform calculations.
Peer review is very important but so is hands on work, with the theory I governmental, engineering, or applied mathematics scenarios, all of which I have. It not only authenticates in code but I have worked with countless entities utilizing the theory in mathematics or engineering. I have three major publications I am deciding on for peer review. A pre-print, as you know, is sometimes the first step to a peer review and generating reaction with that is usually what enables publishing. My research on this has been positively reviewed or put to use by thousands of doctors, scientist and experts and I'm in the top 2 percent of researchgate articles.
The point wasn't to brag though, and the information was provided as technical and supportive data. Not trying to be cheeky or rude, but yes I am very close to publishing this in more ways than one. I have very little need to be validated by others and have accessed competent peer reviews in capacities such as engineering, and working with other experts, doctors, ect to verify the theory. I had to be pushed to write the paper because my need for validation from others is just that low, I've held objects in my hands which were invented utilizing this, and along with my peers and its use in code, and calculate mathematically and physics consistent nature, that that's basically all the validation I need.
Peer review is a human construct that does not affect scientific constants in any way other than societially or perceptual in these scenarios. So I'm slowly working on it.
The question wasn't related to if people can judge my findings as I could literally care less. It takes five seconds to do some calculating with it or verify it a hundred ways over. There is an entire section in the paper on undeniable self-authentication. Again, sorry if this is cheeky. It just is what it is.
The question was related to code, because I wanted more info on this and beyond that I don't really give two hoots if someone wants to deny easily calcuable math and physics. Peer review is so strange. Important but strange. It's not like one person invalidating a theory which is a scientific constant (I'm not speaking of me, just in a more general sense) suddenly nullifies that law of nature. Such a strange, gatekeepers process but I am very aware of and respect its implications and footing in science. Sorry if any of this came off rude.
Also thank you for the tip. I'll have my publishing agent get ahold of Social Text. I don't really care for bureaucratics. Unless I'm respecting Fesearch document formatting rules.
"My research on this has been positively reviewed or put to use by thousands of doctors, scientist and experts and I'm in the top 2 percent of researchgate articles."
That doesn't square with what I see on the stats for the articles.
Sorry, but self-assessment is worthless.
Again, I have no need for external validation and it's not "self assesment" to tell you to go authenticate it yourself.
Also I'm not sure where you are looking, but I suppose I WAS wrong. It's actually the top 1 percent relative to its release and 82 percent overall, and the stats are the same for my profile. I've attached the picture.
Turns out you were right, the stats don't square with what I said about 2 percent. Thank you for humbling me, before I spoke to you I had no idea mathematics and proving things with peer review and scientific method, as well as rigorous testing and experimentation was important.
. Leo Lazauskas
Still doesn't square with other numbers that I can find, e.g. the number of citations to any of your work is shown in this figure. How that translates into an eventual "top 1%" is a mystery. :)
There must be a lot of mysteries for you. Its pretty simply if you can read. Its of interest of the site, relative to my release of a research document not even three months ago. I know his can be confusing for gatekeepers such as yourself. As well, I'm sure you know with your nearly omnipotent knowledge that citations aren't instant. Try extrapolating. And consume less salt.
Anyway, this is definitely far beneath me and a waste of my time, I won't be responding again, but misplaced jealousy is pretty predictable, so I bet you will. Have a good one "highly cited man of action".
P.S. A good way to prove you are a professional that you claim is to contribute actual knowledge to the question being asked, not essentially rant off of a random non-sequitir that has nothing to do with the topic. I'm sure you know all about that though. I am humbled to have able to speak with you, thank you for the enlightening conversation that I may communicate with someone of such unparalleled intellectual superiority.
I challenged you to authenticate it yourself or provide a valid response to the question. Avoiding that for petty jabs doesn't really prove the point you think you are proving. I can write a five paragraph response to my own question in great technical detail with mathematical models, figures and calculations and no specious errors as well as demonstration of advanced theoretical physics and their relation to implementation in code. I challenge you to do this, because I can, and if you can't, we shouldn't even be talking. Especially if you arent going to be productive and respectful scientifically. Citations apparently don't gain someone basic professionalism in science and interactions related to it, so I think you wasted your money on the degree friend. A bit cart before the horse mate. 🐴
Gatekeeper? I'm just suspicious of anything that seems like some of it might have been written using a large language model. To me, the "abstract" for one of your papers reads more like something from LinkedIn than a scientific work.
Leo Lazauskas Your concerns are actually understandable, and I will take the time to explain with transparency in this regard. Im not going to apologize for being very articulate and verbose. It's incredibly damaging potentially to science to assign any extraordinary or advanced capability as the work of AI as opposed to human efforts. We must be careful of this because it is all too easy to label anybody who excels in capacity at writing, or displays a large body of knowledge, especially with a large vocabulary people automatically assume or go to the strawman argument "you wrote this with a large language model". As well, the abstract your are talking about is not the actual abstract in any of my research docs, it simply displays that way on the page for the document to maximize visibility, which is clearly working. The actual abstracts and format all adhere to proper and adequate research document formatting.
It seems like that because large language models are intensely articulate with an incredibly large area of expertise. So am I. It is very obvious that the research is written by me, you can compare the wording, vocabulary and knowledge displayed with my answers here and my general tone of speech and word choice in everything outside the paper. To put this in perspective I gained this writing style by studying philosophy for multiple years and being a huge fan of Shulgin. The style of speech and writing is derived from this, it was not onpurpose. If you view Shulgin or the philosophical greats, you cam compare my speech style and begin to deduce how i formed such a style.
I will say as well, that what you are indicating "it seems like it's written by a large language model" is very easy to explain. A large language model is optimized to present advanced scientific knowledge in a certain way. This way? Articulate, direct amd very good at "pop science" style direct explanations and reducing complicated topics in a way which essentially maximizes brevity and clarity to the most extreme degree. The reason you likely got this impression is due to similar capacity and goals in my own speech and writing style due to my past as a writer and experiences with philosophy. I used to ghost write screenplays and novels, studied language and philosophy. A tandem of this is the emergent property of essentially seamless writing style, which matches up with the optimized style of speech for specific topics displayed by AI. But we must be weary of simply shrugging off any real, human accomplishments. Which are extremly capable as simply the work of AI. It is very obvious I wrote the document in both vocabulary, speech style and the display of articulated knowledge. I have more than shown that every topic in the document is deeply understood by me as well. Also I've spent so much time with AI, I sometimes mimic the speech style subconsciously to maximize brevity. Watch.
"Hello Leo. I would like to address potential concerns regarding utilizing Large Language models in scientific endeavors. It is vital to acknowledge that the application of artificial intelligence in scientific settings requires careful consideration of respect to scientific and ethical principles. The upholding of scientific standards is paramount within the scientific community, and emphasis must be placed upon the need for authentic displays of articulated knowledge. It is crucial to adhere to strict policies of honesty, transparency, and avoidance of obfuscation within the scientific community to prevent any potential misidentification of scientific prowess. While the inclination to attribute the document's creation (or a specific individual's knowledge) to a large language model or Artificial Intelligence is understandable, caution should be adequately exercised when automatically attributing any extraordinary or advanced capacity solely to AI, as opposed to human capability. This may potentially diminish the accomplishments of human scientists whose work is attributed to AI baselessly, due to certain indications of extreme competency, skill or advanced expertise"
I responded because I understand this writing ability is not standard or "normal", and it is within reason that you may have had this suspicion which affected your communications here. I just wish you would have asked me.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism