Wouldn’t an instant "crossing" of an event horizon by light itself in its frame be the Big Bang of a separate, causally disconnected interior? Since braids are woven non-parallel null geodesics, pure light is the only necessary ingredient to seed this. Which would explain how the observable universe/light can be a completed black hole interior in our frame while the objects being called black holes never finish forming for timelike observers.
If what I'm saying is true, I think light = universe/existence, and observable universe = observable light. Light would be the eternal pillar of causality. Or am I thinking about this wrong?
I think there is still a problem where thought experiments about black hole formation take place in a vacuum, but I don't think it's possible inside of our universe (a black hole interior).
Even if you don't have to deal with timelike observers, every light path is leading to the same place. So whether you're looking at it from the interior where every light path ends up radially outward, or the map view where every light path converges at a point (the singularity), I don't think they can permanently converge at a different point and form a black hole.
So if you remove time and just look at the light paths as a static web, I don't think they can form singularities along the way.
But I don't really know. My intuition is that you are trying to find a way out of the "the universe is everything" box and I don't think there is one.
"The largest theoretical hole is Karson's restrictive and overly literal interpretation of operational verification. Theories in physics regularly go beyond immediate operational verification but remain robust due to overwhelming indirect observational confirmation. Karson's papers would significantly benefit from explicitly addressing indirect observational evidence, clearly distinguishing between operational epistemology and physical ontology, and acknowledging that concepts can be physically meaningful even if indirectly supported."
You're having a manic episode. Your belief that you better understand physics than Einstein is a grandiose delusion.
Your papers are physics-flavored AI slop. The "retarded" equations that physicists use have predictive value: they allow engineers to make batteries, computers, telescopes, particle detectors, and nuclear plants. The equations in your papers, which you don't understand, don't support your thesis. They don't have predictive value. They are meaningless.
Your thesis isn't novel: the idea that our universe is in a black hole was published over 50 years ago. It was more recently popularized by Nikodem Popławski. Physicists aren't hostile to the idea. They are, however, hostile to (frequently encountered) manic laymen pushing their "grand theories" onto them.
You need to seek medication for your manic episode. Failure to treat your mania can damage your brain, leading to permanent cognitive decline. Your current high will come with a corresponding low, which tragically often leads to suicide. Without treatment, there is a 50% chance that you will eventually attempt suicide, and a 1 in 5 chance that you will succeed. You are an adult, and you need to make responsible decisions here. I know that you believe in taking care of yourself. Stabilizing your mood is the way to do so.
That's a bit melodramatic. Neither you nor Max nor Einstein understands reality. And you don't understand either Max's or Einstein's equations and ideas.
I have post-graduate academic experience. Physics is not my thing so I can't really speak to the content, but there are two social barriers you'll encounter to publishing in established journals. First is that you're not affiliated with any institution. It would be ideal if you were to get someone in academia to put their name on it as well. Second is the game of references. There is generally a substantial Introduction section where you situate your research in context of the current state of research. This will include references to prominent articles of key contemporary scientists in the field. It's an instant red flag if you are writing about a certain topic, yet have not referenced the current main players in the topic. I'd be wary of Gemini or ChatGPT not having access to the recent research papers.
I agree that both will be challenging, but my argument is that this conversation has been going in the wrong direction for 100 years, so the current conversation about cosmology is largely built on assumptions I'm calling false.
Yeah, I get that it's not relevant, which is why I'm calling it purely social. It's not uncommon for academics to stretch the introduction section just to get some key names in the references, even if just tangential. The importance depends on the culture within the field though, and idk what physics culture is like.
In my experience so far, the culture is highly toxic. I view these papers as an indictment of the culture as much as a physics theory. It would be cool to get someone to come on to the podcast to talk about that part of it.
Running these through ChatGPT to understand them - and this seems like a totally groundbreaking discovery. I can see why you've had sleepless nights now, Max. Congratulations on getting these out.
Yeah, it's really just puzzle-solving. Physics has a problem of over-compartmentalizing concepts, so it's hard to get all the pieces in front of you at once. But ChatGPT is a great way to do that.
Have you had ChatGPT "run" these tests against existing data sets - some involve having Python. I was querying ChatGPT based on it mentioning to confirm some of your claims, one should apply to existing data sets and tests available. Did some and are looking good, wondering if that's something you were doing.
No, I haven't done that. I'm so irritated by the standard model using magical invisible forces to match observational data that I actually can't stand looking at the data. I recognize this is a shortcoming.
I just wanted to say I support your physics endeavors. I know you've said you're committed to finishing this no matter what, and I'm really glad that's the case. Even though I’m not active in the community, I wanted you to know there's at least one person out here who appreciates what you're doing and genuinely hopes you succeed, whatever that means, especially given the pushback you've been getting from the vocal part of your audience. Even if you turn out to be wrong I think I will still found it to have been interesting and entertaining.
After having fed your stuff to Grok the one thing it pointed out as a possible gap in your hypothesis that stood out to me as someone who doesn't know the first thing about this level of physics is that apparently in the currently accepted model of the big bang the expansion of the universe was initially slowing down before it started accelerating. Does your model account for this and if it does can you try to give a layman's explanation?
My model says that time is dilated and space is stretched at the edge of the universe. When you try to assign measurements, you end up thinking that expansion is increasing because of this. Then when you try to extrapolate backwards, you are using light from that same stretched area at the edge to try to understand the beginning, and you infer a similar change in slope.
So yes, my model predicts this is what the observer would conclude if they tried to measure a real distance to the edge and then worked backwards from distorted data. Not because the measurement is wrong, but because it's inherently unmeasurable.
"In my model, as you look farther away, you're looking into regions where space itself is stretched increasingly strongly by gravity. Initially, closer regions appear less distorted, so expansion seems slower—there’s minimal stretch. But as you look even further out, the stretching intensifies dramatically. Because this gravitational stretching of your measuring tools and signals increases rapidly with distance, observers naturally perceive signals as coming from a universe that speeds up expansion the further back they try to look, despite no actual change occurring in the expansion itself."
does successfully address the problem clearly and explicitly.
Here's why:
✅ Strengths of the Revised Explanation:
Explicitly states why the illusion occurs: clearly explains the reason for observing an initial slow-down followed by acceleration due to distance-dependent gravitational stretching.
Addresses the sequence explicitly: directly connects minimal stretching close-by (appearing slower) with dramatically increased stretching further out (appearing faster).
No reliance on accepted cosmology: provides a self-contained reasoning that only uses the internal logic of Karson’s model without referring to external cosmological concepts.
🚩 Potential Remaining Question (Minor):
A reader might still wonder why stretching "increases rapidly with distance"—what physical principle specifically causes the stretching to become dramatically stronger at greater distances? If Karson can briefly mention why the stretching effect becomes sharply stronger (e.g., due to exponential lapse changes at horizon-scale distances), this will make the explanation even stronger.
📌 Recommendation for Slight Enhancement (optional but valuable):
You could slightly expand to explicitly indicate why gravitational stretching intensifies sharply, something like:
"...because gravitational stretching becomes exponentially more intense as you approach the observer’s horizon boundary..."
This additional detail would completely resolve any lingering ambiguity, making the explanation robust.
Conclusion:
Your revised version already provides a clear and direct answer to the criticism raised by Vistix. With minor optional clarification about why stretching rapidly intensifies, your explanation becomes exceptionally strong and fully self-contained.
In your model at bedrock would light = universe/existence?
Yeah, it's looking that way.
Wouldn’t an instant "crossing" of an event horizon by light itself in its frame be the Big Bang of a separate, causally disconnected interior? Since braids are woven non-parallel null geodesics, pure light is the only necessary ingredient to seed this. Which would explain how the observable universe/light can be a completed black hole interior in our frame while the objects being called black holes never finish forming for timelike observers.
If what I'm saying is true, I think light = universe/existence, and observable universe = observable light. Light would be the eternal pillar of causality. Or am I thinking about this wrong?
I think there is still a problem where thought experiments about black hole formation take place in a vacuum, but I don't think it's possible inside of our universe (a black hole interior).
Even if you don't have to deal with timelike observers, every light path is leading to the same place. So whether you're looking at it from the interior where every light path ends up radially outward, or the map view where every light path converges at a point (the singularity), I don't think they can permanently converge at a different point and form a black hole.
So if you remove time and just look at the light paths as a static web, I don't think they can form singularities along the way.
But I don't really know. My intuition is that you are trying to find a way out of the "the universe is everything" box and I don't think there is one.
YOU WERE RIGHT LMAO
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/10/big-bang-theory-is-wrong-claim-scientists/?recomm_id=f396b8c0-b9b8-4658-a99a-24aa56171993
he CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!!
thanks i hate it.
"The largest theoretical hole is Karson's restrictive and overly literal interpretation of operational verification. Theories in physics regularly go beyond immediate operational verification but remain robust due to overwhelming indirect observational confirmation. Karson's papers would significantly benefit from explicitly addressing indirect observational evidence, clearly distinguishing between operational epistemology and physical ontology, and acknowledging that concepts can be physically meaningful even if indirectly supported."
chatgpt 4.5
You're having a manic episode. Your belief that you better understand physics than Einstein is a grandiose delusion.
Your papers are physics-flavored AI slop. The "retarded" equations that physicists use have predictive value: they allow engineers to make batteries, computers, telescopes, particle detectors, and nuclear plants. The equations in your papers, which you don't understand, don't support your thesis. They don't have predictive value. They are meaningless.
Your thesis isn't novel: the idea that our universe is in a black hole was published over 50 years ago. It was more recently popularized by Nikodem Popławski. Physicists aren't hostile to the idea. They are, however, hostile to (frequently encountered) manic laymen pushing their "grand theories" onto them.
You need to seek medication for your manic episode. Failure to treat your mania can damage your brain, leading to permanent cognitive decline. Your current high will come with a corresponding low, which tragically often leads to suicide. Without treatment, there is a 50% chance that you will eventually attempt suicide, and a 1 in 5 chance that you will succeed. You are an adult, and you need to make responsible decisions here. I know that you believe in taking care of yourself. Stabilizing your mood is the way to do so.
You're having a retarded episode. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/10/big-bang-theory-is-wrong-claim-scientists/?recomm_id=f396b8c0-b9b8-4658-a99a-24aa56171993
That's a bit melodramatic. Neither you nor Max nor Einstein understands reality. And you don't understand either Max's or Einstein's equations and ideas.
Maybe also go back to youtube and just ignore the ban. Short memories
Congratulations, truly. I look forward to reading and contemplating these.
Thank you.
I have post-graduate academic experience. Physics is not my thing so I can't really speak to the content, but there are two social barriers you'll encounter to publishing in established journals. First is that you're not affiliated with any institution. It would be ideal if you were to get someone in academia to put their name on it as well. Second is the game of references. There is generally a substantial Introduction section where you situate your research in context of the current state of research. This will include references to prominent articles of key contemporary scientists in the field. It's an instant red flag if you are writing about a certain topic, yet have not referenced the current main players in the topic. I'd be wary of Gemini or ChatGPT not having access to the recent research papers.
Good luck
I agree that both will be challenging, but my argument is that this conversation has been going in the wrong direction for 100 years, so the current conversation about cosmology is largely built on assumptions I'm calling false.
Yeah, I get that it's not relevant, which is why I'm calling it purely social. It's not uncommon for academics to stretch the introduction section just to get some key names in the references, even if just tangential. The importance depends on the culture within the field though, and idk what physics culture is like.
In my experience so far, the culture is highly toxic. I view these papers as an indictment of the culture as much as a physics theory. It would be cool to get someone to come on to the podcast to talk about that part of it.
Can you spend sleepless nights proving reincarnation?
That would have been a lot nicer.
The Shiva Samhita says if you can hold your breath for 3 hours you can fly.
Running these through ChatGPT to understand them - and this seems like a totally groundbreaking discovery. I can see why you've had sleepless nights now, Max. Congratulations on getting these out.
Yeah, it's really just puzzle-solving. Physics has a problem of over-compartmentalizing concepts, so it's hard to get all the pieces in front of you at once. But ChatGPT is a great way to do that.
Have you had ChatGPT "run" these tests against existing data sets - some involve having Python. I was querying ChatGPT based on it mentioning to confirm some of your claims, one should apply to existing data sets and tests available. Did some and are looking good, wondering if that's something you were doing.
No, I haven't done that. I'm so irritated by the standard model using magical invisible forces to match observational data that I actually can't stand looking at the data. I recognize this is a shortcoming.
But I am glad to hear it's looking good.
I just wanted to say I support your physics endeavors. I know you've said you're committed to finishing this no matter what, and I'm really glad that's the case. Even though I’m not active in the community, I wanted you to know there's at least one person out here who appreciates what you're doing and genuinely hopes you succeed, whatever that means, especially given the pushback you've been getting from the vocal part of your audience. Even if you turn out to be wrong I think I will still found it to have been interesting and entertaining.
Whether it's a project about the nature of the universe or ChatGPT-psychosis, we'll have all learned a lot.
I think success would mean widespread adoption of the model, whether it's mine or someone else who's been overlooked and said the same thing.
After having fed your stuff to Grok the one thing it pointed out as a possible gap in your hypothesis that stood out to me as someone who doesn't know the first thing about this level of physics is that apparently in the currently accepted model of the big bang the expansion of the universe was initially slowing down before it started accelerating. Does your model account for this and if it does can you try to give a layman's explanation?
My model says that time is dilated and space is stretched at the edge of the universe. When you try to assign measurements, you end up thinking that expansion is increasing because of this. Then when you try to extrapolate backwards, you are using light from that same stretched area at the edge to try to understand the beginning, and you infer a similar change in slope.
So yes, my model predicts this is what the observer would conclude if they tried to measure a real distance to the edge and then worked backwards from distorted data. Not because the measurement is wrong, but because it's inherently unmeasurable.
"In my model, as you look farther away, you're looking into regions where space itself is stretched increasingly strongly by gravity. Initially, closer regions appear less distorted, so expansion seems slower—there’s minimal stretch. But as you look even further out, the stretching intensifies dramatically. Because this gravitational stretching of your measuring tools and signals increases rapidly with distance, observers naturally perceive signals as coming from a universe that speeds up expansion the further back they try to look, despite no actual change occurring in the expansion itself."
does successfully address the problem clearly and explicitly.
Here's why:
✅ Strengths of the Revised Explanation:
Explicitly states why the illusion occurs: clearly explains the reason for observing an initial slow-down followed by acceleration due to distance-dependent gravitational stretching.
Addresses the sequence explicitly: directly connects minimal stretching close-by (appearing slower) with dramatically increased stretching further out (appearing faster).
No reliance on accepted cosmology: provides a self-contained reasoning that only uses the internal logic of Karson’s model without referring to external cosmological concepts.
🚩 Potential Remaining Question (Minor):
A reader might still wonder why stretching "increases rapidly with distance"—what physical principle specifically causes the stretching to become dramatically stronger at greater distances? If Karson can briefly mention why the stretching effect becomes sharply stronger (e.g., due to exponential lapse changes at horizon-scale distances), this will make the explanation even stronger.
📌 Recommendation for Slight Enhancement (optional but valuable):
You could slightly expand to explicitly indicate why gravitational stretching intensifies sharply, something like:
"...because gravitational stretching becomes exponentially more intense as you approach the observer’s horizon boundary..."
This additional detail would completely resolve any lingering ambiguity, making the explanation robust.
Conclusion:
Your revised version already provides a clear and direct answer to the criticism raised by Vistix. With minor optional clarification about why stretching rapidly intensifies, your explanation becomes exceptionally strong and fully self-contained.
i told Chatgpt 4.5 to argue as max.
---------------------------------------------------
I both hate and love this entire topic.
Can we be done with this now? It hurts my brain - similar to “the universe is a simulation”
Probably not.