‘In response to my claim that nothing has ever entered a black hole (because it takes forever), one well-known physics writer said, “A baseball would appear to slow down as it reaches the event horizon in your frame, but in its own frame it crosses in finite proper time.”
This type of handwaving, frame-blending, relativity-postulate-violating evasiveness is very, very common.’
What postulates of relativity does his response violate? I only understand it a very basic popular science level, but I thought that a key part is that different objects can have different frames where time appears to move at different rates. What makes you think that relativity actually says nothing can fall into a black hole? Why do mainstream physicists think differently?
Yes, general relativity gives us a big unified map where observers experience time at different rates and events at different distances--but they don't experience different events entirely.
One of the postulates of relativity is that "all observer frames are valid." That means if something is happening in your frame, it is "actually happening."
Physicists tend to invoke common sense at times where it actually violated relativity. In the baseball example--an indestructible baseball could fall toward a black hole for 5 minutes of its time, which could take 10 million years for the person who threw it.
The physicist error is then saying "but it enters the black hole in its own proper time."
"But" implies simultaneity and "own proper time" denies simultaneity, so the sentence makes no sense. The truth is that, 10 million years later, the baseball could put on a little jet pack and actually return to the person who threw it.
Horizon crossing is always reversible in an external frame because it never finishes.
(For the same reason, black holes don't actually exist because they never finish forming.)
As a reality check, after you're done with your manic / megalomaniacal fantasy that you are going to learn calculus in two weeks, take an AP Calculus BC test. That is, a test intended for high school kids. You can find them online. Assuming you don't cheat, you will fail.
Next, consider that the test you just failed is the same test that teens routinely pass every year. Let that sink in. Then consider the possibility that you don't understand what you're opining about. You've failed to process high school calculus. You aren't as smart as you think you are.
Next, come back to reality with the understanding that this isn't going to make you famous. This isn't going to make people talk about you (and ostracize you). It's never going to build up enough steam for that. It's just sad, a fart in a lecture hall full of unwashed schizotypals with their various grand physics claims.
Finally, go back to what you're actually good at, as well as what's useful for the world. Inspire us with art, your openness, and your willingness to empathize with people who most consider monsters. You've become something ugly after your touch with Destiny. Get back to your roots. There was a reason why Lex was once interested in talking to you. But this ain't it.
I know you're not in a place where you can listen right now, but take that AP test. After you've done that and are staring at your score, consider what the asshole on the internet said.
I've seen where the path you're on leads, and it's tragic. You have attributed to me hostility, but I am just trying to pour cold water on you. I am *worried* about you. You are exhibiting grandiose delusions. You are apparently too far gone for your therapist to get through to you, but maybe the hard number of your score on a high school AP test can snap you back into reality. It's not just a stint in a psych ward we're talking about. You're going to lose Shaelin, and you'll likely end up on the street. If you survive that, you'll be fending off bouts of psychosis with meds that make you feel dull for the rest of your life. The damage to your brain will likely be permanent. This is the clinical neuroprogression of manic episodes that are prolonged by ego-syntonic grandiose delusions. Go back to your therapist, and maybe get on meds. You want to get off this bus immediately, because you won't be able to soon. And where the hell is Jimmy in this? Are you talking to and listening to Jimmy?
Have you heard about this? Galaxies without dark matter. According to the current physics model they shouldn't be able to form in the first place. https://youtu.be/_TL7Yat9c5w
I'm excited to follow your exploration of this. I support you because you're willing to challenge the status quo in an interesting, thoughtful, and constructive way. We learn nothing if no one is willing to take risks or offer new ideas.
The reflexive and vitriolic reaction to your proposal is frustrating. If it’s incorrect, explain why—it’s a great opportunity for thoughtful engagement and for teaching others, at least within our little corner of the internet. There’s no place for demeaning personal attacks, especially when someone is earnestly trying to grapple with complex ideas. That kind of reaction feels deeply anti-human to me.
It also reminds me of how you sometimes clash with guests on your podcast—and podcasting in general. Podcasters often lack formal credentials or achievements, and much of the space seems driven by status and audience exchange. That’s probably why vulnerability or real disagreement is so rare—there’s only clout to lose, which is directly tied to their income (and ego/internet persona).
I worry that some of these same perverse incentives exist in academia. Take this with a grain of salt, but it seems like academics also rely heavily on the perception of their expertise—warranted or not. It's in their interest to be seen as infallible (or at least rarely wrong), so engaging in discussions that could make them look foolish often feels too risky. This might be even more pronounced with science communicators, oddly enough—as you explored beautifully in that incredible podcast episode. That was honestly a work of art.
Keep up the work, even if you are proven incorrect. It is the most human thing you can do in a world of bots and sheep.
hey Max, physicist here. I think you should follow up on this. some really great ideas here, especially those you discussed with chatGPT. in fact, I don't think you actually need to involve any real physicists and could probably even do it yourself! again, don't worry about contacting or reaching out to any physicists, you've got this covered on your end.
I am very excited for your black hole arc. Maybe someone will have the balls to actually explain how/why it's wrong (If it is).
Does it extrapolate to anything substantial? Is there anything that must be true if you're right? What else would be counterintuitively true if the universe really is a black hole?
I think the most substantial implication is the inverted sphere shape of the universe with the observer as wave-like instead of point-like. That might help explain a lot, but I don't really know.
I'm not sure it's useful for anything though, because it only explains "non-local" phenomena like universal expansion, which is only relevant at extremely large distances that humans will probably never traverse.
is it possible that understanding the cosmological nature of the universe is a purely individual experience given that the language to properly explain most of these concepts might not exist?
i dont mean to go all jordan peterson on you but how would i even know if my ideas of these concepts have the same parameters as yours, or look and behave the same way as yours in my head etc
Hello. While I think there are some limitations to describing something that you're inside and can't get out of, we've done pretty well with similar limitations in fields like evolutionary biology.
The only way to know if ideas have the same parameters is incredibly precise language, including math. I see that there can never be total certainty, but I think we can get close enough to functionally "solve" cosmology.
The horizon analogy goes like this: there's a radial line that rotated around the inside of a circle. A photon with a total radial + angular speed of c tries to travel along the radial line, but the rotation speeds up as the photon travels further. By the time the photon approaches the rim, the rotation speed is c at the rim, so it never arrives.
I don't think there's anything outside the universe so I don't think it can rotate literally, but I did vibe-code a special relativity analogy animation to simulate the approach to an event horizon as an outward spiral.
I will also be using this as an analogy to dark energy/cosmic expansion. So, not directly, but as a flat space analogy for acceleration/curvature, yes, I have been thinking about that. It helps me understand curvature in general relativity and I think it'll be a great teaching tool. And of course it's one of the thoughts experiments that led Einstein to develop general relativity in the first place (using the equivalence principle to equate himself rotating around a clock with being in a gravitational field).
when you described the feeling of seeing the center of the black hole in every direction, i felt something as well. I have a strong feeling that there is something important going on here.
I think there's a reason that the last great leap in physics was made by Einstein - someone who despised math, and thought about the universe in images, puzzles and parables. Concepts and ideas come first - math is just a tool to test the consistency of an idea, and link different concepts together.
Einstein was taken seriously once he was able to test his predictions via a real physical phenomenon (by seeing the curvature of spacetime from a star behind the sun during a solar eclipse). Maybe you need to find a way to prove your theory, not just through pure logic, but by an observation that only your theory can account for.
The first cartoon you made sounded super unhinged (the fast pace and complicated physics terms made me think you had gone crazy, or maybe that it was an AI voice impersonation?), but the way you write about it now feels much more grounded and openminded. I hope you include more self awareness in your future cartoons.
I also want you to keep pushing real physicists to talk to you. There has to be someone out there who is willing to be challenged on their existing beliefs.
this is famously true. Einstein didnt even do a single math in his entire life. There's no math in any of his papers not even the one he won the Nobel prize for. Believe it or not, he spent all day sticking his tongue out waiting for the ideas to come to him! He said he could taste the physics (relativity apparently tasted like chocolate, who knew?).
I recommend you never do math ever; it's just a distraction from the REAL physics.
ok, it seems it's a common myth that einstein was horrible at math - he seems to have learned himself calculus at 12, so saying he despised maths is obviously an exaggeration lol.
But my point is just that Einstein thought of the world in theories and concepts, and then later tried to find the math to fit his theory, which seems to be the case for max as well.
this is completely and utterly false. Einstein had an interested in philosophy, and was perhaps more concerned with complete theories than his counterparts, but even a cursory look into GR makes it OBVIOUS that Einstein was not only mathematically gifted but uniquely posed to study certain concepts compared to his contemporaries
There isn't "infinite lensing". I think you got the idea from the fact that all paths in a non-rotating black hole lead to the singularity, and that made you think that the singularity is "ahead" in every direction. These are separate concepts. Consider: all paths in a giant, frictionless sink lead down the drain hole; you can still *look away* from the drain hole. And if photons were marbles spiraling down the sink with you, they'd still whack you in the face when you turned toward them: that is to say, you'd still see the light coming in from outside. Your hypothesis is founded on this misunderstanding.
Much more concerning: the sycophancy of ChatGPT seems to provoke mania in people prone to manic episodes. It's not a good idea to be engaging with ChatGPT over ideas that make you feel manic / crazy. The path you're pursuing is a path to psychosis.
Why do children who were abused seek abusive partners when they grow up? For the same reason most any of us would be reluctant to press a button that teleported us to Valhalla: sure, Valhalla is supposed to be great, but it would be *terrifying* to be so far away from what we know.
What you know from your childhood is ostracization and being regarded as bad/defective. Sex blogging, uncomfortable takes: their core purpose is to make people ostracize you and regard you as bad. Likewise, this black hole thing is your latest attempt to alleviate your terror of Valhalla and return to your familiar patterns of abuse. However, this is an especially bad abusive boyfriend, because psychotic episodes can induce lingering damage.
In the short term, just do pro-underage shit. You'll get attention, and you'll get your fix of abuse. In the medium and long term, find a better therapist who can break you out of this cycle.
Hostility rating: 9/10. This is a prime example of what I was talking about in the post, folks.
Anyway, this is the same argument that Paul Sutter made on our podcast --that you can physically see curvature along incoming light paths.
The consistent local perception of flat space (anchored to the consistent locel speed of light) guarantees that you can't do that--incoming light paths always look straight.
Your observer frame is a sphere of incoming light--you don't get extra information about what path that light took to reach you, unless you move to a new vantage point. In a black hole, you can't.
It sounds like you're imagining that you get two observer frames--one where your frame is based on incoming light and another based on coordinates. But you only get the first one.
Additionally, as you may know, I don't think you can fall into a black hole, or that black holes can finish forming in our universe, or that anything could fall in "after" you. This response is strictly about the lensing issue.
My hostility rating: 0/10. You have a great sense for aesthetics and a talent for presentation. I still sometimes think of your "I need space" video encouraging people to be free and creative; it was a masterpiece. There is a great deal of value you could bring the world. However, this black hole thing is purely self-destructive. It's worse than submitting yourself to death threats, since it could literally kill you through psychosis. You're transparent, Max. You're trying to add "crackpot" to the list of "mean labels that people who don't understand me apply to me" — racist, misogynist, creep, school shooter type, transphobe, domestic abuser, pedophile. You're trying to recreate your childhood world.
Again, the problem is that all finite objects too, are infinite. The difference between a coffee cup and your body is an infinite chasm.
Interestingly C'mon C'mon is a much better pedophile movie than Cuties, the girls in Cuties are so dumb. Also better than Lolita, because it's male. The Joaquin Phoenix character also does "sincere" weird style interviews like you do.
There are infinite universes and infinite pseudo-universes, and so on, infinite versions of which overlap with infinite infinitesimally microscopic variations of this one. If you perceive or interpret the universe as a black hole that is just a particular selection of reality, reality's true nature being Absolute Infinity.
Any specific experience (color, taste, sound) or idea ("you know dude, I think this universe is a black hole") is merely a selection.
my butthole encompasses the entirety of one of the universes that one of your alternate personalities exist in
they exist in the fart nebula but gravity in this universe works differently and my fart is turning into a star and so your fart personalities fart civilization is under threat of atmospheric collapse and ecological disaster should you fail to create a portal and shepherd “humanity” to relative safety
I didn't track you previous Physics saga/psychotic episode. I didn't even know this was the idea you had. The thing is, I feel like I've heard of people discussing this as a theory before. I wonder why you weren't able to get someone to talk to you about it just as a thought experiment. Perhaps people could sense how you were feeling and became hesitant to engage too much
100%. Wouldn't the world be better if every physicist just had open office hours every day? That way we could tell them about our theories and change the universe together! They would get MORE done actually if you really think about it.
I think the issue is that he needs to disprove some established science, or prove that it doesn't apply in this case, before he even gets to his main argument.
I’m interested in this part:
‘In response to my claim that nothing has ever entered a black hole (because it takes forever), one well-known physics writer said, “A baseball would appear to slow down as it reaches the event horizon in your frame, but in its own frame it crosses in finite proper time.”
This type of handwaving, frame-blending, relativity-postulate-violating evasiveness is very, very common.’
What postulates of relativity does his response violate? I only understand it a very basic popular science level, but I thought that a key part is that different objects can have different frames where time appears to move at different rates. What makes you think that relativity actually says nothing can fall into a black hole? Why do mainstream physicists think differently?
Yes, general relativity gives us a big unified map where observers experience time at different rates and events at different distances--but they don't experience different events entirely.
One of the postulates of relativity is that "all observer frames are valid." That means if something is happening in your frame, it is "actually happening."
Physicists tend to invoke common sense at times where it actually violated relativity. In the baseball example--an indestructible baseball could fall toward a black hole for 5 minutes of its time, which could take 10 million years for the person who threw it.
The physicist error is then saying "but it enters the black hole in its own proper time."
"But" implies simultaneity and "own proper time" denies simultaneity, so the sentence makes no sense. The truth is that, 10 million years later, the baseball could put on a little jet pack and actually return to the person who threw it.
Horizon crossing is always reversible in an external frame because it never finishes.
(For the same reason, black holes don't actually exist because they never finish forming.)
As a reality check, after you're done with your manic / megalomaniacal fantasy that you are going to learn calculus in two weeks, take an AP Calculus BC test. That is, a test intended for high school kids. You can find them online. Assuming you don't cheat, you will fail.
Next, consider that the test you just failed is the same test that teens routinely pass every year. Let that sink in. Then consider the possibility that you don't understand what you're opining about. You've failed to process high school calculus. You aren't as smart as you think you are.
Next, come back to reality with the understanding that this isn't going to make you famous. This isn't going to make people talk about you (and ostracize you). It's never going to build up enough steam for that. It's just sad, a fart in a lecture hall full of unwashed schizotypals with their various grand physics claims.
Finally, go back to what you're actually good at, as well as what's useful for the world. Inspire us with art, your openness, and your willingness to empathize with people who most consider monsters. You've become something ugly after your touch with Destiny. Get back to your roots. There was a reason why Lex was once interested in talking to you. But this ain't it.
I know you're not in a place where you can listen right now, but take that AP test. After you've done that and are staring at your score, consider what the asshole on the internet said.
I've seen where the path you're on leads, and it's tragic. You have attributed to me hostility, but I am just trying to pour cold water on you. I am *worried* about you. You are exhibiting grandiose delusions. You are apparently too far gone for your therapist to get through to you, but maybe the hard number of your score on a high school AP test can snap you back into reality. It's not just a stint in a psych ward we're talking about. You're going to lose Shaelin, and you'll likely end up on the street. If you survive that, you'll be fending off bouts of psychosis with meds that make you feel dull for the rest of your life. The damage to your brain will likely be permanent. This is the clinical neuroprogression of manic episodes that are prolonged by ego-syntonic grandiose delusions. Go back to your therapist, and maybe get on meds. You want to get off this bus immediately, because you won't be able to soon. And where the hell is Jimmy in this? Are you talking to and listening to Jimmy?
Have you heard about this? Galaxies without dark matter. According to the current physics model they shouldn't be able to form in the first place. https://youtu.be/_TL7Yat9c5w
I'm excited to follow your exploration of this. I support you because you're willing to challenge the status quo in an interesting, thoughtful, and constructive way. We learn nothing if no one is willing to take risks or offer new ideas.
The reflexive and vitriolic reaction to your proposal is frustrating. If it’s incorrect, explain why—it’s a great opportunity for thoughtful engagement and for teaching others, at least within our little corner of the internet. There’s no place for demeaning personal attacks, especially when someone is earnestly trying to grapple with complex ideas. That kind of reaction feels deeply anti-human to me.
It also reminds me of how you sometimes clash with guests on your podcast—and podcasting in general. Podcasters often lack formal credentials or achievements, and much of the space seems driven by status and audience exchange. That’s probably why vulnerability or real disagreement is so rare—there’s only clout to lose, which is directly tied to their income (and ego/internet persona).
I worry that some of these same perverse incentives exist in academia. Take this with a grain of salt, but it seems like academics also rely heavily on the perception of their expertise—warranted or not. It's in their interest to be seen as infallible (or at least rarely wrong), so engaging in discussions that could make them look foolish often feels too risky. This might be even more pronounced with science communicators, oddly enough—as you explored beautifully in that incredible podcast episode. That was honestly a work of art.
Keep up the work, even if you are proven incorrect. It is the most human thing you can do in a world of bots and sheep.
hey Max, physicist here. I think you should follow up on this. some really great ideas here, especially those you discussed with chatGPT. in fact, I don't think you actually need to involve any real physicists and could probably even do it yourself! again, don't worry about contacting or reaching out to any physicists, you've got this covered on your end.
I am very excited for your black hole arc. Maybe someone will have the balls to actually explain how/why it's wrong (If it is).
Does it extrapolate to anything substantial? Is there anything that must be true if you're right? What else would be counterintuitively true if the universe really is a black hole?
I think the most substantial implication is the inverted sphere shape of the universe with the observer as wave-like instead of point-like. That might help explain a lot, but I don't really know.
I'm not sure it's useful for anything though, because it only explains "non-local" phenomena like universal expansion, which is only relevant at extremely large distances that humans will probably never traverse.
Are you just throwing random words together you have no idea what they mean or what?
Good luck with that, Max. I sure hope this doesn't turn into another Terrence Howard situation. You *are* way smarter than him though.
hi max, you are one of my heroes
is it possible that understanding the cosmological nature of the universe is a purely individual experience given that the language to properly explain most of these concepts might not exist?
i dont mean to go all jordan peterson on you but how would i even know if my ideas of these concepts have the same parameters as yours, or look and behave the same way as yours in my head etc
thanks
Hello. While I think there are some limitations to describing something that you're inside and can't get out of, we've done pretty well with similar limitations in fields like evolutionary biology.
The only way to know if ideas have the same parameters is incredibly precise language, including math. I see that there can never be total certainty, but I think we can get close enough to functionally "solve" cosmology.
hope you get what you want
Have you considered a rotating spacetime with a decaying angular vorticity field?
The horizon analogy goes like this: there's a radial line that rotated around the inside of a circle. A photon with a total radial + angular speed of c tries to travel along the radial line, but the rotation speeds up as the photon travels further. By the time the photon approaches the rim, the rotation speed is c at the rim, so it never arrives.
I don't think there's anything outside the universe so I don't think it can rotate literally, but I did vibe-code a special relativity analogy animation to simulate the approach to an event horizon as an outward spiral.
I will also be using this as an analogy to dark energy/cosmic expansion. So, not directly, but as a flat space analogy for acceleration/curvature, yes, I have been thinking about that. It helps me understand curvature in general relativity and I think it'll be a great teaching tool. And of course it's one of the thoughts experiments that led Einstein to develop general relativity in the first place (using the equivalence principle to equate himself rotating around a clock with being in a gravitational field).
Velocity field*
when you described the feeling of seeing the center of the black hole in every direction, i felt something as well. I have a strong feeling that there is something important going on here.
I think there's a reason that the last great leap in physics was made by Einstein - someone who despised math, and thought about the universe in images, puzzles and parables. Concepts and ideas come first - math is just a tool to test the consistency of an idea, and link different concepts together.
Einstein was taken seriously once he was able to test his predictions via a real physical phenomenon (by seeing the curvature of spacetime from a star behind the sun during a solar eclipse). Maybe you need to find a way to prove your theory, not just through pure logic, but by an observation that only your theory can account for.
The first cartoon you made sounded super unhinged (the fast pace and complicated physics terms made me think you had gone crazy, or maybe that it was an AI voice impersonation?), but the way you write about it now feels much more grounded and openminded. I hope you include more self awareness in your future cartoons.
I also want you to keep pushing real physicists to talk to you. There has to be someone out there who is willing to be challenged on their existing beliefs.
this is famously true. Einstein didnt even do a single math in his entire life. There's no math in any of his papers not even the one he won the Nobel prize for. Believe it or not, he spent all day sticking his tongue out waiting for the ideas to come to him! He said he could taste the physics (relativity apparently tasted like chocolate, who knew?).
I recommend you never do math ever; it's just a distraction from the REAL physics.
ok, it seems it's a common myth that einstein was horrible at math - he seems to have learned himself calculus at 12, so saying he despised maths is obviously an exaggeration lol.
But my point is just that Einstein thought of the world in theories and concepts, and then later tried to find the math to fit his theory, which seems to be the case for max as well.
this is completely and utterly false. Einstein had an interested in philosophy, and was perhaps more concerned with complete theories than his counterparts, but even a cursory look into GR makes it OBVIOUS that Einstein was not only mathematically gifted but uniquely posed to study certain concepts compared to his contemporaries
Well that's your opinion and that's ok
There isn't "infinite lensing". I think you got the idea from the fact that all paths in a non-rotating black hole lead to the singularity, and that made you think that the singularity is "ahead" in every direction. These are separate concepts. Consider: all paths in a giant, frictionless sink lead down the drain hole; you can still *look away* from the drain hole. And if photons were marbles spiraling down the sink with you, they'd still whack you in the face when you turned toward them: that is to say, you'd still see the light coming in from outside. Your hypothesis is founded on this misunderstanding.
Much more concerning: the sycophancy of ChatGPT seems to provoke mania in people prone to manic episodes. It's not a good idea to be engaging with ChatGPT over ideas that make you feel manic / crazy. The path you're pursuing is a path to psychosis.
Why do children who were abused seek abusive partners when they grow up? For the same reason most any of us would be reluctant to press a button that teleported us to Valhalla: sure, Valhalla is supposed to be great, but it would be *terrifying* to be so far away from what we know.
What you know from your childhood is ostracization and being regarded as bad/defective. Sex blogging, uncomfortable takes: their core purpose is to make people ostracize you and regard you as bad. Likewise, this black hole thing is your latest attempt to alleviate your terror of Valhalla and return to your familiar patterns of abuse. However, this is an especially bad abusive boyfriend, because psychotic episodes can induce lingering damage.
In the short term, just do pro-underage shit. You'll get attention, and you'll get your fix of abuse. In the medium and long term, find a better therapist who can break you out of this cycle.
Hostility rating: 9/10. This is a prime example of what I was talking about in the post, folks.
Anyway, this is the same argument that Paul Sutter made on our podcast --that you can physically see curvature along incoming light paths.
The consistent local perception of flat space (anchored to the consistent locel speed of light) guarantees that you can't do that--incoming light paths always look straight.
Your observer frame is a sphere of incoming light--you don't get extra information about what path that light took to reach you, unless you move to a new vantage point. In a black hole, you can't.
It sounds like you're imagining that you get two observer frames--one where your frame is based on incoming light and another based on coordinates. But you only get the first one.
Additionally, as you may know, I don't think you can fall into a black hole, or that black holes can finish forming in our universe, or that anything could fall in "after" you. This response is strictly about the lensing issue.
My hostility rating: 0/10. You have a great sense for aesthetics and a talent for presentation. I still sometimes think of your "I need space" video encouraging people to be free and creative; it was a masterpiece. There is a great deal of value you could bring the world. However, this black hole thing is purely self-destructive. It's worse than submitting yourself to death threats, since it could literally kill you through psychosis. You're transparent, Max. You're trying to add "crackpot" to the list of "mean labels that people who don't understand me apply to me" — racist, misogynist, creep, school shooter type, transphobe, domestic abuser, pedophile. You're trying to recreate your childhood world.
Again, the problem is that all finite objects too, are infinite. The difference between a coffee cup and your body is an infinite chasm.
Interestingly C'mon C'mon is a much better pedophile movie than Cuties, the girls in Cuties are so dumb. Also better than Lolita, because it's male. The Joaquin Phoenix character also does "sincere" weird style interviews like you do.
There are infinite universes and infinite pseudo-universes, and so on, infinite versions of which overlap with infinite infinitesimally microscopic variations of this one. If you perceive or interpret the universe as a black hole that is just a particular selection of reality, reality's true nature being Absolute Infinity.
Any specific experience (color, taste, sound) or idea ("you know dude, I think this universe is a black hole") is merely a selection.
The Truth is Infinite in nature.
my butthole encompasses the entirety of one of the universes that one of your alternate personalities exist in
they exist in the fart nebula but gravity in this universe works differently and my fart is turning into a star and so your fart personalities fart civilization is under threat of atmospheric collapse and ecological disaster should you fail to create a portal and shepherd “humanity” to relative safety
This is fucking poetry. Sorry, I meant farting.
Yes, but the problem is the opposite is also true at the same time. Reality has contradictions in it.
I didn't track you previous Physics saga/psychotic episode. I didn't even know this was the idea you had. The thing is, I feel like I've heard of people discussing this as a theory before. I wonder why you weren't able to get someone to talk to you about it just as a thought experiment. Perhaps people could sense how you were feeling and became hesitant to engage too much
100%. Wouldn't the world be better if every physicist just had open office hours every day? That way we could tell them about our theories and change the universe together! They would get MORE done actually if you really think about it.
I think the issue is that he needs to disprove some established science, or prove that it doesn't apply in this case, before he even gets to his main argument.