I've gone to the edges. I sincerely cringe when I choose to tell others I'm wise. My time here put the answers in reach. I know whatever, dude. You wouldn't believe it l, so why would I say it?

I will ask you to consider the value of mental freedom. Just consider tossed away all the biases. Look at everything fresh. Try and simplify things first. Before you think of anything complicated. Bring it down to what is the only possible solution. One is looked over. Intelligence cannot arise without intelligent design. I have checked the boxes in the seemingly impossible data sets. Do you believe it? Nah. It's unfair. I want people to see my honesty. Thanks. Just my thoughts.

[–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

Futher context. It's an alternative to the standard model that seems to fit the planke data with two fewer parameters. This would need to be validated by numerous cosmologists, I would suppose. The cosmologists eho downloaded it does publish papers regarding alternatives to DM and DE. Some similarities, but the independent researcher has a vastly different model to the standard. It's a fresh hypothesis. Not a tweak. By reading the cosmologists papers, I would wager it's fits his work. The missing structure of it all. Or it's nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    That's rad, dude. I wish I knew how to do that. Hey, dude I imagined a cosmological model that fits the data with two fewer parameters then the standard model. Planke data. I I've checked the numbers, but I don't have the credentials. I need somebody to check it out. This is a it and a verbal explanation for the model by Academia.edu. It's way easier to listen first before looking. I don't want recognition or anything. Just for someone to review it. It's a short paper. https://youtu.be/_l8SHVeua1Y

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›