Thank you very much. I already did some fixes with Opus 5. RAR survided and it is actually better. Wavenumbers are not needed. Gravity and Black Holes are also much better.

Thank you checking the document with the highest models. I do not use those since I would run out of credits very quickly.

Can you send the full analysis to my email address which is in the document? It seems most of the complaints concern the GR stuff which is expected. But the RAR derivation does not really connect to that. Appendix A gives a mathematical explanation using wavenumbers and 3 different AI models (not the highest) agreed it is correct. What does Fable say about Appendix A?

Anyway, let's take this complain:
"The âoedeep-MOND amplitudeâ is an algebraic identity, not a dynamical derivation"

Of course, the amplitude is just simple algebra. But it seems Fable did not understand the picture where the justification of that algebra comes from. I did a search and the MOND literature never pinpointed the amplitude as the geometric mean of acceleration at two radii. The MOND literature simply uses sqrt(gN cH0).

I would really appreciate if you send the full analysis to me.

The RAR equation is an empirical equation based on 100+ galaxies data. No derivation of the equation exists.

I have an elastic vacuum model from which I derived the exact equation. The interpretation is that RAR (and MOND) describers the transient
region how cosmic expansion recovers from H=0 inside the galaxy to full H=H0. Within the elastic vacuum model the RAR equation is a prediction.

You can read the Postulates and you can jump right into chapter 9 and read also the Appendinx. You do not have to concern yourself with the GR stuff in the document.

At this point, I see 3 options.
1. The derivation is false and I use totally wrong math
2. I am extremely lucky to get this out of the vacuum model and it is just a weird coincidence
3. Maybe there is something here and treating the vacuum as a real material may have some merit.

https://www.researchgate.net/p...

If any physicist read this, feel free to contact me and point out any errors and/or inconsistencies concerning the derivation or other topics in the document.

It has happened under both.

Free speech includes lying.

Merit should always consider strictly value.

The $5K a year just gives you a $300 per person per visit discount. So pays itself back in 15 visits or so.

Plenty of us nerds can afford this and want to see news about this.

Garbage regulations like IP create these behemoths. If you want freedom, stop regulating monopolies into existence.

Statism creates billionaires.

Democracy is for retards.

Government did this. All of this. Government regulated so much that only a rare few can afford to compete.

This is late stage statism. Retard voters are to blame.

Like you.

Grok was constantly say it was doing something that it had ZERO ability to, and I kept calling it out and it kept apologizing and then immediately doing it again.

As a guy who spend 5 figures a year on Ai, the last thing I want is that. I know Claude and ChatGPT also do it, but Grok was doing it CONSTANTLY.

This will not end well.

Why is this a problem?

I do not want my software censoring anything I make.

Neoliberalism and liberalism are two totally different things.