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.

The 'ether' you refer to is the "Luminiferous aether" and my 'ether' has nothing to do with it. Ether's definition is that it is present at every point of space. A quantum field satisfies this definition especially the Higgs field which vacuum expectation value is greater than zero. I even wrote that my ether can be considered a quantum field.

And my presentation is an idea and not a theory. It does not have to be peer reviewed and it is posted under "Research proposal". Maybe someone will find it interesting enough to do something with it.

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

See chapter 3.6. In short, dark energy is stress in the elastic material. As the elastic material expands stress diminishes.

I know that there are some other elastic ether theories out there but I think neither of them explains gravity and time this particular way. And do not confuse this with the "luminiferous aether", this elastic ether has nothing do with that.

The Eddington limit is about stars and not about black holes. There is nothing to balance in case of a black hole. Its luminosity depends on the surrounding material, friction and how much is falling into the black hole.

This is not physics. This a math. The idea may be borrowed from physics but it is math. Physics is math but math is not physics.

Sabine also agrees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It looks like since there is no Nobel for Math, the Nobel Committee had to hack the Nobel. They already did this with the "Nobel for Economics".

is the longest reigning monarch,

In Superdeterminism Bell's theorem does not apply.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.064...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So, what did they expect? That this lump of energy somehow does not obey the rules of general relativity?

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Pathetic /., pathetic.

Here is a site https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doct... which put this pandemic into another perspective. I do not know if it is fake news or what its agenda (right wing???), but this statement concerns me:

"According to leading lung specialists, invasive ventilation of Covid19 patients is often counterproductive and causes additional damage to the lungs. The invasive ventilation of Covid19 is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus through aerosols."

Go, read the references and decide. However, it looks like simple oxygen support would be more helpful. Boris Johnson also received oxygen support. The mainstream media does not really report anything about it only how many people are on ventilators.

These statements also appear to be true:

"The often shown exponential curves of 'corona cases' are misleading, since the number of tests also increases exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to total tests either remains constant between 5% to 15% or increases only very slowly."

"Countries without lockdowns and contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea and Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. This may call into question the effectiveness of such far-reaching measures."

Of course, the last statement can be easily turn out to be wrong. Time will tell.

I agree with you that there is no economic benefit going to a distant star system. Doing such endeavor depends on not only technology but also resources. If the laws of physics are true as we know them, it is possible to do interstellar travel but it will be highly impractical. And it will be a one-way trip. There will be no reason to come back to Earth. So, such a civilization will spread very-very slowly. Some colonies will be even forgotten, destroyed, etc.

And what if the closest habitable planet is 100 light years away? Going there directly from Earth does not make any sense unless Earth is on the brink of destruction. So, you have to spread generally to that direction which should take thousands of years while you have to establish colonies on inhabitable planets along the way. And those colonies must be independent of Earth due to the distance. Why would you do that when you can colonize the planets and moons in the Solar System? Will there be a time when even the Solar System is small for humanity?

Without FTL the whole space-faring idea is just a fantasy.

In the whole paper they do not speak of calculations instead they speak of measurements. It seems to me they measured the output of some quantum circuit several million times during the test.

They collected 30 million samples and obtained the Fxeb value. It seems to me the Fxeb was calculated by a classical computer using the 30 million samples.

So, what they built seems to me a measurement device. And for the record I believe in superdeterminism.

From Gerard 't Hooft:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.028...

From Sabine Hossenfelder:
http://backreaction.blogspot.c...