Universal Constants Derived from Pure Geometry(github.com)
github.com
Universal Constants Derived from Pure Geometry
https://github.com/Cosmolalia/akataletos-geodesic-constants-2025/blob/main/
10 comments
We just demonstrated that the “fundamental constants” of physics (the fine structure constant α ≈ 1/137, the mass ratios of particles, and mathematical constants like π and e) are not arbitrary numbers that need to be measured. They are eigenvalue ratios of a specific topological manifold — the Akatalêptos — and can be computed from pure geometry to machine precision.
404. is this AI slop submitted? The account was just made too
Looking at the paper, the only referenced source is grok. So yeah, ai slop.
you can have valid math and credit those who helped, even if not human. whats actually sloppy is your refusal to engage with it in good faith. but you cant because if you did, youd have to come back and eat your hat.
I'm going to steelman your argument and assume a few things:
- You are a real person who genuinely wants to make a difference in the field of physics
- The proposed mathematics isn't technobabble and actually does generate the constants you say it does
- The contributions are overwhelmingly yours, not overwhelmingly AI-generated
Even under these generous assumptions, this just isn't how citizen science is done. Your first step isn't publishing a 2-page paper with no references and basically no details on what you're doing or why. Your first step is taking your results to the nearest PHd theoretical physicist you can find, and getting them to take you seriously so you can find out if your work actually has merit.
- You are a real person who genuinely wants to make a difference in the field of physics
- The proposed mathematics isn't technobabble and actually does generate the constants you say it does
- The contributions are overwhelmingly yours, not overwhelmingly AI-generated
Even under these generous assumptions, this just isn't how citizen science is done. Your first step isn't publishing a 2-page paper with no references and basically no details on what you're doing or why. Your first step is taking your results to the nearest PHd theoretical physicist you can find, and getting them to take you seriously so you can find out if your work actually has merit.
Thanks but your critique doesn't change the science of it, run the math, confirm or deny, move on... simple equation really. If people want to argue with the science of it, be my guest and ill see you on the other side.
Go do the math, then come back and deny it with the actual proof. I've delivered my half, and you may not like it but this is indeed how citizen science is done, as we can see here^. You can take it to a scientist or mathematician/topologist if you like, I'm all about that.
- "Man who says it can not be done, should not interrupt man who is doing it."
- "Man who says it can not be done, should not interrupt man who is doing it."
check the math. certainly not slop.
bouncing math babble off llms is not doing science
go learn math and physics if you like it, it's fascinating. stop cosplaying by running code you don't understand... you're mistaking paraedolia for insight
go learn math and physics if you like it, it's fascinating. stop cosplaying by running code you don't understand... you're mistaking paraedolia for insight