this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
-5 points (27.3% liked)
Physics
1900 readers
34 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Looks like a whole bunch of nonsense by and for people with no understanding of the purpose or even the structure of academic research. The author is a "Bachelor of Business Administration" with an apparent penchant for arcane scientific-sounding babble.
Read any proper publication, and you'll see every word and thought thoroughly explained or reduced to common (if perhaps field-specific) knowledge. The abstract is short enough to give a cursory overview, and doesn't dump a page's worth of the author's favourite sciency-sounding words and symbols.
Here's an example (supposed to be without a paywall): https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641399.3641443
Note the format, length, and wording of the abstract, the authors' credentials (both field-relevant and at least graduate-level), the conciseness of the discussion, etc.
Compare this to Watanabe's efforts to convince you (and whoever else reads his stuff) that he's smart. Very, very smart. Way smarter than you. Way smarter than the people who don't realise his smartness. The least he expects of you is unearned respect, but I'm willing to bet he's monetising this.
If this was the 00s, he'd probably have one of these websites (PSA: don't download or install anything):
Kryptochef: https://web.archive.org/web/20060613200332/http://kryptochef.net/index2e.htm
Timecube: https://web.archive.org/web/20100127184015/http://www.timecube.com/
@aldhissla@piefed.world
Your point seems to be missing the actual subject of discussion.
What I am asking for—even if you disagree—is a rebuttal based on scientific reasoning and evidence regarding the content itself.
That is the minimum level of respect owed when an author presents a theory derived from experimental data.
As it stands, it looks like you’re unable to provide a convincing counterargument to the actual content, so instead you’re focusing on superficial points that are easy to attack just to pass the time.