don't do fucking jack shit for this faggot fraud country

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5872956&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310734#49929032)

**G running with acceleration (MOND-family, Verlinde).** This is where the genuine anomalies live, because they're regularities nobody ordered. Flat rotation curves, obviously. The baryonic Tully-Fisher relation: v⁴ ∝ M_baryon across five decades of mass with scatter consistent with zero — in ΛCDM there's no reason total dynamics should know only about the baryons. The radial acceleration relation: observed acceleration is a single tight function of baryonic acceleration across thousands of points in galaxies of every type, behaving like a law of nature where ΛCDM has to retrodict it with per-galaxy feedback tuning. Renzo's rule: every feature in the light profile has a counterpart in the rotation curve, which is hard if dynamics is dominated by a smooth halo. Claimed detections of the external field effect — internal galaxy dynamics depending on the ambient gravitational field, a strong-equivalence-principle violation that dark matter cannot produce and MOND requires. And the contested Gaia wide-binary anomaly, a reported gravity boost in stellar pairs at ~10⁻¹⁰ m/s² (Chae says yes, Banik says no; unresolved). All of these switch on at the same scale, a₀ ≈ 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ m/s² ≈ cH₀/2π — which either means something cosmological or is the best numerological coincidence since Balmer. The failure list is equally crisp: the Bullet Cluster's lensing-baryon offset, cluster cores (still ~2× missing mass even in MOND), the CMB's third acoustic peak. Which is why acceleration-dependent G reads as a deep clue about an effective regime, not a finished theory.

**G varying in time.** Dirac's original target was the large-number coincidences themselves. The serious anomaly candidates since: the faint young Sun paradox — solar luminosity scales something like G⁷, so a few percent higher G in the Archean gives you liquid water under a sun that standard models say was 30% too dim; SN Ia dimming without dark energy — Chandrasekhar mass goes as G^(-3/2), so a drifting G fakes luminosity evolution that mimics cosmic acceleration; and lately the Hubble tension — raise G_eff before recombination, expansion runs faster, the sound horizon shrinks, and the CMB-inferred H₀ climbs toward the local value, with a weaker late-time G_eff easing the S8 tension as a bonus. Scorecard: lunar laser ranging bounds Ġ/G below ~10⁻¹³/yr, which kills the faint-young-Sun solution by two orders of magnitude — Teller already pointed out in 1948 that Dirac's G(t) boils the Paleozoic oceans. Pulsar timing and SN Ia constraints close the dark-energy mimic. The only surviving window is early-universe — changes after BBN but before recombination — which is why the H₀-tension version is the lone time-varying-G proposal still breathing, competing with early dark energy and varying electron mass for the same job.

**G varying with environment** (screened scalar-tensor: chameleon, symmetron, f(R)). Here the anomaly being explained is dark energy itself — self-accelerating gravity that hides behind screening in the solar system. The predicted signatures are fifth forces in unscreened dwarf galaxies: offsets between stellar and gas disks, anomalous warps. Searches found tantalizing hints, then constraints; MICROSCOPE's equivalence-principle bound at 10⁻¹⁵ now boxes most of the parameter space.

**And the lab anomaly, for completeness:** measurements of big G itself disagree at ~500 ppm — mutual tensions beyond 10σ, the worst-measured fundamental constant by far. A claimed 5.9-year periodicity correlating with Earth's rotation was almost certainly systematics. Nobody serious thinks G oscillates in the basement; everybody agrees it's embarrassing.

Tie it back to where we were: in the thermodynamic picture, none of this is scandalous. If Einstein's equations are an equation of state, G is a transport coefficient, and transport coefficients run. Verlinde's whole bet is that the entropic bookkeeping changes when local acceleration drops below the de Sitter scale — which is precisely cH₀ — turning the a₀ coincidence from numerology into the signature of where the hydrodynamic approximation starts feeling the cosmological boundary. So if you're ranking: the low-acceleration galactic regularities are the anomalies worth staking something on, the early-universe Hubble-tension window is alive but crowded, and everything else on the time-varying list is a well-documented corpse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5872956&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310734#49929565)

(thanks FABLE!)

Output: Strip it down and the view says: fundamental reality is a quantum state. A vector in Hilbert space, an entanglement pattern, a Hamiltonian. That's the entire inventory. Space is bookkeeping for the entanglement structure — which degrees of freedom are correlated with which, and how strongly; RT makes that literal. Locality is the statement that the Hamiltonian couples some factors and not others. Objects, fields, you: stable patterns in the state. Carroll calls the maximally austere version "mad-dog Everettianism" — reality as a vector in Hilbert space, full stop, with even the division of the world into subsystems derived rather than given, by finding the factorization in which the dynamics looks local.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5872956&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310734#49929532)

https://youtu.be/sbR9DOdW35o

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5872956&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310734#49929553)