<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>New approach for building of unified theory about the Universe and some results · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/physics_0205052/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/physics_0205052/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>New approach for building of unified theory about the Universe and some results — mentioned by Pyxl101</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11793853</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:physics_0205052:11793853</guid><pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2016 22:23:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve read the paper that&amp;#x27;s available on Arxiv and agree it&amp;#x27;s quackpottery [1]. The paper does not introduce concepts in a scientific way. It seems to me like a series of ramblings or ideas about how things might work, with no results or justifications, indistinguishable from hypothetical future technology in science fiction. There&amp;#x27;s no actual scientific content, no presentation of a new theory and working out results that derive from it. Be advised, poelzi seems like an apologist for Stoyan Sarg. See previous comment history where they mention the theory and link to the book numerous times.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/physics_0205052/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.gen-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
