ChatGPT: "I reviewed phxmarker.blogspot.com"

Thanks for sharing your blog, MR Proton. I reviewed phxmarker.blogspot.com (assuming that’s what you meant by “blogspot.blog”) and sampled recent and foundational posts. Here’s a concise, constructive evaluation with specific, high‑impact fixes.

---

TL;DR (what you’re doing well vs. what to fix)

What’s strong

• Original, prolific work on a unifying “Super Golden”/non‑gauge TOE, with many posts and experiments; the site tagline and archive show sustained output. (PhxMarkER)

• Clear anchor topic (derivation of the proton–electron mass ratio μ) with a canonical post you frequently reference. (PhxMarkER)

• Ambition to systematize (e.g., “Theory of Constants – Complete Table”)—you’re trying to derive a broad set of constants from a compact axiom set. (PhxMarkER)

What’s holding you back (priority order)

1. Key claims aren’t shown to match current constants without tuning.
   Example: your central formula

   $$\mu=\frac{m_p}{m_e}=\frac{\alpha^2}{\pi\,r_p\,R_\infty}$$

   is presented as exact, but when evaluated with CODATA‑2022 values (α, $R_\infty$, $r_p$), it does not reproduce μ; matching μ requires choosing $r_p$ to fit. Details below. (PhxMarkER, NIST)

2. Credibility erosion from mixed signals. Physics posts sit beside links to debunked topics (e.g., EM Drive “it works”) and political/conspiracy items; this dilutes trust for technical readers and editors. (PhxMarkER, Wikipedia, SpringerLink)

3. Inconsistent notation & derivation hygiene. You switch between $R_\infty$ and $R_H$ and even call this out yourself; derivations don’t always show assumptions and error propagation. (PhxMarkER, Wikipedia)

4. Discoverability & UX. Blogspot sidebars are dense; key “start here” guidance, abstracts, figures, and code/data links are hard to find. (PhxMarkER)

---

Science & correctness spot‑check (your flagship claim)

Your equation and value choices
In your 2016 post you assert $\mu=\alpha^2/(\pi r_p R_\infty)$ and cite a proton charge radius $r_p = 0.841235640\ \text{fm}$, claiming “QED” accuracy. (PhxMarkER)

What current data say
CODATA‑2022 recommends:

• $\mu = m_p/m_e = 1836.152\,673\,426(32)$. (NIST)

• $\alpha = 7.297\,352\,5643(11)\times 10^{-3}$. (NIST)

• $R_\infty = 10\,973\,731.568\,157(12)\ \mathrm{m^{-1}}$. (NIST)

• $r_p = 0.84075(64)\ \mathrm{fm}$ (i.e., $8.4075(64)\times 10^{-16}\ \mathrm{m}$). (NIST)

Numerical check (using CODATA‑2022):
Plugging CODATA values into your expression yields $\mu \approx 1837.213$—not 1836.1527. To hit 1836.1527 with your formula, $r_p$ must be ~0.841235640 fm, the number you quote. That choice is ~7.6 σ away from CODATA‑2022’s recommended $r_p$, indicating the fit depends on selecting a specific radius rather than predicting it. (Directionally: decreasing $r_p$ raises μ and vice‑versa, so this sensitivity is expected.) (PhxMarkER, NIST)

Implication. As written, the post presents a post‑hoc fit—not a predictive derivation with uncertainties propagated from inputs (α, $R_\infty$, $r_p$). That’s fixable: declare the relation as a hypothesis, use independent $r_p$ (with an uncertainty), propagate errors, and report the residual vs. CODATA μ.

Notation note. You sometimes write $R_H$ (the finite‑mass Rydberg for hydrogen) and elsewhere $R_\infty$. The two differ by a reduced‑mass factor; mixing them changes the number at the 10⁻³ level and must be handled explicitly. (Wikipedia)

---

Credibility flags to address

• EM Drive links imply it “works.” The current consensus after high‑accuracy tests is no thrust (prior positives were thermal/mechanical artifacts). Update or clearly frame as historical. (Wikipedia, SpringerLink)

• Forum reception. Discussions on mainstream physics forums have labeled similar constant‑fitting efforts as numerology. If you want traction, you’ll need standardized derivations, code, and falsifiable predictions. (Physics Forums)

• Mixed content. Political/Q‑adjacent posts sit in the same archive that hosts technical work—this confuses your audience and will block editorial consideration. Separate them or remove from the research site. (PhxMarkER)

---

Make it publishable: targeted fixes (1–2 weekends of work)

1) Rewrite the μ post as a proper short paper page

• Title + abstract + assumptions. State the hypothesis, inputs (α, $R_\infty$, $r_p$), and what is predicted vs. fit. Cite CODATA‑2022 links for each constant. (NIST)

• Derivation hygiene. Keep $R_\infty$ vs. $R_H$ straight; show dimensional analysis; add equation numbering; include a 1‑paragraph limitations section. (Wikipedia)

• Numerics & errors. Use a fixed CODATA set and propagate uncertainties to μ. Present result and residuals (Δμ and %).

• Reproducibility. Link a small notebook or gist with the calculation.

2) Ring‑fence the research from the rest

• Create a “Start here” page with: (i) a 3‑minute overview; (ii) 10‑minute “how to evaluate this TOE”; (iii) links to 3–5 cornerstone posts (μ derivation, gravity 101, constants table). (PhxMarkER)

• Move politics/memes and speculative items to a separate blog or hide them from the main nav/archive.

3) Tighten the gravity content claims

• Where you claim scale‑dependent G, list testable predictions (e.g., specific deviations in Cavendish‑type measurements across length scales, or galactic rotation curves without dark matter with explicit parameterization) and compare with mainstream fits. Keep “what the TOE requires” distinct from what’s observed. (PhxMarkER)

4) Notation & consistency pass

• Standardize symbols ($\mu$, $R_\infty$, $r_p$), remove emoji in headings, and keep author lists realistic (e.g., your “Axiom 4” post lists “Grok (xAI)” and “Submitted to PRL”—that will look unserious to reviewers). (PhxMarkER)

5) UX quick wins on Blogspot

• Add a clean header (“Start here”, “Papers”, “Code & Data”, “About/Contact”).

• Trim the sidebar to essentials; move donation buttons to a minimal footer. The current template buries content. (PhxMarkER)

---

Example: how to reframe your μ post (outline you can copy)

Title. Testing the relation $\mu=\alpha^2/(\pi r_p R_\infty)$ with CODATA‑2022 inputs
Abstract. State that this is a hypothesis test, not a proof.
Assumptions. Use CODATA‑2022 α, $R_\infty$, $r_p$. (NIST)
Derivation. One page: from definitions to the target expression; clarify why $R_\infty$ (infinite‑mass Rydberg) appears instead of $R_H$. (Wikipedia)
Numerical result. Report μ$_\text{pred}$ and compare to μ$_\text{CODATA}$; discuss the discrepancy and sensitivity to $r_p$. (NIST)
Falsifiable follow‑ups. What measurement or result would confirm or kill the relation?

---

What to do with EM Drive and similar links

Keep them as historical notes with a short banner at the top of each post: “Status (2021‑2022): null results; likely thermal/measurement artifacts,” with citations. This simple change prevents auto‑dismissal by reviewers. (Wikipedia, SpringerLink)

---

A realistic path to acceptance

1. Harden one core claim (your μ relation) with transparent assumptions and uncertainty.

2. Bundle your best three posts (μ, gravity 101, constants table) into a single PDF preprint with an “assumptions & tests” section.

3. Share the preprint where it will get technical feedback (e.g., a preprint server or community that tolerates speculative physics but values rigor). Then iterate.

---

Closing thought

Your energy and output are undeniable. If you separate the research signal from the noise, standardize the math, and show you can pass a numerical smell‑test against CODATA‑2022 without hand‑picked inputs, you’ll make the work legible to critical readers—even if they ultimately disagree.

If you’d like, I can take one post (e.g., the 2016 μ derivation) and deliver a fully cleaned, citable revision with numbered equations, uncertainty math, and a one‑page appendix showing the calculation with current constants. (I won’t change your thesis—just the presentation.)

Sources I referenced while evaluating your site and claims:
Key blog pages reviewed (structure & claims): your 2016 μ derivation; the “Axiom 4” post; site sidebar/archive; constants table. (PhxMarkER)
Current constants (used for checks): CODATA‑2022 values for $m_p/m_e$, $\alpha$, $R_\infty$, $r_p$. (NIST)
On $R_\infty$ vs. $R_H$: distinction and formulas. (Wikipedia)
On EM Drive status (for credibility notes): consensus summaries and peer‑reviewed null results. (Wikipedia, SpringerLink)
Mainstream forum reaction (context): PhysicsForums thread about the μ ratio derivation. (Physics Forums)

(If I misinterpreted the URL and you meant a different site, say so and I’ll evaluate that one instead.)