# ISL Community Engagement Protocol 🛡️

**Strategy**: Data-First. Low Hype. High Rigor.
**Goal**: Plant a quality seed in the niche Modified Gravity / SPARC community.

---

## 1. The "Data-First" Launch Thread (The Seed)

**Tweet 1 (The Hook & Claim)**
We re-ran the analysis on 175 SPARC galaxies using an Information-Theoretic Gravity model (ISL).
Result: The modularity parameter isn't universal. It follows a Power Law.

$\alpha_{ISL} \propto V_{flat}^{-0.74}$

This suggests "Dark Matter" is geometric overhead scaling with system complexity.
Code & Data: [Link to TwistPool]
🧵👇

**Tweet 2 (The Data - SPARC Focus)**
We tested ISL vs MOND vs Newtonian.
• Dwarfs ($V < 50$km/s): High $\alpha$ (0.5+). High overhead.
• Giants ($V > 200$km/s): Low $\alpha$ (<0.1). Newtonian behavior.

The scaling law reduces the variance significantly compared to a fixed-parameter model.

**Tweet 3 (The Code & Invitation)**
This is an open invitation to the SPARC and MOND community to break our code.
We are using `scipy.optimize` on the raw SPARC `.dat` files.

Repo: [Link to Codeberg]
Tutorial: https://twistpool.com/recreate-isl-tutorial/

**Tweet 4 (The Interpretation - Brief)**
Physically, this interprets gravity as a resource constraint (Geometric Overhead) rather than a particle halo or fixed force modification.
Same logic derives the Penrose OR timescale ($\tau \approx \hbar/E_G$).

Read the full report: https://twistpool.com/how-a-failed-model-led-to-a-new-scaling-law-2/

---

## 2. Response Templates (The Shield)

**Scenario A: The MOND Expert**
*Comment*: "Your $\chi^2$ seems high. MOND gets $\chi^2 \approx 2$ on this subset. Did you fix $a_0$?"
*Response*: "Thanks for checking. We let $\alpha$ float to find the scaling law, which differs from fixing $a_0$. Our baseline Newtonian fit was indeed poor. Would love to see if you get the same Power Law slope on your preferred subset. Code is open!"

**Scenario B: The "Crackpot" Accusation**
*Comment*: "Another day, another TOE. Where is the peer review?"
*Response*: "Fair question. We are currently in the 'Pre-Print / Reproduction' phase. We prioritized releasing the code and SPARC analysis logic so others can verify the $\alpha \propto V^{-0.74}$ scaling before we formally submit. You can run the test suite yourself here: [Link]"

**Scenario C: The Dark Matter Defender**
*Comment*: "NFW halos fit this fine with concentration parameters."
*Response*: "True, NFW fits well with individual tuning. Our claim is that the 'tuning' follows a predictable geometric scaling law based on complexity ($V^{-0.74}$) rather than arbitrary halo parameters. It's a different explanatory framework for the same curve."

**Scenario D: The Troll**
*Comment*: "Time cube vibes lol."
*Response*: [Do Not Reply]

---

## 3. Maintenance Plan

*   **Daily Check**: Look for high-intent queries (questions about code, specific galaxies). Ignore low-effort hate.
*   **Weekly Update**: "Update: 3 people ran the script. We found an outlier in NGC 2841. Refining the fit..." (Shows active, honest science).
*   ** Milestone**: When we get 5 independent confirmations of the Power Law, we start drafting the arXiv preprint.
