Hi, my name is Sean Blanchette and I'm new here.

One of the hardest things to get across how a new model for physics re-defines all observations built on the model it replaces. In other words, models of the universe are used to build an understanding by being the basis of the observations made and as such, a new model requires reinterpretations of old observation data or new observation data need to be created with the new model as their basis. So holding two model as one model, quantum and particle, is like drinking chi tea when 'chi' is 'tea'... you're only allowed to pick one as there is only one universe everything that exists is apart of.

So if I say that the Solid Universe Model holds the visible universe as energy within a solid that has rigid, elastic and plastic properties then everything interpreted must aline, somehow, with the model's ability to predict. This means that the data should be predictable, not probable, by a solid universe as described and so the invisible things 'assumed' by the other models (big bang, sub-atomic particles, wavicles, gravitation, space-time, time-dilation, higgs-boson, cosmic rays, electron clouds, quantum tunneling, dark energy/matter, etc...), requires a bit of imagination and exploration to whittle out the true value of the SUM like with any science. It is just a lot easier to do when you have a primer or model or for mapping the universe, "The universe is energy within a solid."

I have found that introducing a new model is like introducing a new religion. People want miracles before they will listen. And even though I provide them a perfect explanation of why gravity exists and offer testable proof I still get, "Make a video of the gravity generator and I will try it." I made one twenty years ago, it worked right out of the box. I made one before I knew it was also a model for gravity. I simply saw in my mind how it works and built it based on that mental model. It worked. I didn't need a video nor anyone else to convince me, you just need the right model.

Again it is like trying to introduce a new religion.

If I asked you to prove me wrong about the solid universe you would use current models as a basis for proving me wrong or, worse, blame character flaws for a misguided approach to Science. As such any argument falls moot as the model should prove itself and I shouldn't 'prove' a tool for creating observations, a model. I'm basically saying, "Let play SUM!" or "Lets play Consequences!" with me starting with the first sentence, "The universe is a solid... made by energy within an elastic solid 20 orders stiffer than steel." How would it play out?

Now I've been cross-referencing the data for two decades and remodeled most of the data I've come across to develop an understanding of how the model reflects the data. As far as I know, the universe really is the energy withing a solid plastic, elastic and rigid entity larger than the visible universe (it doesn't seem to be made of particles) and the model dictates what is predictable without the need for the Standard or Quantum models as a standalone foundation for physics. Atoms as cavitation bubbles, light-speed as the speed-of-sound, and the universe ringing indefinitely as there is nothing to stop it but itself (again, it doesn't seem to be made of particles.)

I have used the model to show it predicts and explains every mystery with... dare I say it... with perfect accuracy. Yet I can't seem to get one person, after all these years, to see its value. Hell, I can't get anyone to tell me, "Huh, that's odd." or "The SUM is bunk." I get silence or deletion. So I am attaching a file of my translations from modern models to the SUM, the Solid Universe Model I have spent decades working on.

Please take a look and critique my work.

I am simply an observer, the SUM stands on its own.

Lighting up the SUM. (The Solid Universe Model)

So the SUM holds that the universe is energy within a solid that has rigid, elastic and plastic properties just like any other solid.

So where is the evidence?

Plastic state, a permanent deformation of the solid material. Typically found with warpage and stresses around the plasticized area. Like an atom, a planet, blackhole or 'The Great Attractor'.

Elastic state, a property that allows for the propagation of waves and the stretching or compressing of the medium without permanent deformation. Usually identified as 'light' through a solid which in the SUM is the equivalent of sound. I.E.- Light is as Sound through a solid medium 20 orders stiffer than your average steel.

Rigid state, a resistive integrity that dictates the energy needed to add/maintain sound within the medium that the three properties together can incorporate. Generally observed as a harmony, ringing or oscillating phenomena as well as the limiter for how fast an slow sound can travel through a medium.

So in effect, the speed of light is not only the fastest speed.. the speed of light is the only speed the same way the speed of sound is the only speed of sound through it's respective medium. Please note that all three properties of a solid cannot exist separate from one-another. This being the basis for the three-body problem contrast. They are models of observations build on the model of all solid materials. Even if those solids not made of particles the there is no reason the properties of a solid cannot apply. Solid, liquid and gas... anyone?

Propagating light in the SUM. (the Solid Universe Model)

Steel, depending on the quality, allows sound to travel through it 17 times faster, 5960 m/s, than sound through the air at sea level 343 m/s. The speed of light at 299,792,458 m/s is around 50,300 times faster than sound through steel making it around 20 orders of magnitude stiffer than steel as long as you figure that light and sound are one in the same as they would be in a solid universe. Like the speed of sound, then, light-speed 'must' be the only speed.. not necessarily the only velocity.. or is it the other way around?

Now as waves travel out from a source the propagation tends to be related to how well the medium can harbor a given frequency at the speed of light. Factors like the shape of the sine, the size of the sine and dynamic changes in the sine cause the medium to react in different predictable ways depending on the integrity of the medium. In this case all solids have elastic, plastic and rigid properties so principles. Limits that dictate what is possible with sound energy now 'light energy' in this comparison.

Lower frequencies travel faster than higher ones for one reason; the nature of the bonds between the quanta, typically atomic bonds, gravitational pressures or buoyant mechanics which include both. In the SUM, the solid that harbors the universe as energy, this it may not be so readily visible as the only bond is the Solid Universe's own integrity which acts only on itself as seemingly a non-particle-based entity. So relying on the medium's natural inclination to reach a static state, a solid aether without sound (the cause of entropy), may prove the appearance of partial red shifting as not caused by expansion as you will receive more lower frequencies, and sooner, than higher ones. But.. here is the kicker.. not all frequencies in the solid cannot travel as waves indefinitely but the energy still continues on.

Ever wonder why ultrasound is directional? Microwaves are a good example of EM-waves (not a SUM term) that are directional. Like how ultra-sonic sounds can be reflected to sound like they are coming from different directions other than their source. Directional energy waves are not actually waves, they become particle-like energy forms as the lack of energy needed for it to propagate (to increase the size of the wave across an rigid elastic medium) forces it's propagational form to change as there is nothing to destroy the energy. (conservation of energy) So it must change in form within the limits of the SUM's ability to do so without interactions with other mediums.. so it snaps into a bounding particle. A photon. A reciprocating bubble-ring shaped entity earning it the modern title of an EM wave.

This is the dilemma when it comes to large scale observations of the universe. Lower frequencies may travel faster than higher ones when the distance is far enough to make it noticeable and higher ones convert into particles making them harder to catch the further they spread out. So the act of observing which slit the particle went through, with a machine btw and not consciousness, caused the early attenuation of the wave into a particle because the detection apparatus added tension to the solid that changed it's ability to maintain 'when' the wave would attenuate into a particle before or after the slits.

Note: Higher frequencies are much harder to detect as particles splashing in a light bucket (The CMB?) meaning the universe should appear much quieter in those ranges... which it is.. so the universe is not expanding in the SUM. You are just having trouble catching light without knowing it. Fact check me please. Be sure to remember to use the SUM for the creation of your observations as there is no separation between one entity with in it and another beyond the positions of energies within a (as in one) solid aether.

Again, the SUM aether, the solidic medium that energy travels through, does not appear to be made of particles. Also, using other models to confirm my model based observations is like using coffee in engine oil to increase the octane of the cow's fart. Use the data that the model-based observations were created with, not the observations built with the other models less you negate the integrity of every model. )

Bounding C-Atoms in the SUM (The Solid Universe Model)

If the universe is energy within a solid and light is the equivalent of sound.. how can atoms exist in this model?

Answer: The only way, Cavitation.

SUM atoms are as Cavitating Bubbles that bound but do not break the Solid Universe Model aether, the only thing that is not energy. Imagine a rock shrimp larger than the universe with the ability to strike so fast and hard it creates a cavitation bubble within a stone, the Solid Universe. But since the universe is not made of particles but of one continuous material, the bubble resonates at one frequency.

With nothing like particles, vacuums or fields to slow or stop it from ringing (beyond its own plastic, elastic and rigid properties) it should do so as long as those properties allow... which at first glance seems to be a very... very long time for a solid without particulate infostructure. Being that there is one frequency at which it rings, a oscillation rate a hydrogen C-atom bounces it's song, the only way to have a variety of atoms is if you have the same frequency sung multiple times on the same singularity; multi-cavitatious C-atoms. And do to the singular properties of the SUM, the number of predictable cavitations on one singularity and the energy required should be a list identical to the Periodic Table of Elements. One list of possible spherical bounding-and-rebounding wavefront/s (at the speed of light) that can be stacked on one point in this solid universe aether. In other words, an atom's proton and electron could not exist at the same time.

Sub-Atomic particles: "... like a proton or a neutron, composed of three quarks; or a meson, composed of two quarks), or an elementary particle, which is not composed of other particles (for example, quarks; or electrons, muons, and tau particles, which are called leptons) ..." - Wiki

These are concepts created with models other than the SUM. In particular, Quantum and Standard particle models. This DOES NOT mean the data used to create those models is invalid. The data simply needs to be re-examined for the new basis of interpretation for observation.. like translating into a new language. It can be seen as a bit like changing from Christian to Jew or Jew to Christian as the one God that is the creator of the observed also known as Truth (which in this comparison is Reality itself) does not change, just the model used to create the observations. (Note: Observations and Definitions are one in the same. Depictions, descriptions and other constructs generated from what is observed. To be able to create observations you need a basis. (>'no basis' can be a plausible basis depending on your basis of no-basis ;<)

Put it this way... what are the seemingly impossible observations about Atom in the other models?

1. Separating bound quarks creates new quarks. If the quanta, a prescribed variable, that is a 'quark' is actually the point at which the C-atom wavefront changes from compressing the solid to expanding the solid then such phenomena could be derived from the data and not actually be solitary "particles" or combinations of.. though observed as.

2. Electrons bound to an atom change orbits without a 'between'. If the quanta, a prescribed variable, that is a 'electron' is actually the point at which the expanding spherical wavefront changes direction to bound or bounce on its singularity again as such phenomena (all known observations) can be derived, observed, from the data.

3. Atoms can "tunnel" through walls made of atoms. If the quanta, a prescribed variable, that is a 'atom' is actually a spherical wavefront or multiple spherical wavefronts bouncing at the speed of light pass through when the oscillations are in sync enough to pass, then such observations can be derived from the data.

The list may go on but this is mainly a semantic exercise in model integrity to show how the poles can flip from model to model. In these cases letting one play with the idea that all other models are built on the SUM allows them to create the show themselves... as in 'play' with the idea wholistically and without limits.

Its the best way to explore ideas both new and old for what they are.

Gravity in the SUM (The Solid Universe Model)

Ever try too hard and write something so cryptic that it takes a PHD in Cryptology to figure it out?

I am building a homestead for my mother and work it every day. With the seasons changing, infostructure to build and nature fighting back I have my hands full. This leaves me with an hour somewhere in the day to write about the most complicated thing there is, 'reality' as a whole whether solid or not. If you would like to practice cryptography and the semantic aspects of the SUM I am leaving my first attempt up at the end as I don't want to waist the effort.

The cause of Gravity is one of the most sought after phenomena on this planet. As such people that spend decades studying it talk in a different languages in relation to the directions their explorations within theoretical physics model that take them. Trying to get their attention then becomes a game of connect the dots... their dots. Fundamentally impossible when you don't speak their language so, one simply needs to paint with concepts and hope someone looking has a taste for mental Links-Ns-Logs. (ha)

So what does the cause of Gravity look like with Gravity being an effect on local space?

Space, the quiet solid aether warped by it's elastic-to-plastic nature gives the first clue, 'Warpage'; The change of a solid whether elastic (temporary) or plastic (permanent). Any such change is first and foremost a change in the 'shape' of the medium and not the type. Since even matter is made of plasticizing energy in the SUM, C-atoms for example, it is this warpage that dictates what shape the inherent energies take as they pass through. The sharper the change the sharper the reaction like light hitting a fish from above then the class tank walls.

Dictation of the shape of an energy form in the SUM is done by the same properties that every solid has which are elasticity, plasticity and rigidity. As one cannot exist without the other so does the concept math dance. One basis for how a solid behaves, one table of elements, one field that plays on making the Solid Universe Model a Unified Field Theory.

The natural tendency for a hydrogen C-atom is to make a perfect sphere. As a single cavitation (C) on a single singularity its inherent tendencies to make it's photon and corresponding electron-shell at the different times of the bounding wave are very simple. The three dimensional energy wave ball bounces against the properties of the solid to the center of the ball and again off the properties of the solid reciprocally to the exterior of the sphere as if 'ringing', a vibratory back and forth in harmony with the solid's properties at the speed of light through this SUM. Again, Sound is the equivalent of Light in the SUM's aether.

If that wasn't hard enough to waddle through.. lets call the hydrogen C-atom's want of a perfect sphere it's 'true' shape and the effect the affect of the warpage has on it as it's 'apparent' shape. Why? Because there is a difference when it comes to buoyancy only existing in gravity. Harmonic bonds that perpetually reshape the energy forms bonded between local elements and molecules, aka anti-gravity in a solid aether.

Take a ball and hit it with a bat and look at the shape of the ball as a whole like a metallic bond. You have just reshaped an energy form from the outside the same way warpage of the medium does from the inside. You have also just discovered the basis for kinetic energy in the SUM, a topic for later.

Now look at the bat. You have just reshaped a winged rat. Nice.

There are many ways to control and simulate gravity for kinetics and kinetics for gravity as natural gravity can't be manipulated with current tech but reshaping C-atoms is. Another topic for a later date.

As the energy bounds across the whole of the C-atom it does so at the speed of light. The warpage causes light to travel different distances without changing speed. Meaning that the locality of the stretched solid causing the shape changing affliction indicates the orientation of the longer travel time which in turn recenters the wanton singularity for the energy form. Like a ball continuedly struck by a bat (the humane kind) every vibratory cycle.

Due to the energy redrawing the harmonic spherical wave front across a warped solid aether being that which causes it to exist as it does in the first place, Gravity is a form of perpetual motion that will continue unless acted upon by another force. In other words, Gravity has no opposite as it is the mono-pole nature of all independent energy forms.

If gravity has no opposite in the SUM, does it remove some of the excessive dark energy?

By the S.U.M. all things create gravity in relation to the amount of localized compression. The more the solid is compressed in an area the more it stretches the surrounding aether. This three dimensional stretching effect causes what has been 'observed' as Gravity due to the velocity of light. Yes, light.

Light-speed is the one speed and only speed in the SUM and it is the equivalent of Sound through a elastic, plastic, rigid solid such as piece of rubber or even steel.. yet the rubber steel is:

1. 20 orders of magnitude more rigid than steel

2. not made of particles thus has no bonds to break making it elastic as all-get-out

3. cannot break* or silence* itself, the solid aether, as plastic properties are deformations like stable particles like C-atoms**, photons, electrons and aether-centric harmonics keeping the solid compressed, stretched and warped indefinitely without the aether particles and their bonds to stop the music

(* In the SUM the observable universe is energy within a solid aether as matter is not visible in the observable universe yet still has a silhouette. ("Matter" is the Solid Universe Model's Aether and is not made of C-atoms)

(** C-atoms or Cavitating-atoms is the S.U.M.'s description of classical atoms.)

So when three dimensional waves (light is not the manipulation of a 2 dimensional plain like an ocean wave) are warped around and object it is still traveling in a straight line as it is Space (the thing that is the aether) that is bending and so not the light itself still traveling at the same speed. I.E. - No angular momentum was introduced.

C-atoms, and particles of energy in general, are of a localized stretched aether bound to their own singularity at the speed of light. The stretch causes the cavitating energy wave to travel unevenly across the natural inclination of making a sphere. This causes the sphere to aline itself with it's new center towards the longer distance traveled. An aspect identical to kinetic energy in the SUM.

The speed of light has not changed relative to the energy wave. The singularity, the point to which the spherical or directional-particle-energy* is traveling to.. is not spherical but egg shaped. a mono-pole pole moment. This forces the ability for it to travel to it's own center of mass (the balance of compressed aether) at differing times at its poles aligned with the direction of travel.

(In the S.U.M. there are no actual "particles" that are separate materials from the solid aether, therefore all particles in this solid aether are energy waves only.)

In simpler terms it is as an inch-worm traveling at the speed of light across it's travel mechanics while still making slower velocities possible without changing the speed of light/sound. The more or less the solid aether is stretched, the longer or shorter the inchworm gets as well. So light's speed barrier (the speed of sound through this solid) is both ever and never broken as it travels faster or slower through the plastic and elastic artifacts in the rigid solid.

Photons are particles that have a different mechanical structure as they bound in the direction of travel rather than on a singularity forcing the SUM to describe it as a reciprocating bubble ring that travels in and out of itself in harmony with it's inherent energy forms across frequencies allowed by the aether. This could base 'polarization' in the SUM.

( * wave created particle vs shell created particle ; a perfectly balanced C-atom will not produce light.)

Magnetism in the SUM of the universe. (The Solid Universe Model)

C-atoms, reciprocating cavitations of sound (light) on a point within the solid aether, must ring the solid's one speed to be stable elements. As such, all elements must have at least one electron (outer wave position) that turns into a proton (inner wave position) and back at the speed of light. Larger elements being required to sing the same note must do so with different strings of the same note at the same time which means more electrons and protons (wave fronts) existing at different times and positions making neutrons a side effect of the more energy forms imposed on a single singularity.

Ferrous elements in the SUM can only be a mechanical aspect of the whole of the atom's oscillations powering the twisting of the elastic solid indefinitely. (the SUM version of 'plasticity') Like Jupiter's storms, if you orbit Jupiter's equator at a speed between that of the equator and the poles then the two poles will appear to be rotating opposite the equator at an equal speed. Or twist a rag at it's center to cause opposing coils, this is what the bounding motor of an atom does to the aether while creating the shape of a torus out of the only medium, the solid aether.

Unlike EM waves (not a SUM term) and C-atoms (Cavitating wave forms), magnetic fields are predominantly motionless as they do not need to oscillate the elastic solid medium to stabilize their existence as they do. This is because they are powered by the mechanical interactions of multiple spherical waveforms cavitating on the same singularity of the atom. The field in return stabilizes the resonance of the sub-Catomic energies in relation to the dynamically compressed solid. (plasticized) In other words the c-atoms inherent multi-cavitations' interplay within the C-atom power the torus.

Field lines are described by the Solid Universe Model as quiet folds proportionate to the mass and counter rotating speeds of the element stacking the energies with like ferrous elements. As the "folds" are the shape of the stretched aether without oscillation, they can overlap the exact same way gravity fields (not a SUM term) are created and so the coils (poles of the torus) can go in and out of each other.

Being that the coils are formed in apposing directions they will have pushing and pulling effects on like or other ferrous elements depending if the alinement of the torus shaped field. When the coils aline their rotation in one direction they pull each other together and push when they aline the opposite way. Non-ferrous elements would not be able to harmonize with the non-harmonic counter rotating coils and would always be repelled by the quiet reshaping of the different energy form's medium unless conditioned externally and/or within certain inherent energy conditions. Remember that both energy forms of ferrous and non-ferrous are of the same medium in the SUM.

Could the Earth's magnetic field could simply be caused by its rotation alone in this model? Could Mar have it's magnetic field increased to keep atmosphere by increasing its rotation?

Kinetics in the SUM. (The Solid Universe Model)

There is no 'flow' to carry the C-atoms (a SUM term) anywhere because they are in a solid. This means that particles, cavitation based atoms, photons, etc... cannot travel without the inch-worm properties mentioned in this post. This being the cause of the constant recentering of the singularity that the spherical three dimensional wave form oscillates on.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment was an attempt to find a flowing aether that nudged or carried particles. (not in a solid medium like in the SUM) Their definition of particles, able to 'ride' the medium, requires energy to be fundamentally separate from the fluid medium making the origin of mass and energy out of as separate medium from the aether. This makes detecting a solid aether impossible and so the null result. In the SUM's solid aether, any interferometric device across such a small distance millions of times would produce a null result. There is only one medium with one speed of light relative in the SUM so you could say they were riding the wake, the local space-time plastination caused by the Earth, that they were trying to verify. Look a lot further out.

Sound (Light in the solid aether) traveling a long piece of steel, will expose the structure of the steel as the wave changes passing through the plastic elastic an rigid properties of the solid medium. As such the information is not received as a change of phase to which the interferometer was built to observe as the main wave of sound (light) traveling to the detector is in a straight line. The noise around that measured sine is caused by the solid universe aether and is ignored as interference by fluidic universe, that 'noise' is evidence the universe is energy in a solid.

As mentioned about gravity, the medium's relative conditions dictate the shape of energy. Kinetics in the SUM have the role is reversed. The energy forms dictates the medium's conditions of shape this time.

One of the most misleading elements of kinetics in current models is how to calculate a odd centrifuge. Using a "moment of inertia" one calculates the centrifugal force by adding angular velocity. By the design of the formula you get one figure as an answer that works across all centrifuges so that regardless of the shapes being elongated, truly spherical, etc.. and types like wheels, chains, weight/s on a string etc.. the energies always equal out across one orbit.

But Apparent Time, like Apparent Wind, tells a different story as the apparent time is not counted in orbits. So the 'moment of inertia' and time contrasted across larger and smaller orbits changes the energy caused by a non-changing angular velocity. If you have a weight orbiting a singularity at 300 m/s one kilometer away you will produce the same centrifugal force as if it was ten miles away at the same velocity. Over time, however, one kilometer takes 20.6 seconds and a ten kilometer radius takes 209.9 seconds.

In other words, the larger orbit at the same velocity generates 100 times more centrifugal force over a longer time (one orbit for each) yet the forces acting on it are exactly the same as the same mass and velocity in the smaller orbit. This understanding is mandatory in dealing with Kinetics. If you have a spherical energy form where the three axis' are equal.. and you shift the center of one of the three.. it will keep its new position and remain an egg-shape (a physically provable outcome) and start traveling through the SUM aether.

Thus Newton's laws are still intact in the SUM.

Quantum mechanical laws are still intact.

Classical particle laws are still intact.

Special Relativity is still intact.

Only the basis for their application's integrity changes to fit the Solid Universe Model... and may need refinement as the models used to define them were not based on the SUM either.

Remember, the S.U.M. (the Solid Universe Model), if accurate it should be able to explain all data, predict new discoveries and not by the interpretations of that data using other models as Rosetta Stones. The SUM generates a differ lexicon which is not interchangeable with the other models and so many definitions must change for the same words such as:

C-atom in place of Atom as in the SUM the only indestructible thing is now the solid aether as a whole.

Light no-longer continues indefinitely as wave without attenuating into a particle or silenced by lower frequency velocities unless it matches the resonance of the solid.

Mass is now the amount of the solid aether that is compressed into a given area through the plastination principle of this particular solid being hormonic traps like C-atoms, their sub-atomic phenomena and their local effects on the singular solid aether.

Etc.. the scientific community should claim the right.

Time in the SUM. (The Solid Universe Model)

In the Solid Universe Model or SUM, time doesn't dilate and instead the solid aether does i.e. what the clocks are made of dilates thus changing the distance energy travels. In the SUM, light speed is the equivalent of sound speed which changes with the solid aether's local integrity, the medium harboring the energy, thus giving the impression that time is dilating relative to the beings made of the exact same energy within the SUM aether.

Note that Gravity dilates time, in the SUM Gravity is the Biproduct of the plastic properties of the solid called, "warpage". Warpage we commonly observe is by the stretching of the solid aether (which looks invisible to non-intergalactic sized interferometers). The tighter the stretching, the further the light passing through it travels in the same time frame through the unstretched medium. So if one belief is that light speed is the only velocity of all 'electro-magnetic' waves (not a SUM term) then it will appear as if Time is the thing that is warping and due to velocity and space-time warpage. (Space-Time: non-aether expression for the same data, SUM aether medium)

Lower frequencies travel faster than higher frequencies across an ocean because their zig-zag path of exchange is straighter and not because of the amplitude powering it like how tsunamis race across the deep ocean faster, orders faster, than the average storm waves several stories tall and passes them without a noticeable presence... earthquakes come to mind as well. If one confuses light-speed as only one velocity, as I have been, then observations made with that model will make Time appear to be warping and not space.. which in the Solid Universe Model 'space' is the quiet form of the aether towards that which entropy travels to, its opposite, order.

If there is no medium, no Solid Universe Model to base observations about light and energy, yet you arbitrarily claim both 'electric waves and magnetic waves caused each other to exist' as Special Relativity points to, then there must only be one speed for light. So the only way from that point out is to use the arbitration on models for the data instead of a definitive model. I think this is where Special Relativity may break down.. If you imagine a wave causing another to exist without a medium for either to travel through, like a two dimensional plain manipulated by a three dimensional plain like waves on an ocean, it could appear that way. But your imagination does not dictate reality, Reality does. As such, the three dimensional plains cannot be physically separated to prove such an observation as they are abstracts for measurement, models.. as in, 'not tangible' and therefore cannot be tested being of one plain.

Time is such an entity.

"The objective reference of a clock is another clock."

- Man From Earth by Jerome Bixby.

In the Solid Universe Model the light-speed barrier is breakable and is done so every day in plain sight. If there is warpage in the SUM then there are different velocities for light, this includes the warpage that is the EM wave/particle.. again not a SUM term: An electro-magnetic wave is a description of a observation based on a non-aether model. You need a FTL energy detector to prove it, try three lasers pointed between eachother so they cross, add an equivalent setup parallel to the other, make sure on one the peaks hit and the amplitude loses tiny amounts of energy and that the other doesn't. The non-hitter could catch the measured fastball in a vacuum.

Maybe a different device?

E=mc squared (I don't know how to type the tiny two) is also based on a non-aether model of reality. Like the 2d/3d imaginary hash, Energy is taken out of context here as mass (a potential of energy) and velocity (an effect of energy) are fundamentally 'Energies' making any conceptual build 1/1=1/1x1/1, a paradoxic box. This doesn't mean E=mc squared is wrong, just it's semantic integrity is a trap.

If you describe, as in define, a cat as, "A dog with pointy ears that doesn't look like a dog." it will function just fine when used regardless of the outcome of said usage. The same is with describing cows as beings that jump over the moon. They work just fine as descriptions do not define reality even they are models of reality in text format.

So what is E=mc squared in the Solid Universe Model?

Answer: E=pr squared

1. Elasticity: the solid's potential for Energy

2. Plasticity: the solid's potential for Mass

3. Rigidity: the solid's potential for Velocity

4. Squared: squared due to the existence of the three-as-one existing in a three-as-one dimension and so require a three-as-one formula for all of the above to be a three-as-one Truth... (sry)

The definition (model) for each term must simply be translated by the SUM just as you would create counter arguments against the SUM's and it's aether's existence. Take the term Gravity, translated by the SUM it is now an effect cause by the different properties the medium has on the shape of energy forms within it. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of the concept a new formula is born from the old. Both legit but not equal in accuracy like saying "like" instead of "as" etc...

I hope you've kept up so far. Re-defining the famous formula "E=mc squared" to "E=pr squared" is exactly what you have to do when translating one language model with another. Try the overlay and see what you find.

You will be amazed. The universe is orders brighter than you think. It does call for a lot of work and I am at my limit.

Thanks for reading.

Sean B.

12 minutes ago, The Veritocrat said:

Hi, my name is Sean Blanchette and I'm new here.

One of the hardest things to get across how a new model for physics re-defines all observations built on the model it replaces. In other words, models of the universe are used to build an understanding by being the basis of the observations made and as such, a new model requires reinterpretations of old observation data or new observation data need to be created with the new model as their basis. So holding two model as one model, quantum and particle, is like drinking chi tea when 'chi' is 'tea'... you're only allowed to pick one as there is only one universe everything that exists is apart of.

So if I say that the Solid Universe Model holds the visible universe as energy within a solid that has rigid, elastic and plastic properties then everything interpreted must aline, somehow, with the model's ability to predict. This means that the data should be predictable, not probable, by a solid universe as described and so the invisible things 'assumed' by the other models (big bang, sub-atomic particles, wavicles, gravitation, space-time, time-dilation, higgs-boson, cosmic rays, electron clouds, quantum tunneling, dark energy/matter, etc...), requires a bit of imagination and exploration to whittle out the true value of the SUM like with any science. It is just a lot easier to do when you have a primer or model or for mapping the universe, "The universe is energy within a solid."

I have found that introducing a new model is like introducing a new religion. People want miracles before they will listen. And even though I provide them a perfect explanation of why gravity exists and offer testable proof I still get, "Make a video of the gravity generator and I will try it." I made one twenty years ago, it worked right out of the box. I made one before I knew it was also a model for gravity. I simply saw in my mind how it works and built it based on that mental model. It worked. I didn't need a video nor anyone else to convince me, you just need the right model.

Again it is like trying to introduce a new religion.

If I asked you to prove me wrong about the solid universe you would use current models as a basis for proving me wrong or, worse, blame character flaws for a misguided approach to Science. As such any argument falls moot as the model should prove itself and I shouldn't 'prove' a tool for creating observations, a model. I'm basically saying, "Let play SUM!" or "Lets play Consequences!" with me starting with the first sentence, "The universe is a solid... made by energy within an elastic solid 20 orders stiffer than steel." How would it play out?

Now I've been cross-referencing the data for two decades and remodeled most of the data I've come across to develop an understanding of how the model reflects the data. As far as I know, the universe really is the energy withing a solid plastic, elastic and rigid entity larger than the visible universe (it doesn't seem to be made of particles) and the model dictates what is predictable without the need for the Standard or Quantum models as a standalone foundation for physics. Atoms as cavitation bubbles, light-speed as the speed-of-sound, and the universe ringing indefinitely as there is nothing to stop it but itself (again, it doesn't seem to be made of particles.)

I have used the model to show it predicts and explains every mystery with... dare I say it... with perfect accuracy. Yet I can't seem to get one person, after all these years, to see its value. Hell, I can't get anyone to tell me, "Huh, that's odd." or "The SUM is bunk." I get silence or deletion. So I am attaching a file of my translations from modern models to the SUM, the Solid Universe Model I have spent decades working on.

Please take a look and critique my work.

I am simply an observer, the SUM stands on its own.

Lighting up the SUM. (The Solid Universe Model)

So the SUM holds that the universe is energy within a solid that has rigid, elastic and plastic properties just like any other solid.

So where is the evidence?

Plastic state, a permanent deformation of the solid material. Typically found with warpage and stresses around the plasticized area. Like an atom, a planet, blackhole or 'The Great Attractor'.

Elastic state, a property that allows for the propagation of waves and the stretching or compressing of the medium without permanent deformation. Usually identified as 'light' through a solid which in the SUM is the equivalent of sound. I.E.- Light is as Sound through a solid medium 20 orders stiffer than your average steel.

Rigid state, a resistive integrity that dictates the energy needed to add/maintain sound within the medium that the three properties together can incorporate. Generally observed as a harmony, ringing or oscillating phenomena as well as the limiter for how fast an slow sound can travel through a medium.

So in effect, the speed of light is not only the fastest speed.. the speed of light is the only speed the same way the speed of sound is the only speed of sound through it's respective medium. Please note that all three properties of a solid cannot exist separate from one-another. This being the basis for the three-body problem contrast. They are models of observations build on the model of all solid materials. Even if those solids not made of particles the there is no reason the properties of a solid cannot apply. Solid, liquid and gas... anyone?

Propagating light in the SUM. (the Solid Universe Model)

Steel, depending on the quality, allows sound to travel through it 17 times faster, 5960 m/s, than sound through the air at sea level 343 m/s. The speed of light at 299,792,458 m/s is around 50,300 times faster than sound through steel making it around 20 orders of magnitude stiffer than steel as long as you figure that light and sound are one in the same as they would be in a solid universe. Like the speed of sound, then, light-speed 'must' be the only speed.. not necessarily the only velocity.. or is it the other way around?

Now as waves travel out from a source the propagation tends to be related to how well the medium can harbor a given frequency at the speed of light. Factors like the shape of the sine, the size of the sine and dynamic changes in the sine cause the medium to react in different predictable ways depending on the integrity of the medium. In this case all solids have elastic, plastic and rigid properties so principles. Limits that dictate what is possible with sound energy now 'light energy' in this comparison.

Lower frequencies travel faster than higher ones for one reason; the nature of the bonds between the quanta, typically atomic bonds, gravitational pressures or buoyant mechanics which include both. In the SUM, the solid that harbors the universe as energy, this it may not be so readily visible as the only bond is the Solid Universe's own integrity which acts only on itself as seemingly a non-particle-based entity. So relying on the medium's natural inclination to reach a static state, a solid aether without sound (the cause of entropy), may prove the appearance of partial red shifting as not caused by expansion as you will receive more lower frequencies, and sooner, than higher ones. But.. here is the kicker.. not all frequencies in the solid cannot travel as waves indefinitely but the energy still continues on.

Ever wonder why ultrasound is directional? Microwaves are a good example of EM-waves (not a SUM term) that are directional. Like how ultra-sonic sounds can be reflected to sound like they are coming from different directions other than their source. Directional energy waves are not actually waves, they become particle-like energy forms as the lack of energy needed for it to propagate (to increase the size of the wave across an rigid elastic medium) forces it's propagational form to change as there is nothing to destroy the energy. (conservation of energy) So it must change in form within the limits of the SUM's ability to do so without interactions with other mediums.. so it snaps into a bounding particle. A photon. A reciprocating bubble-ring shaped entity earning it the modern title of an EM wave.

This is the dilemma when it comes to large scale observations of the universe. Lower frequencies may travel faster than higher ones when the distance is far enough to make it noticeable and higher ones convert into particles making them harder to catch the further they spread out. So the act of observing which slit the particle went through, with a machine btw and not consciousness, caused the early attenuation of the wave into a particle because the detection apparatus added tension to the solid that changed it's ability to maintain 'when' the wave would attenuate into a particle before or after the slits.

Note: Higher frequencies are much harder to detect as particles splashing in a light bucket (The CMB?) meaning the universe should appear much quieter in those ranges... which it is.. so the universe is not expanding in the SUM. You are just having trouble catching light without knowing it. Fact check me please. Be sure to remember to use the SUM for the creation of your observations as there is no separation between one entity with in it and another beyond the positions of energies within a (as in one) solid aether.

Again, the SUM aether, the solidic medium that energy travels through, does not appear to be made of particles. Also, using other models to confirm my model based observations is like using coffee in engine oil to increase the octane of the cow's fart. Use the data that the model-based observations were created with, not the observations built with the other models less you negate the integrity of every model. )

Bounding C-Atoms in the SUM (The Solid Universe Model)

If the universe is energy within a solid and light is the equivalent of sound.. how can atoms exist in this model?

Answer: The only way, Cavitation.

SUM atoms are as Cavitating Bubbles that bound but do not break the Solid Universe Model aether, the only thing that is not energy. Imagine a rock shrimp larger than the universe with the ability to strike so fast and hard it creates a cavitation bubble within a stone, the Solid Universe. But since the universe is not made of particles but of one continuous material, the bubble resonates at one frequency.

With nothing like particles, vacuums or fields to slow or stop it from ringing (beyond its own plastic, elastic and rigid properties) it should do so as long as those properties allow... which at first glance seems to be a very... very long time for a solid without particulate infostructure. Being that there is one frequency at which it rings, a oscillation rate a hydrogen C-atom bounces it's song, the only way to have a variety of atoms is if you have the same frequency sung multiple times on the same singularity; multi-cavitatious C-atoms. And do to the singular properties of the SUM, the number of predictable cavitations on one singularity and the energy required should be a list identical to the Periodic Table of Elements. One list of possible spherical bounding-and-rebounding wavefront/s (at the speed of light) that can be stacked on one point in this solid universe aether. In other words, an atom's proton and electron could not exist at the same time.

Sub-Atomic particles: "... like a proton or a neutron, composed of three quarks; or a meson, composed of two quarks), or an elementary particle, which is not composed of other particles (for example, quarks; or electrons, muons, and tau particles, which are called leptons) ..." - Wiki

These are concepts created with models other than the SUM. In particular, Quantum and Standard particle models. This DOES NOT mean the data used to create those models is invalid. The data simply needs to be re-examined for the new basis of interpretation for observation.. like translating into a new language. It can be seen as a bit like changing from Christian to Jew or Jew to Christian as the one God that is the creator of the observed also known as Truth (which in this comparison is Reality itself) does not change, just the model used to create the observations. (Note: Observations and Definitions are one in the same. Depictions, descriptions and other constructs generated from what is observed. To be able to create observations you need a basis. (>'no basis' can be a plausible basis depending on your basis of no-basis ;<)

Put it this way... what are the seemingly impossible observations about Atom in the other models?

1. Separating bound quarks creates new quarks. If the quanta, a prescribed variable, that is a 'quark' is actually the point at which the C-atom wavefront changes from compressing the solid to expanding the solid then such phenomena could be derived from the data and not actually be solitary "particles" or combinations of.. though observed as.

2. Electrons bound to an atom change orbits without a 'between'. If the quanta, a prescribed variable, that is a 'electron' is actually the point at which the expanding spherical wavefront changes direction to bound or bounce on its singularity again as such phenomena (all known observations) can be derived, observed, from the data.

3. Atoms can "tunnel" through walls made of atoms. If the quanta, a prescribed variable, that is a 'atom' is actually a spherical wavefront or multiple spherical wavefronts bouncing at the speed of light pass through when the oscillations are in sync enough to pass, then such observations can be derived from the data.

The list may go on but this is mainly a semantic exercise in model integrity to show how the poles can flip from model to model. In these cases letting one play with the idea that all other models are built on the SUM allows them to create the show themselves... as in 'play' with the idea wholistically and without limits.

Its the best way to explore ideas both new and old for what they are.

Gravity in the SUM (The Solid Universe Model)

Ever try too hard and write something so cryptic that it takes a PHD in Cryptology to figure it out?

I am building a homestead for my mother and work it every day. With the seasons changing, infostructure to build and nature fighting back I have my hands full. This leaves me with an hour somewhere in the day to write about the most complicated thing there is, 'reality' as a whole whether solid or not. If you would like to practice cryptography and the semantic aspects of the SUM I am leaving my first attempt up at the end as I don't want to waist the effort.

The cause of Gravity is one of the most sought after phenomena on this planet. As such people that spend decades studying it talk in a different languages in relation to the directions their explorations within theoretical physics model that take them. Trying to get their attention then becomes a game of connect the dots... their dots. Fundamentally impossible when you don't speak their language so, one simply needs to paint with concepts and hope someone looking has a taste for mental Links-Ns-Logs. (ha)

So what does the cause of Gravity look like with Gravity being an effect on local space?

Space, the quiet solid aether warped by it's elastic-to-plastic nature gives the first clue, 'Warpage'; The change of a solid whether elastic (temporary) or plastic (permanent). Any such change is first and foremost a change in the 'shape' of the medium and not the type. Since even matter is made of plasticizing energy in the SUM, C-atoms for example, it is this warpage that dictates what shape the inherent energies take as they pass through. The sharper the change the sharper the reaction like light hitting a fish from above then the class tank walls.

Dictation of the shape of an energy form in the SUM is done by the same properties that every solid has which are elasticity, plasticity and rigidity. As one cannot exist without the other so does the concept math dance. One basis for how a solid behaves, one table of elements, one field that plays on making the Solid Universe Model a Unified Field Theory.

The natural tendency for a hydrogen C-atom is to make a perfect sphere. As a single cavitation (C) on a single singularity its inherent tendencies to make it's photon and corresponding electron-shell at the different times of the bounding wave are very simple. The three dimensional energy wave ball bounces against the properties of the solid to the center of the ball and again off the properties of the solid reciprocally to the exterior of the sphere as if 'ringing', a vibratory back and forth in harmony with the solid's properties at the speed of light through this SUM. Again, Sound is the equivalent of Light in the SUM's aether.

If that wasn't hard enough to waddle through.. lets call the hydrogen C-atom's want of a perfect sphere it's 'true' shape and the effect the affect of the warpage has on it as it's 'apparent' shape. Why? Because there is a difference when it comes to buoyancy only existing in gravity. Harmonic bonds that perpetually reshape the energy forms bonded between local elements and molecules, aka anti-gravity in a solid aether.

Take a ball and hit it with a bat and look at the shape of the ball as a whole like a metallic bond. You have just reshaped an energy form from the outside the same way warpage of the medium does from the inside. You have also just discovered the basis for kinetic energy in the SUM, a topic for later.

Now look at the bat. You have just reshaped a winged rat. Nice.

There are many ways to control and simulate gravity for kinetics and kinetics for gravity as natural gravity can't be manipulated with current tech but reshaping C-atoms is. Another topic for a later date.

As the energy bounds across the whole of the C-atom it does so at the speed of light. The warpage causes light to travel different distances without changing speed. Meaning that the locality of the stretched solid causing the shape changing affliction indicates the orientation of the longer travel time which in turn recenters the wanton singularity for the energy form. Like a ball continuedly struck by a bat (the humane kind) every vibratory cycle.

Due to the energy redrawing the harmonic spherical wave front across a warped solid aether being that which causes it to exist as it does in the first place, Gravity is a form of perpetual motion that will continue unless acted upon by another force. In other words, Gravity has no opposite as it is the mono-pole nature of all independent energy forms.

If gravity has no opposite in the SUM, does it remove some of the excessive dark energy?

By the S.U.M. all things create gravity in relation to the amount of localized compression. The more the solid is compressed in an area the more it stretches the surrounding aether. This three dimensional stretching effect causes what has been 'observed' as Gravity due to the velocity of light. Yes, light.

Light-speed is the one speed and only speed in the SUM and it is the equivalent of Sound through a elastic, plastic, rigid solid such as piece of rubber or even steel.. yet the rubber steel is:

1. 20 orders of magnitude more rigid than steel

2. not made of particles thus has no bonds to break making it elastic as all-get-out

3. cannot break* or silence* itself, the solid aether, as plastic properties are deformations like stable particles like C-atoms**, photons, electrons and aether-centric harmonics keeping the solid compressed, stretched and warped indefinitely without the aether particles and their bonds to stop the music

(* In the SUM the observable universe is energy within a solid aether as matter is not visible in the observable universe yet still has a silhouette. ("Matter" is the Solid Universe Model's Aether and is not made of C-atoms)

(** C-atoms or Cavitating-atoms is the S.U.M.'s description of classical atoms.)

So when three dimensional waves (light is not the manipulation of a 2 dimensional plain like an ocean wave) are warped around and object it is still traveling in a straight line as it is Space (the thing that is the aether) that is bending and so not the light itself still traveling at the same speed. I.E. - No angular momentum was introduced.

C-atoms, and particles of energy in general, are of a localized stretched aether bound to their own singularity at the speed of light. The stretch causes the cavitating energy wave to travel unevenly across the natural inclination of making a sphere. This causes the sphere to aline itself with it's new center towards the longer distance traveled. An aspect identical to kinetic energy in the SUM.

The speed of light has not changed relative to the energy wave. The singularity, the point to which the spherical or directional-particle-energy* is traveling to.. is not spherical but egg shaped. a mono-pole pole moment. This forces the ability for it to travel to it's own center of mass (the balance of compressed aether) at differing times at its poles aligned with the direction of travel.

(In the S.U.M. there are no actual "particles" that are separate materials from the solid aether, therefore all particles in this solid aether are energy waves only.)

In simpler terms it is as an inch-worm traveling at the speed of light across it's travel mechanics while still making slower velocities possible without changing the speed of light/sound. The more or less the solid aether is stretched, the longer or shorter the inchworm gets as well. So light's speed barrier (the speed of sound through this solid) is both ever and never broken as it travels faster or slower through the plastic and elastic artifacts in the rigid solid.

Photons are particles that have a different mechanical structure as they bound in the direction of travel rather than on a singularity forcing the SUM to describe it as a reciprocating bubble ring that travels in and out of itself in harmony with it's inherent energy forms across frequencies allowed by the aether. This could base 'polarization' in the SUM.

( * wave created particle vs shell created particle ; a perfectly balanced C-atom will not produce light.)

Magnetism in the SUM of the universe. (The Solid Universe Model)

C-atoms, reciprocating cavitations of sound (light) on a point within the solid aether, must ring the solid's one speed to be stable elements. As such, all elements must have at least one electron (outer wave position) that turns into a proton (inner wave position) and back at the speed of light. Larger elements being required to sing the same note must do so with different strings of the same note at the same time which means more electrons and protons (wave fronts) existing at different times and positions making neutrons a side effect of the more energy forms imposed on a single singularity.

Ferrous elements in the SUM can only be a mechanical aspect of the whole of the atom's oscillations powering the twisting of the elastic solid indefinitely. (the SUM version of 'plasticity') Like Jupiter's storms, if you orbit Jupiter's equator at a speed between that of the equator and the poles then the two poles will appear to be rotating opposite the equator at an equal speed. Or twist a rag at it's center to cause opposing coils, this is what the bounding motor of an atom does to the aether while creating the shape of a torus out of the only medium, the solid aether.

Unlike EM waves (not a SUM term) and C-atoms (Cavitating wave forms), magnetic fields are predominantly motionless as they do not need to oscillate the elastic solid medium to stabilize their existence as they do. This is because they are powered by the mechanical interactions of multiple spherical waveforms cavitating on the same singularity of the atom. The field in return stabilizes the resonance of the sub-Catomic energies in relation to the dynamically compressed solid. (plasticized) In other words the c-atoms inherent multi-cavitations' interplay within the C-atom power the torus.

Field lines are described by the Solid Universe Model as quiet folds proportionate to the mass and counter rotating speeds of the element stacking the energies with like ferrous elements. As the "folds" are the shape of the stretched aether without oscillation, they can overlap the exact same way gravity fields (not a SUM term) are created and so the coils (poles of the torus) can go in and out of each other.

Being that the coils are formed in apposing directions they will have pushing and pulling effects on like or other ferrous elements depending if the alinement of the torus shaped field. When the coils aline their rotation in one direction they pull each other together and push when they aline the opposite way. Non-ferrous elements would not be able to harmonize with the non-harmonic counter rotating coils and would always be repelled by the quiet reshaping of the different energy form's medium unless conditioned externally and/or within certain inherent energy conditions. Remember that both energy forms of ferrous and non-ferrous are of the same medium in the SUM.

Could the Earth's magnetic field could simply be caused by its rotation alone in this model? Could Mar have it's magnetic field increased to keep atmosphere by increasing its rotation?

Kinetics in the SUM. (The Solid Universe Model)

There is no 'flow' to carry the C-atoms (a SUM term) anywhere because they are in a solid. This means that particles, cavitation based atoms, photons, etc... cannot travel without the inch-worm properties mentioned in this post. This being the cause of the constant recentering of the singularity that the spherical three dimensional wave form oscillates on.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment was an attempt to find a flowing aether that nudged or carried particles. (not in a solid medium like in the SUM) Their definition of particles, able to 'ride' the medium, requires energy to be fundamentally separate from the fluid medium making the origin of mass and energy out of as separate medium from the aether. This makes detecting a solid aether impossible and so the null result. In the SUM's solid aether, any interferometric device across such a small distance millions of times would produce a null result. There is only one medium with one speed of light relative in the SUM so you could say they were riding the wake, the local space-time plastination caused by the Earth, that they were trying to verify. Look a lot further out.

Sound (Light in the solid aether) traveling a long piece of steel, will expose the structure of the steel as the wave changes passing through the plastic elastic an rigid properties of the solid medium. As such the information is not received as a change of phase to which the interferometer was built to observe as the main wave of sound (light) traveling to the detector is in a straight line. The noise around that measured sine is caused by the solid universe aether and is ignored as interference by fluidic universe, that 'noise' is evidence the universe is energy in a solid.

As mentioned about gravity, the medium's relative conditions dictate the shape of energy. Kinetics in the SUM have the role is reversed. The energy forms dictates the medium's conditions of shape this time.

One of the most misleading elements of kinetics in current models is how to calculate a odd centrifuge. Using a "moment of inertia" one calculates the centrifugal force by adding angular velocity. By the design of the formula you get one figure as an answer that works across all centrifuges so that regardless of the shapes being elongated, truly spherical, etc.. and types like wheels, chains, weight/s on a string etc.. the energies always equal out across one orbit.

But Apparent Time, like Apparent Wind, tells a different story as the apparent time is not counted in orbits. So the 'moment of inertia' and time contrasted across larger and smaller orbits changes the energy caused by a non-changing angular velocity. If you have a weight orbiting a singularity at 300 m/s one kilometer away you will produce the same centrifugal force as if it was ten miles away at the same velocity. Over time, however, one kilometer takes 20.6 seconds and a ten kilometer radius takes 209.9 seconds.

In other words, the larger orbit at the same velocity generates 100 times more centrifugal force over a longer time (one orbit for each) yet the forces acting on it are exactly the same as the same mass and velocity in the smaller orbit. This understanding is mandatory in dealing with Kinetics. If you have a spherical energy form where the three axis' are equal.. and you shift the center of one of the three.. it will keep its new position and remain an egg-shape (a physically provable outcome) and start traveling through the SUM aether.

Thus Newton's laws are still intact in the SUM.

Quantum mechanical laws are still intact.

Classical particle laws are still intact.

Special Relativity is still intact.

Only the basis for their application's integrity changes to fit the Solid Universe Model... and may need refinement as the models used to define them were not based on the SUM either.

Remember, the S.U.M. (the Solid Universe Model), if accurate it should be able to explain all data, predict new discoveries and not by the interpretations of that data using other models as Rosetta Stones. The SUM generates a differ lexicon which is not interchangeable with the other models and so many definitions must change for the same words such as:

C-atom in place of Atom as in the SUM the only indestructible thing is now the solid aether as a whole.

Light no-longer continues indefinitely as wave without attenuating into a particle or silenced by lower frequency velocities unless it matches the resonance of the solid.

Mass is now the amount of the solid aether that is compressed into a given area through the plastination principle of this particular solid being hormonic traps like C-atoms, their sub-atomic phenomena and their local effects on the singular solid aether.

Etc.. the scientific community should claim the right.

Time in the SUM. (The Solid Universe Model)

In the Solid Universe Model or SUM, time doesn't dilate and instead the solid aether does i.e. what the clocks are made of dilates thus changing the distance energy travels. In the SUM, light speed is the equivalent of sound speed which changes with the solid aether's local integrity, the medium harboring the energy, thus giving the impression that time is dilating relative to the beings made of the exact same energy within the SUM aether.

Note that Gravity dilates time, in the SUM Gravity is the Biproduct of the plastic properties of the solid called, "warpage". Warpage we commonly observe is by the stretching of the solid aether (which looks invisible to non-intergalactic sized interferometers). The tighter the stretching, the further the light passing through it travels in the same time frame through the unstretched medium. So if one belief is that light speed is the only velocity of all 'electro-magnetic' waves (not a SUM term) then it will appear as if Time is the thing that is warping and due to velocity and space-time warpage. (Space-Time: non-aether expression for the same data, SUM aether medium)

Lower frequencies travel faster than higher frequencies across an ocean because their zig-zag path of exchange is straighter and not because of the amplitude powering it like how tsunamis race across the deep ocean faster, orders faster, than the average storm waves several stories tall and passes them without a noticeable presence... earthquakes come to mind as well. If one confuses light-speed as only one velocity, as I have been, then observations made with that model will make Time appear to be warping and not space.. which in the Solid Universe Model 'space' is the quiet form of the aether towards that which entropy travels to, its opposite, order.

If there is no medium, no Solid Universe Model to base observations about light and energy, yet you arbitrarily claim both 'electric waves and magnetic waves caused each other to exist' as Special Relativity points to, then there must only be one speed for light. So the only way from that point out is to use the arbitration on models for the data instead of a definitive model. I think this is where Special Relativity may break down.. If you imagine a wave causing another to exist without a medium for either to travel through, like a two dimensional plain manipulated by a three dimensional plain like waves on an ocean, it could appear that way. But your imagination does not dictate reality, Reality does. As such, the three dimensional plains cannot be physically separated to prove such an observation as they are abstracts for measurement, models.. as in, 'not tangible' and therefore cannot be tested being of one plain.

Time is such an entity.

"The objective reference of a clock is another clock."

- Man From Earth by Jerome Bixby.

In the Solid Universe Model the light-speed barrier is breakable and is done so every day in plain sight. If there is warpage in the SUM then there are different velocities for light, this includes the warpage that is the EM wave/particle.. again not a SUM term: An electro-magnetic wave is a description of a observation based on a non-aether model. You need a FTL energy detector to prove it, try three lasers pointed between eachother so they cross, add an equivalent setup parallel to the other, make sure on one the peaks hit and the amplitude loses tiny amounts of energy and that the other doesn't. The non-hitter could catch the measured fastball in a vacuum.

Maybe a different device?

E=mc squared (I don't know how to type the tiny two) is also based on a non-aether model of reality. Like the 2d/3d imaginary hash, Energy is taken out of context here as mass (a potential of energy) and velocity (an effect of energy) are fundamentally 'Energies' making any conceptual build 1/1=1/1x1/1, a paradoxic box. This doesn't mean E=mc squared is wrong, just it's semantic integrity is a trap.

If you describe, as in define, a cat as, "A dog with pointy ears that doesn't look like a dog." it will function just fine when used regardless of the outcome of said usage. The same is with describing cows as beings that jump over the moon. They work just fine as descriptions do not define reality even they are models of reality in text format.

So what is E=mc squared in the Solid Universe Model?

Answer: E=pr squared

1. Elasticity: the solid's potential for Energy

2. Plasticity: the solid's potential for Mass

3. Rigidity: the solid's potential for Velocity

4. Squared: squared due to the existence of the three-as-one existing in a three-as-one dimension and so require a three-as-one formula for all of the above to be a three-as-one Truth... (sry)

The definition (model) for each term must simply be translated by the SUM just as you would create counter arguments against the SUM's and it's aether's existence. Take the term Gravity, translated by the SUM it is now an effect cause by the different properties the medium has on the shape of energy forms within it. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of the concept a new formula is born from the old. Both legit but not equal in accuracy like saying "like" instead of "as" etc...

I hope you've kept up so far. Re-defining the famous formula "E=mc squared" to "E=pr squared" is exactly what you have to do when translating one language model with another. Try the overlay and see what you find.

You will be amazed. The universe is orders brighter than you think. It does call for a lot of work and I am at my limit.

Thanks for reading.

Sean B.

I’m afraid this is word salad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

Good post, I think I'll follow this topic. People are starting to wake up.

What is this doing in mdern and theoretical physics ?

Did you not read our rules when you joined ?

If yes then why did you not abide by them an place this in speculations, where it belongs ?

If no then why do you expect us to read your rules ?

Since you have titled your wanderings 'Solid Physics' I suggest you start by carefully defining what you mean by solid, since that characteristic has special meaning in mainstream physics and chemistry.

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

I have found that introducing a new model is like introducing a new religion. People want miracles before they will listen.

This being a science site we want science. That means a model, which you have not provided, and testable predictions. Are there any, in your wall of text?

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

It can be seen as a bit like changing from Christian to Jew or Jew to Christian as the one God that is the creator of the observed also known as Truth (which in this comparison is Reality itself) does not change, just the model used to create the observations.

This is a bunch of crap. Models either fit the data or they don’t. We don’t need a preaching pep-talk. We need to see that your equations fit the data we already have.

You do have equations, right?

I didn't read the whole spiel either, but it sounds like a return to 'aether theory', and your understanding of a model is flawed.
A model does not completely describe the whole.
It can describe certain parts of the whole, or it may not completely describe all of its aspects.
The wave theory of light and the particle theory of light are both incomplete and only described certain aspects, until wave-particle duality gave a more complete model.
General Relativity is only applicable to a limited domain, and fails at very small separations and extremely high energies, while QM is only applicable to small separations.
Neither is incorrect when applied in their proper domain, but result in infinities and other nonsense if applied incorrectly.

As for your solid universe, recall that Michelson and Morley established that the 'aether' was either non-existent, or infinitely 'stiff' but at the same time, infinitely 'pliable' so as to allow for unobstructed motion through it. And since GR doesn't require it ( works fine without it ), such an impossible medium was discarded over 100 years ago.
What does your model bring to the table that is not already explained by current models ?
IOW, why do you feel the need to complicate matters, with no return in additional knowledge ?

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

One of the hardest things to get across how a new model for physics re-defines all observations built on the model it replaces.

No. New physics doesn't do that. Example:

So the old theory is but a particular case of the new theory. An approximation on the new theory. AKA: asymptotics.

The old theory is alive and well, forever breathing, well protected in the guts of the new theory. Pristine. Untouched. Loved by all who know. Finally really understood. No observations re-defined. No harm done. No replacement. No ideological cleansing.

Analytic continuation through and through.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

No. New physics doesn't do that. Example:

In case Veritocrat is wondering ...
That is the Ultraviolet Catastrophe , which Max Planck eventually solved with an 'act of desperation', and ushered in the paradigm shift we now call Quantum Mechanics.

Great comment @joigus

5 hours ago, The Veritocrat said:

One of the hardest things to get across how a new model for physics re-defines all observations built on the model it replaces.

No you don't define observations in any form of Physics, new or old. +1

(Mis)defining observations was the cardinal (pun intended) sin that led popes in the late 16th and early 17 century to burn people at the stake (eg Bruno), following the original mistake in that direction by Plato and Aristotle.

Observations are the most important thing in Physics so it is the other way around. You use observations to define Physics
If they don't match the observation is correct and you are wrong.

I'm till new to this format, can someone tell me how to properly quote someone with this forum's mechanics? I haven's written in one this nice for 25 years.

exchemist, I am a Semanticist and fight word salads for a living fighting fire with fire, my word salad against the invisible word salads others mentally juggle and do not share beyond hatred of a stranger's character. I hold Truth over all things, even God. Truth has a specific structure that makes it work like it does as the quantification system of the mind. The mind's quanta is built with the scaffolding of truths (ideas). Each idea has a true, false and mysterious potential (the quanta). Until you understand all three potentials of an idea your understanding is flawed as well as everything built with it and is typically obvious in writ. (thus my ternary rant in the post)

Truth is not magic nor infinite but by 'for' the infinite to make magic.

The second reason I posted it here is to get your help in countering my own word idea-salads like everyone else. If I can counter that, I can make it less of a word salad. If you haven't noticed it is a lot and I could use your help with such fiddly bits.

m_m, I hope you response was not sarcasm.

But if it is I am glad you are having fun.

studiot, A model, a definition of a thing, is a theory, an idea, that is used to build other ideas and all statements are such models that are use to 'convey' abstracts, artifacts and analogies. When you do not have a model you are left playing with the math which is Semantics with a different set of rules for grammar. Math without a basis is the true nature of what Quantum Mechanics is, painting with brail for the blind. As many believe definitions are law they are actually guidelines for your perspective's build, a build that is not based on the mind that the physical brain actually harbors, this being regardless of what one thinks the mind is.

swansont, data is translated to fit a model. Mathematics can be one such model and if used as such it becomes the universe instead. And no matter how hard you try to not use a model, like absolutes, your mind defaults to the math of the data as law. A model, un-naturally sophistic.. yet still a model.

Let Feynman teach you about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

MigL,

-"I didn't read the whole spiel either,"

I am still practicing how to convey this Solid Universe Model so please pick it apart the fiddly-bits or ask me to explain aspects you don't understand. If you had read the whole thing, which is an effort that would seriously earn my respect and admiration, you would find I explain everything I think I could at that time of my personal understanding.

-"but it sounds like a return to 'aether theory"

It is. The Michelson-Morley Experiment they used a device to detect the aether that would be made of the solid aether in the Solid Universe Model and so such a design would not detect a solid aether.

-", and your understanding of a model is flawed."

That is your model for my integrity? Play with it as you will but I was hoping for correction and critical feedback that could help beyond such an assertion.

-"A model does not completely describe the whole."

A model is used to describe the whole. Ever taken a model jet fighter as a child and used it to imagine how the plane is like the real thing? To use a model for anything it to use it to describe the whole that it can so some models are more useful than others.

-"It can describe certain parts of the whole, or it may not completely describe all of its aspects."

So you are just used to working with less useful models? Makes sense.

-"The wave theory of light and the particle theory of light are both incomplete and only described certain aspects, until wave-particle duality gave a more complete model."

Which I translated with the Solid Universe Model. I know it is going to be a large grain of salt you will have to carry with you to do so and I don't like imposing this level of work on friends or strangers but it has been rattling around in my head for decades and it's value for humanity is priceless beyond compare so, please, I beg of you.. work the whole model your way. Attack my character, smash my logic, rip-apart the foundations of my existence if it will help you find the truth.. the model will stand without the need for other models to back it up.

-"General Relativity is only applicable to a limited domain, and fails at very small separations and extremely high energies, while QM is only applicable to small separations.
Neither is incorrect when applied in their proper domain, but result in infinities and other nonsense if applied incorrectly."

I agree, to apply them incorrectly is to assume is to take them out of context. How could the SUM be taken out of context?

-"As for your solid universe, recall that Michelson and Morley established that the 'aether' was either non-existent, or infinitely 'stiff' but at the same time, infinitely 'pliable' so as to allow for unobstructed motion through it. "

I explained the issue in my first post.

-"And since GR doesn't require it ( works fine without it ), such an impossible medium was discarded over 100 years ago."

Works fine as mathematically sound an is not to be removed, what probable cause allowed them to discard it? Besides, the last version of it was attempted in 2006 based on the same foundation. Interferometers can not verify the aether using a tiny piece of it over and over to find variants in phase of one element, the universe as a whole. Its like asking the same question a trillion times to find a different answer.

-"What does your model bring to the table that is not already explained by current models ?"

New explanations to work with which I wrote about above. The math never changes, just the basis for exploration.

-"IOW, why do you feel the need to complicate matters, with no return in additional knowledge ?"

Someone has hurt you badly for you to say such a thing. Point me at them..

joigus, Typically one does not over-lay a model over another to use it. That would, as mentioned in the post, is like calling tea, "chi tea" when Chi is Tea. So my expression 'replace' was simply my poor (rather expensive thought-wise) attempt to refer you swapping one model out for the other. I meant no harm, just brevity of flow.

MigL, You show you are very astute with that second comment.

studiot, "No you don't define observations in any form of Physics, new or old. +1"

I agree, you translate with a primer whether Mathematics itself or other abstracts deemed applicable like Quantum, Standard particle or Solid dynamics. And why "+1"?

"(Mis)defining observations was the cardinal (pun intended) sin that led popes in the late 16th and early 17 century to burn people at the stake (eg Bruno), following the original mistake in that direction by Plato and Aristotle."

Are you verifying that it is OK in you view to be afraid of kickback and failure? The very thing Reality uses to educate everyone?

"Observations are the most important thing in Physics so it is the other way around. You use observations to define Physics
If they don't match the observation is correct and you are wrong."

Physics is the scientific study of matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force.^[1] It is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines.^[2][3][4] A scientist who specializes in the field of physics is called a physicist. - wiki

No insult intended, I just want to clear the air. Please be kind and expound on your post, I am not sure I understand you.

Everyone, Ty for your feedback. I look forward to our future interactions.

Sean B.

Edited May 19May 19 by The Veritocrat

43 minutes ago, The Veritocrat said:

I'm till new to this format, can someone tell me how to properly quote someone with this forum's mechanics? I haven's written in one this nice for 25 years.

https://scienceforums.net/topic/135919-using-the-quote-function-2025-edition/

59 minutes ago, The Veritocrat said:

studiot, A model, a definition of a thing, is a theory, an idea, that is used to build other ideas and all statements are such models that are use to 'convey' abstracts, artifacts and analogies. When you do not have a model you are left playing with the math which is Semantics with a different set of rules for grammar. Math without a basis is the true nature of what Quantum Mechanics is, painting with brail for the blind. As many believe definitions are law they are actually guidelines for your perspective's build, a build that is not based on the mind that the physical brain actually harbors, this being regardless of what one thinks the mind is.

Without math you can’t make specific predictions or analysis. A physics model without math is just a story

59 minutes ago, The Veritocrat said:

swansont, data is translated to fit a model. Mathematics can be one such model and if used as such it becomes the universe instead. And no matter how hard you try to not use a model, like absolutes, your mind defaults to the math of the data as law. A model, un-naturally sophistic.. yet still a model.

Data are data. Changing data would be scientific malpractice.

The math is the model.

s = vt is a model of displacement under constant velocity. Your data are the values of the variables you measure, e.g. distances and times. Those data do not change even if you apply a different model, e.g. non-zero acceleration.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

In case Veritocrat is wondering ...
That is the Ultraviolet Catastrophe , which Max Planck eventually solved with an 'act of desperation', and ushered in the paradigm shift we now call Quantum Mechanics.

Exactly.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Great comment @joigus

Thank you. I think most people who try to come up with their own 'theory' miss this first and foremost.

Just now, The Veritocrat said:

studiot, A model, a definition of a thing, is a theory, an idea, that is used to build other ideas and all statements are such models that are use to 'convey' abstracts, artifacts and analogies. When you do not have a model you are left playing with the math which is Semantics with a different set of rules for grammar. Math without a basis is the true nature of what Quantum Mechanics is, painting with brail for the blind. As many believe definitions are law they are actually guidelines for your perspective's build, a build that is not based on the mind that the physical brain actually harbors, this being regardless of what one thinks the mind is.

I do wonder if Engish is not your first language or the first language of your AI, because your use of words is so unusual I'm not at all sure you are using the same meanings as other members.

That is why I asked you , for starters, what you mean by SOLID.

I wonder if you mean material or something akin to the french phrase 'fond acier inoxidable' (english = solid stainless steel) rather than what any physicist would think of when someone says solid to her.

Or perhaps you mean material.

So please tell us what you mean.

Then we can have a sensible discussion as to what the scientist means when he says the word model.

Just now, The Veritocrat said:

"Observations are the most important thing in Physics so it is the other way around. You use observations to define Physics
If they don't match the observation is correct and you are wrong."

Once again stracnge scientific English. I wonder if you actually mean what we call 'observables' ?

Thanks you for commenting.

Thank you swansont for the bit about quotes. I was afraid such consideration may have been beyond this group.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Without math you can’t make specific predictions or analysis. A physics model without math is just a story

With out Reality's 'story' as a reason to use Math in the first place for it's context Mathematics is nothing more a pretty toy.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Data are data. Changing data would be scientific malpractice.

The data obtained is defined by the models one uses to obtain it. Changing the definitions of the models does not change the data nor the math behind it... just our interpretations. He who rules the dictionary rules the world in this universe... for there to be a 'reality' in the first place (though) only Reality itself can define reality so anyone claiming otherwise is fundamentally insane... like... actually inside their own sanity, world or reality separate from the only one that is.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

The math is the model.

Mathematics is just one of the tools we use to explore models. Like the model we symbolize with the word, "Language", if the grammar or language (Which model do you use?) that is Mathematics is that of what is Nature, how is anything of man, as such, not of Nature? (Like the language model you are holding right now.)

Imagining, as in guess-work (generating hypotheses and explorational thought experiments) requires observational data A.K.A. quantified reality by said data (definitions are quanta and not the actual observation, the first principle) to form models (definitions/quanta) for and by the mind's eye. The brain does this autonomically but most people believe it requires effort and devise 'efforts' to mirror such a model. One such effort is like one holding math as the model instead of what the tool, the language model, is used for.. which is funny because math was discovered, not invented and through much exploration and trial and error so math cannot be "the model" other than what it is 'a model' for the grammar of quanta called, "Mathematics." regardless of how one holds or defines it. Quantum mechanics is no different in that regard.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

s = vt is a model of displacement under constant velocity. Your data are the values of the variables you measure, e.g. distances and times. Those data do not change even if you apply a different model, e.g. non-zero acceleration.

If you can't tell, I agree with this. The data doesn't change. It is the interpretations that change the exact same way the Quantum and Standard models do for each other. If the basis of those two models for physics allows for their merger as is done with them them then your perspective is correct. The SUM does not work.

But as I stated in the original post...

On 5/18/2025 at 4:16 PM, The Veritocrat said:

If I asked you to prove me wrong about the solid universe you would use current models as a basis for proving me wrong or, worse, blame character flaws for a misguided approach to Science. As such any argument falls moot as the model should prove itself and I shouldn't 'prove' a tool for creating observations, a model. I'm basically saying, "Let play SUM!" or "Lets play Consequences!" with me starting with the first sentence, "The universe is a solid... made by energy within an elastic solid 20 orders stiffer than steel." How would it play out?

Now I've been cross-referencing the data for two decades and remodeled most of the data I've come across to develop an understanding of how the model reflects the data. As far as I know, the universe really is the energy withing a solid plastic, elastic and rigid entity larger than the visible universe (it doesn't seem to be made of particles) and the model dictates what is predictable without the need for the Standard or Quantum models as a standalone foundation for physics. Atoms as cavitation bubbles, light-speed as the speed-of-sound, and the universe ringing indefinitely as there is nothing to stop it but itself (again, it doesn't seem to be made of particles.)

I have used the model to show it predicts and explains every mystery with... dare I say it... with perfect accuracy. Yet I can't seem to get one person, after all these years, to see its value. Hell, I can't get anyone to tell me, "Huh, that's odd." or "The SUM is bunk." I get silence or deletion. So I am attaching a file of my translations from modern models to the SUM, the Solid Universe Model I have spent decades working on.

I am simply an observer, the SUM stands on its own.

Another way of saying the SUM stands alone is that it must not merge model definitions as you guys are trying to do and fail so fall to "math is the model", the default setting of the mind.

I've spent two hours trying to make this as clear as possible and accidently deleted my responses to the rest of you and I need to get to work building my mother's homestead and clearing storm-fallen trees here in AR, USA. I'll try again when I have time tonight.

Ty all for taking your time to add me into your community. Please continue ask me anything on this topic you like. I will endeavor to do my best to ensure a quality response.

Sean B.

Edited May 20May 20 by The Veritocrat

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

With out Reality's 'story' as a reason to use Math in the first place for it's context Mathematics is nothing more a pretty toy.

Nobody is claiming that you don’t compare your model with observation.

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

The data obtained is defined by the models one uses to obtain it. Changing the definitions of the models does not change the data nor the math behind it... just our interpretations.

Then the data are not defined by the models. The data doesn’t know what model you’re later going to use.

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

He who rules the dictionary rules the world in this universe... for there to be a 'reality' in the first place (though) only Reality itself can define reality so anyone claiming otherwise is fundamentally insane... like... actually inside their own sanity, world or reality separate from the only one that is.

Mathematics is just one of the tools we use to explore models. Like the model we symbolize with the word, "Language", if the grammar or language (Which model do you use?) that is Mathematics is that of what is Nature, how is anything of man, as such, not of Nature? (Like the language model you are holding right now.)

“F=GMm/r^2 allows you to actually do tests and launch probes to other planets. “Things are attracted to each other” doesn’t have sufficient power to do that.

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

But as I stated in the original post...

“If I asked you to prove me wrong about the solid universe you would use current models as a basis for proving me wrong”

We would compare your predictions with experimental results. i.e. the data. But since the data agree with the current models,that would be equivalent. Also, you need to show ypu’re right - you own the burden of proof here.

But you keep stalling. Where’s the beef?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Nobody is claiming that you don’t compare your model with observation.

Then the data are not defined by the models. The data doesn’t know what model you’re later going to use.

“F=GMm/r^2 allows you to actually do tests and launch probes to other planets. “Things are attracted to each other” doesn’t have sufficient power to do that.

“If I asked you to prove me wrong about the solid universe you would use current models as a basis for proving me wrong”

We would compare your predictions with experimental results. i.e. the data. But since the data agree with the current models,that would be equivalent. Also, you need to show ypu’re right - you own the burden of proof here.

But you keep stalling. Where’s the beef?

Ah, so it seem members think outside that particular box.. that explains the other responses.

As you said, “Things are attracted to each other” doesn’t have sufficient power to do that." ...have sufficient power... unless you give it power through refinement of you understanding.

This makes me wonder if anyone has read it at all.. Please do not respond if you have not read the entire piece. If you cannot read the entire piece please help me help yourself by asking pertinent questions about the topics involve. I did not tell you what it is like to be a frog when I put on the shoes of the frog so that I have to argue about the existence of the shoes.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

We would compare your predictions with experimental results. i.e. the data. But since the data agree with the current models,that would be equivalent. Also, you need to show ypu’re right - you own the burden of proof here.

But you keep stalling. Where’s the beef?

The experimental data of the thought experiment that is the SUM, is above. Do the comparison by first examining the data, which is within the original post, so that you have the data to do the comparison.

Aren't you stalling so you don't have to read the thing and show me your 'beef'?

.., look, I am trying my best to be friendly and I have only my character's integrity attacked and insulted and my life's work ignored like a new religion, as (again) mentioned above. Is this what this forum is all about?

Ego?

I really want to get this idea across.

I beg you, please work the model.

If I am to never get past the gate of 'null return' I will have to find a new home. For someone like me... and now for twenty years, that means I will pine on without help again.

This is why I beg. I have one set of eyes that sees the light that is the SUM. Telling me my eyes are schizophrenic and thus must I be before you figure it out is just wrong.

Please, read the post in full, assume the thought experiment as your own and pick it apart and show me your work. I cover 7 specific topics in short form that cover and can be expounded over the entirety of Physics while showing my work as simply and bereft as I can.

It really is fascinating when you can see the whole picture. New never seen before directions to explore Light, Time, Kinetics, Gravity, Magnetism and everything else. If you don't like the model, fine, just don't knock it till you try it.

(To any who wish to be a jerk about it. I would rather be a salad chef than just another parrot.)

14 minutes ago, The Veritocrat said:

Ah, so it seem members think outside that particular box.. that explains the other responses.

As you said, “Things are attracted to each other” doesn’t have sufficient power to do that." ...have sufficient power... unless you give it power through refinement of you understanding.

This makes me wonder if anyone has read it at all.. Please do not respond if you have not read the entire piece. If you cannot read the entire piece please help me help yourself by asking pertinent questions about the topics involve. I did not tell you what it is like to be a frog when I put on the shoes of the frog so that I have to argue about the existence of the shoes.

The experimental data of the thought experiment that is the SUM, is above. Do the comparison by first examining the data, which is within the original post, so that you have the data to do the comparison.

Aren't you stalling so you don't have to read the thing and show me your 'beef'?

.., look, I am trying my best to be friendly and I have only my character's integrity attacked and insulted and my life's work ignored like a new religion, as (again) mentioned above. Is this what this forum is all about?

Ego?

I really want to get this idea across.

I beg you, please work the model.

If I am to never get past the gate of 'null return' I will have to find a new home. For someone like me... and now for twenty years, that means I will pine on without help again.

This is why I beg. I have one set of eyes that sees the light that is the SUM. Telling me my eyes are schizophrenic and thus must I be before you figure it out is just wrong.

Please, read the post in full, assume the thought experiment as your own and pick it apart and show me your work. I cover 7 specific topics in short form that cover and can be expounded over the entirety of Physics while showing my work as simply and bereft as I can.

It really is fascinating when you can see the whole picture. New never seen before directions to explore Light, Time, Kinetics, Gravity, Magnetism and everything else. If you don't like the model, fine, just don't knock it till you try it.

(To any who wish to be a jerk about it. I would rather be a salad chef than just another parrot.)

What thought experiment?

13 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What thought experiment?

Did you both read and understand the initial post? The post as a whole is a thought experiment as well as the model's applications as I layed them out is a thought experiment.

If you didn't read it you didn't see it.

If you read it and didn't understand it then please, ask question about the topics within it that you would like clarification on.

6 minutes ago, The Veritocrat said:

Did you both read and understand the initial post? The post as a whole is a thought experiment as well as the model's applications as I layed them out is a thought experiment.

If you didn't read it you didn't see it.

If you read it and didn't understand it then please, ask question about the topics within it that you would like clarification on.

No it is not a thought experiment.

A thought experiment lays out a particular physical scenario in detail, to illustrate how a hypothesis or theory can be applied to a real situation, or else to derive a hypothesis from it.

There is nothing remotely resembling that in what you have posted.

On 5/19/2025 at 11:33 AM, studiot said:

I do wonder if Engish is not your first language or the first language of your AI, because your use of words is so unusual I'm not at all sure you are using the same meanings as other members.

That is why I asked you , for starters, what you mean by SOLID.

I wonder if you mean material or something akin to the french phrase 'fond acier inoxidable' (english = solid stainless steel) rather than what any physicist would think of when someone says solid to her.

Or perhaps you mean material.

So please tell us what you mean.

Then we can have a sensible discussion as to what the scientist means when he says the word model.

Once again stracnge scientific English. I wonder if you actually mean what we call 'observables' ?

The meanings defined by members or any one person is not the meanings defined by reality. Only Reality can define reality, its just convenient we share the same reality.

I am not AI nor do I use language models as a basis for sentience, the initial post above was compiled from my earlier attempts to communicate the ideas on X so it is naturally a bit messy when it comes to flow.

https://x.com/i/communities/1920499500159848915

By "SOLID" I mean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid or https://www.britannica.com/science/solid-state-of-matter. As the universe that is observable is purely energy confined by the properties of a solid as mentioned, the real 'dark' matter is that which makes matter through the solid's mechanics.

I have also described it as a "solid aether" so you could say I mean material but the material is why the universe exists as we see it without seeing the material. So we can only see the solid aether through E=mc squared. (again, forgive me for not knowing how to put in the small 2.)

Does this help?

On 5/19/2025 at 10:23 AM, joigus said:

Exactly.

Thank you. I think most people who try to come up with their own 'theory' miss this first and foremost.

Did you see how beautiful the model actually is? Please tell me you didn't at least read the thing. It explains 'why' Newton discovered what he discovered and 'why' Special Relativity and Quantum mechanics appear like they do when you work without a solid aether. The Michelson-Morley looked for a flow, a fluid sate of matter, and the SUM explains 'why'. Don't take my word for it, SEE FOR YOUR SELF.

Guys I am sorry I don't know how to make a documentary with wonderful animations to simplify things or the mastery of mathematics beyond semiotics. I just have the power of writ with with a life study math based semantics.

If I understood and mastered telepathy or the spiritual plain.. what ever its called, I would have shared my visions at a per-person level of intimacy. At the moment I appear to be telepathically blind.

I am sorry I can't be the man you want me to be but that doesn't mean I can't share something so magnificent with you.

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No it is not a thought experiment.

A thought experiment lays out a particular physical scenario in detail, to illustrate how a hypothesis or theory can be applied to a real situation, or else to derive a hypothesis from it.

There is nothing remotely resembling that in what you have posted.

Did you read it? Yes or No?

The scenario is, "The universe is of energy within some sort of solid material." I have named it, "The Solid Universe Model" and illustrated how a hypothesis or theory can be applied to at least 6 real situations with individual titles for each as a derived hypothesis from it, the S.U.M.

If you understood it you would have found I have, in full, fulfilled your requirements with my first post.

Please try again and ask pertinent questions for your particular understanding and knowledge base.

I'm still not sure you understand 'models'.

A model has to fit the available data from observation.
If it doesn't the model needs to be amended, or in extreme cases such as QM, a new paradigm is needed.
But that makes no difference whatsoever to the observational data, nor its interpretation.

Mathematics is the least ambiguous ( and non-interpretive ) model building tool, which is why it is extensively used.

I still haven't read all of your OP for the simple reason that it is a derivative of Aether Theory, and the exact same arguments can be made against it as has been done for the past hundred years.
What distinguishes your theory from Aether Theory so as to make it viable ?
(please keep it to one screen length )

33 minutes ago, The Veritocrat said:

The meanings defined by members or any one person is not the meanings defined by reality. Only Reality can define reality, its just convenient we share the same reality.

I am not AI nor do I use language models as a basis for sentience, the initial post above was compiled from my earlier attempts to communicate the ideas on X so it is naturally a bit messy when it comes to flow.

https://x.com/i/communities/1920499500159848915

By "SOLID" I mean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid or https://www.britannica.com/science/solid-state-of-matter. As the universe that is observable is purely energy confined by the properties of a solid as mentioned, the real 'dark' matter is that which makes matter through the solid's mechanics.

I have also described it as a "solid aether" so you could say I mean material but the material is why the universe exists as we see it without seeing the material. So we can only see the solid aether through E=mc squared. (again, forgive me for not knowing how to put in the small 2.)

Does this help?

Did you see how beautiful the model actually is? Please tell me you didn't at least read the thing. It explains 'why' Newton discovered what he discovered and 'why' Special Relativity and Quantum mechanics appear like they do when you work without a solid aether. The Michelson-Morley looked for a flow, a fluid sate of matter, and the SUM explains 'why'. Don't take my word for it, SEE FOR YOUR SELF.

Guys I am sorry I don't know how to make a documentary with wonderful animations to simplify things or the mastery of mathematics beyond semiotics. I just have the power of writ with with a life study math based semantics.

If I understood and mastered telepathy or the spiritual plain.. what ever its called, I would have shared my visions at a per-person level of intimacy. At the moment I appear to be telepathically blind.

I am sorry I can't be the man you want me to be but that doesn't mean I can't share something so magnificent with you.

Did you read it? Yes or No?

The scenario is, "The universe is of energy within some sort of solid material." I have named it, "The Solid Universe Model" and illustrated how a hypothesis or theory can be applied to at least 6 real situations with individual titles for each as a derived hypothesis from it, the S.U.M.

If you understood it you would have found I have, in full, fulfilled your requirements with my first post.

Please try again and ask pertinent questions for your particular understanding and knowledge base.

I've read through it and I repeat there is no thought experiment anywhere in it. It's a rambling muddle of sciency words, thrown together at random, for instance: -

"The natural tendency for a hydrogen C-atom is to make a perfect sphere. As a single cavitation (C) on a single singularity its inherent tendencies to make it's photon and corresponding electron-shell at the different times of the bounding wave are very simple."

Or

"If that wasn't hard enough to waddle through.. lets call the hydrogen C-atom's want of a perfect sphere it's 'true' shape and the effect the affect of the warpage has on it as it's 'apparent' shape. Why? Because there is a difference when it comes to buoyancy only existing in gravity. Harmonic bonds that perpetually reshape the energy forms bonded between local elements and molecules, aka anti-gravity in a solid aether."

WTF?

I'm sorry but this is a waste of everyone's time.

Just now, The Veritocrat said:

Did you both read and understand the initial post?

Yes I did read it it but No I did not understand it.

I would say from the responses of other members many are in the same boat.

Not understanding is the reason I asked for a slowdown and agreement on basic definitions so thank you for referring me to that rather deficient Wiki article about solids.

But at least I know where you are coming from on that now.

And since this is your show we can use that definition of solid as opposed to any other,

That is all I was initially asking for.

Can we discuss the meaning of the term model without all that histrionics ?

You didn't answer my query about observables v observations so I still don't know if you understand the term observable.

You are also clearly incorrect in your use of the term data.

Data is a wider term than observations (or observables) all of which have their particular place in the scheme of things.

On 5/18/2025 at 11:16 PM, The Veritocrat said:

I have used the model to show it predicts and explains every mystery with... dare I say it... with perfect accuracy.

Ok then. Suppose you send a radar signal between two points in the solar system that are equidistant to the sun, eg 1 AU, such that the signal just grazes the sun, eg with impact parameter = 1 solar radius. How much does your model predict the signal delay due to the sun’s gravity to be?

Of course you could just ask an AI, but I’d like to specifically see how you find the answer using only your model. Please show your work, step by step.

19 hours ago, The Veritocrat said:

look, I am trying my best to be friendly and I have only my character's integrity attacked and insulted and my life's work ignored like a new religion, as (again) mentioned above. Is this what this forum is all about?

Nobody has attacked your character or integrity, and if you think being questioned is insulting then you probably don’t have the temperament for doing science. Ideas get scrutinized to see if they match with observation.

That this is your life’s work is irrelevant. You don’t get points for effort; what matters is correctness. You should have gotten feedback sooner to ensure you weren’t going down the wrong path. And yes, that’s what this section of the forum is all about: informal peer review of non-mainstream science ideas.

Markus has given you a problem to solve with your model. I had been thinking of a slightly different example, that of the deflection of the path of light. Newtonian physics gives a different prediction than general relativity; quantifying the prediction is how people were able to determine which model was correct. It’s not enough to say that the sun will deflect the path. It needs to be quantified, which is why we need to see the math.