I just came on to share a realization. In a vague attempt I tried to contrast E=mc2 with what I thought could be;

I wrote, " 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 "

- found in the first post.

Notice this is how I work, if I see its worth a go I'll send it even though there is a good chance it is wrong. Hypothosis and experiment for peer review by minds like yours... and my own.. (its the same as trying out a formula to me) with a blind hope that you can find the value in the Model. I am sooo grateful you guys try so hard to help me, I will continue to do the same for you. Sry you have to deal with someone that sees Mathematics and Semantics as on in the same thing. Please expect future clashes because of this and know no matter how frustrated I sound I am loving it... I hope you are to.

The answer can't be E=pr squared as swansont pointed to the fact you can't change the data. Since the model is to be seen as the basis for everything then it could look more like E/elasticity equals m/p times c/r squared.

In learning Mathematics the sub context is almost always assumed. If I say 1+2=3 you would say "That's correct." but it's actual structure is 1/quanta+2/quanta = 3/quanta. So honestly one would not know whether or not the answer is correct. WIth math as the basis for the quanta for education, 1/1 is acceptable as a default.

In other words my biggest mistake in sharing the idea is in doing exactly what you guys are talking about. Thanks for doing the hard part in fighting for truth.

I'll cover yall's latest replies later and hope you forgive me for miss-translating the nature of models and the basis for their applications.

Thanks again for your hard work and now I go back to farm work.

11 hours ago, The Veritocrat said:

The answer can't be E=pr squared as swansont pointed to the fact you can't change the data. Since the model is to be seen as the basis for everything then it could look more like E/elasticity equals m/p times c/r squared.

The units have to work, too. What are the units of these variables?

This thread is about a new basis for "theoretical physics". Literally means, "Speculations about Physics." as a place to explore the physical world itself and not with only modern physics.

Not being address directly about this matter beyond one comment speculating is like another slap in the face that I am not wanted nor is the unknown being respected here.

Notice I offer a Model, not a speculation. Notice I offer a Model, not a question. Notice I offer questions about the Model and not the model of questions. No one has ever seen an electron, a quark, the between when the electron jumps orbits, no one has seen the big bang, no one has seen why the spin changes when you measure it ('observing' is not the only probable cause btw), no one has seen quantum-tunneling. All of that data is interpreted by the models used to contrast an understanding. In other words the models 'define' and 'for Theoretical Physics'. If you believe otherwise, "math is the model", then reality no longer has substance to explore and you have to constantly rehash the false model (two models held as one) to patch their incompatibility with one another which blocks the foundations of Reality from being observed for what they are.

A theory for physics A.K.A. - Theoretical Physics -

Seem there is no wonder this forum's viewership has always been low, its like learning from a math professor who answers questions about things in the book with, "Its in the book." I have first hand experience and had to spend an hour a day in the math lab to learn from other teachers. Don't knock him please, I found out later his wife had died just before the semester and I am pretty sure he was fighting grief.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

The units have to work, too. What are the units of these variables?

I was wrong and you didn't catch it. It would replace E=mc2 with S=pr2, note the formula, the mathematical data governing the use of the variables, has not changed but the directives of the variables have the same way you convert E=mc2 to calculate units for kinetic energy. K.E. = 1/2m v2

On 5/21/2025 at 7:21 AM, swansont said:

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.

Attacks, probable ore otherwise:

On 5/18/2025 at 4:29 PM, exchemist said:

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

On 5/18/2025 at 4:42 PM, m_m said:

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

Was it sarcasm? m_m never responded to my challenge.

On 5/18/2025 at 4:43 PM, studiot said:

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.

Note the 'givens' mentioned above were ignored. So I ignored back. How was I supposed to know studiot didn't care to escalate the issue directly when off topic comments are against the rules.

On 5/18/2025 at 5:26 PM, swansont said:

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?

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?

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.

On 5/20/2025 at 9:20 AM, swansont said:

But you keep stalling. Where’s the beef?

On 5/18/2025 at 5:42 PM, MigL said:

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

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.

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' ?

On 5/20/2025 at 12:21 PM, exchemist said:

What thought experiment?

Remember I prefaced, "Probable or otherwise."

On 5/20/2025 at 12:48 PM, 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.

On 5/20/2025 at 1:36 PM, exchemist said:

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.

... most if not all of the comments reflect a disregard for my person in one way or another. I have spend and enormous amount of time brown nosing a bunch of unchivalrous kia that put me on the defense without so much as a "Hi." or "Welcome, I hope you enjoy your stay." I don't even get, "You've got a good point there." or "I never thought of it that way." making me suspect that the members here have forgotten the value of being cordial. Colloquialisms are also a probable origin as swansont claimed my integrity and character was not challenged.

This thread is about a new basis for "theoretical physics". Literally means, "Speculations about Physics." as a place to explore the physical world itself and not with only modern physics.

Not being addressed directly about this matter beyond one comment speculating off topic is like another slap in the face that I am not wanted nor is the unknown being respected here.

Notice I offer a Model, not a speculation. Notice I offer a Model, not a question. Notice I offer questions about the Model and not the model of questions. No one has ever seen an electron, a quark, the between when the electron jumps orbits without 'jumping', no one has seen the big bang, no one has seen why the spin changes when you measure it ('observing' is not the only probable cause btw), no one has seen quantum-tunneling, etc..etc... All of that data behind these interpretations is interpreted by the models used to contrast an understanding. In other words the models 'define' and 'for Theoretical Physics'. If you believe otherwise, "math is the model", then reality no longer has substance to explore and you have to constantly rehash the false model (two insoluble models held as one) to patch their incompatibility with one another thus blocking the foundations of Reality from being observed for what they are.

A theory for physics A.K.A. - Theoretical Physics -

Seem there is no wonder this forum's viewership has always been low, its like learning from a math professor who answers questions about things in the book with, "Its in the book." I have first hand experience and had to spend an hour a day in the math lab to learn from other teachers. Don't knock him please, I found out later his wife had died just before the semester and I am pretty sure he was fighting grief.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

The units have to work, too. What are the units of these variables?

I was wrong and you didn't catch it. It would replace E=mc2 with S=pr2, note the formula, the mathematical formula governing the data, has not changed but the directives of the variables have the same way you convert E=mc2 model to calculate units for kinetic energy. K.E. = 1/2m v2

Look guys, I forgive you for not knowing what you do. I just would like you to tell me how the SUM of the universe could work before deciding that it can't out of hand.

Again.. it is like trying to share a new religion.

studiot, i am sorry you don't approve of the definition on WIKI. Did the Britanica version I offered fit your tastes?

Does this work for your understanding of a model? https://www.google.com/search?q=model+definition&sca_esv=61711e8701c58ca5&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS1160US1160&sxsrf=AHTn8zpZZeF-LeTpxIZshUN9Ec4-QZkOdg%3A1747930888961&ei=CE8vaN25Oo7dwN4PzJzUwQM&oq=model+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBm1vZGVsICoCCAEyCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFMgoQABiABBhDGIoFMgsQABiABBiRAhiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTINEC4YgAQYsQMYQxiKBTIIEC4YgAQYsQMyBRAAGIAEMggQABiABBixAzIIEAAYgAQYsQNIuRdQAFjMB3AAeAGQAQCYAZoBoAGrBaoBAzMuM7gBAcgBAPgBAZgCBqACxwXCAgQQIxgnwgIKECMYgAQYJxiKBcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARiKBcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAhAQABiABBiRAhiKBRhGGPsBwgIQEC4YgAQY0QMYQxjHARiKBcICHBAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-wEYlwUYjAUY3QTYAQHCAhAQABiABBiRAhiKBRhGGPkBwgIqEAAYgAQYkQIYigUYRhj5ARiXBRiMBRjdBBhGGPkBGPQDGPUDGPYD2AEBwgIOEAAYgAQYkQIYsQMYigXCAg0QABiABBixAxhDGIoFwgINEC4YgAQYQxjlBBiKBZgDALoGBggBEAEYE5IHAzEuNaAHmEeyBwMxLjW4B8cFwgcFMC4xLjXIBxo&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

If you would like we can define it based on a new I have for relativistic truths. Seriously, I have one and even mentioned it in the original post.

Whoever posted something like "please keep your posts to the size of one page", I feel your pain. This is the nature of the medium and you can see what I am contending with above. ...thanklessly.

So far this is good comparison for what it has been like for me.

I mean no insult, I am just as confused and scared as he was that things ended up this way and don't want to go back to jail as in be unable to fit in to what could have been the most prestigious forum on the planet...

Who are you guys anyway? Students? Teachers? Arm-chair Scientists? PHDs? A verifiable authority of any kind? What kind of work do you do? Whats your favorite movie? What is your personal reason for being on this forum?

Again I am not trying to insult, just getting a feel for the land. If you would like to use your past work on this forum or otherwise as I have I would be very grateful. Even if it only gives me hints to colloquial specifics to work with it is better than nothing since using reality as a basis or model for definitions instead of dictionaries is not the forte of this group.

34 minutes ago, The Veritocrat said:

This thread is about a new basis for "theoretical physics". Literally means, "Speculations about Physics." as a place to explore the physical world itself and not with only modern physics.

Not being address directly about this matter beyond one comment speculating is like another slap in the face that I am not wanted nor is the unknown being respected here.

Notice I offer a Model, not a speculation. Notice I offer a Model, not a question. Notice I offer questions about the Model and not the model of questions. No one has ever seen an electron, a quark, the between when the electron jumps orbits, no one has seen the big bang, no one has seen why the spin changes when you measure it ('observing' is not the only probable cause btw), no one has seen quantum-tunneling. All of that data is interpreted by the models used to contrast an understanding. In other words the models 'define' and 'for Theoretical Physics'. If you believe otherwise, "math is the model", then reality no longer has substance to explore and you have to constantly rehash the false model (two models held as one) to patch their incompatibility with one another which blocks the foundations of Reality from being observed for what they are.

A theory for physics A.K.A. - Theoretical Physics -

Seem there is no wonder this forum's viewership has always been low, its like learning from a math professor who answers questions about things in the book with, "Its in the book." I have first hand experience and had to spend an hour a day in the math lab to learn from other teachers. Don't knock him please, I found out later his wife had died just before the semester and I am pretty sure he was fighting grief.

I was wrong and you didn't catch it. It would replace E=mc2 with S=pr2, note the formula, the mathematical data governing the use of the variables, has not changed but the directives of the variables have the same way you convert E=mc2 to calculate units for kinetic energy. K.E. = 1/2m v2

Attacks, probable ore otherwise:

Was it sarcasm? m_m never responded to my challenge.

Note the 'givens' mentioned above were ignored. So I ignored back. How was I supposed to know studiot didn't care to escalate the issue directly when off topic comments are against the rules.

Remember I prefaced, "Probable or otherwise."

... most if not all of the comments reflect a disregard for my person in one way or another. I have spend and enormous amount of time brown nosing a bunch of unchivalrous kia that put me on the defense without so much as a "Hi." or "Welcome, I hope you enjoy your stay." I don't even get, "You've got a good point there." or "I never thought of it that way." making me suspect that the members here have forgotten the value of being cordial. Colloquialisms are also a probable origin as swansont claimed my integrity and character was not challenged.

This thread is about a new basis for "theoretical physics". Literally means, "Speculations about Physics." as a place to explore the physical world itself and not with only modern physics.

Not being addressed directly about this matter beyond one comment speculating off topic is like another slap in the face that I am not wanted nor is the unknown being respected here.

Notice I offer a Model, not a speculation. Notice I offer a Model, not a question. Notice I offer questions about the Model and not the model of questions. No one has ever seen an electron, a quark, the between when the electron jumps orbits without 'jumping', no one has seen the big bang, no one has seen why the spin changes when you measure it ('observing' is not the only probable cause btw), no one has seen quantum-tunneling, etc..etc... All of that data behind these interpretations is interpreted by the models used to contrast an understanding. In other words the models 'define' and 'for Theoretical Physics'. If you believe otherwise, "math is the model", then reality no longer has substance to explore and you have to constantly rehash the false model (two insoluble models held as one) to patch their incompatibility with one another thus blocking the foundations of Reality from being observed for what they are.

A theory for physics A.K.A. - Theoretical Physics -

Seem there is no wonder this forum's viewership has always been low, its like learning from a math professor who answers questions about things in the book with, "Its in the book." I have first hand experience and had to spend an hour a day in the math lab to learn from other teachers. Don't knock him please, I found out later his wife had died just before the semester and I am pretty sure he was fighting grief.

I was wrong and you didn't catch it. It would replace E=mc2 with S=pr2, note the formula, the mathematical formula governing the data, has not changed but the directives of the variables have the same way you convert E=mc2 model to calculate units for kinetic energy. K.E. = 1/2m v2

Look guys, I forgive you for not knowing what you do. I just would like you to tell me how the SUM of the universe could work before deciding that it can't out of hand.

Again.. it is like trying to share a new religion.

studiot, i am sorry you don't approve of the definition on WIKI. Did the Britanica version I offered fit your tastes?

Does this work for your understanding of a model? https://www.google.com/search?q=model+definition&sca_esv=61711e8701c58ca5&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS1160US1160&sxsrf=AHTn8zpZZeF-LeTpxIZshUN9Ec4-QZkOdg%3A1747930888961&ei=CE8vaN25Oo7dwN4PzJzUwQM&oq=model+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBm1vZGVsICoCCAEyCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFMgoQABiABBhDGIoFMgsQABiABBiRAhiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTINEC4YgAQYsQMYQxiKBTIIEC4YgAQYsQMyBRAAGIAEMggQABiABBixAzIIEAAYgAQYsQNIuRdQAFjMB3AAeAGQAQCYAZoBoAGrBaoBAzMuM7gBAcgBAPgBAZgCBqACxwXCAgQQIxgnwgIKECMYgAQYJxiKBcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARiKBcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAhAQABiABBiRAhiKBRhGGPsBwgIQEC4YgAQY0QMYQxjHARiKBcICHBAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-wEYlwUYjAUY3QTYAQHCAhAQABiABBiRAhiKBRhGGPkBwgIqEAAYgAQYkQIYigUYRhj5ARiXBRiMBRjdBBhGGPkBGPQDGPUDGPYD2AEBwgIOEAAYgAQYkQIYsQMYigXCAg0QABiABBixAxhDGIoFwgINEC4YgAQYQxjlBBiKBZgDALoGBggBEAEYE5IHAzEuNaAHmEeyBwMxLjW4B8cFwgcFMC4xLjXIBxo&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

If you would like we can define it based on a new I have for relativistic truths. Seriously, I have one and even mentioned it in the original post.

Whoever posted something like "please keep your posts to the size of one page", I feel your pain. This is the nature of the medium and you can see what I am contending with above. ...thanklessly.

My comments about there being no thought experiment and about your post being word salad are comments on the material you posted, not on you personally.

You came here for comment on your ideas and you got it.

exchemist,

Again, I said, "probable or otherwise" not that it was. You made the claim without a clear or just cause. So no worries. The same goes to all of you.

"jail" in this case btw is probably better illustrated by the fact this thread has been pushed to the land of the loonies.

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

What kind of work do you do?

I try to gnaw away at the ignorance I spot in other people up to the point where it's at equilibrium with my own ignorance. Once that point is reached, I can help them no further.

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

Whats your favorite movie?

The Grapes of Wrath.

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

What is your personal reason for being on this forum?

Saluting the brand new theory of everything that will some day supersede the current model, and a hunch tells me it's going to happen here, probably by someone whose name is something like an amalgam of Latin words roughly equivalent to "the powerful and truthful one".

1 hour ago, The Veritocrat said:

... most if not all of the comments reflect a disregard for my person in one way or another. I have spend and enormous amount of time brown nosing a bunch of unchivalrous kia that put me on the defense without so much as a "Hi." or "Welcome, I hope you enjoy your stay." I don't even get, "You've got a good point there." or "I never thought of it that way." making me suspect that the members here have forgotten the value of being cordial. Colloquialisms are also a probable origin as swansont claimed my integrity and character was not challenged.

Moderator Note

NONE of the comments have been aimed at you personally. That would be against the rules. We attack ideas here, not people. You may have wrapped yourself too tightly in your idea so it seems personal to you, but that's not the case. Asking you for a definition when yours doesn't match isn't about you, it's about the word you used. Telling you your explanation is "word salad" isn't about you, it's about the explanation. If someone tells you your explanation is "rambling", it's not a personal attack. Your explanation needs work, not you. Above all, being wrong about something in science has NOTHING to do with your personal integrity.

I hope that makes sense to you. We don't know you enough to make it personal.

4 hours ago, The Veritocrat said:

I was wrong and you didn't catch it. It would replace E=mc2 with S=pr2, note the formula, the mathematical data governing the use of the variables, has not changed but the directives of the variables have the same way you convert E=mc2 to calculate units for kinetic energy. K.E. = 1/2m v2

I don’t see where you gave units for Elasticity, Plasticity and Rigidity. Can you just answer the question?

4 hours ago, The Veritocrat said:

I just would like you to tell me how the SUM of the universe could work before deciding that it can't out of hand.

We want you to provide us with enough information to test it. Right now you’re telling us there’s something really cool inside a box. Show us what’s inside the box.

11 hours ago, The Veritocrat said:

as a place to explore the physical world itself

That’s precisely why I asked you to show how your model handles the situation involving a signal delay near a massive body, because this is something that happens in the real physical world, and becomes practically relevant eg when communicating with spacecraft/probes in the solar system. You did not offer a response to this request.

In your first post here you mentioned that in all those years no one seems to have taken notice of your work, nor shown interest. That’s because you don’t have a model, in the sense this term is used in physics. What you have is a loose collection of personal ideas about how you think the universe should work, written in verbal form; that’s not the same thing at all. One cannot, given a real-world scenario such as the one I offered, extract any kind of quantitative prediction from your ideas, and thus there is no meaningful way to relate it to any set of observational data. You can’t even know whether your own conclusions actually follow from the underlying premises, because you don’t have any way to check. You’re just speculating.

To put this short and to the point - people aren’t interested, because you don’t have anything to be interested in; there’s nothing here that’s of value to physics, which has a very specific job to do.

I’m sorry to be blunt, given that you have spent much time on it and are correspondingly emotionally invested; but truth is that this won’t ever go anywhere, at least not in the form it is now. Also, you seem to have a tendency to perceive all comments to be about your person, when they really aren’t; that isn’t helpful. It’s just that when you post your thoughts onto a science forum, they will be scrutinised and challenged, because that’s essentially how the scientific methods works.

My advice - if you want people to take notice, you need to give it predictive powers by having a proper (!) mathematical framework so that one can extract actual quantitative predictions for specific scenarios. That’s what’s required, regardless of how you feel about maths in general. If you can’t or don’t want to do that, then it would be better to just let it go. As it stands now this is of no use to anyone - least of all yourself. Harsh perhaps, but nonetheless true.

On 5/19/2025 at 4:47 PM, The Veritocrat said:

m_m, I hope you response was not sarcasm.

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

No, my comment is not sarcasm. I really mean it. But...the thing is, that you won't change anything. There's is an established structure of "knowledge", I call in conformation, or agreements. It verified to an inch, if you change at least one concept in some area of science, this structure will fall apart.

I just think, if you have realized something about our Reality( I also capitalize it) it is only for you and your understanding. Because, ultimately, nobody knows how our world is created.

A thought, a construct I call the SUM model, that I am asking you to experiment with is something you must create an imaginary space for to contrast said model. Fundamentally this means you have to place said model within 'your' perspective of reality and not other models 'you' used to create said, ".. 'your' perspective". To contrast it against only 'your' reality (which you cannot chose) is to do the experiment of contrasting to observe the outcome with Occam's razor. It is not a comparison probable epistemological integrities, 'your' perspective vs 'mine'.

I call it "The Solid Universe Model" because the effects we observe 'appear' to be as caused by energy that flows similarly to that of sound through a solid. To give the SUM shape within you reality as a thought I have place down and dances around the fundamentals that 'could' make it viable... for 'your' reality. All you have to do is use the already available science of solids and see if you can eek out, repeat my experiment as outlined above, the truths necessary to see that it is a model that does encompass the entirety of the universe as seen today.

The key is in recognizing where modern models speculate and so belong alongside this thread. Quantum Tunneling, Electricity, Atoms... are all shaped by their need, their roles, as credible plausibilities. Models for thought experiments as defined above.

Show me the proof of how a magnetic wave (a 'wave' that requires a medium to 'wave') and an electric wave (a 'wave' that requires a medium 'wave.) cause each other to exist without a medium to wave. Math has been derived to found such a claim but like all data, data is useless without context and Mathematics cannot 'be' the model beyond the 'tool' that it is. You may like to say that tools are created by man and that math is not but, a tool is shaped by the need, its role, and so not by man. This is why I hold that reality should be the basis of definitions, tools shaped by their need, their roles and not by man.

I see this as the main roadblock.

swansont,

1. You have to back your statements up with evidence.

The evidence is that a solid, a scientific term for a state of matter that has units of measurement and should be easy to find online, has directly comparable effects that are identical to every aspect of Physic to date.

2.Anecdotes are not evidence.

Anecdotes depend on 'interest' and 'amusement' as defined by the individual, not reality. This makes your number 2 anecdotal and so superfluous as a fundamental rule being subjective and untenable (anecdotes).

3.Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.

Calling someone's work, "crap" is an attack. Own up to your mistakes, not just this one, as you demand of us in #5.

4.Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum.

If you can't see your attack was wrong then identifier such as "brainwashed" or "stupid" are applicable if not agreeably tactful. Please respect minds not built on your personal sophisms like this list of rules.

5.Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it.

I and one other are apparently the only ones that have owned our mistakes. Sorry I can't remember the name of the one that conceded.

6.Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence.

Evidence of credibility through peer review is just some paper or website that agrees with you is a form of evidence viable for exposing that you are not the only one and so are not delusional or imaginary. If you cannot tell, such responses that caused you to write this #6 as a rule are due to the horrible bedside manners of peers. Uncouth.

7.Just because some paper comes to the same conclusion as you does not mean your hypotheses are the same.

This is a re-iteration of #6.

8.Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context.

I agree with this one.

9.Disagreeing with you does not make someone "closed-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data.

Unless disagreeing with you is an inherent sign that one might be "close-minded" thus making the term viable, legal in that they are inferring that you should check yourself for mistakes you may have made.

10.Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy.

Just because it works doesn't make it perfect and any evasion of refinement towards the perfection that is Reality must be conspiretous. Intended or sophistic.

11If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient.

I have done so and made it short and simple 'enough' with a preface exposing dilemmas I have come across in sharing the idea with minds such as yours so that you have a chance to break the mental blocks that prevent you from being within reasonable demands like the ones in this list.

12.Respect is earned. People who are resident experts, mods and administrators have earned those titles.

Those 'titles' are not earned, the respect is and so you have no right to lord titles over strangers whom do not know such a monarchy exists in Science.

13.Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess.

A theory is a guess if it's basis is unknown. Like Quantum and Particle, that is why they are called theories. And making up terminology is legal, how all humans quantify the universe, and familiarity is relative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw&t=11s

"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." - theory by google
https://www.google.com/search?q=theory+definition&sca_esv=2fd355d93db3847c&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS1160US1160&sxsrf=AE3TifOEnZRBVbx9xYgUf-643RI92Lb2pw%3A1748107034702&ei=Gv8xaNHVKtqWkPIP3cK6kAs&oq=theory&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBnRoZW9yeSoCCAAyExAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFGEYY-QEyDhAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFMg4QLhiABBixAxjRAxjHATIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDMggQLhiABBixAzILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyCBAuGIAEGLEDMggQABiABBixAzIIEAAYgAQYsQMyLRAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFGEYY-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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

14.If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion.

Exactly what is going on here, nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong or even imperfect. As I argued through this thread, getting people to past their own viewpoint is like trying to share a new religion.

15.All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong.

Scope is limited by perspectives generated by knowledge-bases not theories and so is flexible. A theory is wrong in that it doesn't automatically address some point one one wants it to as you keep pointing out to me is why you refute my claim. Who's fault or what's at fault doesn't matter, wrongness is anecdotal thus subjective making your argument moot.

16.Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to.

Do you listen to your own assertions as if they are laws?

17.You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science cares very little about your opinion, as it has little relevance to the subject.

Did someone hurt you? You know that one's own facts are all one really has, right? Outsourcing your mind and soul to other people and their work is the epitome of conspiratory brainwashing even if it is obligatory to being indoctrinated into this or any forum.

18.If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.

Ditto.. and so I can't take you seriously as you have repeatedly failed to earn my respect and constantly contradicted yourself.

I see accountability is an issue. My father has the same problem as you and I cannot remember a single time he has ever said, "Sorry." and instead has always found a scapegoat or some other form of evasion/indifference. Just because he taught Physics at Texas A&U or even has earned the respect of this forum's peers doesn't mean I must respect him. I can't, it is against his nature. SO if you bring it up the issue he goes out of his way to evade, null or attack in ways to always 'appear' perfect and still without taking accountability. Saying, "I am sorry you feel that way." is not taking accountability nor an apology.

This Model (to be held as a theory as one, not just you, sees fit) should be placed in the realm of "Modern and Theoretical Physics" or even it's own "Solid Universe Physics" for like minds to play with as one would with theory, for why the universe behaves as observed. If we have to bang rocks together to get it started... we have... nm

Till you, or those it matters, can climb out of your hole of 'spotless-Self-credibility' this has proven to be a waste of my time to give the holy grail you lord over for being made by the hands of this carpenter. Its what is inside that matters, its my cup (writ) anyhow, you have no choice but to make your own understanding's description as a cup or just poke me in the eye as has been done.

Mathematics will never hold the universe without being shaped to do so by you.

Do you know the definition of a psycopath?

"Psychopathy is a neuropsychiatric disorder marked by deficient emotional responses, lack of empathy, and poor behavioral controls, commonly resulting in persistent antisocial deviance and criminal behavior."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4321752/#:~:text=Psychopathy%20is%20a%20neuropsychiatric%20disorder,antisocial%20deviance%20and%20criminal%20behavior.

You and my father are alike in this and only because of the models you both hold, please change your ways. (note: evading accountability is both antisocial deviance and criminal behavior)

On 5/22/2025 at 5:34 PM, The Veritocrat said:

This thread is about a new basis for "theoretical physics". Literally means, "Speculations about Physics." as a place to explore the physical world itself and not with only modern physics.

Not being address directly about this matter beyond one comment speculating is like another slap in the face that I am not wanted nor is the unknown being respected here.

Notice I offer a Model, not a speculation. Notice I offer a Model, not a question. Notice I offer questions about the Model and not the model of questions. No one has ever seen an electron, a quark, the between when the electron jumps orbits, no one has seen the big bang, no one has seen why the spin changes when you measure it ('observing' is not the only probable cause btw), no one has seen quantum-tunneling. All of that data is interpreted by the models used to contrast an understanding. In other words the models 'define' and 'for Theoretical Physics'. If you believe otherwise, "math is the model", then reality no longer has substance to explore and you have to constantly rehash the false model (two models held as one) to patch their incompatibility with one another which blocks the foundations of Reality from being observed for what they are.

A theory for physics A.K.A. - Theoretical Physics -

Seem there is no wonder this forum's viewership has always been low, its like learning from a math professor who answers questions about things in the book with, "Its in the book." I have first hand experience and had to spend an hour a day in the math lab to learn from other teachers. Don't knock him please, I found out later his wife had died just before the semester and I am pretty sure he was fighting grief.

I was wrong and you didn't catch it. It would replace E=mc2 with S=pr2, note the formula, the mathematical data governing the use of the variables, has not changed but the directives of the variables have the same way you convert E=mc2 to calculate units for kinetic energy. K.E. = 1/2m v2

Attacks, probable ore otherwise:

Was it sarcasm? m_m never responded to my challenge.

Note the 'givens' mentioned above were ignored. So I ignored back. How was I supposed to know studiot didn't care to escalate the issue directly when off topic comments are against the rules.

Remember I prefaced, "Probable or otherwise."

... most if not all of the comments reflect a disregard for my person in one way or another. I have spend and enormous amount of time brown nosing a bunch of unchivalrous kia that put me on the defense without so much as a "Hi." or "Welcome, I hope you enjoy your stay." I don't even get, "You've got a good point there." or "I never thought of it that way." making me suspect that the members here have forgotten the value of being cordial. Colloquialisms are also a probable origin as swansont claimed my integrity and character was not challenged.

This thread is about a new basis for "theoretical physics". Literally means, "Speculations about Physics." as a place to explore the physical world itself and not with only modern physics.

Not being addressed directly about this matter beyond one comment speculating off topic is like another slap in the face that I am not wanted nor is the unknown being respected here.

Notice I offer a Model, not a speculation. Notice I offer a Model, not a question. Notice I offer questions about the Model and not the model of questions. No one has ever seen an electron, a quark, the between when the electron jumps orbits without 'jumping', no one has seen the big bang, no one has seen why the spin changes when you measure it ('observing' is not the only probable cause btw), no one has seen quantum-tunneling, etc..etc... All of that data behind these interpretations is interpreted by the models used to contrast an understanding. In other words the models 'define' and 'for Theoretical Physics'. If you believe otherwise, "math is the model", then reality no longer has substance to explore and you have to constantly rehash the false model (two insoluble models held as one) to patch their incompatibility with one another thus blocking the foundations of Reality from being observed for what they are.

A theory for physics A.K.A. - Theoretical Physics -

Seem there is no wonder this forum's viewership has always been low, its like learning from a math professor who answers questions about things in the book with, "Its in the book." I have first hand experience and had to spend an hour a day in the math lab to learn from other teachers. Don't knock him please, I found out later his wife had died just before the semester and I am pretty sure he was fighting grief.

I was wrong and you didn't catch it. It would replace E=mc2 with S=pr2, note the formula, the mathematical formula governing the data, has not changed but the directives of the variables have the same way you convert E=mc2 model to calculate units for kinetic energy. K.E. = 1/2m v2

Look guys, I forgive you for not knowing what you do. I just would like you to tell me how the SUM of the universe could work before deciding that it can't out of hand.

Again.. it is like trying to share a new religion.

studiot, i am sorry you don't approve of the definition on WIKI. Did the Britanica version I offered fit your tastes?

Does this work for your understanding of a model? https://www.google.com/search?q=model+definition&sca_esv=61711e8701c58ca5&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS1160US1160&sxsrf=AHTn8zpZZeF-LeTpxIZshUN9Ec4-QZkOdg%3A1747930888961&ei=CE8vaN25Oo7dwN4PzJzUwQM&oq=model+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBm1vZGVsICoCCAEyCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFMgoQABiABBhDGIoFMgsQABiABBiRAhiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTINEC4YgAQYsQMYQxiKBTIIEC4YgAQYsQMyBRAAGIAEMggQABiABBixAzIIEAAYgAQYsQNIuRdQAFjMB3AAeAGQAQCYAZoBoAGrBaoBAzMuM7gBAcgBAPgBAZgCBqACxwXCAgQQIxgnwgIKECMYgAQYJxiKBcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARiKBcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAhAQABiABBiRAhiKBRhGGPsBwgIQEC4YgAQY0QMYQxjHARiKBcICHBAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-wEYlwUYjAUY3QTYAQHCAhAQABiABBiRAhiKBRhGGPkBwgIqEAAYgAQYkQIYigUYRhj5ARiXBRiMBRjdBBhGGPkBGPQDGPUDGPYD2AEBwgIOEAAYgAQYkQIYsQMYigXCAg0QABiABBixAxhDGIoFwgINEC4YgAQYQxjlBBiKBZgDALoGBggBEAEYE5IHAzEuNaAHmEeyBwMxLjW4B8cFwgcFMC4xLjXIBxo&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

If you would like we can define it based on a new I have for relativistic truths. Seriously, I have one and even mentioned it in the original post.

Whoever posted something like "please keep your posts to the size of one page", I feel your pain. This is the nature of the medium and you can see what I am contending with above. ...thanklessly.

So far this is good comparison for what it has been like for me.

I mean no insult, I am just as confused and scared as he was that things ended up this way and don't want to go back to jail as in be unable to fit in to what could have been the most prestigious forum on the planet...

Who are you guys anyway? Students? Teachers? Arm-chair Scientists? PHDs? A verifiable authority of any kind? What kind of work do you do? Whats your favorite movie? What is your personal reason for being on this forum?

Again I am not trying to insult, just getting a feel for the land. If you would like to use your past work on this forum or otherwise as I have I would be very grateful. Even if it only gives me hints to colloquial specifics to work with it is better than nothing since using reality as a basis or model for definitions instead of dictionaries is not the forte of this group.

I'm on this forum to learn and, when the occasion arises, to teach.

I've learned a lot, sometimes from unexpected sources. There was a crank who thought he had overturned the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, from whom I learned a lot about Sadi Carnot and the role of the c.19th theory of "caloric" in developing modern thermodynamics. And another who introduced me to Tyndall's c.19th experiments with what was in effect a most ingenious forerunner of the infra red spectrometer. But both these individuals at least had concrete ideas that could be evaluated.

If I were you I'd give up the victimhood posturing and get back to explaining your ideas in such a way that people can get to grips with them. A real theoretician welcomes challenge, as it helps hone his or her ideas.

Edited May 24May 24 by exchemist

2 hours ago, The Veritocrat said:

Calling someone's work, "crap" is an attack.

I didn’t call your work crap. I called a particular passage crap, where you implied that accepting scientific ideas was like a religion, and accepting your ideas would be like switching religions. That is crap. Science is based on evidence, unlike religion. That you made that analogy points to you not understanding science very well.

And it was not a personal attack. I attacked a claim you made, not you.

As for the rest, it seems like you making the case that you don’t have to follow our rules on what can be discussed in speculations. Unfortunately for you, you don’t get to make that decision.

3 hours ago, The Veritocrat said:

Do you know the definition of a psycopath?

"Psychopathy is a neuropsychiatric disorder marked by deficient emotional responses, lack of empathy, and poor behavioral controls, commonly resulting in persistent antisocial deviance and criminal behavior."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4321752/#:~:text=Psychopathy%20is%20a%20neuropsychiatric%20disorder,antisocial%20deviance%20and%20criminal%20behavior.

You and my father are alike in this and only because of the models you both hold, please change your ways. (note: evading accountability is both antisocial deviance and criminal behavior)

Moderator Note

Since you have no model and have fallen to insult and personal attacks, and because you don't seem to want to follow our rules on discussions in Speculations, I'm closing this. Don't bring it up again.