Just now, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

It’s not nuclear density — it’s the effective density of the Luxia medium (the aether‑like continuum) derived from large‑scale gravitational observations, specifically orbital drift anomalies.

I didn't say it was nuclear density.

If you expect others to read your many words properly, you need to reciprocate by reading their few words just as properly.

What you are saying is that the space between nucleii is filled with something of unimaginably greater density than the nucleii themselves.

On 8/4/2025 at 8:48 PM, KJW said:

I'm not thinking backwards. Time dilation and familiar gravity could be considered to be concomitant. But because time dilation is about the structure of spacetime, and familiar gravity is about how objects respond to the structure of spacetime, it is indeed natural to say that time dilation causes familiar gravity rather than the other way around. The relationship between time dilation and familiar gravity can be mathematically derived.

And the reason I say familiar gravity is because full gravitation is more complicated, as I alluded to when I said that time dilation only provides half the deflection of starlight by the sun. But time dilation does completely provide the gravity described by Newton.

The problem with pure physicality of physics is that it becomes impossible to truly justify the behaviour of physical objects. The laws of physics become ad hoc as if provided from above. For example, in purely physical terms, explain why energy and momentum are conserved. Noether's theorem does provide an explanation, but that's mathematical.

I’m not arguing against the math — I’m saying the math should come from the physicality, not be treated as the cause of it. What do you think your measuring with your arbitrary lines on a ruler? The physical world. Einstein said things like he understood relativity till the Mathematicians got hold of it and that the laws of maths are not certain to explain reality, Penrose saids it's great right up to the point it isn't, but I think Feynman said it best when he said Maths is just a language, and the universe is not made out of numbers anymore than it's made out of words. Remember the map is not the territory and the equation is not reality. I have sympathy you've grown up with a theory you believe in and it has become your view of reality but it's just a framework. All of the great scientist for centuries all believed in a medium even Einstein, and I'm giving you what he wanted the mechanics of the medium. The reason 'time' dilates in your equation. The reason of everything really. If you keep the view you do by taking what became of Einsteins work literally you won't get any further than that.

For example: Noether’s theorem works in Luxia Theory too — but instead of “energy is conserved because time symmetry says so,” we get time symmetry because the Luxia medium is continuous and uniform in its properties. That’s a physical reason you can picture, not an axiom.

Same for time dilation and gravity: in Luxia, both come from the same cause — compression of the medium changes wave travel time (dilation) and creates a pressure gradient (gravity). You get the same Newtonian limit without having to declare one “causes” the other — they’re co‑effects of the same physical mechanism.

The math doesn’t go away — but it’s no longer the top‑down lawgiver. It’s the shadow cast by the real machinery.

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

I didn't say it was nuclear density.

If you expect others to read your many words properly, you need to reciprocate by reading their few words just as properly.

What you are saying is that the space between nucleii is filled with something of unimaginably greater density than the nucleii themselves.

Sorry for the misunderstanding bro I'm just trying to help you understand you might be misunderstanding what ρ_L represents. It’s not the density of matter “filling space” between nuclei — it’s the effective mass‑energy per volume of the medium that transmits forces. The number comes from the relationship c_L² = K_L / ρ_L, where c_L is the measured wave speed and K_L is stiffness derived from gravitational observations.

In other words, ρ_L is a mechanical property of the field itself, just like vacuum permittivity (ε₀) or permeability (μ₀) are for electromagnetism — those also have “weird” magnitudes but they’re not the density of atoms.

So yes, ρ_L is vastly larger than nuclear density — but that’s because it’s not the same physical quantity at all. It’s the inertia of the medium, not a hidden lump of matter crammed between nuclei.

I'm pretty sure the numbers right too because from the density and stiffness numbers I can derived the energy of an electron, the fine structure constant and Planck's constant and of course conversely use those to give the density and stiffness of the medium the standard model can't do that. They can't even explain the fine structure constants existence mine gives it a origin, and no one's been able to derive the electrons energy from astronomical scale data, that is not a coincidence when 3 things give you the same numbers

Edited August 6Aug 6 by X - TheLuxiaGuy
Just added rigour to the derivation of the density of the medium

Just now, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

Sorry for the misunderstanding bro I'm just trying to help you understand you might be misunderstanding what ρ_L represents. It’s not the density of matter “filling space” between nuclei — it’s the effective mass‑energy per volume of the medium that transmits forces. The number comes from the relationship c_L² = K_L / ρ_L, where c_L is the measured wave speed and K_L is stiffness derived from gravitational observations.

In other words, ρ_L is a mechanical property of the field itself, just like vacuum permittivity (ε₀) or permeability (μ₀) are for electromagnetism — those also have “weird” magnitudes but they’re not the density of atoms.

So yes, ρ_L is vastly larger than nuclear density — but that’s because it’s not the same physical quantity at all. It’s the inertia of the medium, not a hidden lump of matter crammed between nuclei.

I'm pretty sure the numbers right too because from the density and stiffness numbers I can derived the energy of an electron, the fine structure constant and even the speed of light.

I didn't say any of this.

I said 'something'.

And I know you called it luxia.

However any 'something' that can offer such an enormous density offers a pretty good resistance to any motion of matter at all R I P Newton's laws.

And no you cannot say that any physical quantity means one thing here and something entirely differenly somewhere else.

And yes I know that some differeng physical quantities have the same units eg kg-m

But they also have different physical names so they dont get mixed up.

Humans are still smarter than AI nonsense.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

I didn't say any of this.

I said 'something'.

And I know you called it luxia.

However any 'something' that can offer such an enormous density offers a pretty good resistance to any motion of matter at all R I P Newton's laws.

And no you cannot say that any physical quantity means one thing here and something entirely differenly somewhere else.

And yes I know that some differeng physical quantities have the same units eg kg-m

But they also have different physical names so they dont get mixed up.

Humans are still smarter than AI nonsense.

Dude why you mad bro, there no ai here and I think your smart enough to understand what you said is laughably wrong or you didn't read the explanation which is verbose and precise to aid your understanding. Maybe the word density confuses you as it should mean mass technically but I use this as a familiar framing for understanding. I get your concern — but having a large effective density doesn’t mean Luxia resists motion the way a dense fluid does. The inertia I’m talking about is for waves in the medium, not bulk motion of matter through it. For example, vacuum permittivity (ε₀) and permeability (μ₀) are huge or tiny in magnitude compared to matter, but they don’t stop Earth from orbiting the Sun. The same applies here — Luxia’s enormous density is paired with equally enormous stiffness (K_L ≈ 10¹²⁵ N/m²), so wave speeds are near‑instantaneous for gravity and c for EM. That’s why Newton’s laws remain intact: bodies move freely because the medium transmits forces without drag. On the units — yes, kg/m³ is the SI unit for any mass‑per‑volume quantity. The physical interpretation changes depending on the system: material density, charge density, energy density… all different in nature but expressed in the same dimensional form. Luxia’s ρ_L is a medium‑property mass density, not atomic packing density. And just to be clear, this isn’t “AI nonsense” — the derivation is straight from measured lunar orbital drift using the wave equation c_L² = K_L / ρ_L. I’m just explaining it in plain language. What else don't you get?

2 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I dont care until you are handling everything.
I will treat your work as same as any other.

A important thing to note is that AI can shorten your work and can skip some sections.

If you give it multiple sections at once or a file and say make it this or that,It will choose most efficient way(Shortening).
You have to give it proper prompt,but i will not recommend to generate with AI's help.
You should use LaTex,You can take AI's help to generate proper code.

As for the knowing where the gold is I can define the energy of an electron from astronomical data the standard model can't I can explain the fine structure constants existence and derived it from gravitational observations and the same with Planck's constant and conversely use all 3 to derive the existence of the medium and it's properties from those 3 different ways, ME I did all this with a few questions from the ai sure to make sure I wasn't crazy after using wolfram alpha to work things out, I also use python for modelling and I talk to friends why does having an ai remove redundant stuff from my ramblings change the achievement? I don't trust a machine that vectors it best guess to do my life's work, I check everything it has touched, my theory has been built by doing what no one else is understanding how we believe our understanding of phenomena and by using results to determine the theory not the other way around. If your gonna have the cheek to besmirch a life's work because I used a tool you don't like to clean up my waffle and repetition you can ateast go ahead and try to intelligently argue against it or understand it. Because dismissing something because you don't like it isn't scientific or honest and I am. And like you say I know ai might be insanely biased towards any Insanity but it's absolutely great for chatting with and showing where your wrong and why. That's been the most influential use not anything like you suggest. And that should be plain to see with the many merits this framework has like bringing physicality back to physics.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by X - TheLuxiaGuy
Added how I used I and it's influence,

@X - TheLuxiaGuy

On 8/5/2025 at 5:48 AM, KJW said:

I'm not thinking backwards. Time dilation and familiar gravity could be considered to be concomitant. But because time dilation is about the structure of spacetime, and familiar gravity is about how objects respond to the structure of spacetime, it is indeed natural to say that time dilation causes familiar gravity rather than the other way around. The relationship between time dilation and familiar gravity can be mathematically derived.

This also applies to artificial gravity. Again, time dilation and artificial gravity could be considered to be concomitant. But because artificial gravity can be controlled, it becomes more reasonable to say that artificial gravity causes time dilation. Nevertheless, the relationship between time dilation and artificial gravity is the same as the relationship between time dilation and familiar gravity.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by KJW

8 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

Dude why you mad bro, there no ai here and I think your smart enough to understand what you said is laughably wrong or you didn't read the explanation which is verbose and precise to aid your understanding. Maybe the word density confuses you as it should mean mass technically but I use this as a familiar framing for understanding. I get your concern — but having a large effective density doesn’t mean Luxia resists motion the way a dense fluid does. The inertia I’m talking about is for waves in the medium, not bulk motion of matter through it. For example, vacuum permittivity (ε₀) and permeability (μ₀) are huge or tiny in magnitude compared to matter, but they don’t stop Earth from orbiting the Sun. The same applies here — Luxia’s enormous density is paired with equally enormous stiffness (K_L ≈ 10¹²⁵ N/m²), so wave speeds are near‑instantaneous for gravity and c for EM. That’s why Newton’s laws remain intact: bodies move freely because the medium transmits forces without drag. On the units — yes, kg/m³ is the SI unit for any mass‑per‑volume quantity. The physical interpretation changes depending on the system: material density, charge density, energy density… all different in nature but expressed in the same dimensional form. Luxia’s ρ_L is a medium‑property mass density, not atomic packing density. And just to be clear, this isn’t “AI nonsense” — the derivation is straight from measured lunar orbital drift using the wave equation c_L² = K_L / ρ_L. I’m just explaining it in plain language. What else don't you get?

What don't I get ?

Why the addition of lots of weasel words and mangling of Phyiscs to state something - I don't know what something.

18 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

an immensely higher density than nuclear matter because Luxia isn’t made of particles at all — it’s the “solid” background in which particles are just stable soliton disturbances.

Would you like the Lagrangian, Maxwell Mapping, I got tons of areas I've already linked together but just giving space the properties it needs explain everything else. And where not saying anyone is wrong we're saying everyone is right and this is why.

You’re getting ahead of yourself here by building on a foundation that has yet to be established as valid.

How does one test that “luxia” exists, much less that it has these properties, without using an untested model? i.e. using mainstream science.

Are we moving through luxia, or at rest with respect to it?

8 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

Maybe the word density confuses you as it should mean mass technically but I use this as a familiar framing for understanding.

Adhering to precise definitions is important in order to communicate

8 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

I get your concern — but having a large effective density doesn’t mean Luxia resists motion the way a dense fluid does. The inertia I’m talking about is for waves in the medium, not bulk motion of matter through it.

How does the luxia “know” that the motion is a wave vs bulk material? What interaction is involved?

19 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

it’s the “solid” background

Solid has a specific meaning in physics, chemistry and materials science.

How are you using it here ?

What is its temperature ?

Edited August 6Aug 6 by studiot

23 hours ago, studiot said:

What don't I get ?

Why the addition of lots of weasel words and mangling of Phyiscs to state something - I don't know what something.

Dude I use physics and speak very epigrammiticaly if you think being able to explain what no on else can with just the mechanics of one thing a sea of inertia named luxia by me is some sort of trick then I don't know what to tell you. Keep your virtual particles, dark matter, action at a distance, lol spacetime, quantum weirdness, paradoxes, and the rest I'll take my universe mechanical and without all that shit and built on less abstract and more grounded physics than created all that. I've given the medium it's properties that's the 'something' and I've got the same number defining those properties from the energy of the electron, the fine structure constant and Planck's constant and give them all mechanical meaning, I also have less postulates and axioms than the rest and even explain mechanically others theorys constants, like explaining why the speed of light is that speed. No on else can do that, give me something that can even do half of it.

23 hours ago, swansont said:

You’re getting ahead of yourself here by building on a foundation that has yet to be established as valid.

How does one test that “luxia” exists, much less that it has these properties, without using an untested model? i.e. using mainstream science.

Are we moving through luxia, or at rest with respect to it?

Adhering to precise definitions is important in order to communicate

How does the luxia “know” that the motion is a wave vs bulk material? What interaction is involved?

Well this is a great question I'm gonna try and answer it in the best way I can just give me a little time and Ill give you the goods.

23 hours ago, studiot said:

Solid has a specific meaning in physics, chemistry and materials science.

How are you using it here ?

What is its temperature ?

Solid" here refers not to a crystalline or rigid material phase, but to a mechanical background medium that resists compression and supports transverse and longitudinal wave propagation — like an idealized elastic continuum. Its 'temperature' is undefined in thermodynamic terms because it's not made of particles; it's a continuous field with no internal degrees of freedom — it doesn’t equilibrate, it transmits. So it's not 'solid' in the materials science sense, but in the mechanical sense: a structured, inertial backdrop that can be displaced and stressed, giving rise to observable forces."

23 hours ago, swansont said:

You’re getting ahead of yourself here by building on a foundation that has yet to be established as valid.

How does one test that “luxia” exists, much less that it has these properties, without using an untested model? i.e. using mainstream science.

Are we moving through luxia, or at rest with respect to it?

Adhering to precise definitions is important in order to communicate

How does the luxia “know” that the motion is a wave vs bulk material? What interaction is involved?

How does luxia know? This is a real question. Just gimme a little time to answer I've had another good one and I just have to dive into my notes to make sure I use the correct and consistent terms of the mechanics involved. Edit actually I think this will do it

If you smack a trampoline with your hand (wave), it springs back. If you sit on it (mass), it holds the deformation. If you drag the trampoline frame (bulk motion), the whole thing moves — but Luxia has no frame to drag. There is no bulk motion, only relative stress. So Luxia distinguishes wave motion from bulk motion by the nature of the stress: waves are alternating and self-contained; bulk motion would require persistent net displacement, which the medium structurally resists. The interaction is encoded in the tension and pressure gradients — the mechanical stress-response of the field itself.

Edited August 7Aug 7 by X - TheLuxiaGuy
For expediency

On 8/6/2025 at 8:22 PM, swansont said:

You’re getting ahead of yourself here by building on a foundation that has yet to be established as valid.

How does one test that “luxia” exists, much less that it has these properties, without using an untested model? i.e. using mainstream science.

Are we moving through luxia, or at rest with respect to it?

Adhering to precise definitions is important in order to communicate

How does the luxia “know” that the motion is a wave vs bulk material? What interaction is involved?

You're absolutely right — adherence to definitions and testability are critical. Luxia isn’t just thrown out as a fantasy medium; it’s proposed as a mechanical reinterpretation of already measurable phenomena. We start not with speculation, but with anomalies and empirical patterns — like orbital drift, time dilation, and quantization thresholds — and reverse-engineer the medium that would produce them mechanically.

Re how can we test if luxia exists?

Well we already do that's the beauty of it, but to first test for something you have to assume it's existence then once you do things start happening, most of physics has a Lucia shaped hole that wouldn't exist unless there's a mechanical medium transmitting force.

Planck’s constant and the fine structure constant are treated as magic numbers — we derive them from the Luxia model based on field properties like density and tension.

Gravitational and quantum effects both emerge from pressure and torsion in this medium — not as separate forces, but as behaviors of the same underlying field.

So the model is testable — by checking if derived values match observed constants. So far, they do.

Luxia isn’t some speculative ether — it’s a compressible, testable model that rederives known constants and resolves contradictions between GR and QM. If deriving Planck’s constant and gravitational behavior from the same field mechanics isn’t evidence, what is?"

1 minute ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

You're absolutely right — adherence to definitions and testability are critical. Luxia isn’t just thrown out as a fantasy medium; it’s proposed as a mechanical reinterpretation of already measurable phenomena. We start not with speculation, but with anomalies and empirical patterns — like orbital drift, time dilation, and quantization thresholds — and reverse-engineer the medium that would produce them mechanically.

Re how can we test if luxia exists?

Well we already do that's the beauty of it, but to first test for something you have to assume it's existence then once you do things start happening, most of physics has a Lucia shaped hole that wouldn't exist unless there's a mechanical medium transmitting force.

Planck’s constant and the fine structure constant are treated as magic numbers — we derive them from the Luxia model based on field properties like density and tension.

Gravitational and quantum effects both emerge from pressure and torsion in this medium — not as separate forces, but as behaviors of the same underlying field.

So the model is testable — by checking if derived values match observed constants. So far, they do.

Luxia isn’t some speculative ether — it’s a compressible, testable model that rederives known constants and resolves contradictions between GR and QM. If deriving Planck’s constant and gravitational behavior from the same field mechanics isn’t evidence, what is?"

Yes, that would be a start but I don't think it's enough just to replicate known physics with this scheme. For the theory to be properly testable, there needs to be a prediction it makes of an observation that would not be expected from standard physics. Otherwise all you have is something like Bohmian mechanics, which does no more than replicate QM (at best) but with an added hypothesis, and thus gets knocked on the head by Ockham's Razor. (Pauli dismissed it as "an uncashable cheque".)

One might expect an aether theory like this to have some observable distinguishing features.

Edited August 7Aug 7 by exchemist

2 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

I'll take my universe mechanical and without all that shit and built on less abstract and more grounded physics than created all that.

Once again I never said anything about those possible effects you mention.

Anyway how about walking me through the mathematics of Cavendish experiment set against your continuous background of that enormous density ?

You say forces are transmitted.

So what does the force vector diagram look like ?

33 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes, that would be a start but I don't think it's enough just to replicate known physics with this scheme. For the theory to be properly testable, there needs to be a prediction it makes of an observation that would not be expected from standard physics. Otherwise all you have is something like Bohmian mechanics, which does no more than replicate QM (at best) but with an added hypothesis, and thus gets knocked on the head by Ockham's Razor. (Pauli dismissed it as "an uncashable cheque".)

One might expect an aether theory like this to have some observable distinguishing features.

Oh I do, but I don't think the world's ready for that yet they still can't grasp the fact that the standard model can't unify it's physics without mine, the standard model can't tie the micro to the macro without my physics, you still don't grasp it do you? Let me speak your language. You’re absolutely right that any model needs predictive power beyond parroting known physics. That’s where Luxia wipes the smug off the Standard Model.

Unlike Bohmian mechanics, which simply reinterprets QM with hidden variables, Luxia reconstructs gravity, quantization, time dilation, and electromagnetism from one mechanical substrate. Not added hypotheses — fewer. That’s Ockham’s Razor done right.

Let’s tally:

Standard physics needs two fundamentally incompatible frameworks (GR and QM), plus a dozen constants handed down from the heavens.

Luxia uses one mechanical field, from which constants like Planck’s constant, the fine structure constant, and gravitational acceleration are derived, not postulated.

If you’re going to wield Ockham’s Razor, maybe don’t point it at the guy cleaning up your mess with it.

Pauli called Bohm’s model an “uncashable cheque.” Sure. But Luxia Theory doesn’t just cash the cheque — it rewrites the whole damn banking system with field dynamics and hands you a breakdown of the budget for spacetime. More with less, all mechanical, we don't theorize a theory to explain a result we have the first principles which shows the why of every experimental result. I'll say it again give me something that can do half of that

4 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

Well this is a great question I'm gonna try and answer it in the best way I can just give me a little time and Ill give you the goods.

Solid" here refers not to a crystalline or rigid material phase, but to a mechanical background medium that resists compression and supports transverse and longitudinal wave propagation — like an idealized elastic continuum. Its 'temperature' is undefined in thermodynamic terms because it's not made of particles; it's a continuous field with no internal degrees of freedom — it doesn’t equilibrate, it transmits. So it's not 'solid' in the materials science sense, but in the mechanical sense: a structured, inertial backdrop that can be displaced and stressed, giving rise to observable forces."

Telling us what it isn’t is not particularly helpful. You’re proposing something new, and a new state of…something (not matter) so you need more than this.

4 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

How does luxia know? This is a real question. Just gimme a little time to answer I've had another good one and I just have to dive into my notes to make sure I use the correct and consistent terms of the mechanics involved. Edit actually I think this will do it

If you smack a trampoline with your hand (wave), it springs back. If you sit on it (mass), it holds the deformation. If you drag the trampoline frame (bulk motion), the whole thing moves — but Luxia has no frame to drag. There is no bulk motion, only relative stress. So Luxia distinguishes wave motion from bulk motion by the nature of the stress: waves are alternating and self-contained; bulk motion would require persistent net displacement, which the medium structurally resists. The interaction is encoded in the tension and pressure gradients — the mechanical stress-response of the field itself.

Yes, but if you smack a trampoline you generally don’t go through it. So that analogy fails.

2 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

You're absolutely right — adherence to definitions and testability are critical. Luxia isn’t just thrown out as a fantasy medium; it’s proposed as a mechanical reinterpretation of already measurable phenomena. We start not with speculation, but with anomalies and empirical patterns — like orbital drift, time dilation, and quantization thresholds — and reverse-engineer the medium that would produce them mechanically.

Re how can we test if luxia exists?

Well we already do that's the beauty of it, but to first test for something you have to assume it's existence then once you do things start happening, most of physics has a Lucia shaped hole that wouldn't exist unless there's a mechanical medium transmitting force.

Planck’s constant and the fine structure constant are treated as magic numbers — we derive them from the Luxia model based on field properties like density and tension.

Gravitational and quantum effects both emerge from pressure and torsion in this medium — not as separate forces, but as behaviors of the same underlying field.

So the model is testable — by checking if derived values match observed constants. So far, they do.

Luxia isn’t some speculative ether — it’s a compressible, testable model that rederives known constants and resolves contradictions between GR and QM. If deriving Planck’s constant and gravitational behavior from the same field mechanics isn’t evidence, what is?"

You haven’t provided much in the way of a mathematical model, and that is absolutely require. Just saying it’s been derived from known data isn’t very illuminating. And hand-waving gets old pretty fast.

11 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

Oh I do, but I don't think the world's ready for that yet they still can't grasp the fact that the standard model can't unify it's physics without mine, the standard model can't tie the micro to the macro without my physics, you still don't grasp it do you? Let me speak your language. You’re absolutely right that any model needs predictive power beyond parroting known physics. That’s where Luxia wipes the smug off the Standard Model.

Unlike Bohmian mechanics, which simply reinterprets QM with hidden variables, Luxia reconstructs gravity, quantization, time dilation, and electromagnetism from one mechanical substrate. Not added hypotheses — fewer. That’s Ockham’s Razor done right.

Let’s tally:

Standard physics needs two fundamentally incompatible frameworks (GR and QM), plus a dozen constants handed down from the heavens.

Luxia uses one mechanical field, from which constants like Planck’s constant, the fine structure constant, and gravitational acceleration are derived, not postulated.

If you’re going to wield Ockham’s Razor, maybe don’t point it at the guy cleaning up your mess with it.

Pauli called Bohm’s model an “uncashable cheque.” Sure. But Luxia Theory doesn’t just cash the cheque — it rewrites the whole damn banking system with field dynamics and hands you a breakdown of the budget for spacetime. More with less, all mechanical, we don't theorize a theory to explain a result we have the first principles which shows the why of every experimental result. I'll say it again give me something that can do half of that

This cocky, aggressive tone of yours is something of a red flag. Serious scientists don't speak like that when their ideas are subjected to scrutiny. Trying to push a scientific theory like a foot-in-the-door vacuum cleaner salesman is not going to work.

Neither the principle of Ockham's Razor, nor standard modern physics, are due to me personally. So let's cut out this crap about you cleaning up my mess.

If your theory is not just an uncashable cheque, let's see the cash, i.e. what predictions does it make that distinguish it from standard physics? So far, all I see is a lot of angry noise - and nothing.

Edited August 8Aug 8 by exchemist

18 hours ago, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

and even explain mechanically others theorys constants, like explaining why the speed of light is that speed

Ok, please explain why the speed of light is that speed and its invariance.

Also, please explain time dilation for a GPS satellite (kinematic and gravitational time dilation).

Edited August 8Aug 8 by DanMP
Adding the second question.

On 8/6/2025 at 10:33 AM, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

in this model conservation is not a postulate, it’s mechanical bookkeeping. The medium can’t create or destroy its own net motion or stored work — it can only redistribute it. That’s why energy and momentum conservation are absolute, not because of abstract symmetry, but because there’s nowhere for them to go.

But all you have done is restate the conservation of energy and momentum using different words. You have not actually explained why energy and momentum are conserved. You have stated that the medium can't create or destroy its own net motion or stored work but have not explained why it can't. I've said that purely physical explanations ultimately lead to the notion that the laws of physics are ad hoc as if provided from above, and you've said nothing to dispel that. The problem with that is that mathematical principles do have their consequences whether they are understood or not. To ignore the mathematics is a failure to understand the laws of physics. And it appears to me that you do not understand the role symmetry plays in the laws of physics. One example concerns the cosmological constant which is a contribution to the spacetime curvature that is not energy-momentum but behaves like dark energy. At every location in spacetime, the cosmological constant is not only constant over spacetime but also invariant to Lorentz transformations. Note that this is a mathematical symmetry of the cosmological constant. A consequence of this symmetry is that one cannot measure one's velocity relative to this cosmological constant field. Although it is a spacetime curvature with measurable properties associated with that curvature, it otherwise behaves like empty spacetime. It is worth noting that the only reason we can measure our velocity at all is that the things relative to which we measure our velocity break the Lorentz symmetry of the spacetime.

On 8/6/2025 at 10:33 AM, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

Standard physics: derives conservation laws from Noether’s theorem — “if the laws of physics don’t change in space, momentum is conserved; if they don’t change in time, energy is conserved.” It’s a symmetry assumption, not an explanation.

So what is it? You don't trust mathematics? Or you don't accept the symmetry of the laws of physics?

On 8/6/2025 at 8:30 PM, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

I’m not arguing against the math — I’m saying the math should come from the physicality, not be treated as the cause of it.

Well I'm not suggesting that physics can be derived purely from mathematics without any physics. It is through observing physical reality that provides the connection between the mathematical quantities and the corresponding physical quantities. But mathematics has to be taken as the cause of physics because it is mathematics that provides the underlying logic of physics. Physics itself has no logic. It should also be noted that mathematics does not derive from physics. Thus, if one mathematically derives a relationship between physical quantities, then that derivation is self-contained in that no other physical quantities not mentioned in the derivation are involved in the derived relationship. For example, the derivation of the relationship between time dilation and familiar gravity is based on geometry and provides the correct relationship, as determined by the Pound-Rebka experiment. There is no room for any other cause of familiar gravity.

On 8/6/2025 at 8:30 PM, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

Maths is just a language, and the universe is not made out of numbers anymore than it's made out of words.

Mathematical notation is the language, mathematics itself is an underlying logic that transcends physical reality. You don't know what the universe is made of. Nobody does. That's because we examine the universe from the inside and therefore can only determine the universe in terms of itself.

On 8/6/2025 at 8:30 PM, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

the map is not the territory

I come across this statement every now and then. And I reject it. Suppose one has a map that perfectly describes the territory. Then, for every thing that is in the territory, there is a corresponding thing in the map; and for every thing that is in the map, there is a corresponding thing in the territory. Thus, everything we want to know about the territory can be found out by examining the map.

On 8/6/2025 at 8:30 PM, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

medium

"Medium" is just a word. It means nothing without a description of its properties and behaviour. And only mathematics is precise enough to provide such a description. Thus, you need to be in the mathematical realm, anyway. Then the issue becomes how the mathematical description of the properties and behaviour is to be obtained.

1 hour ago, KJW said:

I come across this statement every now and then. And I reject it. Suppose one has a map that perfectly describes the territory. Then, for every thing that is in the territory, there is a corresponding thing in the map; and for every thing that is in the map, there is a corresponding thing in the territory. Thus, everything we want to know about the territory can be found out by examining the map.

When the map breaks down at some points cause the territory happened to be wrapped in a manner the map can't handle or the territory behaves in a manner the map can't explain...what we end up with is the best map of the territory,not the territory.

2 hours ago, KJW said:

I come across this statement every now and then. And I reject it.

How do you then interpret the first axiom of equivalence ?

@KJW +1 for everything except the map/territory part.
All maps I've ever seen have an 'edge'; no territory does.

On 8/11/2025 at 7:10 AM, MJ kihara said:

When the map breaks down at some points cause the territory happened to be wrapped in a manner the map can't handle or the territory behaves in a manner the map can't explain...what we end up with is the best map of the territory,not the territory.

It is understood that map vs territory is an analogy of mathematical model vs physical reality, and that saying "the map is not the territory" is analogous to saying that mathematical models of physics are not complete or accurate descriptions of physical reality. So this is not about literal maps and territories. Anyway, the assertion I'm making, based on the assumption that the laws of physics are not ad hoc, is that it is possible in principle to construct a perfect mathematical description of physical reality, that physical reality does not contain features that are indescribable. But note that "perfect" respects fundamental limitations imposed by physical reality itself.

However, I am considering a perfect description of physical reality as a hypothetical notion that is amenable to mathematical analysis in a way that is not available to physical reality itself. And because of the correspondence between physical reality and a perfect description of it, any results obtained from the mathematical analysis of the description will apply to physical reality once the correspondence has been realised.

On this basis, it can be said that the laws of physics correspond to the mathematical properties of descriptions. And because symmetry plays a huge role in the mathematical properties of descriptions, symmetry plays a huge role in the laws of physics.

On 8/11/2025 at 7:32 AM, studiot said:

How do you then interpret the first axiom of equivalence ?

Can you please elaborate. It's not clear to me what you are asking.

23 hours ago, MigL said:

@KJW +1 for everything except the map/territory part.
All maps I've ever seen have an 'edge'; no territory does.

Have you not seen a globe of the world?

Edited August 12Aug 12 by KJW

2 hours ago, KJW said:

It is understood that map vs territory is an analogy of mathematical model vs physical reality, and that saying "the map is not the territory" is analogous to saying that mathematical models of physics are not complete or accurate descriptions of physical reality.

Well understood.

3 hours ago, KJW said:

So this is not about literal maps and territories.

Neither did I mean that.

3 hours ago, KJW said:

And because of the correspondence between physical reality and a perfect description of it

3 hours ago, KJW said:

And because symmetry plays a huge role in the mathematical properties of descriptions, symmetry plays a huge role in the laws of physics.

Correspondence and symmetry arguments work best when the urge of cherry picking is contained.

Back to the first axiom of equivalency.

Explanation is overrated, at least in the usual sense in which most people dabbling in physics use the term. More often than not, when the dust has settled from all the explanatory attempts, new simplifying and unifying principles emerge that seem to carry little explanatory power, turn out to be considerably more abstract, but prove themselves in the end much more powerful when it comes to calculating, and thereby predicting with great precision a plethora of phenomena. Well-known examples are the principle of stationary action (or "least action") and the principles of symmetry that other members have mentioned. This is a fundamental tradeoff that today we suspect to be inescapable.

If you think about it, why would one want to "explain" GR or quantum mechanics in terms of mechanistic models, in the way of little gears and levers, fluids, etc, that act microscopically? Rather, one would expect that the deepest a theory is, the more far-removed from immediate intuition it is bound/likely to be. In other words: Why would Nature "model" its basic workings as simplified replicas of what the denizens of a little planet can picture in their immediate sensory perceptions?

Also, it is a symptom of someone who doesn't understand modern physics that they tend to disregard the power of symmetry principles. The successive reformulations of the gauge principle during the 20^th century from Weyl to Yang and Mills is a good cautionary tale in this regard.

Oh, and Newton and Einstein do not need unifying. Newton is the weak-field, low-speed limit of Einstein. as @KJW has pointed out.

Edited August 12Aug 12 by joigus
minor grammatical correction

On 8/6/2025 at 12:30 PM, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

The math doesn’t go away — but it’s no longer the top‑down lawgiver.

But it never was! Even that the 'laws of nature' are called 'laws', laws nature must obey, this is a wrong way of speaking: laws of nature are abstract descriptions of how nature behaves. One finds this metaphorical way of speaking also with scientists, but most (I hope) know this is just a matter of speaking.

On 8/6/2025 at 12:30 PM, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

It’s the shadow cast by the real machinery.

And if you describe this machinery, you do the same as describing how it works, just as the existing 'laws of nature'.

On 8/6/2025 at 12:30 PM, X - TheLuxiaGuy said:

Remember the map is not the territory and the equation is not reality

The 'laws of nature' are not a map. They are rules which a map must obey, to be a valid description of (part of) physical reality. The laws of nature, and the boundary conditions of the system you are interested in, determine the map. As a simple example: the exact prediction of when a sun eclipse starts is an example of such a map. We use Newtonian mechanics as 'the laws', and the boundary conditions are given by the positions and velocities of the moon earth and sun (and maybe tiny corrections because of other planets) to create this map.

9 hours ago, KJW said:

Have you not seen a globe of the world?

If I replied again to this thread I was going to point this example out to MigL.

But you beat me to it.

9 hours ago, KJW said:

Can you please elaborate. It's not clear to me what you are asking.

I take the statement "the map is not the territory" as allegorical.

That is it is a metaphorical depiction of a deeper meaning.

And I think, as obviously a lot of people do, that it is a good one.

Mathematically there are two considerations.

Firstly the strict definition of a map as a formal description of a relation between two sets leads to the first law of equivalence

An equivalence reation is reflexive.

In other words the map is identical to the territory because it is the territory.

In all other circumstances the relation map only offers identity for some aspect or aspects, but not all of them.

Which leads us the applied world where we constantly use models which only correspond for some desired aspect or aspects to the phrase

The map is not the territory.

You would not expect to fly to Berlin in the model that was used in the wind tunnel for the airliner.