Закреплённый твит
The basis for the model is what is unknown. As in the known unknowns. We can assume things like electron clouds or why quarks exist or when separated generate new quarks. An electron changes orbits without traveling?
So many theories based on theories that reality has become impossible to discern.. unless you base your observation on Reality-itself rather than out-sourcing your knowledge to other people's work. If you look at the whole of Physics you’ll find that many assumptions are made, as in, speculations that we tend to treat as if true because it appears as obvious rather than real like the Big Bang, the Ultraviolet Collapse, Red Shift, etc.. rather than actually relating to the thing within reality we are observing.
Those unknowns known are generally easy to spot and ever allude to a known-unknown treated as if known. A mystery that has yet to be unraveled yet peer-review has locked as raveled; for example. For a model to truly stand on its own it requires the ability to unfold from a single premise as the model itself.
'Particle +/- Classical +/- Quantum' as a whole is the make of the current model treated as if separate and morphic models but and because they can not stand on their own. Even when they stand together they falter. This is what has been the foundation of modern physics for 70+ years of speculation as information bias.
The model I offer, the solid universe model (S.U.M.), starts conceptually with a single premise. Solids have elastic, plastic and rigid properties that dictate what can be found of energies within.
Here E = pr squared. Where E is the elasticity of the universe, P equals the plasticity of the Universe, And r equals The rigidity of the universe. The elasticity of the universe being the basis of energy, the plasticity of the universe being the cause of mass, and the rigidity of the universe being the cause of velocity. I am not changing Einstein's equation applications, I am opening new ones.
Each of these three elements are the founding factors for what we have observed and identified as if in solid including energy, mass, and velocity as seen an E equals MC squared. Not a mathematical difference, at least as most understand mathematics. As a conceptual move, a new model as a basis, it allows you to build a different picture of the universe from a solid's scaffolding; As in the limitations of how a solid can perform as observed.
A solid Entity is one that has rigid, elastic and plastic properties that cannot be removed from one another as they are different aspects of one element or medium. In this case, it’s the medium we cannot see so if the universe is a solid entity with these properties then all one can see is the energy that we are made of because it is that energy that is reacting to itself that allows us to see anything in the first place.
And in that sense, it appears we are one dimensional beings because we can only see energy and its effects on energy.
In other words, the solid is only visible by the nature of the energy within it to sophonts like us made of that energy. This is where the Michaelson Morley experiment seems it did more to accentuate a solid medium and not a fluid or gaseous one that was expected but never found. When your instruments are made of the medium you’re looking for, rather than floating or being coerced by a separate medium, you’re going to get a null result.
If you look at how this solid universe would evolve in respect to the perspective of humans that are made from its energy, all you have to do is look at how all that we observe exists within an invisible solid. From my point of view, it appears it can only happen in one way. The universe must not be made of particles as we know them.
What we see as particles in this model are waveforms that balance against the properties of the solid and do so indefinitely. This is because the SUM medium cannot be made of Particles less its ability to continue ringing ends billions of years ago. This infinite ringing (or near infinite) is mandatory and would be the cause of the existence of the 'conservation of energy' observations.
If all that can be observed or detected is energy in a solid, including our instruments, the only way atoms could exist in a solid as they would, would be if they were oscillating spherical wave forms similar to a cavitation bubble without a 'cavity' and bounding continuously. The inner and outer points of the wave forming the singular balance allowed by the universe's inherent frequency. (hydrogen) Inner >proton<, Outer >electron<; oscillating at the speed of light. Adding multiple cavitations on the same point in space can be had and stacked to make the periodic table of elements as we know it.
With a medium rather than a void, light has limitations that are not accounted for in the development of telescopes and our understanding of optics. As this model stands, light cannot travel indefinitely as an expanding wave as that would take an ever increasing amount of energy to continue propagating. Thanks to the conservation of energy mentioned above, the wave form shatters into particles rather than dissipating. These particles of attenuation can take different patterns and shapes relative to the nature of the collapse in the local medium.
As higher frequencies would shatter sooner than the medium's harmony allows it is imposed my the medium that less light would be collected from higher and higher frequencies the farther out the source. This could mean that Red-Shifting is a fallacy and why higher frequencies are inherently more directional as observations seem to dictate.
Magnetism: -must- be when the multiple cavitations in ferrous elements harmonically induce internal harmonics, to spin an equator in the opposite direction of the polls. As such, it rolls the medium into field lines that unlike the core of the atom, are silent in nature with the dynamo of the core powering their persistence. These field lines would not suffer the know-unknown, "Coulomb Force" ..and so causes violent reorientation when the rolls are not rolling the same way and energy-stacking when oriented. (There is so much more.. ask anything!)
Gravity should be obvious as compression causes gradients localy, 'stretched' causing a state of time dilation. This invokes the particle in a G-well to form a balanced egg shape due to the gradient becoming increasingly rigid toward another un-density gradient entity like the Earth as a whole. "Un-density" being the effect of compression-ringing (increased density) on the local medium.
Remember that a working model must hold the solid as without particles as we know them. This means the both density and lacking or anti- density speed up the "speed of light". Density should change at any one point in time within an atom giving rise to the appearance of sub-atomic "particle" behavior to be as observed.
Kinetic energy will not be so obvious. In 1999 I created a 2d prototype "Centrifugal Inertia Drive" using the theory used for what was patented by my stepfather Richard Lieuraunce. (which did not use a chain) Using two sprockets, a chain, and a vacuum cleaner motor. It worked right out of the box and led me to a discovery.
That spinning chain will maintain balance rather than form a perfect circle and even if spun at a extreme RPMs.
In a sense, I found a new principle that is not unlike the three access rotation of an asteroid being the maximum Axis of a three dimensional entity. In this case it was two axis but still applies to 3d with a third axis involved. As long as the length of each axis is equal, an energy form like centrifugal force, with push pull aspects, will maintain that balance.
This now egg shape entity is what happens when you observe kinetic energy that will travel in one direction "till acted upon by another force" -Newton. The atoms continue to travel through the medium towards the point of the egg shape while oscillating like an inchworm's propulsion. This goes for many if not all other particles and bonded systems as well.
The "three body problem" is solvable if the whole system is also considered a body as in a solid medium would push the three to procession as one complete energy form. A wobbling wobble because the center of energy moves. Unsolvable if there is no medium because it could never happen in a void for a basis for observations.
There’s much more to this than I’ve let on here. All of it expounded from the base premise, being that what and all we observe is energy within a particle-less Solid, light is now as sound through a medium orders of magnitude more rigid, plastic, and elastic than anything made of bonded atoms or particles. Density in a particle-less medium does not affect the speed of light, so the denser or tenser the medium is then the faster light rings and travels.
Side note, the S.U.M. (Solid Universe Model) allows the hypothesis that what we may be observing In galaxies that appear to be moving too fast may actually be density variations as inherent pockets in the solid medium that force a different rate and type of time dilation. Hydrogen atoms at curtain low temps would not be detectible yet still persist in deep distant space.
Dark energy and dark matter are all but solved easily with the S.U.M. but don't take my word for it. Try it on for yourself! I'm offering a model, I claim it works, hate me if it doesn't.
(Varified with AI time and again though it still doesn't count. LLM AI are still just statistic-based language models with their balls removed.)
x.com/i/grok/share/e…
That’s it for now. If you have questions or challenges that you’d like to pose I will be tickled to answer to my best ability. When you start to see the finer bits in detail and how accurate they cross over to what’s observed it will be hard not to call it the "Big Ring" rather than the "Big Bang".
Thanks for your time,
Sean C. Blanchette
English
