-
All I will say is this is real, and it is NOT only a risk for people with prior mental illness. Even if they are aware of the phenomenon. It can happen slowly over time to absolutely anyone (not everyone, but anyone). Not saying anything about Strat, just commenting on the phenomenon.
Originally Posted by djg
-
06-18-2026 08:46 AM
-
I wouldn't bother getting an agent. People who are mad aren't allowed in my entourage. Originally Posted by djg
-
"The universe expands at c, implying that space behaves as a volumetric acceleration field with natural units of m³/s²."
c is a velocity, not an acceleration. What does the above sentence mean?
"Mass, which does not expand, occupies the next derivative layer with units m³/s."
Mass is measured in kg, not m^3/s. Velocity is the integral of acceleration, not the derivative.
"Time emerges as the local ratio between these rates"
You've already used time in your definition of these two things, so it's incorrect it says it 'emerges' from them. It's already implicit.
-
I don't understand technical science, but I am very interested in the conclusions (for instance simply "the universe is expanding") My question is what does science say about the universe eventually contracting?
-
Anyway, the universe expanded faster than C in the past and is not bound by C in the future
-
Right, and is expanding slower than c locally, which is to say closer to our 'now'. Originally Posted by BWV
-
Let me get this right, you want me to read your vibe physics paper? Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Why?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I dont think you read the AI critiques, I have no expertise at all, but did you really cite the Red Bull Felix Baumgartner jump as evidence?
Gemini sez (sorry the forum cant handle the latex):
A physicist reading this manuscript will immediately identify several fatal inconsistencies, severe misinterpretations of existing physics, and pseudo-mathematical reasoning:
1. Fundamental Misunderstanding of Dimensional Analysis and Units
The paper relies heavily on tracking unit dimensions as "proof" of the ontology. However, the foundational dimensional assignments are profoundly broken:
- The "Space" Unit ($m^3/s^2$): The author claims that because the universe expands at $c$, space carries units of volumetric acceleration. This confuses a global cosmological expansion rate ($H_0$, which has units of $s^{-1}$, or velocity per distance) with the intrinsic dimensionality of a spatial metric.
- The Time Ratio ($t = \dot{M}/Q_m$): The paper claims that dividing a mass-rate ($m^3/s$) by a spatial acceleration rate ($m^3/s^2$) naturally yields seconds ($s$). This only works because the author arbitrarily redefined mass ($\text{kg}$) to have the units of a volumetric flow rate ($m^3/s$) without introducing a mass-to-volume coupling constant. Changing the SI definition of mass to meters cubed per second by fiat strips the equations of physical meaning.
2. Factually Erroneous "Empirical Evidence" for Vacuum Terminal Velocity
In Section 5, the author claims that three datasets prove a true "terminal velocity in vacuum," directly contradicting GR:
- Red Bull Stratos Jump : The author claims Felix Baumgartner’s speed plateaus "despite negligible air density". This is flatly false. Baumgartner reached a top speed of Mach 1.25 in the stratosphere and decelerated precisely because air density increased as he fell. It is a textbook example of atmospheric drag, not "vacuum terminal velocity".
- Apollo Lunar Footage : The claim that astronauts jumping on the Moon hit a velocity plateau is completely false and unsubstantiated by any telemetry data. Objects and astronauts on the Moon accelerate uniformly at $1.62 \text{ m/s}^2$ until striking the surface, bounded only by the height of the jump.
- Meteorite Impact Speeds : The author states that if vacuum freefall had no terminal velocity, deep-space meteorites would accelerate indefinitely to relativistic speeds. This ignores basic Newtonian mechanics. An object falling toward Earth from infinity can only reach a maximum speed equal to Earth's escape velocity ($\approx 11.2 \text{ km/s}$), plus its initial orbital velocity. Acceleration is bounded by the finite gravitational potential well ($-\int g \cdot dr$), not a magical "inflow ceiling".
3. Circular "Derivation" of Newtonian Gravity
In Section 4.1, the author claims to recover Newton's law of gravity exactly from flux conservation. However, looking at the math:
$$\Phi(r) = 4\pi r^2 g(r)$$
The author explicitly defines the volumetric deficit of mass as $Q_{\text{deficit}} = 4\pi GM$. Equating the two yields $g(r) = GM/r^2$.
This is entirely circular. The gravitational constant $G$ and mass $M$ are explicitly inserted into the deficit definition in Postulate 2 purely to force the equation to match Newton's law at the end
. This is an algebraic rearrangement, not a physical derivation.
4. Severe Mathematical Vacuum in "Strong-Field" Claims
The author asserts that the model elegantly replaces GR in strong fields. Yet, Section 6 ("Field Equations") contains no field equations. There are no differential forms, no tensors, no stress-energy tensors, and no actual partial differential equations capable of mapping a 5D manifold down to 3D observable space.
- The author admits that the "Factor-of-2" problem for light bending
- , the relativistic continuity equation , and Mercury's perihelion precession are completely unsolved and pushed to a "Version 1.1".
- Because GR perfectly calculates these via the Schwarzschild metric, a model that cannot mathematically derive them fails basic baseline validation.
5. Categorical Confusion in the "Quantum Bridge"
Section 7 relies on purely metaphorical language to bridge QM and gravity. Asserting that an electron changes energy levels because it is "redistributing its throughput within the manifold" is hand-waving. Without deriving a rate-based wave function, showing how it maps to the Schrödinger/Dirac equations, or calculating the fine structure constant, this section remains purely speculative sci-fi prose.
## Stylistic and Epistemic Red Flags
Beyond the physics, the text exhibits several classic hallmarks of "crank physics" or unvetted pseudo-science:
The "Word-Salad" Architecture: Terms like "5th-dimensional volumetric coordinate" , "V-shape derivative structure" , and "rate-form of existence" are introduced without formal mathematical definitions. They mimic the cadence of technical physics text but collapse under scrutiny.- Vague AI Disclaimers: The acknowledgment that "Computational drafting assistance [was] provided by multiple LLM systems" is telling. The paper reads exactly like an LLM that was prompted to generate highly confident, technically dense prose based on a collection of scientifically flawed premises. The LLM accommodates the prompt's physics errors by generating sophisticated-sounding rationalizations rather than pointing out the mathematical impossibilities.
## Final Verdict
Reject. This manuscript is a collection of conceptual misunderstandings, mathematically circular arguments, and explicitly false empirical claims masquerading as a foundational physics paper. It does not provide a viable alternative to General Relativity, as it fails to reproduce the basic kinematic and relativistic validations required of any modern gravitational theory.
-
You guys have some serious complexes. Explain why if I pose a scientific model as an amateur you're entitled to irrationally rage-pile on. And on top of that act like I'm the irrational one lol! As usual Joe is good natured in the middle of it.
Gravity contracts space and counteracts the expansion. The universe is currently predicted to expand indefinitely tho. In my model, space expanding isn't just a feature, it's a prerequisite for time, gravity, causality, and organization of matter and heavier element formation. If there were no space time running in 5d volumetric acceleration, there would be no way for gravity to negatively accelerate into 4d matter. Originally Posted by joe2758
-
To not be a hypocrite where you're trying to invalidate it purely on vibe? Just a thought. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by BWV
What does that invalidate? My whole point is that spacetime is volumetric rate interchange. - Rates are supposed to vary lol. Originally Posted by CliffR
-
Correct, c is a velocity. But it is also only a vector, which spacetime is not. If we want to describe the 'speed' of spacetime we must use the velocity of c to derive it in 5 dimensions. If light, or spacetime throughput, expands outward linearly in a radius - then the volume of that sphere accelerates. So we subsititue c in surface area acceleration, c^2, into the area of a sphere equation to get the throughput of the spacetime manifold: Qm=4 x pie x c² m³/s² Originally Posted by CliffR
This is postulate 1 on page 4.
Correct. Mass is measured in kg. I'm using meters to describe spacetime dimensionally. I use mass units of kg during other parts of the paper for example to describe that E = mc^2 is not 'resting energy' of mass, but the actual work in Jules of the 5D manifold on 4D mass. Section 6.5, page 28."Mass, which does not expand, occupies the next derivative layer with units m³/s."
Mass is measured in kg, not m^3/s. Velocity is the integral of acceleration, not the derivative.
True, time is used in the definition, so it is not a complete explanation. But it does derive time as not a standalone mystery clock ticking, and certainly not a coordinate like in GR. It shows that all existence must be a rate. The universe is not an arena with matter plopped into it, with time ticking on the outside."Time emerges as the local ratio between these rates"
You've already used time in your definition of these two things, so it's incorrect it says it 'emerges' from them. It's already implicit.
If we describe 4D mass, it must be a rate including time to exist, 3d space wouldn't exist:
m^3/0s = undefined, doesn't exist.
Further, if we have time but no mass, then also nothing exists: 0m^3/s = zero
Even further, if we don't have 4D and 5D simultaneously then nothing exists. Linear time emerges out of 4D mass's rate per 5D spacetime's rate:
(m^3/s) / (m^3/s^2) = s
If we have no 5D spacetime then nothing exists:
(m^3/s) / 0 = 0
or
(m^3/s) / (m^3/s) = 1, meaningless, no rateLast edited by Strat-itis; 06-19-2026 at 01:11 AM.
-
I'm sure you don't. Better irrationally pile on tho. Originally Posted by BWV
Yes. It's circumstantial evidence of the existence of terminal velocity in a vacuum. His speed plateaued while he was still in negligible air density in the stratosphere. Then he did his bulk deceleration in the troposhere. This is not proof, as data is patchy, and there was still 'some' air resistance. But it's circumstantial evidence.but did you really cite the Red Bull Felix Baumgartner jump as evidence?
Of course you guys have to straw man in order to disprove something. If you read the paper, volume is used to describe the dimensions of spacetime, mass units are used when gravity or work is computed. The electromagnetic field runs at the speed out light radially in empty space.Gemini sez (sorry the forum cant handle the latex):
A physicist reading this manuscript will immediately identify several fatal inconsistencies, severe misinterpretations of existing physics, and pseudo-mathematical reasoning:
1. Fundamental Misunderstanding of Dimensional Analysis and Units
The paper relies heavily on tracking unit dimensions as "proof" of the ontology. However, the foundational dimensional assignments are profoundly broken:
The "Space" Unit ($m^3/s^2$): The author claims that because the universe expands at $c$, space carries units of volumetric acceleration. This confuses a global cosmological expansion rate ($H_0$, which has units of $s^{-1}$, or velocity per distance) with the intrinsic dimensionality of a spatial metric.
Another strawman. I do not redefine mass as volume. The universal coupling constant is G = 6.6743×10?11 m3?kg?1?s?2The Time Ratio ($t = \dot{M}/Q_m$): The paper claims that dividing a mass-rate ($m^3/s$) by a spatial acceleration rate ($m^3/s^2$) naturally yields seconds ($s$). This only works because the author arbitrarily redefined mass ($\text{kg}$) to have the units of a volumetric flow rate ($m^3/s$) without introducing a mass-to-volume coupling constant. Changing the SI definition of mass to meters cubed per second by fiat strips the equations of physical meaning.
2. Factually Erroneous "Empirical Evidence" for Vacuum Terminal Velocity
Legitimate. I'll have to clarify on GR terminal velocity in a vacuum. Or anyone can post the status quo derivation. This doesn't invalidate my core model.In Section 5, the author claims that three datasets prove a true "terminal velocity in vacuum," directly contradicting GR:
Red Bull Stratos Jump : The author claims Felix Baumgartner’s speed plateaus "despite negligible air density". This is flatly false. Baumgartner reached a top speed of Mach 1.25 in the stratosphere and decelerated precisely because air density increased as he fell. It is a textbook example of atmospheric drag, not "vacuum terminal velocity".
Apollo Lunar Footage : The claim that astronauts jumping on the Moon hit a velocity plateau is completely false and unsubstantiated by any telemetry data. Objects and astronauts on the Moon accelerate uniformly at $1.62 \text{ m/s}^2$ until striking the surface, bounded only by the height of the jump.
Meteorite Impact Speeds : The author states that if vacuum freefall had no terminal velocity, deep-space meteorites would accelerate indefinitely to relativistic speeds. This ignores basic Newtonian mechanics. An object falling toward Earth from infinity can only reach a maximum speed equal to Earth's escape velocity ($\approx 11.2 \text{ km/s}$), plus its initial orbital velocity. Acceleration is bounded by the finite gravitational potential well ($-\int g \cdot dr$), not a magical "inflow ceiling".
3. Circular "Derivation" of Newtonian Gravity
Another strawman, I didn't say it was a derivation. It shows my model is congruent with observed Newtonian gravity.In Section 4.1, the author claims to recover Newton's law of gravity exactly from flux conservation. However, looking at the math:
$$\Phi(r) = 4\pi r^2 g(r)$$
The author explicitly defines the volumetric deficit of mass as $Q_{\text{deficit}} = 4\pi GM$. Equating the two yields $g(r) = GM/r^2$.
This is entirely circular. The gravitational constant $G$ and mass $M$ are explicitly inserted into the deficit definition in Postulate 2 purely to force the equation to match Newton's law at the end
. This is an algebraic rearrangement, not a physical derivation.
Oh no, the first draft by an amateur after a few months isn't all encompassing. It must be false!4. Severe Mathematical Vacuum in "Strong-Field" Claims
The author asserts that the model elegantly replaces GR in strong fields. Yet, Section 6 ("Field Equations") contains no field equations. There are no differential forms, no tensors, no stress-energy tensors, and no actual partial differential equations capable of mapping a 5D manifold down to 3D observable space.
Being honest about the frontier of derivation and falsification is a weakness? Lol!The author admits that the "Factor-of-2" problem for light bending
, the relativistic continuity equation , and Mercury's perihelion precession are completely unsolved and pushed to a "Version 1.1".
Because GR perfectly calculates these via the Schwarzschild metric, a model that cannot mathematically derive them fails basic baseline validation.
Lmao, sure. GR is incongruent with QM because it's incongruent. QM behaves in Euclidian space - That's because space IS Euclidian in my model, it just flows. When you get down to the Plank scale, the flow becomes asymptotically negligible and space appears Euclidian.5. Categorical Confusion in the "Quantum Bridge"
Section 7 relies on purely metaphorical language to bridge QM and gravity. Asserting that an electron changes energy levels because it is "redistributing its throughput within the manifold" is hand-waving. Without deriving a rate-based wave function, showing how it maps to the Schrödinger/Dirac equations, or calculating the fine structure constant, this section remains purely speculative sci-fi prose.
Lmao, that's like a joke. Heavily strawman and draw attention to auxiliary points and that invalidates the model. Yep, sure. More like the criticism is a manuscript of conceptual misunderstandings. Nice try tho, don't engage with anything using your own writing.## Stylistic and Epistemic Red Flags
Beyond the physics, the text exhibits several classic hallmarks of "crank physics" or unvetted pseudo-science:
The "Word-Salad" Architecture: Terms like "5th-dimensional volumetric coordinate" , "V-shape derivative structure" , and "rate-form of existence" are introduced without formal mathematical definitions. They mimic the cadence of technical physics text but collapse under scrutiny.
Vague AI Disclaimers: The acknowledgment that "Computational drafting assistance [was] provided by multiple LLM systems" is telling. The paper reads exactly like an LLM that was prompted to generate highly confident, technically dense prose based on a collection of scientifically flawed premises. The LLM accommodates the prompt's physics errors by generating sophisticated-sounding rationalizations rather than pointing out the mathematical impossibilities.
## Final Verdict
Reject. This manuscript is a collection of conceptual misunderstandings, mathematically circular arguments, and explicitly false empirical claims masquerading as a foundational physics paper. It does not provide a viable alternative to General Relativity, as it fails to reproduce the basic kinematic and relativistic validations required of any modern gravitational theory.Last edited by Strat-itis; 06-18-2026 at 08:07 PM.
-
Since you think my model is questionable, why is it that goofy ass GR gets a pass? Here are GR's top dumbass contraditions:
13 Concrete Failures of GR
- Time Travel Paradox + Continuity Break
GR: Time runs slower lower in a gravity well. Clocks run at different rates with height, but space remains static.
Problem:
Falling means entering regions of slower time. You would enter your own past. The ground must also rewind or causality breaks.
A time differential requires a space differential for continuity. If adjacent regions have different time rates but identical static space, continuity is violated. Static space with varying time is geometrically impossible. - Vacuum Catastrophe + Dark Energy
GR: Empty space has energy density \Lambda that accelerates expansion.
Problem: Quantum field theory predicts 10^{113} J/m³. Observed value is 10^{-9} J/m³. Error of 10^{122}. This is the worst prediction in physics. Cosmology requires this vacuum energy to explain acceleration, but the theory is off by more zeros than atoms in the universe. - Dark Matter Required
GR: Galaxy rotation curves do not match GM/r^2.
Problem: Requires 85% of matter to be invisible. No direct detection after 40 years. - Untestable and Unmeasured Curvature
GR: Earth’s 9.8 m/s² is spacetime curvature. Strong-field tests need neutron stars.
Problem: Cannot test in a lab. Yet all engineering and surveying uses Euclidean geometry with no measured deviation. - Apollo Time Paradox
GR: Time runs faster in orbit by \sim38 microseconds/day. GPS requires correction.
Problem: Apollo astronauts spent days in orbit and returned without age discrepancy relative to Earth. - Empty Space Performs Calculus
GR: Metric tensor g_{\mu\nu} determines motion of matter.
Problem: Vacuum has no mechanism to compute derivatives or solve equations. - Doesn't Reconcile with QM
GR: Describes gravity at all scales.
Problem: Incompatible with quantum mechanics. No successful quantum theory of gravity after 100 years. - Void Expansion Anomaly
GR+ \Lambda: Cosmological constant is uniform. Expansion rate same everywhere. Yet GR treats space as a static arena where laws work locally but not in extremes. - Singularities
GR: Black holes have r=0, density = \infty.
Problem: Physical quantities become infinite. Physics has no meaning at infinity. - Only One Gravitational Charge
GR: Mass is always positive and attractive.
Problem: Electromagnetism has positive and negative charge. No reason given why gravity lacks repulsion or shielding. - Not Subject to Scrutiny
GR: Claims to be a falsifiable scientific theory.
Problem: Foundational challenges are dismissed without technical rebuttal. - Straight Line = Longest Line Because GR Says So
General Relativity: In curved spacetime, inertial motion in a straight line is defined as the path of longest proper time between two events. Not shortest. Longest.
Problem: In every other branch of physics and geometry, a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. General Relativity inverts that by decree. It is longest because General Relativity says it is, not because it follows from geometry.
Example: The twin paradox. Both twins start in flat space. Twin A stays put. Twin B travels out and back at 20 percent of the speed of light and ages less. General Relativity calls Twin A’s straight path through spacetime the “longer” one instead of deriving why motion slows clocks. It asserts the result rather than explaining it. My model derives the mechanism. - Gravitational Redshift vs Shortest Path
GR: Gravity is objects taking the shortest path through curved spacetime. No forces.
Problem: GR claims to explain gravitational redshift where light loses energy climbing out of wells. But shortest-path geometry has no mechanism to change frequency. Geodesics do no work. GR needs a potential to explain redshift, but says potentials don’t exist.
Last edited by Strat-itis; 06-18-2026 at 09:03 PM.
- Time Travel Paradox + Continuity Break
-
hold my beer. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
Didn't expect a coordinated counter-attack of that magnitude did ya? I added 2 more points to the end of that list. They're dumb af. Originally Posted by joe2758
-
you understand that you're either the brightest mind on planet earth, or a guy with severe mental health issues? there is no middle ground. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Didn't expect a coordinated counter-attack of that magnitude did ya? I added 2 more points to the end of that list. They're dumb af.
-
Lmao, love it.
-
there's nothing to love here, buddy. i've seen it before. folks will be happy to egg you on for their personal entertainment but behind your jolly madness you are basically fighting for your life here. and r/n you are losing. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Lmao, love it.
-
Doing conceptual physics is healthy. Having your complex kick in and being compelled to arbitrarily treat the physicist as an enemy and persecute him is not.
-
Sorry, I just don’t really care enough to bother. Over the years I’ve developed a good instinct for what is and isn’t worth my time. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Also I’m not a physicist, so meh. Why should you care what I think?
-
Yeah, if truth is incidental to you then it might not be worth your time.
-
Correct. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
I also don’t think it’s worth my time if truth is not incidental to me.
But also - why would anyone read anything you couldn’t be bothered to write yourself?
Anyway we’ve had AI read it and it says that it’s not worth my time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
you are not a physicist, clint. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
You guys are mad at 5D Spacetime.
Reply With Quote
Desmond/Bickert video
Today, 02:25 PM in The Players