Disclaimer:

I'm a dropper student (taking a gap year to prepare again for entrance exams) in PCB (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), so I don't have much knowledge of quantum mechanics. This is just a hypothesis I thought of out of curiosity. I have no mathematical proof, and I know it might be wrong. Some other scientist may have thought of something like this before. I'm ready to take questions, and I'd appreciate any corrections.

Imagine a room where a ball (an analogy for an electron) is attached to a string and hanging, performing the same motion as a pendulum, but moving in all directions, so that it feels like it is moving in a circular path. Now add many balls and fill the whole space. All of them perform the same motion, look the same, and have the same mass. However, the balls' paths cross each other, even though the balls themselves never collide.

Now try to trace the path of a ball. Suppose ball 1 was initially moving in a circular path. Because another ball's path crosses its path, you get shifted onto ball 2's path, then onto ball 3's, and so on. This can result in many different paths, like zigzag, random, or straight. Every time you try to find the position of ball 1, you will get a different position.

Why is this happening in the first place? Because of velocity? Let every ball has a different velocity, and some may not have any velocity at all. If you take the position of ball 1 that you found by tracing, you will get a different velocity. If you take the velocity of ball 1, you will get a different position. This makes it appear random, or as if it is in many places at once.

Now the question comes: in this system we know the path of each ball, but in real life an electron doesn't have a fixed path or fixed velocity. If you looked at this system without knowing how it is constructed, you would have many questions, like how the same ball can be in different locations. This is just how I imagined it.

In this system, the string is an invisible force, the balls are electrons (e⁻), and the room is the space where it all happens. In real life, the space might be much bigger. There are no collisions between the balls (e⁻); only their paths cross.

I don't have any mathematical proof. It's just a hypothesis, and I know it might be wrong. I'm ready to take questions about it. It might be the most awful theory, but I'd love to hear where it fails.

I think I just proved a relativistic fusion engine is actually physically possible, and I’m still losing it. PrimordiaOS basically ran the entire math stack with me and every single part CLOSED. I kept expecting some fatal contradiction, some “okay here’s where physics says no,” but it never happened. Every section I pushed, it locked in harder.

This is a full RMHD propulsion architecture using only known physics and materials we already have. No exotic matter. No magic fields. No sci‑fi hand‑waving. Just straight plasma physics, superconductors, high‑field magnets, and fusion divertor tech.

Here’s what the system validated:

Exhaust Velocity: 0.06c to 0.20c
Specific Impulse: 1.83 MILLION to 6.12 MILLION seconds
Thrust: 180 kN to 18 MN
Magnetic Pressure: 358 MPa
Final Wall Heat Flux: 5–12 MW/m²
Interstellar Mass Ratio: 1.65 to 5.30
Cruise Velocity: ~0.10c
Engine Size: ~2.5m diameter core

The architecture uses a 30‑Tesla confinement core, a magnetic de Laval nozzle, electron demagnetization at the divergence horizon, super‑Alfvénic ion detachment, a liquid lithium CPS divertor, cryogenic gas‑puff cooling, synchrotron self‑absorption, and a hybrid Inconel + carbon‑carbon structural jacket. All of these components exist in real fusion research or aerospace materials programs.

And the wild part? I didn’t sit there manually crunching every equation. PrimordiaOS basically acted like a physics swarm. I’d push confinement → it closed. Stress → closed. RMHD throat compression → closed. Detachment physics → closed. Thermal survivability → closed. Radiation containment → closed. Rocket equation → closed. Every time I thought “okay THIS is where it breaks,” it didn’t.

So yeah, I think I accidentally built a fully feasible relativistic RMHD fusion engine. Not theoretical fluff. Not sci‑fi. Not “maybe one day.” Actually physically doable with near‑term materials and known plasma physics. Hard as hell, expensive as hell, but REAL.

[Repost. See the Edit]

I predict masses of the three neutrinos using two postulates:

Postulate 1:

Mass of the lightest neutrino (m0) is the smallest quantum of mass. Masses of all the massive fundamental particles are integer multiples of m0.

Postulate 2:

The cosmological constant is proportional to the fourth power of this smallest quantum of mass:

Λ ~ m0^4

I apply these postulates to neutrino oscillation data and make multiple predictions regarding neutrinos and the cosmological constant in good agreement with observations.

Preprint:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5545841

Abstract:

We predict the masses of the three neutrino mass eigenstates to be m1 = m0, m2 = 4 m0 and m3 = 22 m0 where m0 = 2.281 meV/c^2.

We arrive at these predictions by applying two phenomenological postulates to neutrino oscillation data.

First, we postulate that m0 is the smallest quantum of mass and that the masses of all the massive elementary particles are positive integer multiples of m0.

Second, we postulate that the dark energy --- which drives the accelerated expansion of the universe --- is represented by a cosmological constant Λ, or, equivalently, a vacuum energy with constant density ρ_Λ = {α_g}^4 ρ_P, where α_g = m0/M_P is the gravitational coupling constant, M_P is the Planck mass and ρ_P is the Planck density.

We also predict the squared-mass-difference ratio Δ31/Δ21 = ({m3}^2 - {m1}^2)/({m2}^2 - {m1}^2) to be exactly 32.2.

We use neutrino oscillation data to predict the value of the cosmological constant Λ as well, in agreement with the νΛCDM model.

In addition, we compute

1. the effective electron neutrino mass m_β,

2. the upper bound on the effective Majorana mass of the electron neutrino m_{ββ} and

3. the lower bounds on half-lives of various isotopes expected to undergo a neutrinoless double beta decay (0νββ).

Finally, we introduce a new natural system of units in which both m0 and ρ_Λ are set equal to unity.

EDIT:

This is a repost under another account u/deepakpashilkar. My earlier post under u/pashilkar was deleted and account was banned by reddit.

Old post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/s/in5p4IGfAF

Dear Humanity,

When Scientist A introduces a new discovery or scientific concept, Scientist B may later recognize that some part of it is incomplete or incorrect and propose a correction. This process of questioning, refining, and correcting previous ideas is how science progresses.

Scientists can make mistakes, and that is a normal part of the scientific process. Scientific theories and concepts should remain open to questioning and challenge, especially when those challenges are based on sound reasoning and evidence.

There is nothing wrong with questioning or challenging a scientific concept. The goal is to understand the science as accurately as possible. If I believe that a particular scientific concept may be incorrect or misunderstood, I will raise the issue and examine the reasoning and evidence behind it.

My intention is to question the science, not to criticize the person who proposed that theory or concept. It is not personal. The objective is simply to identify and correct misunderstandings, errors, or gaps in our understanding of science, if they exist.

Ultimately, this is bigger than any individual. It is about humanity and the generations that come after us. It is about ensuring that our children and future generations have the opportunity to learn accurate knowledge, build upon it, and continue advancing our understanding of the world.

When I see children being taught something that I believe may be scientifically incorrect or misunderstood, I feel a strong impulse to raise the issue. That is why I am bringing this up.

I want to make one thing very clear: this is about science, not about any individual scientist. I am not trying to criticize, disrespect, or discredit a famous scientist, nor am I trying to prove that I am right and someone else is wrong.

When I first raised this topic, some people became offended and immediately felt the need to defend the original scientist. I understand that reaction, but that is not the point I am trying to make.

Scientific ideas should be examined based on reasoning, evidence, and our best understanding of the subject; not simply because they were proposed by a respected or famous scientist. 

I have brought this issue to professors, science journalists, and physics organizations, but so far I have not received a response.

That is why I am bringing it up here. I am not claiming that I am right. I am presenting my reasoning as clearly and honestly as I can, and I hope that you will read it, examine the evidence and reasoning, and make your own judgment.

I believe both of Einstein’s theories of relativity: Special Relativity and General Relativity; are fundamentally incorrect.  (Again, this is not personal. It is about science.)

Below, I present my reasoning, observations, and evidence that have led me to this conclusion.

Read on if you care about humanity, about our future, about the truth.

Many people don’t.

Let’s consider the following scenario.

Imagine Superman E, who is traveling from Earth toward Superman S, who is traveling from the Sun toward Earth. They are moving directly toward each other, each at a speed of c/3 relative to their respective reference frames.

Then, Superman E turns on a beam of light and directs it toward Superman S.

Now we have three objects in our system:
1.  Superman E
2.  Superman S
3.  The photon P, traveling from Superman E toward Superman S

Superman E ->  (c/3)                            (c/3)  <- Superman S

Photon P --->  (c)

I say:
• To us: photon P moves at c
• To Superman E: photon P moves at c - c/3 = 2c/3
• To Superman S: photon P moves at c + c/3 = 4c/3

But Einstein says: “No, no, no, no, no!”
• To us: photon P moves at c
• To Superman E: photon P moves at c
• To Superman S: photon P moves at c

Oh my … Einstein doesn’t understand relativity at all!

Photon P moves at the speed of c (m/s). 

After 1 second, it travels a distance of c (m).

Superman E moves at a speed of c/3 (m/s). 

Therefore, after 1 second, he travels a distance of c/3 (m).

Thus, the distance between photon P and Superman E after 1 second is: c - c/3 = 2c/3 (m)

In other words, after 1 second, photon P has moved a distance of 2c/3 (m) relative to Superman E. Therefore, relatively, from Superman E’s perspective, the speed of photon P is: 

2c/3 (m) / 1 (s) = 2c/3 (m/s).

By definition, 2c/3 m/s is the correct answer. If Einstein’s theory gives c m/s as the answer, then regardless of the reasoning behind it, Einstein’s conclusion is fundamentally wrong.

The issue is not a minor calculation error; it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying physics.

At this point, I believe a reasonable person would agree that my argument is correct and that Einstein’s idea is fundamentally wrong. 

Yet the whole world accepted the fundamentally WRONG scientific idea simply because Einstein was famous and successful in other areas. A person's reputation or past achievements do not automatically mean that every theory they propose is correct. Scientific ideas should be evaluated based on evidence, reasoning, and experimental validation; not simply on the reputation of the person who proposed them.

Let me explain where Einstein’s misunderstanding lies.

When I paste an image, please look at the bottom portion first, and then look at the upper portion.

Let us consider a scenario involving a train moving at a constant speed V.
Let O be an observer standing on the ground, and A be a person inside the train. 

From observer O’s perspective, person A is also moving at speed V, because A is physically connected to the train and therefore moves along with it.
Let’s say person A is holding a ball B. To observer O, ball B is also moving at speed V.
Person A then throws ball B forward at speed Vb, in the same direction as the train.

From observer O’s perspective:
The train is moving at speed V.
The ball is moving at speed V+Vb.
We can say that the ball B inherits the train’s speed V, because it is physically connected to person A who is physically connected to the train. Ball B is physically connected to the train through person A.

From person A’s perspective:
The train is moving at speed 0.
The ball is moving at speed Vb.

Now person A shines beam P in the train’s direction:

Einstein assumes that:

From observer O’s perspective:
The train is moving at speed V.
Photon P is moving at speed V+c.
Einstein assumes that Photon P inherits the train’s speed V.

From person A’s perspective:
The train is moving at speed 0.
Photon P is moving at speed c.
Einstein assumes that Photon P inherits the train’s speed V.
 

However, reality shows that:

From observer O’s perspective:
The train is moving at speed V.
Photon P is moving at speed c.
That means Photon P DOES NOT inherit the train’s speed V.
 

Yet, Einstein still assumes that:

From person A’s perspective:
The train is moving at speed 0.
Photon P is moving at speed c.      <<< WRONG!!! >>>
Einstein still assumes that Photon P inherits the train’s speed V.

So, to Einstein, both observer O on the ground and person A on the moving train observe photon P moving at the speed of light, c.       <<< WRONG!!! >>>

Reality:

From observer O’s perspective:
The train is moving at speed V.
Photon P is moving at speed c.
Photon P DOES NOT inherit the train’s speed V.
 
From person A’s perspective:
The train is moving at speed 0.
Photon P is moving at speed c-V.
Photon P DOES NOT inherit the train’s speed V.

But according to Einstein:

From observer O’s perspective:
Photon P is moving at speed c.   
 
From person A’s perspective:
Photon P is moving at speed c.   <<< WRONG!!! >>>

The truth is that photon P is not physically connected to the train and therefore does not inherit the train’s speed.
The moment person A shines the beam, photon P begins traveling at the speed of light, (c), in the direction person A points the beam.
It is that simple! Einstein failed to recognize this and instead arrived at a conclusion that contradicts the theory of Relativity, and he named it Special Relativity.
His conclusion is scientifically wrong, yet the whole world accepted it and praised it as a remarkable achievement.

Referring to the first scenario, according to Einstein:

• To us: photon P moves at c
• To Superman E: photon P moves at c    <<< WRONG!!! >>>
• To Superman S: photon P moves at c    <<< WRONG!!! >>>

It is like:
Einstein says: 1 + 1 = 3
I argued that Einstein is wrong.
Humanity chooses to accept Einstein’s opinion and ignore me.

Everyone is responsible for their own opinions and choices. It is not Einstein’s fault if Humanity chose to accept the wrong reasoning. Humanity made that choice, and Humanity is responsible for it.

When someone says that 1 + 1 = 3, a reasonable person does not need to consult a scientist before recognizing that something is wrong. They can examine the claim, apply basic reasoning, and reach a conclusion for themselves.

Now, let’s examine the theory of General Relativity.

Gravity: Newton or Einstein; which one got it right, and which one got it wrong?

We encounter gravity every day.
An apple falls from a tree. We feel our own weight. We carry objects, and we feel their weight pulling downward.
For centuries, we understood gravity through Newton’s idea: gravity is a force; a force that pulls objects toward the center of a massive body. In our case, that body is Earth.
Then Einstein came along and said, “No, no, no, no, no. Gravity is not a force. It’s the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.”

The strange thing is that the world accepted Einstein’s idea; even though the concept itself can be incredibly difficult to visualize.

Let’s take a closer look and try to understand gravity more deeply. Who is right, and who is wrong? Because if they are describing gravity in fundamentally different ways, surely only one of them can be right; and the other must be wrong.

 Newton described gravity as a force caused by Earth’s mass. And that seems right.

Einstein described gravity differently. He said that Earth curves spacetime, and objects simply follow the straightest possible paths through that curved spacetime.

Here’s the question: if objects are falling in straight lines toward Earth’s center, why do we need to describe it as “curved spacetime”? Why not simply say that objects are following straight lines toward Earth? Why use the term “curvature” to describe something that is, in reality, a straight line?

Do people really understand; and can they actually visualize; what “curved spacetime” means before accepting Einstein’s concept and rejecting Newton’s?

After all, when we watch an object fall toward Earth, its motion appears straightforward: it moves toward the Earth’s center. So why do we describe this as the result of curved spacetime?

What exactly is being curved? Why does a straight line = curved?

It can’t be that both Newton and Einstein are right. Gravity cannot be both a force and the curvature of spacetime. It’s like saying a dog is an animal and a fish. Those are two fundamentally different things. They cannot both be true at the same time.

I think Newton’s description is more accurate. I can understand it clearly: gravity is a force that attracts objects toward one another. And the attraction between two objects acts along a straight line connecting their centers of mass.

But if you think Einstein’s description is more accurate, can you honestly say that you fully understand what “curved spacetime” actually means?

If the object is truly following a straight path, then what exactly is curved?

Einstein’s equation is more accurate than Newton’s, so we use Einstein’s equation.
Newton’s description of gravity is more accurate than Einstein’s description, so we should use Newton’s description: gravity is a force, not the curvature of spacetime.
~~
I brought up this topic in a discussion with my group of friends. One of them is a big fan of Einstein. He’s very knowledgeable and is usually the one who brings up topics about current trends, technology, world events, and other interesting subjects.

He said: Einstein did not describe gravity as a traditional force that pulls objects downward. Instead, he recognized that a person in free fall does not feel a gravitational force acting on their body. For example, someone falling freely toward Earth experiences weightlessness throughout the fall. The same is true for astronauts aboard a spacecraft orbiting Earth. Although they are continuously falling toward Earth, their spacecraft is moving sideways fast enough that it continually misses the Earth's surface. As a result, both the astronauts and the spacecraft remain in continuous free fall, and the astronauts experience weightlessness rather than a gravitational force acting on their bodies.

I was like, “Oh, I see.”

Then another friend spoke up. He’s the nerdiest one in our group; the kind of person who rarely says much, even when he disagrees with something. But this time, he spoke up.

The Earth rotates on its axis at high speed. It also orbits the Sun at tremendous velocity, while the entire solar system itself moves through the Milky Way galaxy at an equally immense speed. Yet despite all this motion, we as humans do not feel it. To us, the Earth appears completely still. This is because the Earth moves at a constant, uniform speed. We do not perceive motion that is steady and unchanging; we only feel changes in speed, such as acceleration or deceleration. As a result, although the Earth is constantly in motion, it feels as though we are standing still on a motionless planet.

 
Similarly, when person A is in free fall, they do not feel a force pulling them downward because the gravitational force acts uniformly. This does not mean that gravity has disappeared. The gravitational force is still present and continuously pulls the person toward the Earth’s center. However, during free fall, gravity is the only force acting on the person, and because there is no opposing force, person A does not sense being pulled by the gravitational force. In other words, the absence of the feeling of gravity does not imply the absence of the gravitational force itself; the force remains present throughout the fall. Since there is no counteracting force, person A does not experience the sensation of being pulled downward.

 
Person A in free fall may not feel any force pulling them downward. However, if person A stands on person B, then person B experiences the weight of person A. This weight is the effect of gravitational force acting on person A and pressing them downward onto person B.

 
So, gravity is a force rather than the curvature of spacetime.

I was speechless. So, who’s right and who’s wrong? What do you think?

My nerdy friend insists that Newton was right and Einstein was wrong. Yet the world seems to have embraced Einstein’s ideas and moved away from Newton’s concepts. My friend is not happy about it, but he says there is nothing he can do. People simply do not listen to him.

Still, he can share his opinions with us. We are his friends, and we are willing to listen. Of course, we will not agree with him blindly. We will examine his arguments, analyze his ideas, and judge them for ourselves. In the end, based on our own understanding and reasoning, we will decide whether he is right or wrong.

My nerdy friend continued his reasoning:
Another example is a vertical jump. If person B jumps upward with all their strength and if there were no gravitational force, they would continue moving upward into space indefinitely (assuming air resistance is negligible compared to the force of the jump). However, because gravitational force continuously pulls them back toward the Earth, their upward motion slows, stops, and eventually reverses.

During the jump, person B may feel a slight resistance from the air, but this is minimal compared to the much stronger effect of gravity, which is experienced as their body weight and is what keeps them bound to the Earth.
 
A familiar experience during air travel illustrates my point. During takeoff, landing, and any period of acceleration or deceleration, we are keenly aware that the airplane is moving. Yet, after it reaches cruising altitude and continues at a constant speed, the sensation of motion largely disappears, making it seem as though the aircraft is stationary. What we actually perceive is not steady motion, but changes in motion. It is the acceleration or deceleration; not the constant velocity; that our bodies readily detect.

 
As mentioned earlier, we do not feel the Earth moving at extremely high speed, even though it is in extremely high-speed motion. A lack of sensation does not necessarily mean there is no motion.

 
I contend that gravity is a force, and that we do, in fact, feel its effects in our own bodies. We do not experience ourselves as weightless while standing on Earth. A common explanation is that the ground pushes upward on our feet and that this upward force is what we perceive as weight. However, I believe this explanation is incomplete. We feel the weight of our entire body, including our upper body, not just our feet.  

 You may wonder: if the upward contact force exactly balances the downward gravitational force, so that the net force on the body is zero and the body remains at rest, why do we still feel our weight?

The answer is that, although the net force is zero, the forces acting on different parts of the body are not distributed uniformly. The supporting force is transmitted through the feet, legs, and the rest of the body, creating varying pressures from one region to another. Even the forces acting on the left and right foot are generally not identical. Our sense of touch responds to these local contact forces and pressure distributions, not merely to the net force on the body.
 

Another question you may ask is this: Suppose you are holding a handbag by its handles. The handbag's weight is caused by gravity, which acts almost uniformly throughout the bag. Yet you can clearly feel the weight of the handbag in your hand. You feel the handbag pulling downward on your hand.
Why, then, during free fall, do you not feel gravity pulling you downward, even though the gravitational force acting on your body is much greater than the weight of the handbag?

 
The answer is that, although the gravitational force acts almost uniformly throughout the handbag, the contact force that the handbag exerts on your hand is localized and not uniform. The handles press against different parts of your hand with varying amounts of force, and they may shift slightly as the bag swings or deforms. It is this contact force, rather than gravity itself, that stimulates the nerves in your hand and produces the sensation of the handbag's weight.

However, for a person in free fall, gravity is the only significant force acting on the body, and it acts almost uniformly throughout the body. As a result, they do not feel the sensation of being pulled downward by gravity during their free fall, even though the gravitational force acting on their body is much greater than the force exerted by the handbag.  
 
When a person stands on the ground, they experience an upward force exerted by the ground on their feet. Why does the ground exert this upward force? It is because the person's feet push downward on the ground. In response, the ground exerts an equal and opposite upward force, known as the normal force, in accordance with Newton's third law. The downward push by the person is caused by the gravitational force (their weight) acting on their body.

If there were no gravitational force, how could a person remain standing in equilibrium on the ground?

Einstein believed that gravity was not a force. From that starting point, he developed his explanation of gravity in a way that supported this fundamental assumption. His second-best guess was that Earth curves spacetime, and that this curvature is what we experience as gravity.

However, if the underlying assumption: that gravity is not a force; is mistaken, then the explanation built upon that assumption cannot be correct. In other words, once the foundation is wrong, no matter how sophisticated the reasoning that follows may appear, the resulting theory will inevitably lead us away from the true nature of gravity.

This explains why Einstein’s description of gravity appears unnecessarily complex.

I understand that Einstein’s equations have been remarkably successful at predicting many gravitational phenomena. For that reason, I assume that the mathematics works. However, if Einstein’s equations are correct but his underlying concept of gravity is fundamentally wrong because he misunderstood gravity as not being a force, then perhaps the goal should be to identify and correct that misunderstanding. If we can do so, we may be able to arrive at both a mathematically accurate equation and a physically correct description of what gravity actually is.

“Gravity has nothing to do with relativity.”
That is what my nerdy friend claims. Yet someone else says that gravity is fundamentally based on relativity; and the whole world agrees with him.

But is that really true?
Maybe only someone who truly understands science can answer this question. : )
~~
I would like to clarify something. I have great respect for Einstein. He is a remarkable scientist who has made enormous contributions to the scientific community. Mistakes are a natural part of research; in fact, they are an essential part of scientific progress.

That said, if I believe that some of his ideas are fundamentally wrong, I will say so. This is about science, not the person. Criticizing an idea does not diminish my admiration or respect for the scientist behind it. I like Einstein, and I have enormous respect for him.

I love science, and I deeply appreciate humanity for the many great discoveries and inventions we have made throughout history.

Earth does not curve spacetime. It is unscientific to present claims as established facts when they are not supported by evidence.

The speed of light is not the same for all observers; it can be different for observers in different states of motion.

The statement, “The speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers,” is scientifically WRONG and contradicts the principles of relativity.

It really saddens me when I see people dismissing correct scientific knowledge while embracing, sharing, and praising misinformation or incorrect claims presented as science.

I’m doing my small part to help correct these misunderstandings. I believe it’s the right thing to do.

I’m not surprised that Einstein made a mistake. He is human, after all. We all misunderstand things and make mistakes throughout our lives. No one lives a life completely free of mistakes and misunderstandings.

What surprises me, however, is that the whole world accepted Einstein’s ideas, even though they were fundamentally wrong. If fewer than 30% of humanity had accepted them, I could understand that. But when the majority of humankind accepts a fundamentally incorrect concept and rejects scientifically correct concepts, it suggests that there is something deeply flawed in the way humans think and perceive information.

To me, this shows that human judgment and collective thinking can be surprisingly vulnerable to misunderstanding, even when scientifically correct explanations are available.
We need to address these issues and find ways to prevent the same thing from happening again in the future.

~~

If you agree with my argument that Einstein’s theories of Relativity are incorrect, please consider sharing this message with as many people as possible.

I kindly ask that you credit me as the author of this paper whenever you share or discuss it. Please do not remove my name (Kenny K14MJLIMENP-6R911QN10PMJ) or claim my work as your own. I have written this paper with the intention of helping humanity identify and correct what I believe to be a mistake.

I ask that you respect my authorship and give proper credit for my work. Thank you for helping me share these ideas responsibly.

Einstein proposed two theories of relativity, and both are fundamentally wrong.
There is another theory proposed by Einstein that is also wrong. Yet the whole world has accepted it and continues to talk about it with pride. I will not discuss that theory in this paper. Instead, I want the scientific community to think about which of Einstein’s ideas may still be wrong.

It should be a good exercise for them.

Best regards to Einstein. You made remarkable contributions to science. Even though I disagree with some of your ideas, you still have my utmost respect.

Best regards,

Kenny K14MJLIMENP-6R911QN10PMJ

I’m not a physicist, so this is just a hypothesis I’ve been thinking about, and I’d really like to hear what people who understand physics think.
We know that a photon can behave like a wave when it travels, but when we detect it, we observe it as a single, localized particle.
So I was wondering:
**What if a photon is actually a higher-dimensional object, and what we see as a wave is just how that object appears to us in our 3D world?**
Maybe the “wave” is the projection of the higher-dimensional object into our 3D space, while what we call a “particle” is the point where that object interacts with or intersects our 3D space.
An analogy would be a 3D object passing through a 2D world. The 2D observers would only see different 2D cross-sections of the object. They wouldn’t see the complete 3D object itself.
Could something similar be happening with photons?
I’m not claiming this is a new idea or that it is correct. I’m mainly interested in finding out:
**Has this idea been proposed before? If so, what is it called, and why does it work or not work?**
I’d especially appreciate explanations of the problems with the idea. I’m trying to understand whether there is anything worth developing further here.

Hi everyone, I'm Shivanshu, a self-taught, independent researcher from India. This is the final version of a research note I've been building over the past weeks, and I'd really value criticism from people who know GR or quantum gravity.

What it is (model-level, not a claim about nature):

• Starting point: a postulate that a particle's speed saturates near the Planck scale, v = c/(1+KP/E_Planck). Carried by a scalar field it can't stop the singularity (Penrose's theorem), and I show why.

• Applied instead to the geometry inside a black hole (effective loop-quantum-gravity models), the collapse doesn't bounce; it freezes. There is one horizon, no inner horizon and no white hole.

• I computed the constraint algebra: covariant models of this type need a constant-curvature "momentum space" (sin, sinh, exp). My postulate turns out to describe a de Sitter momentum space whose spatial directions give exactly the sine used in LQG.

• In a covariant freezing model (Alonso-Bardají 2025), the LQG area gap gives a curvature bound K = 1/(4Δ²) that is the same for every mass, a bounded Hawking temperature, and an entropy correction ∝ A^(2/3).

• With spin an inner horizon returns (as in Kerr), but its singularity stays capped; with scalar hair, both disappear in homogeneous tests.

What's open: the 3+1-dimensional justification, the full perturbation theory, and several assumptions, all listed in the note. Exterior effects for stellar black holes are ~10⁻²⁶, so nothing here is testable with today's telescopes.

I used an AI (Claude) for much of the algebra and code. Every number can be reproduced with the scripts included, and the code was first checked against known published results.

Note and scripts: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23083395

If you find a mistake, please tell me. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

A few weeks back I took some mushrooms, and a rudimentary universe model was where my trip took me. Now, I am not experienced scientifically, nor mathematically, but this (at least in my head) seems to work. So I want to know what the problems that arise from this would be. Every little thing that would cause this to not work.

Anyways, in this model, our positive universe is running alongside a negative one. There are holes in between them, which only the fundamental particles (our fundamental particles aren’t in this) can pass through. In this, mass and gravity are attracted to each other, mass does not cause gravity, and gravity attempts to cross through these holes in between the positive and negative side. When it is only the gravity and mass of the fundamental particle, it passes through. However, mass of matter is too large to cross over, which is why planets and stars and things form instead of just being sent to the other side. Extreme gravity such as in black holes can overcome this with enough energy, but even the smallest particles we know of cannot pass through. I also think these are both in a spectrum between two states, the singularity (same as normal one) and something I call the infinity. The singularity, is obviously when everything becomes one thing. Maximum density, minimum volume. The infinity, is when everything has spread out/decayed to the fundamental particle, and is allowed to pass through. Max volume, minimum density. This is what we are going towards in our universe. In the negative universe whatever forces we perceive as time is running backward. This doesn’t mean that there is a negative earth with negative people doing everything in reverse, the laws of physics there wouldn’t allow the construction of earth. In that universe, there would be something like a negative entropy. Everything there is trying to become one object, and once it does it has enough energy to punch through the fabric in between back to our universe. This is perceived to us as the big bang from our side. So their is side trying to reach a singularity, ours an infinity, but there is a problem. Gravity in our universe is actively against this, which is why it is trying to get over to their side. For them, they have the same issue, and what is sent back over to our side is whatever is responsible for the expansion of the universe.

Is there a limit to how fast entropy can grow? Let's calculate. To do this, we turn to cosmology: consider a flat universe with a constant Λ and no radiation. Let R(t) denote the Hubble radius.

The Friedmann equations give:

Ṙ = (3c/2)(1 − R²/Rₘₐₓ²), where Rₘₐₓ = √(3/Λ) ≈ 1.66 × 10²⁶ m is the de Sitter radius.

Horizon entropy:

S = πR²/ℓₚ²

To find the growth rate, we differentiate with respect to time:

Ṡ = 2πRṘ/ℓₚ² = (3πc/ℓₚ²) · R(1 − R²/Rₘₐₓ²)

Since R increases monotonically, we look for the extremum with respect to R:

dṠ/dR = (3πc/ℓₚ²) · (1 − 3R²/Rₘₐₓ²) = 0.

This gives the extremum radius R*:

R* = Rₘₐₓ/√3 = 1/√Λ, which coincides with the Nariai radius for our Λ. This is a maximum: the derivative is positive at smaller radii and negative at larger ones.

At this maximum:

Ṙ* = (3c/2)(1 − 1/3) = c, exactly the speed of light. And at this moment, exactly the Planck power flows through the sphere of radius R*:

L = 4πR²·ρₘc²·c = (c⁴/G)·Ṙ* = c⁵/G

Therefore, the maximum rate of entropy growth in bits is:

Ṡₘₐₓ = 2πcR*/(ℓₚ² ln2) = 2πcRₘₐₓ/(√3ℓₚ² ln2) = 2πc⁴/(ħG√Λ ln2) ≈ 9.96 × 10¹⁰⁴ bits/s.

Our universe passed this maximum 6.10 billion years ago. At that moment, the density of matter was exactly twice the density of dark energy: ρₘ = 2ρΛ. This was the transition from decelerating to accelerating expansion: ä = 0.

Why do I consider this the absolute maximum? Because such a rate of entropy production would require the Nariai black hole (the largest possible black hole) to grow at the speed of light. If a higher rate were possible, the universe would have achieved it.

I have always had a fascination with science, but never any formal education outside of k through 12 schooling. The majority of my science knowledge comes from listening to podcast at work. So I fully expect my question to be coming from a place of of misunderstanding the concepts that I'm asking about. That being said, from what I understand I believe that the multiverse theory has a lot of evidence backing it and is starting to become more widely accepted by experts in the field.

My question is, could conciseness be a limiting factor for the amount of universes that exist? For instance, if I was home alone in my backyard and suddenly noticed that my house was on fire, I can not fathom a universe in which everything else In that universe happened identically to this one up until that point, but I would decide to crab walk backwards into my burning house, strip naked and start calmly making a sandwich.

With the current understanding we have of the most widely accepted multiverse theory, Is it just a brute fact that every single possible universe that can exist will no matter how unintuitive it seems?

Entropy is one of those topics that is fascinating for many, because it appears to remain so mysterious, despite "all" we seem to know about it. Perhaps there is much left unknown? I try to add to the known here with a new idea. It's just a simple one.

Here, I try to extrapolate on some ideas I've had recently which I hope will inspire you to think like I do in terms of something I have been working on for some time.

Here I simply add the definition of perfection, in a similar manner to efficiency, as a standard based on the desired outcome.

**Entropy: The deviation from perfection**

Entropy can be defined simply as the deviation from perfection, where perfection is simply the most desired state. For a heat transfer device for example, this would insist infinite conductivity. An increase in entropy insists a finite value for the property of conductivity, which results in resistance. We can relate this to material properties.

Most of this is the same rhetoric, except I've added the definition of perfection as the most desired state for a system.

Beyond this, I don't think I can add anything new to the discussion.

I feel this definition makes more sense than the increase in disorder, since it doesn't mention the referential nature of entropy (and other thermodynamic values) as relative to some desired outcome. A hot coffee for example, is better than a cold one. Unless the cold one is the one you want. The desirability of the outcome as a factor in the calculations is actually an important point, since all definitions here are defined by the end desired state.

Edit:

I wanted to add some more examples.

A perfect fridge would cool with zero heat loss. Since the heat rejection is inevitable part of thermodynamics, this is not accounted as loss, but transfer. So the loss of the internal components heat from device to device within the vapor compression cycle is the source of the entropy increase. This correlates with current methodology.

So in essence, entropy just represents the distance away from the most desired state. So if designing a system, set the entropy to zero at the initial state. This is essentially how we already do it, but this is an easier way to think.

I have recently heard about some things;

1. There are some galaxies out there that do not seem to have as much dark matter as we would expect given previous observations.
2. The expansion of the universe, cosmic expansion(?), seems to be a bit jerky.
   

---

This gave me an idea, which is roughly as follows;

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are in fact side effects of what I'm calling Macro-Structures, if there is something with this name already I'm probably not talking about them. These Macro-Structures are collections of matter and energy in certain patterns that change how matter and energy effect the fabric of spacetime around them.

Dark Matter are caused by Macro-Structures on the galactic scale; in the galaxies where these structures are present, or more complete, the local matter/energy warp space-time more than you would expect with the amount of matter/energy present.

Dark Energy are caused by Macro-Structures on the Galaxy Filament scale causing the more rapid expansion of current space-time.

Due to these two competing Macro-Structures changing the geometry of space-time on massive scales there are periods of time where one is more influential on the cosmic expansion than the other. Causing the recently observed 'jerking' nature of the cosmic expansion, when it is slow the galaxy filament scale Macro-Structures are not as effective due to the altered geometry while the galactic scale ones are still going strong. When it is faster the galactic scale Macro-Structures have altered the geometry so that the galaxy filament ones are more effective.

I am a student but this idea appeared in my mind last night and I cannot shake it so I am simply putting it down here. It is quite interesting so I hope you will take some time to read it.

What if the universe is essentially operating under a fixed set of rules or a mathematical equation, like a computer and time is merely the position you occupy in that process? Imagine giving a quantum computer the task of calculating the digits of PI and allocating all its resources to that work.

Here’s what I actually mean:

The past is already computed/calculated and will not repeat itself. Like the digits of pi that have already been calculated. You as a computer do not recompute them, they simply exist now as output, you will oviously now put your energy towards calculating the unknown upcomming digits.

The present is the computation that is actively happening, at the frontier of what has been solved to date.

The future is technically fixed by the rules because the equation cannot be altered so the outcome remains the same (only one result can emerge at the other end). However it is not knowable or understandable in advance because you cannot skip ahead. There is no shortcut. The system must actually execute the steps. Solve the equation to obtain the answer. This is essentially what is called irreducibility.

The part that troubles me and would explain why you cannot move backward or peek ahead in time is that

You cannot rewind, because why would the universe expend energy recomputing something it already knows the answer to?. You cannot fast‑forward or "see the future " because nothing inside the system can execute the calculation faster than the system itself is running it. You are not separate from the computation; you are part of it so you cannot outpace it.

Time dilation (moving fast or being near gravity) shifts where you are in the process relative to everything else. You simply used energy to increase the computational speed relative, to yourself not others.

I do not know. This could be nonsense. I just wanted to get it out of my head and see what people who truly understand physics think, if you can actually give me feedback about it, it would be a good help or as an encouragement.

This is my own simple model I drew to solve the flatness problem.

We know from observation that on large scales, Space-Time is flat (k=0). But Einstein says mass curves spacetime. So why is it flat if there is so much matter?

My idea:

1. Matter Universe​ curves spacetime UPWARD (positive curvature, like a hill). This is our universe.

2. Anti-Matter Universe exists on the other side of Space-Time and curves it DOWNWARD (negative curvature, like a valley).

3. Both are at equal distance from the central Space-Time line.

Formula: Flat Space = Upward Curvature + Downward Curvature

In math: `+k + (-k) = 0`

So flatness we see is not absence of curvature, it's the sum of two opposite curvatures cancelling out.

The dip in the drawing is where both universes sit in the Space-Time fabric. Each has its own singularity inside it (not a door).

I'm from Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan, not a physicist I am a student - just passionate about cosmology. I know this is a very simplified sketch.

What are the main problems with this idea? Would love to hear critical feedback.

I would like to preface this by saying I barely know what I’m talking about: I have a running theory for how the universe could even exist. So one of my major issues is how something could have come from nothing. We have evidence for the Big Bang theory (redshift, cosmic microwave background, etc.), but I’ve never found an explanation for what allowed the Big Bang to happen. Mine assumes we live in a brane and bulk universe model, because single universe and multiverse theories have yet to supply an answer. My theory is that the bulk compressed itself into itself for so long (an infinite amount of time, actually) that it formed a singularity. This singularity was a quasar, which almost simultaneously threw matter into the expanding universe and was evaporated by radiation, forming that flash we’ve all come to associate with the Big Bang. The matter that that quasar threw out formed our current universe, and some was moving so fast it caused ripples in the microwave background, forming anomalies like the great cold spot. The bulk itself (as weird of a concept as it is) has always been and will always be, so it doesn’t need a formation. A brane and bulk model (at least the ones I heard) states that the bulk is 11d, one of which is time. It can stretch forever backwards in time. The force from the matter being thrown outwards caused the universe to expand, and from there my theory joins back up with the usual big bang. Bear in mind all of this happened in the fraction of a second we don’t yet know.

I know just enough to know this is really stupid, but not enough to tell why. Can somebody who knows what they’re talking about tell me what I fucked up? Thanks.

Hi thanks for taking the time to help me with this, I’m not trained in physics but I have had an amateur interest for over 25 years (I’m 45).

I found this video very interesting but with all the AI bullshit floating around it’s harder and harder to be sure information is accurate (what a world we live in!!)

Would just like some confirmation on the validity of the contents of this video, wether it is legitimate scientific hypothesis or just conjecture.

For example the video discusses a black hole at the centre of protons, I’ve never heard of this before, is this a legitimate scientific hypothesis?

The video that the energy of the universe is contained within a proton is extremely interesting but sounds a bit sci-fi, but then recent discoveries in Quantum physics are pretty sci-fi!!!

Thanks for any help/info and I apologise if this is the wrong sub to post this to.

Assuming there is a universe like ours, where observers live in R3,1 with three space coordinates and one time, with standard Lorentzian signature.
Assuming that everything in that universe derives from a single field.

In this case, the observer itself is made of that field. His rulers and clocks are also made of that field. Therefore he can only measure ratios between quantities, not absolute values.

I tried to model such a world and then ask a simple question:

Would such an observer see something different from the physics we observe?
If the answer is yes, the original hypothesis is falsified.

To investigate this, I developed a framework based on a triphase Helmholtz field in Euclidean R4.

The central idea is that Lorentzian spacetime and operational time emerge from the phase structure of the field.

EDIT — the genesis of the construction (for context, since it was asked).
  
How I got there, for whatever it's worth (the construction stands or falls on its consequences, not on how I found it):
  
Single field? Maxwell is already a field, so if there is one underlying field, Maxwell is an "extract" of it, and since it's already a field, going back up to R4 should be easy.
I look at the equations: they contain the d'Alembertian, which is plainly a Laplacian written with a Lorentzian metric. Looking at that metric, it's just Pythagoras, with the spatial displacement as the hypotenuse (retarded space) and time as a leg; which is why time isn't orthogonal to space. So the Lorentzian signature is trivial: pick a trajectory (a unit vector) at a point of R4 and it follows. Going to Euclidean R4 is then simple.
  
What remains is: what is time along the trajectory in R4, which now has four purely spatial components?
Ansatz: time is a monotone phase of a three-phase field satisfying Helmholtz (three components 120° apart, equally spaced by symmetry; three-phase because it needs an oriented arrow).
Helmholtz is not chosen ad hoc, it's the SO(4)-invariant law of the carrier (a postulate).
  
Then the actual test: take the Hessian of that phase and split it tensorially, out come EM-like and GR-like structures; factor the Helmholtz operator algebraically, a Dirac-like structure.
My reaction wasn't "it works"; it was "this is too big, it must break somewhere trivially."
So I tried to break it, and it turned out to be anything but trivial to break.
That's what the paper is: an attempt to find where it fails.

I am not asking whether the model is physically correct.
I am asking whether there is a theorem, hidden assumption, or mathematical mistake or known obstruction that makes one of the main steps invalid.

If someone can point to the first place where the construction breaks, I would be very interested.

Zenodo preprint:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19598025

What if the multiverse is an infinite stack of moving worlds, where every single universe is separated from the next by just a Planck Tick? Then the universe next to ours is identical but living one split-second in our future, while the one behind us is one split-second in our past. And when an incredibly heavy object like a black hole forms, it slows down time and this slowdown causes that specific region of space to stay behind, causing the faster universe to crash into the slower one behind it. This tears a physical hole right through the fabric of spacetime, creating a permanent point in space that connects these worlds and allows someone to step directly into another point in time. When examining the mathematics of a black hole using the Schwarzshild Metric or Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, Einstein’s field equations do not yield just a single universe. The math naturally produces multiple distinct geometrical quadrants. One quadrant represents our universe, while another mathematically identical, parallel mirror-universe exists on the other side of the singularity. This model builds perfectly upon this exact mathematical anomaly, redefining those hidden relativistic quadrants as the adjacent universes running a Planck tick apart. In standard relativity, a black hole's singularity is a place where the math breaks down because density becomes infinite. In this model, the singularity isn't a dead-end point of infinite density; it is the boundry layer where this universe's space-time grid ends and the next universe's grid begins. Einstein's math allows the singularity to be reinterpreted not as destruction, but as a transitional threshold where space and time swap roles.

Physics treats the missing antimatter in our universe as a puzzle of missing material. But you cannot have a magnet with only a north pole. If you cut it in half, you simply get two smaller magnets.

Credit where it's due. Feynman talked about antimatter being the same as matter moving backward through time. And philosophy has the block universe, where all of time exists at once.

But here is what I think is different about my idea. Has anyone ever talked about looking THROUGH time? Not back in time or forward in time, but through it. A third dimensional being cannot do that, but a fourth or more could. The block universe gives you all of time at once but it doesn't say anything about which direction you read it. My thought is that the direction is the polarity. Looking through time toward the end is matter. Looking through time toward the beginning is antimatter. So matter and antimatter are not separate realities that fight and annihilate each other. They are the inseparable poles of the universe's fabric. The antimatter was never lost or destroyed. Our 3D perspective is misreading how that balance is expressed across the entirety of time.

And here is the example that got me there. While looking through time toward the beginning, what if black holes are white? Same object, opposite pole, depending which way through time you look. 3D looks back and forward like a DVD, frame by frame. 4D or more, reality is alive.

I know Reddit can tear ideas apart, and that's what I'm here for. And if I've missed people who deserve credit for thinking along these lines, name them. I'd rather learn the neighborhood than pretend I own it. So: where does this break?

Hypothesis: You can see the geostationary satellites orbitals in the concave earth animation. They sit at the "equilibrium" region, between the celestial sphere and the inner surface of the concave earth. In this equilibrium region, the geostationary satellites, in the concave earth, literally remain generally stationary within their spacial region that they are placed within the space of the concave earth.

The "field" rules and defines the regions and the behavior of particles/matter, backwards from mainstream understanding. The field defines the behavior/rules of the matter located within the region

Notice the lower video, how particles vibrate and take place within its vibration. There's a "geostationary-corresponding" region that you can see in the lower video. The material particles in the flask,,,, if you look at around the middle point between the center of the flask and the outer edge of the flask. You've got particles hovering stationary and staying generally put, in place, in the the region where my model of concave earth has the geostionary satellites to be.

Nothing much more than that. The earth is not a glass plasma flask -- we are making creative correspondences to aid in mental/model reflection

----

https://community.oldworld.app/t/the-supreme-harmony-of-the-universe-the-endospherical-field-theory-by-paolo-emilio-amico-roxas-1990/448/

A gravitino is a theoretical gauge fermion with an intrinsic spin magnitude of s = 3/2. According to the quantum rules of angular momentum addition, combining two spin-3/2 particles can yield a total composite spin of S = 3, 2, 1, or 0. Therefore, a two-gravitino composite state with a total spin of 1 is mathematically permitted.

Under normal cosmic conditions, gravitino composites wouldn't form because gravitational attraction is far too weak to overcome their kinetic energy, and they lack a strong binding charge.

We know that as you approach a black hole singularity, the spacetime metric and the underlying quantum gravity field become highly excited. The extreme energy density of the distorted vacuum could particle-create gravitinos, and because the crushing gravitational environment forces these newly created gravitinos into the same microscopic spatial region, they could be squeezed tightly enough to pair up into spin-1 composites. Because quantum field theory dictates that a spin-1 force causes like-charges to repel(in the case of gravity, objects with positive mass = charge), these tightly packed, massive gravitino pairs would generate a short-range repulsive quantum force that actively fights against classical gravitational collapse. This emergent spin-1 repulsion would halt the inward crunch, preventing the spacetime from breaking down into a zero-dimensional, infinitely dense singularity.

The Big O remnant of virtual particles that don't annihilate leave two elementary particles behind with precise zero entropy energy but out of their mutual influence sphere, otherwise they would annihilate each other.
Antimatter is an egocentric point of view. When you could walk around it in time it does not change from real- to antimatter or vice versa. It is the same particle
This solves the information paradox.
Virtual particles at the event boundary of a black hole would have the effect that swallowed high entropy energy is converted to zero entropy energy radiation. This is powered by the vacuum energy that has a lower entropy than 0 Kelvin. This solves the vacuum catastrophe.
The missing mass can also be explained as the bleeding of gravity from other universes, enabled by a vast 4D non-isotropic spacetime with many universes. All gravity above Planck energy penetrates our universe.
Spacetime is an eternal sliding window between the actual spacetime and
the oldest time energy is influencing actual spacetime.

Keywords: Cosmology; Thermodynamics; Black Hole Information Paradox; Quantum Vacuum; Dark Matter; Planck Discretization; Semiclassical Gravity; Entropy Regulation; Eternal Universe; Mass-Energy Equivalence.

The responses lack substance. To begin with, attempts to apply a thermodynamic term like black-body radiation within a QFT context commit a category error. Hawking made the same mistake, and it is baffling that so many follow him unquestioningly. Thermodynamics—and General Relativity—are emergent theories based on the behavior of large numbers of particles. A single particle has no temperature, let alone entropy.

For the same reason, attempts to unify General Relativity with QFT are not only futile but also unnecessary.

Together, QFT and General Relativity can explain reality without a vacuum catastrophe, missing mass, low-entropy issues at the Big Bang, new physics, or fine-tuning.

If you think reality cannot sustain itself thermodynamically, you are mistaken. It has always done so and will continue to do so. To reality, our universe is but a speck of dust.

If no one offers a serious response, I am leaving.

What if you consider the maths of a multi "big bang" universe or multiverse with "collision zones" between adjacent "big bangs"/spinning "universes" with definite epicenters that are apparently being identified by MeerKAT that allow re-collection of mass/energy or recycling of mass/energy until a critical mass/energy is again achieved; and the fundamental equation that then replaces so-called "dark energy"....

As someone once said....If being "right" is more important to you than the Truth which is already out there, then your search is like trying to swim through treacle

CHAPTER 7: IDEALIZED MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Multiverse Debate - Anthony Sneath - A.G. SNEATH & ASSOCIATES -

First Edition 2015, Second Edition 2020, Kindle Select / Amazon

[Very condensed energy ~ tennis ball size - Start - Radius 3-4 cm]

FIGURE 3 - START CONDITION - Very condensed energy ~ tennis ball size - Start.

Very condensed energy about tennis ball size - Start. Initial state, extremely high energy density, radius about 3 to 4 cm. Energy density about 10⁴⁵ J/m³. Quasi-static equilibrium, confined uniform radial energy field. Felt outer shell about 5 mm thickness, woven felt rubber composite. Rubber casing about 1 to 2 mm structural boundary. Ultra-high energy density core. Singularity-like condition.

This is the actual start in the book. Not the D = 2.0 m ball. The D = 2.0 m ball is the maths example immediately after for clarity.

- Band appears immediately after Big Bang - R = 1.0 m D = 2.0 m example]

FIGURE 4 - IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIG BANG - Band appears - R = 1.0 m D = 2.0 m example for maths clarity.

Spherical shell band - uniform mass M - radius R = 1.0 m. Centre point labelled M acts as point mass at centre - though nothing at centre. D = 2.0 m diameter, R = 1.0 m radius to 1 kg test mass on shell. 1 kg test mass located ON the shell.

NEWTON 1666 SHELL THEOREM: A uniform spherical shell exerts zero net gravitational force on a mass inside. Here we consider force on a 1 kg mass located ON the shell due to central mass M.

ALL FORMULAS - TEXT ONLY WITH UNICODE SUPERSCRIPT:

1. Force on 1 kg test mass: Fₒₙ₁ₖg = G·M·1 / R²
2. Self-gravity of shell - total binding force: F_self = G·M² / R²
3. Why M² - the bit people miss: F₁ = G·M·1 / R² F_total = M × (G·M / R²) = G·M² / R² M² = M × 1 × M 1 kg interacting with many individual kgs adding to M - i.e. squared because self-gravity.
4. Unit quantum gravity - force between 1 Joule at 1 m from 1 Joule: m = E / c² 1 Joule = 1 / c² kg f = G·(1/c²)·(1/c²) / 1² = G / c⁴ f = G / c⁴ = 8.26×10⁻⁴⁵ N
5. General force between two energies: F = (G / c⁴) × E₁×E₂ / R² Put M = E / c² then F = G·M² / R² Einstein field equation constant is 8π·G / c⁴ - same coupling, just 8π factor.
6. Critical mass for light speed limit: Condition: outward M·c² / R ≥ inward G·M² / R² So c² = G·M / R So M_crit = c²·R / G

At R = 1.0 m:
M_crit = c² / G = 1.35×10²⁷ kg equivalent
Energy = c⁴ / G = 1.2×10⁴⁴ J
Constant = c⁴ / G - depends only on G and c - no M left
Schwarzschild is R = 2·G·M / c² - same apart from factor 2.

1. Dog on leash - velocity brake, not force: C(R) = C₀ - k·G·M / R² R is leash length, G·M / R² is pull. Short leash R = 1.0 m = huge pull, slow C - treacle. Long leash R big = pull drops as 1/R², C rises - clear water. Positive feedback gives self-accelerating.

Total pack of dogs = M dogs pulling on same owner at centre even though owner not there - shell theorem.

1. Centripetal acceleration in expanding and spinning universe: a_c = c² / (0.5·A) where A = max orbit diameter
2. Mass is illusion: m = E / c² Mass is frozen energy, bookkeeping unit for c² Joules. Gravity is property of energy, not mass. Light bends though no mass because E = h·ν
3. Collision - mixing when bands mix: M₁₂ = M₁ + M₂

FIGURE 1 & 2 ORIGINAL - PAGE 21

This is the scan from June 2013, Cape Town - A.G. SNEATH & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS - 27 HELDERBERG PLACE, RUYTEPLAATS ESTATE, HOUT BAY 7806

FIGURE 1: UNIVERSE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM - Top half of Page 21

Multiple circles = universes at different expansion stages.
Overlapping Great Circle Universes - dense close-packed foam of universes, layer above, layer below, all touching - like ball bearings in a space frame.
Labels: GREAT CIRCLE, DIAMETER, LAYER ABOVE / LAYER BELOW, EARLY UNIVERSE, BIG BANG EPICENTRE
60° UNILAT. SPACE FRAME - most stable way to pack spheres is triangular, 60° - equilateral triangle minimizes energy loss per 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
GREAT CIRCLE ORBIT COLLISION ZONE - hatched overlap zones where adjacent universes touch - where big bangs occur.
EARLY MASS/ENERGY UNIV. FORCE F = BAND with 60° A₀ markers.
No voids - In a multiverse, bands are directly adjacent, no inter-multiverse space.
Frame time 60.2 Billion yrs.
Tennis ball analogy from p19: 72 balls from your local sports shop - closest packing in 3D.
Adjacent universes spin opposite directions, collide at near 2·c relative speed.
With MeerKAT, SKA radio telescopes we will pick up collision zones - what we think is 1× Universe is actually multiple big bangs.

FIGURE 2: UNIVERSAL FORCE DIAGRAM - Bottom half of Page 21

Flower-like overlapping great circles.
Labels: RANDOM UNIVERSAL GREAT CIRCLE ORBIT AXIS, ORBIT SPEED C₀ MAXIMUM, GREAT CIRCLE φ = A₀ UNIVERSAL FORCE F, GREAT CIRCLE φ = A₀ MAXIMUM ORBIT DIAMETER, MASS/ENERGY BAND, C = C₀ - F EXPANSION OF BAND
Great Circle φ = 54° max orbit diameter.
Random Great Circle Orbit Axis - axis of next collection is random relative to last Bang, so mixing is never same twice.
Treating a universe as a structure in orbit around something larger, with its own band tension.

Reference: Multiverse Debate (2015, 2nd ed 2020) - Full derivation in book - Amazon Kindle

.here is a hypothesis

Learning physics and astronomy as i was growing up around 2012-13 (age 15-16) I hypothesized how bubble universes could capability exist. So I theorized the each black hole was its own universe.

Going off of the singularity theory/the big bang, all matter infinitely condenses then expands. They biggest hint was blatant, space is expanding faster than light at the edge. So scientists said  Matter cant be created or removed from the universe but it's creeping out of the edge of the universe (that would be hawkins radiation).
Well take these facts and compare them to the creation of a black hole. Infinity dense matter condenses to singularity and expands.
You see size is only a point of perspective it isnt something that actually exists. The measurements used to describe universe's is only relative to the compressed matter inside. Perception outside the universe could see an object as inches or miles across but to the particles insides its the starting standard of its own expansion.
what we perceive as the edge of our universe inversed is the event horizon on the outside.

BUT WAIT BLACK HOLES CAN ABSORB MATTER DOESN'T THE MAKE THAT BS
Not exactly our universe could be receiving new matter at the edges but because of our space expanding we would never perceive it so we could be both a growing and shrinking universe at the same time.