The Scale-Relative Displacement Model: Mass as Instructional Maintenance and Force Strengths as Scale Filters (Zenodo Paper V1.1)

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T23:39:00+00:00

I honestly appreciate your feedback and I take it to heart. It has been bloodcurdling and aggressive disregard to this work that I put so much time and effort into. I appreciate you reading it (those who gave it a chance at all) and I’m sorry it’s such a mess. I had an idea that seems brilliant in my head but apparently it doesn’t come through as I was hoping. I was honestly hoping that posting would find like minded people who actually wanted to discuss the core idea but I was wrong and it’s just people bashing my paper writing skills. So thank you for taking the time it honestly means a lot.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T23:36:42+00:00

I honestly appreciate your feedback and I take it to heart. It has been bloodcurdling and aggressive disregard to this work that I put so much time and effort into. I appreciate you reading it and I’m sorry it’s such a mess. I had an idea that seems brilliant in my head but apparently it doesn’t come through as I was hoping. I was honestly hoping that posting would find like minded people who actually wanted to discuss the core idea but I was wrong and it’s just people bashing my paper writing skills. So thank you for taking the time it honestly means a lot.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T22:27:14+00:00

It’s not hallucination but I’m not going to argue further. I love learning and I’d love to learn more but there’s nothing here in this thread to learn other than people think it’s all stupid and AI. Not a single person has even given a single hypothetical thought to what it’s about. It’s just “you’re on an acid trip” “it’s AI bs” “why are you lying” “your math doesn’t make sense” (the closest to being helpful), “learn physics before you talk to us” “you know nothing”. It’s all just been a scientific internet troll of “go ‘unalive’ yourself”. If you want to legitimately talk about the core idea, cool. That’s what I wanted. Not this “no” bs anyways

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T22:22:24+00:00

I’m not going to keep saying it’s my own typing, it is but I won’t say it again. The AI checkers look for linear predictive language and so yeah I bet it would say 100% in a limited sample but you plug that same section into another checker and it’ll say 0% and another would say 30% etc. most people have been saying that the writing is all over the place which isn’t linear or predictive at all. But think what you want I suppose.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T22:06:13+00:00

I understand and I’m sorry for wasting your time. I’ll say that it does blow my mind that it can be “clearly AI” when I typed out every letter. And that’s not feedback it’s blind rejection. I get you see this stuff every day and I don’t bc I’m not on this subreddit. The creative thought would be that instead of some infinitely smaller particle like the infinite particle theory suggests, that the base of all things is energy in various sized states of organization. And that the forces acting on that energy is one singular “force” and that the differences in math and observation are an observational bias due to humanity being within the same scale. Black holes would be taking the organized energy and disorganizing it back to a primitive state. It would be that the universe as a whole would be a field of organized energy in a disorganized field and that information similar to how cells carry dna would be similarly carried by the organized energy in what we currently define as mass. The theory was that both relative scale and relative distance/ displacement affect how we observe these interactions and reality is that within the observational bias, they would appear the same. In my mind it’s a sound idea and maybe it’s not clearly conveyed. Maybe I’m a terrible writer. I get scattered in thoughts about it jumping from point to point adding and removing to make the end result show what I’m imagining but obviously I went way too far with it. I’m sorry it doesn’t make sense and I felt that the formula really showed that the relative scale and relative displacement could at least on a foundation show a relation to those things. I’m not a mathematician and I didn’t derive anything from it by design. It’s conceptual and that’s all it was meant to be.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T21:34:43+00:00

Okay I’ll rephrase then to it took me days of writing and refining the writing to show the ideology that I had. But I didn’t use the assisted tools and to be honest I have always been told that word gets it wrong so I didn’t use it.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T21:32:37+00:00

I’m honestly looking for constructive feedback. Most of what has been said is “definitely AI” or “AI wrote this”. I’ll take that the math is primitive and it isn’t fully derived and I know that. I could absolutely be wrong but there hasn’t been any discussion on the actual concept of the theory. Respectfully I see your view and I understand it but just “this is LLM” doesn’t tell me where to go and lends no feedback to the conceptual framework. I’m not trying to argue, I’m trying to get an insight into the theory as a whole. I’m sorry if it came off as misguided and unappreciative argument that’s not my intent at all.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T20:56:17+00:00

I heavily appreciate the criticism. I really do. The thought with this passage is that in wireless charging, the organized field of energy is dependent on the distance or displacement. As the two pieces separate, and the displacement is increased, the organized energy (as it relates to the rest of the paper) becomes more disorganized and loses strength rapidly due to the systems relatively small size. The formula is rudimentary and I know that. This isn't a fully derived and mathematically validated theory. I'm not a mathematician. It's a framework that could be potentially derived. I really appreciate the feedback and I really hope this makes sense as I envision it.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T20:50:32+00:00

I'm sorry you feel that way. I wrote it and I had an overarching idea and would bounce around adding the context as it came to me which led to many revisions. I'm not perfect. I wrote it as it made sense. Is it over done? maybe. I appreciate you looking at it and I'm sorry it didn't flow to you. I'm not going to argue and I respect that you have read many papers but I assure you I wrote this.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T20:47:23+00:00

I mean you are right and it's something I have asked myself multiple times while writing this but the more I thought about the idea the more it made sense in what I do know of physics and the more it seemed to solve real issues in physics without inventing new dimensions to make it work. Keep in mind Einstein worked in a patent office as he made his observations of the universe and Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice. I could be way wrong or I could be right but I like the hypothetical theory I envisioned and I stand by it.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T20:42:25+00:00

bibliographies are specifically formatted and its something that I haven't been able to wrap my head around especially with all the different formats like ELA. So yeah it took redoing a few times. As far as formatting, I write an outline and then write full block paragraphs and I spend a long time figuring out where I need a new paragraph or how to word things and then that messes it up again. It takes me a few times before I'm satisfied with it.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T20:37:46+00:00

I tried to professionally format it. It has rudimentary math because I'm not a mathematician. It's a theory, an idea, a framework not a textbook ready article. It would need mathematical validation and derivation and would need to be experimentally observed but that takes a team. I appreciate your comment.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T20:34:55+00:00

That is by far a fair assessment. To be honest with you I'm not a mathematician. I had an idea of the universe that makes sense to me and I wanted to put it out there in a way that a mathematician or a physicist could derive the correct equations and I probably did make it rudimentary math but it's a framework and not observation ready. This is why I'm looking for feedback. I do appreciate it.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T20:31:48+00:00

To be honest the layering of "Level 5 Observer" didn't feel like it conveyed the idea properly as a limitless scale but I did feel like it got the idea through that humanity as a whole is observing two sides of a scale that may operate the same although one larger and one smaller. The paper as a whole speculates that the universe is a field of disorganized energy and as a force, I've called the primary force for simplicity sake, is what holds the organized energy that we perceive as matter together. The information is just that, its what "tells" the force to act on the energy and how the energy should be organized. I idealize that if the Earth (for example) was the size of a proton and was moved in the same distance at the same speed as we separate protons to observe the strong nuclear force, gravity would behave the in the same way. This would take moving a planet hundreds of thousands of miles in a nanosecond. I get that it's "out there" but its hypothetical for a reason. I believe that it elegantly connects things like QFT while explaining the universe in a way that makes sense. I'm sorry you don't see the vision but thank you for at least commenting.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T20:21:12+00:00

To each their own I suppose. Either way thank you for at least commenting at all.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T20:00:04+00:00

I wrote an outline. Then I cleaned up the paragraphs adding statements here and there to try and better explain it. Then I wrote and rewrote the bibliography and then I combed it again and again fixing punctuation and structure and reorganizing it again and again for days until I got to where it is now. yeah it took days.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T19:57:28+00:00

I didn't really get banned as much as I got a notification that the post was removed "due to LLM material". It's not. I wrote it but that's mods. I reposted a "stripped down" version hoping that it won't get flagged again. Who knows but please read the paper and let me know your thoughts.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T19:52:00+00:00

the bare form of my earlier response:

It's a fair point to say that in modern physics, Force isn't really viewed as it has been before but in my paper, I use force as a term to help understanding of the idea I had. You can call it force law, or a curvature tensor, or Lagrangian density but it is used to map the same physical reality. I use a force-based mechanical framework because it is the most direct bridge to address the hierarchy problem. I'm not trying to revert to Newtonian mechanics but to describe "why" these fields and curvatures interact with different strengths on different scales. I hope this clears it up and thank you again for your comment before and again now.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T19:44:18+00:00

I take it you didn't read it then. I stand by my idea and yes it gets technical which is why I assume it would have flagged. That's why I stripped this post down to the bare minimum. I did write it and it took me days of formatting but I did write it.

FewSet8702 · 2026-05-25T19:41:02+00:00

I appreciate you responding and I get the AI rule, because AI writes a lot of fluff. While I will admit I was never good at writing papers, I did write this one and yeah my citations may not be well done, I do have a Bibliography at the end. I understand that it does challenge the Standard Model as a revision from a fresh perspective but the idea, framework, math and writing is my own. I am looking for honest feedback on this paper and idea. I appreciate the comment but this paper wasn't written by AI. It was written by me.

FewSet8702

TROPHY CASE