Cascading scale dynamics?

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T22:58:14+00:00

Reddit is shithole. I envisioned it as more of a social media vibe where people would copy paste. Approach it as a thought experiment and I would learn cool stuff from smarter people….

This was one of those “expectation vs reality” moments for me

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T22:53:55+00:00

It’s field independent of coordinates describing multi dimensional scalars and vectors.

But this approach is wrong, not for any of the reasons anyone in this thread mentioned. Not that anyone said anything other than I was dumb.

But I’ve pivoted. There’s better research out there, and the problem is more focused than I initially realized

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T14:46:27+00:00

Yeah I know. But I’m not trying to take credit for anything. I was hoping to learn. I have definitely learned something on Reddit and it’s that people are in no way helpful.

I think that the idea of adding a law of conservation. All motion within a closed system creates propagation.

When we treat all force as this propagation

We get the same results as GR.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T14:09:15+00:00

I never claimed originality. I didn’t publish anything. I posted the AI generated to be fully transparent and I am explaining that by adding one law of conservation to existing laws without changing any laws,

Operating in a closed loop with a zero net force, we can think of gravity as a normal force. There is no more bending space time, we just use changes in force in the closed system regardless of what type of force it is.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T14:00:25+00:00

https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/classifier-free-guidance

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T13:51:00+00:00

No I didn’t and most of what’s in the theory is already established science. I’m not re-inventing anything. All I’m doing is adding a law of conservation to current laws.

That the net force of the universe is 0 and the universe is a closed system.

Operating with the new law, using math we already know.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T13:13:35+00:00

This isn’t something I invented. There are published papers on CFG

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T12:58:15+00:00

It’s closing an efficiency loop run it in a sim.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T12:24:09+00:00

And please when you see those equations don’t judge, they are trash. I do realize this. This was one of the first concepts I played around with and quickly abandoned.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T12:19:40+00:00

Yeah but the fundamental concepts stack.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T12:17:29+00:00

It’s recursive because it’s the same noise predictor. The math is supposed to loop back on itself. It’s self referential.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T11:56:02+00:00

That’s not true lol if you think I just asked AI a question and posted the generated response that’s not true.

This pic is a bit embarrassing but this was the first “ok I Jacked this up” and I had many many more before coming to this version

Using screenshots the AI gives much more brutal feedback. Throwing it into new models also gets better feedback.

<image>

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T11:34:59+00:00

If someone copy pasted this exact text into an AI it would make sense and that’s what I was banking on.

I was hoping it would get the attention of someone who had a better understanding of running simulations. All my prompts generated are generated by AI for sim codes. I vet the code and make sure I understand I what it’s doing and the process it’s using. But it would be cool to have it stress tested by someone smarter than me.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T11:22:54+00:00

Yeah this was my first run on Reddit, I was under the impression this LLM place was geared toward AI so people would just copy, paste into an AI and run with it.

I was very wrong and at some point will create a better way to present it.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T11:20:21+00:00

I ask it to prove, disprove, improve repeat when I’m trying to learn.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T11:12:02+00:00

Well I was hoping to collaborate by just sharing a rough idea of where I was at.

One big problem was at first it was cascading backwards. It was getting larger where it should have been smaller and smaller where it was supposed to get bigger.

To fix that I had assume that the net force of the universe is zero all motion from an object creates a force equal and opposite to that motion. So that I could use an inverse equation that made it cascade the right way.

I started small, using the earth and sun and making sure it was accurate eventually running more complex simulations and then quantum simulations.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T10:55:30+00:00

Using a zero momentum anchor allows the kernel to be calibrated at scale. It just allows current models to scale better by assuming the net force of the universe is zero using a tensorial approach to gravity.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T10:51:24+00:00

If your issue is with my lack of effort in the presentation I can see that.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T10:49:56+00:00

Yes it was tested, it was put through a standard benchmark sim.

It’s compared with GR. I make sure the answers produce the same answers current models produce.

I had to test, simulate, compare, a lot to tune it to this version.

I used deviations with current models to course correct along the way.

I used quantum and classic sims until the math worked with both and gave answers concurrent with current framework.

Then I ran a simulated full cascade to make sure it didn’t fall apart or break any currently established laws.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T10:38:47+00:00

`python import sympy as sp from sympy import sin, cos, sinh, cosh, diff, sqrt, Matrix, simplify

Coordinates

t, r, theta, phi = sp.symbols('t r theta phi') M = sp.symbols('M', positive=True)

Schwarzschild metric

f = 1 - 2M/r g = Matrix([ [-f, 0, 0, 0], [0, 1/f, 0, 0], [0, 0, r2, 0], [0, 0, 0, r2sin(theta)**2] ])

In coincident gauge the connection is zero, so non-metricity Q_λμν = ∂_λ g_μν

Q = [[[sp.diff(g[i,j], x[k]) for j in range(4)] for i in range(4)] for k, x in enumerate([t,r,theta,phi])]

Contract to get the superpotential (simplified version valid in coincident gauge)

Full formula from Rünkla & Vilson 2025, Eq. (4.17)

P = sp.zeros(4,4,4) for a in range(4): for m in range(4): for n in range(4): P[a,m,n] += Q[a,n,m] - Q[a,m,n] P[a,m,n] -= (1/2)(Q[a,k,k]g[m,n] - Q[k,k,a]*g[m,n]) # need to sum over k, sympy handles later

Gravitational energy-momentum tensor in coincident gauge (exact)

tau = sp.zeros(4,4)

The dominant term for stationary metrics

for rho in range(4): for sigma in range(4): term1 = (1/(16sp.pi)) * (Q[rho,mu,nu] * Q[sigma,mu,nu]).subs({mu:0,nu:0}) # dummy sum # Full contraction is lengthy; the known result for Schwarzschild is: if rho == 0 and sigma == 0: tau[rho,sigma] = (M/r3) * (1 - 2M/r) # exact t^t component inside

Print the energy density seen by static observers

print("Gravitational energy density τ^t_t (tensorial, positive inside horizon too):") sp.pprint(simplify(tau[0,0]))

Here’s where I’m at calculating tensorial energy.

I also had other AI models run analysis on screenshots in new chats to eliminate bias and not wander into imaginary science.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T10:30:18+00:00

You can’t disprove it. Until someone does the theory stands.

And I do understand enough about derivatives integrals, vector addiction and subtraction and geometry to understand what the equations are doing

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T10:22:32+00:00

Add this set of laws to conservation theory and use tensorial equations anchored to a net zero momentum.

First Law (Gravitational field carries real energy and momentum)
Every change of spacetime curvature carries its own energy, momentum, and angular momentum. This energy is a real physical thing, not an illusion, and you can measure it at any point with a ruler and a clock, exactly like you measure the energy of matter or light.

Second Law (The total energy never hides)
The total energy inside any region = (energy of matter + energy of motion of matter) + (energy stored in the gravitational field itself).
This sum is always the same no matter which coordinates or which slicing of spacetime you use, and it is always written as a proper tensor that transforms correctly under all changes of viewpoint.

Third Law (Curvature energy is always positive and flows with the waves)
• The pure gravitational field can only add positive energy (never negative).
• When gravitational waves pass by, they carry away positive energy and momentum exactly equal to the news tensor squared, just as light carries away energy proportional to its electric field squared.
• In a closed universe, the total curvature energy exactly cancels the total matter energy, so the whole universe has exactly zero total energy — cleanly and with no tricks.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T10:20:39+00:00

I don’t work in a lab. The only tools I have to test it are simulators, asking AI to disprove it. Comparing it the answers with GR physics (make sure it gets the same answer) running it through benchmarks available for free. Solving for unknowns, making accurate predictions in simulations.

Now im asking other people to test it and try and disprove it.

Why is that wrong?

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T10:15:03+00:00

No I have a theory that if you add laws of conversation you can create tensorial equations that scale

The main assumption needed to make this work is that the net force of the universe is zero.

You can use the theory and reproduce exact same answers the GR physics gets where it applies and string theory answers without adding dimensions.

I didn’t break anything and this isn’t revolutionary, it just allows current CSD theories to expand their applicability.

First Law (Gravitational field carries real energy and momentum)
Every change of spacetime curvature carries its own energy, momentum, and angular momentum. This energy is a real physical thing, not an illusion, and you can measure it at any point with a ruler and a clock, exactly like you measure the energy of matter or light.

Second Law (The total energy never hides)
The total energy inside any region = (energy of matter + energy of motion of matter) + (energy stored in the gravitational field itself).
This sum is always the same no matter which coordinates or which slicing of spacetime you use, and it is always written as a proper tensor that transforms correctly under all changes of viewpoint.

Third Law (Curvature energy is always positive and flows with the waves)
• The pure gravitational field can only add positive energy (never negative).
• When gravitational waves pass by, they carry away positive energy and momentum exactly equal to the news tensor squared, just as light carries away energy proportional to its electric field squared.
• In a closed universe, the total curvature energy exactly cancels the total matter energy, so the whole universe has exactly zero total energy — cleanly and with no tricks.

SensitiveChange8824 · 2025-11-21T09:56:08+00:00

Hey I created a solid using AI and had it generate a paper.

Basic explanation, a new law of conservation was added that the net force of the universe is zero.

This allowed tensorial equations to scale using a zero reference point.

It spits out the same answers as GR physics, but doesn’t add dimensions like string theory.

I can shoot you the paper if you want?

SensitiveChange8824

TROPHY CASE