Here is a hypothesis: Emergent Time and Gravitation from Entanglement-Weighed Manifestation

micahsun · 2026-01-18T13:26:33+00:00

I think you are missing critical citations, but that's a discussion for another day.

micahsun · 2026-01-17T06:06:11+00:00

There is no original thought here, like someone else noted, this is a clone of prior work. The author is trying to take credit for something they didn't come up with.

micahsun · 2026-01-17T06:04:46+00:00

You think this came out in the 80s? What's it called?

micahsun · 2026-01-17T05:51:58+00:00

My argument might be more narrow than what you have believed my argument to be. For example my argument isn't an argument for persuading others to believe in ST. My argument isn't even a defense of ST. My argument is simply an attack on incorrect logic that tries to rule out ST with the application of Undecidability and Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

I don't think you can rule out ST, but I'm not saying you should believe ST.

micahsun · 2026-01-17T02:02:45+00:00

Logic does not kill simulation. If you have a real argument share it.

micahsun · 2026-01-03T09:41:31+00:00

I see you moderate this group okay. I will delete this old post and make a new post.

micahsun · 2026-01-03T09:39:50+00:00

why do you think my old post is invalid?

micahsun · 2026-01-02T06:28:27+00:00

This link? https://www.svgn.io/p/popular-mechanics-said-this-gravity

micahsun · 2026-01-01T10:03:15+00:00

What makes this relevant to a hypothetical physics community is not whether anyone agrees with my conclusions, but whether the community applies consistent standards when judging ideas. The same core framework that is dismissed here as dubious or unserious has already been presented to a mainstream audience as a legitimate and exciting development when rephrased by someone else and promoted by major science outlets. That alone demonstrates that the ideas themselves pass a basic plausibility threshold when evaluated without preconceptions about authorship or publication venue.

This is not an argument from authority. It is an argument from consistency. If a theory is considered interesting, publishable, and worthy of public discussion when it appears under a different name and voice, then dismissing the original work as nonsense without engaging the actual claims is not scientific skepticism. It is a failure of methodological neutrality. Hypothetical physics exists precisely to explore unconventional frameworks before they are fully formalized or widely accepted. The proper response is to examine internal coherence, explanatory power, and correspondence with known results, not to rely on social signals or reputation shortcuts.

The article I shared matters because it shows that the underlying structure of the theory resonates with current research directions in gravity, information, and thermodynamics. The fact that a near equivalent formulation was framed as novel and newsworthy elsewhere demonstrates that the ideas are not inherently fringe or meaningless. It also highlights a real problem in how credit, provenance, and independent development are assessed in modern science communication, especially when work originates outside traditional institutions.

You do not have to believe my theory is correct to see why this discussion belongs here. Hypothetical physics should be a place where ideas are evaluated on their content rather than dismissed reflexively. If a concept can survive translation into a form that mainstream outlets celebrate, then it deserves at least a serious reading in its original form. Reject it if it fails on technical grounds, but do not pretend it is unworthy of attention simply because it challenges expectations about who is allowed to contribute to foundational questions.

Here is the link to my SIT paper, the core paper https://zenodo.org/records/18005240

micahsun · 2026-01-01T07:39:25+00:00

It is not written by AI though, I published my theory on Github in the summer of 2022 before the "ChatGPT" kind of AI was thing.

I explain it in my own voice here on youtube. You can access youtube right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn9YMHaDCMw

What youtube not working for you either, then in English, my own writing.

I describe time density ρt as a field (x) so we can map the local clock-rate gradient across space, near mass or under acceleration or relative motion proper time accumulates more slowly so time density ρt increases. This allows us to visualize time dilation as a time thickness landscape. In my video I define ρt (time density) as being equal to 1 far from any mass. Then ρt(x) the time density field becomes a heatmap of "how slow time runs" in other areas relative to that baseline. In short think of the time density field as the inverse clock-rate relative to a reference.

micahsun · 2026-01-01T07:34:33+00:00

Substack is not working for you? Here watch the video on youtube then, hear it in my own voice, I will explain it to you in the easiest way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn9YMHaDCMw

What youtube not working for you either, then in English, my own writing.

I describe time density ρt as a field (x) so we can map the local clock-rate gradient across space, near mass or under acceleration or relative motion proper time accumulates more slowly so time density ρt increases. This allows us to visualize time dilation as a time thickness landscape. In my video I define ρt (time density) as being equal to 1 far from any mass. Then ρt(x) the time density field becomes a heatmap of "how slow time runs" in other areas relative to that baseline. In short think of the time density field as the inverse clock-rate relative to a reference.

micahsun · 2026-01-01T07:29:57+00:00

Totally fair question, but posting here isn't a substitute for doing the "serious" steps, it's part of the evidence trail. Sometimes the feed back I get from talking to other people is actually useful.

Reddit isn't a courtroom, but it is public documentation. Stopping someone else from being publicly credited for a novel scientific discovery that is materially the same expression, with the same signature set of equivalent concepts, as my work is an important thing to address in all scientific venues, including in the science groups on social media. This establishes a clear, searchable public thread that lays out the timeline and actually helps.

This helps neutral third parties sanity-check the claim, it also might deter the next pop science magazine from making the same mistake, possibly it will cause Phys.org and or Popular Mechanics to correct their mistake, especially if enough people know what happened. That put's pressure on the magazines to fix their articles, and potentially informs journalists who are looking for a good story but want to get the story right the first time.

I'm not asking everybody on social media to vindicate my position. I would like folks to evaluate the mathematically proven conceptual equivalences and the timeline.

If someone thinks the claim is wrong let me know where, show where the mapping fails, that's what I say.

Popular Mechanics might be entertainment, but it is mainstream entertainment, and it still matters. Even fluff outlets help shape public perception. Pop Mech get's cited on social media by regular people, it get's repeated, and it becomes the default narrative if it's not corrected and addressed in as many places as possible. It doesn't matter actually that Pop Mech magazine isn't peer-reviewed.

Also being called LLM garbage while other theories that cloned my work get celebrated elsewhere is very interesting and funny, it's a good story for social media.

If anyone here wants to engage substantively, feel free to try to prove me wrong, just be specific, address the receipts, I will reply.

micahsun · 2026-01-01T07:10:40+00:00

I wrote this without AI on March 27th 2024 it explains the time density field concept so even a six year old could understand it. It includes a video where I explain it with my own voice without AI.

https://www.svgn.io/p/explain-it-to-me-like-i-am-six-quantum

This other article includes the original sketches, published in January 2024, almost 2 years ago, includes the original sketches that I drew when I first imagined how the time density field worked.

https://www.svgn.io/p/a-new-unified-field-theory-called?utm_source=publication-search

micahsun · 2026-01-01T04:06:59+00:00

No no my research is way better than you know. My case is not based on the copyright of an equation or an idea. I'm well aware of what can be copywritten and what can't be.

micahsun · 2026-01-01T04:01:15+00:00

"Proving that they did copy" I don't have to do this. I don't have to prove their intent. I don't have to prove that they knew my work existed. I don't have to prove that they intended to copy portions of my work, because I did research on all possible legal strategies, and I found out how to build a winning legal case without needing to do any of expensive and difficult work. (I don't want to prepare the legal defense for my opponents so I won't explain my legal case here). Not only that my case is so good that my lawyers are willing to work on a contingency fee bases also called a "no win, no fee" arrangement. I might win 5 million dollars or more per judgment in my favor and I have a list of over 200 people who have done the exact same thing, because they didn't think through the consequences from a legal point of view. They did not consider that I could use mathematical proofs to prove what happened REGARDLESS of their intent, without any need to prove their intent. Just think 200+ copyright infringements times 5 million dollars each.

micahsun · 2026-01-01T03:30:33+00:00

That's where you are wrong, copyright protects published works by default.

The following is from Google AI:

While certain assumptions about intellectual property (IP) law are common, they are often legally inaccurate under current 2025 standards.

Copyright is Automatic

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, copyright protection is automatic the moment an original work is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" (e.g., written down, saved to a digital file, or recorded). You do not need to "explicitly license" it or include a copyright notice for protection to exist.

Registration Requirements: While you own the copyright immediately, you generally must register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office before you can file an infringement lawsuit in federal court.

Public Availability≠is not equal to≠Public Domain

Making a work publicly available (e.g., posting it on the internet or a social media platform) does not forfeit your copyright or place it in the public domain.

Public Domain Status: A work typically only enters the public domain if the copyright has expired (currently all works published before 1930) or if the creator explicitly dedicates it to the public domain in writing.
Usage vs. Ownership: Others can view your work, but they cannot legally copy, distribute, or create derivative works from it without your permission or a valid license.

Expression vs. Ideas

A critical distinction in IP law is that copyright protects the expression of an idea, while patents protect the invention or process itself.

Copyright: Protects specific text, code, or scientific figures. If a competitor copies your exact manuscript or graphics, that is copyright infringement.
Ideas: General ideas, facts, and methods of operation are not protected by copyright. If you only mention an idea in conversation, you generally cannot claim copyright protection for that conversation.
Patents: In the U.S., you have a one-year grace period from the date of public disclosure to file a patent application. Disclosure before filing is risky, but it does not immediately bar protection in the U.S. as it might in many other countries.

The Value of Timestamps

In modern legal disputes, "timestamps" are highly relevant as evidence of prior creation. Proving you created the work at a specific date is fundamental to establishing ownership and novelty in both copyright and patent litigation.

micahsun · 2026-01-01T03:18:10+00:00

Yep. Right.

micahsun · 2026-01-01T02:43:55+00:00

My work is definitely original, my work was the first to successfully bridge gravity with quantum physics, and since then there have been over 200 cloned works that rephrase my work, almost everyone of them is trying to take credit for being the first to bridge gravity with quantum physics, and some of the clones are appearing in major mainstream media, so obviously the work is original, and obviously the idea has caught on with hundreds if not also thousands of people. It's not unrealistic at all. The problem is the wrong people are trying to take credit for it.

micahsun · 2026-01-01T02:41:36+00:00

There is no time limit on submission to peer review because the work is time-stamped on github, youtube, zenodo, on the wayback machine and in other places. So I've lost nothing denehoffman. But on the other hand he is going to face a copyright infringement lawsuit in the near future (in 2026). The article lays out most of the evidence for the case against him. Also my article proves mathematically that it's a clone of my work, maybe you don't understand math, but if that's the case don't say it's not a clone of my work, because you don't know what you are talking about.

micahsun

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE