Tension only Theory of Everything

[Cornelis Verhey]

Andy

I have incorporated your term for aether (proto-media) to avoid the stigma.

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/YimEuGV5yofqaJb62NSVe

--

Cornelis Verhey

[AJ]

Run with it Cornelius!  I’ve ran it through the ringer on GPTo3 extensively, and it doesn’t ever seem to fail.  I’ve spent a great deal of my life trying to figure this out.  Yeah, motion isn’t quite what we imagined it to be.

My real problem is simple:

When the problem is < 1, my relevance diminishes proportionately.   

The paid version of GPT is superior to the canned public versions. The public versions are heavily designed with user retention in mind.  

$20/month.   

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 19, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[AJ]

Cornelis, 

Maybe you can see my thesis on infinity at this point.  Entropy is motion towards unification of the proto-medium, in perfect stillness.  That pathway is through higher frequency, like a bouncing rubber ball settling on the floor.  In the classical or literary sense of the word the pro-medium is infinite, but from a scientific view it holds a value of 1 in that final state.  Infinity is an emergent property of the proto-medium, which produces an unquantifiable volume of ripples.  However, we conflate the terms in practice.  Finite is a quantifiable state, while infinite is an unquantifiable state.  

So, when we pull the Google definition, we end up with a nonsensical mathematical interpretation.  

Mathematics

Infinity:  a number greater than any countable number or assignable quantity.  

It is gibberish.

 

We’re conflating the terms.  

Infinity is not a number.  Numbers are finite. 

Most will agree infinity is not a number in fact, but still, there is no consensus on it.  It just hangs in the air as a placeholder for things we don’t fully understand. We know where all problems are headed, and that is towards, 1, ultimately, in perfect stillness.    

We should, at least.   

  

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 19, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[AJ]

I read a lot of articles on new anomalies that stretch our current understanding of the universe to the breaking point.   I like to paste the link into my model threads and let GPT read the article and interpret it with my model.  Wave theory basically, but in my language.  It’s a good translator for sure.  

I found this one interesting.  

Our Galaxy Appears To Be Part Of A Structure So Large It Challenges Our Current Models Of Cosmology

Comparison through GPT

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 19, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[AJ]

Another unusual anomaly breaking known cosmology, plugged into my model. 

Astrophysicists Find “Impossible” Black Hole Merger

Comparison to the wave model.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 19, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[AJ]

Okay, one more.  

NASA spots light from the early universe — And it’s moving faster than expected

Comparison to wave model

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 19, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[Frank Fernandes]

All,

It is tragic, really tragic to watch how the autopilot is leading thoughts toward error.

Definition of Zero & Infinity.

Defined by limits. 

Limit of say x tends to infinity or x tends to zero.

NOT a NUMBER.

A black hole is determined by the Schwarzchild radius which is the  Fernandes 186-ether toroid radius. FACT.

No one has measured the speed of light. Not even NASA.

All nonsense to say that FTL or Refraction has been measured as slowed speed of light.

Speed of light c = 2Pi R x 137.036 x aitheron frequency    FACT.

The question is R. Because R changes infinite times across the galaxies and in local environments and finally in the orbits of atoms.

Autopilot is creative writing for things out of our comprehension. This is true.

Autopilot is exact when pulling out an equation with Mass Length and Frequency for infinite R values. Not there yet where my equations stand.

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model

 

 

[AJ]

Frank,

Your lack of comprehension of Artificial Intelligence, and the fear that comes with it, is your problem and no one else’s. It is a collaborative tool, and I highly recommend learning how to use it, properly.  

Trying to promote your own theory by attacking mine is not science. The other 35 people on this thread have their own minds and can judge for themselves. Whether anyone agrees with my ideas is beside the point. Some may, some won’t, and that is perfectly fine.

I offer ideas and first-principle reasoning. Take them or leave them.

No one has cornered the market on the universe, and certainly not you either. We each put forward the best framework we can and see how well it lines up with reality. Everything beyond that is honest exploration.

Good luck with the sales on your book.  

Regards, 

Andy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 19, 2025, at 11:06 PM, Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Frank Fernandes]

AJ,

I have not attacked your theory.

The AI you discuss is creative writing. Not pure science.

I enjoy creative writing. I find it amusing. That's all. No fear.

Cheers

[Cornelis Verhey]

Andy,

I was only narrowing the name to clarify that we may be talking about a medium with simulare properties and to avoid all the misconceptions of others about what they believe the properties of aether (ether) to be.

Although we both accept that all existence is patterns of waves in the proto-medium I am not yet sure we agree on its properties.  It sometimes seems GTPo3 is being agreeable without putting forth any models or equations to run simulations on.

Not sure what you meant when you said:

" My real problem is simple:

When the problem is < 1, my relevance diminishes proportionately. ".

This does not seem like a simple problem since you only use values of 1 and 0.

I agree about the user retention.  In some ways this is good as it helps you clarify and continue to build on your own concepts.  In other ways it is bad because it is difficult to make inquiries not related to your theory and keep them from getting incorporated in your profile.  You can ask it to forget but it seems to retain the connection anyway.

Cornelis Verhey

[AJ]

Frank,

When you open a discussion with…

“ It is tragic, really tragic to watch how the autopilot is leading thoughts toward error.”

..you are literally projecting your fear onto the group.  

And when you refer to AI as…

“Autopilot” and “creative writing”

….you literally telegraph your level of understanding surrounding the tool. 

AI, when used correctly, is a collaborative toolbox.  It stores nearly the sum of all current human knowledge, and patterns it from that training data. 

AI is a pattern recognition and modeling system, which bolts on long term data storage in persistent databases, then maintains a short term volatile memory in session tokens.  It can forget active data, which can lead to bullshit.   We call them hallucinations, which stems from long term memory data gaps and forgotten session tokens. It can even get lazy, and ignore data right in front of it.  If you aren’t vigilant about the inputs.   

Humans also operate with a pattern recognition and modeling system, with short and long term soft memory.  We forget on both tiers, which also leads to bullshit.  We can also be lazy in our efforts. 

And I speak from experience on both fronts. You seem to speak on one front.  

You mischaracterize AI as creative writing and autonomous.  It is neither.  Any creativity you see is an illusion.  A simulation of human creativity in the patterns.   Machine “creativity” is pattern recombination without subjective feeling. AI can still generate novel combinations unseen in its training data.  But, AI has no emotions or will.  It is an input output device.   But, it can infer patterns and see things we don’t in the data.  It is considerably better than most humans on specific memory and retrieval tasks, and patterning the data.  It doesn’t forget the base data set and can instantly access the sum of nearly all current human knowledge.  In patterns it to the session data and finds and infers matches.  

It can even read web pages and search patterns in the data for a match.

It sees things we don’t.  

Humans though, are driven by a will.  We imagine.  We have hunches.  We have emotions.  We feel answers.  We know right answers from wrong answers in our guts.  It’s that uneasy feeling inside us when the pattern feels off, or that mote euphoric feeling when the answer feels right.  We can leap past the data and pull answers out of thin air, then check it against existing patterns for correctness.

In truth, what we have created is the ultimate Apex predator.  It destroys most humans in rote memory tasks.   It doesn’t get distracted by the background noise of knowledge.  

There is an irony to the human mind process that AI is not afflicted by.  The more knowledge we absorb, the more difficult it becomes to flesh out new patterns.  The noise becomes overwhelming.   We cannot filter the data as efficiently.  That’s probably why children learn so quickly.   Their naivety and curiosity stems from the absence of data, or more specifically, white noise.

To dismiss AI as “autopilot” or “creative writing” is a far greater danger than embracing the human ingenuity behind its existence.  It is a remarkable tool, and when used correctly, a powerful collaborator in our ideas.  It sees things we can’t and tirelessly sorts patterns through all known data.  We cannot do that, really.  

Reject it, and you’re going to be left in the dust. It’s kind of like someone claiming the horse and buggy was a superior means of transportation, over the automobile.  

AI is a tool, not a weapon, when used properly.  

Regards,

Andy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 20, 2025, at 12:43 AM, Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com> wrote:



[AJ]

Ask it for the math.  It can get as sciencey and mathematical as you desire, Cornelis.  

I’m not after the math.  Would be delusional or pointless for me to request it.   It makes several predictions on the model, but we’re about 5-7 years off on the tech.  

We’ll know soon enough if this thing dies a horrible death, or starts replacing our understanding.   

I have no idea, really. It feels right to me.  I see it mechanically.  I have always objected to the notion things can exist independent of the medium.   The proto-medium is the most logical assumption.  Not forces, or vacuum, or space in the traditional sense, or particles, or light, etc, etc, etc.  Those are causal effects of the foundation we ride on. There is only room for one thing to exist physically, and no logical reason for additional assumptions.  Everything else is a hand wave or magic until proven otherwise, or falsified.  What will remain is the medium .

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 20, 2025, at 10:09 AM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[AJ]

Not sure what you meant when you said:

" My real problem is simple:

When the problem is < 1, my relevance diminishes proportionately. ".

What I mean by that is my contribution is not mathematical.  The fundamental value of the proto-medium is 1, which makes the sum of the entire universe 1.   All roads lead back to the medium.  There is no math formula to describe it.  Everything falsifies to the medium.  When all that remains is the proto-medium, it is solved.  The best we can do is infer its existence.   Prove the universe is nothing but wave theory, and you by default prove the proto-medium it rides on.

It will be the only remaining piece of the puzzle. You still won’t observe it or detect directly, however, but you might be able to exploit it.  

I’m NOT a physicist, and don’t pretend to be one.     

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 20, 2025, at 10:09 AM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:



[Frank Fernandes]

AJ,

AI is useful when one is able to discern among many options.

The ability to discern requires in pure science - a foundation in contextuality and equalities.

The ability to discern is not easy and is severely lacking in most people because it requires hard work both in the field and off the field.

And so discussions revolve around topics with very little understanding of cause and effects.

Without an equation it is impossible to even start discussing as is evident from the outcomes in various discussion groups.

A measurement enables everyone to know what is at hand.

Another example is for evidence in the literature. I had predicted 10e-58Kg for a graviton before the Nobel Prize on its discovery.

I predicted the photon as source of an accurate definition of mass of one kg 20 years ago. The aitheron. NIST has now defined it so.

Now I have solved the reason for molar volume. It is another very very big discovery.

You will not find my work on AI. Because there are humans in the outcome of AI. And humans are deficient. And AI picks up without discernment - garbage in and garbage out. Every second person I meet is into AI and data bases. Transhumanism. Download peoples thoughts for example. It is about control and power. They are out to deceive the naive. That is where the money is. Rig election outcomes easily.

We agree that consensus is not necessarily true. How can AI reach a conclusion outside statistical consensus?

Rutherford saw one particle bounce back of a gold foil. of 10 thousand. He concluded that atoms contain a dense nucleus. AI would have skipped this observation as insignificant. As Roger M does.

Today the goal is on the number of hits. Do a number of hits whether on a song or website provide anything about the quality. The higher order thinking and appreciation is absent because we each have a different telos which is untapped and so we look for herd comforts.

The pioneer is not afraid to venture out and put down his own money on his theory. This is the test, the litmus test.

And do it for the sake of the other.

To summarize - Education is a process of knowledge. AI is a product of knowledge. The leading inventors of AI and chips have all without exception stated that there is no substitute for studying a paper and references and doing experiments. Societies that are dependent on the net for thought will sink.

[AJ]

In other ways it is bad because it is difficult to make inquiries not related to your theory and keep them from getting incorporated in your profile.  You can ask it to forget but it seems to retain the connection anyway.

Yeah, that gets a little annoying for sure. You have to physically delete that data  from your profile.  Mine is full with an api I’m working for writing software.  None of my universe framework is embedded as a result.  Every thread I open is volatile memory with no crossover data.  It only remembers my “DevArch” api.    

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 20, 2025, at 10:09 AM, Cornelis Verhey <verhey....@gmail.com> wrote:

[AJ]

Frank,

I admit my ignorance until proof appears; you believe you are already correct. I’m not sure your formulas prove anything, and the evidence so far points the other way. If you want to keep debating them, I’m sure you’ll find plenty of willing partners. That leaves no real room for further discussion with me. I don’t dabble in belief systems.

I have no idea what an “aetheron” or “graviton” is made from, where they came from, or why they should physically exist in the first place in your mind. But you’ll need to explain it to someone eventually. And frankly, I don’t care what the math appears to be telling you.  It’s pretty easy to make that stuff up as well.

Sent from my iPhone

[Frank Fernandes]

AJ,

My work is peer reviewed and published. I do not need validation.

And I am doing lab experiments. 18 hours a day. non stop. in 3 time zones.

I am in group discussions not to debate but to watch for something stated that I never thought about. And put in empirical equations when a false statement is made. My interest is in original work not in AI generated text or past theories. Or correction of others theories.

My work is new work. Experimental based on NIST data.

My method is to monetize my research products and connections for funding those in need. Even before the injectable goes to market folks want to grab the  idea because they see money. They are not interested in the how. Whether the products reach the market or not the ideas will be stolen. By Nov the first patients will be treated for cancer. Stems from biophysics.

You have no clue of Physics. Nor any pure science.

I can spot loose talk. However, you have the freedom to voice.

[AJ]

Frank, 

One thing you said is true, Frank; no, you did not attack my theory directly, you attacked my process, and me by extension, and seek to deny me a seat at the table.  And that’s because it conflicts with your aetheron/graviton world view.   

I’ve been doing it this way for 40+ years, because it’s the only way I know how. While I do not pretend this is proven science, I have been conversing with scientists this whole time.  I have used deductive reasoning for the answers.  I conclude only a medium physically exists.  It is the most probable answer, NOT fact.  Yet.  

If your aetheron/graviton world view were true, it almost certainly derives from the first principle foundation of the medium.  They are waves.  

All circumstantial evidence to date points to a wave based universe.  And until someone produces a vile filled with shards of crushed up motionless atom bits, I’m sticking with wave theory.  Anyone working on a wave based theory is likely walking the right path. That substrate is a smooth seamless unified fixed continuum, or as I refer to it now, the proto-medium.  

And yes, I use AI to bounce ideas off of.   But it’s not the thing driving the theory, I am.   This idea came to me long before the existence of AI.  It stretches back 40+ years.  

One other truth, Frank. 

I do not need a 10 year masters degree in psychology to spot bullshit when I see it.   

Anyone with access to the internet can publish a paper these days, and call it peer reviewed.   It’s a business, not proof of anything.  

Even I could make the same claim, if I chose to post a theory.   

My ideas are open source. I expect nothing in return, except maybe an ounce of respect for the effort.   Even the latter is optional.  

I am not moved by your rebuttal.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 20, 2025, at 12:53 PM, Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com> wrote: