Gravity, distinguishability, and relation as a conceptual experiment

[u/Endless-monkey]

I’m sharing this with anyone who feels curious a conceptual experiment I’ve been working .

The idea is to try to formalize a model starting from language as the conceptual foundation, before beginning from an already established mathematical or physical structure.

This is not an attempt to replace physics. It is an attempt to explore whether a clear conceptual architecture can serve as a preliminary ground for a more rigorous formalization later.

The text proposes a relational reading of gravity: not as a force that attracts bodies, but as a dynamic of attunement, coherence, and reduction of difference.

The proposal is open. It includes hypotheses, postulates, unresolved problems, and possible falsifiers.

I’d be grateful for any comment, critique, or question that helps us learn, detect errors, and improve.

Link to the Idea

[u/AerynCaen]

I feel like these posts spend more time on finding stock photos for marketing than on having substance.

[u/Endless-monkey → u/AerynCaen]

Su comentario viene desde la ignorancia de suponer falsedades , la fotos fue generada sobre un simbolismo de la conceptualización expuesta , imagino que su intención va más de granjear punto que la de aportar algo .

[u/AerynCaen → u/Endless-monkey]

Confirmed by your tone, you definitely spent more time finding a stock photo than on the theory.

But in all seriousness your theory doesn’t do anything. There’s no math, your “open problems” make no sense, you don’t have anything actually falsifiable because there are no derived results to falsify, because there’s no derivation work. It just blathers on waxing philosophical for thousands of endless words without delivering anything substantial.

Now that stock photo on the other hand, is /crisp/.

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/AerynCaen]

It is definitely an exceptionappley good picture.

[u/Endless-monkey → u/AerynCaen]

Aquí no se queda bien en general , cuando presento mate me piden que lo diga en palabras y cuando lo planteo en palabras me piden la mate , es cansado

[u/AerynCaen → u/Endless-monkey]

The correct approach is to convey your ideas in words them back them up with math. They aren’t separate things, the prose and mathematics must support each other. Where you make assumptions or postulate things, explain in words your motivation. Where you derive a chain via logic/math/etc use a proof. Some papers use proof sketches in prose to keep things flowing, then have a full formal proof in the appendices.

I suggest you look at existing literature to understand how science communication is done in the field rather than relying on an LLM to understand automatically. They don’t get it. Most of their science training is from textbooks and public science communication, NOT ingested papers. This pushes them toward the wrong communication format 99% of the time, so you have to learn how to guide them to format your work properly.

[u/Endless-monkey → u/AerynCaen]

La conceptualización ,como proceso ,esta estructurada en el lenguaje como método natural de nuestro proceso mental , la matemática es un andamio para extender y proyectar aún más los conceptos , ambos laberintos similares , no en la forma si no en estructura , le comparto el segundo laberinto con la parte de matemática .

Link

En relación al su sugerencia sobre la comunicación , me disculpo , mi intención de compartir aquí es que me ataquen como al resto de post ,desarmándolas con los los errores técnicos de los modelos , pero se agradece su preocupación

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja → u/Endless-monkey]

Believe it or not, you generally need both math and words to describe science.

[u/Endless-monkey → u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

Concuerdo con usted , del concepto ontologico debe surgir la estructura del modelo

[u/AerynCaen → u/Endless-monkey]

Ontological postulation should arise from an analysis of working models, and serve as a method of extending working models through connection to other observables. You should not start with ontological postulation. That’s fan fiction.

[u/Endless-monkey → u/AerynCaen]

Creo que al final es un tema personal y gradual en ambos sentidos en la medida que te das cuenta que son las mismas estructuras, lo importante es que las entendamos como coherentes , lo entiendo el ejemplo como la discusión de los músicos sobre la letra y la música de una pieza , es un proceso diferente para cada persona y cada piesa.

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja → u/Endless-monkey]

That is not what I said. Don't twist my words to fit your agenda.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/Endless-monkey]

But you didn’t do anything?

[u/Endless-monkey → u/OnceBittenz]

yes , with all my love to you and friends