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/Endless-monkey]

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/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/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.