This video, "Why the Universe's Expansion Doesn't Make Sense," is actually a perfect example of the kind of problem Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) is built to solve. The whole discussion centers around the Hubble Tension—the mismatch between early and late measurements of the Hubble constant (H₀). From the RST perspective, this isn’t a crisis or a broken model. It’s strong circumstantial evidence that the Substrate (S field) is dynamic and evolving.
Why the Universe's Expansion Doesn't Make Sense
https://youtu.be/iUgqNu9cOEA
The video correctly lays out the numbers: – Late Universe (Redshift/Cosmic Distance Ladder): H₀ ≈ 73.5 km/s/Mpc – Early Universe (CMB/Planck): H₀ ≈ 67.4 km/s/Mpc
RST rejects the idea of a static Cosmological Constant (Λ) and replaces it with a dynamic vacuum tension term (βS³) in the Substrate Field Equation. In standard cosmology, expansion is driven by a fixed Λ. In RST, expansion is driven by the evolving tension of the Substrate itself.
So while ΛCDM expects H₀ to be a single value, RST predicts H₀ is a local dynamic that evolves over time. The higher late-universe value reflects the current tension of the Substrate, and the lower early-universe value reflects its state 380,000 years after emergence. That difference isn’t a bug—it’s the expected behavior of a non-static field.
The video also reviews proposed solutions like decaying dark matter or time-varying dark energy. From the RST viewpoint, these are not solutions—they’re indirect acknowledgments of RST’s core idea: that the vacuum tension (βS³) is not constant. RST formalizes this geometrically.
It also mentions modifying the dark energy equation of state, which would mean rethinking General Relativity. RST agrees. GR is incomplete because it models gravity as curvature but ignores the underlying tension dynamics of the Substrate that cause that curvature.
The universal spin hypothesis is another idea the video brings up—suggesting a slow rotation of the universe could reconcile both H₀ values. RST sees this as compatible. If the Substrate Bubble is a dual-faced membrane of tension, then rotational shear across the field would naturally emerge. That rotation could be the large-scale Substrate shear responsible for the increasing tension over time.
The video ends by saying something must be missing from our understanding of the universe. RST agrees—but the missing piece isn’t a new particle or a tweak to an equation. It’s the medium itself. The crisis exists because we’re using a static model (ΛCDM) to measure a dynamic reality (S field dynamics). RST offers a single, coherent explanation that doesn’t require modifying known physics—it just reinterprets them through the lens of unified tension geometry
The tests designed to find the Aether—principally the Michelson-Morley experiment (M-M)—would be largely ineffective at detecting the fundamental S field (Substrate) in the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) framework, though their null results are highly compatible with RST's structure. The reason lies in the distinct conceptual definition and behavior of the two media. The Test: Michelson-Morley and the Aether. The M-M experiment was designed to detect the "aether wind," a predicted change in the speed of light caused by the Earth's motion relative to a stationary, rigid medium—the classical Luminiferous Aether. Classical Aether: A static, absolute reference frame; an elastic, passive, material-like medium that fills space and serves as a carrier for light waves. Predicted Result: Light traveling parallel to Earth's motion through the Aether should be slightly slower than light traveling perpendicular to it. Actual Result (Null Result): No significant differenc...
Brief on the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) RST posits that all of reality—matter, energy, space, and time—emerges from a single, continuous, non-material field called the Substrate (S). Matter: Defined as a σ Soliton, a stable, localized "knot of tension" in the S-field, replacing the concept of a point particle. Energy: Defined as dynamic, propagating tension (waves) in the S-field. Unification: RST views E=mc2 as the conservation of Substrate tension: mass is stored tension; energy is tension in motion. Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) fundamentally redefines gravity as a Substrate tension gradient, which is the mechanism underlying the "buoyant" view of gravity. This explanation also clarifies why the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiment failed to find the classical Aether, supporting the RST concept of a dynamic Substrate. In essence, gravity is "buoyant" in RST because matter (high tension) sinks into a less-strained S-Field (lower tension...
RST vs. Extended Electromagnetic Theories (Pre-Relativity) These theories attempted to unify all forces by making gravity a secondary or residual effect of electromagnetism, treating space as an electromagnetic Aether. Why Extended EM Theories Failed Gravity's Independence: The most critical failure is that gravity does not behave like a polarizable electromagnetic force. Gravity affects all matter equally (the equivalence principle), regardless of its charge or composition, which a secondary electromagnetic effect would not do. No Gravitational Shielding: Electromagnetic fields can be shielded (Faraday cage), but gravity cannot.1 This fundamentally contradicts the idea that gravity is an electrical or magnetic residual force. Conflict with GR: They could not accurately predict or explain phenomena later verified by General Relativity (GR), such as the exact amount of light bending around the Sun or the precession of Mercury's orbit. RST vs. Le Sage's The...
