Canonical PDF (RST v1.1) — Page-by-Page Outline

RST v1.1 — Minimal GitHub Repo Skeleton (Simulator-Friendly)

This is a recommended repository structure designed to keep RST clean, testable, and reproducible. It separates the canonical theory document from simulation code and avoids “theory sprawl.”

Repository Layout

rst-v1.1/
├── README.md
├── LICENSE
├── CITATION.cff
├── CONTRIBUTING.md
├── docs/
│   ├── RST_v1.1_canonical.pdf
│   ├── theory_overview.md
│   ├── correspondence_principle.md
│   └── observational_tests.md
├── equations/
│   ├── rst_core_equations.tex
│   ├── minimal_closure.tex
│   └── variable_table.tex
├── simulations/
│   ├── 1D_linear_sanity_check/
│   ├── 1D_coupled_fields/
│   ├── soliton_search/
│   └── parameter_scans/
├── notebooks/
│   └── quickstart_demo.ipynb
└── data/
    └── README.md

README.md Must Contain

  • What RST is (and is not)
  • The two core equations + minimal closure definitions
  • Quickstart: one command / one script to run a sanity test
  • How to evaluate success/failure
  • How to cite the canonical PDF

Contribution Rules (Hard Boundaries)

  • v1.1 scope only: closure + tests, no speculative extensions
  • All results must specify parameters and initial conditions
  • Negative results are welcome and should be documented
  • Prefer reproducibility over performance

Document name: Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) v1.1: Closure and Tests
Purpose: A single stable reference document that can be cited, simulated, and falsified.

Cover Page

  • Title: Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) v1.1: Closure and Tests
  • Author: Derek Flegg
  • Version: v1.1
  • Date: (insert)
  • Status: Independent preprint / Working framework
  • Canonical link: (insert)

Page 1 — Abstract

  • Short abstract (arXiv-style)
  • Keywords (substrate, emergent time, weak-field gravity, solitons, falsifiability)

Page 2 — Motivation and Scope

  • Why RST is proposed (tensions, interpretation gaps, strong-field unknowns)
  • RST does not invalidate GR/QM; it reinterprets and must match limits
  • Explicit non-claims (no propulsion claims, no “proved” statements)

Page 3 — Ontology + Axioms (RST v1.0 Archived Baseline)

  • Substrate field S(x,t) is physically real
  • Effective geometry emerges from substrate state
  • Time is a local rate tied to resonant systems
  • Matter is modeled as stable excitations (soliton-like states)

Page 4 — Core Field Equations

Substrate equation:

∂²ₜ S − c²∇²S + βS³ = σ(x,t) FR[C[Ψ]]

Coherence / matter equation:

∂²ₜ Ψ − v²∇²Ψ + μΨ + λ|Ψ|²Ψ = κSΨ
  • Explain each term (one line each)
  • State dimensional conventions (dimensionless or SI mapping)

Page 5 — Minimal Closure (RST v1.1)

  • Choose coherence functional: 
    C[Ψ] = |Ψ|²
  • Choose resonance functional (minimal): 
    FR = < |Ψ|² cos(ω₀ t) >T
  • Weak-field gravity map: 
    Φ = A (S − S̄)

This page explicitly states: “These choices are the minimal closure for v1.1; alternative closures must be proposed as v1.2+ and justified by data.”

Page 6 — Correspondence Principle

  • GR correspondence: show how Φ recovers weak-field limits
  • QM correspondence: interpret |Ψ|² as conserved coherence density
  • State: “RST must reproduce GR/QM in their verified regimes.”

Page 7 — What v1.1 Aims to Reproduce (Minimum Bar)

  • Weak-field gravitational redshift/time dilation
  • Newtonian limit as an effective approximation
  • Conservation of coherence density (continuity structure)
  • Basic wave interference behavior via Ψ

Page 8 — Where Deviations Are Allowed (and Only There)

  • Strong-field compact objects (horizon behavior, relaxation)
  • Early-universe structure growth (time-rate inhomogeneity mechanisms)
  • High-coherence / extreme-gradient regimes (non-Maxwellian emergence)

Page 9 — Observational Signature Checklist

  • Identify low-cost tests using existing datasets
  • Define residual patterns that would distinguish RST from ΛCDM/GR

Page 10 — Falsification Criteria

  • Failure to match GR/QM correspondence in verified domains
  • No stable numerical solutions across reasonable parameter space
  • No distinguishable residuals beyond uncertainty where RST predicts them

Page 11 — Numerical Simulation Starter

  • 1D/2D discretization suggestions
  • Initial conditions
  • Energy and stability diagnostics
  • Parameter scan procedure

Page 12 — Limitations + Open Problems

  • Relativistic covariance extension not claimed at v1.1
  • Parameter identification remains open
  • Backreaction and cosmological embedding are future work

Appendices

  • Variables + Units + Interpretation table
  • GR → RST constraint table
  • QM observable → substrate mapping
  • FAQ for skeptical reviewers
  • References

RST v1.1 — arXiv-Style Abstract (Blogger Block)

Abstract. Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) proposes a minimal scalar-field framework in which spacetime geometry, gravity-like behavior, and quantum observables emerge from the dynamics of a continuous physical substrate field S(x,t) coupled to a coherence field Ψ(x,t). Time is treated as a locally measured rate determined by substrate-coupled resonant systems rather than as a fundamental coordinate. RST v1.1 presents a closed minimal formulation by specifying functional terms required for implementation and testing, and by stating an explicit correspondence principle with weak-field General Relativity and standard quantum probability interpretation. The framework yields falsifiable predictions restricted to strong-field, early-universe, and high-coherence regimes while preserving verified GR/QM limits. We outline numerical simulation entry points and observational residual tests using existing datasets.

RST v1.1 — Minimal GitHub Repo Skeleton (Simulator-Friendly)

This is a recommended repository structure designed to keep RST clean, testable, and reproducible. It separates the canonical theory document from simulation code and avoids “theory sprawl.”

Repository Layout

rst-v1.1/
├── README.md
├── LICENSE
├── CITATION.cff
├── CONTRIBUTING.md
├── docs/
│   ├── RST_v1.1_canonical.pdf
│   ├── theory_overview.md
│   ├── correspondence_principle.md
│   └── observational_tests.md
├── equations/
│   ├── rst_core_equations.tex
│   ├── minimal_closure.tex
│   └── variable_table.tex
├── simulations/
│   ├── 1D_linear_sanity_check/
│   ├── 1D_coupled_fields/
│   ├── soliton_search/
│   └── parameter_scans/
├── notebooks/
│   └── quickstart_demo.ipynb
└── data/
    └── README.md

README.md Must Contain

  • What RST is (and is not)
  • The two core equations + minimal closure definitions
  • Quickstart: one command / one script to run a sanity test
  • How to evaluate success/failure
  • How to cite the canonical PDF

Contribution Rules (Hard Boundaries)

  • v1.1 scope only: closure + tests, no speculative extensions
  • All results must specify parameters and initial conditions
  • Negative results are welcome and should be documented
  • Prefer reproducibility over performance

Popular posts from this blog

BRASS KNUCKLES?

Image
Is ICE Carrying Restricted or Non-Standard Weapons? The following items are commonly restricted, discouraged, or prohibited in U.S. law-enforcement use depending on agency policy, state law, and use-of-force standards. Their visible presence on duty gear—especially if not standard-issue—should be documented and reported. Brass knuckles / knuckle-dusters: Often illegal under state law; generally absent from federal agency equipment lists. Blackjacks / saps / batons without policy approval: Some impact weapons are restricted due to high risk of head injury. Weighted gloves: Frequently prohibited as disguised weapons. Fixed-blade knives (outside utility tools): Large or fighting-style knives not issued by the agency. Modified batons: Altered ASPs, weighted tips, or improvised impact devices. Unauthorized chemical sprays: OC blends or crowd-control agents not approved by departm...
Read more

THE GOLDEN BALLROOM/BUNKER

Image
Ben Meiselas reports on the shocking admission by Donald Trump’s DOJ in a court case where the DOJ admits to a secret project underneath the ballroom which they claim is needed to protect Donald Trump’s life for “national security purposes.” "You unlock this door with the key of complicity. Beyond it is another dimension — a dimension of betrayal, of indulgence, of fear. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of politics and paranoia. You’ve just crossed into… the MAGA Zone." "Tonight’s story: A leader sworn to protect his nation makes a bargain with its enemies. The deal? Silence in the face of nuclear annihilation. No retaliation, no defense — only surrender dressed in secrecy. While citizens live unaware, their president builds a palace beneath the earth, a ballroom of gold, of marble and chandeliers, a masquerade hall for billionaires. But behind the gilded doors lies not music and laughter, but a bomb shelter — a sanctuary for the few, pur...
Read more

If the Constitution is Dead, is the King Unprotected?

Image
The Constitutional Suicide If constitutional legitimacy is abandoned, what happens to the protections derived from it? Authority flows from the Constitution. If Trump & Congress discard the Bill of Rights, they vacate the legal foundation of the Supreme Court.. Does Trump still deserve the presumption of innocence? There is a familiar temptation in moments of political escalation: to treat the Constitution as either sacred and invulnerable, or irrelevant and disposable. Both views misunderstand what a constitution actually is. It is not a magic charm; it is a rule-bound legitimacy machine. When the machine is treated as optional—when constitutional constraint is openly refused as a governing obligation—the system does not become “stronger.” It becomes conceptually incoherent. The purpose of this essay is not to assert that constitutional government has already en...
Read more