Canonical Reference: Reactive Substrate Theory v1.1

Canonical Reference: Reactive Substrate Theory v1.1

Title:
Reactive Substrate Theory: A Minimal Scalar-Field Framework for Emergent Time, Gravity, and Quantum Phenomena

Author: Derek Flegg
Version: v1.1 (Closure + Tests)
Status: Preprint / Working Framework

What This PDF Contains

  • RST v1.0 archived baseline
  • RST v1.1 closed equations
  • Correspondence with GR and QM
  • Explicit assumptions and domain of validity
  • Falsifiability criteria
  • Numerical simulation starter guidance
  • Observational signature checklist

How to Cite

Flegg, D. (2026). Reactive Substrate Theory: A Minimal Scalar-Field Framework for Emergent Time, Gravity, and Quantum Phenomena (v1.1). Independent preprint.

Why Only One Canonical Document

  • Avoids confusion across blog posts
  • Creates a stable citation target
  • Makes disagreement precise
  • Prevents accidental theory sprawl

All blog posts, notes, and diagrams should point back to this document.

How to Contribute to Reactive Substrate Theory

RST is an open, test-driven theoretical framework. Contributions are welcome from researchers, students, and independent scientists who are interested in evaluation, simulation, or falsification.

Who Should Contribute

  • Computational physicists and numerical modelers
  • Cosmologists working with CMB or high-redshift data
  • Condensed matter or soliton specialists
  • Researchers interested in emergent time or gravity

Types of Contributions Welcome

  • Numerical simulations of the substrate equation
  • Stability and solution analysis
  • Comparison with GR weak-field limits
  • Re-analysis of existing astronomical datasets
  • Formal critiques and falsification attempts

Contribution Guidelines

  • Work must clearly state assumptions and parameter choices
  • Negative results are as valuable as positive ones
  • No speculative extensions beyond v1.1 scope
  • All claims must be reproducible

The goal is clarity, not confirmation.

Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) v1.0 — Archived Baseline

Status: Frozen and archived.

RST v1.0 represents the first internally consistent formulation of Reactive Substrate Theory. It establishes the core ontology, minimal dynamical equations, and correspondence with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

As of this point, RST v1.0 is no longer under development. The equations, assumptions, and interpretations defined in v1.0 are preserved for reference, citation, and historical context.

Purpose of the Archive

  • Provide a stable reference point for comparison
  • Prevent conceptual drift or retroactive rewriting
  • Allow external researchers to evaluate a fixed system

What v1.0 Established

  • A single nonlinear scalar substrate field S(x,t)
  • Emergent time as a local rate, not a fundamental dimension
  • Particles as stable soliton-like excitations
  • Gravity as substrate gradients
  • Black holes as finite, dynamical substrate wells
  • No requirement for dark matter or dark energy

All future work builds on — but does not alter — this baseline.

Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) v1.1 — Closure and Tests

Scope: RST v1.1 is not an expansion of the theory. It is a closure of v1.0 and a formalization of how the framework can be tested, simulated, or falsified.

What “Closure” Means

  • All undefined functional terms are fixed
  • Correspondence with GR and QM is made explicit
  • Units, variables, and domains of validity are specified
  • No new fundamental entities are introduced

What v1.1 Adds

  • A minimal resonance functional FR
  • An explicit weak-field mapping to Newtonian gravity
  • A correspondence principle linking QM observables to substrate quantities
  • A set of observational and numerical tests

What v1.1 Explicitly Does Not Do

  • Propose exotic propulsion or speculative technologies
  • Claim experimental validation
  • Replace GR or QM as working calculational tools
  • Introduce adjustable “fit” parameters to force agreement

RST v1.1 exists to be tested or ruled out, not protected.

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