Stability as Cosmic Foundation: Rethinking Reality's Underlying Architecture!

[seddighrigi]

We get that. You are saying the same thing over and over.

HOW how this stabilty thing "infuence the velocity of stars?



These are not mechanisms.


This is merely self-referential. You have not defined what this stability is.


Oh for pete's sake.
WHAT PREDICTIONS does it make? By what mechanism?


This is hand-waving. WHAT is the "direct connetion"?


No. Instead it relies on hyportrtical uneseen "stability", which is even less defined than dark matter.

Clarifying the Core Mechanism
Stability Theory posits that stability is an intrinsic, governing property of cosmic structures, influencing their coherence and behavior. Unlike dark matter, which is treated as an unknown form of mass, stability does not imply the existence of a new substance but rather a structural principle that dictates large-scale dynamics.

How Does Stability Affect Star Velocities?
Stability influences gravitational equilibrium within galactic structures, preventing the expected decline in rotational velocities. This occurs through:

1. Gravitational Distribution & Symmetry Preservation:
In a high-stability region, matter organizes in a way that maintains rotational coherence without requiring additional unseen mass.
Stability acts as a constraint on the rearrangement of matter and energy, ensuring galaxies retain their large-scale structure dynamically.
2. Regulation of Forces Within Galactic Halos:
Instead of relying solely on mass, Stability Theory proposes that regions of stability provide an intrinsic resistance against gravitational collapse.
This manifests in star velocities remaining consistent even at larger radii, without invoking missing matter.


What Makes Stability Testable?
Prediction: Stability should correlate with observed variations in galactic rotation curves—not due to unseen mass, but due to structural coherence.
Test: Observing galaxies with irregular mass distributions yet stable rotation curves may indicate that stability, rather than hidden mass, regulates motion.
Difference from Dark Matter: If stability-driven effects scale with cosmic structure rather than purely gravitational mass, it would suggest a governing principle independent of ΛCDM assumptions.


How Stability is Different from Dark Matter
Dark matter assumes extra mass accounts for velocity retention. Stability, however, suggests that the way matter organizes under cosmic stability is what maintains motion. Instead of adding mass, stability defines a state where structures evolve dynamically without relying on unknown particles.

Stability is not "hypothetical unseen mass" but rather a governing structural rule that dictates how large-scale systems behave under gravitational interaction.

 

[DaveC426913]

None of this explains what stability is. Is it a force? A particle? Is it a heretofore unobserved property of particles? Something else? What?

Stability Theory

Sorry, this is not a theory. Don't call it a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's just an idea. And one you have been unable to describe.

Stability does not just determine how systems settle into low-energy configurations;

Does it? It determines how systems evolve? How does it do this, specifically? We don't need numbers, just tell us what entity this stability thing is. How does it operate to determine the evolution of systems? Does it act as a force?

rather, it governs which physical configurations are viable at all.

How does it govern? By what mechanism?

For example, in galaxies, stability might regulate why certain rotational behaviors persist

How does it regulate? What mechanism?

OK, I've been patient. I've asked multiple times for clarity. You have provided none.


How is this any more a "theory" than my Pixie Dust Theory?

My Pixie Dust Theory differs from traditional minimum-energy definitions in physics and chemistry.
Pixie Dust is a fundamental precursor to both matter and energy, governing their formation and persistence.
Pixie Dust exists independently of energy, serving as a foundational property that enables coherent physical structures to emerge and persist.
Pixie Dust governs which physical configurations are viable at all.
For example, in galaxies, Pixie Dust might regulate why certain rotational behaviors persist.
Pixie Dust influences the uniform distribution of matter and the persistence of large-scale structures, such as galaxies and cosmic voids.

 

[DaveC426913]

Stability should correlate with observed variations in galactic rotation curves—not due to unseen mass, but due to structural coherence.

You balk at the existence of unseen mass but you have no problem with "stability" which - as far as has been elaborated - is no more extant than magic.

Test: Observing galaxies with irregular mass distributions yet stable rotation curves may indicate that stability, rather than hidden mass, regulates motion.

Great, so intead of invisible mass, you prefer invisible stability.

We know mass exists, we just suspect there is a type that doesn't interact electromagnetically with other mass.

Rather than tweaking a known entity in nature, you prefer to just invent something new out of whole cloth. And you can't describe it, see it, touch it, and it apparenty operates by an invisible mechanism - one that has to be invented.

It might as well be magic.

Stability is not "hypothetical unseen mass" but rather a governing structural rule that dictates how large-scale systems behave under gravitational interaction.

So, magic.


I have reported this thread to have it moved to the PseudoScience Forum if you don't start giving it some teeth soon. Your move.

 

[DaveC426913]

"This stability is beyond human comprehension"
- Seddigh Rigi "Stability Theory: Redefining Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Framework of Modern Cosmology"

Oh.

The core concept is "beyond human comprehension".

Sorry, my mistake. It's not pseudoscience; it's mysticism.

Reporting to have this thread moved to Religion.

 

[seddighrigi]

"This stability is beyond human comprehension"
- Seddigh Rigi "Stability Theory: Redefining Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Framework of Modern Cosmology"

Oh.

The core concept is "beyond human comprehension".

Sorry, my mistake. It's not pseudoscience; it's mysticism.

Reporting to have this thread moved to Religion.

Is Stability Mysticism or Pseudoscience?
No, the "beyond human comprehension" phrase does not mean that Stability Theory is mystical or religious. Rather, it refers to the limitations of human cognition when analyzing fundamental cosmic structures—a theme frequently explored in scientific discussions.

This is not different from how modern physics acknowledges certain fundamental principles as difficult to conceptualize directly, such as:
- Quantum superposition, where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed.
- General relativity, where spacetime curvature dictates motion, despite humans lacking direct intuitive experience of it.
- Singularities in black holes, where standard physics breaks down.

Thus, stating that stability is beyond human comprehension simply acknowledges that human cognition itself may be an indirect effect of stability, rather than an entity capable of fully grasping it. This is a philosophical observation within a scientific framework, not mysticism or pseudoscience.



Why Stability Theory is a Scientific Proposal, Not Religious Doctrine
Stability Theory follows the scientific method by:
- Providing falsifiable predictions, such as correlations between stability levels and deviations in galactic rotation curves.
- Proposing observational tests, such as studying matter distribution in galaxies with irregular halos.
- Integrating mathematical models, such as the Balance Equation, which explores stability’s effect on cosmic organization.

Religious belief systems, in contrast, do not rely on falsifiability, empirical testing, or mathematical modeling, which Stability Theory does aim to implement.



Does Stability Theory Claim to Explain Everything?
No. The theory does not present itself as an absolute explanation of the cosmos. Instead, it hypothesizes that dark matter and dark energy may be manifestations of stability, rather than separate entities. This approach seeks to refine current cosmological models, not replace them with unverifiable assertions.

Similarly, many other scientific theories have started as frameworks that required further refinement, such as:
- String Theory, which lacks direct observational evidence yet provides mathematically consistent models.
- Inflation Theory, which introduced a new perspective on cosmic expansion before empirical verification through cosmic microwave background data.

Stability Theory remains a developing concept that requires further mathematical formalization and empirical validation—not an assertion of supernatural causality.




Labeling Stability Theory as mysticism ignores its intent as a theoretical framework seeking empirical exploration. While the phrase "beyond human comprehension" acknowledges cognitive limitations, it does not imply supernatural or religious claims.

Thus, Stability Theory remains within scientific discourse, offering an alternative paradigm to understand cosmic coherence and the unification of dark matter and dark energy.

 

[seddighrigi]

None of this explains what stability is. Is it a force? A particle? Is it a heretofore unobserved property of particles? Something else? What?


Sorry, this is not a theory. Don't call it a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's just an idea. And one you have been unable to describe.



Does it? It determines how systems evolve? How does it do this, specifically? We don't need numbers, just tell us what entity this stability thing is. How does it operate to determine the evolution of systems? Does it act as a force?


How does it govern? By what mechanism?


How does it regulate? What mechanism?

OK, I've been patient. I've asked multiple times for clarity. You have provided none.


How is this any more a "theory" than my Pixie Dust Theory?

My Pixie Dust Theory differs from traditional minimum-energy definitions in physics and chemistry.
Pixie Dust is a fundamental precursor to both matter and energy, governing their formation and persistence.
Pixie Dust exists independently of energy, serving as a foundational property that enables coherent physical structures to emerge and persist.
Pixie Dust governs which physical configurations are viable at all.
For example, in galaxies, Pixie Dust might regulate why certain rotational behaviors persist.
Pixie Dust influences the uniform distribution of matter and the persistence of large-scale structures, such as galaxies and cosmic voids.

The concerns raised in this critique are valid in demanding a more precise definition of what stability is and how it functions. Below is a detailed breakdown to address these concerns with clarity and specificity.



1. What Is Stability? Is It a Force, a Particle, or Something Else?
Stability, as defined in Stability Theory, is neither a force nor a particle. Instead, it is proposed as a fundamental essence that dictates the persistence and coherence of physical structures across cosmic scales.

- It does not interact like fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism)—rather, it governs the conditions under which matter and energy remain coherent over time.
- It does not behave like a particle—there is no suggestion that stability has mass or occupies spacetime as a discrete entity.
- It is not an unknown quantum property of existing particles—instead, it is described as a large-scale organizing principle that determines cosmic coherence.

Stability sets the constraints on cosmic evolution by ensuring structural persistence within gravitational, energetic, and material configurations.



2. Why Is This Called a Theory?
The critique claims that Stability Theory is "just an idea" rather than a scientific theory. However, a theory in science does not mean something fully proven—it means a structured framework that makes falsifiable predictions.

Stability Theory qualifies as a theoretical framework because it:
1. Proposes a structured explanation for observed cosmic phenomena (e.g., unifying dark matter and dark energy).
2. Provides predictions about how stability manifests in large-scale astrophysical structures (e.g., rotational velocities of galaxies, black hole regions).
3. Suggests possible observational tests to determine whether stability correlates with cosmic properties rather than unknown mass distributions.

While still under development, the framework is not mere speculation—it aims to construct a testable model.



3. Does Stability Determine System Evolution? How Does It Operate?
Yes, but not as a force pushing systems toward change. Stability operates as a constraint on possible states that a system can occupy, ensuring certain configurations remain viable while others collapse.

- Example in galaxies: Stability regulates large-scale coherence, preventing random dispersal of matter and maintaining the ordered persistence of structures.
- Example in cosmic acceleration: The weakening of stability correlates with increased expansion rates, possibly linking it to dark energy effects.

While it does not push objects like a force, it governs boundary conditions for how matter and energy behave.



4. By What Mechanism Does Stability Govern Physical Configurations?
The governing mechanism proposed in Stability Theory is that regions of high stability allow for structured matter-energy persistence, while regions of low stability lead to disorder and disruption.

- Stable regions → Matter-energy structures remain cohesive and persist over time.
- Unstable regions → Cosmic distortions, extreme conditions (e.g., black holes), increased fluctuations in energy fields.

The Balance Equation is an early attempt to mathematically describe how stability influences different regions, incorporating:
- Matter density
- Energy transfer
- Time flow regularity

This mechanism aims to quantify stability’s role, though it requires further refinement.



5. How Does Stability Regulate Galactic Rotation?
The persistence of stable rotational velocities in galaxies is often attributed to dark matter. However, Stability Theory suggests an alternative perspective:

- Stability prevents rapid loss of angular momentum in structured cosmic systems, maintaining observed rotation curves without requiring extra unseen mass.
- It preserves large-scale dynamical equilibrium, ensuring outer stars retain velocity despite weaker gravitational influences from the core.

Observing galaxies with irregular mass distributions yet stable rotational curves could serve as an empirical test to distinguish between dark matter and stability-driven effects.



6. Comparing Stability Theory to "Pixie Dust Theory"
The critique compares Stability Theory to an intentionally absurd "Pixie Dust Theory" to suggest that stability lacks a defined mechanism. The key distinction is that Stability Theory makes falsifiable predictions linked to astrophysical observations, whereas "Pixie Dust" is an untestable fictional analogy.

- Stability Theory offers a structured framework with potential observational tests (e.g., effects on rotation curves, black hole behavior).
- Stability Theory connects to real cosmological phenomena, whereas "Pixie Dust" is deliberately meaningless.
- Stability Theory is open to mathematical formalization, while "Pixie Dust" has no logical structure.

Dismissing Stability Theory without engaging with its proposed observational connections is premature.



Final Response
This clarification establishes that Stability Theory:
- Is not mysticism but a structured theoretical proposal.
- Has a governing mechanism linked to the persistence of cosmic structures rather than an unknown mass or force.
- Provides testable predictions for astrophysical observations.
- Differs fundamentally from baseless speculation (e.g., "Pixie Dust").

While the theory requires further formalization, dismissing it entirely ignores its potential to contribute to cosmology and theoretical physics.

 

[exchemist]

Is Stability Mysticism or Pseudoscience?
No, the "beyond human comprehension" phrase does not mean that Stability Theory is mystical or religious. Rather, it refers to the limitations of human cognition when analyzing fundamental cosmic structures—a theme frequently explored in scientific discussions.

This is not different from how modern physics acknowledges certain fundamental principles as difficult to conceptualize directly, such as:
- Quantum superposition, where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed.
- General relativity, where spacetime curvature dictates motion, despite humans lacking direct intuitive experience of it.
- Singularities in black holes, where standard physics breaks down.

Thus, stating that stability is beyond human comprehension simply acknowledges that human cognition itself may be an indirect effect of stability, rather than an entity capable of fully grasping it. This is a philosophical observation within a scientific framework, not mysticism or pseudoscience.



Why Stability Theory is a Scientific Proposal, Not Religious Doctrine
Stability Theory follows the scientific method by:
- Providing falsifiable predictions, such as correlations between stability levels and deviations in galactic rotation curves.
- Proposing observational tests, such as studying matter distribution in galaxies with irregular halos.
- Integrating mathematical models, such as the Balance Equation, which explores stability’s effect on cosmic organization.

Religious belief systems, in contrast, do not rely on falsifiability, empirical testing, or mathematical modeling, which Stability Theory does aim to implement.



Does Stability Theory Claim to Explain Everything?
No. The theory does not present itself as an absolute explanation of the cosmos. Instead, it hypothesizes that dark matter and dark energy may be manifestations of stability, rather than separate entities. This approach seeks to refine current cosmological models, not replace them with unverifiable assertions.

Similarly, many other scientific theories have started as frameworks that required further refinement, such as:
- String Theory, which lacks direct observational evidence yet provides mathematically consistent models.
- Inflation Theory, which introduced a new perspective on cosmic expansion before empirical verification through cosmic microwave background data.

Stability Theory remains a developing concept that requires further mathematical formalization and empirical validation—not an assertion of supernatural causality.




Labeling Stability Theory as mysticism ignores its intent as a theoretical framework seeking empirical exploration. While the phrase "beyond human comprehension" acknowledges cognitive limitations, it does not imply supernatural or religious claims.

Thus, Stability Theory remains within scientific discourse, offering an alternative paradigm to understand cosmic coherence and the unification of dark matter and dark energy.

This reads like output from a chatbot.

I think you are wasting our time.

 

[Pinball1970]

This reads like output from a chatbot.

I think you are wasting our time.

Yes, should be in another SF not hard science.

 

[seddighrigi]

I appreciate your critical perspective. You’re right—This may not yet be a fully mature theory, but it represents a systematic effort to reframe the enigmas of dark matter and cosmic expansion. At its core, the idea treats stability not as an emergent outcome, but as a constitutive precondition in the architecture of fundamental physics.

Yes, more rigorous mathematical development and empirical testing are the next necessary steps. However, dismissing this framework outright would mean overlooking its tangible connections to existing observational puzzles—it’s not merely abstract speculation.

As I emphasized at the outset of this discussion, the idea carries profound philosophical dimensions that must be engaged alongside scientific analysis. Thank you for the time you’ve invested in this exchange—It appears we may have reached a natural stopping point unless further issues arise.. All critiques have been noted, and the research trajectory continues.

 

[Pinball1970]

I appreciate your critical perspective. You’re right—This may not yet be a fully mature theory, but it represents a systematic effort to reframe the enigmas of dark matter and cosmic expansion. At its core, the idea treats stability not as an emergent outcome, but as a constitutive precondition in the architecture of fundamental physics.

Yes, more rigorous mathematical development and empirical testing are the next necessary steps. However, dismissing this framework outright would mean overlooking its tangible connections to existing observational puzzles—it’s not merely abstract speculation.

As I emphasized at the outset of this discussion, the idea carries profound philosophical dimensions that must be engaged alongside scientific analysis. Thank you for the time you’ve invested in this exchange—It appears we may have reached a natural stopping point unless further issues arise.. All critiques have been noted, and the research trajectory continues.

What is your background if I may ask?

 

[DaveC426913]

This reads like output from a chatbot.

Yes, this is a given.

What is your background if I may ask?

Their bio says Information Theory.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, this is a given.


Their bio says Information Theory.

Ironic, in view of the lack of information about how this stability concept is supposed to work. There has been nothing so far either to link it to existing physics or to provide an alternative framework to current physics. Just chatbot waffle.

 

[foghorn]

Funny, thousands of years ago they use to read the entrails of animals and people to make sense of the world.
Now, scoot forward a thousand years and people are looking at AI chatbot splatter to do the same.

 

[river]

The concept of stability in Stability Theory differs from traditional minimum-energy definitions in physics and chemistry. Instead of viewing stability strictly as the lowest energy state of a system, Stability Theory treats stability as a fundamental precursor to both matter and energy, governing their formation and persistence.
Stability Theory, however, proposes that stability exists independently of energy, serving as a foundational property that enables coherent physical structures to emerge and persist.
Stability as a Structural Principle: Stability does not just determine how systems settle into low-energy configurations; rather, it governs which physical configurations are viable at all. For example, in galaxies, stability might regulate why certain rotational behaviors persist despite expected gravitational effects, rather than simply being an outcome of energy dissipation.
Manifestation of Stability in Cosmic Structures: Stability influences the uniform distribution of matter and the persistence of large-scale structures, such as galaxies and cosmic voids. In extreme regions—such as near black holes—stability may break down, leading to anomalies in matter and energy behavior.
Stability Theory introduces stability as a governing framework that enables and maintains those states in the first place. It suggests that dark matter and dark energy may be emergent consequences of stability, rather than independent substances.

Excellent except for this ;
Stability Theory, however, proposes that stability exists independently of energy, and matter , disagree .
serving as a foundational property that enables coherent physical structures to exist .
Stability to me is the periodic table and space for infinity .
I expect that chaos and stability will be for infinity . In space . Universe .

I appreciate your critical perspective. You’re right—This may not yet be a fully mature theory, but it represents a systematic effort to reframe the enigmas of dark matter and cosmic expansion. At its core, the idea treats stability not as an emergent outcome, but as a constitutive precondition in the architecture of fundamental physics.

Yes, more rigorous mathematical development and empirical testing are the next necessary steps. However, dismissing this framework outright would mean overlooking its tangible connections to existing observational puzzles—it’s not merely abstract speculation.

As I emphasized at the outset of this discussion, the idea carries profound philosophical dimensions that must be engaged alongside scientific analysis. Thank you for the time you’ve invested in this exchange—It appears we may have reached a natural stopping point unless further issues arise.. All critiques have been noted, and the research trajectory continues.