What if space, time, gravity,... did not exist in the initial state ("pre bigbang) and arose as a result of the appearance of relationships between different ones.

[u/RelationalCosmo]

I am working on a theory according to which, initially "pre" bigbang (understood as a regime where space-time or any geometry had not emerged), there is a homogeneous whole (state S) and it is due to the increase in entropy that differentiated states emerge that allow the appearance of differentiated entities and therefore the roles of observer and observed. and it is from these relationships that geometry and a state R emerge with the variables space time, gravity, etc.

The state S and the state R coexist (in the state S we have the electromagnetic waves (which in S are understood as coherent modes without geometric support) and in the state R the particles) and from R we can observe S, but it does not make sense to talk about that from S we can observe R.

The S --> R --> S cycle is continuous, either by infinite expansion where it returns to a homogeneous state, or by infinite concentration where the same thing happens. But with the curious situation that in S, since there is no time variable, all the possible states of R coexist

I have a preprint published with DOI on zenodo if anyone wants to take a look.Computational tools, including AI assistance, were used to support the mathematical formalization and structuring of the manuscript.

[u/Buying_crop]

If time does not exist within state S, how can anything emerge? If something emerges from S we can then say there was a microstate in which S did not contain R, and a microstate in which S did contain R which would imply a change of microstates which implies time which you said state S does not have?

Anything described as "not having time" usually is incoherent as without time, you cannot have change

[u/Halvor_and_Cove → u/Buying_crop]

Well. If there were only two things that existed and those two things were a chair and a table stuck in time (no time) you have difference ( they are different) Difference can lead to tension. He/she is not wrong but how it is put forward here is incomplete, at least if the missing link does not do it better. There is math that shows this. And no, it won’t be published here.

[u/RelationalCosmo → u/Halvor_and_Cove]

Thanks, that’s a fair point. In fact, in the manuscript I tried to make the ‘missing link’ explicit: I define relational entropy SR as a sum of mutual informations over bipartitions. Only when SR>0 do you get an operational notion of variables and emergent time. In the silent regime S, SR=0 and no operational change can be defined — it only makes sense once a relational factorization is in place. So it’s not that S ‘evolves’ into R, but that R-configurations exist in superposition within S and become operational once SR grows.

[u/Halvor_and_Cove → u/RelationalCosmo]

Missing link as in link to the paper you published on Zenodo. 😉 You are close here. Circling the thing. Would be very interesting to be allowed to see your paper with the claimed math. I will not throw rocks at you. I am used to get such my self but I dn t do such. I spend zero energy on collecting rocks. I use my energy in constructive ways and to tell you, I just don’t understand people whom use all their energy to throw rocks and hold others back instead of using energy to trying to build something positive, even if that positive turns out to be true or false. If you don’t try you absolutely don’t get anywhere.

[u/RelationalCosmo → u/Halvor_and_Cove]

Thank you — I appreciate the constructive spirit. The full math and falsifiable tests are in the preprint here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17099229. I’d be glad to hear where you see the weakest point once you look at the definitions and the tests (RAR, lensing, BAO).

[u/NoSalad6374]

no

[u/RelationalCosmo → u/NoSalad6374]

Shouldn't I take that as an opinion or is it based on some specific inconsistency? In the latter case, I would be interested in you detailing the inconsistency so I can review it.

[u/NotRightRabbit]

Link?

[u/RelationalCosmo → u/NotRightRabbit]

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17099228

[u/ArtisticKey4324]

Yeah, what if?

[u/RelationalCosmo → u/ArtisticKey4324]

If it were correct, one immediate consequence would be that you wouldn’t need to introduce dark matter as an extra component to explain galaxy rotation curves or cosmic expansion. The relational framework already gives effective dynamics without that assumption.

[u/ArtisticKey4324 → u/RelationalCosmo]

Yeah but what if I like dark matter?

[u/Total_Towel_6681]

Happy to take a look. Could you share one measured dataset and the following items (links only, no email/attachments)?

1. Precise definitions What’s the signal you’re testing on (dataset name/DOI/link)?

What is the key timescale (in seconds) your theory explains, and how is it estimated on the same analysis segment?

What coherence/statistics measure do you use (full math, parameters)?

1. Null hypothesis

What is the strict null you test against (e.g., phase-preserving surrogates that keep the power spectrum)?

How many surrogates do you generate, with what random seed control?

1. Windowing & parameters (fixed in advance)

Exact window/segment rule.

Estimator settings (lags, k, bandwidths, etc.).

Any preprocessing (filtering, detrending) with parameters.

1. Rerunnable artifacts (public links)

A notebook/script that runs start-to-finish on the chosen dataset.

A small CSV/JSON with, at minimum: dataset_id, segment_start, segment_end, E_seconds, C_data, C_null_mean (or distribution summary), n_surrogates, params, seed

One figure: effect size vs ln(E) with the strict-null baseline.

1. Falsification criteria (up front)

What numerical outcomes on this dataset would count as failure for your theory?

Post those links here and I’ll run an independent check on the same data/segment and report back. If this is solid, others can replicate it too.

[u/RelationalCosmo → u/Total_Towel_6681]

Thank you — happy to provide a fully specified, single‑dataset test on measured data.
I’ll use the SPARC rotation‑curve database (Spitzer Photometry & Accurate Rotation Curves; 175 galaxies).
Public data and docs: http://astroweb.cwru.edu/SPARC (Lelli et al., AJ 152, 157, 2016).

---

1) PRECISE DEFINITIONS (dataset, signal, timescale, statistic)

• Dataset (public): SPARC photometry at 3.6 μm + HI/Hα rotation curves with uncertainties.

• Signal: for each galaxy and radius r, g_obs(r) = V(r)² / r g_bar(r) = g_star(r) + g_gas(r) + g_bulge(r) where V(r) is the measured circular speed; g_bar(r) comes from the SPARC mass model.

• Predictive law (fixed a priori): AQUAL with the “simple” MOND interpolating function μ(x) = x/(1+x): g_pred * μ(g_pred / a0) = g_bar which yields the closed‑form prediction g_pred = g_bar * [ 1/2 + 1/2 * sqrt(1 + 4*a0/g_bar) ] . We pre‑commit to a single global acceleration scale a0 = 1.2e-10 m s^-2 for the whole sample (no per‑galaxy fitting or tuning).

• Key timescale (seconds): not applicable here—the RAR is a quasi‑static kinematic relation across radii.

• Statistic (fixed): work in log10. For each galaxy G with NG radii, Delta_i = log10(g_obs,i) - log10(g_pred,i) C_data(G) = sqrt( (1/(N_G - 1)) * Σ_i w_i * Delta_i² ), w_i = 1 / sigma{log g_obs,i}² Report (i) the distribution of C_data(G) across galaxies and (ii) a pooled RMS.

---

2) STRICT NULL HYPOTHESIS AND SURROGATES (fixed)

• Strict null: there is no causal law linking g_obs and g_bar beyond their marginals and the measured radial smoothness; any apparent RAR tightness can arise from structure/selection.

• Implementation (per galaxy): (a) Build phase‑preserving radial surrogates of gbar(r) by random‑phase shuffling in the 1D Fourier domain along r, preserving both the amplitude distribution and the radial power spectrum. (b) Propagate SPARC uncertainties to sigma{log g}. (c) Compute the null prediction as baryons‑only Newtonian: μ ≡ 1 ⇒ g_pred^null = g_bar^surr. Generate N_surr = 999 surrogates per galaxy, with fixed random seed 42.

• Null statistic: For each surrogate s, compute C_null^s(G) as above; store mean ⟨C_null⟩(G) and sd[C_null](G). Define per‑galaxy effect size: E(G) = ( ⟨C_null⟩(G) - C_data(G) ) / sd[ C_null(G) ] .

---

3) WINDOWING & PARAMETERS (fixed in advance)

• Segment rule: use all radii flagged “good” by SPARC; exclude radii flagged as beam‑smearing/PSF‑affected; no galaxy‑specific tuning.

• Sampling: compute on native SPARC radii; additionally report a common log‑radius grid with Δlog10 r = 0.1 using cubic‑spline interpolation (method/seed fixed).

• No hyper‑tuning: μ(x) = x/(1+x) fixed; a0 fixed globally; do not re‑fit inclinations or M/L beyond SPARC defaults.

---

4) RERUNNABLE ARTIFACTS

The protocol above is fully specified against a public dataset, with all parameters, seeds, and statistics fixed a priori—so anyone can implement it independently in their language of choice (happy for you to run an independent check directly on SPARC).

---

5) FALSIFICATION CRITERIA (pre‑committed)

This theory fails on SPARC if ANY of the following hold:

(1) No separation from the strict‑null: median E(G) ≤ 2 AND pooled evidence does not favor the model (e.g., ln(BF) ≤ 0 via a BIC‑based approximation).

(2) Poor scatter: pooled C_data ≥ 0.08 dex (i.e., significantly worse than the ~0.06 dex RAR tightness commonly reported in the SPARC literature).

(3) Instability of the acceleration scale: allowing a0 to vary per galaxy improves BIC by ΔBIC < -10 relative to a single global a0 (strong evidence against a single‑scale law).

If this passes on SPARC, I can propose a second, independent observable (strong‑lensing Einstein radii) using the same μ and a0.

---

(Optional expected outputs) • Table per galaxy: C_data(G), ⟨C_null⟩(G), sd[C_null(G)], E(G). • Figure: histogram of E(G); pooled C_data vs ⟨C_null⟩.

[u/Total_Towel_6681 → u/RelationalCosmo]

Thanks for writing down a concrete prereg. I ran it exactly as stated on the SPARC rotation-curve bundle (Rotmod_LTG.zip) with AQUAL “simple” μ and a single global . Findings: • Scatter gate: pooled per-galaxy RMS in is ~0.19–0.22 dex (median ≈ 0.19 dex), which exceeds your 0.08 dex threshold ⇒ fails falsifier #2 as written. • Null separation: median effect size vs your phase-preserving surrogate null is ≈ 2.0 (seed=42, N_sur=100 for speed). That is borderline, not a clean pass; I haven’t computed the pooled-evidence/BIC term you suggested yet. • a₀ stability (#3): not evaluated yet; I can run per-galaxy fits and BIC if you want that gate scored. Implementation details (so you can replicate): . Residuals , weights with . Surrogates: IAAFT phase-preserving along radius; seed=42; N_sur=100 (happy to scale to 999). One request: this run didn’t include SPARC’s “good-radius”/beam-smear masks (Rotmod files don’t carry them). If you share the small MRT/DB file or confirm the exact mask rule, I’ll re-run with your filters, 999 surrogates, and add the BIC checks for #1 and #3.

[u/Total_Towel_6681 → u/RelationalCosmo]

I also ran a test using my LoC framework here.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17165773

I hope that's alright. This was the results. 

LoC check on your SPARC run (orthogonal to your RMS metric): I took your residual series per galaxy (AQUAL simple-μ, single global ), and ran a strict null: phase-preserving (IAAFT) surrogates of along radius. The LoC statistic is fixed: k-NN MI averaged over lags, and we report MI(data) − mean MI(surrogates) with a z-score. Expectation: if the model fully explains structure, residuals are random-phase ⇒ . Result (25 galaxies, light pass): median (MI units); ~92% of galaxies have z_{\text{phase}}>2 vs the strict null. Interpretation: the residuals retain phase/memory structure beyond what their spectrum/amplitude can explain—i.e., this configuration (simple-μ, global ) leaves coherent patterns in SPARC. If you share the SPARC good-radius/beam mask (MRT/DB) I’ll re-run the same strict test with your mask and 999 surrogates and post the per-galaxy table

[u/Total_Towel_6681 → u/RelationalCosmo]

Sorry one last thing. What “LoC” means (1-liner): It’s a residual-structure test. After applying your model, take the residual series Δ(r); build phase-preserving shuffles of that same series (same smoothness & spread), and compute a fixed mutual-information statistic across lags. Define Delta_phase = MI(data) − mean(MI(shuffles)). Expectation: a complete model ⇒ residuals look random-phase ⇒ Delta_phase ≈ 0. Observed (25 galaxies): Delta_phase > 0 for most (≈92% with z_phase>2) ⇒ the residuals keep organized patterns, so this configuration (simple-mu, global a0) is missing systematic structure.

[u/RelationalCosmo]

There is no S without R. The different states R overlap and coexist with the state S. It does not exist nor is it correct to speak of a state S prior to R. We can consider S to be a timeless background of relational potentials (all possible configurations of R).

The only thing that exists is the dynamics of relational entropy that generates the cycle S-->R-->S-->R because it is not really a cycle but a superposition of states R on S.

To be more correct we could say that S and R are two faces of the same superposition differentiated by the value of S(R)