Falsifiability of General Relativity?

[webolife]

I personally think that Einstein has made 4 huge mistakes with his theories which
have locked down the theories of physics for 100 of years.
1. Photo-electro effect.

Could you explain further what part of the photo-electric effect you dispute?
Is it the quantization of electrons, or light into discrete "photons"? Do you propose infinite density "all the way down"?
As I see it, one can mathematize/idealize infinity, but our physical experience is of finite reality, therefore discrete action, for which we like to hypothesize culpable corpuscles (electrons, photons, gravitons, gluons, and other ___-ons) ad nauseum.

[Zyxzevn]

I personally think that Einstein has made 4 huge mistakes with his theories which
have locked down the theories of physics for 100 of years.
1. Photo-electro effect.

Could you explain further what part of the photo-electric effect you dispute?
Is it the quantization of electrons, or light into discrete "photons"? Do you propose infinite density "all the way down"?
As I see it, one can mathematize/idealize infinity, but our physical experience is of finite reality, therefore discrete action, for which we like to hypothesize culpable corpuscles (electrons, photons, gravitons, gluons, and other ___-ons) ad nauseum.

Ok. I had explained in some other cases. Let me do it again.

Electromagnetic forces and their waves are additive and show no discrete steps.
Static electric forces are a very clear example of that.
That is because they are continuous fields.

But when we try to measure light with a camera, we see that our camera-pixels light up in steps.
According to Einstein this caused by photons, but with that he omits the reality of continuous fields.

According the Plank's threshold model, the energy of the photon is spread over all pixels of the camera.
But then the pixels in the camera need to reach a certain threshold of energy before they trigger a reaction.
This idea was omitted by Plank as he thought that all pixels would start with zero energy, but it works
very well when the pixels start with random energy levels.
And this is where http://www.thresholdmodel.com comes in.
(he is a very bad speaker/presenter)

Let me show a simple example:
You have 10 cells with random energy levels, with a threshold of 10.
8 2 5 6 3 4 8 9 0
The light-energy spreads equally over each cell:
9 3 6 7 4 5 9 X 1
In one cell the threshold has been reached.
So this cell detects a "photon", and the energy is reset again.

The next pulse of light energy will give:
X 4 7 8 5 6 X 1 2

So this time we detect two "photons".

And this is what happens in all experiments on rare occasions.
Sometimes the experimenter of thresholdmodel found that his detectors showed
two "photons" at the same time. The same happens in experiments in many scientific
papers. But they disregard it as "noise".
I have read some of those papers and the "noise" level is often very high indeed.
The noise gets higher if there is more energy involved. Which seems logical.
With visible light the noise is often pretty low.

This made me realize that this threshold model is on a right track.
With the threshold model a lot of physics might become a lot simpler.
Even alpha-particles show the threshold model effect in experiments.
No multiple worlds or superstrings or virtual particles.
And in experiments this model can be tested very well.

Summary:
We have continuous fields and forces, working like waves.
The discrete part is caused by the threshold.

Einstein's mistake #1.

[webolife]

I also model fields and forces, rather pressures.
My difficulty I think is with the possibly[?] careless use of the term "continuous".
I can accept the way you have hypothesized a discrete light action, but in your illustration you actually used "discrete" counts to achieve [threshold] levels. While you may think you are deliberately oversimplifying here for the sake of discussion, I challenge the fundamental continuity of whatever number system you choose [eg. rational? irrational? real? These systems are ideally/mathematically infinitely dense, but there is no physical basis for the assumption of infinite physical density]. You make a significant assumption in the a priori claim that light is continuous in this sense. The only experience we have of light is in discrete actions. Some hypothesize corpuscles as "photons", others [you?] impinging wavefronts, but what evidence can you cite for this as a continuous phenomenon? The misnamed "continuous" spectrum of white light, eg. from the sun, is in reality not continuous at the elementary level, rather compounded by numerous discrete actions. Refer to this remarkable spectro-graphic from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 1981:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ssp/images/SolarCCD.jpg
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ssp/stars_p ... ctrum.html

[Zyxzevn]

but in your illustration you actually used "discrete" counts to achieve [threshold] levels.

It is the interaction which is discrete in quantum mechanics.
In Einstein's model it is due to particles.
In Plank's model it is due to thresholds.

It gives a very very simple solution, that actually works in the cases that I have seen.

eg. rational? irrational? real?

I think that energy is expressed as "floating point".
No imaginary stuff required as in quantum mechanics.

I don't know what the number-type is of energy.
In experiments they appear as "floating point".

The thresholds/quanta are probably related to "quantum-jumps" that we see in
atomic models. The electron can collect energy until it reaches the
level to jump to the next band.
So we keep most of quantum mechanics, just a lot simpler.
The energy-state is a hidden variable in this model.

I first had a photon-model where the hidden phase of the electron was
determining the energy interaction. But this version is much simpler.

The only experience we have of light is in discrete actions.

Not really.
Electromagnetism is always continuous.
A constant electric field does not produce light/photons by definition, still it can be very strong.

We only see discrete actions on very low levels of energy-exchange, and even
then we see continuous fields as the energy-waves interact with each other.
In the threshold model, the interference is caused by normal energy-wave interaction,
not by the probability-wave function.
During the transmission of light, the electron does seem to do a jump, producing a light pulse.
So time is not reversible in this threshold model.

but what evidence can you cite for this as a continuous phenomenon?

Sometimes we have no or two discrete actions when we expect only one.
This is often seen and registered as noise.
In quantum experiments there is often a lot of noise, which I always found weird.
In experiments on thresholdmodel.com the person noticed that there were far more
dual actions after transmitting one photon with ultraviolet light.
So the "noise" became more after using high-energy light.
He could only explain it with Plank's model.

Since then he has done many more tests, and I think he has found something interesting.
He also finds this interaction in alpha radiation. Which is weird but should
be investigated further. Maybe matter is much more fluid-like than we think.

spectro-graphic from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 1981:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ssp/images/SolarCCD.jpg

Beautiful spectrum.
SkyScholar has some good videos on it
The light still has different frequencies, as it works like a normal electromagnetic wave.
This is totally in line with the threshold model.

In the example, I should have added that the "energy buckets" only receive energy from
certain frequencies of light. The electrons act as such energy buckets.
If the bucket is full, the electron has reached a new state/band.

[webolife]

We're seeing a number of things in common.
The field is "continuous" yes in the the sense that it is operating everywhere at every hierarchy, and is in fact infinite [as the universal matrix]. But objects and actions within the field are finite, in size, number, extent, and density. Thus your threshold energies produce a quantized action. Like overcoming an inertial state.
The transmission of light normally originates in the "threshold" energy drop/jump of an electron or electron state. In my Centropic Field Pressure model, and in any other working model as I see it, there is no light action without this fundamental centropic action at an elementary level. But the field/pressure which builds to this action is in continuous operation. When you say "electromagnetism" is continuous, you may be referring to the fact that the light field is everywhere and always working, which I agree to. In my model, gravitation is a function of this same universal field.
I do not see it as a waving action however. I can show you that what we call "interference" is a longstanding misunderstanding of the interaction of the light field at a slit or double slit device that originated in the writing and experiments of Thomas Young.The redundant spectra elicited by slits and other imaging devices mistakenly believed to be wave interference can be shown to be in fact optically/geometrically produced images of the source light field. Manipulation of the devices to thwart the possibility of interference do not remove the spectral patterns which persist. The same spectral phenomena can be produced with a beamsplitter alone, with just a single edge, a pinhole, and various other lensing apparati. The ordered spectra produced by these devices [eg. a double-slit] are instead the pressure gradient of the field surrounding the central line of sight, the direct light action vector. Varying the parameters of the slit/pinhole devices as well as the shape and constituents of the light source/lamp will undeniably demonstrate that the spectra are precise images of the lamp, and not interfering distortions caused by the slit/pinhole itself. Optical ray diagrams used to describe imaging phenomena associated with pinholes, slits, and lenses, are the best descriptors of the actual light action being seen: direct rectilinear pressure vectors aimed at the light "source" [as a sink]. This optical effect cannot be modeled by waves, or for that matter by particles, as it has been demonstrated for decades that even single "photons" produce the same spectral patterns. Optics describes light action, but waves have never been able to do so. Try explaining with a standard EM model such a simple and pervasive thing as the existence of purple. Light is pressure directed toward the source centropically [ie. as the centroid of the field], not emissions from it. Such a view is novel and shattering, and cannot be assimilated at first by those trained in the "emission" paradigm of light, such as you and me. I majored in science and taught for 4 decades in the public arena, so I know how difficult it is to combat the standard models so prevalent in all our institutions and curricula.
I've detailed some of these experimental manipulations in other posts, but frankly it is difficult for me to navigate the search process to point you to those other posts. Perhaps the moderator can help with this?

[Zyxzevn]

..This optical effect cannot be modeled by waves, or for that matter by particles, as it has been demonstrated for decades that even single "photons" produce the same spectral patterns.

Hmm. I disagree with you. Waves can do diffraction.
You can have diffraction patterns in water-waves and in electromagnetic waves.
On very small level you can see waves appearing in matter.
See atom-boy by IBM.


The only problem that I see is that fields have no shape. There still is something that
keeps the fields in shape, and that keeps matter in its place. In the particle-model you
would say that the particles stick together. And with the thresholdmodel the thresholds
may keep matter stay together.

Light is pressure directed toward the source centropically

I think you meant the push AWAY from the source.
This is another aspect of light.
The kinetic push of light.
This effect is very weak, and there may be a relationship with gravity.
The effect is so weak that it is often confused with the release of gas by a surface.
See: http://awesci.com/yes-light-can-push-physical-objects/

As gravity is in the inverse direction of the push.
Gravity is constant and requires no change of the field.
Light requires change of electromagnetic field.

But I don't think we are far of getting real gravity.
Let's go back to the part where I talked about matter staying together due to thresholds.
In quantum-mechanics matter is defined as a wave. This stays the same with thresholds.

So we can derive gravity directly from the Heisenberg relationship.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ge_ukRbuOw

I disagree with the idea of plank-masses, but if it works, why not?

Now what is the heisenberg relationship?
It based on the effect of light pushing an object that we try to measure.
Because we can only measure with light, the object is pushed away during the measurement.
So we can never really be sure where the object is or how fast it was going.

So indeed the push-effect of light is related with gravity.
In this case the "light" is the energy that matter is made of.

[webolife]

It goes without saying that wave diffraction can be modeled by waves.
But the light "interference" pattern is not seen "in the field" like waves are, only at the detection surface, therefore you can only think of it as a wave model if you presume it is waves! Let me point you to some interesting "proofs" [tests] that will demonstrate my objection:
Under easily obtained conditions that Young didn't include in his double slit analysis, you can remove the beamsplitter from the double slit, without changing the redundant spectral pattern alleged to be caused by interference. By varying the distance of the "screen" from the slit apparatus you can easily demonstrate that the pattern of darks and lights thought to represent interference and reinforcement are actually straight lines from slit[s] to screen, whereas Young's explanation requires they be hyperbolae. You can obtain the redundant spectral pattern using only an edge of a slit, or just the beamsplitter alone. Furthermore the pattern remains even if you replace the hair-like beamsplitter with a planar material perpendicular to the slit plane toward the viewer, effectively removing the possibility of interference. It can be shown that the "central" dark lines believed by Young [and all standard physicists since] to be interference, are actually shadows of the beamsplitter. This is why they disappear when the beamsplitter is removed. Speaking of spectral patterns, Young's model was predicated on the element of monochromatic light, and doesn't actually explain why the ordered spectral pattern exists at all, which it quite obviously does using a white light. Further still, if the light source is a standard incandescent monofilament [eg. 40W] a couple other discoveries arise that defy the waving diffraction explanation:
1. The "lines" of the spectra will be seen to be precise images of the source lamp filament, thus not "distortions caused by slit edge diffraction [as in the case of waves], rather as true images completely explainable by use of optical ray diagrams. Virtually planar wavefronts cannot be shown to produce images in this way.
2. The wee wires holding the monofilament in place cast shadows right through the spectra in their precisely imaged positions. This is true regardless of the distance from the source lamp to the slit device and viewer. Try explaining that with diffraction, since any amount of diffraction so close to the filament itself would obliterate those tiny shadows from view, yet there they are plain as day.
Once you've tried this, you will find that any shape produces spectra as seen through a slit that are in fact the precise image of the light filament, lamp, or reflecting surface being viewed. Novelty glasses made with diffraction gratings have displayed a similar principle for the amusement of children who know nothing of wave diffraction or interference. Or use a CF bulb and observe the spirals in the spectrum you thought was caused by the slits. Why does this happen? Very simple -- the slit is just a modified pinhole and modifies the light rays by ordering them angularly through the focal "point" of the hole, creating the flipped image in the viewer's eye or camera obscura.
For best advantage in seeing this effect, create a simple slit device with a piece of tagboard using a strand of hair as a beamsplitter through its length. You can experiment with the width of the slit for optimal viewing [1.0 mm is close]. Then hold your slit device pretty close to your eye to view the spectral pattern directly.
A spectroscope opens even more mind-blowing discoveries once you realize that the colors you see are true images of the light source, rather than diffracted distortions caused by slit edges.
If you are careful, and have an open mind, you will see with your own eyes why light does not [and cannot] be [interfering] waves.

[webolife]

And no, I meant push toward the light source as the field centroid, thus "centropic" pressure.
I've dealt with this on numerous other threads, but this relation to gravitation is why I dare to refer to the "centropic pressure field theory" as a unified field. EMP is also pressure towards "ground". Additionally centropy is entropy, so that in every interaction of matter the net systemic result is a drop in energy level or decay, entropy. This is the basis for why I can readily make the claim that the electron "jumping" [or simply returning] to a lower energy state, is the origin of the light action, instantly compressing its field, which includes my eye/retina as a peripheral member. When the electron jumps, my retinal photoreceptor surfaces "jump" with it. Toward the light I am looking at. This is also aided by the design of the retina, in which the receptors lie behind the surface, receiving the "push" signal from the "outside" of the field toward the central source, where the electron is "falling". Complete unification of the forces is possible with a simple reversal of the light vector "arrow."

[MotionTheory]

... this relation to gravitation is why I dare to refer to the "centropic pressure field theory" as a unified field.

What mechanism steer attraction/pressure field radially inward (toward centroid/singularity)? GR uses non-physical extra dimensions (super-imposed over physical 3D/space to effectively emerged as warp 3D/space) + position retro-causality to move/attract things toward singularity. Is there a physical steering mechanism for CPFT (centropic pressure field theory)?

Additionally centropy is entropy, so that in every interaction of matter the net systemic result is a drop in energy level or decay, entropy.

Centropy/Gravity is opposite of entropy. Field density increases inward with centropy/gravity, while physical entropy tendencies('always' statistically in large systems) diverging toward lower density - i.e. away from high density region. A unified model is incomplete when energy isn't conserved.

[Zyxzevn]

Novelty glasses made with diffraction gratings have displayed a similar principle for the amusement of children who know nothing of wave diffraction or interference.

There are 2 things here.
1) Light can bend when it goes near an edge, or when it goes through a small slit or hole.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike

2) The diffraction is caused by interference of the light that comes though and out of the material.
This also happens when you have slits. It works best when you have a grid.
In this case you have minima and maxima on different places depending on the frequency.
http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Diffraction.html
If you have infinite grid holes, you get normal diffraction.

Now to the light push away from/towards (?) the light source..

. This is the basis for why I can readily make the claim that the electron "jumping" [or simply returning] to a lower energy state, is the origin of the light action

So the electron-jump causes light..

This is also aided by the design of the retina, in which the receptors lie behind the surface, receiving the "push" signal from the "outside" of the field toward the central source, where the electron is "falling".

Now the light reaches the retina and pushes.
This causes the electron to raise to a higher energy level.
Not falling to a lower energy level.

receiving the "push" signal from the "outside"

Here you state that light pushes from the outside the retina.
Which seems to me like the normal way.

But if I understand your theory correctly, you state that light from the sun, pulls earth towards the sun.
While most other people think that the sun's light pushes earth away from the sun.
And the reason for that you think that is, because when light that hits a surface,
it frees electrons from that surface. (If I understood you correctly)
Which is into the direction of light-source.

Gravity, which is a very weak force, goes into the inverse direction, of the conventional
kinetic direction of light.

And as I explained above, gravity can be directly derived from the wave nature of matter.
The derivation only gives a direction and connection, not a complete working theory.
How it works exactly still needs to be studied.

[webolife]

Wow, Lots of great claims there, all premised on the belief that light is waving but stated as a fact. I challenge your facts, but am totally trained in the light wave premise, and categorize it thus as an unproven assumption. This centropic concept is a complete reversal of the standard emissive paradigm of light. I'm not great with adding graphics to posts like some others, but let's see if I can type out a schematic, absolutely not to scale:

A. field center/atom[s] X electron o <----distance between electron and viewer----> (---)) viewer/eye, with retina
Distance is your choice, whether molecular, astronomic, or any hierarchy between.

Now same diagram without labels, but with field vector added:
B. X<-------->o<----------------------------------- centropic vector----------------------------------- (---)) -------
Length of centropic vector is the radius of the [local] field, either atomic, astronomic or hierarchies between.
Like a geometric ray the length is indeterminate, but unlike a geometric ray the arrow is toward field center

Let's energize that electron:
C. X-----<--o->
As the electron falls or "jumps" back toward the atom, or to a lower energy state, the entire ray momentarily collapses. This would be the part of the event that looks like <--o

But at the same time this happens the entire field ray jumps with it, since it is just one [self-connected] field.
One field but containing in this simplification two objects, the activated electron at the source/center of the field, and the viewer toward the periphery of the field. looking at the whole event it would be like this:
D. X -----<--o<-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(---))<-------
This is a single light action event, initiated by the fall of the electron, but accompanied simultaneously by the fall of the field vector which pushes against the eye/retina from "behind" (this is what I meant before by "outside").

Now for a closer look at the viewer/eye/retina on the right, cornea(------------ retina)--back of eye):
E. X<--o<---------------------------------------------------------------------(<-------------)<--)<--------------

Can you detect the part of the diagram that represents entropy? (I only show it in C.)
You are incorrect about the gravity vector being opposite to the entropy vector. This is because you are confusing entropy with diffusion. Diffusion happens because less dense materials get displaced by denser materials moviing in the opposite direction [toward greater density]. You have your eye on the drifting materials, thinking they represent entropy, but the active matter is that which is falling together. Towards ground. Gravitation. Voltage. Toward a lower energy state... entropy. Centropy. Seeing Light as centropic unifies it with gravitation, voltage, nuclear force, et.al.
But it takes guts to overcome the light-as-emission paradigm. And Time. By the way, there is a way to unify time as a centropic agent as well. I might even say "Centropy is time's arrow!"

Now take a look back at my previous posts.
It's 2 AM --- I'll tackle your "what drives centropy" question next time.

[MotionTheory]

re - webolife

Is light in centropy model a perturbation of medium rather than emissive packet of energy through medium?

if answer is 'no', please ignore below...

e.g. let water being the medium, then centropy light initiated by a directional low pressure cavity at source (electron reduced its distance from nucleus). In turn, perturbated packet (or a short path - whatever) in water, thus push the receiver toward the source.
Whereas emissive light is analogous to a torpedo goes toward the receiver.

If my interpretation is close enough to your model, which implied - medium perturbation packet somehow remain intact traveled from source to receiver. How can this perturbation packet preserves its structure when it is unbounded in the medium? Per example above, this analogous to a p-wave, which disperse rapidly (i.e. losing its coherency). Centropic vector would point to source position at initiated time but as we already know - gravity point earth to current sun position(maybe a trivial lag), NOT position of sun's 8+ minutes ago.

[webolife]

Pretty much every person I've dialogued with comes to the eventual question: What drives centropy?
I'm afraid my answer, though satisfactory to me, won't please the reader...
This question sits right up there with Sir Isaac's famous words "I fein no hypotheses."
Some more kindred questions and soundbites that haunt physicists:
-- If everything started with a big bang, what started the big bang?
-- Where did matter come from?
-- What is energy? [Fd is an abstraction, as are W, .5mv^2, and other attempts to handle it]
-- How do forces act across a distance? [There's always some space between interacting objects -- various aether theories exist to try to fill in the "uncomfortable silence."]
-- Which came/comes first, Impulse or Momentum? [in the standard equation I = P, ie. Ft = mv]
-- The universe is held together by "dark matter" but kept from collapsing by "dark energy." ??
-- If the universe is infinite, why is it "sticky"?
-- If the universe is finite, what is beyond it?
-- Did God create the universe? [Often accompanied with the question, Where did God come from?]
-- Is there anything "supernatural"* in the universe? [*supernatural = beyond nature as we study it scientifically --Ie. is this a "superverse?"]
-- Add your own list of unanswerable/unanswered questions...

So here is my crack at understanding the Origin of Centropy:
One must pick one of 2 paradigms as a fundamental premise for any understanding of physics:
1. The universe is infinite [and then try to define "infinite" in physical terms, or not].
2. The universe is finite [and then try to explain its boundaries, or not].
The parenthetic notes infer that either premise is a matter of faith, belief, philosophy, acceptance, presupposition, assumption... We don't like to discuss this in physics class, so we sometimes pretend the question doesn't matter. One can say "turtles all the way down", but this only avoids the question, which again is standard physics dogma.
The sheer immensity of the universe is staggering to the mind no matter how big we envision it to be, so that cannot logically determine which paradigm we choose.
I choose "finite" because every observable and measurable experience [ie. everything in physics] is in fact observable and measurable -- finite. Why should we imagine otherwise if there is no way to discern it or describe it physically? Here's how I envision this to work:
Choose a smaller realm if you can or wish, but for convenience I will pick the atomic realm as a starter for understanding "the smallest particle" which we can conclude is indeed finite [size, shape, mass, etc.]. Consider the atomic nucleus of any given atom. Expand it to say the size of a city, and as far as we know it is still an expanse of space surrounding some [probably still invisible] locus. The defined locus is surrounded by an undefined yet active spacial domain [I'll call that its "field"]. Let's jump to the bigger hierarchy of the solar system. You can choose other realms in between, this is just for illustration. The sun, immense as it is, is barely a speck compared to the spacial realm that defines it's influence, or rather what influences it, ie. its field. At the galactic or supergalactic level the problem is equal or greater. Finite objects are contained in fields that are undefinedly greater, which I will simplify by saying "infinite". The crux of it is this -- by definition a finite universe is contained, and in unification I have to conclude the addendum "by an infinite [undefined] field." If you could hold an atom between your thumb and forefinger, this image becomes the model for the finitude of the universe. It doesn't really matter [or does it?] what name you give to the greater operant field, it is beyond physical measure or observation. What does matter for sure is that we live in what some term a "sticky" universe. The universal observation is that stuff is held together, and in physics we go from there. We look for culpable corpuscles to "carry" our forces, the search for "gravitons" for example. When we find none satisfactory, we turn to amorphous waves, and incur the various forms of "energy" to explain how they work. While of course physical waves exist in a medium, there are only imaginary waves at work in the invisible realms of the cosmos both large and small. Believe them or not, I just understand them to be imaginary, or in scientific jargon, "hypothetical". What I need not believe, because I can see it at work and measure its effects, is pressure. From this base is constructed the centropic pressure field theory.
Nuff said for this post, more questions and objections surely to follow!

[webolife]

In the centropic pressure field theory, a light action is not the result of stuff, either packets or wavish, traveling from source to observer, rather the compression of the field that includes both source, as field centroid, and observer as peripheral detector of the compression "vector". In this view light is rays. Now a ray is abstractly an infinitesmal and therefore non-phenomenal concept. So in the finite physical universe we have to think of it as a "beam" operating upon a finite surface area. Remember, centropic means directed toward the center, the field centroid. The pressure is universal, and embodied in Newton's second law. C
Centropy, being primordial as described in the previous post, has an accompanying primordial partner in the play of existence, what most refer to as "energy", but I think may be more simplified as "momentum". Together centropy and momentum form the action/motion we observe at every hierarchy from atomic to astronomic, which we term "angular momentum". Newton's first law [slightly] misses this fact -- there is no straight line motion by which to define inertia, all objects are in fact operated on by an outside force [pressure], moving them in curved paths. So Galileo got that part [slightly] right!
In contrast, light is always seen to be rectilinear; refraction is not an exception... light rays "modified" in their direction by changes in medium density are still fundamentally straight. The light pressure field, elicited by spectra, is predicated upon a rectilinear CLOS, central line of sight.

[MotionTheory]

I like pressure field theory however centropic has gaps. Also to be clear - I aim to discuss about mechanism of physics and avoid waste-of-time philosophical objections/points.

... "sticky"

+

In the centropic pressure field theory, a light action is not the result of stuff, either packets or wavish, traveling from source to observer, rather the compression of the field that includes both source, as field centroid, and observer as peripheral detector of the compression "vector". ... The pressure is universal, and embodied in Newton's second law. C
Centropy, being primordial as described in the previous post, has an accompanying primordial partner in the play of existence, what most refer to as "energy", but I think may be more simplified as "momentum". Together centropy and momentum form the action/motion we observe at every hierarchy from atomic to astronomic. ...

Sticky - why? We need at least to definite a mechanism to cause stickiness, whether at rest (remain within self-radius distance); in motion.

Primordial Energy is just a measurement of delta quantity(perhaps motion) between a base/reference and object/occupied-volume in space. Closely to Newton mechanic, this is "inertia". This energy/inertia state can be change by external force or reconfigured+redefine object geometric boundary.

Momentum is inertia in motion, thus not primordial. Same for compression because both drove/caused by force. This force must consists-of Primordial Energy in motion. Therefore energy in motion has momentum, so momentum is extra quantity from at-rest. Clearly this extra quantity isn't from primordial energy - which is pointing to an omitted/invisible participant/variable. A big gap.

Centropic pressure field can not build Radial pressure field because they are opposite. Radius of an atom for example - its boundary region established/expressed/asserted by Radial Pressure Field. So, compression vector direction is outward. This violate laws of thermodynamics.