What the AMS Framework Rejects

What the AMS Framework Rejects

The Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) framework is not an extension of existing
spacetime or particle-based physics. It is a corrective ontology.

To understand it clearly, it is essential to state explicitly what AMS rejects.

This is not rhetorical opposition — it is ontological housekeeping.

1. Transported Objects

AMS rejects the idea that:

  • matter moves as a carried substance,
  • fields are transported entities,
  • energy flows as a thing moving through space.

In AMS:

  • nothing is carried,
  • nothing is dragged,
  • nothing is advected.

Persistence occurs through topological reinstantiation, not transport.

2. Fields as Independent Objects

AMS rejects:

  • fields as standalone physical objects,
  • fields existing independently of enforcement,
  • fields being attached to matter like cargo.

A field is a contingent substrate state, not an entity.

3. Particles as Ontological Primitives

AMS rejects:

  • particles as fundamental objects,
  • wave–particle duality as a primitive mystery,
  • probabilistic ontology as foundational.

What are called “particles” are stable topological configurations.
What are called “waves” are substrate disturbances.

These are descriptions, not categories of being.

4. Discretised Space or Time

AMS rejects:

  • spatial pixels,
  • minimum spatial cells,
  • time quanta,
  • Planck-scale discreteness as ontological necessity.

The substrate is continuous.
Discretisation arises from matter, not from space or time.

5. Spacetime as Fundamental Reality

AMS rejects spacetime as an ontological base.

Spacetime is:

  • a phenomenological framework,
  • a measurement-layer description,
  • a useful abstraction.

It is not what reality is made of.

6. Global Simultaneity

AMS rejects the possibility of:

  • global, instantaneous reconfiguration,
  • non-local update without constraint adjacency.

Local consistency forbids global simultaneity.
Time emerges from this constraint.

7. Information Without Matter

AMS rejects:

  • information existing independently of physical configuration,
  • memory without stability,
  • storage without discretisation.

Information requires primary configurations (matter).

Summary

AMS rejects:

  • transport,
  • particles,
  • independent fields,
  • discretised spacetime,
  • probabilistic ontology,
  • storage without matter.

These rejections are not philosophical preferences —
they are consequences of a consistent substrate-based ontology.

​

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more

Frame-by-Frame AMS Narratives of Basic Circuits

Frame-by-Frame AMS Narratives of Basic Circuits The following descriptions assume: The Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) is a continuous tension-bearing medium. Matter consists of vorton lattices embedded in AMS. A battery imposes a sustained AMS tension gradient between its terminals. “Current” is the rate of coordinated vorton slip/reconfiguration events that allow AMS tension to relax through a material path. Time is described in conceptual frames, not absolute units. 1) Battery + Resistor (DC) Frame 0 — Battery alone Inside the battery, chemical processes maintain a persistent torsional imbalance in the AMS. One terminal enforces higher AMS tension; the other enforces lower tension. No external relaxation path exists yet. Frame 1 — Circuit closed The conductor connects the two boundary conditions. The AMS immediately attempts to equalize tension along the conductor path. A longitudinal AMS tension gradient establishes itself almost instantaneously along the wir...
Read more