Background

This background discussion captures in general terms the evolution of the Emergent Time Framework (ETF) and the progression of my thought processes since 2017.

The ETF had its genesis with a deceptively simple question: “How does energy propagate through a vacuum?” While physicists and engineers routinely look to Maxwell’s equations to invoke EM fields, or point to gravitational waves, describing a phenomenon with exquisite mathematical precision is not the same as possessing a satisfying, fundamental explanation of its underlying mechanics. Gravity is a prime example. Einstein’s field equations accurately predict the behaviour of matter and curved spacetime, yet the underlying physical explanation for what gravity actually is remains elusive, leaving contemporary physics to wrestle with string theory, loop quantum gravity, and entropic gravity, amongst others, for an answer.

Progress between 2017 and 2021 was slow, but gradually the threads came together. I realised that time and energy could be directly linked through the mechanism of vector-mediated energy exchange, and that seemed to naturally point toward the concept of time as a field. By 2022, I was convinced that the cosmos was expanding because of this continuous energy exchange and the resultant time dilation, though I had yet to find a way to express this mathematically.

The breakthrough arrived in late 2023 when I became aware of Planck Power, which described exactly the mechanism I was looking for: a fundamental power source for cosmic expansion that required no new physics and neatly dovetailed with the concept of a time field being generated and sustained through vector-mediated energy transformations. Finally, in 2024, as I began drafting the first formal paper on the ETF “Energy Transformation and Emergent Time: A Tentative Framework to Unifying Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and General Relativity“, I was able to resolve the conceptual conflict I had between time as a physical field (how the framework treats it) and time as a dimension (how humans experience it).

Unravelling Time

Attempting to answer “What is time?” led me to consider flat spacetime—the vacuum—where gravitational potential is notionally zero. In such a regime, the interval between any two points is characterised by distance, which operationally serves as a proxy for time, using as our cosmic ruler. If an object is accelerated, the relative proper time between it and its former coordinates changes. Because moving a mass requires an energy transformation—whether driven by a localised motive force or the geometric influence of curved spacetime—it follows that energy transformations are inextricably linked to changes in relative proper time.

The ETF also explores the inverse of this relationship: if an object experiences a local variance in relative proper time, it must undergo a corresponding displacement or be subject to a force, manifesting as physical motion. This perspective naturally points toward an operational time field. While various quantum gravity models treat time as an emergent property of underlying quantum states, time is rarely linked directly to macroscopic energy fluxes in this manner.

Mainstream physics historically resists the concept of a time field due to the deeply entrenched mathematical treatment of time as a passive coordinate dimension () within a static four-dimensional block universe. This geometric abstraction strips time of an active physical mechanism, forcing cosmology to plug the gap with undetected entities like dark matter to account for observed gravitational anomalies. By contrast, the Emergent Time Framework (ETF) bridges the philosophical divide between Lee Smolin’s requirement for a fundamental “Now” and Julian Barbour’s Machian view of a universe defined strictly by relative configurations of matter. Rejecting Newton’s absolute time, the ETF recognises that the “Now” is a dynamic physical state under constant transformation, governed by the Planck Power .

In this paradigm, time is re-centred as a dynamic, physical proper time rate field () directly generated by the energy-stress tensor (). Spacetime curvature is thus shown to be a localised gradient within this time field. This provides a phenomenological mechanism that naturally yields the background metric stiffness (which we introduce in Section 1 of this paper) () and the 3D isotropic cosmic acceleration floor () requiring minimal free parameters while strictly adhering to relativistic principles.

In Time Reborn, Lee Smolin challenges the static block universe, echoing Gottfried Leibniz’s relational view of time as a dynamic network of events. Smolin explicitly breaks from the timeless interpretations popularised by Carlo Rovelli and other loop quantum gravity theorists, arguing that a fundamental “now” is required for physical laws to meaningfully evolve. However, asserting both an open future and an independent “now” introduces a deep paradox: if the “now” exists as a pre-existing background framework independent of matter and energy, it subtly reasserts the exact properties of an absolute, independent dimension that the relational school seeks to reject.

To resolve this background-dependence paradox, Julian Barbour offers a radically different perspective in The End of Time. Rather than treating time as a flowing dimension or a fundamental sequence of “nows” as Smolin does, Barbour treats the universe as a static landscape of individual, timeless configurations—what he terms “Nows” or “Heaps of Snapshots.” In Barbour’s Machian view, time is not an active driver of change, but an illusion that emerges from the intrinsic geometric relationships between objects within a single snapshot.

The ETF occupies a unique middle ground between these philosophies. Like Leibniz and Smolin, the ETF rejects Newton’s absolute time, but it avoids Smolin’s background paradox by refusing to treat the “now” as a pre-existing container. Instead, like Barbour, the ETF recognises that nature operates exclusively in the physical configuration of the present moment. Where the ETF entirely departs from Barbour’s frozen landscape is in its mechanism: the “Now” is not a static snapshot but a dynamic, unfolding state governed by continuous, vector-mediated energy transformations. Proper time rates emerge from the energetic throughput of the system itself, making time a physical field anchored to the metric, rather than a psychological illusion or an absolute cosmic clock.

The framework resolves this by proposing that whenever energy transforms or mediates a force, it proceeds via vector-mediated mechanisms that trigger an inertial response. Crucially, this inertial response can only take place in mass-bearing matter. Mainstream physics assumes these transformations occur within a pre-existing metric of time—such as a battery discharging or an engine burning fuel over a set duration.

The ETF inverts this causality: the physical process of energy transformation actively generates the emergent properties we perceive as time and spatial geometry. In other words, what we term “the future” or the next instant is continuously generated by energy transformation in the present; without it, the future structurally cannot exist.

In the upcoming paper, “Deriving Relativistic Spacetime Metrics from the Principle of Energy-to-Geometry Translation Through an Active Metric Engine”, I propose that this process is rooted in the fundamental quantum of action. When summed, these discrete actions yield the smooth spacetime continuum described by General Relativity.

The ETF goes further by treating the concepts of a linear past and future as psychological projections of human cognition and memory. Although nature routinely retains physical traces of prior energy transformations—such as the fossil record, an ancient building, or historical records—these structures can only be contextualised and recognised as the past through the lens of human cognition.

In my first paper, “Energy Transformation and Emergent Time: A Tentative Framework to Unifying Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and General Relativity”, I propose a thought experiment: if all energy exchange and microscopic motion across the cosmos were hypothetically frozen, time as an operational reality would cease. There would be no causal or relational information generated to define a past or a future; the universe would be locked in a static, eternal “now”. Under the ETF paradigm, time is quantified as an emergent manifestation of the localised energy transformation rate bound by the propagation limit . A higher concentration of localised energy transformation correlates to a lower proper time rate (time dilation). We observe the physical reality of this spatial time variance daily in the strict relativistic corrections required to synchronise GPS satellites with terrestrial clocks.

In summary, the ETF proposes time is a physical field that overlays the existing x, y and z dimensions. The rate at which proper time ticks by at any point is a direct reflection of the total energy transformation rate at the point. The ETF rejects the notion of time as a linear progression from the past through the present and into the future. The past and the future in this paradigm are purely psychological projections of the human mind, and recognising relics of the past as such requires cognition and memory. Nature, however, has no need of this type of time. It only has energy transformation in the now, and that process is ultimately responsible for the geometry of the manifold, i.e., the expanding cosmos, gravity, the background acceleration floor and metric stiffness, , which we will discuss a little later.

Entropy and the Arrow of Time

Up until 2024, I held two conflicting views of what time was. From the ETF perspective, it was a physical field, but abandoning a linear past-present-future timeline inevitably demands a radical recasting of the Arrow of Time. In conventional interpretations of entropy, it is overwhelming statistical probability that allows change to take place against the backdrop of linear time or a block universe. Rather than viewing the future as an unwritten, abstract dimension, the ETF treats it as a path structurally constrained by cumulative, prior energy transformations. While nature exists exclusively in the immediate “now”, that “now” physically retains the specific structural configurations inherited from everything that preceded it.

At the subatomic scale, fundamental equations of motion exhibit time-reversal symmetry (-symmetry). (Notably, Emmy Noether’s theorem demonstrates that a completely different symmetry—time-translation invariance—underpins the conservation of energy). Yet, this clean microscopic reversibility completely vanishes at the macroscopic scale, a contradiction famously identified as Loschmidt’s Paradox and managed in conventional physics by the second law of thermodynamics through statistical probability.

The ETF attempts to resolve Loschmidt’s paradox mechanically rather than probabilistically. Mainstream thermodynamics asserts that a broken egg on the floor never spontaneously reconstitutes simply because the statistical likelihood of such an alignment is vanishingly small. The ETF replaces this statistical view with structural constraint: for an egg to spontaneously reform, every localised energy transformation across all molecular scales would have to perfectly reverse against the overwhelming momentum of the surrounding macrostate. The local system is structurally bound by the principle of stationary action; it cannot reverse its trajectory because doing so would require an impossible localised injection of energy to overcome the immense web of physical constraints it has inherited from historical energy transformations.

This mechanism of structurally constrained futures explains how complex macroscopic order emerges from highly randomised, stochastic states. Consider a planetary system nucleating from a chaotic nebula. While the initial molecules occupy a randomised, statistical distribution, continuous vector-mediated energy transformations, the resulting metric stiffness, and gravitational collapse progressively narrow the kinematically allowed paths of matter. As the system converges toward an optimised Hamiltonian equilibrium, its stable orbits become so rigidly constrained that they exhibit near-absolute determinism.

While classical thermodynamics categorises a homogenous, gaseous nebula as a state of low gravitational entropy—and thus theoretically ordered due to mass uniformity—this definition conflates spatial homogeneity with structural organisation. A nebula can only be processed statistically using Gaussian ensembles; its individual molecular trajectories are fundamentally unknowable. Conversely, a mature solar system is highly structured and rigorously predictable. In the ETF paradigm, the transition from nebula to planetary system is not a descent into disorder but a structural evolution wherein a physical transition from a statistical ensemble to a highly constrained, deterministic macrostate takes place.

Einstein’s Equivalence Principle Revisited

One of the foundational breakthroughs Einstein made in formulating General Relativity was the assertion that accelerating at in flat spacetime is physically indistinguishable from standing stationary on the surface of the Earth. While he offered this as an axiomatic postulate rather than a formal proof, its validity remains absolute; if it were false, General Relativity would have failed to withstand a century of precision testing.

Having converged on the architecture of a proper time rate field, I wondered if there was a deeper, underlying link connecting inertial mass, gravitational mass, and energy transformation. In flat spacetime, producing an inertial response (which I termed an “inertial frame shift”) requires an explicit energy transformation or exchange, resulting in acceleration. Once this acceleration phase concludes, a permanent time dilation manifests between the accelerated object and its former coordinates in space. Viewed through this lens, time dilation is the fundamental physical response of matter subjected to an energy transformation that induces an inertial response.

But how does this process establish equivalence with what a body experiences at rest on Earth? Einstein famously demonstrated that mass and energy are inextricably linked and that energy—via the energy-stress tensor—directly dictates spacetime curvature. On Earth, the planet’s immense mass acts as a colossal reservoir of bound energy (). This concentrated energy-stress distribution continuously drives inertial responses in all local mass-bearing matter, regardless of scale. Because these constant inertial responses are mediated by the metric, they manifest as a localised gradient in the proper time field. The ETF therefore proposes that gravitational acceleration and inertial acceleration are bound by the exact same mechanism of energy-to-time transformation.

The ETF replaces the empty vacuum with a cosmic-wide time field, sustained and driven by energy transformation and exchange at all scales across the cosmos. All of the energy since the Big Bang is stored in the time field. A sphere within that time field with the diameter of the Milky Way contains about , and across the whole cosmos, around . It is concentrations of mass like planets, stars and galaxies, which are in effect reservoirs of energy exchange and transformations, that curve the cosmic-wide background time field. In 1915, Einstein famously predicted that starlight would be bent by the enormous mass of the Sun curving spacetime in its vicinity, arriving at a figure of 1.75 arc seconds. To calculate this figure, Einstein used the mass of the Sun and G, but the exact same result can be delivered using G‘s relationship to Planck power flux from .

[Separately, taking the total number of photons in the observable universe at roughly based on the Cosmic Microwave Background density, and multiplying it by the fundamental atomic energy unit—the Rydberg ionisation energy of hydrogen ()—the product is approximately Joules. This close order-of-magnitude numerical correspondence strongly suggests that the total energy budget of the macroscale cosmos is coupled directly to microscale energy-to-geometry transformations. Rather than being a random cosmic coincidence, it hints at a deeply structured, zero-free-parameter constraint running across the entire metric.]

In our architecture of a proper time rate field, any localised curvature or spatial gradient within the field yields the exact same kinematic effects as gravity. Here, we invert the standard interpretation of General Relativity: rather than mass passively curving spacetime to generate time dilation as a secondary symptom, the ETF posits that continuous energy transformations within a localised mass reservoir directly curve the background time field, inducing an acceleration gradient that we macroscopically interpret as gravity. Far from a superficial reinterpretation, this paradigm operates completely within the mathematical constraints of General Relativity, yet its cosmological consequences are significant. Just as the integration of the Planck Power () untethers our view of cosmic expansion from the requirement for dark energy, this time field interpretation of General Relativity eliminates the necessity for dark matter. The result is a single, zero-free parameter unified metric that seamlessly accounts for galaxy dynamics and cosmic expansion alike—entirely doing away with modern cosmology’s two most elusive, sought-after entities, which, after forty years of exhaustive empirical effort and millions of dollars, have yet to be revealed.

Dark matter and the Galaxy Rotation Anomaly aka Radial Acceleration Relation

Before I began working on the first ETF paper in March of 2024, I was still wrestling with an explanation for dark matter. I was sure dark energy and dark matter (the ‘dark sector’) were linked. Cosmic expansion, anchored in Planck power, was fairly easy to articulate, but a cogent explanation for dark matter was far more elusive. It seemed to me that although LCDM and MOND required additional mass in the form of dark matter to resolve the problem, looking at it a different way, the galaxy rotation anomaly was like a bucket of water that had been stirred. The sides of the bucket act as a constraint, so the water rotates more quickly than would be the case if the bucket were larger or the water weren’t constrained. Did the explanation perhaps lie outside the galaxy structure? Since the whole idea of a time field was uppermost in the explanation for dark energy, I decided to plot a graph of the acceleration and time field components (kinematic and Newtonian) for a galaxy – I called this approach ‘time field kinematics’. The initial plot used a Milky Way-scale point mass object (see Figure 1 below), but the behaviour of the rotational velocity curve (solid blue line in Figure 1) was unmistakable: the velocity curved upwards, indicating increasing velocity the greater the distance from the point mass’s centre, and it asymptoted towards the relative contribution line (solid green line in Figure 1).

Earlier iterations of this plot did not show the characteristic uptick in rotation velocity. It was only when the line was plotted as a proportion of the total gravitational potential and then summed with the declining Newtonian gravitational potential that the upward curve in the rotation velocity manifests itself. And if the same exercise is repeated using a Freeman disc model, the rotation velocity curve flattens out after initially rising quickly near the centre, mimicking the curves for many galaxies in the SPARC data set.

However, using a point mass or Freeman disc model to plot Milky Way-scale object kinematics is not a robust enough approach to pin down the underlying mechanics of the galaxy rotation anomaly.

Figure 2 below utilises the actual SPARC kinematic profile for NGC 2841 (plotted as ). To test the model, a predictive validation protocol was employed to verify the structural conformance between the analytical traces and the raw empirical data. By utilising cubic spline techniques to map the baryonic matter distributions, a predicted total velocity profile () is obtained. This profile is then overlaid directly against the actual SPARC data points ().

The close alignment and conformance demonstrated by this protocol provide the necessary confidence to use the spline data as a continuous, differentiable foundation from which to extract the acceleration and background time-field kinematics required for the subsequent Hamiltonian analysis. This ensures that the energy conservation laws derived across the metric are anchored strictly to verified physical profiles rather than to ad hoc, fine-tuned theoretical models.

Furthermore, a Hamiltonian analysis demonstrates that this elevated outer radial velocity is a strict physical necessity if total energy is to be conserved across the metric. Rather than invoking non-baryonic dark matter halo distributions, the flat profile emerges naturally as a geometric consequence of the background time field asserting its baseline stiffness where matter density runs thin.

When interpreting the kinematics of NGC 2841, this unified metric plot offers a robust alternative to established paradigms. The observed profile’s conformance to the trace () is achieved through a Hamiltonian analysis of the background time rate field (), showing that non-baryonic dark matter for resolving the velocity discrepancy is not required. Frameworks like Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) introduce a pragmatic modification to the law of acceleration, but this analysis identifies the anomaly as an additive, geometric backfilling of the energy deficit driven by the inherent stiffness of the cosmic proper time rate (). By deriving the elevated radial velocity directly from the requirement of fundamental energy conservation across this metric, the framework solves the missing mass problem by showing it is a geometric consequence of a curved time field, providing a theoretically consistent bedrock that both MOND and cold dark matter models struggle to replicate natively.

An objection from the paradigm proponents might be that because the ETF validates itself against empirical SPARC data (), it is replicating a curve that already has the gravitational signature of a non-baryonic dark matter halo embedded within it. However, this argument reverses the direction of physical causality. The predictive validation protocol does not look at to construct its metric; it uses only the observed baryonic mass distributions () to compute the Newtonian acceleration (). The framework then applies a single, invariant cosmic constant () representing the baseline stiffness of the background proper time rate field.

If a dark matter halo were truly responsible for the outer kinematics, the independent, exponentially decaying baryonic profile would lack the structural information required to predict the outer velocity path. Instead, the protocol demonstrates coupling between local baryonic density and total observed acceleration at all radii. The conclusion, therefore, is that the flat rotation curve is not the result of an undetected particle halo, but that it emerges natively as a geometric and Hamiltonian requirement for total energy conservation as baryonic acceleration beds down onto the cosmic floor.

MOND utilises an empirical value for the acceleration floor, . No underlying physical explanation is offered for why a simple interpolation function modification to Newton’s laws of gravity accurately predicts the galaxy RAR. The ETF acceleration floor, however, is calculated using first principles from Planck power, yielding a precise figure of . MOND is therefore a ‘fit’ to the data, while the ETF Planck power derivation from first principles and zero free parameters provides the underlying explanation as to why the acceleration anomaly on first glance does not follow Newton’s gravitation laws.

Extending the ETF Galaxy Rotation Anomaly Solution to the Bullet Cluster Observations

The ETF explanation for the RAR removes the requirement for additional mass in the form of non-baryonic dark matter and strongly indicates that dark energy and dark matter are joint manifestations of a single underlying phenomenon in which Planck power acts as the fundamental cosmic engine of energy-to-geometry conversion. Yet, how can this framework be extended to address the complex dynamics of the Bullet and Coma clusters? In these massive systems, weak gravitational lensing and observed kinematics reveal substantial spatial offsets—phenomena widely cited as the ‘smoking gun’ proof for the cold dark matter hypothesis.

Historically, alternatives to the paradigm have had to implement complex, multi-layered extensions to the standard model to account for the spatial offsets observed in non-spherically symmetric merger events like the Bullet Cluster (1E0657-558). A prominent example is the Modified Gravity (MOG) framework proposed by Brownstein and Moffat (2007). To reconcile strong gravitational lensing peaks with the location of low-density stellar clusters rather than the baryonic bulk of the intra-cluster gas, MOG introduces Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity (STVG). This mechanism requires the introduction of a new spin-one massive vector boson—the “phion”—alongside an associated Yukawa-type repulsive force and multiple spatially varying scalar fields to modulate Newton’s gravitational constant (). While mathematically capable of replicating the observed lensing data, such frameworks illustrate the high level of theoretical complexity and the large number of unverified free parameters required to modify gravity when operating within a standard spacetime metric.

In contrast to both the dark matter hypothesis and the complex extensions of MOG, the ETF resolves these large-scale kinematic anomalies by introducing a more parsimonious explanation, rooted firmly within established physics. Rather than inventing novel, undetected particle species or introducing exotic vector fields that modify the fundamental laws of gravitation, the ETF treats General Relativity as an entirely unaffected and pristine foundation. The observed velocity and lensing discrepancies are explained not by a breakdown of standard gravity or the presence of missing mass but as a direct consequence of the metric stiffness of the background cosmic proper time rate field, .

Metric stiffness recognises that the acceleration floor—whether operating in its 3D isotropic state or its 2D nucleated, constrained state—imbues the metric with a fundamental resistance to deformation. Matter cannot be accelerated unless the local gravitational potential is sufficient to overcome this background threshold. In the same manner that or scales with redshift, the baseline acceleration floor within massive clusters is naturally elevated due to the significantly higher localised energy density. Consequently, while the surrounding deep-space cosmic background maintains the canonical 3D isotropic floor value of , the local acceleration floor within the cluster environment is substantially higher, inducing greater metric stiffness.

This environment produces two interlinked consequences:

1. Kinematic Lag: Unlike the passive vacuum of standard General Relativity, the ETF background time field possesses dynamic responsiveness. During an ultra-high-velocity collision exceeding 3,000 km/s, the bulk plasma gas gets stripped and dynamically bogged down in the centre due to ram-pressure mechanisms, while the fast-moving galactic cores outpace the re-coupling rate of the stiff background metric. This creates a kinematic lag, causing the peak gravitational lensing signature—representing the zone of maximum metric curvature—to track the kinetic trajectory of the cores, remaining temporarily dislocated from the bulk plasma mass. This spatial offset is not an invisible cloud of non-baryonic particles, but rather a manifestation of metric memory as the deformed manifold gradually relaxes back toward equilibrium.
2. Topological Relaxation: This lag is further governed by a topological time constant. The elevated acceleration floor within the cluster is physically constrained by the boundary of the standard 3D cosmological background () occupying the surrounding cosmic voids. The high-velocity collision generates a localised topological bulge of elevated metric stiffness. As the baryonic cluster cores separate, this disturbed field must relax back toward equilibrium but is temporarily throttled by the lower-energy background floor acting as a bounding container. These geometric adjustments naturally unfold across cosmological timescales spanning hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

As demonstrated earlier, the Planck power flux acting directly upon the temporal field lenses light in a manner mathematically identical to how mass warps standard spacetime. Both viewpoints represent entirely valid interpretations of General Relativity, providing a clean physical explanation for the weak lensing profiles observed across both clusters.

By demonstrating that these acceleration and lensing anomalies are dictated entirely by the structural layout of the visible baryonic distribution, the ETF achieves mathematical and observational conformance. It drastically simplifies the cosmological landscape, proving that the ‘missing mass’ problem can be elegantly resolved within the purview of existing, verified physics, without resorting to speculative additions to the standard model.

Discovering the 3D Isotropic Acceleration Floor

The third and fourth papers listed on the ‘Papers’ page on this website started out as a single paper, with the galaxy rotation anomaly occupying the first half of the paper and the second half using the idea of a floor acceleration rate and ‘metric stiffness’ to explain some other open questions facing cosmology. The floor acceleration used in the paper rested on the derivation done in “Emergent Time Framework (ETF): Derivation of Kinematics and Global Properties from the Planck Power Energy Conversion Rate”.

Analysis of the SPARC dataset (involving around 50 different Python data analysis scripts and their plots) showed that the massive spirals had a very distinct radial acceleration profile, but that profile fell away with the ultra-diffuse dwarfs (Figure 5). There were, in effect, two populations—one showed the classic flat rotation curves, while the other appeared to lack this kinematic signature. I originally referred to the HSB galaxies as ‘inertially locked’ to describe the flat rotation curves and ultra-diffuse LSB dwarfs as ‘stochastically locked’ because their rotation curves appeared to be random and the radial acceleration fell below the classic boundary.

However, because I was unable to provide a coherent explanation for this behaviour, further work was required. Using an iterative AI prompt-response process, a data analysis protocol was developed that pulled all ~3,500 data points from the SPARC dataset.

The identification of the 3D isotropic acceleration floor () within the Emergent Time Framework was not theoretically derived and then used to analyse the data but was an inductive discovery forced by the data analysis itself.

During Pareto mapping of the raw SPARC database, the galaxy population was ranked by its outermost asymptotic acceleration. A striking statistical bifurcation emerged precisely at the cohort boundary. For the highest-acceleration systems (N ≤ 128), the variance (σ) relative to the classic anchor remained exceptionally tight (σ ≤ 0.01 for much of the ranking below N = 128). However, past this threshold, the variance suddenly jumps an order of magnitude, so at N = 135, σ ~ 0.25, showing a distinct structural bifurcation in the RAR profiles.

Rather than treating this low-acceleration dwarf population as exhibiting ‘stochastic scatter’, analysis of the empirical data showed these diffuse systems flattening out and locking onto a completely uncharacterised lower acceleration floor (Figure 6). This forced a re-examination of the metric’s derivation from first principles, ultimately showing this lower acceleration floor – which I called the ‘3D isotropic floor’ or the ‘volumetric floor’  – is a geometric consequence of the Planck power operating through the metric in an unconstrained state, for example, as is the case in the absence of 3D to 2D nucleation, which is the process a galaxy goes through during the initial stages of assembly.

At this stage, I split the original paper (it was already very unwieldy at 77 pages) into one paper that handled just the galaxy kinematics and then a second that applied discovery and the refined acceleration floor derivations to other outstanding questions in cosmology.

This work was documented in Section 1 of  “The Emergent Time Framework: Resolving the Dark Sector and Hubble Tension Through Planck Power”.

To be continued . . .