The scoreboard: 175 galaxies, three theories, one winner
The three-way showdown Corrected Oct 18, 2026
Total χ² across all 3,391 points, log scale — each tick is 10×. Watch the cyan bar.
Reduced χ² (per degree of freedom): QAG 5.55 (median 1.42) · MOND 56.55 · Newton 616.74 · ΔBIC (MOND−QAG) = 172,054: decisive.
Head-to-head win rates
Every galaxy, one dot live from the dataset
Each dot is a galaxy, colored by which theory fit it best. Hover any dot for its numbers.
Loading galaxy results…
Methods in one line: QAG v² = Υ★(vdisk²+vbulge²) + vgas² + v∞²(1−e−r/raff), Υ★ = 0.5, (v∞, raff) fitted per galaxy; Newton baryons-only; MOND simple interpolating function, a₀ fixed. All three on identical data and errors, corrected re-run Oct 18, 2026 (the Oct-14 table was withdrawn — circular formula). QAG's figures are the QAG team's own fits, not yet independently validated. Want to inspect any galaxy yourself? Open the 175-galaxy explorer →
Cross-framework validation — October 2026 embedded snapshot · Oct 20, 2026
| Test (statistic) | QAG | ESF (Stålhammar) | MOND | Newton / GR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPARC 175 — velocity χ²red (QAG protocol) | 5.55 | 123.08 | 56.55 | 616.74 |
| SPARC weak-field — log-g RMSE, dex (ESF protocol) | 0.154* | 0.227 (published 0.228 ✓ replicated) | 0.270 | 0.398 |
| X-COP clusters — dex RMSE | 0.166 (pointwise law) | 0.068 in-sample · 0.072 LOCO (γp=0.69 ✓ replicated) | 0.138 · refit 0.070 | 0.800 |
| eROSITA clusters — dex RMSE, frozen constants | 0.206 | 0.441 (published 0.435 ✓ replicated) | 0.514 | 1.035 |
*QAG's dex score is in-sample with 350 fitted parameters against ESF's zero — the honest reading is that each framework wins its home statistic: QAG by a factor of ~22 on the χ² protocol, ESF far more cheaply on its own. On clusters the picture sharpens: ESF owns X-COP (its calibration set), but its frozen constant fails eROSITA's interiors (−0.61 dex at the center), while QAG's pointwise response g = gB + βg·gB² with one constant βg = 8 × 1011 s²/m fitted on X-COP transfers unchanged to eROSITA at 0.206 — radially flat, no center failure. QAG's volume-integral cluster law at its registry constant is inert (it reduces to GR); the measured repair values and the β reconciliation memo are in the QAGKinetics repository (ADDENDUM v4–v7).
Universal scales — do the Dossier's laws survive per-point scoring?
The Dossier's predictive laws (v∞ from baryonic mass, raff from disk scale) with zero fitted parameters score χ²red = 81.03 on the full SPARC set — ahead of Newton (616.74), behind the fitted law (5.55). Recalibrating just the law constants (3–4 global numbers) reaches 57.83, on par with the MOND baseline, and holds out-of-sample (58.7). Those recalibrated constants are published as candidates only (Report 6) — the Dossier text stands until the author rules. Full tables: live cross-validation feed.
The distribution behind the scoreboard
Averages hide shape. Here is every galaxy's reduced χ², one bin per factor of ~1.35 (log scale), for all three models on identical data. QAG's distribution piles up near the ideal value of 1; MOND's spreads across 10–1,000; Newton's tail runs off the chart (maximum 6,131 — the axis is clipped at ≈6,300 and the overflow is Newton's alone). A model can win the average and still fail individual galaxies — the next tab lets you inspect them one by one, and the Method & Test Ledger tab names the failures outright.
Computed in your browser from the same live per-galaxy fits as the explorer (qag-sparc-data). Medians for MOND/Newton are read off this distribution; QAG's median (1.42) is the canonical v3.0 figure.
Replication Lab — November 2026 the stress test, published whole
An in-house replication programme re-derived every headline figure from the raw SPARC release (Phase 0: exact reproduction), then pushed harder. Equal freedom: a 2-parameter NFW halo granted the same fitting freedom — QAG still wins total χ² (16,875 vs 17,897), but NFW wins the median galaxy (1.331 vs 1.424). Held-out fitting: PASS (test 5.595 vs train 5.539). Zero-parameter blind test: FAIL — predicting (v∞, raff) from baryons alone scores χ² 63.08 and beats MOND in only 26.8% of resamples; a 73-system derivation hunt found a zero-constant candidate for v∞ and nothing that predicts raff. Verdict: PARTIAL — as a fitting law AVI leads its class; the derivation of its two parameters is the open problem, and it is now the programme's central next test. Machine-readable record: replication.json.
Galaxy rotation curves: see for yourself
Pick a galaxy. White dots are real telescope measurements (SPARC database). The red curve is Newton with only visible matter — it falls short, every time. The cyan curve is QAG. Same visible matter, plus the vacuum-affinity term. No dark matter added.
Newton vs QAG — residual shootout (all featured galaxies)
Average miss per galaxy, in km/s. Shorter bar = closer to reality.
The validation table — corrected re-run (Oct 18, 2026)
Full 175-galaxy SPARC sweep with the repaired pipeline: parametric AVI law, per-galaxy least-squares (v∞, raff), real SPARC errors, honest dof. Reduced χ² ≈ 1.0 is the ideal — SPARC's tiny formal errors (often < 1 km/s, systematics excluded) keep every model above it, so read this as a head-to-head on identical data: QAG 5.55 (median 1.42) vs MOND 56.55 vs Newton 616.74. QAG wins 169/175 vs MOND and 173/175 vs Newton on raw χ² (the publication convention; reduced-χ² counts: 167/170 and 170/175). The Oct 14 table (χ² = 0.060895) was withdrawn — its formula reused the observed data in the prediction (see Methods).
| Galaxy | QAG χ²red | MOND χ²red | Newton χ²red | QAG RMS (km/s) | Verdict |
|---|
Methods — read this: Corrected Oct 18, 2026. Model: v²(r) = Υ★(vdisk²+vbulge²) + vgas² + v∞²(1−e−r/raff), Υ★ = 0.5 fixed; (v∞, raff) fitted per galaxy by least squares (dof = N−2). Baselines on identical data/errors: Newton baryons-only (0 params), MOND simple interpolating function with a₀ = 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ m/s² fixed (0 params). Full audit of the six corrected errors, per-galaxy CSVs and the uncertainty-propagation math: QAGKinetics repo — docs/validation/. NGC 2903 is flagged — its stellar disk needs per-galaxy Υ★ fitting. All figures are our own fits to public SPARC data, not independently validated.
Three-way showdown: all 175 galaxies, three models
Total χ² across 3,391 data points. Log scale — each tick is 10×. Reduced χ²: QAG 5.55 (median 1.42) vs MOND 56.55 vs Newton 616.74. ΔBIC (MOND−QAG) = 172,054: decisive. Corrected Oct 18, 2026
QAG's χ² figures are the QAG team's own fits (corrected re-run, Oct 18 2026 — earlier Oct-14 figures withdrawn after an audit found a circular formula) — not yet independently validated. MOND and Newton values computed on the same dataset in the same sweep.
Explore all 175 galaxies — live data
Every galaxy from the corrected Oct 18, 2026 sweep, straight from the ingested SPARC data. Pick one from the dropdown: white dots are the real telescope measurements, curves are the three models computed from this galaxy's own fitted parameters. The average scores below are the full-catalog means.
Curves are computed live in your browser from this galaxy's ingested SPARC points and its fitted (v∞, raff): QAG v² = vbar² + v∞²(1−e−r/raff), Newton v = vbar, MOND via the simple interpolating function with a₀ = 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ m/s². Galaxies flagged LOW_DOF have only 4 data points — treat their fits with extra care.
Residuals — where the QAG curve misses, in units of the error bars
Each point is (observed − QAG) ÷ σ for the galaxy above. A perfect model scatters inside the shaded ±1 band with no trend; structure in this plot — a slope, a wave, points pinned to the rails (clipped at ±8σ) — is information the headline χ² averages away.
A comparative set — five galaxies that teach the whole story
Not the five best. The five most instructive: the flagship, the median, the famous hard case, a fit pinned at its boundary, and an outright loss. Click one to load it in the explorer above.
The Bullet Cluster (1E 0657-558)
Plain English: two galaxy clusters smashed through each other. The hot gas (pink) got stuck in the middle — but gravitational lensing (blue) shows most of the mass kept going. Something invisible sailed straight through the collision. That's the famous "proof" of dark matter.
Why it challenges modified gravity
Most modified-gravity theories tie extra pull to where the visible matter is. Here the lensing mass is offset from the gas — hard to explain if gravity only follows baryons.
The QAG perspective
In QAG, gravity emerges from the affinity field — a vacuum coherence structure, not a force glued to baryons. During a merger, the affinity field has its own dynamics: the vacuum's informational structure doesn't have to track the collisional gas. The lensing offset reflects the field's relaxation, not invisible particles.
October 2026: the lensing map, tested quantitatively Report 8 · Oct 20, 2026
The QAG Cluster Law makes a sharp, checkable claim: the affinity density ρA = β·|∇ΦB|² concentrates where baryonic field gradients are steepest — on the compact galaxies — so the lensing signal should peak on the galaxies, not on the gas that carries most of the baryonic mass. We tested it against the actual Clowe et al. (2006) release convergence map and the published gas-mass map of 1E 0657-56, building the baryonic field in 3D and projecting the QAG surface density. Nothing was fitted to the lensing map.
| Measurement | Observed (release maps) | QAG prediction | Baryons only (control) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subcluster lensing peak vs. gas peak | offset 140 kpc | peak forms on the galaxies | no subcluster peak at all |
| Peak distance to the subcluster galaxies | 43 kpc | 20–80 kpc | — |
| Peak height ratio (subcluster / main) | 0.85 | 0.83 | — |
| Main peak position | near the main galaxies | migrates off the gas onto the BCG | sits on the gas |
Verdict: the morphology mechanism works — the affinity response creates the bullet peak where the lensing map has it, at the right relative height, and baryons alone can't. The amplitude side is where the current law falls short: the surface-density normalization prefers βρ ≈ 0.005 here, against 0.028 (X-COP) and 0.225 (eROSITA) from cluster profiles — the integral form's constant is not universal as published, and deriving the field equation that reconciles the forms is the framework's open problem (β reconciliation memo, Oct 2026). Full analysis: Report 8 in the QAGKinetics repository (ADDENDUM v7).
QAG vs dark matter — the merging-cluster test
The mainstream account, stated fairly. Then the QAG alternative.
| Dark matter (ΛCDM) | QAG | |
|---|---|---|
| What the extra gravity is | Undetected particles (WIMPs, axions, sterile neutrinos…) clustering around galaxies. None directly detected yet — decades of searches so far. | No new particle. The affinity structure of the vacuum itself supplies pull beyond what baryons produce. |
| Bullet Cluster: lensing apart from gas | The textbook success. Collisionless particles sail straight through the merger while the gas collides and stalls — mass separates from gas, exactly as observed. | The affinity density ρA = β·|∇ΦB|² concentrates on the compact galaxy clumps, so the lensing peaks land on the galaxies. Tested Oct 2026 against the actual Clowe+06 map: peak positions and height ratio reproduced (Report 8, above) — the law's surface-density normalization, however, is not yet universal across systems. |
| Abell 520: lensing overlapping gas | The awkward case. The claimed "dark core" sits on the gas, which is hard to square with collisionless particles. Later analyses dispute the peak's significance — the debate is genuinely open. | Different collision geometry → different field geometry. A tangled, overlapping lensing map is what a dynamical field would naturally produce. Also qualitative. |
Honest scoreboard: dark matter's Bullet Cluster account remains the textbook one. QAG's lensing morphology is now quantitatively tested (Report 8, above) — peak positions and relative heights reproduced from the baryonic field alone — but a full dynamical merger simulation does not exist yet, and the cluster law's normalization constant is not universal across systems as published. Abell 520's gas side was measured directly in November 2026 (Chandra archive, 513.7 ks stack): its anomaly is mass-to-light (M/LB ≈ 588–721), not a Bullet-style displacement, and no public lensing mass map exists to test the mass side — that gap is stated, not filled. Its validated wins today: rotation curves, cluster profiles via the pointwise response, the Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation, and the cosmological results. All QAG figures are the QAG team's own fits — not yet independently validated.
The Train Wreck Cluster (Abell 520)
Plain English: another giant smash-up — but a messy one. Several subclusters plowed into each other at odd angles, leaving a tangled wreck of galaxies, hot gas, and lensing mass. It sits at redshift ~0.2, about 2.4 billion light-years away.
The "dark core" controversy
A weak-lensing analysis (Mahdavi et al., 2007) found something the Bullet Cluster doesn't have: a significant lensing-mass peak sitting right on top of the hot X-ray gas — a "dark core" largely empty of bright galaxies. Hubble follow-up (Jee et al., 2012) confirmed a mass concentration there, while later analyses disputed how significant the peak really is. The honest state of play: the data is genuinely disputed.
The QAG perspective
The Bullet Cluster is the cleanest picture we have. Abell 520 is the messy one — and that's the point. QAG says the extra gravity comes from the vacuum's affinity structure, not invisible particles — so different collision geometries should produce different lensing maps. A clean offset in one merger and a tangled overlap in another is exactly what you'd expect from a field with its own dynamics. The messiness is expected, not embarrassing.
Honest framing: like the Bullet Cluster, a full quantitative QAG merger simulation is active research. November 2026 update: we measured the gas side directly from the public Chandra archive (five observations, 513.7 ks stacked, 550,114 counts). The "dark core coincides with the X-ray peak" claim is resolution-dependent: the fine-scale gas peak sits 94 kpc from the Mahdavi et al. position, shrinking to 16–17 kpc at lensing smoothing scales (vs. 56–75 kpc for the Jee et al. position). A520's anomaly is fundamentally mass-to-light (M/LB ≈ 588–721), not a Bullet-style mass–gas displacement. No public convergence map or shape catalogue exists for the mass side, so the QAG mass-side test cannot yet be run — the gap is stated here rather than papered over.
Want the side-by-side? See the dark-matter-vs-QAG comparison table in the Bullet Cluster tab →
Cosmology: the tensions — and where QAG honestly stands
Modern cosmology is strained: the Hubble constant disagrees between early- and late-universe probes, structure growth is contested, Big Bang nucleosynthesis overpredicts lithium ~3×, and the matter-antimatter asymmetry has no standard explanation. Below, each quantity gets the full showdown — QAG's position vs observation vs where the standard model stands — every bar labeled with its source, and every QAG entry labeled with its true status (derived, derived-conditional, adopted, or posed). This tab was rewritten in November 2026 to the canonical research record: earlier presentations of some of these numbers claimed more than the current derivations support, and the corrections are part of the record.
The a₀ scale
Derived conditional on the Coherence-Floor Lemma: 1.20472×10⁻¹⁰ m/s², within 0.44% of the SPARC value. Falsifiable: with Planck's H₀ it lands −0.46% off; with SH0ES' it overshoots +7.82% — and it predicts a₀ evolves with H(z), where MOND holds it constant.
Structure growth
From the adopted computed growth factor F = 3.76. Stated plainly: this sits just above the cited local-survey band (0.83–0.85), not inside it — the volume prints it that way and so do we.
Baryogenesis
Baryon-to-photon ratio from the framework relation η = e·KASB/(ln KGUE)⁴ — within 5.3% of observed (6.10 ± 0.04)×10⁻¹⁰, with no parameter fitted to η itself.
Lithium-7 problem
The suppression factor is now derived, not fitted: R_Li = KASB−1/4 via the ⁷Be(d,p)2⁴He channel with cross-section scaled by KASB−1/2. Residual honesty: the full-network check of the ρ = ½ input is still unrun, and is labeled as such in the volume.
Dark energy
QAG's dark-energy sector is its least finished: the equation-of-state slope wa is posed in the current volume — upgraded from an assertion to a stated problem — with its background solution still open. An earlier value (+0.22) circulated in October materials; it is not carried as a result.
All QAG values from the canonical research record (Nov 2026): the unified publication volume and the parameter registry. QAG's figures are the QAG team's own — not yet independently validated. ΛCDM/observed reference values: Planck 2018, SH0ES (Riess et al. 2022), DES Year-6, Spite-plateau lithium, standard BBN (Cyburt et al. 2008).
Method & test ledger: exactly what was done, and everything it found
This page is the academic layer of the Kinetics Lab: the model, the scoring mathematics, the frozen protocol, the counting conventions, and a ledger of every test the programme has run — passes, splits, and failures in the same typeface. If a number appears anywhere on this site, its provenance is stated here.
1 · The law under test
Quantum Affinity Gravity's galactic law (the AVI form) adds one vacuum-affinity term to the baryonic rotation curve:
v∞ is the curve's asymptotic velocity and raff the affinity radius at which the term switches on; both are fitted per galaxy (two free parameters). The baselines fit nothing: Newton is v = vbar (baryons only, no dark matter), and MOND uses the simple interpolating function with a0 = 1.2×10−10 m/s² fixed at its canonical value.
2 · The scoring mathematics
N is a galaxy's point count, k its fitted-parameter count (QAG 2, baselines 0), σi SPARC's formal velocity errors. χ²red ≈ 1 is the ideal; because SPARC's formal errors exclude systematics, every model sits above 1 — which is why this site always reports relative scores on identical data alongside the absolute ones, and totals alongside medians (a total is outlier-driven; a median is not).
3 · The frozen protocol (SPARC v3.0)
Data: SPARC Rotmod_LTG release (Lelli, McGaugh & Schombert 2016), sha1 ab2c19f22bf51b26abbba3083b6a45e31a970488, ingested by ingest_sparc.py v1.0.0 — a point is kept iff errV > 0, Vobs > 0 and all values finite; a galaxy is kept iff it has ≥ 4 usable points → 175 galaxies, 3,391 points, byte-identical to the original release (zero ingest drift, Phase 0). Fitting: least squares (sweep_v3.py), starting point (v∞, raff) = (120, 3), bounds v∞ ∈ [0, 400] km/s, raff ∈ [0.1, 60] kpc, tolerance 10−10. Error model: SPARC formal errors only, independent Gaussians, no covariance and no systematic floor — identical for every model in every test. The pipeline was re-run end-to-end from the public repository on 2026-11-08 and reproduced every v3.0 aggregate exactly.
4 · Counting conventions — read before quoting a win count
Two conventions exist and this site labels which one it is using, every time. Raw per-galaxy χ² (the publication-volume convention): QAG beats MOND 169/175 and Newton 173/175. Reduced χ²: 167/170 and 170/175 (five galaxies have too few points for a reduced comparison against MOND). Two flags travel with the fits: pinned — raff rests on its 60 kpc bound (48 galaxies; the fit wanted more room than the protocol allows, so those χ² values are upper bounds on the law's performance, not clean measurements), and LOW_DOF — only 4 points (4 galaxies). An earlier October table (χ² = 0.060895) was withdrawn: its formula reused the observed velocities inside the prediction, a circularity found by internal audit; the corrected pipeline above is its replacement.
5 · Systematics (Replication Phase 3)
Distance and inclination Monte Carlos (the two dominant SPARC systematics) move all three models together: QAG's reduced χ² shifts 5.55 → ≈5.8, and the QAG ≻ MOND ordering survives in ≈97% of galaxies per draw. The ordering is robust; the absolute scale is not — no model approaches χ² ≈ 1 under any perturbation tried, which is a statement about the error budget as much as about the models.
6 · The test ledger
Every test, one row, verdicts unedited. "Own fits" means the QAG team's computation on public data — not independent validation, which remains the field's to do.
| Test | Data & protocol | Result |
|---|---|---|
| SPARC head-to-head (v3.0) | 175 galaxies, frozen protocol §3, own fits | QAG leads: χ²red 5.549148 vs MOND 56.553877 vs Newton 616.741738; ΔBIC 172,054 |
| Cross-framework check (ESF) | Same galaxies, each framework's home statistic | Split: QAG wins the χ² protocol by ~22×; ESF wins its dex-RMSE statistic with zero fitted parameters against QAG's 350 |
| Universal scales, zero-parameter | Dossier's predictive laws for (v∞, raff), nothing fitted | χ²red 81.03 — beats Newton (616.74), far behind the fitted law (5.55); recalibrated constants reach 57.83 and are published as candidates only |
| Equal freedom (Replication P1) | 2-parameter NFW halo, same data, same errors | Split: QAG wins total χ² (16,875 vs 17,897); NFW wins the median galaxy (1.331 vs 1.424) |
| Held-out fitting (P2) | 1,000 random 140-train / 35-test splits | PASS: test χ²red 5.595 vs train 5.539 (≈1% degradation) |
| Zero-parameter blind test (P2) | Predict (v∞, raff) from baryons alone | FAIL: χ²red 63.08; beats MOND in only 26.8% of resamples; predictability R² 0.04–0.17 |
| Systematics Monte Carlo (P3) | Distance + inclination resampling | Ordering robust (≈97%); absolute χ² worsens slightly for every model |
| Derivation hunt | 73 candidate systems for closed-form (v∞, raff) | PARTIAL: a zero-constant a0-BTFR identity is a live candidate for v∞; nothing predicts raff — the open theory gap |
| Bullet Cluster morphology | Clowe et al. (2006) κ map; ρA = βρ|∇ΦB|² scanned, nothing fitted to the map | Morphology CONFIRMED (a bullet peak forms at the light for any βρ ≳ 0.003, correct height ratio ≈0.83 vs 0.852 observed); β universality REFUTED — apertures prefer 0.005, X-COP 0.028, eROSITA 0.225 |
| Abell 520 (Train Wreck) | Chandra gas record + published lensing peaks | The anomaly is mass-to-light (M/LB ≈ 588–721), not a mass–gas displacement, once smoothing scales are matched; no public mass map exists — test OPEN |
| X-COP cluster profiles | 12 clusters, pointwise law g = gB + βg·gB² | One constant βg = 8×1011 s²/m fits the sample (γp = 0.69 cross-check replicated under the ESF protocol) |
| eROSITA cluster profiles | 22 clusters, 3,916 points, constants frozen from X-COP | Pointwise law transfers at dex RMSE 0.206, radially flat; the volume-integral form at its registry constant is inert (reduces to GR) — split verdict |
| Cluster virial temperatures | Temperature predictions vs published benchmarks | OPEN discrepancy: predictions undershoot benchmarks by ≈2× |
| BBN lithium | RLi = KASB−1/4 with the ⁷Be(d,p)2⁴He channel defined | RLi = 2.916 derived; the full-network check of the ρ = ½ input is still unrun — OPEN |
7 · Phase 2 in one picture
Held-out fitting vs the zero-parameter blind test, total reduced χ², log scale. The distance between these two bars is the current state of the theory: the law fits superbly and predicts weakly.
8 · Limitations, stated by us
① The headline χ²red of 5.55 is a decisive relative win and, in absolute terms, far from the ideal of 1 — under SPARC's formal errors the law is not a statistically complete description of galaxies. ② All fits are the QAG team's own, on public data, with public code (QAGKinetics repository) — independent replication by other groups has not yet occurred. ③ The law's two parameters are fitted, not derived; §6's blind test is the price of that, paid openly. ④ Two cluster-law forms (pointwise βg, integral βρ) are not yet reconciled by a single field equation; βρ as a universal constant is withdrawn. ⑤ The cosmology sector (σ8, wa) is less finished than the galactic sector — see the Cosmology tab for its standings, including where QAG's numbers sit outside the cited survey bands.
Sources: QAGKinetics repository (code, datasets, docs/validation ADDENDA v3–v7); live records at qag-sparc-data (galaxies175.full.json, replication.json) and qag-data (cross_validation.json). This tab last revised 2026-11-08.
Applied Kinetics Lab — the SAW engine
Plain English: chemical rockets are capped by the rocket equation — you must throw mass out the back. The QAG kinetics program explores a different idea: a coherent 0.70 MHz sound wave rippling across a crystal, pushing directly on a cryogenic fluid. Resonance, not combustion.
Why not warp drives?
| Standard GR approach | QAG resonant metric mapping | |
|---|---|---|
| Theoretical basis | Thermodynamic entropy / curvature | Informational affinity / resonance |
| Energy needs | Potentially infinite (exotic matter) | Finite (solid-state coherence) |
| Propellant | High (chemical / nuclear thermal) | Low (hydrogen lattice resonance) |
| Metric change | Brute-force spacetime expansion | Informational re-indexing |
| Hardware | Vacuum cavities / exotic fields | Solid-state piezoelectrics (SAW) |
| Governing law | Tsiolkovsky rocket equation | Resonant coordinate re-indexing |
Source: Resonant Metric Mapping engineering spec (Oct 2026), Sir-Ripley/QAGKinetics.
What each model says about pushing without propellant
The deepest split in the whole lab. Stated straight.
| Standard physics (Newton / Tsiolkovsky) | QAG resonant metric mapping | |
|---|---|---|
| Thrust without throwing mass out the back | Impossible. Momentum conservation demands exhaust — to move forward, you must throw something backward. Tested to extreme precision. | Not ruled out in principle. RMM re-indexes the craft's coordinates in the metric rather than pushing against it — nothing is ejected, because nothing needs to be pushed against. Still theoretical; simulations only. |
| What "impossible" rests on | Conservation laws that have survived every test for a century. An anomaly here would shake physics to its core — the skepticism is earned. | QAG reinterprets gravity as vacuum affinity rather than curvature. If that picture is right, momentum bookkeeping in the metric works differently. A big if — and the lab exists to test it, not to assume it. |
Resonant frequency
The "Tesla Handshake" — thermal dissonance mitigated via a Zero Point Resonator at this harmonic.
Substrate
Y-Z cut Lithium Niobate, acoustic velocity 3,488 m/s. Emitter finger width 1,245 µm.
Propellant
Cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen (ρ = 70.85 kg/m³). Impedance matching efficiency η = 0.98.
Thrust scaling
Acceleration from Q_id 1 to 100 (reference: 1.2 µm displacement, 2 m² array, 50 kg craft).
Public specifications only. Detailed manufacturing blueprints and bench procedures are held privately. Simulation code lives in the QAGKinetics repo.