Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper establishes a dependency framework for empirical physical primitives, dimensionless structural invariants, and derived quantities in the Aether Physics Model (APM) and Quantum Measurement Units (QMU). The physical primitive set is ₑ,mₐ,λC,Fq,e²,eₑₘₐₓ²\, while the five-generator QMU algebra is retained. The Aether mass boundary mₐ supplies an additional physical boundary datum without introducing another dimensional generator. The gravitational ledger gives c=λC Fq,=λC³Fq²mₐ,=mₐλC Fq²,\,Gforce=c⁴. An absolute-scale no-go theorem proves that the stated ledger and retained matter-state bounds do not uniquely select mₐ. Admissible upward rescaling with ζ≥1 preserves these constraints while sending mₐ to ζ mₐ and G to G/ζ. The theorem's domain is explicitly restricted to the relations retained in this paper. The paper distinguishes derived identities, calibration closures, cross-framework closures, and independent predictions. Combining the Aether boundary relations with conventional Schwarzschild–Hawking thermodynamics yields rₛ(mₐ)=2λC,P,h²=mₑ mₐ,BTH(mₐ)=mₑc²/16π²,H(mₐ)/kB=8π²mₐ/mₑ, where mP,h=√hc/G. These relations are classified as cross-framework closures rather than independent predictions of G. Version 1.1 adds an observable identifiability criterion and an electromagnetic audit. The invariant ratio mₐ/eₐ²=mₑ/eₑₘₐₓ² explains why existing electromagnetic reference coefficients do not determine the upper boundary. Candidate saturation measurements require an independently justified constitutive law, measurement conversion, and identifiable boundary dependence. Radiation, cosmological, and thermodynamic routes are assessed with explicit calibration provenance. SI numerical evaluations are confined to the metrological appendix.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David J. Thomson (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: