Discrete-Time Architecture - An Operational Mechanism for Gravity and Electromagnetism

Our 3D (Now) is not "the interior" of anything. It is an operational layer associated with theequilibrium interface where the effects of two hyperspheres become observable as everydayphysics. From there, the "extra radial dimension" gains a concrete meaning: it is not a fourth directionof our space, but rather the axis that measures operational depth between the shells —how much astate is closer to the drive regime (Yin) or closer to the memory regime (Yang). This depth organizescost, rigidity, and access to channels: certain types of system response only exist near the skin;others continue to exist in the background, but with amputated communication. This preprint presents the Yin–Yang (YY) model as an operational mechanism for unifying gravity and electromagnetism under a single runtime. The central move is to replace “fields as primitives” with an explicit mechanical budget split between two orthogonal channels: radial load (gravity/inertia) and tangential load (electromagnetism/torque) Discrete 'Now' architecture: physics is framed as a runtime executed on an 'Now' stack with 21 layers (22 interfaces) and a closed 628-tic cycle, treated as a structural closure of the clock. Two-channel budget (single mechanism): all phenomena are reduced to a regulated split between radial load (gravity/inertia) and tangential load (electromagnetism/torque), with explicit operational regimes (e. g. , SAFE/META/OVERRUN). Gravity as time / mass as latency: gravitational effects are interpreted as commit-throughput gradients—higher radial pressure reduces the usable relaxation window, so time dilation is processing latency (a clock-factor effect, not an extra postulate). Electromagnetism as tangential shear: EM is formulated as closure (or failure) of tangential holonomy/shear across interfaces; standard field laws (Maxwell/EFT) appear as a weak-limit of the same closure rules. Photon ontology (no “resident photon” in the Now): a photon is defined operationally as a propagating Yang record produced when tangential relaxation overflows the tic/window budget (EMWRITE). Bound fields remain local shear; radiation is exported to Yang and “moves at c” because it is carried by the outward winding of the stack. Deep-lock (mechanical EM suppression): the text defines a depth regime where normal pressure kills microslip, so the tangential channel cannot close. Result: a sector that gravitates but is electromagnetically silent, with an explicit surface vs bulk cut (the “sixths cut” engineering rule). Casimir as the “perfect YY experiment”: Casimir is treated as a direct probe of finite tangential inventory pressure under real boundary conditions, turning vacuum from “infinite bulk” into band-limited interface inventory—and providing a “birth certificate” for a quantum of commit/action. Dark Energy as global Casimir/leakage offset: the same inventory-offset logic is extended to cosmology: local Casimir = cavity inventory pressure, while cosmological DE = global residual inventory offset with physical UV/IR cuts (Now thickness vs global scale). Leakage cost + overfill closure (no new knob): the model closes the baryons + deep-lock + idle term budget by combining geometry (capacity) + depth shielding + drive roll-off spectrum (p as primary) + PMEA sedimentation, explaining the “overfill” deviation (e. g. , 5. 36 vs 5 baseline) as telemetry rather than an extra substance. Falsifiability packaged as a triad: the cosmological core is presented as three pass/fail checks tied to the same operator— (i) DM = deep/skin occupancy, (ii) CMB = thermal telemetry + persistence, (iii) Hubble/clock drift = ladder vs CMB mapping—“fail one and the cosmology is not saved by reinterpretation. ” Audit-ready unit tests (explicit): the manuscript includes a structured unit-test suite: UT-σ (cross-section as throughput / frames per encounter), explicit EM tests (static vs accelerated), mandatory GNSS numerical audit, and classic weak-field gates (perihelion, deflection, Shapiro), plus ablations (“what breaks first”). Weinberg angle reinterpreted as bus optimization: θW is treated as an operational mixing optimum, with 45° as the non-hierarchical quadrature baseline and the observed value as the real optimum under class cost/pressure (scalar→vector threshold).