This article presents a critical–propositional examination of WangXiancheng’s Unified physical theory (unified model of the universe) in confrontation with the Theory of Objectivity (TO). The study analyzes the author’s attempt to replace spacetime curvature, dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion with a unified framework based on flat Euclidean space, dynamic rate gradients, and a non-ontological interpretation of time. The paper argues that WangXiancheng’s proposal is philosophically significant for its ambition toward ontological economy, causal continuity, and large-scale physical unification. At the same time, it evaluates the model under the modal discipline of the Theory of Objectivity, especially regarding the necessary conditions of distinction, boundary, prior composition, relational observability, and transcendence. The article shows that the model has meaningful points of dialogue with the TO, particularly in its search for unity and explanatory simplification, but also faces major tensions when confronted with the modal axioms, the cosmogenic theorem, the phenomenic framework, the Inductive Effects, and the cosmological Eras of the TO. The study concludes that WangXiancheng’s text can be received as a stimulating hypothesis for the phenomenological and dynamical unification of the manifest universe, but not yet as a complete cosmogenic ontology capable of replacing the deeper modal architecture proposed by the Theory of Objectivity. The article also includes an appendix in TO style, systematizing the main compatibilities, limits, and possibilities of reformulation. Keywords: Theory of Objectivity; WangXiancheng; unified physical theory; modal ontology; cosmology; gravity; spacetime; dark matter; dark energy; phenomenic elements; Inductive Effects; cosmogenic theorem; philosophy of physics; physical unification; Zenodo.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Vidamor Cabannas
Denivaldo Silva
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Cabannas et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d9e5ec78050d08c1b76237 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19489240