The Two-Medium Model (2MM) describes the observable universe in terms of the interaction between two pervasive substrates: (i) the Light-Carrying Medium (LCM), an elastic continuum supporting compression, shear, and torsional distortions—including the standing-wave structures associated with matter; and (ii) the Gravity-Carrying Medium (GCM), a flux of ultra-small, ultra-fast corpuscles whose flow is partially obstructed by dense regions of the LCM, giving rise to gravitational attraction through momentum-flux shadowing.
Matter arises as standing waves in the LCM stabilized by GCM flux. Gravity results from momentum imbalance in the GCM. Electrostatic, electromagnetic, and nuclear binding forces all arise from the dynamic balance maintained between the two media. Cosmological redshift arises from the gradual, non-scattering loss of energy from LCM travelling waves into the GCM. The CMB is the accumulated remnant of this process in an infinite universe. The conceptual origin of 2MM lies in the Meta Model, which proposed that two interacting substrates are necessary to capture the richness of physical phenomena. This framework, while qualitative, offers a physically intuitive ontology unifying microphysics and cosmology and suggests avenues for future formalization and testing.
- Introduction
- Core Ontology: Two Interacting Media
- Matter as Standing Waves in the
LCM
- Conditions for Standing-Wave Confinement
- Criteria of Pair Production
- Dual-Mode Helical Pumps: The Structure of Matter
- The Origin and Motivation for LCM Compression Fields
- The Proton: Why the Lag-Mode Collapses in Dense LCM
- Why the Proton Remains Compressed in Low-Density LCM
- The Neutron: A Paired Standing-Wave Structure
- The Particle Zoo
- Interactions: How Forces Arise from the Two Media
- Earth and the Solar System
- Cosmology in an Infinite
Medium
- Momentum Flow
- Cosmological Redshift
- The CMB in an Infinite, Non-Expanding Universe
- Voids as Repulsive Regions
- Galaxy Rotation Curves
- Compensation of LCM Deformation
- Maintaining Matter Balance in an Infinite Universe
- Neutron Formation and Release in AGN Cores
- High-Energy Outflows and the Origin of AGN Jets
- Jet Pinching and the Possibility of New Matter Formation
- Relativity
- The Quantum Realm
- Methodology and Acknowledgements
This document explores whether a coherent, medium-based picture of physics can be constructed that connects phenomena across scales, from subatomic behavior to cosmology, using simple and physically intuitive principles. Rather than proposing a formal theory, it presents a conceptual framework intended to clarify mechanisms that are often treated abstractly in modern physics.
Contemporary physical theories are extraordinarily successful at prediction, yet they frequently remain noncommittal about ontology. Fields are defined mathematically, forces emerge from operators or curvature, and fundamental particles are characterized by properties rather than internal structure. While effective, this approach leaves open the question of whether a more explicitly physical, mechanism-based description might also exist—one that preserves empirical success while offering greater geometric and intuitive coherence.
The Two-Medium Model (2MM) begins from a small set of foundational assumptions: that interactions are local, that waves require a supporting medium, and that gravity must be physically mediated rather than action-at-a-distance. These assumptions are neither new nor universally accepted, but they provide a consistent starting point for constructing an alternative conceptual picture grounded in observed phenomena.
From these premises, the model introduces two interacting components: a compressible medium that supports wave motion (LCM), and a high-speed particulate flux that gives rise to gravitational effects through shadowing and pressure imbalance (GCM). Within this framework, matter, forces, and large-scale structures are interpreted as emergent outcomes of medium interactions, wave confinement, and energy exchange between these two components.
This paper summarizes the resulting framework in a structured, narrative form. It does not attempt to reproduce the mathematical precision of quantum field theory or general relativity, but instead aims to provide an internally coherent conceptual model that naturally connects a wide range of phenomena, including electric charge, magnetism, nuclear structure, planetary mass evolution, redshift, and the behavior of active galactic nuclei. Some interpretations align with conventional thinking, while others depart from it.
The sections that follow are intended to be read sequentially, as the model builds cumulatively: particles emerge from wave confinement, forces from medium interactions, cosmological behavior from matter and energy cycling, and planetary-scale phenomena from long-term medium dynamics. The goal is not to assert correctness, but to explore what becomes possible when a different set of foundational assumptions is adopted and followed consistently.
Although 2MM is not defined mathematically, it does make several qualitative predictions that differ from standard interpretations and could, in principle, be tested. These predictions arise directly from the model's internal mechanisms: wave confinement, medium interactions, particle structure, and equilibrium cycles.
-
Hydrogen creation in planets and moons — and liquid water worlds should be abundant
-
Cosmic voids as repulsive regions — as part of energy cycling
-
Neutron deconfinement in AGN cores — as part of matter cycling
-
SETI is unlikely to succeed — even if advanced civilizations exist
Each of these will be discussed in greater detail in relevant sections below.
The Two-Medium Model begins with a simple idea: the physical world arises from the interaction of two different substrates. One medium carries waves and can form standing-wave particles. The other supplies a fast-moving background flux that shapes how those waves behave and how particles influence one another. Most of the complexity of physics, in this picture, comes not from many different forces, but from the way these two media continually feed back on each other.
The Light-Carrying Medium (LCM) is a pervasive elastic substance that supports compression, shear, and torsional distortions. Light corresponds to finite traveling wave packets with phase-locked shear and torsional oscillations, which propagate along well-defined trajectories in a uniformly dense LCM rather than radiating isotropically.
What makes the LCM especially important is how it stores and redistributes energy. It can hold energy as density gradients, torsional motion, or shear patterns, and, under appropriate coupling conditions, traveling wave packets can reorganize into localized standing structures. These standing waves correspond to what we recognize as matter. Because the LCM deforms around these structures, it shapes how the GCM flux interacts with them, indirectly setting the stage for all familiar forces.
The LCM does not independently generate force fields. Instead, the deformations it carries—compression patterns, twists, and gradients—provide half of the mechanism that later becomes electrostatic, magnetic, and nuclear behavior. In this model, fields are simply the ways compressed or twisted regions of the LCM guide the flow of the GCM.
The LCM is conceptually related to earlier elastic or mechanical aether models, which likewise treated space as a deformable medium capable of supporting wave motion and structure formation [@MacCullagh1839; @KelvinVortex1867; @QuaternionQM2]. Such models typically posit a single underlying medium intended to account for their target phenomena. The Two-Medium Model departs from this tradition by asserting that a single medium is insufficient to account for the universal stability of matter and forces; instead, these arise only through interaction between two distinct components, with neither medium independently adequate.
The Gravity-Carrying Medium (GCM) is a fundamentally different substrate from the LCM. It consists of an ultra-fast, high-flux stream of sub-Planckian corpuscles moving through space. When these corpuscles pass through matter, a small fraction undergo weak, slightly inelastic interactions, producing localized reductions—or "shadows"—in the flux. These shadows manifest macroscopically as the force we call gravity.
The strength of a shadow depends on the local state of the LCM. Regions of higher LCM compression interact more strongly with the GCM flux, resulting in greater momentum transfer to the medium. This interaction tends to reinforce existing compression, establishing a feedback that promotes further compression until an equilibrium configuration is reached. In this way, the GCM does not merely generate gravity but participates more broadly in shaping physical interactions.
Crucially, the GCM and LCM are interdependent. The GCM acts on the LCM primarily through compressive momentum transfer, while the LCM's elastic response determines how the GCM flux penetrates, scatters, or is redirected within a region. Within this ontology, the GCM provides the momentum-transfer component of interactions, while the LCM provides the geometric and structural response. What are conventionally described as forces emerge from their coupled behavior.
Readers interested in related momentum-flux and shadowing approaches to gravitation may consult the essay collection Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation [@edwards2002pushing], which surveys historical and modern treatments of such models. These approaches are well known to face challenges, most notably the overheating problem associated with continuous momentum transfer, which in naive formulations would lead to unphysical energy deposition. While the present framework clarifies that not all momentum transfer must result in immediate heating, the broader overheating issue is not thereby resolved. The model identifies rest-mass formation as an additional irreversible channel, but a complete accounting of energy balance remains an open challenge to be addressed in future work.
If mass is understood as a localized and persistent form of energy, then any medium-based description must account for how energy becomes spatially confined and remains stable over time. In an elastic medium such as the LCM, the natural candidates for such localization are standing or quasi-standing wave configurations, since freely propagating waves do not retain energy in a fixed region. Empirically, however, the most stable examples of localized mass—such as the proton—exhibit remarkable robustness across environments whose LCM properties differ by many orders of magnitude, from stellar interiors to the near-vacuum of interstellar space.
If the stability of these configurations were governed solely by the local state of the LCM, substantial sensitivity to environmental conditions would be expected, including changes in lifetime, size, or internal structure. The absence of such sensitivity instead points to an external stabilizing ingredient whose properties vary little across these regimes. In the Two-Medium Model, this role is played by the GCM, whose persistent flux provides the feedback required to maintain stable energy localization largely independent of local LCM conditions.
:::: wrapfigure r0.58
::: framed Assumption: GCM–LCM Coupling
In the Two-Medium Model, the interaction between the GCM and the LCM depends on the local mode of deformation and the degree of compression. The GCM couples strongly to regions of sustained LCM compression and only weakly to shear or torsional oscillations in low-density regions. The direction of momentum transfer is likewise mode-dependent: in compressed regions, momentum is transferred predominantly from the GCM to the LCM, whereas in uncompressed shear and torsional motions, momentum transfer occurs predominantly from the LCM to the GCM.
The form of this coupling is not derived from a deeper physical theory but is adopted as a constitutive assumption. It is motivated by the fact that this single set of rules yields a coherent account of phenomena by enabling a stable energy balance between the two media, with consequences that extend naturally to large-scale cosmic structure and evolution and provide consistent explanations of observed behavior. ::: ::::
The LCM can deform in three independent ways: compression, which changes local density; shear, which displaces the medium laterally; and torsion, which twists it about a local axis. Traveling light consists of finite wave packets whose motion is carried by phase-locked shear and torsional oscillations. Although such waves do not contain a sustained compression component, the shear oscillation produces brief, localized increases in density at points of maximum displacement.
Under ordinary conditions, these transient density spikes are both weak and widely spaced. As a result, they interact only negligibly with the GCM flux, and traveling shear–torsion waves remain effectively transparent to it. The elastic response of the LCM restores the wave as it propagates, allowing light to travel freely through a uniformly dense medium without confinement or collapse.
The behavior of light therefore depends not only on its internal structure, but on how that structure interacts with the surrounding state of the LCM. Changes in ambient LCM density alter the spatial and temporal arrangement of shear-induced density fluctuations within a traveling wave, setting the stage for qualitatively different behavior under appropriate conditions.
When a traveling shear–torsion wave enters a region of higher ambient LCM density, its frequency increases and its wavelength decreases, reflecting faster cycling through a medium that resists displacement more strongly. This blueshift shortens the spacing between successive shear-induced density spikes. Independently of this change in spacing, the amplitude of the shear oscillation determines the strength of each transient compression peak. For a given frequency shift, higher-amplitude waves therefore concentrate more compression into a smaller spatial region than lower-amplitude waves.
As crest spacing decreases and existing compression peaks are brought into closer proximity, the cumulative opacity of the wave packet to the GCM increases. Once this combined shadow becomes sufficiently strong, inward momentum transfer from the GCM begins to reinforce the densest regions of the packet. A positive feedback loop follows: increased spatial concentration enhances GCM coupling, which promotes further compression without increasing the underlying shear amplitude.
This leads to a practical criterion for confinement:
Blueshifting waves progressively increase their effective cross-section to the GCM flux.
Beyond a critical threshold, the wave is no longer transparent to the GCM. Scattering becomes strong enough to produce sustained inward pressure, compressing the surrounding LCM and increasing spatial localization. Once compression passes a limiting value, the traveling wave can no longer maintain an extended configuration and transitions into confined standing structures, each acquiring a sustained compression component that is absent during free propagation.
Pair production already tells us that matter does not emerge in isolation: when a high-energy light wave becomes confined, it produces two particles with exactly the same energy but opposite character. Whatever structure underlies these particles must therefore come in complementary forms that cannot be rotated into each other. In other words, the particles must represent two distinct chiral configurations of the same underlying standing wave. This requirement is not optional—it is built into the observed symmetries of pair creation. A viable model must therefore identify a single physical template that naturally admits two non-superimposable opposites with identical energy content but reversed dynamical tendencies. The phase structure of the three-mode standing wave provides the simplest route to this kind of duality.
In pair production, the collapsing light wave brings only two kinds of motion with it—shear and torsion. These are intrinsic to light itself, and when the wave becomes trapped they are reasonably assumed to keep the same phase relationship they had while propagating. The third component, compression, does not come from the light wave at all; it emerges only during confinement, as the inward GCM flux encounters the LCM's resistance to being compressed. The key difference between the two particles produced in the collapse lies in how this newly generated compression mode locks in phase with the inherited shear–torsion pattern. A ±90° offset produces two opposite dynamical behaviors: one phase choice pushes the surrounding medium outward, while the opposite phase draws it inward. These two variants have identical energy content but reversed tendencies, providing exactly the kind of complementary pair demanded by pair production.
The assumption of a push–pull asymmetry between the two standing-wave modes follows naturally from the way compression and shear interact in a nonlinear medium. In the LCM, regions of higher compression change the local wave speed, so the shear motion does not simply ride on top of the compression cycle—it is redirected and amplified differently depending on their relative phase. This kind of nonlinear coupling is well known in many physical systems: in acoustics, fluid membranes, and elastic solids [@10.1098/rstl.1884.0002; @Riley2001; @LandauElasticity], a ±90° phase shift between expansion and shear produces opposite net flows even when the underlying motions are identical in energy. By analogy, a confined standing wave in the LCM can naturally adopt two stable phase-locked configurations: one where compression and shear reinforce outward motion of the surrounding medium, and another where they reinforce inward draw. These opposite dynamical tendencies are a familiar outcome of nonlinear wave–boundary interactions and provide a simple physical rationale for the electron–positron push/pull pair.
The torsional component of the wave does not participate in the push–pull asymmetry, but it plays a crucial geometric role in shaping the particle. As the standing wave oscillates, its torsional motion continually twists the local LCM around the wave's axis, producing a stable helical distortion in the medium. This twist does not drive material outward or inward; instead, it organizes the shear and compression motions into a spiral pattern that repeats each cycle, allowing the structure to close on itself without drifting. In effect, torsion supplies the "handedness" and geometry of the particle's form, imprinting a screw-like wrap on the surrounding LCM that remains locked in place as long as the standing wave persists.
In the Two-Medium Model, every localized standing wave is surrounded by a region of elevated LCM compression. This "compression field" sets the particle's effective size and determines how it interacts with both media. The inward GCM flux created by the particle's shadow provides the baseline confinement, but the detailed shape of the compression field depends on how the standing wave's internal motions couple to the LCM itself.
A confined particle carries three oscillatory components: shear and torsion inherited from the original light wave, and a compression mode induced during collapse by the GCM–LCM interaction. The shear and torsion remain phase-locked, preserving the helical geometry of the structure. What distinguishes the two particle types formed in pair production is how the compression mode locks in phase with the inherited shear motion. A ±90° phase offset between these motions produces two opposite dynamical states:
-
the lead-mode, which tends to push the surrounding LCM outward (electron-like), and
-
the lag-mode, which tends to draw it inward (positron-like).
A simple linear coupling cannot produce this asymmetry. The model therefore treats it as an explicit but physically motivated assumption: the compression–shear interaction in the LCM is nonlinear, and the two ±90° phase-locked states naturally settle into opposite radial behaviors.
This assumption rests on three points. First, concentrated oscillations naturally generate inward confinement through the GCM shadow, providing the baseline conditions for a stable compression field. Second, nonlinear coupling between expansion and shear is well known to produce paired modes with opposite radial tendencies, making the push–pull duality physically plausible. Third, once this asymmetry is admitted, the broader framework becomes strikingly coherent: the same mechanism underlies qualitative predictions across planetary structure, stellar environments, cosmology, and even the behaviour of the fundamental forces.
In summary, the lead-mode and lag-mode represent two stable, opposite dynamical states of the same underlying three-component standing wave. The GCM shadow supplies the confining pressure, while the nonlinear compression–shear phase relation determines whether the surrounding LCM is drawn inward or pushed outward. A full dynamical derivation of this asymmetry is left as an open problem for future work, but the assumption is grounded in familiar physical behavior and provides the structural backbone of the model.
The electron and positron arise when a high-frequency LCM wave becomes opaque to the GCM and collapses into two helical standing-wave modes. But under certain extreme conditions—particularly in regions where the ambient LCM density is already high—the lag-mode structure behaves in a qualitatively different way. It does not merely stabilize as a positron. Instead, it undergoes a secondary collapse into a much more compact standing wave: the proton.
The key lies in how the two chiral modes respond to rising LCM compression.
The lead-mode (electron-like) standing wave resists compression. Its phase alignment tends to push outward, thickening the surrounding LCM compression field in a way that counteracts further inward collapse. Even in dense environments, the lead-mode maintains its characteristic size and structure.
The lag-mode, however, responds in the opposite way. Its phase alignment draws LCM inward, amplifying the local compression rather than resisting it. Under ordinary surface-of-Earth conditions, this inward pull is far too weak to overcome the ambient LCM pressure; the surrounding medium simply "pushes back," stabilizing the lag-mode as the familiar positron.
But in environments where the LCM is already highly compressed—deep inside planets, in dense plasma regions, or wherever steep LCM gradients exist—the lag-mode's inward pull becomes effective. The ambient medium no longer resists; it assists the contraction. The standing wave therefore begins to tighten, its helical radius shrinks, and its GCM opacity rises dramatically.
A runaway process begins:
-
Contraction increases the GCM shadow.
-
A stronger shadow increases inward GCM pressure.
-
Inward pressure tightens the standing wave even further.
The structure collapses into a new equilibrium—one that is far more compact, with vastly greater energy density, and a much deeper GCM shadow. This new configuration is the proton.
The proton therefore is not just a "heavier version" of the positron. It is the collapsed-state form of the lag-mode standing wave under conditions where external LCM compression allows the inward phase dynamics to succeed. Its key properties follow naturally:
-
a much smaller radius
-
a deeper and more intense LCM compression field
-
vastly higher GCM opacity
-
far greater stability
-
the same positive charge as the positron (same chirality, different scale)
This explains why protons are ubiquitous in environments where pair production is possible but LCM density is high, such as inside planetary interiors. The environment selects the mode: the lead-mode stabilizes as the electron, while the lag-mode collapses into the proton.
The proton's stability is not a coincidence; it is the endpoint of a feedback loop between the internal standing-wave geometry and the surrounding media. Once formed, the proton's extreme GCM opacity locks it into a self-sustaining compression well, creating the remarkably robust particle at the heart of ordinary matter.
In environments where the LCM is driven into unusually high compression—such as planetary interiors or other steep-gradient regions—the internal modes of matter respond in predictable ways. Under these conditions, the lag-mode naturally contracts into a proton-like state, while the lead-mode remains electron-like, creating a straightforward pathway for hydrogen to form as a stable product of extreme compression.
This mechanism preserves charge balance and operates independently of any primordial supply of material. A discussion of why this remains feasible even when naïve density estimates might suggest otherwise, and how it shapes the evolution of planets and moons, is presented in Earth and the Solar System.
Once the lag-mode standing wave undergoes secondary collapse and reorganizes into the compact helical structure we identify as the proton, the new configuration becomes profoundly self-stabilizing. Unlike the positron-like lag-mode at ordinary densities, the proton is not a surface-level feature of the LCM—it is a deeply concentrated energy structure whose stability arises from continuous interaction between the two media.
During collapse, the proton develops:
-
extremely high internal energy density,
-
a very strong GCM shadow, and
-
a steep LCM compression field tightly wrapped around the standing wave.
These features do not depend on the external LCM environment. They arise from the proton's own geometry and GCM opacity, which together create a self-reinforcing pocket of compressed LCM. Even if the proton moves from a dense LCM environment (where it formed) into a low-density region (such as surface matter or vacuum), it does not decompress.
The reason is that the GCM flux is pervasive and uninterrupted everywhere:
-
The proton's concentrated energy produces a large GCM shadow.
-
That shadow produces continuous inward momentum flux.
-
The inward flux maintains the LCM compression well around the proton.
-
The compression well locks the standing wave into its compact geometry.
Nothing about this mechanism relies on high ambient LCM density. Once established, the proton's internal feedback loop keeps it stable:
-
High energy density → high GCM opacity
-
High opacity → strong inward GCM momentum flux
-
Inward flux → tightly compressed LCM
-
Tight compression → stability of the standing-wave geometry
To appreciate how dramatic this stability is, compare the proton's internal density to ordinary matter. A typical rock has a density of about 3,000 kg/m3, whereas the implied energy density inside a proton is roughly 1017 kg/m3 — fourteen orders of magnitude higher. Even white dwarf material (~109 kg/m3) and neutron star crusts (~1014 kg/m3) fall far below this level. From the proton's perspective, every macroscopic environment — rock, air, vacuum — is effectively dilute.
This also clarifies why gravity seems negligible at atomic scales. On macroscopic scales, a proton's total mass is tiny, so its gravitational pull appears insignificant. But what matters in 2MM is not total mass—it is energy density. The proton concentrates a staggering amount of energy into an extremely small region, creating an intensely focused GCM shadow right around itself. This produces a strong local inward momentum flux, even though the long-range gravitational effect is small. The proton's own geometry makes this inward flux sharply confined and exceptionally strong. This locally intense field is also what ultimately contributes to short-range nuclear binding—the beginnings of the strong force—which will be developed in a later section.
In this light, the proton's stability becomes intuitive. It is a tightly bound, ultra-dense collapsed mode, sustained by continuous reinforcement between the LCM compression field and the GCM momentum flux. The everyday world simply does not have the capacity to disturb it.
With the proton and electron understood as distinct helical standing-wave modes stabilized by GCM confinement, the neutron can be viewed not as a fundamentally separate particle but as a paired configuration of these two modes. In the Two-Medium Model, a neutron forms when a lead-mode (electron-like) oscillation and a lag-mode (proton-precursor) oscillation become phase-locked within a shared compression well.
In this combined state, the opposite chiral tendencies of the two modes partially cancel, producing a geometry that is neither fully lead-mode nor fully lag-mode. The resulting LCM compression profile is gentler than that of a solitary proton: the concentrated lag-mode structure alone generates an extremely steep compression gradient, but the paired configuration spreads energy over a wider region. This yields a particle that interacts gravitationally like a proton yet lacks the sharp electrostatic signature of either charge.
Unlike the proton, whose extreme density allows it to remain compact in any environment, the neutron's stability depends on its surroundings. Inside nuclei, overlapping GCM shadows and elevated LCM densities provide a supportive background that reinforces the shared compression well, allowing the paired modes to remain coherent. Outside the nucleus, ambient LCM density is too low to maintain the combined structure. The compression well weakens, the two modes separate, and the system relaxes into its components: a proton-like collapsed lag-mode, an electron-like lead-mode, and a brief outward fluctuation in the LCM—observed as a neutrino-like disturbance. No standalone decay particle is required; the "neutrino" is simply the outward redistribution of oscillatory energy released as the paired state breaks apart.
The neutron is heavier than a proton because it confines energy from both helical modes, yet it is less compact. The interference between their compression patterns limits how tightly either mode can draw in the surrounding LCM. The result is a particle with high internal energy but a shallower confinement profile—one that relies on nuclear environments for long-term stability. This reduced confinement plays a central role in nuclear structure, influencing why neutrons stabilize nuclei, how they arrange in characteristic ratios, and why only certain isotopes are viable.
In the Two-Medium Model, all particles arise from standing waves in the LCM, but not every wave pattern can become a stable particle. Two principles determine which structures persist:
-
The GCM couples strongly to compression but weakly to shear and torsion. Compression increases local LCM density and therefore produces a significant GCM shadow, generating the inward pressure needed for confinement. Shear and torsional oscillations, by themselves, remain largely transparent to the GCM and cannot produce meaningful inward flux.
-
Without compression, a wave cannot be trapped. A standing wave composed only of shear and torsion interacts too weakly with the GCM to generate a confining shadow. Such a structure will not form a localized particle; it will propagate at or near the speed of light, dispersing once external conditions no longer compress it.
These principles imply that the variety of observed particles—the particle zoo—arises from different ways total energy can be distributed among the three oscillation modes. Stable particles must contain enough compression energy to cast a persistent GCM shadow, anchoring the shear and torsional components into a self-sustaining structure. Configurations with little or no compression form only transient states: short-lived resonances, mesons, or rapidly decaying excitations that disperse as soon as the confining environment weakens.
In this view, the particle zoo reflects a spectrum of possible standing-wave patterns, with stability determined primarily by how strongly a mode engages the compression channel and therefore the GCM confinement that gives particles their enduring form.
With the structure of matter established, the next step is to understand how matter interacts. In 2MM, there are no separate "fundamental forces" in the conventional sense. All interactions—electrostatic, magnetic, nuclear, and gravitational—arise from the same underlying mechanism: the way LCM compression fields and GCM momentum flux respond to the presence, motion, and geometry of standing-wave particles.
Every particle creates a characteristic distortion in the LCM, shaped by its internal oscillation pattern and maintained by its GCM shadow. When particles approach one another, these distortions overlap, reinforce, or interfere in predictable ways. The GCM flux responds to these distortions as well, altering the inward or outward momentum transfer between the two media. What we interpret as "forces" are simply the adjustments required for the two media to maintain equilibrium while accommodating multiple standing waves in close proximity.
This framework removes the need to postulate separate fundamental interactions. Instead:
-
Electrostatic forces arise from how LCM compression fields overlap or oppose each other.
-
Magnetic forces arise from interactions between torsional components of standing waves and the relative motion of their compression fields.
-
Nuclear forces emerge from extreme GCM shadowing and the resulting high-pressure compression wells at very short range.
-
Gravity is the macroscopic result of accumulated GCM shadowing from many particles acting in concert.
By tracing all interactions back to a single mechanism—the dynamic cooperation between LCM elasticity and GCM flux—2MM provides a unified physical origin for force behavior across all scales. In this sense, the model does not contain multiple independent forces at all. Every interaction reduces to a single kind of physical event: an inelastic momentum exchange between the two media. What appear to us as distinct forces are simply different geometric outcomes of how particles and their compression fields shape, redirect, or obstruct the continual movement of the GCM through the LCM.
Electrostatic behavior emerges naturally once particles are understood as localized distortions in the LCM. Each charged particle produces a characteristic LCM compression field, shaped by the geometry of its standing-wave mode and maintained by its GCM shadow. When two such fields approach one another, they must fit together in a way that preserves equilibrium in both media. The ease or difficulty of this fit determines whether the interaction is repulsive or attractive.
Like charges repel because their compression fields have similar shapes and orientations. Bringing them together requires forcing two incompatible LCM geometries to overlap, which creates steep gradients and increases local compression. The LCM responds by pushing the particles apart—the same way two stiff springs resist being pressed into one another. GCM effects play a secondary role here: because each particle's shadow is shaped by its own compression field, bringing like charges together does not create a deeper combined shadow. The GCM contributes insufficient inward pull, leaving the LCM's geometric incompatibility to dominate and drive the particles apart.
Opposite charges attract for the complementary reason. Their compression fields have opposite orientations, allowing them to interlock smoothly. The combined field has lower overall distortion than either field alone, creating a more stable configuration. The GCM flux enhances this by forming a deeper, more coherent shadow around the pair, increasing the inward momentum transfer and gently pulling them together.
In 2MM, electrostatic forces are therefore not "generated" by the LCM or the GCM in isolation. They arise from the balance between LCM deformation and GCM pressure, with compression-field geometry providing the dominant mechanism and the GCM flux supplying the continual momentum exchange that maintains the equilibrium.
It is also worth noting that, at these scales, the local gravitational attraction between two extremely dense standing waves—though small on macroscopic scales—may be more significant than traditionally assumed. The relative contribution of this short-range GCM-driven attraction remains an open question and will require a more detailed mathematical treatment. What matters for now is that electrostatic forces need no separate postulate: they follow directly from how the two media respond when compression fields overlap.
Magnetic behavior in 2MM follows directly from the torsional component of the electron's helical standing-wave structure. Even when an electron is stationary, its dual-mode oscillations twist the surrounding LCM into a subtle helical pattern. This built-in torsion acts as an intrinsic magnetic dipole, a tiny directional feature of the electron's compression field. Because the helical mode has a handedness, the dipole has a preferred orientation, and nearby LCM reacts differently depending on how the dipole is aligned.
When an electron moves through the LCM, the torsional field surrounding it is carried along and becomes slightly skewed. The LCM does not flow uniformly around the electron's helix: one side encounters greater torsional resistance, while the other side relaxes. The GCM flux also participates in this asymmetry, exchanging momentum differently across the distorted compression field. Together, these effects produce a torque that tends to align the electron's intrinsic dipole with its motion—much like a spinning object aligning in a flowing fluid, except that the mechanism here is mediated by LCM shear and GCM shadowing rather than hydrodynamic drag. This alignment tendency is the microscopic origin of magnetic behavior in moving charges.
When many electrons move together—as in an electric current—their individual dipoles become biased toward a common orientation. Each electron contributes a small skewing of the LCM torsional field, and together these skewings add up to a coherent shear pattern encircling the flow. The GCM flux reinforces this pattern by responding to the collective distortion of the LCM, producing a stable macroscopic field around the current. The familiar circular magnetic field around a wire is therefore the large-scale imprint of countless aligned microscopic helices, all interacting with the two media in the same direction.
A different form of alignment appears in ferromagnetic materials. Here, electrons do not need to move through the LCM to align their dipoles. Instead, lattice geometry and energetic constraints encourage certain orientations of the intrinsic helical mode. In regions where the lattice allows these orientations to lock together, the torsional fields of many electrons become mutually reinforcing. Their compression and shear patterns combine into a persistent macroscopic field even in the absence of current. Ferromagnetism, then, is simply the static alignment of many intrinsic dipoles, whereas current magnetism is the dynamic alignment produced by motion.
It is worth stepping back to recall why the helical standing-wave structure appeared in the first place. It was not assumed—it emerged by imposing a small set of physical requirements on how a high-frequency transverse wave must collapse when forming a pair of opposite particles. The collapse must: (1) produce two structures with equal energy but opposite chirality, (2) preserve the symmetry of the original wave, (3) generate stable standing waves supported by both the LCM and the GCM, and (4) provide a natural geometric distinction between the two modes. A dual-oscillation helical structure is the simplest configuration that satisfies all of these constraints.
What makes this especially compelling is that the structure is not ad hoc—the universe already reveals the same geometry on macroscopic scales. When electrical currents flow freely through a plasma, unconstrained by solid conductors, they spontaneously organize into helical, filamentary structures. This large-scale behavior mirrors the microscopic torsional patterns predicted for individual charge carriers. The fact that plasmas naturally adopt helical geometries strengthens the case that helicity is not an arbitrary choice in 2MM but a recurring, scale-independent feature of how the two media prefer to arrange flowing energy.
In 2MM, nuclear binding arises from the same interplay of LCM compression fields and GCM shadowing that governs all other interactions. What makes nuclei special is simply the scale: particles must approach closely enough that their GCM shadows overlap strongly while their LCM compression fields remain geometrically compatible. Only one pairing—proton with neutron—achieves this balance.
Protons resist close approach because their LCM compression fields are extraordinarily steep and tightly wound. Pushing two protons together forces their sharply peaked gradients to overlap, creating enormous repulsive pressure long before their centers can approach the distance required for strong GCM shadowing. Even though GCM provides an inward momentum flux, the repulsion between two proton compression fields grows much faster than the gravitational-like attraction. The result is unavoidable: proton–proton pairs cannot bind, even if forced together. Repulsion wins at every relevant scale.
Neutrons behave differently, but no more favorably for forming pairs. Their compression fields are broader and softer, owing to their larger and less compact standing-wave structure. This reduces both the repulsion between two neutrons and the strength of their GCM shadowing. Neither effect wins decisively. The repulsion is weaker than between protons, but the attraction is weaker still, so the two neutrons can never be brought close enough for the GCM flux to dominate. The outcome is the same as for protons: neutron–neutron pairs do not form stable bonds.
The proton–neutron pair is the exception because their complementary structures allow them to approach one another more closely and more comfortably than like–like pairs. The proton's compact core can slip deeper into the neutron's softer compression field without encountering the catastrophic repulsion that would occur between two protons. This closer separation creates dramatically stronger GCM shadowing between their centers—far stronger than in either like–like case—because shadow strength increases steeply with decreasing distance.
At the same time, the neutron's gentle compression gradient helps buffer the proton's sharpest LCM features. The two fields can merge into a configuration with lower total deformation than either particle could achieve with a like partner. The neutron essentially absorbs some of the proton's steep curvature while presenting little of its own. This synergy allows the inward GCM momentum flux to outpace the rising LCM repulsion, producing a genuine energy minimum—a bound nuclear state.
In this view, the familiar "strong force" does not require a separate mechanism. It is simply the extreme end of the same balance between LCM compression and GCM shadowing that governs all interactions, made visible only when particles are pushed to distances where their compression fields and shadows interact at their steepest gradients. A proton–neutron pair is the only configuration that satisfies this balance. All nuclear structure—from deuterium to the heavy elements—emerges from combinations of these paired interactions and their geometric constraints.
In this framework, gravity arises from long-range shadowing of the Gravity-Carrying Medium (GCM). Localized concentrations of matter partially obstruct the background GCM flux, producing regions of reduced momentum intensity. When two masses are near one another, each resides within the other's reduced-flux region and therefore experiences a slight imbalance in momentum transfer. The resulting net inward push is interpreted as gravitational attraction. On macroscopic scales, gravity reflects the cumulative effect of such shadowing interactions, structured by the configuration of the surrounding Light-Carrying Medium (LCM).
A longstanding difficulty for momentum-flux models of gravitation is the so-called overheating problem. If matter continuously intercepts a high-speed background flux, then the associated momentum transfer would be expected to deposit large amounts of energy, rapidly driving physical systems to unobserved temperatures. In naive formulations of Le Sage–type theories, this objection is severe, as no clear mechanism exists to prevent gravitational interactions from manifesting primarily as heating rather than as a stable long-range force.
Any theory based on gravitational shadowing must therefore confront this issue directly. The present framework does not claim an immediate or complete resolution of the overheating problem. However, it reframes the question by identifying additional irreversible channels beyond kinetic energy and thermalization. In particular, it allows for the conversion of gravitationally supplied energy into new rest mass under appropriate conditions, providing a potential sink that is absent from classical formulations. Whether this channel is sufficient, and how its contribution scales with object size, composition, and environment, remains an open question that requires further quantitative development.
A natural question arises here: are planetary interiors really dense enough to push LCM compression toward the thresholds required for wave confinement and matter creation? This section only outlines the conceptual mechanism. The next section, Earth and the Solar System, examines the planetary context more closely.
The idea that Earth's radius may have changed over geological time has appeared in many forms throughout the history of geophysics. Although it sits outside the modern mainstream, it has been examined seriously by researchers such as Samuel Warren Carey, who viewed expansion as a possible unifying framework for continental drift, and Dr. James Maxlow, who produced detailed reconstructions suggesting smaller ancient Earth radii. A full discussion of the evidence and counter-arguments is beyond the scope of this paper; readers interested in the broader debate are encouraged to consult those primary works.
What matters for the present framework is not the historical argument itself, but the striking fact that it approaches the possibility of planetary growth from a completely different direction. Rather than beginning with geological interpretation, the model arrives at the question through the internal physics of the LCM–GCM interaction. Under conditions of sustained high compression in planetary interiors, the framework allows for ongoing proton formation as an irreversible channel through which energy can be converted into rest mass. This process, if present, would introduce slow mass increase over geological timescales, constrained by the available energy flux and local conditions rather than by surface geology alone.
One of the long-standing obstacles for expansion hypotheses has been the absence of a physically grounded mechanism capable of driving sustained planetary growth. 2MM does not claim to resolve the entire geological debate, but it does offer a plausible mechanism where none previously existed—providing a fresh context in which expansion models can be reconsidered.
One of the simplest ways to challenge any new physical framework is to ask what it predicts for something we know well. The Earth—warm, magnetic, geologically active—provides a natural test case. If the Two-Medium Model (2MM) were merely a reinterpretation of known physics, its implications for planetary interiors would collapse back into the familiar. But if it is a genuinely different ontology, the model should produce a meaningfully different and internally coherent picture of what happens beneath our feet.
The interesting thing is that it does.
It begins innocently enough: a naïve calculation of LCM density inside the Earth. Using conventional estimates—nuclear spacings, bulk density, gravitational potential—nothing unusual emerges. The interior looks too dilute, in LCM terms, to support anything exotic. Nuclear compression envelopes barely overlap, and the gravitational potential difference from surface to core barely nudges photon energies. Under that view, the LCM is a placid background medium with no special role in planetary interiors.
But in 2MM, this quiet interior is a mirage. Gravity is not geometric curvature but a consequence of a perpetual LeSage-style flux (the GCM), pumping kinetic energy into matter and into the LCM itself. Matter is not pointlike but a superposition of compressive and torsional standing waves with two distinct modes—lag and lead—that respond differently to background LCM density. And the interior is not a static solid but a conducting, liquid-like plasma, threaded by currents and stabilized by the very structure of the LCM.
When these ingredients are considered together, a strikingly different—and surprisingly plausible—picture of the Earth emerges.
In 2MM, the Earth's heat is not the remnant of primordial formation or radioactive decay alone. It is continually refreshed by GCM impacts: non-elastic, microscopic collisions that nudge nuclei, heat the interior, and feed the slow churning of the liquid outer core. This is not heat in the usual thermodynamic sense, but the steady background hum of the universe's gravitational engine.
These impacts increase the frequency of high-energy close encounters between nuclei. Though brief, these moments produce intense local LCM compression far beyond the ambient level. What looks like a soft interior when averaged hides countless microregions where the LCM is stressed to its limits. It is in these transient events that the model's distinctive physics—LCM-wave confinement, pair creation, proton formation—can occur at meaningful rates.
The lag-mode (positron-like) and lead-mode (electron-like) behave differently in strong LCM gradients due to their internal phase relationships. Lag-mode structures, whose compressive oscillation lags behind the torsion, are stabilized in dense LCM environments—they "lock in" to the high-compression background. Lead-mode structures are the opposite: their compressive phase leads the torsional motion, and this configuration naturally tends to move away from strongly compressed regions.
The outcome is a subtle but powerful radial sorting:
-
Lag-mode matter sinks toward the deep core, enriching it in protons and related composites.
-
Lead-mode matter preferentially resides in outer regions, where it increases electrical conductivity and supports the dynamo.
This sorting sharpens LCM density gradients and reinforces the interior's layered behavior. The Earth becomes a self-organized system where composition, conductivity, and compression structure naturally arise from basic mode dynamics.
At depth, the Earth's material is not a gaseous plasma but a dense, viscous, electrically conducting liquid. In such a medium, currents do not wander diffusely—they self-organize. Magnetic fields draw current channels inward, forming pinched filaments embedded within the surrounding liquid. These z-pinch–like structures behave as LCM compression hotspots: narrow, persistent sites where matter is denser, currents are stronger, and the LCM is driven into non-linear regimes.
This picture resonates quietly with the geomagnetic field. A network of conductive filaments in a churning plasma shell naturally produces strong, long-lived magnetic fields. It accommodates the irregular and chaotic reversals seen in the paleomagnetic record. And it does so without requiring fine-tuning; the GCM ensures a continuous power source, and the liquid plasma ensures the necessary fluidity.
If 2MM is correct, high-compression regions should generate hydrogen from LCM-wave breakdown. Hydrogen introduced into a silicate melt does not float to the surface; it dissolves into minerals, forms hydroxyl, shifts redox balances, and increases conductivity. Over geologic time, as hydrogen binds to oxygen, the deep interior becomes a slow factory of water.
This creates an intriguing link with geological evidence. Much of Earth's early continental crust was covered by shallow seas; later eras saw repeated widespread flooding of continental interiors. Standard models explain these largely through tectonics and sea-level cycles, but 2MM adds an additional long-term trend: the gradual accumulation of interior-generated water and the slow outward expression of that water through volcanism, mantle degassing, and mineral dehydration.
As the Earth grows in mass and radius—consistent with the interpretations of Maxlow, Carey, and others—new ocean basins form, continents separate, and water cycles between interior and surface reshape the geography of the planet.
Put together, these ideas give the Earth a new conceptual coherence under 2MM:
-
A deep interior continually energized by the gravitational flux.
-
A liquid plasma shell threaded with current filaments, producing magnetic fields and reversals as emergent behavior.
-
A mode-stratified structure in which lag and lead components find their natural energetic niches.
-
A chemical pathway from deep LCM processes to surface hydrology.
-
And a slow increase in planetary mass and volume, offering an ontological foundation for Earth-expansion interpretations previously considered speculative.
None of these claims, on their own, prove 2MM. But together they sketch a world that is internally consistent, physically motivated, and rich with testable implications. The model does not ask specialists to discard their data—only to look again, from a new angle, at patterns that were already there.
For an ontological theory, that is exactly the kind of foothold one hopes to achieve.
If the Two-Medium Model offers a genuine ontology of matter and gravity—an account of how the universe operates at its most fundamental level—then it should not merely reproduce familiar planetary structures. It should reveal new patterns in the Solar System that seem incidental under mainstream theories but become natural, even expected, in a universe built of interacting LCM and GCM media. When 2MM is applied beyond Earth, that is precisely what begins to happen.
In conventional astrophysics, the Solar System's planets are divided into primordial categories: rocky inner planets formed from refractory dust near the Sun, while gas giants accumulated cold hydrogen and helium farther out during the nebular collapse. Water-ice worlds are assigned to the outer system simply because the frost line stood there at the time of formation. This picture is tidy, but also fragile: it relies on a single snapshot of early solar conditions and presumes that bulk compositions are frozen relics from four and a half billion years ago.
The 2MM picture is more dynamic and in many ways more organic. Matter is not fixed at the moment of planetary birth; it is continuously produced in the interiors of heavy bodies through LCM-wave confinement and proton formation. And critically, the matter most easily synthesized—because it is the simplest condensed lag-mode structure—is hydrogen. In 2MM, hydrogen is not merely a leftover from the solar nebula; it is the natural basal product of matter creation in any world where the LCM is sufficiently compressed. A rocky planet, given enough time and sufficient mass, would gradually enrich itself in hydrogen and evolve toward the composition of a gas giant. Instead of gas giants being primordial anomalies, they become the expected endpoints of planetary growth under a universal, continuing physical process.
Jupiter, then, is less a frozen accident of formation than a world that has simply had more time and mass to accumulate the dominant product of the 2MM engine. Its vast LCM-well stabilizes hydrogen in increasingly exotic configurations, thinning into molecular layers above and compressing into metallic hydrogen in its depths. The metallic hydrogen is not an exotic material conjured only by high pressure; it is the expression of lag-mode structures settling into their natural configuration under extreme background compression. With it comes immense conductivity, wrapped into a self-organizing fluid shell, generating a magnetic field so powerful that it leaves an imprint throughout the Jovian system.
But the story grows more interesting when we consider the moons. In the traditional view, the ice-rich moons of Jupiter and Saturn are remnants of volatile-rich planetesimals that happened to form beyond the frost line. In 2MM, their watery compositions take on a different significance. Hydrogen created in the interiors of large planets and emitted through volcanic, tidal, or plasma pathways finds oxygen wherever it can. In silicate systems, oxygen is ubiquitous. Hydrogen does what it always does: it binds, dissolves, hydrates, reduces, and ultimately forms water. Water is not a leftover; it is a natural chemical consequence of hydrogen synthesis in oxygen-bearing environments.
A moon embedded in a giant planet's LCM envelope does not orbit inertly. It experiences a raised baseline LCM compression, because it is immersed in the extended compression field of the host. For a world like Europa or Enceladus, this changes everything. The threshold for LCM-wave breakdown drops; interior heating becomes more efficient; and hydrogen produced in core or mantle regions chemically transforms the body over time. The icy shells and global oceans that dominate these moons are precisely what one would expect in a system where hydrogen emerges continually and encounters oxygen-rich rocks and minerals awaiting hydration.
Even Io—the most volcanically active object known—finds a natural place in this narrative. Its extreme activity is usually ascribed purely to tidal flexing. But under 2MM, Io occupies the deepest region of Jupiter's compressed LCM environment. Its interior is perpetually stirred by both tidal motions and a highly modulated GCM flux. Every compression cycle strengthens the probability of LCM-wave confinement events; every temperature rise increases the frequency of nuclear close-approaches. The result is a world in which volcanism is not merely an effect of tides but a structural outcome of living within Jupiter's gravitational energy field.
In this broader view, the Solar System becomes a hierarchy of LCM environments nested within one another. Each planet and moon does not simply hold material inherited from the past but actively grows, differentiates, and reconfigures itself according to its position in the LCM landscape. The giant planets are hydrogen-rich not because they captured nebular gas more effectively, but because hydrogen is the universe's simplest and most abundant emergent product. The icy moons possess vast reservoirs of water not because they formed in a cold region, but because hydrogen naturally synthesizes and water is the simplest outcome when hydrogen meets oxygen under pressure. And volcanically active worlds like Io are not oddities but inevitable consequences of immersion in high-compression LCM fields.
What 2MM offers here is not a replacement for the observed Solar System, but a reinterpretation that unifies its diversity. It suggests that the features we see—metallic hydrogen, buried oceans, volcanic extremes—are not historical accidents but emergent phenomena of a deeper ontology. The planets become active participants in a universal process of matter creation and LCM structuring, and the Solar System becomes a laboratory where this process can be read directly in the worlds themselves.
For specialists, this perspective does not demand immediate belief. What it offers is coherence: a conceptual framework in which many of the Solar System's most puzzling features fall into place with surprising ease. Such coherence is often the first sign that a theory is worth a closer look.
Earth and Venus are often described as planetary twins—similar in size, density, and overall composition. Yet their geological histories could not be more different. From a 2MM perspective, this divergence centers not on initial conditions, but on how each planet's crust responds to the slow accumulation of internally generated matter.
Venus, for all its volcanic vigor, remains a planet with a closed lithosphere. It does display impressive rift-like structures—long extensional troughs such as Devana Chasma and the chasmata of Aphrodite Terra. But these features, striking as they are, do not organize into a global network. They do not segment the crust into distinct plates, establish coherent spreading centers, or create a conveyor system for renewing the planetary surface. They are fractures, not gateways. Extension happens, but it never matures into a mechanism that opens the lithosphere and relocates older crust laterally.
With no global rift system and no subduction, Venus cannot expand its surface area in a steady fashion. Any material created internally, whether by conventional processes or—under 2MM—by compression-driven hydrogen synthesis, has only one meaningful escape route: episodic volcanism. But volcanism deposits new material on top of the old crust, thickening and stressing it rather than relieving internal pressure. Over time, heat and strain build until the lithosphere yields catastrophically. This offers a coherent explanation for Venus's globally young surface and its evidence for planet-scale resurfacing events: a world periodically forced to reset because it has no continuous outlet for its internal growth.
Earth, by contrast, eventually broke through its Venus-like stage. Its most ancient crust—thick, buoyant, and granitic—forms the continents. But surrounding that is a very different crust: thin, mafic, and universally young. This two-layered architecture tells a story. Before ~200 million years ago, Earth may have resembled Venus structurally, with a unified supercontinent draped across a smaller globe and no global rift network. Matter created within the planet, whether from thermal sources or the deeper processes described in 2MM, could escape only through massive volcanic events.
And the fossil record agrees. The pre-200-million-year interval is marked by major mass extinctions tied to enormous flood basalts—the Siberian Traps, the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province, the Viluy Traps, and others. These events look like the signatures of a planet straining against a closed shell.
But around the Triassic–Jurassic boundary, Earth cracked. Long, linear rifts connected into a global system. The first true spreading zones opened. Oceanic crust began forming continuously at ridges and migrating outward. For the first time, Earth acquired a permanent pressure-release mechanism. New material was added at the base of fresh crust, not dumped on top of ancient layers. Old crust drifted away rather than thickening in place.
This transition—from eruptions as the only outlet to a steady, global rifting mechanism—marks a fundamental difference between the two sister planets. Venus today remains in the earlier, closed-lithosphere regime. Earth moved into an open-lithosphere regime that can adapt to internal growth rather than rupture under it.
In 2MM terms, Earth and Venus become two snapshots of how planets respond to internal LCM-driven evolution. Venus shows what happens when matter creation pressures build beneath a lithosphere that never fully opens. Earth shows what becomes possible when rifting matures into a global architecture of renewal.
And that divergence—rooted not in their origins but in their structural responses—goes a long way toward explaining why one world is catastrophically resurfaced and shrouded in volcanic heat, while the other carries a stable hydrosphere, a biosphere, and a geological record stretching back billions of years.
If there is a single element that bridges geology, chemistry, and biology, it is water. In the standard cosmological model, water is treated as an accident of formation—an inheritance from icy planetesimals delivered during accretion or bombardment. Its presence depends sensitively on where a planet forms, how much ice it captures, and whether volatile materials survive the violence of early impacts. Most of the time, water is treated as a historical contingency rather than a physical necessity.
In the Two-Medium Model, this premise shifts dramatically. Water is no longer an accident of origin; it is a natural byproduct of planetary evolution.
Because matter creation in 2MM proceeds through LCM-wave breakdown, the simplest and most frequently produced matter is hydrogen. And since oxygen is one of the most abundant elements in rocky material, any significant production of hydrogen inside a silicate planet will inevitably find oxygen to bond with. The encounter is almost chemically predetermined: hydrogen dissolves into silicate minerals, reduces iron, forms hydroxyl groups, and eventually stabilizes as water.
Under this view, a planet of sufficient mass and internal LCM compression does not inherit its water—it manufactures it.
This is a profound difference. It means that water is not something rare or fragile; it is the natural chemical expression of lag-mode matter creation interacting with an oxygen-bearing crust. On Earth, this process has quietly operated for billions of years, supplementing primordial water with deep-sourced hydrogen that emerges through volcanism, mantle degassing, and metamorphic cycles. Seen through this lens, Earth's oceans are not simply remnants of cosmic delivery—they are, at least in part, the long-term outcome of its internal LCM dynamics.
Once this principle is in place, the Solar System begins to look very different.
Icy moons—Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Titan—are no longer puzzles or exceptions. They are precisely what one expects for worlds embedded in the deep LCM wells of giant planets. Their internal heat, driven by a combination of tidal forcing and GCM flux, maintains vast liquid oceans beneath their icy crusts. And their water inventory, rather than being relics of formation beyond the frost line, may reflect the slow accumulation of H₂O generated inside them through the same hydrogen–oxygen chemistry that shapes Earth.
Even the location of these moons, far outside the classical "goldilocks zone," ceases to be a constraint. Surface sunlight is irrelevant. What matters is internal compression, LCM gradients, and the ongoing energy input from the gravitational medium. If a moon can maintain a dense, conductive interior—either by size, composition, or proximity to a giant planet—then liquid water becomes not exceptional but expected.
And if water is expected, then so is habitability in a broad thermodynamic sense. 2MM does not claim that life must arise wherever water appears; that would overreach. But it does shift the landscape of probabilities. Instead of a universe with only a few rare islands inside narrow temperature bands around stars, 2MM suggests a universe in which water may form within a wide range of planetary contexts, and liquid oceans may persist even where starlight cannot reach.
This expanded view does not guarantee life elsewhere—it simply makes the question more open. It nudges the expectation away from rarity and toward a universe where planets and moons, by virtue of their internal physics, cultivate water as a fundamental outcome of their growth. In that sense, the Two-Medium Model reframes one of the oldest questions in astronomy. The significance of water is not that it is rare, but that it is a natural signature of a mature planet—a world that has crossed the threshold where LCM compression, matter creation, and basic chemistry collaborate.
If this picture is even partly correct, then the Solar System is not an anomaly. It is a template. And worlds like ours—wet, layered, internally dynamic—may be far more common than our current models allow.
Many of the ideas related to Earth expansion discussed here are not original to this work. What is significant in the context of 2MM is that the model provides a physical mechanism—developed independently of the expanding-Earth framework—that naturally leads to predictions about which bodies in the Solar System should experience long-term growth through internal hydrogen production. Readers interested in the broader geological and historical arguments for planetary expansion may wish to begin with the works of Dr. James Maxlow and Professor Samuel Warren Carey, both of whom have explored this topic extensively from a geological perspective.
The work of Stephen Hurrell is especially noteworthy because it approaches the expansion question from a completely different direction. Rather than beginning with geological reconstructions, Hurrell examined the biomechanics and scaling limits of ancient organisms, concluding that Earth's surface gravity must have been significantly weaker in the past. This implies not merely a smaller planetary radius, but a smaller planetary mass—a crucial distinction, because it separates two fundamentally different expansion models. A radius-only expansion (constant mass) would produce stronger gravity in the past, whereas Hurrell's findings point toward an expansion driven by increasing mass over time. This independent line of evidence aligns more closely with frameworks—such as 2MM—that allow for internal matter generation rather than geometric inflation alone.
We have already seen that the GCM couples strongly to regions of high LCM compression, transferring momentum into dense standing-wave structures and sustaining the confinement that defines matter. This one-way flow—from GCM into compressed LCM—is essential for particle stability. But on cosmic scales, a stable universe cannot operate as a pure sink: if the GCM continuously loses momentum to confined structures, it must also recover momentum somewhere else. The two media must exchange momentum in both directions to maintain long-term equilibrium.
This raises an important question: where does the GCM regain momentum? Up to this point we have focused on compression, the mode that interacts strongly with the GCM. The other two deformation types—shear and torsion—were assumed to couple only weakly. But weak coupling does not mean negligible coupling, especially across the immense distances of intergalactic space. A tiny momentum exchange, applied repeatedly along long paths, can accumulate into a measurable effect.
This opens the possibility that one or both of the low-compression modes—shear or torsion—may return momentum to the GCM rather than extracting it. Unlike compression, which always slows the flux, shear and torsion do not significantly alter local LCM density. A GCM corpuscle passing through such a diffuse, low-impedance background may experience a slight net acceleration instead of a loss.
Working assumption. To make the dual-medium picture cosmologically viable, we assume that the GCM couples weakly but with opposite sign to one or both of the low-compression modes of the LCM (shear and/or torsion). Compression-rich regions always extract momentum from the GCM, while extended shear–torsion backgrounds return a small amount of momentum to the flux over large distances. The detailed microphysical origin of this sign reversal is left open, but it provides a minimal and physically plausible way for the two media to share a long-term momentum equilibrium.
The implications of this assumption will be explored in the following sections, where it will be seen that the resulting large-scale behavior aligns cleanly with key cosmological observations.
In this picture, saying that the GCM "gains momentum" in diffuse regions is the same as saying that the LCM waves there slowly lose a tiny amount of their own energy. For traveling waves like light, this gradual loss appears as a slight reduction in frequency—a redshift. Over the enormous distances between galaxies, these tiny losses accumulate. This becomes the 2MM explanation for the cosmological redshift: light does not stretch because space expands, but because it gives up a very small amount of energy to the GCM as it travels.
A natural question is why this energy loss does not cause light to scatter or blur, since it is exchanging momentum with the GCM along the way. The reason is that the GCM particles are extremely small compared to the structure of the LCM wave. Each interaction is just a tiny "tap," and most of the sideways taps cancel out because they come from all directions equally. For every small nudge to one side, there is nearly always another nudge in the opposite direction. The light wave therefore keeps its direction and sharpness over vast distances.
In the Two-Medium Model, the universe is infinite and filled with countless sources of light: stars, galaxies, and all other standing-wave structures that emit radiation. But unlike in an expanding-space picture, light in 2MM does not stretch because space grows. Instead, every traveling wave gradually loses a tiny amount of energy to the GCM as it moves. Its frequency drops little by little, until eventually it falls below the threshold of what we can detect. In an infinite universe, this means that no matter how far you look, all of the distant light has already "run down" into extremely low frequencies.
When you add together the contribution from every direction: light from near sources, partially redshifted; light from further sources, heavily redshifted; and light from extremely distant sources, redshifted almost to nothing—you end up with a smooth background made of the accumulated leftovers of all waves that have lost most of their energy. Because this energy-loss process acts the same on all wavelengths and happens uniformly throughout space, the combined radiation naturally approaches a blackbody spectrum. A blackbody is simply the most "relaxed" or "smeared-out" form that radiation can take when its detailed structure has been erased, and that is exactly what the long-term redshifting process produces.
This idea solves Olbers' paradox. The night sky is not bright, even in an infinite universe, because every distant source has already faded far down the frequency spectrum by the time its light reaches us. Instead of a blinding sky, we see only the final, uniform glow of this accumulated low-frequency tail. In 2MM, this glow is the cosmic microwave background: the faint blackbody radiation produced by the infinite sum of redshifted waves from all directions, reflecting the steady running-down of light across the universe.
In the usual cosmological picture, voids are simply large empty regions that expand faster than their surroundings. They do not actively push on matter. Some modified-gravity theories have suggested otherwise, proposing that voids might behave as if they were repulsive under certain conditions. But these models introduce new fields or modify gravity directly; none explain repulsion from the ground-up behavior of a medium. In contrast, the Two-Medium Model arrives at repulsive voids naturally by looking at how the two media exchange momentum.
The basic idea is simple. The GCM carries an extremely fast "flux" that pushes on matter. Whenever this flux passes through a dense region—like a galaxy, filament, or wall—it loses momentum because it interacts with tightly packed LCM structures there. Over time, dense regions drain and weaken the flux. But in a very empty region, like a cosmic void, the opposite happens. The GCM rarely interacts with anything and picks up a tiny amount of momentum from the loose LCM waves that fill the void. Because these waves nudge the GCM from all directions, sideways effects cancel out, but the small forward-moving component builds up. This means the GCM becomes more energetic the deeper it travels into a void.
It helps to visualize this as a kind of "elevation map" of flux strength. Voids sit at the high-elevation end of the map, because the GCM becomes most recharged there. Dense structures sit at the low-elevation end, because they drain the GCM. Matter always feels a push downhill on this map, away from high elevation and toward low elevation. Since voids are the high points, the push is always outward. This is the 2MM explanation for why voids act as repulsive regions: matter is simply sliding downhill in the landscape shaped by the GCM flux.
Real voids are not perfect spheres, so their "elevation map" is full of ridges, plateaus, and valleys. The highest points lie farthest from all surrounding structure. From these high points, many downhill paths lead toward the walls that border the void. Matter inside a void behaves like water on a tilted surface: it cannot climb toward the highest points and instead flows along the downhill channels. As these channels converge near the void walls, they produce small buildups of LCM density, which is where matter is most likely to form or grow. This explains why void centers remain nearly empty while galaxies cluster around the boundaries.
This same elevation landscape in the GCM of voids also explains why galaxies near voids often show rotation speeds that stay high far from their centers. In regions dominated by normal structure, the GCM flux is strongly depleted and behaves much like ordinary gravity, giving familiar Newton-like force laws. But on the side of a galaxy that faces a void, the galaxy encounters the highly recharged, partially isotropic flux coming from the empty region. This reduces the expected drop-off in gravitational push at large distances, flattening the rotation curve. No change to the laws of gravity is needed; the environment naturally reshapes the flux landscape.
Observed galaxy rotation curves, which remain high far from galactic centers, are usually explained by assuming large halos of invisible dark matter or by proposing that gravity itself changes at low accelerations, as in MOND. Both approaches fit the data, but neither is derived from basic physical processes. Dark matter is added as an unseen mass component, and MOND is introduced by modifying the force law. Neither provides a microscopic explanation for why galaxies should behave this way.
In summary, voids become repulsive "high points" in the GCM flux because empty regions recharge the flux while dense regions drain it. Matter moves downhill in this landscape, explaining why voids stay empty, why matter gathers at their walls, and why galaxies near voids exhibit MOND-like rotation speeds. All of this follows directly from the interaction rules of the two media, without introducing new fields or modifying gravity itself.
In developing the Two-Medium Model, we began with an assumption: the LCM is a continuous, nearly perfectly elastic medium. It supports compression, shear, and torsion, and it stores deformation as elastic strain rather than dissipating it through flow or permanent change. This assumption is motivated by the observed long-range, low-loss propagation of light, which strongly suggests an underlying medium with minimal internal friction.
Once this assumption is made, an immediate geometric problem appears. If standing-wave particles locally compress or "condense" the LCM, that deformation cannot exist in isolation. In an elastic continuum, every compression must be balanced by a compensating deformation elsewhere. The question is not whether compensation exists, but how it is distributed: sharply or gradually, locally or over large distances.
At the particle scale, early discussions of 2MM treated standing-wave particles as localized compression structures. This picture remains useful, but it implicitly neglected the compensating field. If compensation is gradual—as expected in a smooth elastic medium—then each particle must be surrounded by a broad, low-amplitude halo in which the LCM slowly relaxes back toward its ambient state. At large distances, this halo dominates; near the core, the nonlinear standing-wave structure dominates. In this sense, the original particle picture is a near-field approximation that remains valid when interactions are dominated by the core.
Clues about the nature of compensation appear at larger scales. Around planets and stars, the collective effect of vast numbers of standing waves produces a measurable condensation of the LCM, inferred from the bending of light as it passes nearby. This tells us that local compressions can add coherently and produce macroscopic effects. Crucially, we do not observe sharp shells of "missing" medium around these bodies, suggesting that the compensating deformation is not local or abrupt, but spread smoothly over large volumes.
When we zoom out further—to clusters, superclusters, and cosmic voids—the picture becomes clearer. Most of the universe's volume contains very little matter. In 2MM, these voids have already been understood as regions needed to recharge and symmetrize GCM flux. They also naturally serve a second role: they provide the vast spatial reservoir required to accommodate the long-range compensating decompression of the LCM. Matter-rich regions become zones of net compression bias, while voids act as regions where the medium is correspondingly relaxed.
Taken together, this suggests a consistent, scale-spanning geometry. Standing-wave particles create localized compression cores with broad compensating halos. These halos overlap and sum at larger scales, producing measurable effects around stars and planets. At the largest scales, the compensation is exported into cosmic voids, whose immense size reflects the gradual, nonlocal nature of elastic balance in the LCM.
Under this view, earlier treatments of particles and interactions in 2MM remain valid as approximations—especially in the near and far field—but they sit within a deeper picture in which no deformation is truly local, and the structure of the universe itself participates in maintaining elastic balance.
In the Two-Medium Model, the universe is taken to be infinite and in long-term equilibrium. For such a universe to remain stable, the two media must not only exchange energy smoothly but must also maintain a balance in the amount of matter present. The model provides a clear pathway for matter creation. A traveling LCM transverse wave can gradually gain energy through blueshifting as it enters increasingly dense LCM regions. As its frequency rises, its cross-sectional exposure to the GCM flux increases, allowing it to cast a growing shadow. This initiates a feedback loop in which the wave becomes increasingly confined. Once the confinement becomes strong enough, the wave collapses into a localized standing-wave pair, interpreted as an electron–positron creation event. In regions of very dense LCM—such as planetary or stellar interiors—the positron can undergo further confinement, eventually forming a proton.
This mechanism ensures a steady trickle of new matter throughout the universe. But in an infinite, statistically steady cosmos, continuous matter creation requires an accompanying process of matter destruction. Without such a process, matter would accumulate indefinitely, contradicting the assumption of long-term equilibrium. Identifying where and how matter is ultimately broken down is therefore essential to completing the model.
In 2MM, the stability of any particle depends on the cooperation of two factors: LCM compression, which creates a GCM shadow, and the availability of GCM flux, which reinforces that compression and keeps the standing wave confined. As matter is drawn toward the center of an active galactic nucleus, it encounters regions of steadily increasing LCM density. At the same time, the inward-moving GCM flux is gradually diminished by the surrounding material, so deeper layers receive progressively less of the confining pressure needed to sustain particle-scale structures.
In the outer portions of the core, the rising LCM density favors the formation of neutrons. Here, protons and electrons are driven into the paired lead–lag configuration that shares a common compression well. This arrangement becomes the most stable standing-wave structure under high compression, much as in neutron star matter. The GCM flux is still strong enough at these depths to maintain the neutron's compression pattern, allowing a neutron-rich layer to form.
Deeper in, however, the conditions change. Although the LCM becomes even more compressed, the GCM flux becomes too attenuated to support the neutron's shared compression well. Neutrons rely more heavily on ambient GCM reinforcement than protons do, and as the available flux drops below a critical threshold, their standing-wave structure can no longer remain confined. When this threshold is crossed, the neutron loses its internal compression support and ceases to exist as a localized particle. Its stored oscillatory energy is released back into the LCM as freely propagating traveling waves.
This transition marks the effective inner boundary of matter stability in an AGN core: outside it, neutrons form naturally under high compression; inside it, insufficient GCM support causes them to unravel and return their energy to the medium.
If AGN cores act as matter-destruction engines, then the energy released from dismantling neutrons must reappear somewhere in the surrounding LCM. In 2MM, this energy re-emerges not as random radiation, but as highly organized, high-frequency LCM traveling waves. These waves carry away the liberated energy and momentum, and because the central region is extremely compact, the LCM flow naturally channels into narrow escape paths where the GCM–LCM environment offers the least resistance. This produces the familiar bipolar outflows known as AGN jets.
The collimation of these jets does not require magnetic fields or mechanical nozzles—though such effects may contribute in real astrophysical systems. In 2MM the jets arise simply because the LCM in the immediate polar directions is less dense and less turbulent than in the surrounding accretion structure. Once high-frequency LCM waves begin escaping along these paths, the geometry reinforces itself: outflow clears the channel further, allowing additional energy to escape the same way. The jets therefore form naturally as self-sustaining conduits for the release of matter-destruction energy.
From this perspective, AGN jets are the visible signature of the matter cycle closing: matter falls inward, is compressed to neutron form, is ultimately broken down into LCM traveling waves, and the released energy exits the system through highly collimated, relativistic outflows. This completes the balance required for a steady-state universe in 2MM.
Close to the AGN, the emerging jets must pass through regions of high LCM density and strong GCM depletion, producing natural bottlenecks where the outflow can temporarily narrow or "pinch." In 2MM, this behavior follows from the interaction of the two media: the liberated LCM wave energy seeks the lowest-resistance channels, but the surrounding environment near the AGN is crowded with dense material and steep gradients in flux strength. The result is a constrained region where the jet briefly tightens before breaking through into lower-density surroundings. This is broadly consistent with observations of jet collimation zones in astrophysics, though the underlying mechanism differs.
These pinch regions may also represent zones where the conditions for new matter formation could be met. In the 2MM picture, matter creation occurs when high-frequency LCM waves become sufficiently confined to cast a growing shadow in the GCM and collapse into standing-wave structures. A jet pinch combines three relevant ingredients: unusually intense LCM wave energy, temporary confinement by local pressure gradients, and strong anisotropy in GCM exposure. Although highly speculative, this raises the possibility that new matter might occasionally form within or near these constricted regions. At present, this remains only a suggestion; exploring whether jet dynamics can trigger matter creation will require more detailed modeling and is left as future work.
Relativity is often introduced through the language of spacetime curvature—a mathematical surface that bends and twists in response to mass and energy. For many people, this picture feels abstract and untethered from anything physical. "Curved spacetime" is something you can calculate, but not something you can visualize or touch.
In the 2MM framework a key insight is that everything normally attributed to "spacetime" can be understood in much simpler, more concrete terms if the LCM itself is what we experience as space and time. Not metaphorically. Literally.
The LCM is a physical, elastic medium. It fills all of space. It can be compressed, stretched, and shaped by energy and matter. And we — made of standing waves in that medium — are part of it.
Under this interpretation, relativity becomes natural rather than abstract:
-
Mass doesn't "curve spacetime." Mass simply compresses the LCM. Those compression gradients are the curvature.
-
Gravity isn't a mysterious bending of geometry. It is the result of the GCM flux pushing on regions where the LCM has been compressed by standing-wave particles. The momentum flow follows the gradient of LCM density — which is exactly what Einstein's field equations describe, just in a different language.
-
Time dilation isn't some strange slowing of clocks. Time slows down because light waves take longer to propagate through compressed LCM, and every process in our bodies depends on those waves. If the medium compresses, the speed of light in that medium decreases — and because we are made of the medium's standing waves, we slow down with it. From the inside, everything still seems normal, because our measuring devices and biological processes slow in perfect sync with the light.
-
The speed of light appears constant because we can't step outside the medium to compare. We only ever measure light using tools made of the same LCM. If the medium thickens or thins, our clocks thicken or thin with it. We never notice the change.
This resolves one of relativity's most confusing aspects: Why does the speed of light seem constant from all perspectives, even when intuition says it shouldn't be?
In 2MM, the answer is simple:
We are creatures of the LCM. Everything we can measure, know, or experience is bound to the properties of this medium. We cannot perceive the LCM directly, because doing so would be like trying to look at our own eyes without a mirror.
From this viewpoint, relativity does not describe an abstract four-dimensional manifold. It describes the behavior of a real physical substrate under compression. Einstein's equations remain correct in their predictions, but 2MM provides a different ontological picture: instead of bending "spacetime," nature is reshaping the LCM, and we move, age, and measure within that reshaped medium.
This makes relativity not an exotic distortion of geometry, but a simple consequence of the physics of waves in a compressible medium — the same medium that forms light, matter, and ourselves.
When relativity is taught using spacetime diagrams, length contraction is often presented as a geometric effect: moving objects "shrink" along their direction of travel because of how coordinates transform. While mathematically precise, that explanation can feel abstract and disconnected from physical intuition.
In the 2MM picture, length contraction emerges far more naturally. It is simply what happens when an object moves rapidly through a real, compressible medium: the LCM.
As an object accelerates, it must push its way through the LCM. At low speeds this has almost no noticeable effect, but as the speed approaches the propagation speed of transverse waves in the LCM (what we call the speed of light), something important happens: the LCM begins to pile up in front of the object.
This buildup creates a directional compression gradient:
-
Higher LCM density ahead of the object
-
Normal LCM density behind it
This gradient grows steeper the faster the object moves. And because all matter in 2MM consists of standing waves stabilized by the surrounding LCM, a denser medium in front exerts a real, physical inward pressure on the wave structure.
Crucially, there is no pulling from behind. The LCM behind the object is simply less compressed; it does not contribute actively to the contraction. Instead, it fails to counterbalance the inward pressure from the front. The net effect is a one-sided squeezing force along the direction of motion.
From an outside observer's perspective, the object is genuinely shortened — its entire structure is compressed along the direction of travel by the piling up of LCM ahead of it.
But from the inside, nothing appears distorted.
All internal rulers, atoms, and even the biochemical processes that constitute perception are made of the same standing waves immersed in the same LCM. When the medium compresses in one direction, every component of the object compresses together. No internal measurement reveals the contraction because the measuring instruments themselves contract by the same proportion.
This perspective makes length contraction feel intuitive:
Length contraction happens because fast motion through the LCM creates a directional compression gradient, and all matter — being made of LCM standing waves — must adapt to the compressed medium.
There is no paradox, no mystical geometric effect, and no need to imagine "shrinking" as an illusion. It is the straightforward mechanical response of waves interacting with a real medium.
Any elastic-aether model naturally interprets spacetime curvature as variations in the density or tension of the medium itself. What 2MM adds is a dynamic role for gravity in maintaining that curvature. In the geometric view of relativity, the sequence seems straightforward: matter and energy bend spacetime, and gravity is the motion of objects through that curvature. In 2MM the picture becomes more intertwined. A standing wave is a region of denser LCM, yet that denser region can only remain stable because the GCM flux continually reinforces it through shadowing. At the same time, the GCM would have nothing to shadow if not for the density created by the standing wave. The result is a self-sustaining feedback loop between the two media—neither the LCM nor GCM "comes first," and no initial moment is required. The system simply persists, with curvature, matter, and gravity all emerging from their mutual interaction.
This interdependence between the two media leads to an intriguing implication: for 2MM to function as described, the system cannot easily accommodate a true "beginning." A beginning would require one medium to exist and operate without the other, or for standing waves to form before the shadowing effects that sustain them — both of which break the causal loops that the model depends on. In fact, any notion of an absolute beginning already strains causality in conventional physics as well. In 2MM, this tension resolves naturally: the universe is not something that starts and then evolves; it is something that self-maintains, with structure emerging continually from the ongoing reciprocity between the LCM and GCM.
In 2MM, the presence of the GCM introduces a deeper notion of absolute time—a timebase that exists independently of the LCM processes that define our clocks and our experience. All measurement, sensation, and physical activity in living systems occurs through LCM-standing-wave structures, so we have access only to LCM time. But the GCM operates on its own timescale. It is not constrained by the wave-propagation speed of the LCM (the speed of light), nor by the relativistic limits that emerge from LCM-based processes.
This idea aligns with Tom Van Flandern's careful analysis in The Speed of Gravity: What the Experiments Say, where he reviewed timing delays, planetary motions, and signal propagation [@MetaResearchSpeedOfGravity1998]. His conclusion was that gravity-like influences must propagate extraordinarily fast:
Gravity must exceed 2 x 1010 c, at least twenty billion times the speed of light.
In the context of 2MM, this is exactly the behavior expected of the GCM flux. It moves on an inaccessible absolute timebase and is free to propagate vastly faster than light. This immediately suggests that faster-than-light transmission is physically possible if a civilization can learn to encode patterns into the GCM.
But this does not permit faster-than-light communication in the usual sense. The distinction is fundamental:
-
Transmission is the propagation of patterns through the GCM.
-
Communication requires encoding and decoding, both of which happen in the LCM.
Encoding information into the GCM, and reading it out on the other end, requires ordinary physical processes—electronics, detectors, biological cognition—all of which are constrained by LCM time and the speed of light. So even if a signal propagates nearly instantaneously through the GCM, the total round-trip communication time cannot exceed relativistic limits.
Thus:
FTL transmission is possible in theory. FTL round-trip communication is not.
This preserves causality. No paradoxes arise because observers made of LCM-standing-wave matter can never process a complete exchange faster than light allows.
Yet the implications are profound. A civilization could, in principle, carry on a real-time conversation between Earth and Proxima Centauri, because the GCM would carry the signal almost instantly. The subjective experience would feel simultaneous, even though the underlying encoding and decoding steps remain light-speed bound.
This also leads to a natural expectation: if technological civilizations develop a way to use the GCM for signaling, then electromagnetic communication becomes obsolete. EM transmission is slow, lossy, and limited by LCM constraints, whereas the GCM allows nearly instantaneous signaling over interstellar distances.
Thus, 2MM implies that SETI's strategy of searching the electromagnetic spectrum may never detect advanced civilizations, not because they do not exist, but because their communication technology would likely move beyond EM channels entirely. They would use the GCM—an invisible, ultra-fast substrate that our current instruments cannot yet manipulate or detect.
In this light, SETI's silence may be a clue rather than a contradiction: advanced civilizations might be speaking in a medium we are not yet listening to.
'Oumuamua's unusual properties—its extreme elongation, lack of outgassing, and complex tumbling—have made it a persistent point of interest in the literature. Natural origins remain entirely plausible. However, within the 2MM framework, the object provides a useful example for visualizing how GCM shielding behaves for elongated bodies.
In LeSage-style theories (and in 2MM's refinement of them), sufficiently dense material can act as a gravity shield: its interior receives slightly less GCM flux than its surface because a portion of the incoming flux is absorbed or scattered. This shielding effect is tiny for ordinary matter, but even tiny differences can accumulate or become directionally structured if the object has an extreme geometry.
For an elongated body like 'Oumuamua, the degree of shielding is greater along its long axis than along its short one. This means the GCM flux deficit it produces—the shadow cast into downstream space—depends on orientation. As the object rotates, the direction and amplitude of the shadow vary in a periodic way.
This creates a simple conceptual possibility:
A long, rotating object can act as a passive gravitational beacon, encoding a repeating pattern into the GCM flux purely by virtue of its geometry and rotation.
No technology is implied beyond the shape itself. No propulsion mechanism is needed. No electromagnetic emission is required. The effect arises naturally if an elongated mass rotates within a pervasive GCM flux.
This does not suggest that 'Oumuamua is such a beacon. But its geometry makes it a convenient illustration of how, in a dual-medium ontology, even simple rotating shapes can produce directionally varying GCM signatures — signatures that would be invisible electromagnetically but potentially detectable in a theory where GCM shielding plays a meaningful role.
Recall that 2MM starts with the assumption that the universe has at least 2 distinct mediums.
-
LCM (Light Carrying Medium): The substrate that houses all familiar matter. Particles are standing-wave structures in the LCM. Its density gradients shape forces, time dilation, pair production, etc.
-
GCM (Gravity Carrying Medium): Ultra-small, ultra-fast, freely streaming corpuscles (LeSage-like). They set the baseline gravity field and provide the "shadowing" effect that matter manifests.
Key philosophical pivot Reality is not built out of one continuous substrate but from two coupled but scale-separated media, each with its own propagation speeds, pressure laws, and stability constraints. The interaction between those two is what gives us mass, inertia, charge asymmetry, nuclear structure, planetary growth, AGN destruction, and so on.
In 2MM, every form of detectable matter—including the apparatus doing the detecting—is a composite standing-wave pattern in the LCM. When you push measurement down toward the characteristic wavelength of that medium:
-
The structure of the LCM becomes elastic, deformable, and dominated by interference.
-
Measurement tools cannot anchor themselves to anything "rigid" because both the target and the probe are excitations of the same substrate.
-
The stability conditions of LCM waves enforce intrinsic bandwidth/location tradeoffs—an analogue of uncertainty, not because of fundamental metaphysics, but because of LCM-wave mechanics.
Thus Heisenberg uncertainty emerges as a structural property of our medium, not a universal principle of existence.
2MM already assumes the LCM cannot be the entire universe. The Copenhagen interpretation is not describing the deepest layer of reality; it is describing the limits of observers confined to the LCM. It leaves out:
-
A deeper scale where GCM corpuscles move freely and do not behave as waves.
-
A domain where trajectories are crisp and not subject to LCM-wave uncertainty.
-
Energy budgets and mass formation pathways that lie outside the quantum regime.
Thus, the "quantum limit" is a boundary of LCM-based observers, not of the universe as a whole.
The development of this model was highly iterative and heavily assisted by modern AI tools. Without such tools, the model described here would likely have taken months or years to assemble. As someone with a job, a family, and limited hours to devote to speculative research, I would not have been able to sustain the rapid cycle of hypothesis, critique, and refinement that this project required. AI made that pace possible.
However, the role of AI requires careful qualification. These tools did not "invent" the ideas presented here. Instead, they made the collective knowledge of the scientific community navigable in a way that was never previously accessible to individuals outside formal research settings. During development, I would pose challenges and suggests constraints, and the AI would respond with ideas, critiques, counterexamples, or alternative possibilities drawn from patterns across the literature it had been trained on. Most of these suggestions were rejected. Only a small subset survived repeated rounds of filtering and conceptual testing on my part.
A clear example of this collaborative dynamic is the dual-oscillation model of the electron and positron. The idea of combining two oscillatory modes with a phase offset was surfaced in dialogue with an AI system. I would not have discovered that configuration unaided. But the structural constraints that shaped it — the insistence on mirror symmetry, three-dimensional non-flippability, pair-production balance, and geometric stability — came from my own criteria. The AI generated raw candidate ideas; I applied the conceptual standards that determined whether they were tenable. The final standing-wave geometry emerged through that interaction.
This dynamic applies throughout the project. The synthesis is my own. But several individual components surfaced only because AI made it possible to explore a wide conceptual space quickly. For that reason, I want to acknowledge not only the role of AI but also the deeper lineage behind it: the thousands of scientists, educators, writers, engineers, and students whose work forms the substrate upon which such tools are built. There is no practical way to identify every individual influence, but their collective contribution underlies every AI-assisted iteration.
If you believe that any ideas in this document overlap with work you have published, and you would like your contributions acknowledged or referenced, please feel free to open an issue or submit a pull request. I will review it and update the references accordingly.
Several strands of prior work influenced the direction of this model. Halton Arp's empirical studies of redshift anomalies suggested that large-scale cosmology might still contain unaddressed puzzles. Tom Van Flandern's "Meta-Model" introduced the idea of multiple interacting media, a conceptual seed that eventually grew into the Two-Medium framework presented here [@MetaResearchStructureOfMatter2003]. Dr. Chantal Roth's modeling of an elastic aether encouraged me to consider that empty space could contain more structure than I had previously assumed. The collection of papers in Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation, edited and contributed to by researcher Matthew R. Edwards, introduced me to Le Sage-type gravity models and the challenges they entail—particularly the overheating problem. Matthew himself first introduced me to Expansion Tectonics decades ago, when I was completing my computer science major at the University of Toronto.
While these works are not mainstream, they demonstrated that alternative ontologies can still be logically organized and empirically motivated.
I present this work not as a finished theory, but as an invitation: to reconsider whether some aspects of physical law might gain clarity from a different underlying ontology, and to explore whether the ideas outlined here might be refined, challenged, or developed further by those with greater expertise and technical resources.