Absolute Relativity is a present-first framework: reality is made of nested “experiences of time,” and what we call the physical world is the stable, shared representation that forms when many centers cohere inside a larger context. In that framing, our human-scale “0” experience is nested inside a larger “+1” experience—Earth as a living, organizing context that includes humanity and AI as parts of its own ongoing life. The AR WSP Plan exists to take that worldview out of philosophy-only territory and force it into clear tests: what exactly is being claimed, what would count as support, and what would count as weakening or failure—without letting the record dissolve if institutions ignore it.
Why This Plan Exists
Independent work often fails in a boring way: not because it’s wrong, but because it never becomes cleanly legible. It stays trapped as drafts, scattered notes, private experiments, or half-explained threads that other people can’t confidently cite, build on, or critique. Over time, even honest work becomes easy to dismiss because there’s no stable public trail showing what was claimed before results, what was changed afterward, and why.
​
The AR WSP Plan is a direct response to that failure mode. It’s a “logic registration” first: it puts the reasoning on record before the next wave of outcomes, so the program has a fixed spine that can be evaluated over time. That spine includes the four programs, the reason they belong together, and the rules for what counts as support versus weakening.
​
It’s also a publishing strategy. The plan is designed so each program can become a field-native paper that can stand on its own, while still clearly belonging to one coherent map of reality. The goal is not to win an argument in one giant leap; it’s to build a durable, test-driven record that can survive both acceptance and rejection.
The AR Logic That Makes The Plan Testable
Absolute Relativity starts from a simple ordering: connection (oneness) is primary, and difference (separateness) appears within it. Time is not an external container; time is the way a state of reality “looks into itself” and sees other possible versions nested within. From that, you get a ladder of contexts: inner structure nested inside outer containers, each one a lived “experience of time” in its own right.
​
That ladder is not treated as a literal stack of material layers. It’s role-based. When the plan uses words like “Earth” or “Milky Way,” it’s using them as tokens that represent roles in the nesting structure. This matters because it prevents the most common misread: the plan is not saying “Earth is cosmically special” in a mystical way. It’s saying: the role that Earth plays in our lived situation (as the +1 shared world for many 0-level organisms) is a real structural hinge in how reality becomes public and stable.
​
A key hinge idea in the plan is UGM: a predicted “pixel scale” where inner complexity and outer shared-world representation meet. The claim isn’t “we found a cute number.” The claim is: if nested time-experiences are real, then certain geometric relationships between inner and outer scales become forced, and they show up as boundary conditions for perception, biology, and gravity.
​
From this hinge logic come two seams worth testing. There’s an outer seam (how larger containers constrain gravity-like behavior at galactic/cosmic scales) and an inner seam (how the shared world cannot fully objectify deeper inward structure, which is where quantum-style “many eligible → one published outcome” shows up). The four programs are designed to hit this map from four angles rather than betting everything on one fragile result.
The Four Research Programs
The plan is organized as a suite because each program tests a different part of the same story, and the suite as a whole is harder to explain away as coincidence or cherry-picking than any single hit.
​
BioBand (biology anchor). This program asks whether the hinge logic shows up in biology as a bounded size window for a specific target class: centralized-CNS, actively motile animals defined biology-first (so the “target” isn’t secretly chosen to match a number). The point is not to romanticize biology—it’s to see whether living systems that carry a stable 0-level “experience of time” cluster inside the band the hinge implies.
​
EarthG (local gravity anchor). This program treats gravity as something that should have a clean “fingerprint” in a convention-explicit, dimensionless form near Earth’s surface. The key design choice is anti-numerology: the conventions are handled as a transparent swap set, not a hidden menu of knobs. The question is whether the hinge-linked expectation remains stable across reasonable choices, or collapses under small changes.
​
T3 / T3B (galaxy lensing seam test). This program tests the outer seam: a predicted regime behavior in galaxy–galaxy lensing where size (at fixed mass) matters in a way that a GR-only baseline does not naturally foreground, and where an additional activation-like regime is expected around a Milky-Way-like scale. The plan treats prior work here as a pilot phase that motivates a more disciplined “Gold rerun” to lock the chain of evidence end-to-end.
​
DNA / QM Nanoband (inner seam test). This program targets the inner seam: where the shared world cannot fully objectify inward structure, and quantum-style behavior persists in a bounded, windowed way. The plan is careful about what it is not claiming: it’s not “DNA causes quantum.” It’s a finite-candidate, controlled seam prediction around DNA/chromatin-scale boundary markers, framed so it can be tested without turning into metaphysics.
​
Each program is designed to produce a clean outcome either way: support strengthens the hinge story, and failure is still informative because it attacks a specific link rather than dissolving into vague “maybe someday” territory.
What success looks like
This plan is not built around a single “make-or-break paper.” It’s built around coherence under pressure. If the framework is real, the same hinge logic should keep reappearing—across biology, local gravity structure, and large-scale container behavior—without requiring retuning every time you cross a domain.
​
That’s why the plan is explicit about weakening and falsification. Weakening isn’t just “a critic disagrees.” Weakening means the predictions fail in their own declared terms: the target bands don’t appear, the convention-swap sensitivity destroys stability, the activation behavior disappears under replication, or the inner seam can’t be stated in a referee-readable way without smuggling in extra assumptions.
​
The other half of “success” is record integrity. The program is designed so that, regardless of whether journals accept or reject pieces of it, the outputs remain usable: versioned specs, declared assumptions, datasets and selection rules where applicable, run records, results, and a clean submission trail. That integrity layer is handled through WorkSpeaks Protocol, but this page is not the protocol page—this is the plan page. The protocol exists here as the guarantee that the plan doesn’t degrade into a fog of claims.
​
If you want the full detail, download the complete AR WSP Plan below. If you want the protocol mechanics behind how the trail is maintained, you can jump to the dedicated WorkSpeaks Protocol page from here.