About

Open Letter | Coexist and Progress

— To Every Friend of Fundamental Science

Dear friends,

One-line stake: first align on a shared base map. Then complete the mathematics and verification. This is how we keep a big idea accountable instead of rhetorical.

This open letter does three things:

• It explains what we are building: Energy Filament Theory (EFT) is not a talking point, but a testable physical base map.
• It clarifies how we relate to existing physics: we argue for coexistence, not mutual negation.
• It shows how you can take part: help upgrade this from “something said” to a public verification project that can actually run.

I. What We Are Building: One Base Map for Many Scattered Readings

Over the past century, modern physics has built a powerful computational system on the peaks of relativity and quantum theory. We respect the pioneers who made that possible. In that same spirit, we want to state our work plainly and let it stand or fall on verification.

EFT is original research proposed and continuously iterated by Chinese researchers and their team. It is not a patchwork rewrite of existing frameworks; its core ideas and derivations were developed independently. We welcome open, transparent, and checkable peer scrutiny, because the dignity of science comes from results others can reproduce.

EFT starts from a materials-science picture: an energy sea, textures, filaments, and structures. From there, it tries to restate and connect several classes of readings in one coherent language.

• The gravitational appearance of a dark substrate and the readings associated with structure formation.
• Mechanistic clues about particle structure and interactions, including the stable-to-short-lived spectrum.
• Readings of spacetime around black holes, boundaries, and other extreme conditions.
• The appearance of quantum interference, measurement, and nonlocality.
• A shared root for the four fundamental forces, as different appearances along one construction chain.

II. How We Coexist With Established Physics: Agreement in Limits, Plus a Better Language

Our stance is straightforward. We do not rush to deny the usefulness of existing equations. Many equations compress appearances with remarkable efficiency, and they remain effective within the domains where they were built to work.

At the same time, we aim to upgrade the intuitive base map behind those equations. We move from an “empty background, point particles, and forces pulling” picture to an “energy sea, filamentary structures, and relay-style bookkeeping” picture. We do this to make the underlying picture more concrete, while staying accountable to testable outcomes.

You can think of the relationship as map versus terrain. Conventional theories often act like excellent projection maps: they compute, and they predict. EFT tries to describe the material terrain beneath the map: why a map works, when it distorts, and which way the distortion tends to go.

That is what we mean by coexistence: use effective readings where EFT reduces to established results. That is also what we mean by co-advance: where anomalies, boundaries, or cross-scale consistency matter, offer a unified vocabulary and falsifiable handles. In practice, that means clearer mechanisms and clearer test points.

III. What We Publish: A Master Map and a Parts Atlas

To keep discussion focused and collaboration practical, we maintain two texts in parallel. They serve different purposes, and they are designed to be used together. This is how we avoid drifting terms and talking past each other.

• Version 6.0, the worldview base map: it standardizes terms, variables, mechanisms, and the main cosmic storyline, so each word means one thing throughout.
• Version 5.05, the technical atlas: it details structures, strict definitions, criteria windows, boundary conditions, and how counterexamples are handled, in a reusable form.

These texts run side by side; neither invalidates the other. One is the master map, and the other is the parts atlas. We publish both so readers can choose depth without losing consistency.

Two quick cues for getting started:

• If you want the worldview, the overview, and the main axis, read Version 6.0.
• If you want technical details, such as definitions, criteria, boundaries, and counterexamples, return to Version 5.05.

IV. Our Entry Ticket: Not Belief, but Fingerprints

We have organized roughly 2,000 fitting and benchmark comparisons based on public data. Tools such as ChatGPT and Grok provided assistance, and the work followed describable scoring standards. This does not settle anything by experiment, but it sends a clear signal: EFT has earned a place in serious review and discussion.

Next, we will progressively release what makes the work auditable:

• Data-processing conventions.
• Fitting workflows.
• Comparison baselines.
• A falsifiability checklist.

We are not asking whether something feels similar. We are asking whether it leaves fingerprints. That is the standard we want to share.

V. Where We Put Our Resources: Toward What Moves Results

We are a self-funded working group. We once considered a live, offline launch event. After a sober review, we chose a different path.

We will keep investing limited funds in deepening the theory, testing it against data, and pursuing cooperative verification with universities and research institutions. We prefer that over spectacle. What moves science forward is solid content and open exchange.

VI. A Sincere Invitation: Join Us in Coexisting and Co-Advancing

If you share EFT’s goals and approach, there are three practical ways to support the work. Each option turns claims into checks and strengthens the shared base map.

• Read carefully, then bring questions, criticism, and concrete improvements.
• Join replication and propose experiments or observations, including counterexamples, boundary conditions, and test routes.
• Repost, translate, or create derivative works, as long as you credit the source and follow the stated license.

A single share can carry seriousness and curiosity farther than any staged moment. A single discussion can spark a new proof, or a testable experimental handle. That is how a theory becomes a public audit.

VII. What We Commit To: Rigor, Openness, and Testability

We will keep honoring the scientific method: clear hypotheses, traceable derivations, and calculations and code that others can reproduce. We will keep the writing disciplined: mainstream picture, then the hard parts, then where EFT takes over, and finally what can be tested. We will keep publishing methods and baselines as planned, because verification requires visibility.

Our commitments are concrete:

• Respect scientific method: clear assumptions, traceable derivations, reproducible calculations, and code.
• Keep a unified writing sequence: mainstream picture, difficulty, EFT handoff, and verifiable clues.
• Continue disclosure: staged releases of technical details, fitting pipelines, and comparison baselines.
• Welcome challenges: questions and counterexamples are gifts, and specificity makes progress faster.

We do not ask you to believe. We ask you to test, and to write those tests on the same base map. That is the only kind of trust science deserves.

With sincere thanks,

Energy Filament Theory (EFT) Working Group
Content first; we welcome dialogue and collaboration
December 25, 2025

Project Leads

YouTube

@

X: rinikytu

Facebook: riniky.tu

Contact

• We welcome media (including independent creators) to schedule interviews in Shenzhen.
• We also welcome challenges, questions, and research collaboration.

Email: 6@1.tt
Note: Please include an affiliation card or organization details, a fixed phone number, and contact us from a company email address.

Legal Entity

Energy Filament Theory Working Group, under Energy Filament (Hong Kong) Science Research Co., Ltd.