Leaving the meta-topic aside, I should address the video you posted. My entire rant is based on Mr. Julius Sumner Miller's statement @1:17, about magnetism being something "we do not understand". Proving a negative isn't science, and so I'm a bit miffed at statements like these. My rant was my interpretation of the "we don't understand" argument, but delivered as the positive (provable) assertion that academics have no model. To the extent "we understand" anything collectively, as a society, this means (specifically and precisely) that "we have a model". A "model" alone exhibits truth-value of statements, in a manner which can be independently verified. There's no other valid interpretation of "we understand". The actual model of reality, ie the CTMU, is derived by specifying the MINIMUM POSSIBLE conditions required to produce observed phenomenon such as magnetism, QM, Relativity, "dark" forces and the rest. Such minimal conditions amount to the "parallel processing" of "virtually adjacent" states. The minimal conditions possible are likewise the required conditions of generality and universality. https://ist6-3.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/_/_/_/1/a/t/O/s/atOs6/di-G3XQOQ.png The above diagram depicts the "minimum possible" conditions. It's no coincidence the "Vesica Pisces" configuration from sacred geometry is invoked by the diagram. The diagram is generic, applying to any and all state-transitions, while the "parallel processing" of nested, virtually adjacent states is the "minimum possible" configuration of a reality-model capable of describing the known observations of science, most particularly the ones we supposedly "do not understand".