Unfortunately, Laz, you ignored a key part of aruanan’s argument, which is your downfall here.
>>Besides, it’s called UNI verse for a reason.
Peter Noone covered this well when he asserted “Second verse, same as the first.” In other words, any other part of the verse would be the same as the first (uni) one, therefore no change in the physics.
Q.E.D. indeed!
Peter Noone has bested me.