The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Displacement Theory  (Read 7034 times)

Offline Ben Evans

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Displacement Theory
« on: 21/02/2009 13:12:28 »
Everything is Nothing.

String theory is a load of complicated made up rubbish! Why get so complicated? Unfortunately that is usually the direction things head in, as with the beginnings of everything, from a simple state of nothing to the confusion of the universe today. If you want to start at the beginning it must be simple, it must have all started from nothing.

So I might not make much sense, my facts may not be correct as I am learning about these things as I write, and, I might contradict myself a bit, but I am going to have a go at telling you my theory of everything. I have not finished thinking my theory complete through. There are some black holes, apt, some large black holes but this is how it starts.

My main overall belief is that everything started from nothing and just wants to be nothing again. It is the fact that everything wants to be nothing that drives the universe. Let me explain.

So, maybe, the starting point of the universe would be a neutron, which could indeed be nothing as it has no value, it is neutral. A fragment is split from a neutron forming a proton and electron. How this has happened I have no idea, but let’s say for now, it has. The electron is displaced and wants to rejoin the proton, it wants to be neutral or nothing again, as my theory dictates. The electron can’t meet the proton because it also wants to whiz off in a straight line, as everything has an opposite and equal reaction and the force of the split has given the electron some momentum. But it is held in limbo by the attraction of wanting to meet the proton and be neutral once more. Which is basically what we call centrifugal force. Anyway, no matter, hydrogen has just been created and this is the start the universe as we know it. Was there an actual ‘Big Bang’? We shall come to that later.

So, we see it as the negatively charged electron being attracted to the positively charged proton. And we know this as one of the four big forces; Electromagnetism. Each force is mealy a way that the universe of nothing is split and is trying to fix itself. It is very hard to explain in words as we don’t really have the words to explain and in some cases we have named things, and the way we think about what that name means is completely the wrong way. We see the smaller part of the split of nothing as being negatively charged and the large central part as being positively charge. Each piece is not charged positively or negatively, we just encounter the effects of them trying to be neutron again as these things. The way that this piece of neutralness is split to form a positive half and a negative half we happen to call electrowhatever…. It makes no difference.

I can only see one force, not even a force, just three things. One is Neutral. This has the perfect name for itself. The second and third are called a number of different things like positive and negative but a mealy two parts of neutralness trying to be neutral once more. I wonder what happens if neutralness splits into more than two? Or if indeed it can, or if it cannot then why can’t it? And does this explain why two protons want to get away from each other? These are things I will have to look into.

All in all. What I am trying to say is that a ‘force’ is what we call an unstable part of the universe trying to be stable again or a displaced part of nothing trying to get back to nothing once more. We happen to name different ways that nothing is separated as different kinds of forces. This justifies me to go using the word force. Even though I don’t like it.

One word I dislike more than ‘force’ is gravity because this is just a name for one direction of a force. Every other force has one name for all directions. So why one direction should have a name all to self is beyond me. This brings me nicely onto the next half of my theory.

The next half is on the larger scale. Gravity! Yuck!

Most people think there are four forces in the universe. In my opinion Gravity is definitely not one of them. It is a force as much as it is a similar to air pressure or water pressure. But this kind of force does not fit in with the four forces. I don’t know the whole story but it seems to me that Stephen Hawking, amongst other people, can not understand why gravity is so weak compared with the three other forces which started at the time of the big bang. One force is electromagnetism and another is something to do with radioactivity. These are just names for one thing anyway and are not necessary forces but I’ve already covered that, I would like to name all the forces that are not forces to prove my theory but maybe later …. Anyway gravity is not as strong because it has nothing to do with them! These big four starting forces, which I will call bbsf for now as I don’t know the real name, must exist inside an atom as that is where they started. Gravity does not and is only created by a massive collection of atoms. Therefore can not be a bbsf.

Gravity is simply one half of space pressure. Space pressure is just nothingness wanting to be nothing again. Space-time is nice and happy being inert and nothing with the tiny occasionally hydrogen atom popping up from time to time. It’s all lovely and peaceful with itself. Then along comes a massive load of atoms. Usually consisting of a planet or a sun or a black hole or of which are the same for my purposes. Just a big load of atoms. Anyway this massive load of atoms (or mass for short) pushes nothingness (space-time) out of its space. Squashed up Space-time wants to get back in its space and be nothing again. Much like holding a balloon full of air underwater. The force of space-time trying to get back to into the space that the mass has taken causes a pushing force from the surrounding space time. This pushing force on to the space that the planet has taken is what we know as gravity. There is also the opposite and equal reaction of the planet trying to get as nice and spread out as it possible can into space which has no name, as much as air pressure or water pressure only has one name for both reactions. Space pressure is a much better word for gravity is than gravity is.

So as you can see everything only exists because it wants to be nothing. And that is as far as I have got with my theory…….. I know it has some holes but I will fill them, eventually.

Is it just coincidence that a nice neutral amount of nothingness is already called a neutron; a massive collection of atoms is already called a mass. It’s certainly handy. If only space-pressure and nothingness were both recognised words.

To be continued......

Ben Evans, professor of Nothing


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Displacement Theory
« Reply #1 on: 21/02/2009 15:25:55 »
I read your concept and you're right; there's lots of holes in it :) Let's start with the neutron; it is a lot more than just nothing. It has two and a half electrons worth of more stuff to it than the proton. When left alone by itself, the neutron chunks out some radiation and becomes a proton. This, I think is in agreement with your opening remarks. :) It is also in agreement with present scientific observations.

But now; we get into the desire-to-be-nothing concept. I will interpret "desire" to mean some principle acting upon the particles. You will need to define that principle and give it some numerical values that we can use to evaluate the usefulness of the concept. We would need to know; is the concept consistent with observations of the past? Can it predict new and useful things we might discover in the future?

« Last Edit: 22/02/2009 15:32:02 by Vern »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Displacement Theory
« Reply #2 on: 21/02/2009 18:12:47 »
I feel that, to be fair to those poor amateurs like Stephen Hawkin, you should at least appreciate what they are actually saying and then point out, in detail, where they have  gone wrong, before you pile in with a new theory. Particularly when you claim not to be too sure of your facts. Did you consider that what you are saying may not be self-consistent?
 

Offline Ben Evans

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Displacement Theory
« Reply #3 on: 22/02/2009 12:46:36 »
Oh yes good point Vern. But could a neutron be created from nothing by spliting it? and doe it become a proton because it is unstable and is forced into becoming stable. I really have know idea yet of how get all this into some kind of formula but maybe someday....

And Sophie I think I pointed out that nothing I say is self-consistant, I am just trying trying to unsrcamble my thoughts and write them down as I go. It's fairly unlikely that any of it makes sence and I appriciate your comments to help me straighten thing out. But don't we all know what Stephen Hawkin thinks, do I really need to say what he has already said. He is stuck on why gravity doesn't fit in with his theory, his theory is bloody brilliant, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that maybe gravity doesn't need to fit in with his theory because it only came to be after the big bang and not during.

Thank you for your replies :)
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Displacement Theory
« Reply #4 on: 22/02/2009 13:43:55 »
I think I pointed out that nothing I say is self-consistant,
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Displacement Theory
« Reply #5 on: 22/02/2009 15:38:41 »
The humerus post from Bored Chemist points out a flaw that any theory must overcome. The concept must be self consistent. For example any explanation of gravity would have to apply to the first instant that matter existed all the way to the present time. If there was no gravity present in the early universe, there would need be a reason why. So you're right; you have a ways to go yet. Hay; but if it is fun thinking about it; more power to you. Keep on chuggin !
 

lyner

  • Guest
Displacement Theory
« Reply #6 on: 22/02/2009 15:52:22 »
Ben Evans
Quote
But don't we all know what Stephen Hawkin thinks
Do you? Are you sure? When you use terms like "wanting to" in your descriptions of Physical processes, I wonder whether you really do know what he is saying.
Somewhere, in your mind, you have a picture of what is going on. But you have to produce better than purple  passages if you want to describe it in scientific terms, so that your ideas can be discussed. If you want to talk Science then you need some equations and some numerical evidence, from somewhere, to show the equations work. Hawkin has done that - which is why people tend to take notice of his ideas.
As I said, you need to show where he is wrong, in specific places, and in detail. You have nothing of substance with which to replace it, yet.
Aim at one self-consistent bit and build on that.
 

Offline Ben Evans

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Displacement Theory
« Reply #7 on: 22/02/2009 15:53:20 »
Vern, my theory states that gravity is caused by a build up of atoms. So once the chain reaction of atom creation started, each atom displaces a tiny amount of space-time and causes the effect of gravity. The more atoms, the more displacment, the more they are compelled towards each other. In other words gravity was created by the creation of the universe.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Displacement Theory
« Reply #8 on: 22/02/2009 18:27:19 »
This is not a theory. It is an hypothesis. What have you to back it up with?
 

Offline Ben Evans

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Displacement Theory
« Reply #9 on: 22/02/2009 19:39:13 »
Oh I didn't know there was a difference. I don't have anything to back it up with, I never said it was correct. But nobody knows how gravity is created or how it fits in with the creation of everything, I was just suggesting a way around this problem, you have to admit it solves the problem. Have you got anything to back up that my hypothesis is not correct?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Displacement Theory
« Reply #10 on: 22/02/2009 20:02:05 »
Vern, my theory states that gravity is caused by a build up of atoms. So once the chain reaction of atom creation started, each atom displaces a tiny amount of space-time and causes the effect of gravity. The more atoms, the more displacement, the more they are compelled towards each other. In other words gravity was created by the creation of the universe.
This seems a little more self consistent. :)
 

Offline Ben Evans

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Displacement Theory
« Reply #11 on: 29/03/2009 02:01:31 »
So i'm right arnt I, youre just too scared to admit it!
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Displacement Theory
« Reply #12 on: 30/03/2009 15:11:34 »
So i'm right arnt I, youre just too scared to admit it!
Right about what ? I didn't see something in your hypothesis that we can test to make a guess about whether it is right :)
 

Offline Ben Evans

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Displacement Theory
« Reply #13 on: 31/03/2009 00:28:30 »
Mmmhhh? Well lets stick with the gravity bit. Hasn't it already been proven, we already know that the more mass something has the more gravity it has. And we know that space is not just a vacuum and can be displaced else thrust would not work. I will try and think of some kind of experiment that will prove it, though it may be expensive. Maybe there is someway to measure space pressure. If my theory is correct, space would be more dence around a mass, maybe even an orbiting planet would have a wake or a pulsating star would have a shockwave.

Eureka! I need to build a massive space smoke machine!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Displacement Theory
« Reply #13 on: 31/03/2009 00:28:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums