The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Polar Universe  (Read 3524 times)

Offline siochi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
The Polar Universe
« on: 21/01/2011 11:04:51 »
The universe we live in is full of unsolved mysteries. One way of resolving the mysteries, as I have found, is by looking at them from the frame of a Polar Universe.

The polar universe means that the Universe if full of Polarities. Good, and bad, Hot, and cold, etc.

Along with the above stated property of the universe, I believe there exist a relationship between these polarities and dimensions.

The polarities of the universe reverse when there is a dimension shift. So, what is considered good in one dimension is considered bad in the other. Similarly, what is considered hot in one set of dimensions is considered in the other set of dimension.

Another interesting property of the Universe is that any substance in the universe is made up in combination of its opposite end. By this, I mean, that any entity in the universe is a composition of its opposite. For example, + is the product of two -.

Possible application of the theory:

The theory can help in the understanding of dark matter, and dark energy. Dark energy is the opposite of gravity, and thus, it can be safely concluded from the above theorems that it is the combination of gravity.

The theory can be used to understand the nature of matter. Using the postulates of the above theory, we can safely predict that an electron (the negative charged particle) is made up of a combination of particles. The base element of all the substances in the universe is a neutral element, and with combination with each other they impart a positive and a negative charge to each other.




 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Polar Universe
« Reply #1 on: 21/01/2011 15:38:40 »
Siochi - but even the claims that you make are totally unsubstantiated.  Good and Bad are purely subjective and are almost impossible to include in a proper scientific theory.   On the basic particles - the proton and neutron are each made of three smaller particles (not two) and to the best of our knowledge we cannot split the electron into smaller particles.  Combining neutral particles to give charge is against everything that we currently hold to be true.

On another, more fundamental note; what real-world experiment can you propose that would allow your ideas to be distinguished from the accepted canon of knowledge that we currently hold? 

In summary - your idea does not tally with empirical discoveries so far; thus you need to explain why not, and further you need to think of experiments that will differentiate your theory from pure hot air.   
 

Offline siochi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
The Polar Universe
« Reply #2 on: 21/01/2011 17:56:26 »
Thank you for your comment.

The intricate nature of the universe is something that we still don't understand. Even though we have tons of books filled up with knowledge about the universe, but when we arrange this knowledge, it amounts up to nothing. Somewhere or something is just not fitting right. Though we know that electron is a subatomic particle, and cannot be broken further, and that protons and neutrons are made up of 3 quarks, but we are still unable to understand the universe on the grand scale.

The Polarity principle is a well-known philosophical milestone. All I want to do is to find a way to apply this principle in the physical world. I'll surely work out some real-world experiment to prove this theorem.

Thanks anyways  ;D
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Polar Universe
« Reply #3 on: 21/01/2011 18:42:38 »
We understand a lot of what happens on the grand scale.  Some of the predictions of GR were outlandish and downright weird, yet they have been confirmed.  The Big Bang was ridiculed (as in some quarters still is) but it lead to the prediction of the CMBR which was subsequently discovered.

We know a hell of a lot and there is no reason to change the method of approach at this stage; we do not "do science" by finding a nice abstract philosophical principle and assuming it correctly explains the universe.  The body of knowledge in science is vast and backed up by untold amounts of experimental data - any new theory must also tally with this data AND produce new insight and predictions.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The Polar Universe
« Reply #3 on: 21/01/2011 18:42:38 »

 

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