The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Domain Theory  (Read 13543 times)

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
The Domain Theory
« on: 10/03/2014 14:04:10 »
Highlights,

I have come up with this theory as an attempt to explain some of the mysterious phenomena in the universe that have remained without a generally acceptable explanation.

Some of these are listed as follows:

- The fact that light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneously
- Differences in the elements properties
- Dark Matter/Energy
- The 5 forces (including Dark Energy Effect)
- Mass Effect
- Virtual Particles

Added:
- The theory in this stage is merely a proposal, an attempt to start looking and find the missing variables of Quantum Mechanics, raised by Einstein in his papers where he stated that "Quantum Mechanics is correct indeed, but it is not the complete way of describing reality", we try to continue after his footsteps here.
- I am not saying or considering the theory as an empirical fact yet, -even if the style of writing would give such an impression, the style meant to help readers to live the possibility of the hypothesis and also for the purpose of convergence of views- but what I'm really saying, it deserves the investigation.
- The theory is intending to build upon the current theories and complete them,and not intending to replace them.


To me it is just like looking from a different view point at what we call the standard model, which theoretically implies:

1- There must be smaller particles composing all types of fermion particles and boson particles, which we will call the "muzzos".


2-  Unifying the 5 forces as one entity presented in a domain consisting of particles, which we will call "azzmos" (the vacuum/space-time)

- The "azzmo" particle existed inside the singularity before the big bang and it was the only reason that caused the explosion and later the inflation that followed.
- The "azzmo" particle has no mass, no electric charges, in fact mass, electric charges, electromagnetic fields, the strong force & gravity are all the result of the interaction between "azzmos" & "muzzos" at many different levels.
- The "azzmo" particle has information on it -DNA like- that allows it to react differently in each specific condition and give particles and atoms their properties through these different levels of interaction.
- The "azzmo" particle cannot be detected, nothing will reflect or collide with it because it's the medium through which everything is moving and the single element that keeps everything moving by virtue of its force (an infinite energy that will be released in interactions with regard to E=mc≤ at the quantum level), and all things will even cease to exist without it.
- The ďazzmosĒ share information among themselves at the highest possible velocity, which means they have to be Faster Than Light (FTL)


3- Any specific composition by a number of "muzzos" makes a different particle thus makes it interact differently with the ""azzmos"

4- Particles consisting of "muzzos" can change from one type of particle to another in specific conditions as a result of decay, particle fusion or fusion of free muzzos, just as atoms do, in the inside of stars under extreme heat conditions.

5- Dark Energy (an effect caused by interactions between Azzmos & dark bosons which have limited interactions with the Azzmos). Dark Matter are particles made of "muzzos" but they have a limited interaction - with "azzmos" that's why we cannot detect it.
6- in some cases, Virtual Particles are generated by the reaction of "azzmos" & "muzzos" converted by the "azzmos" from a dark particle -a particle that has a very limited interaction- to a real one and vise versa -back to vacuum-, i.e. in a manner similar to that described in (4) above. 

7- Dark Energy (bosons) & Dark Matter particles can be converted to Normal Energy & Matter whether they were virtual particles or real particles -which are actually just like long-life virtual particles- and vise versa, also in the manner described in (4) above.

8- Dark Energy bosons are produced in the center of the universe and radiated continuously, and they're streaming everywhere all the time.

9- The "azzmo" particles interact with particles from below the quantum level -muzzos- to the quantum level and above (as packages of muzzos).

10- Azzmos are also responsible for the properties of all elements. Not only that, but I would also say that they are responsible for practically everything else and at all levels too.

11- All laws of physics are actually coded inside the "azzmos"

Added:
The below link is a PDF file which is extracted from the discussion so far, it's in columns so it should be easier to read (for new readers to follow up).

PDF Last Updated in 23rd Jun 2014: The Domain Theory | Version 2.0.1 [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 02/11/2014 00:26:06 by aasimz »


 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #1 on: 15/03/2014 15:39:55 »
To elaborate even more:

- Virtual Particles:

These are a kind of combined forces -I believe most likely the weak and colored forces -in the manner of the type of effect- two or more, that hold the "muzzos" together (in this case direct interactions with the azzmos will take place, so that bosons are not needed at this level), virtual particles, in return, can be identified as other particles that have been created in conditions where it resulted in weak-bonded "muzzos", which will not affect most of the characteristics of the particle, that's why it decays into other smaller particles.

The photons created in the sun have exactly the same components (kernel) as the virtual ones, except the real particles generated in conditions where the bonds (as there is no bosons involved at this level and it's a direct interaction with the azzmos, these are considered virtual bonds between the "muzzos" and are designed to be super strong.) and the stronger the bonds between the muzzos, the lesser will be the mass of the particles & the longer will their life be. The theory upholds that the change in the strength of the bonds below the quantum level is clearly relative to the change of mass and other behaviors of the particle.

- Dark Matter/Energy & AntiMatter:

Looking at what we have experienced as Antimatter where two particles -Particle & Anti Particle-annihilate each other after they collide, we can either conclude that we have finally broken these bonds between the muzzos making them go free again or that they have been converted back to dark particles.
As there is an extremely strong energy released by such collisions, we should feel inclined to the idea that the forces holding the muzzos together are broken causing the release of the tremendous energy.
As to the question of why Antimatter does not exist all around us, the reason may lie in the conditions it was created in; that is to say it didn't go well with the different phases of cosmological development, just as it was like in the case of the virtual photon & the real one.
 
it is also a possibility (as far as I can see it) that Antimatter & Matter collisions are in some way related to triggering the birth of stars given the similarity of conditions when compared to those associated with the LHC.


--
Sorry for my bad English.
« Last Edit: 20/05/2014 18:30:44 by aasimz »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #2 on: 15/03/2014 22:39:24 »
Could you show us the maths for that please. (Your English is fine, but the language of physical theories is mathematics.)
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #3 on: 16/03/2014 18:20:44 »
Well, When I first thought about this theory I didn't know about the "Grand Unified Theory (GUT)" although when I read about it I found that it has about 80% of the theory, except for some differences but gravity was out of the union, also later I have come to know that in 1979 "the electroweak theory" had the weak and electromagnetic interactions unified as one force.

As am no Physicists nor a Mathematician but I thought of sharing these ideas with the people who can really put it under the microscope and evaluate it, then correct what's wrong and complete what's missing or maybe make a new theory out of it, or even drop it, it's an open source.

- Yesterday I got reply from Dr. M. Goulette, ATLAS physicist at CERN regarding the theory and he suggested:
- There are some mistakes in the theory that need to be fixed and it needs to be completed, as part of it reflected my weak understanding of the annihilation process
- He also advised me to use data from "Particle Data Group" at http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html [nofollow], but I had difficulty trying to understand everything I found in the reference source.
- He stated, "To reinforce the whole project, I strongly suggest you to try to propose some experimental setup, or experiment to detect your muzzos, or make some evidence of the theory. Don't forget it needs to be compatible with gravity, relativity, and explain what the Standard Models explains."

-------
The below link is a recent research at "University of Hamburg by JŲrn Kersten" that I've found and it's also relating Dark Radiation -dark energy interactions- to late decays, also relating the life time to the temperature at the moment of decays.

Dark Radiation from Particle Decay [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 20/05/2014 18:30:49 by aasimz »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #4 on: 16/03/2014 23:44:01 »
So, will you be sharing any of the math, or not?
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #5 on: 17/03/2014 00:23:40 »
If I had any math, I would definitely share it, that's what am asking you and others to do, of course if you believe it worth it.

I know it's the other way around, but am just trying to connect the dots, am a chitchat guy with an imagination.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2014 00:29:02 by aasimz »
 

Offline Colmik

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #6 on: 06/04/2014 15:05:45 »
Ophiolite. why don't you say "If you say it in Algonquin, I'll consider it - otherwise, don't bother me with it".
Clearly, aasimz comprehension of mathematics is similar to, I imagine, your understanding of Algonquin - but that doesn't mean that his thoughts are unworthy of your time.  As your suggestion is that you do speak mathematics - and as you follow this science forum, you clearly have an interest in the subject - then I imagine that you have the intelligence and knowledge to answer him in the language in which he posed his ideas - English.  While I have huge respect of anybody with the attributes that you suggest you have, I find your responses here elitist and pompous.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #7 on: 06/04/2014 16:07:26 »
- light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneously
That's incorrect. In fact you have in backwards. Photons can act as a particle or wave but never at the same time.

Also, this thread belongs in the New Theory forum, not here.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2014 16:12:07 by Pmb »
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #8 on: 06/04/2014 16:16:16 »
- light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneously
That's incorrect. In fact you have in backwards. Photons can act as a particle or wave but never at the same time.

Also, this thread belongs in the New Theory forum, not here.

This is one of several experiments that concluded this statement:

Particle and wave-like behavior of light measured simultaneously [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 20/05/2014 18:30:54 by aasimz »
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #9 on: 06/04/2014 16:59:18 »
- light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneously
That's incorrect. In fact you have in backwards. Photons can act as a particle or wave but never at the same time.

Also, this thread belongs in the New Theory forum, not here.

This is one of several experiments that concluded this statement:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101141107.htm

Don't believe everything that you read. That page says
Quote
Surprisingly, when a photon is observed, it behaves either as a particle or as a wave. But both aspects are never observed simultaneously. In fact, which behaviour it exhibits depends on the type of measurement it is presented with.
This is a new result and has to stand the test of time. However that doesn't mean that we were wrong all along and that things like electrons and photons always behave like a particle and a wave a the same time. At best this means that the found a case where that's not true.

The author of that page says something quite wrong too, i.e.
Quote
For instance, quantum theory predicts that a particle (for instance a photon) can be in different places at the same time. In fact it can even be in infinitely many places at the same time, exactly as a wave.
That is total nonsense. Quantum theory does not say that. It says that there is a finite probability that a particle can be measured in infinitely many places at the same time.

An acquaintance of mine (also a physicist) used to teach QM and is now the author of a famous QM textbook author. Let me bounce this off of him and I'll get back to you.
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #10 on: 06/04/2014 20:19:47 »
An acquaintance of mine (also a physicist) used to teach QM and is now the author of a famous QM textbook author. Let me bounce this off of him and I'll get back to you.

This is sounds great, it would be even superb if you can ask him to give us his thoughts about the whole theory as well, thank you.
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #11 on: 06/04/2014 20:47:53 »
The author of that page says something quite wrong too, i.e.
Quote
For instance, quantum theory predicts that a particle (for instance a photon) can be in different places at the same time. In fact it can even be in infinitely many places at the same time, exactly as a wave.
That is total nonsense. Quantum theory does not say that. It says that there is a finite probability that a particle can be measured in infinitely many places at the same time.

Both statements are the same to me, if you are talking about the same particle that is measured.
The other way to explain this nonsense is through the azzmo's domain, which is infinitely everywhere and shares information through interactions.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2014 21:55:08 by aasimz »
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #12 on: 06/04/2014 22:17:17 »
Quote from: aasimz
Both statements are the same to me, if you are talking about the same particle that is measured.
They are definitely not the same.
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #13 on: 07/04/2014 01:20:27 »
Quote from: aasimz
Both statements are the same to me, if you are talking about the same particle that is measured.
They are definitely not the same.

Am sorry, but I've failed to understand how they differ, can you please explain how?
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #14 on: 07/04/2014 20:30:04 »
Analysis

Ok, let me share with you folks the steps of rational thinking that led me to the above-stated conclusion in a short story composed to bring the idea of the theory home to everyone and give a clue as to where it  comes from!

The spark

I have always been frustrated as I went on thinking for years about atoms, and how they differ from each other. I was asking myself how could a number that has the same components make a completely different element with completely different characteristics. To me, it was like when you have a plastic bag with a ball inside and then you find that when you add another ball into the same bag with typically the same characteristics as the one already there, the plastic bag would begin to shift color or turn into a gas. The experience would have a touch of magic about it and therefore gives you a feeling that you will stand there without having any scientifically accepted explanation to it.

Letís take an example: the Helium 2 and the Lithium 3, with only one additional set of exactly the same particles (proton + neutron + electron) changes the melting point of the atom from 0.9 K to 400 something K, from a gas to a solid, and from a noble gas to a metal. Itís hard to find or think of any explanation for these differences in characteristics let alone other characteristics such as the different light wavelength reactions -reflection (absorption+emission), emission or None "just go through"-.

A journey outside the universe

One day I was thinking of finding a way Ėwhich, I thought, would somehow be logical - to imagine what would happen if I go beyond the edge of the universe. Upon reaching the edge, I simply saw myself vanishing- not even evaporating- just vanishing at the edge. I forcefully pushed those thoughts through and I completely "navigated" to the other side, but it turns out that I canít see, I canít move, I can't think and I simply canít even exist!

None of the laws of physics we know of would apply outside the universe. I asked myself why? Why it doesn't apply here and it applies there? What would make THIS possible there and impossible here?
There has to be something IN there which is not OUT here, and that happens to be the azzmos domain.
It became very obvious to me that what was traditionally known as "the vacuum" isn't a vacuum at all, it simply and logically can't be. 
The only real vacuum is out there.. out of the entire bubble "the universe that we are part of ".

Back to earth

So when I came back to earth, to the atoms and elements where I had left them, but of course bringing down the domain concept with me, I came to see and realize that these number differences of subatomic particles are just a code just like Morse code or some other code, a language which makes these particles interact with that domain differently according to their number.

Then I continued to research and study about the Standard Model and came to believe more and more that all the answers we need do actually lie in this domain, in these azzmos.

As you can see I later had to come up with the muzzos particles which represent the other face of the coin:

- All fermions will consist of a kernel, which identifies the particle.  This kernel is made up of particles (a Kernel Element which I have called KE-01 & KE-02) which are, in turn, made up of muzzos, and they have what I call a communication shield also consisting of muzzos orbiting around the kernel, and these muzzos on the shield will be emitted or absorbed in one form of boson in each specific condition

- A Boson acts as a moderator between the azzmos and other fermions. Each Boson has its own corresponding fermion (Except for dark bosons which affect even the bosons), and it should have only a kernel and no communication shield (except for virtual bosons which may or may not have an apparent communication shield), Bosons kernels also consist of muzzos which are merged/fused to form bonded KE-01 & KE-02 particles then emitted from a fermion communication shield.




21 Seconds Animation: Fermions, Composition & Structure | The Domain Theory [nofollow]

- Appling the same code rule to the different levels, we conclude that  the numbers of muzzos (and may be some other attributes) make different particle characteristics therefore a completely different particle

Your turn folks

Again.. the reason am sharing this theory is because I strongly believe in the theory, and I just know for a fact that I canít personally support it neither mathematically nor experimentally, I need the help of other people to achieve that, and I really deeply believe it can bring us somewhere.     
« Last Edit: 13/06/2014 16:00:29 by aasimz »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #15 on: 08/04/2014 12:38:37 »
I don't understand your post, what are you trying to get at. You're using different words to describe the same thing, bosons are the force carrier's not azzmo.muzzo's are broken into smaller pieces, they are called quarks, which are the building blocks of atoms. As far as the atoms are concerned in your statement of adding one proton. Most of the characteristics of an atom, are in the electrons. Chemical bonding is electron sharing between different atoms to balance out the shells. Helium is a noble gas, because it shells are already full, so it is doesn't bond well with other atoms. If you look at a periodic table. This is why things are arranged in columns, things in the same column have similar properties.
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #16 on: 08/04/2014 13:43:52 »
I don't understand your post, what are you trying to get at. You're using different words to describe the same thing, bosons are the force carrier's not azzmo.muzzo's are broken into smaller pieces,

Instead of saying that bosons are the force carriers I would rather say:

First the azzmos have infinite energy that would be released in interactions with regard to the E=mc≤ at the quantum level.
Then these bosons are actually the mediator which can interact with the azzmos to produce such an effect (what we perceive as a force) which affects all types of fermions. Each type of boson will have its own corresponding type of fermion.


Quote
they are called quarks, which are the building blocks of atoms. As far as the atoms are concerned in your statement of adding one proton.

Yes they are called quarks and they are considered a member of the fermions family (quarks "6 types" and leptons "6 types" each with a corresponding antiparticle).

The theory I am trying to put together suggests that these quarks are actually made up of smaller particles typically the same as the ones making the electrons and all other fermions & bosons.

Just before the quarks bond together, they emit some of their muzzos in the form of "pions & gluons" which will be transmitting between particles all the time. Thus the total mass of a proton or a neutron should be less than the combined value of mass of the separated quarks, the mass defect expected here at this level has been actually measured in the upper level where the combined nucleus and separated protons & neutrons have a mass defect. I am saying that the process described above explains this mass defect for both levels.


Quote
Most of the characteristics of an atom, are in the electrons. Chemical bonding is electron sharing between different atoms to balance out the shells. Helium is a noble gas, because it shells are already full, so it is doesn't bond well with other atoms. If you look at a periodic table. This is why things are arranged in columns, things in the same column have similar properties.

Yes characteristics related to chemical reactions among different atoms are related to the electrons and their excitement, but we cannot say that all other characteristics can be explained in this manner.

Added:
And since you brought this, the reason I called the suggested orbiting muzzos in a fermion a communication shield? Because I believe the electrons are also a communication shield, and the quantum world looks completely different but the theory is simply saying: just as atoms have a communication shield allowing them to communicate with each other, these particles also do. It is just that the interactions are completely different and take place at a different level.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2014 15:58:54 by aasimz »
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #17 on: 08/04/2014 14:46:32 »
Particles decay,

Let's take an example: A neutron is converted into a proton by emitting an electron & an electron antineutrino.

The neutron composite of an up quark and two down quarks (udd) is subject to change when one of these down quarks decays into an up quark by emitting a W boson in which case the neutron is converted into a proton which has (uud) which also has less mass than the neutron.
The W Boson decays almost immediately to an electron & electron antineutrino.

I think this would be very well explained if the concept of muzzos is applied to it.
« Last Edit: 20/05/2014 18:31:10 by aasimz »
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #18 on: 08/04/2014 21:34:05 »
The Domain

O.K what if we think of it from the azzmos point of view?

The azzmos only interact with the muzzos, and since it was already suggested that the muzzos are the smallest fundamental particles in existence, then the smallest package of information, like a bit of information yes or no, on/off, the azzmos chooses to react to these muzzos at different levels at the same time.

How?

I thought about it as something like a computer that processes bits of information -each one independently- and those bits are in the middle of a byte and they act to process the whole byte independently and then process an upper level of a collection of bytes independently all together and at the same time using a completely different set of commands in each case and on something like a completely different platform but with the very same processor. They also share the information about conditions at all these levels given that these conditions have the potential of affecting the results at each of those different levels separately.

When these azzmos sense muzzos, they share this information between themselves at the maximum possible velocity I believe it could possibly be way FTL.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2014 15:58:59 by aasimz »
 

Offline Chadis Muskero

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #19 on: 08/04/2014 22:14:11 »
Anyone is free to reply to this post, right?

I have 2 net friends who I asked about this topic and the 1st (a computer programmer) said that within quantum fields of our brain (of how it functions or somewhere there) he said that in their company, a large electronics company, while they were developing a new kind of gadget that could function within the eyes' visual spectrum -based on graphene research, they observed that the same phenomenon as to the relation between the universe's particle build up, speed, and functionality are also similarly close to any other matter, solid or not. The eyes, though may not be powerful as any other microscope or camera, can still see things that no other artificial machines can.

That said, when I received my second friend's reply, a chemist, at which he said, Anti-matter technology was still in a contained experimental stage. If it does actually explains the relation of this domain's differences, then it would as if you have rejected the idea that life is purely made up of rejecting-accepting atomic relationships.

This made me think that what we know so far are actually still not enough to give a definite answer to this theory.. We could only assume that your theory might actually (or not at all) connected to yet another theory of another dimension (or in this case domain). And if we do have to elaborate in this, then the quantum level connection between light particles and it's co-relating substances such as the elemental particles, and unseen energies beyond our visual spectrum, are also to be explained.

We could only speculate at this stage.

But in opinion's sake, I think that what we know so far is only enough to prove that we are not the most intelligent race in the universe. I believe that anyone would have to agree that the four forces you, we, are talking about here, is one topic fiction is not impossible to not be included.

Sorry if this reply is somewhat alarmingly rude for some readers. I just want to say what I know and found out. I'm afraid for the direction of the topic.
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #20 on: 09/04/2014 17:07:11 »
Anyone is free to reply to this post, right?

Of course any one can join the discussion, if his/her entry won't violate the forum terms I guess.

Quote
I have 2 net friends who I asked about this topic and the 1st (a computer programmer) said that within quantum fields of our brain (of how it functions or somewhere there) he said that in their company, a large electronics company, while they were developing a new kind of gadget that could function within the eyes' visual spectrum -based on graphene research, they observed that the same phenomenon as to the relation between the universe's particle build up, speed, and functionality are also similarly close to any other matter, solid or not. The eyes, though may not be powerful as any other microscope or camera, can still see things that no other artificial machines can.

Am not sure if I understood exactly what you say here, but I guess this could be supporting the theory.

Quote
That said, when I received my second friend's reply, a chemist, at which he said, Anti-matter technology was still in a contained experimental stage. If it does actually explains the relation of this domain's differences, then it would as if you have rejected the idea that life is purely made up of rejecting-accepting atomic relationships.

no comment.

Quote
This made me think that what we know so far are actually still not enough to give a definite answer to this theory..

Well.. never say never, right?
We gonna have to work on that and see what could be the possibilities.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2014 20:15:18 by aasimz »
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #21 on: 11/04/2014 00:30:35 »
Connections

One of the fundamental principles of the theory is based on connecting all things one to the other on a large scale.

Now let us have a look at what I have called the atom's communication shield -or electrons- and consider why they have rules of orbiting around layers and why do the higher level energy electrons tend to move to upper layers?
Why is there a maximum of 7 layers? Why do we have specific rules for the numbers of electrons in each layer?
Why do we also have 7 layers of atmosphere surrounding the Earth? Why do we have 7 layers of earth, why do we only have 7 light wavelength ranges visible to us? why does the major scale of music has just 7 notes? what is the week? And why does it have 7 days, why does the string theory predict 6 other bubbles other than our universe. To be sure there are even more 7s that I can't recall now.


It is also noteworthy to say that the so-called Golden Ratio -1.618- is found everywhere in the universe, from the atomic structure, through out the solar system, and to the humongous galaxy structure.

It is fair to say that we can begin to do some mathematical manipulation. Obviously, the Golden Ratio is common to many things even though it is applicable at many different levels, that is why I am tempted to trace it and dig up other examples as an additional proof of the universality of this ratio.

This theory is intended to explain just all that and more, all together.
LITERALLY, IT IS THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING.

Resources:
1-ResearchGate | The Golden Ratio in the atomic structure [nofollow]
2-ScienceDaily | Golden ratio discovered in quantum world: Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter [nofollow]
3-goldennumber.net | The Golden ratio in the solar system [nofollow]
4-tallbloke.wordpress.com | The Golden ratio in the solar system [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 27/06/2014 19:16:56 by aasimz »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8131
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #22 on: 11/04/2014 01:10:37 »
... why do we find the Golden ratio -1.618- everywhere ...

In plants it's optimum-geometry arrived at by natural-selection ... http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html#why

http://io9.com/5985588/15-uncanny-examples-of-the-golden-ratio-in-nature
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 01:16:39 by RD »
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #23 on: 11/04/2014 01:24:18 »
... why do we find the Golden ratio -1.618- everywhere ...

In plants it's optimum-geometry arrived at by natural-selection ... http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html#why [nofollow]


Exactly.. As it's the perfect way for all leaves to get use of light perfectly.
your whole body also functions perfectly because of the 1.618 ratio that to be found everywhere in our body, from the exterior structure through our heart blood flow in the perfect pumping mechanism a 1.618 vortex -discovered by Leonardo Da Vinci- to our DNA.

The sun and the stars moving in that vortex.. The curvature of what we call spacetime is in that vortex.

Even the tornado is in that vortex.!

Would water crystals & snowflakes also be related to natural selection, what is natural selection and what makes it function the way it is.

here are some really good videos:

Nature by numbers. [nofollow]

The helical model video 1. [nofollow]

The helical model video 2. [nofollow]

And my favourite:
Beautiful Paint Science In Slow Motion [nofollow]

These different shapes that changes with frequency vibration in such experiments has been found also in the shells of turtles, different shapes. The very shapes Darwin has described with his natural selection, at the Caribbean's, how could this ever be related to natural selection?
Frequency vibration experiments [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 25/06/2014 03:21:22 by aasimz »
 

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #24 on: 11/04/2014 14:15:38 »
Crazy math,

To show how far the theory goes well with all relevant principles of mathematics, so far

The mathematical equivalent concluded and finally agreed upon by both Dr. Leonard Susskind & Prof. Stephen Hawking (see link below to have an idea) has led them to think of the universe as a 3D projection of a 2D information at the edge of the universe.

The universe as a hologram!

The Black Hole Wars: My Battle with Stephen Hawking [nofollow]

What appears to be completely illogical becomes very easily explained by only considering the existence of a domain with such suggested properties.


How do we interact with the universe,

Let's think about our interaction as human beings with the universe. Here is how it works: all the information we get through our senses is converted into electrical pulses that would be translated later in the brain.

Letís take a close look into the eye for example: the photon hits the Retina at a specific point causing a chemical reaction to take place there converting information such as the wavelength of the photon reflected. Then these chemically generated electric pulses -information- travel to our brain where the total information that came from the Retina for one frame becomes a full image which is flipped upside down -fixed- and then broadcasted to you as an influential suggestion. Think of it as something like how dreams are visualized, but not exactly.

We don't actually see what we visualize when we see it with our eyes! It is this broadcast that we actually see! The eyes are only the tool that captures and detects, in this process, 30 to 34 frames per second, and what you see does actually have a very small fraction of delay from reality.

I just have to point out here that it is not possible for visible spectrum wavelength range photons to ever pass inside our skull & reach the brain.

And since we all sense the same stuff, we can conclude that the broadcast is in perfect match with the information in reality.

Bearing all that in mind, you folks would come to see how we can have a single logic that relates everything we perceive by our senses to all other things in this theory.
« Last Edit: 30/08/2014 01:07:31 by aasimz »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #24 on: 11/04/2014 14:15:38 »

 

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