The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does this model of the universe represent the true nature of reality?  (Read 391 times)

Offline imetheman

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Hello to all forum members.

I have formulated/discovered a model of the universe which I am convinced represents the true nature of physical reality. The model can be described in 1 mathematical fractal equation. Being a fractal number, the equation is correct to an infinity of decimal points. (The latter fact is the reason why Pi & the fine structure constant have infinite values of the decimal point).

The fractal universe consists of an infinity of separate & unique individual physical universes just like ours. Each physical universe has it's own individual unit of measurement. The latter is determined by it's particular wavelength and constitutes the relative Planck constant of that physical universe. Every particle of matter in a physical universe consists of resonant harmonies of wavelength frequencies which are multiples of the relative Planck length for that universe.

C is defined as the fastest time that any signal/quanta of information can be transferred between any 2 points/coordinates of matter in 3-D physical space.   

In the model, the existence of organic life and conscious free will are regarded as universal constants. All the matter & energy which exists in the observable universe is continually being recreated 'moment to moment' at every coordinate in 3 -D space. 

The natural rest state of the universe is a state of perfect equilibrium. (This is why all energy will perpetually take the path of least resistance in 3-D space). At any given 'moment', the position of every coordinate in 3-D space exists in perfect relativity with every other coordinate which exists in the infinity of the fractal. The definition of fractal equilibrium represents the ultimate definition for nothingness. It is therefore not positive & negative forces which cancel each other out giving a neutral sum of charge. Equilibrium is zero energy - absence of any movement.

The source of all energy & matter at any given moment & at any point in 3-D space arises from the process which occurs when the equilibrium of the universe is disturbed by the movement of matter in 3-D space. When any particle of matter [coordinate] changes it's velocity relative to any adjacent coordinates of matter by anything more than 1 relative Planck length, the energy which is instantly released is equal to that which is required to restore the universal equilibrium.

I have spent the last 2 years attempting to pick holes in the validity of the model but without any success. I now require the input of individuals cleverer than me to point out any flaws in the model before I publish it & make a public fool of myself. So any comments on what I have said so far would be much appreciated. 


 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Where can we find your fractal equation?
What is the new information we could get from your model which currently accepted models don't provide?
Are there specific phenomena which can be described more accurately using your model, compared to currently accepted models?
 
The following users thanked this post: imetheman

Offline imetheman

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I am presently caught up in a domestic situation but will reply as soon as I get the opportunity.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: imetheman
Hello to all forum members.

I have formulated/discovered a model of the universe which I am convinced represents the true nature of physical reality.
First off, The science of physics is not about "proving" anything so if you're trying to claim that you know the "truth" then you're going outside the scope of physics.

Question: Why are you so convinced that your model is correct? Theories, laws and models in physics are created to describe what is observed in nature. What you're attempting to do has this backwards.

Quote from: imetheman
The model can be described in 1 mathematical fractal equation.
If that's the case then why haven't you (1) posted the steps of the process that led to your formulation of this equation and (2) why haven't you posted the equation itself?

Quote from: imetheman
Being a fractal number, the equation is correct to an infinity of decimal points. (The latter fact is the reason why Pi & the fine structure constant have infinite values of the decimal point).
What is a "fractal number" and what does this number represent?

Quote from: imetheman
The fractal universe ....
Whoa! Where did this "fractal universe" come from? You haven't mentioned it up until this point and you haven't provided any motivation for it.

Quote from: imetheman
...consists of an infinity of separate & unique individual physical universes just like ours.
Where are these so-called universes? To me this sounds like something that's not falsifiable and as such is not a proper scientific theory.

Quote from: imetheman
Each physical universe has it's own individual unit of measurement.
Why should a universe need a unit of measurement and what does this measurement represent?

Quote from: imetheman
... latter is determined by it's particular wavelength ....
So now you're claiming that these universes have a wavelength? What does this wavelength represent and how is it measured? What's the motivation for defining such a wavelength?

I'm sorry but there's nothing scientific about what you've posted in this thread.

Please take the definition of science and show me how your so-called theory fits into it.


The following is from the article What is science? by the American Association of Physics Teachers, Am. J. Phys., 67(8), Aug. (1999)
Quote
What is science?

The following statement was originally drafted by the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) of the American Physical Society, in an attempt to meet the perceived need for a very short statement that would differentiate science from pseudoscience. This statement has been endorsed as a proposal to other scientific societies by the Council of the American Physical Society, and was endorsed by the Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers at its meeting in Atlanta, 20 March 1999. Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering
knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.

The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists to:

(1) expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists; this requires the complete and open exchange of
data, procedures and materials;

(2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence.

Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
]
  Thanks for the information. So as you present, science is devoted to what we can see and measure. thus the proof of the pudding is the ability of different scientists to observe and measure things. A theory then must agree with the measurements.
  Then what would your consider those who go beyond what can be seen or measured? Perhaps philosophical science? The problem is that once you look at another universe of different light speeds, they are possible but the ability to see or measure them cannot be achieved. The same is true of my dot-wave theory. Since the dot-waves have a mass of 1.566E-72Kg and a charge of 2.755E-61 coulombs they can never be measured. Yet I believe that everything is composed of these non-measurable things.
   Everything we see and measure  is based upon interactions with electrons and various sub-particles. this is our world. today several scientists are attempting to look beyond the standard model. I email a lot of people and these type of people ask for a signed copy of my book. Many scientists and physicists either wish me good luck or curse me out for bothering them.
   It is self-evident to some that we have to reach beyond normal science to really understand the universe. Have I done it? Perhaps, perhaps not. But at least I tried.
   Anyway you are a good teacher of science. And if you would like a paper copy of my book, I would be happy to send it to you.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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