The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gradient geometry theory  (Read 226 times)

Offline lw1990

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Gradient geometry theory
« on: 10/10/2016 19:38:11 »
Here is a new unified theory of everything, explained step by step. Each idea is based on rigourous logical deduction, but will not be fully justified at first to try and keep things compact. --- This is only part 1, it will be a continual effort to get this all written out ---

The starting point of the universe is an infinite radial gradient in three dimensions. From a top down view, it would look similar to the below picture with the brightness indicating the density at that radial band or point. So it is most dense at the very center and less dense the further you go in all directions. This gradient density field expands forever, never quite reaching 0 density. This is because an empty volume is an irrational paradox, one of my main proposals is that 'something' is defined as length, width, height, and composing substance. These are the minimum building blocks of existence, if you remove either length, width, height, or substance, then you are left with nothing. Only all four concepts in combination produce something.



The concept of infinity seems paradoxical at first and contrary to logic. My argument is that the alternative - a finite universe model - is more paradoxical because it requires that a finite something exist within a bubble of nothingness. By placing a true void, which is a paradox itself, around a universe on all sides, I believe that creates two paradoxes - the void, and the universe being able to exist in one. It has to be one or the other, a finite universe or an infinite one, and through logical analysis an infinite gradient structure seems to be the simplest solution and most importantly the concept which lends itself to generating a universe from a single force.

That single force is a direct-contact attraction towards greater density. The radial gradient density field is all made of different densities of the same substance - this substance is attracted, through direct contact, to greater density. It feels nothing to same-density and nothing to less-density. The reason for this is because it lends itself to generating a universe like we observe - if the gradient density were attracted to lesser density, it would equalize and become static, not condensing to form galaxies and so on. If it was attracted to identical density, nothing would move at all.

Taking a step back and thinking about what we have so far, we have an answer to the origin of the universe. It was the state of the universe when everything was least-compact, no particles existed, just a three-dimensional fluid-like and infinite gradient density field. This field is the embodiment of the concept of rational existence - it has length, width, height, composing substance, and an attraction to greater density. It spans from a finite center with high density, to infinite gradients of lesser density in all directions.

The substance in this gradient field, through direct-contact attraction, moves as a unit toward the center, increasing the density at the center while everywhere else the density remains unchanged, this is because all areas of the 3D gradient field are in motion except the center. The motion is not the same speed throughout because as you get closer to the center region, the substance from outer bands with greater volume move into a band with less volume, but have to keep up the pace, therefore accelerate toward the center.

The centroid point in the density field acts like a glass of water that when you pour more water into it, the water level stays the same but the density increases. This again seems counter intuitive, irrational, and illogical, but as we will see it is fundamentally embedded in experimental data such as nuclear energy/explosions, where tiny particles release vast amounts of energy and affect extremely large volumes relative to their previous size.

However, even though the attraction to greater density perpetually increases the density at the center, eventually the force required to move into the center becomes too great, and the first solidification process happens at the center of the density field. It is not that there is some rule that density cannot increase further, it is simply that the force is not strong enough, through the perpetual infinite process of increasing the density at the center of the density field, eventually it reaches maximum density.

At this time, the center point is no longer just a finite fluidic sphere having a volume equal to the band of density field immediately outside of it, it starts growing in size. The reason the shape of this particle (the first particle in the universe) is a sphere is because it is being bombarded by density-flow from all directions equally at the same time. A cube or triangle for instance simply does not represent that model.

This high density sphere perpetually adds layers to itself which effectively is seen as growing in size. The density bands outside this particle at the center remain the same density and thickness, they are not enveloped by the growing particle but merely displaced further from the center of the particle as the particle grows.

The other effect that particle-ization of the center of this density has is that it temporarily stops the flow of density into the center, and instead is like a traffic jam on the surface of the sphere. This traffic jam of density flow causes a collision effect - the first to ever happen in this model. There is a thin zone that forms on the surface of the sphere where density-flow temporarily stops, and in this zone is where further particles are created.

The static-zone on the surface of the core-particle cannot perfectly synthesize with the particle because movement has stopped. Some of the static substance becomes part of the core-particle's surface and adds to its volume, the rest is bombarded from the rear by more traffic flowing toward the core-particle, this bombardment fractionates the static-substance into small, fixed size spheres. These static small spheres, near the surface of the larger core-particle, which is a larger sphere, can be visualized as a bowling ball without holes being covered with tiny bb gun pellets, side by side, so that there is no space for another bb gun pellet to be placed. The small spheres, or bb gun pellets, are then bombarded at their surface by incoming density flow, in other words, incoming traffic. This causes the small spheres to increase to maximum density at their surface, the interior of these small spheres then attracts toward the surface, collapsing the volume of the small sphere even further and increasing density past even what the core-particles density is. This is because density is a function of volume and substance in that volume.

Once the small spheres (bb pellets) achieve this solidified state, they break the gradient pattern with their ambient density flow. Ambient density is only attracted to immediately greater density, for example if a band of the density field has an arbitrary density of 10, it is attracted only to 11 density substance, or 10.1, whatever arbitrary increment represents the slightest increase of density possible. It is not attracted for instance to 12 density substance, because there must be a smooth gradient structure for the motion to happen, just like you cannot immediately go from a 100 temperature geometric location to a 200 temperature geometric location, there is a smooth transition in temperatures, no matter how small the volume is that this happens.

This process repeats indefinitely, the bowling ball without holes is the core-particle, which is perpetually increasing in size, the growing size allows it to be able to have more bb gun pellets (small spheres) pack onto its surface and generate more and more particles after each iteration. These bb gun pellets then break the gradient symmetry with the density field and act as obstructions in the flow, they have no other purpose, they are static particles that just get in the way of density flow, but this turns out to generate everything in the universe.

When density flow flows around these spherical obstructions, it accelerates along the surface of the sphere and leaves a 'wake' on the trailing side of the sphere, this wake looks similar to a half-moon shape, which does not feel the effects of density flow as strongly as it would if the spherical obstruction were not there. Because of this, the 'wake' does not keep up pace with increasing its density as fast as substance not shielded by the sphere does, and at some point it loses enough density to be attracted to a density-band that is outside of the band it is currently in, and moves in the opposite direction, away from the core-particle, pushing the sphere along with it.

This perpetual process pushes more and more spheres into the ambient density field after each iteration. The number of spheres generated is always increasing, the shape of bb pellets stacked beneath each other ad infinitum allows for a very condense universe, but eventually as the spheres move further out, they clump together in unique - but not random, configurations. Eventually, when they get far enough away from the core particle, there is enough space between different clusters to formulate the matter we are familiar with, and form galaxies, stars, etc. This is why the the night sky or the hubble pictures of galaxies appear so familiar to each other yet also unique, the generative process of this matter is a simple three dimensional spherical packing concept yet the same conditions never repeat because the core-particle is always growing, showering more and more particles into the ambient density field, generating complexities like galaxies that have similar structures to one another, but are their own unique geometric formulation.


---- This is part 1, and all I have time for right now, feedback/criticism welcome ----
« Last Edit: 10/10/2016 19:40:38 by lw1990 »


 

Offline lw1990

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Gradient geometry theory
« Reply #1 on: 11/10/2016 00:49:24 »
It will still take me a while to explain my theory coherently through writing/pictures, but here are some scattered conclusions drawn from this theory, they are a kind of foreshadowing and give a summarized idea where this theory is headed.

Time is a measurement, like distance is a measurement. Time and distance are not considered material things, but rather imaginary constructs used for measurement. Duration and volume are real, time and distance are measurements of these real things. Time travel & time dilation are all considered false in this theory. If a clock moves slower in one region than another, it is considered to have a mechanical cause, rather than an effect of time itself.

Neutrons are considered to be energized (slightly and temporarily heated up) protons.

Many identified isotopes are considered to be stable or unstable elements, mis-classified by science as isotopes.

The speed of light is variable based on the medium it passes through - there is no such thing as a true void of space, everywhere consists of some level of density, some measure of substance, that everything else must interact with, including light. The shapiro 'time delay' effect is actually evidence of this. As light travels into a gravitional field, such as near a planet or star, it slows down, because the ambient medium it is traveling through is more dense. A bose einstein condensate can also slow down light through the same mechanism.

The double slit experiment shows something else this theory will propose, which is that photons and even complex atoms or molecules have the possibility to phase between particle and wave in varying degrees. It is a completely mechanical process having nothing to do with randomness, uncertainty, or other magical quantum mechanic propositions. A photon fired at a very slow speed with two slits far enough apart would not phase and would not show a wave interference pattern. As a photon moves at higher speeds its imperceptible field grows in volume and becomes wider than both slits, even though the photon itself is like a grain of sand passing through two grand canyons. It is this interference - the large photon field, which becomes distorted by the slits and generates a wave-interference pattern on a backboard, even though the actual interference is a three-dimensional effect.

Ocean tides have nothing to do with gravity, they are caused by the interfacing of Earth and Moon symmetry fields

A single substance with a single force formulates everything in the universe; At the most fundamental level, the first particles created, called 'first-particles', coalesce into geometric formations called 'first-particle-clusters', these each have three 'first-particles' in their cores.

Gravity is considered to be a one-way attraction of lesser-mass objects being attracted to greater-mass objects, only when the lesser mass objects exist within the gravitational field of the greater-mass object. Gravity does not have infinite range of influence, everything works fundamentally based on direct-contact influence. All matter has imperceptible-so-far but very real fields which we don't normally interact with, see, or feel, but does interact with other matter objects and their fields. The range of these fields are finite, so gravity is also finite. We have glimpses into these fields existence through things like magnetic fields/field lines, which happens under specific circumstances when two fields interact. The reason the Earth does not crush a person standing on Earth, is because the Earth has no attraction to the lesser-mass object, the lesser mass object has attraction to the greater-mass object the Earth. Furthermore, the lesser-mass object, once inside the gravitional field of a greater-mass object, adds to the greater-mass objects gravitional field and combined mass (when looked at as a system).

Energy is considered to be infinite, as the universe is infinite and consists of substance and force, the substance and force must also be infinite, which composes energy and matter and everything else. The idea that energy is conserved is only temporarily relevant for a closed-system such as with ordinary objects and their mechanical interactions with other complex matter. On a fundamental level, energy is transient.





 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gradient geometry theory
« Reply #2 on: 11/10/2016 14:41:06 »
Why do electrons move?
 

Offline lw1990

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Gradient geometry theory
« Reply #3 on: 11/10/2016 15:25:59 »
Electrons have nothing to do with atomic and molecular bonding mechanics. Electrons/photons are a common byproduct (emission) of forming and breaking bonds (fusion/fission).

Electromagnetic induction is a lensing process. When a magnetic field moves up and down along a wire, it lenses that portion of the wires density field, causing the density-field to partially swell in volume as it takes in more first-particles from the aether (collection of individual first-particles so crowded it might as well be called an aether), this swell of first-particles in that density-field represents an increase in energy, but it is an imbalance, not synchronized with the density field on the other side (the density field is a 3D spherical type field) so it tries to eject this swell as fast as it can back to an equilibrium state. It does this using the path of least resistance, which in the case of electromagnetic induction is within the confines of the wire, in the direction of lensing. The swell in the density-field moves as a wave within the confines of the wire, not as individual electrons.

What determines whether this swell of first-particles discharges as electron-particles or as a wave is dependent on how it is emitted/what it is emitted into. The wire leading into water produces electron particles, however jumping current between two wires produces waves. A wire coiled around a conductive material produces a magnetic field, and current passing through a filament produces both waves/photons. Photons and electrons can phase between wave and particle, just like they do in the double slit experiment.

The continual production of electric current is not taking electrons from the wire or the environment, it is formulating them from first-particles (which all energy and matter is composed of), that is why a constant flow of electrical current through electromagnetic induction is possible. To prove this, electromagnetic induction in a vacuum still produces electric current, lensing is the only source of generation that can cause sustained electrical current.
The reason is there is no actual vacuum possible, everything in our region of the universe has first-particles crowding together, functioning like an aether. These first-particles were originally released in vast quantities by clumped-together first-particle clouds, which as they move away from the core of the universe, lose some of their density-bands to maintain their gradient density field with ambient density (which decreases as you move away from the universe core), these freed density bands make up the aether of individual first-particles in our region of the universe's density field.

On a fundamental level, everything in the universe has only one mechanic of motion - attraction to immediately greater density through direct contact (Density of 2 attracted to 3, but not to any other density including itself). Any density besides immediately greater density acts as an obstacle.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gradient geometry theory
« Reply #4 on: 19/10/2016 14:29:32 »
lw1990

You are obviously 26 years old and believe you are making a breakthrough. Ok, lets look at your operating system. The questions about your mechanical system:
1. What is your mechanical concept of electromagnetic fields? As in what is the physical connection allowing a field?
2. What is being lensed?
3. what is a density field?
4. How does a density field create the energy to be increased?
5. Why do electrons move in the first place?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Gradient geometry theory
« Reply #4 on: 19/10/2016 14:29:32 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length