Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 06/05/2018 11:47:06
-
The Theory of Everything! by S.P.Leese esquire
Abstract
This paper is intended to, by use of a dialectic approach and observations , presenting logical arguments and supporting evidence , conclude an objective absolute theory of everything . Additionally explaining the natural gravitational phenomenon of ''neutral polarity being attracted to neutral polarity '' . Finally, revealing the nature of life and existence.
-
S.P.Leese esquire
Is that your name?
-
S.P.Leese esquire
Is that your name?
Indeed it is, I hope the mental institute does not come get me now :D
p.s no esquire on the end
-
presenting logical arguments and supporting evidence ,
That will be a first.
-
presenting logical arguments and supporting evidence ,
That will be a first.
Well I am kinda busy saving the Universe , call me Flash Gordon .
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Δ λ 0= λ
λ = FN>FN
-
Colour is a gravitational invert of N .
-
Colour is a gravitational invert of N .
Thanks for clarifying your position.
-
Colour is a gravitational invert of N .
Thanks for clarifying your position.
Still wave-lengths between 400-700nm, that does not change.
added- Consider , energy travelling down a gravitational well then reflecting when it hits the bottom of the well, as it climbs back up the well, it is being pulled back down by the well.
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Light in a black hole can not climb out of the well. A super dense mass such as a black sun , has so much gravity , light cannot escape the surface , it an absolute length contraction of visible light.
-
Darn't it, I messed up my thread, I posted in the wrong one ,
-
The theory of everything is ENERGY based. Materials, life, cognitive activities, evolutions, light, parapsikological events etc can be explained by energy.
-
The theory of everything is ENERGY based.
Yup, but I meant to just have a nice tidy thread for the theory of everything.
Got carried away, I get excited sometime when I discover.
-
Can we consider a photon to be a minuscule ''particle'' like energy, traversing through the fields?
A change in position of energy from point to point in a n-field?
-
A bit like this ?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
can be explained by energy.
P.s =1
That bits easy .
-
Still waiting for anything that
(1) is a theory,
and
(2) covers everything.
Otherwise this "theory of everything" is doing just fine.
-
Still waiting for anything that
(1) is a theory,
and
(2) covers everything.
Otherwise this "theory of everything" is doing just fine.
A+B=1
There you go plain and simple. There is better writers than me who will write it up .
-
A+B=1
There you go plain and simple. There is better writers than me who will write it up .
Plain, yes.
Simple, yes
Meaningful, No
And since it has no meaning, nobody can write it up for you
-
A+B=1
There you go plain and simple. There is better writers than me who will write it up .
Plain, yes.
Simple, yes
Meaningful, No
And since it has no meaning, nobody can write it up for you
A = 0.5
B = 0.5
= 1 = t
P = ∞
ok?
added-
= + +
Abstract
0.5→k←0.5
0.5 + 0.5 / k
-
Why is t always 1?
Why is k always 1?
What are t and k?
What's P and why is it always infinite?
...
and so on.
Like I said; it makes no sense.
-
In the beginning there was an unknown volume of nothingness.
Any given point of the unknown volume having 0 properties
Any given point of the unknown volume being a singularity in that it can have infinite dimensions.
Any given point of the unknown volume being under an infinite magnitude of zero point pressure .
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
The opposite reaction to nothing is something
any given point manifests a mono pole electrostatic charge that dissipates
A/k and B/k
alpha waves and beta waves like ''strings''.
then at a single given point simultaneous manifests A+B which retains form and starts in an instant to expand by sucking in A and B from k
-
Why is t always 1?
Why is k always 1?
What are t and k?
What's P and why is it always infinite?
P is probability , 1 is four dimensions . t is time and k is space
0+0³=1
-
Calculate P for A+B simultaneously manifesting at the same geometrical point of infinite k
P A + B / k = infinite
1/k0 where there is an infinite number of 0 points.
-
Try this thought experiment
Write A on your left palm and B on your right palm
Then close both hands
Open your left hand A/k
Open your right hand B/k
Now imagine between your hands A+B happens,
Now clap your hands really hard and ''hear'' and ''see'' the big bang.
A→→AB←←B
-
They should of called it the Big inflation, the rest of the story , you know.
-
It doesn't make sense to have an infinite probability so your "theory" (really, i't's not even a hypothesis) is wrong
We can close the thread now.
-
It doesn't make sense to have an infinite probability so your "theory" (really, i't's not even a hypothesis) is wrong
We can close the thread now.
It makes no sense to have an infinite probability yet I have demonstrated it mathematically and physically.
Nope, I am correct it is the only way to get something from nothing and a big bang.
-
I have a single red point and place it amongst an infinite amount of points, I ask you to random pick a point,
What is your chance of picking the red point?
1/∞ chance
I already know.
-
I have a single red point and place it amongst an infinite amount of points, I ask you to random pick a point,
What is your chance of picking the red point?
1/∞ chance
I already know.
Practically zero.
And if you have a bunch of points all of which are red and you ask me to pick one then the chance of me picking a red one is 1
All probabilities fall in the range zero to one.
0<= P <= 1
Which is why your "theory" which says that it's infinity is wrong.
-
I have a single red point and place it amongst an infinite amount of points, I ask you to random pick a point,
What is your chance of picking the red point?
1/∞ chance
I already know.
Practically zero.
And if you have a bunch of points all of which are red and you ask me to pick one then the chance of me picking a red one is 1
All probabilities fall in the range zero to one.
0<= P <= 1
Which is why your "theory" which says that it's infinity is wrong.
When 0 is an infinite whole , it is applicable. You are incorrect and my maths is correct.
>0=1
-
When 0 is an infinite whole , it is applicable.
Back to good old word salad again I see.
It's still not going to cut it as science.
It doe rather give the lie to your earlier assertion that
A+B=1
There you go plain and simple. There is better writers than me who will write it up .
-
When 0 is an infinite whole , it is applicable.
Back to good old word salad again I see.
It's still not going to cut it as science.
Which part do you not understand about an infinite amount of geometrical points?
Any given point having a precise value of zero. In other words , you can move one point along and the value remains zero.
-
The 0.5 + 0.5 way is the simple way
A = electron
B = proton
Then the other ways is in a way of fields which is for the expert user.
A=-0.5
B=0.5
Yes to understand , you have to accept and understand 1 = 0 and 0 =1 and 1+1=1
A = (-0.5) = (0.5) =(1)
B= (0.5) = (0.5) = (1)
-
1 electron is half of an atom which is half of zero charge.
-
You still can't have a probability more than 1 so you are still wrong.
Yes to understand , you have to accept and understand 1 = 0
That could be an issue sciencewise.
-
1 electron is half of an atom which is half of zero charge.
Nope, an electron is (at most) about 1/2000 of an atom by mass.
Your theory seems to be a theory of nothing.
Why not just accept that?
-
1 electron is half of an atom which is half of zero charge.
Nope, an electron is (at most) about 1/2000 of an atom by mass.
Your theory seems to be a theory of nothing.
Why not just accept that?
A theory of nothing, yes you got that right , space is nothing alright.. Anyway not bothered T.O.E is old news to me now, I am on something better like ''cold'' energy.
-
GRRRRR, just no , I am not having it, you are insulting my intelligence.
Space is not tangible, it is verifiable that space cannot be destroyed.
I am correct and ''you'' are incorrect.
I am the hero of my story and the hero does not give in to subjective dogma and cognitive control, the hero kick's ass on the dance floor.
Let's dance, I am the genius in this story , not ''you'' .
For I am the God of science.
-
For I am the God of science.
That's a new quote for my signature, right there.
-
I am on something
Looks that way.
-
I am on something
Looks that way.
Making up your own edits in quotes is breaking rules.
-
It's impossible to know if I changed the meaning of your post, because you write in a way that deliberately obscures the meaning.
I am on something better like ''cold'' energy.
I gather that "energy" is used as a slang term for one of the synthetic cathinones.
-
I gather that "energy" is used as a slang term for one of the synthetic cathinones.
I thought I was using ambiguity!
Well the synthetic cathinones come from having a cold bath , in fact really cold , like icy cold. The problem is when dealing with winter, salt melts the ice and the ice turns into vapour.
Now read that as you will, Bob Marley would not approve.
-
I do not think you could comprehend
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
The Theory of Everything! by S.P.Leese esquire
Abstract
This paper is intended to by use of a dialectic approach and observations , presenting logical arguments and supporting evidence , conclude an objective absolute theory of everything . Additionally identifying the absolute rest reference frame of the Universe and concluding the natural gravitational phenomenon of ''neutral polarity being attracted to neutral polarity '' .
The Beginning
In the beginning there was an infinite void of nothingness, formally known as space, that always was and will always be. The void cannot be created or destroyed, it neither has the mechanism to be dark or light and does not have a time mechanism. The void is timeless and has the absolute value of zero always.
Any given individual relative geometrical point of the infinite void having zero properties , any different given point of the void being identical in zero properties but not identical in relative geometrical position . Any given relative geometrical point being a part of the absolute rest reference frame void. Adjoined points having no mechanism to be displaced or physicality to be tangible .
Additionally any given geometrical point is under an infinite amount of ZpP (zero point pressure), which I will explain in the next chapter.
ZpP (Zero Point Pressure).
ZpP.jpg (91.63 kB . 1442x794 - viewed 5982 times)
To be continued............
-
I was going to complain to the local sewage works, but I have just realised that the smell of bullshit is actually coming from this computer.
-
I was going to complain to the local sewage works, but I have just realised that the smell of bullshit is actually coming from this computer.
The same could be said about present science information. The big bang explains the beginning from a hot gaseous state Universe, that obviously is not the beginning because the hot gaseous state formed some how. At least my notion explains , well will explain where the ''hot gaseous state''(really energy) manifested from and the first ''spark'' that created the big bang.
Now I have researched nothing literally , the only possible answer to get something from nothing is a miracle and zero point pressure manifesting static mono-pole charges that dissipate into the void.
Newton said , every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the opposite reaction to doing nothing is doing something. I understand you will struggle to get your mind around this, but whether you like it or not, it is objectively true and the absolute answer .
Also you are rather ignorant by shouting out it to be BS, show the readers a better version than this ?
Absolute space Newton, my reference so far to my notion.
Next I will add a Dirac sea , then a big bang, I will then add Einsteins space time, overlaying absolute space.
What is your problem ?
P.s Yes I am still awake from sometime yesterday, that is because I try hard and work hard trying to achieve something. I have plenty of time for sleeping when I am dead.
-
I know a person who examines the subject of zero point pressure or the geometer of point space.
If I can remember his name and link I 'll share.
-
I know a person who examines the subject of zero point pressure or the geometer of point space.
If I can remember his name and link I 'll share.
I am surprised ''they'' cannot ''see'' that my theory is the history of science put together to give the answers they already had and did not realise it.
I told them a long time ago they had the answers but were just ''missing'' them .
-
I know a person who examines the subject of zero point pressure or the geometer of point space.
If I can remember his name and link I 'll share.
I informed him about this forum and topic.
My best regards...
-
A + B = C
2A + 2B = 2C
3A + 3B = 3C
etc etc, hows my algebra looking?
(A+B)*(A+B)=*C
-
etc etc, hows my algebra looking?
Wrong.
For example, let's try
a=4
b=3
a+b=c so c=7
And so (a+b)*(a+b)= 49
But you seem to say t's 7
OK, it could be a typo on your part.
But who cares.
The point you are not addressing is that the stuff you previously called algebra was nonsense.
And you were relying on that nonsense to make you "point".
So you r point was wrong (or, at best, unsupported)
Did you consider not posting dross?
-
A + B = C
2A + 2B = 2C
3A + 3B = 3C
etc etc, hows my algebra looking?
(A+B)*(A+B)=*C
-
Wrong.
For example, let's try
a=4
b=3
a+b=c so c=7
Wrong, they are your values not mine.
-
The first aspect of this thread that shows it's on the road to nowhere was this
Colour is a gravitational invert of N .
There's no real point in further discussion until all the issues that have been raised are properly addressed.
-
The first aspect of this thread that shows it's on the road to nowhere was this
Colour is a gravitational invert of N .
There's no real point in further discussion until all the issues that have been raised are properly addressed.
Well I only need my own science, some funding, then I am out of here, meaning this planet. You will see how poor my ideas are when the earth observes me leaving this planet in a star ship. I do not have to answer to this planet once I have left ''your'' jail.
I will be free , just need a Prince of Dubai or somebody similar who fancies a journey into the oblivion , then we are gone .
-
There's no real point in further discussion until all the issues that have been raised are properly addressed.
-
There's no real point in further discussion until all the issues that have been raised are properly addressed.
Abstract
This submitted paper intends to explain a new theory of everything , explaining that everything is nothing and nothing is everything .
Additonally will be explained the fundamental energy source that preceeded the big bang, also will be presented an alternative version of the Big bang, which I will name for the purposes of the discussion, Point Zero Inflation.
In providing this conclusion shall also be established a new model of an energy based mass equivalent , elementary formation. Similar to but not exact to the present atomic model.
Thus I name this new energy equivalent, a N-field (upper case N) energy particle.
Also as a consequent of this formation is an expansive isotropic energy field, namely a n-field (lower case n) . This paper will also describe the proposed N-field energy particle and energy n-field in both being a binary construct of two parts, consisting of a negative energy and a positive energy. The consequent n-field weakening in magnitude directly and proportional to the inverse square law.
Penultimate, the simple mathematical model will sufficiently describe a spacial whole where the summation of energy is nullified .
Finally will be shown in conclusion of the model , a conclusion that identifies the natural gravitation phenomenon of ''neutral'' is attracted to ''neutral'' .