Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 26/03/2015 00:25:55
-
The theory of everything – Part 1
The principle of science, the test of all knowledge is experiment, experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.”
Where does the experiment idea originate from in the first place? The experiment itself helps us to produce laws that we can add a quantifiable measurement too, but also needed is imagination to create these experiments in the origination of the idea. These great visualisations are to take a logical guess at the wonderful unique workings of a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. A particular end aimed at finding a conclusion by experiment and unifying the process by the function of maths.
What is a theory of everything? The theory of everything is to unify all universal processes into a single manifold, a collection of points forming a certain kind of set of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe. One may argue that a theory of everything is based on history so far and a theory of everything so far, as the future is not yet written. One could also argue that a theory of everything is not possible because we simply do not know everything.
Why do we not know everything? You would think with the large amount of money spent on science research that science would know everything, however this is not the case and by no means is science to blame or can it be said that money buys discovery. The scientist simply needs funding for equipment to proceed to experiment of the rational thought out assumptions made, that are discussed with colleagues . There is also a hinder-hence of the universe is simply large relative to us, our observation range has boundaries and we can only guess and make assumptions of what? if anything? is beyond those boundaries, leaving unanswered questions without experimental facts and functional maths.
This took me ages to do, to be continued..............is it readable?
-
Part 1 - continued
If we have visual boundaries and do not know that what is there after these boundaries, does this relatively mean that religion as has much premise for argument with that which is there after? Yes, as the present information of science stands and being limited by observation boundaries, no one can answer for a certainty what is out there beyond our limitation of an imaginary wall which marks the limits of a volume of space, a dividing line created by matter observation and trying to put a shape to an otherwise shapeless space.
How will it be possible to logically guess a theory of everything? To understand this, we would firstly need to be clear on our understanding of the definition of ''everything''. The functional use of maths can only explain and express process, maths can not explain ''everything'' on itself, maths does not explain us, maths can not explain the unseen. To clearly understand ''everything'' is to look back in ''time'', to gather information and to make a logical judgement about the true value of something. A fundamental breakdown of everything. To ask questions of physical values and to consider values that do not physically exist , to fundamentally explore the universe looking to link all singularities into ''one big picture''. To understand ''everything'' we need to know how things work, to understand universal ''laws'' and to make logical comparisons of axiom values to conclude the what's? and if's? of the unseen universe. We also need to be sure of what we mean when we say ''universe'', a definition that describes all that is contained within our visual universal boundary, space and matter being defined presently by a single classification of a universe.
-
Part - 2
Where should one start with an exploration of everything looking for an explanation to everything? Firstly we must consider the aspects involved that are important when considering ''everything''. We must take note of history and try to define reasoning from this. At what point in history do we first consider? Do we consider from the first funding of science in seventeenth century Prague? This would not be a good place to start with years that have past by before this! We need to try to imagine the basis of our course taken in getting from a starting point to a destination , a situation where knowledge was limited to survival and religion played a powerful role.
What aspect should we consider first? Firstly we should consider a starting point of science and the derivation of religion and the creation parts of religion being possibly the first recorded information of Pseudo-science, a science based on imagination that had no definite proof's. Information that in the later years to follow would be taken literally to be true and studied by science. Most religions consist of a creation by a God, and before this creation nothing existed comparing to the Big Bang, religion created ''light'' in the early passages, different religions considered we are made of clay from the ground technically in agreement with that things are made of atoms. Of cause after the creation parts, then the science fades and turns into wild imagination with no logic involved. By no means is this the fault of religion, they were at a dead end in their thinking by limited means and stuck for answers beyond this. A perspective view of the ''black background'' of space being in comparison to living in a cave. A perspective view that still exists today that creates the illusion of a realm outside of our visual boundary for those who wish to believe this. This is not to say that outside of our boundaries there is nothing, and that there is no space for bio-geographical distribution. We should also make a consideration that the universe is older than our existence on Earth and be in a sure agreement that anything that was a prequel to our existence will be an invention by thought unless experimentally proven to be.
Why do we observe a ''black background'' of space? One could argue that it is an experience created by our limited means of observation, experimental observation clearly shows that an object can be observed that is travelling away from us into a space, visually vanishes when it is at a distance past its vanishing point to observation, the same can be said for a light emitting source. A simple experiment of a small pen torch gaining a greater distance away from us shows this to be physically true, the light from the pen torch will visual vanish the greater the distance the pen torch is moved away from us, eventually the dot of the light visually vanishes. We know the pen torch is still there but we also know it is now to small to observe relative to us from our observation position. If we were to stop the pen torch moving away from us at a position of the vanishing point, then we moved from our stationary observation point and approached the light, the light dot would then reappear. Simple physics with no complexity or virtual walls. One could also argue that an experimental observation of a single low wattage red light bulb ,a positioned central pendant in a vast expanse of a warehouse will observational allow you to see the virtual walls of darkness when observed from under the pendant, created by the absence of light magnitude inhibiting a visual effect on the surrounding warehouse walls. You will observe a ''black background'' of space and have no idea of what is in or of the darkness such as perceived distance or objects.
What does present information suggest about the ''black background'' of space? Present information suggests a prequel to our existence of a ''Big Bang'', it is said that this is evidentially proven by the cosmological red shift and an expanding Universe and the cosmic background microwave radiation. It is explained that from a singular point the big bang happened and that this created the entire universe and all things in it. It is said before the ''big bang'' that nothing existed , not even space and not even 'time'. It is also said that space itself is also expanding, and beyond this space, ''the black background'', nothing exists.
-
Why don't you start with something less ambitious, like a theory of something rather than trying to cover everything at once? So far, your ideas have either conflicted with reason or with experiment, thereby showing them to be wrong in one way or another. You should go back to focusing on something specific to see if you can say anything useful about it. For example, one of your claims (in another thread) is that empty space doesn't do time. However, anything that doesn't do time can't exist at all, so any region of empty space would simply cease to be anything and the rest of space would instantly close up to fill the void. Space cannot be nothing - it must be made of something which maintains separations between things around it. In the light of discovering that one of your key claims doesn't work, you should be rethinking your great work on a theory of everything to take into account the error in its foundations, but instead of doing that you're just pressing ahead regardless with something that can only be faulty. You will soon reach the point where no one bothers to read anything else you post because they will have lost the little hope they're clinging to that you might be able to make progress by dismantling the mess that is the fault-ridden model of reality that you've built in your head. It doesn't look to me as if you're going to make it though.
As I tried to post this, another chapter appeared. I seriously don't think anyone's going to want to read your book here given your previous display of knowledge and reasoning. What you should do is exploit Amazon Unlimited instead - they have a daft system where they reward people for writing short books as they pay them whenever someone has flipped through 10% of the pages. If your book is 30 pages long and someone downloads it for free and flips through the first three pages, you could earn a dollar. All you need's a title to hook them in and you can make a lot of money without having to offer any useful content. By doing this, you can help push them into changing their system so that real writers are rewarded instead, so it isn't immoral to do this.
-
The theory of everything part -3
If space itself is also expanding, and beyond this space, ”the black background”, nothing exists, what is the expanding space, expanding into? Science does not observe an actual expansion of space itself. All cosmological observations are based on the observations of objects. All objects are observed through the clarity of space. One could make an argument that space is not expanding and it is simply a distance increase of an object, from the observers relative point of observation, an object travelling through space and into more space. The cosmological red shift is based on an objects direction and light and not based on actual space. In context of this, there is no apparent evidence to suggest that space itself is expanding or has a finite structure. Space that does not contain visible matter has a clarity that is more see through than clear glass. For this very reason space itself is unobservable and we observe only matter that interacts with light or emits light in space. One could also argue that all experimental observations on earth of anything that is expanding , observes that anything that is expanding, needs empty space to expand into. This acceptance of Earthly physical experimental observation contradicts that there is no space beyond the last matter observed in space.
Science suggest there is nothing after this boundary, is that not similar to a flat Earth theory and suggesting we either fall off the edge of space or bump into this imaginary wall if we travelled there? Simply yes.
How can we have any certainty the universe is not finite and instead infinite? Sometimes there is logical factors that can not be simply ignored. A single answer explains this and is the only answer possible of an axiom value with no other logical options available. Infinite is without end or limit or boundary, this can be thought of in a simple logical thought experiment. At the present moment in time I presume you are indoors, you can clearly see your walls that enclose a volume of space that you are within. Outside of these walls you know that space exists and can observe space exists. You can clearly see that outside of the walls that space exists all the way to the ”black background” of space. There is a choice that only gives one answer, of what is beyond the boundary, we either live within a visual space within a space or we live inside a visual space within a solid which is within a space. There is no other physical possibilities or options and it is for a certainty that we can fit a smaller box into a larger box for a limitless amount of times.
-
Why don't you start with something less ambitious, like a theory of something ...
I suggest that we don't lead him down the garden path. We should do our best to convince him that he should obtain a strong education in both physics and the philosophy of physics. As Fritz Rohrlich wrote ignoring philosophy in physics means not understanding physics. If he wants to be really good then he should, and could if he worked hard enough, sit down with a math text and a physics text and go at it. Stick your nose in those books and come up only for air or food until you've finished. We'll be here to help, I promise him that. But he has to stop thinking that he's able to create a solid theory that will become anything or something that could be published. That won't happen. Of course he can prove me wrong and do try to it with one of his so-called "Theories".
TB - Do you want to become good at physics or do you want to post your new theories here and that's all?
-
Why don't you start with something less ambitious, like a theory of something ...
I suggest that we don't lead him down the garden path. We should do our best to convince him that he should obtain a strong education in both physics and the philosophy of physics. As Fritz Rohrlich wrote ignoring philosophy in physics means not understanding physics. If he wants to be really good then he should, and could if he worked hard enough, sit down with a math text and a physics text and go at it. Stick your nose in those books and come up only for air or food until you've finished. We'll be here to help, I promise him that. But he has to stop thinking that he's able to create a solid theory that will become anything or something that could be published. That won't happen. Of course he can prove me wrong and do try to it with one of his so-called "Theories".
TB - Do you want to become good at physics or do you want to post your new theories here and that's all?
Maybe I have become good at Physics, not the best, but also I am happy to just share my ideas here. I really think by time
I have wrote all my theory it will open up a few eyes to the truths.
I will never get believed even if I studied even harder.
-
If space itself is also expanding, and beyond this space, ”the black background”, nothing exists, what is the expanding space, expanding into?
A common misconception. As space expands its more or less getting larger (sort of "stretching") and in the process creating more space as it goes.
Think of the space of the universe as residing on the surface of a balloon. The universe is then analogous to the balloon blowing up and its surface stretching. Mind you that nothing exists off the surface. The center of the balloon which is inside the sphere at its center is not on the surface so its not part of the universe. So keep in mind that everything in the universe resides only on the surface of the balloon.
One could make an argument that space is not expanding and it is simply a distance increase of an object, from the observers relative point of observation, an object travelling through space and into more space.
You do realize, don't you, that cosmologists are well aware of such a trivial explanation. However when we look through our telescopes we see all other galaxies moving away from our own galaxy. If its actually the distance between us and the moving object that is increasing then you have to explain why all objects are moving away from our galaxy. I.e. what is so special about our galaxy so that all galaxies are moving away from it? This is in contradiction to something called The Cosmological Principle which states the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle. In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the distribution of matter in the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the Universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.
[/quote]
Your proposal is in contradiction to the cosmological principle. Then there's Hubble's law which states that the recession velocity of all galaxies is proportional to the distance to the galaxy. This means, i.e. for this to be true that, all galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies.
-
Maybe I have become good at Physics, not the best, but also I am happy to just share my ideas here.
I'm sorry TB but I need to tell you like it is. I don't want to lie to you. But I don't want to hide the truth from you either. I see no evidence of you having become good in physics. I actually can't even tell if you understand physics at all. And you're not working according to the scientific method either.
-
A common misconception. As space expands its more or less getting larger (sort of "stretching") and in the process creating more space as it goes.
A misconception by science, the galaxies moving away from us are no different than you walking away from me.
Think of the space of the universe as residing on the surface of a balloon. The universe is then analogous to the balloon blowing up and its surface stretching. Mind you that nothing exists off the surface. The center of the balloon which is inside the sphere at its center is not on the surface so its not part of the universe. So keep in mind that everything in the universe resides only on the surface of the balloon.
the balloon needs space to expand into
You do realize, don't you, that cosmologists are well aware of such a trivial explanation. However when we look through our telescopes we see all other galaxies moving away from our own galaxy. If its actually the distance between us and the moving object that is increasing then you have to explain why all objects are moving away from our galaxy. I.e. what is so special about our galaxy so that all galaxies are moving away from it? This is in contradiction to something called The Cosmological Principle which states the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle. In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the distribution of matter in the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the Universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.
Your proposal is in contradiction to the cosmological principle. Then there's Hubble's law which states that the recession velocity of all galaxies is proportional to the distance to the galaxy. This means, i.e. for this to be true that, all galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies.
A positive entropy galaxy moving away from a positive entropy galaxy is not a surprise.
''I.e. what is so special about our galaxy so that all galaxies are moving away from it?''
What is so special about our galaxy why we did not expand with the rest?
-
Maybe I have become good at Physics, not the best, but also I am happy to just share my ideas here.
I'm sorry TB but I need to tell you like it is. I don't want to lie to you. But I don't want to hide the truth from you either. I see no evidence of you having become good in physics. I actually can't even tell if you understand physics at all. And you're not working according to the scientific method either.
Yes my theory so far obvious shows I do not know what I am talking about. Of cause I understand. What is your aim here?
to try to prevent me writing it?
-
A positive entropy galaxy moving away from a positive entropy galaxy is not a surprise.
It's comments exactly like this that don't make sense to the rest of us. What does the entropy of a galaxy have to do with anything related to this thread or the subject matter?????
''I.e. what is so special about our galaxy so that all galaxies are moving away from it?''
What is so special about our galaxy why we did not expand with the rest?
You didn't answer my question. Why do you think other galaxies are expanding? It's the universe that is expanding, not the galaxies. The gravitational force overcomes the force of expansion because the force of expansion is so small as to be immeasurable and therefore cannot have any effect of any galaxy.
-
Yes my theory so far obvious shows I do not know what I am talking about. Of cause I understand. What is your aim here?
to try to prevent me writing it?
Why on Earth would you say that I'm trying to "prevent" you from writing it? What kind of way is that to respond to someone who is honestly trying to help you? I'm not a Nazi who goes around trying to stop people from doing things that I don't like.
Let me ask you something. What do you think we should do when we read these theories of yours? In my case with the understanding that I'm a professional physicist. For example: If I see you make a mistake of I can't understand what you're saying, what do you think I should do about it? Do you think I should ignore it and leave you alone and enjoy nobody making any corrections to your work (assuming I could convince others to do that for whatever reason)?
When you answer that please keep in mind the scientific method which states the following which was stated by American Association of Physics Teachers:
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.
That's from the journal The American Journal of Physics, Volume 67(8), August 1999
We're here to discuss new ideas, right? What does that consist of?
-
A positive entropy galaxy moving away from a positive entropy galaxy is not a surprise.
It's comments exactly like this that don't make sense to the rest of us. What does the entropy of a galaxy have to do with anything related to this thread or the subject matter?????
''I.e. what is so special about our galaxy so that all galaxies are moving away from it?''
What is so special about our galaxy why we did not expand with the rest?
You didn't answer my question. Why do you think other galaxies are expanding? It's the universe that is expanding, not the galaxies. The gravitational force overcomes the force of expansion because the force of expansion is so small as to be immeasurable and therefore cannot have any effect of any galaxy.
The galaxies are not expanding, the Universe is not expanding, the galaxies are moving away from us, giving us an expanded view of space by there been an imaginary balloon surface by using points of observation, the balloon surface does not exist.
I personally think they are moving away from us because of galaxy entropy and or they are beyond the event horizon and are been repelled by a centrifugal energy vortex ,
-
Yes my theory so far obvious shows I do not know what I am talking about. Of cause I understand. What is your aim here?
to try to prevent me writing it?
Why on Earth would you say that I'm trying to "prevent" you from writing it? What kind of way is that to respond to someone who is honestly trying to help you? I'm not a Nazi who goes around trying to stop people from doing things that I don't like.
Let me ask you something. What do you think we should do when we read these theories of yours? In my case with the understanding that I'm a professional physicist. For example: If I see you make a mistake of I can't understand what you're saying, what do you think I should do about it? Do you think I should ignore it and leave you alone and enjoy nobody making any corrections to your work (assuming I could convince others to do that for whatever reason)?
My apologies 4 years of harsh forum times have had its toll on my thoughts, I was always on the receiving end and this has made me defensive in nature, I applaud you for calling it work,
Yes I understand it is to be criticized. Point taken I will try harder not to be so defensive,
-
The galaxies are not expanding, the Universe is not expanding, the galaxies are moving away from us, giving us an expanded view of space by there been an imaginary balloon surface by using points of observation, the balloon surface does not exist.
I personally think they are moving away from us because of galaxy entropy and or they are beyond the event horizon and are been repelled by a centrifugal energy vortex ,
There you go again. Its comments like this that make you irritating to talk to. I though you were just starting to be reasonable and then you go off the deep end yet once again! You're once again back to making unfounded claims with no argument to back up them up, especially after I already shot them down.
You still haven't answered my question about what the entropy of the galaxies have to do with anything. You're claims are worthless if you're not willing to support them with a proof of your assertions.
By the way. The balloon thing was merely an analogy of the real physics to help you understand the real physics at hand.
-
My apologies 4 years of harsh forum times have had its toll on my thoughts, I was always on the receiving end and this has made me defensive in nature, I applaud you for calling it work,
Yes I understand it is to be criticized. Point taken I will try harder not to be so defensive,
Thank you for the apology. Apology accepted. :)
I can very well understand how something like that can make you defensive.
You have a problem here that you're ignoring. From:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/what_is_science.pdf
abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence.
It doesn't appear to me that you're meeting this requirement.
-
My apologies 4 years of harsh forum times have had its toll on my thoughts, I was always on the receiving end and this has made me defensive in nature, I applaud you for calling it work,
Yes I understand it is to be criticized. Point taken I will try harder not to be so defensive,
Thank you for the apology. Apology accepted. :)
I can very well understand how something like that can make you defensive.
You have a problem here that you're ignoring. From:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/what_is_science.pdf
abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence.
It doesn't appear to me that you're meeting this requirement.
~2! abandon or modify accepted conclusions
when confronted with more complete or reliable
experimental evidence.
No evidence has been provided in any science that suggests we can observe space doing anything. We can observe matter moving through space and doing something,
I am happy to abandon all conclusions if the evidence is logically good, has yet I see no evidence to justify abandoning my ideas. I have not said there was not a big bang, I am simply stating that all the explanation is not possibly true. My theory so far shows this.
I have time to do yet and lots more , I probably need about 50 parts before I explain a conclusion.
a quote from part 2 - One could also argue that an experimental observation of a single low wattage red light bulb ,a positioned central pendant in a vast expanse of a warehouse will observational allow you to see the virtual walls of darkness when observed from under the pendant, created by the absence of light magnitude inhibiting a visual effect on the surrounding warehouse walls. You will observe a ''black background'' of space and have no idea of what is in or of the darkness such as perceived distance or objects.
This is experimentally true.
-
~2! abandon or modify accepted conclusions
when confronted with more complete or reliable
experimental evidence.
The experimental evidence is not what you claimed that it was, i.e. you asserted the notion that all galaxies are moving away from ours. However observations tell us that this is not true. The cosmological redshift and Hubble's law tells us that.
You're also ignoring the General Theory of Relativity (GR) because that's what we're using here. Physicists don't merely develop theories and then toss them away when they're finish. No sir! We use then use them! And that's what cosmology is doing, i.e. using GR to explain what is going on in the universe.
No evidence has been provided in any science that suggests we can observe space doing anything.
That's not quite true. We have observational evidence that GR is a correct theory about the universe, the nature of matter and the structure of spacetime. It's been tested repeatedly over and over again with remarkable success. So it's for that reason that we rely on it as a correct theory, at least to the limits of observational evidence that we have today. So we use that theory to explain what we observe and the observations tell us, through GR, that it's space itself that is expanding. That's what is known as indirect evidence.
So please keep in mind that physicists don't just think up theories and that's all we do. We also use them too. And that's what we're doing with GR and cosmology.
I am happy to abandon all conclusions if the evidence is logically good, has yet I see no evidence to justify abandoning my ideas.
I hope so.
I have not said there was not a big bang, I am simply stating that all the explanation is not possibly true. My theory so far shows this.
Not really.
I have time to do and lots more , probably need about 50 parts before i explain a conclusion.
I have to eat now. More later.
-
~2! abandon or modify accepted conclusions
when confronted with more complete or reliable
experimental evidence.
The experimental evidence is not what you claimed that it was, i.e. you asserted the notion that all galaxies are moving away from ours. However observations tell us that this is not true. The cosmological redshift and Hubble's law tells us that.
You're also ignoring the General Theory of Relativity (GR) because that's what we're using here. Physicists don't merely develop theories and then toss them away when they're finish. No sir! We use then use them! And that's what cosmology is doing, i.e. using GR to explain what is going on in the universe.
No evidence has been provided in any science that suggests we can observe space doing anything.
That's not quite true. We have observational evidence that GR is a correct theory about the universe, the nature of matter and the structure of spacetime. It's been tested repeatedly over and over again with remarkable success. So it's for that reason that we rely on it as a correct theory, at least to the limits of observational evidence that we have today. So we use that theory to explain what we observe and the observations tell us, through GR, that it's space itself that is expanding. That's what is known as indirect evidence.
So please keep in mind that physicists don't just think up theories and that's all we do. We also use them too. And that's what we're doing with GR and cosmology.
I am happy to abandon all conclusions if the evidence is logically good, has yet I see no evidence to justify abandoning my ideas.
I hope so.
I have not said there was not a big bang, I am simply stating that all the explanation is not possibly true. My theory so far shows this.
Not really.
I have time to do and lots more , probably need about 50 parts before i explain a conclusion.
I have to eat now. More later.
Thank you for the post , I am going bed now myself.
I will leave you with this, I think there may be a confusion, over actual definition.
Object A and object B are 10m apart, object A and object B also have 10m of space either side of them.
In total a 30m distance,
Object A travels left towards object B, closing the gap of space to 2m from object B.
The total distance of space remains 30m.
Object A then travels right increasing the gap of space from B to 15m.
The total distance of space remains 30m.
The distance of space between A and B, firstly contracts and then expands, but not the total distance of space that remains at 30m in either situation.
So can you not see that space does not expand or contract?
----------A----------B------------
-----------------A----B-----------
A--------------------------------B
It is just a length of space increase
-
So can you not see that space does not expand or contract?
Nope. Confusing again, as usual.
-
So can you not see that space does not expand or contract?
Nope. Confusing again, as usual.
How is that confusing? science says space itself is expanding, a similarity to a balloons surface expanding,
So if you imagine a balloon and put dots on the balloon to represent objects, and then burst the balloon leaving the dots in position that is how it is. Not space expanding, objects moving a greater distance of space away from us and each other.
-
The theory of everything – part 4
Important to the matter at hand is our understanding of what the ”black background” of space is when considering the concept of honesty and the reality of physical aspects. To presume something is not to prove something but will allow us understanding in the aim of discovering of what ”everything” is about. We should take consideration for the first aspect of fundamental attributes in the later stages of conclusion.
What other aspects and attributes should we consider when considering a unification? We need to consider and question what space itself contains? Experimental observation shows clearly that space contains living things, planets, stars, galaxies, dust clouds, light, motion and even a suggested space-time. The Universe contains billions of galaxies, each containing millions or billions of stars. The Universe also contains unseen by the eye attributes such as gravity mechanism , energy, forces, cosmic background microwaves and some of the electromagnetic radiation frequencies, although experimentally by device some of these attributes can be detected.
Where can we start in presenting a theory of everything with so many attributes to consider? One can assume with firm conviction that something is the case, that we can categorise the universe into two categories. An observed Universe and the unseen Universe, where as in one or both of these categories is the answers to ”everything”.
-
How is that confusing? science says space itself is expanding, a similarity to a balloons surface expanding,
Because you never explained that the line wraps around. Just because cosmologists often use the balloon analogy of an expanding universe it doesn't imply that there aren't other analogies. The balloon analogy represents a closed universe only.
And your example doesn't prove anything at all. The balloon analogy as it is used by cosmologists is used to represent the situation where the distance between ALL objects is increasing. That's not what you have represented. What you have is merely objects moving around on the surface of the balloon. The only way for all objects to move away from all other objects is for the surface area of the balloon to increase.
So if you imagine a balloon and put dots on the balloon to represent objects, and then burst the balloon ...
What??? Why? What does bursting the balloon represent physically? You can't burst space so your comment again makes no sense.
leaving the dots in position that is how it is.
What is this supposed to represent physically?
Not space expanding, objects moving a greater distance of space away from us and each other.
Wrong again.
This is what I mean by you can't understand all of this. You don't have enough experience to start making theories because your understanding of basic physics is horrible. First learn physics. They perhaps you can try to change it. Although there is no reason to do that. So far it appears that you merely don't like the idea of an expanding universe so you're looking for ways for it to be wrong. It's not. I can promise you that, i.e. there are no mistakes in the way that you think there are. You've been acting very arrogant by giving so little credit to such a large crowd of brilliant physicists who've made sure by ongoing efforts to weed out all problems. For some reason you think they all made the same mistakes? Nope.
-
I made a comment in another of your threads about the cosmic microwave background which was intended to test your understanding of the expansion of the universe. You clearly didn't get the point, so I just gave up on you at that point. However, I'll give you another go. What do you imagine is generating these microwaves that are coming in from all directions? They are consistent with there being an explosion in a highly-contracted space fabric where they would originally have been emitted as light, and that space fabric has subsequently expanded in such a way that the frequency has reduced to microwaves. The way they behave (coming at us continually from all directions) is also consistent with that model. If you accept that there was some kind of big bang but you want to have a space that's infinite from the start, you're going to have a serious problem to address - the light that was emitted from that explosion would race away from there to infinity and none of the galaxies created out of that explosion would be receiving any light or microwaves from that explosion today, and indeed they would never have received any of it at all. So, where are the microwaves that we detect coming from? You don't have an expansion to reduce their frequency, so you need to have a microwave emitter spread out of sight all round the edge of the visible universe, and if we can detect the frequency falling over time you're going to have to account for that too without relying on any expansion, and then you would have to explain why this source of microwaves should be a distant sphere centred around us. You're also going to have to find a way to explain the slight differences in intensity of the cosmic microwave background which are consistent with a lumpiness that led to the formation of galaxies - you need your monster-spherical microwave generating machine to create them in a very slightly lumpy way too. So, good luck with doing that - you may hit upon the right answer, but you should understand that you're up against an amazing coincidence in that the evidence fits beautifully with the idea of a big bang (not necessarily from an absolute singularity) with a very compact space fabric which then expanded - it's a simple, short burst of light coming out of a single explosion which ends up as a continual microwave shower through every point in the universe from all directions billions of years later. It's almost certainly too good not to be true. It may not be true though, but you're up against astronomical odds, and you need to understand that before you waste any more of your time attacking it.
-
So if you imagine a balloon and put dots on the balloon to represent objects, and then burst the balloon ...
What??? Why? What does bursting the balloon represent physically? You can't burst space so your comment again makes no sense.
You say you can't burst space, why can't you burst space? because space has no physical fabric of space, space is neither flexible or has mass.
Bursting a balloon represents nothing, it is the remaining dots that represent galaxies in space with no balloon and no expanding space.
Let me just clarify something, if you look into space where there is no matter and you just see the black background. you are saying this is what is expanding right?
Space has no motion ,
-
I made a comment in another of your threads about the cosmic microwave background which was intended to test your understanding of the expansion of the universe. You clearly didn't get the point, so I just gave up on you at that point. However, I'll give you another go. What do you imagine is generating these microwaves that are coming in from all directions? They are consistent with there being an explosion in a highly-contracted space fabric where they would originally have been emitted as light, and that space fabric has subsequently expanded in such a way that the frequency has reduced to microwaves. The way they behave (coming at us continually from all directions) is also consistent with that model. If you accept that there was some kind of big bang but you want to have a space that's infinite from the start, you're going to have a serious problem to address - the light that was emitted from that explosion would race away from there to infinity and none of the galaxies created out of that explosion would be receiving any light or microwaves from that explosion today, and indeed they would never have received any of it at all. So, where are the microwaves that we detect coming from? You don't have an expansion to reduce their frequency, so you need to have a microwave emitter spread out of sight all round the edge of the visible universe, and if we can detect the frequency falling over time you're going to have to account for that too without relying on any expansion, and then you would have to explain why this source of microwaves should be a distant sphere centred around us. You're also going to have to find a way to explain the slight differences in intensity of the cosmic microwave background which are consistent with a lumpiness that led to the formation of galaxies - you need your monster-spherical microwave generating machine to create them in a very slightly lumpy way too. So, good luck with doing that - you may hit upon the right answer, but you should understand that you're up against an amazing coincidence in that the evidence fits beautifully with the idea of a big bang (not necessarily from an absolute singularity) with a very compact space fabric which then expanded - it's a simple, short burst of light coming out of a single explosion which ends up as a continual microwave shower through every point in the universe from all directions billions of years later. It's almost certainly too good not to be true. It may not be true though, but you're up against astronomical odds, and you need to understand that before you waste any more of your time attacking it.
I get the point, and I am not attacking the big bang completely, only partly, I insist before the big bang there was infinite space, I insist it is still infinite space. I insist space is not expanding and matter is expanding into space.
Maybe we had a steady state universe and maybe a giant star was at the center and imploded leaving a very weak plasma resonance behind. expanding matter into the universe except our galaxy material was sucked back in by a collapsed vacuum.
like in an underwater explosion. maybe we are inside like a vacuum bubble inside of a medium.
-
I always suspected there was a giant vacuum at the core of your theory.
-
Part 5a.
In this part we are going to take a look at the qualities and peculiarities of our first category, ''things that can be seen by the eye'', to produce an outline and understanding of matter. With this we begin a subject which will take lengthy explanation, It is the first part of our thought process of the properties of matter from a physical point of view, hoping to achieve understanding to help us reach a conclusion at a later stage of what ''everything'' is.
What is matter? We recognize that matter is physical substance in general, that which occupies space and possesses mass, that is made out of a great many atoms, of which the atoms fundamental components are held together by a strong nuclear force. For now, we will consider matter in an object form rather than the complexity of invisible gaseous forms, this will make it easier at this stage to understand the fundamental characteristics of matter.
Presently it is suggested that all matter has mass and that all mass is attracted to mass. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses. The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–98 by British scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses and the first to give accurate values for the gravitational constant. Cavendish constructed a torsion balance apparatus that consisted of the use of different size lead balls, an apparatus for measuring very weak forces that in the experiment produced positive results and was able to determine the force between the pairs of masses. The torsion balance apparatus design is also well known for it's uses by Coulomb to measure the electrostatic force between charges to establish Coulomb's law.
-
part-5b .
All matter is said to be made of these tiny particles, called Atoms! So tiny has a singular Atom, they are not seen by the human eye. To clarify the extent of the smallness of these Atom's, we can imagine a pin head contains thousands of atoms. Can we conclude as a result or consequence of this, that if as suggested presently all matter has mass, and all mass is evidentially proven to be attracted to other mass, and the proposition that all matter is made of these tiny particles called Atom's, that any applied attractive force, is generated by the atoms, when formed into an individual collective group of Atom's, and all singular atoms are attracted to other singular atoms? Can we conclude this based on there is not really anything else in matter other than Atom's, that suggests any other physical variances to make an attractive force? Could we conclude the force that Cavendish measured was a similarity to the force Coulomb measured and the electrostatic force between charges to establish Coulomb's law?
What do we mean when we say a Physical variance? We will introduce this through a familiar comparison, if you can imagine a bridge that was designed to allow a vehicle to travel over it that was not in excess of two tons. Any vehicle that was in excess of two tons would collapse the bridge, this vehicle would be a physical variance to the bridges constant physical properties of strength. Whilst the vehicle is under force from the gravitational constant, the vehicle wants to fall to the ground or river that the bridge rises over. A two ton vehicle has an equilibrium constant, equal to the gravitational constant magnitude of force, not causing the bridge to collapse, because the bridge has an equal and opposing force, opposing the two ton of mass of the vehicle. A vehicle in excess of two ton , collapses the bridge and falls to the ground or river, where the ground also has an opposing force which is much greater than over two tons.
Also in explanation of a physical variance is the more complex thermodynamics, that of which is consideration of an object and the temperature of an object. The physical properties of thermodynamics of an object or system. Matter has a unique property of absorbing energy and the transmission of energy, a particular provision, especially of a timely preparation for future eventualities of nature. However, this falls under our category two, and the unseen work in the universe.
-
The theory of everything part-5c
What else should we consider when considering matter and the attributes of matter? It is important when considering matter not to ignore the work of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who discovered the law of conservation of mass that led to many new findings in the nineteenth century. A basic outline of this is ”that nothing is ever lost” but rather changes form. This can be experimentally shown to be true. One could imply with a certainty that an object of mass , such as a block of wood, loses it’s individual mass as an isolated system when destroyed by fire. The reminiscence of the starting mass decreasing as the wood becomes ash. Where does this mass go? It is simply to apply the term, ”up in smoke” and heat and electromagnetic radiation in the form of light. The energy released is not a destruction of the atoms, but rather the initial excitement of the atoms of the mass by the initial ignition process. These atoms becoming positive charged by the kinetics involved of the Atoms excitement causing the Atom’s to become positive ion’s.
A generalization of this is that positive ion’s rise being opposed to the gravitational force leaving behind a negative residue of ash that bound the initial structure together. An ash that can be questioned for a certainty, is ash really made of atoms? What difference is there between the ash that sits on the ground and the mass that is lost?
I am not sure if 5c is correct but seems possible?
May be altered.
-
The theory of everything part-5c
What else should we consider when considering matter and the attributes of matter? It is important when considering matter not to ignore the work of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who discovered the law of conservation of mass that led to many new findings in the nineteenth century. A basic outline of this is ”that nothing is ever lost” but rather changes form. This can be experimentally shown to be true. One could imply with a certainty that an object of mass , such as a block of wood, loses it’s individual mass as an isolated system when destroyed by fire. The reminiscence of the starting mass decreasing as the wood becomes ash. Where does this mass go? It is simply to apply the term, ”up in smoke” and heat and electromagnetic radiation in the form of light. The energy released is not a destruction of the atoms, but rather the initial excitement of the atoms of the mass by the initial ignition process. These atoms becoming positive charged by the kinetics involved of the Atoms excitement causing the Atom’s to become positive ion’s.
A generalization of this is that positive ion’s rise being opposed to the gravitational force leaving behind a negative residue of ash that bound the initial structure together. An ash that can be questioned for a certainty, is ash really made of atoms? What difference is there between the ash that sits on the ground and the mass that is lost?
I am not sure if 5c is correct but seems possible?
May be altered.
Most of the mass of the burnt wood ends up as carbon dioxide and water. Both are produced as gases that are invisible to the human eye under normal circumstances. But Lavoisier and others were able to capture these gases and show that mass was conserved. (over all the products of combustion weigh significantly more than the mass of the wood burned, because you also have to consider the oxygen from the air that is consumed and becomes part of the products) The energy released from burning wood is insignificant compared to the energy that would be produced from conversion of mass to energy.
You need to refine your conception of "positive." Usually we use positive to denote electric charge, as in the charge of protons and nuclei is positive. This has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Most wood fires do not generate plasma (charged ions in a gaseous state). The excited atoms in the flame are still neutral, just with a lot of energy, that can be released as light.
Ash is definitely made of atoms! If the wood is not completely burned, and some "charred" wood remains in the ash, this is largely carbon (black). If the combustion is complete, and only white ash remains, this is mostly oxides of metals from the original wood: potassium oxide, sodium oxide and magnesium oxide are major components. The word potassium comes from potash (ash left in the pot). The potassium and sodium oxides will dissolve in water to form a basic (alkaline) solution.
Please learn more about the sciences before expounding on them. Many of the questions you raise in this thread (and others) have already been answered (many of them more than a century ago), or are the result of your own misunderstanding.
-
part-5b .
All matter is said to be made of these tiny particles, called Atoms! So tiny has a singular Atom, they are not seen by the human eye. To clarify the extent of the smallness of these Atom's, we can imagine a pin head contains thousands of atoms.
A pin head does not contain thousands of atoms. If you are going to "clarify the extent of the smallness of an atom" you should understand how small the atom actually is. A pin head probably contains roughly 1x1020 atoms--that's 100000000000000000000 atoms. (thousands of thousands of thousands of thousands of thousands of thousands of thousands of atoms)!
Also there are particles smaller than atoms. They are also considered matter, and have mass.
-
The theory of everything – Part 1
[...............]
This took me ages to do, to be continued..............is it readable?
If you spent half as much time learning as you did "teaching" you might have something to teach.
-
The theory of everything – Part 1
[...............]
This took me ages to do, to be continued..............is it readable?
If you spent half as much time learning as you did "teaching" you might have something to teach.
Part-5c edited
What else should we consider when considering matter and the attributes of matter? It is important when considering matter not to ignore the work of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who discovered the law of conservation of mass that led to many new findings in the nineteenth century.
A basic outline of this is ''that nothing is ever lost'' but rather changes form. This can be experimentally shown to be true. One could imply with a certainty that an object of mass , such as a block of wood, loses it's individual mass as an isolated system when destroyed by fire. The reminiscence of the starting mass decreasing as the wood becomes ash.
Where does this mass go? It is simply to apply the term, ''up in smoke'' and heat and electromagnetic radiation in the form of light. The energy released is not a destruction of the atoms, but rather a change in form of the block of wood, often in the form of carbon dioxide and water. These are both produced as gases that are invisible to the human eye under normal conditions.
Scientists are able to capture these gases and show that mass is conserved by capturing the separate elements of the dispersion of the whole, and measuring the mass of the individual elements to make findings that nothing is ever lost.
-
Part -5d
We shall also find on the subject of matter, that there are many interrelationships of the properties of substances. There is a marriage type relationship between all matter, where as all matter is dependent of being atoms, and dependent of mass, and we can say with a certainty, the deepest understanding of matter comes from understanding the actual mechanism underneath.
Can we really consider an atom without considering the laws of attraction of an electron and a proton and considering a relationship for the cause of gravity mechanism?
Can we really ignore that a grouping of atoms will be of a positive and a negative with attraction attributes of both positive and negative?
Can we really ignore the evidential facts that two bodies that are positive will repel one another?
In looking for an answer to ''everything'', we must leave no stone unturned and consider all the rudiments involved, looking to find a common principle on which something is based.
Moving on in our consideration of our first category, ''things that can be seen'', like objects, we are now going to consider objects we observe, that are not solids like stone but matter with a various types of properties, such as fluids and plasma's.
-
Part -5e
Firstly we will take consideration for fluids, and we will look at a common familiar we all know, water (H²0). In the consideration of all matter, water is a substance with its own unique properties, it has the ability to exhibit a trio of characteristics, that of a solid, (when in the form of ice), a liquid (when in the form of water), and a gaseous form (when in evaporation).
Water also has a unique property that allows it to recombine from a gaseous form back to a liquid form of water, often observed as raindrops or condensation.
One could also express, that ancient religion even recognised the evaporation process but did not quite understand the physics involved.
''For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the Heavens were of old, and the Earth standing out of the water and in the water''.
Water, like any other matter, has mass, and is effected by gravity the same as any other substance that has mass. The questions we need to ask ourselves are, why is there differences in form? how can water rise by being evaporated? how is ice formed?. One could ask themselves questions about buoyancy, and question the relationship between buoyancy and gravity. A wise man once noticed an apple falling from a tree, and what goes up, must come down, unless there is an equal and opposing force.
We all observe a created puddle on a rainy day, and we all observe that when it stops raining, and the Sun starts to shine, the puddle vanishes into an invisible rising mist.
What causes the water puddle to become an invisible mist? Water , like any other matter is made of atoms. Water, like any other matter is attracted to the ground. When the Sun transfers it's energy to the water, the water evaporates. Then the opposite direction to gravity , the less dense mist rises.
A person would have reasonable argument to assume that something is in the process of the water when changing into a vapour, that makes the water anti-gravitational whilst in vapour form. We all know when the vapour recombines back into water, it then becomes back under the influence force of gravity, as can be seen in a falling raindrop or condensation running down a window.
-
Part -5e
In the consideration of all matter, water is a substance with its own unique properties, it has the ability to exhibit a trio of characteristics, that of a solid, (when in the form of ice), a liquid (when in the form of water), and a gaseous form (when in evaporation).
Water also has a unique property that allows it to recombine from a gaseous form back to a liquid form of water, often observed as raindrops or condensation.
Water does have many unique properties (for instance, its unusually high dielectric constant), but the ability to exist as solid, liquid or gas is certainly NOT unique. Almost all molecular or elemental substances can exist in any of these sates (dependent on temperature and pressure), and can be converted from any state to any other state by changes of temperature and/or pressure. You can find melting and boiling points for most substances on wikipedia. Notable exceptions are molecules that are either too large or too fragile to be vaporized (like proteins, long polymers, nitrogen triiodide, etc.)
Water, like any other matter is attracted to the ground. When the Sun transfers it's energy to the water, the water evaporates. Then the opposite direction to gravity , the less dense mist rises.
A person would have reasonable argument to assume that something is in the process of the water when changing into a vapour, that makes the water anti-gravitational whilst in vapour form. We all know when the vapour recombines back into water, it then becomes back under the influence force of gravity, as can be seen in a falling raindrop or condensation running down a window.
Also, the fact that water vapor rises from a puddle, has nothing to do with "anti gravity." It is a matter of buoyancy. Dry air has almost twice the density of water vapor. In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.
-
Part -5e
In the consideration of all matter, water is a substance with its own unique properties, it has the ability to exhibit a trio of characteristics, that of a solid, (when in the form of ice), a liquid (when in the form of water), and a gaseous form (when in evaporation).
Water also has a unique property that allows it to recombine from a gaseous form back to a liquid form of water, often observed as raindrops or condensation.
Water does have many unique properties (for instance, its unusually high dielectric constant), but the ability to exist as solid, liquid or gas is certainly NOT unique. Almost all molecular or elemental substances can exist in any of these sates (dependent on temperature and pressure), and can be converted from any state to any other state by changes of temperature and/or pressure. You can find melting and boiling points for most substances on wikipedia. Notable exceptions are molecules that are either too large or too fragile to be vaporized (like proteins, long polymers, nitrogen triiodide, etc.)
Water, like any other matter is attracted to the ground. When the Sun transfers it's energy to the water, the water evaporates. Then the opposite direction to gravity , the less dense mist rises.
A person would have reasonable argument to assume that something is in the process of the water when changing into a vapour, that makes the water anti-gravitational whilst in vapour form. We all know when the vapour recombines back into water, it then becomes back under the influence force of gravity, as can be seen in a falling raindrop or condensation running down a window.
Also, the fact that water vapor rises from a puddle, has nothing to do with "anti gravity." It is a matter of buoyancy. Dry air has almost twice the density of water vapor. In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.
Thank you for the comments, all the interface of emr happens on the waters surface. the water evaporates from the surface. The intensity of process is weak, energy that passes into the water when water is at depth is captured in the thermocline.
Air will be added to my theory as the last subject on matter. Air also rises.
''In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.''
That's not natural on earth is it?
Water naturally turns into vapour unlike a object.
Thanks for this -
''dielectric, insulating material or a very poor conductor of electric current. When dielectrics are placed in an electric field, practically no current flows in them because, unlike metals, they have no loosely bound, or free, electrons that may drift through the material. Instead, electric polarization occurs.''
and this , I will add both in the my next part.
''Water comes out to be dielectric because of the dielectric polarization (it's an electric dipole and is a highly polar molecule & even rotates - aligning itself in field direction) associated with it. The electric field induced by polarization overcomes the effect caused by applied electric field.''
-
''In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.''
That's not natural on earth is it?
There are caves and underground pockets that are filled with methane. But ultimately, who cares whether or not it is natural on Earth? Physics applies everywhere. There is water on the moon, which doesn't have any substantial amount of atmosphere. Titan's atmosphere is almost entirely methane, and Jupiter and Saturn are almost entirely hydrogen and helium.
We can also construct small test environments on Earth to experimentally show what happens in atmospheres of different composition, temperature and pressure.
-
''In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.''
That's not natural on earth is it?
There are caves and underground pockets that are filled with methane. But ultimately, who cares whether or not it is natural on Earth? Physics applies everywhere. There is water on the moon, which doesn't have any substantial amount of atmosphere. Titan's atmosphere is almost entirely methane, and Jupiter and Saturn are almost entirely hydrogen and helium.
We can also construct small test environments on Earth to experimentally show what happens in atmospheres of different composition, temperature and pressure.
Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.
What you can construct is not natural , it is observer effect.
We are explaining evaporation on earth in our atmosphere, relative to our planet not relative other planets with different aspects.
-
Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.
no. just no.
What you can construct is not natural , it is observer effect.
We are explaining evaporation on earth in our atmosphere, relative to our planet not relative other planets with different aspects.
Experiments require control that requires conditions are not strictly "natural." Yet, we rely on experimental results to confirm or rule out scientific theories. There are certainly ways that an experiment can be poorly designed, and biased by the way that they are set up. But with proper planning, design and execution, one can avoid this type of failure and get useful results.
Any theory of physics that only works on Earth is not very useful.
-
Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.
no. just no.
What you can construct is not natural , it is observer effect.
We are explaining evaporation on earth in our atmosphere, relative to our planet not relative other planets with different aspects.
Experiments require control that requires conditions are not strictly "natural." Yet, we rely on experimental results to confirm or rule out scientific theories. There are certainly ways that an experiment can be poorly designed, and biased by the way that they are set up. But with proper planning, design and execution, one can avoid this type of failure and get useful results.
Any theory of physics that only works on Earth is not very useful.
My final answer is the important answer, I already have my final conclusion , however a one liner would not be much of a theory.
Theory of everything part-5f.
When considering the unique properties of water, we are considering these aspects as in natural attributes, unlike the burning wood where we add fire. Water also has a property of being a dielectric substance. A dielectric substance having the qualities of being a poor electrical conductor. Water is an electrical neutral dipole, equal and oppositely charges that can become polarised to a specific charge.
When water is in interaction with electromagnetic radiation, or for simplicity light, the water molecules on the surface become polarised to a positive polarity, and the molecules are said to rotate in the direction of the electrical field, aligning itself in the field direction associated with it. The electric field induced by polarization overcomes the effect caused by the applied electric field.
Can we not consider this to be a possible mechanism of gravity or in some way interrelated?
Can we not consider the very ground beneath our feet to be of dielectric properties?
Can we really not consider Galaxies to have polarisation effect on each other?
Would polarisation of atoms, a change in equilibrium, explain a particular condition of something that is happening at a specific time?
It is experimentally observed that when a metal object is heated, the metal expands, and when the metal cools it contacts.
What is happening inside the metal? One could presume that when we add energy to the metal, which is made out of Atom’s, the Atom’s become excited and create kinetic energy by their own means of process. A process in which that Atom’s, start to repel other Atom’s.
It is evidentially proved that two of the same polarity charges will repel each other. One could certainty ask question of this process, and make comparisons to expansion being positive polarity of atoms and contraction being a negative or a returning equilibrium polarity of the Atom’s that make up the metal.
We may say that the comparison to water is irrelevant, however, we can not ignore the behaviour characteristics of Atom’s when all matter is Atom’s.
-
Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.
no. just no.
Exactly my friend. :)
-
Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.
no. just no.
Exactly my friend. :)
Water has 3 states of being , all 3 states are a difference in energy.
-
Water has 3 states of being , all 3 states are a difference in energy.
energy and entropy
Also water has many states many more than three states of being. There are several phases of solid water (different types of ice) that have different properties, and can be converted from one into the other. Additionally, supercritical water is a fluid phase that is not quite liquid and not quite gaseous. It is really weird stuff that can take on a whole range of densities, viscosities and acidities, just depending on the temperature.
-
Water has 3 states of being , all 3 states are a difference in energy.
energy and entropy
Also water has many states many more than three states of being. There are several phases of solid water (different types of ice) that have different properties, and can be converted from one into the other. Additionally, supercritical water is a fluid phase that is not quite liquid and not quite gaseous. It is really weird stuff that can take on a whole range of densities, viscosities and acidities, just depending on the temperature.
Has a generalization I get three stages of energy level, ice being the lesser state, water being the equilibrium, vapour being the higher energy form, but I thank you for the input.
-
Never mind physics you have no concept of chemistry. You have dug yourself a hole from which your pride will not let you climb. Actually admitting an error is an important part of the learning process. Not admitting an error is unscientific. Ditch the pride and allow yourself to fail. It is an illuminating experience. You don't have to do this here and now but personally and privately. I guarantee that it will start a new chapter in your pursuit of scientific knowledge.
-
Ditch the pride and allow yourself to fail. It is an illuminating experience.
And what are the odds of such an occurrence ever taking place? Personally, I think this whole thread is an exercise in futility. How many more times are we expected to listen to another crackpot vomit up new "theories of everything"?
-
Never mind physics you have no concept of chemistry. You have dug yourself a hole from which your pride will not let you climb. Actually admitting an error is an important part of the learning process. Not admitting an error is unscientific. Ditch the pride and allow yourself to fail. It is an illuminating experience. You don't have to do this here and now but personally and privately. I guarantee that it will start a new chapter in your pursuit of scientific knowledge.
Correct my knowledge of chemistry is little, I do not understand s1 and s2 layers, and the P layers thoroughly , I have no idea about two substances becoming one, by having weak covalent bounds.
-
How many more times are we expected to listen to another crackpot vomit up new "theories of everything"?
I don't see any further need to listen to (or read) this thread - we used to ignore all the crackpots much more quickly after initially trying to help them see the faults in their ideas, and it does now appear that that was the right approach. They are generally incapable of learning and it's clear that no amount of help on offer to them can change that. All they really want to do is lodge their ideas somewhere in the hope that some of them might prove to be right, and then they'll be able to point everyone towards their bonkers theory and say "See, I told you so!" It's a bit like buying a lottery ticket.
-
How many more times are we expected to listen to another crackpot vomit up new "theories of everything"?
I don't see any further need to listen to (or read) this thread - we used to ignore all the crackpots much more quickly after initially trying to help them see the faults in their ideas, and it does now appear that that was the right approach. They are generally incapable of learning and it's clear that no amount of help on offer to them can change that. All they really want to do is lodge their ideas somewhere in the hope that some of them might prove to be right, and then they'll be able to point everyone towards their bonkers theory and say "See, I told you so!" It's a bit like buying a lottery ticket.
Who are they exactly? are we some form of alien life who can not think ? I presume by they you mean amateur scientists that make up the majority of the forums?
Without they, whom would you speak too? and what about?
We are the ones that want to test science and see how good you really are.
It is not they or a you, it is a process.
-
Who are they exactly? are we some form of alien life who can not think ? I presume by they you mean amateur scientists that make up the majority of the forums?
I'm talking about people who want to post their book here and who don't care whether it fits the facts or not.
Without they, whom would you speak too? and what about?
The aim isn't to find people to speak to, but to try to understand reality better. Reading theories which don't agree with the facts or which just go on and on saying nothing of any value is not rewarding.
We are the ones that want to test science and see how good you really are.
Everyone gets their chance to do that, but they get tested at the same time, and if they fail the tests that are set for them they cease to be of interest.
It is not they or a you, it is a process.
It's a process of working out where the best sources of information and ideas can be found and seeking more from those while at the same time working out where the worst sources of info and ideas are so that they can be avoided.
-
Who are they exactly? are we some form of alien life who can not think ? I presume by they you mean amateur scientists that make up the majority of the forums?
I'm talking about people who want to post their book here and who don't care whether it fits the facts or not.
Without they, whom would you speak too? and what about?
The aim isn't to find people to speak to, but to try to understand reality better. Reading theories which don't agree with the facts or which just go on and on saying nothing of any value is not rewarding.
We are the ones that want to test science and see how good you really are.
Everyone gets their chance to do that, but they get tested at the same time, and if they fail the tests that are set for them they cease to be of interest.
It is not they or a you, it is a process.
It's a process of working out where the best sources of information and ideas can be found and seeking more from those while at the same time working out where the worst sources of info and ideas are so that they can be avoided.
Making a judgement half way through a book without knowing the final chapter is not a way in which to judge.
-
Shall I just skip to the conclusion and explain where lies the answer to everything and what everything is?
-
Shall I just skip to the conclusion and explain where lies the answer to everything and what everything is?
But of course.............be our guest! Just remember one thing, great scientific minds have, for the most part, come short of such a theory and the likelihood of you having a better go at it are quite scant indeed.
-
Shall I just skip to the conclusion and explain where lies the answer to everything and what everything is?
But of course.............be our guest! Just remember one thing, great scientific minds have, for the most part, come short of such a theory and the likelihood of you having a better go at it are quite scant indeed.
Ok I have done a simple and short conclusion that explains everything.
The real theory of everything - conclusion
Where lies the answer to everything? What unifies everything?
The answer we always had , religion always had the answer, and I hate to say this , but religion was great science.
God is all around us and everywhere, we are not worthy of seeing God, without God, nothing can exist, God allows your time being observed by God.
Translated into modern science -
Space is all around us and everywhere, space is transparent, without space nothing can exist, space allows your time in space.
Space is everything, without space nothing exists, space unifies everything by allowing space, for the occupying of space, by matter, allowing visible light to exist, that allows us to see through space, light interacts with all matter, without this interaction we would see a nothingness. Space allows, time-in-space, time measured by a relative motion increment period , dependent to an observer or object, relative to a distance travelled through space.
An orbiting body around a star, to interpret this we will say ourselves, has a life expectancy dependency of a 360 degree cycle of orbit, relative to distance, and relative to speed, relative to the orbiting body, relative to gravitational constant.
-
Shall I just skip to the conclusion and explain where lies the answer to everything and what everything is?
But of course.............be our guest! Just remember one thing, great scientific minds have, for the most part, come short of such a theory and the likelihood of you having a better go at it are quite scant indeed.
Ok I have done a simple and short conclusion that explains everything.
The real theory of everything - conclusion
Where lies the answer to everything? What unifies everything?
The answer we always had , religion always had the answer, and I hate to say this , but religion was great science.
God is all around us and everywhere, we are not worthy of seeing God, without God, nothing can exist, God allows your time being observed by God.
Translated into modern science -
Space is all around us and everywhere, space is transparent, without space nothing can exist, space allows your time in space.
Space is everything, without space nothing exists, space unifies everything by allowing space, for the occupying of space, by matter, allowing visible light to exist, that allows us to see through space, light interacts with all matter, without this interaction we would see a nothingness. Space allows, time-in-space, time measured by a relative motion increment period , dependent to an observer or object, relative to a distance travelled through space.
An orbiting body around a star, to interpret this we will say ourselves, has a life expectancy dependency of a 360 degree cycle of orbit, relative to distance, and relative to speed, relative to the orbiting body, relative to gravitational constant.
I suggest my friend that nothing about this simple essay has anything new or novel contained within it. Not only nothing new but very circular in form, and quite adolescent I might say.
And with reference to the comments about God, I personally believe but discussions about deities or any connections with them and the study of science will have little impact at this SCIENCE forum.
-
Shall I just skip to the conclusion and explain where lies the answer to everything and what everything is?
But of course.............be our guest! Just remember one thing, great scientific minds have, for the most part, come short of such a theory and the likelihood of you having a better go at it are quite scant indeed.
Ok I have done a simple and short conclusion that explains everything.
The real theory of everything - conclusion
Where lies the answer to everything? What unifies everything?
The answer we always had , religion always had the answer, and I hate to say this , but religion was great science.
God is all around us and everywhere, we are not worthy of seeing God, without God, nothing can exist, God allows your time being observed by God.
Translated into modern science -
Space is all around us and everywhere, space is transparent, without space nothing can exist, space allows your time in space.
Space is everything, without space nothing exists, space unifies everything by allowing space, for the occupying of space, by matter, allowing visible light to exist, that allows us to see through space, light interacts with all matter, without this interaction we would see a nothingness. Space allows, time-in-space, time measured by a relative motion increment period , dependent to an observer or object, relative to a distance travelled through space.
An orbiting body around a star, to interpret this we will say ourselves, has a life expectancy dependency of a 360 degree cycle of orbit, relative to distance, and relative to speed, relative to the orbiting body, relative to gravitational constant.
I suggest my friend that nothing about this simple essay has anything new or novel contained within it.
And with reference to the comments about God, I personally believe but discussions about deities or any connections with them and the study of science will have little impact at this SCIENCE forum.
I suggest you have given it very little thought, in the one conclusion it unifies everything , including all religion and science. There is a really big picture with so few words that I have written. If you do not understand it why not just ask?
Replace and consider the word God with space. Replace hell with the sun, recognise nothing is ever lost and we go to space, (heaven).
Refer to my earlier parts where I associate religion as been dead end psuedo-science.
Space is the answer with a certainty. Space allows time and has no space time.
To unify everything, you have got to add religion and unify that with science, or else you have not unified everything.
Who ever came up with the concept of god, did not have the word space and called it God, where over time it was lost in translation and became something else.
Consider space is immortal, when you die and go to space you are immortal, space is all around you, we are in Gods hands. Trust me it fits and it is what Gods creator was thinking about, before the big bang there was nothing except ''god'' which is space that allowed all .
God exists in you, space you occupy.
God made us in his own image, reflections in a pond.
and so on.....
-
I suggest you have given it very little thought, in the one conclusion it unifies everything , including all religion and science.
My friend,.............I've had 72 years living on this planet we call earth and this experience has afforded me sufficient time to consider many things. When you declare that your conclusion unifies everything, you're forgetting one key piece of information. You can't just throw everything into the pot and call it unified.
I'm going to offer you a very honest piece of advice, and I truly hope you take it. I don't know how old you are but I suspect you may be very young. I frankly detect a bit of my younger self radiating from your personality and honestly believe you are hungry to learn science. At any rate, here is my advice:
Try taking scientific evidence from proper authorities with the trust it deserves. Decades of time, countless hours of time and effort, not to mention the financial investment that has been applied to this effort. All of these ingredients along with the dedication of sincere men and women all seeking the truth.
You would do well and learn much if you could slack up a bit on your day dreaming and accept the knowledge that is so readily available from these great men and women of science.
Quit assuming that only you have the answers, you'll find the answers when you learn to accept that.
-
I suggest you have given it very little thought, in the one conclusion it unifies everything , including all religion and science.
My friend,.............I've had 72 years living on this planet we call earth and this experience has afforded me sufficient time to consider many things. When you declare that your conclusion unifies everything, you're forgetting one key piece of information. You can't just throw everything into the pot and call it unified.
I'm going to offer you a very honest piece of advice, and I truly hope you take it. I don't know how old you are but I suspect you may be very young. I frankly detect a bit of my younger self radiating from your personality and honestly believe you are hungry to learn science. At any rate, here is my advice:
Try taking scientific evidence from proper authorities with the trust it deserves. Decades of time, countless hours of time and effort, not to mention the financial investment that has been applied to this effort. All of these ingredients along with the dedication of sincere men and women all seeking the truth.
You would do well and learn much if you could slack up a bit on your day dreaming and accept the knowledge that is so readily available from these great men and women of science.
Quit assuming that only you have the answers, you'll find the answers when you learn to accept that.
]
You do not have answers for any of my topics of absolute values, I am not attacking things of definite proof. Putting all things into a big pot is the exact way to unify anything.
If you want to discuss evidence there is plenty about, science experiments and observational experiments.
I am 42 years old if you must know.
I am without doubt that my conclusion answers everything including religion, object to object coupling, ''immortality'' as space is eternal in existence with or without matter.
Time occupies space, stars occupy space, space is the elementary attribute.
-
God is logically impossible. Renaming space as God does not fix anything.
-
I am 42 years old if you must know.
I am without doubt that my conclusion answers everything including religion, object to object coupling, ''immortality''
I'd tried to be considerate and understanding in my last post to this thread. As it seems to have been in vain, from now on I will simply ignore your ignorance. And to be specific, the word "ignorance" is not intended to be taken as an insult, ignorance only implies lack of knowledge. I therefore consider it a waste of time to deal with you any longer Mr. Box.
I still hope you take my advice but considering your attitude, I doubt you will. At any rate, good luck and good bye.
I'm out..........................................Ethos
-
God is logically impossible. Renaming space as God does not fix anything.
God is logically impossible, that is not what my conclusion suggests. Do you understand that the word god, existed before the word space?
Do you not realise that when religion was thinking of god, they actually was thinking about space but gave it the name god instead of space?
God is possible has a word for something, something that the author named god that science named space.
God is space.
''God'' definition - transparent space
A very simple axiom is without space nothing can exist, not even a ''god'' can exist without space.
-
I'm following Ethos now. I had hope, but TheBox has proven itself, time and time again, to be too ignorant and too arrogant for any meaningful discussion.
-
I'm following Ethos now. I had hope, but The Box has proven itself, time and time again, to be too ignorant and too arrogant for any meaningful discussion.
It is you guys not having a meaningful discussion, you have no answer for everything, so why not try considering the new idea and try to understand instead of trying to discipline me into excepting no answer.
Space can not be destroyed, space exists if nothing else exists, space allows everything to happen, without space there is nothing .
Space is logically undeniable 100% everything.
To deny this is a lie.
-
Your space is nothing, your God is space...
-
Hello again Mr Box.
Your reply #63 above is selfcontradictory. The fact that you can utter such drivel and not realise it to be selfcontradictory suggests that you are merely assembling words into sentence-like structures without thinking or even caring about the possibility of meaning, so I won't bother to respond to any more of your posts until you acquire a modicum of maturity and humility - the essentials for understanding and communicating science.
Farewell.
-
It is you guys not having a meaningful discussion, ...
There you go again, i.e. thinking that just because you type it out and see it in print on a webpage then what you claim must be the truth. Let me tell you the truth - That assumption of yours is quite wrong.
..you have no answer for everything,...
Actually its the opposite. That is if I understand what you meant. You're writing skills are so bad that its very hard to understand what you're saying. For example; here you wrote "you have no answer for everything" which is a horribly stated assertion. You really meant "you don't have an answer for anything" but didn't know who to express it. One of the things which makes it clear to us how poor your education is.
But in fact we know a great deal here. The problem is that you're grasp of physics is so poor that you're unable to understand any of it.
... so why not try considering the new idea and try to understand instead of trying to discipline me into excepting no answer.
Because not one of your new ideas were worth anything. They're all terribly thought out. But instead of you trying to understand why and either modifying the idea to address the problems we tell you they have you ignore everything we say as if you're some sort of super genius who can't ever be mistaken and then you go about insulting us or putting us down.
Space can not be destroyed, ...
An assertion based on absolutely nothing. Why do you think you can just come in here and make claims and make no attempt to prove them to be correct? Do you actually believe that your ideas are beyond question? What makes you think space can't be destroyed. For once try to prove a claim that you've made. This is a test to see if you're actually reading carefully and to see if you're not just full of hot area and can put your money where your mouth is. Go ahead - Prove that space can't be destroyed.
Einstein proved that to be wrong when he invented General Relativity (GR) which in some sense is a theory about the structure of spacetime. One of the models of the universe (which we know don't correspond to the amount of matter in this particular universe) is that it will someday contract and the universe will disappear in what has been coined the Big Crunch. That is one example of how space can be destroyed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
space exists if nothing else exists,...
Once again making a claim that you will refuse to prove. Einstein also proved that this assertion is a false one. There can be no space if there is no matter anywhere. If you had the ability to learn relativistic cosmology then you'd learn that.
space allows everything to happen,
Wrong. One has to have time in addition to space for that to be true. You're so bad at this that you don't even understand that the term "happen" implies time.
-
Your space is nothing, your God is space...
Space is your God, get it right I do not do religion rubbish.
-
Your space is nothing, your God is space...
Space is your God, get it right I do not do religion rubbish.
Changed your mind, have you? You're the one who told us space was God! This is like talking to a chatbot!
-
Your space is nothing, your God is space...
Space is your God, get it right I do not do religion rubbish.
Changed your mind, have you? You're the one who told us space was God! This is like talking to a chatbot!
God is space, not space is God, and not has in a God but has in another word for space. By discourse of statement I have derived with good reasoning that the origin of the word God was Psuedo-science and thought about space. The comparative statement explains it perfect.
-
I'm locking this thread.
I have removed the last few posts. Personal attack is uncalled for.
Whatever level of coherent argument this thread may (if ever) have once had, seems to have long vanished anyway.