Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Spyroe on 08/03/2018 03:15:46
-
Spyroetheory uses the idea of unwinding organized vortexes to explain reality replacing the concepts of particles, forces and gravity.
-
I'm willing to bet that this is more a WAG than a theory.
-
Never heard that term. What does it mean?
-
Wild ass guess.
-
More like a Eureka, then a WAG.
-
At least learn the difference between "then" and "than".
Having done so, you can find out what a theory is.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
-
Haha it was a typing mistake. Not nice to talk down to people. why not talk about the idea instead of an English lesson.
I know what a theory is. go to my website for an explanation.
spyroetheory.com
what you probably don't know is that math describes what we perceive as our reality based on our position in spacetime and our DNA configuration. Math doesn't describe anything separated from us.
-
It looks like I was right.
It's not a theory.
-
Thaanks for telling me something i already know. What about the idea, no comment?
-
Spyroetheory uses the idea of unwinding organized vortexes to explain reality replacing the concepts of particles, forces and gravity.
Gravity at the moment is not particle based, it is space time curvature based . So ok, you are explaining unwinding organised vortexes ,
what do you mean by this?
what are the vortexes made of? dark energy? dark matter? electromagnetic radiation?
-
Ok so a real conversation here. Gravity isn't particle based but there is talk about a force carrying particle, graviton.
But besides that, the questions you ask are outside of my way of presenting this idea. You are using man made ideas to try and understand my concept here. And i have done this for many years just to have a way of explaining it. But realky, it has nothing to do with the concept because what spyroe theory claims is that the universe is just an energy field, and the shape and interactions of a spyroe may be a better way of understanding the energy field. What i'm saying here is a spyroe physically doesnt exsist it just might be the most common shape we know, the shape of nature. and using this shape might help us understand our reality. As far as particles, and dark matter and electromagnetism, these are all theories that help us understand but really do not exist outside of us.
-
Ok so a real conversation here. Gravity isn't particle based but there is talk about a force carrying particle, graviton.
But besides that, the questions you ask are outside of my way of presenting this idea. You are using man made ideas to try and understand my concept here. And i have done this for many years just to have a way of explaining it. But realky, it has nothing to do with the concept because what spyroe theory claims is that the universe is just an energy field, and the shape and interactions of a spyroe may be a better way of understanding the energy field. What i'm saying here is a spyroe physically doesnt exsist it just might be the most common shape we know, the shape of nature. and using this shape might help us understand our reality. As far as particles, and dark matter and electromagnetism, these are all theories that help us understand but really do not exist outside of us.
I do not believe in the Graviton idea, it is a rather odd idea. You say '' the universe is just an energy field''.
What do you mean by Universe in your own words?
What do you mean by energy field? Energy being a generalised name for a set that has subsets.
-
no one know for sure and neither do i what the universe is. Its like asking what god is. No one knows. u can guess or believe in something written in the past. But if i had to try to explain to a child, i would say its everything, nothing is outside of it. Whats in it? nothing but energy. what is energy, i would say it can be anything depending on who is measuring/disturbing it.
-
no one know for sure and neither do i what the universe is. Its like asking what god is. No one knows. u can guess or believe in something written in the past. But if i had to try to explain to a child, i would say its everything, nothing is outside of it. Whats in it? nothing but energy. what is energy, i would say it can be anything depending on who is measuring/disturbing it.
Ok, I can see a few problems here with your understanding of certain things, I am not saying this to be rude or offensive. When I first started science there was a lot of things I did not understand. It is good that you are trying your own science.
Below is a few pointers
1) definition - Things have to be clearly defined or people just will not understand what you have got to say.
2) Be always willing to learn, even if at first it sounds wrong.
A point to you, the universe is defined and we do know what the Universe is because that is what we defined.
The Universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. ... It is assumed that galaxies are distributed uniformly and the same in all directions, meaning that the Universe has neither an edge nor a center.
Pretty much we can just look things up on google.
Now the Universe is not to be mistaken for observable universe, the universe is made up of an observable universe (what we can see) and a non-observable universe, beyond what we can observe (see).
This is where we get a finite universe (as far as we can see) and a infinite universe (what we cant see) from.
Your notion sounds like you are describing a finite ''energy'' sphere ?
-
thebox.. im not new in science, u have no idea what i have witnessed. it is u that has a lot to learn. all the definitions u send me have nothing to do with the universe outside of us. do u get it? I''ll say it again. the universe is the way we see it because we create it ourselves. Things do not exist outside of us. do u get this? Ok so i know we have no choice, we must believe it is real to evolve as humans but this is because it is the way we are put together. Here, this is another example. Consciousness does not exist inside of us. sure, we need our brains to process but the conscious field is something we all share. Something is real because we see it, but only because we agree on seeing it.
-
thebox.. im not new in science, u have no idea what i have witnessed. it is u that has a lot to learn. all the definitions u send me have nothing to do with the universe outside of us. do u get it? I''ll say it again. the universe is the way we see it because we create it ourselves. Things do not exist outside of us. do u get this? Ok so i know we have no choice, we must believe it is real to evolve as humans but this is because it is the way we are put together. Here, this is another example. Consciousness does not exist inside of us. sure, we need our brains to process but the conscious field is something we all share. Something is real because we see it, but only because we agree on seeing it.
Ok, I think I understand what you are saying, a Matrix style Universe?
-
I find a better way of understanding the universe and reality is to believe that everything is just an invisible energy field that we are made of and interact with. Our science theories are tools we use to shape this field, but the theories are not right, they just work. The shape of a spyore isn't right or wrong, it might work as a better tool in our reality.
-
I find a better way of understanding the universe and reality is to believe that everything is just an invisible energy field that we are made of and interact with. Our science theories are tools we use to shape this field, but the theories are not right, they just work. The shape of a spyore isn't right or wrong, it might work as a better tool in our reality.
How exactly would that lead to a better understanding? It is rather vague to say the least and objectively some of this energy must be visible because I can see things and measure that thing to be in its exact position relative to me.
-
Thaanks for telling me something i already know. What about the idea, no comment?
There's no science in this idea of yours, so few comments on it would be appropriate for a science web site.
-
Put it this way, if the math representing spyroe theory proved to work better than particle theory, the notion of particles making up matter wouldn't be used in science anymore. It would be something else that would make up matter.
We as humans would understand from a different perspective and particle wouldn't exist anymore because we wouldn't think about them. Think of it this way, when we capture an electron, we really don't capture something that was there. What happens is we disturb the field with a machine and our minds. This disturbance of the field creates the electron.
-
TheBox, this is why its in new theories.. Just because i have no math doesn't mean the idea is nonsense. Spyroe theory visually explains the paradox's - double slit and entanglement. I was hoping that people on this forum would be interesting in something new.
-
Why use a particle and a pilot wave when you could use waves within a particle.
-
TheBox, this is why its in new theories.. Just because i have no math doesn't mean the idea is nonsense. Spyroe theory visually explains the paradox's - double slit and entanglement. I was hoping that people on this forum would be interesting in something new.
Cool diagrams, I am objective and do not rule things out I don't understand thoroughly. I will sleep on your notion and get back to you.
-
I like your site. As Box says, neat graphics.
I think you are a first, i certainly haven’t seen an artistic interpretation of physics here.
-
I like your site. As Box says, neat graphics.
I think you are a first, i certainly haven’t seen an artistic interpretation of physics here.
He has basically took Einsteins ''cone'' model, then added ''cone'' models on all ''sides'' , physically an impossible event.
-
He has basically took Einsteins ''cone'' model, then added ''cone'' models on all ''sides'' , physically an impossible event.
Impossible Mr Box!! That doesn’t sound like you, have zombies taken you over ? ;D
Anyway, it’s art.
-
its not impossible. It was produced in a 3d animation program. remember, what appears to be physical to us is limited to our 3 dimensional reality. Imagine if you could step outside the universe and look in, would it look the same? I believe the conflict with merging GR and QM is based on our position. If we could step outside the universe and look in, we would see motions of planets and particles behaving the same. If we could get smaller than an atom and look outside it through to the edge of the universe we would see particles and planets behaving the same.
-
He has basically took Einsteins ''cone'' model, then added ''cone'' models on all ''sides'' , physically an impossible event.
Impossible Mr Box!! That doesn’t sound like you, have zombies taken you over ? ;D
Anyway, it’s art.
Lol Colin,
-
its not impossible. It was produced in a 3d animation program. remember, what appears to be physical to us is limited to our 3 dimensional reality. Imagine if you could step outside the universe and look in, would it look the same? I believe the conflict with merging GR and QM is based on our position. If we could step outside the universe and look in, we would see motions of planets and particles behaving the same. If we could get smaller than an atom and look outside it through to the edge of the universe we would see particles and planets behaving the same.
Although we can not physical see space time curvature, that does not mean we can't see the affects of space time curvature.
What we ''see'' is not represented by your model sorry. However it is a cool piece of artwork.
In saying that I am always willing to discuss just in case there is something I am missing or not understanding correctly. I obviously cannot 'see' your thoughts that are clear in your mind, I can only go off your wording and diagram.
How many vortexes are in your model in total?
How many different forces would be acting in your model?
-
Put it this way, if the math representing spyroe theory proved to work better than particle theory, the notion of particles making up matter wouldn't be used in science anymore
The biggest word in that sentence is "if".
-
if, i get it. its all about the numbers. I am well aware of that. Scientists work in expanding the theories with math and not imagination. But that too bad, i think imagination can produce results depending on the person.
My suggestion for the scientific community would be to mix up their researchers with artists, have group discussions, see if a great idea comes out of it.
thebox, you still don't get it, what we see isn't represented in my model but that doesn't mean anything. What we see is what we create with the math we invented. It doesn't make sense to compare present theories to new ones. New theories do not need to follow old ideas.
-
My suggestion for the scientific community would be to mix up their researchers with artists,
Plenty of researchers are artists.