My theory of everything...

[matthew809]

Here's my theory in the works. I guess it's a theory of everything. It's full of holes and based largely on ignorance and misunderstanding of science, I'm sure. Please tear it apart:

Empty space is actually not empty at all. Space is a medium which has areas of high density(strong gravity), and areas of low density(weak gravity). What we would think of as matter is actually "bubbles" in space. Unlike space, these matter bubbles have no pressure property. But they do have volume which can neither be created or destroyed- only redistributed.

Atoms are simply bubbles in pressurized space. Inside an atom bubble is another bubble of pressurized space. It is the balance between the inner bubble and the outer space which gives atoms is basic properties, and governs atomic behavior. Atoms vibrate. These vibrations are radiated into space, and into other atoms, which in turn vibrate and create waves. Light is not made up of particles. Light is just pressure waves(gravity waves) traveling through the medium of space.

The pressure field which surrounds an atom is the same as the pressure field which surrounds a planet. Atomic forces, gravity, magnetism, and EM radiation are all just variances of spacial pressure in response to the presence of these bubbles in the space medium(matter). Not all of these matter "bubbles" in space need actually have a pressurized space bubble caught inside, as an atom would. These bubbles would still displace space, and therefore cause gravity, but they would not vibrate like matter, and therefore would not be easily detected.

Matter in a higher pressure space moves slower than matter in a lower pressure space. Also, matter in a higher pressure space may be smaller(ie. more outside pressure pushing inward on an atom; the matter bubble can not compress any further because it's only property is volume, not density; however, the pressurized space bubble caught within can compress in response to outside pressure).

My idea on the galaxy:

There are two super massive orbiting bodies in the galactic center.

These two bodies, due to their location in such a high gravity area, orbit each other much slower than physics predicts. To us, it would appear like slow motion. Every atom in that area would operate just as slowly, proportionally.

These two slowly orbiting bodies create pressure waves(gravity waves) which spiral outwards. This is how the galaxy gets it's shape. More star formation, and brighter stars, would happen as an area of the galaxy gets hit with a higher density part of the wave(spiral arm). This may have something to do with our sun's 11-year solar cycle.

I have to make dinner now....

edit: I forgot to mention the reason for the galaxy's flat rotation curve. There is a struggle between 2 basic laws of motion. The stars towards the inner galaxy move slower than the stars in the outer galaxy, due to the inner stars experiencing higher space pressure(gravity) from the center of the galaxy. Of course all of the stars in the galaxy also follow the orbital patterns of conventional physics- where the outer stars would orbit at a speed much slower than the inner stars. These two laws are in opposition. In the case of the galactic center's extreme gravity, the two laws create a flat rotation curve for the galaxy.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Unlike space, these matter bubbles have no pressure property. But they do have volume which can neither be created or destroyed- only redistributed.

How do you "redistribute" volume?

 

[matthew809]

How do you "redistribute" volume?

By changing it's shape(vibrating).
By separating off part of the bubble.

I just mean that these holes or bubbles in pressurized space can not be created or destroyed, only changed.

 

[Dywyddyr]

By changing it's shape(vibrating).

Which simply reduces (or increases) the volume. It does not "redistribute"

By separating off part of the bubble.

Do you actually mean volume?

I just mean that these holes or bubbles in pressurized space can not be created or destroyed, only changed.

I'm not sure you're entirely sure what you're talking about.
A volume is defined by the limits chosen for measuring that volume. It doesn't (can't be) "redistributed".
If I select a 1 metre cube of anything so long as I insist on that selected boundary then it will remain forever 1 cubic metre.

 

[matthew809]

ie. A spherical shape can have the same volume as a dumbbell shape right?

If there is 1 million cubic feet of matter in a universe, then there will always be 1 million cubic feet of matter in the universe. It's distribution however can change.

 

[Dywyddyr]

ie. A spherical shape can have the same volume as a dumbbell shape right?

Yes. So by "redistribute volume" you actually mean "change shape"?
The volume of the original sphere hasn't altered however.

If there is 1 million cubic feet of matter in a universe, then there will always be 1 million cubic feet of matter in the universe. It's distribution however can change.

No. Matter can be converted to energy. And vice versa. Ever heard of E=MC[sup]2[/sup]?

 

[matthew809]

Yes. So by "redistribute volume" you actually mean "change shape"?
The volume of the original sphere hasn't altered however.

Right. I guess I was using the word "volume" a little loosely.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Yeah, a lot of it is right, some is hard to say...

My idea on the galaxy:

There are two super massive orbiting bodies in the galactic center.

These two bodies, due to their location in such a high gravity area, orbit each other much slower than physics predicts. To us, it would appear like slow motion. Every atom in that area would operate just as slowly, proportionally.

These two slowly orbiting bodies create pressure waves(gravity waves) which spiral outwards. This is how the galaxy gets it's shape. More star formation, and brighter stars, would happen as an area of the galaxy gets hit with a higher density part of the wave(spiral arm). This may have something to do with our sun's 11-year solar cycle.

These gravity waves would be too uneven, and also 2D.

 

[matthew809]

My idea on the galaxy:

There are two super massive orbiting bodies in the galactic center.

These two bodies, due to their location in such a high gravity area, orbit each other much slower than physics predicts. To us, it would appear like slow motion. Every atom in that area would operate just as slowly, proportionally.

These two slowly orbiting bodies create pressure waves(gravity waves) which spiral outwards. This is how the galaxy gets it's shape. More star formation, and brighter stars, would happen as an area of the galaxy gets hit with a higher density part of the wave(spiral arm).

Yeah, a lot of it is right, some is hard to say...



These gravity waves would be too uneven, and also 2D.

Thanks for your relevant response.

Could you explain more what you mean by uneven and 2D?

Do you see any major problems with any other part of my theory?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Could you explain more what you mean by uneven and 2D?

He could probably "explain" all day. But it would only be bullshit (like that "answer") since he's already stated (many times) that he knows nothing about science.

 

[matthew809]

He could probably "explain" all day. But it would only be bullshit (like that "answer") since he's already stated (many times) that he knows nothing about science.

Do you have any major issues with my idea?

Also I wanted to clarify a little better how I picture an atom to be structured. The best analogy would be just a simple soap bubble. Picture one floating in the air. The soap portion of the bubble would represent a hole in the fabric of space. I think of this hole as an energy bubble. The energy bubble(soap portion) has a volume property, but not density. The air inside and outside of the bubble would represent pressurized space. The energy bubble displaces the space around it, causing pressure to build up in and around the bubble, proportional to the volume of the energy bubble(soap portion).

 

[Dywyddyr]

Lots:
The vast majority is just word salad.
"Highlights":

Unlike space, these matter bubbles have no pressure property.

Pressure property? Evidence?

Light is not made up of particles. Light is just pressure waves(gravity waves) traveling through the medium of space.

Then why is light visible and gravity not?

There are two super massive orbiting bodies in the galactic center.
These two bodies, due to their location in such a high gravity area, orbit each other much slower than physics predicts.

Evidence?
Why would they do so?

edit: I forgot to mention the reason for the galaxy's flat rotation curve. There is a struggle between 2 basic laws of motion.

Which two "basic laws of motion"?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Its common for crank theories to contain words like 'pressure', 'energy', 'density', 'stress', 'mass' etc. It's extremely uncommon for cranks to ever give the formal definitions they are working with in regards to those things, they assume its just acceptable terminology and there's no issue with the meaning. Anyone whose done general relativity will know differently, often its extremely difficult to pin down such things. Guest went through this with quantum_wave once.

So Matthew, what is your definition of energy, formally define it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here's my theory in the works. I guess it's a theory of everything. It's full of holes and based largely on ignorance and misunderstanding of science, I'm sure. Please tear it apart:

Matthew, if it is OK with you I do not intend to attack your 'theory'. Your own analysis of it is pretty much on the money. Rather, I want to explore what led you to postulate this 'theory'

You see, I am, no false modesty, quite intelligent. Observation tells me I am smarter than most of the people I come into contact with, even though many of them are pretty smart. I have a six figure income, so apparently this view is held by others.

In summary, I am arrogant and egotistical. However, I would never, in my wildest dreams, or deep within an alcohol induced euphoria, consider for one moment that I had anything remotely approaching a 'theory of everything'. So I am curious as to how such moneumental self indulgence and grotesque over estimation of one's own worth is possible. Can you enlighten me?

 

[matthew809]

Then why is light visible and gravity not?

That question doesn't make sense. Why can't we hear gravity, or see microwaves? Only God knows. Can you rephrase the question?

Its common for crank theories to contain words like 'pressure', 'energy', 'density', 'stress', 'mass' etc. It's extremely uncommon for cranks to ever give the formal definitions they are working with in regards to those things, they assume its just acceptable terminology and there's no issue with the meaning. Anyone whose done general relativity will know differently, often its extremely difficult to pin down such things. Guest went through this with quantum_wave once.

So Matthew, what is your definition of energy, formally define it.

You're right. I won't use that word.

Well I believe that there are only two states of our universe- lets call it black and white.

The black state has the property of pressure and makes up what we perceive to be empty space. The higher the pressure, the higher the gravity.

The white state has no pressure property. Therefore it can not be compressed. Along with black space, white space is part of what we perceive as matter. White space is what I was previously referring to when I used the word "energy".

...I am curious as to how such monumental self indulgence and grotesque over estimation of one's own worth is possible. Can you enlighten me?

Your implication is wrong. My ego does not inflate. I'm just a guy with a very simple idea, and the very difficult task of trying to be taken seriously long enough to convey and discuss this idea with people much more intelligent than me. It should be an easy task for you guys, since you all know so much(<--- not sarcasm), but you'd rather spend all your time making me look stupid. Not that I blame you. I realize it must be a temptation difficult to resist. An ignoramus rarely says anything worthy of consideration in your eyes, but at least there's sport in mocking him, right?

 

[Dywyddyr]

That question doesn't make sense. Why can't we hear gravity, or see microwaves? Only God knows. Can you rephrase the question?

You stated that

Light is just pressure waves(gravity waves)

If light IS gravity then why can we see one and not the other?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The black state has the property of pressure and makes up what we perceive to be empty space. The higher the pressure, the higher the gravity.

The white state has no pressure property. Therefore it can not be compressed. Along with black space, white space is part of what we perceive as matter. White space is what I was previously referring to when I used the word "energy".

You haven't really address what I said. What are you taking 'pressure' to be? How precisely does the state 'black' have pressure? How much? If only 2 states are possible then how can one of those states have multiple states (ie different pressures) in different situations? Furthermore pressure and compressibility are not synonymous. This is seen in fluids, where pressure contributes to the dynamics of the fluid but there are other effects like viscosity and stress which are involved. How the fluid behaves then leads through to the amount it is compressed at various locations. And in the case of fluid mechanics terms like 'stress', 'viscosity', 'compressibility', 'pressure' are all clearly and precisely defined. You're talking about some concept/model you have come up with and thus you cannot assume notions from current physics can be applied without due care and attention.

Until you can formalise your 'model' beyond just desperate arm waving you have absolutely no grounds to use any terminology from mainstream physics.

Your implication is wrong. My ego does not inflate.

If you had no ego you'd listen to people's comments in cases where they disagree with you.

I'm just a guy with a very simple idea

which has absolutely no grounds for being taken seriously.

and the very difficult task of trying to be taken seriously long enough to convey and discuss this idea with people much more intelligent than me.

Can you formalise your work? Can you provide evidence for it, not just assertions? Can you provide anything which is more than "I had this vague idea"? Until you can then there's nothing to be taken seriously.

Come on, think about it. Do you think "I had some vague idea about stuff I don't have any experience or knowledge of" is worth taking seriously?

It should be an easy task for you guys, since you all know so much(<--- not sarcasm), but you'd rather spend all your time making me look stupid.

What should be easy? Developing your idea? There's nothing to develop.

Let's go through this a little bit. When someone in the mainstream pitches a new idea seriously they don't just write a page of wordy stuff and try to publish it. They spend considerable time developing the idea as far as they possibly can, including putting as much formal framework around it as possible. Only then will they try to get it published. Examples of this are things like general relativity. Einstein had the idea of curved space-time many years before he finally published general relativity in 1915. It took many years of thinking, working, discussing and developing his initial vague ideas before he considered it ready to be published.

But why didn't he publish his idea "Gravity is curved space!" immediately, why spend 3~8 years on it? Because the idea was insufficient for people to develop. The notion of gravity being curved space-time was something no one else had considered and hence without the initial formal framework Einstein provided in 1915 little, if any, work would have been possible by others. By developing his thoughts as far as possible he provided others with enough material to be able to pick up his work and develop it without his direct input.

Now consider your 'work'. If you got hit by a bus tomorrow could anyone continue your work? No. This means that presently there is no 'model' or 'theory' or even 'hypothesis' for your work. If I wanted to help you the only way I could would be to ask you "What do you think happens when....", I'd be unable to develop this stuff further without your direct involvement. A good model should be independent of the person working on it. Einstein is dead but from his papers and books people have continued with relativity. Relativity is more than Einstein's personal view of the way things work, its a rigorous formal structure which can be developed quantitatively.

This is why I (and the mainstream in general) ask cranks for details, because if they can't provide them and all they have is arm waving opinion then they don't have anything resembling science. Instead you're just providing us with your take on the universe. I could easily knock up my own 'take on things' of similar length to your first post and sprinkle it with buzzwords. How can we tell who, if either of us, is right? By reason and evidence. What reason do you have for certain claims? What evidence do you have? What predictions can you make? What systems can you model? What assumptions do you make and why do you make them?

Coming up with a wordy 'explanation for gravity' is easy. It's invisible fairies pushing you down. It's the superluminal divergence of a torsion field under flux. It's Jebus. It's isomorphic topologies undergoing non-commutative phase transitions. I'm sure more than a few 'theories of time travel' or 'theories of consciousness' have been produced by stoned kids watching Donnie Darko or dipshits who've been taken in by 'What The Bleep Do We Know?'. Should we entertain them all as serious possibilities? Of course not, we consider them all baseless and vapid until reason and evidence can be provided for them. And much as your 'non-inflated ego' might not want to accept it, until you can provide said reason and evidence for your claims they are as valid as said stoner gibberish about time travel.

 

[matthew809]

If light IS gravity then why can we see one and not the other?

I believe light waves are gravity waves.

If my theory is right, then light waves are just oscillations of spatial pressure at the atomic level. So, you are seeing gravity waves.

I use the word "gravity" and "pressure" interchangeably.

You haven't really address what I said. What are you taking 'pressure' to be? How precisely does the state 'black' have pressure? How much? If only 2 states are possible then how can one of those states have multiple states (ie different pressures) in different situations?

Ok. Lets not call it a state. Lets just say that the universe is made of only black space and white space.

Think of black space as a thick sheet of rubber. Now picture a pencil stabbing a hole in the rubber sheet and staying lodged in. Now make the pencil invisible. That hole would represent a simple example of white space(don't get this confused with an atom's structure). Notice how the hole can not be compressed(because the pencil does not give), such like white space. Notice the circular pattern of more density around the hole compared to another part of the rubber sheet. Notice when you get closer to the edge of the hole, the density increases. This density gradient is like the gravity field around a planet. A measurement of the density of a given area of the rubber sheet is what I referred to as "pressure" or "gravity".

Until you can formalise your 'model' beyond just desperate arm waving you have absolutely no grounds to use any terminology from mainstream physics.

If you had no ego you'd listen to people's comments in cases where they disagree with you.

which has absolutely no grounds for being taken seriously.

Can you formalise your work? Can you provide evidence for it, not just assertions? Can you provide anything which is more than "I had this vague idea"? Until you can then there's nothing to be taken seriously.

Come on, think about it. Do you think "I had some vague idea about stuff I don't have any experience or knowledge of" is worth taking seriously?

What should be easy? Developing your idea? There's nothing to develop.

Let's go through this a little bit. When someone in the mainstream pitches a new idea seriously they don't just write a page of wordy stuff and try to publish it. They spend considerable time developing the idea as far as they possibly can, including putting as much formal framework around it as possible. Only then will they try to get it published. Examples of this are things like general relativity. Einstein had the idea of curved space-time many years before he finally published general relativity in 1915. It took many years of thinking, working, discussing and developing his initial vague ideas before he considered it ready to be published.

But why didn't he publish his idea "Gravity is curved space!" immediately, why spend 3~8 years on it? Because the idea was insufficient for people to develop. The notion of gravity being curved space-time was something no one else had considered and hence without the initial formal framework Einstein provided in 1915 little, if any, work would have been possible by others. By developing his thoughts as far as possible he provided others with enough material to be able to pick up his work and develop it without his direct input.

Now consider your 'work'. If you got hit by a bus tomorrow could anyone continue your work? No. This means that presently there is no 'model' or 'theory' or even 'hypothesis' for your work. If I wanted to help you the only way I could would be to ask you "What do you think happens when....", I'd be unable to develop this stuff further without your direct involvement. A good model should be independent of the person working on it. Einstein is dead but from his papers and books people have continued with relativity. Relativity is more than Einstein's personal view of the way things work, its a rigorous formal structure which can be developed quantitatively.

This is why I (and the mainstream in general) ask cranks for details, because if they can't provide them and all they have is arm waving opinion then they don't have anything resembling science. Instead you're just providing us with your take on the universe. I could easily knock up my own 'take on things' of similar length to your first post and sprinkle it with buzzwords. How can we tell who, if either of us, is right? By reason and evidence. What reason do you have for certain claims? What evidence do you have? What predictions can you make? What systems can you model? What assumptions do you make and why do you make them?

Coming up with a wordy 'explanation for gravity' is easy. It's invisible fairies pushing you down. It's the superluminal divergence of a torsion field under flux. It's Jebus. It's isomorphic topologies undergoing non-commutative phase transitions. I'm sure more than a few 'theories of time travel' or 'theories of consciousness' have been produced by stoned kids watching Donnie Darko or dipshits who've been taken in by 'What The Bleep Do We Know?'. Should we entertain them all as serious possibilities? Of course not, we consider them all baseless and vapid until reason and evidence can be provided for them. And much as your 'non-inflated ego' might not want to accept it, until you can provide said reason and evidence for your claims they are as valid as said stoner gibberish about time travel.

But I am not trying to pass this off as something more than it is. I know that I have no evidence, or numbers for you. It's just a general idea. Why are you comparing me to Einstein? I posted it in this sub-forum for a reason.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I believe light waves are gravity waves.
If my theory is right, then light waves are just oscillations of spatial pressure at the atomic level. So, you are seeing gravity waves.

So if it's dark I should be weightless?

I use the word "gravity" and "pressure" interchangeably.

Why?
Since they're clearly not the same.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I believe light waves are gravity waves.

Evidence? Gravity only attracts, yet electromagnetic interactions can repel also.

If my theory is right, then light waves are just oscillations of spatial pressure at the atomic level. So, you are seeing gravity waves.

Using buzzwords you don't define.

I use the word "gravity" and "pressure" interchangeably.

That's just flat out wrong since they are not the same.

Ok. Lets not call it a state. Lets just say that the universe is made of only black space and white space.

What is 'space'? 'Space' is one of those things cranks take for granted, because everyone knows the concept of 'space' but when it comes to formalising it very few people outside of academia have any clue how to do it or even realise it needs to be done.

Think of black space as a thick sheet of rubber. Now picture a pencil stabbing a hole in the rubber sheet and staying lodged in. Now make the pencil invisible. That hole would represent a simple example of white space(don't get this confused with an atom's structure). Notice how the hole can not be compressed(because the pencil does not give), such like white space. Notice the circular pattern of more density around the hole compared to another part of the rubber sheet. Notice when you get closer to the edge of the hole, the density increases. This density gradient is like the gravity field around a planet. A measurement of the density of a given area of the rubber sheet is what I referred to as "pressure" or "gravity".

You're working entirely by metaphor and arm waving. You're trying to explain things outside of your everyday experience using things in your everyday experience. It's naive to think that the universe works in such a manner, that the tiny tiny tiny corner you experience is sufficient to grasp everything else.

It's also arrogant to think your random guessing about things you have no experience of constitutes a 'theory of everything'.

But I am not trying to pass this off as something more than it is.

You most certainly are.

I know that I have no evidence, or numbers for you.

Then your entire claim to a theory of everything is false. You cannot have 'theory' without 'hypothesis' and 'testing', as a scientific theory is one which has had its predictions tested and validated. You've provided no workable hypothesis, no predictions, no framework to even construct predictions and all your claims are just random guesses based on zero experience or information.

Why are you comparing me to Einstein?

I didn't, I think your non-inflated ego is showing its true colours with that comment. You clearly failed to grasp my point if that's what you think. I was giving an example of an important advancement in physics which wasn't just thrown out into the community the moment it was conceived. Instead the person who conceived of it spent the better part of a decade developing it to the point where its merits could be seen by others, it could be worked on by others and it made a few initial predictions which could be tested. You've provided none of those.

Did you understand what I said about you being hit by a bus? If your 'work' is so vague that the only way anyone can work on it is to just ask you then you don't have anything close to science, you're just trying to convince people your uninformed ignorant opinion is somehow worth listening to. Don't worry, you're not alone, hacks like Farsight have the same issue. In his case he's ploughing money into vanity publishing his work (since all journals and publishers rejected it) and advertising it, so desperate is he to convince himself (since he's convincing no one else) that his uninformed opinion is somehow special. I suggest you learn a bit more about the scientific method before continuing to push your 'work', lest you end up like Farsight.