My theory of everything...

[matthew809]

So if it's dark I should be weightless?

Space is everywhere. Space has pressure. Pressure is gravity. Gravity is everywhere.

Let's say the gravity measurement of an area of space is 100(an arbitrary number). Lets call this number the ambient gravity. Now imagine a light wave moving across this area. The gravity of this area would then oscillate from an amplitude of maybe 99 to 101(on the atomic level of course, which is why it is not perceived by anything but the most sensitive sense of sight). The average gravity would stay at 100 though, since there is no increase of white space in the area. The only thing which could increase the gravity of an area is the introduction of more white space, such as atoms(dark space trapped in a bubble of white space).

 

[Dywyddyr]

Pressure is gravity.

I believe light waves are gravity waves.

:shrug:

 

[matthew809]

AlphaNumeric, you're right. I am not disagreeing with you. You were not comparing me to Einstein, but contrasting me to him. I miswrote my thoughts.

Now lets get past that. If you wish to humor my tiny brain then feel free. But please stop accusing me of pushing my work. It's not my "work" because I didn't have to do any work for it. I never claimed to. It's an idea that popped into my head more or less. I wanted to talk about it knowing full well that it's based mostly on ignorance. Yet, I still want to talk about it. Sorry for offending you.

 

[Ophiolite]

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?

You are completely misreading my intent. That's my fault. I can understand why you would think your interpretation of my motives is valid. It isn't.

To repeat, based upon my knowledge of science, of logic, of the history of science and so forth, to generate a theory of everything requires three things: outstanding intellect; intensive and extensive knowledge; unparalleled commitment and focus. Among six billion persons the number who might potentially do such a thing would be measured in hundreds. It surely takes arrogance and ego to believe you are one of these elite.

Clearly you disagree, so the alternative is that you think a theory of everything can be generated quite easily. If this is your thinking I can tell you now that you are badly mistaken.

Others have already systematically dismantled the inconsistencies and errors in your 'theory'. I applaud imagination, but imagination which is unconstrained by reality is as uesful as a fart in a coal mine.

I would have great respect for you if you were to say something like "OK, guys I see I actually had a pretty wooly idea that doesn't really match up to anything we actually observe and in many instances runs counter to reality. I hope you guys will help me improve my understanding by answering various questions I may ask from time to time."

I suspect you aren't going to say that. In which case I may start some of the ridicule you mistakinely thought I was engaging in earlier.

 

[matthew809]

Others have already systematically dismantled the inconsistencies and errors in your 'theory'.

Systematically?

The only "errors" pointed out have been semantic, or due to sloppy articulation on my part. Oh, and you constantly point out that I don't have any evidence, even though evidence is not necessary to ponder such an idea in this early stage. So all your systematic dismantling doesn't really amount to much since it's just an idea in my head, not a formal theory. Based on the responses I got so far, it's clear that I haven't done a very good job expressing my idea. If I had, you all would have asked more pertinent questions.

So for anyone who's interested in discussing my idea....

Do you think it's possible for the universe to function as it does being made of only black space and white space as I previously loosely defined it?

 

[matthew809]

I wanted to clarify my idea a little better since I've made so many changes to my terminology since the original post. I believe that, possibly, the following is true:

The universe is made of only 2 ingredients: white space and black space. Black space is a pressurized medium. White space is a pressure-less medium; it only has the property of volume. Black space is pressurized in direct response to the placement of white space; higher pressurized black space surrounds areas of more white space(gravity).

Matter is made up of atoms. Atoms are simply a mixture of black space and white space(mostly black space), but in a specific form. A soap bubble floating in the air would make a good enough analogy. The soap portion of the bubble would be white space. The inside and outside of the bubble would be black space.

The inside of the atom is [pressurized] black space, separated from the outside black space by nothing more than a relatively thin layer of [pressure-less] white space. An atom can expand and contract. When an atom expands, the inside volume expands and therefore the pressure inside subsides. When an atom contracts(due to outside forces), the pressure inside gets higher. The pressure insides resists the outside pressure until an equilibrium is reached. It is the resistance from the trapped black space inside the atom which keeps atoms from collapsing, and also keeps atoms from crashing into each other.

These are the basics of my idea.

 

[AlexG]

A hypothesis which does not reference any physics at all. Quite an accomplishment.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

lol 5 doughnut purposely posted on advanced physics forums once some totally off the wall word salad with such enthusiasm.

Reading only half of the " I believe that, possibly, the following is true..." made me laugh.


But, that's not to say one isn't in the right place here to post imaginatively.

 

[Stryder]

The one thing about any "Theory of Everything", don't apply the theory as ever being too personal. After all if a theory was an accurate depiction, then in essence it would be open to everyone to have their own interpretations about it.

In the case of the OP, I'm not going to say it sounds like John Wheelers depiction of Quantum Foam because technically it doesn't, however the OP might find it of interest to read into that a bit further. I just hope however that it aids in the OP's overall reasoning by looking at already posed answers by others, rather than just writing off other peoples previous suggestions and only posing their own.

After all the nature of Science isn't just identifying a common truth through evidence and testing, it's coming to a conclusion that the whole scientific community identifies with and backs. (The Consensus, usually on the grounds of evidence and testing.)

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?

When a person comes across a brainwave which they feel is completely accurate (Even if a false positive), then they will likely want to share that event with other people.

Some of those particular types of people might be doing it only for the ego and/or glory in the notion of being registered as being someone that had that particular thought or theory;

Others might well post purely because of their own sceptical nature, knowing that they are a finite being that takes in information from more than just data inputs but subconsciously from their day to day lives, they will likely understand that their conclusion could well be a false positive, so posting them online is a way to generate a form of error correction and to make sure that they aren't undermined in their reasoning or holding onto a delusional rationale.

I guess you could say they hold out in the hope that someone from a professional field, an expert in the area that they have a theory will just give them five minutes of their time to identify the base flaws in their reasoning, identify literature that is similar or related, so as to aid themselves in "schooling" on the subject if they are that interested.
(Obviously though, no matter the professional or expert that addresses the subject, there is one thing they can't teach an individual, "How to submit to being wrong when you are wrong".

After all once a person establishes how they are "wrong", it could mean completely re-writing various fundamentals that make up their own observation of the world and/or universe around then, some inaccurate fundamentals will probably be difficult to let go of. (Woo-woo's and the delude aren't the only potential victims of this, there are particular fields in science that still operate with "out-of-date" techniques while defending them as "tried and tested methods", they are the most dangerous of delusional's since they pose as the Scientific Method and can give Science a bad name.)