Theory Of Everything Cracked!

[Mosheh Thezion]

NOW.... i understand completely...

you said...
''''''''''''all I have done is redefined charge to a given force which is simply a result of a given fields dynamics.''''''''''''''


and thats true.. you have looked at known phenomena, and used new terms to describe them using a different frame of reference which is argueably still true.

but... you havent actually come up with anything i can use, or even make sense out of.

it serves no purpose for me to do so, and you offer no improvement on my beliefs, which are themselves highly argueable.


I am open to consideration regarding the fundamental personal aspects of the fundamental field energy between electrical objects as protons and electrons, and the lpossiblity of a multitude of varied forms of that same field charge manifesting as gravity and electric energy and magnetic fields....

and i had hope to derive some insight, as to some possibility which i had not contemplated... yet.. thus far.. you have not told me anything new.
you have just re-stated it in your terms.... terms once learned, clarify nothing.

the quality of this energy, obsviously takes 2 basic forms... namely electrostatic and gravity.

the third... would be electron.. from which is derived all photons and magnetic phenomena.

in this way we can imagine the difference in these fields, as being due to some personal quality that distiguishes the action/ reaction effect.

have you nothing to add?

-MT

 

[LaidBack]

NOW.... i understand completely...

you said...
''''''''''''all I have done is redefined charge to a given force which is simply a result of a given fields dynamics.''''''''''''''


and thats true.. you have looked at known phenomena, and used new terms to describe them using a different frame of reference which is argueably still true.

but... you havent actually come up with anything i can use, or even make sense out of.

it serves no purpose for me to do so, and you offer no improvement on my beliefs, which are themselves highly argueable.


I am open to consideration regarding the fundamental personal aspects of the fundamental field energy between electrical objects as protons and electrons, and the lpossiblity of a multitude of varied forms of that same field charge manifesting as gravity and electric energy and magnetic fields....

and i had hope to derive some insight, as to some possibility which i had not contemplated... yet.. thus far.. you have not told me anything new.
you have just re-stated it in your terms.... terms once learned, clarify nothing.

the quality of this energy, obsviously takes 2 basic forms... namely electrostatic and gravity.

the third... would be electron.. from which is derived all photons and magnetic phenomena.

in this way we can imagine the difference in these fields, as being due to some personal quality that distiguishes the action/ reaction effect.

have you nothing to add?

-MT

Are you noting that once we convert a given charge to its velocity we are not messing around with charge anymore but rather with areas that reflect the real worlds dynamics. :bugeye:

 

[LaidBack]

NOW.... i understand completely...

you said...
''''''''''''all I have done is redefined charge to a given force which is simply a result of a given fields dynamics.''''''''''''''


and thats true.. you have looked at known phenomena, and used new terms to describe them using a different frame of reference which is argueably still true.



-MT

Almost on the money Mosheh ... Please note we are converting charge via calculus to an area with a certain velocity, and it is then that we defined these velocities as force, so that we may easily deal with its field whether we are working out a mass of fields "macro" that suroud it and or Micro Physics that consists of a single field "Sub Atomic Particle" where we may have to concede much the same dynamics may still be quite feasible if we consider how closey any fields dynamics can resemble closely to our atmosphere and the many various velocities that define wind speed and the assoiciated isobars ect, and one of the spin offs by actually treating everything as fields rather than as defined charge and or particles it gives us another huge advantage - As to why we even Percieve gravity as a force.

And yes you are right when you infer that I have considered a whole lot more time references that normally most would not have considered.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

but... charge is potential difference... its relative.
its voltage is translatable into veocity, with the max potential of any given line of force being unlimted...

the ability of the electron to manifest this as actual velocity is dependant on the time for that acceloration.


all the terms needed are already being used. the math is well established.

giving in to the belief that electrons are themselves fields that cover an area is highly problematic, since all experimental evidense suggest they are pin piont masees.

STILL... i dont know what your talking about.

-MT

 

[LaidBack]

but... charge is potential difference... its relative.
its voltage is translatable into veocity, with the max potential of any given line of force being unlimted...

the ability of the electron to manifest this as actual velocity is dependant on the time for that acceloration.


all the terms needed are already being used. the math is well established.



-MT

There you go!
So lets go back to my first post and lets try and express what part you are having difficulty with.. By the sound of it you really should have no problems, especially if you intimately understand how and why light is propagated.

But somehow I get the notion you havent fully grasped all that one needs to know about The Electromagnetic spectrum, lets hope I am wrong.

I also have reason to believe you havent quite grasped constructs in where, when we refer to an area that defines an atom existing in a solid its area can be no where near eqaul to an area if the same atom should exist in a near vacuum where its field should have expired just about all of its potential and it should be almost at unity suggesting its field is now quite vast and at a very low momentum and or velocity.

Hence its reason of being with a much lower potential to an atom that exists in a solid which is surrounded by other forces "fields that if they were also removed would unleash the compressed field/s to a velocity towards unity as well but only as long as it is not met with any other opposing fields with their respective fields of a given velocity towards their own trajectories of unity.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

YEAH YEAH... forces and fields balancing pressures and pulls... blah blah.

we knows this... just because you state it strangely doesnt make what your saying new and valueble.

-MT

 

[LaidBack]

YEAH YEAH... forces and fields balancing pressures and pulls... blah blah.

we knows this... just because you state it strangely doesnt make what your saying new and valueble.

-MT

And for the last time Mosheh, what part of my first Post is not clear enough so that you can apply my given constructs?

Let me suggest had you at least attempted to apply my sugestions, you would more than likely be responding with Questions concerning Quantum Mechanics.

 

[LaidBack]

Hmm... So "Frightful. And British" is the theory of everything, then?

OH MY DAWG! >>>Pete!<<<
I noticed you moved my Thread to another area..

May I ask why?

Having expressed my astonishment, I ask that you please move it back if you don’t have any solid reason and or foundation as to why established theory and or science can be placed with pseudoscience.

Perhaps I have not been clear with my constructs as to how one can do a work around with respects to certain problems, so let me point out this should have at least been sorted out with me before resorting to such an extreme measure, therefore I am requesting you refer me to my error right now or Move it back immediately to avoid further un-pleasantries. :bugeye:

 

[Mr Anonymous]

It's been down here for days, old chap. Actually, pretty much the entire time. I believe James would be the fellow to address the issue of moving things to. Assuming you wanted to take the matter up. Sorry.

 

[LaidBack]

It's been down here for days, old chap. Actually, pretty much the entire time. I believe James would be the fellow to address the issue of moving things to. Assuming you wanted to take the matter up. Sorry.

Oh my! Are you infering Pete was made the scape Goat for the move, or I am still correct with the notion, in that it was requested by Pete that this thread be moved into an area that it really shouldnt be in? :bugeye:

Phwerrrrt~ And here I was thinking that this forum may be some sort of a joke forum and or consisting mainly of half witted teenagers.

Well if Pete doesnt commision the return to where I posted it, and or I dont get the normal questions as the other forums I have posted to, I may as well ignore it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm amazed at your wisdom, LaidBack and Mosheh...






...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Having expressed my astonishment, I ask that you please move it back if you don’t have any solid reason and or foundation as to why established theory and or science can be placed with pseudoscience.

I'm sure James R has a pretty good reason......

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Oh my! Are you infering Pete was made the scape Goat for the move, or I am still correct with the notion, in that it was requested by Pete that this thread be moved into an area that it really shouldnt be in? :bugeye:

Emmm, to be perfectly honest old chap, couldn't tell you. Anyone can file a complaint report on any posting, irrespective of weather they've even actually read the thing or not - Point is, things only happen if the Moderator concerned agrees with the complaint made. Quite why y'seem to think Pete had anything to do with this threads relocation, I'm not entire sure.

I mean, if you rephrased you're initial posit using the actual math and then proceeded to post that in the math section - Well, who can can possibly object to that, providing of course, the sums work out?

A

 

[(Q)]

Having expressed my astonishment, I ask that you please move it back if you don’t have any solid reason and or foundation as to why established theory and or science can be placed with pseudoscience.

Perhaps I have not been clear with my constructs as to how one can do a work around with respects to certain problems, so let me point out this should have at least been sorted out with me before resorting to such an extreme measure, therefore I am requesting you refer me to my error right now or Move it back immediately to avoid further un-pleasantries.

It would get moved, but there is no forum labeled, "Complete Gibberish" so the Pseudoscience forum is the next best thing.

 

[Stryder]

Current cosmology suggests that the Universe is actually "Flat", although I personally do not necessarily agree with there reasoning however none the less let me explain what I caught the tail end of from "The Sky at Night". (BBC)

There are three stated types of theory (Stated on the program):
"Open" where the continued expansion of the universe exist in not just expanse but mass.

"Flat" where the universe itself fluctuates in an Equilibrium where there is no gain or loss, which can commonly be refered to as "Steady State".

"Closed" again suggests no gain or loss, however it's outcome would be an early universal demise since it lacks the "Flat" fluctuations and balance.

Personally (This is not based on the BBC show) I suggest "Open" because I believe that naturally our science will evolve to allow us to realise how to expand it.

For instance a seemingly science-fiction "time-dialation" where matter is taken from a future point, leaving space. (This will of course cause discussion due to the nature of the paradox, but thats what this is about at the end of the day, discussing....)

In the image I depict a Circle to represent what I'm ambigiously terming as matter, You will see lines labeled A1, A2, A3 and B. The "A" lines represent three universal states one where the universe comprises of nothingness namely a vacuum [A1], another line where the universe contains matter [A3] and lastly the fluctuation in between [A2].

Admittedly it will seem very Similar to Schroedinger's Wave theory, since the universe (well Multiverse) is suggested to exist not just in a duality state but a fluctation state.

The diagram poses the circles in a form of "Iteration" from Left to Right, where the birth of substance of the universe is taken from a future point where something exists. Notibly if a universe was completely devoid of any existance then there would be nothing to take, this then suggests a paradox where another universe must occur with something in it.

This might suggest "Flat" because of the "Equilibrium", however if it was maintained as "Open" and the matter from that future universe was continually subjected to a past point, eventually you'd have multiple instances of the same matter only differentiated by its lifespan, colliding with itself.

My thought is that "Mechanically" the universe would exist only as a "Flat" state with no "Intelligent" interaction, however since life has a nasty habit of being Paradoxical, it would suggest for the system to be "Open" it would involve "Intelligent" interaction.

In short, I posed how the whole universe could be generated from just one instance of a single Hydrogen atom through countless billions of interations of this time paradox. Every occurance altering the universe slightly each time, until eventually the universe could calculate the causality of it's superpositioned state (e.g. Where everything is in it's place).

This suggested that the "Big Bang" isn't actually so much of a Bang, but more of a "Big Number Crunch".

This left the point in my mind though about the nature of the universe and is everything actually predetermined, afterall if the "Big Number Crunch" was extreme energy and heat computing the universe, anything that could generate a paradox would still potentially cause such energy occurances and continue occurances of the universes computation.

My posing took the philosophical approach by theorising that I drink water (H<SUB>2</SUB>O) of which the occurance of those atoms in the known universe is supposedly defined by chaos, which means those molecules consumed are therefore "Interchangible" with likened molecules. Such interchangibility would only seem feasible if the molecules themselves are at base the same composite. (namely from the same atom)

Suggestibly Water is inanimate and any "non-observed" occurance (i.e. Thermal Dynamics) would play out a predetermined route, but I realised what creates chaos. "Life" is what drives paradox's, since afterall a stone will be a stone and doesn't make any observational decisions about being anything else other than inanimate, where as life can change it's destiny at whim.

An example would be "Do you know what you are doing in 5 minutes time?", if you asked the same of a stone, it would still be a stone. If of course you pick up that stone and throw it in those 5 minutes, you as a life form are generating that paradox, afterall that stone has no will of it's own, its just a universal constant.

As for the universes continued computation the only occurances that could still be suggested to have reminants with the "Big Number Crunch" are the Stars since they are supposedly "chaotic", perhaps Life itself is more interlinked with that Chaos that we might of previously thought.

I hope this is written in a clear enough manner, thoughts and suggests, just post a response

(As for this being the wrong forum for the initial post... Without Mathematic's it's left to just "theory" which in turn needs proving before its ever accepted, thats why it can be found to border on Pseudoscience and usually pushed there by some posters inane responses.)

 

[heliocentric]

Lets elaborate on why we can treat a particle as if a field, Put simply if we consider that a given particle must consist of a field of force we must concede this force is either an outward force which opposes other forces to its definition "other mass or velocities", to which we must also concede that if this force was allowed to traverse its given trajectory it would destroy the given area that was once defined it as a particle, so therefore it is logical to consider that the atom must consist of forces that reflect what we commonly refer to as charge… where positive can be treated as an outward force and negative could be treated as an inward force and or vice versa and what’s more we now have symbiotic forces and or means of how mass is possible without worrying about charge, we can even convert a magnetic field to these basic fundamental forces.

I like that alot, particles are force themselves rather than *having* force. Then again the problem with all this is you can always take it a step further 'what is a force?' 'how can we best understand it?'
Personally i think our conceptual models/abstractions are at breaking point, to understand everything you have to strip away 2nd hand abstraction and atempt to understand *as* the very thing youre trying to understand.

Fucking hell went a bit zen there didnt i, sorry chaps..

 

[LaidBack]

I like that alot, particles are force themselves rather than *having* force. Then again the problem with all this is you can always take it a step further 'what is a force?' 'how can we best understand it?'
Personally i think our conceptual models/abstractions are at breaking point, to understand everything you have to strip away 2nd hand abstraction and atempt to understand *as* the very thing youre trying to understand.

Fucking hell went a bit zen there didnt i, sorry chaps..

I wasnt going to post in this thread any mo, but let me interject the following

Abstract
"Unity" Where everything and everywhere has a trajectory to equaliberium if allowed.

BTW I have restarted this thread in the maths and physics area and its at the point where I may have to resort to spoon feed the maths behind my reasoning with respects to the amalgamation of Gravity and Electromotive forces that have been converted to Newton-meter.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58132