Eugenio Ullauri

Well yes i need to create a word that represents matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy.

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No thanks I got about as far as 1 minute into the first video and lost the willingness to go further.

Your equations are very simple to post here as per the rules we should not need to goto a youtube video to see the equations involved in your theory.

First and foremost mistake. Energy doesn't exist on its own it is a property of a system or state that determines its ability to perform work. A universe isn't defined as only the energy components.

Keeping our minds open should also involve following proper physics terminology....

PS I have no idea why every speculator that comes to these forums always think they have invented a ToE yet non of them even know what a ToE involves ......

ie the gauge groups that describe all inter-particle interactions ie under standard model though gravity is still problematic Undefined control sequence \otimesSO of thee standard model for starters. What you have is nothing towards a ToE...you cannot predict any particle reactions with what you have

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

No use proper terminology energy has a specific meaning under physics

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I know. They want to be famous.. But learning entire quantum physics would be too much of work and effort for them..

 

 

I'm saying i can answer ANY question so im waiting for your questions.

What i mean when i say energy is stuff, is everything that exists i mean everything that exists i call it energy, and i say it has only one behavior which is called the infinite loop density cycle.

If you ask specific questions like how your theory explains charges, black holes, universe expansion, information paradoxes, etc etc etc i will find it very easy to answer what im saying is that i must be able to answer every question with my theory otherwise my theory does not work and since i invented it which was in the end of 2015 i spent almost 3 years finding all unsolved questions any question and i was able to answer it using my theory, so i decided to make it public to know if someone can come out with a question that my theory cannot answer in that way i will now i'm wrong, so i encourage all of you to ask questions.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I honestly do not understand what you are actually trying to do here - the purpose of physics is to make models about physical systems, from which we can then produce new predictions that weren’t known before. If we first have to “watch” the system before we can describe it, then this completely defeats the purpose. Furthermore, the universe is inherently quantum and not classic, and in the quantum world you cannot “watch” the system before you describe it, because any act of observation will irrevocably change the system. Your overall idea does not make any sense to me.

In the specific case of classical gravity, the motion of a test particle does not depend on its internal composition or energy configuration - it depends only on the geometry of spacetime. Furthermore, all relevant quantities in this context are covariant in nature (they are tensors), so they specifically do not depend on the observer at all.

Lastly, gravity as we observe it in the real world would not exist if the universe had only three dimensions, so time most definitely is quite physically real.

Finally someone that actually at least took a time to think about it, thank you, you are the first person, i will love to clarify your questions.

Yeah historically the purpose of physics has been to create theories you can make future predictions with my theory but what the theory says is that you will never be sure if your prediction is right if you don't observe it .

i am not promoting a product im giving this away for free and i tell you guys to watch my youtube channel because it will help you to understand what im trying to say because it is difficult to understand so that is why the most important thing is to keep your mind open.

So lets continue answering your questions,

Yes the observer changes the state of the universe because it is a part of it but this theory says that when you watch something you are watching its behavior so it does not matter what caused the behavior it can be itself or the observer actually what my theory says is that the whole universe organization causes that behavior and of course the observer is part of the whole energy organization.

I know that my idea may not make sense to you but to understand it you have to open your mind forget any assumptions that classical physics or quantum physics make.

There is no dimensions gravity is the behavior of energy my theory calls gravity to every interaction so in my theory there is not electromagnetism, weak nuclear, string nucleal, my theory can be summarized as follows:

Energy is all that exists, and energy has only one behavior which is change its density.

The only objective of energy is to become denser as much as it cans and when it cannot keep increasing its density, it decreases its density again and makes the infinite loop density cycle which means that there is not a beginning of the universe and wont be an end because the universe is an infinite loop in which the whole existing energy changes its density in an infinite loop fashion.

A observer is a kind of energy organization that focuses energy organization that is why i use the word focuser to refer to an observer, for something to exist it has to be seen, you don't know if your dog is alive if you don't look at it, but this is different from saying your dog is alive and dead at the same time, this theory says that you don't know this means the dog does not exist until you look at it, because if you think about what does to exist means is to be focused if you don't believe try to say that something exists without looking it, you know your mom was alive the last time you saw or talk to her, but now you simply don't now.

There is no time there is just energy and how its organized and follows only one behavior which is the infinite loop density cycle, who needs time is an observer as a tool to describe what it sees again im uploading another video that explains just this i hope im not banned for saying that.

If i did ont answered your questions just tell me i will answer every kind of question you guys ask.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Rule 2.7 (emphasis added)

 

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned

 

 

 

Does your video include a mathematical model one can use to predict results?

 

Yes it does include a mathematical model to predict results please check it

3 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Discussion of any topic is to take place here, per the rules.

How does your theory predict the parameters of a geostationary orbit?

 

Thank you for your question, please keep your mind open when reading this answer:

Right Now im uploading a youtube video explaining just that (how to apply my theory in the real world), but I will still answer it here so for clarification I recommend you to visit the video

this is my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIVjkWQa42cJAr3oBnh7O1Q

ok my theory is based that anything that you want to describe is focuser specific, so nothing exist if it is not focused (seen) by a focuser, so every focuser has limits like a camera has a limit on the resolution of its photos, if you want to predict a geostationary orbit my theory says that there is only one correct way of doing it which is that you need to focus its energy organization, so how to do that basically looking at how it behaves in order to know the energy organization parameter traditionally know as mass and acceleration in Newtonian physics, but here those parameters are threaten as energy organization, so what my theory says is that it has a different way of predicting every geostationary orbit which depends on the information the focuser can 'collect' about the system.

So it is algorithm specific, but to demonstrate this I have created an example which means a way of doing it which is as follows:

It says the most photos you take the most precision your prediction will have, which is different from Newton or Einstein in which the precision is limited by the equation.

So the thought experiment starts here:

To describe a geostationary orbit you look at the orbit and every time that you find the object has a new position (which depends on the hardware implementation) you take a photo

So you will describe the earth and the satellite in terms of its 2d size in the photo like a two dimensional array of bits (watch the video for a graphic view), in which the earth has a size of (for example) 100 and the satellite a size of 1, here size means volume that you can see in a photo which is 2d volume if you like, then you have an energy organization map which can be represented as coordinates of a 2d plane, so you do this for every frame, remember a new frame occurs when the observer notices the map has changed and takes a photo of it, ok so you have a lot of frames, so in simpler words you have a video in which you know how the energy map behaves and you timestamp each frame like saying the second frame occurred 10 seconds after the first one, the third frame occurred 5 seconds after the second one and so on, so then you have a map, so now you use that map to determine the future of the system by seeing the data you collected, so for example the data shows you that the satellite energy organization has a function with the earth's energy organization and for example that data suggests you a custom version that looks like F=ma, that is true only for this system with a limited level of precision as always, it is not universal.

So think in general classic terms the system will tell you that two systems that are the same from the point of view of Newton can behave in different way, this means that mass and acceleration is not enough to determine it because two objects with the same mass and acceleration which is enough to say they are the same in Newtonian physics, so my theory says that mass and acceleration are simply not enough to know if to objects are the same, what you need to know is its energy organization, to clarify this image two systems that are the same for newton, so what my theory says is that the newton law will break after a "time" because the different organization makes one system to change its "mass" in a different way than the other, so if you apply newton after some time on both systems you will found that the systems are not the same and you don't know why, because newton f=ma is not enough to describe it.

Since my theory takes in account only the easiness of density change if you like you will have parameters like a measure of the force in Newtonian physics which is given by how easy is for the system of two objects to become one object and that easiness is what determines the orbit of the satellite, that easiness can only be defined by watching the system's behavior.

So if you take a frame of reference you can describe it as the ''time'' of each orbit, and how it varies from orbit to orbit and simply you create an equation that satisfies that like a function of something that something is the behavior of the system.

Which is a video so basically you watch the video and predict what will happen next in the video by analyzing the easiness of the system to become denser and also if is the case how that easiness changes in "time".

like f(x), for every system you focus, that f(x) is defined by observation, and saying the observation suggest this amount of difficulty for this objects to merge, this is not a concrete way of solving your problem, so you may spected something like f=ma, but the most important fact about my theory says that you simply cannot define such equation and spect to be universal, because it all depends on the info the observer has of the system that info changes a lot if you are in a different "neighborhood" (check video). 

So I used the word time in this answer but my theory says that time does not exist so I use time because I don't have a word that would represent a frame of reference of the implementation, so I use time as a tool to do calculations but time does not exist in reality so time is just a word to define a concept not a physical part of the universe. 

I have created this new original theory of everything it is very interesting i am working in the math of it but here are the basics.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mesi0a5eioilk1o/infiniteLoop.pdf?dl=0

infiniteLoop.pdf