Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AlexanderSamualDunnett

  1. My theory is that electrons aren't all perfectly spherical little balls of exactly the same amount of negative energy. Where do they come from? Where does positive charge come from? There is no way to observe the origin of the universe but we can work backwards with our minds. I think a single string is alot more likely than any concepts of particles.
  2. There is only one universe. I think the universe is made of only one string. It is negative along the string path and positive where the string overlaps. I'm not sure if it has any thickness or if signal is flowing along it but I do believe that combinations of string negativity and positivity repeat in approximate similarities to form "elements" which may be as high as 2023 and other atoms, sub-atomic "particles". I also believe everything is constantly unique.
  3. Light is a section of string vibrating usually between 420 Thz - 750 Thz against the eye which is interpreted by the mind. All made of one string.
  4. If the string is infinitely unique and infinitely complex then it doesn't seem like math would be best option to describe it. Perhaps sections could be approximated using a space-time matrix or approximate calculations could be made but I don't see why it needs math.
  5. When multiplied. I didn't specify multiplication because I was afraid of being verbose. Not all predictions are exact yet. Negativity is represented by the string path, positivity is represented inside where the string loops on itself. This is not like existing string theories. I guess you could call it a path theory. It would not be impossible to represent any of the existing periodic tables I've seen this way, but as accuracy and understandability increase so would the challenge I would imagine.
  6. Because everything needs to come from somewhere. Before the very first thing in the universe there must be nothing. It seems charge remains balanced around 0, if not exactly 0 universally so it seems logical that there must be some negativity and positivity. However two negative make a positive so maybe a string could loop on itself to create positivity. It's just a hypothesis.
  7. What is your belief about the sub quantum/sub electric nature of the universe? Why is the standard model doesn't even describe where positivity and negativity come from? The universe is infinitely unique. This is quite specific and not that vague. You're definition of science must not be the same as mine. I held this model to be true in my logical mind upon years of observation and testing and it explains almost everything in a much more elegant way than the tacked on standard model. There is math behind it but predictions are always going to be approximations. To imply any otherwise is unwise.
  8. I think each being should die at the time of greatest contribution to the total well-being rating of all beings. So if someone has no quality of experience left that would be the ideal time to die, whether that is suicide or euthanasia (assisted-suicide) or homocide.
  9. I had heard the times vertical and horizontal being applied to progression in learning guitar as well. In that context vertical growth was learning a better of way of playing everything, whereas horizontal growth was a wider repertoire or range of songs. Maybe the terms could be applied similarly to morality and ethics where vertical morality could be topped by focusing on the greatest experience rating total for all beings and horizontal morality could be the application of this goal to a wide range of disciplines such as philosophy or farming for example however I would avoid using the terms horizontal and vertical if possible. They have well established usage in spatial systems.
  10. This is not like existing string theories, I'm trying to get away from a particle mentality because it must be the combination of internal and external matter that creates our perceptions and detections and even the appraisal of our experience. It seems unlikely I am made of particles, and can use a device made of particles to perceive something made of particles as particles. We could attribute a formula to the theoretical string path, where instead of y=mx+c, there is a relationship described by the every changing interaction of how it could be approximately plotted in space-time (about the x-axis, y-axis, z-axis and time dimension) but due to the nature of how I imagine the string might be I'm not sure if this would be beneficial. Perhaps using one or more powerful supercomputers we could model a closed system (unless it was a rough approximation of our open system universe) that could determine how internal and external matter interact to create our experiences. We could model an example of internal and external experience for references sake where the combination of external matters' vibration between approximately 420 THz and 750 THz and it's resonance with a modelled eye and mind could be modelled and even outputted to a monitor. Or the vibrations between 20 Hz and 20 Khz and a hearing system and mind could be modelled and outputted to a speaker system. Perhaps I could create an experiment similar to the Millikan oil drop experiment, or an experiment like Rutherford, Thomson or Bohr developed I'm just not sure how to progress with this yet.
  11. First post here on scienceforums.net. My speculation is that the universe could be desribed by the infinitely unique path of a single piece of 'string'. Along the string path itself would be negatively charged, but loops of the path would create positive charge- much like in mathematics how subtracting a negative number is the same as adding the absolute value of the number. The overall charge value of positivity to negativity would remain at zero overall to stay balanced, as we find with the periodic table of elements. Negativity is repulsed by itself, as is positivity, but opposite charges are atttacted. It seems to me at the moment to be the most plausible explanation for creation and perception. I also found a pattern in the periodic table which leads me to believe in more elements than the 118 or 128 commonly found in my internet searches. Please excuse my amateur sketch but please let me know if you have any thoughts about any of this or how I could prove or disprove any of this.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.