Jump to content
Joduh

Blob Theory

Recommended Posts

Blob Theory is a new theory of fundamental physics which supplies the underlying framework for existing ways of thinking about the nature of the universe. The theory proposes an infinite sea of absolutely un-reactive singularities providing asymptotical locale for an existent pressurized medium. The resultant pressure gradient structures present with properties similar to Quantum Electro Dynamics theory (QED).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your gonna need some math to go with this buddy.

How have you come to your conclusion, what makes you think it's correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naked singularities are not possible; they must have an event horizon.
Oh wait, singularities themselves are extremely improbable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddy, the math will look much like Pilot Wave Theory, with modifications originally explored by Erwin Madelung in 1927.  Except that the new ideas about light may want more math.  The big ideas here though, kinda happen before math.  Math happens after the interaction of the basic elements of the theory.   Blob theory is still infantile though, and I need other thinkers to look at it.  I'm working on posting more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joduh said:

The big ideas here though, kinda happen before math

 

!

Moderator Note

Which unfortunately for you runs counter to the purpose (and rules) of this particular sub-forum. You must provide some sort of testable model, as well as evidence / proof. If you cannot do this, your thread here will be short lived. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Joduh said:

  Blob theory is still infantile though, and I need other thinkers to look at it.

 

!

Moderator Note

This too is insufficient. You are the person proposing new ideas, and so you are the person who must show them to be reasonable and backed by evidence. Rules 1 of this section:

Quote

The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science. To enrich our discussions above the level of Wild Ass Guesswork (WAG) and give as much meaning as possible to such speculations, we do have some special rules to follow:

  1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

 

You may also wish to take a look at these two threads:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Empress of Everything , thank you for the help, I have looked at the Swansont theads and found them to be good.  I'm not sure if I'm responding in the thread here or to a moderator.  If I'm just to be trashed, I'll refrain from posting the rest of it.

As for the testable issue, the tests are all the same tests we have been doing.  Blob is a different way of interpreting existing physics experiments.  Blob predicts things but it will be up to others to show. 

One of my posts is missing.  Am I trashed?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory

Pursuant to Lee Smolin's presentation on Relational Approaches To Quantum Gravity, July 23 2018 [5 paradigm approaches to current shortcomings of a fundamental theory of physics.]

we present the following:

 

First Principles of Blob Theory:

  • Both (there are only two) theoretical elements are real and eternal.

  • Dynamic simplicity chooses rational basis for Postulates.

  • Continuum limitations are absolute and local.

  • Background structure is minimal possible and continuous.

  • Dimensionless parameters guarantee emergence of spacetime.

  • All points in space are identical except as probabalistically modified locally; there IS an atomic, discrete quantum spacetime.

  • Time and space emerge from two proto- discernations and are real as present moments – two intrinsic properties at each point of universe.

  • Gravity emerges as compressive casimir effect (crushed not pulled).

  • Exclusion zones emerge as organizing structures (lightning and gradient structures).

  • Spin symmetry yields electrical dynamo and neutral particle properties.

  • Orbitals organize pressure crystals and cracks of exclusion zones.

  • Light is proposed as two separate phenomena, propagational vector pulsewaves between matter (white light), and quanta emissions from matter (rainbow effect).

  • Expansion of spacetime is regional and driven by both probabalistic as well as dynamo forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Joduh said:

If I'm just to be trashed, I'll refrain from posting the rest of it.

 

!

Moderator Note

That is up to you. You will need to post your proofs for this to not get shut down. Failure to do so will result in this thread being closed. 

Kindly do not respond to this mod note further within the thread. If you have questions, please PM staff. 

FTR, I did hide one of your posts as it was OT and in response to a post I had already removed. Everything you have posted in this thread is still here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joduh said:

If I'm just to be trashed, I'll refrain from posting the rest of it.

 

Science makes progress by trashing ideas that don't work.

If you are not happy with that, try another field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Both (there are only two) theoretical elements are real and eternal.

What evidence do you have for the existence of these two "theoretical elements"? (You must have some direct evidence if you assert they are "real" with such confidence.) What evidence do you have that they are eternal?

What properties do these two elements have?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Dynamic simplicity chooses rational basis for Postulates.

What does "dynamical simplicity" mean?

How can it "choose" anything?

What are the postulates?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Continuum limitations are absolute and local.

What does "continuum limitations" mean?

What is the "continuum" in this context?

What does "absolute" mean?

What does "local" mean?

What evidence do you have for these limitations?

What evidence do you have for them being absolute?

What evidence do you have for them being local?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Background structure is minimal possible and continuous.

What does "background structure" mean?

What does "minimal" mean?

What does "continuous" mean?

What evidence do you have that this structure is minimal?

What evidence do you have that this structure is continuous?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Dimensionless parameters guarantee emergence of spacetime.

What are these "dimensionless parameters"?

How many parameters are there?

What values do they have?

How do they guarantee the emergence of space time?

What evidence do you have for the existence of these parameters and for their values?

What evidence do you have for the emergence of spacetime?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

All points in space are identical except as probabalistically modified locally; there IS an atomic, discrete quantum spacetime.

What does "probabalistically modified locally" mean? What characteristics of points in space are modified in this way?

What evidence do you have that there is "atomic, discrete quantum spacetime"? (You might want to consider the existing evidence against this claim when answering this question.)

How does "atomic, discrete quantum spacetime" correlate with "background structure is ... continuous"?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Time and space emerge from two proto- discernations and are real as present moments – two intrinsic properties at each point of universe.

What is a "proto- discernations"?

What evidence do you have that these "proto- discernations" exist?

What evidence do you have that time and space emerge from "proto- discernations"?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Gravity emerges as compressive casimir effect (crushed not pulled).

What evidence do you have that gravity emerges from "compressive casimir effect"? (In your answer, you might want to consider the fact that the Casimir effect only occurs in very specific circumstance, in very small volumes of space; whereas gravity appears to be universal).

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Exclusion zones emerge as organizing structures (lightning and gradient structures).

What are "exclusion zones"?

What are "lightning structures"? (Does this have anything to with weather?)

What are "gradient structures"?

What evidence do you have for "exclusion zones"?

What evidence do you have for "lightning structures"?

What evidence do you have for "gradient structures"?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Spin symmetry yields electrical dynamo and neutral particle properties.

What is "spin symmetry" in this context? Can you provide a mathematical definition?

What does "electrical dynamo" mean in this context? How does it relate to "spin symmetry"?

What neutral particle properties are you referring to? How do these relate to "spin symmetry"?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Orbitals organize pressure crystals and cracks of exclusion zones.

What do you mean by "orbitals" in this context?

What are "pressure crystals"?

What are "cracks of exclusion zones"?

How do oribitals organise those things?

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Light is proposed as two separate phenomena, propagational vector pulsewaves between matter (white light), and quanta emissions from matter (rainbow effect).

What is a "propagational vector pulsewave"?

What evidence do you have for this description of light? (You might want to consider all the evidence that light is s single phenomenon, and that what light is made up of a combination of colours, in your answer.)

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Expansion of spacetime is regional and driven by both probabalistic as well as dynamo forces.

What does "expansion of spacetime" mean?

How is it different from the well understood expansion of space?

What does it mean for time to expand?

What evidence do you have for the expansion of spacetime?

What does it mean for this expansion to be "regional?

What are "probabalistic forces"?

What are "dynamo forces"?

What evidence do you have for these two forces?

 

Apart from that, it all seems pretty clear ... :unsure:

 

6 hours ago, Joduh said:

The resultant pressure gradient structures present with properties similar to Quantum Electro Dynamics theory (QED).

Please show the mathematical proof of this assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joduh said:
  • Light is proposed as two separate phenomena, propagational vector pulsewaves between matter (white light), and quanta emissions from matter (rainbow effect).

White light is known to be merged mixture of photons with wavelengths in range between 400 nm and 700 nm.

Kids in primary school learn that you can split white light to rainbow, as well as rainbow can be merged to form white light back again..

It is known as Newton's disc or Newton's wheel experiment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_disc

The rest is some word salad..

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joduh said:

Blob Theory is a new theory of fundamental physics which supplies the underlying framework for existing ways of thinking about the nature of the universe. The theory proposes an infinite sea of absolutely un-reactive singularities providing asymptotical locale for an existent pressurized medium. The resultant pressure gradient structures present with properties similar to Quantum Electro Dynamics theory (QED).

Whilst I am not unhappy with the framework idea in your description - There are plenty of pictures of multidimensional 'singularity' arrays on the net, but I find one or two inconsistencies between your OP and later statements.

4 hours ago, Joduh said:

absolutely un-reactive singularities

 

4 hours ago, Joduh said:

with modifications originally explored by Erwin Madelung in 1927

 

Madelung theory is about as far as you can get from unreactive since it is basically the sum to infinity of multiple (but diminishing) charge interactions.

 

4 hours ago, Joduh said:

Buddy, the math will look much like Pilot Wave Theory

 

Pilot waves are less interactive, but they carry momentum and are neither singularities nor asymptotic.
I see no connection here.

You also need to explain why pressure makes any difference to something that is absolutely unreactive.

As an alternative to a multidimensional array of needles, you might like to look at Cantor Dust

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=WXfOXcv-H46mUIm7hdgH&q=cantor's+dust&oq=cantor's+dust&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l7j0i22i10i30j0i22i30.846.3822..4576...0.0..0.300.1868.6j3j3j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0i10.uOpLkawVaVI&ved=0ahUKEwiLj4fl-uvlAhUOExQKHYldAXsQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Science makes progress by trashing ideas that don't work.

John is correct. And they only way to trash an idea is to test it, which requires a model, or some set of specific predictions.

 

5 hours ago, Joduh said:

Blob Theory is a new theory of fundamental physics which supplies the underlying framework for existing ways of thinking about the nature of the universe. The theory proposes an infinite sea of absolutely un-reactive singularities providing asymptotical locale for an existent pressurized medium. The resultant pressure gradient structures present with properties similar to Quantum Electro Dynamics theory (QED).

I'm wondering how you get a pressure gradient from un-reactive entities. Or is the medium something else, that has whipped up out of thin air? Are we moving with respect to this medium, or at rest? How would one be able to tell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of questions. Basically three categories:

  1. meanings of terms derived from Lee Smolin's work.

  2. Some of the new concepts presented toward the bottom of the 'First Principles' which will take explaining to explain.

  3. Concerning basic theory construct.

I could try to provide individual answers such as:

“What does "dynamical simplicity" mean?  How can it "choose" anything?  What are the postulates? [haven't figured out how to do quotes from thread yet]

Dynamical simplicity refers to the idea (Smolin) that when things change, they do so in the most simple way possible. It is an organizing idea. It doesn't do the choosing, it is the theorist (Blob theorists) who is choosing to use simplicity as the governing device to rule the universe, so to speak. The postulates have not yet been posted.

This would be a lot of writing for me. It's hard for me to post Smolin because it is new work. It might be better to deal with these kind of questions as they emerge from explaining other aspects of Blob.

I've been trying to organize ideas to present in this forum format, and we should start at the beginning and proceed one at a time.

Two ideas.

  1. An infinite sea of absolutely inert singularities (gazillions of them in the head of each pin) that do not change. They are just there without metric. You are looking directly at them when you are looking at matter. They are not visible because they do not have dimension. They are absolute zero, not asymptotic event horizon stuff.

  2. An infinite sea of 'Change' which responds to the singularities in a quantum-like organizing framework. Permeates everywhere and every when with infinite pressure (Q). Time and space become real at each 'Singularity'-'Change' Merger (SCM) [pronounced: /ˈs(k)izəm/ ].

You should clear your mind temporarily for the purposes of this discussion. My sense is I am confronting years of banter about physics at this forum, which is exactly what is needed to vet this new theory. For now though, allow me to lead the path.

Allow the idea of nothing

Allow the idea of nothingness settle into your thinking without all those equations and forces and what not. They don't happen until after the basic SCM phenomena. For simplicity of explanation, the first idea to get is that of nothing that is real and everywhere, and which establishes locality of physical particles.

There is naturally a third idea that emerges from the first two, which is that which is in between. What happens between these two. Here's a hint: lightning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Joduh said:

Lots of questions.

Lots of questions but no answers.

Sorry I bothered, I have better things to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Joduh said:

Two ideas.

But no evidence. No math. No testable predictions.

In other words, no science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, studiot said:

You also need to explain why pressure makes any difference to something that is absolutely unreactive.

Cool

it doesn't.  (Q) pressure makes the "any difference" only to itself.  It is the reaction of Q to Singularities that makes matter.  The thing is, for Q, the existence of the 'Singularities' is very disturbing because it just can't go there.  Q gets riled up.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

But no evidence. No math. No testable predictions.

In other words, no science.

I've heard this, multiple times, thanks again.

the math for 'Singularities' is zero equals infinity.  Which is odd for math.  You would test this by stripping away (Q) from (S).  The infinite Q may not be accessible though because our corner of the (Q) is bound-up by the galaxy; so you'd only get the galactic max. The LHC would be a place to start.  Alternatively a big computer to evaluate weather at 10-15.  Each little weather event would be some form of particle that you might see falling out of the ATLAS.

Whoa, Just realized the LHC is limited by the Q pressure of Earth. LHC in space?

(Whooooaaa, just set up a Q phaser in the garage. There's a problem though, when I set the puk in the field, it flew off. I figure the galaxy is moving at about a half a million miles an hour so when the puk achieved isolated mass, it made a hole in the garage roof.;)

Maybe the science needs more controlled conditions.

All star talk aside, the use of the term "Q" for the pressure is not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Joduh said:

I've heard this, multiple times

Perhaps because it is true.

You should maybe learn a little about how science works. (Hint: it is not by making up the sort of drivel you have posted here.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, swansont said:

Are we moving with respect to this medium, or at rest? How would one be able to tell?

interesting question.  We ARE the medium.   Dragging Singularities around by the higgs and rocket motors and old dinosaurs I suspect.  We would be able to tell by looking.  When something looks like it is moving in relation to us, it most likely is.  S is not obliged to stay in any particular local, except as entrapped by Q.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Perhaps because it is true.

Perhaps we could just assume it is true?

14 hours ago, Strange said:

What evidence do you have for the existence of these two "theoretical elements"?

Blob Theory is based on fundamental assumptions and postulates.  Blob is a framework that is pre-defined such that there are only two basic elements that make up reality.  The "proof" can only be by assumption.  There are only 2 possibilities, one or the other.  Any "proof" of any other concept would half to be more complicated.  Such as 3 fundamental elements... or etc.  I submit the additional complexity is not necessary.  We just don't need it.  In effect, the proof is that there isn't anything more simple.

For example, you could postulate that the universe is made up of an endless sea of tomatoes. But then you'd want to know what happens when they sprout, or whatever. In Blob, they can't sprout because they are the most simple thing possible, an existent nothing with value zero, no spin, no forces, no time, no gravity. And none of wherever else you might think of.

You could also postulate that there is only ONE element that makes up the universe, which would seem more simple.  Your universe would look something like a lump of cold coal on new years eve at two in the morning -- without the lump, nor the coal, nor the new years eve at two in the morning.  Perhaps a little too simple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could postulate that the blob theory is made up of pink unicorns all you want.

You still require some measure of science in particular a testable theory which requires mathematics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do the unicorns do?  I don't think this would work as a postulate.

the problem with math is it has no locality, no starting point, other than arbitrary ones. things just don't add up unless you start somewhere.  You can calculate the  cannonball trajectory, but you have no cannon to fire it from.   I don't think math works as a theory of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, studiot said:

Madelung theory is about as far as you can get from unreactive since it is basically the sum to infinity of multiple (but diminishing) charge interactions.

good, good! Kinda the opposite of the sea of Blob's un-reactive 'Singularities'. Which is what the theory is based on – two things that are as different as can be. And which merge together to form everything.

 

18 hours ago, Sensei said:

Kids in primary school learn that you can split white light to rainbow, as well as rainbow can be merged to form white light back again..

Kids in school see white light falling on a prism, and then colored light coming out. Then the teacher tells them that light must be both particle and wave, without any proof. It can be convincing despite the lack of logic because there doesn't seem to be a better explanation.

Instead, white light is the input, and the colors are the output of matter reacting to light. They are not particles except to the extent they are absorbed by matter, and even then, they are not the matter itself. The light is not “being split,” it is different light that is emitted as vectors.

If the teacher said that, wave-particle duality cross-thinking goes away. Kids have a more simple view. And maybe won't start drooling at the sight of differential equations.

 

18 hours ago, studiot said:

s an alternative to a multidimensional array of needles

Herein lies a key concept about Blob. (fractals are cool BTW) Blob's 'Singularities' are not in an array. That would be an ordering that would require justification – why is the array there? The array is not there in Blob. But the 'Singularities' are. They are there without metric. It is the most simple arrangement possible. You cannot reach over from one to another – there is no getting anywhere from anywhere. (unless you bridge with Q)

In the array you mention, each “point” is a regular distance apart, which can only be justified by an additional assumption – that of there being measurable space. In a sense it is the same problem that math itself has. Everybody is assuming that the thing that is between 1 and 2 is the same as the thing that is between 2 and 3. Without justifying it. It is self justification. Makes it seem like everything hangs together, without actually proving it. Now you could say that is just the way math is defined. Hmmm. Is that why models based on math seem consistent? Or you have only proved your own assumptions.

Instead, resort to the most simple. It is there but can't be measured. Each kid in school knows this instinctively. That is why measurement must be “taught.” that is why we invented clocks too, for that matter. Because time in nature is there, but it is not regular. And if you want your minglings to show up on time, you best have a clock and a big stick (meter should do). As a kid I was more interested in play; and imagining frustrated teachers smacking kids with sticks to prove math exists.

 

Edited by Joduh
duplicate paste removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joduh said:

what do the unicorns do?  I don't think this would work as a postulate.

the problem with math is it has no locality, no starting point, other than arbitrary ones. things just don't add up unless you start somewhere.  You can calculate the  cannonball trajectory, but you have no cannon to fire it from.   I don't think math works as a theory of the universe.

 

 The start is already in place. There isn't a single observable interaction that cannot be described mathematically. Start with a geometry then place your interactions.

 No physics model works without a mathematical model of its kinematics.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

start with what?  "a geometry"?  where is it? 

 

Edited by Joduh
wrong button pushed corrected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read above first start with a GR descriptive of your geometry. Use the FLRW is you like to simplify. I have no idea how you plan to use an unreactive singularity but you will need to match current observation that is supported by math  if you ever hope to have a workable modelm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.