Jump to content

UNIVERSAL THEORY


univeral theory
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Universal theory,

 

I've read most of this thread, but not your PFD files. I like the idea you have, but I think you are overlooking some fundamental unanswered questions.

 

First of all, you state (or the Koran) that everything is created in pairs. If this is the case, what is the opposite of space? And what will be the opposite of time? (if it exists) We all know that there is matter and anti matter, however there is more matter than anti matter in the observable universe, why? -or, where is the 'evil twin brother' which will annihilate this universe, without leaving any energy, matter or space of course. In your point of view there is only one creator, allah, but what is the opposite of the creator? And who created this creator?

 

And what I'm wondering is, why do YOU think that we all exist?

 

+ how would you answer my question in a rational/logical way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsensical word salad.

 

I would advise that you consider some revision of your quotations in reference to the maxims of scientific phenomena. Some where some how you say that,

“It is the way nature is,if you don’t like it, go some where else…to another universe where the rules are simpler, phylosophically pleasing…”recheard fyenman.

“……..that seems to make sense, that presents its self as technically competent, non scientists are technically gulled by fake science”henry bauer.

No. no. No. – my friend. The maxim of the phenomena in reference to feasible existence is not constant competence of the phenomena. The maxim of the phenomena- in science and specifically in chemistry is complete metamorphosis to a given competent phenomena and thus; competent framework.

Even in philosophy where your comments are “featuring” now; the maxim of the philosophical phenomena is that “let the shape of knowledge create ideas, and let the creative ideas shape our knowledge. This is the way civilizations is - and if you are not prepared for it now, wait for it then. But if the frame work of the civilization you are waiting for establishes an equilibrium unity with the ideas we are creating now, then refer to them”. I think there you will be able to notice that The cause of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature, this symmetry breaking is circulated through conflicting patterns that are directly proportional to their regulation and inversely proportional to their coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of the conflicting symmetry pairs is established, reciprocal prevails and unity is realized” zaid.

Dear sinior member;

Don’t think that I under estimate your concern from the comment as a form of peer review advice. Its objective sense is that the presentation of my work is still vague, and iam working on it as I have been joined by expert volunteers in the field of research presentation. You know, some times it is constructive to take advantages of subjective weaknesses to elaborate the relevance of univaso theory to all the phenomena and above all scientific disputes ferterlise scientific work. My work is still in its infancy. And I can not rule out that its metamorphosis will undergo a lot of updates and corrections. It is zygotic in this reference frame but it is a competent lady or gentleman (who is even a senior member) in another reference frame. What differ; are just different quantum steps of conserving this mass of gentleman or lady called a senior member. Isn’t it predictable Mr. senior member?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

univeral theory

 

Even though this isn't one of the science boards you are going to have to give some simple and basic information

 

((s/1)/(+ .-(√s) ))=1

 

which I see as an equation as follows

 

[latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex]

 

no one has a clue what +.- is meant to symbolize. Please elucidate - and please try to keep explanation in terms of currently understood symbols

 

 

 

first of all i thank you for this good attentional supplement you made to me, i apologize for the under explanation and presentation of my work and i promise greater improvements.

 

back on the topic :

 

We all know from the universal constancy point of view, that our present experimental statistics confirm that;

.g = 9.8 m/sec2 for acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the earth,

 

C = 3.0 *108m/sec for the speed of light in vacuum,

 

h = 6.6 * 10-34j sec for plank constant or specifically for quantum action

 

And Rab = 0 for the vacuum Einstein equation

 

Let us suppose that gravitation is the grand phenomena through which our universe can be unified. According to univaso theory we say that;

 

 

1) - (9.8/1/((√9.8)+ . -)∩(9.8 ((√9.8)+ . -)((√9.8)+ . -)/9.8 ) )=

 

 

(9.8/1/(-3.130495168 . + 3.130495168 ∩ (0)))=

 

 

(9.8/6.669504832 + 3.130495168 ∩ 0) = 1

 

 

Remember that;

 

C = 3.0 *108m/sec for the speed of light in vacuum ≈ 3.130495168

 

h = 6.6 * 10-34j sec for plank constant or specifically for quantum action ≈6.669504832

 

And Rab = 0 for the vacuum Einstein equation = 0

 

 

This implies that g = ((h c)∩(Rab))2

 

From the above framework, we can not conclude that this is just a phenomena coincidence relevant to numerology. We only need to analyze and scrutinize the accuracy of the statistical data that we have but the relevance of the theory behind the framework of the data statistics remains correct.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are all things in pairs or not?

If the answer is yes then there are two Gods. If not then you (and the Koran) were wrong to assert that all things were paired.

 

It certainly has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and if it's an error then the error is on your part, not mine.

 

Iam very pleased to have you, and iam proud of your comments as they brought me to extra facts of my theory that made me realize some fundamental errors done in the previous formulation.

  1. It is not true that “the cause or foundation of everything is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite…….”. But it is true that “the framework of everything is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature…….”

  1. “A thing is any work of feasible reality/being. GOD IS GOD…… God is not a thing because God is not a piece of work done by any other form of existence that can be explained by human reason, theology or mathematical logic” - “I know that my nature is weak and limited and that God is limitless, incomprehensible, and infinite…” Descartes

 

  1. The dogma is In the beginning there was God. God made a piece of work. That work is an opposite group of isomorphic omniversal”.

 

4- In reference to the framework of reflection; “every thing is a reflection of a given potion of GOD’s consciousness with in a symmetry group translated into a word of feasible work called nature”.

 

Thus; “The framework of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature, this symmetry breaking is circulated through conflicting patterns that are directly proportional to their regulation and inversely proportional to their coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of this opposites is established, reciprocal is realized and unity prevails”.

More of the details; refer to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70242-universal-theory/page-2#entry714893

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attention: check out for this more accurate statement of univaso theory as a correction of the previous statements;

1- “the framework of everything is constantly a conflicting opposites called symmetry and complementary. These opposites are unified through patterns that are inversely proportional to their coordination and directly proportional to their regulation – and when the equilibrium constant of complementary opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry breaking prevails and the unity of the framework is realized” zaid.

 

2- Energy is equivalent to work times the quantum steps of conserving this work.

There for, E=WQ2.

Where E is energy

W is work

Q is the quantum steps of conserving work

This does not contradict with pibernick’s E=MQ2 or Einstein’s E=MC 2as mass is work conserved in material form. But as human consciousness do a lot of illusion work that can not be conserved in material form, the general equation for energy that incorporates both material and illusion work is E=WQ2. Worth noting is that energy is the ability to do work in both Newtonian and Einstein physics.

3- Work is equivalent to gravitation times the velocity field of this gravitation.

There for, W= gv2.

Where W is work

g is gravitation

v 2 is the velocity field

this does not contradict with Newtonian and Einstein work(as massive displacement).but it is a general formulation of work as massive displacement and turbulence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not competent to judge your theory but find it interesting that I've needed to refer to the Koran a few times in my work.

 

I believe there is a lot of information about ancient science in it if it can be sorted out.

I welcome you with all my pleasure.

And as a token of welcome; please remember that the philosophical problem of physics has never been in the observation or experiencing the phenomena. But it has always been in the calculation and interpretation of the phenomena.

So, when reading the Quran – dig deep and try as much as possible to be mathematical, scientific and sober. Remember that it is only a sober mind that can articulate with his instincts and explore the true secrets of any literature as opposed to its feasibility. By sober I mean; “a mind that is not corrupted by cram work, fame, delusion, belief, custom, power , influence, excitement or anger, revenge or favor but only corrupted by the thirst of knowledge as backed by the truth of the reason and the logic behind the phenomena in question”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attention:
Quantum steps of conserving energy (Q2) =


1)- (s/1/(+ .-(√s) )=1



2)- ∂(s/1/(- .+(√s) )=1+or-1



3)- s/(+ .- √s)=s


4)- (s/(√s)+ .-)∩((s((√s)+ .-) )(((√s)+ .-)/s) ) )=s

5)- (s/1/((√s)+ .-)∩((s((√s)+ .-) )(((√s)+ .-)/s) ) )=1

6)- ∂ (s/1/((√s)+ .-)∩((s((√s)+ .-) )(((√s)+ .-)/s) ) )=1+or-1

Where: S = E = Energy

Check out for the Pauli Exclusion Principle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I welcome you with all my pleasure.

And as a token of welcome; please remember that the philosophical problem of physics has never been in the observation or experiencing the phenomena. But it has always been in the calculation and interpretation of the phenomena.

So, when reading the Quran – dig deep and try as much as possible to be mathematical, scientific and sober. Remember that it is only a sober mind that can articulate with his instincts and explore the true secrets of any literature as opposed to its feasibility. By sober I mean; “a mind that is not corrupted by cram work, fame, delusion, belief, custom, power , influence, excitement or anger, revenge or favor but only corrupted by the thirst of knowledge as backed by the truth of the reason and the logic behind the phenomena in question”.

 

I'm in much agreement. When you say the problem with physics is in the "calculation and interpretation of the phenomena" do you mean that calculation is dependent on interpretation and this is the only means by which calculation is a problem? Or is there another way in which calculation can be a problen in understanding physics?

 

Good luck with you efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what I'm wondering is, why do YOU think that we all exist?

 

+ how would you answer my question in a rational/logical way?

 

Existence: “If I was to make brief definitions of existence to different classes of people, I would say that existence is the being that is feasible and can persist with out this feasibility. To peter J, I would say that existence is a feasible being, and to a mathematician I would say that existence =1, +or-1 or ∂ (1, 0)” zaid.

 

And as you requested my answers in rational/logical way, let me not answer you by philosophy alone, but also with mathematical proof.

 

First of all: “iam; and because iam not what I was, I will be”. This philosophical description of existence demonstrates that, our being is just an equilibrium frame of what we were and what we are ought to be in both negative and positive dimensions of our quantum steps of being respectively.

 

Remember thatthe framework of everything is constantly a conflicting opposites called symmetry and complementary. These opposites are unified through patterns that are inversely proportional to their coordination and directly proportional to their regulation – and when the equilibrium constant of complementary opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry breaking prevails and the unity of the framework is realized” zaid.

 

From the definition of existence, it demonstrated that our existence has two opposite reference frames; -1 or +1. Not well that our reference frames are combined with logical OR. This implies that the equilibrium frame can be either XOR or AND of the reference frames in question. When these frames are combined with AND, the framework of this combination must be reciprocal with in its symmetry set and the whole framework must equal to 1. If the frames are combined with XOR, the reference frame must be inversely proportional to the coordination of these frames and directly proportional to their regulation.

 

After all we all know from the conservation of energy point of view that energy within an enclosed system does not increase or decrease but remains constant. And this is true from Newtonian and Einstein physics. So as far as the present knowledge of our universe is concerned we all exist. And this is not just thoughts , but science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Universal theory,

In your point of view there is only one creator, allah, but what is the opposite of the creator? And who created this creator?

 

First of all, the view of one GOD is not only my view. But the general view of our logical existence as can be proved by our level of scientific measures.

The creator has no opposite. But with in the framework of existence, His being is opposite to that of nature – thus; GOD’s being is infinite as opposed to the finite being of nature.

"We cannot fully understand the beginning of anything until we see the end" G. Spencer Brown (laws of form). The fact that GOD is the creator; HE is the final focal point of the feasible being (existence). “He is the beginning, and the end, and the reality, and the illusion, and up on everything he is the unlimited knower”57:3 Quran.

Perhaps; the opposite frame of creation is procreation - as the ability to transform the basic resources of nature into other forms of products (“replication”; by G. Brown in the laws of form). Remember that this differs from the ability to form the basic resources of nature (“creation”; by G. Brown in the laws of form).

Try out this for some information about the laws of form:

 

http://www.lawsofform.org/ideas.html

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DISTINCT.html

http://www.doyletics...arj/lofmart.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Universal theory,

We all know that there is matter and anti matter, however there is more matter than anti matter in the observable universe, why?

 

From the point of view of the quantum steps of conserving energy (Q2 ), suppose that these steps are magnetic such that;

 

(s/1/+ .-(√s) )=1

 

Where S = E = energy.

 

This implies that the unity of universe as a function of matter and anti-matter will be the summation of both matter and antimatter. How ever we need to find the quantity of matter as opposed to anti matter in the universe. Remember that one is the opposite dimension frame of the other, and remember that the equilibrium constancy of these opposites is 1. From the arithmetic theory (or specifically number line) we count two to one steps from positive one to negative one (i.e. from positive one to zero and from zero to negative one) to get the ratio of negative quantity as a function of constant 1. And for a positive quantity it will only be 1:1

So, in group theory the negative quantity will have a higher field ratio of group isomorphism as compared to the positive quantity, and perhaps the ratio of 2:1. And thus the quantity discrepancy of matter as opposed to anti matter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to make it clear, there's many many people who think they have some universal theory, but they all fail the test of scientific testing, even string theory, so it likely doesn't even matter if somehow anyone is right because it could never be tested and therefore never be used for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The the cutting edge is definitely testable which is why its the "cutting-edge", because it's the most recently confirmed knowledge. If we assume things are true just because they are hypothetically logical then we might as well assume the Earth as wrong because we can't see that it's found from standing on it. Besides, you are trying to define the universe, but in order to have proof of what your saying in regards to the universe only being manifested in whatever specific manner, you would have to be there at the beginning of the universe to confirm that, because then you would know that because there is nothing outside the universe (because it wasn't created yet) that it is the only possible explanation, which isn't going to happen unless you found time travel, which is also impossible because it violates conservation laws.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Universal theory,

 

or, where is the 'evil twin brother' which will annihilate this universe, without leaving any energy, matter or space of course.

 

 

The factual phenomenon which explains the existence of ‘the evil twin brothers’ and their annihilation cycles from their true physical sense; is through the Chinese philosophy of yin and yang. Where; any of these twins can not exist at any quantum step of energy conservation (Q2) with out coexisting with the other. Even with matter – anti matter particle collision and annihilation, this phenomena can still be detected and observed ….(check out for Feynman particle physics).

The phenomena you are looking for where the 'evil twin brother’ will annihilate this universe, without leaving any energy, matter or space is mythical or speculative. And if you have any scientific evidence for it, iam willing to reconsider its inevitability.

Never the less, the annihilation frame work of the universal ‘evil twin brother’ from ‘the conservation of energy’ point of view can be described as quantum steps of energy conservation (Q2).

There are two frames of Q2:

  1. res extensa
  2. res cogitan

With in res extensa, the annihilation cycle is called ‘saMsara’ or rebirth (Hindu Buddhism). While with in res cogitan, the annihilation cycle is called ‘karma’.

With res extensa, the Q2 predicts that energy will continue to transform through different quantum steps in as much as this transformation is inversely proportional to the coordination of their ‘samsara’ and directly proportional to the regulation of it. With this phenomenon, energy will not cease to be, but a given conservation form of its Q2 step will (and when this happens, with res extensa - we call it collapse of the form at a given Q2 step). After all, where there is still GOD, there is still energy and as well, the formation of matter. And where there is still the velocity square (Q2) of matter, there must be space of course.

With res cogitan, the Q2 predicts that energy will continue to react through different quantum steps in as much as this reaction is inversely proportional to the coordination of its ‘karma’ and directly proportional to the regulation of it. With this phenomenon, energy will not cease to be, but a given cause of its Q2 conservational step will(and when this happens, with res cogitan - we call it cause of the effect at a given Q2 step).After all; with Newtonian physics every action has a reaction ‘the universal law of action reaction’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Universal theory,

First of all, you state (or the Koran) that everything is created in pairs. If this is the case, what is the opposite of space? And what will be the opposite of time? (if it exists)

 

True, the Quran says that; ‘‘and of everything have we created pairs…of opposite variability'' Quran 51:49…53:45.

And from this claimed background, we formulated the theory of everything that states that; “the framework of everything is constantly a conflicting opposites called symmetry and complementary. These opposites are unified through patterns that are inversely proportional to their coordination and directly proportional to their regulation – and when the equilibrium constant of complementary opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry breaking prevails and the unity of the framework is realized” zaid.

This does not imply absolute opposites, but it implies relative opposites. With absolutism, every thing is single and one - as far as this theory is concerned. But with ‘relativity’, the framework of any single unit of a thing is made up of two ‘absolute’ opposites and conflicting variables.

Space or time is just a measure of energy responsiveness to the displacements of its quantum steps of work conservation (Q2 ) as a function of a given frame of consciousness. And when dealing with space or time, we utilize a res cogitan frame but not res extensa.

After all, the framework of res cogitan(consciousness) is composed of two opposite reference frames.

  1. reality
  2. illusion

With GOD’s consciousness, the responsiveness of its energy to the displacements of its Q2 is a reality. While with material consciousness, the responsiveness of energy to the displacements of its Q2 is an illusion.

The framework of reality is both relative and absolute. With absolutism, the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacements of its Q2 is through independent variables. While with relativity, the measure of the responsiveness of energy to its Q2 is in units (combination of independent variables). And this is the foundation of dimensional analysis.

With in the framework of velocity square (V2), space is a complementary opposite of speed in absolute terms. Such that; change of speed, is directly proportional to the change of space and vise versa. Thus, change of velocity is inversely proportional to the change of space as opposed to the change of speed in relative terms. And with in the framework of speed, time is the complementary opposite of distance.

Worth noting; that,

  1. Space is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement area of its Q2 as a function of geometrical responsiveness.
  2. Speed is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement area of its Q2 as a function of the responsiveness rate.
  3. Time is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement range of its Q2 as a function of cycle’s responsiveness.
  4. Distance is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement range of its Q2 as a function of location responsiveness.
  5. Direction is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement side of its Q2 as a function of vector responsiveness.
  6. Dimension is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement side of its Q2 as a function of frame responsiveness.
  7. Velocity is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement acceleration of its Q2 as a function of work responsiveness.

Lastly;

With all my gratitude and respect, I thank you for this wonderful post. I appeal to you please - that you keep up with such professional competence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you familiar with dimensional analysis?

My ‘simple’ familiarity with dimensional analysis is that;

  1. Dimensional analysis is the basic combination of independent variable per a unit of measurements.

 

  1. The philosophical problem of physics has never been in the observation or experiencing the phenomena. But it has always been in the calculation and interpretation of the phenomena.

 

  1. The frame work of the term is the relevant behavior of it with reference to its meaning.

 

But that is my personal familiarity with dimensional analysis. But what about yours? her’s, his or that of any others? Such that we can all be comfortable as well with enjoying it with in the framework of univaso theory.

Sincerely speaking; dimensional analysis is one of the professionally competent shapes of knowledge in support of univaso theory. And univaso theory personally; is very great full with dimensional analysis. But with in the civilization framework, we need to present our ideas as creative frames from the work of a given shape of knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ‘simple’ familiarity with dimensional analysis is that;

  1. Dimensional analysis is the basic combination of independent variable per a unit of measurements.

 

  1. The philosophical problem of physics has never been in the observation or experiencing the phenomena. But it has always been in the calculation and interpretation of the phenomena.

 

  1. The frame work of the term is the relevant behavior of it with reference to its meaning.

 

But that is my personal familiarity with dimensional analysis. But what about yours? her’s, his or that of any others? Such that we can all be comfortable as well with enjoying it with in the framework of univaso theory.

Sincerely speaking; dimensional analysis is one of the professionally competent shapes of knowledge in support of univaso theory. And univaso theory personally; is very great full with dimensional analysis. But with in the civilization framework, we need to present our ideas as creative frames from the work of a given shape of knowledge.

Here is an equation for you:

 

Semantic content of your post above = 0

 

Please now properly address the point made by Klaynos that at least one of your equations fails dimensional analysis, or admit that you have no idea what dimensional analysis is, or why it is important in this context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm in much agreement. When you say the problem with physics is in the "calculation and interpretation of the phenomena" do you mean that calculation is dependent on interpretation and this is the only means by which calculation is a problem? Or is there another way in which calculation can be a problen in understanding physics?

 

Good luck with you efforts.

 

With experiments; Interpretations depend on calculations and calculations are the basic problems of understanding physics in the laboratory world.

But with experience; calculations depend on interpretation and interpretation is the basic problem of understanding physics in the feasible world.

 

REVIEW NOTICE:

A friend of mine is advising me to consider the re-definition of Q2as the quantum frames of energy conservation rather than quantum steps of energy conservation. That there; there is a lot of experimental and practical implication. what would you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With experiments; Interpretations depend on calculations and calculations are the basic problems of understanding physics in the laboratory world.

But with experience; calculations depend on interpretation and interpretation is the basic problem of understanding physics in the feasible world.

 

 

I see.

 

I wondered why you included calculations since I think of them normally only as a result of interpretation.

 

I suppose this reflects too many years of thought experiments and calculation-free experimentation (and I should have seen the point). Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're not familiar with dimensional analysis then?

 

Dear klaynos;

I apologize if I responded irresponsibly by not voting for platform reputation of your post. My intension was just to discourage as much as possible any post with comments whose interpretation alternative can be ambiguous. But waiting to see what I had fore seen was just a test of time.

To be responsible to all the readers of this thread, I beg you to be sympathetic to a group of people with out enough time to specialize in the semantics of provocative remarks. Honestly; what ever the degree of comfort which a professional can enjoy by reading dimensional analysis with reference to univaso theory or reading univaso theory with reference to dimensional analysis, but to an armature – this comfort can be missed out if ‘it is not referred to through an attractive aroma of its spices’.

Edited by univeral theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.