Jump to content
anonymousone

heres my theory on everything. enjoy

Recommended Posts

here read Phind's balloon analogy start with the known science, here is some links. Keep in mind you can't just model your idea in just Euclidean geometry, it most also work for curved space. Explaining your model without knowing the basics of cosmology simply will not work. You need to understand whats in the BOX, before you think outside of the box. My signature has more material. Study this material and you will see why your model will not work well, as your describing it

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion.
http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

 

here is some free textbook style articles (note some of them include particle physics)

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde
http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein

 

this one is very advanced so you may want to just keep a copy till you can understand it
http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

 

 

Learn the current Science first. there is reasons why it works the way it does. Just like there is reasons why dark energy and dark matter is needed. As much as science first fought it.


I've studied cosmology and numerous models from EFE, FLRW, MOND, TeVeS,QFT, ADS/CFT, LCDM, Tolman-Bondi-Lemaıtre space-times, Szekeres space-times,

Shakarov Gravity, twistor theory, M-theory, etc That doesn't even include the GUT models.

 

I know of no way your model can be described in any of those models nor even work in any of them. For that matter what you described as the fusion process in regards to protons and neutrons isn't even correct. Fusion in stars is hydrogen to helium at the earliest steps so protons and neutrons are not destroyed. They combine to form heavier elements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-energy is released during fision when bonds are violently broken because energy forms bonds and energy is required to break those bonds i think so we agree. and heat energy is needed to fuse atoms together which releases even more energy and this released energy comes from somewhere. according to my theory this energy comes from the energy that was being used to hold two nuclie together which is more than whats required to hold one nucleus together and so the leftover extra energy is released as heat light and dark energy.

Energy comes from energy? Isn't it a conserved quantity in your theory?

 

 

 

-there is evidence to support this idea that im not going to present again sir. it is up to you whether you consider this conclusive or not though.

To be blunt: wrong answer. That's not a good approach in general and more to the point, not consistent with how we run things here. If you don't present evidence then there will be no conversation.

 

How can you present something again that has not been presented before?

 

-if somebody measures a magnets strength according to my theory the magnet will weaken more and more the longer it is used in electromagnetic induction because those volts didnt come from nowhere they came from the magnets energy configuration that causes magnetic forces and this weakening is probably very slight.

 

Isn't this simply a matter of measuring the energy of a magnet before it's used and keeping track of how much work it does? How can the weakening be "slight" if that's where the energy is coming from? Again, is energy simply not a conserved quantity in your theory?

 

Why do I have to plug a motor in if the energy is coming from the magnets? Why does an electric car recharge the battery instead of replacing the magnets in the motor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im going to add that according to my model/theory during high speed particle physics energy from the collisions converts to mass and the quarks and hadrons that appear there are miniature universes which contain atoms inside of them too. so just because quarks exist as particles at a high speed particle collisions this doesnt mean that neutrons and protons are made of quarks according to my model/theory because protons and neutrons are miniature universes that do big bangs and big crunches over and over as mentioned before.

 

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

im going to add that according to my model/theory during high speed particle physics energy from the collisions converts to mass and the quarks and hadrons that appear there are miniature universes which contain atoms inside of them too. so just because quarks exist as particles at a high speed particle collisions this doesnt mean that neutrons and protons are made of quarks according to my model/theory because protons and neutrons are miniature universes that do big bangs and big crunches over and over as mentioned before.

 

 

Which is something else you've stated with absolutely no evidence to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy comes from energy? Isn't it a conserved quantity in your theory?

---e=mc2

 

 

To be blunt: wrong answer. That's not a good approach in general and more to the point, not consistent with how we run things here. If you don't present evidence then there will be no conversation.

 

How can you present something again that has not been presented before?

 

---again evidence that magnets contain orbital electric energy is that electromagnetic induction batteries get their energy from somewhere(the magnets) instead of thinking energy particles magically appear to form the voltage. i dont believe in magic as you can tell.

 

 

Isn't this simply a matter of measuring the energy of a magnet before it's used and keeping track of how much work it does? How can the weakening be "slight" if that's where the energy is coming from? Again, is energy simply not a conserved quantity in your theory?

 

Why do I have to plug a motor in if the energy is coming from the magnets? Why does an electric car recharge the battery instead of replacing the magnets in the motor?

---im going to say my hypothesis once and its that not enough orbital energy is taken from the magnets to weaken them enough. and i predict that when i make more powerful and effective electromagnetic induction technology it will be noticed that magnets weaken as they lose energy via em.i.

 

 

Which is something else you've stated with absolutely no evidence to support it.

actually you are not correct. evidence for my hypothesis/theory youre refering to is the wave particle duality nature of matter. because miniature universes doing bigbangs and big crunches over and over are standing waves. and these have a frequency just like a wave and a shape and spot just like a particle. and every intelligent person knows about this wave particle duality nature of matter which my model matches exactly. thanks for making this so easy btw.

Edited by swansont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---e=mc2

But the mass of a bound system is LESS than the mass of a free system. It has LESS energy, meaning energy is released in forming the bond, and must be added to break the bond.

 

---again evidence that magnets contain orbital electric energy is that electromagnetic induction batteries get their energy from somewhere(the magnets) instead of thinking energy particles magically appear to form the voltage. i dont believe in magic as you can tell.

 

Your explanation is still indistinguishable from magic and will continue to be so until you provide scientific evidence of the claim.

 

---im going to say my hypothesis once and its that not enough orbital energy is taken from the magnets to weaken them enough. and i predict that when i make more powerful and effective electromagnetic induction technology it will be noticed that magnets weaken as they lose energy via em.i.

This appears to be a conundrum, having this weakening be the purported linchpin of the effect and yet being so small it can't be measured.

 

actually you are not correct. evidence for my hypothesis/theory youre refering to is the wave particle duality nature of matter. because miniature universes doing bigbangs and big crunches over and over are standing waves. and these have a frequency just like a wave and a shape and spot just like a particle. and every intelligent person knows about this wave particle duality nature of matter which my model matches exactly. thanks for making this so easy btw.

Citing wave-particle duality is a hand-wave; it explains nothing. You need to present a model that shows what's happening, and evidence to show the model is correct. It's easy when you don't put forth any effort.

 

It would also be appreciated if you learn to use the quote function. I've edited two posts, but you need to properly quote from now on, in addition to fulfilling the requirements of speculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the mass of a bound system is LESS than the mass of a free system. It has LESS energy, meaning energy is released in forming the bond, and must be added to break the bond.

 

Your explanation is still indistinguishable from magic and will continue to be so until you provide scientific evidence of the claim.

---im not claiming magic happens im saying orbital energy in a magnet is physically not magically transferred to wires and coils during electromagnetic induction. while current science believes generators magically generate electricity with magnets whiich makes no logical sense at all unlike my hypothesis which does make sense. see the coils collect orbital electric energy in magnets during electromagnetic induction the same way a net collects fish in a river. would it make sense to say a fish net is a fish generator? of course not and i dont need math to prove that believe it or not.

 

This appears to be a conundrum, having this weakening be the purported linchpin of the effect and yet being so small it can't be measured.

---well my prediction is that magnets can be measured weakening if enough orbital energy is taken from the magnet

Citing wave-particle duality is a hand-wave; it explains nothing. You need to present a model that shows what's happening, and evidence to show the model is correct. It's easy when you don't put forth any effort.

---it means that my theory.model matches the data unlike other accepted theories do so its more than just a hand-wave.

It would also be appreciated if you learn to use the quote function. I've edited two posts, but you need to properly quote from now on, in addition to fulfilling the requirements of speculations.

sorry about the quotes not working im using an xbox 360 and cant control paste. i will reply by using three dashes after somebodies statement.

 

 

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "Orbital energy" has not been shown to exist, and induction is well-understood by the physics community at large. If you don't understand it, that's a problem for you, not for everyone.

 

Go ahead and measure this magnet weakening, and come up with a model that conserves energy.

 

You don't have a model. You have made no specific predictions. Until you do that, you can't legitimately claim that your model matches the data, and the rules demand that you do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my hypothesis is that these variables i mentioned here are connected mathematically and this is because dark energy is released during fusion where it then causes gravity, accelerating universal expansion, and the galaxy rotational curve...

 

After that comment, I have no doubt that you don't even know what is energy of proton, electron without looking to Internet, and how to calculate energy emitted by fusion or fission.

Please show me that I am wrong.

Show us for instance what will be energy released by for instance decay of Carbon-14, math step by step..

 

Stars indeed are emitting photons, neutrinos, accelerated to relativistic velocities protons, electrons and other particles.

But mainstream physicists don't consider them to be dark energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you can't answer my question then.

 

That's a shame.

 

Also saying things like your idea matches the data with out any maths (therefore no predictions) is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pointing out that i lack enough evidence to be convincing doesnt prove im incorrect by the way so you can pretend it does if you want. science is about facts though. anyway i dont need to provide math to explain my logic because its so simple. math is required for complex stuff and my theory on everything is very simple fortunately and doesnt include magic unlike current science and spirituality do.

just wait until i make math equations that prove my model is correct.


Welcome anonymousone, I have a standard question for people claiming to have a theory of everything.

Using your idea, can you numerically show what the altitude of a geostationary orbit around the earth would be?

im sure it can but i havent done that yet so ill have to research and theorize orbital energy more especially the numerical values associated with dark energies force inducing properties. im definitely going work as hard as i can on the math losing sleep and weight as i do so because i do realize how important it is to have. but when you all suggest my ideas are wrong because i havent supplied this yet that upsets me because thats just not true.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models against the universe. No magic there.

 

You claimed to have a theory of everything, I simply asked a question that any such theory should have an answer for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models against the universe. No magic there.

 

You claimed to have a theory of everything, I simply asked a question that any such theory should have an answer for.

actually electric generators dont magically form electricity like current science says. logically this energy comes from the magnets because energy orbits the magnets i think. and this is evidence im correct because the energy comes from somewhere. fishnets dont generate fish and electric generators dont generate electricity. and this all supports my theory on dark energy forces too which accounts for phenomenah like stars cores shrinking without any magic. also the galaxy rotational curve is no longer magically happening according to my theory. and wheres the math and logic the standard model needs to explain this stuff? this kind of stuff needs logic and math to support it with zero stupid mystical/magical stuff and thats what im supplying yet somehow my lack of more evidence is proof im wrong supposedly according to some of you here. which is rediculous.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually electric generators dont magically form electricity like current science says.

 

Science doesn't claim this is magic, so the statement is an incredible straw man. At best you can make a claim about your understanding about the matter.

pointing out that i lack enough evidence to be convincing doesnt prove im incorrect by the way so you can pretend it does if you want. science is about facts though. anyway i dont need to provide math to explain my logic because its so simple.

 

The requirement is for you to show that you are correct, not for others to show you are incorrect, though if the latter happens that's enough. And it absolutely requires math. (Simple logic can still yield a wrong answer if the premise is flawed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answering post #34 takes less than 5 minutes or so..

 

 

After that comment, I have no doubt that you don't even know what is energy of proton, electron without looking to Internet, and how to calculate energy emitted by fusion or fission.

Please show me that I am wrong.

Show us for instance what will be energy released by for instance decay of Carbon-14, math step by step..

 

Stars indeed are emitting photons, neutrinos, accelerated to relativistic velocities protons, electrons and other particles.

But mainstream physicists don't consider them to be dark energy.

i dont need to be able to calculate the ammount of fusion in the universe except for my math equation im working on. how does me not knowing something about carbon 14 mean my theory is incorrect anyway. also this doesnt prove anything really important all it is is you trying to demonstrate how i dont know one thing to try and discredit me and this one thing isnt critical to my theory anyway. my theory accounts for larger patterns and observations that mainstream physicists theories dont so my theory is better. the thing about science is that theres always room for more accurate logic and math and both are important to have. so with this said i dont expect anybody to consider my theory/model fact without accurate math and logic so dont think im being rediculous and dont believe anything or anyone unless you can prove certain stuff with your own research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually electric generators dont magically form electricity like current science says.

When you will move magnet above wire or piece of metal, electrons in that wire/metal will start flowing in one or the other direction.

When you will move wire above static magnet, you will have the same effect.

The faster movement, the more energy is produced (the higher current, or the higher voltage, or both).

 

logically this energy comes from the magnets because energy orbits the magnets i think. and this is evidence im correct because the energy comes from somewhere.

It's energy coming from movement of wire or magnet.

 

If magnet and wire are static (their velocity relative to each other is 0), current doesn't flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Science doesn't claim this is magic, so the statement is an incredible straw man. At best you can make a claim about your understanding about the matter.

 

The requirement is for you to show that you are correct, not for others to show you are incorrect, though if the latter happens that's enough. And it absolutely requires math. (Simple logic can still yield a wrong answer if the premise is flawed)

mainstream science has no explanation at all to explain where an electric generator gets its electricity from that it supposedly generates. which is why they supposedly mystically work. and this lack of an explanation is completely unacceptable since theres no logic or math involved to back it up. and ull insult me and say im being a strawman even though i provide logic for this and am working on the mathematical equations now just like you all want. so dont be rediculous and say im being a strawman when ive worked for 7 years on my model/theory also. thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont need to be able to calculate the ammount of fusion in the universe except for my math equation im working on.

Nonsense.

 

It's test of yours credibility.

 

If you can't calculate simple stuff that everybody here know, that's well established fact, and you are starting with theory of everything, you have to know everything about basics to be even able to think about more complex things.

 

how does me not knowing something about carbon 14 mean my theory is incorrect anyway.

I am not requiring you to know data of the all isotopes of the world. Find mass by yourself on the net.

Simply show equation how to calculate emitted energy..

 

also this doesnt prove anything really important all it is is you trying to demonstrate how i dont know one thing to try and discredit me

That's true. I am trying to show how little you know about basic things.

 

You just claimed that fusion releases dark energy!!

And now you can't even show how to calculate release of normal energy.

That's really silly.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you will move magnet above wire or piece of metal, electrons in that wire/metal will start flowing in one or the other direction.

When you will move wire above static magnet, you will have the same effect.

The faster movement, the more energy is produced (the higher current, or the higher voltage, or both).

 

 

It's energy coming from movement of wire or magnet.

 

If magnet and wire are static (their velocity relative to each other is 0), current doesn't flow.

if this was what was happening then why does an electric generator seem to generate volts of electrons which dont seem to exist before hand they had to have come from somewhere. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwidzjjd8o and is the energy being put into moving the coil less in some cases than the voltage produced. did u know its possible to make it so electromagnetic induction fuels electromagnetic induction(movement of a pendulum with wire coils on it through a magnetic field) and this technology seems to magically generate electricity which isnt really whats happening i dont think since magic doesnt make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as "volts of electrons".

 

I, current, has unit Ampere.

If 1 A current flows through wire for 1 second, it means there is ~6.24*10^18 electrons flowing through it per second.

 

I=Q/t

or

Q=I*t

 

Q is charge, and has unit Coulombs.

1 electron has charge -1.602*10^-19 C

so 1 C / 1.602*10^-19 C = ~6.24*10^18 electrons.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense.

 

It's test of yours credibility.

 

If you can't calculate simple stuff that everybody here know, that's well established fact, and you are starting with theory of everything, you have to know everything about basics to be even able to think about more complex things.

 

 

I am not requiring you to know data of the all isotopes of the world. Find mass by yourself on the net.

Simply show equation how to calculate emitted energy..

 

 

That's true. I am trying to show how little you know about basic things.

 

You just claimed that fusion releases dark energy!!

And now you can't even show how to calculate release of normal energy.

That's really silly.

but youre completely avoiding the logic i use to backup my ideas and thats because you cant discredit my ideas directly. take on my ideas directly and prove im stupid this way instead if you can. somebody do this at least so i can know my ideas are dumb too. and plus why does whether or not i can use a calculator even matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if this was what was happening then why does an electric generator seem to generate volts of electrons which dont seem to exist before hand they had to have come from somewhere.

Quantity of electrons in closed circuit is always the same.

They are not appearing from nowhere, nor they don't disappear.

You should better read about Lepton Number Conservation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number

(it's violated only in high energy physics).

 

Electrons that are in wire at the moment, are accelerated when magnet is moving above wire. No electron is created or destroyed in this process.

Electron in 1 Volt difference has 1 eV (1 electron volt) kinetic energy that can be used to f.e. heating, or emitted as photon (by light bulb, or LED), or utilized other way in circuit.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mainstream science has no explanation at all to explain where an electric generator gets its electricity from that it supposedly generates. which is why they supposedly mystically work. and this lack of an explanation is completely unacceptable since theres no logic or math involved to back it up. and ull insult me and say im being a strawman even though i provide logic for this and am working on the mathematical equations now just like you all want. so dont be rediculous and say im being a strawman when ive worked for 7 years on my model/theory also. thanks

 

The equation is the law of induction that you have previously mentioned. Curious that you would speak of there being no math to back it up when you've quoted it. People have understood these effects for more than 100 years. Maxwell's equations are mathematically and logically consistent.

 

Dismissing physics as magic is, in fact, a straw man argument.

 

How long you've worked on your idea has no bearing on whether or not it's correct. And to discuss it here it requires that you have a model that can be tested, or something that counts as scientific evidence to support it. If you do not provide something along these lines, (and soon, as you've had ample opportunity) the thread will be closed.

but youre completely avoiding the logic i use to backup my ideas and thats because you cant discredit my ideas directly. take on my ideas directly and prove im stupid this way instead if you can. somebody do this at least so i can know my ideas are dumb too. and plus why does whether or not i can use a calculator even matter?

 

You haven't provided any predictions one can use to try and falsify your theory. That's a failing of the theory, and something that need to be fixed. In science things are not assumed true until proven false. The burden of proof lies in the opposite direction. You make a model that predicts things, and then people can test it.

if this was what was happening then why does an electric generator seem to generate volts of electrons which dont seem to exist before hand they had to have come from somewhere. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwidzjjd8o and is the energy being put into moving the coil less in some cases than the voltage produced. did u know its possible to make it so electromagnetic induction fuels electromagnetic induction(movement of a pendulum with wire coils on it through a magnetic field) and this technology seems to magically generate electricity which isnt really whats happening i dont think since magic doesnt make sense.

 

The electrons already exist, and the energy they gain is from the mechanical work being done. The work is always larger than the electrical energy.

 

No magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantity of electrons in closed circuit is always the same.

They are not appearing from nowhere, nor they don't disappear.

You should better read about Lepton Number Conservation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number

(it's violated only in high energy physics).

 

Electrons that are in wire at the moment, are accelerated when magnet is moving above wire. No electron is created or destroyed in this process.

Electron in 1 Volt difference has 1 eV (1 electron volt) kinetic energy that can be used to f.e. heating, or emitted as photon (by light bulb, or LED), or utilized other way in circuit.

this explanation cant be correct because the physical ammount of electrons in the coil/wire increases somehow or else electromagnetic inuction wouldnt seem to generate electricity like voltage to fuel lights or voltage to fuel a pendulum with coils attatched to it which moves through a magnetic field to produce those volts. and this cycle as mentioned before can go on perpetually seemingly generating free energy. but i theorize that this energy comes from energy orbiting a magnet which makes more sense in my oppinion.

 

The equation is the law of induction that you have previously mentioned. Curious that you would speak of there being no math to back it up when you've quoted it. People have understood these effects for more than 100 years. Maxwell's equations are mathematically and logically consistent.

 

Dismissing physics as magic is, in fact, a straw man argument.

 

How long you've worked on your idea has no bearing on whether or not it's correct. And to discuss it here it requires that you have a model that can be tested, or something that counts as scientific evidence to support it. If you do not provide something along these lines, (and soon, as you've had ample opportunity) the thread will be closed.

 

You haven't provided any predictions one can use to try and falsify your theory. That's a failing of the theory, and something that need to be fixed. In science things are not assumed true until proven false. The burden of proof lies in the opposite direction. You make a model that predicts things, and then people can test it.

 

The electrons already exist, and the energy they gain is from the mechanical work being done. The work is always larger than the electrical energy.

 

No magic.

i dont believe magic or lack of explanations cut it. also again mainstream physics doesnt account for where the volts and electrons come from during electromagnetic induction and my theory on electromagnetism does. im sure youll avoid my point again and say all the volts come from the coils which is obviously nonsense.

Edited by anonymousone

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.