Jump to content
anonymousone

heres my theory on everything. enjoy

Recommended Posts

Will you at least tell us what units each of your variables are expressed in?

 

Edit: Apologies Sensei, you beat me to it by a fraction of a minute. So, I'll add, for Advance: once you have stated the units, will you do a dimensional analysis on one of your equations.

Edited by Ophiolite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are UNITS of your variables..

 

Is that too hard question? :D

the same ones newton used for his gravity equations to represent force and distances yeah pretty simple. im really trying to not confuse anyone so if something seems dumb be sure you logically explain why this is clearly because ive noticed miscommunications taking place and misinterpretations.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the same ones newton used for his gravity equations to represent force and distances yeah pretty simple.

So thev units of your e would be?

 

Still waiting for the answer to my question BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you at least tell us what units each of your variables are expressed in?

 

Edit: Apologies Sensei, you beat me to it by a fraction of a minute. So, I'll add, for Advance: once you have stated the units, will you do a dimensional analysis on one of your equations.

i will do a dimensional analysis after ive learned how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the same ones newton used for his gravity equations to represent force and distances yeah pretty simple. im really trying to not confuse anyone so if something seems dumb be sure you logically explain why this is clearly because ive noticed miscommunications taking place and misinterpretations.

 

All a,b,c,x,y,z are forces in Newtons [N]?

 

So how can you write "b is the ammount of fusion a star has done (how much mass has converted to energy over that star/blackholes life span from start to present)"

"Amount of fusion" is in what unit?

Is it quantity of particles that fused in star?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So thev units of your e would be?

 

Still waiting for the answer to my question BTW.

e is measured in the same units newtons gravity equations use. anyway the answer to your question is that im using a combo of newtons math and mine so the answer is yes the math works. even though im new to doing this kind of math i can tell you the gravity equations work the same as newtons gravity equations with some extra dark energy forces added to this math.

 

All a,b,c,x,y,z are forces in Newtons [N]?

 

So how can you write "b is the ammount of fusion a star has done (how much mass has converted to energy over that star/blackholes life span from start to present)"

"Amount of fusion" is in what unit?

Is it quantity of particles that fused in star?

it is the quantity of mass thats converted into energy after the big bang too because this value is corellated to the ammount of dark energy forces in the universe plus the ammount of dark energy forces in the universe as a result of cumulative attraction(like what causes earths dark energy forces aka gravity.)

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is the quantity of mass thats converted into energy after the big bang too because this value is corellated to the ammount of dark energy forces in the universe plus the ammount of dark energy forces in the universe as a result of cumulative attraction(like what causes earths dark energy forces aka gravity.)

 

But quantity of particles is unitless, isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But quantity of particles is unitless, isn't?

quanta of energy released via fusion since the bigbang.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quantas of energy released via fusion since the bigbang.

 

Energy has unit Joules [J], or electronVolts [eV].

How can you add it to variable that has unit Newtons [N]?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Energy has unit Joules [J], or electronVolts [eV].

How can you add it to variable that has unit Newtons [N]?

joules are quanta arent they. quanta or joules. and the reason i have newtons and joules in one equation is because dark energy which causes forces in newtons = x = ed = f and x is measured in joules while f and d are measured in newtons and e is a formula measured in cubic lightyears(the volume of space a dark energy configuration occupies) and e is the relationship between d and f also expressed in newtons.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joules are quanta arent they. quanta or joules. and the reason i have newtons and joules in one equation is because dark energy which causes forces in newtons = x = ed = f and x is measured in joules while f and d are measured in newtons and e is a formula measured in cubic lightyears(the volume of space a dark energy configuration occupies) and e is the relationship between d and f also expressed in newtons.

 

Cubic lightyears? Light year is not unit.

Do you meant m^3 * s^-3?

or m^3 (simply volume)?

 

Do you really meant "x = ed = f"

Before editing there was "x*e*d=f"

Either way, units don't match between sides of equation..

 

How can you say that energy x in Joules is equal to force f in Newtons.. ?

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cubic lightyears? Light year is not unit.

Do you meant m^3 * s^-3?

or m^3 (simply volume)?

 

Do you really meant "x = ed = f"

Before editing there was "x*e*d=f"

Either way, units don't match between sides of equation..

 

How can you say that energy x in Joules is equal to force f in Newtons.. ?

my equation is in its infancy and it describes the mathematical relationship between fusion ammounts in the universe(joules) and dark energy forces(newtons). so i meant m^3 because im talking about how the volume/size of a dark energy configuration relates to f and d which are dark energy forces. and i think its better to say xe = d and xe = f because of how dark energy is configurated to cause forces.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If xe = d and xe = f, then d and f are the same. Why do you need both of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If xe = d and xe = f, then d and f are the same. Why do you need both of them?

excellent question the answer is that f represents the antigravity part of dark energy forces thats causing universal expansion and d represents the gravitational part of dark energy forces that shrink a stars core so much over time as more dark energy accumulates in configurations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are they equal?

because e is a flexible variable that represents a configuration of dark energy.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why does the variability of e cause the dark energy forces causing universal expansion to be exactly the same as the dark energy forces causing stellar cores to shrink?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why does the variability of e cause the dark energy forces causing universal expansion to be exactly the same as the dark energy forces causing stellar cores to shrink?

if e represents the dark energy forces near the core itll be a different value such as is the case with xe = d and if xe = f the dark energy forces lightyears away from the core will be different again so e is also determined by if you use f or d at the end of the equation.

something just came to my attention and it is that alot think high speed particle collision experiments prove my ideas about particles are incorrect. and this is not the case because i think that energy at these collision sites is so high that miniature universes(matter) is forming there. in other words energy is converting into mass making many types of particles according to me. it sucks that science has assumed all the particles come from inside of the collided particles. and please mention any evidence that my ideas are wrong so i can explain why they arent. thanks

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyway the answer to your question is that im using a combo of newtons math and mine so the answer is yes the math works.

Right so I'm supposed to take your word for it? I don't think so. You need to show this to be true not just state it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right so I'm supposed to take your word for it? I don't think so. You need to show this to be true not just state it.

what im claiming is that newtons equations are caused by dark energy forces so the math is the same as if i was claiming spacetime curvature causes gravity. the difference between my math and newtons is that my equations account for antigravity also to account for universal expansion and gravity all at once refered to as dark energy forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you tell whether your hypothesis is correct though? What evidence do you have, except for "I believe X is true"? What predictions does your hypothesis make? What could your hypothesis explain, that mainstream science can not?

 

Mainstream physics has a lot of evidence to back it up, and has passed the tests so far, as actually working. Why should we discard it in favor of your idea?

Edited by pwagen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what im claiming is that newtons equations are caused by dark energy forces so the math is the same as if i was claiming spacetime curvature causes gravity. the difference between my math and newtons is that my equations account for antigravity also to account for universal expansion and gravity all at once refered to as dark energy forces.

Space time curvature is a result of general relativity. Which is a mathematical model, a theory, of gravity which in certain circumstances simplifies to the Newtonian equations. You would need to show that your idea did the same and matched all of the other observations to a greater level of accuracy. This requires maths. If your idea cannot do this it is not science but telling stories, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space time curvature is a result of general relativity. Which is a mathematical model, a theory, of gravity which in certain circumstances simplifies to the Newtonian equations. You would need to show that your idea did the same and matched all of the other observations to a greater level of accuracy. This requires maths. If your idea cannot do this it is not science but telling stories, sorry.

I am not saying i agree with anonymousone, As i have my own ideas, But as you say "observations", Most theories first start with observations" apple's falling", next comes the math.

So just because there is yet no math does not make it a story.

1229433w28k1kzzujk9x21.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying i agree with anonymousone, As i have my own ideas, But as you say "observations", Most theories first start with observations" apple's falling", next comes the math.

So just because there is yet no math does not make it a story.

1229433w28k1kzzujk9x21.jpg

Observations==measurements. They are inherently numerical in nature. The sole falling is probably not a true story and science has moved a long way since Newton. Modern science is mathematical by its very nature.

 

Oh and Newton was a big fan of maths, not a good example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you tell whether your hypothesis is correct though? What evidence do you have, except for "I believe X is true"? What predictions does your hypothesis make? What could your hypothesis explain, that mainstream science can not?

 

Mainstream physics has a lot of evidence to back it up, and has passed the tests so far, as actually working. Why should we discard it in favor of your idea?

heres the thing k... newtons equations on gravity make sense to me so much that i use them in my model of the universe im working so tiredlessly on. the problem is that these equations only explain some observations mathematically... so i have studied for a great ammount of time very digilently on how to incorperate more observations in science into theories and equations. which has brought me to believing dark energy forces cause gravity and universal expansion simultaneously via growing configurations of orbital dark energy which growth is driven by fusion reactions... the equations im working on xe = d and xe = f are made to expain how configurations of energy can cause gravity (d) and antigravity (f) which causes accelerating universal expansion to happen because x accelerates over time. since more gravity power = more compression which = more heat in stars which = more fusion which = more heat and so on... more dark energy is released faster + faster over time via this cycle and so stars cores are shrinking as time goes on due to dark energy forces which also causes universal expansion to increase in ammount as time goes on since universal expansion and gravity are both caused by e (dark energy configurations.) and personally i think the best theories and maths explain the most observations accurately. which is what my goal is to do. and i just feel like people arent listening to what i say and if thats because i come across as disrespectful then im sorry. thinking outside of the box makes one come across as if theyre ignoring the box because theyre ignorant when really the point of thinking outside the box is to be more advanced.

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.