Jump to content
anonymousone

heres my theory on everything. enjoy

Recommended Posts

your not showing your understanding of whats in the box. If anything you've shown you don't understand the basics. For example can you understand this equation?

 

[latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex]

 

or this equation?

 

[latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2 [/latex]

 

 

 

by the way how these two equations work, is how the universe is defined according to the FLRW metric

 

flat space in this would be

 

[latex]{ds^2} = {dr^2} +{r^2}[d\theta^2 + {sin^2} d\phi^2][/latex]

 

positive curvature k=+1

 

[latex]{ds^2} = {dr^2} +{R^2}{sin^2}(r/R)[d\theta^2 + {sin^2}\theta d\phi^2][/latex]

 

negative curvature k=-1

 

[latex]{ds^2} = {dr^2} +{R^2}{sinH^2}(r/R)[d\theta^2 + {sin^2}\theta d\phi^2][/latex]

 

when we ask to see your maths, that you tell us is supposed to argue against the known metrics. You must show us your knowledge of those metrics. Then perhaps you understand Einsteins field equations?

 

describe your model in either form.

 

we have all mentioned you need to learn the basics in physics, it would appear you don't even understand Newtonian laws let alone GR

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can connect the dots just not so much mathematically yet because i havent learned stuff in the box since all i do is think outside the box. but i really dunno what those equations mean.


so those equations describe how matter and energy evolved since the bigbang correct? and all the variables and numbers are like the programmed code that matter and energy goes by since the bigbang. is this basically correct? what i wanna do is make a cpu simulation which has one equation with one theory thatll accurately show how matter and energy evolved since the bigbang. so what im really trying to develope is the most simple mathematical program possible like this and coded universal laws(dark energy forces) will be variables in a single math equation which encompasses all known physical processes. for example the part of the program which simulates dark energy forces could = j and time dilation = t and the speed of light = c and the ammount of fusion and cumlative attraction that adds to dark energy forces = i matter = m energy = e then the first step is to program all of these kinds of things into the system. like walls + gravity in a first person shooter are programmed in. ill also include innertia which = k and then after all of these variables are there ill connect all of the dots with one simple math equation which says "this is what matter and energy do after a bigbang" and all variables other than m and e and b(the bigbang) will be over time like this. m + e + b over time (following j laws) over time = b and since j is dark energy forces which ultimatelty are everything according to my theory (physics and matter and their behavior) this may be the only laws and forces ill need to program in. i also think that e = mc2 = dark energy forces. because the repulsive dark energy forces in particles(miniature universes) determines particles shape and properties i hypothesize. so energy is dark energy which means mass is dark energy since particles(energy and mass) are all miniature universes just as complex as the main universe we live in. to sum it up dark energy forces are everything. energy, matter, and forces(in the universe and in particles) even why mass has shape is due to dark energy forces of the particles in the mass. and the reason particles have dark energy forces is because theyre miniature universes with universal expansion forces in them that give particles shape. in other words im hypothesizing that the reason i cant walk through a wall is due to dark energy forces in the particles of the wall which are there because particles are miniature universes that contain universal expansion(a repulsive force) this repulsive force in particles gives objects shape and hardness. and this means im saying e = mc2 = £ £ represents dark energy.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Believe it or not, this is exactly right. Newtonian gravity made predictions that did not agree with the measurements. The precession of Mercury, for example.

 

This is what led scientists to the theory of special relativity and then to the theory of general relativity.

 

And, here's the thing, general relativity makes a lot of really good predictions.

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity as an overview, and http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 for more detail.

 

I hope, in particular, that you take a close look at the second link above, because this is the kind of thing people are asking of you. We want to see a plot of the observation, the prediction made by GR, and the prediction made by you (calculated in explicit detail). If you want people to accept your ideas, we need to see that your predictions have less error than the current best ones.

 

Look, there is hope. GR isn't perfect. This is known. Conceptually, the hurdle you have to jump is very easy: just make better predictions than what currently exists. However, per the links above, the predictions made by GR are very, very good. In this way you have a very high hurdle to jump.

 

Lastly, again I hope you look at that second link in detail, and note how little of its presentation is actually words and how much of it is mathematics. Mathematics isn't the whole of science, but it is a very large part. Writing paragraphs with explanations don't really count as predictions. Because words have different meaning to different people. If I say something is 'big' what does that really mean? But, if I say something is 5m big, then everyone knows exactly what that is. This is why the math is so important. For example, you can just say 'energy is released'... we want to know exactly how much, at what time, under what circumstances, etc. Then with that prediction, we can create that set of circumstance and measure it -- create experimental data. Then compare with how good or poor the prediction was.

 

This is the core of science. Matching up prediction and observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to discourage you on your programming aspects its a good goal, however you will find the average desktop computer cannot handle all the needed equations. Even in one of the most advanced and simplified algorithms such as N-Body codes. This I can honestly tell you from personal experience as I am a programmer myself. Though I deal primarily with industrial applications.

 

I made the mistake of buying an N-Body code textbook just to cover gravity. I had to hook up a 12 CPU network just to run a decent galaxy merger program. That program between two galaxies. With 250 particles in each galaxy took over 4 weeks to complete the merger. Mind you I did it in C++. (Fortran is the recommended language) Don't even have the code anymore as it turned out to be futile and I made some mistakes in the P-P interactions. and my galaxies flew apart lol

 

to understand what I posted above here is some free material

 

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 (Full Textbook, public release)
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 (beginner level GR)

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not unless you think energy is money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made the mistake of buying an N-Body code textbook just to cover gravity. I had to hook up a 12 CPU network just to run a decent galaxy merger program. That program between two galaxies. With 250 particles in each galaxy took over 4 weeks to complete the merger. Mind you I did it in C++. (Fortran is the recommended language) Don't even have the code anymore as it turned out to be futile and I made some mistakes in the P-P interactions. and my galaxies flew apart lol

 

Do you meant 250 thousands or 250?

I can't believe in second without serious issue in program..

I am often programming particles, and putting them to octree/kd-tree is obvious standard procedure of speeding them up..

 

If you "forgot" to turn Floating Point Model: Fast, instead of default Precise, this also can cause several hundred percent slowdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what do you all think about my equation e = mc2 = £ ? this communicates what i mean better.

Forum guidelines prevent me from offering a comprehensive reply.

 

When can we expect some serious answers on units? And some serious equations? Not word salad and modifications of incomplete equations that even nine year olds have heard of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look i realize how without complete math equations my ideas should be rejected which is whats happening. but dont think i cant make these just because i havent yet. so somebody please show me how the mechanics of my ideas are flawed. instead of claiming theyre flawed because they dont yet have math too back them up. i need to learn some data which proves the mechanics of my ideas are wrong and this just hasnt happened yet. i do applaud you smart ones here who demand mathematics. because math is the backbone of science and what gives it superiority over all other subjects. so besides me lacking this very critical piece to the puzzle at the moment please explain why the mechanics and logic im using is flawed. i hope this isnt asking too much but its the reason im debating. to be constructive and to gain even more understanding of the elligant universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the math there is a very restrictive limit to how much one can analyze these so-called mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

instead of claiming theyre flawed because they dont yet have math too back them up. i need to learn some data which proves the mechanics of my ideas are wrong and this just hasnt happened yet.

To expand little on swansont's point on why words alone don't work in answering this question.

 

Say I walked into your room, carrying a box, set it down, and said "whew, that box is heavy."

 

What does that really mean? What if I were someone who lifted weights every day, like an Olympic Weightlifter? What if I never exercise? What if am a man, or a woman? What if I am very young, middle aged, or older? Etc.

 

The point is, words alone "that is heavy" really takes on very different meanings to very different people.

 

Compare that with "that box weights 30 kg." Now, since everyone has agreed to what a kg is, everyone knows how heavy that box is to them, whether they be young or old or strong or weak.

 

Taking this one step further, if you had a model that predicted the box would weigh 26 kg and I had a model that predicted it would weigh 14 kg... yours is obviously better. Because the difference between actuality and prediction is less. And if a third model came along that predicted it would weight 29.6 kg, well that one's even better.

 

This is how science works. The model that makes the best prediction is considered the best. It is a very objective measure of how good a model is. There is no need to quibble about word choice, how 'logical' it is, the pedigree of the person saying it, and so on. This is why math is asked for. We're trying to be as objective as possible about your idea. And quite simply, if your idea makes more accurate predictions, then it will be listened to. If it makes less accurate predictions, then we're going to stick with the current idea that makes better predictions.

 

So you need to show us that your prediction is more accurate. But, just using the words you've used so far is the same as saying "that box is heavy." Help us out by making your predictions more objective. Probably easiest done with math, but not absolutely necessarily. You need to demonstrate why several of the effects you are claiming haven't been detected today, too, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you meant 250 thousands or 250?

I can't believe in second without serious issue in program..

I am often programming particles, and putting them to octree/kd-tree is obvious standard procedure of speeding them up..

 

If you "forgot" to turn Floating Point Model: Fast, instead of default Precise, this also can cause several hundred percent slowdown.

I have no doubt I made numerous mistakes when I attempted it lol, quite likely the combination of mistakes also bogged things down.

The networking and assignments of individuals tasks, to the network processors was likely another major bottleneck, not to mention the 3d rendering algorithm I tried using

I didn't know about the floating point fast instead of precise thanks for that tidbit.

 

this is a good book on N-Body algorithms but it left a lot out when it came to program implementation. Particularly since its few code examples were in fortran, where I used C++ (they only give one sample of actual code implementation, which is a sample Hermite integration)

Gravitational N-Body Simulations: tools and algorithms.

by Sverre J Arseth.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

note - 1 d.e.f.u. = all of earths dark energy forces

 

im going to make a prediction that the average force in joules of explosions that cause the weak force (x) multiplied by how large the universe is (at its peak size through time) compared to the size of a neutron (y) is equal to how many joules the bigbang was. (z)

xy = z

this is because bigbangs in neutrons are y times as weak as the bigbang i think

 

and i also predict that the total ammount of gravity force in the universe in dark energy force units (x) divided by how many times larger the universe is at its max size through time compared to the size of a neutron (y) equals how many dark energy force units the strong force is (z)

xy = z

this is because neutrons are miniature universes i think.

 

i will say though that since our universe could be just an electron in a symetrical universe to ours that i may have to switch the word neutron in these equations with electron. to be accurate. but this can only be done to the second equation because electrons dont measurably do weak force explosions.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neutrons weren't around at the time of the big bang. The temperature was too high for any neutrons to be stable. Quarks and gluons (Quark/Gluon plasma) became stable shortly after BB, but this occurs after inflation. Prior to inflation, according to the standard model, ignoring supersymmetry including the SO(10) Susy model.

the universe is essentially a vacuum state with virtual (quantum) particle production. This is where the planch epoch, GUT epoch and electroweak epoch timing comes into play. At the planch epoch there are no quage bosons, so the forces are unified, with the exception of gravity, the Higg's field is not active so no particles that exist have mass. All virtual particles at this time is relativistic, however that's meaningless as virtual particles are short lived. Then you have the GUT epoch in which the Strong force separates. The force carrier is the Gluon, This is essentially a quarks/gluon plasma. Then the electroweak Epoch. starts in which the remaining forces drop out of thermal equilibrium. However at the same time inflation starts.(may or may not be related to the Higg's field, depending on which inflation model is correct) Inflation generates a supercooling due to rapid expansion. (see the ideal gas laws). However when inflation slows down, there is a significant reheating phase.. The remaining forces separate from the unified electroweak force. and the Quark epoch starts. Now you have a quark/Gluon plasma. Hadrons can now start to form. Hadrons is a composite particle made of quarks held together by the strong force (gluon interactions)

 

a neutron is made up of 1 up quark and two down quarks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

a proton is made up of 2 up and 1 down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

 

these particles could not form preinflationary, they are formed after inflation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Dark_Ages

 

this is also evidence as to why your model doesn't work as gravity exists without the presence of neutrons or protons. It also proves that you never even looked at the existing GUT models if you weren't aware of these details.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neutrons weren't around at the time of the big bang. The temperature was too high for any neutrons to be stable. Quarks and gluons (Quark/Gluon plasma) became stable shortly after BB, but this occurs after inflation. Prior to inflation, according to the standard model, ignoring supersymmetry including the SO(10) Susy model.

the universe is essentially a vacuum state with virtual (quantum) particle production. This is where the planch epoch, GUT epoch and electroweak epoch timing comes into play. At the planch epoch there are no quage bosons, so the forces are unified, with the exception of gravity, the Higg's field is not active so no particles that exist have mass. All virtual particles at this time is relativistic, however that's meaningless as virtual particles are short lived. Then you have the GUT epoch in which the Strong force separates. The force carrier is the Gluon, (in order for the Gluon to gain mass the Higg's boson would also need to be present This is essentially a gluon plasma (no quarks). Then the electroweak Epoch. starts in which the remaining forces drop out of thermal equilibrium. However at the same time inflation starts. Inflation generates a supercooling due to rapid expansion. (see the ideal gas laws). However when inflation slows down, there is a significant reheating phase.. The remaining forces separate from the unified electroweak force. and the Quark epoch starts. Now you have a quark/Gluon plasma. Hadrons can now start to form. Hadrons is a composite particle made of quarks held together by the strong force (gluon interactions)

 

a neutron is made up of 1 up quark and two down quarks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

a proton is made up of 2 up and 1 down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

 

these particles could not form preinflationary, they are formed after inflation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Dark_Ages

 

this is also evidence as to why your model doesn't work as gravity exists without the presence of neutrons or protons. It also proves that you never even looked at the existing GUT models if you weren't aware of these details.

i think dark energy can orbit arround anything but the ammount is different depending on the size of the object too. so my ideas arent wrong. yet lol

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im going to make a prediction...

ok, these are steps in the right direction. Now, start putting estimates in and see if you are right. This is what I meant when I wrote above, provide your calculations in explicit detail. You have equations now, start actually using them to compare with what is known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think dark energy can orbit arround anything but the ammount is different depending on the size of the object too. so my ideas arent wrong. yet lol

 

Dark energy is essentially one proposed solution to the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is in essence a vacuum state. prior to inflation there is vacuum states. So in essence this statement is correct. However dark energy doesn't need to "orbit" The problem you will have is dark energy is the same no matter where you measure it.(although in order to measure it at all, you need an extremely large scale, and is a calculated value that depends on particles. (much the same way gravity is measured) Its energy-density is not stronger or weaker near large stellar bodies. [Latex]\Lambda[/Latex] has been measured with tremendous precision. According to all precision measurements its value is constant from the CMB to present times, regardless of where you measure it. (we cannot observe anything prior to the CMB to see inflation)

 

If you have any hope of making your model work your going to need this

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory"

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dark energy is essentially one proposed solution to the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is in essence a vacuum state. prior to inflation there is vacuum states. So in essence this statement is correct. However dark energy doesn't need to "orbit" The problem you will have is dark energy is the same no matter where you measure it.(although in order to measure it at all, you need an extremely large scale, and is a calculated value that depends on particles. (much the same way gravity is measured) Its energy-density is not stronger or weaker near large stellar bodies. Its energy-density per M3 is roughly 6.0*10-10 joules.m3 . However that's based on an older data set. on small scales the cosmological constant if you were to try to measure the vacuum pressure would be effectively zero.

i have a much different oppinion about dark energy as everyone can tell. so i come across as stupid because of this difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a much different oppinion about dark energy as everyone can tell. so i come across as stupid because of this difference.

It isn't the difference in opinion that makes one come across as 'stupid'. And no one who follows the rules here will call you stupid.

 

But, you are ignorant of what the current best models and observations say. As noted above, dark energy is needed because in every other situation we know, energy is conserved. So, we assume that even on the level of the entire universe, energy is conserved. We just don't seem to see it at the moment. Hence, dark energy needed to balance our books.

 

You keep writing things like "i think dark energy can orbit arround [sic] anything", but you don't explain this at all. Firstly, how can energy orbit something? Secondly, what causes energy to orbit? Thirdly, how does this orbiting cause it to be unseen by our current best observation techniques? Fourthly, what tests should we perform to validate or invalidate this idea? Correlative to that, when we perform this test, what values should our measurements take (i.e. numerical prediction)?

 

All these questions, and more (e.g. see the rest of this thread), need to be answered before you really have a scientific idea. Otherwise, we're back to story telling again.

 

Please don't take that personally. Science doesn't accept things just at anyone's word. Every single idea about dark energy is asked the exact same questions, and science asks the person who came up with the idea to demonstrate that his idea is the best. If you want to participate in scientific research, you better get used to lots of different people asking you lots of different questions about your idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 100% agree with what Bignose just said, that's also why throughout this entire thread I provided the materials you need to study in order to make your model work. If I truly felt your beyond hope I wouldn't even bother trying to teach you. However that being said you must show an effort in learning the material provided

 

lol for that matter I have my own ideas on the cosmological constant problem. I've been working on it for 3 years, However I keep proving my own model wrong. I never post the idea on forums,or in papers simply due to knowing the maths involved already. I keep working on it even though it has very little chance of sucess. Its a good way to learn if anything else (also I haven't proved the premise wrong, I keep proving my modelling wrong)

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anonymousone, you should be at stage of asking questions about physics. Not creating your own pet theories.

 

You're behaving like your would never attend to primary school, not to mention high, and studies.

It's unbelievable to mix all units and don't understanding what is dimensional analysis, how to convert units etc. etc.

That's primary school knowledge here.

 

Ask question in separate thread, and it'll be answered, if it's well established knowledge.

f.e. "how to calculate decay energy?"

f.e. "how do we know that proton has 938 MeV energy?"

etc. etc.

Anything that you obviously don't know..

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wanna talk more about d.e.f.u.s(dark energy force units) and calculating dark energy forces so theres no confusion about it. basically all of earths dark energy forces are one defu and so this is a measurement of dark energy forces that cause gravity. and the way to calculate how many defus the sun has is one starts by measuring the size of the suns gravity field that makes objects fall. and then however many times larger this is than earths gravity field = x. and earths field here is slightly larger than the planet because if you go too far away from earth something will not fall to the ground. next you take x and multiply it by y which is how many times more intense gravitys strength is at the center of the sun compared to earth. lets say y = 20 and x = 1000000. xy = z and z is how powerful the suns dark energy forces are in d.e.f.u.s if these were accurate numbers which theyre not then the sun would have 20000000 defus worth of dark energy forces. so an objects defu value is dependent on how large and intense its gravity field is.

 

my plan is to determine how strong all of the universes dark energy forces are in defus this way. then i take this value x and divide it by y which represents how many times larger the universe is compared to a neutron and the answer is z. and lets say z = .0000000001 defus. this will = w and w is how many defus one neutron has. and w also = the strong force except its measured in defus because my hypothesis is that dark energy forces hold a neutron together. the reason z = w is because symetry exists between neutrons and the universe. of course my theory is that neutrons are exactly symetrical to the universe except y times as small. this will test my theory.

i could also calculate a neutrons defu value by measuring its gravity field size compared to the earths (d) and then multiply this by h which is the intensity of gravity at the center of a neutron compared to earths to get g. and g is how many defus a neutron has. so lets say d = 1/10000000 and h = 10000 the answer would be that a neutron has 0.001 defus using these innacurate numbers but u get the idea.

 

i dont think itll be a coincidence when all of the defus in the universe divided by how many times larger the universe is compared to a neutron equals how many defus a neutron has. this is all like saying that dark energy in a neutron is symetrical to dark energy in the universe in how it is on average through time.

Edited by anonymousone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really doesn't make sense. The two are roughly opposites. It is like saying you are going to measure fire in terms of water units.

 

 

and earths field here is slightly larger than the planet because if you go too far away from earth something will not fall to the ground.

 

Why do you think this is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to my hypothesis dark energy forces cause gravity and universal expansion so if you had read anything ude know that im refering to dark energy saying it does more than what mainstream physicists say. and i think thats true about the earth for obvious reasons. and by field i mean the areas of space arround/in/on earth where objects fall down.


so what do you all think about my new way to measure forces in the universe?

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.