- #36
connect
- 72
- 0
Imagine 2 universe so tighly woven together throwing the power of each to each other.
Swaying and pulsing.
Swaying and pulsing.
What would the universe be like
- Thread starter wonderer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Universe
In summary, the universe would be a matrix of tiles that have been predicted by string theory. Time is created by the behaviour of the tiles, if different amounts (percentage's of energy) are absorbed at the different points the tile will still compress but will be offset from the center. Alpha and omega tiles take it turn to compress and expand. All alpha tiles, and then all omega tiles compress and expand, at the same rate. On expanding there are 3 things that are going to happen: 1 - the left side of the compressed omega tile has to reach its alpha connection point. 2 - the right side of the compressed omega tile has to reach its alpha connection point. 3 - the center point must reach its center.
- #37
connect
- 72
- 0
This model 'in a nutshell' is 2 parallel 'matrix' universes tightly woven together (at string ratio level), they basically take it turns to represent the movement of energy through/by space and through/by time.
(egyptian ra aspects, taoism ying/yang, the dance of shakta/shiva(?), genesis adam/eve (tree (combination of linear and circular effects) of knowledge of good and evil means the ability to make distinctions between things, to be as gods, create and destroy, i think its implying the responsibility that comes with knowledge (the responsibility being understanding, i think understanding is common sense; knowledge/understanding - conscience/un conscience mind))
When one matrix is in its compress/expand cycle, the other is at rest; does being awake and sleeping sound familiar?
Higher compressions cause energy clustering, in 2d the clustering effect is like flapping, like a butterfly.
We as humans are created by the planet 'pulsing' and 'twisting', (lifted (shaked up) from the dust of the Earth (carbon) with water/heat (vapour)).
This is why we like to dance!
The universal turing machine can express all other turing machines, the turing machine has a set of atomic or primitive operations.
What I am proposing is the universal atomic operations of nature, of which I believe string theory predicts. The tiles which have a set of atomic operations (making them turing machines) creating endless numbers of 'clustered' turing machines (big things are always lots of small things).
4 Dualities
1 - Static + Dynamic = Complex (or Simple + Diverse = Richness)
2 - Cyclic + Linear = Expodential (or Days + Lifetime = Growth)
3 - Internal + External = Difference (Its only in difference that similarities occur, if things where not different they would be the same, hence there would be no similarities, - I am hinting at fractals)
4 - Heat + Cold = Life
The Planet is hot internally and cold externally.
Humans are warm internally and cold externally.
(Externally = Surrounded By)
The model I am proposing produces 3d fractals.
The human body has 5 nodes, a head, 2 arms and 2 legs.
The hands have 5 nodes as do the feet.
There where 5 original (or primitive) string theory equations. 4 of the 5 where pairs of dualities:
Strong/Weak
Short/Long (I think this refers to distance)
Imagine walking down the street, each leg taking it in turn to be the strong force while the other the weak?
This reminds me of super symmetry, walking also includes waves. Walking is moving through space over time or over space and through time.
(egyptian ra aspects, taoism ying/yang, the dance of shakta/shiva(?), genesis adam/eve (tree (combination of linear and circular effects) of knowledge of good and evil means the ability to make distinctions between things, to be as gods, create and destroy, i think its implying the responsibility that comes with knowledge (the responsibility being understanding, i think understanding is common sense; knowledge/understanding - conscience/un conscience mind))
When one matrix is in its compress/expand cycle, the other is at rest; does being awake and sleeping sound familiar?
Higher compressions cause energy clustering, in 2d the clustering effect is like flapping, like a butterfly.
We as humans are created by the planet 'pulsing' and 'twisting', (lifted (shaked up) from the dust of the Earth (carbon) with water/heat (vapour)).
This is why we like to dance!
The universal turing machine can express all other turing machines, the turing machine has a set of atomic or primitive operations.
What I am proposing is the universal atomic operations of nature, of which I believe string theory predicts. The tiles which have a set of atomic operations (making them turing machines) creating endless numbers of 'clustered' turing machines (big things are always lots of small things).
4 Dualities
1 - Static + Dynamic = Complex (or Simple + Diverse = Richness)
2 - Cyclic + Linear = Expodential (or Days + Lifetime = Growth)
3 - Internal + External = Difference (Its only in difference that similarities occur, if things where not different they would be the same, hence there would be no similarities, - I am hinting at fractals)
4 - Heat + Cold = Life
The Planet is hot internally and cold externally.
Humans are warm internally and cold externally.
(Externally = Surrounded By)
The model I am proposing produces 3d fractals.
The human body has 5 nodes, a head, 2 arms and 2 legs.
The hands have 5 nodes as do the feet.
There where 5 original (or primitive) string theory equations. 4 of the 5 where pairs of dualities:
Strong/Weak
Short/Long (I think this refers to distance)
Imagine walking down the street, each leg taking it in turn to be the strong force while the other the weak?
This reminds me of super symmetry, walking also includes waves. Walking is moving through space over time or over space and through time.
Last edited:
- #38
Reflector
- 50
- 0
Why does the Universe exist? You don't get something for nothing. You evolve to stay alive... So then is the Universe itself a state of perfect evolution?
Last edited:
- #39
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
Evolution require an earlier form or state, no? You have to evolve FROM something. So to attribute evolution to the universe you wind up with two choices: an infinite regress of prior states, or a single unexplained prior state. But these are the same two choices Aristotle found, and was distressed by, and which Kant used to illustrate the meanglessness of such speculation, since the one is as stupid as the other.
- #40
Reflector
- 50
- 0
...the perfect state of evolution prevents us (the imperfect state of evolution) from knowing these reasons... I'm not talking about evolution as in development. I'm actually talking about COMPETITION between life-forms in order to exist, the basis for the Universe's own existence - COMPETITION. To win to exist. What I mean is, to us what we may call 'prior' does not actually mean what we think it does. It is a simplistic point of view which gets us confused as you stated. Competition is not straightforward like that. It's really complicated...
Last edited:
- #41
Erck
- 178
- 0
It sure is... ain't it?Reflector said:
- #42
connect
- 72
- 0
Consider progression from a relative persepective, the human race develops, but human individuals die. Maybe the human race will die one day. Life in some form will always develop.
Things can reach a peak, maybe its just not possible to do somethings, it certainly seems that way. The human race works really hard, but where is the cut off point? When do we reach our peak? When we are immortal?
Maybe the peak is life! The tip of the iceburg!
My point is that there seem to be 2 things that always tie everything together.
Time and space(or distance/movement through/around). Take away one and everything becomes nothing.
Interestingly enough they can both be 'static' as in a mathematical expression or both be 'dynamic' as in real life. There is no half way house, i.e static time and dynamic space .
Think about a sentence.
Your conscience mind (virtualisation tunnel) reads the incoming representation of the words (shapes/symbols), but the unconscience mind makes sense of the overall meaning.
Maybe 'why does the universe exist' is the wrong question, maybe 'why do things exist in the universe' is a better, it 'seems' to make more 'sense', but that may only be to me because i think time and space are the cornerstone constants.
Things can reach a peak, maybe its just not possible to do somethings, it certainly seems that way. The human race works really hard, but where is the cut off point? When do we reach our peak? When we are immortal?
Maybe the peak is life! The tip of the iceburg!
My point is that there seem to be 2 things that always tie everything together.
Time and space(or distance/movement through/around). Take away one and everything becomes nothing.
Interestingly enough they can both be 'static' as in a mathematical expression or both be 'dynamic' as in real life. There is no half way house, i.e static time and dynamic space .
Think about a sentence.
Your conscience mind (virtualisation tunnel) reads the incoming representation of the words (shapes/symbols), but the unconscience mind makes sense of the overall meaning.
Maybe 'why does the universe exist' is the wrong question, maybe 'why do things exist in the universe' is a better, it 'seems' to make more 'sense', but that may only be to me because i think time and space are the cornerstone constants.
Last edited:
- #43
Erck
- 178
- 0
Why do time and space exist?connect said:
At what time and in what space did time and space come into being?
At what time and in what space did the universe come into being?
Something (time and space included) somehow came from nothing... or something always existed... somehow.
- #44
connect
- 72
- 0
Time and space exist because they are the 'key' requirements of reality.
All religion/science can fit into the 4 possible 'belief' types of 'universe' scenarios:
There was A beginning AND there will be AN end.
There was A beginning BUT there will be NO end.
There was NO beginning BUT there will be AN end.
There was NO beginning AND there will be NO end.
The big bang model 'believes' in one of the first too, I believe in the last one.
It makes things ever so simple then.
All religion/science can fit into the 4 possible 'belief' types of 'universe' scenarios:
There was A beginning AND there will be AN end.
There was A beginning BUT there will be NO end.
There was NO beginning BUT there will be AN end.
There was NO beginning AND there will be NO end.
The big bang model 'believes' in one of the first too, I believe in the last one.
It makes things ever so simple then.
- #45
- #46
wonderer
- 35
- 0
Wouldnt reaction have something to do with a new begining?
And that reaction seeking equalibrium establish a "sense of time"?
If one square light year produced one new atom(or part) every day , We'd never be able to "know" with no guess work. But it would be possible to do.And at the same time one atom would be naturally reaching decay. And because all this stuff we call matter is in different states(forms) not just one big chunk ,While its not ended yet , wouldn't it be safe to assume something random and repeating?
And that reaction seeking equalibrium establish a "sense of time"?
If one square light year produced one new atom(or part) every day , We'd never be able to "know" with no guess work. But it would be possible to do.And at the same time one atom would be naturally reaching decay. And because all this stuff we call matter is in different states(forms) not just one big chunk ,While its not ended yet , wouldn't it be safe to assume something random and repeating?
- #47
connect
- 72
- 0
Things are not random.
Things come into being or happen (move/change) when the conditions are right.
Things come into being or happen (move/change) when the conditions are right.
- #48
wonderer
- 35
- 0
Ok,
"When the conditions are right" >>> to produce any results that lasts any time...
I used the word random to descibe a difference in conditions at the same time.
If conditions are not in sync then they will seek equalibrium. right?
That means conditions must not be equal to get a change in reaction. right?
And "REACTION" could define What the universe is. ...REACTION.
And "NOTHING" could be defined as "LACK OF REACTION".
With no reaction there is nothing. Life is reaction. Matter is reaction...
The universe is reaction.
Does any of this seem close?
"When the conditions are right" >>> to produce any results that lasts any time...
I used the word random to descibe a difference in conditions at the same time.
If conditions are not in sync then they will seek equalibrium. right?
That means conditions must not be equal to get a change in reaction. right?
And "REACTION" could define What the universe is. ...REACTION.
And "NOTHING" could be defined as "LACK OF REACTION".
With no reaction there is nothing. Life is reaction. Matter is reaction...
The universe is reaction.
Does any of this seem close?
- #49
connect
- 72
- 0
The conditions are already in sync, the are happening a the same time, i.e. synchronised.
Last edited:
- #50
wonderer
- 35
- 0
Ok, that was twisted.
sync---bad word. try different. Not talking about time.
If conditions are different then they will seek equalibrium. right?
sync---bad word. try different. Not talking about time.
If conditions are different then they will seek equalibrium. right?
- #51
wonderer
- 35
- 0
And right now conditions are different. Else there would be no change in reaction. right?
Dropping the vibrations from nowhere,
would this be better-----
I used the word random to descibe a difference in conditions at the same time AND AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES.
apply reaction in distance to produce a result...
Reaction within reaction...nested.
REACTION
DISTANCE
REACTION LEVELS
Is this close?
Dropping the vibrations from nowhere,
would this be better-----
I used the word random to descibe a difference in conditions at the same time AND AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES.
apply reaction in distance to produce a result...
Reaction within reaction...nested.
REACTION
DISTANCE
REACTION LEVELS
Is this close?
- #52
wonderer
- 35
- 0
Does anything I've posted here seem right to anyone , or am I just a crazy loon with wild imagination?
- #53
Terry Giblin
- 167
- 0
According to your theory - What is an electron?
I too am trying to find scientists to confirm or deny my own theory, by simply proving that no one truly understands the basic fundermental properties of nature. If they did they would be able to explain what an electron is.
If your theory is correct you should be able to answer the simple questions,
What is an electron?
What is time?
What is a gravity?
And including the questions raised at Strings 2000
"Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and uncalculable? "
David Gross, Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
"How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?"
Edward Witten, California Institute of Technology and Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
"What is the lifetime of the proton and how do we understand it?"
Steve Gubser, Princeton University and California Institute of Technology
"Is Nature supersymmetric, and if so, how is supersymmetry broken?"
Sergio Ferrara, CERN (European Laboratory of Particle Physics)
Gordon Kane, University of Michigan
"Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions? "
Shamit Kachru, University of California, Berkeley
Sunil Mukhi, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Hiroshi Ooguri, California Institute of Technology
"Why does the cosmological constant have the value that it has, is it zero and is it really constant? "
Andrew Chamblin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Renata Kallosh, Stanford University
"What are the fundamental degrees of freedom of M-theory (the theory whose low-energy limit is eleven-dimensional supergravity and which subsumes the five consistent superstring theories) and does the theory describe Nature? "
Louise Dolan, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Annamaria Sinkovics, Spinoza Institute
Billy & Linda Rose, San Antonio College
"What is the resolution of the black hole information paradox?"
Tibra Ali, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge
Samir Mathur, Ohio State University
"What physics explains the enormous disparity between the gravitational scale and the typical mass scale of the elementary particles? "
Matt Strassler, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
"Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement in Quantum Chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap? "
Igor Klebanov, Princeton University
Oyvind Tafjord, McGill University
I too am trying to find scientists to confirm or deny my own theory, by simply proving that no one truly understands the basic fundermental properties of nature. If they did they would be able to explain what an electron is.
If your theory is correct you should be able to answer the simple questions,
What is an electron?
What is time?
What is a gravity?
And including the questions raised at Strings 2000
"Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and uncalculable? "
David Gross, Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
"How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?"
Edward Witten, California Institute of Technology and Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
"What is the lifetime of the proton and how do we understand it?"
Steve Gubser, Princeton University and California Institute of Technology
"Is Nature supersymmetric, and if so, how is supersymmetry broken?"
Sergio Ferrara, CERN (European Laboratory of Particle Physics)
Gordon Kane, University of Michigan
"Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions? "
Shamit Kachru, University of California, Berkeley
Sunil Mukhi, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Hiroshi Ooguri, California Institute of Technology
"Why does the cosmological constant have the value that it has, is it zero and is it really constant? "
Andrew Chamblin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Renata Kallosh, Stanford University
"What are the fundamental degrees of freedom of M-theory (the theory whose low-energy limit is eleven-dimensional supergravity and which subsumes the five consistent superstring theories) and does the theory describe Nature? "
Louise Dolan, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Annamaria Sinkovics, Spinoza Institute
Billy & Linda Rose, San Antonio College
"What is the resolution of the black hole information paradox?"
Tibra Ali, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge
Samir Mathur, Ohio State University
"What physics explains the enormous disparity between the gravitational scale and the typical mass scale of the elementary particles? "
Matt Strassler, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
"Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement in Quantum Chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap? "
Igor Klebanov, Princeton University
Oyvind Tafjord, McGill University
- #54
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
OK, that's enough with the Strings 2000 questions. Parsimony, parsimony!
- #55
connect
- 72
- 0
It is maybe not questions that need to be answered! Maybe it is the correct question (or key) put to the problem (or door) that will reveal (or unlock) the answer (what's behind the door?)
Have you ever thought about what YOU really are?
The finer and finer our knowledge and understanding of everything becomes, the more and more we realize that we are made up of the same stuff.
Gravity comments
We are a 'component' of our planets 'framework', we exist in a 'layer' of our planet.
Our 'layer' has a 'scope' from the top of the 'crust layer' to the 'atmosphere layer'.
Our 'layer' has a 'pull' than 'push' effect (or inwards:absorbing/outwards:expelling), where the 'pull' slightly stronger.
A tree over time 'pushes' upwards, as it moves upwards it is also 'spun' in a manner like a vortex.
In a spacestation we are attempting to recreate a 'virtual Earth layer'.
Electron comments
Mathematical constructs are 'static approximations' of 'regular features' of ' energy movement' in a 'dynamic environment'.
Mathematical expressions are the 'relationships' between 'static approximations'.
Numbers are used to 'relate a series' of 'regular (circular) divisions' of 'static approximations' that are used as 'frames' to produce a 'virtual dynamic environment'.
This 'virtual dynamic environment' can be used to 'study the effects' of 'enegry movement' at a 'particular ratio' in 'relation to ourselves' or 'standardized measures' we use to 'communicate'.
Have you ever thought about what YOU really are?
The finer and finer our knowledge and understanding of everything becomes, the more and more we realize that we are made up of the same stuff.
Gravity comments
We are a 'component' of our planets 'framework', we exist in a 'layer' of our planet.
Our 'layer' has a 'scope' from the top of the 'crust layer' to the 'atmosphere layer'.
Our 'layer' has a 'pull' than 'push' effect (or inwards:absorbing/outwards:expelling), where the 'pull' slightly stronger.
A tree over time 'pushes' upwards, as it moves upwards it is also 'spun' in a manner like a vortex.
In a spacestation we are attempting to recreate a 'virtual Earth layer'.
Electron comments
Mathematical constructs are 'static approximations' of 'regular features' of ' energy movement' in a 'dynamic environment'.
Mathematical expressions are the 'relationships' between 'static approximations'.
Numbers are used to 'relate a series' of 'regular (circular) divisions' of 'static approximations' that are used as 'frames' to produce a 'virtual dynamic environment'.
This 'virtual dynamic environment' can be used to 'study the effects' of 'enegry movement' at a 'particular ratio' in 'relation to ourselves' or 'standardized measures' we use to 'communicate'.
Last edited:
- #56
wonderer
- 35
- 0
Maybe its simply reaction, or is that too simple to except?
Perception...?
Things can probagate and/or be direct.
The result of both in tandem just might explain something.
Perception...?
Things can probagate and/or be direct.
The result of both in tandem just might explain something.
- #57
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,439
- 750
Bad dog, use math. Imagination will always draw a crowd. Many moths have died needlessly around the campfire. I flunked physics 401 the first time because I was too lazy to stay up all night to work out my DEQ homework.
- #58
connect
- 72
- 0
Whats DEQ?
Numeric or Logical math?
Numeric or Logical math?
- #59
wonderer
- 35
- 0
On a silver platter...right?
Picture this...remember the triangle for fire.
ABILITY
SPACE
TIME
TIME IS NOT AN ENTITY OR OBJECT.
Picture this...remember the triangle for fire.
ABILITY
SPACE
TIME
TIME IS NOT AN ENTITY OR OBJECT.
- #60
connect
- 72
- 0
wonderer said:
'Both in tandem' - are you referring to the fact our perceptions behaviour is similar to the behaviour of nature?
- #61
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,439
- 750
DEQ: aka diffEQ = differential equations. I'm still reluctant to even attempt mapping 11 dimensional space-time to find the missing TOE. Crap, I'm still trying to figure out 4 dimensional space-time. Confusing. I can only see 4 dimensions, but, it takes 11 dimensions to explain them. I shudder to think how many dimensions it will take to explain the 'missing' 7 once they are found. Must be a string theory thing. The more you unravel it, the more you get strung on.
- #62
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
Chronos said:
Not so. The extra dimensions in string physics come from the need to describe the string consistently, not explaining lower dimensions. And they've had stable numbers for decades: 28 for bosonic strings, 10 for superstrings, 11 for M-theory. With clear, if technical, explanations of why they are different.
- #63
wonderer
- 35
- 0
connect said:
No.
Throw a ball.(direct)
Play music.(probagate)
Tape a walkman to the ball then throw it. The sound changes(both in tandem)
MATH
To do the math for each "whole" would include:
All the Space,All the Abilities(Vibrations for one) and All the time for that "whole" and each sub-level"whole" and each neighbor.
Else the math will never be right!
- #64
wonderer
- 35
- 0
ANOLOGY
Apply anology->->A TRAIN WHISTLE.
Apply anology to this framework.
Do the math.
Apply anology->->A TRAIN WHISTLE.
Apply anology to this framework.
Do the math.
- #65
wonderer
- 35
- 0
"resistance is futile"
- #66
wonderer
- 35
- 0
Ok, just in case the words "resistance is futile" was misunderstood. That was only meant to be funny...
- #67
wonderer
- 35
- 0
Is quantum mechanics more or less a way to avoid doing all the math beyond a certain precision?
- #68
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
wonderer said:
No, not at all. Perturbation theory could be described that way; express physics as an infinite series and only do the first n terms. But perturbation is a feature of work in classical physics too, for example celestial mechanics. If you mean uncertainty, that's not a cop-out, but a severe constraint, which has to be dealt with, and it does not prevent exact depictions in particlular cases. For example the photons in a laser beam all have the same frequency, hence momentum, to a high degree of exactitude. Uncertainty then says that we can know nothing about the position of any particular photon in the beam.
Beyond the simple cases the equations of quantum mechanics tend to become insoluble in exact terms. So approximations have to be used. This again is a common feature of all kinds of physics.
- #69
wonderer
- 35
- 0
Wouldn't it be possible to eliminate the uncertainty for the anything if it were passing through space(not just nothing) reacting with it as it goes. Even though there would be little happening, there would still be some interaction. And don't forget the cost of shipping and handling...
- #70
Erck
- 178
- 0
Uncertainty in the universe, isn't necessarily something we need to get rid of, to explain the universe.
It might be the most fundamental thing in the universe. If we didn't have uncertainty we wouldn't have change.
Getting beyond it, to explain the origin of the universe, is another thing though.
It might be the most fundamental thing in the universe. If we didn't have uncertainty we wouldn't have change.
Getting beyond it, to explain the origin of the universe, is another thing though.