It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So, what is your particular 'Theory of Everything'?

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Well I wouldn't exactly call this a theory of everything because it doesn't predict every type of particle that can exist, but it does predict 6 basic types of particles can exist: positive mass matter, positive mass anti-matter, photons with positive relativistic mass, negative mass matter, negative mass anti-matter, and photons with negative relativistic mass. It is a very high level theory aimed at explaining the overall structure and nature of the universe and how it could be created out of nothing. Personally I think it explains far more than any other theory in Cosmology. If interested you can read more here: Bimetric Relativity, Twin Universe Cosmology, Negative Energy
edit on 7/10/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

For the benefit of those who don't have the budget or will to buy it, would you care to expound on the theory you're referencing a bit?



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Wait, if gravitational energy is the negative balance to positive energy/matter in the Universe, how can weakening gravitational energy be "more negative"? That particular point loses me. (I'm referencing the Wikipedia article referenced in your OP in the link you provided).



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
It's extremely difficult to quantify the "big" question as a stand alone everything model. Although I'm sure there is a sufficient answer in the " theory of everything" regard, I do not believe we are even remotely close to putting it all together in such a way that could give an answer that satisfies.

In my opinion, the problem is with the observer. We simply haven't developed the abilities to observe enough of this thing to have a concrete understanding. With the infamous Youngs Experiment even our basic understanding of physics, and more importantly our understanding of reality, appear to rest on a house of cards.

I will however lend my way of looking at this kind of discussion...

Because of the difficulty of an all encompassing everything idea I like to break it down into two distinct questions that over time will merge into a single understanding of everything.

What is reality?

What is this environment we exist in? If I were a betting man I'd put my money on something along the lines of dimensional. Understand that I use the term dimensional for lack of a better term. I do not believe it will be the same understanding of dimensions that we have today, but if someone from 500 years into the future were to attempt to explain it to us this would be what we could most readily understand. The problem, once again, lies with the observer.

What is life?

What is the force that propels life? This I have no clue. It is not something I'm even remotely close to feeling as if I have a good grasp of. I've played with many scenarios within my internal debate and not one satisfies any better than the next. Essentially, your guess is as good as mine.

I like the topic and give credit where credit is due....... Thank you



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. The wiki article is saying that when two objects are an infinite distance apart the potential energy is 0 and that when they get closer it becomes negative. But as I explained the choice of the 0 point is arbitrary and my argument is that gravitational potential energy is not equivalent to negative energy so you don't need to worry about any of that nonsense. I'm saying that negative energy must have a negative mass associated with it due to Einsteins mass-energy equivalence principle, and it makes no sense to say gravitational fields have a negative mass. I'm saying that negative matter with a negative mass literally exists, but it experiences negative time (aka travels backwards through time) and it only exists in so called "negative space", meaning it only interacts gravitationally with normal matter.
edit on 7/10/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Dude, you realize that after the human genome was mapped we were able to prove how we are genetically linked to not just closely-related-species, but even to plants (and can even tell which ones we are closer to than others - for example, we share 50% of our genetic makeup with bananas, 70% with slugs, and 98% with chimps). We are not much different than the rest of our living kingdom, by any test that can be given. Behavior should be your first inclination.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: okrian
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Dude, you realize that after the human genome was mapped we were able to prove how we are genetically linked to not just closely-related-species, but even to plants (and can even tell which ones we are closer to than others - for example, we share 50% of our genetic makeup with bananas, 70% with slugs, and 98% with chimps). We are not much different than the rest of our living kingdom, by any test that can be given. Behavior should be your first inclination.


For the mere fact that the only other race of humans where the only other animals apart from each other, where able to write books, build ships and have created all the artificial stuff we take for granted this days.

It doesn't stop there I suppose, we are rediscovering and understanding what maybe something far more greater than we ever understood about ourselves.

There is too many unsolved mysterious to be considered as well, if we are really trying to understand everything perceivable.

Peace
edit on 7-10-2015 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   
from my understanding. The universe is Both consious and unconsious. As a metaphore. Imagine that the consious universe is all the active physical matter we can interact with. And all the unconsious matter is all the non-interacting matter. All the consious matter is slowly growing tired, it is losing energy and will eventually become unconsious.

The magnetic links between all physical matter pull it towards a vortex of swirling consiousness we call mass density.
This mass density is all the collective matter that is active or unstable in a given zone of consious activity called a galaxy. At the center of every galaxy is a pool of finite dreams. Where consiousness is unbound across every spectrum of existance and is only defined by its relationship with other mass. This pool of matter forces compression greater than a million stars collapsing in on themselves to a specific location. It is this power of compression that denies magnetic paring which forms the basis of all particle structures in existance. Magnetic parring can be positive negative and neutral. All together acting as singular forces withing the magnetic sprectrum that is commonly dismissed as not being the cause of gravity when they most certainly are. and it is this magnetic paring that allows the formation of abstract particle manifestations through remaining pools of energy existing. All consious physical matter are reserved energy from the unconsious state.

All matter at one point was unconsious. It is the center of prime density that crushes radioactive decaying matter as well as regular matter with this power described as being effectively stronger than 100 million stars collapsing. It is the same power that crushes matter until it is so dense there is no orbit occuring. Physical matter is naturally hollow in nature because of smaller particles orbitting creating an outline of an bigger space. Such as a fan blade spinning to generate a perfect circle when no circle is actually there. In pure density that overcomes magnetic attraction and repellsion. True density occures. The vortex itself acts as a massive compressor. Once matter has been compressed beyond reaction with physical matter it becomes immune to pressure. The flow of oncoming compression pushed the remainder into space. The moving particles create streams into space where oncoming matter reacts with liquid space interacting with the friction of movement of non-interacting particles causing gamma rays.

My belief is that this compression of mass causes the non-movement of magnetic shards within the compressed ghost particle to regenerate energy as they build up tension from being denied movement. This denial of movement generates potencial energy. Eventually this potencial energy becomes greater than the energy compressing it and eventually these ghost particles explode and shoot fragments of highly charged sub-particles into space. Which collect on the outer rims of galaxies and form into gas clouds. The cycle continues.

So only a small fraction of the universe is consious well the rest is unconsious. The universe is also infinitely large, and is completely packed full. Though most of the space is just dorment non reacting matter. Since it takes longer to recover lost energy than it does to expend it. Which is why there is less physical matter than there is *empty space* thought the empty space isn't technically really empty.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


Are slugs removing slugs from the shade into the sun

No, slug parasites do that.


are fish pushing other fish out of the water?

No, fish parasites do that.

I see you didn't get the point of pfishy's replie to SublimeCraft.

Here's a slightly more elaborate version.

By the way, the thread topic is not about how humans are from Alpha Centauri. It's about which scientific explanation of why the universe behaves the way it does you choose to favour. Earth and humanity are small potatoes in that equation.


edit on 7/10/15 by Astyanax because: of small spuds.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

So, Astyanax, are you saying that it's parasites that are driving, if not "Everything", than the actions of life here on earth?

You've brought this up before with toxoplasma gondii, n'all




posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots

I don't think parasites drive the actions of life on Earth. Parasites are life, too. What drives them?

The word 'parasite' is interesting. Every living thing on Earth, plants and scavengers excepted, feeds on other living things. Predators kill their prey before eating them; parasites are a little more merciful, though (as in the case of those slugs and fish referenced earlier) the end result is often the same.

Isn't it odd, the way we honour predators and despise parasites?

Still, one way or the other, all life on Earth is closely connected. My point was simply that we are not aliens.

I don't have a theory of everything. Neither, famously, does science. It's the Holy Grail of physics but the more we learn about the complex steps in the dance of matter and energy, the farther it seems to recede. When the quest began, with Einstein, there were only two fundamental forces to unify: electromagnetism and gravity. Today we have three or four, depending on how you count, and a whole zoo of particles that no-one in Einstein's day knew existed.

There was a time when it was believed that all the workings of the cosmos could be explained by a few simple, elegant equations. That time was the seventeenth century. Since then our investigations of nature have revealed ever greater levels of complexity; today we accept that even the simplest things in the natural world are insanely complicated.

I don't know if we will ever have a theory of everything. A theory must always explain things in terms of other things. If you have a theory of everything, what other things are you going to use to explain it?



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

You are awesome.




posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: okrian
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Dude, you realize that after the human genome was mapped we were able to prove how we are genetically linked to not just closely-related-species, but even to plants (and can even tell which ones we are closer to than others - for example, we share 50% of our genetic makeup with bananas, 70% with slugs, and 98% with chimps). We are not much different than the rest of our living kingdom, by any test that can be given. Behavior should be your first inclination.


Indeed, this bodes well with my personal theory that we have been introduced to this planet, to blend and evolve with it's surroundings, to breath it's air and eat the flora and fauna - but to remain distinctly different, behaviorally, from it at the same time (war, economics, methods of delivering death etc etc)

@Astyanax - interesting link and theory. Thanks, but I will stick with my interpretation of what I took away from the contents of the OP in conjunction with the title of the thread.

Again, opinions are awesome and I appreciate the feedback.




posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Here is the true Theory of Everything for you noobs. Contemplate. Angst. Write about how it makes you feel.

Some people can handle the truth, some people just can't seem to deal. www.youtube.com...

I hope you can handle it.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Reality is a procedurally generated graphic interface, and we are all part of the same "program" but using the interface through different avatars and seeing things from different perspectives.

I don't think it's an actual "computer" type thing, but those terms seem to describe it better.

Basically, we all create our realities around us as we observe them. So right now there is only my living room in my reality. Until I see more, or someone tells me what is going on beyond my living room, the living room is all that really exists to me right now for me.

Is the cat dead or alive in that box?



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I found this quote amusing:



Animals are something invented by plants to move seeds around. An extremely yang solution to a peculiar problem which they faced.

-Terence McKenna

edit on 7-10-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yeah, it's quite funny. But plants came before animals in the evolutionary sequence rather than after.

About 220 million years ago, plants began making use of an already-existing phenomenon — animals — both to have their sex for them and to distribute the offspring.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: skunkape23

What's the point? When you die he's going to chuck you in Hell anyway. He keeps saying he's going to save a few here and there, but when it comes to the point he can't resist the squealing.

I gave him my 20 bucks.
I get eternal salvation or triple my money back.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

Who are you going to complain to when he welshes on the deal?



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Ah, thanks for the clarification.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join