Unified Theory Visual Model Draft ver.9

reply to post by OZtracized

thanks for taking the time to consider it.

Einstein would call it relativity. Philosophers would call it post modernism. The key point is that, as it stands, neither theoretical physics nor we, as humans, can find an infallible reference point. There is no point in space totally at rest with which to base our measurements on and no absolute truth with which to base we, as a society, and us, as individuals, on. Don't anyone bother trying to tell me it's the Bible, the book of Torah, the Koran, the Mahabarta etc. These are only reference points.

this unescapable fact is the main motivation behind the creation of this model. the standard model based on a measurably finite universe with definitive start and end points of energy is outdated and biased by scale and needs to be updated with something more fluid, scalable, and easily understandable in relation to a visual model. rather than smashing bits of it together and naming the fragments that fall out, describing their behaviour with mathematical models with special rules and drawing mostly unverifiable theoretical conclusions, i suggest we consider taking a more organic, blanced approach to the way in which we can observe energy and the way it might condense space to form matter.

reply to post by mzungu

Sorry but...which or whose model are you refering to?
Split Infinity

Thank you Mzungu,

I find your ideas valuable. I don't yet have anything really worth saying with regards to this thesis, and if i do, it prolly won't be for some time to come.

I want you to know that you are not alone in your particular conceptual framework. Not only do *i* largely agree with your basic major tenants, but I have read a number of others who speak in very similar terms.

This concept will continue to evolve and i hope that the naysayers do not discourage you from further development. Finding others who can have dialogue with you will really help: many perspectives > than one perspective. The most common 'term' for this conceptual framework is "electric universe theory", i believe.

my contributions come later, i think.

good luck and /salute

reply to post by galactix


thankyou for your support, it's always good to meet like minded indiviuals.

i'm afraid this is most certainly not electric universe theory. electricity and electrical forces are a byproduct of spinning/vibrational particles along multiple axis and the shells they generate, the complexity they can sustain/evolve and the varied combinations they can make, propagated by a field of presumably undetecable-by-our-scale-so-far rareified non particle gas. Concepts of "Positive" and "Negative" are ruled out as explanations for the polarisation of spinning/vibrating matter, it is a byproduct of fractal-like spin pattern/vibration.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by mzungu

 

Sorry but...which or whose model are you refering to?
Split Infinity

"the standard model" referred to in this article is the currently accepted model of (without going into much detail) big bang > expansion > formation of atoms through attraction/collision of charge particles > matter, as proven by currently accepted methods of modeling atomic behaviour.

i feel the need to point out, again, that this model does not suggest that that the current model is completely wrong. both models agree on experimental results, they only differ in their explanations/interpretations of the results and the forces that create them.

Originally posted by mzungu
reply to post by galactix

 

thankyou for your support, it's always good to meet like minded indiviuals.

i'm afraid this is most certainly not electric universe theory. electricity and electrical forces are a byproduct of spinning/vibrational particles along multiple axis and the shells they generate, the complexity they can sustain/evolve and the varied combinations they can make, propagated by a field of presumably undetecable-by-our-scale-so-far rareified non particle gas. Concepts of "Positive" and "Negative" are ruled out as explanations for the polarisation of spinning/vibrating matter, it is a byproduct of fractal-like spin pattern/vibration.

edit on 11/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

ok.

I do not disagree with your framework and acknowledge the differences you point out.

However, from my perspective, when compared with models that describe matter in terms of particles, mass, and gravity, the differences between your 'spin' definition (which i think is more correct, actually) and 'positive/negative' definition are small.

As i see it, EU theory (in all of it's manifestations: yours being one of many) acknowledges that the forces that really create and move the universe are 'ethereal' in nature: magnetic/electric/wave/field thingy, not 'particle exchange'. That what we see as matter and feel as gravity are byproducts of much more immense and pervading energy flows: most of which, we can't organically perceive and only recently have we cleverly built new senses.

You may find that those that still think in terms of positive and negative still have something to add to your musings.

/grin

new thought:

we tend to think of mass as thing unto itself, moving thru, affecting and being affected by the 'rest' of the universe. we currently believe that that mediation is thru 'particle exchange': 'information flow'.

but we (many of us) know that waves in water are not made of moving water. Waves *displace* water as they pass by, up and down, with only the peak/trough (high(est)/low(est) energy point) traveling thru the media of water.

so. the wave peak is a bit of a 'compression point', and it is this 'point' that is actually moving, right? If matter is made of compressed magnetic/electric shells, and peak energy is associated with a peak 'compression point', then particles may not actually 'exist', they may be simply moving "compression points'.... a byproduct of moving energy. Not so much 'mediating' energy exchange as *illuminating* it's path, they way lighting is not a thing to itself, but simply illumination sourced from high density energy exchange.

huh.

Originally posted by galactix
k.

I do not disagree with your framework and acknowledge the differences you point out.

However, from my perspective, when compared with models that describe matter in terms of particles, mass, and gravity, the differences between your 'spin' definition (which i think is more correct, actually) and 'positive/negative' definition are small.

As i see it, EU theory (in all of it's manifestations: yours being one of many) acknowledges that the forces that really create and move the universe are 'ethereal' in nature: magnetic/electric/wave/field thingy, not 'particle exchange'. That what we see as matter and feel as gravity are byproducts of much more immense and pervading energy flows: most of which, we can't organically perceive and only recently have we cleverly built new senses

appreciate what you are trying to say. but electric universe theory simply does not work, (there is a reason no reputable scientist would say it does and it is not accepted science). yes the theory does agree with this model when considering the nature of "empty" space, but so does the currently accepted model. electic universe theory is an oversimplification of the forces which generate matter.

you point out that e.u. theory "acknowledges that the forces that really create and move the universe are 'ethereal' in nature: magnetic/electric/wave/field thingy, not "particle exchange". this is a contradiction of terms and if this were so it wouldn't be electric universe theory. e.u. theory, from the little i have read, (again no scientific papers exist on the subject), is not conclusive.

You may find that those that still think in terms of positive and negative still have something to add to your musings.
/grin

i absolutely agree on this point, however if positive and negative are how you view the universe then alot of what is presented in this heretic model will undermine such a view, and depending on whether you find it a positive or negative view of the universe will affect your acceptance/understanding of it.

the concept of positive and negative prevades perspective, not just on the sub-atomic or electromagnetic levels, but also the real life world views held by an individual. it boils down to the idea of wrong and right being definitive states of being, when in my model such states are only representative of patterns of energy transfer and vibration. i.e. there is no wrong/right/up/down/left/right/positive/negative without the reference point of one to the other. you can't be right if there is no wrong, there cannot be a positive force without a negative etc.

if you want to give this theory a tag line or define as a certain 'type' of theory, then many labels may fit; "aether theory", "unified field theory", even "acoustical resonance theory" could be applied to the model, with varying degrees of relativity. at the end of the day though, such labels only create divisions in understanding, depending on one's preconceptions.

thanks again for the input, the evolution of this model depends on people like you with open minds and investigative inclinations. =)

Originally posted by mzungu

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by mzungu

 

Sorry but...which or whose model are you refering to?
Split Infinity

"the standard model" referred to in this article is the currently accepted model of (without going into much detail) big bang > expansion > formation of atoms through attraction/collision of charge particles > matter, as proven by currently accepted methods of modeling atomic behaviour.

i feel the need to point out, again, that this model does not suggest that that the current model is completely wrong. both models agree on experimental results, they only differ in their explanations/interpretations of the results and the forces that create them.

edit on 12/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

I like to think of it as any act of creation is
First Conceived and Begotten after which it is birthed into beginning its end.
Space is infinite and unchanging in both size or shape throughout every way
Change is the only true constant as Arthur Schopenhauer put it "Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal."
But it requires space for this to happen and one force to make it happen everything else is conservation of energy

That is how the strong and weak nuclear plus elector-magnetic forces work by slowing the constant inward pull/downward push of gravity upon all matter thus conserving energy for as long as possible.

The only thing that makes space appear warped or bent is that which occupies it.
This energy forced to change within the available space in the most efficient way it can possible do it.
that is what defines the life of this current living/dieing universe (Brahma) it life is the world of this world of every persons world.



God only gave so much momentum you best save your breaks

Originally posted by IblisLucifer
I like to think of it as any act of creation is
First Conceived and Begotten after which it is birthed into beginning its end.
Space is infinite and unchanging in both size or shape throughout every way
Change is the only true constant as Arthur Schopenhauer put it "Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal."
But it requires space for this to happen and one force to make it happen everything else is conservation of energy

That is how the strong and weak nuclear plus elector-magnetic forces work by slowing the constant inward pull/downward push of gravity upon all matter thus conserving energy for as long as possible.

The only thing that makes space appear warped or bent is that which occupies it.
This energy forced to change within the available space in the most efficient way it can possible do it.
that is what defines the life of this current living/dieing universe (Brahma) it life is the world of this world of every persons world.

God only gave so much momentum you best save your breaks

this model supports such a view, with the exception of the bolded lines. according to this model, that which occupies space is the material manifestation of the warping/bending of space. space condenses to create matter, matter does not condense space.

the concept could be expressed rather simply by the following dialogue between spock and scotty in the most recent star trek film;

Scotty: "The notion of transwarp beaming is like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse."
[Spock writes on a paper]
Scotty: "What's that?"
Spock: "Your equation for achieving transwarp beaming."
Scott: [to himself]: "He's out of it"
Scotty: [reads the equation]: "Imagine that! It never occurred to me to think of SPACE as the thing that was moving!"

i'm not saying star trek is founded in science, it's not, but this simple idea is an expression of how this model views space.

Originally posted by mzungu

Originally posted by galactix
k.

I do not disagree with your framework and acknowledge the differences you point out.

However, from my perspective, when compared with models that describe matter in terms of particles, mass, and gravity, the differences between your 'spin' definition (which i think is more correct, actually) and 'positive/negative' definition are small.

As i see it, EU theory (in all of it's manifestations: yours being one of many) acknowledges that the forces that really create and move the universe are 'ethereal' in nature: magnetic/electric/wave/field thingy, not 'particle exchange'. That what we see as matter and feel as gravity are byproducts of much more immense and pervading energy flows: most of which, we can't organically perceive and only recently have we cleverly built new senses

appreciate what you are trying to say. but electric universe theory simply does not work, (there is a reason no reputable scientist would say it does and it is not accepted science). yes the theory does agree with this model when considering the nature of "empty" space, but so does the currently accepted model. electic universe theory is an oversimplification of the forces which generate matter.

you point out that e.u. theory "acknowledges that the forces that really create and move the universe are 'ethereal' in nature: magnetic/electric/wave/field thingy, not "particle exchange". this is a contradiction of terms and if this were so it wouldn't be electric universe theory. e.u. theory, from the little i have read, (again no scientific papers exist on the subject), is not conclusive.

You may find that those that still think in terms of positive and negative still have something to add to your musings.
/grin

i absolutely agree on this point, however if positive and negative are how you view the universe then alot of what is presented in this heretic model will undermine such a view, and depending on whether you find it a positive or negative view of the universe will affect your acceptance/understanding of it.

the concept of positive and negative prevades perspective, not just on the sub-atomic or electromagnetic levels, but also the real life world views held by an individual. it boils down to the idea of wrong and right being definitive states of being, when in my model such states are only representative of patterns of energy transfer and vibration. i.e. there is no wrong/right/up/down/left/right/positive/negative without the reference point of one to the other. you can't be right if there is no wrong, there cannot be a positive force without a negative etc.

if you want to give this theory a tag line or define as a certain 'type' of theory, then many labels may fit; "aether theory", "unified field theory", even "acoustical resonance theory" could be applied to the model, with varying degrees of relativity. at the end of the day though, such labels only create divisions in understanding, depending on one's preconceptions.

thanks again for the input, the evolution of this model depends on people like you with open minds and investigative inclinations. =)

edit on 12/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

Where on a line graph made of 3 points a =+1 C = 0 b =-1 does a dimension of infinity exist
Hint there are 2 definable dimension one existing outside of 1 and one existing within the 1
the + or - is just where one ends
the 0 is like all circles is unmeasurable you will get pi 3.141592653589793238.......... on and on random as hell
but try measuring it 2 ways the traditional way
and the straight triangular way
draw a circle and then draw 2 on either side of it opposite each other but the same size as the center
( A ) and ( B ) are only different from opposed each other + or -

If you use all 3 circles to draw one big one around them [( A )+( O )-( B )]o
and take the diameter of the big circle ( o )
and rapping its diameter around the smaller central circle ( O ) with the larger diameter

you get 9.1428571428571428571428571428571... much more rational
since it repeats those same numbers forever
Its like triangulating the circle on a simple line graph

There must be more ways to break down a problem such as this so please throw them out there


And I'm not trying to say one is better then another or this is the right way and that's the wrong

The greatest question that can be asked and answered

In what way can something be infinitely close and infinitely far?
In infinite ways.
In what way can it not be?
Only one way it can't. So it will never be that way.

Where on a line graph made of 3 points a =+1 C = 0 b =-1 does a dimension of infinity exist
Hint there are 2 definable dimension one existing outside of 1 and one existing within the 1
the + or - is just where one ends
the 0 is like all circles is unmeasurable you will get pi 3.141592653589793238.......... on and on random as hell
but try measuring it 2 ways the traditional way
and the straight triangular way
draw a circle and then draw 2 on either side of it opposite each other but the same size as the center
( A ) and ( B ) are only different from opposed each other + or -

If you use all 3 circles to draw one big one around them [( A )+( O )-( B )]o
and take the diameter of the big circle ( o )
and rapping its diameter around the smaller central circle ( O ) with the larger diameter

you get 9.1428571428571428571428571428571... much more rational.....


....The greatest question that can be asked and answered

In what way can something be infinitely close and infinitely far?
In infinite ways.
In what way can it not be?
Only one way it can't. So it will never be that way.

the equations you present are somewhat flawed, but i like the way you think. regardless of how many concentric circles' diameters used you will always get Pi, it is a universal constant. this model suggests that Pi is in fact not "random as hell", only that we lack the scale of measurement to recognise its pattern. You could think of it as saying that Pi, while it does not necessarily repeat, does 'rhyme'.

Originally posted by galactix
new thought:
we tend to think of mass as thing unto itself, moving thru, affecting and being affected by the 'rest' of the universe. we currently believe that that mediation is thru 'particle exchange': 'information flow'.

but we (many of us) know that waves in water are not made of moving water. Waves *displace* water as they pass by, up and down, with only the peak/trough (high(est)/low(est) energy point) traveling thru the media of water.

so. the wave peak is a bit of a 'compression point', and it is this 'point' that is actually moving, right? If matter is made of compressed magnetic/electric shells, and peak energy is associated with a peak 'compression point', then particles may not actually 'exist', they may be simply moving "compression points'.... a byproduct of moving energy. Not so much 'mediating' energy exchange as *illuminating* it's path, they way lighting is not a thing to itself, but simply illumination sourced from high density energy exchange.

huh.

this is precisely what this model implies. if matter is considered to be a patterned compression of energy/flux/information, then questions relating to the creation of consciousness and its ability to observe and manipulate energy patterns are more or less explained as another level of energy/information compression complexity, one that develops awareness as a result of the concentration of space/energy movement/vibration over "time", (a scale-based measure of the "velocity" of energy pattern compression/interaction).

"As the pattern becomes more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough." -Waking Life


in short, we think we are on the inside looking out, but we are actually on the outside looking in.

reply to post by mzungu

I and many others believe that the current model is based only on observation and calculation of those observations that we are able to place in a frame of reference suited to our limited abilities to comprehend.

When this occurs...Models are developed that are based on what we can observe and to what extent we can postuate reasons of occurance and reality. Since we have this HUGE GAPING HOLE in our model that is Quantum Mechanics...and since we have only concepts of why this occurs based only upon a possibility of a Much Larger System we call the Multiverse...and since No One has even come CLOSE to construction of any model that explains the conection of the Macro-Universal to the Quantum Universal Laws....Logic dictates that there is a high probability that this connection only occurs in the Larger System or the Multiversal Divergent Universal States that would explain many bizzar Quantum Particle Actions.

I have yet to see any Model or System that can incorporate the Macro-Universe to the Quantum World. This is probably because none can be constructed because they cannot be part of one Universal System of Physical Laws.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by mzungu

 

I have yet to see any Model or System that can incorporate the Macro-Universe to the Quantum World. This is probably because none can be constructed because they cannot be part of one Universal System of Physical Laws.

Split Infinity

proposals are made which do not prelcude an apparently independant quantum world, just sayin'.

particles might not pop in and out of existence so much as in and out of the limits of our ability to measure them as particles.

p.s.

Originally posted by mzungu
...it may even be completely wrong.

reply to post by mzungu

I think you are missing the point.

Since Quantum Particles make up Protons and Neutrons....yet their ability to change in Number between a Minimum and Maximum number in Protons and Netrons does not effect an Atoms Mass....we have to wonder if Mass is directly connected to a Multiversal State.

Look at it this way as exaple only...if you have a hollow Ball and this Ball has a specific Mass we will represent as 1. But in reality the ball is not hollow but infact contains other balls that are inside the larger ball and the smallers internal balls are in a constant state of changing numerical quantity.

Yet even though the smaller balls within the larger ball are never the same in numerical quantity based on time...you can place the larger ball on a scale and it will ALWAYS have a Mass of 1. Not .99 or .50 but alway a mass of 1. Since the Larger ball cannot exist without the smaller balls and the smaller balls cannot be either less than or greater than a certain number within the larger ball....EXISTANCE of Both the Larger and Smaller Balls as well as the total Mass of both the Larger Ball and the Minimum and Maximum and any number of in between of the smaller balls still remains at 1....it would seem that the total Mass must be interconnected to a SHARING OF THE QUANTUM PARTICLES within more than one Universal Reality.

We base Mass upon the total number of Protons and Netrons in any Atom or Object....Yet we know that Matter and Evergy are interchangable. Thus if a Race of sufficient Tech. Advancement that understands the UFT...could generate a sufficient amout of Energy to Represent Mass as to Fold or Warp Space for the purpose of Interstellar Travel. As it has been postulated that even a Matter/Antimatter Reaction would still not be sufficient enough to generate enough Energy to represent the incredibly great amount of Mass that is needed to Fold Space to an extent to be able to JUMP multiple Light Years....by looking at the Ball and Smaller Ball example as to the amount of Mass remaining at 1 reguardless of the changing numbers of Quantum Particles that Make up a Proton or Neutron...it would seem that Antimatter annihilating Matter allows a Cascade effect of tapping into all Divergent Universal States of which both that particular Matter as well as that particular Antimatter are connected to. This would allow for enough representation of Mass to Fold Space.

I believe the key is to understand that what occurs in our Universal Reality is directly connected to every multitude of Divergent Universal Realities based upon each other. This is not every Universal Reality in the Multiverse as their are some that have nothing to do with ours and our fellow Divergent Universes....but it seems that the Quantum Reality is a Reality that exists within Many Divergent Universes.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by mzungu

 

I think you are missing the point....

We base Mass upon the total number of Protons and Netrons in any Atom or Object....

...I believe the key is to understand that what occurs in our Universal Reality is directly connected to every multitude of Divergent Universal Realities based upon each other. This is not every Universal Reality in the Multiverse as their are some that have nothing to do with ours and our fellow Divergent Universes....but it seems that the Quantum Reality is a Reality that exists within Many Divergent Universes.
Split Infinity

this model does not agree with the assumption that mass has to be calculated by the number of protons and neutrons, i thought i had made that clear...

i believe the key is to understand that what occurs in our universal reality is directly connected to the interactions of fundamental physical forces observable across the entire universe on a multitude of scales. multiple occurrences of things like stars and planetary systems could be considered "parallel existences" in this model, if you like, although they are contained within the same universe/space/field/observable area, and are occurring at the same time.

please actually try to understand the original concept, and how it might relate to quantum physics, before deciding it goes against it.

reply to post by mzungu

No disrespect but...I think you will have to point out to me a line of logic to your premise as I cannot find one. I am not trying to be a pain but what you just asked me to do as far as look at your concept as a way to integrate any known behavior of the Quantum World into what you have said....seems to contradict what Quantum Mechanics is currently used for even though we little understand it.

A cell phone is a good example of Humans using Quantum Mechanics to achieve and end result although even though it works...we are not sure why. Your postulated Theory goes against what we can currently achieve using Quantum Mechanics as some of your statements are almost the complete oposite of what would be required for these Mechanics to work.

As far as how your theory or whoevers theory applies to the Unified Field Theory....it seems to disreguard one of the basic principles of the UFT...that being that in understanding the connection between the apparent contradictory behavior occuring in the Macro-Universe as opposed to the Quantum Level...that connection must take into account that such behavior must be part of different Fundemental Physics and their aspect of ABSOLUTELY NOT being a part of our Single Universal Reality.

A recent experiment that I viewed on the Science Channel was the long time work of a Physicist that proved through experimentation that an Electron would sometimes CHOOSE to perform two Functions of Physics using One Particle in Wave Form. The Electron was recorded not only transfering via a Grounded Line to be accepted in an Outer Electron Orbit of an Atom as it created a chemical reaction and bonded two elements into a Molecule...and at the same instant...also was used as a sourse of Energy to power a Electric Micro-Machine...Nanite...to move.

This was tested over and over again to make sure only ONE Electron was being allowed to CHOOSE what to do. Sometimes it would just go to one or the other but on many occations...would actually perform both. This is an indication that Quantum Particles are so closely connected with other DUPLICATE Quantum Particles that they can literaly be in two places or uses at the same time. This is an indication of a Multiverse. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


the line of logic this model uses is that because quantum experiments have detected "particles" whose behaviour is erratic/unpredictable, based on the current model of how atoms work, doesn't necessarily suggest they must have magic/multiversal/dimensional properties, rather that our current model of the structure of matter is only useful down to a certain level, beyond which the rules observable on the macro-scale break down, and new scales of measurement of energy density vs. material density need to be looked at. this model is an attempt to do that.

As far as how your theory or whoevers theory applies to the Unified Field Theory....it seems to disreguard one of the basic principles of the UFT...that being that in understanding the connection between the apparent contradictory behavior occuring in the Macro-Universe as opposed to the Quantum Level...that connection must take into account that such behavior must be part of different Fundemental Physics and their aspect of ABSOLUTELY NOT being a part of our Single Universal Reality.

the argument is that it isn't so much a part of a different set of fundamental physics so much as the same forces interacting on a scale beyond our ability to detect and model at this time.

reply to post by mzungu

Please explain your statement Energy Density as well as Material Density.

Which Material and since Energy is either Electrons, Photons or Kinetic Transfer...and kinetic Transfer includes Particle Bombardment....I am not seeing where this applies to the UFT.

Also as far as Material...how are you quantifying Density as it applies to the Quantum?

Most people do not realize that when I slam my fist down on a table...the Materials and Atoms Nucleuses of that material never actually comes in contact with one another. The Electron Orbits prevent any particle of Mass from touching as the Electrons Orbits of the Atoms nucleus repel one anothers Electron Orbits and thus Protons and Netrons never collide unless we are using a Particle Accellerator or using Fusion or Fission.

The Density of a Material in conventional sense is which ever Element has a Higher Relative Mass....will be denser based on temp. as well as in the case of Gases...temp and pressure. There is also things like Bucky Balls that may not have the density Gold Has but are Structuraly Perfect and are virtually indestructable in their Matrix.

Still...I do not see how this relates to the UFT as how does this relate to the Quantum aspect?
Split Infinity