All the Laws of Physics distilled down to one Fundamental Law.

Korg Trinity

projectbane
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Actually korg, I specifically put -272. YOU came in and said you were a wonder and anyone could test you.

Actually... I didn't come in.. this is my thread...

And secondly I stated you could ask me anything you wished on Quantum Mechanics....

I also stated that you need to learn more about newtons laws of thermodynamics, as you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

But frankly I can't be bothered to converse with you any further, you're clearly here to troll rather than to discuss.

Korg.

edit on 12-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

A thread you quite possibly and most likely (have to be careful with the words I choose) stole from elsewhere as I presented in a previous post.

You have limited knowledge of Quantum Mechanics (Im not claiming I know any more than you at all, just for clarification) but to take an idea that has been presented by a couple of people in published books is as low as one can go!!

Only a person guilty of unoriginal thought is angered by someone pointing that out.

projectbane

Korg Trinity

projectbane
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Actually korg, I specifically put -272. YOU came in and said you were a wonder and anyone could test you.

Actually... I didn't come in.. this is my thread...

And secondly I stated you could ask me anything you wished on Quantum Mechanics....

I also stated that you need to learn more about newtons laws of thermodynamics, as you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

But frankly I can't be bothered to converse with you any further, you're clearly here to troll rather than to discuss.

Korg.

edit on 12-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

A thread you quite possibly and most likely (have to be careful with the words I choose) stole from elsewhere as I presented in a previous post.

You have limited knowledge of Quantum Mechanics (Im not claiming I know any more than you at all, just for clarification) but to take an idea that has been presented by a couple of people in published books is as low as one can go!!

Only a person guilty of unoriginal thought is angered by someone pointing that out.

Just what are you on??

You have no idea who I am or what background I herald from, yet you constantly claim I am copying someone elses work and know nothing about the subject I have spent the last 20 years studying!

I can assure you I am one of only a few people I have met on here that can get thier head around the math involved in subjects such as this...

If you continue to post trolling derailing and frankly insulting posts that have no bearing what so ever on the subject matter, I will have no choice but to ask the mods to sort it out!

Now please can we get back on topic....

Zero is a value that cannot exist in reality when concerning the cosmos!

Korg.

Novel thoughts and new ideas are hard to come by in the post modern era we are in. It's all been said or done before. Nothing new under the sun.

I can believe that Korg Trinity came up with this concept due to his own research without plagiarizing , but similar ideas are out there, there has to be if zero is an impossibility.

Korg Trinity

projectbane

Korg Trinity

projectbane
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Actually korg, I specifically put -272. YOU came in and said you were a wonder and anyone could test you.

Actually... I didn't come in.. this is my thread...

And secondly I stated you could ask me anything you wished on Quantum Mechanics....

I also stated that you need to learn more about newtons laws of thermodynamics, as you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

But frankly I can't be bothered to converse with you any further, you're clearly here to troll rather than to discuss.

Korg.

edit on 12-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

A thread you quite possibly and most likely (have to be careful with the words I choose) stole from elsewhere as I presented in a previous post.

You have limited knowledge of Quantum Mechanics (Im not claiming I know any more than you at all, just for clarification) but to take an idea that has been presented by a couple of people in published books is as low as one can go!!

Only a person guilty of unoriginal thought is angered by someone pointing that out.

Just what are you on??

You have no idea who I am or what background I herald from, yet you constantly claim I am copying someone elses work and know nothing about the subject I have spent the last 20 years studying!

I can assure you I am one of only a few people I have met on here that can get thier head around the math involved in subjects such as this...

If you continue to post trolling derailing and frankly insulting posts that have no bearing what so ever on the subject matter, I will have no choice but to ask the mods to sort it out!

Now please can we get back on topic....

Zero is a value that cannot exist in reality when concerning the cosmos!

Korg.

edit on 12-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

Well if you don't like it then go ahead. However, you posted the thread and then we as members comment and you don't like what some of them say.

I found your exact theory in a published book. I have to question you!! IT is what anyone would do.

Plus your presentation of thing is appalling. BUt maybe that is it, you just don't have a clue on how to type out what it is you are trying to say. Because in this whole thread you have said nothing that is above high school level science. NO math to back up your theory? No explanation in detail? NO anything.

Kindly explain your theory with relevant data to back it and I shall concede that you MAY have some knowledge that can aid us all.

Until then, if you wish to cry to the MODS go ahead. They can read my posting in FULL and see I have a point!!! They can read the book in question and see I am making perfect sense. So until YOU offer some proof, like a few others said....no one believes you!

projectbane

Korg Trinity

projectbane

Korg Trinity

projectbane
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Actually korg, I specifically put -272. YOU came in and said you were a wonder and anyone could test you.

Actually... I didn't come in.. this is my thread...

And secondly I stated you could ask me anything you wished on Quantum Mechanics....

I also stated that you need to learn more about newtons laws of thermodynamics, as you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

But frankly I can't be bothered to converse with you any further, you're clearly here to troll rather than to discuss.

Korg.

edit on 12-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

A thread you quite possibly and most likely (have to be careful with the words I choose) stole from elsewhere as I presented in a previous post.

You have limited knowledge of Quantum Mechanics (Im not claiming I know any more than you at all, just for clarification) but to take an idea that has been presented by a couple of people in published books is as low as one can go!!

Only a person guilty of unoriginal thought is angered by someone pointing that out.

Just what are you on??

You have no idea who I am or what background I herald from, yet you constantly claim I am copying someone elses work and know nothing about the subject I have spent the last 20 years studying!

I can assure you I am one of only a few people I have met on here that can get thier head around the math involved in subjects such as this...

If you continue to post trolling derailing and frankly insulting posts that have no bearing what so ever on the subject matter, I will have no choice but to ask the mods to sort it out!

Now please can we get back on topic....

Zero is a value that cannot exist in reality when concerning the cosmos!

Korg.

edit on 12-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

Well if you don't like it then go ahead. However, you posted the thread and then we as members comment and you don't like what some of them say.

I found your exact theory in a published book. I have to question you!! IT is what anyone would do.

Plus your presentation of thing is appalling. BUt maybe that is it, you just don't have a clue on how to type out what it is you are trying to say. Because in this whole thread you have said nothing that is above high school level science. NO math to back up your theory? No explanation in detail? NO anything.

Kindly explain your theory with relevant data to back it and I shall concede that you MAY have some knowledge that can aid us all.

Until then, if you wish to cry to the MODS go ahead. They can read my posting in FULL and see I have a point!!! They can read the book in question and see I am making perfect sense. So until YOU offer some proof, like a few others said....no one believes you!

Actually no... I posted the thread to discuss the the thread content... not to be faced with people such as yourself whom post personally insulting posts.

If you don't agree with the subject matter then that's fine, state your case, but you haven't, you have attacked me personally... A strategy that will ultimately fail because your original premise that I know not of what I speak is wrong.

Have you read up on Newton's laws of thermodynamics yet? Can you now explain why absolute zero as in zero degrees Kelvin cannot be achieved??

I doubt it....

As you wish I will post several key white papers that have contributed to my research... I hope you are able to read them or the exercise will be pointless.

Korg.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


There is no such thing as negative energy. And all the energy does not equal zero, that is nonsense. Wrong.

ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

There is no such thing as negative energy. And all the energy does not equal zero, that is nonsense. Wrong.

Then prey tell what do you think exactly is dark energy?

The so called Einstein mistake that was put in then taken out and now finally put back in...

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Dark energy is not negative energy. Gravity is negative energy.

Oh, and the OP said:

I'm stating that a Zero state of energy within the universe is impossible. As in NOTHINGNESS is impossible...

Agreed that pure nothing cannot exist; but science recognises this. And the total energy of the universe is zero.

Zero-energy universe

reply to post by Astyanax

Gravity is negative energy.

Gravity has negative potential energy, but it's debatable whether that equates to the actual negative energy required to produce a zero-energy universe. I'm more inclined to believe that dark energy is what supplies the negative energy because dark energy exerts a negative pressure on space and causes the universe to expand as if it was negative matter.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


In absolute terms zero does not exists, there is always something present, even time and space or if you go back to the 0 apples our understanding is that in a parallel universe apples did fall, but that is complicating the subject. If we look at the absence of something as not 0 but simply a non-realization of a potential in our observed reality. For instance one can say that no apples did fall but the apples are still there. That is basically what is defended when the discussion goes to the destruction of information in black holes.

Like 0 in reality there aren't negative numbers, they are an abstraction and any applicability to reality is only valid in regards to abstract scales. This also lead to the unreality of infinite in physical terms, there is nothing infinite, but on the human super large scales can escape enumeration. Of course this can be complicated like stating that one can for instance trace an infinite line on the surface of a sphere or trace the contour of a circle but that can only be possible in a reduced reality (since components process can't exist in infinity, for starts one would run out of ink/pencil etc or in the extreme entropy would win a the universe would have ended).

Korg Trinity
Hi Board,

Firstly let me say Happy New Year to you all, I hope 2014 bring all that you hope for.

Now down to business....

I've may have stumbled across something within my research that unifies all known laws of physics, it unifies string theory / quantum mechanics and classical physics.

The fundamental law is....

In nature the value ZERO cannot exist.

This simple rule explains everything from Dark energy to why we have a universe to begin with.

Let me ask you a question, what is the answer to -487628 + 487628??

Now if you take that minus value and separate it away from the positive value you actually have a value which equates to zero but as there can never be true equilibrium we end up with values when looked upon on their own are valid.

Now some may argue that entropy is the process in nature to reach a point of equilibrium. However, I have shown that the energy states as a whole across the universe when totaled together equate to zero... if all the matter and energy were to be added together we would arrive at exactly ZERO... so the universe by all rights should not exist.

However, due to the one aforementioned all encompassing rule ZERO is the one impossible probability and thus we have stuff we call the universe.

You might argue that this cannot be as we have discovered the expansion of the universe is accelerating.... My model predicts this as all the forces that exist in the universe are also unbalanced and thus there is more energy assigned to one value than another, however if all energy states were to be added together within the universe as a whole it would equate to exactly ZERO.

To conclude....

This simple rule also explains all the unknowns such as inflation, why there was more matter than anti-matter following the big bang, why quantum mechanics and the fundamental levels of reality are a sea of randomness, Dark Energy / Matter and even time!

Questions are Welcomed.

Peace,

Korg.

edit on 9-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

I agree with you on the concept of NO ZERO is possible.
But ZERO as a number is and must be there.
This number represents equilibrium, nothing more

if you have for example an particle with negative charge of 1 unit
and another particle with positive charge of 1 unit, very close to each other,
in a distance much grater than the distance those two particles are separated,
the net charge is 0 ...although the charge forces is 2 units.

this mathematical confusion is and always was the ground for my scepticism for any theory based on mathematics only.
We need the math, but first we need to understand what this numbers really mean.
ZERO as an outcome from en equation doesn't mean there is nothing !


cheers

reply to post by Panic2k11

Like 0 in reality there aren't negative numbers, they are an abstraction and any applicability to reality is only valid in regards to abstract scales. This also lead to the unreality of infinite in physical terms, there is nothing infinite, but on the human super large scales can escape enumeration.

Without negativity energy we cannot have a zero-energy universe, and it's obvious that a zero-energy universe is the only logical explanation for why we have something rather than nothing in the first place. And if we do live in a zero-energy universe it means that space-time is infinite and flat. There is a lot of good evidence to indicate the universe is infinite and flat, that's why it's the most prevalent model accepted among physicists now.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Gravity is negative energy.

Gravity has negative potential energy, but it's debatable whether that equates to the actual negative energy required to produce a zero-energy universe. I'm more inclined to believe that dark energy is what supplies the negative energy because dark energy exerts a negative pressure on space and causes the universe to expand as if it was negative matter.

edit on 13/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Exactly...

It's very much like stating light has mass... well it does have relativistic mass... in other words it can act as though it has mass but in reality it has not rest mass....

Gravity can be seen to exert a negative pressure but in reality it has no direct energy to begin with....

Gravity and Mass are intrinsically linked because mass comes from space-time density as discussed within many quantum gravity papers. In effect gravity is a property of an underlying truth about where mass comes from.

I thought it was funny when the news came that they had zero'd in on the higgs Boson because this is not where mass comes from at all and the whole standard model is broken, now so even further due to this consensus that the Higgs is the all important mass carrier.

The truth is Mass comes from how densely twisted space-time is at the planck scale... how many braids are present at that scale is what accounts for mass.

If you like the most mass-ive objects in the known universe, black holes... according to quantum field theory aren't holes at all... more like giant balls of quantum wool... they are not smooth but totally chaotic...

So to get back on topic.... Gravity is an emergent property of an underlying truth about where mass comes from as opposed to an actual bonefide energy state.

Hope this helps,

Peace,

Korg.

Dark Matter and all the other funny stuff we hear today about, is just a construct to fit the relativistic equation.
It "exist" only to hold the theory alive.



there is another way to explain what wee see in the Universe without Dark Matter or Dark Energy
en.wikipedia.org...

but what would all the relativity scientists do if RT falls apart.... sell cars ??


EDIT

please stop talking about dark matter.
Arguing in a way, "there must be something" to fit our point of view is nothing more than religion.
If there ever will be any proof, physical proof and not just mathematical equations of dark matter, THAN you can start using it for any theory you think of, right now you do nothing else like saying "God is doing this"

reply to post by KrzYma

Dark Matter and all the other funny stuff we hear today about, is just a construct to fit the relativistic equation. It "exist" only to hold the theory alive.

It's amazing how many people regurgitate this same nonsense. I've had to explain this numerous times just in the last week. There is absolutely no way around dark energy. The universe cannot be magically experiencing accelerated expansion without some sort of energy which allows it to expand. And dark matter is not an imaginary construct to make the theories work, because it's not just the rotation speed of galaxies which indicate that dark matter exists. If galaxies didn't contain some type of invisible mass then the space-time around the galaxies wouldn't be so curved (we can measure the curvature by observing the lensing effect created as light travels around the galaxies). And it just so happens that the amount of curvature we measure is exactly consistent with the amount of dark matter required to explain the rotation speeds of the galaxies. Furthermore, we can actually measure isolated dark matter in extreme events where the dark matter cores can actually separate from their partner galaxies and we can see space warping where there is no visible mass at all.

It was the result no one wanted to believe. Astronomers observed what appeared to be a clump of dark matter left behind during a bizarre wreck between massive clusters of galaxies.

The dark matter collected into a "dark core" containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies hung together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. This result could present a challenge to basic theories of dark matter, which predict that galaxies should be anchored to the invisible substance, even during the shock of a collision.

The initial observations, made in 2007, were so unusual that astronomers shrugged them off as unreal, due to poor data. However, new results from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope confirm that dark matter and galaxies parted ways in the gigantic merging galaxy cluster called Abell 520, located 2.4 billion light-years away.

Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in Hubble Image

there is another way to explain what wee see in the Universe without Dark Matter or Dark Energy
en.wikipedia.org...

There is basically no physicist on Earth who takes that theory seriously any more. It has countless flaws and has been thoroughly debunked by well known scientists. But you can keep latching onto it if it makes you sleep better at night.

Having said all that though, it's ironic that I don't really think dark matter exists as we think it does. According to my theory of negative space and negative energy, dark matter is simply a gravitational illusion caused by a lack of negative matter (aka dark energy) inside and around our galaxy (it's repelled by the positive energy of our galaxy).

Ok I saw this thread and something popped in my head. I saw or heard the words "You cannot have MY strawberry short cake!!" Maybe that's the laws of physics distilled to one fundamental law. If there was no separation in time and space, we'd probably all be one, but because there's separation we're many. The universe creates individuals. This separation expresses itself in various constraints, like the light speed limit. It goes further than this, however. Objects have a tendency to stick to themselves or to like things. This causes us to hold tightly to our strawberry short cake, resisting any attempts by unlike things to acquire it. Moreover, the more unlike something is the more we resist its attempts.

I deduce selfishness is a fundamental trait of individuality.

As MichiganSwampBuck said, numbers have special way of existence. They are idealities (special type of idea) hence not directly observable but perfectly thinkable and intersubjective. If OP is saying that 0 doesn't exist in nature, he is partially correct if he at same breath say that 1, -1, 1.666, etc doesn't exist in nature. But they are sure existing (at least) in human thoughts. Are humans part of nature? If so 0 exist in nature.

I understand that OP is trying to explain something different. Let try it in different words: "non-equilibrium is required but not sufficient condition for existence of universe". Is this correct?

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I'm sorry, but the article you have linked to says dark matter is not acting like dark matter should in Abell 520.

Now, astronomers are left with the challenge of trying to explain dark matter's seemingly oddball behavior in this cluster.

The team has proposed a half-dozen explanations for the findings, but each is unsettling for astronomers.

Sticky dark matter ?? so now we need 2 types of dark matter ?

Another scenario is that some dark matter may be what astronomers call "sticky." Like two snowballs smashing together, normal matter slams into each other during a collision and slows down. But dark matter blobs are thought to pass through each other during an encounter without slowing down. This scenario proposes that some dark matter interacts with itself and stays behind when galaxy clusters collide.

Let me say it simple as possible. If I see something that is not confirming my theory, I let the theory go and look for a better one. What scientists do, is adding more and more unknowns into the equation instead of rethinking it.
Just to hold on to MS flow...

I deny the existence of spooky God, Angel, Devil whatever you call it as explanation for the observed Universe.
Those equations must be wrong if they don't hold all the time astronomers discover something new and need to be corrected and some new variables must be added every time since more than 100 Years.

but this is just my opinion...

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Without negativity energy we cannot have a zero-energy universe, and it's obvious that a zero-energy universe is the only logical explanation for why we have something rather than nothing in the first place

In the physical world negatives do not exist what you have is a mathematical modelization of two existing items, in the case of the zero-energy universe theory one is matter and the other gravity. To me it seems simply an accumulation of speculation since we do not know gravity beyond its effects...

I'm more inclined towards a n-Spherical universe.

There is a lot of good evidence to indicate the universe is infinite and flat, that's why it's the most prevalent model accepted among physicists now.

I don't see how you can jumpt tothat conclusion at best we have indications that it is not a Milne model ("spherical" expanding).

Even though the Milne model as a special case of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe is a solution to General relativity, the assumption of zero energy content limits its use as a realistic description of the universe. Besides lacking the capability of describing matter Milne's universe is also incompatible with certain cosmological observations. In particular it makes no prediction of the cosmic microwave background radiation nor the abundance of light elements which are hallmark pieces of evidence that cosmologists agree support Big Bang cosmology over alternatives.

From Milne model @ Wikipedia