Greatest theory ever. I explain thye universe

[Jetiku]

Well..... id love to show you all the video but I cant because it wont allow me to post links. if you really are interested in knowing how we can exist. how matter and energy can be created from nothing....

 

go on youtube and search for jetiku nature of the universe

[Jay-qu]

Thats a mighty big claim Jetiku!

 

How about you post the general idea here to spark some conversation rather than just sending us to go and watch a video.

[Pyrotex]

Well..... go on youtube and search for jetiku nature of the universe

I went to youtube and I found your video.

 

Jetiku, I really don't mean to be rude, but you have a long long way to go before you can discuss science and the universe intelligently.

You appeared and sounded like you were "stoned" in your video.

Perhaps you should pick a subject a little smaller and closer to home---the universe is a subject that takes years of study, real study out of real college-level science textbooks before you have the vocabulary and the concepts to even BEGIN making theories.

Please do some reading.

Your county library probably has many science and astronomy books written by Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan and other excellent science teachers. Ask your librarian.

Good luck.

Pyrotex

[Jetiku]

Ok let me elaborate... Its the biggest problem when presenting an argument of how the universe came into existence. I can demonstrate this in the following example :

 

Me "...See and the first lifeforms were therefor microorganisms"

 

Friend "But where did they come from?"

 

Me "Well life was started by some unknown chemical reaction. The exact reaction may not be known but its possible and the most likely scenario."

 

Friend "Well where did the chemicals come from?"

 

Me "Thats a pretty hard question to answer, but basically its theorized the universe came into existence creating the first core particles of reality and an underlying law that is responsible for all others."

 

Friend "How did the universe come into existence if there wasnt anything there?"

 

Me "........."

 

This is a common scenario and Im sure many people reading this have had it happen to them several times when discussing evolution/physics/anything scientific with someone who isnt as educated in the field. I dont wish to say Christians but in my experience they are generally the ones who will keep going with trying to debunk these concepts. At this point we may throw something back to them such as M theory and say branes overlap etc etc boom a universe.... But then we didnt answer their real question now did we? What they really want to know is how is it possible for things to exist. How is it possible for their to be ANYTHING whether a universe a brane or a joint as pyrotex implied Im found of. The equation I suggest as an answer to this is one we learn in elementary school.

 

1 + -1 = 0

 

If the universe exists I propose a duplicate universe exists on an opposite axis. Quantum physics says we dont have to be symmetrically, just almost. I say thats a pathetic excuse for reason and we can have symmetry while still allowing for existence.

 

It follows the concept of the horn shaped universe but adds symmetry and logic to it with the addition of an opposite axis.

 

If an object of our polarity were to approach the center where the universe is 0 we would find the negative mirage of it (though unobservable to us) would behave identically. Upon contact the two objects would cancel each other out into nothing, once again returning to 0.

 

So I present my answer to how can we exist from nothing :

 

We do not, we simply are an equation yielding 0 ultimately.

[Jetiku]

Pyrotex I can appreciate your standing on this matter. I mean for any self respecting member of a scientific community to allow themselves to be swayed by a guy with tattoos and the vocabulary of whats considered a low life. However if you allow yourself to look past physical presentation to the core of what I am and what I present I hope you can appreciate I am not so uneducated as you currently believe. Ive studied concepts of physics and philosophy since I was a young child. Science is my passion and the result of my conceptualizing the nature of reality didnt happen upon me in chance. WHile the math may be amazingly simple, the truth is far from being easy to deny.

[Jay-qu]

If an object of our polarity were to approach the center where the universe is 0 we would find the negative mirage of it (though unobservable to us) would behave identically. Upon contact the two objects would cancel each other out into nothing, once again returning to 0.

 

This sounds a lot like antimatter, though antimatter annihilations dont produce nothing.

 

What do you mean by polarity - this term is generally used to describe the magnetic pole of a magnet.

[Jetiku]

Since there are no words to define these negative and positive states Im implicating I borrowed the term polarity to refer to them as distinct opposite axis'

 

Perhaps I should create new words to describe it all. But for the time being Im using words that people will be able to translate into meaning for this proposition. Granted that is somewhat sloppy.

 

As to you question though Im implying one is on the positive side of the equation while the other is on the opposite. A more sound way to state what Im saying would be :

 

x + -x = null

 

whereas all of perceivable reality to us is x

[belovelife]

Mirror?

 

I watched your video also. It was interesting. And although i couldn't exactly understand

the perception you were trying to convey, I would say to try to find more infromation on

the subject matter.

I myself am going through a similar situation. I have interpreted data in a fundimantaly

different view than the current line of thought on the subject. Although I am still searching

for data that supports my theory, I also invite any argument against my theory.

 

"The Scientific Method............No one will contest the statement that science has advanced

over it's state in , say Galileo's day.To what is this progress due? It is due to a collaboration

between many investigators- not in the sense that collaboration is neccisarily concious, but

in the sense that one inquirer can utilize the results obtained by another"

ref. philosophy:an introduction

John Herman Randall Jr.- Columbia University

Justus Buchler - State University of New York @ Stoney Creek

revised addition 1971

[Jay-qu]

Since there are no words to define these negative and positive states Im implicating I borrowed the term polarity to refer to them as distinct opposite axis'

 

Perhaps I should create new words to describe it all. But for the time being Im using words that people will be able to translate into meaning for this proposition. Granted that is somewhat sloppy.

 

As to you question though Im implying one is on the positive side of the equation while the other is on the opposite. A more sound way to state what Im saying would be :

 

x + -x = null

 

whereas all of perceivable reality to us is x

Yes I see. I could also invent a name for the shy invisible flying unicorn like creature that inhabits my backyard. But since I have about as much evidence for this creatures existence as you do for your theory.. no one is going to believe it is there.

 

Unless you can say something more concrete and theoretically sound, you are going to be stuck in the strange claims forum.

[Jetiku]

Thanks belovelife, I have presented a few articles helping to show proof of what Im saying to the moderator. Perhaps I can show the rationale behind my concept.

[Jay-qu]

These articles are not proof.

 

1. Conservation of mass does not hold in nuclear reactions.. why should it hold when the universe is created?

 

2. Symmetries are everywhere, some are real and some are only apparent symmetries. Symmetries can be broken. There is an apparent symmetry between matter and anti-matter, but its not perfect because for some reason the universe prefers matter. There is nothing that says symmetry must be everywhere such as the creation of the universe.

 

The question of something coming from nothing and time been created without time is more of a philosophical question than a physical one. That is until we can find a way to 'observe' and measure details about the pre-universe (if that is even possible). It is for this reason that what you are doing is not called science and why it will stay in the strange claims forum.

[arkain101]

From what I gather, it seems you are on to something that I was working on awhile back. I started a thread on my ideas which can be viewed here: http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/10310-quantum-aether-dynamics.html

 

It may be of some use, and it may not.

[Pyrotex]

This sounds a lot like antimatter, though antimatter annihilations dont produce nothing.

What do you mean by polarity - this term is generally used to describe the magnetic pole of a magnet.

I believe that what he is getting at is the "polarity" (if you will) between the ordinary matter/antimatter that we observe in our universe, and the "dark matter" that we can detect, presumably in the "other universe".

From this, it follows that his conjecture is simplY: the Big Bang spurted a pair of universes in TWO uh... "directions" with equal but opposite something-or-other. The net total something-or-other was and remains zero. Both universes have the same time-line; we know this because the gravity of "dark matter" continues to cluster around clusters of real-matter galaxies in this universe. They respond to each other's gravity.

 

Now, how would one correlate this with the observation that "dark matter" has perhaps 10 times the mass of real-matter? Perhaps the something-or-other that equates the two universes is actually the product of gravity with some other property. Since this is after all a Strange Claims thread, ;), let's posit that this other property is the Chronic Density. :naughty: ;) :( The chronic density of a universe determines its chronometric flux, or simply, how fast time moves in that universe.

 

Therefore, we have M1C1 + M2C2 = 0

 

Where M is the Massivity of the Universe, and

C is the Chronic Density;

where both parameters have complex values.

 

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

[Jetiku]

someone claiming the universe isnt how our beloved einstein or hawking describe?!?!?! :eek_big: burn the heretic

[arkain101]

Re: Greatest theory ever. I explain thye universe

someone claiming the universe isnt how our beloved einstein or hawking describe?!?!?! burn the heretic

 

It took Einstein a large portion of his life to explain the universe in a way that was different than the beloved methods that took hundreds of years to describe. And I suppose we should not forget that his work is still struggling to convince his audience even while he rests in his grave (or however he was put to rest).

 

It is not an easy task to convince your audience of your views. In fact is a bit like a mental battle field. You must present a strong enough argument to over power all the skepticism and scrutiny that "TESTS" your argument and its validity. It not a matter of there being an anarchist, heritic, or anything of this manner. The point is, if you are as serious about your cause as you are about your beleifs, you must accept that you are required to put a lot of work and effort in order to come together with a case not only that would stand up in court, but would stand up to ruthless testing around the world, from thousands and thousands of experiments and other academic minds.

 

I encourage constructive skepticism! By all means make your case against accepted and widely physically applied theory. However, I do request you respect others interests as much as you respect your own and give as much investigation and credit to the alternatives as you expect to be given to your own. This way, we all win and knowledge rules another day.

 

Good luck. :thumbs_up It is a tough path.

[Boerseun]

The idea that the net energy of the universe equals zero is not a new one.

 

The proposition that there are two universe "at right angles to one another" (some weird higher-dimensional imagery required round about here), the one "positive" and the other "negative" in order to satisfy your x+y=0 equation, is not new, either.

 

Sadly, it brings nothing to the table.

 

Because if the net total of all these possible universe equal zero, it still doesn't explain why the "zero" got split in two to begin with.

 

Unless you're in agreement with Douglas Adams, who hold that the Big Bang was the moment where God divided by zero. And the resultant creation of the universe was widely regarded as a bad idea, and dividing by zero has been outlawed ever since.

[Pyrotex]

This got me to thinking about "Dark Matter". What if it is the gravitational pull of the stuff in a parallel universe? What if we live in a 3-dimensional membrane? Actually, on ONE SIDE of a 3-dimensional membrane, and there are other stars and worlds and Boerseuns on the "other" side wondering what the HELL is that gravitational pull that THEY feel, that apparently comes from something invisible and otherwise undetectable?

I hope they call it "Heavy Invisible ****" or something else equally poetic.

Instead of Dark Matter.

I hope nobody punches a hole in that membrane.

 

"Divide by zero"... :) :eek2: Good one.