A New View To The Unyfing Theory Of Nature , Upn

[Urod]

Dear friends ,

 

Please land a hand of help to understanding the Universe .

 

Your comments are appreciated , Thank you !

 

Troubleshooting the UPN is easy : just mention the Numbered Logic Step and your detailed criticism if you find a flaw .

 

The Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) or the Universe explained without math ( aka the Grand Unifying Theory of Physics ) , the only official website :

 

http://UPNtheory.WordPress.com

 

 

Doru Dobrescu

Edited November 27, 2012 by Urod

[Urod]

I just added this from the University of Newcastle to point the inherited/natural turbulances/vortices in the SuperFluid :

 

Proof of the micro-turbulence and Vortices occurring in a SuperFluid and of its extreme low viscosity is provided here by the Quantum research at the University of Newcastle ( notice how they used the same analogy as I did to picture the behaviour of the SuperFluid by filling an extremely small volume of space ) :

 

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/math/research/applied/classic_fluid.htm

 

“ … At temperatures close to absolute zero, a phase transition called Bose-Einstein condensation takes place, in which quantum mechanics 'takes over' and rules the behaviour at macroscopic scales. Superfluidity is a consequence of Bose-Einstein condensation, and occurs in liquid helium, ultra-cold atomic gases and neutron stars. The striking property of a superfluid is that it can move without any viscous effects. Since it suffers no friction, a superfluid can flow freely through infinitesimal holes, move around a closed loop forever, and climb up the walls of its container. Research in this area is mainly concerned with solitons and vortices in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, and with quantised vortices in superfluid liquid (quantum turbulence). … “ .

 

But what it is also very important is the fact that free , clean , reusable energy is bathing us 24/7 . Now that we know how it works we can design the device that extracts this energy making it available for our use .

 

Any one can describe the Device considering that the the SUperFLuid is more like a current . The funy thing is that the boat and all are also made of the SF ... so How would you get an interaction , momentum ?

_________________

http://RecipeForaNationUnderground.WordPress.com , future shocking .

[Rade]

Well, the basic premise of the thesis is false. Nothingness exists in the reality of the human mind as expectation not fulfilled.

 

Example: Your love interest tells you they will meet you for lunch at 12:00 at Marcy Cafe. At 12:00 you look for your love, but they are not to be found. Every person you see at the Cafe is not your love. You long for your love but the reality of their nothingness is a constant existent within your mind and results in an intense feeling of despair. The existence of your despair has causality in the reality of nothingness.

[Urod]

Dear Rade ,

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to write your thought on the UPN .

Let's carry an intelligent conversation to the benefit og knowledge .

 

Rade : Well, the basic premise of the thesis is false. Nothingness exists in the reality of the human mind as expectation not fulfilled.

 

Urod : indeede , I wish I would be 6;7 and blue eyed , but instead I am medium-rare and ugly .

Luckly our brains are just a kilo and only 6 billion fighting the understanding of the Universe . Hence this imaginary nothigness is as Real as the Neurons that composed the false isea that nothingness is in our brains . But I am speaking only for myself .

 

Rade : Example: Your love interest tells you they will meet you for lunch at 12:00 at Marcy Cafe. At 12:00 you look for your love, but they are not to be found. Every person you see at the Cafe is not your love. You long for your love but the reality of their nothingness is a constant existent within your mind and results in an intense feeling of despair. The existence of your despair has causality in the reality of nothingness.

 

 

Urod : But why blame yourself ? Afterall it was the 'love interest' that told you the false hour ! Stand up to misdirections and manipulations , ignore the nothigness in your brain and demand imeddiate lobotomy ! Dislodge your self from nothigness , get an iflatable Gausian Space Matrix doll to fullfill it .

If Gause liked it you will too !

Is this a Physiscs Forum ???

 

Rade : ???

[CraigD]

Hi Urod, & welcome to hypography! :)

 

You’ve titled this thread “A New View To The Unyfing Theory Of Nature”, so I gather you intend to present a scientific theory. If so, it’s critical that that what you present satisfy the essential requirements of a scientific theory (Nearly any professional scientist or serious enthusiast can describe these to you, as can many webpages, such as this Wikipedia article). Failing to do this, or even understand what “this” is, is in my experience the failing of 95%+ of all attempted scientific writing by people inexperience in conventional science, and the reason such writing isn’t even valuable enough for most professionals or serious amateurs to read.

 

What you’ve written appears to fail in this way. To begin, you subtitle it

The Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) or the Universe explained without math ( aka the Grand Unifying Theory of Physics )

(italics mine). If you mean you’ve provided a summary of a theory omitting mathematical formalism and numerically quantifiable properties, this is OK, but I suspect you mean you have written your theory without any rigorous math. This is a fatal failing when attempting to write a scientific theory.

 

Another, arguably the most important trait of a scientific theory is that it produces predictions that are experimentally testable, or falsifiable. That is, it must be able to describe an objective, at least in principle measurable event that can be shown to occur, or not occur (in which case the theory must be rejected, at least until modified)

 

Your post mostly consists of vague natural language, but hints at me of a couple of testable predictions:

 

But the same property of SuperFluid of being Uncompressible also tells us that INSTANT signalling through the SuperFluid is ( at least theoretically ) possible !

You should be able to describe a simple experiment to show this assertion true or false. That is, it instant signaling, or merely signaling over distance where the time between the emitting and detecting of the signal is less than distance between emitter and detector is less than the distance between them divided by the speed of light, the theory must tell us how to emit and detect such a signal. If the “theory” merely asserts this is “theoretically possible”, without theoretically describing how, it’s in the class of statements know as “not even good enough to be false”.

 

So, before spending more time on your idea (on which, from the length of your post, I suspect you have spent considerable time already), I recommend you describe this experiment, not write more text that credible scientists will deem NEGETBF. Better still, not only describe, but perform such an experiment.

 

Another assertion you make is

Let’s call it the SuperFluid or just SF to replace the previous ‘ Dark Matter ’ and ‘ ether ’.

Your reference to “ether” suggests that you are referring to the concept of a luminiferous aether. This concept has already been experimentally tested (see the Michelson-Morley experiment), with a negative result. So, if you are proposing this, you should provide an explanation of the null result of this experiment.

 

That you didn’t address the MM experiment in your first post leads me to believe you’re unfamiliar with it. If so, you should familiarize yourself with this important experiment and its results. Without being able to demonstrate familiarity with this and other modern physics concepts, you’re unlikely to be taken seriously by any scientists or serious science enthusiast.

[Urod]

Hi Urod, & welcome to hypography! :)

 

You’ve titled this thread “A New View To The Unyfing Theory Of Nature”, so I gather you intend to present a scientific theory....

 

Hi Craig ,

 

Thank you for your reply and comments !

 

I refered to ether and dark matter only to help readers get a better feel for the SuperFluid .

 

What I am concerned , Craig , is that such a simple theory ( absolute no math required ) red by you , I believe a scientist , had problems in interpretetion to the extend of confusing the SuperFluid (Sf ) decribed at extend in the UPN , with ether .

I am not sure Craig if you speed read it or read it to the end , but I believe that a scientist would have no problem understanding the UPN without a single further explanation , never mind mixing it with the ether .

 

I stand firm by the way I presented the UPN , it is simplicity at max , not even math , if any one can point to a fault in the Logic presented please forward it for discussion , but in your reply I didn't see any ( except that ether mixup ) .

Did you try to apply the Michelson experiment to the SuperFluid ? Quote " Since the Earth is in motion, it was expected that the flow of aether across the Earth should produce a detectable "aether wind". " . You see Craig , as clearly described in the UPN , the SuperFluid carries everything with it , hammers , feathers and galaxies , so it is The reference point , everithing is Made out of the Sf ( unlike the Ether ! ) and , unlike the ether which flies by ( in that theory ) .

How about the double slit ? Bosse-Einstein condensate ?

One more word , the fundamental unyfing properties of nature must be so simple that math doesn't apply . Afterall , how would you say in math that everithing is made out of just SuperFluid ? Sf identical SF ? ( couldn't find the symbol , 3 horizontal lines ).

 

I am looking forward to your comments , many thanks !

[Rade]

Urod Claim: "While this ‘space’ detail may appear trivial and obvious , it has a huge impact because it voids the present theory of Relativity by showing that Space can not be ‘stretched’ not ‘shrunk’ as the Relativity theory claims."

 

Urod...your argument implies that the bottle, as the internal boundary that contains = space, is the same as the Somethingness of the liquid wine = matter, that which is contained. The logical difference between space (the wine bottle) and matter (the wine) is obvious, and thus your theory does nothing to void the Einstein Theory of Relativity.

[Urod]

XSXX

Edited December 1, 2012 by Urod

[Urod]

Let's regroup guys , there is too much negativity here and all is because speed reading or not at all the UPN , so let's do it right .

 

The begining of the Universe :

 

Was it Void/Nothigness or Somethigness ?

 

1) We can't have/make anything out of Nothigness

2) Looking around us to test proof the next logic line we observe the Universe , hence observing Somethigness

3) Conclusion :

a) Nothigness could not possibly be the begining or the origin of the Universe .

B) Therefore the very begining of the Universe ( if there is a begining ) was by defaul made out of Somethingness which was the very first to appear ( unless there since for-ever as the UPN shows ) .

 

Not a biggy , simple common sense , but it kick-starts the UPN that uses Nothigness as a tool to make sense of the dilema , who was first ... and since when , and how big , etc , all following naturally as more properties of Somethigness .

 

Once you read it you'll be tempted to think of the future shocking that the properties of the SuperFluid can give us . Than we'll have a smoky discussion !

 

Please take your time to read the UPN , there is no math , logic supersseds it , no play on words , just common sense . Then come back to talk about it and have fun doing it .

[Urod]

Here are afew things that the UPN proves ( please don't speed read the UPN , thank you ):

 

- the single component , the SuperFluid ( SF ) , a non-granular , continuos substance

- exciting possibilities from one property of the SF , that of being uncomressaible , meaning instant messaging over , well , the entire Universe , as crazy that it may sound . This it may also explain ‘inertia’

- the double slit experiment , the Duality particle-wave , aka the foundation of Quantum physiscs

- the age and size of the Universe

- the properties of the SuperFluid

- it shows that ‘space’ is SuperFluid (SF ) and hence it can not be Stretched nor Shrunked , therefore invalidating the theory of Relativity

- explains the Cosmic Background Radiation

- takes the glamor of gravity , its just a wake in the SF generated by the spinning of each micro-vortices ( matter )

- shows the ‘missing’ matter , it’s slowed down micro-vortices , very old and spinning slower due to the SF viscosity ( as small as that may be )

- explains ‘particles’ : micro-vortices spinning at close to the speed of light ( in young particles ) , churning the SF ( similar to water vortices or tornados )

- shows howe harmonics of the gravity wakes are the magnetic and electric fields

- explains what forms the micro-vortices ( matter and energy )

- explains how black-holes form

- shows how the perpetual dynamo and the source of endless , clean , renewable energy that is bathing us 24/7 , has its origins built in the nature of the SuperFluid , continuously under micro-agitation creating vortices , movement that is energy .

- the UPN is so simple that a ten year old could understand it , a fact that chipped my self-estime being much older

- and finally , the UPN doesn’t need any math to prove it nor express it .

[Turtle]

...

- and finally , the UPN doesn’t need any math to prove it nor express it .

 

if you can't express it mathematically then it is useless. you are not even wrong.

[Rade]

Questions for Urod.

 

You make the claim that "sub atomic particles are created by micro black holes".

 

Does your theory predict how many particles/hole are created ? Could you give more details on exactly what sub particles are created and the rate of creation per day, is the rate dependent on hole size ? Does the same micro black hole create both matter and antimatter sub particles, or do we have matter creating black holes and antimatter creating black holes ? Is there an energy limit to the number of micro black holes that can be packed together to form one effective large black hole and how does your theory determine this limit ? Is it possible that some single micro black hole in the past created all the sub particles for the universe we know, and thus we call that event the big bang creation for our universe ?

[sigurdV]

1. You start with the Absolute Nothing that never existed,exists not, and never will exist

 

2. Then claims that something follows.

 

So far so good:) Its a tempting thing to do!

 

3. But identifying that first necessary something(the first real step) and show how it

became everything else is too much to do at once! You seem to try to do just that

so I did not check what "something else" you claim to come after the first "something".

I wrestled with the question all my life and hurried solutions will not satisfy me.

[Urod]

if you can't express it mathematically then it is useless. you are not even wrong.

 

The UPN is a direction for science to use in our technology .

Once we agree that the UPN is correct than you and other skillful mathematicians will develope formulaes to be used in engineering and science .

But first we must prove that the UPN is correct .

Please keep in perspective that Logic superseeds math , this is good because we first test the principle and then develope the math around it .

 

I have nothing against math , we need it .

[Urod]

XOX

Edited December 1, 2012 by Urod

[Urod]

1. You start with the Absolute Nothing that never existed,exists not, and never will exist

 

2. Then claims that something follows.

 

So far so good:) Its a tempting thing to do!

 

3. But identifying that first necessary something(the first real step) and show how it

became everything else is too much to do at once! You seem to try to do just that

so I did not check what "something else" you claim to come after the first "something".

I wrestled with the question all my life and hurried solutions will not satisfy me.

 

 

No problem , the 'first' 'something' is the SuperFluid that actually is the Universe , says logic , because as you pointed out Nothigness doesn't exist and the sorounding reality shows that Somethigness is replacing it .

So that's what I concentrated on , the description and properties of this fundamental Somethingness , the SuperFluid .

So you see , there is just One , nothing else , everything we see and sense in the Universe are different manifestations of the SuperFluid , basically a quiet state ( the CBR ) and spun ( at the speed of light initially and then slowing down , yet still generating gravity waves ! - the 'missing' matter ) .

 

So there is no Second , just the SF , period , all we need is to clarify its properties .

 

As for the SF occuring simultaneously every where ( not a big Bang ) , at the Begining as you are looking at it ... well , sorry , I don't see a way out but against the 'grain' of what we were brought up with ( that all things have a begining and an end ) , logic shows that since Nothigness is 'non-existant' since always ( beyound infinity ) the replacing SF ( the status quo ) is also around since always , so there is no begining .

 

Think it over and over considering the Nothigness as a tool to highlite/contrast the SuperFluid and its properties .

 

Also help your self as I did remembering history and how just a few hundred years ago scientists believed that the Earth is flat , that gave me courage ( besides the UPN logic ) .

To have a begining of the Universe is saying that Nothigness existed before up to one day when suddednly it vanished ! It doesn't sound good , what do you think ?

So logic shows that the Universe ( SuperFluid ) has no begining and no end on both scales , time and size , and also it doesn't expend ( no more Nothigness to fill up ) . Don't blame me , just try to shake up this logic , I can't !

 

Cheers and looking forward to more of your comments , Thank you !

 

BTW , I treasure the Recipe for a Nation ( link below ) much more than the UPN , I hope that stirred your curiosity , but no speed reading please !

[Urod]

It is Extrordinary that the Moderators further lowered the UPN to the status of " Strange Claims " .

But it is Very relevant that none of them could bring forward a Single valid fault with the UPN ( provided they read it first ).

 

This is not physics , it's Politics and it cast a dark shadow on the forum reputation ...