New Theory Suggests the Laws of Physics Evolved

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by MarkCGreer, Mar 7, 2012.

  1. khan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

    http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I often say that I evolve physics. My theory is to evolve physics. You have the right idea, but the actual model is to stick with Newton's Laws that every action has an equal, and opposite reaction. And that is more complicated than it sounds, because the number of dimensions that you have to cover is more than 3. So you end up creating equal reactions even in time, in pressure, and the counting system itself.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,037
    Careful - don't forget you are in a science area. Just wait and this will be flushed to the appropriate area very soon I assume.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I'm on topic. And I should be in my correct area soon.. hopefully.
     
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Different physical laws operating in different parts of the same universe.
    Is there any law from physics which makes that impossible?
     
  9. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I use sphere stacking, and it has rules that stay the same. But sphere stacking is a very complex system, so although it stays the same there are many complexities. But until you get to DNA type structures you do have order of a fractal structure.
     
  10. MarkCGreer Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Kremmen, That is what is so interesting about this speculation. The laws of physics themselves are only an effect that matter imposes. And the matter in our universe evolved through a natural selection process that makes all matter behave uniformly in this universe, however, it is completely possible for matter that gravitationally pulls at higher or lower levels to exist in the universe. The laws of physics are only an effect of matter.
     
  11. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    How do your particles use natural selection?
     
  12. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    We can see different parts of the universe, and what we see tells us that the laws of physics 10 billion light years away are the same as operate locally.
     
  13. MarkCGreer Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Paxton, Sure,

    In the beginning, after long periods of maturation, the universe was home to particles with an infinite array of properties. Some pulled strongly, some weakly, some repelled... And amidst this mass of all possibilities were a few that pulled the perfect amount to enable orbit. So when there were various explosions and other disturbances amidst these particles, those that pulled to hard collapsed into the center, those that pulled to light or repelled flew out of the picture and what remained were particles of perfect balance. So every explosion was an act of weeding out particles that did not have balance - natural selection. How else do you think we got to a point where there are only a set number of particle types? Why don't we see infinite particle types?

    HEAVY STUFF
     
  14. markl323 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    What’s more, the theory predicts the universe should forever grow larger and larger. In other words, from the edge of our universe, we would see more stars, galaxies and big bangs. “I believe big bangs may be tied to the explosion/inflation of a black hole. Inflation could be triggered by a tipping point, as stars have”, Greer speculates. “Black hole big bangs could be as common in the multiverse as exploding stars are in our universe.”

    wait a minute...did you just "interview" yourself?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. MarkCGreer Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    This is big, it will change the world!
     
  16. MarkCGreer Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    323,

    In the field of PR, that's how it works, the company or entity writes up the press release and then submits it to a business wire service and then the actual press has the option to "pick it up". If they pick it up, they either publish the release as is, or they customize the article, or contact the placer for a further interview. The company either has their own PR employee, or they hire a PR firm to submit it for the press.
     
  17. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    In the fields of journalism or science, that's how fraud works.
     
  18. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I see that you use the term evolved as if it were organic evolution. You also allow physics to exist at a higher level than they do today, yet too strong to maintain their existence. Hmm, that's even worse than allowing gravity to exist in the first place.

    I use the term evolved to mean that physics hardly existed at all, and in my theory I have to logically create the physics from nothing. Much more difficult, but much more likely. So I have to evolve magnetism for example without using any pull forces.
     
  19. MarkCGreer Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Pax, I think we are saying the same thing. I am saying physics came from nothing as well. But in the beginning the universe was chaos, closer to quantum unpredictability. and what we have today is order. Kind of the reverse of entropy. Evolved is a metaphor.
     
  20. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Chaos however is a very high level of physics. I don't even allow movement to happen at the beginning, my particles are stationary, and I have to evolve their movement, and I have to evolve time itself. It took years to figure it all out. I think it is complicated for most people, but I'm a computer programmer. I thought I was bad at maths, but now when I look at Einstein's maths I can see the faults. You get this feel for the Universe that you just can't get in any other way than starting from scratch.

    I'm not trying to knock you however. I started off with some physics 12 years ago. I had pendulums, and all sorts of things. You have to train yourself to take everything away. Only 6 months ago I had a formula left, a distance routine that I had to take out.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2012
  21. MarkCGreer Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Cool, so you are working on your own theory. I believe however that chaos, such as in the quantum world is a place of lower physics. What would the world look like without our highly evolved laws of physics? It would look like the quantum world. Quantum activity occurs as balanced fluctuations from 0 nothingness.
     
  22. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    You also have to evolve the Quantum Physics. You will realise that you are cheating in a few months. Start with a black screen. I had the black screen for 3 years.
     
  23. MarkCGreer Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    No, I like that approach. But look at it this way, everything in the universe exists because of imbalance. Where this imbalance occurs and how often is relative. We can get infinitely small or infinitely large. The reason the quantum world is so small to us is because our world needed to be as large as it is for it to work.

    Why didn't our world and particles evolve at the size of atoms? Because relative to the quantum world, it would be too small. There is a reason our world is the size it is relative to the size of quantum activity.
     

Share This Page