The universe building block - a radical theory

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by YordanYanakiev, Aug 10, 2013.

  1. YordanYanakiev Registered Member

    Let for a short forget all the things we have learned so far about the nature of the mater, just for a bit ( before we get back to them ).
    First of all I am proposing that there is/could exists multiple universes.
    The flaw usually about the current building block theories is that they are all assuming that whatever is on our universe should be just the same for each other.
    I can not accept that, since it is practically currently impossible to be proved, neither it does sound correctly to me in one or another way.
    So, I am assuming that :

    0. There is unified building block, which is similar for each of the universes.

    1. The pure basic building block have no characteristics.

    2. The building blocks can add or remove a characteristics depending on affected state ( not entirely defined yet ).

    3. The building blocks have unique characteristics for each universe.

    4. A space occupied with base building blocks having similar characteristics is called a Universe, and all the physic laws which apply to this universe is generated by the characteristics of the building blocks.

    5. The universes could exists occupying the same space, but built upon different building blocks, not sharing Physics, they does not interact each other by normal conditions.

    6. Applying the affected state from one building bock to another is switching it's characteristics.

    7. A universes that is sharing same space, with a very, but not completely similar building blocks characteristics can still have some physics shared, but not interact on normal conditions.

    8. The building blocks is eternal, and if the universe is destroyed ( applying a specified state to all building block, which shortly disconnect them on a basic level each from other ), they are switching to not affected ( no characteristics state ), until interaction with any other building lock in affected stated.

    9. The energy is result of the specific affected state of the building blocks. The mater is result of a very specific state of the energy. Even looking similar, an energy and mater can not be transferred between not interactive universes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tach Banned Banned

    Sigh, another one joins in.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    The cranks are flocking to the science section like flys on a road killed 'possum.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Hi Yordan, why did you not post this to the Alternative Theories section which was specifically made for posts like this?
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Why stop at 9?
  9. YordanYanakiev Registered Member

    actually the full theory is up, even some of the equations, graphics and so on.
    I am doing it for fun, and I am sharing to see some opinions.
    That's all.

    And - Yes. I am asking to forget the basics of the mater, because well - you practically never know them, because there is none yet explanation which complete answer on basic level "what is the mater actually", except a lot of theories, which mostly missing the part i have described.
    Now - connect my theory with any of the generally accepted theories around, and it will fit, without damaging it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And - why I have stopped at 9.. well.. because I have feared that I will read some very insults like the 1st and the follows posts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. YordanYanakiev Registered Member

    Hello CptBork. I have missed that part probably. I am sorry about. And I think i sow sufficiently of the posts to determine that none work is respected, if it is not generally accepted, or it will destroy someone's career lying upon some of the current theories

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The thread can be deleted. Thanks for the time spent

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. rr6 Banned Banned

    One Finite Universe of Occupied Space

    One finite Universe of occupied space.

    The primary/fundamental/basic minimal 2D pattern is a tri(3)angle.
    ..2D building pattern as stable structure....

    The primary/fundamental/basic minimal 3D pattern is a tetr(4)ahedron.
    ...3D building pattern as stable structure....

    The primary/fundamental/basic medio building pattern is the 3D octa(3)hedron.
    ...also stable structure....

    The primary/fundamental/basic, maximum building pattern is the the 3D icosa(20)hedron.
    ...also stable phi-based structure....

    All of Universe of occupied space is a derivative of these three, primary/fundamental patterns of structural stability.

  12. YordanYanakiev Registered Member

    It's all good, but it is not the point in here.
    I am not arguing the dimensional relations which fits in the equations.
    I am trying to complete review the basis of the ideology of "a universe" and "the mater".

    You are pointing to a dimensional theory, anyway I have nothing to do with the dimensions on the very basis.

    I am suggesting that there could exists multiple universes, in the same dimension, occupying the same space, but never interact each other, because of the different physics laws which apply on them, and non interactive states/types of the energy.

    It is not conflicting the our Physics - whatever it direction took today or tomorrow.

    It is describing the possibility of multiple universes sharing the same space and time in the same dimension without interacting each other.

    ... as I said it is a bit radical theory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and mostly lying upon the follow equation :

    PuA = d[ sA1, sA2 .. sAn ]
    ( The physics of Universe A is determined by the values of the properties of the base building blocks, the count and the type of the properties for each universe is a constant ).
  13. quarklet8 Registered Member

    Hugh Everett developed the MV. theory masterfully. He's discussed in Wikipedia.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. YordanYanakiev Registered Member

    Hello quarklet8.
    I've checked his theory, and yet, he is very far from mine. His theory still apply only on the things from the BB, and only inside our universe.
    This is even some of the issues my theory is fighting with.

    To generalize : My theory apply for any universe, in any state, even the universes which is destroyed at the time of their creation, aswell to the universes which is ruled by different physical laws.
    I very believe that only theories which is not respecting only our universe conditions shall be the referent theories about the bases.
  15. rr6 Banned Banned

    Minimal Space is Occupied and Exclusive

    We cannot exclude dimension--- aka occupied space ---and in fact the essence of our finite Universe XYZ dimension( occupied space ) is inclusive of time.

    No such phenomena can exist. No physical/energy entities of fermionic matter and bosonic forces can occupy the same space. At best we can two photons sharing the same quantum state and that is not the same space.

    The minimal space occupying entity can never be less than a triangle, and I would go further to say that at minimum this minimal solid would have to be subdivided ergo three circumferential nodal-vertexial events integrated with internal, nuclear nodal vertexial event. this is like a warping of the 2D triangle plane, that may have;

    an oscillation of the internal nodal-vertexial event to both sides of the triangle plane define a seemingly 3D tetrahedron.

    If we consider the space within the triangle subdividing the when could have more internal nodal-vertexial events and then we can say that there occupying the same space, within the triangle but that is not the same as whay you appear to be implying/inferring/suggesting.

    I belive there micro-limits of subdivision ergo a graviational graviationic quantum limits. I dunno
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    The 'I dunno' part is the only correct/accurate/true/factual/supportable/right/spot on/real/nonfantasy part
  17. YordanYanakiev Registered Member


    As I said - It is a radical theory. It is not necessary to be easy to connect to the existing ones.
    And what exactly makes You think that 2 universes can not occupy the same space without interfering each other.
    Would You please explain to me the dark mater ? I am not saying that "the dark mater" is another universe. Just I am pointing on a phenomena which is very close to my description.
    " No physical/energy entities of fermionic matter and bosonic forces can occupy the same space."
    - Are you sure that the all the universes is driven by the bosonic forces ? Where did I have mention this.
    Anyway I very like the ma thematic which you are tying to apply in here. Anyway I am not completely have finished my calculations and equations about my theory. The math equations used so far in modern physics may or may not apply on the level of cross-dimensional, cross-physic object as i have described.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. YordanYanakiev Registered Member


    Probably rr6 is trying to represent a geometric model of my cross-universe, cross-physics base building block, and fight with the idea of having such building block, but since I haven't drop any serious equations yet - it is hard to embrace and/or fight with, anyway I am not sure if it is actually having a geometrical representation.
    It is quite close to a field theory, but the same time it is a particle alike. I am not sure yet.
    And maybe. Just maybe my theory is not so bad at all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. rr6 Banned Banned

    Occupied Space = Quantum Domain

    Our finite Universe ocuppies space and is composed of discrete finite phenomena that occupy space and no two phenomena can occupy the same space, and as I stated previously at best two photons can only have same quantum state, and that is not the same as saying they occupy the same space.

    I've done the internet search in these regards, when you do a similar search and find info that actually references any fermions or bosons that occupy the same space, please share.

    I did not state there is no interference, and in fact interference is evidence of why two bosons or two fermions are and do not occupy the same space.

    There exists infinite non-occupied space and within that infinity there exists our finite Universe, that occupy's a portion of that infinite non-occupied space.

    If you want to say that there are two, or more, universes that sum-total as the one Universe, that both, or all, occupy some of that infinite non-occupied, then that is rationally logical.

    I.e. yes they occupy the same infinite non-occupied space of an even greater wholistic concept "U"niverse yet in no way do they occupy EXACT same space.

    Ex, tho I'm this following is a good example, there is a finite set of pixels on our computer screen and they each occupy their individual space and my guess is that that they individual pixel can only be occupied by one color at a time. I dunno.


    Last edited: Aug 27, 2013
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    No, he's spewing out incoherent nonsense peppered with geometry terminology he doesn't understand and has never done anything mathematical with.

    If you have no formalisation then you have only supposition and baseless assertions.

    Don't delude yourself, it is not. It is just baseless vapid assertions. Giving a few wordy sentences of description is a trillion trillion light years away from having anything remotely like a field theory. Do you even know what field theory is within physics?

    Considering you have zero formalisation, no working models and absolutely no ability to say anything about reality with any more justification than "Because I say so" you do not have a theory, you do not even have an hypothesis, you have mumbo jumbo. If you think rr6 is saying something remotely coherently then you really have no idea about science.
  21. river

    But where does the energy come from in the first place ?
  22. rr6 Banned Banned

    energy/physical cannot be created nor destroyed....2nd law of thermodynamics---applied by scientist in late 1800's......there is no source of our finite physical/energy--- aka occupied space ---Universe.

    It is has been over a hundred years since this discovery not news to those who are actually paying attention. imho

    The triangle is the minimal 2D enclosure and when it is subdivide-- ex (Y) ---then we have the basis for a 3D tetrahedron that is half-way between inside-out and outside out.

    These are fairly simple concepts of shapes of space that even most 10 year olds can grasp. No rocket scientist need to understand such simple stuff and often education blinds many to grasping the simplest concepts.

    For 20 years I've been asking others to show me toy-like model that exhibits more exotic shapes of space--- ex double sine-wave ---than Fullers OS-jitterbug. Not to mention also exhibiting the most primitive, fundamental shapes of Universe, from which all others are derived.

    No one has ever offered anything and certainly no models or not to mention any ideas that have the least amount of validity.

    We need less head-slapping trolls here at Sci-forum and more moral integrity for finding truth via intellectually valid consideration what we know and speculate upon.

    So my challenge stands for at least 13 years and will continue to stand because no one else can offer us a simple, toy-like simple model that does as much as the OS-jbug.

    Double sine-wave,

    saddle shape negative curvature,

    octagonal ripple-n-space or spacetime,

    flying regular/symmetrical hexagon with the uncertainty prinicple manifest by the 7th perpenediculare tail-wing operating as the asymmetrical abberrational wedge of spacetime that refuses to fall into the entropy of a purely 2D Universe,

    the 3D, 2-frequency tetrahedron precursor to the double-sine wave,

    the expanded double-sine wave as the double-octahedral tube,

    the basic/fundamental quadra-pedic body plan for the most complex animals on Earth,

    the 2-frequency triangle precursor to the 3D tetrahedron,

    the star-sqaure precursor to the alternate double-sine wave configuration,

    the quasi-icosahedron,

    the double-valenced octahedron,

    the quadra-valenced tetrahedron,

    left and right versions of all of the above on 4 differrent axi,



    6 or more versions of left-right chirality,

    and other shapes to complicated to explain in simple enough terms to be have clarity.


  23. river

    The problem is rr6 , is that we can't comprend you

    You just don't seem to get it

    You think that this complexity makes you some how above us

    Your not

    Unless you can simplify what your saying in more common terms , your wasting your time here

Share This Page