Theory of everything

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do both, but do it in the correct forum, that is the alternative hypothesis forum.
Otherwise it will be moved.
Personally, I believe you have SFA. I believe if you had anything other then a grossly inflated ego, you would not be here. We have had four claiming to have TOE's here, all have dropped by the wayside, because all were total bullshit and ego driven attempts for personal attention.
Your's will be no different.


Is this the you from 2087?
 
Maybe I do have an inflated ego, but I have admitted nothing but claiming to have a theory... I will start a thread, it won't be easy as the latex is strange here. But I will give it my best shot.


You have an hypothesis. You do not have a theory, at least not a scientific theory. Not until your hypothesis undergoes peer review.
 
paddoboy, If it's 2014 now, and you time traveled for 2 years, did you come from 2016 or 2012? How can you tell the difference?
 
I find it strange how you find my posts offensive because you rely on some idea I am a poster you dislike. Again, stop acting like some victim whose pain is to find a truth or lie, as though that process will somehow make your day better.


The evidence on this forum over the years, is pretty conclusive that all our alternative nuts that have claimed to have a TOE, all quickly turn violent when their bullshit doesn't gell with anyone, then they are inevitable banned for continued bad behavour and rants about moderation etc, then the insidious dishonesty comes into play with sneaky new handles and trying to return under everyones guard.
We actually expect no better from them, as these forums are the only outlets they have, as I mentioned before.
 
Before I do start writing the thread on my TOE, I will give a quick synopsis... It's a theory about nothing.

Yes, it seems like a paradox, but I can prove at least in theory, the universe resorts to nothing-ness and that anything we class as physics is incompatible to explain any origin to our universe. I will make the thread later today... as I have to get ready for work. Take care.

Are you talking about the Universe being the "Ultimate Free Lunch"?
If so, there is some reasonably logical speculation to that scenario...Just speculative though.
see the following.....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

A Universe from Nothing

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
 
paddoboy, If it's 2014 now, and you time traveled for 2 years, did you come from 2016 or 2012? How can you tell the difference?
 
Does the earth spiral into the sun, stay the same distance away from the sun, or spiral away from the sun, as time elapses?

In other words, was the earth always orbiting the sun in the same path as it is today, or did it come from the sun and is getting farther away, or did it come from somewhere else and is spiraling in to certain death in the sun?

Does your theory have an answer for that?
Hello Mr. Sock Puppet!
Hello bvillon i see many of u here
 
Last edited:
Similar, but my theory is more precise and gives exact conditions in several areas.


As I said previously, you'll be number 5, the other four have been washed away with the sewage.
Please note carefully though, that the article I presented, from a qualified professional, is still at this stage speculative.
A couple of things you need to accept is that all our current theories and models say nothing about any time from t+10-43 seconds up to BH singularities.
Secondly and more obviously, if you had anything of substance you would not be here along with the other trolls and nuts we have roaming unrestrained.
And finally you should consider diluting your self admitted delusions of grandeur and inflated ego with a dose of humility and respect for the giants of the present and past. I offer as an example Albert Einstein himself, arguably the greatest of them all, yet a man not afraid to admit to error and with plenty of that humility.
 
Oh he's an idiot? Based on what? Concluding your posts, you don't seem to have much of a leg to stand on, your posts are some of the unintelligible ones I have yet come across. Maybe a mirror and a careful look is required before you pass innate judgements on others. So, if you don't want to talk to Reiku, I am quite sure the feeling is mutual for exactly the same reasons.
i do not see a " no "
 
Before I do start writing the thread on my TOE, I will give a quick synopsis... It's a theory about nothing.

Yes, it seems like a paradox, but I can prove at least in theory, the universe resorts to nothing-ness and that anything we class as physics is incompatible to explain any origin to our universe. I will make the thread later today... as I have to get ready for work. Take care.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-51#post-3253375
krash661:
i'm sure this is exactly why you are here. you want to push your hypothesis that you probably claim is a theory, that does nothing except to attempt to re-establish an existing theory. this is common and pathetic.
 
I love psychology.

I'be analyzed three posters here already, you are included. Anyway, slightly off topic, I will be the no.1, not in the sewage as the other 5, but on the tables with 5 cards with a full house.


So then oh inflated one....Why are you here?
Why not gather your evidence and get it peer reviewed?
The next physics Nobel is 11 months away, but you would be a shoe in...If of course you had anything of value.
 
Unless you can produce a four of a kind aces... which will be interesting when you consider the math.
Something to seriously consider.
Even if you were an employed scientist, with a theory, I would ask the same question.
How do you know when you have knowledge of everything? I.e., all phenomena, all forms of matter and energy. Based on history, knowledge is a process of continuing refinement, resulting from new discoveries.
Wouldn't this imply "everything" being qualified "as of now"?
 
I love psychology.

I'be analyzed three posters here already, you are included. Anyway, slightly off topic, I will be the no.1, not in the sewage as the other 5, but on the tables with 5 cards with a full house.
an obvious house of cards ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top