# Theory of Everything.

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Orion68, Aug 11, 2019.

1. ### Orion68Registered Member

Messages:
72
In the db model mass and energy is spacetime between the db's bended (or if you like energized) by a specific curvature of the multiple db particle.
The bending of spacetime can be enormously complex, since so many db's are involved, the bending of spacetime in the particle has a specific strength on a specific location of the spacetime surface.
Because of the continuous movements of the db's the spacetime surface is ever fluctuating, this is perceived as a wave.

3. Define " db " .

5. ### Orion68Registered Member

Messages:
72
It is an abbreviation of 'Dimensional Basic'(db).

A name for the point particle which more or less says that one can't go more basic for something to exists when the only property the db has is an infinite curvature on a location but no spatial dimensions. The db has no spatial dimensions (length, width, height), only one basic dimension, an infinite curvature.

Messages:
46
Note that curvature is a complex dimension, rather than a basic one.

You could probably get away with just one complex dimension, though. I ended up with more. (Two which are unique, I think, but I think there might actually be six.)

8. ### Orion68Registered Member

Messages:
72
The only thing I allocate to a db concerning its curvature is that spacetime is bended around the location of the db according to the following formula srqt(x^2+y^2+z^2)*curvature=1.
So it's influence is in the three spatial dimensions, in the db model there is no need for extra dimensions theoretically.
The curvature of a db on itself is not complex (1 parameter, infinity), when mixed with spacetime (range of infinity, multiple parameters) it gets more complex.

And time as an extra dimension, but time at a db is infinite slow, around a db a fraction of the infinity of a db less slow.

So how to split space and time in dynamic db models? Or is even time just an expression of spacetime bent more or bent less? I mean, the higher the bending, the smaller the relative meters, so time is just an observation of cube of spacetime that gets ever smaller in case of ime dillution. So movements seem to take more time for an outside observer. So time is a derivant parameter.

Last edited: Dec 18, 2019

Messages:
46
Time and distance are, in a significant sense, the same thing, at least in relativity. Your time dimension is your square root.

Complex dimensions are "just" dimensions orthogonal to the dimensions under consideration; since we aren't considering the dimension space-time curves into, it is a complex dimension. Whether curvature as a complex dimension is just a mathematical artifact of the way we represent it, or reflects something significant about reality, I don't know.

10. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
14,161
Inasmuch as they are all dimensions, yes. But they are very different kinds of dimensions.

What??

Spacetime does not "curve into" another dimension. There are four dimensions.

Messages:
46
Relativistically, time and distance are equivalent. Why do you insist they are different kinds of dimension when the only thing necessary to convert between them is to divide by the speed of light? The only difference is the unit, and the universe provides a built in unit conversion.

Sure. That's why I said curvature is a complex dimension, rather than a basic one.

The alternative explanation staying in four dimensions, that what we are calling curvature is more like variation in density, is... well, there are published papers talking about this, but they're pretty far outside the mainstream. It is the view I personally hold, but again, pretty far outside the mainstream.

12. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
14,161
Show us how that works.

I'm flying at 1mi/s, but if I divide by c I will be moving through time at ... 1/186,000 mi/h/mi/s?

Curvature is not a dimension, whether basic or complex. The above sentence is non-sensical.

Messages:
46
Yes and no. Distance is relative to something. "Flying at [speed]" needs an additional preposition; "flying towards" or "flying away from".

And if you are flying towards something, keeping relativity in mind, the object you are flying towards is moving faster in time. Away, it is moving slower.

We can express this in two ways; we can cancel out distance and leave the time in place (gain or lose X seconds per second), but this is somewhat mathematically clumsy, so instead it is generally expressed as a ratio, and multiplied by the total time taken.

It has a magnitude, it is a dimension. Now, whether it is a dimension in the sense of being able to move in it independently - doesn't look like it.

It does exhibit some other characteristic behavior of a spacial dimension - of particular note being the way changes in its magnitude correspond to changes in distance in other dimensions - but ultimately I don't see this argument as going anywhere.

14. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
11,034
You almost got it! The answer is no. Spouting silly ignorance is not science.