I think I figured out the universe

peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805

It's the five posts from there down.

It may not be totally correct or complete, but I think it describes just about everything.

Feel free to tell me to fuck off and die if it's glaringly wrong.

You know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about, and it's painfully obvious to anyone who has actually studied.

That's hardly an argument. Really more of a call to authority without really demonstrating the validity of such an authority.

Is this your dissertation for your PhD in neckbeard science?

You don't even understand English but yet you somehow understand the universe?

It's not really a dissertation, is it?

I also have no need for a PhD.

All I did was explain the sub-atomic world using mechanical processes. It eliminates looking at physics using fields.

Fields are bullshit. Fields are magic. Invisible fields with no physical component to them are not action -> equal opposite reaction.

Our universe is not made of magic. It is a logical system which can be observed, understood, and quantified.

I'm not going to give some other website traffic just to talk about it, what are you going on about OP.

Ad hominem much? I can attempt to clarify any of the things I typed out.

I can't say that what I typed there was clear and concise.

It wasn't a dissertation or a thesis. It was me writing out those ideas as I had them. I probably won't formalize it in any way. If somebody else wants to read it, and the ideas seem correct, and they want to use those ideas, they may do so in any way that they please.

I described the universe using collisions.

Each moment of the universe all of the particles collide and move into the next frame.

This eliminates the abstraction of using fields... Fields aren't incorrect, but they must be described physical. Fields work like a domino rally... Most of the dominoes are too small to see, but you witness the action of them falling down.

All of the forces can be described like this: gravity, electro-magnetic, etc.

I also believe I explained how/why Heisenberg uncertainty operates. We cannot cut time or space into small enough slices to know the velocity and position of very small particles at the same time.

I also stated I think the universe is like a big sponge. It is squeezed and released, perhaps between every moment of the universe. This draws in and releases out virtual particles.

The virtual particles coming in are used for the collisions, when they are drawn out, they create a vacuum. I think this explains all forces.

It also reinforces relativity, I think, and explains why time/space warps at high densities.

I explained these ideas using simple examples in the posts I linked to. I understand not wanting to give a site traffic for no reason. That site is just a futurama message board where I originally posted the ideas. It's very TL;DR but it's also explained in a way that anyone, I think can fully comprehend.

I didn't make up any new vaguely defined terms, and I didn't discuss magic fields. Our universe is weights and measures.

The virtual particles may explain all of the "dark matter" and "dark energy" our current models suggest.

so you're not okay with magic fields, but you're okay with magic particles (virtual particles).

How about magic forces, like the nuclear strong force?

> It's the five posts from there down.

All of the forces can be explained with either collisions or the vacuuming effect in between frames.

The virtual particles aren't magic. They're just too small and last for too short of time to directly observe. They could be accounted for and attribute for the observations we see with everything else.

Fields are described like magic. There's a field and it's invisible, but somehow it operates on physical objects? I don't think I've ever seen fields adequately explained. I adequately explained them with collisions and vacuum.

Yes?

They pop into existence from nothing and vanish before we can look at them. How are they not magic?

Also what's with "frames". How are you defining that word in this context?

I didn't say they come from nothing. What I described only explains how our observable universe operates. It's a system in solution or under pressure.

Virtual particles have already been described in higher end physics, I didn't make up that concept. I just explained why they'd be a necessary component, and how they may function.

The "frames" are each "moment" of the universe. If you could divide time into its smallest unit, that would be a "frame" of the observable universe with every physical thing in its position.

The comparison I would make to describe "frames" or "moments" would be animation.

>been described in higher end physics.
so has dark matter, they're both made up conveniences for the sake of math. Just like imaginary physics prior to relativity. You're just trading one bit of magic for another in an attempt to explain all the things with just the one bit of magic. That's fine, but at least understand what it is that you're fundamentally doing.

>frames
Okay, time doesn't work like that. For one, you'll run into the problem where your smallest frame ends up being longer or shorter depending on the density of space. And you'll only be able to define a "smallest" by setting a universal frame of reference, which doesn't exist.

>The aether.
Dropped. Go back to the 1700s.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely hilarious. You haven't figured anything out, that anyone else hasn't already said, the issue is? This is pure analogy, which is great for explaining concepts, but proves nothing. It's like with Feynman going on about vibrations, it doesn't tell us anything, it's just conceptualization. For instance:
>Like a sponge
What does that mean in a physical context? Jack shit. Jesus Christ, this is the most cringe and hilarious post in Veeky Forums's history.

I don't think the conceptualizations are just made up for the sake of math. If I were to guess, they're based on astronomical observations with math applied to them. The issue then is missing variables.

I understand the trade off in magic. I on the other hand gave a reason for why we are not able to directly observe the virtual particles. They're too small; how small a knife do you need to bisect an object thinner than the knife's blade.

I think this is markedly different from field discussions, which do not explain how the fields work. Nor do they explain why - ie they do not utilize proper cause and effect relationships.

I won't disagree with what you said about a universal frame. I am unsure whether such a frame exists, and if it does, if it can be observed by us at this time.

As an aside, what if all things are measured relatively to the center point (in 3d space) of the universe?

I agree that it is pure analogy. It isn't a thesis or a dissertation.

Can you demonstrate the concepts are wrong? I think the concepts I presented demonstrate how the function can operate using physical causal relationships.

Which part of that is cringe and hilarious?

Are concepts only true if they cannot be explained in a simple manner? I don't think so.

The sponge was just a physical abstract analogy. Why does matter cluster into galaxies, rather than uniformly dot the universe? Why is there an acceleration outward?

The sponge is a simple concept. You squeeze it, water comes out. Hold it under water and release it, water goes in. That's how sponges physically work. Why would a sponge act differently from the universe it resides in?

Dropped in favor of "dark matter" and "dark energy".

Doesn't really matter what you call it, our astronomical observations account for something we are not directly observing.

Why would the density of space change?

The object is the entire observable universe. Does the density of the entire observable universe change from second to second?

I don't think relativity explains why time-space warps with mass.

I did. A vacuum is created as virtual particles are pulled out of the universe each "moment".

The "real" particles are touching the virtual ones with each "moment".

The real particles are drawn together from the vacuum effect.

Still going to tell me I'm wrong?

You're still not understanding, semantics isn't the language to use to describe this. Show it mathematically, or it is nothing more than English analogy.

>density of space
In this context is gravity. High enough gravity and time is slower. Time is inseparable from space, so gravity's effect on space affects time. This fact obliterates any attempt to establish a universal frame of reference with respect to time. It's just different depending on where you are with respect to a large amount of matter.
But there are no "moments", it is impossible to have a "moment" as I just explained. Where are virtual particles coming from? How are they not magic? I've not been saying you're wrong, I've been asking how what you're saying is any different or more precise.

A ball being thrown can be described with words.

A ball being thrown is a ball being thrown, not an equation written on a piece of paper.

The universe is described to us through our observation of objects in motion. It is not written in mathematics as we observe it.

Math is just a rigid framework to describe those observations in a rigid manner.

I disagree with your statement.

Okay, throw that ball into superposition and proceed describe it with words in a MECHANICAL sense. :)

My posts (which I linked to) describe why time slows down in a localized region of space which is dense.

More information is being transmitted. Ie, more collisions are occurring between "moments"/"frames" because there are more real particles colliding with one another.

In fact, this is the same thing that occurs when computers calculate collision detection. More collisions means more data calculation. This is why time seems to slow down in high dense localities (eg. A star or a black hole).


What I described does not say where the virtual particles come from, except that they come from outside our observable universe. There is no way I can yet think to observe outside the observable universe box, so my comments only apply to inside the box.


The reason I propose the virtual particles are there is because it turns the universe into a series of collisions, transmission of information. This is how they are distinctly different from fields. With the virtual particles, conservation of information, matter, and energy are complete. And they can be described in a simple way anyone, I think can understand.

This is why I think I'm right.

You can add vectors colliding with one another, right?

The ball, in fact everything, is physically touching something else that is physical with each "moment" that passes in the universe. The ball's movement is merely the result of physical vectors.

And once again, another great analogy devoid of mechanical complexity. You cannot describe everything with language, just like pure logic cannot describe everything conceptual to humanity.

That's pretty fair. I'll give it another try.


The ball is composed of lots of tiny particles which are also made of tiny particles, and in between each "moment" of the universe there are even tinier particles in between these particles.

These particles move in a combined specific direction and as they move they collide with one another. These collisions result in movement in mostly the same direction, however since each of these collisions has an equal and opposite reaction (with all of the other particles) the ball moves less in its original direction each new moment, until eventually the ball slows down to a rest.
Math is a great language, and if the things I've stated are true, they can most likely be described with mathematics. The math framework may even describe them now.

I don't feel like learning math for 20 years to figure out how to define it, which may even require new branches of math to explain.


That's why my comments are neither a thesis or a dissertation. I shared them publicly, I think they are mostly correct. If someone else wants to own them and write the math, by all means. Information should be shared.

>The ball is composed of lots of tiny particles which are also made of tiny particles, and in between each "moment" of the universe there are even tinier particles in between these particles.
Is that really adequate? Mathematics can model and map these to a working theory of the universe. Whereas what you've articulated is messy and vague.
>These particles move in a combined specific direction and as they move they collide with one another.
Which is? This is also definable in mathematics without vague abstraction.
>Math is a great language, and if the things I've stated are true, they can most likely be described with mathematics. The math framework may even describe them now.
Agreed, but that wouldn't be your discovery, just like we don't credit the Greeks with discovering atoms, whilst they did theorize them as ANALOGY.
>I don't feel like learning math for 20 years to figure out how to define it, which may even require new branches of math to explain.
Then don't claim:
>I think I figured out the universe.
Because you haven't.
>Information should be shared.
Very true and commendable; I just think you should've worded the OP a little more carefully.

I think that may all be valid, except I don't think I explained anything in a vague manner. I used context, logic, and analogies.

That said, what thread title would have gotten your attention better?

Also, last I checked, Newton's laws were written using words. I didn't know all of science was written in math. I suppose I should dump all of my knowledge of English. :rolleyes:

>I used context, logic, and analogies.
>Context
Requires semantics, mechanics doesn't.
>Logic
Is perfectly acceptable for this, considering that math is logic. However, remember logic has its limits: logical positivism.
>Analogies
See context.
>That said, what thread title would have gotten your attention better?
I think I've conceptualized the universe.

Also, last I checked, Newton was alive 375 years ago and didn't have to deal with things like superposition. I suppose we should describe everything in words for those who aren't willing to gain knowledge of mathematics. :rolleyes:

Conceptualized is a better way to put it. I fully agree.

People communicate with words, that's how I thought to share the concepts. My link has a few diagrams to demonstrate concept.

I also don't disagree that these concepts, if true, would be more useful in mathematical form.

I don't think superposition started existing after Newton died. Much of Einstein's papers on relativity are written primarily with words to describe concepts. In fact, mathematics is usually described by words first for learning.


I gain mathematics knowledge all of the time. I'm not studying topology and shit though. Most of the stuff I've described here could be modeled with fluid dynamics probably.

I work a shit ton too. Building houses and things... I probably worked 350+ days last year. So again, figuring out how to frame these concepts in a mathematical paradigm would be very time intensive for me. And if it required new mathematical concepts to describe, I'd have to figure that out, build it, propose it, and prove that it rigidly adheres to the current mathematical framework.

Not impossible tasks, but I think I'd be better off sending my time elsewhere.


If the concepts are true though, and haven't yet been combined in this manner, sharing them allows someone else who does math for a living, to share these concepts in an agreeable way.

If they are unique, and possibly correct, ideas, rather than keep them to myself, I shared them.

Did you even check my link? Typing out what I already wrote over and over is kind of tiring.

Huh?