I think I figured out the universe

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?