Theory of Everything

[sscully]

Theory of Everything
Hi all,

I am hoping to start a debate. I am certain with some philosophical considerations of what I am about to say, you will "see the light". Let me first describe the system then explain the fundamental laws as results of gravity.

I will begin with a description of the universe. Infinite energy+infinite volume+gravity=universe.

In this system, there are infinite levels of existence--dimensions, if you will--each level can be observed by an observer as a planet, where the level above it is a sun, the level two above it is a black hole, with atoms, electrons, neutrinos, photons, etc. ...all formed of various levels below. This I define as the Cascading Universe. Where every level is observably the same as every other level, dependent on which level the observer happens to be on. Where the only fundamental law of nature is gravity. I have substantial observational evidence and explanation of all large-scale and small scale observations (Big Bang is wrong because distant redshift is caused by, gasp, gravity), but instead of trying to walk you through that I will just explain the fundamental laws of nature and how they are the results of gravity, in this system. The simple fact that these explanations even exist is well worth discussing in and of itself, but the evidence is very much in support of it.

First thing's first: photons have mass. There comes a point in the Cascading Universe where we can no longer observe a difference between zero and a non-zero mass, and all masses below that point function as "light"; photons are particles where the bulk flow of particles operate as a wave. Again, I have evidence of this but I am going to let the fundamental laws speak for themself, I just bring this up because its important to electromagnetism.

To make it clear, fundamental laws are laws of nature that are not the results of something else. Gravity, electromagnetism, weak interaction, and strong interaction are the four fundamental laws of nature because they are currently all considered to function separately of the others. However, it is evidenced that gravity is the only law of nature, which causes all other observed laws.

Electromagnetism. As mentioned, photons are particles, and there are an infinite level of particles below the photon that function observably as photons. Because there are infinitely smaller dimensions below our own, there are systems that can literally flow THROUGH material (this is evidenced by neutrinos flowing through the Earth). So there are materials that can flow through, say, the sun without being absorbed.

The electromagnetic field of the sun is a FLOW of the cascading systems sufficiently small that they do not get absorbed but just pass right through the sun's "empty space" between atoms. The flow comes outward, then is lensed back inward by gravity. The sooner it begins the bend back, the sooner it is lensed and to a higher degree due to gravity being an inverse of r^2, the shorter the distance it travels outward. It then passes essentially unperturbed right through the center of the sun, where gravity is the largest, and comes out the other side. Here, it again is subjected to lensing and is pulled back. This results in a bulk flow of mass. The particles flow towards the center of mass, but then after they pass the center of mass they continue on with force in the opposite direction due to gravity. Magnetic fields can be conceptualized as flows that either go with or against each other, or in part both. If they go with each other, the bulk material is attracted because the flows merge. If they go against each other, the bulk material is repelled because the flows push against one another. This can be envisioned as two streams of water running into each other directly--they don't just continue on merrily, there is huge turbulence where they meet, which results in a pressure in the opposite direction to push the bulk materials away. Alternatively, if those streams flow together, they become one stream, which is through two bodies suspended in space, and this will pull the bodies closer in what we term magnetic attraction. Magnetism itself is just an observed result of this interaction.

This is actually the phenomenon that results in all distant redshifted galaxies. The light from galaxies is literally stuck in the Great Attractor's (evidenced to be the object that the Milky Way orbits) electromagnetic flow. It travels for billions of years without being absorbed, but then finally lands at Earth after having undergone tons of uniform redshift (due to the portion of motion in the y and z direction if x the radius from the great attractor to the photon) and consistent blue and redshift due to radial motion that equals approximately zero (each cycle through returns to the same point approximately so the effects are minimal). The y and z direction is actually away from the Great Attractor to a degree, so it is always trying to fight gravity to escape it, but it is just being redshifted and lensed back in. This produces Hubble's Law. When the light reaches Earth, it can do so at any point during the lensing process back, so it can hit Earth at all angles.

Weak Interaction. Weak interaction is said to cause radioactive decay and fusion. However, the Cascading Universe theory makes it clear exactly what radioactivity is, once we recognize that it is a result of cosmological activity. This is the process of turning energy in the system (unobservable mass) back into observable mass, some of which escapes the gravity of the system. In higher mass systems such as an element that is high on the periodic table, the system will produce more mass due to its relatively larger gravitational field. Therefore, “instability” of such systems is a function of the density of the nucleus which in turn produces more mass from the light it collects. This is how beta particles, and all other radioactive emissions, are created and emitted. In doing so, the system is fluctuating in steady-states until it reaches a point where the radioactive element decays. uranium-238 decays, by way of thorium-234 and protactinium-234, into uranium-234, which is because the system is expelling energy within it until it can no longer operate in the steady-state of uranium-238, it must decay to the next level down where less energy is in the system. In doing so, excess energy is released and the next steady-state is obtained. This process would continue, resulting in all observed radioactive decay. The very act of radioactive decay is precisely what a supernova (Type II) is. This results in weak interaction explained as the result of gravity as well.

Strong Interaction. Strong interaction causes subatomic particles in the nucleus to remain bounded. F=Gm1m2/r^2. As r-->0, F-->infinity. I don't have a particularly great explanation for this one yet, but I think that may be sufficient in and of itself.

Thanks for reading. Feel free to define "gravity" in the system of infinite energy+infinite volume+gravity=universe.
-Steve Scully

 

[tashja]

Interesting. I hope you get a Nobel.

 

[sscully]

Thanks! I hope so too At this point, I am confident it's too right to be wrong. Any questions or confusions?

 

[tashja]

Actually... yes lol. I thought the total energy of the universe was close to zero.

 

[sscully]

That's a Big Bang explanation of how the universe came to be from nothing. The Big Bang, expansion of space, is all a result of the assumption by Hubble (and reasonably everyone else, given the observation!) that distant redshift was caused by recessional velocity away from Earth. It doesn't matter which redshift it is caused by, it still fits into Friedmann's equations just fine because its just an observed value of redshift that is being applied to the equation. However, after much philosophical doubt--the Milky Way MUST orbit something!--I finally realized how it could be a result of gravitational redshift, not doppler shift. The problem with gravity was it was hard to figure out precisely how gravity could cause all distant redshifted galaxies.

 

[tashja]

But I thought the redshift was caused by dark energy... didn't they win a Nobel Prize for discovering that recently?

 

[sscully]

Dark energy is made up to explain expansion of space, which is a result of the assumption of Doppler shift causing redshift. At its most fundamental level, this is the flaw in the Big Bang. Everything since has been just trying to explain the Big Bang, which is fundamentally flawed because of this assumption of Doppler shift causing redshift instead of gravity. So, yes they can fit something to the model to explain doppler redshift, but it is unfortunately wrong. I always think philosophically about these things; there is no local evidence for expansion of space whatsoever, and this is because the "local group" is basically the light that travels directly from the other galaxies orbiting the Great Attractor to Earth without any revolutions through the Great Attractor's electromagnetic field.

Edit: As someone called me out on my definition of dark energy (fairly so), I will restate. Dark energy explains the acceleration of expansion of space. However, the theory shows that photons are not massless, they are slowed down (unobservably to us, except for in light of the realization that this is what causes redshift) by gravity due to consistent redshifting through each cycle, this reduces the distance they can travel from the Great Attractor over time, which causes what we observe as an "acceleration" of the expansion of space. The rate of redshift increases as it becomes more redshifted because of this because the radial distance traveled is reduced. This increases the redshift per distance because a higher percentage of the time is spent in the orbital direction, which is where redshift is occurring (see my post below this one for explanation of that), than spent in the radial direction of motion, which additively results in 0 redshift. Therefore, the redshift per time increases with each revolution.

 

[tashja]

Ah, so you are saying that the Great Attractor's magnetic field is zapping the other galaxies photons from their energy and that is why we see a redshift?

 

[sscully]

No, the photons literally are a part of its electromagnetic field. Photons in the "galaxy of galaxies" will lens inward on the Great attractor and pass through it. When this happens, they become part of the electromagnetic field. They then are stuck in a "figure 8" looping pattern which forms the flow of the electromagnetic field. At some point, this flow will happen upon the Earth and we'll observe a distant redshifted galaxy. The light is redshifted because it is trying to escape when it is in an "orbit" portion of the Figure 8. You can think of the sum of the motions. In the radial direction, one Figure 8 motion sums up to 0. This is how blueshift would occur, but because it is equally redshifted in this process the radial motion results in an additive redshift effect of 0 (per full revolution, but it can affect the redshift if its only part way through a cycle; this is why Hubble's Law data is very inaccurate, besides the general line of the curve). However, in the orbital direction, one Figure 8 motion includes an orbital portion, and this motion in orbit causes a redshift that is not canceled out by a blueshift. This is the redshift that we observe as "all distant galaxies are redshifted". They can approach Earth at any position on Earth as well because they can hit Earth at any point in their path (directly on may hit the side of Earth facing the Great Attractor, but if it is in the process of returning towards the Great Attractor it will hit the opposite side!). The explanation of all positions and all redshifts is a strong one, considering especially that it uses gravity alone; no dark energy or expansion of space necessary.

 

[origin]

Dark energy is made up to explain expansion of space, which is a result of the assumption of Doppler shift causing redshift. At its most fundamental level, this is the flaw in the Big Bang.

I don't have time to look at your ideas. I just glanced through your posts and noticed this. It does not bode well for your ideas when you state something like this which is clearly incorrect. Dark energy is not about the expansion of the universe. The big bang and the expansion of the universe predates the idea of dark energy by many decades.

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't have time to look at your ideas. I just glanced through your posts and noticed this. It does not bode well for your ideas when you state something like this which is clearly incorrect. Dark energy is not about the expansion of the universe. The big bang and the expansion of the universe predates the idea of dark energy by many decades.

Dark energy entered the picture after observations indicated an accelerating rate of expansion. I think that "new space" or stretching of space was added to explain the expansion as described by Hubble. Two different theories, but closely connected.

 

[origin]

Dark energy entered the picture after observations indicated an accelerating rate of expandsion. I think that "new space" or stretching of space was added to explain the expansion as described by Hubble. Two different theories, but closely connected.

Yep, dark energy the hypothesized reason for the accelerating expansion of the universe and is not necessary to explain the expansion that is not accelerating.

 

[quantum_wave]

Theory of Everything
Hi all,

I am hoping to start a debate. ...

I will begin with a description of the universe. Infinite energy+infinite volume+gravity=universe.

Infinite space and energy are appealing views to me too. But I always like to pin which of the three major explanations for the existence of the universe your TOE invokes. Do you hypothesize that "God did it", "It came from nothing", or "It has always existed"?

Also, in what form or forms does the infinite energy exist? What distinguishes your theory from General Relativity and curved spacetime?

 

[sscully]

I don't have time to look at your ideas. I just glanced through your posts and noticed this. It does not bode well for your ideas when you state something like this which is clearly incorrect. Dark energy is not about the expansion of the universe. The big bang and the expansion of the universe predates the idea of dark energy by many decades.

Thanks mate, I derped up there and have now explicitly defined why the acceleration of the expansion of space is occurring. I hope you take the time to read through my posts, you will find they are surprisingly accurate using gravity alone.

 

[sscully]

Infinite space and energy are appealing views to me too. But I always like to pin which of the three major explanations for the existence of the universe your TOE invokes. Do you hypothesize that "God did it", "It came from nothing", or "It has always existed"?

Also, in what form or forms does the infinite energy exist? What distinguishes your theory from General Relativity and curved spacetime?

To answer your first question, infinite energy+infinite volume=no universe. Gravity then literally creates the universe. Therefore, gravity is in a way the creator of the universe. I am not saying there is a god--you may think what you want--but it sure is interesting to contemplate, in view of the theory. In my own personal view, everyone should at least philosophically think about this, because for me personally it was the moment I went from agnostic-leaning-towards-atheism to a theist whose philosophy is based in science.

Energy is mass, mass is energy (E=mc^2 defining this, in a way). They are one and the same; energy is just the divisibility of the mass. All mass is divisible infinitely.

As far as General Relativity, I haven't quite worked out my thoughts on that. Ultimately, I have mathematically defined the universe by a "Universal Principle of Natural Philosophy". This is an ode to Isaac Newton, who developed the equations to gravity and laws of motion in his book (translated) "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", and because I think it is absolutely essential that every step of the way we consider science philosophically (which is what natural philosophy is) when considering the structure of the universe. But, I literally replaced acceleration in the laws of motion with F/m due to F=ma, in each of the x, y, and z coordinates, where F=Gm1m(n)/r(n)^2. Here, position is solely defined as a result of gravity. Time is universal in this way. However, as particles become smaller they revolve faster. This is because as r-->0, F-->infinity, this results in two particles gravitationally lensing one another sufficiently that they are locked in an orbit about one another (like binary stars). This precisely results in the formation of larger forms of matter/mass. I believe this is what leads to time dilation; the rate of revolutions of the masses in the system. Now, why this is observed as time dilation is a bit more tricky to work out.

As far as curved spacetime, it is simply unnecessary. The only necessary things are x, y, z, t coordinates, and the combined laws of gravity and motion. This will result in the system fully defined. I think curved spacetime is just an interpretation of this, it is basically how gravity would produce our observations, but I tend to stray from calling spacetime itself curved since it is just completely unnecessary.

A lot of the questions of today's formulas really answer observed phenomenon; like the Friedmann equations are the local universe; they are only applicable until we are outside of our system of the Great Attractor, which is what causes H in the Friedmann equations, for example. Outside of that system, the equations do not define the universe; the only way to define the universe in its entirety is through including the forces of gravity of all masses in the entire universe on every other mass in the entire universe; this is because gravity has no limit on distance.

 

[quantum_wave]

To answer your first question, infinite energy+infinite volume=no universe.

I might be able to agree that energy and volume without gravity wouldn't be a very interesting place. Matter makes quite a difference in our surroundings. But maybe we should go back to what we would have if there was just infinite space and infinite energy in which no matter existed. I would still call that a "physical" universe. It is not empty, assuming that energy has some form of existence without matter.

In fact, I would simply say that in a universe filled with energy, in which no matter existed, the "energy density" was not high enough to force matter to exist. I would describe such a universe as one in which there was complete entropy.

I'm not sure you are saying that the energy could or would exist without matter, and so my musing above might be moot, but that leads to the following question before we get into the gravity/matter thing. Can energy exist in your TOE without the presence of matter? If so, what form does the energy take in space in the absence of matter?

 

[sscully]

I might be able to agree that energy and volume without gravity wouldn't be a very interesting place. Matter makes quite a difference in our surroundings. But maybe we should go back to what we would have if there was just infinite space and infinite energy in which no matter existed. I would still call that a "physical" universe. It is not empty, assuming that energy has some form of existence without matter.

In fact, I would simply say that in a universe filled with energy, in which no matter existed, the "energy density" was not high enough to force matter to exist. I would describe such a universe as one in which there was complete entropy.

I'm not sure you are saying that the energy could or would exist without matter, and so my musing above might be moot, but that leads to the following question before we get into the gravity/matter thing. Can energy exist in your TOE without the presence of matter? If so, what form does the energy take in space in the absence of matter?

Energy IS matter; they are inseparably the same. You can't separate the two because every level is formed of sublevels of mass infinitely downward. There never comes a point where there is a true energy particle that then produces the "first" mass because the universe is infinite. All energy is fundamentally purely mass. We say that photons are massless and pure energy because that is what we observe. Remember, there is a limit to how small we can measure mass before a non-zero value becomes observably zero. This is why we call photons massless, because we cannot observably measure their mass. When energy is released, it is fundamentally because the orbiting of gravitationally bounded systems is compromised; those systems then are free to interact with other systems and produce observed energy.

Oh, and I forgot to answer another question--it did not come from nothing, it always existed. The universe must be eternal, philosophically. No observation suggests otherwise except for distant redshifted galaxies which is due to the assumption of doppler shift causing that observation, which I have proof is wrong. I can get into evidence if you are interested in hearing more about that.

 

[quantum_wave]

Theory of Everything

...

I will begin with a description of the universe. Infinite energy+infinite volume+gravity=universe.

Energy IS matter; they are inseparably the same. You can't separate the two because every level is formed of sublevels of mass infinitely downward.

Would it still be correct to restate your opening line as follows:

Gravity and God might be one and the same, but the concept of God is best left to your personal philosophical views. However, Gravity is energy, and all energy is matter, therefore there is matter, it fills all space, and there is no divisibility of matter, there are just levels and sub levels of mass (We may have to look at your definitions of matter and mass later).

Can I take it that any presence of mass at one level has a different matter density than it would have at the next level?

If I exist on one sub level, and I look at any nearby object, say an apple, the mass of the apple may be at a different sub level, since I consider myself separate from the apply? Should I be afraid to eat the apple ?

Edit: I could agree with you that the universe might have always existed.

 

[sscully]

Edit: I could agree that the universe might have always existed.

Would it still be correct to restate your opening line as follows:

Gravity and God might be one and the same, but the concept of God is best left to your personal philosophical views. However, Gravity is energy, and all energy is matter, therefore there is matter, it fills all space, and there is no divisibility of matter, there are just levels and sub levels of mass.

Can I take it that any presence of mass at one level has a different matter density than it would have at the next level?

If I exist on one sub level, and I look at any nearby object, say an apple, the mass of the apple may be at a different sub level, since I consider myself separate from the apply? Should I be afraid to eat the apple ?

Gravity is how the infinite levels of mass are caused to interact. If you choose a level at random, you will observe that level as having a planet, as having a star, as having a black hole. But you the observer will be composed of that level's atoms. The apple, too, will be composed of that levels atoms, so you would receive a reasonable amount of energy from it considering you are made from the same stuff. Now, place yourself as an observer a few levels down; suddenly that planet can be observed as a black hole! All things are relative.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your question regarding matter density. Basically, each level is composed of sublevels, and there comes a point when a level's stability is compromised due to its large mass. This is evidenced by radioactivity. The only way for larger masses to form is by agglomeration of these individual systems. This agglomeration produces the next level, which is once more limited due to stability being compromised due to large mass. This continues infinitely upward and downward. The observation of each of these "dimensions" is directly a result of each "dimension" having a point where instability occurs and it must, instead, begin a new dimension of existence in order for mass to grow larger.

 

[quantum_wave]

I must say that your ideas are quite "alternative", and I'm slow to grasp. I am thinking that we are all at the same level then, here on Earth. We would be on the same level if we travel in space, but if we were to encounter a black hole, the black hole would be at a different level, and we would not comfortably be able to go there, which is easy enough to understand. But at our level, there is matter and there is space. If matter fills all space, what kind of matter is in the seemingly airy or empty space between particles and objects?