The Theory of Everything

[Mason]

Hello today I'm am going to explain the entire universe and its workings and the future of the universe in basic laymen style terms.

The universe in all it's entirety, Everything that the universe its-self consists of (not taking into account particles, liquids and solids - these are like sponges for the universe) 

the universe is only made of two temperatures (these two temperatures are Hot and Cold), they are the only part of matter, anti-matter, liquids, solids and particles that is in a consistent state,

Meaning that no matter what the element or particle is, it will always have a temperature.

I am going to post a famous picture with-in the science community, specifically in the astronomy field, The Hubble Deep Field.    

What is it that you see with-in the picture ? Millions upon Millions of particles or anti-matter, or maybe you see Millions of Galaxy's ? What i can see is Millions upon Millions of heat spots.

The different colors of the Galaxy's indicate the dominant materials creating the heat source I.e A galaxy with more earth type materials (silicone, metals, oxygen, water and earth) will give of a more dominant bright light, where as a Galaxy with more particles (methane, carbon dioxide, sulfur) will show a fainter, dimmer sort of light, although the dominate bright light does not last as long because of the constant battle between the temperatures, This also means that the fainter, dimmer light is actually hotter.

When any source of heat with-in the universe's structure can not sustain it's capability of retaining that heat, the object will implode (or super-nova) spreading what heat through what elements as far as it can (the on-going battle between Hot and Cold), I also believe that a galaxy can implode (or immense-nova) - (my own description) but this will be very-rare to watch or find.

"The Big Bang" I also believe this to be an incorrect statement, I have come to this conclusion by my own believes that i have explained above and my observations,

I will start by explaining that in every and any explosion the hottest point is either at the very start or a few seconds after the ignition has begun, 

with regards to the universe as a whole and though what i have observed though other peoples observations and images is that the universe (All of the Galaxy's, Stars and Planets) are gaining mass - The greater the mass the object has - the more heat its is able to retain, I believe that the universe cannot of started from a dense mass that exploded (The Big Bang) because the universe's temperature is heating up rather than cooling down, I call the beginning of creation "The Big Melt" (Similar to a ice-cube with all the elements frozen inside - this will also include what we call "time" or "expansion")

My theory also explains "Dark Matter", Dark matter is an invisible element, Although it is visible to our perspective as a large mass just by looking up at the sky "The dark parts of space" I Personally believe that we are able to see its affects also here on earth, Our planet earth like our sun (star) also retains heat "places such as deserts (reflection's), and heavily forest (rain) areas Provide evidence of this", The opposite of these places is the other temperature (Cold), Is evident at the north and south pole (planet earths rotational axes), I believe these places to contain the majority of  "dark matter" in the form of Ice and "Brisk Winds".

"Dark matter" as a Particle in the eyes of a astronomer should be the biggest particle ever known, given the % of hot to cold with-in the universe.

To be continued, More to come.

 

[John Cuthber]

8 minutes ago, Mason said:

To be continued, More to come.

Why?

 

[Mason]

why what mate? 

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Mason said:

I will start by explaining that in every and any explosion the hottest point is either at the very start or a few seconds after the ignition has begun, 

You start badly. The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Further, you're misusing a lot of standard science terms, like "element". 

Normally, we'd move this to Speculations, since you aren't discussing mainstream science, but that won't help because of the misconceptions. It can't stay in Philosophy because it isn't really. It looks like a big old wild guess, which you've thought about a lot but can't support with evidence. We don't discuss those, since anyone can guess, and this is a science discussion site. 

I suppose we can move this into the hard science sections and let the members correct your mistakes, but I get the feeling you might resent that. You seem to think you know a lot about science, but your foundational knowledge is suspect. You're going to get a LOT of pushback on this, so I wanted to warn you. 

And please correct mistakes people point out before continuing with more.

15 minutes ago, Mason said:

the universe is only made of two temperatures (these two temperatures are Hot and Cold), they are the only part of matter, anti-matter, liquids, solids and particles that is in a consistent state,

There is no Cold. Heat is measurable by many scales.

20 minutes ago, Mason said:

When any source of heat with-in the universe's structure can not sustain it's capability of retaining that heat, the object will implode (or super-nova) spreading what heat through what elements as far as it can (the on-going battle between Hot and Cold), I also believe that a galaxy can implode (or immense-nova) - (my own description) but this will be very-rare to watch or find.

We know from observation (and the maths) that this isn't true. Our own star would have to be 8 times more massive to go supernova. It will end its life as a white dwarf.

[Mason]

Ok i understand that it isn't in a Scientific sort of explanation and with out any sort of experiments to back it up as of yet,

To me what i am writing is sort of a blog with-in my own perspectives of life and space,

also the errors in which i have made are subjected to my perspective and understanding, but you have noticed them so that tells me that they maybe not as noticeable to others.

As i have stated, i was just stating, Sort of building, in view of my own perceptive of the universe a explanation of my beliefs ,

I didn't mean to start a debate, This is just what i believe.

[Phi for All]

45 minutes ago, Mason said:

I believe that the universe cannot of started from a dense mass that exploded (The Big Bang) because the universe's temperature is heating up rather than cooling down

I'm not sure why you think this. The Big Bang Theory describes the expansion and cooling of the universe from an earlier hot, dense state. The universe is NOT "heating up rather than cooling down".

18 minutes ago, Mason said:

Ok i understand that it isn't in a Scientific sort of explanation and with out any sort of experiments to back it up as of yet,

Back up. Nobody is asking for experiments, we're correcting misconceptions right now before we try to build anything new.

18 minutes ago, Mason said:

To me what i am writing is sort of a blog with-in my own perspectives of life and space,

This is a science discussion site. No offense, but go blog somewhere else. No soapboxing allowed, thanks. 

18 minutes ago, Mason said:

also the errors in which i have made are subjected to my perspective and understanding, but you have noticed them so that tells me that they maybe not as noticeable to others.

What?! They're noticeable to anyone who has studied science.

18 minutes ago, Mason said:

As i have stated, i was just stating, Sort of building, in view of my own perceptive of the universe a explanation of my beliefs ,

I didn't mean to start a debate, This is just what i believe.

Ah. Welcome to science, where belief can be broken down to faith (believing without questioning), hope (guessing about nature), and trust (methodically and critically examining every phenomenon for the best current explanation). We prefer trustworthy explanations to guesswork or blind acceptance.

I think you came here because you wanted to see if you're close to being "right". I hope you can appreciate that discussing science helps remove our ignorance about it. There is a lot of popular science which is forced to sensationalize and abbreviate its message for the average reader, and this work often creates more problems than it teaches good science. 

And much of what you posted isn't really up for debate. Science doesn't look for proof as much as it looks for supportive evidence, and we have mountains of evidence supporting BBT and other physics models. The question is, can you see this as constructive criticism by those with more knowledge, or can you only see mean people disagreeing with your "beliefs"?

You know, the BBT with its attendant LCDM model is perhaps the most elegant theory we have, so I'm curious why you don't think it's a good explanation. Did you actually study it before you pegged it out the window?

[Mason]

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You start badly. The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Further, you're misusing a lot of standard science terms, like "element". 

Normally, we'd move this to Speculations, since you aren't discussing mainstream science, but that won't help because of the misconceptions. It can't stay in Philosophy because it isn't really. It looks like a big old wild guess, which you've thought about a lot but can't support with evidence. We don't discuss those, since anyone can guess, and this is a science discussion site. 

I suppose we can move this into the hard science sections and let the members correct your mistakes, but I get the feeling you might resent that. You seem to think you know a lot about science, but your foundational knowledge is suspect. You're going to get a LOT of pushback on this, so I wanted to warn you. 

And please correct mistakes people point out before continuing with more.

There is no Cold. Heat is measurable by many scales.

We know from observation (and the maths) that this isn't true. Our own star would have to be 8 times more massive to go supernova. It will end its life as a white dwarf.

And our star at its center is spinning on an axes like earth and Jupiter and mars, only our star is spinning much much faster creating a lot more heat, that is how the sun spots are created, as soon as our star starts to slow down, dark matter forces it to retain its heat (light) for as long as possible until it goes super-nova spreading light (heat) to the surround areas, where the failed heat source once was, it will either become a black hole (which is cold) or gain heat via mass to become a dwarf planet

[John Cuthber]

37 minutes ago, Mason said:

why what mate? 

Why continue?

Nothing you have posted so far makes any real sense.

It would be better if you read, rather than writing.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, Mason said:

Ok i understand that it isn't in a Scientific sort of explanation and with out any sort of experiments to back it up as of yet,

To me what i am writing is sort of a blog with-in my own perspectives of life and space,

also the errors in which i have made are subjected to my perspective and understanding, but you have noticed them so that tells me that they maybe not as noticeable to others.

As i have stated, i was just stating, Sort of building, in view of my own perceptive of the universe a explanation of my beliefs ,

I didn't mean to start a debate, This is just what i believe.

!

Moderator Note

Then you should put it in your blog. This is a science discussion board. You are expected to present science, and support and defend it.

Are you prepared to do that?

 

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Mason said:

And our star at its center is spinning on an axes like earth and Jupiter and mars, only our star is spinning much much faster creating a lot more heat, that is how the sun spots are created, as soon as our star starts to slow down, dark matter forces it to retain its heat (light) for as long as possible until it goes super-nova spreading light (heat) to the surround areas, where the failed heat source once was, it will either become a black hole (which is cold) or gain heat via mass to become a dwarf planet

You should study nuclear fusion, in particular how a main-sequence star like ours burns its fuel.

Not sure what you mean by slow down. When our sun burns up all its hydrogen, it will start burning all the helium it's been fusing together. And didn't I mention that our sun CAN'T go supernova? Pretty sure I did. It's not big enough. No supernova, no black hole. And you can't know anything about the temperature of a black hole, but we certainly expect it to be very hot, as anything that dense would have to be. Neutron stars aren't as dense, but are incredibly hot and give off light as x-rays.

[Mason]

at its very center a black hole is very cold, the surroundings of the black hole are very hot because of there close proximity from what ive come to under stand from childhood is everything that is light, is hot i.e a light bulb or a fire,

and saying that there is no cold ( to us as humans ) is astonishing, we feel the cold everyday even sometimes on a hot day, if there is no cold how come there is ice at the north and south poles and also in space, which is also water.

Even mathematics explains my theory look at the fibanarchi numbers (i don't know how to spell it) every diagram explains the structure of heat and its storage system even humans maintain heat ( 37 degrees Celsius ) core body temperature.

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, Mason said:

at its very center a black hole is very cold, the surroundings of the black hole are very hot because of there close proximity from what ive come to under stand from childhood is everything that is light, is hot i.e a light bulb or a fire,

As matter is forced to become more dense, it heats up due to the pressure. The singularity at the heart of a black hole is extremely dense, and though no light can find it's way out of the time trap, we suspect it's extremely hot as well. As I mentioned in my last post, a neutron star is extremely hot, and that's a step less dense than a black hole, so there's no reason to think it has no heat.

20 minutes ago, Mason said:

and saying that there is no cold ( to us as humans ) is astonishing, we feel the cold everyday even sometimes on a hot day, if there is no cold how come there is ice at the north and south poles and also in space, which is also water.

There's only heat, and degrees of it. There's no measurement for "cold". And you moved the goalpost by stating "to us as humans". I made no such distinction.

20 minutes ago, Mason said:

Even mathematics explains my theory look at the fibanarchi numbers (i don't know how to spell it) every diagram explains the structure of heat and its storage system even humans maintain heat ( 37 degrees Celsius ) core body temperature.

You've definitely picked up many misconceptions. And you seem pretty adamant about keeping them, too. Twice now you've repeated misinformation that I corrected, and I'm certainly far from the most knowledgeable scientist here. I know you came here to teach, but since problems have been brought to your attention, can you change course and learn instead?

[beecee]

47 minutes ago, Mason said:

And our star at its center is spinning on an axes like earth and Jupiter and mars, only our star is spinning much much faster creating a lot more heat, that is how the sun spots are created, as soon as our star starts to slow down, dark matter forces it to retain its heat (light) for as long as possible until it goes super-nova spreading light (heat) to the surround areas, where the failed heat source once was, it will either become a black hole (which is cold) or gain heat via mass to become a dwarf planet

The rate of the angular momentum of the Sun has nothing to do with the heat it radiates.

Sun spots are simply regions of the Sun where the temperatures are lower then the surrounding regions.

DM has SFA to do with any of the Sun's parameters including what heat it rediates.

The Sun will not go supernova.

The Sun will not become a BH.

It will not become a dwarf planet.

Obviously you need to read up on physics and astronomy to counter your fairy tale perceptions on what you seem to believe.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Mason said:

but you have noticed them so that tells me that they maybe not as noticeable to others.

The fact that one person has noticed suggests many others will. Your post is so full of errors and misunderstandings, that I don't really know where to begin.

Are you interested what science says about the world around us (based on evidence), or do you prefer to just make up your own stories (based on nothing at all)?

If the former, then we can explain where you are wrong and help you learn. If the latter then ... meh. No one cares.

1 hour ago, Mason said:

I didn't mean to start a debate, This is just what i believe

This is a discussion forum. Specifically a science discussion forum. If you aren't interested in discussion or in science, then you may have come to the wrong pace. If you want to start a blog, I can recommend Wordpress.com

57 minutes ago, Mason said:

And our star at its center is spinning on an axes like earth and Jupiter and mars, only our star is spinning much much faster creating a lot more heat

It is spinning slower. Much slower. If you want to work it out for yourself, there is a nice exercise here: https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/4Page1.pdf (complete with answers if you can't be bothered)

 

[beecee]

24 minutes ago, Mason said:

at its very center a black hole is very cold, the surroundings of the black hole are very hot because of there close proximity from what ive come to under stand from childhood is everything that is light, is hot i.e a light bulb or a fire,

and saying that there is no cold ( to us as humans ) is astonishing, we feel the cold everyday even sometimes on a hot day, if there is no cold how come there is ice at the north and south poles and also in space, which is also water.

Even mathematics explains my theory look at the fibanarchi numbers (i don't know how to spell it) every diagram explains the structure of heat and its storage system even humans maintain heat ( 37 degrees Celsius ) core body temperature.

A few points, as with your other posts, your perceptions are nothing short of speudoscience.

Three points: [1] Cold or the degree of cold is simply the absence of heat. [2] You do not have a theory, you have a wild arse guess. [3] A BH surroundings are "hot" because of the intense tidal gravity and the rate at which it is attracting matter and breaking it down. 

1 hour ago, Mason said:

Hello today I'm am going to explain the entire universe and its workings and the future of the universe in basic laymen style terms.

No you are not.

Quote

The universe in all it's entirety, Everything that the universe its-self consists of (not taking into account particles, liquids and solids - these are like sponges for the universe) 

Speudoscientific nonsense! The universe is all that evolved from the BB.

 

Quote

the universe is only made of two temperatures (these two temperatures are Hot and Cold), they are the only part of matter, anti-matter, liquids, solids and particles that is in a consistent state,

Cold or the degree of cold is simply the absence of heat.

 

Quote

Meaning that no matter what the element or particle is, it will always have a temperature.

Correct. The absence of any heat at all would see us reach -273C or 0 degrees Kelvin something that has never been obtained in the lab, although physicists have go within a few billionths part of a degree above it.

Quote

I am going to post a famous picture with-in the science community, specifically in the astronomy field, The Hubble Deep Field. 

What is it that you see with-in the picture ? Millions upon Millions of particles or anti-matter, or maybe you see Millions of Galaxy's ? What i can see is Millions upon Millions of heat spots.

   What we see in the picture is millions of galaxies made up of many billions of stars. The same effect can be seen when viewing a forest of trees from a great distance. We are unable to discertain any individual tree and only see a carpet of green.

 

Quote

The different colors of the Galaxy's indicate the dominant materials creating the heat source I.e A galaxy with more earth type materials (silicone, metals, oxygen, water and earth) will give of a more dominant bright light, where as a Galaxy with more particles (methane, carbon dioxide, sulfur) will show a fainter, dimmer sort of light, although the dominate bright light does not last as long because of the constant battle between the temperatures, This also means that the fainter, dimmer light is actually hotter.

The different colours of the galaxies are a result of the prominence of the particular generation and population of stars present. The fainter dimmer light may simply mean it is further away. 

Quote

When any source of heat with-in the universe's structure can not sustain it's capability of retaining that heat, the object will implode (or super-nova) spreading what heat through what elements as far as it can (the on-going battle between Hot and Cold), I also believe that a galaxy can implode (or immense-nova) - (my own description) but this will be very-rare to watch or find.

Nonsense: When I was a kid I also believed in Santa Claus.

 

Quote

"The Big Bang" I also believe this to be an incorrect statement, I have come to this conclusion by my own believes that i have explained above and my observations,

I will start by explaining that in every and any explosion the hottest point is either at the very start or a few seconds after the ignition has begun, 

The BB is not an explosion: It is/was the evolution of space and time [spacetime] as we know them from a point 10-43 seconds after the initial event. The BB is overwhelmingly supported because it aligns with the observational evidence we have and the fact that it also agrees with Einstein's GR theory. The main point though is I really doubt you have made any worthwhile observations.

Quote

with regards to the universe as a whole and though what i have observed though other peoples observations and images is that the universe (All of the Galaxy's, Stars and Planets) are gaining mass - The greater the mass the object has - the more heat its is able to retain, I believe that the universe cannot of started from a dense mass that exploded (The Big Bang) because the universe's temperature is heating up rather than cooling down, I call the beginning of creation "The Big Melt" (Similar to a ice-cube with all the elements frozen inside - this will also include what we call "time" or "expansion")

Again, more nonsense. The universe is actually cooling. At present that temperature is 2.7K and was around 5000C 400,000 years after the BB.

 

Quote

My theory also explains "Dark Matter", 

"Dark matter" as a Particle in the eyes of a astronomer should be the biggest particle ever known, given the % of hot to cold with-in the universe.

To be continued, More to come.

Firstly, you do not have a theory. Secondly, DM is evidenced by the rotational periods of galaxies and other experiments such as the "Bullet Cluster".

If my comments seem rather harsh, then so be it. I'm just totally amazed how individuals can come to a public science forum, claiming to  invalidate present day cosmology from the comfort of their arm chair in front of a computer. If I were you, and I was really interested in this awesome topic of cosmology and astronomy, and not just playing games or trolling, then I would start reading a few reputable books such as "A Brief History of Time" or some of Carl Sagan's books, or even probably the best book I have ever read called "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes: Not so much a book about the bomb, but a history of late 19th century/20th century  physics,  and great scientists from Bequeral, Rhotegen, Rhuterford, Meitner, Curie, Szillard, Fermi, Bhor, Feynman, Einstein and many others.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

We're done here.

Mason, you are free to ask questions to improve your knowledge, but baseless assertions just are not going to be accepted