Amazing Theory of Everything

[Eugenio Ullauri]

I have created this new original theory of everything it is very interesting i am working in the math of it but here are the basics.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mesi0a5eioilk1o/infiniteLoop.pdf?dl=0

infiniteLoop.pdf

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

I have created this new original theory of everything it is very interesting i am working in the math of it but here are the basics.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mesi0a5eioilk1o/infiniteLoop.pdf?dl=0

infiniteLoop.pdf

You do understand that we only have your word for that? Secondly you as yet do not have a theory, only a hypothesis: When your hypothesis is professionally critiqued and your evidence considered, is when a decision favourable or otherwise will be made. Thirdly of course you are in the wrong section...as an un critiqued hypothetical, you should be in speculations. And of course you do realise that astronomers/cosmologists and scientists in general study and research for years to achieve professional status, and as such also have access to many incredible state of the art instrumentalities, both on Earth and in space.

No as yet I have not read your hypothetical. 

[studiot]

Could someone explain to me how this topic got 5 gold stars?

 

 

[Mordred]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

. Thirdly of course you are in the wrong section...as an un critiqued hypothetical, you should be in speculations.

 

I have read the link and I don't see enough to qualify as sufficient for our Speculations forum. There is very little to work with other than misconceptions

[swansont]

21 hours ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

I have created this new original theory of everything it is very interesting i am working in the math of it but here are the basics.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mesi0a5eioilk1o/infiniteLoop.pdf?dl=0

infiniteLoop.pdf

!

Moderator Note

Discussion of any topic is to take place here, per the rules.

How does your theory predict the parameters of a geostationary orbit?

 

[Eugenio Ullauri]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Discussion of any topic is to take place here, per the rules.

How does your theory predict the parameters of a geostationary orbit?

 

Thank you for your question, please keep your mind open when reading this answer:

Right Now im uploading a youtube video explaining just that (how to apply my theory in the real world), but I will still answer it here so for clarification I recommend you to visit the video

this is my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIVjkWQa42cJAr3oBnh7O1Q

ok my theory is based that anything that you want to describe is focuser specific, so nothing exist if it is not focused (seen) by a focuser, so every focuser has limits like a camera has a limit on the resolution of its photos, if you want to predict a geostationary orbit my theory says that there is only one correct way of doing it which is that you need to focus its energy organization, so how to do that basically looking at how it behaves in order to know the energy organization parameter traditionally know as mass and acceleration in Newtonian physics, but here those parameters are threaten as energy organization, so what my theory says is that it has a different way of predicting every geostationary orbit which depends on the information the focuser can 'collect' about the system.

So it is algorithm specific, but to demonstrate this I have created an example which means a way of doing it which is as follows:

It says the most photos you take the most precision your prediction will have, which is different from Newton or Einstein in which the precision is limited by the equation.

So the thought experiment starts here:

To describe a geostationary orbit you look at the orbit and every time that you find the object has a new position (which depends on the hardware implementation) you take a photo

So you will describe the earth and the satellite in terms of its 2d size in the photo like a two dimensional array of bits (watch the video for a graphic view), in which the earth has a size of (for example) 100 and the satellite a size of 1, here size means volume that you can see in a photo which is 2d volume if you like, then you have an energy organization map which can be represented as coordinates of a 2d plane, so you do this for every frame, remember a new frame occurs when the observer notices the map has changed and takes a photo of it, ok so you have a lot of frames, so in simpler words you have a video in which you know how the energy map behaves and you timestamp each frame like saying the second frame occurred 10 seconds after the first one, the third frame occurred 5 seconds after the second one and so on, so then you have a map, so now you use that map to determine the future of the system by seeing the data you collected, so for example the data shows you that the satellite energy organization has a function with the earth's energy organization and for example that data suggests you a custom version that looks like F=ma, that is true only for this system with a limited level of precision as always, it is not universal.

So think in general classic terms the system will tell you that two systems that are the same from the point of view of Newton can behave in different way, this means that mass and acceleration is not enough to determine it because two objects with the same mass and acceleration which is enough to say they are the same in Newtonian physics, so my theory says that mass and acceleration are simply not enough to know if to objects are the same, what you need to know is its energy organization, to clarify this image two systems that are the same for newton, so what my theory says is that the newton law will break after a "time" because the different organization makes one system to change its "mass" in a different way than the other, so if you apply newton after some time on both systems you will found that the systems are not the same and you don't know why, because newton f=ma is not enough to describe it.

Since my theory takes in account only the easiness of density change if you like you will have parameters like a measure of the force in Newtonian physics which is given by how easy is for the system of two objects to become one object and that easiness is what determines the orbit of the satellite, that easiness can only be defined by watching the system's behavior.

So if you take a frame of reference you can describe it as the ''time'' of each orbit, and how it varies from orbit to orbit and simply you create an equation that satisfies that like a function of something that something is the behavior of the system.

Which is a video so basically you watch the video and predict what will happen next in the video by analyzing the easiness of the system to become denser and also if is the case how that easiness changes in "time".

like f(x), for every system you focus, that f(x) is defined by observation, and saying the observation suggest this amount of difficulty for this objects to merge, this is not a concrete way of solving your problem, so you may spected something like f=ma, but the most important fact about my theory says that you simply cannot define such equation and spect to be universal, because it all depends on the info the observer has of the system that info changes a lot if you are in a different "neighborhood" (check video). 

So I used the word time in this answer but my theory says that time does not exist so I use time because I don't have a word that would represent a frame of reference of the implementation, so I use time as a tool to do calculations but time does not exist in reality so time is just a word to define a concept not a physical part of the universe. 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Eugenio Ullauri
missed a clarification of Newton's law

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

Thank you for your question, please keep your mind open when reading this answer:

Right Now im uploading a youtube video explaining just that (how to apply my theory in the real world), but I will still answer it here so for clarification I recommend you to visit the video

!

Moderator Note

Rule 2.7 (emphasis added)

 

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

 

ok my theory is based that anything that you want to describe is focuser specific, so nothing exist if it is not focused (seen) by a focuser, so every focuser has limits like a camera has a limit on the resolution of its photos, if you want to predict a geostationary orbit my theory says that there is only one correct way of doing it which is that you need to focus its energy organization, so how to do that basically looking at how it behaves in order to know the energy organization parameter traditionally know as mass and acceleration in Newtonian physics, but here those parameters are threaten as energy organization, so what my theory says is that it has a different way of predicting every geostationary orbit which depends on the information the focuser can 'collect' about the system.

So it is algorithm specific, but to demonstrate this I have created an example which means a way of doing it which is as follows:

It says the most photos you take the most precision your prediction will have, which is different from Newton or Einstein in which the precision is limited by the equation.

So the thought experiment starts here:

To describe a geostationary orbit you look at the orbit and every time that you find the object has a new position (which depends on the hardware implementation) you take a photo

So you will describe the earth and the satellite in terms of its 2d size in the photo like a two dimensional array of bits (watch the video for a graphic view), in which the earth has a size of (for example) 100 and the satellite a size of 1, here size means volume that you can see in a photo which is 2d volume if you like, then you have an energy organization map which can be represented as coordinates of a 2d plane, so you do this for every frame, remember a new frame occurs when the observer notices the map has changed and takes a photo of it, ok so you have a lot of frames, so in simpler words you have a video in which you know how the energy map behaves and you timestamp each frame like saying the second frame occurred 10 seconds after the first one, the third frame occurred 5 seconds after the second one and so on, so then you have a map, so now you use that map to determine the future of the system by seeing the data you collected, so for example the data shows you that the satellite energy organization has a function with the earth's energy organization and for example that data suggests you a custom version that looks like F=ma, that is true only for this system with a limited level of precision as always, it is not universal.

So think in general classic terms the system will tell you that two systems that are the same from the point of view of Newton can behave in different way, this means that mass and acceleration is not enough to determine it because two objects with the same mass and acceleration which is enough to say they are the same in Newtonian physics, so my theory says that mass and acceleration are simply not enough to know if to objects are the same, what you need to know is its energy organization, to clarify this image two systems that are the same for newton, so what my theory says is that the newton law will break after a "time" because the different organization makes one system to change its "mass" in a different way than the other, so if you apply newton after some time on both systems you will found that the systems are not the same and you don't know why, because newton f=ma is not enough to describe it.

Since my theory takes in account only the easiness of density change if you like you will have parameters like a measure of the force in Newtonian physics which is given by how easy is for the system of two objects to become one object and that easiness is what determines the orbit of the satellite, that easiness can only be defined by watching the system's behavior.

So if you take a frame of reference you can describe it as the ''time'' of each orbit, and how it varies from orbit to orbit and simply you create an equation that satisfies that like a function of something that something is the behavior of the system.

Which is a video so basically you watch the video and predict what will happen next in the video by analyzing the easiness of the system to become denser and also if is the case how that easiness changes in "time".

like f(x), for every system you focus, that f(x) is defined by observation, and saying the observation suggest this amount of difficulty for this objects to merge, this is not a concrete way of solving your problem, so you may spected something like f=ma, but the most important fact about my theory says that you simply cannot define such equation and spect to be universal, because it all depends on the info the observer has of the system that info changes a lot if you are in a different "neighborhood" (check video). 

So I used the word time in this answer but my theory says that time does not exist so I use time because I don't have a word that would represent a frame of reference of the implementation, so I use time as a tool to do calculations but time does not exist in reality so time is just a word to define a concept not a physical part of the universe. 

Does your video include a mathematical model one can use to predict results?

 

[Markus Hanke]

10 hours ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

that easiness is what determines the orbit of the satellite, that easiness can only be defined by watching the system's behavior

I honestly do not understand what you are actually trying to do here - the purpose of physics is to make models about physical systems, from which we can then produce new predictions that weren’t known before. If we first have to “watch” the system before we can describe it, then this completely defeats the purpose. Furthermore, the universe is inherently quantum and not classic, and in the quantum world you cannot “watch” the system before you describe it, because any act of observation will irrevocably change the system. Your overall idea does not make any sense to me.

In the specific case of classical gravity, the motion of a test particle does not depend on its internal composition or energy configuration - it depends only on the geometry of spacetime. Furthermore, all relevant quantities in this context are covariant in nature (they are tensors), so they specifically do not depend on the observer at all.

Lastly, gravity as we observe it in the real world would not exist if the universe had only three dimensions, so time most definitely is quite physically real.

[Eugenio Ullauri]

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I honestly do not understand what you are actually trying to do here - the purpose of physics is to make models about physical systems, from which we can then produce new predictions that weren’t known before. If we first have to “watch” the system before we can describe it, then this completely defeats the purpose. Furthermore, the universe is inherently quantum and not classic, and in the quantum world you cannot “watch” the system before you describe it, because any act of observation will irrevocably change the system. Your overall idea does not make any sense to me.

In the specific case of classical gravity, the motion of a test particle does not depend on its internal composition or energy configuration - it depends only on the geometry of spacetime. Furthermore, all relevant quantities in this context are covariant in nature (they are tensors), so they specifically do not depend on the observer at all.

Lastly, gravity as we observe it in the real world would not exist if the universe had only three dimensions, so time most definitely is quite physically real.

Finally someone that actually at least took a time to think about it, thank you, you are the first person, i will love to clarify your questions.

Yeah historically the purpose of physics has been to create theories you can make future predictions with my theory but what the theory says is that you will never be sure if your prediction is right if you don't observe it .

i am not promoting a product im giving this away for free and i tell you guys to watch my youtube channel because it will help you to understand what im trying to say because it is difficult to understand so that is why the most important thing is to keep your mind open.

So lets continue answering your questions,

Yes the observer changes the state of the universe because it is a part of it but this theory says that when you watch something you are watching its behavior so it does not matter what caused the behavior it can be itself or the observer actually what my theory says is that the whole universe organization causes that behavior and of course the observer is part of the whole energy organization.

I know that my idea may not make sense to you but to understand it you have to open your mind forget any assumptions that classical physics or quantum physics make.

There is no dimensions gravity is the behavior of energy my theory calls gravity to every interaction so in my theory there is not electromagnetism, weak nuclear, string nucleal, my theory can be summarized as follows:

 

Energy is all that exists, and energy has only one behavior which is change its density.

The only objective of energy is to become denser as much as it cans and when it cannot keep increasing its density, it decreases its density again and makes the infinite loop density cycle which means that there is not a beginning of the universe and wont be an end because the universe is an infinite loop in which the whole existing energy changes its density in an infinite loop fashion.

A observer is a kind of energy organization that focuses energy organization that is why i use the word focuser to refer to an observer, for something to exist it has to be seen, you don't know if your dog is alive if you don't look at it, but this is different from saying your dog is alive and dead at the same time, this theory says that you don't know this means the dog does not exist until you look at it, because if you think about what does to exist means is to be focused if you don't believe try to say that something exists without looking it, you know your mom was alive the last time you saw or talk to her, but now you simply don't now.

 

There is no time there is just energy and how its organized and follows only one behavior which is the infinite loop density cycle, who needs time is an observer as a tool to describe what it sees again im uploading another video that explains just this i hope im not banned for saying that.

If i did ont answered your questions just tell me i will answer every kind of question you guys ask.

 

7 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Rule 2.7 (emphasis added)

 

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned

 

 

 

Does your video include a mathematical model one can use to predict results?

 

Yes it does include a mathematical model to predict results please check it

[Mordred]

No thanks I got about as far as 1 minute into the first video and lost the willingness to go further.

Your equations are very simple to post here as per the rules we should not need to goto a youtube video to see the equations involved in your theory.

First and foremost mistake. Energy doesn't exist on its own it is a property of a system or state that determines its ability to perform work. A universe isn't defined as only the energy components.

Keeping our minds open should also involve following proper physics terminology....

PS I have no idea why every speculator that comes to these forums always think they have invented a ToE yet non of them even know what a ToE involves ......

ie the gauge groups that describe all inter-particle interactions ie under standard model though gravity is still problematic [latex]SO(3)\otimesSO(2)\otimes(U(1)[/latex] of thee standard model for starters. What you have is nothing towards a ToE...you cannot predict any particle reactions with what you have

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Eugenio Ullauri]

What i mean when i say energy is stuff, is everything that exists i mean everything that exists i call it energy, and i say it has only one behavior which is called the infinite loop density cycle.

If you ask specific questions like how your theory explains charges, black holes, universe expansion, information paradoxes, etc etc etc i will find it very easy to answer what im saying is that i must be able to answer every question with my theory otherwise my theory does not work and since i invented it which was in the end of 2015 i spent almost 3 years finding all unsolved questions any question and i was able to answer it using my theory, so i decided to make it public to know if someone can come out with a question that my theory cannot answer in that way i will now i'm wrong, so i encourage all of you to ask questions.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Eugenio Ullauri
spelling error

[Sensei]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

PS I have no idea why every speculator that comes to these forums always think they have invented a ToE yet non of them even know what a ToE involves ......

I know. They want to be famous.. But learning entire quantum physics would be too much of work and effort for them..

 

 

[Mordred]

ggNo use proper terminology energy has a specific meaning under physics. It is utterly nonsense to describe energy as everything in existence or as its own substance.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Eugenio Ullauri]

Well yes i need to create a word that represents matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy.

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No thanks I got about as far as 1 minute into the first video and lost the willingness to go further.

Your equations are very simple to post here as per the rules we should not need to goto a youtube video to see the equations involved in your theory.

First and foremost mistake. Energy doesn't exist on its own it is a property of a system or state that determines its ability to perform work. A universe isn't defined as only the energy components.

Keeping our minds open should also involve following proper physics terminology....

PS I have no idea why every speculator that comes to these forums always think they have invented a ToE yet non of them even know what a ToE involves ......

ie the gauge groups that describe all inter-particle interactions ie under standard model though gravity is still problematic Undefined control sequence \otimesSO of thee standard model for starters. What you have is nothing towards a ToE...you cannot predict any particle reactions with what you have

 

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

No use proper terminology energy has a specific meaning under physics

 

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I know. They want to be famous.. But learning entire quantum physics would be too much of work and effort for them..

 

 

I'm saying i can answer ANY question so im waiting for your questions.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

Well yes i need to create a word that represents matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy.

 

 

Universe.

[Mordred]

Why would you need to do that if you understand the relations between energy and matter with the proper terminology ? ie energy represents the ability of some arbitrary particle to perform work...

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Sensei]

7 minutes ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

i will find it very easy to answer what im saying is that i must be able to answer every question with my theory otherwise my theory does not work and since i invented it which was in the end of 2015 i spent almost 3 years finding all unsolved questions any question and i was able to answer it using my theory, so i decided to make it public to know if someone can come out with a question that my theory cannot answer in that way i will now i'm wrong, so i encourage all of you to ask questions.

Okay.

Here you go:

- annihilation modes of proton-antiproton.

- decay energy of Uranium-238.

Do you want simpler questions?

- decay energy of Tritium.

- helium-4 spectral lines

 

4 minutes ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

I'm saying i can answer ANY question so im waiting for your questions.

Try the above four for a start..

ps. Obviously I am not expecting explanations using plain WORDS.. Just equations which will match experimental data..

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Sensei

[Mordred]

oK try this calculate the range of the four forces and their coupling constants.

this ties into the mean lifetime which depends on energy and the velocity of said particle. (also involves the allowable decays) ie if there is no particle the original can decay to via various conservation laws of the eightfold wayen its mean lifetime will reflect that)

This is what is involved in a GUT which a ToE completes to include gravity which is the missing piece to unify and renormalize.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf

we can already unify the other 3 forces gravity is the problematic one.

lets try this wiki descriptive of a ToE.

"A Theory of Everything would unify all the fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism. Because the weak interaction can transform elementary particles from one kind into another, the ToE should also yield a deep understanding of the various different kinds of possible particles. The usual assumed path of theories is given in the following graph, where each unification step leads one level up"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

like I stated previously very few speculators even know what a ToE entails.....

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Eugenio Ullauri]

Infinite Loop Density Cycle

2018

by: Eugenio Ullauri

I introduce my theory of everything which i created in 2015 but decided to make it public in 2018

So the Universe is everything that exists i see it as one object which i call the whole, and all is about how it is organized following a behavior i call the infinite loop density cycle, which simply says that the whole changes its density forever.

So the whole density increases until it becomes unstable, which means that it cannot handle its density because does not have enough energy to keep growing at a stable rate, the density increases until it cannot increase more and then is decreases and increases again, in an infinite loop, so the whole (universe) is a never ending chemical reaction of energy, here energy is everything that exists.

So this theory says that the universe is limited but it is impossible to know where it ends because of limits of the observer's "hardware"  so a observer will never be able to know where the universe ends.

In this sense there is not space or time there is just energy and how it is organized like a 2 dimensional array of bits, energy is organized depending on the focuser's "hardware" this means that for something to exist it has to be observed which i call as "focused" so an object exists only for the focuser that is focusing it and when the focuser looks to another direction the previous focused object stops existing.

This theory explains every phenomena (behavior) of the universe in function of the density of the whole (energy), so when electrons were formed their properties were determined by the whole's (universe) energy organization.

So there was a low density particles "cloud" ad the organization of that cloud determines how that cloud follows the density cycle, so lets say there were 9 (nine) of these low density particles in this cloud which is becoming denser and has such energy organization which enables two of there low particles to merge into a denser particle but the other 7 can just move around because the energy organization does not allow for more "merges", that is why electric charges, weak nuclear, strong nuclear force exists, just because when those particles were arranged the energy organization was such to make 95% of stuff to be hydrogen for example only later when the energy organization was such two hydrogen atoms could fuse into a helium one, so i hope you understood this idea if not please make questions so i can clarify them.

So this theory says that describing the universe is an implementation-specific task, because focusers (observers) are limited machines, this means for a focuser A the most detailed energy organization it can focus or the deepest it can go is 10 square centimeters for example and for another focuser B it is 10 square nanometers, and so on.

So that is the same as how the resolution of a camera determines the amount of information that the camera can "collect".

I can describe the universe with a 2d array of bits, or maybe using fields, or anything else which is implementation specific but i need to remember that there is only one thing which is energy and has only one behavior which is the infinite loop density cycle.

 

Thank you for your questions i will solve them as soon as possible while i do that please read and try to understand what i have written above

Edited June 11, 2018 by Eugenio Ullauri
spelling error

[Mordred]

All righty then you claim to have worked on this for years calculate the expansion rates due to density variations of matter, Lambda and radiation over they history of the universe.

Can you show these calculations and using those calculations define the age of the universe.

You claim to be able to answer every question so lets see the proof.

Your entire shutter speed and camera analogies makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

I'm saying i can answer ANY question so im waiting for your questions.

I'll make this a formal question. How will your concept change knowing that energy is not a thing unto itself (Can you hold energy in your hand? Can I borrow a cup of it?), but rather a property of things? 

Also, won't you always fail dimensional analysis when you use time for part of your idea but then claim it doesn't exist in other parts? 

No offense, but this seems like an idea you got because it "made more sense" than what mainstream science offered you. IOW, it's full of imprecision and misunderstandings that would be obvious to you if you'd studied formally. Very common for smart humans to stitch together disparate ideas to make a recognizable pattern they can deal with, which is one reason why we need science.

[Mordred]

23 minutes ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

 

This theory explains every phenomena (behavior) of the universe in function of the density of the whole (energy), so when electrons were formed their properties were determined by the whole's (universe) energy organization.

 

 

great then show how an electron has to polarity states spin up and spin down under calculation. Show why it has antisymmetric relations involving the Pauli exclusion principle as opposed to a symmetric boson of integer spin. Lets start with those simple properties.

You mentioned blackholes predict the proper time and coordinate time for an infalling particle ? You can use any mass value for the BH you choose to do so.

23 minutes ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

 

So the whole density increases until it becomes unstable, which means that it cannot handle its density because does not have enough energy to keep growing at a stable rate, the density increases until it cannot increase more and then is decreases and increases again, in an infinite loop, so the whole (universe) is a never ending chemical reaction of energy, here energy is everything that exists.

 

Any calculations to define when a given density becomes unstable ? what ever that is suppose to mean when density is simply its mass per unit volume ?

[latex]\rho=\frac{m}{v}[/latex]

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Eugenio Ullauri]

27 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Okay.

Here you go:

- annihilation modes of proton-antiproton.

- decay energy of Uranium-238.

Do you want simpler questions?

- decay energy of Tritium.

- helium-4 spectral lines

 

Try the above four for a start..

ps. Obviously I am not expecting explanations using plain WORDS.. Just equations which will match experimental data..

 

 

24 minutes ago, Mordred said:

oK try this calculate the range of the four forces and their coupling constants.

this ties into the mean lifetime which depends on energy and the velocity of said particle. (also involves the allowable decays) ie if there is no particle the original can decay to via various conservation laws of the eightfold wayen its mean lifetime will reflect that)

This is what is involved in a GUT which a ToE completes to include gravity which is the missing piece to unify and renormalize.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf

we can already unify the other 3 forces gravity is the problematic one.

lets try this wiki descriptive of a ToE.

"A Theory of Everything would unify all the fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism. Because the weak interaction can transform elementary particles from one kind into another, the ToE should also yield a deep understanding of the various different kinds of possible particles. The usual assumed path of theories is given in the following graph, where each unification step leads one level up"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

like I stated previously very few speculators even know what a ToE entails.....

 

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

All righty then you claim to have worked on this for years calculate the expansion rates due to density variations of matter, Lambda and radiation over they history of the universe.

Can you show these calculations and using those calculations define the age of the universe.

You claim to be able to answer every question so lets see the proof.

ook lets Start if i miss a question please tell me:

1.Annihilation modes of proton - antiproton

So first what is dark matter?, so as you know my theory says that all is the same and i call it energy so dark matter is an object that is organized in a way that it causes a suddenly "fast, violent" drop of density of another object, so is like saying rubber is a magnet of human hair, or traditional magnets are magnets of metal, you need two objects to talk about anti matter which is obvious right?

So what does it mean for a proton and an anti proton to be annihilated?

Well as my theory says there is not possible to destroy energy so annihilated is at least a bad term to refering to what happens when particles like a proton and antiproton interact, so annihilation is not possible, what does happen is the change of energy organization of the system changes "a lot" because these objects are "programmed" or have an energy organization that interact a lot like when you arrange magnetic poles of a material to transform it into a magnet.

So you can get a lot of flavors of particles depending on the system's energy organization, but the density cycle of course makes the most stable energy organizations to stay as an object and the unstable ones become less denser.

So what this implies is that imagine that you want to create a black hole here in the earth so to do that you need a minimum size of it in order for it to be stable lets call that size 5 but if you are in another galaxy or even local group in order to have a stable black hole you need a size 6 black hole for example, but why?

Well because the energy organization of the neighborhood is not compatible with a different size black hole which is the same as saying the neighborhood energy organization is not compatible with anti-protons but if you travel to a very far away local group in which its energy organization may allow the antiproton to exist or to decay a lot slower for example.

What i want to say is that this is like any event is just changing energy organization so in this sense you can create any kind of particle like programming energy depending on the enrgy organization of the system, so that is why the standard model has lots and lots of particles is like a byte can be organized in 256 different ways, but energy organized into the ways its environment allows it to do and everything is hardware dependent if you have a 2mpx camera you will describe the event in one way and if you have a 200mpx one you will describe it in a different way so this is algorithm specific.

Again if you need clarification just ask for it

So i will publish these one and then i will continue to answer the next questions to avoid alot of waiting .

 

Wow im very excited about your questions all of them are great questions please wait i promise i will answer ALL of them

[Mordred]

Did you forget the request for the precise calculations ? All I read in the above is more misconceptions particularly on DM. I don't care how well you verbally describe things or not. The purpose of physics is to calculate how A affects B not how you describe it.

If you cannot for example calculate the Chandreskar limit of a star to when it collapses to a BH then your model is useless in physics.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Eugenio Ullauri]

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'll make this a formal question. How will your concept change knowing that energy is not a thing unto itself (Can you hold energy in your hand? Can I borrow a cup of it?), but rather a property of things? 

Also, won't you always fail dimensional analysis when you use time for part of your idea but then claim it doesn't exist in other parts? 

No offense, but this seems like an idea you got because it "made more sense" than what mainstream science offered you. IOW, it's full of imprecision and misunderstandings that would be obvious to you if you'd studied formally. Very common for smart humans to stitch together disparate ideas to make a recognizable pattern they can deal with, which is one reason why we need science.

Ok its my fault but when i say energy i mean to a concept that refers what is traditionally know as all like: matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy

Time is like language or numbers used as a frame of reference like words but it is not something real the only real thing is energy, so i should call it like time = any frame of reference for an observer to do calculations is like the meter or the centimeter or the amount of coins in a video game so it just language.

My langueage is not the best that is why asked you to make questions and i have published a youtube video in which i calculate real world examples so here you can find it

 

That uses the concept of frames which i have introduced in here:

 

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Did you forget the request for the precise calculations ? All I read in the above is more misconceptions particularly on DM. I don't care how well you verbally describe things or not. The purpose of physics is to calculate how A affects B not how you describe it.

If you cannot for example calculate the Chandreskar limit of a star to when it collapses to a BH then your model is useless in physics.

Check videos because the main point of the theory is that you need to observe a given system to calculate it so ...