A theory of everything. The truth about creation.

[graybear13]

This theory begins with an understanding of puissant emergent energy (PEE) that fills the content of space.  It is an ocean of neutrinos in their natural state (no heat, no charge and beyond the speed of light) before they slow down and cycle through an atomic creation.  When ejected from an atomic organization through some kind of atomic decay or disintegration, the neutrinos speed up and move back to their natural state.  When the PEE slows and whirls into the electronic organization of matter, the incessant pull of gravity is created.  Gravity is a pull on the PEE field by an electromagnetic atomic system.  Neutrinos being pulled in and condensed into a nucleus is the negative charge (-).  When the negative charge becomes strong enough, protons ignite with a positive charge(+) and emit light and hear radiation.  

 

Evidence of the existence of Puissant Emergent Energy (PEE)

1.  Zero point energy is PEE.  Scientists have proven the existence of this energy, but fail to recognize its power.  It is difficult to imagine an energy field with zero heat and zero charge that is powerful enough to create, contain and maintain all atomic activity but it does exist.  The fact is, PEE fills and dynamically energizes all of space-time that is not occupied by atomic activity.  That is 96% PEE compared to 4% atomic activity and heat.  

2.  The discovery of neutrinos.  They are direct evidence of PEE.  

3.  CMBR.  This radiation, discovered in 1965, is PEE rays as they rain down on earth.  

4.  Dark energy and dark matter.  These are just areas of higher or lower concentrations of neutrinos (PEE).  A gravity warp pulls PEE in causing higher concentrations of neutrinos around matter = dark matter, while in some areas of deep space there may be only a few neutrinos per cubic meter = dark energy.  

5. Spooky action action at a distance.  Everything that happens within the PEE field is influenced by the PEE field.  All atomic heat and activity is created by the field and is really nothing more than disturbances in the PEE field.  

6.  Gravitational waves.  What, exactly, are these waves traveling through?  Certainly not empty space.  They are traveling through the PEE field. 

7.  The strong force.  The gravitational condensation of PEE alone is not a powerful enough force to create and hold protons together in a nucleus.  There is another force that enhances gravitational force to be able to hold the atom together.  This force is collapsing  concentric spheres that allow electrons to orbit the nucleus at different distances from the nucleus.  This part of the atomic structure is very similar to the taurus.  As PEE is moved toward the nucleus, electrons jump between orbits.  I believe this is when photons are created.  All of this is part of the negative charge (-).  

8.  Image of CMBR.  These images show a tapestry of atomic energy overlaid on the PEE.  

 

Gravity.

Gravity is not an attraction of one mass for another mass, it is the attraction that mass has for PEE.  All atomic matter in the universe does not pull on all other matter in the universe, so there is no need for a cosmological constant, although I'm sure that the PEE acts as a cushion between atomic systems.  Scientists like to use the bowling ball on a trampoline to demonstrate how gravity causes a warp in space-time.  This thought experiment presents an over simplification of the warp in space-time(PEE) because it doesn't give a complete 3-dimensional representation of the warp.  In this experiment the bowling ball causes the warp on the trampoline, but in reality, enhanced gravity causes the warp in the PEE that causes the mass, not the other way around. MASS DOES CREATE GRAVITY.  GRAVITY CREATES MASS.  This confusion causes scientists to have gravity at or near zero in the micro world when in reality the enhanced gravity that creates an atom is powerful enough to hold the system together.  PEE plus vortical motion equals gravity.  Any collapsing cloud of gas creates a gravitational pull on the source of particles.  How does this simple condensation move from this relatively weak force to the power of collapsing concentric spheres?  Lets say, the collapsing condensation is a black hole of PEE with the classic image of large diameter at the event horizon end and tapering down to a point, or tip, at the other end.  Now take two black holes and join them at their tips so that each one is pushing against the others impetus toward a singularity.  I predict this will result in the collapsing spheres and atomic ignition.  I call this structure/framework the genesis particle (GP).  This is what scientists refer to as a "warp in space-time". So you can see that in this theory, in the micro, the (GP) will pull in PEE and transform the PEE into an atom.  In the macro the GP will pull in atoms, matter and PEE and transform this into star ignition.  

Now the obvious question is why do I feel like the earth is pulling on me?  Even though science believes that neutrinos do not interact with matter, in this theory they most certainly do.  All of the GPs for each atom of the earth are pulling in PEE and I am standing in the stream.  I have heard that billions of neutrinos per second are passing through one square inch of my body.  As the flow of neutrinos passes by, the GPs of the atoms in my body pull on the neutrinos flowing toward earth.  This causes a push on my cells and is what we measure and call the pull of gravity.  So, actually it is the push of gravity that causes one mass to move toward another.  If, in the macro, a small mass slowly approaches a large mass, it will be ensnared by the collapsing spheres of GP and be pushed into an orbit around the larger object,  All of the calculations about the affect of gravity are, of course, spot on.  It's just the concept that the larger mass exerts some kind of mysterious pull on the smaller object that is in error.  The larger mass pulls only on the PEE field with its GP.  

I believe that I can create a genesis particle (GP) in earths gravity field which will set up it's own gravity field, separate and apart from earths gravity field.  When this GP becomes strong enough, anything inside the new gravity field will not be affected by earths gravity field.  The GPs of all the atoms inside the collapsing spheres will feed on PEE in the spheres, not the PEE racing toward the earth.  this eliminates the push toward earth. This will, in effect, create a bubble inside earths gravity field where no gravity force except it's own will exist.  Anything inside the GP will be weightless with reference to the earth and be able to move around in earths gravity field with zero g-force.  When a machine is built that will create a GP we will be able to harvest energy from PEE.  BTUs per ton to move stuff around on earth will be reduced by as much as 90%.  That alone would be worth trillions of dollars to the world economy per/year.  Not to mention completely retooling our vehicle industries.  It would usher in another industrial revolution, clean this time.  We should take a fraction of the collider money and build GP gravity machines.  

 

regards,

graybear aka jag

 

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."  Einstein

 

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Due to the non-mainstream nature of this idea, I'm moving it to Speculations. Please read the special rules that pertain to this section, and support your claims with evidence.

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

It is an ocean of neutrinos in their natural state (no heat, no charge and beyond the speed of light) before they slow down and cycle through an atomic creation.

This makes zero sense.

What is the "natural state" of neutrinos? They only have one state (but three flavours  )

What does "no heat" mean?

Why say "no charge"? We know neutrinos have no charge (the clue is in the name).

Nothing, not even neutrinos can travel faster than light.

What does "cycle through an atomic creation" mean? Neutrinos do not interact with anything. 

Quote

Gravity is a pull on the PEE field by an electromagnetic atomic system.

Gravity and electromagnetism are completely different. You can't get the effects of gravity from electromagnetism.

Quote

3.  CMBR.  This radiation, discovered in 1965, is PEE rays as they rain down on earth.  

This is not "PEE rays as the pee down on Earth". It is electromagnetic radiation with a black body spectrum; not neutrinos.

Quote

Even though science believes that neutrinos do not interact with matter, in this theory they most certainly do.

What science knows is based on evidence. What you claim is based on your fairy tale.

 

Almost every sentence in your post is wrong and/or nonsense. So I have given up commenting on it.

 

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."  Einstein

You can't solve them by just making up nonsense.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

This theory begins with an understanding of puissant emergent energy (PEE) that fills the content of space.  It is an ocean of neutrinos in their natural state (no heat, no charge and beyond the speed of light) before they slow down and cycle through an atomic creation. 

How do they do this? Move at v > c, and also "slow down and cycle through an atomic creation"

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

When ejected from an atomic organization through some kind of atomic decay or disintegration, the neutrinos speed up and move back to their natural state.

Atomic organization?

I thought you said the natural state was moving at v > c. Neutrinos from atomic decay move at v < c

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

  When the PEE slows and whirls into the electronic organization of matter

Neutrinos don't interact via the electromagnetic interaction. Just the weak interaction.

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

, the incessant pull of gravity is created.  Gravity is a pull on the PEE field by an electromagnetic atomic system. 

Gravity isn't electromagnetic, either.

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

Neutrinos being pulled in and condensed into a nucleus is the negative charge (-).  When the negative charge becomes strong enough, protons ignite with a positive charge(+) and emit light and hear radiation.  

Not via the electromagnetic interaction.

Protons ignite?

 

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

2.  The discovery of neutrinos.  They are direct evidence of PEE.  

Not by anything you have presented.

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

3.  CMBR.  This radiation, discovered in 1965, is PEE rays as they rain down on earth.  

CMBR is electromagnetic.

 

All you have here (and subsequently) is a handwave. Covered in PEE. There is no model and no evidence, so there is really nothing to debunk.

 

[MigL]

Haa-Haa-Haa
( maybe it was a joke ? )

[Ghideon]

3 hours ago, graybear13 said:

It is an ocean of neutrinos

A basic question regarding the initial statements; is the word "neutrino" in your idea the same as the standard model neutrino* or something different? 

As other members have pointed out already; your "neutrino" does not match what is already known about neutrinos.

 

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

[Mordred]

I almost pissed myself laughing so hard at this statement.

Quote

All of the GPs for each atom of the earth are pulling in PEE and I am standing in the stream

seriously though the others have already mentioned the complete lack of any valid physics in any of the OP post. So I won't add anymore clutter to them at this time. I probably will after I see the OP's reply however quite frankly I don't even want to use the terminology that the OP has used....

Simply too subjective to utter ridicule...

However that being said this thread is just another thread of a TOE that exhibits all the classical symptoms of not knowing what a TOE needs to address. Starting with a complete lack of any mathematics so zero ability to make predictions of particle behavior for testability.

For example the Standard model can predict particle scattering events, and state which particles can form from those incoming particles. I see nothing in the above that can address this critical need in a TOE.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Mordred

[graybear13]

Wow! I dare to challenge your ridiculous nonsense story of creation with one that makes sense and you get your panties in a wad.  You have spent billions of dollars trying to prove something that never happened.  Shame on you.  You took Einsteins math and reversed it in time and went off chasing a dream that was only supported by your wrongheaded backwards math. And you ended up with what?  A singularity, that makes no mathematical sense, as your source of creation.  You should have known that the whole way of thinking was bogus at that point and not conjured up the big bang nonsense that led to the biggest boondoggle in the history of the world, LHC.  I really don't understand your arrogance on the issue of creation.  

Lets take a look at what you don't know.  You don't know what gravity is.  You don't know what energy is.  You don't know what charge is.  There is a lot more, but these are the big three.  None if these are explained and defined by you big bang LIE.  You cannot get to the final answer from where your thinking has taken you.  Your math has boxed you into a corner.  You have to look at it from a different perspective; COLLAPSING INTO CREATION, 'NOT', BLOWING UP INTO CREATION.  When you look at it from that opposite thinking it will all fit together.  I don't hold out much hope that scientists will be able to change their way of thinking, but it will only take a few to make the very difficult change and tie it all together from the outside looking at a collapse into the electronic organization of matter and creation.  NO SINGULARITY.  

"We live in special times, when young and old are educated in a lie and he who dares to tell the truth, is called a madman or a fool"  Plato, 320 BC

regards, gray   

[Mordred]

If you wish to challenge the standard model on this forum you had best read the forum rules and guidelines and start producing its requirement of rigorous treatment in particular the applicable mathematics.

 

 

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

Wow! I dare to challenge your ridiculous nonsense story of creation with one that makes sense and you get your panties in a wad. 

You continue to use phrasing that suggest this is merely adolescent trolling, which, combined with your utter lack of physics, make it difficult to take this seriously.  There's nothing here to debunk, since there is little here that makes predictions which could be shown to be wrong.

15 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

 Lets take a look at what you don't know.  You don't know what gravity is.  You don't know what energy is.  You don't know what charge is.  There is a lot more, but these are the big three. 

Physics doesn't investigate these metaphysical questions — that's philosophy. Physics looks to model how things behave.

 

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

A singularity, that makes no mathematical sense, as your source of creation.

Actually, it only makes mathematical sense. I don't think anyone considers it to have any physical reality. There is no scientific theory of "creation" only some speculative ideas. There is no evidence that the universe was created at all.

32 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

You should have known that the whole way of thinking was bogus at that point and not conjured up the big bang nonsense that led to the biggest boondoggle in the history of the world, LHC. 

There is overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang theory.

I'm not sure why you think the LHC has anything much to do with it.

32 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

You don't know what gravity is. 

We have two very good theories of gravity. In one gravity is a force. In the other it is the geometry of spacetime.

If you mean we don't know what it "really" is, then that is true of everything and outside the scope of science.

32 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

I don't hold out much hope that scientists will be able to change their way of thinking

That would require evidence, which you have failed to provide. 

32 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

NO SINGULARITY. 

I think nearly everyone would agree with that. Unfortunately, we don't yet have a theory that tells us what the universe was like at the very earliest times. (And you have not contributed to that, despite your childish rant. Any "theory" that starts with "The Truth ..." can probably be dismissed.)

[Ghideon]

22 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

Wow! I dare to challenge your ridiculous nonsense story of creation with one that makes sense and you get your panties in a wad.  You have spent billions of dollars trying to prove something that never happened.  Shame on you.

I tried to give your opening post a fair chance. I had to ask for some initial clarifications but your response was not what I expected. 

[graybear13]

On 2/8/2019 at 1:04 PM, Mordred said:

If you wish to challenge the standard model on this forum you had best read the forum rules and guidelines and start producing its requirement of rigorous treatment in particular the applicable mathematics.

I am not challenging the standard model.  I am just presenting my view of  the rest of the story.  Maybe my use of the word neutrino made you think that I was somehow challenging the standard model.  I just picked the particle that fit my conception of the elementary particle of PEE.  I admit that I do not posses the math skills to prove what I say is true, but I can prove it experimentally.  

This all started with me in 1982 when I designed a machine that will create gravity.  And now, after some experimentation and evolution of thought, I believe I can create a genesis particle in atmosphere.    

gray

 

[Sensei]

On 2/5/2019 at 5:33 PM, graybear13 said:

This theory begins with an understanding of puissant emergent energy (PEE) that fills the content of space.  It is an ocean of neutrinos in their natural state (no heat, no charge and beyond the speed of light) before they slow down and cycle through an atomic creation.  When ejected from an atomic organization through some kind of atomic decay or disintegration, the neutrinos speed up and move back to their natural state.  When the PEE slows and whirls into the electronic organization of matter, the incessant pull of gravity is created.  Gravity is a pull on the PEE field by an electromagnetic atomic system.  Neutrinos being pulled in and condensed into a nucleus is the negative charge (-).  When the negative charge becomes strong enough, protons ignite with a positive charge(+) and emit light and hear heat radiation.  

Neutrinos and antineutrinos, in the all three generations of subatomic particles in Standard Model, have neutral charge (thus name).

How from particle with neutral charge Q=0 e can you get other subatomic particles such as electron, positron, pion+, pion-, kaon+, kaon-, proton and antiproton.. ?

Addition of two or more neutral charge particles Q= 0e + 0e = still gives you 0e....

However, if neutral charge particle would not have absolute and constant charge, but oscillate between let's say -2/3e, -1/3e, 0e, +1/3e, +2/3e.. then we could have more senseful discussion.. But because we're on scientific forum, you would have to make math equation which is describing such oscillation (with time as input parameter?), and how to check your idea in scientific experiment which will prove or disprove your hypothesis..

 

On 2/5/2019 at 5:33 PM, graybear13 said:

2.  The discovery of neutrinos.  They are direct evidence of PEE.  

You should start from learning how to detect neutrinos and antineutrinos. How to build your own neutrino detector, and why it's so hard.

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

 

On 2/5/2019 at 5:33 PM, graybear13 said:

3.  CMBR.  This radiation, discovered in 1965, is PEE rays as they rain down on earth.   

CMBR are normal photons. Does not require any special technology to detect them. Even your ordinary old CRT TV is able to detect them..

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Strange
osculate -> oscillate

[Ghideon]

3 hours ago, graybear13 said:

Maybe my use of the word neutrino made you think that I was somehow challenging the standard model.  I just picked the particle that fit my conception of the elementary particle of PEE.  I admit that I do not posses the math skills to prove what I say is true, but I can prove it experimentally.  

This all started with me in 1982 when I designed a machine that will create gravity.  And now, after some experimentation and evolution of thought, I believe I can create a genesis particle in atmosphere.    

Thanks for the clarification regarding neutrinos. If you post a detailed description of the experimental setup I'll take a look. Please use definitions from mainstream science or very detailed definitions to avoid further confusion.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, graybear13 said:

I am not challenging the standard model.  I am just presenting my view of  the rest of the story.  Maybe my use of the word neutrino made you think that I was somehow challenging the standard model.  I just picked the particle that fit my conception of the elementary particle of PEE.  I admit that I do not posses the math skills to prove what I say is true, but I can prove it experimentally.  

The concepts you present are at odds with the standard model, so you are in fact challenging it.

Let's see your experimental evidence.

Quote

This all started with me in 1982 when I designed a machine that will create gravity.  And now, after some experimentation and evolution of thought, I believe I can create a genesis particle in atmosphere.    

gray

Anything with mass creates gravity, but I don't think that's what you mean, in which case...no.

[peterwlocke]

On 2/5/2019 at 8:33 AM, graybear13 said:

(PEE) that fills the content of space.

man, I don't want to go to space now. eww.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, graybear13 said:

This all started with me in 1982 when I designed a machine that will create gravity.    

No you didn't.

Quote

And now, after some experimentation and evolution of thought, I believe I can create a genesis particle in atmosphere.

 No you can't.

[Bufofrog]

On 2/12/2019 at 2:18 PM, peterwlocke said:

man, I don't want to go to space now. eww.

It could be worse than PEE filling all space, it could be puissant oblate orbitals!

[graybear13]

On 2/12/2019 at 1:11 PM, Ghideon said:

Thanks for the clarification regarding neutrinos. If you post a detailed description of the experimental setup I'll take a look. Please use definitions from mainstream science or very detailed definitions to avoid further confusion.

Thank you for your interest Ghideon. 

This experiment will demonstrate the structure of the genesis particle.

  A spinning pyramid (the great pyramid of Cheops is ideal for this experiment) mounted on a hollow shaft situated in a spinning magnetic field with hot ionized gas being injected up the shaft, through and out of the pyramid.  The hot gas is ejected from opposite faces of the spinning pyramid where it is opposed by cold air.  Because of the geometry of the spinning pyramid a low pressure area will form where the hot gas is exiting the pyramid and is directly opposed by cold air.  This is similar to the principle of lift; the air passing over the wing dips because of the shape of the wing and forms a low pressure over the wing.  There is a dip in the air flow as the face of the pyramid passes.  The low pressure is a vortex.  With four jets of air aimed at the spinning pyramid. four small vortexes will form and begin to feed into a larger vortex that will become embedded in the spinning magnetic field.  As the vortex collapses it will pull in more and more gas creating stronger and stronger gravity resulting in increasing mass.  

Two vortexes with opposite spin(or the same spin ?) are joined at their tips.  The strength of their gravity is increased by the formation of the reciprocating collapsing concentric spheres of the genesis particle.  The formation of this framework of the genesis particle in the atmosphere will provide direct access to PEE and produce a strong gravitational field around itself.  It will be interesting to see how earths gravitational field is affected by this system.  I predict that the earth's gravity will be nullified in close proximity to the system. 

regards, gray 

[swansont]

42 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

   A spinning pyramid (the great pyramid of Cheops is ideal for this experiment)  

How is it ideal? You require that it spin. Is there any evidence that this is feasible?

Why a pyramid? Is there something special about using a pyramid to do this? Obviously there must be, otherwise why would you specify it? But you do not explain anything about why a pyramid is required.

Quote

mounted on a hollow shaft situated in a spinning magnetic field with hot ionized gas being injected up the shaft, through and out of the pyramid. 

How fast is this magnetic field spinning? How strong is it? In what direction does it spin? Is it really needed, if the pyramid itself is spinning?

 

Quote

Two vortexes with opposite spin(or the same spin ?) are joined at their tips.  The strength of their gravity is increased by the formation of the reciprocating collapsing concentric spheres of the genesis particle. 

The is the first mention of the genesis particle in your experiment. There is no explanation of what's going on with it. What spheres? Why do they collapse? What, specifically, is reciprocating? How is this interacting with the air vortex, and the ions?

 

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

A spinning pyramid (the great pyramid of Cheops is ideal for this experiment)

I can imagine there are a few minor engineering problems to be overcome.

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

I predict that the earth's gravity will be nullified in close proximity to the system.

I look forward to you confirming this. How long do you think it will take?

[Ghideon]

I have some questions regarding the last part*
(bold by me)

2 hours ago, graybear13 said:

As the vortex collapses it will pull in more and more gas creating stronger and stronger gravity resulting in increasing mass.

and

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

produce a strong gravitational field around itself.  It will be interesting to see how earths gravitational field is affected by this system.  I predict that the earth's gravity will be nullified in close proximity to the system. 

Is "gravity"/"gravitational field" the same as what is known from mainstream science? In the last sentence you say "nullify"; that looks like some concept of anti gravity is involved? Or maybe you mean that there will be a Lagrange point between the machine and earth if the machine is placed at an elevated point? Please clarify if we are discussing possible misunderstandings of mainstream topics or completely new stuff.  

 

*) I might return to other issues later; other members have already commented.

 

[graybear13]

On 2/14/2019 at 11:43 AM, swansont said:

How is it ideal? You require that it spin. Is there any evidence that this is feasible?

Why a pyramid? Is there something special about using a pyramid to do this? Obviously there must be, otherwise why would you specify it? But you do not explain anything about why a pyramid is required.

How fast is this magnetic field spinning? How strong is it? In what direction does it spin? Is it really needed, if the pyramid itself is spinning?

 

The is the first mention of the genesis particle in your experiment. There is no explanation of what's going on with it. What spheres? Why do they collapse? What, specifically, is reciprocating? How is this interacting with the air vortex, and the ions?

 

 

The shape of a pyramid is the only shape that will create a dip in the air flow across it's face when spinning against an opposing air mass.  The shape and tilt of the pyramid wall will determine the shape and tilt of the vortex created.  The dimensions of the great pyramid of Cheops, it seems to me, are best suited to create a spiral vortex. I don't know.  It seemed like a good place to start. 

I think that the pyramid should be the magnet.  

I don't know that spheres will manifest, but that is one of the objectives of the experiment; what will happen when two vortexes push against each other's push to continue collapsing and condensing?  Again, I don't know, but I would like to find out if a new structure will appear.  One that will increase the gravity of the two vortexes.  

All good questions.  Thank you for your interest. 

regards, gray

On 2/14/2019 at 12:00 PM, Strange said:

I can imagine there are a few minor engineering problems to be overcome.

I look forward to you confirming this. How long do you think it will take?

Thank you for your interest.

I played with a spinning pyramid for a long time as a hobby while I pursued my career as a professional land surveyor.   I injected the pyramid with cold air into hot air outside of the spinning pyramid.  When I realized that I needed to inject the pyramid with hot air into cold air outside, that is when I ran out of money.  My shade tree engineering failed and I stopped experimenting with the machine I built.  From the time I first saw the vortexes form on the spinning pyramid in 1982 until now, 36 years.   It will take some good engineering and science, neither of which I can provide, to make it happen.  How long will it be until someone is willing to fund this project?  I don't know.  After that pretty quick I think.  

regards, gray

[Mordred]

Do you have any means of showing how your spinning pyramid has anything at all to do with how particles themselves behave, interact or determine any of their properties ? Or is this merely a wild conjecture with no plausible connection ?

 I'm sure if you thought about it the vortexes you describe can be modelled with thermodynamic fluid relations. (without invoking your puissant emergent energy) for starters have you ever considered spinning this pyramid in a vacuum ? Do you think you will get the same dynamics as spinning it in an atmosphere ?