The base theory for all life and energy

[R3sili3nt]

Is the base theory for all life and energy: 1+x=2

Where 1 is a unit of a non determined unit.

x is a factor that must be present in order to affect any given change.

2 is a unit that indicates a change has occurred.

Everything else is simply an algorithm of the equation whether negative or positive.

Is that accurate?

[Phi for All]

Using your hypothesis, can you show us how the altitude of a geostationary orbit is found? This would give your idea some predictive power and allow for more precise feedback.

[Strange]

Is that accurate?

 

Hard to say. Can you show us how you would use this to calculate something, then this can be compared with observation. From that we can tell if your model is accurate or not. That is how science works.

[swansont]

Typically 2 is a number, not a unit.

 

The solution to your equation is x = 1. I don't find that particularly illuminating, unless this is calculated in base 42.

[andrewcellini]

Everything else is simply an algorithm of the equation whether negative or positive.

Is that accurate?

i don't believe that everything can be derived from that equation, no. it's quite meaningless but it has an easy solution. how did you come to this conclusion?

[R3sili3nt]

Hi,

 

Well this is definitely not an algorithmic equation or a shortcut to an answer. And you probably won't be doing astrophysic with it, unless there is a connector to base particle time space interaction. This is the understanding of how all existence operates rather in its most basic form. I think that we've never tied it together as a universal meaning. Maybe the answer to the unverse is really that simple.

I'll explain it this way: All things move by means of relative action potential- that is something reacts to something else.

This is what happens in physics, chemistry, quantum mechanics, biology, etc.

In fact this is what happens in our brains. It even goes so far as this what happens with what we're doing now- I made a statment, and there are reactions. This is how we measure things, how we judge speed, how we understand the world- how we control things, how we communicate. We can't understand the world without measuring- therefore science. We can't exist without reaction- interaction- in every form. Internally and externally.

The difference between algorithmic formulas and this base formula is like saying , if one man can move a brick, then twenty men can move twenty bricks and build a house twenty times faster. Thats all that happens in all formulas and equations (yes I know not literally, but you get the point). Some equations move at the speed of sound, some at light, others at the pace of its own atomic degradation. But we slow all of these reactions down to a stand still with hopefully one formula, or a few tied together. Then we can control them. But the base root of all those formulas begins with a simple entity chain reacting to get a larger standardized result.

It even applies when something gets destroyed. Atoms do not simply disappear. They are simply added to a new existence or form.

There is nothing in existence that doesn't follow this rule- down to the very fabric of humanity, communication, technology, and thought itself. Its how we learn (from a single thought), how we grow (DNA) Thus the universal theory that ties our existemce into one neat, elementary formula- to which we can take as many shortcuts as we please.

 

And @swansont- its not 42 LOL.

 

I wish that I could have understood it this simply when I was in high school.

Edited September 22, 2014 by R3sili3nt

[Bignose]

But the base root of all those formulas begins with a simple entity chain reacting to get a larger standardized result.

You can claim this, but no one is going to accept it without demonstrating it. Demonstrate how 1 + x = 2 can turn into any "larger standardized result".

 

I wish that I could have understood it this simply when I was in high school.

Wow, if it really easy enough for an average high schooler to get, then I really look forward to it.

[andrewcellini]

i'm confused at how an equation can move at the speed of sound, unless it's written on something going said speed or contained within it. perhaps you're shouting the equation out loud?

[Strange]

Well this is definitely not an algorithmic equation or a shortcut to an answer. And you probably won't be doing astrophysic with it

 

Then it doesn't seem to be very useful.

 

This is the understanding of how all existence operates rather in its most basic form.

 

 

So you claim. But you seem unable to explain or justify that.

 

I'll explain it this way: All things move by means of relative action potential- that is something reacts to something else.

 

Can you show ho that relates to your "x=1" equation?

 

This is what happens in physics, chemistry, quantum mechanics, biology, etc.

 

Can you show, in practical terms, how your equation describes this?

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

R3sili3nt,

The majority of replies to your posts request examples in which you apply the equation to something more concrete. Please honor that request, or this thread will be closed.

[R3sili3nt]

@Bignose

R3sili3nt, on 22 Sept 2014 - 6:47 PM, said:

But the base root of all those formulas begins with a simple entity chain reacting to get a larger standardized result.

 

You can claim this, but no one is going to accept it without demonstrating it. Demonstrate how 1 + x = 2 can turn into any "larger standardized result".

 

Well,

 

As far as the math, it should be relatively simple how the formula makes sense. Lets take the most basic equation: 20 x 20

If one were to bean count, they would take 20 beans and set them into 20 groups for checking and count all 20 groups. So here we're using addition.

What about subtraction? Well this harmonizes with the law of Conservation. No matter can be destroyed or created. How so? Well our perception of destruction lies in its invisibility to our sensors, not in that it ceases to exist. So in reality, its like plotting a quadrant graph. It still exists, but in a different direction. Instead of going left, it goes right. So for example if an atom is split, it is creating new atoms, a new combination. Thus there was never a subtraction that took place, but an addition in another direction.

The same thing happens when something ceases to exist. The algorithmically held together form ceases to exist, but the atoms are added to something else.

So thus addition is the base foundation for every equation, because every equation in its most base form relies upon addition and relative subtraction. Even atoms do as neutrons, protons, and electrons. So the larger standardized result is basically a collection of addition and subtraction algorithms. Its how computers operate. Even a mid state is relatively an addition state in that it moved and is measurable.

@Strange

R3sili3nt, on 22 Sept 2014 - 6:47 PM, said:

Well this is definitely not an algorithmic equation or a shortcut to an answer. And you probably won't be doing astrophysic with it

Then it doesn't seem to be very useful.

 

Actually, its usefulness is shown in understanding how all of life, thought, energy, motion, and the universe actually relate to each other and are tied to each other. I think its ultimate usefulness lies in understanding how the universe pushes and pulls at the most basic level- but that will be a future discussion until I can go through the basics.

 

Quote

This is the understanding of how all existence operates rather in its most basic form.

So you claim. But you seem unable to explain or justify that.

 

Actually I did offer that explanation. Everything in existence operates on this tiny equation at the most 'basic' level. Again to reiterate, any measurable change begins with a unit. That unit must be altered in some way or in some relative way. So for example, if the universe is constantly in motion, then everything can measured by the scale of that motion. Thus this is how we perceive time. But its only relative to a measurable change. But that being stated, when you're talking about a large body like a planet, the laws began to differ form a smaller body due to different forces and algorithms that affect mass- or a larger amount of a collections of atoms who at their core have their own properties. So if a larger amount of atoms combined create a different property, for arguments sake, we'll call that a state or algorithm. But any slight change in the mass will affect whatever properties it has- even if seemingly unmeasurable.

I'll continue to explain this a little later as I want to go into it a little more.

 

Quote

I'll explain it this way: All things move by means of relative action potential- that is something reacts to something else.

Can you show ho that relates to your "x=1" equation?

 

Yes, keep in mind that 1, x, 2 are representative. I'll probably update those to symbols.

Where one unit (1) of anything requires a catalyst (x) for a result (2)

Thus if there was one particle in the universe alone, and the universe continued to expand, and the particle or unit went a proposed opposite direction or stood still, that can be considered movement if one felt that the speed of the universal expansion was the still point. So thus speed and motion are relative to a measured point, and an action potential is simply x in the equation.

 

Quote

This is what happens in physics, chemistry, quantum mechanics, biology, etc.

Can you show, in practical terms, how your equation describes this?

 

Let me prepare a response for this. I'll give some examples, but it might be kind of long.

[Strange]

@Bignose

@Strange

 

Have you seen the button labelled "Quote"? It is amazing!

 

As far as the math, it should be relatively simple how the formula makes sense. Lets take the most basic equation: 20 x 20

 

So what you appear to be saying is that all simple integer arithmetic can be represented as a series of additions. That is (trivially) true. However, you will run into problems with irrational numbers.

Please demonstrate in detail how your "universal" equation can be used to calculate the ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle. Or, perhaps simpler, how to caclulate the exact length of the diagonal of a unit square.

 

What about subtraction? Well this harmonizes with the law of Conservation.

 

There is no connection between subtraction and any law of conservation.

 

No matter can be destroyed or created.

 

This is very obviously not true.

 

Actually, its usefulness is shown in understanding how all of life, thought, energy, motion, and the universe actually relate to each other and are tied to each other.

 

You keep saying this but have yet to show it in any way.

 

Actually I did offer that explanation.

 

You may think you have but, really, you haven't.

 

Everything in existence operates on this tiny equation at the most 'basic' level.

 

 

This is an assertion, not an explanation.

 

Again to reiterate, any measurable change begins with a unit.

 

What about continuous change? Your claim would make most of modern mathematics including general relativity impossible.

 

Yes, keep in mind that 1, x, 2 are representative. I'll probably update those to symbols.

 

So your equation was not even correct? I assume a more accurate version would be a + b = c?

 

[R3sili3nt]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/space-shuttle-launch-physics-question.35217/

Have you seen the button labelled "Quote"? It is amazing!

 

Ha!

 

(Please demonstrate in detail how your "universal" equation can be used to calculate the ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle. Or, perhaps simpler, how to caclulate the exact length of the diagonal of a unit square.

So what you appear to be saying is that all simple integer arithmetic can be represented as a series of additions. That is (trivially) true. However, you will run into problems with irrational numbers.)

 

Not really. Because remember this is a base formula. Think of it more as a hypothesis heading towards a law... since the definition encompasses the term equation. So basically if you took π and applied this law to it, what would you have?

1 unit of π (3.14159...) + x (whatever you want to do with π) = 2 (your result).

And remember that numbers are actually symbols in a manner of speaking. Thats why we can change from base ten to another base. So in reality, π doesn't have to be 3.1415 etc. (it does, but hear me out), π can just be π and the calculation can be a rational "symbol" in that the symbol pi IS the answer. 3.1415 is only relative to using the base ten number system.

Its really that simple, but its power lies in the fact that its the one thing that every form of existence, energy, life have in common.

(There is no connection between subtraction and any law of conservation.)

 

I didn't intend for it to be read that way. Correct, energy is transformed. Same thing about matter- atoms is correct.

(What about continuous change? Your claim would make most of modern mathematics including general relativity impossible.)

 

Definitely not. First of all continuous change is driven by an algorithm(s) being applied. I'll try to demonstrate that more thoroughly a little later. But really quickly- light gets emmitted only when certain conditions are met, if those conditions keep being fulfilled over and over again, then light will keep emitting until the algorithm runs out of input. (e.g. theres no more power source)

But I like to think of the concept of the universal equation/ law-hypothesis I'm explaining as a concert. The unverse is said to act in concert.

If there are two people talking to each other, each entity is reacting to one anothers conversation. That conversation can be (for sake of argument) an algorithm in that certain things have to occur for a defined conversation (1) to take place (x) and thus fulfill the formula of a conversation (2). But it even goes deeper than that- on a molecular level. Because what controls the brain's ability to form thoughts? Eletrical impulses- loosely speaking. So as long as the proper chemicals are flowing (2) in response to a stimuli(x), the brain (1) will continue to send a signal. When the algorithm to signal for speaking stops, the talking stops.

Lets scale it back up.

What affects the conversation in this instance? Input from around the environment. Maybe loud music affects the conversation. Thus, it can be said that each individual is reacting to the loud music in some small or large way- because of it being a relatively powerful stimulus. The music is an algorithm- in the truest form if you're talking about beats and repetition, but that algorithm has affected the other algorithms that are occurring exponentially in that it altered the result of the conversation and/or actions. It had influence in some way.

But heres where - in my opinion - it gets interesting.

Are the two people having a conversation an entity? Yes. how? In that they are interacting. The same way that two or more atoms interact (illustration-wise of course) when they are linked to form matter. As long as entities are interacting/ reacting in some way, they are in effect communicating in that they are sending measurable information- in that they have responded in some way to the stimulus (x). If you doubt that two seperate things can be considered an entity... our body is made up of millions of cells. As long as our body continues to communicate as "a unit," then it is in effect an entity. In this way the universe is linked. So our universe is a unit, the same as our galaxies.

 

The bigger implications of this and the more fascinating purely theoretical prospects (so I'm not going to go into it just yet) are in an entities' abilities to take on another entities' abilities. So for example, sure we can travel near the speed of light- as long as certain algorithm's requirements are met. Because if a given unit of of any entity is capable of its given ability as being affected by a given stimulus, it should be scalable at the most basic molecular level- taking into account environmental stimuli and unit properties which may have to be altered.

 

So as a quick example. a small radio-controlled airplane effortlessly lifts into the air. But so does a large jetliner- provided it meets the requirements of certain laws that become significant with a larger collection of mass to overcome gravity.

So whatever one unit is capable of doing, at its most basic level, every other unit of an undetermined nature should be capable of the same thing. And yes I am know that that has to be mathematically proven.

But the ability to move through space time safely is partly why studying quantum particles is so fascinating.

 

So your equation was not even correct? I assume a more accurate version would be a + b = c?

 

Same thing. The equation/ law doesn't change. I chose 1,x, and 2 because it embodies the concept thus far. Very picky! Edited September 24, 2014 by R3sili3nt

[Ophiolite]

Members on this forum have often complained that other members posting their "theories" do so with a distinct lack of mathematics. Here is an example of a theory that claims at the heart of it is pure mathematics - a simple, allegedly universal, equation. When we examine that equation we find its "meaning" is so trite, so trivial, so mundane and obvious that calling it "meaning" is probably a corruption of language. In that regard the equation perfectly captures the essence of the hand waving, word salad offered by way of explanation: a perfect blend of words and symbols.

[Strange]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/space-shuttle-launch-physics-question.35217/

 

What is the relevance of that? You were asked to use "x + 1 = 2" to derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit.

 

Because remember this is a base formula. Think of it more as a hypothesis heading towards a law...

 

It is not a hypothesis as it appears to have little basis in reality. It certainly is not heading towards a law.

 

So basically if you took π and applied this law to it, what would you have?

1 unit of π (3.14159...) + x (whatever you want to do with π) = 2 (your result).

 

This is trivial (x = π - 2). And useless. And totally fails to address the point.

 

Please show how you can derive the ration of the circumference to the diameter of a circle using just "1 + x = 2" (or, if you prefer, "a + b = c" where a, b and c are integers).

 

And remember that numbers are actually symbols in a manner of speaking. Thats why we can change from base ten to another base. So in reality, π doesn't have to be 3.1415 etc. (it does, but hear me out), π can just be π and the calculation can be a rational "symbol" in that the symbol pi IS the answer. 3.1415 is only relative to using the base ten number system.

 

Gibberish.

 

Its really that simple, but its power lies in the fact that its the one thing that every form of existence, energy, life have in common.

 

So you keep claiming. Please provide some evidence by showing a worked example where you derive something related to the real world (something testable, preferably) from "1 + x = 2".

 

<long irrelevant drivel deleted as it has no apparent connection to the mathematics of "1 + x = 2">

 

Same thing. The equation/ law doesn't change. I chose 1,x, and 2 because it embodies the concept thus far. Very picky!

 

Not the same thing at all.

 

From 1 + x = 2, we know the value of x is 1. Not exactly an exciting result.

 

From a + b + c, we can say nothing about a, b or c. Not a result at all.

 

Pointing out that you don't even appear to understand basic arithmetic is not really being picky.

[R3sili3nt]

Not the same thing at all.

 

From 1 + x = 2, we know the value of x is 1. Not exactly an exciting result.

 

From a + b + c, we can say nothing about a, b or c. Not a result at all.

 

Pointing out that you don't even appear to understand basic arithmetic is not really being picky.

 

And to that I will respond in like manner with Newton's third law- I think thats fair considering your observations:

Just because this is over your head does not mean that its not correct.

 

Members on this forum have often complained that other members posting their "theories" do so with a distinct lack of mathematics. Here is an example of a theory that claims at the heart of it is pure mathematics - a simple, allegedly universal, equation. When we examine that equation we find its "meaning" is so trite, so trivial, so mundane and obvious that calling it "meaning" is probably a corruption of language. In that regard the equation perfectly captures the essence of the hand waving, word salad offered by way of explanation: a perfect blend of words and symbols.

Yes I agree it seems trivial. I thought about that also, that it really can't be this simple. And it makes perfect sense because its such a super simple equation. I think our perceptions for intelligence means understanding code and complication. Thats why I said I would provide some math (measurable data) to show what I'm referring to. But since it involves so many fields at the same time. I won't be able to provide it overnight I'm afraid.

So unless this is a chess game of sorts where I have a timed response, I'm afraid I'll have to post back at another time to give a thorough explanation- or at least attach a treatise.

 

So this thread should be closed I suppose.

[DrP]

 

 

So your equation was not even correct? I assume a more accurate version would be a + b = c?

 

 

I was going to say the same - you CAN'T use numbers in an equation to be variables - you have to use symbols because the numbers have actual values. So: Your theory is A + B = C

[Strange]

And to that I will respond in like manner with Newton's third law.

 

Feel free to show how Newton's third law can be derived from your equation. But as you have so far refused to show how anything can be derived from your equation, I won't hold my breath.

 

 

Just because this is over your head does not mean that its not correct.

 

There is a lot of math and science that is over my head, and I am happy to admit that. I don't think basic primary-school arithmetic and algebra are over my head. But you seem to be confused by it.

 

 

Thats why I said I would provide some math (measurable data) to show what I'm referring to. But since it involves so many fields at the same time. I won't be able to provide it overnight I'm afraid.

 

Don't you think it would have been sensible to create some supporting evidence before claiming to have a "theory of everything"?

[Ophiolite]

We don't need a treatise. You mention Newton's Third Law. How about just showing us how that can be derived from your equation?

[Bignose]

Just because this is over your head does not mean that its not correct.

Just a word of advice. The above sounds awfully smarmy and condescending. If that was how you intended it to sound, then I'd ask you please don't. If it wasn't how you intended it to sounds, then please be aware of the word choices you use and how they come off on a medium like an internet forum.

 

Even bigger than that is that the onus is on you to support your claims. It doesn't matter if it is all over all our heads. Science is by its default nature skeptical of any new claim. It is up to the supporter of that claim to provide evidence, whether that evidence is supremely basic or extraordinarily advanced, if you want to convince people.

 

And to sum up what you've presented to date... I see no reason to believe your idea. Sorry, but you just haven't backed it up with anything. Whether what you've presented has been over my head or not, you can decide for yourself.

 

I, for one, would like to see an extraordinarily basic derivation of how 1 + x = 2 can be turned into anything useful. Newton's third law was suggested above. F = ma. How to calculate the area of a circle. Anything at all. The door is wide open.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Bignose

[R3sili3nt]

I was going to say the same - you CAN'T use numbers in an equation to be variables - you have to use symbols because the numbers have actual values. So: Your theory is A + B = C

 

Yes I am aware. As I mentioned earlier, I know it should be symbols according to the standard rules, but I chose that for clarity of understanding the simplistic nature.

 

Just a word of advice. The above sounds awfully smarmy and condescending. If that was how you intended it to sound, then I'd ask you please don't. If it wasn't how you intended it to sounds, then please be aware of the word choices you use and how they come off on a medium like an internet forum.Even bigger than that is that the onus is on you to support your claims. It doesn't matter if it is all over all our heads. Science is by its default nature skeptical of any new claim. It is up to the supporter of that claim to provide evidence, whether that evidence is supremely basic or extraordinarily advanced, if you want to convince people.And to sum up what you've presented to date... I see no reason to believe your idea. Sorry, but you just haven't backed it up with anything. Whether what you've presented has been over my head or not, you can decide for yourself.I, for one, would like to see an extraordinarily basic derivation of how 1 + x = 2 can be turned into anything useful. Newton's third law was suggested above. F = ma. How to calculate the area of a circle. Anything at all. The door is wide open.

I was responding in gest to the condescending nature of earlier comments from the said poster. Thats what I meant about Newton's Law. Opposite/ equal reaction... over your head... Newton... the apple... it was a really bad science joke (though I thought it rather clever) No need to take it seriously.

 

As far as proving the equation with math, Thats what I seek to do. I am aware that as part of a scientific community, it relies upon challenges to make sure the law/ principle/ equation is sound. So I welcome all of what you're saying, as I try to prove this correct.

I am very open-minded about this, so I am listening carefully to your suggestions.

But I do ask that you give me time.

So in case I don't respond, don't think I'm ignoring it- I just have set about the task of proving what you all have been asking to be proven.

So thats why I thought it best the thread be closed- unless others want to mill around the concept in my absence. But I ask that the direction of this be an open-minded discussion about exploring the theoretical possibilities rather than just blanketly saying- impossible,

So I likely won't respond, but I will be reading the updates until I come back with something solid.

Edited September 24, 2014 by R3sili3nt

[Bignose]

it was a really bad science joke

Jokes don't translate well on a medium like this.

 

But I do ask that you give me time.

So in case I don't respond, don't think I'm ignoring it- I just have set about the task of proving what you all have been asking to be proven.

This is a good attitude, I think. No one has said you have a time limit. Science normally takes time, and it is not unusual for it to take a lot of time. And if you have questions, that's what the forum is for. Just review what has been posted above, and if you need us to clarify our criticisms, then again just ask. Because what was pointed out above are pretty big hurdles to jump from what you've presented so far to something scientifically useful.

[Strange]

I was responding in gest to the condescending nature of earlier comments from the said poster. Thats what I meant about Newton's Law. Opposite/ equal reaction... over your head... Newton... the apple... it was a really bad science joke (though I thought it rather clever) No need to take it seriously.

 

I'm afraid your joke went right over my head.

[Syn5]

R3sili3nt

As a sysnethete I can prove your concept in this 5 sense world. Let me get at an MRI i can show science how everything is related and not at the same time.

 

 

senses themeselves are just a measure of energy, science in the terms of observable in any sense is flawed it doesnt take into account other possible senses aka dimensions

Edited September 26, 2014 by Syn5

[fiveworlds]

As a sysnethete I can prove your concept in this 5 sense world

 

There is more than five senses you know.