Theory of Everything and Nothing by a 5 Sense Synesthete

[andrewcellini]

how does your "entropy" relate to thermodynamic entropy? or entropy in information theory?

[Syn5]

Directly to both.

 

Seems thermodynamic entropy is measuring the possible outcomes, where information theory is taking the output then calculating what we missed to build some sort of negative map of the source. The source in my theory being the information all particles rely on, it's the framework, the BIOS.

My theory also explains why an isolated system's entropy never decreases. Because the system is not being observed by something of equal or less entropy. An isolated system has nothing to transfer entropy to, thus it can't loose it. Remember information is indestructible. Entropy is just hidden indestructible information. It also explains why entropy rises even in complete vacuum. Because even in vacuum the system is not truly isolated, it's still being observed my something with higher entropy.

My theory also perfectly explains dark-matter and how it relates to us, and I also know how gravity works.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Syn5

[Bignose]

My theory also perfectly explains dark-matter and how it relates to us, and I also know how gravity works.

Calm down there, Einstein. Let's make a single testable prediction before we make such ostentatious claims. As I said above, all you're doing here is telling stories. If you wish to start being taken seriously scientifically, you need to start presenting predictions made from your idea and measurements that agree with them.

 

So far, you've failed pretty miserably at this with your prediction of a fractal universe, and now you have a prediction that particle is entropy. "Only after a particle is observed does it's speed and direction become tangible, before that it's just entropy."

 

Please explain how a particle, which can be described by lots of units like its mass, or its charge, becomes entropy, which has units of energy/temperature? The units here don't work at all. This is like claiming the mileage in my car can be described by bananas per Batman. Or that my next paycheck will be paid in bits of string instead of dollars.

[andrewcellini]

it's apparent that you are just practicing in imagination, which is great but science is about making testable predictions. so far your theory amounts to several strings of undefined concepts that you have made up and insisted upon talking about, and several points where you have no idea what you're talking about or perhaps what you're trying to say. it's good to have ideas, but they have to relate to what we actually observe and account for it. saying it does is a conjecture that requires showing how your theory compares to experiment and if it predicts new phenomena that we can observe and quantify.

 

this can only be said so many times before it becomes redundant.

 

edit: my mistake, you did make a prediction. your prediction that the universe is fractal was shown to be not the case at all scales.

Edited September 29, 2014 by andrewcellini

[Syn5]

DARK MATTER = ENTROPY

[andrewcellini]

which is clearly false, like

 

UNICORNS = REAL

 

or

 

THEORY = BRAIN FART

 

this thread should be trashed.

Edited September 29, 2014 by andrewcellini

[Syn5]

Ok predictions.

 

Matter is turned into Dark Matter where Matter is destroyed and vice-versa.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-wimps-fermi-milky-way/

 

and

 

http://www.universetoday.com/102903/where-is-dark-matter-most-dense-subaru-telescope-gets-some-hints/

I also predict our universe is expanding due to dark matter decreasing, and its proportionate and observable.

Entropy + Matter = Dark Matter

 

Dark Matter - Entropy = Matter

 

The plus or minus (polarity) for Matter is changed at the Event Horizon of a black hole.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Syn5

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Syn5,

The only way in which those two links you posted are related to your post is that they mention dark matter. In every other way they are irrelevant. You state in your last post that:

Ok predictions.

...

I also predict our universe is expanding due to dark matter decreasing, and its proportionate and observable.

!

Moderator Note

If it is observable, please show your evidence. This particular area of the forum demands that you do so and failure to comply to this will result in thread closure. Please review the following rules for your own information: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

Bignose and others have mentioned to you that for your hypothesis (not theory) to even be considered, you need to descend from the realms of hand waving and imagination and start making tenable predictions founded in actual evidence and real science; or in other words, you need to start being more scientifically rigorous.

Do not respond to this mod note in-thread. If you are unhappy with anything said here, please report the post or PM a member of staff.

[Bignose]

DARK MATTER = ENTROPY

units of mass do not equal units of energy/temperature any more than particles of dust equal dollars or miles equal barrels of beer.

 

You have to have units right before anything else. There has never been a successful equal that has the wrong units. If you don't correct this, there is no point in talking about anything further, because being dimensionally correct is paramount.

Entropy + Matter = Dark Matter

 

Dark Matter - Entropy = Matter

Apart from the fact this is is a significant change from the previous equation (so which one do you really want, are you just totally spitballing here?), these are also dimensionally incorrect as well.

[Syn5]

units of mass do not equal units of energy/temperature any more than particles of dust equal dollars or miles equal barrels of beer.

 

You have to have units right before anything else. There has never been a successful equal that has the wrong units. If you don't correct this, there is no point in talking about anything further, because being dimensionally correct is paramount.

 

Apart from the fact this is is a significant change from the previous equation (so which one do you really want, are you just totally spitballing here?), these are also dimensionally incorrect as well.

 

Everything in our reality can be represented in 2 dimensions (Yes or No, 1/0, Binary). We live in a Yes or No dimension. And really you can't have No without Yes. Yes and No are linked by their very nature.

 

Imagine reality as a binary storage device that can't erase or create information (particles). You can't because a particle is just a physical representation of an overall Yes or No. I say overall because even a particle is a collection of yes or nos. The Yes bits are observable in this Yes dimension. The No bits are not directly observable in the Yes dimension. The Yes bits are not hidden, the No bits are hidden. Entropy.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Syn5

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

That is not an appropriate response to what were very explicit questions. Please address the actual concerns raised in this thread or it will be closed. Last chance.

[Strange]

Everything in our reality can be represented in 2 dimensions

 

This is not true. To arrange to meet someone you need to specify 3 spatial dimension (e.g. latitude, longitude and altitude) and 1 temporal dimension (the time).

 

 

(Yes or No, 1/0, Binary)

 

These are not dimensions (either). Earlier you said that the 5 sense were dimensions. Apart from the fact they are not dimensions, there were 5 of them. Now there are two. Which is it?

 

The Yes bits are observable in this Yes dimension. The No bits are not directly observable in the Yes dimension. The Yes bits are not hidden, the No bits are hidden.

 

So the entire universe consists of "yes". Not very convincing.

 

Please describe an objective test of this hypothesis.

 

Entropy.

 

Magic.

[Syn5]

Test:

 

All particles = Bits of information with visible and hidden information.

 

Imagine particles are like events. An event can have many outcomes. But due to the laws of this dimension only chunks of the event's total information are observable, the rest remain hidden. Is this not what entropy is?

 

Now you as the observer will experience the same event (chunk of information) differently depending on your position in time/space (at times I've called it awareness).

 

But what happens with all the event information that wasn't read by us, the entropy? We can observe it's effect, it's called gravity.

 

The less visible info (observable in space/time) we have the greater the invisible info (entropy), thus increasing mass.

If I am having a problem with units of measurement it's only because my concept shows dark particles see time/space as fiction. Language/logic, observation itself is a product time/space so using it to explain something beyond time/space is difficult but I hope possible.

My hypothesis: Things of lesser entropy will have more mass. They will in turn have more Dark particles around it. Very similar to a black hole, but of inverted. Instead of matter getting sucked in Dark particles are sucked in. So just look for things of great mass (center galaxies) and you'll always find a dense ring of dark particles around it like the Event Horizon of a black hole, but dark vs regular particles. Actually all observable particles (visible info) are like black holes containing hidden info (entropy). But if you add up all of the visible and hidden info it should add up to the same number as any other particle. In other words all particles hold the same amount of info, its this distribution of hidden/visble info which decides how that particle (event) is observed in this reality/dimension/awareness/point in space/time, all the same just different vocabulary.

 

This is not true. To arrange to meet someone you need to specify 3 spatial dimension (e.g. latitude, longitude and altitude) and 1 temporal dimension (the time).

 

Ummm... I'm pretty sure I could store all of that info in a computer. Is not a computer a completely binary system at it's core? So is reality.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Syn5

[Strange]

Ummm... I'm pretty sure I could store all of that info in a computer. Is not a computer a completely binary system at it's core? So is reality.

 

You still need to use 4 dimensions, even if it is encoded in binary.

 

You seem to be saying that there are only two words in the English language because the entire works of Shakespeare can be encoded as 0s and 1s. Obvuously not true.

[Syn5]

 

You still need to use 4 dimensions, even if it is encoded in binary.

 

You seem to be saying that there are only two words in the English language because the entire works of Shakespeare can be encoded as 0s and 1s. Obvuously not true.

 

Look at it deeper. Was Shakespeare not just a collection of particles himself? A very long and complex string of binary outcomes chosen from all possible hidden outcomes (entropy)?

Edited September 29, 2014 by Syn5

[Strange]

Sorry, there appears to be no science in any of your posts.

[Syn5]

How is that not Science? It is fact shakespeare was made up of a body, a body made of organs, organs made of cells, cells made of molecules, and so and so on... till u reach? A binary system and beyond that singularity. Where 0 and 1, yes and no are one and the same, just as possible. Quantum mechanics. But, as I said before, there has to be balance. You cant have singularity or max entropy for long in a space/time dimension. But a non space/time dimension can. That's why Dark particles must comply with all laws not being observed by space/time matter and vice-versa.

 

You can observe that everything is a collection of events that happened or didn't happen. This is only true in our dimension no matter the scale because time/space. It's not possible in a dark dimension, a dimension that doesn't interact with space/time, space/time rules do not apply.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Syn5

[Strange]

How is that not Science?

 

Maths?

Testable predictions?

Evidence?

[Phi for All]

You can observe that everything is a collection of events that happened or didn't happen. This is only true in our dimension no matter the scale because time/space. It's not possible in a dark dimension, a dimension that doesn't interact with space/time, space/time rules do not apply.

 

Our dimension?! A dark dimension?! You keep using this word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Syn5]

 

Our dimension?! A dark dimension?! You keep using this word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

Is it not true dark matter doesn't react to light? Reason it's called dark? Ok if space/time is dimensional, 4D to be specific, then yes I'm using the wrong word. What I am trying to say is that dark particles exist in a place where the rules are literally the opposite. And the only way to observe it directly is to cease existing in this reality. How do you do that? Jump into a black hole. The closer to the middle you get the more entropy, mass. Until you reach a point where you're entropy is too great for the rules of this reality. The event horizon. Keep going and you will start to lose entropy and hit the singularity. Keep going. Entropy will increase again until it no longer complies with the rules of our reality. You are in the dark reality. But it's a you without time/space, endless time/space configurations.

 

As humans what place am I describing. Where rules/logic do not apply. The mind. So I predict even thought, emotions, all the intangibles are all coming from the same source, meaning they are just different kinds of particles.

 

I predict this can be observed by looking at how much matter a galaxy's back hole is taking in. And then looking to see if it proportionally affects the density of dark particles around the galaxy's center black hole.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Syn5

[Ophiolite]

How is that not Science?

Science begins with observation. This observation is not the general, loose, broad brush kind of observation you are engaged in. This is a meticulous, measured, thorough, carefully checked suite of observations, in which variables are carefully identified and controlled.

These observations are not only measured quantitatively, but the qualitative nature of what is being observed is defined with precision. For the observations to be worthy of further consideration they must be replicable by others.If not they will be, rightly, discarded.

Your observations lack any of these characteristics and your definitions are non-existent. Your thinking, while it may have a creative core, is random, undisciplined and consequently of little value to mankind and a genuine limit to your own progress. You would benefit from a sounder basis of knowledge in the sciences you seem to be trying to add to or overturn. I fear you will ignore this advice, as you have ignored all the other excellent advice offered on this forum. That will not be surprising, though it will be disappointing.

 

Your last post, #45, exemplifies your problem perfectly: in it you are simultaneously misusing and misunderstanding terms and concepts, mixing them in a cacophony of anti-erudition.

 

Edit: correct typo - begins for beings

Edited September 29, 2014 by Ophiolite

[Syn5]

Science beings with observation. This observation is not the general, loose, broad brush kind of observation you are engaged in. This is a meticulous, measured, thorough, carefully checked suite of observations, in which variables are carefully identified and controlled.

These observations are not only measured quantitatively, but the qualitative nature of what is being observed is defined with precision. For the observations to be worthy of further consideration they must be replicable by others.If not they will be, rightly, discarded.

Your observations lack any of these characteristics and your definitions are non-existent. Your thinking, while it may have a creative core, is random, undisciplined and consequently of little value to mankind and a genuine limit to your own progress. You would benefit from a sounder basis of knowledge in the sciences you seem to be trying to add to or overturn. I fear you will ignore this advice, as you have ignored all the other excellent advice offered on this forum. That will not be surprising, though it will be disappointing.

 

Your last post, #45, exemplifies your problem perfectly: in it you are simultaneously misusing and misunderstanding terms and concepts, mixing them in a cacophony of anti-erudition.

Hopefully my predictions make more sense.

I predict even thought, emotions, all the intangibles are all coming from the same source, meaning they are just different kinds of particles.

 

I predict this can be observed by looking at how much matter a galaxy's back hole is taking in. And then looking to see if it proportionally affects the density of dark particles around the galaxy's center black hole.

 

I also predict our reality is an infinite amount of ever changing bits of visible and hidden information being infinitely processed by Time/Space.

 

I also predict our reality actually has a finite number of physical configurations and time for these bits of info, so is the nature of a space/time reality. And all of the impossible configurations are expressed in the polar opposite reality.

 

I also predict our universe is expanding because dark matter, energy, particles are decreasing.

 

I predict our Universe is in it's infancy, is expanding will continue to expand faster and faster. Why? Because dark particles are getting sucked back into the black holes. And what do we know about black holes? They gain area. And if you understand my theory you'll know what happens next.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Syn5

[Strange]

What I am trying to say is that dark particles exist in a place where the rules are literally the opposite.

 

And yet dark matter seems to behave exactly as you would expect from the rules of this universe.

 

And the only way to observe it directly is to cease existing in this reality.

 

We already observe it.

 

But how, in practical terms, do you go about "not existing in this reality"? Suicide?

 

The closer to the middle you get the more entropy, mass.

 

Not true. You are just making up random nonsense.

[Syn5]

 

And yet dark matter seems to behave exactly as you would expect from the rules of this universe.

Yes but only because it has been observed by us. It has been acted upon by something of lesser Entropy (less possible space/time outcomes, more rules to follow). Any attempt to detect it using particles of lesser entropy will cause the dark matter to reveal some information (only that which complies with space/time), but it's still mostly hidden information (the full scope of its info is not representable in space/time). Entropy.

 

And all particles (observable bits) act this way. Why? Because they are at the deepest level connected, one in the same, to their complete polar opposites. Dark particles (hidden bits).

 

We already observe it.

How do we directly observe Dark Matter? Far as I know we haven't been able to and Dark Matter is only hypothesized.

 

But how, in practical terms, do you go about "not existing in this reality"? Suicide?

Check out the Leonard Susskind on The World as a Hologram:

 

All reality is bits of indestructible information. You cannot create or destroy the bits. What you can do is split reality. On one extreme you have nothing (singularity) on the other endless possibility (max entropy). Our observable reality falls somewhere in between. For now.

 

And what is reality but an observation of events which can then be translated back into their most basic form. Binary information. Bits of information. Indestructible.

 

In other words it's very much like a computer. A mix of tangible (hardware) and intangible (software) held together by binary information, 1's or 0's, on or off, happened or didn't happen.

I forgot one critical piece of the puzzle.

 

What came first? What's more real? I choose to believe we have our own unique perception. I choose to believe everything is connected yet unique. Like the cells of our body. And because of that I will treat my fellow particle or dark particle with love. That means I will treat my fellow human as I would myself, with respect.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Syn5

[Syn5]

Very interesting didn't know the hologram theory was so close to being tested:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/29/space-hologram-experiment-two-dimensions_n_5726262.html

Edited September 29, 2014 by Syn5