Theory of Everything! (Lore)

[William Burr]

I have my own personal theory of physics and the nature of our reality. This isn't meant to be taken too seriously, just some concepts I've been tossing around. Enjoy! ~A

Physics defines the spatial dimensions as a point, then a line, then flatland, then our reality, to the 4th dimension (time), etc etc. Scientists clearly state that physics as we know it only exists in the third dimension. Why do we keep looking for answers in dimensions we can't describe? The Illuminati.

Kidding. Just making sure you are paying attention. This is physics lore, and lore can be stiff and hard to follow if there aren't a few jokes. But I digress:

So these nerds think they can explain our universe through other universes described by physics that only works in our universe. Let's Make Physics Great Again by using physics to describe our own universe. And we begin in the same spot, with a point. As NDT states in a video I can't remember the title to, "for a point to have meaning in our reality, it needs 3 things: a topographical location (x & y), an elevation off of the surface (z), and a single point in time (t)."*

*Not an exact quote

Mathematically we know x, y, and z are coordinates to a single spatial point (p). Now we have 2 points of significance for every significant point in reality: one point in p and one point in t. But like highlander, there can only be one. In order to figure out which point defines the significance of a point in reality and which one will destroy the universe itself, we have to use math. Anytime delta t = 0, all of time freezes. Energy, force exchanges, light -- nothing moves. When delta p = 0, energy can move as long as it doesn't move the fabric of space. Unfortunately for energy, in order to move through space, it has to move space. So time continues forever and no space or energy would theoretically move.

Now if you moved into hyperspace (5th dimension as we describe it) and observe both timelines, you would see an empty line when delta p = 0 but only a point when delta t = 0. However, neither the point nor the line will include reality as reality necessarily needs both space and time to move in order to exist. What is interesting is that lines in hyperspace exist for all values of delta p, but none exist for delta t = 0. Conversely, there are traces of a universe for all values delta t, except at delta p = 0. Because reality assumes a universe, delta p = 0 is an impossibility. But what about delta t?

Can a reality exist when delta t = 0? Since no change in time means a universe standstill, it would only be possible to travel across that universe if a second timestream was added over the frozen time stream. Since there are no rules in physics that deny this operation, we can assume a reality can exist when delta t = 0 as long as that reality is superimposed on the frozen spacetime fabric. What does this tell us?

Remember how all of this was about the physical dimensions of reality, and we needed a point but ended up with 2, p and t? Well, we can't have two points as the starting point, that doesn't make sense. Since time can continue without space through the higher dimensions, time wins. Plus the universe needs a point it can rely on, and since delta p can not contain a universe for all possible values of delta p, we can justify why time goes solo.

Now that we know time is the first point of our reality, we can begin to make the line of the first dimension. Literally a timeline. No joke. Not even going to put any sugar on it. Connect points in time, boom timeline. So if time is the first dimension, what is the second? Well, it turns out delta p wasn't useless after all.

Let's sum up the journey so far: since all of the values of time are already contained in the first dimension, the second dimension must be space right? Hold on there cowboy. Reality is defined by both space and time, and if time is the 1st dimension we still need 2 dimensions to explain our 3-dimensional world (3-1=2, yup math checks out). Typically dimensions move into external realities (flatland, hyperspace, etc), but our dimensions have to move into our reality and describe it in more depth. While dimensions 2 & 3 are within space, they are two phenomena that are necessarily related to each other but also hold individual properties as well. I don't have a good transition: the second dimension is energy (all of the fundamental forces, including the 5th).

Evidence that the second dimension is energy: 1) if time was a line with no space, it would exist as a theoretical line is described. 2) Energy moves with independent angular and linear momentums, which is described in 2 spacial dimensions. 3) A projection of energy is represented as fields that travel as an arch through three-dimensional space.

Since our first dimension has the snazzy name of spacetime, let's call this second dimension force-energy. No, you know what, I'll do it. The Force. The second dimension is The Force, which is funny because the 5th force comes from Force... as in the F from your friendly neighborhood F=ma. (Man, now I want some apple pie). Before we get into that argument, let's finish with the 3rd dimension of our reality: matter.

Here, boys and girls, gather around the campfire and let old Power tell you the story of matter. In the beginning, there was time, but time was lonely because it had nothing to fill its infinite and empty space. Then there was the big bang, and time became full of energy. There were many types of energy, and they were fast, almost as fast as time. Time let energy run as fast as it could and as much as it could in all the space it could ever want. But the energy began to grow tired and weaken, fracturing in the process. There was simply too much space to move through. Energy was losing power quickly and in an effort to continue to exist fractures of energy broke off and consumed their own tail. In doing so the energy was able to exist continuously but forfeited the freedom of movement it once had. This new form of energy that exists in a continuously defined space is what we call matter.

Well quarks, which form atoms, which form molecules... where ever your line of matter begins (it should be quarks). It's the only thing that exists in 3 spatial dimensions anyways, energy is always moving. Now back to F=ma.

The current problem with F=ma is it misses the 5th force, and it is right in the a.

Acceleration is currently defined as meters per seconds^2. Since energy moves in 2 dimensions, kinetic energy should accelerate reality in 2 frames of time as well as 2 frames of space. Therefore, a = m^2/s^2, or a = (m1 * m2)/s^2. Where do we get our second measurement in displacement from? From space itself.

When a=m/s^2, a is describing the acceleration of an object displaced through an environment. The space around the object is typically left out, but the object still experiences drag and resistance moving through any fluid, including the air or fabric of space-time (which demonstrates fluid properties). If m1 is the distance the object travels, m2 is the displacement of the environment based on the object's movement through it. This would have to account for inertia of both the environment and the object, the surface area pushing the environment, the surface area pulling the environment, and the effect of the shape design had moved through the environment. Why is this important to the lore? Because it alludes to the theory of everything, F = E.

If matter reaches the speed of light, it becomes pure energy. E = mc^2. E is the kinetic energy, m is the mass of energy, and c is the speed of light. Light moves in m/s. If a = m^2/s^2, then E and F are defined by the same measurements in the same relationship to each other (mass*movement*movement), suggesting energy and force are directly related. Which was the second dimension (the Force!). This missing meter is founded on the 5th force that is fundamental to all other forces: M/S (the movement of space that contains our reality through time).

Now E and F are separated by the dimensions they describe (2nd and 3rd respectively), and since matter is relatively stagnated energy, they are same-same but different. Now for the big question, what does this mean for the nature of reality?

-1st, positions in time are theoretical, not actual. Both time and space are constantly moving to create reality so a single position in space or time does not exist. Everything is always changing forever.

-2nd, quantum tunneling can exist. If one stream of energy becomes perpetual (matter) it would have to crash into itself, creating both a new force and new resistance of natural force. Since the force and the natural force are perpendicular, energy would have to become matter in two opposite directions at the same time. As we know, delta t = 0 is a single point in time with no hyperspace length (as a timeline). If these two new quarks come into existence at the exact same time, that means they exist at delta t = 0 but delta p > 0. In doing so these two quarks create a timeline isolated to themselves that is consumed by our timeline.

There is more to this lore, but this is enough for now. I'm not claiming any of this as real, but at the same time I don't see flaws in the logic which is why I brought it to this forum. If you can find any flaws, let me know I want to make a complete story. To the question: what do you think? Let me know in the comments below.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

moved to speculations - please take a moment to read the Speculations Guidelines pinned to the top of the topic list

 

[swansont]

 

The current problem with F=ma is it misses the 5th force, and it is right in the a.

Acceleration is currently defined as meters per seconds^2. Since energy moves in 2 dimensions, kinetic energy should accelerate reality in 2 frames of time as well as 2 frames of space. Therefore, a = m^2/s^2, or a = (m1 * m2)/s^2. Where do we get our second measurement in displacement from? From space itself.

 

 

There's nothing about F=ma that tells us how many forces there are.

 

Acceleration is currently defined as dv/dt. How do you get your proposed units from any valid equation?

 

"energy moves in 2 dimensions" is a specious assertion with no basis in fact. Energy is a property of things. It does not, by itself, move.

 

Probably no point in discussing any conclusions drawn when you have gotten the basics so wrong.

[Markus Hanke]

I don't see flaws in the logic

 

 

 

That's your problem right there in a nutshell.

Having ideas, imagination, and enthusiasm is good and important in science just like in all other domains of enquiry; however, if the prerequisite knowledge of the subject matter is missing, then none of it is of any value. My recommendation to you would be to first learn physics in considerable detail - maths and all -, because that will enable you to make use of your imagination from a position of knowledge, rather than ignorance; more importantly, it will enable you to judge which ideas may hold some value, and which don't. Only then do you have a chance, however small, to make a meaningful contribution in the field. As it stands, what you have written can only be described as word salad, with a generous bit of dressing on top - and no, I am not being rude, just brutally honest.

[William Burr]

 

 

There's nothing about F=ma that tells us how many forces there are.

 

Acceleration is currently defined as dv/dt. How do you get your proposed units from any valid equation?

 

"energy moves in 2 dimensions" is a specious assertion with no basis in fact. Energy is a property of things. It does not, by itself, move.

 

Probably no point in discussing any conclusions drawn when you have gotten the basics so wrong.

 

Remembering this is just math lore, acceleration as a derivative doesn't account for meter prime or second prime. d(m/s)/dt= (m*s'+m'*s)/s^2. where s' = the tangent to the timeline (quantum tunneling) and m' is the environment that was touching the defined border of the object at the exact moment of impulse as the tangent to the object's displacement (when s' = I).

 

Kinetic energy is the force that causes objects to move across space (which is fluid). It flows through the object, which resists spatial displacement (inertia). When the energy meets an end point of the object, it is immediately displaced by the fluid the object is encased in but the inertia keeps the object moving at the same speed minus incoming fluid resistance.

[ajb]

So, we start of with just gibberish and respond with more gibberish... great!

 

Swansont has pointed to some huge gaps in your basic knowedge. There is little point in me going over them again.

 

Anyway, I have no idea about your comment on acceleration, and kinetic energy is not a force.

[Klaynos]

... kinetic energy is not a force.

I always find the clue is in the name.

[swansont]

Remembering this is just math lore, acceleration as a derivative doesn't account for meter prime or second prime. d(m/s)/dt= (m*s'+m'*s)/s^2. where s' = the tangent to the timeline (quantum tunneling) and m' is the environment that was touching the defined border of the object at the exact moment of impulse as the tangent to the object's displacement (when s' = I).

I can't make heads nor tails of this.

 

Kinetic energy is the force that causes objects to move across space (which is fluid). It flows through the object, which resists spatial displacement (inertia). When the energy meets an end point of the object, it is immediately displaced by the fluid the object is encased in but the inertia keeps the object moving at the same speed minus incoming fluid resistance.

KE is not a force, as others have already noted.

[Strange]

Kinetic energy is the force that causes objects to move across space (which is fluid).

 

 

As noted, kinetic energy is not a force.

 

In addition, no energy or force is required for an object to move through space at constant velocity.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

This thread has failed to reach the level we demand for Speculations.

 

Locked. You may PM a staff member with a request to reopen iff at some point in the future you have a model that works mathematically and a description that makes sense.