Thread: NEW Theory of Everything (existence, life, time) all :D

Please excuse any typing, spelling, or any mistakes of that nature. If you feel that i do not explain something adequately enough, i will elaborate further just ask.

Just would like to mention that the paper i grabbed to write this down initially was from my work, after reading it later it said in huge black letters "Origins watch out..." HOW FOREBODING!

So here it is. . .

You must understand this before continuing reading: Time is not a perceived sense like sound and smell, it is the change of state observable to the viewer. Time would continue and exist even if there was no life to perceive it. Therefore time is movement, and without movement there is no time.


We all know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction(LS=RS). So imagine this. No matter how far back you trace time there will always be a miniscule amount of time that nothing existed before something. Most people picture nothing to be a cavernous empty space of blackness, but nothing really is just NOTHING, it takes up no space, has no mass, energy, or colour. Therefore the opposite to being able to do nothing is energy. Energy is the same as nothing in many ways and we know little about its nature. The Universe consists of energy, which in turn also means that the universe consists of anything else formed by energy(matter, frequencies, etc).

And Nothing is nothing, nothing is where the universe isn't. Now i would like to summarize what i have written so far.

-Everything(EVERYTHING!) needs to have a balance, and will do what ever is possible to find that balance.
-Nothing is nothing, absolutely nothing.(hard concept 4 ppl to understand)
-Energy can be transformed into anything.(therefore everything consists of energy in varying amounts

Now i get into the main part of my theory. Since at one point in time, there was nothing(nothing at all), there would have to be a balance(between nothing and something). The balance to the LS=RS for nothing is for there to be INFINITE amounts of energy. Infinite because NOTHING doesn't exist and is therefore immeasurable. The universe that we percieve has 4 dimensions(prove to me that theres another?), so if there was going to be a balance all 4 had to be balanced. Since nothing doesn't exist the {height, north and west, east and west} of nothing, are all immeasurable, or infinite. In other words the universe will continue to expand infinitely along the 3 aforementioned dimensions. But as i said before only 3 could balance. The 4th dimension is time, and is present( or attached?) as long as there are changes occuring. Now tell me, how can there be a balance of time? Nothing existed before something, and even if something exists infininetly, so does nothing. This means that on one side of the equation(The Universe) is always chasing the other, trying to balance time.

THE EQUATION

t (infinity) + 0.01 = t (infinity)

Nothing Universe

the 2nd zero is repeating(smallest number possible)

When the balance is achieved both sides are equal and therefore cancel eachother out. This would create another situation that created the prior universe. This is a paradox, YAY infinity!

the equation shows that for the smallest amount of time, nothing lasted longer than the universe, and will continue to do so. This shows the imbalance to the universe. This imbalance will mean that the universe will try to balance this loss of time. It's action then reaction, the universe reacted to nothing, therefore the universe cannot out balance the equation to make the opposite side(nothing) react to the universe. When there is a true balance, both sides would cancel each other out.

Whew, thats enough for now. This theory really involves everything, i wish i could elaborate more or go on further at this point but i am too tired. Just some FYI My name Aidan, I am 16, and I live in Canada.


To look forward to in continued post: How the imbalance created DNA, how DNA is and alternative set of rules(like physics) that matter can obey once broken down by life, and why time travel is IMPOSSIBLE

The universe could exist for ever now that life obeys other than just it's own programing. But life would have to be aware of this, which sadly, we aren't. The universe can exist for ever, but it can also end. Nothing exists either way. Therefore Universes are FINITE structures and nothing is INFINITE.





I WANT FEEDBACK PPL!!!

You have a lot to learn.

should this be moved to pseudoscience rather than here in philosophy?

Yeah, since it is a theory. On the other hand, if you find something philosophical about it, that's up to you.

Aidan's overly abstract reasoning is good training. I used to read the old philosophers also and in their style "try to figure things out." Word meanings are slippery and deceiving. It makes things that sound rational much more dubious than they sound.

I moved away from the abstract philosophers to ones like Voltaire and Shaupenhaur. Then, I moved from them to the scientific theorists and then the scientific data itself. I like to have a firm foundation for what I write.

If nothing is infinite, why do we have it in our mathematics? Do you really claim to be able to determine if the universe is not infinite in size by the logic and premises you stated in your posting? Can you put it into mathematical terms?


charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

the true definition of nothing doesnt exist, by definition. Nothing can't exist, nothing is what the universe isn't. when i say nothing is infinite, i mean it's immeasurable. the 2 im pretty sure we'll find out are the same thing. my logic to that:

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |

<----infinite---0---infinite----> nothing cannot be measured.

therefore it is impossible to measure nothing, except for the amount of t that it has been present. This means that x-y, z-x, z-y are all immeasureable when applied to nothing. since the universe is the "balance" to nothing the dimensions of x-y, z-x, and z-y are all INFINITE. we can observe this by the constant expansion of the universe(right?). but as we know there are 4 dimensions, the last being time. however time can be applied to nothing, and the only reason it can be is because of the fact that nothing existed before something. so how can there be a balance of time? there can't. this creates an anomoly, the universe will always of existed for less time then nothing, and to find a balance, the universe has to create more time. HOW DO YOU CREATE MORE TIME? by creating more actions(complexity) of course. evrything becomes more COMPLEX as time progresses, this is because everything started from one point and continues expanding until it transfers all of its energy. Ok so thats how the universe would balance time, how can we obsreve this balance? LIFE, life is programmed to ,1. grow, 2. become more complex through evolution, and 3. reproduce and ensure survival. As life exists longer there is more life, and as a result of this, more complexity and time.

"No matter how far back you trace time there will always be a miniscule amount of time that nothing existed before something."

Tthat statement stopped me and I did not read the rest! Since everything has a natural cause and all is cause and effect, it would be impossible to have a time when there was nothing in existence. In fact, without anything in existence, there could be no time because there would be no change.


charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

It's clearly nonsense (sorry to be blunt) but let me just address the first sentence of your theory.

Now i get into the main part of my theory. Since at one point in time, there was nothing(nothing at all), there would have to be a balance(between nothing and something).

First of all, if there's "nothing" then that includes time. There is no "point in time" that there is nothing. Second, if there's nothing, then there's certainly no "something" for which it must be balanced against. If there WERE something, then it wouldn't be nothing anymore, would it?

moved to pseudoscience

Therefore time is movement, and without movement there is no time.

This statement is false.
Time is the change from order to disorder. Low Entropy to High Entropy.

Further reading of this idea isnt requried since its based upon errorous assumptions. Therefor the entire idea is false

Right you are, Zelos. Time can be a coordinate independent of movement, But if we did not move through time, we would not experience it. Again, not nessesarily the same thing. Only a theory, possibly.

Time got a definition and its definition has been proven true and is the way it is by the lwas of thermodynamic. If the definition of time is wrong those laws are wrong

Time is a physical phenomena that dont require a observer for it existens.

why should it therefore exist for any other particle, wave, or mass?

Becuase they obey the laws of thermodynamic. The photon is a very low entropic particle and is therefor ridly turned to low entropy energies. But the entropy in a photon is decieded by the wavelenght of it.

and that you should consider 'time' rather than just accept it

and so i have and i have reached conclution based on scientific facts that agrees with them

I am appealing to you to think further on the matter

Negotiation is irrelevant