The Theory of Every Thing v.2.0

Not open for further replies.
Feb 2020
--------------------- Part One ---------------------
The Theory of Every Thing v.2.0

Version 1.0 was a one page condensation that required significant knowledge of physics to fully appreciate. The only significant scientific difference in 2.0 is the explanation of isotopes and the math. And the long length.

I'll start at the beginning and evolve every thing from there. First conundrum, the evolution of the mind is most helpful in understanding the reasoning behind this theory, but to fully understand that, you need to understand the evolution of the universe and how humans fit into something larger. So if you don't quite get this, look for that. If you iterate back and forth, *I* believe that both will make *everything* else make sense. Bold claim.

First off, this does not explain the "beginning of everything". This is about the beginning of every "thing", which gets added to everything. I'll let *future* philosophers figure the other beginning out.


In the beginning, there was math. The beginning of the theory. You have to start somewhere and this all boils down to math. Since humans invented math and you figure there was something before the humans, let's call that physics. The beginning of human interaction and opinions about how the mechanics of the universe functions, starts with math. Math is just symbolized logic.

It all starts with a drawing compass. Or it starts with everything in the sky running around in circles. When some curious human played with tied sticks to make circles in the clay they noticed that you could split a circle up into six perfect sections using the same tied sticks they use to draw the circle. This is the beginning of mathematics. This is the beginning of the science of physics. If you watch the skies for long enough you will eventually see repeating patterns. The simplest pattern is night and day. Watch longer and you start to see months in the cycles of the moon. Add some years and you get the annual seasons. Watch even longer and you notice the wanderers, there are six points of light that have their own repeating patterns. Another thing that you *might* notice that eclipses have a *difficult* pattern.

So how do you predict where these things in the sky are going to be in the future? When is a good time to seek a particular prey on their annual migration? Sky goes around in circles, compass makes circles that divide into six, we have ten fingers. Base sixty math is the first math. Divide *the sky* into sections. Record where in the sky on what day things are. Physics of the solar system reduced to numbers created by the ratios inherent in the physics of the compass. For the purpose of prediction.

Mathematics was invented purely to predict the future.

First time leap: A whole lot of evidence gathering, arguing and sidetracks such as astrology (predicting human future from the future of the skies, anthropomorphism is old). Human civilization evolves. Those Astrologers to the King that seek prescience have created mathematics that have other purposes. If the counting of things had not happened long before the invention of astronomy the astronomers would not have been able to spend their lives watching the heavens instead of tending the fields. The *specialization* of civilization allows for mathematicians and mathematics to evolve. You could argue that math started with counting, not compasses. But math starts with mathematicians in the same way that physics starts with physicists. The common knowledge rationalized and condensed has its causality in the actual physical world. Written down, handed down, rational(?) explanations of the universe is "science". Hopefully *more* rational as knowledge accumulates. But not "science" until recorded. The history of physics *is* the history of mathematics.

So math is physics. First created by the compass but all science is prediction of how physical objects and collections of physical objects "behave". Causality rules *everything*.

One dimensional is just a line. Any object freely moving in a gravitational field, no rockets or external pushing, moves in a one dimensional line. Straight down in a gravitational field is "plumb". 1D is a description of a direction of motion, not a thing in itself. Non-Euclidean math lets you bend a 1D line into an orbit, but these orbits are created by two forces and are *mathematically* 2D, so...

Two dimensional is trickier than it looks. When you draw a circle you create a two dimensional thing. You really can't say which, the radius or the motion, *causes* the two dimensional plane. This ends up in later physics as "uncertainty", the radius representing the position and the progress of the circumference the velocity (of the particle). Unsortable.

Three dimensional is easier than it looks, :) every time we use it, it is a rotation or translation of a 2D plane. Physics is based on the motion of a "thing". In the case of area you can not sort which part of the motion, the two forces are simultaneous. Three dimensional motion just adds another force. Same with four and above, just additional 1D vectors of force acting on the motion. Eleven dimensional space is 3D with 11 summed vectors representing the possible summed motions within that space. You can not *go* there.

There is a disconnect above three dimensional. You all know it intuitively. Rock, paper, scissors. You can not add a fourth thing without causing an iteration. With three items no matter which you choose there is *one* result positive and *one* negative. One set. Firmly connected by causality. With four items there will be an iteration when the two choices selected are from different sets. These sets are created by probability/multiplication. Integers is counting math. Exponential math is multiplication. Turns out that compasses create exponential math as they draw circles, and integer math creates it above three objects from combinations of integers. This is how real things combine in the real world. Integer counting is human. The universe is exponential. Math combines the two.

Chaos in math and physics starts when you get more than one answer. Chaos rules anything disconnected and three dimensional. Start with an atom. It is predictable within itself. Throw a bunch of atoms into 3D space and they will act chaotically *until* they bond with another atom to make a molecule. Now that you have two atoms combined you can predict them within themselves as a molecule. A larger set. Take it to cells, organs, and organisms. Or atoms, molecules, dust particles, planetoids, planets, and stars. Chaos *between* each 3D set. The end set in *every* example is open. We can predict anything enclosed by three dimensions but not anything that is a set of 3D things that can wander in and out at will, or "chaotically".

And its in the math. Fermat's Last Theorem. Fermat wrote that he had a marvelous proof that a triangle could not produce an object of three or more dimensions. But no mathematician could figure it out. Centuries later one clever human came up with 100 pages of math to prove that him right, that it is impossible. But. It is not required to show that every possible combination is wrong. The above explains why you can't go above two dimensions with three variables, the third variable is the result of the other two. Unsortable, and "unsymbolized" at the current time.

So *mathematics* demonstrates chaos, math is just symbolized logic representing physics.

Now to the good stuff :)

Start with a chaotic bunch of "stuff" to make particles from. It has no dimensions because it has no order, it has no order because it has no pattern. Make a pattern. Rotate a chunk of chaos. As you rotate it you create order, a pattern that repeats. You get a axis of rotation and the amount of time that it takes to make a loop back to the start. Patterns closer to the center repeat quicker in time, time happening as you rotate, but are equal in start/end points. But this pattern isn't closed, it depends on the cause of motion. If you take your rotating bunch of stuff and start rotating it perpendicular to the first spin direction you can close the stuff in a pattern of two patterns. The thing you end up with spins in two perpendicular axis. A toroid. A donut. Spinning around its major axis through the donut hole *and* also around its 2D circle of a circumferential axis.

The fundamental particle of the universe is a toroid. A *gyroscopic* toroid. The spins are sustained in a chaotic field of smaller "cyclic disturbances" hereby defined as "stuff" or "quantum fluctuations in the gravitational field" or "chaotic background energy supplied by stars radiating a wide range of particles disturbing the gravitational field". So chaos is caused by the stars that are spinning matter up into little domains of order.

Chaos *causes* Order. AND_OR. Order *causes* Chaos.
Yup, one for the *future* philosophers.

So gravity is made of particles.
--------------------- Part One ---------------------
Feb 2020
--------------------- Part Two ---------------------
This helps explain the universe in a much simpler way than with multi-dimensional math.

If the gravitational field is a particle field then you don't have to squash and stretch space. Just change the density of the field. Stronger field, more particles closer together. Differences in chaotic background energy, differences in the strength of the gravitational field. Denser field, slower transfer of energy from particles in the field to the field a.k.a. time. Time is entropy.

Photons. Now we have a gravitational field made up of donut particles. There now must be a different particle that travels *through* the gravitational field. To make the explanation fit observations. If you're still stuck on the gravitational field equations or purely mathematical, just imagine photons as "squishy". The same photon gets smaller in a denser field, takes up more room in a less dense field. Size measure equals *time* or "wavelength". *This* took a huge leap. Turns out that toroidal loops stack, in a very ordered manner. If you intersect two spinning toroidal loops they will stick together, if they have opposite spin. Spinning toroids are left or right-handed. Stack two opposite spins and the resulting forces is the surrounding stuff pulls them into a perpendicular pair. This is a photon. Because of its shape and spin it wants to travel if in a chaotic field. The open frame pushes "stuff", a.k.a. gravitational field, through itself. The hazard of traveling in a chaotic field is that you *will* hit some other particle in the field. You have two, opposite spin, gyroscopes. Any collision with another object ends up with a summing of the forces and a 1D direction of motion as a result. If you flatten a photons paths through the field you will find a circle, created by a cycle, a pattern of order. A circle progressing in a line is a spiral. The higher energy the photon the smaller the circle it will make. Bigger photon makes more collisions in the same field, resulting in sharper turns. Long wavelength=big_circles= low_energy=small_volume_photon. Short wavelength=small_circle= high_energy=large_volume_photon. Defining wave *length* requires a universal standard rate of cycle. Michelson_Morley used *only* light to measure the speed of light. The "Speed of Light" is a ratio between size and rate that reduces to a fixed number. The "speed of light" isn't a speed, it's a ratio. In order for light to travel across the universe through varying time rates imposed by gravitational fields, it has to change speed to match the time change in your strange theory. Photon path rate is not "the speed of light". Your measure of distance, light years, do not contain any information about distance, only time. Even your assumption that this ratio never changes is entirely irrational. All investigations have happened on this planet at this *one* gravitational field density.

Electron. Add a third loop and you get an electron. Note the exponential increase of particle mass/energy from gravity to photon to electron. Adding the third loop makes the sum of the forces more in the direction of initial motion. Photons travel straight in circular patterns, electrons push through the field with less of the outside universe flowing through it like the photon. They are so light that if the field moves, they move with it. Cathode ray tubes push electrons around in magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are stronger iterations of gravitational fields.

So that was Gravity, Photon, and Electron using one, two, and three loops.

Next leap: Hydrogen is four loops.

Hydrogen is a proton with an electron. Fourth loop creates the proton. Gets pushed around in a magnetic field like the electron, just 20 times more massive. Takes more push. Fourth "thing" in the universe is disconnected and gets "things" added to it. Electrons and Photons require gravity to exist. The next step always requires the previous. It's in the math/physics. Four objects result in math above three dimensions.

Five loops is Deuterium. Sorry, but it is and always has been an element. Ask the past philosophers why they thought differently. I can't figure them out. There are no isotopes of a proton. That would *really* confuse things, or did. Might even create "fusion" as a false lead for 60 or 70 years.

Six loops is Helium. Helium missing a loop is the first isotope, tritium. *All* isotopes are stacks that are missing loops. The average amount of loops in each element determines its "atomic weight" and "isotopes" are any that do not match that average. The max count of the stacks can not be exceeded. The surface interaction is how we sort elements into columns on the periodic table. Any set of stacks acts more like its surface than its internal configuration. If they weigh different than they act, we call them isotopes.

At this point just go to the periodic table. There should be two rows of three starting it. The sequence should be 3, 8, 18, 38, 78. That's the way that loops stack. Every stack produces lower energy positions to "fit" new loops. There's a plane of low spots around the 3D structure of the stacked loops. Any new loop would prefer to fit in the lowest energy position. If they fill "correctly" by *only* filling the lowest energy position then there would be no isotopes. Spin *has* to balance. Unbalanced stacks tear themselves apart. Decay. Once the set of low spots is filled in the old shell then the new shell has that mathematical progression of positions on its outside. Spin pairing produces the double rows. Three perpendicular circles produces eight low spots, iterate from there.

If you look at the current row of 32, the lanthanides and actinides, you will find six mass gaps in each row. Total of 38. The next higher energy set, the 78 shell, hasn't been discovered yet ;-)

No nucleus.

No "fusion" where you "create more energy" by sticking two, lower energy, things together. *Emit* more energy when sticking them together, than when smashed separately??? Just smash them. Chaos turns to heat that can be manipulated for our advantage. Current fission reactors split heavy elements in order to get the resulting neutrons to cause the reaction to run itself. All effort is required to ensure that it does not continue at the rate it would like. Smash lighter elements to get a cycle that gets fed from further away. If you use energy to accelerate particles to end in chaos and then use part of that energy to smash more, and part for producing electricity, you have control over the process. If you stop feeding it will not continue. A very different approach that desperately keeping the process from running away with itself. More like using elements as coal than in sci-fi "atomic" reactors.

The first two shells of the periodic table can be reduced to eleven summed vectors for eleven spin paired loop sets. Eleven dimensional math is string theory. Loops are string theory. 1D is purely a mathematical abstraction.

If photons lose energy as they travel across the universe they will shift to the red. Dark Energy is red-shift. Red-shift is aging. Nothing "Dark" about it. No expansion. No multi-dimensional squashing or stretching.

Relativity is completely explained by this model. The only thing the gravitational field equations lacked was a cause. Einstein could not see pass photons, gravity, and time. He never fit *matter* into any of his theories, other than as a thing that provided a gravitational field. That his math was actually made up of matter would never occur to him. While continually arguing against Bohr's lack of causality. :) *So* close to the solution.

Chaos and String theories are also pretty obvious.

Quantum theory is an interpretation of *mathematics* not of a physical model. Math describing itself? That's what caused all that "Black Hole" nonsense. Mathematical fantasies propped up by an ignorant elite pretending to be scientist when in all actuality are just pagans parroting irrational stories in order to be rich, famous, and in control of the pseudo-intellectuals. Egos. No causality required, no evidence, just agreement. Twisted rationalities. No science there. Politics.

Causality rules.

Dark just "goes away". No expansion so no Dark Energy, and the gravitational field is Dark Matter. Time is just entropy. GravityTime is the new SpaceTime. Symmetry is built into the toroids. Particle/Wave is a misinterpretation of fundaments of physics/math. All the theories collapse to one. The universe is 3D, math is explanations and predictions that require causality.


A Rational Philosopher,

NOTE: I am not the author. Please refer to Scott Van Note for discussion.

--------------------- Part Two ---------------------


Forum Staff
Apr 2008
On the dance floor, baby!
Simply because you are copying someone else's work does not mean that it is correct.

There is nothing here that says anything about a TOE, to say nothing of a number of incorrect or unsupportable statements.

Thread closed.

Not open for further replies.