Tuck's Theory of Everything!

[stephentuck25]

My name is Stephen Tuck and I have completed Einstein's work. Black holes convert mass into space, which accounts for the accelerated expansion of the universe known as Dark Energy. E=M*C^2 is actually not in completed form. The equation really is E=Space*Mass*Time. The expanded equation combines Mass Increase and Time Dilation in the same equation. Time is the kinetic energy of mass. Quantum Mechanics is a flawed model based on the powerful mathematics of probability. String Theory is completely incorrect. More details can currently be found at: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:..._of_Everything.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Would black holes also disassemble compound nuclei into hydrogen?

[austintorn@aol.com]

What would be the dimensional units for
Energy = Space * Mass * Time,

Using only Time(t) and Distance(d)

I have Energy as being necessarily 3D,
Proposed as being in units of ‘tdd’,
But am not sure if that’s right;

So, does Space * Mass * Time
Come out to that, Space being ‘ddd’,
And, of course, Time being ‘t’?

It’s just that I don’t know
The dimensional units of Mass.

Maybe there is more to the equation, though,
That must be considered
To obtain the dimensional units
And see if they match.

We could also then compare it
To the formula, E=MCC,
In which ‘c’ has units of ‘d/t’.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Other speculations, just for fun.,
(You seem like the kind guy
Who could get into it better)
Suggesting that the speed of light
Is really a ratio (d/t),
And how that might be derived,
But, regardless, ‘d/t’ would still be
Its dimensional units.


Polarity and Electric Fields

The universe is four-dimensional,
Its three infinite spatial extents
Defined by summation,
Leaving only one degree of freedom
For the difference operator
To perform the nullification of space:
The fourth dimension of polarity (time)
That has a positive and negative axis.

(+)

E
n
S p a c e (neutral)
r
g
y
(-)

(The fourth dimension is not composed of points
Because it represents their 4-dimensional deflection—
A difference of position.)

Distance**4 = c(time-distance**3)

‘c’, the speed of light,
Underlies the dimensional relationship
Between time and distance.

There is unbounded duration
Over infinite distance—
An eternity of infinity!


Time

Time is the difference of space
And space is the difference of time;
So, time is a difference dimension,
Not a compositional dimension.

Its two forms are the displacement
Caused by motion
And the polarity of electric fields.

The universe’s totality
Is neutral and symmetric,
Whereas its internal composition
Is polar and asymmetric.

zero + zero = zero
(For spatial continuity,
The sum of nothing being nothing))

and

zero - zero = zero
(For polarity,
The difference of nothing being nothing)

4D Hypercube:

C
h
S p a c e
r
g
e

=

P
o
l
a
N e u t r a l i t y
i
t
y

Time is the dimension that bounds,
Not extends,
Three dimensional space…

As in this unit conversion, adding ‘c’:

Distance**4 = c(time*distance**3)

The speed of light (c) is the balance
Between space and time,
The underlying relationship
Between distance and time,
Reflecting an eternity
For it to cross the universe.

It is the standard for unbounded duration,
Much as the universe’s diameter
Provides the standard for unbounded distance.

[stephentuck25]

Basically all matter would be transformed into a quark-gluon plasma, which is a phase of matter. Mass can undergo all sorts of interactions while it is being compressed by the force of gravitation. I would doubt that it would form lighter elements such as hydrogen because in stars where there is tremendous heat and pressure, you get heavier elements formed by nucleosynthesis. My equation uses the standard C constant for the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. The mathematics is the same as E=MC^2 except C^2 is simplified to it's true components of Space and Time. Obviously that means that the units are expressed as distance over time. The full equation is Energy = ((Space * Mass * Time) / (1 - (Velocity^2 / C^2))^0.5) - (Space * m0 * Time). You initially set Space and Time equal to the C constant. For energy transformations the second part of the equation is nullified by setting m0 (initial mass) to 0 since it's purpose is for calculating the transference of kinetic energy by moving objects rather than energy conversions (like mass into energy or the mass-time dilation). This is a differential equation, since the dilation of Time is dependent on the tradeoff between itself and Mass (Mass Increase). You can calculate using an equation solver by first calculating the energy at a relativistic velocity, zeroing out the velocity to get the corresponding Mass Increase, then re-entering the velocity and calculating the Time. Time will be given as the maximum Speed of Light at that velocity. The mathematical proof lies in the fact that the equations for Time Dilation and Mass Increase are exactly the same. This is due to their mathematical relationship as terms of the same equation. This equation proves that Space, Mass, and Time are all forms of kinetic energy. The equation tells us that Time is the kinetic energy of mass and that mass is converted into Space in a black hole where gravitational acceleration equals and exceeds the Speed of Light (the singularity). Particle-Wave Duality is an interference effect between a particle moving through an ethereal space. Quantum Mechanics uses the powerful mathematics of probability, but is based on a flawed model. Superposition does not occur. The universe is deterministic in nature. Entangled particles are spin-anti-spin correlated due to their collision. In order to make a measurement, you have to use matter/energy to take a reading which disrupts the entanglement. Logical Positivism of the 20th century is responsible for the flawed philosophy. That means that String Theory is completely incorrect. This allows Quantum Mechanics to be merged with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This is a basic summery of my work, but more information can be learned by reading my 10-page paper provided by the link I posted. Also, if you have an iPhone, I recommend using the equation solver Formulaic. It allows user-defined formulas and is what I am using. Also Texas Instruments advanced graphing calculators have excellent equation solvers.

[William Christie]

Basically all matter........

I will dissect this and get back you Tuck. No stone left unturned.

[stephentuck25]

That's cool Christie. I'm just glad someone is taking an interest in my work. The ultimate goal in science is the truth. I have tried my best in the development of this theory and haven't found fault with it so far, but it is good to get the perspective and subset of knowledge that others can provide. The theory covers a lot of territory so maybe there is room for further insight. I know that with an ether, there could be the possibility that the speed of light isn't always at an exactly constant speed. I know that it differs when traveling through matter (refractive index), so it remains unclear as to what if any effect (perhaps minuscule) may exist for space. Obviously it must be fairly constant and I certainly believe in the underlying work of Einstein on the Special Theory of Relativity for which he derived E=MC^2. That is the basis for the new equation that I have proposed.

[William Christie]

I know that with an ether, there could be the possibility that the speed of light isn't always at an exactly constant speed.

In order to have a rotating planar wave, either 1) the outer perimeters must be travelling faster or 2) real space-time compensates. I have chosen the first option and left relativity as only a manifestation of the wave particle (wavicle) structure. I suggest that the normal light wave fronts have uniform EM fields while a bending light wave has divergent field. Under my idea (also posted under TOE here):

http://mypage.direct.ca/c/christie/Wavicle.html

my second postulate says that "only wave fronts of light which proceed in a straight line with respect to a Euclidean universal reference frame (defined by the stationary electromagnetic ether) always propogate in empty space (the vacuum state of ether) with a definite velocity C relative to that universal reference frame. Other wave fronts which do not proceed in a straight line, propogate with an angular velocity such that all wave fronts remain planar."

Who knows, maybe it relates analogously to refraction.

Even if we are wrong the journey is interesting and might help us understand what the masters are thinking. Without having looked carefully at your idea yet, perhaps look at Kaluza's 5th dimension and think about why Einstein was so startled by it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I read the entire write-up. All in all it is excellent, ingenious even, plus, it covers everything! (Yes, every darn thing) One of the best theories ever.


As for the universe, it would be interesting to know what causes unstable vacuum fluctuations (virtual particles) to exist in a limited time and space in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle.

The simplest state, even if it is Nothing, must be perfectly unstable.

(In 1977, George Savvidy showed that the QCD vacuum with zero field strength is unstable,)


My perspective is that a singularity is not a pathway into another universe, but rather into the fabric of space.

It may be possible that some virtual particles created via hawking radiation were matter that had previously fallen into the black hole.

This is the recycling of the universe, (which is one reason that I say you have covered everything). Perhaps this takes about 13.75 billion years plus what ever we have left to go.

Is Hawking radiation enough?


According to Superstring Theory, this is interpreted as a higher dimension from the three-dimensional spacetime curvature.

Perhaps what is in the black hole reappears at the Planck size volume everywhere, via this higher dimension.


The invisible boundary where light cannot escape due to spacial equivalence equal to the speed of light is known as the event horizon.

Black holes separate light from matter, basically?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Quarks and gluons…

THE PROTON—
LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE

A proton is made of three quarks, true,
But quarks are so small
That they only make up
Two percent or so
Of the proton’s total mass.

The quarks travel about
At near-light speed,
But they are imprisoned
In flickering clouds
Of other particles such
Other quarks and anti-quarks that
Materialize briefly and then vanish,
Plus, above all, gluons,
Which are massless and evanescent
But bind the quarks together
And carry most of the proton’s energy.

Such, it would be accurate to say
That protons are made of gluons
Rather than quarks.

Experiments have proved
Wilczek’s descriptions correct.

Every proton now around
Congealed from
A quark-gluon plasma soup
That existed for a microsecond
After the Big Bang.

In QED,
Which is about interactions
Of electromagnetic fields,
A screen made of photons
And short-lived electron-positron pairs
Partially cancels the electric fields,
Although, on the inside,
The fields get much stronger;
However, in QCD,
The opposite happens,
Called antiscreening—
The strong force between the quarks
Gets weaker as the quarks
Get closer together.

So the quarks seem to be
“Asymptotically free”,
Moving about as if there
Were no force between them at all

But this freedom is an illusion,
For, as the distance between them increases,
So does the strong force.

It is that the proton has parts,
But it cannot be taken apart!

The proton is mostly glue,
A kind of a super glue.

One number remains constant in protons
As their virtual quarks and anti-quarks
Come and go in their uncountable swarms:

Three.

There are always three more quarks
Than anti-quarks.

Why?

Why is the universe made of matter
And not anti-matter?

A slight imbalance between
Quarks and anti-quarks
Already existed in the
Primordial quark-gluon plasma.

Why?