Mechanical Theory of Everything

[Benyehooda]

Hi All,

I'm writing a book "Mechanical Theory of Everything" and I need your feedback.

Please help me find any logical issues, additions, clarifications and anything that comes to mind.

BasicPhysics.doc

Thanks.

[Mikal]

Hi Ben...I hope that I may call you Ben and also welcome you to the Toe.

I followed your link but unfortunately I am not scientifically minded so can not help you with your questions.
However, I felt if I posted and welcomed you that would bring your post here back to the surface where some of our science fellows may see it and help you.

As this tends to be a rather fast moving forum it is easy for your post and thread to get buried. I suggest you keep trying to bring it to notice.

Everyone deserves commendation for the passion they put into their own scientific explorations so I would like to see your questions answered.

Regards Mikal

[Bogie]

I don't have much for you Ben but I will toss out a couple of questions to get the ball rolling:

Before the collision do the two entities exist separately? Wouldn’t they be in the universe since the universe should include everything, even two entities before they collide?

When they collided did the entirety of each entity get compressed in the same space or did they collide in a place that then became common to both entities but leaving the rest of the two separate entities to go on existing separately?

Do the EM waves expand spherically or are they linear?

Your have some interesting ideas but the axioms don't seem self-evident; as I implied in my first question, do you say that the separate entities pre-exist the collision but the collision and the shared space is the universe. That doesn't fit with my definition of a universe. I would say that the two entities exist in the universe and when they collide there is a common space that represents our observable universe. Maybe the shared space has the physics that enables the universe as we know it, but the pre-existing entities would seem to have to exist somewhere in the greater universe.

Hope this gives you some feed back that you can consider.

[Benyehooda]

Thank you Mikal, that is so nice.

Hi Bogie,

Thank you for your questions.
The easiest way to understand EM waves is to think of a marble oscillating in water (not on the surface rather in depth) and them to imagine there are to types of water all over. EM waves will be the 3D waves the marble generates. which makes them 5D waves. more interesting is, at the tips of the waves there is a low compression of one entity and high of the other which gives the tips the photon behaver.

As for the Big Collision, You seem to have gotten confused over my definition of the universe. and still managed to grasp the idea.
I defined the universe as the area we can see. (where both entities co-exists and EM waves are possible).
Prior to the Big Collision the two entities existed in a pre-universe space.
The Big Collision created the 5D universe we see and exist in.(X,Y,Z, Blue entity, Red entity)

Please let me know if you have anymore questions.






If anyone sees this forum and can think of a better description to the shape and structure of the seen universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dtfe rather then a collision.
Please let me know.
Thank you.

[Benyehooda]

Hi Guys,

I thought to mention that the Mechanical Theory of Everything has some interesting outputs:

Time travel is not possible.
Space travel is possible; speed is not limited to the speed of light.

[Bogie]

Thank you Mikal, that is so nice.

Hi Bogie,

Thank you for your questions.
The easiest way to understand EM waves is to think of a marble oscillating in water (not on the surface rather in depth) and them to imagine there are to types of water all over. EM waves will be the 3D waves the marble generates. which makes them 5D waves. more interesting is, at the tips of the waves there is a low compression of one entity and high of the other which gives the tips the photon behaver.

As for the Big Collision, You seem to have gotten confused over my definition of the universe. and still managed to grasp the idea.
I defined the universe as the area we can see. (where both entities co-exists and EM waves are possible).
Prior to the Big Collision the two entities existed in a pre-universe space.
The Big Collision created the 5D universe we see and exist in.(X,Y,Z, Blue entity, Red entity)

Please let me know if you have anymore questions.






If anyone sees this forum and can think of a better description to the shape and structure of the seen universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dtfe rather then a collision.
Please let me know.
Thank you.

Thank you for the reply Ben.

Your description of the EM wave is pretty good. Are you including a medium in space for the waves to travel through? Can you describe it?

As for a better description rather than a collision, that is going to be pretty much a matter of opinion. Personally I like the multiple Big Bang idea where each bang encompasses an arena of space and as the arenas expand, they eventually intersect and overlap. It is not as much of a collision as it is an interruption of expansion that allows gravity to attract the mixing and mingling galaxies from each arena to form a new big crunch/big bang.

Still, your idea of two large entities colliding has merit. I wonder if the collision reduces the energy of the entities? I wonder if there is just one universe possible, i.e. one and only one collision for all time? If so, what is the outcome of our universe?

Why do you say that speed is not limited to the speed of light?

Best,
Bogie

[Benyehooda]

Hi Bogie,
Good post!


Your description of the EM wave is pretty good. Are you including a medium in space for the waves to travel through? Can you describe it?
Yes, Sure. In a reference system (X,Y,Z), there are two mediums (Red entity, Blue entity). An electron is a lump in the blue entity, when oscillating, the electron will create two coherencies waves in both entities (the Red entity is pressed against the blue entity and effected by the electron's movement) the waves will expend spherically and extinguished. If the waves come across another electron, the waves will loss energy equal to the gain of oscillation energy of the other electron.

By oscillating, an electron in the entities, most of the energy is invested in changing the electron direction as it goes back and forth. Most of the energy of the waves is at the tips of the waves, which will have a particle like behaver - photons.

I will be happy to clarify this issue farther if needed.


As for a better description rather than a collision, that is going to be pretty much a matter of opinion. Personally I like the multiple Big Bang idea where each bang encompasses an arena of space and as the arenas expand, they eventually intersect and overlap. It is not as much of a collision as it is an interruption of expansion that allows gravity to attract the mixing and mingling galaxies from each arena to form a new big crunch/big bang.
I like this idea. I'm a bit not clear for the gravity part in it though. In anyway, It seems to me that the structure of our universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dtfe is the outcome of two buddies collision, sense it has preferred directions, as if two water drops collided.

Still, your idea of two large entities colliding has merit. I wonder if the collision reduces the energy of the entities?
Well, it seems to me that the energy of the collision was converted to "dark energy" which expends the two entities to their pre-collision state.
I wonder if there is just one universe possible, i.e. one and only one collision for all time?
Under my theory there is an infinite universes possible, some from 3 or more entities. However, we are composed out of our entities and can not have any interaction with any other entities.
If so, what is the outcome of our universe?
I don't know, most likely it seems the two entities will part eventually.


Why do you say that speed is not limited to the speed of light?
I really like this question.
Speed is limited to light, cus your mass grows with speed.
Mass is the drag a moving body generate.
If you thrust the body/system by pulling/pushing the entities, you diminish the drag and the mass.
Speed is limited to your engineering capabilities and disposable energy.


Thank you very much for your questions.
I'm always happy to know someone has interest in my theory.

Best Regards,
Ben Yehooda.

[Bogie]

Hi Bogie,
Good post!


Your description of the EM wave is pretty good. Are you including a medium in space for the waves to travel through? Can you describe it?
Yes, Sure. In a reference system (X,Y,Z), there are two mediums (Red entity, Blue entity). An electron is a lump in the blue entity, when oscillating, the electron will create two coherencies waves in both entities (the Red entity is pressed against the blue entity and effected by the electron's movement) the waves will expend spherically and extinguished. If the waves come across another electron, the waves will loss energy equal to the gain of oscillation energy of the other electron.

By oscillating, an electron in the entities, most of the energy is invested in changing the electron direction as it goes back and forth. Most of the energy of the waves is at the tips of the waves, which will have a particle like behaver - photons.

I will be happy to clarify this issue farther if needed.


As for a better description rather than a collision, that is going to be pretty much a matter of opinion. Personally I like the multiple Big Bang idea where each bang encompasses an arena of space and as the arenas expand, they eventually intersect and overlap. It is not as much of a collision as it is an interruption of expansion that allows gravity to attract the mixing and mingling galaxies from each arena to form a new big crunch/big bang.
I like this idea. I'm a bit not clear for the gravity part in it though. In anyway, It seems to me that the structure of our universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dtfe is the outcome of two buddies collision, sense it has preferred directions, as if two water drops collided.

Still, your idea of two large entities colliding has merit. I wonder if the collision reduces the energy of the entities?
Well, it seems to me that the energy of the collision was converted to "dark energy" which expends the two entities to their pre-collision state.
I wonder if there is just one universe possible, i.e. one and only one collision for all time?
Under my theory there is an infinite universes possible, some from 3 or more entities. However, we are composed out of our entities and can not have any interaction with any other entities.
If so, what is the outcome of our universe?
I don't know, most likely it seems the two entities will part eventually.


Why do you say that speed is not limited to the speed of light?
I really like this question.
Speed is limited to light, cus your mass grows with speed.
Mass is the drag a moving body generate.
If you thrust the body/system by pulling/pushing the entities, you diminish the drag and the mass.
Speed is limited to your engineering capabilities and disposable energy.


Thank you very much for your questions.
I'm always happy to know someone has interest in my theory.

Best Regards,
Ben Yehooda.

Thanks Ben. I'm concluding from what you say that the pre-universe entities might themselves have always existed, and they more or less have independent motion which might bring them into collision here and there, but once an observable universe is created by the collision, that universe might go out of existence as the independent motion of the two entities separates again. I sounds like you are thinking that multiple observable (from within) universes could exist at the same time. Does that mean that space and time are infinite?

[SteveA]

I don't think the units of time for motions between these two forms of space are comparable, or if they are comparable, then the units of time being referred are from the 'top' level version and then I don't think there's a rational way in which a separation can occur.

My statements are made from the perspective that time exists as detectable change between two (or more states) and this implies that an intangible past remains (spacetime) that extends outside of a space of (present) motion and is a continually accumulating and creative process.

Notice a few things:

1) Motions of the red and blue entities (I think it's actually an unlimited number of such entities united by a common property) prior to an interaction are unrelated to times and spaces present in the universe after their interaction. Those motions could exist as effectively both infinitely fast and be of any complexity relative to motions in their common space of interaction.

So units of time, distance, energy etc. inherent in such motions would appear to be incomparable to conventional units of these. (there would not necessarily even be inertia)

2) In order for such a space to be possibly described in terms of motions over time, then some form of difference between past and present states would need to exist, but if such a space contained everything, then there should be no record of any past states that exists separate to this in order that some present state could exist as specifically 'moved'/changed etc.

To restate this, if some perspective exists in which there exists some present state that has been altered from a past state in specific ways, then there exists something outside the present description that details what specifics have been altered and that would be a model in which some assumed unaltered memory of the past is present and doesn't also undergo alteration (otherwise those subjective motions would be 'illusionary' ... if that's the case, it's at least a good enough illusion that I'd have a hard time seeing past it ).

3) Any form of deterministic evolution over time that exists (such as motions possessing inertia) implies a continual connection across events in time - A becomes B, becomes C, etc. and removing a prior cause would appear to also remove all subsequent effects arising from it, unless those evolutionary rules themselves are alterable (for example, if A becomes B, which becomes C etc. and B was 'snipped' from this, then the rule that A becomes B and not C would have to be altered to be that A becomes C instead.) If the rules at a fundamental level are alterable, then there's nothing deterministic "below" that to determine in what manners such rules can be altered and any form of backwards causation (i.e. if somehow the state C was to cause a change in the rule such that A now becomes C instead of B) was present, then this seems to just be a vicious temporal paradox ... a present state can't alter the past of a deterministic system in a manner that removes the present state from having existed, otherwise there was never anything to have caused the alteration.

It appears that if we're going to attempt to rationalize about observations acquired over time that it must first be assumed that within some set of experiences, ones observations and memories are correct and that ones form of logic being used is impeccable and that neither of these are influenced by any subsequent theoretical construction/derivation. Attempting to question the validity of that might prove to give some useful explorations but it would appear that rationally no such inconsistencies (within whatever relevant set of these was used to construct the theory) would be able to be found, otherwise the theory would be self determined to be tossed in the circular file

So whether or not that statement is made explicitly, I'd have to assume that every theoretical physicist is basing their theory upon the existence of a perfect memory, that's solely integrating and growing as well as, at a minimum, some precise mechanism by which such an integration can grow and exist as a unified entity (logically there's no way to reference a separation - if something is declared to have become separate, then at a minimum, it fundamentally remains connected via. memory and the space is which some separation is viewed is a subset of the space in which 'everything' exists. Either that or things can whimsically pop in and out of existence in a manner that no awareness of would be present as no memory of the specific thing that had come or gone would be present)

In order to accommodate time, a statistical/random entropy needs to be added which would be inherently creative.

The basis of a theory that appears to work for rational discussion is fundamentally just a counting. Everything is an integrative and "forward" accumulation in time (if something 'disappears', it's because of an addition of a masking of its visibility has been added and not that the thing is no longer present).

Now that might sound rather predetermined, and it would be on some (infinite) scale of 'everything', but there's a lot of room to play with from a limited/finite view. Any finite window of visibility has potentially an infinite number of divergent possibilities extending beyond the present moment. The ability to determine the specifics of such an evolution from a finite perspective is limited to those references one has available though and this gives a model similar to that seen in quantum mechanics where a wavefunction determines the distribution of possible events from which some energy/photon makes a selection. In that case, the evolution of the physical universe is much like selecting things that are excluded or denied from occuring and then some 'external' source of energy/time/growth makes a selection or appends some property to that rationally controllable subset of possibilities.

Anyway, that's just some ideas to consider.

[Benyehooda]

Hi Bogie,

Unfortunately, I have to be a bit annoying when answering this question.
I intentionally defined my field of interest/research/work as the philosophy of physics. meaning; only what we can theoretically prove/disprove.
All that is outside the entities is pure philosophy and theoretically can not be proved.
My work can answer all that happed from a moment before the big collision and until today at the area of the seen universe.
Hopefully it will be enough.....

Thank you for your questions.