Looking for honest peer !

I have news for you, Cosmo - they're one and the same . . .

ev·i·dence
(ĕv′ĭ-dəns)
n.
1.
a. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
b. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.
2. Law
a. The means by which an allegation may be proven,

 

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

 

Not true , there is logical proofs and experimental proofs .

I can prove space can't be destroyed by trying to destroy it .

 

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science; they are final and they are binary.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional,and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.

 

I agree in logical proofs and observational proofs but I do also think there is a final . I understand the semantics of scientific theory very well as my theory explains in the introduction .

Introduction.


The Universe inside and out is a scientific theory and paper that investigates and researches past physics and present physics . An investigation that'll propose semantic errors , incorrect physics interpretation and ostensible content that has no others uses but that of the practitioner. The Universe inside and out conceptually considers the intricate details of physical process in search of relative correctness ! Additionally , The Universe Inside and Out proposes several theoretical notions , including the beginning of the visual universe , the gravity mechanism , the true nature of light and the meaning of time .

Also ....

Defining Theory and Hypothesis


In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis correctly in semantic terms . It is also of importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis is in the terms of realism.
A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.
An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more ''solid'' than a hypothesis , often having experimental results to back it up. Hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation than a theory , being without any evidential merit.
We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

Added - Actually , thank you , you gave me an idea to improve my introduction .
Page 1 - Introduction.


The Universe Inside and Out is a scientific theory and paper that investigates and researches past physics and present physics . An investigation that'll propose semantic errors , incorrect physics interpretation and ostensible content that has no others uses but that of the practitioner. The Universe inside and out conceptually considers the intricate details of physical process in search of relative correctness !
Additionally , The Universe Inside and Out proposes several theoretical notions , including the beginning of the visual universe , the gravity mechanism , the true nature of light and the meaning of time .
In understanding any theory , it is firstly important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis correctly in semantic terms . It is also of importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis is in the terms of realism.
A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become too besotted in any idea , unless it is of axiom tendencies.
An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more ''solid'' than a hypothesis , often having experimental results to back it up. Hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation than a theory , being without any evidential merit.
We must not allow ourselves to speculate too vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.
An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of hypothesis or theory .
We must also presume that axiom's observed in our finite visual Universe, co-exist to be true on a broader scale of an infinite Universe or Multi-verse. There would be no valid reason to assume that our observed axioms are not the same and equal too, on a broader scale.
We must also remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event.
The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved. It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone.
The process or event always preceding the maths, it is important to recall our history, Maxwell several years later creating the maths to ''fit'' Faraday's findings, the maths a later of the former.
When we observe limitation, we observe restriction, not only are we restricted to a visual limitation that establishes a finite visual Universe, we are also restricted to thinking inside of the ''box''and have limitations in our thinking. Any thinking of ''outside'' of the box, can only be deemed to be speculation and hypothesis , never deemed to be fact until a future time where further investigations may lead to new findings beyond our limitations.

 

So, you, and perhaps a scant number more, have it figured out, and when it goes against the smartest scientists, these guys are wrong, and you are right?

I think most serious scientists, with integrity, are quite humble people. I doubt they express the certainty that you do. So perhaps you are right.

Most of my impressions of the kind of science you are espousing is that I simply do not know. I am not certain of much that is touted about today, about the nature of reality and this universe. I don't even know if it is follows philosophical materialism, or philosophical idealism. And of course it would matter if the fundamental of reality is mind, consciousness, instead of dumb matter.

 

There is a difference in me , I don't claim science is wrong , I claim to have worked it all out and put it all together and they are delusional when they tell me I'm wrong , when I am using their science . They just have some poor semantics and are rather arrogant . I'm 13 pages into the write up but I am only on contents 3 /8 so don't expect completion anytime soon .



My paper should read well and look well when complete .





Buy one , get the next extra special theory FREE !

 

The fact that there are no finals in scientific knowledge has nothing to do with "semantics".
One of the hallmarks of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to change, as new data are collected and reinterpretations of existing data are made.

 

No, not least because you haven't said what 'N' is (unless I missed that bit) or why a volume should be raised to that power.

Is this is what it's come to now, you coming up with random fragments of equation in the hope that it helps to support your fanciful notion. Seems rather like the idea that with enough monkeys and enough typewriters you end up with the works of Shakespeare. It's true, but as the "infinite monkey project" shows, you need a lot of monkeys and an awful lot of time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15060310

 

n is n-dimensional . I wouldn't worry though , I'm going to give up , nobody cares about my work . Even a new forum I've joined , a maths forum , has avoided helping me with the maths .

 

Then what's the rationale for raising it to the power n ?

I can understand why - it's hard work, and pointless.

 

The point in raising to the power of n is to represent possible infinite . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_coordinate_space

It allows n to be unspecified .

Hard work lmao and definite not pointless .

 

In other words, you have no real idea why, it just seemed like something to do....

Of course it's pointless. You have fabulous ideas, poorly expressed which claim that both current theory and experimental evidence are wrong without presenting any kind of supporting evidence.

 

NO , you have that wrong, I claim science has poor semantics and poor interpretation on some things . They are not wrong as such , just poor understanding of their own science . I understand it better than they do .

 

Well rest assured that although you think you do, you do not.

 

I know I do , would you like me to switch and start to talk about science in your own terms , such as space-time curvature ?

I'm advanced past that though , that would be stepping back in time to me .


Einstein stuff is not really about gravity , Einstein stuff is about orbits etc . Space time curvature is about field curvature , Newton covered gravity . I've covered the quantum mechanics of gravity , which Einstein or Newton does not answer. I understand field mass .

P.s My ''book'' with the diagrams will make more sense , but I do not know how to upload a word file . Experiments make more sense with the explanation .



Space-time is the movable in the immovable .....





X^n , Y^n , Z^n

I'm not making stuff up lol

P.s That's a final true answer to date . XYZ is the visual universe , the total universe is X^n Y^n Z^n . People make this mistake all the time and don't even know the difference !

(Q / X^n Y^n Z^n) / t = 0

Do you understand now ?

dx = n

dy = n

dz = n

It is a fact we don't know how big the Universe is , it is a fact we know how big the visual universe is .

Last efforts , I need go find a normal job otherwise , sick of having no money . I need support to write all this stuff , my next book does photon torpedoes and all sorts . I have to write the first book first , so ''you'' understand the next book.

Added - You can also do the glass experiment , filled with smoke and no , these are not my big experiments I want to try . The big experiments are some of the contents of my next book .

 

Page 12

3. Binary energy particle ​

In the previous section , we discussed Micro Bangs and the temporal transition of point charge , in which was proposed , that a mono-pole point charge manifestation has no mechanism to form an existence when surrounded by an unspecified volume of real coordinate space that has a lesser density and lesser magnitude of energy . Thus leading us now to consider the aspects of how a point charge could possibly retain form and density to become a stable particle and remain in existence .
The Universe Inside and Out , now considers bonding and what binary construct and/or process would be physically required to form a stable particle in a real coordinate space. A binary is something that is based of two parts , in consideration of this I ask you to preliminary accept the prior -Q and +Q in being the two individual parts , that will construct the first stable binary energy particle .
We'll now consider any random point of real coordinate space and consider a simultaneous event of -Q and +Q manifesting at this given point , simultaneously occupying the given point . We already know by our present founded laws of physics and Coulombs law of charge that opposite charges attract . -Q and +Q are attracted to each other by natural laws .
The Universe inside and out proposes that the natural law of attraction of opposite charge and the simultaneous event manifestation of -Q and +Q at the same real coordinate spatial point , forms an instantaneous bond , that allows the two opposite charges to form a stable binary energy particle that retains form , density and an identity of one .
The identity of one being assigned the value of two halves 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 . Two opposite charges constructing a single binary energy particle .




One in this instant not to be mistaken for charge values which will be discussed on the next page .



Is it worth me continuing ?

Am I not describing one of a possible many Quantum singularities ?

delta R^n = 1

delta 1 = delta t

delta S = delta E

delta E = delta t

i.e ''time'' dilation .

Time 1 = time 2

timing one is not equal to timing 2

aging one is not equal to aging 2

That is the correct semantics I'll discuss when I write contents 8 .


Don't believe me ?

Twin 2 travels towards the sun , delta t = delta E

His aging will rapidly accelerate and he will burn up .

When twin two first leaves the earth his aging will slow down , but as he nears the sun it will speed up . I'm an expert on relative ....

-ve = >P field

+ve = <P field

Where P is density in this case .

added - Having to more or less rewrite the entirety of physics to be semantically correct is by no means easy you know ! It fries my brain to say the least ...I have to ''access'' space with my mind , not in a magical sense . When I ''access'' space everything is within me , I'm the third observer , I experience an out of body experience . I'm looking at me and looking at everything else . My outer body experience being absolutely objective , avoiding the subjective of my own mind .
It may sound quite insane but all the information required is within space , to be or not be space is the question , I think therefore I am , I am space so all the information is within me .

Ourselves our independent of space but dependent to space-time continuum .

 

Update and some more math

Page 13

Binary energy particle
​

Previously we discussed the forming and identity of one . We will now consider the charge values of the formed binary energy particle that has an identity of one (singularity).
In consideration of this I again ask you to preliminary accept the values -Q to represent a negative point charge and +Q to represent a positive point charge .

We already know by our present measures that a negative charge and a positive charge measures zero net charge . The opposites canceling each others charge out .

We can express this as being a neutral electrical charge or a neutral charged object . What this means in simple terms is if you were to touch a neutrally charged object , you will not feel any sort of electrical shock .

I.e A wooden chair is a fine example of an electrical neutral object .

The Universe Inside and Out now requests the preliminary acceptance of the letter N in bold to represent an electrical neutral measure of a formed solid and in addition gives name to the newly formed binary energy particle , namely a N-field particle .

It is proposed that the binary construct of the N-field particle is a negative energy and a positive energy.

In maths , the Universe Inside and Out now expresses charge values and provides the following diagram :

 

It's starting to get ''juicy'' now !

Page 14

Binary energy particle
​

In continuation of our discussion on the newly formed binary energy particle , namely the N-field particle , It is also proposed that the newly formed N-field particle creates its own dimensions by force mechanism . A four dimensional manifold (XYZE) and additionally an entropy (S) , where XYZ is volume and E is energy .

Thus explaining energy in maths terms : E = (-Q) + (+Q)/ t

The conclusion was reached in consideration to the prior explained micro bang process and the identity of 1/2 = 0 or E/2 = 0 .

The splitting of the N-field particle binary having the consequent of the opposite charge energies self annihilating .

 

Once again, the units don't match so, once again your mathematics is as flawed as usual.

The idea that 1/2 = 0 fully expresses how flawed your grasp of mathematics is....

 

I grasp it , in normal terms 1/2 = 0.5

But we are not talking normal terms , we are talking quantum mechanics and energy .

In my explained theory -0.5Q cannot exist without 0.5Q . If you split 1 into 2 , both parts self annihilate . So indeed 1/2 = 0

Do you want to try again ?

Page 15

Binary energy particle

​

The Universe Inside and Out now discusses the force mechanism of the self created 5 dimensional manifold of XYZE and entropy (S) , of the newly formed N-field particle .
Earlier on in the micro bang process we discussed the mono-pole point charges energy and mentioned that it was attracted to all the surrounding R^n real coordinate space in an isotropic manner . The surrounding space proposed to have a lesser energy and this was expressed : <E .

Also expressed was that a lesser energy state <E applies a force on higher energy state >E and proposed was F<E .

It is now proposed that from the instant of our synchronous timing of two opposite pole point charges manifesting at the exact same geometrical spatial point , that from this instant of the binary formation , the formation was attracted to all of the surrounding R^n space .

In affect of this , the effect being a self inflation in an isotropic manner .

The second force of the formation involved that stops the N-field particle self annihilation , is that of the electrostatic strong force that is the binary of the N-field particle expressed F>E .

 

Nope.

I'm pretty sure that when you're insisting that 1/2 = 0 then there's a fundamental flaw in your calculations somewhere

 

How can it be flawed when it gives the correct result required for my theory and the self annihilation ?


added

If -Q / R^n = 0 and +Q / R^n = 0

and

(-Q) + (+Q) / t = 1

then

1 / 2 = -Q / R^n and +Q / R^n

 

I think you've answered your own question there......

 

Take a bar of chocolate and divide it into 2

1/2=0.5

Take a N-field particle and divide it into 2

1/2 = 0

Can't you understand the difference ?

The former is for an amount of particles , 0.5 of 1 chocolate bar is lots and lots of particles .