555Joshua
Don't cuss me out for not including math. I have no way of learning it. Your comments are welcome.

I constructed this TOE originally to better explain gravity. I thought I would share it with you since everyone else is, even though they don't have math for it--which was what I was trying to get before I revealed it to you.

Here it is:

The basic principle which the Universe obeys is that everything is unstable. To become stable, it either clumps together—matter—or expands—“empty” space. All matter must obey quantum law because that is how it evolves. Space doesn’t obey quantum law because it expands uniformly.

First, in chemistry, it is known that the number of electrons in the outer shell determine the reactivity of the element. That is, the closer the atom is to having a full shell (the Noble gases), the more reactive it is. The elements closest to the left and right sides of the Table of Elements (excluding the Noble gases, which are completely inert, and are all on the right side), the more reactive they are. This is because the ones closest to the left and right sides are the ones closest to the Noble gases (closest to having full outer shells). We can state that the elements with full outer electron shells are stable, and all the other atoms are unstable. The closer they are to becoming stable, the more unstable they become. Metals want to toss away the extra electrons in their outer shell—all the electrons in their outer shell—and reach the stable point beneath them. They want to become the nearest noble gas.

These unstable atoms bond together because in tossing (or grabbing) electrons, they become positively (or negatively) charged. Thus, they share electrons.

Now I wish to point out that Fluorine, the smallest of the halogen family, is the most reactive, even though each one in the halogen family is only one electron away from a full shell.

Let’s look at the common characteristics of gravity and the elements. With an object, let’s say a planet, the greater the mass is, the greater its gravitational pull. Also, the greater the mass, the smaller the body, the stronger the gravity. This is not very different from the elements, where, the closer it is to having a full outer shell, the more unstable it becomes. If we conclude that the object is unstable, and the bigger it is, the closer it is to becoming stable, and thus more eager to becoming stable, we find a common principle. A black hole has a lot of mass for its size, and when we look at Fluorine, it makes sense for it to have powerful gravity.

The proton, the atom and the solar system are all stages of matter, and all have the same basic structure. They have two parts, a center, and somewhat of a ring of orbiting objects. The atom is a miniature solar system, and a proton is a miniature atom. The proton has quarks, which orbit one another in the center. The proton also has gluons, which completely surround the quarks in a sphere. The gluons orbit the quarks. Within the quarks is a similar construction.

Matter repeats this pattern until it reaches the galaxy, the largest stage.Notice that the atom is round, but the solar system is flat, and the galaxy is flatter still. Notice also that the galaxy merges the ring with the center, forming one complete disk.

Because galaxies are a stage of themselves, they have their own force, a gravity only generated by objects of that size. It's more intense than regular gravity, and confuses physicists. I now shed some light on dark matter.

I think it's time (if I haven't already) to suggest that all these forces, the strong force, the weak force and gravity are all different forms of the same force--the force of instability.

Matter is trying to reach the stable point of its stage, but because of quantum law, can only increase its mass in clumps. When it's over its stable point, it is unstable still, and must eject the extra matter. This is where the weak force comes in.

I must also note that matter cannot reach a true stable point until it merges with empty space. Empty space is actually the opposite of matter, and really isnt' empty at all. To become stable, space expands. Just like matter, the closer it is to becoming stable, the more unstable it become--actually, the more eager it is to becoming stable. This results in what many call the acceleration of the universe. Thus, "dark energy" as it is called, is actually just instability.

Space has no stages. It is not contained by quantum law. It has only one stable point.

As I have said before, the only way either side will ever become stable is if they merge. This can be done when, for example, matter's gravity is so intense it pulls the intire universe into a tiny clump of space, time and matter. But of course, this makes space unstable. On the other hand, matter finally becomes stable, and that intense gravity disappears. All forces disappear. All forces that is, exept space's force of instability. As a result, the intire universe explodes in what is known as "the big bang".

You don't have to believe anything said in this theory; after all, it's just a theory.
Ron
Hey Joshua,
Are you saying that rather than the laws of physics breaking down in a black hole, the forces are unified? If so, how would you unify the force carriers (photons gluons etc) in such an environment, and can you explain the Hawkin radiation in the same situation?
By the by, I like your allusion to a big crunch - big bang cycle. Where time has stopped, any possibility of an explosion (big bang), no matter how remote, happens instantaneously?
Later,
Ron
555Joshua
I knew I would cause confusion.

QUOTE (Ron+)
Are you saying that rather than the laws of physics breaking down in a black hole, the forces are unified?

I'm not exactly saying the forces are unified. There're all different forms of the same force. They all result from the same phenomenon.

QUOTE (same+)
How would you unify the force carriers (photons gluons etc) in such an environment?

I'm not really convenced that the forces actually needs these to be felt.

QUOTE (same+)
can you explain the Hawkin radiation in the same situation?

Hawkin radiation is just a theory. On the other hand, so is this. Since comparing the two will either strengthen the two or destroy one or the other, let's compare.

Hawkin radiation, what results when one of a matter/antimatter pare is sucked into a black hole, right? I mean, these pares of small particles. There's a fifty/fifty % chance that the black hole'll suck an antiparticle. There's a fifty/fifty % chance the black hole'll suck a particle. The odds are good that the black hole neither gains nor loses energy through this process. Either that, or I am misinformed.

Are you asking me to explain the existance of the particle/antiparticle pare? Easy, the instability of matter and space, the interactions of matter with space, the same thing that results in electro-magnetism.

QUOTE (same+)
Where time has stopped, any possibility of an explosion (big bang), no matter how remote, happens instantaneously?

I am saying that once matter reaches its stable point, all matter based forces cease to exist because they are the result of the matter's instability. On the other hand, space is unstable because it expands to reach its stable point. Once matter reaches its stable point and loses its forces, space's forces become monumentous. You have to remember that the gravity we feel on earth is FORCE = SPACE'S VACUUM. Space's vacuum, during the big bang, has nothing to counteract it for the very, very, very very short period of time.
"THEY"
Very interesting. Makes me wish I could remember chemistry! I remember I was very good at it but didn't know why I could do it. I just "did" it, (knew it) I didn't understand "how" I did it. So I forgot it!

So since I can't remember chemistry to critique you, are you somewhat able to form this into a theory of everything, or is it a theory of how everything fits? Definitely sounds like something that could be a good starting point for something. But I can't relate (or understand if it is a TOE) because some of the things you said, I .... um... haven't heard in decades......
Zephir
QUOTE (555Joshua+Oct 19 2005, 12:13 PM)
..all these forces, the strong force, the weak force and gravity are all different forms of the same force--the force of instability...

It's a good insight, indeed. Try to compare your model with the description of the Aether wave theory instability principle.
K. Weiner
Why are there so many pretentious egomaniacs here at physorg? What you're saying is so full of holes and logical ambiguities that it would simply be easier to state that you have no more than an elementary understanding of science and logic, rather than list the multitude of mistakes you've made. Why don't you go do some actual work and study instead of simply coming up with an inane "theory" (I feel dirty just using this word to describe this mass of excrement) and obliviously lying on your ***, feeling smarter than everyone else.

PS - To the other replyers: I know your mothers told you to be nice to others, but sometimes it's more moral to simply ignore guys like Joshua rather than humor him.
"THEY"
QUOTE (K. Weiner+Oct 19 2005, 08:43 PM)
PS - To the other replyers: I know your mothers told you to be nice to others, but sometimes it's more moral to simply ignore guys like Joshua rather than humor him.

Yes Weiner, you ignored him very nicely........
qwerty
Good theory, it does need some work, but dosen't everything. I've oft thought about this subject, but not to the level you have! I commend you.
555Joshua
QUOTE (K. Weiner+Oct 19 2005, 03:43 PM)
Why are there so many pretentious egomaniacs here at physorg? What you're saying is so full of holes and logical ambiguities that it would simply be easier to state that you have no more than an elementary understanding of science and logic, rather than list the multitude of mistakes you've made. Why don't you go do some actual work and study instead of simply coming up with an inane "theory" (I feel dirty just using this word to describe this mass of excrement) and obliviously lying on your ***, feeling smarter than everyone else.

PS - To the other replyers: I know your mothers told you to be nice to others, but sometimes it's more moral to simply ignore guys like Joshua rather than humor him.

Tell me, where are these "holes" in my theory, all these mistakes I made? How do I know that you are just full of sh't?

I know this theory is not perfect. And I know it needs to be given to someone, be torn up and thrown back in my face. That's the only way I am ever really going to know what's wrong with it--the only way I am going to fix it. So, do tell me why it is "inane" good friend.
Guest
Hi 555Joshua,

I just do not understand why people behave the way they do. I have spent most of my life in the field of Physics and at this point, the 'MORE I READ THE LESS I KNOW,' and when LHCollider is on line, I believe many will be looking from a different perspective. But rudeness is so unfortunate in this day and age of learning.

What your doing is fine, I would call it model building. You have to start somewhere. Glad we did not listen to the British physicist Lord Kelvin. Eh!

555Joshua, a man ceases to be a beginner in any given science and becomes a master in that science when he has learned that, he is going to be a beginner all his life.

Now to what you have mentioned. I am not sure our universe will ever reach a point of being stable, is that what you mean 555Joshua? After the comment from the rude redshift, I hope you will define it better to him so he can understand. I will wait and give you the time you need on this.

You have said a lot and for that it means you are searching. As mentioned above I respect that very highly.

Break it down if you can, starting with five major points. And we all can go from there. Just stay out of the box like you are doing.

ciao_
yquantum

yquantum
Darn 555Joshua,

ciao_
yquantum
555Joshua
You are lucky I--unlike you--read guest's posts.

QUOTE (Yquantum+)
Now to what you have mentioned. I am not sure our universe will ever reach a point of being stable, is that what you mean 555Joshua?

Yes, I believe it will never. Like I said, according to my theory, when one half of it becomes stable, the other half still isn't, the big bang erupts and it starts out all over again.

QUOTE (same+)
Break it down if you can, starting with five major points. And we all can go from there. Just stay out of the box like you are doing.

Okay, let's see,
(According to theory), when matter accumilates, it fluctuates between stability, and instability. The points where matter becomes stable are called stable points. Because the intire universe is a unity, matter and space, matter and space must become one for either to become stable. Because the "strong" force is too weak to grasp space, true stability isn't achieved at the atomic level. Instead, atoms accumilate together to "jump" to achieve the next stable point in the planetary stage.

In effect, the quark, in an attempt to become stable, interacts with two other quark (usually three in a particle) and gluons which orbit the three quarks. The quark jumps to the next stable point, and becomes a proton as a result. (This is merely hypothetical to help explain my theory). The proton is close to its assigned stable point, but, needs more matter to become stable. If it adds another quark, it will be above the stable point, and becomes unstable again. To relieve the instability, the proton ejects the quark, and is right back where it started. It is obvious that the proton cannot reach its stable point, but it's still unstable. It instead tries to reach the next stable point--the atomic. Thus, it interacts with other protons, some nuetrons and some electrons. But the same damn thing happens with the atom, and it jumps to the next stage.

Comes next the planetary stage and the galactic stage. But the matter is still unstable, and is actually on a wild goose chase. Until, that is, its gravity is so intense that it sucks all the other galaxies into a galactic black hole which then continues to engulf the whole universe. Once it combines all the matter whith all the space, it has sqeezed everything into a tiny little point. However, it has finally reached a stable point for matter, and all the forces of matter cease to exist. In effect, the matter is without gravitation or any force which would prevent space from causing a giant explosion.

As a result, matter is right back where it started. Meanwhile, space is attempting to reach its stable point through expansion.

If there is still something you do not understand, please let me know.
Guest
QUOTE
Also, the greater the mass, the smaller the body, the stronger the gravity.

I just want to clarify that it is true a black hole can be smaller than a star of the same mass as it is a star that has collapsed under its own gravity... but in general, the relation between mass and size of the body is dependent on density... and usually it is the case that greater the mass, the bigger the body...
555Joshua
QUOTE (Guest+)
I just want to clarify that it is true a black hole can be smaller than a star of the same mass as it is a star that has collapsed under its own gravity... but in general, the relation between mass and size of the body is dependent on density... and usually it is the case that greater the mass, the bigger the body...

Do you know of any small object with a high mass and low density?
Guest
QUOTE (555Joshua+Oct 21 2005, 04:43 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+)
I just want to clarify that it is true a black hole can be smaller than a star of the same mass as it is a star that has collapsed under its own gravity... but in general, the relation between mass and size of the body is dependent on density... and usually it is the case that greater the mass, the bigger the body...

Do you know of any small object with a high mass and low density?

That's begging the question, isn't it...
JavaTool
QUOTE (555Joshua+Oct 21 2005, 04:43 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+)
I just want to clarify that it is true a black hole can be smaller than a star of the same mass as it is a star that has collapsed under its own gravity... but in general, the relation between mass and size of the body is dependent on density... and usually it is the case that greater the mass, the bigger the body...

Do you know of any small object with a high mass and low density?

That's sort of a contradictory statement - in the general usage of the word, something small has a small mass but its density is indefinite. The poster(s?) was simply saying that there is no linear correlation between mass and density (this is an obvious empirical fact) and that to ask whether a small object can have high mass is indeed "begging the question."
qwerty the warrior babe
Yo 555Joshua,

Uhm, What about chemicles. The closer they come to being stable the more stable they become (i.e. The Daimond Allitrope of Carbon). Or did I completely read your theory wrong?
555Joshua
Dimond is not an atom.
blisk
Personally I like the theory, i don't know much about how flawless or flawed it is however I wonder how you could tie it into entropy.
555Joshua
I made a mistake when I said "all matter is unstable. To become stable, it attempts to attain a stable point. The closer matter is to becoming stable, the more unstable it becomes." This implies that all matter is this way, including dimonds. What I should say is all matter in the lines of a stable point, the matter structure of a stage becomes more unstable the closer it is to becoming stable. These matter structures are qruarks, protons, atoms, planets and galaxies.

QUOTE (blisk+)
Personally I like the theory, i don't know much about how flawless or flawed it is however I wonder how you could tie it into entropy.

I believe at this point it is very flawed. That's one reason why I brought it here. People's comments help me perfect it.

But as for your question, heat is energy. Cold is the lack of this energy. The vacuum effect causes heat in one place to go to another to equalize the overall temperature. The vacuum effect--I believe--is the result of space's instability.
Guest
QUOTE (555Joshua+Oct 24 2005, 10:50 AM)
Dimond is not an atom.

QUOTE
This implies that all matter is this way, including dimonds.

Wait, you actually spelled the word as "dimonds" twice? That's not how it's spelled, if you didn't understand my previous sentence.
555Joshua
Ha ha ha ha ha!
This can be explained. I DIDN'T use your spelling the first time, I was in a hurry. The second time, I used my first spelling, assuming I used your spelling for the first one. Again, I was in a hurry.

Came on, let's discuss this theory. It only makes it change, or, if not, prooves it wrong. And I always find this part fun.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.