Original Post Date Apr 27, 2014.
Original Post: http://bit.ly/ZSVQOz
Note that I have discarded all but the second one, because I realized how stupid they were.
Of course, in order to prevent idea theft, I’m not going to post them here yet (until I write a formal paper on them), but I’m going to tell you some of what my theories deal with and their implications.
1. Central Node Hypothesis
Deals with black holes; could explain dark matter, dark energy, expansion, and so much more. I plan to write this paper over the summer, and am currently (as of when I posted this) in the research stage
2. Phi Map
Deals with a fractal representation of the Golden Ratio in ways I haven’t seen before; could help explain the mathematics of nature and distribution of matter throughout the universe.
3. Fractal Multiverse Expansion
Deals with the Fractal Multiverse Theorem; consists of more grounds to support the theorem that have not been considered.
4. Animism Justification
Deals with object-consciousness; argues that either consciousness exists only for the first person observer, for everything and everyone, or for nothing and no one at all.
And that’s just a few of them I’m working on. So far, the black hole one is the most important.
There was only one comment thread for this.
User 2 [Apr 28, 2014]: Are you mentally stable? And I dont grok the need to hide your real age.
Me [Apr 28, 2014]: I assume such? Perhaps a little schizo typical and schizoid, but most of the greatest mathematicians and scientists were and are, too. It’s part of their INTP personality type indicator that makes them/us adept at theories and concept. And how old do you think I am?
User 2 [Apr 29, 2014]: scientists are nuts? Crazy!
“scientists were and are, too”
Can u give a few names eh?
Me [Apr 29, 2014]: Of scientists and mathematicians? Other than the obvious Einstein, there was/is Tesla, Oppenheimer, Hawkings, Cavendish, Ampère, Gauss, Fermat, Mandelbrot, Archimedes, Leibniz, Niepce, Shockley, Faraday, Tyson, Kaku, Bohr, Bose, just to name a few.
User 2 [Apr 29, 2014]: So your take is: “All these scientists are nuthouse cases.”
User 11 [May 16, 2014]: It is “nuts” to see things and think about them differently than everyone else?
If the majority is always right, how do you explain the “majority in Nazi Germany?
User 2 [May 16, 2014]: I mean that’s what HER views are. Very queer. She thinks all great scientists were nuts.
User 2 [May 16, 2014]: The Nazis were good, decent people. (Remember good ol’ Uncle Hitler’s parties?)
User 11 [May 16, 2014]: Yes. I do. Like Kristalnacht.
User 2 [May 16, 2014]: And yes after the current elections in my country I’ve been forced to admit that the majority is pretty fucked up in the head sometimes to vote for the nutcase who won.
Me [May 17, 2014]: No? Well, Tesla and Einstein was. But most of these guys are/were INTPs, commonly considered eccentric or nut cases. It takes a nutcase mind to think of a nutcase idea—and typically in math and science, those are the types of ideas that seem to work.
User 12 [May 17, 2014]: When I saw that you added the phrase “just to name a few” after your list of scientists, MathematicallyMindedFractal, I decided to think a little bit about who else could be on someone’s list of favourite scientists. Not mentioned on your list was Galileo Galilei in Italy, who offered support to the views of Copernicus even after the Roman Catholic Inquisition placed the works of Copernicus on the index of banned books. The scientific strength of Copernicus was that he pursued his research even though the authorities ordered him to stop his research. I see that you named Leibniz without naming Isaac Newton. I view Newton’s strength as being almost relentless when he set his mind on investigating a topic. It is my belief that Lord William Kelvin’s strength was getting other scientists to pursue a worthwhile long-term topic. John Tyndall’s strength in the 1870’s was in popularising science by way of public lectures, in the same way that Bye Nye the Science Guy popularises science in youtube.com now in the early 21st Century. The strength of Svante Arrhenius was that he could recognise a good research topic and pursue it on his own. Natural science in the 21st Century is sometimes too focused on the quantitative aspects of science, and not enough on the qualitative or narrative aspects of science. The anecdotal information left by German pilot Hugo Eckener about his many air hours in the 1920’s and 1930’s makes him a good scientist in my eyes, although many people would not consider him a scientist and instead consider him merely as just another pilot.
I wish you well, MathematicallyMindedFractal, on your work on black holes and dark matter. Perhaps by accident you will stumble upon some great scientific principle, a principle explaining why matter predominates over anti-matter or a principle explaining a connection between gravity and electromagnetism. Many discoveries in science happen partly or fully by accident. Perhaps someday you will become a famous scientific path breaker like Galileo Galilei, hopefully without being declared a heretic by religious authorities for the next 350 years as he was.
Me [May 17, 2014]: I think my black hole theory could explain:
•Where all the mass a black hole swallows goes
•Why the event horizon is an illusion rather than an actual boundary
•Why quasars signify an “official” black hole and how every black hole without a quasar will eventually get one
•Why gravity appears to be so weak in comparison to EM and the strong/weak nuclear forces
•How a “graviton” could be formed
•How “ghost” particles form
•Explain why the universe accelerates as it expands (a sort of inverse Ricci flow)
•Dark matter and dark energy
😛 I hope I can do what Galileo did in magnitude and more, but honestly, all I care about is.if I further science and I get credit for my work. Like Perelmen, I wouldn’t care for fame. In fact, I hate people. xD But I do enjoy giving pep talks to people. I do it all the time at y school as bathroom philosophy 101 xD
User 12 [May 17, 2014]: In theoretical physics, the so-called “elephant in the room” is the real life imbalance between observable matter and observable anti-matter. As far as can be experimentally determined, matter and anti-matter are equal in all of their constants, but there could very easily be some tiny difference that cannot yet be experimentally determined, a difference that accounts for the supremacy of observable matter in the universe in comparison to observable anti-matter.
A worthwhile thought experiment could be “What if due to a difference in the gravitational constant of anti-matter or due the a difference in the gravitational exponent of anti-matter, anti-matter was a little bit easier to swallow up into a black hole?” For example, what if experimentally the exponent in the gravitation formula for anti-matter turned out not to really be exactly -2.000000000000000? We know rather well experimentally how two objects of matter interact gravitationally, but we do not know experimentally much about how two anti-matter objects interact gravitationally, nor do we know experimentally much about how a matter object and an anti-matter object interact gravitationally.
In the history of science, experimental observations have sometimes caused great bursts of thinking. Newton’s observation that an apple falls to the ground at 3600 times the acceleration that the Moon experiences, combined with the observation that the Moon is 60 times the distance from the Earth’s center, led to Newton’s law of gravitational attraction. The observation of the rotation of the ellipses of the orbits of the planets, particularly the rotation of the ellipse of the orbit of the planet Mercury, helped lead to Einstein’s theory of relativity. A researcher who found schemes to better determine anti-matter gravitation from an experimental point of view could potentially start a burst of thinking on the topic of imbalance between observable matter and observable anti-matter. Experimental physics is close to the point of creating brief-lived black holes. I suppose that soon someone will think of inadvisably observing two colliding mini-black holes, a thought that bothers me if the experiment is performed on Earth because the longer lifetime of the resulting black hole could conceivably result in Earth being swallowed up. Thought experiments are different though, and will not result in Earth being swallowed up. Hypothetically, what happens gravitationally if a black hole from some science fiction anti-matter galaxy and a black hole from a matter galaxy approached each other? What happens gravitationally if two black holes in an anti-matter galaxy approached each other? The possibility is still experimentally open that black holes can assist in explaining the imbalance between observable matter and observable anti-matter. I hope as you investigate black holes over the course of your lifetime that you occasionally keep your eyes open to that possibility.
Me [May 17, 2014]: Hmmmmm antimatter black holes…
I shall think about this, certainly. Lots of information to process on a headache and while watching How It’s Made xD But I shall certainly process this.
Antimatter black holes are inverted black holes. Instead of sucking material in, it flings it outwards! Instead of heavy positive curvature (well, I think it’s positive curvature, if it’s a dip “inwards” by what I see from the picture… in a 3D analogue, at least… maybe… rambles!), it has heavy negative curvature. Like a giant mountain peak instead of a giant valley (in a 2D analogue). Things would be flung outwards from it. :V IDK I’m rambling again. Still 4:33AM.
C’mon, I have less than a week to compile all of this. Might as well do it when I can’t fall asleep!