The FV Theory

I do not present these words as facts as I believe there is no such thing as facts.
This is just me being philosophic and in my search for truth I present my FV (Force & Violence) theory which most certainly has been proved or described in some way or manner before me. However for my own constructive purposes i present to you this and you may decline or agree. I once again proclaim these sentences as purely philosophic not scientific.

The fundamental forces of nature.

(The FV theory)

In nature force or violence wherever you find it is the mere collision or opposition of two opposing or equivalent pools of duality.
As long as these pools continue to oppose or collide by the means of friction and gravity (Gravity - Weak, Electromagnetic - Strong) which in themselves are forces created by the dualism of 1 and 0 (something and nothing). these forces and any forces created by them including matter, antimatter, waves, energy and life (here life is viewed as a force of nature just as matter) will exist and persist. in other words the fractal which we perceive as the universe or reality.

FV=A+/-B

This is only a theory in development if you think this theory could be developed further please enlighten me.
What i'm trying to describe here among many other things is that matter is an outcome of forces just as anything we can perceive. only forces acting upon forces.

"Everything in nature depends on everything else" - Alan Watts

This theory needs some work, and judging by all of the edits to the post I can see that you agree lol. I'm not really sure what you are trying to understand with this formula...that all matter and subtle forces are interrelated, dependent upon, and respond to each other? Yes, this is true. The more that one force imposes itself upon another, the weaker the other must become in order to balance the assimilation of the two opposing forces? Yes. That opposition actually results in congregation? At the extremes, yes. Superficially and initially there will be violence or resistance, but eventually one force will come to dominate another until a balance is formed, and that's at the pinnacle of the interaction. That's where we obtain all manners of creation, at the climax of opposition and destruction- another example of your duality.

revision 1:
gravity = weak ; eletromagnetic = strong

**probably just a typo.

Thank you for replying I appreciate it.
Post has been updated.

reply to post by asperetty


What i'm trying to describe here among many other things is that matter is an outcome of forces just as anything we can perceive. only forces acting upon forces.

reply to post by NoxAsays


How would you justify your existence? What "material" would you claim you are composed of?

reply to post by SlyingFaucers


My friend you are correct about material. So the sentence there is no such thing as matter will be changed to matter is an outcome of forces just as anything we can perceive.

I believe I consist of different cells though I'm not certain

Sorry for the inconvenience. I'm trying to put something which is clear in my head into words.
And it's like Osho said about misunderstanding the Buddha though I do certainly not consider myself one.
I'm just a part of nature. What I mean is that it is almost impossible to explain anything to anyone the way you wanted to communicate it. Thats why I opened this for discussion. Your question is a contribution. Thank you.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by NoxAsays


Yeah I get what you mean but I think that is pretty basic, although you may be the one of the few to come up with an actual formula to describe it. The real question that needs exegesis is what are the substance of the forces that create matter, such as gravity and electromagnetism, but then those are the greatest questions in all of science and it would be too absurd if the forces that create these forces were revealed on a conspiracy site. Then again, matter is the trigger that induces those forces to react in a way that only creates more matter as a result...or at least sometimes. So yeah...once again, another example of the duality of nature you mentioned, at least for so much as I can know at this time. and Osho +1

Why is this in the introductions section?

line 2