Try and contradict this! (universal law)

[cowpar2]

Ultimate Law of the Universe:

Everything that "is" Must be in Equilibrium.
This means if there is something, there is also something exactly opposite of it; If there's a positive, there's a negative; If there's a cause, there is an affect. Without one, the other cannot exist.


To Further Explain:

Lack of equilibrium causes energy:
Equilibrium and Energy are the same thing, because it takes energy to make equilibrium, therefore: it's just transferring energy into equilibrium (which could not occur if they were already in equilibrium)

This is the ultimate natural law, which cannot be broken.
If it is broken somehow, It must be from a force that doesn't obey the laws of nature.


This is just simply a theory, and I wanted to see if it had flaws...
Thanks for your responses

[cowpar2]

Ahem....
I said:
I wanted to see if it had flaws.
Can't anybody at least say
"aw, man, that's crap!" or
"Seems logical."
I need some feedback here!

[rickymooston]

Its an interesting idea.

In terms ofequilibrium, clearly, entities exist outside of equilibrium.

There are dualities we know about

[inveni0]

The thing about equilibrium is that nothing comes from it.  It's more of a resting state.  Things only change when they aren't in equilibrium.  In other words, the laws of this universe tell is that everything wants to balance out.  Pressures want to equalize.  Atoms want to fill that outer shell with electrons.  Etc, etc, etc.  It's an illusion, really.  The result is equilibrium, but the father of all things is chaos--unbalance.

[Graybeard]

Ultimate Law of the Universe:

Everything that "is" Must be in Equilibrium.

We can see that it isn’t.

This means if there is something, there is also something exactly opposite of it;

You mean that there is “the opposite of a lamppost”?

If there's a positive, there's a negative;

Apparently there isn’t – there is far more matter than anti-matter

If there's a cause, there is an affect. Without one, the other cannot exist.

Do you mean a perceivable effect (note spelling) or an absolute effect? If the latter, how would you show this?

To Further Explain:

Lack of equilibrium causes energy:

No, you have reversed cause and effect; you have not even reversed it well; one moment’s thought would show you are spouting meaningless drivel  and you have failed to take into account that atoms possess energy even when at rest.

Equilibrium and Energy are the same thing,

No they are not, that is why there are separate words for them

because it takes energy to make equilibrium,

That is a meaningless statement

therefore: it's just transferring energy into equilibrium (which could not occur if they were already in equilibrium)

??? What?

This is the ultimate natural law, which cannot be broken.

Says you. And you are saying it by pulling it out your arse.

If it is broken somehow, It must be from a force that doesn't obey the laws of nature.

No, it would be from a force we do not, as yet, understand. BUT – your “ultimate natural law” is garbage.

You just say the first thing that enters your head, you have no evidence for anything you say, you haven’t thought anything through and, basically, you do not know what you are talking about.

This is just simply a theory, and I wanted to see if it had flaws...

OK, you’ve see it has. In fact it is so wrong that words fail me.

Thanks for your responses

You’re welcome, I hope I have helped.

[screwtape]

Why is this in the science area?  What is scientific about it? 

Can you define "equilibirium"?
Can you define "energy"?
What is the math behind this "theory"?
How does this "theory"[1] explain anything? 
What predictions does it make, and how would you test them?
Have you tested them? 

As far as I can tell, it is a bunch of gobbledegook that uses words that sound "sciencey" to people who know nothing about science with the intent of justifying the supernatural.

1.	you didn't even use the word correctly in a scientific context

[cowpar2]

Not what I meant by "opposite"
You see, for every electron, there is a equally powerful proton.
and by "lack of equilibrium causes energy', I mean when two opposites are far away (lack of equilibrium),
they are weakly attracted to each other (lack of energy).
But if they are very close (more, but not perfect, equilibrium, they are strongly attracted to each other (more energy).

Hey! Wait a second!
Hey, has a proton and electron ever been at the same place at the same time?
I wonder what would happen...

[cowpar2]

As far as I can tell, it is a bunch of gobbledegook that uses words that sound "sciencey" to people who know nothing about science with the intent of justifying the supernatural.

Actually, this theory says it's virtually impossible for the "supernatural" to exist....
Equilibrium = completely equal on both sides of something.
Energy = That which causes changes in matter
I'm not using "sciencey" terms, You just don't understand them...

[Avatar Of Belial]

If there's a cause, there is an affect.

Effect

Unless you meant that for every cause, there is an emotion or desire.

/pet-peeve

Also, it's redundant. A cause must, by definition, have an effect. If it doesn't have an effect, then it isn't a cause. (Likewise, by definition, an effect must have a cause, else it is no more than an event...)

All that said: How does cause and effect work in your equilibrium... hypothesis? They don't really have anything to do with opposites, as you say at the beginning of that sentence.

[screwtape]

Actually, this theory says it's virtually impossible for the "supernatural" to exist....

I interpreted this part:

This is the ultimate natural law, which cannot be broken.
If it is broken somehow, It must be from a force that doesn't obey the laws of nature.

...as suggesting supernatural entities.  But if you say it prohibits them, then okay.

Equilibrium = completely equal on both sides of something.

Both sides of something.  Very scientific.

Energy = That which causes changes in matter

ugh.

I'm not using "sciencey" terms, You just don't understand them...

Yeah, that must be it.  5 years of engineering school just did not give me enough of a background to understand your Ultimate Theory. 

How about the math, then?  The predictions?  Where do the ninjas come in?

[cowpar2]

Both sides of something.  Very scientific.

Like I said before, I'm not trying to use words that will go over you head, and you asked me to define it...
And when I said "If it is broken somehow, It must be from a force that doesn't obey the laws of nature."
What was meant was saying that that is impossible, therefore all energy, matter, and everything else, obey this law.
Also, I'm not calling you dumb, or that this is too complicated for you, actually I said "I'm not using "sciencey" terms":
This would indicate that one with a basic knowledge of...well.... anything, should be able to understand it.

[screwtape]

Like I said before, I'm not trying to use words that will go over you head, and you asked me to define it...

The words aren't over my head.  My point is you have not actually defined those terms.  Your definitions should fit standard definitions that scientists already use.  And as far as I can tell, they don't.

And when I said "If it is broken somehow, It must be from a force that doesn't obey the laws of nature."

That's not science.  In science what they say is "if this is broken somehow, then either the theory is wrong or it is incomplete and needs further explanation."  Saying it is a force that doesn't obey the laws of nature is a gigantic failure.  It is throwing up your hands and giving up.  It says "my theory is right even though this evidence negates it." That is the opposite of how science works.   

What was meant was saying that that is impossible, therefore all energy, matter, and everything else, obey this law.

But if energy, matter and everything else doesn't obey, it means the "law"[1] is falsified.

"I'm not using "sciencey" terms":

sciencey terms means words that sound scientific, but are not actually used correctly for science. 

This would indicate that one with a basic knowledge of...well.... anything, should be able to understand it.

I think I understand it.  I think the problem is you do not understand why it is not a complete theory.

 

1.	now it is a law.  Before it was a theory.

[Bad Pear]

I put in a call to Hawking's people and I'm waiting for them to get back to me. They seem to be very interested. Cowpar2, would you like to co-publish this with Stephen or were you looking to go it alone? I'm sure he would be disappointed, but nevertheless thrilled to help out in some small way.

[cowpar2]

....
Bwahahahaaa!!
Bad Pear, you have GOT to be joking....
You do NOT got Hawking on the phone, but...
Alright, Tell ya what.....
Hawking can publish it, If he wishes (lol).....
but he MUST call it Cowpar's law

[Avatar Of Belial]

Bad Pear, you have GOT to be joking....

Bad Pear is incapable of humor. He is to be taken seriously at all times.

[cowpar2]

Anyways, what I was trying to say to Screwtape was that the law (theory) States that everything MUST be in equilibrium, and everything that is MUST have an opposite. Therefore, just by the existence of our "natural" universe, there must be a parallel one, that follows a rule Exactly opposite to this Ultimate Natural law. The existence of this law means that the law can (and must) be broken, but in a universe that  doesn't obey this law.
Yet again, I'm sorry if you cannot grasp this, or if you think I'm talking "gibberish", but this is what I believe, and it may very well be true.

[cowpar2]

Oops, I found a flaw already:
"Lack of equilibrium causes energy:
Equilibrium and Energy are the same thing, because it takes energy to make equilibrium, therefore: it's just transferring energy into equilibrium (which could not occur if they were already in equilibrium)"
I think I was tired when I wrote this...
I meant to say Lack of equilibrium causes POTENTIAL energy:
Potential energy causes other forms of energy if not acted upon by other disturbances.
The other forms of energy causes Equilibrium to increase, therefore decreasing potential energy and increasing other forms of energy.

[Ambassador Pony]

I'm locking this thread because all the OP posted, over and over again, was "I am a sad and lonely teenage boy, please pay attention to me".

Such a statement was sufficient as the OP, and, thus, became redundant.