[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Duane,

About your three questions post:

1. It is NOT possible to create or destroy energy, we can only converse it into different types. If you can think of an example or experiment to proof otherwise, state it. Nothing you've wrote does so.

I can think of one. Untill we offer a better explanation for the big bang we cannot rule out what seems to be the case that all matter was created at the moment of the big bang. Now I'm not saying this is the case, just saying that it seems to disprove the idea that matter can not be created. The big point though is that whether matter was truely created is irrelevant for our universe because obviously for our universe matter suddenly came into appearance and this is what is important. Now I think there is a better explanation which I am still keeping a secret, but the fact is that all the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant when you consider the universe and time as a whole. For example the universe as a whole IS a perpetual motion machine, therefore that law of thermo is irrelevant. Also at the end of time time it could very well be that time will reverse and thus the law that the arrow of time always goes in one direction is incorrect or at least irrelevant. Thus I have just shown that the laws of thermodynamics are either incorrect or irrelevant or both when you consider the universe and time as a whole, and we can take this from first principles of the Law of Laws.

Originally Posted by GUILLE

2. It is NOT possible to do any work without energy (or energy source). Because in order to apply a force at a distance (this is the physical and mathematical description of work) you must have a previous energy.

a finite amount of energy is irrelevant when you consider everything. There is enough energy in the universe to do as much work as you want, therefore the statement that it is not possible to do work without energy is an irrelevant statement because it assumes that the universe does not have plenty of energy. So the statement of yours may be correct, but it is irrelevant when considering the universe as a whole because the universe is not without energy

Originally Posted by GUILLE

Nevertheless, discussion about your theory is not possible because it is wrong from the start idea that relativistic mass is the same as rest mass. It's just as saying that we can put together the Newton's second law with Einstein's famous equation, but we can't, for in the first acceleration is variable and mass is constant, and in the second light's speed is constant and mass is variable. Preciselly the reason that Einstein's 1905 work is there was to the problem between Newton and Maxwell, neglecting the first.

Is this what dleviwing has taught you? How can we differentiate between rest mass and relativistic mass (without an absolute frame of reference)? According to gravity there is no difference and gravity is what defines mass. Speaking about the rest mass of a photon is irrelevant because photons are never at rest. Well, I enjoyed putting my two cents in.

[Guille]

I thought you were a better thinker. And I thought I felt youd didn't had much truth because you were most of a philosopher than physicist (and philosophers are never sayiong the truth)... But I've realised that it's not only that you have no truth, but also that you have no reason, and the mixture of these two negation is: Religion. That's what you are. Nothing else, nothing better.

Originally Posted by subversion

I can think of one. Untill we offer a better explanation for the big bang we cannot rule out what seems to be the case that all matter was created at the moment of the big bang. Now I'm not saying this is the case, just saying that it seems to disprove the idea that matter can not be created. The big point though is that whether matter was truely created is irrelevant for our universe because obviously for our universe matter suddenly came into appearance and this is what is important. Now I think there is a better explanation which I am still keeping a secret, but the fact is that all the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant when you consider the universe and time as a whole. For example the universe as a whole IS a perpetual motion machine, therefore that law of thermo is irrelevant. Also at the end of time time it could very well be that time will reverse and thus the law that the arrow of time always goes in one direction is incorrect or at least irrelevant. Thus I have just shown that the laws of thermodynamics are either incorrect or irrelevant or both when you consider the universe and time as a whole, and we can take this from first principles of the Law of Laws.

Aham, aham... Niether is th law of laws a physical law, or can it change anything in physics. You say the three laws of thermodynamics are wrong as they state what cannot be done, not what can. You are wrong. Not only because by stating what can't be done, directly it is stated what can be done, but also because the do state what can be done, jusy by yourself a text book. I could discuss the rest you say but it's all so wrong nothing can be done.

Originally Posted by subversion

a finite amount of energy is irrelevant when you consider everything. There is enough energy in the universe to do as much work as you want, therefore the statement that it is not possible to do work without energy is an irrelevant statement because it assumes that the universe does not have plenty of energy. So the statement of yours may be correct, but it is irrelevant when considering the universe as a whole because it speaks of "without energy" which is not a possibility for the universe as a whole

And it is YOU the one talking about irrelevancy? What? You! Who do nothing but talk about a theory that is not there, and that has no holes, of course, you say, there is no failure in your TOE... That's because it is neither a TOE or it is at all anything, apart from a ghost for that matter. YOU talk! But you do nothing but believe you have the great law of laws... We all knew that really retarded law ages ago! And anyway it's not even really correct... YOU talk! Lot's of time, you talk... And yet, one can see how after so many words, you have said nothing.

Originally Posted by subversion

Is this what dleviwing has taught you? How can we differentiate between rest mass and relativistic mass (without an absolute frame of reference)? According to gravity there is no difference and gravity is what defines mass. Speaking about the rest mass of a photon is irrelevant because photons are never at rest. Well, I enjoyed putting my two cents in.

And this is too much! You've misinterpreted completely what I said... I talked about the rest mass, not the rest state in spacetime... I talked about the mass of matter, not of light/photons... And by the way, energy does not have mass, who says that is either very stupid, I would say under Forest Gump, or lying, lying more than Jesus or Mahoma, and that's hard even trying...

[subversion]

I predicted that you would react negatively to my post because I knew you would misinterpret it. Please allow me to dispell any confusion. The law of laws simply states that laws should not be SPECIFICALLY formulated to say what is impossible. To clarify, by saying what is possible laws do NOT SPECIFICALLY say what is impossible. For example, if I say green is possible then you're trying to tell me that that means that all other colors are specifically impossible by implication and that's simply not true. The law of laws on the other hand simply states that everything is possible and thus the only thing which is impossible is nothing. Thus when you say something is possible it doesnt mean you're saying that something is impossible at all. Rather you are saying that something IS possible and therefore the only thing that you're really saying is impossible is nothing at all. This is philosophically very profound and indeed it is a blessing so I cannot see why you don't think it is amazing being that you consider yourself to be a philosopher.

Besides which, you don't have to attack the law of laws to address the matter at hand. Even though the law of laws is indeed correct and it is indeed the MASTER physical law, you don't need the law of laws to show that the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant when the universe and time are considered as a whole. Rather, you can prove independently that the laws of thermo are irrelevant in an absolute sense and then use this as evidence for the law of laws. This is exactly what I did yet in your rebuttal you failed to address the specific points which I mentioned. Specifically, you failed to address how can you prove that matter can not be created if you can not determine where it came from prior to the big bang? Secondly, how can you prove that perpetual motion is impossible if time itself IS perpetual motion? Thirdly, how can you prove that the arrow of time will still go in the same direction even after an infinite amount of time? According to logical thought time does not end until/unless the arrow of time in our universe reverses. That is the only thing that can technically put an end to time, a reversal. Therefore if you consider the whole of time you have to consider that the arrow of time will theoretically reverse at the end of eternity. This may sound like a stupid conclusion but only if you can not see that it is a very intelligent and in fact TRUE conclusion.

Originally Posted by <<>>

I thought you were a better thinker. And I thought I felt youd didn't had much truth because you were most of a philosopher than physicist (and philosophers are never sayiong the truth)... But I've realised that it's not only that you have no truth, but also that you have no reason, and the mixture of these two negation is: Religion. That's what you are. Nothing else, nothing better.



Aham, aham... Niether is th law of laws a physical law, or can it change anything in physics. You say the three laws of thermodynamics are wrong as they state what cannot be done, not what can. You are wrong. Not only because by stating what can't be done, directly it is stated what can be done, but also because the do state what can be done, jusy by yourself a text book. I could discuss the rest you say but it's all so wrong nothing can be done.




And it is YOU the one talking about irrelevancy? What? You! Who do nothing but talk about a theory that is not there, and that has no holes, of course, you say, there is no failure in your TOE... That's because it is neither a TOE or it is at all anything, apart from a ghost for that matter. YOU talk! But you do nothing but believe you have the great law of laws... We all knew that really retarded law ages ago! And anyway it's not even really correct... YOU talk! Lot's of time, you talk... And yet, one can see how after so many words, you have said nothing.

I am sad that you wish to attack me but I am sure you do not really mean it if you really understand who I am. I was merely trying to teach you about irrelevancy, but you don't want to listen. Since you are attacking me I will defend myself which in part implies attacking back. I have said many things on this forum, at least as much as you. For example, I have provided the solution to the incompleteness theorem, I have discovered the law of laws which you say you knew all along but somehow you didn't care to mention it. I have also just recently solved Russell's paradox and you can see this if you go to the main page because I just posted it. I have provided explanation for the axiom of choice, and probably other things I can't remember. These are all very important accomplishments I think and for you to belittle them makes me feel like you are unappreciative or you just don't get it. I am sorry if you are mad at me for keeping my theory precious but that doesn't mean you deserve to call me a fraud and say that my theory is a ghost. Just yesterday you were saying how you want me to post my theory and now you are pulling a 180. This is why I have not released my theory you see. People act like they are excited and glad and hopeful but then they quickly become impatient. This is all a great trial don't you see? Mankind has been tested at every step of the way and here I am, the final judge who holds the final great theory. By solving some of the greatest paradoxes of all time I have practically given you everything you need to discover the TOE for yourself, and yet it still remains elusive to you. I will be around for a while longer, and maybe if you act respectfully and you show your ability to be hopeful and positive unconditionally and with painstaking patience then you will prove your worth. So you can tell me after all my words that I've said nothing, even though I have given you the power of positivity and have solved such paradoxes as the incompleteness theorem and Russell's paradox. Look around you on this board and tell me who has been more successfull or more productive. With all your words telling me my words mean nothing, what does that really mean? Aha, it reminds me of the empty set in a way, devoid of any meaning. Afterall, what paradoxes have you solved?

I will forgive you for attempting to insult me, because I know you did not mean it. I will be looking for signs of good faith and when they are evident enough to me then I will give the world the theory of everything. Until that time I will assume that mankind is too hastey to receive it as they have been hastey and indecent throughout the whole of human history.

Originally Posted by GUILLE

And this is too much! You've misinterpreted completely what I said... I talked about the rest mass, not the rest state in spacetime... I talked about the mass of matter, not of light/photons... And by the way, energy does not have mass, who says that is either very stupid, I would say under Forest Gump, or lying, lying more than Jesus or Mahoma, and that's hard even trying...

ps. what is rest mass if not rest state? hint, you will not be able to answer this question unless you realize that it is a trick

[Guille]

This thread should be removed as article and the replies as comments.

Duane,

You assume that E=hf impplies that if a constant velocity exists then the force must be equal. Is this correct? I don't understand that part too much, can you explain?

Sub, simply, I quote one of my favourite philosophers, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Have a good time in your life, and I hope you stop ignoring time and start growing.

[subversion]

again you avoid the question and thus if you do not want to learn I can not teach you let alone the theory of everything. Consider these questions and then YOU will grow

how can you prove that matter can not be created if you can not determine where it came from prior to the big bang? Secondly, how can you prove that perpetual motion is impossible if time itself IS perpetual motion? Thirdly, how can you prove that the arrow of time will still go in the same direction even after an infinite amount of time?

If you can acknowledge these questions then maybe we can move forward and maybe, just MAYBE I will tell you the Theory of Everything. I have all the time in the world but mankind lies on the brink of destruction. Perhaps if you and the rest of humanity first consider that I am not a fraud then our path to salvation will finally and at long last begin. Give me the benefit of the doubt and then our destiny will be one.

[baudrunner]

You two don't know it but you're regressing to pre-highschool days because you're arguing over lessons you learned long, long ago.

[subversion]

perhaps you think you are qualified to answer my questions baudrunner

how can you prove that matter can not be created if you can not determine where it came from prior to the big bang? Secondly, how can you prove that perpetual motion is impossible if time itself IS perpetual motion? Thirdly, how can you prove that the arrow of time will still go in the same direction even after an infinite amount of time?

answer the questions or admit that you can not

[dleviwing]

Sub;
How are your geology classes coming? You may wish to change your major to Theoretical Physics before claiming to be qualified to even ask such questions.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Sub;
How are your geology classes coming? You may wish to change your major to Theoretical Physics before claiming to be qualified to even ask such questions.

ahhh, yet another glaring example of how humanity dodges the question by changing the subject

again the question for dleviwing or anybody to answer is:
how can you prove that matter can not be created if you can not determine where it came from prior to the big bang? Secondly, how can you prove that perpetual motion is impossible if time itself IS perpetual motion? Thirdly, how can you prove that the arrow of time will still go in the same direction even after an infinite amount of time?

prove your worth by at least attempting to answer these trick questions, not by talking about irrelevant things such as gossip or what the archetype's major is. Believe me, a major is virtually irrelevant with regards to everything.

[michellemfry]

Subversion, about where matter might come from. This one is bizarre, I realize, but what about early universe white holes. Black holes can only consume matter, while white holes can only emit matter. I'm proposing that a white hole in the early universe outpaced the black holes and that is why matter took hold in the early universe.

I know I'm a little out there with this thinking, so be gentle.