Challenge to authors of TOE's

[wisp]

In ONE post only can you post here what your theory is about - in no more than 100 words.

[wisp]

Wisp unification theory:
Our perception of reality is wrong - the photographic negative of what we perceive is the reality. Empty space is solid ether, and matter-fractals form around emptiness.
Matter - forms as fractal patterns around tiny holes in the ether - wisp space.
Gravity - ether contraction force pressing down on the upper surface of the tiny holes in matter.
Force, light and gravity propagate at speed c through the ether.
Wisp's ether relativity equations produce the full set of Einstein's SR as a limit case.
Dark Matter - a gravitational effect caused by rotating ether.
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk

[W. M.]

...is our view of time.

Instead of linear time, events in the universe are simultaneous. We percieve them to take place in a geometric order because that's the way our brains were designed. But what we call time is what I call the "Time Perception Barrier (TPB)".

When people draw the ever-popular causality diagrams they mistakingly think "I start at the top (beginning) node, or event and follow a branch down to one of the lower nodes (possiblilities) and take this causal route to this event", and then, following another branch will say "and if this happens, then I will wind up here (at this node)" and so forth. What these people really should be saying is "Just as every node and causal branch exists in this diagram on the same sheet of paper at the same time, so do all of the events in my life, or all of the events of the universe for that matter". Just as one can see all of the elements of the causal diagram all at once, so could one see all of the events of our lives if we could remove ouselves from our space-time reference frame (achieving a level IV multiverse view).

Another misperception about the causality digrams is that they are often viewed as *either-or* exercises, or "each node is but one possible causal event, and all the other nodes are not visited (events that do not occur)". But, just as *all* the nodes in the digram are actually *present* in the diagram, so are all of the possible events in any scenario played out, each one in an alternate reality. Next time you view a causality digram, imagine yourself starting out at the top, or beginning, node, and "splitting" into parallel versions of yourself, each one taking a different branch, therefore travelling through different universes and travelling to all of the nodes in the diagram.

Wisp, I hope I didn't steal your thunder here, but since you were pointing out misperceptions of reality, I just couldn't resist

[cristian]

Wisp, I read some of the theories around here and I must admit I find yours the best yet. I am myself a fan of ether theories, because they seem to be the simplest (and most explanatory) yet. Time permitting, I'll try to create a computer model to verify some of the phenomena, and maybe to determine a wisp's size, mass etc (if this hasn't been done yet)

However I'd like to add to the challenge that a theory of EVERYTHING should also address, ideally in the same 100 words limit , the following problems:
1. the nature of time
2. the nature of space (for example why does space have 3 dimensions, what is movement)
3. matter and interactions (this is where all TOEs focus)
4. the big picture: beginning, end and god.
5. if there's no soul and we're just a bunch of chemicals, then note that our brain may not be capable of understanding the whole universe, because there's no such design goal behind it. However if such a limitation exists, it must be explained.

The list may grow, but I believe a theory which does not answer the above can't really be called a TOE.

[jeffprice]

In an effort to stay within the bounds set by both Wisp and Christian (feeble though it may be), please allow me to “remove my sock” so the world can “smell my TOE”.


Jeff’s TOE Theory:
1. Time: in its natural sense. (i.e.: cause proceeds effect, order precede disorder, etc... however, there may be ways around this rule.)
2. If space had two dimensions, your digestive tract would cut you in half. (Does anyone hear Anthropic Principle?) More than three dimensions.?.?.?. my geometry skills inadequate to compute this.
3. Matter= condensed ether (primordial substance) created at Big Bang. Initial temperature variations detected in COBE satellite images are result of density variations, which would have produced ether stretching (gravity), which would have served to further condense ether into matter.
4. A. Beginning: Initial release of energy (by what/Whom?), Singularity= Zero density gradient, therefore- Zero gravity to resist Big Bang! . B. End: Further condensation=more gravity= expansion= Big Freeze C. Everything requires a source, doesn’t it?
5. There is a soul.

Well, there it is. My very own “Universe in a Nutshell”, as Dr. Hawking would say, in EXACTLY 100 words. (If you leave out everything in parentheses.) I hope this fills everyone requirements. But, if you use these ideas to win the Nobel Prize, I might require co-authorship and some form of monetary compensation for my efforts.
Everyone keep striving for the elusive TOE! One day we will all grasp “the mind of God”.

Jeff

[Rybo]

1) Metaphysical
...a) infinite space outside the physical
...b) finite set of comsic laws/principles

2) Physical
....a) 5-fold polyhedra's 31 quasi-great circles is bosonic
....b) 4-fold polyhedra's 25 quasi-great circles is fermionic

3) convex gravity is the faster-than-speed-of-radiation buffer-zone between finite physical occupied space and the infinite metaphysical non-occupied space.

4) Spirit as energy or intention
...a) spirit of intention, caring, loving etc...
...b) spirit of energy, alcohol, kicking your heels high etc....

5) Soul as biologic or pattern
...a) biologic ergo flesh bones heart and chemical induced feelings
...b) biologic with lack of feelings

Rybo

[Marketa]

Hello!
Do you really think that number 5 - or 4 - is so special? Do you think that you can divide spirit to spirit of intention and spirit of energy? On another place we have discussion about how simple things can be... I don't think you can simply divide spirit, well, let's say consciousness, that sounds better - I personally think that consciousness is very complex and consists of many - if not infinite many - parts including senses (you are conscious of what you see, hear, feel,...), including processes of thinking, they all need energy (hopefully the same type of energy) and none of them NEED intention (though intention can arise "inside"), I bet that the evolution has no intentions...

[dleviwing]

Kevin;
I browsed through your web site to get an idea as to how you perceive reality. I didn't see an introduction of 100 words or less explaining you concepts. Maybe I just missed it.

Anyway; I did get the basics of what your "Wisp Theory" is about. I partially agree with your Wisp particle concept; however, you need to take at least one more step back to the fundamental stuff of the universe and explain how your Wisps are formed.

I refer to my concept as "Toronics" and my equivalent of your "Wisp" is the "Toron".

1.. Space is not a collection of Wisps or Torons. It is the dispersed primordial matter without organized uniform motion (near total random wave function motion) – Ether, Aether, quantum foam, spacetime, or whatever other name one wishes to call it.
2.. Wisps or Torons form when angular momentum is acquired by a specific quantity of matter such that that quantity sustains "Absolute Motion". These fundamental quantum units of matter are the building blocks of all structured matter. (atomic and subatomic)
3... The interactions between the structures of these units and the ether is what creates all the forces of nature including charge, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, and so on.

A full presentation requires defining the fundamental properties of the primordial matter. I can't do that in 100 words or less. Given that you have put so much work into you concept; I think the only thing that’s missing is the awareness of "Absolute Motion".

I do like your web;
Dave
dleviwing

[AntonioLao]

the product of E1 and E2 is equal to the difference of E1 and E2.

E1E2 = E1 - E2

[d p fitzpatrick]

In ONE post only can you post here what your theory is about - in no more than 100 words.

Milo Wolff and String theorists are correct: It's all resonances.

Click link above.

This is IT - in a nutshell - a real live, simple, easy to understand TOE.



Cheers

Fitz
web page