Dewd's intro

[Dewd]

Hello. I’m called "Dewd."

Hoping to avoid intellectual entanglements (pun intended) and turf battles with any and all who would impress others with their profound intellect and knowledge, I humbly beg permission to be smart, dumb, wise or foolish, and without raising someone’s hackles. So, then, if something I say makes you angry, please forgive.

Now, before we set about discovering the illusive theory of everything, perhaps we should seek to discover a single theory (of anything at all) that holds up ’til the cows come home. We have yet to do that. Everything we think we understand about the nature of nature is under attack, as it should be, of course, but surely something, very basic, is wrong.

For example, why is it that a fixed force of any given magnitude can accelerate any given mass to any specified velocity, yet it cannot do it instantaneously?

Phrased another way, if a fixed force can finally accelerate a given mass to any specified velocity, then why does it not do it instantaneously? And, PLEASE, do not say "IT’S INERTIA STUPID!"

Furthermore, another observation that begs questioning, is this, simply stated; If the medium of the universe, devoid of matter, is a "space/time" continuum, then matter demonstrates infinite properties, which, of course, is impossible. Please let me further explain.

Rationally, even mathematically, in order for space to have tangible dimensions, a specified point A (in space) is necessarily different from point B (in some manner.) So, then, any body of matter that once occupied Point A but is now at point B, is equally different, and therein lies the problem.

Since it is also rationally (and mathematically) demonstrable that there exists an infinite number of different points between any specified point A and point B, and since matter shows no reluctance to occupy any and all of the infinite number of "different" points, then matter can, quite obviously, assume an infinite number of different "states" in order to occupy any of the infinite number of different points. Whew! I ran out of breath.

Seeing the medium of space as a "space/time continuum" is unsatisfactory, primarily because the thinker hits an impenetrable wall every way he turns. If you are interested, I think I may have an answer to the problem.

[dleviwing]

Hi Dewd;
Welcome to ToeQuest. I like your “let’s do it for fun” attitude.
Hope to see you posting your ideas and joining other threads for some fun discussions.

I have moved your post to the Introduction forum so as not to disrupt the flow of Tesla’s thread theme while everyone welcomes you.

[mkirkpatrick]

Wecome Dewd,I send you greetings from England,hope you quickly settle into this
really great forum.


regardsmichael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Dewd, welcome to the quest. I like your attitude. Please check around, participate or post your own ideas___I'm all ears___no pun intended. Anyway, welcome aboard.

Lloyd

[Dewd]

Hi Michael, Thanks for the warm welcome.

[Dewd]

Hello Lloyd,

Thanks for the welcome, and I will "check around, maybe participate, and I'll read, with interest, what everyone has to say.

[theunify]

"If you are interested, I think I may have an answer to the problem."

What is your definition of "the"?

[Dewd]

"If you are interested, I think I may have an answer to the problem."

What is your definition of "the"?

Hello UNI,

Thanks for the cute response to my intro, which, incidentally, was intended to be something more than that. However, I’m not greatly surprised that hardly anyone picked up what I so laboriously put down about "The" problem to which I may have "a" solution. "The" problem, after all, fatally undermines any possibility of delineating a useful TOE. Please be interested in what I tried to put forward.

The thinker (anyone seeking to understand the nature of the universe) can reminisce back to the first time they "hit the wall," i.e., compromised a particular understanding of how nature might possibly work. In my case, the wall was waiting for me when I tried to make sense of dimensions.

Consider;

1) Where; the medium of space (devoid of matter) is a continuum of dimensions. (X Y Z + time.)

A) Then; (Rationally and mathematically) point A in space is different from Point B, (in whatever manner.)

B) Therefore; Where a body of matter was at-rest at point A, then moves to point B, it necessarily becomes equally different (in the same manner.)

2) Where; Points in space are different in any manner, And an infinite number of different points exist between any two points, And, since matter shows no reluctance to occupy any and all points in space, And, since inertia is a property of matter . . .

A) Then; Matter has infinite properties?

B) Therefore, all points in space are the same. (Nothing can have infinite properties.)

This is one of the myriad of problems associated with visualizing the medium of space as a space/time continuum, including the universal constant.

And, speaking of the silly universal constant, if the speed of light is independent of the transmitter's velocity, then the famous Doppler "Red-shift" would be impossible. We can’t have it both ways.

Doppler effect is an apparent frequency change resulting from compressed wave lengths, which are proportional to the transmitter’s velocity.

Therefore, if the speed of light is the same, regardless of the transmitter’s speed, it would be impossible to compress a light wave. In other words, no apparent frequency change proportional to the transmitter’s velocity. I.e., no red-shift.

DammitDewd.

[Dewd]

Sorry Uni,

I should’ve said; Doppler effect is an apparent frequency shift that is produced by compressing (or stretching) wave length. I.e., not just compressing wave length as I said in my post on the matter.

[theunify]

Thanks. FOR



































































































































































































































































































THIS DEWD!