[carlscheider]

It says here I should introduce myself first.

My formal training has been in philosophy, theology, ethics, and law. I had the wonderful good fortune to spend 16 years at the university level!

My professional life has been spent in Information Systems - ending up as a CTO for a software company. Best job I ever had.

But my insight into the "theory of everything" began with ham radio and my dogma prof. This was about 1960. This prof had been a chemist before he got his doctorate in theology, and he was persuaded that the prevailing view of physics and cosmology was all wrong. Instead of "things" traveling about as waves or particles, he had the insight that all that was needed was a propagated "effect". An electron there drops a quantum of energy, and the one in my eye gets it - nothing passes between them.

My philosophy prof at the time had a cat about this - something about "actio distans" - things do not operate at a distance, according to Aristotle and that crowd. Also not according to most folk's common sense.

When you deal with antennas and propagation and the like however, it makes perfect sense.

A few years after he died, another student of his sent me a little monograph on that very topic. It had to do with the "laws of relative motion". It made perfect sense. Someone else understood this.

Many years later, I scanned that little piece and posted it to the WWW: http://scheiders.com/cosmology/index.htm.

I have since met the author of that little gem, and he has published another, much more extensive work. Much to my utter amazement, that book has NOT been accepted as the answer to life's persistent questions - or the theory of everything.

I am a lawyer, theologian, software guy - not a "scientist", but this makes perfect sense to me. This author also runs a forum on Yahoo - another theoryofeverthing http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/.

So . . . I'm new to this. Help me understand this a bit. Where can I go in this pile of information to get a handle on the prevailing theories of everything? And why hasn't the world accepted this one yet?

Thanks. I'll go look around a bit.

CarlS

[MJA]

Hi Carl,

Welcome to TOE Quest.
After reading some of your thread and attachments on instanaety, I think you'll find this forum a great place to be. I see the universe as a whole or one and believe our own actions or non actions effect not only oneself but equally the whole universe. Sometimes though, no matter how hard we try, somethings take time.
As far as instantaneous energy tranfer, it exist such as when I pick up a cup, but at an unreachable distance it remains on the table.

Have fun,
=
MJA

[dleviwing]

Welcome to ToeQuest Carl.

No offence to your friend but he does not make it to the armature standings. It’s nice to know all the names of those men of science throughout history but it is more important to understand the science they presented; he doesn’t; that’s obvious to those who do.

Your friend seems to be equivalent to an auto mechanic performing brain surgery.

[everymansmedium]

Hi CarlS:
The amateur standing that Dave speaks of is the one that the entire physics community exists within as long as there are holes in the understanding of our universe. Like for instance (superposition) (non locality) or (entanglement) Then there is the fact that relativity does not work at subatomic structure, nor does Quantum mechanics work at a the level of the cosmos.
As long as these problems exist there is nothing but amateurs that refuse to look in their own tool box to find the error that keeps making it impossible to understand our world. That is why we are here. The only thing that sets us apart from the rest of the community of man is our interest in solving these problems. The fact that you are here makes you one of us, simply because you had enough interest to come. Thank you for your interest in solving the TOE. Welcome to Toequest. You are among friends. I have posted to the TOE site on Yahoo. Also to stringtheorygroup and theoretical_physics You will find this site to be much more personable and involving. It will make you think and it will cause you to learn more than you do now. This is what it does for all of us if we let it.
Unlike Yahoo, you will get to know the people here and learn to work with them at finding the Toe.
So once again Welcome to Toequest.
John EMM

[MJA]

Originally Posted by everymansmedium

Hi CarlS:
The amateur standing that Dave speaks of is the one that the entire physics community exists within as long as there are holes in the understanding of our universe. Like for instance (superposition) (non locality) or (entanglement) Then there is the fact that relativity does not work at subatomic structure, nor does Quantum mechanics work at a the level of the cosmos.
As long as these problems exist there is nothing but amateurs that refuse to look in their own tool box to find the error that keeps making it impossible to understand our world. That is why we are here. The only thing that sets us apart from the rest of the community of man is our interest in solving these problems. The fact that you are here makes you one of us, simply because you had enough interest to come. Thank you for your interest in solving the TOE. Welcome to Toequest. You are among friends. I have posted to the TOE site on Yahoo. Also to stringtheorygroup and theoretical_physics You will find this site to be much more personable and involving. It will make you think and it will cause you to learn more than you do now. This is what it does for all of us if we let it.
Unlike Yahoo, you will get to know the people here and learn to work with them at finding the Toe.
So once again Welcome to Toequest.
John EMM

Thanks John for pointing out the true amateur status of all of us.
Dave's measure of others brings to mind this saying: it takes one to know one.
Perhaps John the solution that will fill the holes in physics that you suggest are much more simple than thought.
Prehaps then too, it will be an amateur without the clouding effects of complexity that will fill in those holes and make the universe whole again.
What do you think John, is the solution more simple than thought?

=
MJA

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by MJA

Thanks John for pointing out the true amateur status of all of us.
Dave's measure of others brings to mind this saying: it takes one to know one.
Perhaps John the solution that will fill the holes in physics that you suggest are much more simple than thought.
Prehaps then too, it will be an amateur without the clouding effects of complexity that will fill in those holes and make the universe whole again.
What do you think John, is the solution more simple than thought?

=
MJA

Hello MJA:
Any single solution will be more simple than the complexities that now exist.
The thought that, you can not fix the problems in physics using the same tools that was used to create them, is the thought that inspires me. I try very hard to look in areas that have not been covered enough, or not at all.
There has been two areas that the physics community stays away from. That is any area that might indicate intelligent design, and any area that indicates the possibility of a non-deterministic result. These areas were the ones that were ignored, these then appear to me to be the place most likely to contain the overlooked solution. The last place that the capital education system wants to find them. They do not want to find evidence of any divine beginning. This would not increase there cash flow, and it would also tend to indicate that they are a bit impotent.
When you leave out variables that have not been properly dismissed, for any reason other than scientific findings, you and your calculations end up a few french fries short of a happy meal.
John

[Profpat]

Hi John;

I thought they found evidence of a divine beginning, not proof mind you, it's called the big bang.

Best to all,

Pat

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi John;

I thought they found evidence of a divine beginning, not proof mind you, it's called the big bang.

Best to all,

Pat

Hi Pat:
Ok you have the right to rub that one in a bit. The reason that I want the idea of the big bang looked at again is because when the thought first became a theory because of the discovery of the red shift. It truly looked like a big bang at that time and had a lot of backing to become a theory. However later when it was discovered that the so called bang had no point of origin. the backing for this theory went away but somehow the theory continues. Then they discover that the expansion of space is accelerating this also is not indicative of a bang. Yet the theory continues. That is not according to there own rules for the progression of a hypothesis to a theory. It remains a theory because they claim that it was some non standard type of bang. This only says that once an idea is accepted if it seems to fail later they still hang onto it because of the money that has been allotted to study the theory. If it was considered no longer to be a theory the money would go away. It is the conflict of interest that is at the heart of capitalism that drives the community. This is by far and wide the major problem with this community.

I personally think there is cycling that goes on in our universe. I think that there may be some smaller galactic size bangs or leaks that cycle material in the universe. I also think that the space and matter that appears to disappear as the distant galaxies go beyond the macro event horizon, returns to be reused at the point of creation. This as the dimension of time comes full circle. I know that we do not see the toe in the same way but I do feel that we do share in seeing the need for the brotherhood of mankind.
In that we are brothers.
Be well Pat.
John.

[MJA]

Originally Posted by everymansmedium

When you leave out variables that have not been properly dismissed, for any reason other than scientific findings, you and your calculations end up a few french fries short of a happy meal.
John

Truth is John,
Happy meals were never about the french fries, it was all about the prize.

Somehow in that regard, Looking outside the box in search of answers to what you quest, I believe in whole heartedly too. It is the confines of what we think and been told to know that keeps us imprisoned from nature's freedom, nature's truth.
As far as the direction of intelligent design, I believe the science of physics and any other science is of manmade intelligent design, don't you? The only problem I see with regard to the before mentioned design is that in many cases it is intelligents that lacks the truth. Theories abound in science, as faith does in religion. What is real what is true, when theories and faiths are so convoluted with what simply and truly is. Are you suggesting something else, like a God design John? Do you have any proof of that or is it only a strong feeling or a faith that guides you?

Nice conversing with you,

=
MJA

[Profpat]

I don't know John, I think the big bang is still the best theory floating around. I found this from a NASA site.

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:
The expansion of the universe Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right. The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang. These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.

• Comments and Suggestions
• Privacy Policy and Important Notices
• Reproduction Guidelines

• <LI id=webaddress>wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov
• Webmaster: Britt Griswold
• NASA Official: Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw
• Page Updated: Wednesday, 03-05-2008

Additionally I think WMAP supports the big bang theory.

Best,

Pat