SB_UK from the lowlands (Camburidge,Engurland)

[SB_UK]

HIYA duckies -

SB_UK here
- have lived on another Jelsoft forum for the last 5 or so years -
which somehow ended up generating TOE (the big TOE)
- not a stinky pinky with spots on.

Unfortunately I see that my plans to divulge have been confounded by your rules


... Earthlings.

1. Please don't tell us that you already know the Theory of Everything.

grrrr !!!

so if I can simply whisper (3->4-13d)n recursive re-iterating geometry which revolves around emergent evolution, eversion and defines duality and trinity (trimurti) and orthogonal 3d spaces - as the basis of

wait for it

ermmm... ... ...

everything?

very very very quickly

whilst pointing to 10,000 of my Earth posts on this subject on another forum

click me (if you dare) - google search term [site:www.addforums.com SB_UK physics]

- promise you won't be transported to a place which asks for dee dollharrr though this unemployed oik from Cambridge could sure do with your dishonestly acquired spare change for a hot pack of chips (obese French fries)
(an approxmate translation for all Americans and mainland Europeans)

the first google hit above jumps into Bohm (David) territory <- great guy
the second google hit hitches a ride on Lorenz (Edward) 's butterfly <- great guy also

---PS---
(joking aside)
it is correct though

(joking back)
Hawking and Penrose say so

nah!

Harry and Peter

(and they're not even looky a-teensy-bit-likeys)

[SB_UK]

All observable phenomenon in nature are merely the necessary universal steps taken to maintain equilibrium by means of imbalance.
Until all things are explained, nothing can truly be explained, due to the relativity of everything.
-analog-

hey Analog -
lovely choice of signature -


the very simple basis to the idea is that there are two spin state duals

1-> <-2

this is a duality -
and the duality when balanced ( as in your signature)

~ps~
- the duality represents everted counterparts in a 'bond'

~eg~

---1--
icosahedron-> <-dodecahedron
---2---
man-> <-woman

~ps~
man is the icosahedron
not the dodecahedron -

(check out Luminet's paper in the journal Nature ?2003 on the dodecahedral Universe)

~ps~
man is the icosahedron
not the dodecahedron -

based on space-filling properties

dodecahedron ~ 70%
versus
icosahedron ~ 60%

> icosahedron o-> ->- convex
) dodecahedron o+ ->- concave

ITSA' ALL pertty GEOMETRY dudes

~ps~
I sound silly when I say thdudesat with an English accent.

the very simple basis to the idea is that there are two spin state duals

-> <-
this is a duality -
and the duality when balanced ( as in your signature)

At balance we obtain a child structure

-> emergent evolution

man + woman -> child
At speciation child is non chimaeric

~eg~

electron neutrinos (lepton)
neutrons
hydrogen (Bohr electron states)
glycine (amino acid with 2xH side chains)

---etc---
including

hermaphrodites (which aren't neutered)
doh!
cunningly confounding my love for word jiggling.

[SB_UK]

~ps~ analog

relativity of everything

reality is 'scalar'

the basis to 'vector' is ... ...

... ... ... wait for it

- duality and trinity -

imagine a series of 3d realities chained together -
these are orthogonal with respect to one another -
this represents the 3d geometry of

real -> imaginary (as in complex numbers) (as we jump from reality space to adjacent space)

so
- we have

->- 3d reality -> Hilbert's metalevel -> 3d reality -> Hilbert's metalevel -> 3d reality etc ->-

chained together (where Hilbert's metalevel solves the Riemann Hypothesis )
- this is the logical -> <- geometrical basis to reality

(you guy's'll know that Hilbert was obsessed with the Riemann hypothesis)

So ... ...

3d space 1 ---connection 1 --- 3d space 2 --- connection 2 --- 3d space 3
- the connections are the actual definition of the asymptote -

and infinity is not infinite -
IT IS BOUNDED (the old REALLY REALLY REALLY BIG infinity does not exist).

ps Go..del is solved (uncertainty) using this idea also

relativity of everything.

Basis to mind also


logic -> <- geometry

-> neatly pushing {mind,consciousness} into line with everything -
- we evolved after all -
we were not made by Bob the Bearded Builder

Quantum consciousness pokes 'Indra's net' to the fore.

relativity of everything

oopsy!
... ... only gone and forgotten the point of this post -

The point of this post ->

which was that effective vector (notionally objective) is generated when we anchor a 3d space with a metalevel anchor - so scalars convert to vectors when dualities and trinities (trinity - a parental dual with child structure)
-> form.

~ps~
have you guys seen the Picasso pictures with ladies with funny heads (eyes to be more precise) -?-

- the funny head (you know what I mean) portrays the eversion -
our eyes have been lying to us -
and that's why this stuff couldn't be seen until relatively recently.

All scientists know that they need to calibrate their instruments -
but who has ever tried to calibrate their own mind?

Why wasn't Picasso considered like REALLY bad -?-
- it's because he could actually see real reality.

Incidentally - to understand this idea we need to investigate the multiply associating neurones (spiky) of the hippocampus and pre-frontal cortex (the reason why all of my posts to date have been on a mind forum).

Incidentally -
Analog

is a beautiful term to explain all of this -

do you know Huxley's - 'Doors of Perception' -
turns out that with
his cousin (Andrew Huxley) (1963's Nobel prize winner for medicine (head of Trinity college here) for
'defining the mechanism of neurotransmission using squid axon')

->- well ->-
those doors lead to an 'analogue world'.

~pps~
the metalevel anchors of mind are called faith
- that line's really really important -
if you've ever wondered why people kill for their religion

pull the anchor of a mind
- the simulated sensation of loss of one's mind.

The mind is provably anchored by faith in the unknowable -
it's part of the generalization -
we cannot enter an orthogonal space -

where please don't get all Star Trek on me here -
orthogonal space isn't much more than the idea of turning a right angle (principle of moments).

[analog]

hello SB_UK,

Welcome to the forum.

I'm following the links you gave, but having a little trouble following your theory.

You can post it here under Member Articles if its large, or under Main ToE Forums- Your Toe Theory if that better suits you. I'm sure there are many here who would love to see it, myself included.

I'll be sure to take a look, but I'm not sure how much feedback I can give you on it. There are many here who are much better suited for that than me, but I'll still try. You could PM Dleviwing if you would like. I'm sure he would have much to offer once you make it more readily available. He's probably your best bet at a proper critique.

[SB_UK]

ooops!

I've been bad -
will stop there with many apologies to the rules, to Analog - for stealing his or her signature (you were the only one here man!) -

and generally to anybody who has had the misfortune to sniff my armpits



(love the 'click here to see me full size picture' -
she enticed me into registering)

right !

- so where is she?

[SB_UK]

Thanks Analog

(especially though for not being rude to this sensitive penniless Freudian slip of a thing).

[SB_UK]

incidentally

ToM - is Baron Cohen's (our Professor of Exptal Psych / autism specialist) - model for mind -

ToE and ToM as one -
- which all in all means that

the lyrics to 'heads, bodies, knees and toes'
might be on the curriculum of science degrees worldwide soon.

I am a failed comic

(also)

[dleviwing]

Welcome to ToeQuest SU_UK.
I think the rule states: “Don’t say you know the solution to the TOE unless you are willing to share it on the forum with other members.” We have had many claim the solution but fear they will lose credit for it if they present it. Frankly all of them finally presented nothing but armature high school science or some other nonsense. One even claimed to be the messiah.

If your theory is extensive, it may be best to present it in increments by creating a ToeQuest Blog page.

Hope you enjoy the forum.
BTW: you may be taken a little more seriously if you fill out your profile page a bit more; otherwise you could be taken as just another internet troll.

[analog]

Hello again SB_UK,

No need to apologize. You've done nothing wrong. I was just suggesting that for someone to properly discuss your views they need to see them fully and understand them; and I was letting you know that we do accept those who think they already have the ToE; like Dave said, you just have to show your work though if you want proper feedback. It'll also get more recognition at one of the three forums we've recomended rather than introductions.

Looking forward to any future conversations,

Tim

[analog]

Oh yeah,

Feel free to reference my signature all you want. I don't mind. We're all amongst friends here.