Can There be a Theory of Everything?

[RascalPuff]

Gentlemen:
Will one or both of you inform me the moment you can direct me to anywhere in the known universe that there is no motion?

Best regards.
- RP

[N0B0DY]

RP,

I conceded that the strong force is precluded from being a force that increases with distance. I conceded that a magnetic field explains expansion from and contraction towards a center very well. I even acknowledge that there is observable motion, like a hand moving in front of your face, but you are not meeting me half way to acknowledge that there is a difference between a relative perspective and what would be an absolute perspective - defined as opposite.

If from our relative perspectives there is motion, from an absolute perspective there would be no motion. I say "would be" because the above universal perspective can't exist, but is nevertheless the only possible state of the absolute universe.

It is generally agreed that all existence is contained within the absolute universe, and any motion from point A to point B within it is said to be actual motion from a relative perspective. Yet, if the absolute universe is simultaneously at both point A and point B, how could it be said that the absolute universe is in motion?

I don't think it can, and the above logic can be applied to "everywhere" in the universe, which to is synonymous to the "thing" being nowhere. If we apply it to the big bang via a false vacuum, it is even less logical because there is no space outside which would allow for expansion followed by any bang. If you follow me, even if there is uniform expansion of the entire universe, everywhere, the absolute universe would already be "there" so it would not have to move anywhere.

Finally, I am not trying to make people crazy or trying to be a troublemaker either, RP. Just trying to be fair with regards to how we are interpreting scientific implications based on both theoretical and empirical data.

[N0B0DY]

"Will one or both of you inform me the moment you can direct me to anywhere in the known universe that there is no motion?"

The short version would be, if all there is to the universe is the "known," then I will concede to everything you advocate - literal motion and all - and never post anywhere on the net again.

[mkirkpatrick]

Good response, Michael.

I am now wondering if the point at the beginning of the shell would be found throughout all points of the shell, and what that would lead to in terms of the existence of the starting point and the shell.

My reply to that question Nobody would be no.In my limited observation of spirals,in
particular those on shells,there is only one point of emergence,not points.

I have no reason to doubt that as this seems to apply to shells,then it would follow that
the same sequence would equally apply to galaxies,and all other manifestations,it seems
to take the form of a signature?



regards michael.

[mkirkpatrick]

I am at present moving house,going through piles of accumulated junk,downsizing and
getting ready to move abroad hopefully next year,anyway I came across a poem of sorts,
one that I wrote about 30 years ago,but seems to fit the theme discussed here,

It is called The river of life.

When did this start?-I can't remember,
long ago,it seems,so long ago.

Strangeness--Yes,that's it,strangeness,so bewildering.
The current seems slower now,able to look around,

Where are those faces that used to abound,have they disappeared in a vast ocean of
experience?

Maybe they are caught in an eddy,sampling this strange thing called stillness.
Beginning to drop their anchor,settling beside the bank of security.

Will I see them again I wonder,so deep,is there a bottom?

This river seems endless,maybe that's it.
How many eddies have I been in?Stillness would come,but not for long.

Our anchor seems seems too short,never did touch the bottom,maybe next time-aye?
Swept away from the bank of security,receding rapidly,the surge od life's river has us ever more in it's grasp.

I remember those rapids moving quickly,all is uncertain,those thoughts ten to the dozen,
will they ever stop?

A face drifts by,Hey,hold on,can you direct me to stillness? My mind is shooting the
rapids,I'm afraid.

The face looks deeply at me,my head falls down as if weighed by an unknown respect
for this strange face.

There is a silence,seems so long.
Please,please answer me,i hear myself think,then,with a shift of his gaze,the face speaks,
Stillness,you say,I see,
Yes,I can only point to you the direction of stillness,look ahead,what do you see?

Mist,I replied.
No,No,said the face,look again,and this time look with your heart as well as your mind.

This river is stronger than all of us,you have been struggling against it for a long time.

Let go,he said in a loud voice,ans see what you find.

With that the sun appeared,what joy I felt,i was at one with the river at last.

I turned to thank the face,but it had gone.

It just seemed so apt,fitting in with the theme,please forgive my indulgence.

regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

Stillness in motion seems relevant to me, Michael. It is a thought-provoking poem.

I guess our arguments are a few-fold, and it is logical to think in terms of there not being any place without motion, as RP has said. It is sort of like fractal shapes applied to motion, where no matter how far down or up the scale we go there is by law always motion.

I think it was Lloyd a while back who made a good point, imo, that there can't be motion without stillness. I disagreed to see how far his thinking would go, and it was suggested that if there were two opposing directions of motion or even different speeds, that there would be a sense of motion.

If you drive your car there is a sense of motion relative to other objects, but if all objects moved at the same speed it is said that there would be no sense of motion. An absolute frame, that I think the absolute universe would have to have, would "move" along with any and all forms of relativistic motion, while remaining completely still because it is already at all places at all times, and I was sure that this reference would be relevant to RP's theory.

I would analogize it to a type of zero-point seat of stillness, which would be the absolute center point of both mind and body, that extends as observable linear and angular motion via the limited rate at which probablistic information can be processed consciously. Perhaps that which can be correlated with "c" velocity.

Good luck with the move, Michael.

[MissChristian]

One of you said "If you ask the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer".

Is it possible to ask a wrong question? I mean, there are only two types of questions.

1) Questions that have answers
2) Questions that don't have answers

The tricky thing is knowing when 2 (a question that appears not to have an answer) is really 1 (has an answer but one out of our immediate reach). If a question cannot be answered, where do you go from there? I suppose you propose a suitable assumption or theory and work backwards from there. (like they did with the big bang?!) Is this really the best way to go about answering a seemingly unanswerable question?

In Science (correct me if I am wrong?) questions (if they are lead to anything useful) have to follow a bottom-up type approach. (or a top-down approach as long as the questions eventually get down!)

A general question -vague and wonderful -cannot really be answered as one big question will inevitably have a number of smaller questions contained within it.

Take the question "What is the theory of everything?"
Contained within this question is the question "Why is gravity so weak?"
And within that question "What is gravity and is it affected by dimensions?"
Further more.."What is a dimension?"

and so on....

Someone ought to make a chart - like a huge tree (as a programmer would sketch out (top down approach). Start with the ultimate question (the big TOE) and then branch out in to all the minute ultra specific questions. Then we (and by we I mean the intelligent and informed among us) ought to go about answering each one in turn until we arrive back up at the TOE.

[austintorn@aol.com]

"Why is gravity so weak?"

Gravity Explained

The Strength of Gravity, The Feeble Apparent

Gravity is a universal force—for any body:
The force felt by a body is mass proportional;
Yet, the acceleration that’s felt is the inverse!
This coincidence removes all mass dependence.

(Einstein transcended this amazing ‘coincidental’ race
By bodies going straight through curved space.)

Gravity might be derived from the fundamentals,
The byproduct of a small residual after cancelations
Of opposite electric or color charges, and more.
Why then is gravity universal, for its sources are not?

Perhaps the appearance of feebleness is deceptive
Since protons and neutrons are but lightweights.
But why are they so light? Their mass is a compromise
Between a disturbance energy and its cancellation.

The quarks’ color charge disturbs gluons around them,
Small at first, but larger growing farther from the quark.
These disturbances cost energy, but how to cancel them?
With an anti-quark or 2 complementarily colored quarks.

But the qualifying quarks can’t sit atop the originals,
For quarks have no definite position, just a wave function,
And they can’t be localized to a small spread of position,
For this requires a larger energy—so forget nullification.

The compromise is that some residual energy amounts
From the not-completely-canceled gluon field disturbances
And from the not-completely-canceled quark positionings,
Thus the proton mass, m=E/cc, with this tricky element
Of how the gluon disturbance field grows with distance.

(The residual strong energy from color charge also binds
The protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus;
The electromagnetic electron/nuclei charge residuals
Bind atoms into molecules and molecules into materials.)

Asymptotic freedom is a subtle feedback effect
From virtual particles antiscreening the color charge.
This antiscreening builds up gradually, especially at first,
Then proceeds more quickly, building upon each building.

(But screening happens for electrically charged particles,
As a positive charge attracts a negative virtual cloud.)

Thus, at first, since it’s so slow to build, the pressure
To localize the nullifying quarks is quite mild as well.
Thus, there’s no need to very strictly localize and so
The energies are small—and so then is the proton mass.

(Ideas herein were gathered from readings of Frank Wilczek)

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Big Tree…



…that works from the bottom-up and top-down
from the canopy (us) to the roots of the causeless

Just a few million details to fill in!