It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Member Articles > Physics Articles
Reload this Page The Mest Theory Of Everything
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Comment
 
LinkBack Article Tools Display Modes
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->The Mest Theory Of Everything<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
The Mest Theory Of Everything
To have one theory of everything,the universe must be composed of just one thing.
Published by gautam
06-19-2007
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->The Mest Theory Of Everything<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

THE MEST THEORY OF EVERYTHING

The mest (mass, energy ,space and time) is simply the one entity of what our universe is composed . Contrary to the general perception of treating the mass, the energy and the space and time as three or four separate entities existing more or less independently , my theory treats them as different forms and attributes of just one thing. What ever is observable, directly or indirectly, from a quark alongwith its colors and flavors to the celestial bodies such as planets, the stars and the galaxies, the interstellar empty space (which is not really empty), the light, the motion, all collectively and individually are defined as the mest. We see them as so many things only because that is the way we can comprehend and understand. The mest is the matter and more.

To make my stance mathematically clear, I would like to state that there can be one and only one final equation, if we believe that there is one theory of everything. So many different laws of physics and the equations derived from those laws are simply parts or extensions of one equation. Further, the many terms used in the LHS and RHS of an equation denote one and the same thing, the mest.
Let’s take the equation of the Second law of motion.

F= ma ( force = mass * acceleration )

The force , the mass and the acceleration in the above equation are nothing but the mest separately and collectively. The force is therefore nothing but the mass accelerated. Or in other words a moving body is not a body of mass but just the force. The same law modified , gave the idea of the still more famous equation E= mc2. I believe Newton had almost said what Einstein proved later . The law of conservation of energy was the first step towards the mest theory of everything.

If the force , the mass and the acceleration were three separate entities then there would have been no equation possible between them. Like there can’t be any equation between the apples and the oranges. No science or mathematics can conclude as to how many apples are equal to two oranges, as far as the apples are apples and the oranges are oranges. But we know that at micro level, the sub atomic level, where all matter is composed of the protons, the neutrons and the electrons there will always be an equation between two things which are composed of the matter, whatever may be the form. The elementary constituents being same, the difference remains the configuration, the spatial position.

At this level the spacetime positon of particles or waves also becomes material. I am quite sure that all the equations of the theoretical physics can be combined into just one mathematically complicated equation. Once that is done we can say confidently that we have got the proven theory of every thing. The simple version of that is the mest theory of everything.

Spacetime is not independent of mass/Energy

The interconvertiblity of mass and energy is a proven and accepted fact. But according to the mest theory, the spacetime, earlier known as the space and the time, is
merely the characteristic of mass/energy. There cant be any mass or energy possible without spacetime and the vice versa. The spacetime is in fact the subject of the object called the mass or energy. Like my much said example of , John and his lifetime, the two cant exist independently, one without the other.

The mest and the cosmic bodies

Let’s examine the mest of our own earth. For all scientific purposes, and also in general, we have been taking earth as the big body of huge mass. One of the planets orbiting around the Sun . We in our perception live on the surface of the planet earth. But the mest theory says something different. According to it, we are living somewhere deep into the earth if we take it to be composed of the mest, much like, animals living in deep seas. The surface of earth is simply the outer edge of the solid earth. The airy earth is upto the outer edge of the exosphere of the earth. But the mest of the earth, which includes its spatial expanse, extends upto the point the so called gravitational pull of the earth is felt. And at that boundary its mest, not perhaps seamlessly, merges with the mest of the other members of the solar family and with that of the patriarch, the Sun.

The total mest of the planets put together alongwith that of the sun defines our solar system. For the outer cosmos this system behaves as one. Similarly ,the total mest of all the stars in one galaxy, put together, makes the mest of the galaxy. This is because of the well defined distinguishable mest that the galaxies are identifiable . The bigger the celestial body or system the bigger will be the mest. The interstellar empty space we observe is actually the mest surrounding the galaxies, the part of the galaxies, like one around our earth. The total mest of all the galaxies put together constitutes the universe.

Spacetime a subject, not object

The inclusion of spacetime of a body as its character, to define it in totality, gives it a subjective dimension. Still, so far as we are not a part of that entity under observation, we can determine and define it objectively. We can even deal with the subject of its spacetime, to large extent, in an objective manner. But as in the case of the universe, of which we are ourselves as much a part as any other constituent of the universe , defining it in terms of its spacetime is near impossible a task. The spacetime of the universe, which is an integral and inseparable part of its mass/energy, makes this universe a subject for the scientists than an object which can be determined by the final theory. The inseparability of spacetime of a body from its mass leaves no room for the gravity.

The Gravity and The Mest theory

There is no scope for or even need of a gravitational pull when the basic fabric of the universe is taken as one wholesome entity called, the mest. The gravity is something that, for finding room for itself , first separates two mass bodies and then dons the role of binding them together. In the mest theory, first of all there is no such space. The mest is continuous. The mest of every larger system ensconces the mest of its constituent bodies. This scientifically unsustainable love of big fat mass bodies has no place in the mest theory. In a continuous universe, the three forces; the one that binds the sub atomic particles together ( strong force) ; the weak force which causes radioactivity and the third one ,the electromagnetic force, existing between charged particles can explain for a body of mass falling down . In the mest theory it is not falling down it is actually going where it is supposed to be as defined by its atomic configuration.

Published: 2007-04-28
Author: BABU GAUTAM
Latest 5 articles

Article Tools

Featured Articles
Read more
THE 1984 WAR: A War of Perception

A Conquest of the United States
  #1  
By Bob Campbell on 11-09-2007, 05:49 AM
Re: The Mest Theory Of Everything

Hi Babu,

It is an interesting approach, sort of like starting at the end result, namely unity, and working back, although it is a bit difficult to see how it can be translated into pragmatic science.

There are requirements implicit in the nature of universal wholenss that lead to a parallel approach. Space, time, and electromagnetic phenomena derive from the discontinuous but synchronous projection of atoms. This also offfers a specific underlying formulation of gravitation, Newtons laws of motion, and the Lorentz transformations of special relativity. A new quantum relativity natually emerges. Have a look at www.cosmic-mindreach.com. You might find some of the articles there interesting.

Regards,
Bob
Reply With Quote
  #2  
By dleviwing on 11-09-2007, 03:57 PM
Re: The Mest Theory Of Everything

Unfortunately mass, energy, space, and time are not entities; they are quantitative measurements called dimensions. Is your height, weight, age, or hair color entities? You must ask yourself “what is the property of the entity being measured telling you?”
Reply With Quote
  #3  
By Bob Campbell on 11-10-2007, 10:18 AM
Re: The Mest Theory Of Everything

Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing View Post
Unfortunately mass, energy, space, and time are not entities; they are quantitative measurements called dimensions. Is your height, weight, age, or hair color entities? You must ask yourself “what is the property of the entity being measured telling you?”
If you check out my website you will see that I do not call these things entities. All we can know in phenomenal experience comes to us via active interface processes between inside and outside. We normally consider dimensions as referring to space and time and these are concepts derived or abstracted from phenomenal experience that have no knowable reality as things in themselves. Things like color are qualites, even though they may have a certain frequency that can be measured by active intefrace processes in our instruments. Nevertheless light is detected by active interface processes in the retina of our eye and it is translated by further interface processes between inside and outside through our nervous system that gives us a subjective perception of objective phenomena. There are articles on the nervous system on my website that demonstrate how our experience is meaningfully integrated synapse by synapse from various sensory inputs. A new methodolgy is offered to the sciences. This is more than conjecture. It finds direct and very precise confirmation with the empirical data as well as with our personal phenomenal experience.

Regards,
Bob
Reply With Quote
  #4  
By dleviwing on 11-11-2007, 02:24 PM
Re: The Mest Theory Of Everything

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Campbell View Post
If you check out my website you will see that I do not call these things entities.
Bob;
What does your web site have to do with Babu’s article? Article comments are intended for the author, why are you responding to mine?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
By roy.roebuck on 03-25-2008, 07:46 PM
Arrow Re: The Mest Theory Of Everything, Adding Prigogine and Haisch.

I agree that a "theory of everything", by encompassing "everything", is encompassing a unity, not a fragmented collection of artifacts.

I frequently query the perceptual context of people by asking: "How many things are there?" If they answer "one", then they perceive unity. If they answer "infinite", then they perceive separation based on their limited senses and mechanical-universe science (neither of which is ever more that a very rough Bohm explicate-order approximation of reality). If they say both one and an infinite number, the answer still resolves to one at its outer boundary.

Perhaps a review of the work by Ilya Progogine and Bernard Haisch would give you reason to consider adding "intelligence" to the mest - resulting in "imest". As I recall, Progogine proved that the universe is a self-organizing entity, exhibiting negative entropy, not the winding-down and cooling-off entropy of a mest mechanical universe. Haisch, in his book "The God Theory", asserts that the intelligence behind the self-organizing universe is "God".

It therefore leads one to perceive, as you assert, that "matter, energy, space, and time" are some of the attributes of the univese, given to it by the foundational intelligence.

My own thoughts of this are presented at http://www.one-world-is.org, where I take a practical approach to managing any endeavor, and integrating and unifying any and all endeavors, from just such a "unity" starting point.

If you start with a "point" universe, and divide it into two pieces, the two pieces, and then more, still have "associations/links/strings/relationships/Bell-interconnection)" with attributes of distance (in space/time, flow, Aspect locality/non-locality) and such (e.g., matter/energy, pattern, potential), within the expanding boundary of the original point. The original point has then gained implicately-ordered (per Bohm) inner dimensions and properties. Everything as Zero-Point?

Roy
Last edited by roy.roebuck : 03-26-2008 at 06:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
Comment


Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Article Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new articles
You may not post comments
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Article Article Starter Category Comments Last Post
An Intro to what Supertrings are james l. digol String Theory 29 07-03-2008 02:07 PM
The Mest Theory Of Everything gautam Physics Articles 8 05-13-2008 07:37 AM
A Real Theory of Everything Tesla TOE Theories 15 01-11-2007 05:35 AM
The Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT) mjgeddes TOE Theory Articles 11 02-10-2006 09:08 AM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

Article powered by GARS 2.1.8m ©2005-2006