How will the TOE be?

[Tony Stanton]

To find the theory of everything we first must understand the nature of Space and Time. The math must be simple and the final equation that describes Time and Space must be one that we are all familiar with. This equation now exists because using it, I have calculated the time dilation for the GPS clocks, mathematically peered inside a black hole and modelled the forces inside, and I've looked at the negative universe on the other side.

If anyone reading this has a math programme and would like to model the time dilation for the GPS clocks or peer inside a black hole then you can find the Universal clock in a paper called 'Theory of True Relativity and the Universal clock' which can be found in the General Science Journal at www.wbabin.net

As the author of this and subsequent papers I would like to challenge any physicist to tell me that the math don't work.

This theory may be the first big step forward in the search for TOE but you won't know unless you read and understand True Relativity.

[baudrunner]

Mathematics is actually irrelevent in my opinion, because it can often be misleading. The premise is interesting - however I am at odds with the nature of the source of the energy that generates this space-time field in your Universe. I have a similar theory that gravity occurs as the result of spatial displacement, but there is nothing that I can see which prevents an object from exceeding the rate of c, because I do not let mathematics tell me so and therefore I am not constrained by its finiteness. To me, space is not nothing, and not dependent on the projection of space-time fields but rather on the displacement of that of which space is comprised by the objects occupying it, probably a type of boson which we may as well call gravitons. The uniformity of space is affected by its continual expansion, and this expansion is in part responsible for the constant creation of virtual particles because the fabric of which space is constructed is not rigid, and neither is the expansion of local space totally uniform given the constantly fluctuating integrity of its structure due to the presence of dynamically interacting gravity fields occurring as the result of the spatial displacement by objects in perpetual motion.

That is not to say that I would disregard the numbers altogether, because the thought experiment is a fascinating one and the mathematical theory might very well have limited application in our limited reality, where many things are possible but which do not involve or are incompatible with the entire realm of cosmic potential.

The only problem is, any spacecraft passing through the speed of light according to True Relativity, would be entering negative space.

That is a theory for which you might very well be able to provide the math. In the same way that intuition can't predict the shape of the curve of a complex equation on a two dimensional plane, you might have been surprised by the projections of your own calculation and therefore allowed it to assert its stake in your overall appreciation of the fundamental nature of the reality of your space-time in your Universe. However, I think your statement is psychological in origin, that you still view c as the holy grail, the way the sound barrier was regarded at the turn of the last century. All of this type of thinking will go the way of the sound barrier once a proper appreciation of the nature of light, and the method by which the characteristic modulations of the excitation energy that give rise to it are atomically propagated through the medium, are understood.

The fact is that corrections in calculating real GPS satellite clock times based on the relative influences of a weaker gravity and high velocity compared to ground based stations have compensated a great deal for what would otherwise have constituted gross innacuracies in determining ground position so Einstein was essentially correct. These calculations are based on what has been established for the sake of global positioning as one, notwithstanding relative, inertial frame of reference, the earth's surface.

The only possibly insurmountable obstacles to achieving perfection in this area are the dynamics of the constantly and very rapidly changing positions of all the satellites involved in determining ground position at any given time, the amount of which are also constantly changing for a given situation, and the time required to make the computations to determine the exact position for a given time and place, which are also not both necessarily static variables. These may very well be the only reason for the lack of absolute perfection that we would like to see in an ideal world.

If it were up to me, I would model your calculations in a simulation to determine whether they might not provide a good alternative or supplement to the existing processes in GPS determinations. You never know...

[mkirkpatrick]

To find the theory of everything we first must understand the nature of Space and Time. The math must be simple and the final equation that describes Time and Space must be one that we are all familiar with. This equation now exists because using it, I have calculated the time dilation for the GPS clocks, mathematically peered inside a black hole and modelled the forces inside, and I've looked at the negative universe on the other side.

If anyone reading this has a math programme and would like to model the time dilation for the GPS clocks or peer inside a black hole then you can find the Universal clock in a paper called 'Theory of True Relativity and the Universal clock' which can be found in the General Science Journal at www.wbabin.net

As the author of this and subsequent papers I would like to challenge any physicist to tell me that the math don't work.

This theory may be the first big step forward in the search for TOE but you won't know unless you read and understand True Relativity.

Thank you Tony,I intend to study this this paper,nd hopefully get backto you then!
kind regardsmichael.

[subversion]

Hey Baud, where did you get this quote from? "The only problem is, any spacecraft passing through the speed of light according to True Relativity, would be entering negative space"

[baudrunner]

sub,

I found the quote at this website here. Take the time to read the .pdf file (the theory of true relativity) posted there by Tony Stanton in which he explains his theory, then you will sync with this thread. It's actually pretty good. Perhaps I should have directly referenced it but I thought the reference obvious since I replied directly to his post, which included the link. Anyway, you should actually find this pretty interesting, as I did.

[psycho_preteen0711]

The Theory of Everything. EVERYTHING is the keyword. The theory is a combination of all the secrets and formulas. But what you must realize is that it is all based on rules...does that help? but you don't have to listen to a 12 year old...

[subversion]

I think intelligence is open-mindedness

[RascalPuff]

All of the above, and then some. Thank you.

[ScottAnfield]

I think that psycho_preteen0711 is right. The answer is in the question. The Theory of Everything should be based on absolutely everything including all of the options mentioned and more. It should be able to explain everything that is in our universe, without exception. It should be an all-encompassing theory from every branch of study. However, the equation should be based on mathematics, because that's what an equation is from and physics uses mathematics to explain its phenomena.

[higgs]

I chose physics and cognitive sciences because those are the only subjects that are actually asking the right questions. I think we will come up with a new theory soon, probably based on experimental data from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. I think it is a stretch to say that the theory will encompass "everything". It will be more like the next order of approximation, although it presumably will encompass a lot of things - gravity, dark matter, dark energy, the origin of mass, why there are more particles than antiparticles, the Higgs Field, the nature of quarks, and also I think mind/consciousness will play the biggest role in the new theory. I think the hardest part of coming up with a new theory is that we must accept that phenomena of the mind are completely mathematical, and that we do not actually have individual minds, but rather our experiences are merely excitations of a single quantum field. This theory would allow for technological control of the mind, mind reading, etc. This seems like the next step to me. The reason a new theory has been so hard to come by is twofold - the mathematics are above the heads of even most mathematicians, and the implications about the mind are something most people don't even dare think about. I think that about sums up where our scientific theories are at - we are just starting to learn the secrets of biology, and it will turn out to be very mathematical. There is a good book entitled "Physical control of the mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society" by José Manuel Rodriguez Delgado, who was a professor of physiology at Yale.