[protheory]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao In general relativity, the creation mass is coming from spacetime substantiation. Please see the following site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_argument

Thanks for the link Antonio, I've just finished reading it and I don't think that it's the same as my mass gap conjecture exactly.

For a start I don't hold unchangingly to concepts such as space-time, particles, and even physics really.

I will endeavour to explain below

Am I wrong? If somebody says to me "you are wrong" I say "theoretically I am wrong, right, and neutral simultaneously." If that person says "I don't understand" I say "well, theoretically you do understand, don't understand, and neutral simultaneously." If we take this extreme logic and apply it to "everything" we get three simultaneous potentials but we also don't plus neutral...and on and on. Pro theory is a thought experiment first and foremost, I wrote it to be able to provide an answer to everything without exception, a TOE must never "fail." The experiment came about when I questioned the ultimate validity (potential for change) of the concept of all relative (to human existence and consciousness) "definition" such as words, quantity, form, energy etc. I was thinking of the old "what if there were no humans and no consciousness to behold everything, what would there be then?" argument which I feel must also be considered here. Debate Imagine a debate between myself and another person. The person says "what does Pro theory have to say now that we've removed consciousness and we literally have nothing, absolutely nothing?" I say "well, theoretically there is the possibility that there is nothing, something, and a neutral potential also." The person says "well now I've got you on a technicality, for if there is literally 'nothing' then how can you possibly say that there is the theoretical potential for something, even in abstract theory?" I say "I can state the three potentials of nothing, I cannot state the three potentials of nothing, plus neutral." The person says "but you can't say that, we're talking about NOTHING here, so you can't say that there is the chance for something within NOTHING." I say "well, theoretically I can say that, not say that, and neutral simultaneously." The person says "but that's ridiculous, you can't possibly be so delusional as to believe that anybody would actually ACCEPT this as a TOE. I say "well, it may be accepted as a TOE, it may not, plus neutral simultaneously." Am I singularly and unchangingly right, wrong or neutral? Talking Normally All I'm saying is that if you want to get really, really, really literal and technical about the TOE, everything has three simultaneous potentials plus the opposite plus neutral. Like it, or not, or neutral, this is how it is (but it also isn't plus neutral). I apologise for my childish style of illustration here but to be understood Pro theory must be taken literally with no holds barred (plus the opposite plus neutral). Whatever anybody says or states, I will ask them about the opposite and neutral potentials within their answer or statement, be it a TOE or otherwise. My Site I never wanted to write a TOE and to be quite honest I never knew what a TOE was. I kept thinking and thinking, studying and studying, and eventually I came to the singular conclusion that "everything" was made of "atoms." I then imagined all possible answers to my singular statement, both past and future, and I realised that in pure theory "atoms" (at least how I imagined them at the time) were composed of positive, negative, and neutral energy somehow. I didn't take me too long to imagine that due to the three possible potentials "everything" was highly likely to follow the same pattern of formation. At this stage in my quest I was still holding on to singularity, such as the idea of "atoms" and their "construction" of "the universe" and everything within it, you know, the usual view of the concept of a TOE at the beginning of your enlightenment. Eventually I abandoned singularity as unchanging and applied three simultaneous potentials to "everything" without exception, all physics, paradoxes, mathematical conjectures...literally everything, past, present, and future. I wrote my site as an introduction to this concept, simply and openly, I'm not holding anything back, I'm totally willing to share what I know with everybody. I'm only worried that somehow I'll come across as a "know-it-all" newbie who singularly thinks he's written the TOE and will stop at nothing to prove his point, which isn't quite my actual intention nor the truth as it implies a singular assumption on my part. This is extremely difficult for me to express in words but I hope this clarifies my stance with regards to the TOE and my own theory. I have more to say but I need to think further about how to explain clearly in words what I see in my mind The Crux Summing up my points here, all I'm saying is that in pure theory there will always be the theoretical potential for three answers and/or potentials. It's extremely simple, three simultaneous potentials, and Pro theory is a thought experiment, an exploration of pure technicalities, rather than a theory that might serve much practical everyday purpose. Pro theory is a theory that covers the absolute and fundamental potentials of everything, it doesn't mean for example that I meet people and introduce myself thus "my name is Pro, not Pro, and neutral, pleased to meet you." I could do this in theory if I wanted to be totally and literally "accurate" but obviously I don't need this level of accuracy in everyday conversation. When it comes to physics and the TOE though, I do use this approach to illustrate the possible potentials, I think that we should be aware of this concept and try to realise that whatever we say or do there are two other possible potentials also, without exception so to speak. Essays The essays I have written on my site http://www.protheory.com/Pro%20Answers.htm are just to show how literally this idea can be taken, and to show exactly why there are no exceptions. The same three simultaneous potentials apply to literally "everything" and the essays on my site are just to introduce you to the concept. Accuracy Pro theory is about the literal technicalities of "everything" and therefore the TOE also. The "proof" of Pro theory comes when anybody states anything singular, on a pure technicality it is always theoretically possible to imagine an opposite and neutral point for any singular thing. If you doubt this important point then try and prove me as singularly wrong. Beauty The beauty of my theory for me personally is that it keeps me humble for I may never unchangingly state "I have written the true TOE" as this statement does not acknowledge the theoretical opposite and neutral potential within everything. I'm sorry if this seems confusing but I'm just trying to communicate it the best way I can.

I hope that this quote goes some way towards explaining my three simultaneous points of view, so to speak, and I also hope that this also clarifies my views on physics, space-time and other currently accepted concepts