[theunify]

Hello all how was your Saturday? Lloyd I recieved your PM and rest assured I have your answer. I was wondering if we should discuss my article 'from physics to physics'. I'm embarressed to realize that the formatting came out on that article; Here is my suggestion, can I submit the entire article again into the TOE Theory section and then have someone delete it from TOE Overveiw?

[theunify]

Also I'm noticing some differences between my hardcopy and my webversion, I can fix this today so we can discuss my theory, also I encourage you to head over to my blog. My blog is about preparing a scientific paper for pier review, so the summary of my introduction THREAD is I'll post a new article with proper formatting today and then I'll get around to answering some of ya'll's questions.

Yes I live in Massachusetts.

[theunify]

Ok scientists I submitted my new article, and I must say it's a big improvement, although the introduction is a little off, and a few coded tags show up. I've PM'ed Robert to delete my first article, and I've been working for 4 hours this morning on this.

Lloyd now I feel more confident to answer your question about ground state with relation to my theory.

You ask

Re: Friend's list. - Yesterday, 06:56 PM Hi Unify, thanks for responding. I will answer to your post in the Universal Evolution post as soon as I have time, but I would like to point out that I am not heading toward any string theory ideas, or any many worlds interpretations. I think the universe can be explained much simpler than that. You, as has David, mention absolute motion, which I have a problem with, as it conjectures itself into existence like so many other Genesis theories. I would simply ask what "Exact Scientific" set of motions produces the absolute motion, you propose? How do you get absolute motion from the absolute ground state of low entropy motion?___explain the entire scientific dynamic, in classical common sense, using only finite universal correspondence___if you can?___and not finiteness's quantum or relative mechanics and its related laws and maths___as they do not apply to the ground state evolution of the linear universe of extremely cold thermal matter motions? You should study all the laws of thermodynamics, to see why entropy applies to motion as well as complexity. If, for example, you just take a theoretical model of a singularity, producing the first light speed approaching velocities, you'd quickly see that at near high entropy heat velocity of the singularity's internal velocities, you'd cross the Lorentzian transformation thresh-hold___this would be exactly identical to transformation velocity state change through radiation and extreme contraction/increase of matter/mass. Therefore, entropy applies to all velocities, as they are all heat-motions. Transformation applies at the higher entropy and lower entropy levels of all universal motions. Cosmologists also use thermodynamics to figure the motions of galaxies and other universal motions. When one does not consider the massive dynamics of thermodynamics, one is truly crippled at understanding macro universal physics and its entwined motions and heat. Hope this helps, Lloyd Quote: Originally Posted by theunify Hi there, Lloyd, I replied to the TQ post you made we are ever so slightly moving to string theory discussions. I don't know if you got a chance to check out my article, "From Physics to Physic." I wrote that over the last few years, and took all my drafts and wrote the final version this summer. I made it as clear and 'short!" as possible. The funny thing is while writing it the only sources I used were Einstein, Quantum Theory, and Hawkings requirements for a theory of everything. And of course basic math texts for quotes, speeds, and geometry symbols. So my work is totally uninfluenced by string theory, I just learned what it was yesterday, and I must say its very similar in some of it's "many worlds" predictions. The book is written for introduction into physics, its not for professors, because when I got into physics 5 years ago I was only 16, and I think that's when you catch the bug, if you ever catch it in your life. So I wrote it to be an enjoyable read.

Lloyd Let's do two things, Obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and explain how we get from ground state to increased entropy.
If we want to follow my theory, there are three parts: First we give existance to a matter particle
Second we give definition to motion by disintegration
Third we assign a constant which produces infinite expansion.
1. To create the matter particle we first grapple with the tough question "What caused the big-bang?" or more importantly "What came before the big-bang?" The answer to this is nothing, a void of geometric space, much like a stage. Then we ask what is a void in geometric language? Answer. A void is an infinite black sphere.
Since we have defined a void as a sphere based on the fact that is satisfies the definition of a void, we can see that a sphere is simply another name for a particle. Even though we call this nothing... it's just a label, it indeed has form, enough form to quantify it with geometry.Hence we can label it as anti-matter or matter, it doesn't matter at this point, there is no option for comparison.
2. This is where the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes into play. Since we have a form, of no mass, the law stands that we can use zero energy, to create motion without violating the Law, a mathematical/geometric trick. But it allows us to proceed in the process called the big-bang. And my theory is that spheres produce motion, by dividing. See my article, chapter 3. It's mathematically proven that a sphere divided in two adds to it's radius but "conserves its mass/energy"
3. The big-bang can be termed "Disintegration" since we have a particle, and we are enacting a sufficient force...i.e 0, to cause that particle to entropy into more particles. At this point it becomes more relevant to call the particle matter, and any operation on it is a meaningfull one. Therefore it obeys the velocity of light. And a constant has to be chosen to show this. From the example of dividing spheres we have a clue/hint at the constant we are looking for. The constant is the value of 1 aproaching 0. An infinitesimal number. The reason for this is because this is the value that produces the most motion over time, and hence it is compatible with relativity saying that light speed is the maximum attainable speed.

Conclusions and other TOE Discussion.
If you have followed the law called the law of disintegration you'll see that since we only got one constant all particles are "self-similar" to this big-bang particle and therefore follow the same laws. We can only deduce that these are the photons, and indeed photons operate on the same Law of Disintegration,
An overall Unification, but still unnormalized.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Unify, IMO, you have stated 3 conjectured Genesis statements about science, without any scientific grounds, what-so-ever. All science must be grounded in science___tests___laws___logics___observations___o r it ain't science. Please ground all your ideas in an absolute provable testable scientific motion process.

Regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by theunify Ok scientists I submitted my new article, and I must say it's a big improvement, although the introduction is a little off, and a few coded tags show up. I've PM'ed Robert to delete my first article, and I've been working for 4 hours this morning on this. Lloyd now I feel more confident to answer your question about ground state with relation to my theory. You ask Lloyd Let's do two things, Obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and explain how we get from ground state to increased entropy. If we want to follow my theory, there are three parts: First we give existance to a matter particle Second we give definition to motion by disintegration Third we assign a constant which produces infinite expansion. 1. To create the matter particle we first grapple with the tough question "What caused the big-bang?" or more importantly "What came before the big-bang?" The answer to this is nothing, a void of geometric space, much like a stage. Then we ask what is a void in geometric language? Answer. A void is an infinite black sphere. Since we have defined a void as a sphere based on the fact that is satisfies the definition of a void, we can see that a sphere is simply another name for a particle. Even though we call this nothing... it's just a label, it indeed has form, enough form to quantify it with geometry.Hence we can label it as anti-matter or matter, it doesn't matter at this point, there is no option for comparison. 2. This is where the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes into play. Since we have a form, of no mass, the law stands that we can use zero energy, to create motion without violating the Law, a mathematical/geometric trick. But it allows us to proceed in the process called the big-bang. And my theory is that spheres produce motion, by dividing. See my article, chapter 3. It's mathematically proven that a sphere divided in two adds to it's radius but "conserves its mass/energy" 3. The big-bang can be termed "Disintegration" since we have a particle, and we are enacting a sufficient force...i.e 0, to cause that particle to entropy into more particles. At this point it becomes more relevant to call the particle matter, and any operation on it is a meaningfull one. Therefore it obeys the velocity of light. And a constant has to be chosen to show this. From the example of dividing spheres we have a clue/hint at the constant we are looking for. The constant is the value of 1 aproaching 0. An infinitesimal number. The reason for this is because this is the value that produces the most motion over time, and hence it is compatible with relativity saying that light speed is the maximum attainable speed. Conclusions and other TOE Discussion. If you have followed the law called the law of disintegration you'll see that since we only got one constant all particles are "self-similar" to this big-bang particle and therefore follow the same laws. We can only deduce that these are the photons, and indeed photons operate on the same Law of Disintegration, An overall Unification, but still unnormalized.

[theunify]

Normalization requires a new way to utilize the Central Processing Unit. I don't know but I think the direction I'm heading in is a normalization of simple Unified Time for the basis of a new way to measure time. I am not discovering anything new however, as the light year is very accurate, I could perhaps do a little more invesitagtion into facts and then give my facts of illusion in a normalized fashion.

I'll work the on the normalization of Unified Time, I know I owe it to the science community to communicate my "overveiw" of this Unification.

Enough philospy for now... Stay tuned to my Blog for more information on the normalization of Unified Time.

[dleviwing]

Hi JonD;
You state that the pre-universe void is an infinite sphere. The term “infinite” infers a boundless dimension and thus it can have no shape. The best way to view existence is to simply say there was no beginning and thus all the components required to produce our universe has always existed. Our task is to logically state the conditions of the pre-universe components; substance, place, and the properties of them.

Thermodynamics is based on motion – more precisely the degree of freedom of motion. An object with zero degree of freedom cannot exist and cannot come into being by any process short of magic. This means that motion most also be an eternal function or property of the substance. The best you can do for your object is to state that its motion has only one degree of freedom – velocity.

You must also learn that the speed of light is not a constant. Only the “MEASUREMENT” of the speed of light produces a constant value. This allows Relativity to work by allowing time to be a variable in an invariant equation. (time dilation) Quantum Physics is based on a much larger value for motion.

I am curious; have you sold enough copies of your book to recover the self-publishing expenses?

[theunify]

David here is what I found,

found a contradiction in my theory "Infinity takes on the roll of the number 1 in these
equations,
where you can subtract any small number and get infinitely long decimal answers. We are simply
working on the order of infinity to show the scale of something that is larger than any real
number."
PM 11/26/2006""

Even though I say Infinity, I actually mean the number one. And vice versa. Suffice to say the Universe has a quality that manifests itself as being uniqe.

Also attached is a quote of philospy for m.pat.

[dleviwing]

JonD;
Since your specialty is “Tomatoes and Garlic”, I can only assume your Collage Graduate degree is in the culinary arts. I do not detect any comprehension of an engineering discipline in your posts or article. If I’m wrong, then please elaborate or I must assume your formal science is limited.

You cannot mathematically define infinity as unity.