[Brent]

Originally Posted by protheory I'd also like to ask what proof you have for stating that there is "only one way to know for sure" if you're willing to explain. I'm only interested in the truth so please don't think that I'm picking at you here or anything

The one way to know for sure would be to destroy some matter. Destroy sounds so violent. There may be non violent ways to destroy matter, theoretically. No, it is not technologically possible, yet. Enough people start thinking about it and who knows.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Profpat Brent; There in lies the problem my friend. There is NO NOTHING. That void ended with the big bang. So I'm sorry, I can't give you nothing which you need to create matter. Profpat

Yes, there is no nothing now. Not here anyway. Then again there is nothing now.

The big bang is not needed.

[protheory]

Originally Posted by Brent The one way to know for sure would be to destroy some matter. Destroy sounds so violent. There may be non violent ways to destroy matter, theoretically. No, it is not technologically possible, yet. Enough people start thinking about it and who knows.

Hi Brent.

Well I suppose it's a question of what do you mean by "matter" here?

I understand your meaning (in the relative 'everyday' sense) but according to my own ideas there are three potentials to "everything" at all "times" so to speak. When you say anything singular such as "The one way to know for sure" this allows me to say that theoretically you can't "prove" this. In the sense of a "proof" being seen as a singularity (devoid of opposite and neutral potentials).

How do you know there is only one way?

Can you prove this one way without me being able to challenge you?

What do you say if I simultaneously state the opposite and neutral potentials within everything you say?

In effect I'm simultaneously agreeing with you, disagreeing with you plus neutral ad infinitum...

What does your TOE have to say about this?

Please don't think I'm being somehow negative or aggressive here, I'm merely trying to explore some ideas with you in the hope that it may benefit us both

[protheory]

Originally Posted by Brent Yes, there is no nothing now. Not here anyway. Then again there is nothing now. The big bang is not needed.

How do you prove and justify your statements about nothing?

And why do you think that the Big Bang is not needed?

[Brent]

Originally Posted by protheory Hi Brent, I've had an idea that may help you and us equally. I fully understand your reluctance to post or publish your TOE on here and what's more I think this is a perfectly natural feeling as I felt this way myself before I took the plunge on ToeQuest. I also feel I understand that you still wish to talk non-specifically about your theory, as in you seem to want to discuss your ideas but your reluctance to publish them seems to prevent discussion because we can't discuss what we don't know Anyway, having said that I understand your dilemma and now that David has stated the rules here on ToeQuest, namely that we usually ask people to publish their complete theory if they are wanting to discuss it, I think it might help us all if you perhaps wrote a few details about your quest to find your theory in general terms. I can't help but think that if you told us a few details of perhaps your general interest in physics and the TOE it might help to open the lines of communication a little further. You can get to know us and we can get to know you too, we'll just have a bit of a general TOE related discussion if you like. I have plenty to say about some of the sentences you've posted in this thread already for example. This is a friendly place full of friendly people all looking for the same thing, namely open and honest discussion of all possible TOEs. I hope this helps a little. Kind regards. Pro

I may be willing to explain the results from Fizeau's experiment regarding the speed of light in moving water. But some things will have to be accepted without explaination, on a need to know basis.

Fizeau got an answer that he thought was close enough to confirm freznals formula and Einstein got an answer he thought was close enough to confirm his theory.

I can explain how it really works if someone else will do the math and compare it to the results of Fizeaus experiment.

[protheory]

Originally Posted by Brent I may be willing to explain the results from Fizeau's experiment regarding the speed of light in moving water. But some things will have to be accepted without explaination, on a need to know basis. Fizeau got an answer that he thought was close enough to confirm freznals formula and Einstein got an answer he thought was close enough to confirm his theory. I can explain how it really works if someone else will do the math and compare it to the results of Fizeaus experiment.

Sounds interesting, I'm especially interested in Einstein and the speed of light, my own view is that light is (as such) incorrectly viewed as an unchangingly singular constant observed without its opposite and neutral portentials.

Why will some things have to be accepted without explanation?

If you mean that you feel revealing certain details may be out of your comfort zone that's perfectly understandable but if you mean that you can't prove parts of your theory that may be another matter if you'll pardon the pun

What does this experiment, which it seems you can't complete yourself using math, have to do with your TOE?

Not that I can do complicated mathematics either but if you're relying on a mathematical result to explain your theory, or even possibly to "prove" it, I'd be very interested in hearing how it fits in. I am aware that you may not be able to tell me the whole story but if you could offer a kind of general indisputable proof it would make for an interesting debate or discovery if indeed your theory turns out to be accepted as the TOE.

Pro

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by protheory Hi David. What about my solution(s)? I produced a solution that in my opinion nobody has yet proven to be wrong but I feel like I'm in the same position as Brent to be honest. I'm not as bothered as I now have my Youtube channel to discuss Pro theory on video instead but I certainly felt frustrated when I replied to all the posts on my protheory.com thread and still nobody said "hey, this is the TOE" so to speak.

Hi Protheory;
Unfortunately it does not work like that. You are presenting the theory and YOU should provide the experimental evidence of proof that it is based on. Challenging someone to prove you wrong is BS; you must prove yourself right. Even the most educated have that same problem of thinking others should believe them just because they say so or think it is for the rest of the world to prove what they say is wrong.

What is the U-tube link to your video?

I am sorry that some feel criticized by my frankness, but I am quite fed up with the foolish thinking of the armatures and the holy righteous who blame their ignorance or stupidity on others for not listening to them.

BTW: It is the MEASUREMENT of the speed of light in a vacuum that provides a constant value; not that the speed of light is CONSTANT. This is just another example of the errors of the amateurs.
It is the MASS of objects that converts to ENERGY; NOT MATTER.
Both are actually fundamental substance.

[Brent]

Protheory, your theory is that the answers to all questions are yes, no and maybe.

I am positive that neutral is a negative answer.

Dleviwing, you seem to have it all figured out there is no sense me posting.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Brent Dleviwing, you seem to have it all figured out there is no sense me posting.

I once knew a man who really did figure out the Theory of Everything. Unfortunately he was very shy and could not be prevailed upon to explain it. Eventually a whole group of us managed, with great diplomacy and tact, to convince him to explain the theory.

His first question to the group was, " How many of you here have an understanding of what I am going to talk about?"

We replied that none of us did.

"In that case, you are too ignorant to start with", and he left. Some of us went after him and managed to convince him to return. He again asked us who had an understanding of what he was going to explain.

This time we were ready and replied that we had an understanding. "Then there is no need for me to explain it".

And again he left. Eventually he was prevailed upon to return for the third time. He did, and asked the same question again.

This time we thought we had all angles covered, and replied accordingly that, " Some of us know, and some of us don't".

"Then let those who know explain to those who don't" and he left for the last time! Shortly after this he died and took the ultimate theory with him. I can't help but feel the loss.


cool bananas ... greg

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Brent Dleviwing, you seem to have it all figured out there is no sense me posting.

Not unless you are actually looking for help from someone with the experience Brent. If you are just another foolish member who believes scientist have it all wrong, then you are beyond my help. Your limited posts only tell me you have not applied yourself to the study of science and thus cannot present credibility to your theory or inspire the confidence of others. Is it that you want someone else to do all the work for you?

Present a brief post of what you feel is the solution and you will receive an honest response from the ToeQuest community. If this is too much then just state what you think gravity is.


Thanks Greg, but that is why Lee has been banned from ToeQuest forever.