[Guille]

the god thing was just a desviation. I really meant the imperfect TOE and the rest.

[dleviwing]

The TOE will show why the mathematical modeling of Relativity, QM, String Theory, and Newtonian physics work within the realms and limitations of their applications. The mathematics are not "WRONG", only the interpretation of the mathematical equations and terms are wrong. The "THEORY OF EVERYTHING" will provide the cause and effect explanations of why these mathematics function as they do and provide the insight needed to understand our physical universe. Science today continue to create complexity rather than finding real solutions to the observed phenomena of our universe. The "TOE" will be a perceptual theory that alters our current mainstream paradigm of reality.

"Who is wrong?" is quite ambiguous for anyone to provide a serious answer.

Best regards;
Dave

[jonnyflashbang]

sorry to skip back a bit......

''this is similar to the belief by quantum field theorists that there is an uncertainty principle at work in on the fabric of reality at small domains; whereas it is a parameter of accuracy involved in a theory that uses a classical field form that ain't right at small levels like atomic domains''. (posted originally by Tony)


is that saying that the uncertainty principle is not reflected in reality, but just a result of our theories?



p.s.
next time i'll use the quote thingy properly!

[Scoopcone]

I discovered that Einstein made just one simple, fundamental mistake.

He failed to realize that the number ONE (1) does not exist in Nature outside of the Human mind.

This is not easy to recognize. It took me 47 years to realize it and most everyone else never understands this until the day they die.

If Mr. Armstong concurrs, he'll let me give you what you're looking for.

Hope to ultimately contribute,

Scoopcone

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Scoopcone I discovered that Einstein made just one simple, fundamental mistake. He failed to realize that the number ONE (1) does not exist in Nature outside of the Human mind. This is not easy to recognize. It took me 47 years to realize it and most everyone else never understands this until the day they die. If Mr. Armstong concurrs, he'll let me give you what you're looking for. Hope to ultimately contribute, Scoopcone

WHAT!

Can you please explain in EXTENSION why you think that the number one (1) is not part of nature? I would apreciate it.

[Scoopcone]

Your answer I posted in "TOE Articles", "Simply, Everything".

Read and enjoy the view from 29,000+ feet!

I'll elaborate and reconcile anything you don't initially understand.

The entire universe is in the equation on page 1.

more upon request.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>> WHAT! Can you please explain in EXTENSION why you think that the number one (1) is not part of nature? I would apreciate it.

I think this may be what he is referring to, the fact that all numbers can be categorized as either absolute or arbitrary. That's the classification system I have developed at least. A statement shall be made in the form of a poem.

expressing anything as a fraction of all
expresses anythying, from the large to the small
no greater value is there for us to compare
anything less, leaves something not there

as such most things are partially none
but how far is it from none until one?

yes how far is it?

ps. your homework assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to tell me a.) how far it is from none until one and b.) using your conclusion, tell me which numbers are arbitrary and which numbers are absolute

[Scoopcone]

If the number One (1) actually existed in Nature then all there'd be is a singularity. Since you exist along with "something else", then only the mind interprets what it will be described as "one".

The Big Bang happened "as a consequence" (a more accurate statement due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) of the Post-Einsteinian equation must remain "invariant". Remember, Special Relativity is a consequence of "invariance" (of the speed of light). Since the Mind in Nature is also an invariant, it cannot be differentiated easily. Ex: look into the Sun, so much light that you can't differentiate and thus you are "blinded". It takes experience to realize it...in time, you will.

a. all lines are infinite in length. Our minds interpret "units".

Feel free to ask anything else.

[volantis]

Originally Posted by subversion many people think that the TOE should show that Einstein was wrong how many people would agree with this?

I have developed a TOE and it shows that Einstein's Special Relativity Theory has no basis in reality, yet it also shows that Einstein's General Relativity Theory does have basis in reality.

The reason GR has basis in reality is because the gravitational force and strong force are orthogonal to each other. That is, the same thing that produces gravity, also produces the strong force, but from a different perspective.

Think of a sheet of paper. Looking at the paper from its broad side it appears to have a surface. Change your viewing angle by 90 degrees and the paper appears as a line. This is exactly what happens with gravity and the strong force.

As it is, GR should be expressed as a function of the strong charge (which mediates the strong force) and the electrostatic charge. The Aether, which is fully quantifiable, is the source of electrostatic charge. Matter is the source of electromagnetic charge. The Aether is also the source of spacetime. Therefore, GR is really the balance of force between matter and its environment (Aether). This is all fully quantified in the Aether Physics Model.

also, if you think this is the case, do you think that the TOE might also show that Newton was wrong?

My TOE shows that Newton and Coulomb were both absolutely right. There is nothing wrong with the force equations. And Einstein was right to compensate for the distortion of spacetime. But all of physics is wrong to ignore the Aether. The Aether is absolutely essential for understanding the Universe.

I have recently posted a paper in the Articles section. This paper explains the fundamentals of the Aether Physics Model.

[Steve Hanson]

The implication in 'toppling the predecessors' is that they have become roadblocks to advancing our understanding of existence. What I find disturbing is the tendency to hold onto a theory, fanatically, as though a change in belief would undercut the nature of reality. That says something about our understanding of the way we relate to existence.
The intent of science is to move toward a valid model of existence. It is not to become the chair of the mathematics department or the head guru of one's speciality.
If we can correctly model existence, in other words, find out what really goes on at all levels of nature ... we should be able to extend our lifespan and possibly even live forever. That would provide us with the time to do and become whatever we want. That is enormously more important than any other short-sighted, short-term value we might try to attain, including 'winning' arguments.
I don't think anybody's theories are correct, but some are a lot more truthful than others. And none should need toppling.