[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by dipayankar So can you see at a later date hydrodynamics forming the basis of fusing together relativity and quantum mechanics??

quoted from reply of Lloyd Gillespie "Yes, most definitely. Nothing else is capable of this feat…"

------

Dear Lloyd Gillespie,

I accidentially surfed an internet article http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/phys...GUTreview1.pdf with the title A REVIEW OF OYIBO’S GRAND UNIFIED THEOREM
With Realizations of a Hierarchy of Oyibo-Einstein Relativities

I don't have the necessary math ability to view this Review upon GUT, but I found something meaningful on page 7 :
Thus, while Einstein’ s approach to his Unified Field Theory was based on a generalization of his highly successful special relativity theory, and its invariance under the Lorentz group O(3,1) of transformations of Minksowki 4-dimensional space-time geometry as discussed in Sec. 1, Oyibo’s approach to his Grand Unified Theorem appears to have been abstracted from his methodology for solving the Navier Stokes equation in fluid mechanics using invariance of an arbitrary function under a group of conformal transformations.

again, on page 10:
Oyibo has stated on p.16 of GUT-I that “the bottom line of finding a Unified Force Field Theory was the consistency of the practical results obtained using the fundamental components of the methodology in earlier work on the hydrodynamical equations in gas and fluid flows and turbulence as well as the proof of Einstein’s theory”. The consistency of practical results so far lies in the consistent physical/geometrical interpretation of the hierarchy of solutions in Eq.(2.5), for n = 0 and n = 1, in relation to the homogeneous “point coordinates” system 11 (t, x, y, z) in Eq.(2.3) and the “metric” parameters, “plane coordinates” or “field coordinates” system ( , , , ) n0 n1 n2 n3 g g g g in Eq.(2.10) provided by the usual geometric principle of duality (p. 14 of Todd[9]).


I agree with you on the usuage of hydrodynamics in TOE.

Regards. bottomlander

[dipayankar]

And how would string theory then fit in??

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Yes, most definitely. Nothing else is capable of this feat… regards,

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar And how would string theory then fit in??

First, thank-you BottomLander...

In answer to your question Dipayankar, string theory is the newest gauge theory of a long line of strung together gauge theories. It's mathematics and language use have value in developing better understandings of a new sub-quantum language, that must be created, and understood, to understand the ergodicity of all gauge theories, less their false semantical axiomatic unions, of the present. Here's a deffinition of ergodicity:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ergodicity IMO, the overall physical dynamics of string theory itself, is far too far fetched, to be valuably accepted or used. However; omitting its physical predictions, its math and language have theory value, in extending our analytic ideas of the universe. Extra dimensions are not required to explain the hydrodynamic state changing fluid dynamics of the universe, but one problem that must be overcome is the mass gap listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang%E2...e_and_mass_gap IMO, and with BottonLander's post agreeing with me, as well as Alexander Zazerskiy's merged fluid dynamics of the electron, with electrodynamics, I see the ability of merging all valid gauge theory ideas and maths, into one hydrodynamic changing state fluid dynamics, and its changing state fluid field dynamics, into a completed "real mass" understanding of the entire universe...

If we unite the true ergodicity of all systems' thought, inside the one system, of the hydrodynamics of fluid[viscous and non-viscous] dynamics, we can successfully solve the true mass gap. And BTW, this is worth $1,000,000 from the Clay Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Mathematics_Institute I think it may be worth the try...

Regards,
Lloyd

[dipayankar]

I actually started studying string theory, but it seemed too out of place. Now I will dive deep into hydrodynamics. Somewhere we need to have a TOE...

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie First, thank-you BottomLander... In answer to your question Dipayankar, string theory is the newest gauge theory of a long line of strung together gauge theories. It's mathematics and language use have value in developing better understandings of a new sub-quantum language, that must be created, and understood, to understand the ergodicity of all gauge theories, less their false semantical axiomatic unions, of the present. Here's a deffinition of ergodicity: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ergodicity IMO, the overall physical dynamics of string theory itself, is far too far fetched, to be valuably accepted or used. However; omitting its physical predictions, its math and language have theory value, in extending our analytic ideas of the universe. Extra dimensions are not required to explain the hydrodynamic state changing fluid dynamics of the universe, but one problem that must be overcome is the mass gap listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang%E2...e_and_mass_gap IMO, and with BottonLander's post agreeing with me, as well as Alexander Zazerskiy's merged fluid dynamics of the electron, with electrodynamics, I see the ability of merging all valid gauge theory ideas and maths, into one hydrodynamic changing state fluid dynamics, and its changing state fluid field dynamics, into a completed "real mass" understanding of the entire universe... If we unite the true ergodicity of all systems' thought, inside the one system, of the hydrodynamics of fluid[viscous and non-viscous] dynamics, we can successfully solve the true mass gap. And BTW, this is worth $1,000,000 from the Clay Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Mathematics_Institute I think it may be worth the try... Regards, Lloyd

[dleviwing]

While you’re at it Dip, include thermodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, and electrodynamics. If you’re going to study one form of depicting the behavior of matter, you may as well include all of them since much of the terminology is interchangeable at fundamental absolute levels. All these dynamics resolve to the fundamental behavior of fundamental matter and its fundamental properties of motion and self-bonding. Try not to lose sight of reality in your quest for knowledge.

[dipayankar]

Sounds good. I am sure after leaving string theory, I am veering back to the true track of unearthing the TOE... with the help of this forum of course.

Originally Posted by dleviwing While you’re at it Dip, include thermodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, and electrodynamics. If you’re going to study one form of depicting the behavior of matter, you may as well include all of them since much of the terminology is interchangeable at fundamental absolute levels. All these dynamics resolve to the fundamental behavior of fundamental matter and its fundamental properties of motion and self-bonding. Try not to lose sight of reality in your quest for knowledge.

[pweddell]

I most definetly agree with almost all the previous comments on this topic but, isnt speed itself defined as distance traveled/time it took to reach said distance? If time did not exist then what definition would you give to speed?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by pweddell I most definetly agree with almost all the previous comments on this topic but, isnt speed itself defined as distance traveled/time it took to reach said distance? If time did not exist then what definition would you give to speed?

Distance, multiplied by distance...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

A WORD ABOUT SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A Disinformational Time Of The Signs:
'Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space.'
- A popular bumpersticker mentality.


Actually: terrestrial time standards are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) around the sun. A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega at about 265 miles per second). A month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year. A week is 1/4th of that month. A day is 1/7th of that week. An hour is 1/24th of a day. A minute is 1/60th of an hour. A second is 1/60th of a minute. Therefore, a second of time, for example is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth in its annual orbit around the sun.
Time is the interval separating events in space - refer 'space-time'; where space motion 'and' time are recognized as being inseparable. Motion exists and occupys space. Space exists and accomodates motion (=time, ad infinitum).

[dipayankar]

Speed is a measure invented by humankind. In the physical realm, it does not have any significance

Originally Posted by pweddell I most definetly agree with almost all the previous comments on this topic but, isnt speed itself defined as distance traveled/time it took to reach said distance? If time did not exist then what definition would you give to speed?