Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Member Articles > TOE Theory Articles
Reload this Page Simply, Everything
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Comment
 
LinkBack Article Tools Display Modes
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Simply, Everything<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Simply, Everything
Published by Scoopcone
08-25-2005
Introduction

“Simply, Everything”

by
Steven Cohen

Introduction

From the time any highly-evolved organism develops the “ability to reason” he, she, (or it) attempts to understand the Universe within which it manifest.

A majority of these organisms throughout their lives absorb just enough “information” to survive, while others search further for still more in order to thrive. The remaining small minority (often designated as “the scientists”) spend their mental existence contemplating compulsive quests in attempting to (metaphorically) “scale the ‘Everest’ of all knowledge”.

The “Intellectual Mountain” however, throughout time beginning with the dawn of civilization, has always appeared to get taller and taller as each group of scientists (climbers), think they had reached the “peak” only to discover “just a plateau” with which their new theories only partially explain “more of ‘something‘” but not “everything”!

Originally it was thought that Aristotle had figured “everything” out, but then almost two-thousand years later Sir Isaac Newton established a new “base-camp” higher up upon Mankind’s Intellectual Everest at (metaphorically), say, 21,000 feet.

The “mountain” resisted for almost three-hundred more years until finally Einstein (metaphorically) reached the 26,000 foot level with both Special and General Relativity.

His “mind” assumed he had reached the top-of-the-mountain until other “minds”, contemplating the “microscopic” in contrast to Einstein’s contemplation of the “macroscopic”, discovered newer and more unexplained and un-reconcilable complexities upon Mankind’s seemingly-unreachable intellectual apex.

The “apples and oranges” of merging both Relativity and Quantum Physics which would (in assumptions of theory) propel Mankind’s first intellectual conqueror to the 29,000+ foot apex, rests upon an unthinkable scientific assumption that either Einstein, the Quantum physicists, (or unthinkably) BOTH had in fact somehow erred.

Could all of the “Great Minds” in the span of all of Human history have failed to recognize the undisputable fact that “all knowledge of ‘Everything’” has been filtered through Evolution’s gift to Mankind; the Human Mind? Also significant, could our minds while executing any “act-of-contemplation” by Nature’s design “unconsciously” thwart all attempts at “Universal Understanding”, via the repetitive differential calculus of “thinking” itself?

“Simply, Everything!”, is “everything” explained as “simply” as possible.

If the reader does not agree then all he, she (or it) has demonstrated is one or more of the “Five Flaws of the Human Mind”!

At the 29,000+ foot apex

Behold (simply), the Equation of a “Post-Einsteinian” Universe, new and more authentic Laws of (objective) Observation, and finally the undeniable common element cementing the merger of both Relativity and Quantum Physics.

Witness (simply), Einstein’s (as well as most scientists’) mistake and rub your eyes over and over again and still actually see all Four Forces of Nature under the long-sought-after “common denominator”.

Learn (simply), the Five Flaws of the Human Mind as well as the true wave-function (or equation) of a human being.

Simply answered and straight-to-the-point are major questions about “What is Life?” and “What is the Mind?”, and detailed without ever leaving the Laws of Physics!.

The finally answered question concerning every organism’s observation of “The Phenomenon” should enlighten the “spiritual” to the “scientific” and vice versa to the true nature of manifestation of “everything” as well as comprehension itself of the Universe as a whole.

Rationally, six possible Nobel Prizes have been squeezed into just nine typed pages. Can any explanation of “everything” (Modern Science cares to know about) exist simpler than that?!

Section #1

Derive the Equation of the “Post-Einsteinian” Universe.

Cohen’s Three Laws of Observation.

Merger of Relativity and Quantum Physics.

Section #2

Einstein’s “Mistake“.

The Four Forces of Nature

under a Common Denominator.

Section #3

The Five “Flaws” of the Human Mind.

Section #4

The Wave-Function (Equation) of a Human Being.

Section #5

What is Life?

Section #6

What is the Mind?

Section #7

What is “The Phenomenon” That We Humans Refer to as (quote) “GOD” (unquote)?

Contents

Latest 5 articles

Article Tools

Featured Articles
Read more
THE 1984 WAR: A War of Perception

A Conquest of the United States
<< <    Next Page (Page 1 of 5)    >  >>
  #1  
By Guille on 08-25-2005, 11:49 AM
Being the nicest ever possible...

This approach is the, what we can now call, clasical fatal-error typer of theory of everything (CFET-TOE). It has the appearance very well worked out, but is nothing inside. It looks, when read, that it shows and explains everything, or atleast a lot of the universe and humans and concepts. This is because it's so simple and "logical". But please, for anyone who reads this theory, don't get your heads filled with such a wrong theory, and don't waste your time.
Last edited by Guille : 08-26-2005 at 08:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
By Scoopcone on 08-25-2005, 02:52 PM
Guille,

I'll excuse your naivety due to your age (July 1, 1990) and the unrestrained impulsivensss of a Moonchild.

Thank you however, for vividly demonstrating to others how "mind flaws" (egotistical arrogance and intellectual overshoot) subjectively affect perceptions. This is all natural part of the universe.

All kids think they know everything but you can apologize to me in 40 years when you get to my age.

I stand by my work.

Don't let your mind be dragged by the line-of-time.

Scoop
Reply With Quote
  #3  
By undef00 on 08-25-2005, 06:13 PM
as i just flew over this article (nothing pushed me to read even one single line in complete)

so ... i rather i agree somehow with guille...

kids now will know by your age that kids then will know whats then (can you express that like that? doesn't matter....)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
By AntonioLao on 08-26-2005, 02:31 PM
No logical implications can be raised to the status of law unless it has been well tested through space and time. So, Mr. Cohen, your laws of observations can only be your own personal hypotheses. I mean, you certainly have the right to call them anything you want. Nevertheless, they are intellectually insulting to other people for them to agree with you that they are indomitable laws for everybody.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
By Scoopcone on 08-26-2005, 09:14 PM
Perhaps I can help you (everyone) rationalize?

We are all born "to think" a certain way, and our teachers simply teach us that way inserting facts for us to absorb along the way; absorbtion devoid of Philosophy. Our minds naturally delve INTO whatever we're observing, breaking DOWN into smaller and smaller parts. Differentiation as opposed to Integration.

Einstein thought differently. When he realized that the paradigms he was taught did not fit observation, he "thought-outside-the-box" and contemplated newer paradigms. Metaphoricaly, he did not continually try to put square pegs into round holes.

I guess you have to develop your mind (and your intuitive confidence) to realize that someone who came before you had "taken the wrong road".

According to conventional thinking, it would appear that a TOE can be deduced by breaking the Universe into all its smallest parts. However to comprehensively explain "Everything", your theory would be as large as the Universe itself. This leads to a dead-end. "Time" or "spacetime" inadvertently is removed from all these incomplete theories. Trust me, the TOE would have been found already.

Now do some Einsteinian thinking and imagine "smallness" along with "time" expanding into "everything", compressing 14 billion? years of time in your mind instead of eliminating it?

I stand by "Simply, Everything" and is correct today as it will be 10,000 years from now. My "job" is not to criticize but make you see it.

(Read passed the first Nobel Prize and examine the others. Nobody's commented on them.)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
By AntonioLao on 08-27-2005, 05:21 PM
I know there are many people out there who are trying to explain everything. Speaking for myself, I am trying to make the fusion engine works. If anyone can convince me why this fusion engine will never work then and only then will I stop my research efforts.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
By Scoopcone on 08-27-2005, 10:47 PM
Nuclear Fusion in theory, conceived by the mind, can be deduced to manifest in Nature.

However, Nature DICTATES that Fusion reactions can only manifest under conditions that Nature alone has the power to DICTATE.

Fusion happens within the interior of stars under massive temperatures and massive pressures. On (the cold) planet Earth, we have only been able to SIMULATE stellar conditions for only minute fractions of time before those elusive conditions evaporate.

We cannot (currently) achieve sustainable fusion not due to Science, but rather technology or engineering. Somehow we've been taught not to separate the two from Science.
If you want fusion to work (in our lifetimes) just perpetually simulate the stellar interior.

Always remember, "Mother Nature calls all the shots!"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
By undef00 on 08-28-2005, 04:38 AM
keep on research - sometime - someone - will suceed - if not you then someone else - and all that is just fine ....

and i rather go with mother nature slowly but surely (at least on a global basis at the beginning) has to adapt even further to humans (sure they are also kind naturals)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
By AntonioLao on 08-28-2005, 02:58 PM
Quote:
However, Nature DICTATES that Fusion reactions can only manifest under conditions that Nature alone has the power to DICTATE.
You are not telling me anything that I already know. FYI: physical conditions of the sun have been surpassed in the lab.
Reply With Quote
Comment


Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Article Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new articles
You may not post comments
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Article Article Starter Category Comments Last Post
Does the Goddess mean Good? harmonygirl Intelligent Design 71 01-13-2007 04:13 AM
Etheric body (vital body) mkirkpatrick Intelligent Design 14 04-05-2006 08:32 PM
darkness is just the absence of light. mkirkpatrick Philosophy Questions 22 03-01-2006 12:49 PM
The Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT) mjgeddes TOE Theory Articles 11 02-10-2006 09:08 AM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

Article powered by GARS 2.1.8m ©2005-2006