Placeholder for Subversion's TOE

[TinyTree]

I for one am looking forwards to it. I thought it might be coming out round Christmas time, if I recall, and that was a time of great looking forwards to things to come, but now a few months later would be a fine time as well.

If not now, perhaps in 34 years? Would that work out?

[dleviwing]

HtS;
You need to use your psychology on Sub and explain why his game is not acceptable. Of course this would also be playing the game with him.

I think Robert is quite capable of being in control of his site. Understand, there are no solutions while chaos reins. I am disappointed that you would read such trivial behavior into these posts. At my age the only control I'm looking for is "bladder control".

[HappytheStripper]

HtS;
You need to use your psychology on Sub and explain why his game is not acceptable. Of course this would also be playing the game with him.

I think Robert is quite capable of being in control of his site. Understand, there are no solutions while chaos reins. I am disappointed that you would read such trivial behavior into these posts. At my age the only control I'm looking for is "bladder control".

Haha I said "may be" ... not ... "IS" game playing - and on a lighter note ...I was more amused than anything! As for games of the mind - been there done that!

On to more serious matters "I think" subversion is within his own self - indeed discovered TOE - although I havent read it as one whole article yet... thats why I asked!

Thanks for your comments though - as always much appreciated!

[mkirkpatrick]

I'm amazed!!! Stunned to say the least!!!

This thread was placholder for subversions toe right??? I see it may have become a match of wits at its best and kind reminds me of "boys" in the playground or so to speak!

Harmonygirl theorised Toe Quest members were beyond playground antics...
however after reading these posts I see this thread may have become more a struggle for power and control between its members... without realising we are all One and subsequently on the same journey???

I realise healthy debate is necessary for the solution of what One may define as TOE... however... are these arguments healthy??? One must ask oneself!

Regards

Ashley

PS Subversion I want to know will you be sharing you TOE ... I want to able to read your theory in one whole piece as oppsed to several articles - please!

Well said Ashley,I concur conclusively with your concurance,boys will play,you know!

kind regards michael.

[baudrunner]

Sub,

There you are. You have found a new word, one which I have inspired incidentally - "apprehension", to describe the human attribute of empathy, which you extracted from one of my more philosophical posts, to be found in My Personal TOE. So at least you have read my posts. That is something. It is to be hoped that they enlighten you.

I thought that you might require a boost, a starting point or departure point, after all, the TOE is not just a frivolous bit of prose, and where does one begin? But you have responded, not surprisingly, as you always do - defensively. And you have said nothing in the way of anything interesting that the parties who browse this site are actually wanting to read. In doing so you devalue this site. You do this far too often, far too much.

It is for that reason that our esteemed TOEquest leader Robert has given you an ultimatum. What he hasn't told you is intended to be inferred by you, if you have the intelligence that you presume to have, and I seriously suspect that what he means to do is to ban you permanently from this site if you do not provide us with your TOE within.. how many days now? If I am wrong, then he is lenient beyond measure. You have been told.

Your Russell paradox posts are boring to the extreme and 'much ado about nothing', and I suspect that they are only the subconscious manifestation of an expression of what it is that you think that you do know, which is all about nothing. Unfortunately, you have that wrong too. You seem to think that space is nothing for example, and yet may I refer you to the current issue of Popular Science in which is described a highly theoretical faster than light space travel concept? It got published! And the inference of the understanding that space-time is indeed something is actually assumed by the publisher!

So, I'm sure you'll eventually find a site where you belong. You have about seven days by my reckoning to prove that this is the one. If you succeed, I promise that I will be the first to congratulate you. In fact, even if you do give us your TOE and it is fraught with contradiction and just plain bad crank science, I will still be the first to congratulate you. I mean, who really knows what the f*** is going on, anyway? Well, apart from me I mean.

Regards,

The Baudrunner

[mkirkpatrick]

Again, I fully appreciate and respect your opinion, as I do everybody's. But I'm still going to have to maintain that whether or not we can see everything at once has nothing to do with whether we can understand Everything at once. Although I do see how that would seem logical. It is entirely possible to create a theory of everything and I have been able to prove it to my own satisfaction.

Cheers!

I have a very tense feeling Sub,The idea of indivisibility
keeps popping up in my cranium.am I on to something,let me know please

kind regards michael.

[Robert]

Subversion, are you working on your theory? 7 days to go. I'd like you to present it as an article in the Article Manager. You should include as much detail as possible with diagrams, images, equations, whatever you need to make it clear and understandable to the reader. Please break it down into something concrete, define your concepts in detail, avoid abstractions that have no real meaning, use analogies to make meanings clear. Comments to your theory will proceed from the Article Manager. I'm hoping to make a major upgrade to the Article Manager in preparation for your theory, but the timing may be off. We'll see.

Members, once Sub publishes his theory, be sure to review it objectively and consider its merits. If this is the Theory of Everything that we've all been seeking it may not look like what you've been expecting. If so, don't dismiss it outright, there may be an element of truth that can be built on, or it may require a paradigm shift in thinking to view it properly.

[HappytheStripper]

Subversion, are you working on your theory? 7 days to go. I'd like you to present it as an article in the Article Manager. You should include as much detail as possible with diagrams, images, equations, whatever you need to make it clear and understandable to the reader. Please break it down into something concrete, define your concepts in detail, avoid abstractions that have no real meaning, use analogies to make meanings clear. Comments to your theory will proceed from the Article Manager. I'm hoping to make a major upgrade to the Article Manager in preparation for your theory, but the timing may be off. We'll see.

Members, once Sub publishes his theory, be sure to review it objectively and consider its merits. If this is the Theory of Everything that we've all been seeking it may not look like what you've been expecting. If so, don't dismiss it outright, there may be an element of truth that can be built on, or it may require a paradigm shift in thinking to view it properly.

Thanks Robert ... well said!! And I will be looking forward to your theory subversion ... I do however think it will require a paradigm shift in the minds of others... oooooooo its like waiting for the easter bunny to drop me in an egg!!!!!!!!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry Lloyd and baud; but the age of the universe has nothing to do with its diameter. In physics it is said that expansion is the only exception to the rule when it comes to the speed of light. The universe expands at a rate superluminal according to QM and the standard model. If you want math, take the expansion rate and calculate the initial wavelength of the background radiation 13.7 billion years ago. This is why I say that "absolute motion" is constant in all systems. I don't believe in exceptions to rules or Laws of physics.)

Dave, QM and the standard model are both wrong as to the rate of expansion being superluminal. Yes, I agree it seems to be that when the years and size are given, along with the velocity of the most distant galaxies at 90+% of the speed of light, but there is a much better explanation of absolute motion. Velocity increases with the square of time toward the singularity. In other words, the light speed was much higher at the beginning of the singularity's expansion, thus created the greater size universe than normal figures perception allows. The light speed has slowed considerably since the big bang and matter has expanded greatly. This is still not superluminal___it is simply a faster light and absolute motion speed at the singularity's origin, and a slower light and motion speed now, with matter continuing to expand as the universe slows its expansion. And Dave, I agree absolute motion is constant in all systems, this is still true... The absolute motion of all just varies over universal time...

regards

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lloyd;
We seem to have read the same books and passages, but have developed different understanding and views of them.
You view the BB as an explosion; I see it as an expansion.

Without the explosion Dave, what caused the expansion?

You believe motion of matter can be lost; I see it as a constant and it is still part of all matter today. The expansion may be slower now than at the instant of the event, but the quantity of motion is still the same.

And no, I do not believe motion of matter can be lost, all motion depends on actual absolute light and matter motion at event time. Absolute motion is a constant to all matter at all times, true. The quantity of motion is still the same because as the expansion slows, matter expands.

You seem to feel that something can come from nothing. I do not. The physical something existed before the BB event and it existed in a place or void.

No, I don't feel something can come from nothing. I have always stated there is no such thing as nothing. When I mentioned no motion space, I was referring to no linear motion, only angular motion and mass in the very beginning. The physical something says it all; what was it truly...? I do know it was less size matter than what came after in the form of all the heavy matter, created in the stars...

You view a wave as having been faster at the beginning; I view a wave as propagating through the same quantity of matter for a given increment of time. In your terms, light was slower then and expansion faster – much faster. The speed of light is dependent on distance, the movement through matter is dependent on density and thus its speed is dependent on density also.

The wave speed was always the speed of light or less, then or now. Both Light and expansion were much faster then, probably on the magnitude of thousands of times faster - I'd have to invent the math for accuracy. Light is dependent on density as we now know the universe, but at the singularity size determined the speed of light___the diameter of such a massive explosion would have been 100's of millions of light years across its matter before the explosion, thus after exploding covering distances we can't even see today, or so so... My mind can only barely go there hypothetically and theoretically, so far, and with great difficulty...

You seem to be satisfied with the vision you have; When I had that view, I was not satisfied with it.

Dave, get real, you never had this view... I know it's crude, but I'm just throwing out ideas to get knocked around. Each new idea leads on...

Lloyd

; we are taking the same journey and are on the same path; Would you like me to wait for you at the end? I don't want you to stop where you are; There is much more for you to see.

Dave, it would be nice if you worked together, instead of pretending you're beyond where I know you're not... I'll move my posts later over to a new thread to thrash out our diffs....

best wishes,
Lloyd