Philosphical TOE (draft notes)

[bottomlander]

Your claiming originality for a concept with no defined mathematics to describe it? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that just being a bit false in your interpretation of your theories? By pure chance the conscience is capable or revealing poetic truths, however I see the "repeatability" of these theories quite flawed.

Dear theunity,

Before responsing to your message, I surfed the blog of dleviwing. Remain the same as my previous brief impression that dleviwing is a rational thinker with wide vision. His Toronic Concept may be a little bit exaggerated, but still a mature concept. It possesses a depth with physical reality and seems nearer to the truth than the science fiction modern physics.

The Preface of his Toronic Concept might answer your accusation (or perhaps misunderstanding) why too little Mathematics in his Theory.
Below quoted its 1st & last paragraphs:

If your goal is to create a Unified Field Theory by developing a mathematical model that combines the mathematics of "The Theory of Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics", you may just be overlooking what is already developed. The problem may not be with the mathematics of these theories, but with the interpretation of the mathematical terms and numbers produced by these theories. Our theoretical physicist seems to be fixated on discovering a new mathematical expression that will solve all the anomalies of our current Standard Models. Rather than creating more complex math, let's take another look at the paradigm we use to interpret them into our view of reality. Let's have equations match reality and existence be a rational paradigm; keep science fiction out of science fact. In science, fact is not stranger than fiction.

Modern theories are not so much perceptual in nature today as they are mathematical. Thus, mathematically, science has combined the four forces of nature using these theories. However, each of these theories have encountered phenomena that irritate the right side of our brain – They challenge logic. Some scientist sooth this irritation by dismissing the phenomena and becoming content that “if the mathematics work, it does not make a difference as to what is real. Is reality as complex and abstract as the mathematics seem to indicate? Are there physical dimensions that exist beyond the known three dimensions of our universe? Science requires a perceptual paradigm of reality that explains the universe in absolute fundamental concepts that do not border the realms of metaphysics and religion.
D. Levi Wing

Secondly, I cannot find in the theory or messages of dleviwing as vague as what you said By pure chance the conscience is capable or revealing poetic truths, however I see the "repeatability" of these theories quite flawed. I haven't noticed that dleviwing using "conscience or the likes" to develop his theory.

In my humble opinion, for most theory developers not working in well-funded Institutes, they prefer to let their models expose in a simple way first. Then improved if not yet gave up. Worthy to formulate anaytic equations only after attracted enough viewers or supporters. It is unrealistic to let non-funded people to work and work on equations without exposure by words first. It seems a sad truth that for articles containing a lot of equations, 98% of internet viewers will go away. Don't ask dissent physicists why don't try to submit their papers for peer reviews for academic journals.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Best Regards. bottomlander

[theunify]

Lloyd;
I think “gravitational pull” is just another way of saying “gravitational force”; both are meaningless until you can show the CAUSE. The other problem is that people, including scientist, continually state that mass and matter are the same thing. Until this simple error is corrected, I do not expect any real solutions other than those we have already discussed. Many of us have stated the same thing using different terms and visualizations. I see nothing new yet in Jamesh’s interpretations except new ways to confuse the issue. He is another one of us who recognize the problems and is trying to provide solutions.
It is also important to recognize the subjective aspects of Relativity caused by measurement methodology and the real objective physical variances to matter caused by motion.

I wouldn't say it different than this statement.

[dleviwing]

Your claiming originality for a concept with no defined mathematics to describe it? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that just being a bit false in your interpretation of your theories? By pure chance the conscience is capable or revealing poetic truths, however I see the "repeatability" of these theories quite flawed.

The beginning should read “You’re” or “You are”.
OK; you were wrong and I’ve corrected you.

BTW: Thanks botomlander.