[dipayankar]

I agree with you Felix, I only feel, there are many unnecessary topics which are being dragged on by our members without making any attempt to come to a conclusion....

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Hi Dippy

We already have 3 or 4 'viable' ideas to work on but if we then start to discourage new ones then we get back to the problem which is the current topic on 'What is limiting us'. Either way the only positive conclusion that can be drawn from the examination of a theory is its rejection.

Obviously we are not going to reach a point where we have a complete TOE based on logical conclusions but that will not prevent us from developing and improving our models of reality. 'Tis all grist to the mill.

regards
Felix

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Id, Ego, Superego......Parent, Adult, Child. ( TRINITY ) The dynamics which run the universe.

There are many ways to show something with three options, Pat, but I believe none of them shows three of a kind.

Examples of two of a kind (but with each not being identical) are man and woman, Ego and non-ego, parent and child, etcetera. I have never seen a three of a kind.

The example I can more easily expose as not being three of a kind is Parent, Adult, Child. An Adult can both be a Parent and a Child, and a Child can be a Parent at the same time (middle person of three generations) so there is quite some overlapping of two different frameworks occurring here. Can you come up with three entities that all belong to the same single framework, Pat? I would prefer examples from our physical reality; the example of Id, Ego, and Superego is kind of too convoluted to discuss in clear terms.


frameworks
In science (and I hope we have that term clear now) a truth can be found within its particular framework. Yet what is true in one framework is not automatically true in another framework. The color blue can be considered a fact, because we can look up the specific color in the colorbook and see the name right next to it: blue. Yet blue in an emotional framework is quite different. A fact, a truth, does not stand on its own, but exists within a specific framework from which it derives its value. The frameworks are also not true all by themselves, because they are either abstracts, or man-made, or over-arching entities based on parts(, or...).

Theories are part of science: they are the playing grounds of science. Theories that turn out to be true and theories that turn out to be false are all send away from the playground. So, a ToE does not need to be based on all facts, it only needs to stay clear from all evidence that makes it not true. Many ToEs exist, but for it to be a scientific ToE, it needs to fit current scientific knowledge. The more facts support a theory, the stronger the theory gets (but once proven it ceases to be a theory). Evolution theory is truly pretty strong.

I know the scientific ToE exists already. And there may be a lot more than just one. I have one with mathematical evidence and all, which has not been disproven - only pushed aside or rejected on personal grounds.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Farsight

There's just no sense of "inside out" here. The regular physics is that an electric field IS a magnetic field if you're moving through it. It's the same thing. It just depends on how you observe it.

and:

Originally Posted by Farsight

I made it perfectly clear that the "twist field" and "turn field" were my interpretations.

Thank you, Farsight, for your information. I followed the discussion between you and David with great interest, but I must admit that the debate is not that clear to me - the words and both your knowledge in specifics got in the way. I was actually also trying to put my own agenda in this discussion, and there was no spark/attraction. Thank you, though, for your replies.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

It's good to hear from you again. Some examples of trinity would be:

1) 3 quarks necessary to make a proton and neutron.
2) 3 primary colors of red, blue, green, when mixed forms all the other colors.
3) The dialectics of Hegel. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
4) Beginning, Middle, End.
5) The fact the universe is composed of Positive, Negative and Neutral.
6) Time, Space and Motion. All three are necessary to create each other.
7) 3 Dimensionality. Length, Width and Height.

These are just some examples of universal trinity.

Best to you Fredrick,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Neutral is a combination of positive and negative...

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Fredrick;

It's good to hear from you again. Some examples of trinity would be:

1) 3 quarks necessary to make a proton and neutron.
2) 3 primary colors of red, blue, green, when mixed forms all the other colors.
3) The dialectics of Hegel. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
4) Beginning, Middle, End.
5) The fact the universe is composed of Positive, Negative and Neutral.
6) Time, Space and Motion. All three are necessary to create each other.
7) 3 Dimensionality. Length, Width and Height.

These are just some examples of universal trinity.

Best to you Fredrick,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Neutral is a combination of positive and negative...

I'm not so sure of that Dipayankar. In my An Idea the neutron is a combination of positive and negative charges, but I don't think the scientific community is ready to accept that idea.

Also that doesn't explain why the photon is neutral. I don't think positive and negative charges are applicable there.

Additionally, The Void or empty space itself would be neutral.

I think the real trick is to explain positive and negative and why they exist.

Best to you,

Pat

[Max™]

Positive charge is a twist one direction, Negative charge is a twist the other?



From that line of reasoning I worked out the mass of a particle that hasn't been found yet, but should be a perfect fit for dark matter.

It also neatly explains annihilation, tie two loops in a piece of string, both in opposite directions, and pull them past each other.

POP!

There they go, leaving a longer length of string to stretch out.

[Profpat]

It also neatly explains annihilation, tie two loops in a piece of string, both in opposite directions, and pull them past each other.

POP!

There they go, leaving a longer length of string to stretch out.

Hi Max;

Wouldn't that be neutral and not annihlation in that the string would still be there and not annihilated.

Best,

Pat

[Max™]

The individual loops would be gone, but yes, the fabric they were tied from would still remain.

Don't get me wrong, I basically agree about the whole ability to create things or not.

I simply don't believe there is an actual "negative" part.

Space itself has a positive amount of energy, we can see it as a cosmological constant, or vacuum expectation value.

A negative amount of energy would be a fluctuation in an area of maximal entropy that started running backwards I guess.

Really weird idea, that... but I guess you could easily view time upstream instead of downstream.

[Profpat]

I get confused between positive and negative. I believe it was Einstein who said we could view the proton as negative and the electron as positive. The Earth we view as a negative ground and lightening as positive.

Do you know the actual difference between the two or is it just that the two are opposite, and which is positive and which is negative is merely definitional?

Best,

Pat