An Idea

[dipayankar]

Hi profpat,

Seems a very plausible theory. However what about complications like black holes, supernova etc etc... can these phenomenon be explained by your theory simply??

Hi Dipayankar;

First let me appologize for the tardiness, on my part, in responding to your post.

I believe it may be best to start with a quote from a metaphysics site that I located:

Theory of Everything: Philosophy Metaphysics Unity

In Metaphysics and Philosophy a Theory of Everything would have to abide by the further condition of being founded on One thing. This Monism is necessary if we are to explain the Necessary Connection between the many things that we sense as existing (e.g. mind, language, concepts and interconnected motion of matter in space).
This unity of Reality is also a natural extension of Ockham's Razor, that the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory. Thus by logical extension, the best theory explains all things from one necessarily connected thing.

Notice from above it's their belief that there should be a connection between mind, concepts, matter, space, etc.

Also please note the Principle of Ockhams Razor is being invoked in that "..the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory."

Now my theory really starts with the big bang( the most accepted theory ).

It begins with that point and moves interdimensionally to the 1st dimension the string a very simple concept ( A line ). A closed string, which
becomes a quark ( Area 2nd dimension). Three quarks cojoined become our 3rd dimension ( Volume ).

Now we could stop here, in that most physicists accept the fact that the proton/neutron is made up of 3 quarks. So far nothing to spectacular in my theory, in that I'm at a place where the basic particle is comprised of 3 quarks.

However and this is the big difference in my theory, you don't need:

1) Gluons to bind the quarks together, or explain the QCD Force

2) QCD in that it's all really explained using our familiar Electro/Magnetic Force.

3) Strong or weak nuclear forces, again the strong nuclear force is explained by the E/M Force.

4) The electron, in that I view it a projection from the proton. A real ripple or field in space, but created by the proton.

Now this is only the beginning, the real eye opener is when the inner dimensions are discussed. This explains I believe why we have the ability to see visible light, why we can hear ( The octave is represented here ) Additionally are other senses are also accounted for in this Venn Diagram.

I could go on, but I won't right now.

Again from the above quote "..the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory. "

Again this is only the start of what my theory explains.

Now the question IS IT CORRECT?

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi profpat,

Seems a very plausible theory. However what about complications like black holes, supernova etc etc... can these phenomenon be explained by your theory simply??

Thank you for your comment Dipayankar.

The answer to your question is NO it can't. As Neutralino pointed out to me it's not a T.O.E. but rather a G.U.T. theory.

I believe it reconciles 3 of the major forces ( strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electro/magnetic ) into 1 force the electro/magnetic force. ( The QCD or color force )is also I believe a manifestation of the electro/magnetic force.

I have been thinking of gravity, and believe it may be related to radiation. Gravity being the attractive and radiation being the repulsive. Both follow the inverse square law, but due to spatial inflation and expansion, I've been experiencing difficulties doing so.

Best to you sir,

Pat

[dipayankar]

This is probably the most serious attempt in our forum to arrive at a TOE. However as always gravity is the problem. Why is that we cannot fathom gravity? As you said is it might be that gravity is a force that might be slipping out of our Universe. It would be very interesting to see how gravity behaves at a micro level..

Thank you for your comment Dipayankar.

The answer to your question is NO it can't. As Neutralino pointed out to me it's not a T.O.E. but rather a G.U.T. theory.

I believe it reconciles 3 of the major forces ( strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electro/magnetic ) into 1 force the electro/magnetic force. ( The QCD or color force )is also I believe a manifestation of the electro/magnetic force.

I have been thinking of gravity, and believe it may be related to radiation. Gravity being the attractive and radiation being the repulsive. Both follow the inverse square law, but due to spatial inflation and expansion, I've been experiencing difficulties doing so.

Best to you sir,

Pat

[Profpat]

[quote=Bob Campbell;41172]

Hi Bob;[/color]

Here is my comment to your comment


Hi Pat,

Excuse me for interjecting a comment. There is a problem with the concept of universal wholeness This is apparently part of your theotywhich any TOE must accommodate in some way. There are acknowledged self-contradictions in the big bang beginning in space and time to space and time.Actually I believe it started space and time. I don't believe it started in space and time And any linear development in thought also presumes that space and time are a priori.You are right it is a priori, which doesn't prove it's existence. I believe reality is an illusion, but that the illusion is real It is very easy to overlook this with our language bound left brain.

2nd para I deleted. I couldn't see how it related to my Idea



Now neither the inside nor the outside can be known as a "thing" distinct from the other. That would be a dichotomous twoness not Oneness. The boundary MUST be an ACTIVE interface involving an energy process between the universal inside and the universal outside.I believe my " particle " meets this description. The positive and negative spaces would be the same inside and outside This means that all we can know in phenomena is active energy processes at active interfaces between inside and outside. Everything that we see and sense is an active interface and our nervous system integrates experience via active interface processes between neurons. There is nothing else possible in physical phenomenal experience.

This means that the primary requirement for Universal Wholeness to be possible is that all things that we perceive as active interfaces MUST share both a universal common inside and a universal common outside.Again I think my " particle " does have a common inside and outside There is NO OTHER structural possibility to experience of any kind anywhere in the universe consistent with universal wholeness. And no amount of intellectual bootstrapping can circumvent this fundamental dilemma of the creative process.

Para 5 & 6 again deleted, in that it seamed to relate to your theory and not my Idea

Best regards,
Bob

I did give your link a look at and while it appears interesting, I don't know if you'll win the OCCAMS RAZOR PRIZE for simplicity.

I believe most of your comments probably would be better expressed at your thread describing your theory.

If you have any questions or comments regarding my Idea I'll be pleased to answer them.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

This is probably the most serious attempt in our forum to arrive at a TOE. However as always gravity is the problem. Why is that we cannot fathom gravity? As you said is it might be that gravity is a force that might be slipping out of our Universe. It would be very interesting to see how gravity behaves at a micro level..

Well thank you very much for that compliment Dipayankar. I do appreciate it.

The real problem with the T.O.E. is that reconciliation of gravity with the other 3 forces.

I guess you could have 2 forces electro/magnetic and gravity. I personnally believe in a singularity however and that would demand only ONE initial force. So I am still on the Quest.

I'll try to maintain my modesty and not have your comment go to my Fat Head which houses a Small Brain.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi everyone;

My purpose now is to explore the metaphysical aspects of my Idea, but before doing that I will first in this post review 1) The physical 2) The personal physical and 3) An overview of the I Ching.

THE PHYSICAL:

This is the Idea that from the point, comes the strings which close, making the quarks which superpose and interweave, making the proton/neutron.
It also proposes that the electron is a ripple or field in space, created by a projection from the proton.
It explains this by using positive and negative areas and therefore, I believe, accounts for both the strong and weak nuclear forces.( A computer simulation could perhaps bear this out )
It also explains confinement of the quarks and the asymtopic freedom of the quarks.

THE PERSONAL PHYSICAL:

I believe the essence of this particle helps our understanding of our own confinement in our bodies and the limited freedom we all enjoy.
Additionally, when we view the inner dimensions, it aids in our understanding as to why we can see light, hear sound, have the sense of touch, taste, and smell.( We can dance to the music, and see and feel the wonders of the universe ).

THE I CHING

Much of the metaphysical aspect is relying on the I Ching. The dynamics of complementary opposites, the changes, and movement. The equilibrium ( balance ), positive, negative and neutral forces.

A brief overview of this wonderful document I think is in order.

The original ( primal ) 8 trigrams goes back to mythical antiquity ( ~ 5,000 to 8,000 years ago ) by a mystic emperor Fu Xi, with the claim that it was revealed supernaturally. In this regards it's perhaps the oldest known document of mankind, predating the Bible

The I Ching ( Yi Jing literally means Simple Persistency ). Behind this title are three concepts:
1) Simplicity - Root of the substance
2) Variability - Use of the substance
3) Persistency - Essence of the substance

The classical I Ching was brought to us by Kung Fu-Tze ( Confucious ) ~ 600 BC. Again with 3 main ideas or themes:
1) Dynamic balance of opposites
2) Evolution of events as a process
3) Acceptance of inevitability of change

Gottfried Leibniz, in an article entitled Explication de Aritmmetique Binarire(1703), found the hexagrams ( all 64 ) to represent binary sequences.

As the reader can see this document has value.

In a subsequent post I'll expand how this relates to our metaphyical side.

Best to all,

Pat

(NB much of the information came from Wikipedia )

[Drifter]

Value rest in the eye of the beholder . . .
and there isn't one . . .

http://www.ganeshatemple.org/Articles/Article_1(pdf)/Early%20Vedic%20Literature.pdf

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Scriptures.htm

http://www.nriol.com/sanskrit-page.asp

[Profpat]

Value rest in the eye of the beholder . . .
and there isn't one . . .

http://www.ganeshatemple.org/Articles/Article_1(pdf)/Early%20Vedic%20Literature.pdf

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Scriptures.htm

http://www.nriol.com/sanskrit-page.asp

Thanks Drifter for those wonderful links.

It was actually 1st reading the Tao, followed by the Upanishads, followed by the Bhagavad Gita, which got me back to the New Testament, and a whole new understanding of Jesus's message. Further you ( your links ) may be correct in that the Rig Vedas may predate the I Ching.

Best to my friend,

Pat

P.S congratulations on becoming a master. I always knew you were.

[dipayankar]

Are we a part of a much larger civilisation? Else how come we evolved into this kind of intelligence so fast??

[Drifter]

This may not be relevant to your search at this point, but may have a place in your research archive.
http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_imag...Greenfield.htm

Thank you kindly sir, I am humbly honored that you consider me your friend . . .
Blessings and good fortune to you sir, namaste`

Yes I agree, much of "The Master's teaching" has been mis-understood and used by those who, knowingly or unknowing, would usurp their living preaching their perception of the real truth as He spoke of it. Hence, if you want to clear a room, all you have to do is mention "religion". And that is a shameful thing, but an understandable one.

imho Much of the book, thogh supposedly grounded on facts, has an esoterica about it that can be understood by the discerning eye of one who is familiar with metaphor.

Julian James in The Origins of Consciousness in The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind goes into some deatail in this respect.

Thanks Drifter for those wonderful links.

It was actually 1st reading the Tao, followed by the Upanishads, followed by the Bhagavad Gita, which got me back to the New Testament, and a whole new understanding of Jesus's message. Further you ( your links ) may be correct in that the Rig Vedas may predate the I Ching.

Best to my friend,

Pat

P.S congratulations on becoming a master. I always knew you were.