[Tina]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Can Protheory (+,- and 0) unite gravity with the other forces? If yes how??/

Protheory offers a TOE and as such this theory can unite gravity with the other forces. But first we must identify the (+, - and 0)
components of the dynamic we are investigating and we will find the answer.

My scientific understanding is limited. Name the forces you are specifically referring to?

[Tina]

Originally Posted by neutralino I was under the impression that light is a continous spectrum:

Originally Posted by neutralino Symmetry is appealing, probably due to the makeup of the human race. Almost every force of nature is symmetrical (c.f. newtonian gravity for example) and so it's something we've come to expect of the universe.

The above quote is from another thread but relevant here:

Symmetry is guaged by the Lines of Symmetry. In terms of Protheory the line of symmetry would be the neutral line (0) and left/right/above/below would be classed as (+) and (-) direction from the line of symmetry.

Light reflection is true represenation of object if reflected angle is symmetrical to incomimg angle. Distorted images show assymetrical angles.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Tina Protheory offers a TOE and as such this theory can unite gravity with the other forces. But first we must identify the (+, - and 0) components of the dynamic we are investigating and we will find the answer. My scientific understanding is limited. Name the forces you are specifically referring to?

Oh I like to see that Tina
;

The four forces are 1) electro/magnetic 2) strong nuclear 3) weak nuclear and 4) gravity.

Electro/magnetic and gravity are operative throughout the universe. No limit to there distance being in effect. Strong nuclear and weak nuclear are very limited in range.

Electro/magnetic is attractive and repulsive, gravity is attractrive only.

Ball's in your court.

Good luck

Pat

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Profpat Oh I like to see that Tina Ball's in your court. Good luck Pat

Wait - I'm bouncing the ball at the moment then I will play the ball.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Tina Wait - I'm bouncing the ball at the moment then I will play the ball.

No problem Tina: Actually if you and/or protheory could do that you would probably win the nobel prize in physics.

That reconciliation of the four forces is the Theory of Everything, in that it reconciles all known forces into one coherent, understandable, predictable force.

So if you can't thats OK, but if you could.....

Best to you Tina,

Pat

P.S. I'm really more interested in what is the dam root of all evil

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Profpat No problem Tina: Actually if you and/or protheory could do that you would probably win the nobel prize in physics. That reconciliation of the four forces is the Theory of Everything, in that it reconciles all known forces into one coherent, understandable, predictable force. Pat P.S. I'm really more interested in what is the dam root of all evil

The Three Theory is the dynamic between +,- and 0, I will help Pro prove it and he will win Prize! We at TOEQUEST will all go to ceremony and party together. OK

[Fredrick]

Lloyd,

I guess I should not be surprised about the force in your words, since I challenged you to come out with a more substantiated reply. Yet what I was hoping for was that you focused on the mathematical evidence I provide, not the circumstantial descriptions I created. The only parts to which I will reply is where you mention something about the circumstantial words I used about the mathematical information. Most of the other words you wrote were oppositional sounding words where I actually felt there was no opposition.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie My mathematical evidence — and I leave it available on this site for you to read in the next two weeks: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html — actually has a basis of six, though one of the six positions in this matrix must be given to the phenomenon of nothing (in numbers: zero). Three only has its place under very special circumstances, and mainly based on the incompleteness of duality to explain the whole (2 X 3 = 6). Lloyd: [I leave this as the evidence of your faults of logic and math... The false phenomenon of nothing, is just a false phenomenon of your imagination... edited para...]

-reply F: This is me talking about circumstantial information after the mathematical evidence is delivered. From the mathematical evidence one can conclude only very few things, one of them being that there is by definition no unified delivery (except in the abstract). So, from that point on, after showing there is no unification, there is only circumstantial information that is only correct within their own context. I could have kept my mouth shut, or I can give this circumstantial information to try to give more clarity about the reality of our un-unified universe, but if you don't read it with un-unification in mind then you can't read it correctly (period). What I did is generalize information from this abstract state, but it cannot be other than muddy, not-precise, generalized thoughts about the whole. You as the reader need to understand where I am coming from with my words, which means you must apply the framework I provide, not your own framework. Otherwise it cannot ring true.

I believe this 4 X 3 = 12 format is explained by one of the four positions being the phenomenon of nothing.[This is really a joke, now isn't it?___Tell us the truth... edited para...]

-Reply F: Yes, this is really a joke if you don't look at these words from the direction from which they were spoken. But don't bother, Lloyd, because even then, these words are totally unimportant in what I hope is the actual crux of our conversation. What is important is the mathematical evidence itself first. If that is left untouched then none of my words have much value, Lloyd. I hope you will touch on the real mathematical stuff itself.

I hope this explains the six-position as found in the matrix, and the five-position of the pyramid.[No it does not... I edited out the worst...]

-Reply F: See above.

Boy, your mind sure works different than mine Fredrick. "Yet as an external objective experience it comes up as nothing___it ain't there." I'd advise you to learn your science and metaphysics, a bit better before you think you can inform others, especially with such non-sense...

-Reply F: Please focus on the mathematical evidence. As said before, if you can show me I am wrong about the information itself, then I will let you know and even thank you for that. But right now you have not even touched the essence.

BTW, this is not your thread, so stop acting like it is... If you want your own thread, start it, and I and others will join it. This is Scott's thread...

-Reply F: If Scott comes back to this thread and tells me that, I will apologize to him, Lloyd. Otherwise, I consider it impolite of you to say that I am using more space than I should in this thread. All I have been doing is replying to others replying to me, and posing questions I think are of value in light of three (and yes, nothing and zero are important aspects in this respect); I don't see anything wrong with my posts in this thread.

The ball is in your court, Lloyd, and I cannot sum it up better for our conversation than this: "Correct me if I am wrong!"

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I believe this 4 X 3 = 12 format is explained by one of the four positions being the phenomenon of nothing

Fredrick, the concept of the equation is not the false phenomenon of nothing___It's the scientific concept of the equation___Period. All you're trying to do is add something simply foolish, that is not required___Remember, Ocham's razor...? Stick to the scientific foundations of math, not false meta-math additions... Science is the only test of mathematical truth possible___When meta-sciences/maths are added to scientific math, it becomes false, always; though many have tried...

Your point has no scientific point...

Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Profpat Electro/magnetic and gravity are operative throughout the universe. No limit to there distance being in effect. Strong nuclear and weak nuclear are very limited in range. Electro/magnetic is attractive and repulsive, gravity is attractrive only. Pat

Pat, I think you'd better re-check your statements about, gravity having no distance limit, and attractive only... Quite a few physicists dis-agree with these ideas...

Lloyd

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Pat, I think you'd better re-check your statements about, gravity having no distance limit, and attractive only... Quite a few physicists dis-agree with these ideas... Lloyd

Hi Lloyd;

I know there has been a lot of rethinking regarding gravity, and they may be right. Myself, I'm sticking with Newtonian physics and believe it to be true, especially at the local level. If there is proof or hard evidence of thats not the case, I'll surely go with the new flow. If I'm not mistaken, it along with dark "stuff" is still being explored.

Best to you,

Pat