We would be talking of the EM Forces, The strong and the weak nuclear forces..
Quote:
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?
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, please address the mathematical evidence I deliver, not the circumstantial words and numbers I use to explain my further thoughts. If you do not address the fundamental parts first then the circumstantial aspects (that automatically must contain contradictory information) are of no use.
Remember, my mathematical delivery belongs to the general level, the level where we expect the toe to be formulated. Except for helping understand the overall image, my mathematical delivery helps only somewhat in explaining the detailed level, for all details exist within their own specific contexts. This delivery helps us to understand the context of all contexts.
Where Nobody has a delivery wrapped in itself (true when declared true), my delivery contains this mathematical information on which we can stand. I am not asking you to believe in that information; it exists with or without you or me acknowledging it, believing it, or discarding it. It simply is.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Fredrick, you must think people are quite ignorant, to believe such non-sense, especially one like myself, since I don't believe___Period. Show me the proofs, or be silent... You've shown nothing, factual, yet... You just keep rambling on about your own self-dellusions... Start from the physical substance level, and show us what you're talking about, or you have absolutely nothing, as all reality absolutely requires___Physical Substance___First... Mathematics of, is always secondary... I see no-where, in the entire history of ideas, where math created anything, except larger retro-egos...
Lloyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
Lloyd, please address the mathematical evidence I deliver, not the circumstantial words and numbers I use to explain my further thoughts. If you do not address the fundamental parts first then the circumstantial aspects (that automatically must contain contradictory information) are of no use.
Remember, my mathematical delivery belongs to the general level, the level where we expect the toe to be formulated.[No___Where you expect it to be formulated, and think it will be, not I...] Except for helping understand the overall image, my mathematical delivery helps only somewhat in explaining the detailed level, for all details exist within their own specific contexts.[Truth and proofs, are only in the scientific details___The whole needs no truth or proof, we see it, and we know it___It is...] This delivery helps us to understand the context of all contexts.[The last to think that egoistically big, were Russell and Whitehead___They were wrong. No-one has yet been able to unite higher order logic, with higher order math. I kinda doubt you will, either. IMO, it's not mathematically possible, to figure the universe's aggregate matter/wave motions. So, the understanding of the universe's actions, must come from the a-priori logic circuits, and their associated progressive-cognitive databases of knowledge accumulations and acquisitions, or in simple terms___the parts... Gravity would be a good place to start___Explain it...]
Where Nobody has a delivery wrapped in itself (true when declared true), my delivery contains this mathematical information on which we can stand. I am not asking you to believe in that information; it exists with or without you or me acknowledging it, believing it, or discarding it. It simply is.
"It simply is." How big is your retro-ego anyway, Fredrick...? Show the physical proofs, of logic's relations to math, because, so far, you're only seducing yourself, with more senseless wordplay...
Lloyd
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
Fredrick, you must think people are quite ignorant, to believe such non-sense, especially one like myself, since I don't believe___Period. Show me the proofs, or be silent... You've shown nothing, factual, yet... You just keep rambling on about your own self-dellusions... Start from the physical substance level, and show us what you're talking about, or you have absolutely nothing, as all reality absolutely requires___Physical Substance___First... Mathematics of, is always secondary... I see no-where, in the entire history of ideas, where math created anything, except larger retro-egos...
Lloyd
"It simply is." How big is your retro-ego anyway, Fredrick...? Show the physical proofs, of logic's relations to math, because, so far, you're only seducing yourself, with more senseless wordplay...
Lloyd
It looks like you do not want to talk basic math, Lloyd. I've shown you the evidence at http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html and you don't want to communicate about that. That's your choice. All I can say is that I will not follow you in stating that math is secondary in light of a toe; as math has done many times, it helps our understanding.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
It looks like you do not want to talk basic math, Lloyd. I've shown you the evidence at http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html and you don't want to communicate about that. That's your choice. All I can say is that I will not follow you in stating that math is secondary in light of a toe; as math has done many times, it helps our understanding.
In Einstein's search for TOE., he said: "I need more Mathematics." And that is why he failed to find what he was looking for. He didn't need more, he only needed to simplify what he already had.
It looks like you do not want to talk basic math, Lloyd. I've shown you the evidence at http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html and you don't want to communicate about that. That's your choice. All I can say is that I will not follow you in stating that math is secondary in light of a toe; as math has done many times, it helps our understanding.
I didn't say math didn't help our understanding, I said it was secondary, not primary. Do you remember it was Einstein's vision of riding on a photon, that lead his search for the math to prove it...? Substance/object first. Math second...
Where's your fundamental substance/object, so we may have a starting point...? Math is not a ligitimate fundamental starting point of any reality... It must relate to a subject/object___First...!
And btw, I already read the above link, no need to advertise nonsense any further... Your theory of nothing/everything is the mere concept of your own desires, and nothing more, and I might add, not true, not science, not math, not anything... Fredrick, the concept of the concept, is no more than the concept of one's own pre-scientific ego desires... You can't start any realities, from mere imaginal abstract insignificances...
You know, I think sometimes, that many of you don't even realize, I once had the same fundamental natural intuitive-logic searching brain, as do many of you. I evolved... And as I've stated before, and being a wise-guy: "As you are, I once was. As I am, you never will be"...
Lloyd
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
What you place on either side of the equal sign is the point in question. It is innate in consciousness to differentiate between the equal sign and what surrounds it; you can't function as you do without differentiation. Yet, the absolute center of any point of the two lines of the equal sign is synonymous with what surrounds them, so there really isn't an equal sign there, only the appearance of one based on the mechanism that extends spatial structures. Which is why, yes, there is much more math needed.
What you place on either side of the equal sign is the point in question. It is innate in consciousness to differentiate between the equal sign and what surrounds it; you can't function as you do without differentiation. Yet, the absolute center of any point of the two lines of the equal sign is synonymous with what surrounds them, so there really isn't an equal sign there, only the appearance of one based on the mechanism that extends spatial structures. Which is why, yes, there is much more math needed.
It takes two to tango, and three to tangle.
More math will not unite the inequities of difference, nor Einstein's fields of science, or mankind with nature, or even himself with the rest of mankind. It is only the most simple and beautiful equity of an equation, of mathematics, of you, of nature, of the power of nature's truth, that can unite and make the universe one. It's all up to you! Man holds the world apart by uncertain differences. The solution to those differences of inequity is equality! Equality is nature's truth of unity or TOE.. The search is over, it's time to equate.
More math will not unite the inequities of difference, nor Einstein's fields of science, or mankind with nature, or even himself with the rest of mankind. It is only the most simple and beautiful equity of an equation, of mathematics, of you, of nature, of the power of nature's truth, that can unite and make the universe one. It's all up to you! Man holds the world apart by uncertain differences. The solution to those differences of inequity is equality! Equality is nature's truth of unity or TOE.. The search is over, it's time to equate.
= MJA
That's right! If man wants a unified field theory has got to stop dividing the world into permanently seperate things. Man has got to hold the world in his mind to be divided by nothing at all. As if all the whole world is but one photon. That is when he will realize the unity of all consciousness and the equality of everything.
And when he does he will know that everything is of equal and all-importance, and it is the absolute greatest quantity known as equality that renders opposites to intersect and make sexual reproduction. Just like quantum mechanics and general relativity.
And when this is known then the interchangeability of all things will be known, and how there is no substance, only phenomena. ANd how everything is repeated in every other thing and how everything contains everything. Therein man will find the answer to the problems man has found such as that which has been called the Russell paradox or whatever it's called.
And all paradoxes will be proven to be unparadoxes and proof itself will be proven to be unprovable, and that there is no proof, only demonstration in light.
ANd no one person will be banned from the unified field unless all people are banned and no one person will judge another, but will lead by demonstration. And there will be no judgement of all things for they will be considered as equal and all-important. It will be known as the advent of accordance, and it's an old self-fulfilling prophecy that is always premeditated.
I guess Llyod is right. Mathematics is more of a convenient tool to prove or disprove. The same theory can be proven and disproven by mathematics. It depends on how you use it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
I didn't say math didn't help our understanding, I said it was secondary, not primary. Do you remember it was Einstein's vision of riding on a photon, that lead his search for the math to prove it...? Substance/object first. Math second...
Where's your fundamental substance/object, so we may have a starting point...? Math is not a ligitimate fundamental starting point of any reality... It must relate to a subject/object___First...!
And btw, I already read the above link, no need to advertise nonsense any further... Your theory of nothing/everything is the mere concept of your own desires, and nothing more, and I might add, not true, not science, not math, not anything... Fredrick, the concept of the concept, is no more than the concept of one's own pre-scientific ego desires... You can't start any realities, from mere imaginal abstract insignificances...
You know, I think sometimes, that many of you don't even realize, I once had the same fundamental natural intuitive-logic searching brain, as do many of you. I evolved... And as I've stated before, and being a wise-guy: "As you are, I once was. As I am, you never will be"...
Linear Mode
