[Qspacer]

Thank you for your link about Einstein. There is no doubt that you are right about this issue. I also checked additional sites later on and I understand that my determination that Einstein had no academic degree when he published his famous articles on 1905 was based on unreliable sources or misinterpreted by me somewhere along the way.
As I declared and you can now see, I do not have any problem admitting mistakes if shown to me. Ego is not of my concern. Only the verification of knowledge is.
I am still waiting for responses about the actual content of my article. Can you prove my logic there to be wrong? If you can I will really appreciate it, since you will save me the tremendous effort of publishing the following articles. If you can't I will be motivated even more to continue. In any case I assure you and any other critic that your remarks about the content of my arguments are taken seriously.

Roi Lotan

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Qspacer I suppose that all the members of this site realy seek for a total understanding of the elements of our universe. I claim that I can offer something close to that in a new theory called "Q-space theory" that I have begun to publish on october 2007. The theory begins by dealing with the unification of physics from a totally new direction. Our allegedly inability to intuitively understand the conclusions of modern physics is reexamined. The "intuition problems" of modern physics are analyzed and practical suprizing conclusions are made. So far I have published the first article. The whole theory will expand over 30 to 40 articles and gradually reveal a complete unification of physics and much more! If my theory will not be contradicted along the way it will aventually also have a great spiritial impact. In addition the theory will have thecnological applications and will supply means for verification via physical experiments. It will not just remain as an idea. It will be contradicted or verified within a few years! I invite you to read my first article on: www.Q-spaceTheory.org The article was written for physicists, but anyone with knowledge in popular modern physics and basic math education will be able to understand it. So don't fear from reading it. Feel free to response in this forum or/and contact me personally at QspaceTheory@gmail.com Roi Lotan

Welcome Roi to the Quest,

I started to read your article and then stopped because I read this stuff that, well, did not sound right. I am only paraphrasing in what follows, and hope I do your work justice.
You say in other words:
Your using undefined geometric concepts to formulate a new geometry called Q-space geometry which is not based on real numbers, so you then redefined a new numeric system and invented intuitive numbers.
I have only one real number question, are you for real?

=
MJA

[Qspacer]

MJA; I do not understand your suprise that I am using a new numeric system, different from the "real numbers" at a time when "comlex numbers" are already in common use. Now it is just a question of how open mineded are you? If you are open minded than just keep on reading the article and see if you can disprove any one of my claims.

Dleviwing; Once again you are reffering to my "knowledge" and not directly to the arguments presented in the article. If you can disprove any of my arguments in the article be specific and please do so.

I will return to this forum only after the weekend. Good bye for all, happy new year and good weekend.

Roi Lotan

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Qspacer Dleviwing; Once again you are reffering to my "knowledge" and not directly to the arguments presented in the article. If you can disprove any of my arguments in the article be specific and please do so.

Roi;
You are not the first to present a concept that only requires the basic fundamentals of science to prove its failings. You have also made claims without any proof or data; just your opinions. You then ask me and others to prove your opinions wrong. That only proves to me that you do not understand the philosophy of science nor its requirements. I have no tolerance for fools that believe they are right until science points out why they are wrong (that’s religion). I’ll provide you with proof you’re wrong when you provide me with data that supports your claims; until then stop asking me to join you in a debate of opinions. You shouldn’t feel bad though; M-theory is just as worthless; so even PhD’s have occasional brain-farts.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Roi you have also made claims without any proof or data; just your opinions. You then ask me and others to prove your opinions wrong.

Dave ... It may be that Roi is looking for some basic feedback on direction .. and not putting it into words very well .... more as an onus on the reader.

Originally Posted by Q_Spacer 1. An infinite discrete quantity can be created in a single action. I will name this quantity “Q”. This is the basis for “Q-space”.

Roi ... Its hard to be a Devil's Advocate when I don't understand the terms. Can you give a clear definiton of an 'infinite discrete quantity' . Infinite cannot be used as a real number ??
Also ... Your philosophy makes an assumption that everyone has the same 'intuition' dilemma as you do ??

cool bananas ... greg

[Qspacer]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Roi; You are not the first to present a concept that only requires the basic fundamentals of science to prove its failings. You have also made claims without any proof or data; just your opinions. You then ask me and others to prove your opinions wrong. That only proves to me that you do not understand the philosophy of science nor its requirements. I have no tolerance for fools that believe they are right until science points out why they are wrong (that’s religion). I’ll provide you with proof you’re wrong when you provide me with data that supports your claims; until then stop asking me to join you in a debate of opinions. You shouldn’t feel bad though; M-theory is just as worthless; so even PhD’s have occasional brain-farts.

David, I appreciate this answer of yours and totally accept it because it reflects my believes too. If you carefully read my article you will see that I repeatedly say that the obligation off proof is mine and I do not expect anyone to automatically accept my theory. I have provided no evidence for nothing so far. This is only a preview article and no more than that. The total theory still lies ahead and will demand 30-40 articles. But from the third article I will already reach a point where practical physical conclusions are made. It will still take time to make these conclusions testable, but certain principles of physics will begin to appear. Anyway the first and second articles are essential for the background and motivation for the following.
The only reason that I asked you to disprove the theory was because it seemed from your previous responses you thought that you can do so. I knew very well that there is not much to actually disprove at this point, since most of the article is just about philosophy and definitions. However this also means that there is no logic reason not to check the following articles when they will be published. Maybe then you could disprove Q-space theory or maybe it will surprise you...

Roi Lotan

[Qspacer]

Graybeard hallo,
I am not a native English speaker, but if I properly understood the meaning of the word "onus", it means something like a burden (correct me if I'm wrong). Then you are writing that I want to be a burden on the reader? If this was your meaning you are wrong. I want to be a burden only on those readers that claim or imply they can disprove my theory. I think it is inappropriate to claim that some theory is wrong without a sufficient logic explanation that backups the claim (this doesn't mean that the theory is right, but at least it wasn't disproved so far).That is why I became a burden on some of the members of this forum. But my general aim is to supply a new TOE that is written in great detail (so it will be properly understood by anyone) and presented in the most interesting way possible (for me). I want my readers to enjoy their experience and not only to receive dry data. Certainly it is not my intention to become a burden on the general reader.

Quote from you: " Roi ... Its hard to be a Devil's Advocate when I don't understand the terms. Can you give a clear definiton of an 'infinite discrete quantity' . Infinite cannot be used as a real number ??"

Graybeard, you are referring to data given in the appendix, which will be explained in detail only in later articles. However, I like your curiosity and your question can be simply answered. So: by "infinite discrete quantity" I do mean a real number. Furthermore, my "intuitive numbers" will merely be a subset of the "rational numbers". By limiting our selves to this subset we will receive some new limitations on our math that will demand the specification of a new number theory. But this number theory will be very obvious and intuitive (even more than that based on the "real numbers").

Quote from you: " Also ... Your philosophy makes an assumption that everyone has the same 'intuition' dilemma as you do ??"

Graybeard, you are right. I know that not everyone has the same intuition dilemma as I do. But I claim that my intuition dilemma was the motivation to seek knowledge and explanations in a new uncommon way, and thanks to that I reached my TOE. The easiest way for me to explain Q-space theory to others is through my eyes. If you will not understand my intuition dilemma and how I will solve "intuition problems", I think that Q-space theory will become so boring to you, that you will fall asleep before finishing it.

Thanks
Roi Lotan