[zeroca]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao how? what? where? why?

I also find this explanation perfect. So, can my theory be considered incorrect but anyway a variant of TOE?

[Guille]

About the incorrect thing, yes, well, actually it depends in each opinion. About tconsidering it a TOE, well, I think that you could say that your theory might explain everything, but in a very abstract and in a variant way.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by zeroca So, can my theory be considered incorrect but anyway a variant of TOE?

i understand your TOE is about the reality of "emptiness," which in physics it's called the true vacuum. Therefore your TOE is just a qualitative version of the quantitative ones many people are working on these days.

Mathematically, the true vacuum is representable by an absolute scalar field. Due to its smoothness, it is very difficult to detect the existence of this field. So theorists invented the false vacuum, which is supposed to be detectable and it is associated with the Higgs boson.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Therefore your TOE is just a qualitative version of the quantitative ones many people are working on these days.

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative?

[AntonioLao]

quantitative is descriptions using numbers
qualitative is descriptions using words.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Therefore your TOE is just a qualitative version of the quantitative ones many people are working on these days.

I didn’t know about it, but these people don’t know about my methods.
We don’t need to invent false nothing (false, detectable vacuum), because we’ve got real nothing (true, undetectable vacuum). I never show how to practice the system, which’s based on nothing, but anyway have a kind of experience with it. But when I try to explain about nothing to somebody theoretically, I find it most difficult for me.
E.g. I promised Omny to think over some method to explain how the separation took place within nothing, Omny sure thinks I broke my word, but the matter is that I couldn’t invent such method and so can’t convey the idea, which is very clear to me.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by zeroca I didn’t know about it, but these people don’t know about my methods. We don’t need to invent false nothing (false, detectable vacuum), because we’ve got real nothing (true, undetectable vacuum). I never show how to practice the system, which’s based on nothing, but anyway have a kind of experience with it. But when I try to explain about nothing to somebody theoretically, I find it most difficult for me. E.g. I promised Omny to think over some method to explain how the separation took place within nothing, Omny sure thinks I broke my word, but the matter is that I couldn’t invent such method and so can’t convey the idea, which is very clear to me.

In my opinion your basic ideas are understood by most of us, but the problem is that, in this I agree with Omny, you haven't demostrated how "nothing" could separate.

[Omni]

Originally Posted by zeroca E.g. I promised Omny to think over some method to explain how the separation took place within nothing, Omny sure thinks I broke my word, but the matter is that I couldn’t invent such method and so can’t convey the idea, which is very clear to me.

No, I don't think that. I would have been very surprised if you had come up with a convincing method to seperate nothing. It's simply not possible. Without a doubt. As far as I see it now... you have an idea that's not fullgrown but has potential...without a doubt.

[battybat]

I think a TOE should have the following properties:-
1. It should be an easily visualised model of the universe incorporating matter, light (or e.m.r.) and time.
2. It should set down rules for how these three interact.
3. Using these rules, it should be able to explain the Four Fundamental Forces.
4. It should be able to show how these work at the three different levels of scale we operate on, i.e.Atomic, Terrestial and Cosmic.
5. It should be able to make original predictions, that can be tested, and point out any loose ends, if any.

Not surprisingly, my own TOE - Steadybang Theory - conforms to this criteria fairly well, thus:-
1. Matter is a type of electro-magnetic radiation, like light, but because it is a more concentrated form of energy it radiates in spiralling vortices or vorticles. Time is just the state of this radiation. The model is formalised by Five Axioms.
2. Vorticles mostly take the form of open spiral tori (like a mollusc shell), the only stable exception being the electron which is an open spiral. The rules of how they interact with each other and e.m.r. are defined by Six Postulates, the most important being the first, which states that a system of vorticles will tend to combine or break up to increase the total stability of the system and then the second which states that when a vorticle has an overall turning motion this is known conventionally as an electric charge.
3. The former rule accounts for the Weak and Strong Interactions and the latter for electricity on the atomic scale. Magnetism and current electricity can be explained by another postulate which describes how some vorticles can be aligned so that, combined, they are a larger copy of their atomic-level state. The expansion of matter, mentioned in 1 above, accounts for gravity (a 'phenomenon' rather than a 'force').
4. How these work on the three different levels of scale is then explained in more detail on the website.
5. The main prediction of the theory is that if you drive a shaft through a body large enough to exhibit a measureable gravity effect and place some matter at one end of the shaft, it will apparently accelerate towards the centre of the body initially but then slow down as it nears the centre and come to rest at the centre. Conventional Physics would have it oscillate around the centre before coming to rest at the centre. It may be possible to test this on a large, heavy space station or on an asteroid, if one could be landed on.
As regards loose-ends, I haven't been able to derive from the theory the maths to show why orbits of planets and sattelites are elliptical as yet. One of the problems is that, as far as I know, no mathematician has worked with an expanding frame of reference before. If anyone knows differently, please let me know at bat@steadybang.com. However I think I've had some success mathematically with terrestial gravity. The 'Gravity - the Maths' page on the Steadybang website shows how the exponential expansion of matter creates the illusion of acceleration of a body close to the surface of the Earth (or a planet). Appreciate it if anyone with maths skills could check the logic in this and let me know if it's OK.

For the full picture, click on www.steadybang.com.

Battybat

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by battybat vorticles

Do you have some mathematical descriptions for these vorticles? Say, using divergence and curl of vector or tensor calculus similar to what's been used in all field theories (EM, QFT, gravity, Yang-Mill field, etc.).