A work in progress ....TOE....

[Rufus]

Group

This has only been presented to one friend of mine, previously, and his comment was that I was saying the same thing or partly so, about 20 years ago so I guess this is about as complete as I can get it but it's a work in progress in the sense that I am looking for comment in a proper forum.

This is not string theory. The theory of everything is much less complicated than quantum math. We can never know the theory of absolutely all there is to know anyway. We may find out a thing or two about our origin and condition but our minds are not capable of understanding the simple equations and initiations of all of reality.

String theory and the big bang theory are useful ways of manipulating our surroundings through the technical advances that they engender. They are also a useful way of teaching about our material side and provide lovely math problems but they aren't the Unified Field Theory that Einstein sought.

So here it is..........Rufe's TOE

Existence depends on non-existence;
All of the rules of the Universe depend on this balance.

A thing, as we know it must both be and not be at the same time.

Any event or combination of events must be possible without the need of matter of any kind.

Proof of this: Existence is impossible therefore possible. (In the chance of creation or evolution of life occurring the odds would be infinitely against, to the point of perfection, therefore possible.)

The antimatter that has been sought is merely the thought of matter.

Matter is the physical appreciation of reality through the barrier of the senses to the ethereal brain to mesh with the antimatter of thought.

Proof of this: While dreaming the individual experiences imaginary landscapes through imaginary senses and believes it to be real.

Unified Field Theory: There are no special questions in UFT. All events and material conform to the same aspect. Nothing can exist without the thought of it.

There probably never was a beginning. Time, in terms of all of reality would not be based on our simple solar clock. Time, in terms of creation and existance would be very flexible, just as some hours pass very quickly and some seconds drag on interminably.

More if requested

Rufe

[dleviwing]

Rufus;
I think you know NOT of what you speak, but you have all rights to say it anyway.
The human mind can comprehend what nature presents; it just can't comprehend what man invents about nature.
Regards;
dleviwing

[subversion]

sounds interesting, you should explain further Rufus

[yogi]

Group

Matter is the physical appreciation of reality through the barrier of the senses to the ethereal brain to mesh with the antimatter of thought.
Proof of this: While dreaming the individual experiences imaginary landscapes through imaginary senses and believes it to be real.

Rufe

I agree with everything that you have proposed. I believe everybody who reads this would ask for further proofs.
i shall redirect the interested readers to following links
1.http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_91.html
2.http://www.iskcon.com/icj/3_2/3_2suhotraswami.html

sincerely,
yogi

[Rufus]

Rufus;
I think you know NOT of what you speak, but you have all rights to say it anyway.
The human mind can comprehend what nature presents; it just can't comprehend what man invents about nature.
Regards;
dleviwing

Dleviwing

Thank you for your reply. There is one thing worse than a negetive response and that's no response at all. ;O}

It's true, I know not of what I speak as you so eloquently put it, but you string theorists have produced your pet explanation out of whole cloth. My hope is that string theory could have some positive experiments to show that there is some validity in this idea. I feel we could make plasma type processors with such information and replace the hard drive with a new type of soft chips.

Everything we have invented started with an idea and then it became reality after the appropriate endeavour.

Rufe

[Rufus]

Subversion

Appreciate your interest.

A good mantra for any scientist would be "I don't know". Found myself saying that a lot even quite young. We can get clues but we don't really know very much for sure.

There is a term that is used called "Non-space". This refers to the lack of all heavenly bodies of all sizes and also the lack of the space they may occupy. Now we could wonder if there was ever a state like that at any point in what we call time. We would have to grasp the concept of "not-being" and go to the very edge of our mental abilities and try to conceive something that is incomprehensible.

Rufe

[Rufus]

Yogi

Amazed that you agree wholeheartedly...like totally! and thank you.

One proof would be our solar system. What are the odds that the earth, sun and moon would all be the exact same apparent size? How did we so conveniently get the perfect system for day/night with the moon following the suns' path in the dark period and have only one face to boot.

During a solar eclipse the moons' disc is the perfect size to cover the disc of the sun. Same thing with the earths' disc during a lunar eclipse. It just covers the moon nicely. Also this all-to-handy size does a fine job of creating the phases of the moon and also the lovely crescents.

It would be pretty hard to argue that these relationships are very common in solar systems. Likely as not this type of solar system would be extremely rare, if not completely impossible.

Also interesting is the fact that the moon has such a high reflective ability, no atmosphere to interfere with reflection of the suns' rays, that it runs roughly in the same plane as the sun/earth and a myriad of other, not so obvious coincidences.

This all smacks of design and not matter-born happenstance.

Thank you again
Rufe

I am sorry to say I am not a religious person.

[Guille]

rufus,

I agree with your ideas for a TOE. As the others, I would like more proofs, and, recomend you to widen and add new same-type-of-ideas.

It looks much like one of my god's unexistence proofs, in which I replace existence and unexistence with perfection and imperfection. I believe that many things in the universe are opposites. Nature is governed by oppsoites. In the absence of one of the opposites, then there is no opposite, thus it stops being all one opposites and is both, so it sort of converts to the other.

Good TOE,

Guillermo

[Rufus]

Guille

Thankyou for your reply. Now thinking that I should add the various points to my main theory using the edit function. Here is one of those points or perhaps proofs.

We take for granted that we see what we see and that it exists even when we don't. What if the eyes were a barrier that the brain only thinks it is able to "see" past? In dreaming we are convinced that event is real so why do we take for granted that we are not collectively creating the reality we are awake in.

Trusting your senses are delivering information from without is a leap that we should examine carefully.

Rufe

[Guille]

hum,


interesting points you give.

What do ou think is the conection between space and matter/mass/energy?

do you agree totally with the accepted forms?