Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Like Tree17Likes
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 3 Post By KJW
  • 3 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 2 Post By KALSTER
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By KALSTER

Thread: The Truth About Geometric Unity

  1. #1 The Truth About Geometric Unity 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9
    Many of us read the recent Guardian articles by Marcus du Sautoy and Alok Jha that described a potential new 14D geometric ToE. Unlike most ToEs, Geometric Unity has a unique experimental prediction that can verify it or rule it out. CERN is capable of making this measurement with existing equipment. The physics community has been unable to judge the claims directly since they are looking for papers by Weinstein, and there are none. In fact, the theory was developed by another author and Weinstein's contribution has been to popularize the ideas. If you are interested in the truth, I highly recommend reading the first link first.

    This article is non-scientific and outlines the development and prominent features of Geometric Unity.
    vixra. org/abs/1307.0075

    A new interpretation of time leads to a connection between GR and QM. Einstein's equations and the fine structure constant derived from one simple principle.
    vixra. org/abs/1209.0010

    The 14D model is presented in detail. A flaw in the ADM positive-definiteness theorem is identified. A major outstanding issue in Kaluza theory is resolved.
    vixra. org/abs/1301.0032

    Geometric Unity predicts the structure of the standard model.
    vixra. org/abs/1302.0037

    The features of the theory are treated in a technical, yet qualitative way. A solution to dark energy is proposed.
    vixra. org/abs/1208.0077


    Last edited by sevensixtwo; August 18th, 2013 at 12:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by sevensixtwo View Post
    Many of us read the recent Guardian articles by Marcus du Sautoy and Alok Jha that described a potential new 14D geometric ToE. Unlike most ToEs, Geometric Unity has a unique experimental prediction that can verify it or rule it out. CERN is capable of making this measurement with existing equipment. The physics community has been unable to judge the claims directly since they are looking for papers by Weinstein, and there are none. In fact, the theory was developed by another author and Weinstein's contribution has been to popularize the ideas. If you are interested in the truth, I highly recommend reading the first link first.

    This article is non-scientific and outlines the development and prominent features of Geometric Unity.
    vixra. org/abs/1307.0075

    A new interpretation of time leads to a connection between GR and QM. Einstein's equations and the fine structure constant derived from one simple principle.
    vixra. org/abs/1209.0010

    The 14D model is presented in detail. A flaw in the ADM positive-definiteness theorem is identified. A major outstanding issue in Kaluza theory is resolved.
    vixra. org/abs/1301.0032

    Geometric Unity predicts the structure of the standard model.
    vixra. org/abs/1302.0037

    The features of the theory are treated in a technical, yet qualitative way. A solution to dark energy is proposed.
    vixra. org/abs/1208.0077
    vixra? Seriosly? Jonathan Tooker?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Found this quote which I think summarises vixra publication very neatly.

    I am pretty firmly of the opinion that even speculative ideas can get properly published if you do your homework and write a good paper on them. Resorting to vixra says "I am not willing to write a good paper to support this idea"
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9
    Resorting to viXra might also say "I don't want to endorse the broken peer-review system."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    "I don't want to endorse the broken peer-review system."
    I don't know what your experience of online science discussion might be. A word of advice. That expression "the broken peer-review system" is most often used by climate change deniers and anti-vaccinationists along with some of the anti-evolution crowd, and a few among the multiple varieties of physics / astronomy cranks.

    If you want to be taken seriously, find a new way to express yourself. (Or ponder a bit about why these are the people you share values with. Accusing those you disagree with of dishonesty, conspiracy, favouritism, nepotism and/or financial fraud before rather than after you've shown their scientific failings - or even instead of demonstrating such failures - is a pretty weak position to advance any argument from.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9
    I have no desire to be taken seriously by anyone giving higher priority to expressive sentiment than logical content. Either the theory's prediction will pan out or it won't.

    "I can't figure out why my study of the pervasive denial of bias in academic peer-review was rejected for publication."
    ~Eric Weinstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by sevensixtwo View Post
    Either the theory's prediction will pan out or it won't.
    What prediction exactly are you referring to ?

    I was initially quite interested in this model when Weinstein's speech at Cambridge was announced , however, I changed my mind pretty quickly once I read what is paper 3 in your list of references a while back. It's physical content is pretty much zero. For example :



    Apart from the fact that determining the metric from this is most definitely not just a straightforward boundary value problem, it does not in any way imply that a conformal field theory on a 4-D boundary induces gravity in a Kaluza Klein space-time. The author does not even make an attempt to provide proof for any of his many assertions and claims.

    Petty that Weinstein hasn't bothered to publish a proper paper himself through proper channels. Perhaps people might have taken this more seriously if they didn't have to rely on crank nonsense on viXra for information on his ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What prediction exactly are you referring to ?
    That the Higgs-like particle discovered in 2012 will have spin-1 and that there will be two of them. If it is a Higgs it has to have spin-0 and the smallest number of multiple Higgses predicted by competing theories is five, so my prediction is totally unique. It was in the paper where I show that the logical structure of the standard model is the same as the geometric structure of the cosmological model:
    Quantum Structure

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It's physical content is pretty much zero. For example :



    Apart from the fact that determining the metric from this is most definitely not just a straightforward boundary value problem
    You are dead wrong on that. I might suggest you reread the relevant part of the paper. I suspect you have neglected to consider that we have a hyperboloid condition at each boundary that gives us a lot of information. I like how you say I provide no evidence and then broadly declare that the part you don't understand is meaningless. I suggest you study a book Ricci Flow and the Sphere Theorem by Brendle. In the mean time, the wiki on Ricci Flow is very nice. If you are too busy to study, I will be happy to help you understand if you can identify the specifics you are struggling with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    it does not in any way imply that a conformal field theory on a 4-D boundary induces gravity in a Kaluza Klein space-time
    YES! On that you are correct! It induces gravity in a Kaluza space, not a Kaluza Klein space. I think it is clear that you are criticizing the paper without reading it (or your reading comprehension is very poor, lol). Since there is no 5D matter-energy, the 5D gravity is null and it results in Einstein's equations (up to a scalar) being defined throughout the 5D space on a continuous infinitude of 4D slices of constant .
    Last edited by sevensixtwo; August 18th, 2013 at 12:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    The prediction that the Higgs-like particle discovered in 2012 will have spin-1 and that there will be two of them.
    Spin-1 has already been ruled out, since even in the initial discovery it was observed to decay into a photon-photon pair. This only leaves spin-0 and spin-2 as possibilities. The latest CERN press release I can find regarding this is from March 2013, and indicates that the data is more consistent with spin-0 and positive parity.

    I might suggest you reread the relevant part of the paper.
    That is all there is in the paper - a claim that obtaining the metric is a simple boundary problem, but then the calculation itself isn't shown, so there isn't anything else to read.

    I suspect you have neglected to consider that we have a hyperboloid condition at each boundary that gives us a lot of information.
    So then why did you not explicitly solve for the metric using the straightforward boundary condition ? Maybe you can do it here for us. Just stating that it can be done without showing the calculation just isn't good enough.
    And why is your paper on viXra, and why, if you consider yourself an expert, are you wasting your time on amateur science forums ? How many people on here do you think will be able to follow the paper ? Are you really that desperate ?

    It was in the paper where I show that the logical structure of the standard model is the same as the geometric structure of the cosmological model:
    Quantum Structure
    Another viXra paper ? Are you serious ?

    I like how you say I provide no evidence and then broadly declare that the part you don't understand is meaningless.
    And I like the fact that you broadly declare I don't understand the EFEs. Like you would know.

    you are dead wrong on that buddy
    Well then redeem yourself and show us how you retrieve the interior metric from the system of equations quoted using just a "hyperboloid condition at each boundary". After all it is that very metric which is of particular interest here, yet I don't find it anywhere in your "paper". In particular I am interested whether we globally have



    from the resultant metric. Perhaps you can confirm or refute this for us. You know yourself what the implications of this are.

    And I am not your buddy - you may wish to adjust your general approach a little, or you won't survive for very long on here. That's just a bit of friendly advice.

    Either the theory's prediction will pan out or it won't.
    Yes, this is something I agree with. The universe is always the final arbitrator.
    Cogito Ergo Sum and Blahgory like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Spin-1 has already been ruled out, since even in the initial discovery it was observed to decay into a photon-photon pair.
    Spin-1 has not been ruled out. The Landau-Yang theorem about two photons is just a theory, data is king.

    As Ralston put it in The Need To Fairly Confront Spin-1 For The New Higgs-like Particle
    : "The Landau-Yang theorems are inadequate to eliminate spin-1. Theoretical prejudice to close the gaps is unreliable, and a fair consideration based on experiment is needed. A spin-1 field can produce the resonance structure observed in invariant mass distributions, and also produce the same angular distribution of photons and $ZZ$ decays as spin-0. However spin-0 cannot produce the variety of distributions made by spin-1. The Higgs-like pattern of decay also cannot rule out spin-1 without more analysis. Upcoming data will add information, which should be analyzed giving spin-1 full and unbiased consideration that has not appeared before."


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The latest CERN press release I can find regarding this is from March 2013, and indicates that the data is more consistent with spin-0 and positive parity.
    Based on my limited interaction with you it is clear that your reading comprehension is very poor. If you go back to that press release you will see that they only considered "some specific" models of spin-1 and have not yet looked at the general case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    That is all there is in the paper - a claim that obtaining the metric is a simple boundary problem, but then the calculation itself isn't shown, so there isn't anything else to read.
    Showing the answer is obtainable is sufficient. If you do not understand Ricci Flow and are unwilling to learn about it I cannot help you. I feel no need to reproduce what has been written elsewhere, especially when it is elaborate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    So then why did you not explicitly solve for the metric using the straightforward boundary condition ?
    I didn't do it because the exact form of the metric is irrelvant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Well then redeem yourself and show us how you retrieve the interior metric from the system of equations quoted using just a "hyperboloid condition at each boundary".
    I have directed to you Brendle's book which illustrates the method. If you want me to solve the problem for you I will be happy to do so after we have negotiated an employment contract. If you are unwilling to pay, I am unwilling to solve the problems you think are interesting. I will stick to what I think is interesting. That is how science evolves, everyone works on what they find interesting and collaboratively we move toward the truth. If you are unwilling to work on the part you are interested in, you are not part of that collaboration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,747
    Quote Originally Posted by sevensixtwo View Post
    Based on my limited interaction with you it is clear that your reading comprehension is very poor.
    What an arrogant condescending prat you are.


    Quote Originally Posted by sevensixtwo View Post
    If you do not understand Ricci Flow and are unwilling to learn about it I cannot help you. I feel no need to reproduce what has been written elsewhere, especially when it is elaborate.

    Perhaps for the benefit of those of us here who are not familiar with the proof of the Poincaré conjecture, you could give us a brief outline of what Ricci flow is. After all, why are you posting here?


    Quote Originally Posted by sevensixtwo View Post
    I have directed to you Brendle's book which illustrates the method. If you want me to solve the problem for you I will be happy to do so after we have negotiated an employment contract. If you are unwilling to pay, I am unwilling to solve the problems you think are interesting. I will stick to what I think is interesting. That is how science evolves, everyone works on what they find interesting and collaboratively we move toward the truth. If you are unwilling to work on the part you are interested in, you are not part of that collaboration.

    You still haven't answered the question of why you are posting on amateur science forums. You seem not to understand how they operate.
    KALSTER, Strange and PhDemon like this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by sevensixtwo View Post
    Spin-1 has not been ruled out. The Landau-Yang theorem about two photons is just a theory, data is king.
    While you are correct in saying that further data analysis will be necessary ( the current sigma values for the spin measurements are well below 5 ), the presently available data is much more consistent with spin-0 than it is with spin-1. Spin-2 can pretty much be ruled out, since we wouldn't be expecting to find a graviton in that experiment.

    As for the spin statistics theorem, I think you know full well that the mathematical proof can and has been given. I refer you to R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman, PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That, for the QFT-based proof, and to Richard P. Feynman and Steven Weinberg, Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: the 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures, for a different proof based on topology. It doesn't help your case to deny the spin-statistics theorem, given these proofs, and since no violation of it has ever been observed.

    Based on my limited interaction with you it is clear that your reading comprehension is very poor.
    Your professional assessment has been noted

    If you go back to that press release you will see that they only considered "some specific" models of spin-1 and have not yet looked at the general case
    Not sure what you are talking about. This isn't about models, it is about the available measurement data - it will either show spin-1, or it will not. Currently the data is more compatible with spin-0, but as I have already acknowledged above the sigma value is currently too low to make a final call.
    However since the SST is really a mathematical consequence rather than based on a specific physics model, it would apply to any particles based on alternative models ( not SM ) as well, so personally I would really not expect to see anything other than a spin-0 Higgs here.

    Showing the answer is obtainable is sufficient. If you do not understand Ricci Flow and are unwilling to learn about it I cannot help you. I feel no need to reproduce what has been written elsewhere, especially when it is elaborate.
    I didn't do it because the exact form of the metric is irrelvant.
    Not good enough by a long shot. Either show the answer to what I asked you for, or acknowledge that you can't.

    I have directed to you Brendle's book which illustrates the method. If you want me to solve the problem for you I will be happy to do so after we have negotiated an employment contract. If you are unwilling to pay, I am unwilling to solve the problems you think are interesting. I will stick to what I think is interesting. That is how science evolves, everyone works on what they find interesting and collaboratively we move toward the truth. If you are unwilling to work on the part you are interested in, you are not part of that collaboration.
    So let me get this straight - first you upload so-called "papers" to viXra, which is not peer-reviewed, and a well-known repository for all things crank and crackpot. This doesn't bode well from the outset. You then come on here - an amateur science forum - presenting links to those papers; fair enough, that's your good right, but completely incomprehensible given that you appear to consider yourself a serious scientist. This place isn't where professional, academic science is made - that's what peer-review journals are for.
    Anyhow - when a guy like myself ( I am not a scientist, merely a self-studied person with an interest in the area ) comes along and picks out points from your papers, and asks very specific questions, you refuse to answer them because I won't pay you for it ? Then why did you come here at all, if you are not prepared to answer questions ?

    Listen mate - given all this ( viXra, rejection of established theorems, refusal to answer questions ) I have no reason to belief that you are anything else but a crank among a legion of cranks on viXra. If you consider yourself a professional, you should have no problem whatsoever mopping the floor with me; I am just doing this as a hobby, after all. I have asked you specific questions, so go and answer them if you can, but don't take us for fools.

    And yes, I do know my way around the EFEs - if you do present a metric, I will go back and check whether it is actually a solution to the field equation given by you, and whether the metric does indeed imply what you say it implies. And even if it does, you still have some explaining to do just why this is on viXra, and not in peer review as it should be.

    I am waiting.
    Strange, PhDemon and KJW like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    could give us a brief outline of what Ricci flow is. You still haven't answered the question of why you are posting on amateur science forums. You seem not to understand how they operate.
    Ricci flow describes how the metric smoothly changes with respect to time. If you have the metric at one time, it allows you to determine the metric at another time using PDEs. The machinery is terribly complex but once it is in place, using it is just turning the crank.

    I understand how these forums operate. I share stuff. Some people read it. Some people criticize it meaningfully. Some people criticize it in an other than meaningful manner (Markus.) In either case I respond to the criticism. Am I missing something?


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Not sure what you are talking about. This isn't about models, it is about the available measurement data
    It's not about models huh? What did they mean when they wrote "The data are compatible with the Standard Model JP = 0+ quantum numbers for the Higgs boson, whereas all alternative hypotheses studied in this letter, namely some specific JP = 0-; 1+; 1-; 2+ models..."

    I see you have backed off your initial claim that spin-1 was ruled out. At least you have that going for you. Spin-1 could be a window to BSM physics, we won't know what it means for the spin statistics theorem until we study the particle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Then why did you come here at all, if you are not prepared to answer questions ?
    I'll answer any conceptual questions you have. The exact form of the metric is irrelevant and it will not be an effiicient use of my time to derive.
    Last edited by sevensixtwo; August 19th, 2013 at 04:14 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,747
    Quote Originally Posted by sevensixtwo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    could give us a brief outline of what Ricci flow is.
    Ricci flow describes how the metric smoothly changes with respect to time. If you have the metric at one time, it allows you to determine the metric at another time using PDEs. The machinery is terribly complex but once it is in place, using it is just turning the crank.
    Thank you.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I see you have backed off your initial claim that spin-1 was ruled out.
    No I haven't. Where did I say that spin-1 is possible after all, after initially ruling it out ? What I have said is that the currently available data is much more consistent with spin-0 than it is with spin-1. I have also said that further analysis of the data is necessary to improve on the sigma value. I have not gone back on my earlier statement that spin-1 is ruled out, in fact I have cemented that statement by referencing two mathematical proofs for the validity of the SST.

    Trying to twist other people's words to fit your own claims is a typical crank tactic, you know.

    It's not about models huh?
    Once again : this is not about models at this point in time, it's about the empirical value of the particle's spin as determined by measurements. Once we have that value pinned down at sigma 5 or higher, then we can speculate about what model it might fit. And that is pretty much what the article says. And at the moment it is starting to look like your spin-1 prediction - and hence your "theory" - is simply wrong.

    If you have the metric at one time, it allows you to determine the metric at another time using PDEs. The machinery is terribly complex but once it is in place, using it is just turning the crank.
    The exact form of the metric is irrelevant and it will not be an effiicient use of my time to derive.
    Enough said. I rest my case.

    In either case I respond to the criticism.
    By refusing to answer the questions given because you are not getting paid for it ? Also, you have yet to respond why you are here and on viXra, instead of in peer-review.

    I understand how these forums operate.
    Some people criticize it in an other than meaningful manner (Markus.)
    I have asked you simple questions. You don't want to answer them. So obviously you do not understand how a forum operates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    effiicient use of my time
    An efficient use of your time would be to put this up for peer review, instead of hanging around on viXra and amateur Internet forums.
    So why don't you ?
    Strange and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    effiicient use of my time
    An efficient use of your time would be to put this up for peer review, instead of hanging around on viXra and amateur Internet forums.
    So why don't you ?
    I am unwilling to compromise my scientific integrity by endorsing the broken peer-review system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by sevensixtwo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    effiicient use of my time
    An efficient use of your time would be to put this up for peer review, instead of hanging around on viXra and amateur Internet forums.
    So why don't you ?
    I am unwilling to compromise my scientific integrity by endorsing the broken peer-review system.
    I think you are unaware of how much can be gleaned from that statement and how ironic it is.
    Markus Hanke and Howard Roark like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by sevensixtwo View Post
    I am unwilling to compromise my scientific integrity by endorsing the broken peer-review system.
    Thank you, this is a fitting confirmation of my initial assessment in post #7.
    Since no answers to my questions are forthcoming, I am in turn unwilling to compromise my integrity as a long-serving member on this forum by wasting any more time and resources on just another viXra crank.

    Good luck.

    P.S. Refusal to answer questions. Attitude. viXra. Not peer reviewed. The mods may wish to consider whether this thread really belongs into the main physics section...
    PhDemon and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Moving to New Hypothesis for now.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Moving to New Hypothesis for now.
    Thank you, Kalster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Unity of physics and biology
    By tianman32 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2013, 01:23 AM
  2. Electro-Unity Theory
    By GreggSchaffter in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: November 27th, 2012, 06:13 AM
  3. Unity, 1
    By Elterish in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 11th, 2011, 04:40 PM
  4. Nationalism and the illusion of unity
    By Darius in forum Politics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: June 12th, 2009, 08:49 PM
  5. Seek truth and you shall find truth
    By Dlrow in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 28th, 2008, 05:57 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •