Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Theory of Everything

  1. #1 Theory of Everything 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    33
    What is your opinion on a theory of everything. The most likely candidate right know is M-theory if i am not mistake. Could this be the theory of everything, or is there another theory. M theory unifies the superstring theory as limits of a 11 dimensional theory, and it is also supersymmetric. If i have said anything wrong please correct i have just been introduced to this theory, and also give your opinion on m-theory and sting theory.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    I'm not too well versed in physics as I never took it in school but I've been reading up quite a lot on it lately. There are many theories put forward as ToE's but M-theory is the most accepted currently. String theory was first theorized a long time ago, it went through it's ups and downs and then was generally accepted to be false until one person (Can't remember his name but he is one of the top physicists alive now) gave a speech concerning String theory with several additions including Supersymmetry, branes and so on which became known as M-theory and formed a new current mode of thinking on the origins of the Universe. String theory is untested and unproven while Supersymmetry may have some truth to it. There has been antimatter seen in the lab and various different particles have anti-versions.


    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    The "theory of everything" is like asking "are we there yet"?

    What people, you know, "intelligent people", don't understand about the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING", is that we need to look at the basics, the fundamentals, of the laws of space and time: the "a-priori" (no one likes a nudist camp though...........ooooooo).

    My point is, a theory of "all things" nips the "basics" of "probablility" in the bud. So, what you would have is a basic scheme of laws, a pool if you will, of conditions in which what we perceive can operate. In that pool, we can do whatever the damn we want (because it will be proved that as human beings we are inherently stupid.....as exemplified by this forum), but the theory of all things will not explain what your aunty from Tottshire did with Keith from Plymouth last night, as specified (by this forum, not including myself or anyone who can understand me, of course), but will explain the basic rules upon which we can screw up upon. \\

    Imagine a boarding school: there are rules. These rules cannot be broken. But, in that boarding school, you can be as deceitful as you like ( a pathetic individual would, in not acknowledging the rules of that boarding school).............but that does not change the rules of the boarding school: you can be kicked out, basically, erased.

    The theory of all things would be that boarding school, one you, yourself, has yet to fully understand, if you get my drift.

    ........

    Do I make myself perfectly clear?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 How the universe was made. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    72
    But problem is how to explain it. In an easy way for people to understand. 05aug/08

    To be honnest, i can acctually see how it all works, but typing it, or producing video's of my theory is rather difficult.

    Anyway. Here is a part of the beauty.



    All we see in the universe is in equalibrium, atleast as long as it lasts. And it can sometimes be long, who knows, and it can be short, again who knows. We must remember there are a lot of things going on in the universe. Lots of prosesses, so there will allways be something happening. And of that it will nor be short or long, but allways happening.

    Equalibrium is a vey important thing, and gets a lot to do when there is so much stuff in the universe. And so many things can interact, and possibly create something new. This is for dna and other things too, but in a little different way.

    The mechanism that try to hold the equalibrium allways changes. As interactions allways happens.

    Problem i belive for us humans, is the fact that what happens is on a so huge scale. And it isnt easy then to keep up. Still we can be able to find out the beauty of what realy happens.

    If we where able to see what was going on completly, it would look very alive,,the universe. It is ofcourse alive today, but lot of interactions we cant see with our eyes. Maybe only by mathematics. Maybe it would look like an ever changing ocean. But this is just a figure of speaking from me, dont take it litualy..


    In the beginning, when there where only space, something triggered the production of the natural forces and the making of particles. What was that force we might ask. And that force that started it, might have just been that something went from being nothing, totally changed state into different matter, from one single event. OR

    from 1 particle(building block) at a time. And that the first acctually made the others. Problem is, one need to explain how that first particle started it all. Unless one other thing is taken into consideration.

    And that is 2 dimention. One of the dimentions are positive, and the other is negative. Meaning in example in contrast to eachother, and making it possible for things to happen in it. And one dont need to explain that what made the first dimention. Cus those where created instantly as time begun, and cant exist alone, not any of them.

    Equalibrium isnt a force of itself. Its just something that happen when things arent equal. Ok, so what kind of thing is equalibrium then? For that we have mathematics. But how to put two and two together, is one hard target. I am pretty sure all the different particles and forces acting on eachother create this ballance. Or that all the natural forces only controls this. Or the particles themself, and not with the natural forces. That will have to be investigated by experiments of some kind in first making a vacum, and then insert 1 particle at a time. It require ofcourse that it is done in space, to get the correct, or better readings.


    I dont know if any of this makes any sense. All i want is give you ideas. To help out.

    Hans-Ronny. Troms, norway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Continue.. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    72
    2 Different senarios:
    ---------------------
    (1) The natural forces came first.

    ..or........

    (2) The particles came first.



    (1.1)
    - First of all, i belive that the first to be in an universe is the laws of nature.
    - Gravity, Magnetism, Strong & Weak Neuclear Force.
    - Let's assume that all these forces need eachother to make equalibrium.
    - Then one can say that the first out is Gravity. For some strange reason, when Gravity was introduced, The unequalibrium made it impossible for gravity to live alone. It had
    to have an allmost equal force against it. Reason why i say ALLMOST, i can explain. If those forces where equal oposites, then maybe those forces that we know of today
    wouldn't have come arround. Cus because if they where equal oposites, equalibrium was met, and no longer need to create other forces.
    - Allmost equal to gravity is magnetism.
    - Then, if you take those two forces and how they react because of one another, i am suggesting that a third force was made from the existing two forces.
    - Let's us then say Weak neuclear forces was made.
    - Ok, now we have three forces. What if let's say gravity have no force on weak neuclear force, but that magnetism and weak neuclear force together made Strong neuclear force.

    PS!! : Maybe these forces resides inside particles anyway, or are just in some specific particles.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (2.1)
    *First i must point out, i dont know all the particles, and their names nor their function. I am kinda green about it NOR can i prove what came first of them. This is just
    A random, from my side evaluation.

    - The particles can have been created in the same way as the natural forces in which i tried to explain in 1.1.
    - Meaning that one exist of another, and some exist of some of the others, and some exist cus of all the others.
    - And along the way here, after each of them is created, equalibrium is in and check status.

    What equalibrium is i dunno. But it could be that prosesses happens in many dimentions,and that some dimentions interact with eachother and some dont. And that the equalibrium
    is the dimention which is neutral.

    NOTE:

    Here i have 3 dimentions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 continue.. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    72
    These posts are in a way a theory of everything.
    As i try to explain it from the beginning. Before there where anything in space.
    The 2-3 dimentions where made in the same time. and all started from there.

    Hope you're happy. And that i can take it from there. As i like to post more on this great forum.

    I will try to make the theory better, and with less contradictions in it.

    Im not very good at explaining things.

    Take care.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    we need to look at the basics, the fundamentals, of the laws of space and time: the "a-priori"
    I agree. A theory of everything should, first, acknowledge what seems so blatantly obvious that physicists don't even consider them:

    Parts are more numerous than wholes. Etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 This i must say was a real interesting approatch.. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    72
    James N. Gardner..

    http://www.biocosm.org/questions.htm

    I was jawdropped after reading all this site had to offer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: This i must say was a real interesting approatch.. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Thermaltake
    James N. Gardner..

    http://www.biocosm.org/questions.htm

    I was jawdropped after reading all this site had to offer...

    They are not up to law makers.

    They are side stepping and avoiding any real issue. Trying to create some new, new angle, to take science in. Rather then just steam roll down anyone that stands in its way.

    That is what all these losers do. They try to act as if they are going to take us to truth, with a bunch of new lies. They cannot even bring themselves to face it.

    Everything they have said has been covered a hundred times over when we had science in place.

    You guys have no idea of the capabilities we possessed in the fifties. I know because you bring up the most boring web sites, sites that are 60 years behind their time. Even if their basic premise and theories were correct, their goals would be sixty years old.

    We have the law makers dead to rights. No one seems to want to go down and oust them. So we will be testing theories about the vagina enabling time travel before it is over, in our present direction.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •