Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: the impossibility of a G.U.T. through research

  1. #1 the impossibility of a G.U.T. through research 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Science has convinced people that particles are independent entities.

    Modern science has convinced people that particles are independent realities, unique to themselves, if not for what they call "field forces" that act as the defined link between the independent realities of particles.

    Basically, modern science researches atomic points as though they have their own independent reality. And when they research these atomic points, they break down the connection of that atomic point/particle with everything around it.
    They then try to create a theory, by doing this to all sorts of points, of how particle-points could be linked to one another, when the very way they research those points tells them that those points are independent to other points.

    My question is, "how can science in researching points that way come up with a unified theory?"

    I think it canít.

    Take the analogy of people.
    People are independent realitites.
    It is not possible to study a person to FIND how everyone links, unless that person was the link, the ideological LINK for everyone else.
    To study a number of key people, like particles, and to find how these key people are linked, they can only believe as people that there is a GREATER ONE, a continuum of them ALL.
    They cannot be studied ALONE to find that continuum. They have to study the ONE that connects them all and derives THEM all. But science isnít doing this, there is no agreement anywhere.



    Any ideas?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: the impossibility of a G.U.T. through research 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Science has convinced people that a particles are independent entities.

    Modern science has convinced people that particles are independent realities, unique to themselves, if not for what they call "field forces" that act as the defined link between the independent realities of particles.

    Basically, modern science researches atomic points as though they have their own independent reality. And when they research these atomic points, they break down the connection of that atomic point/particle with everything around it.
    They then try to create a theory, by doing this to all sorts of points, of how particle-points could be linked to one another, when the very way they research those points tells them that those points are independent to other points.

    My question is, "how can science in researching points that way come up with a unified theory?"

    I think it canít.

    Take the analogy of people.
    People are independent realitites.
    It is not possible to study a person to FIND how everyone links, unless that person was the link, the ideological LINK for everyone else.
    To study a number of key people, like particles, and to find how these key people are linked, they can only believe as people that there is a GREATER ONE, a continuum of them ALL.
    They cannot be studied ALONE to find that continuum. They have to study the ONE that connects them all and derives THEM all. But science isnít doing this, there is no agreement anywhere.



    Any ideas?

    I agree that modern science is backing themselves into a corner. Making up so many rules that they will either get caught, or destroy real science completely. Another generation of good kids will also be lost as scientists. Or at least be set back.
    Then the modern scientists can just stand on a big stage and make up fanciful science fiction stories and almost no one will know it is not science.

    I am sure you know I stick with an old ambient radiation ether standard that was skewed or poorly written about, in many books, books that survived. However ambient radiation was a completed science. That offered no scientific limitations that I know of.

    When really good scientists stated openly that we can no longer go to war, in the early 1900's. With any kind of honesty and dignity. And that law makers should become leaders and prepare for war, but not wage it.

    The officials did away with science instead. War is the ultimate tool for a failed leader. He can hide and blame it all on the war.

    A war is such a disgrace. That no one feels the fool that started it needs anymore embarrassment. It would be like getting your hand stuck in your butt. Everyone would just kind of look away and say "oh my God". What else can you do to someone that dumb. Except tell them to get the heck out of the White House! And take all your cronies with you.

    I do not know what it will take to get Americans acting like Americans again. We don't do it for the money. Because we are supposed to have a fortune and the right to protect it.
    But some even with a fortune are not very happy. Because they have been very bad and do not enjoy life anymore. We see it with celebrities all the time. They are committing suicide with drugs and alcohol. Even though they have millions.

    Misery loves company, and the modern scientists want our company. I say we make them miserable, until they step down, or stand up for truth about the atrocities in American science.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    I never mentioned the "US".

    But, on the point, the beautiful thing about the US is that it is a democracy: people VOTE for what they want, and if the people are happier with certain truths, they will abide by those truths. That's why the US needs an agency, to develop ideas too scary (or whatever) for their own people but not to scary for their national agenda.

    The english system though requires the queen to stand by her subjects: they are "her subjects", she is their "object". She is their truth. She cannot abide by any truths she finds "displeasing", let alone her own subjects find displeasing.

    Now, take a science that makes the people nervous. I think you get my point: they won't go anywhere with it.

    I think the "US" is scientifically "superior" to the UK ideologically speaking given how people "fret" in great palaces of so called "perfection".
    I think an ultimate science, a G.U.T, would threaten the very idea of the "sovereignty", but not so a government with an exclusive research agency the people choose not to want to have exposed to them, because it is too scary (you know, like aliens).

    The queen, any sovereign for that matter, needs to find a science that reflects the truth of her people. Now take what I said before:

    "Take the analogy of people.
    People are independent realitites.
    It is not possible to study a person to FIND how everyone links, unless that person was the link, the ideological LINK for everyone else.
    To study a number of key people, like particles, and to find how these key people are linked, they can only believe as people that there is a GREATER ONE, a continuum of them ALL.
    They cannot be studied ALONE to find that continuum. They have to study the ONE that connects them all and derives THEM all. But science isnít doing this, there is no agreement anywhere."

    Sad, isn't it. How can a sovereign match the ideology of living in the fruits of an absolute science without being instrumental to its conception? If there is an ultimate science reflective of a universal truth, any sovereign would need to be involved in it as close to its conception as possible. This is why I suspect the holy grail, the idea of it, is actually about finding the truth behind what was considered to be natural magic, to find the ultimate science, and to do this in a context of "the one".

    Now, I know this going a little off track, but lets say in a parallel universe to the one we live in, similar though to the one we know, that crop circles actually weren't designed and stamped by hooligans, but actually represented a universal science from intelligent life we have thus far failed to communicate with. If I was the queen, I would look at those symbols and with the proper coordination of my subjects I would get to the bottom of this science, and ensure my interest was appropriate yet "initial", and do all I could to piece that puzzle together. Basically, the search for the holy grail, as the myth went from the round table, was inspired by the need to piece together mysterious signs in the community, in the fields.

    That's just an example though of the difference between the UK and the US. I could be wrong though. I shouldn't be given that we ideally should live, as intelligent people, in a transparent society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    I never mentioned the "US".

    But, on the point, the beautiful thing about the US is that it is a democracy: people VOTE for what they want, and if the people are happier with certain truths, they will abide by those truths. That's why the US needs an agency, to develop ideas too scary (or whatever) for their own people but not to scary for their national agenda.

    The english system though requires the queen to stand by her subjects: they are "her subjects", she is their "object". She is their truth. She cannot abide by any truths she finds "displeasing", let alone her own subjects find displeasing.

    Now, take a science that makes the people nervous. I think you get my point: they won't go anywhere with it.

    I think the "US" is scientifically "superior" to the UK ideologically speaking given how people "fret" in great palaces of so called "perfection".
    I think an ultimate science, a G.U.T, would threaten the very idea of the "sovereignty", but not so a government with an exclusive research agency the people choose not to want to have exposed to them, because it is too scary (you know, like aliens).

    The queen, any sovereign for that matter, needs to find a science that reflects the truth of her people. Now take what I said before:

    "Take the analogy of people.
    People are independent realitites.
    It is not possible to study a person to FIND how everyone links, unless that person was the link, the ideological LINK for everyone else.
    To study a number of key people, like particles, and to find how these key people are linked, they can only believe as people that there is a GREATER ONE, a continuum of them ALL.
    They cannot be studied ALONE to find that continuum. They have to study the ONE that connects them all and derives THEM all. But science isnít doing this, there is no agreement anywhere."

    Sad, isn't it. How can a sovereign match the ideology of living in the fruits of an absolute science without being instrumental to its conception? If there is an ultimate science reflective of a universal truth, any sovereign would need to be involved in it as close to its conception as possible. This is why I suspect the holy grail, the idea of it, is actually about finding the truth behind what was considered to be natural magic, to find the ultimate science, and to do this in a context of "the one".

    Now, I know this going a little off track, but lets say in a parallel universe to the one we live in, similar though to the one we know, that crop circles actually weren't designed and stamped by hooligans, but actually represented a universal science from intelligent life we have thus far failed to communicate with. If I was the queen, I would look at those symbols and with the proper coordination of my subjects I would get to the bottom of this science, and ensure my interest was appropriate yet "initial", and do all I could to piece that puzzle together. Basically, the search for the holy grail, as the myth went from the round table, was inspired by the need to piece together mysterious signs in the community, in the fields.

    That's just an example though of the difference between the UK and the US. I could be wrong though. I shouldn't be given that we ideally should live, as intelligent people, in a transparent society.
    We do not really choose our leaders anymore here in America. There are so many people over here that we do not really have a voice. And we are no longer supposed to go over to our representatives, our servants house, with some grape, a bomb and recall them.

    Things are really bad now, we just get two losers to chose from, each is trying to put on an act to appease the other party, that makes their own parties sick. There is no vote.

    Years ago here in America your states representative voted for the president of the congress. If he nominated or voted for the wrong man, why you could go over and string up both of your servants.

    Today this is frowned upon I suppose.

    An American vice president, Vice President Arron Burr, shot Hamilton his former commander that actually saved his life in the revolution, to death, in an agreed upon duel.

    Do you know they tried to prosecute Burr, showing that evil law makers had already taken control. So many cowards feared Burrs challenge that they wanted to end manhood on earth.

    Later Burr was forming an army to take back America. And was also arrested. Arrested for something that he could not have been arrested for in America.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 General Unified Theory 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    france
    Posts
    2
    The Wootton Heath Conjecture (mine) is that the General Unifying Principle is the double helix. Why? Because it would be beautiful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I have deleted your almost identical post in another sub-forum. Double posting is not encouraged and rarely permitted on this forum.

    Unless you can expand on this, explaining what the Wooten Heath conjecture is and providing more justification for it than aesthetic satisfaction, then this thread will also be deleted, or at least end up in pseudoscience or the Trash Can.

    Over to you.

    And welcome (perhaps) to the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    france
    Posts
    2
    Aesthetic satisfaction was sometimes a springboard for Richard Feynman and I believe he encouraged the use of intuition. PS. 'Wootton' not 'Wooten' please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I am still none the wiser and I only fequent forums in order to become wiser. Are you going to enlighten us as to what you are talking about.

    sorry about the wootton/wootteen confusion. If you explain what you are talking about it might make it easier to remember it correctly.
    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
  •