This thread is a continuation of "Is there a Theory of Everything" above, for the purpose of posting final results. The above thread, now rather lengthy, has brought forth some very interesting ideas, from which we may consolidate conclusions. But this thread is also open for further discussion and inquiry, in the spirit of exploratory debate. "Everything" transcends mere physics, and thus has the incredible ambition of interrelating everything. It is what IS.

All the best, Ivan

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION FOR A 'THEORY OF EVERYTHING'

On reading Quantum physics, on a possible Theory of Everything; i.e., Paul Davies "The New Physics" (Cambridge Univ. 1989), and John Gribbin "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little Brown 1998); I am struck by a common problem to which there seems to be no solution. Though best minds have studied this for over a century, from Faraday and Planck to Einstein and Fermi to Salam and Weinberg to Gell-Mann and Nambu and Wu and scores others, there is a lack of conceptual coordination, as expressed by the mathematics, of being able to relate the strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, and the weakest force of gravity, into a general theory. I suspect that it may be possible to re-coordinate the mathematical expressions where there is a 'basic common denominator' into which all functions have to fall, and from which all Quantum interactions of the higher levels would then find expression. Though mathematics is a language, one of how interactions relate, with its own grammar and structure, it is nevertheless only a language, much like ordinary spoken languages, and thus may lend itself to expressions of both truth and fiction. I will try to express below, in ordinary language, what I think can be translated into mathematical expressions, and from which I think we may find models that express reality closer to the truth than understood hitherto. And if so, then we may have found an expression, which can later be translated into mathematics, which may be the possible foundation for a Theory of Everything, not only as a theory tying together the forces of physical reality, but ultimately as the supranatural forces that tie together all living things that exist within it. We would know we had achieved this goal, perhaps albeit an unachievably lofty one, when we can translate the mathematical language into observable and measurable phenomena in the natural world.

If we take into account that much empirical data on Quantum Electrodynamics and gravity has been gathered, and that this data generally bears out General Relativity as posited by Einstein and successors, then we should assume that the data is good, as it is being measured, and that only a way to fit the data into a more generalized theory is lacking. The math is at times tricky, requiring canceling out infinities in order to renormalize the equations as Gibbin writes (pp. 65-67): "Mathematically, the infinite mass of the cloud around the electron is compensated for by assuming that a 'bare' electron would have infinite negative mass. With careful mathematical juggling, the two infinities can be made to cancel out...); which leads one to think that infinities in calculations need to be removed, since it is improper to divide or multiply by them. However, what if infinities were the desired results for which we were looking, and from which we could draw a common denominator? Would measurements of quarks, leptons, muons, nucleons, electrons and nutrinos then fall into place? This would be the goal of a Theory of Everything, I would think.

1. UNITY IN OPPOSITES, on the Interactions that cause Universal Being:

Let us make a basic assumption about how is structured the universe: "Unity is found in opposites." There is ample demonstration of this, that positive and negatives attract to form a unity, much as the two poles of a magnet cancel out in between to remain one complete force. So the pluses and minuses of the universe seem to cancel out, whether in a state of stability, where all things rest in balance, or dynamically, in a state of becoming. This principle applies as well to atomic and subatomic existence, implying that there is a kind of balance in existence that normalizes the opposites into unity, or what we then perceive as a kind of existential-reality stability.

If this is so, that opposites normalize into unity, then it would seem that a logical place to search for a basic assumption for a Theory of Everything would be in the two extreme universal forces that are opposed to each other. I would recommend that from the observable universe there are two such very great forces: Quasars and Black Holes. One is the brightest object in the universe, the Quasar; the other is the darkest, the Black Hole. Now, this is not a starting point, but rather an observation from which a starting point can be established. So the next step would be to identify from our known observations of physics the two opposing forces that influence matter and its creation or destruction. For this I would suggest "Photons", as light, as representative of all electromagnetic waves of all magnitudes, in all spectrums; and an "unknown" as the opposite to photons, as that which represents the 'dark' force. It is this 'dark' force that I think is missing in Quantum physics as it now stands. There are measurements and theories of Strong Forces, gluons, that bind the proton and neutron together. However, these are little understood, and if one were to theorize instead that such a force, being the 'glue' Strong Force that holds together the nucleus, then it may approach forces of 'infinite magnitudes' similar to what we observe in Black Holes, a kind of Total Force. Or perhaps it could be best described by the measurable force of the 'unknown' X particle, or 10 (to 15th) GeV, i.e., 10 million million times the electromagnetic weak force; then we would be seeing it as equivalent to a force at the time, theoretically, of the Universe being only 10 (to minus 37) seconds old, or at the very beginning of the so called Big Bang. (I am skeptical that the Universe started this way, and think that instead this may be happening on a continuous basis throughout the cosmos as tiny 'mini-bangs', but this is not important for this purpose here.) So we are then looking, from this deduction, for a dark 'strong force' to be opposite electromagnetic 'light photons' that approximates the binding force of the universe at its 'creation', in effect, with near infinite gravity cohesion. This is not to be equated in any way with 'gravity' as we understand it, what is keeping me in my chair as I write this, but rather as a force so powerful that in theory it contains all of existence within it at the 'birth' of the Universe.

Much of physics, it appears to me, is fancy, as the Big Bang is a fanciful account imagined because of how the math works out; same as measuring the colorful eightfold path of interquark forces leads to mathematical expressions for which our minds are not equipped to imagine; to imagining photons as being both particles and waves. In this case, the fancy as deduced here is that there is a force that approximates a compressed universe into its singularity, which is so powerful that even photons cannot escape it, except at close quarter as within the atom. This is why I alluded to earlier to the Black Holes, because they are evidence of such a force. So, to give this 'unknown' force a name, one that has not been used in the colorful description of Quantum physics, and one which approximates the nature of this force, being gravitationally near infinitely powerful, I would give it the name of a gravity "infiniton". This is not to be compared to a 'graviton' which measures a very weak force, that of gravity, but rather the very strong force of the 'infiniton', which is inside the atom.

PHOTONS AND INFINITONS:
Now, by default, because we do not know this force other than through its various manifestations as evidenced by how it interacts with photonic electromagnetic energy, we are then forced to treat it as an unknown, yet one of near infinite, or even infinite, properties. One can look at the universe's Black Holes for evidence of how these infinitons work, that they are able to absorb all light and matter into themselves, to go... where? The answer is Nowhere, for they simply reabsorb into what the Universe is made of, nothingness. On the other side of the polarity is what the universe radiates with, the electromagnetic energy of light, or photons, in all its spectrums from X-ray to infra-reds. Then, how these various energies interact with the infinitons is what manifests as created matter. These interactions are then measurable in Quantum physics, from which we can gain an understanding of how light interacts with the properties of the infiniton 'dark matter'. Thus, if so, then Quantum physics should become greatly simplified. On the other hand, the Big Bang would come into question because this theory would point that, over great distances of space, light is being gradually absorbed by the resulting 'dark force'. So in cosmic space, over those distances, light would red-shift with time, not because of space expanding, but because the dark matter left over from the interaction of photons and infinitons acts like a drag on it. In the same manner could be measured how photons knock out electrons from metals, or how the wave-particle nature of electromagnetic energy interacts at different levels of the nucleus to measure at what state is the energy within the atom, away from the all collapsing force of the infiniton. All these would be measurable evidence of the interaction between photons and infinitons. The rest would then be arithmetic, to design a periodic table of how various levels of energy between the photons and infinitons interact within the atom. And when this is done, we then are close to arriving at a Theory of Everything, because then we can incorporate gravity and dark matter into the equation.

GRAVITY AND DARK MATTER:
How photon energy and infiniton energy interact explains the mechanics of atomic structures as they exist in our observable reality. However, the offsets between these two powerful opposing forces are not total, in that there is a leakage that then 'renormalizes' with what happens in the universe. That leakage, I suspect, is what is left over from the attractive force of the infiniton as it is modified into atomic existence by the electromagnetic forces of photons; the resulting byproduct force, which is a rather weak force, is Gravity. In the equation of TOE (still unwritten), the universal constant would then work out to be what is left over as gravity, as the force that then unites all of existence into a comprehensive whole everywhere throughout the cosmos. Gravity, as a left over force of infiniton attraction, is then spread out evenly to affect all objects, and even the photons themselves, over great distances. This is evidenced by successfully using 'gravitational lenses' in space astronomy, where the gravity of distant galaxies act as a lens on the light coming from behind those galaxies, and magnify it to be picked up by orbiting space telescopes. So photons and gravity do interact, but because this interaction is rather weak, it is observable only over very great distances, unlike the strong interactions between photons and infinitons within the atom, where they interact directly. Because this weak interaction is happening all over the existing cosmic space, it creates a kind of 'shadow' through which light must struggle, which we then think of as 'dark matter'. I do not think this dark matter actually exists, but it is only a manifestation of how light interacts with gravity over great distances. So, like gravity, dark matter is then a waste product of the photon-infiniton interaction, and is measurable only by how light interacts with it over great distances. Therefore, in the final equation of TOE, Gravity is only a left over constant from the subatomic interactions of photon electromagnetic energy and the very dark glue of infinitons as the near infinite common denominators of the universe, of nothingness.

INTERRELATIONS AND BEING:
It should be understood that this Theory of Everything is being sought after in a philosophical sense, fanciful or not, rather than strictly in a Quantum physics sense, though the mathematics developed from it could lend itself to physical observation. This would be the test, that the math measures against observable reality, whether in a better understanding of Quasars and Black Holes (which may in fact not be collapsed stars at all, but rather 'infiniton stars'), or how energy is exchanged both within and without the atoms. It may yet prove that Gravity as a force is duplicatable, perhaps at levels far in excess of those exhibited by natural bodies in space; same as it may prove that the velocity of light is not the greatest speed in the universe, that there are things much faster. Though I could envision this only as a theoretical philosophical idea, that the infinitons mentioned above have instantaneous force, that they attract outside the values of time, and thus their 'leakage' of gravity is likewise instantaneous in its potential attraction; but if so, then gravity is 'felt' over immense cosmic distances instantly also, though only as a byproduct weak force. This could mean then that gravity is a faster 'communicator' within the universe than light, and if so, the 'interrelationships' that span the universe are intercommunicating instantly all the time, which could lead into a whole new way of seeing how the Universe interacts with itself.

In the end all things come back to us, for we are the seekers with our being, and we are the storytellers. We have to find meaning which will give us a sense of understanding of how things are, of how existence affects us in our minds and bodies. It is for this reason that we have posited a concept of 'being', to which we belong and within which we feel our inner existence. That this 'being' can then be connected to outer existence in some unified way becomes the goal of the Theory of Everything, and either we find our consciousness connected to all existence within this being, or we do not. If reality is a vast interrelated phenomenon of itself, of how it interplays between the universe spanning electromagnetic energy of photons and the universe crushing infinite gravity force of infinitons, then how this drama creates both matter and life within its existence becomes a potentially unifiable theory, of everything. Life and mass, consciousness and light, all become interrelatable as one, canceling out unnecessary opposites, one vast interrelationship that is able to coordinate itself from the largest dimensions, and to identify itself into the smallest parts. And, to be true to itself in a principle of mutually canceling opposites, both Consciousness, the byproduct of Life, and Existence, the 'isness' of Itself, combine into Being, the Who we Are. And thus, what had been seen as an existence of the duality of Mind and Reality now becomes combined, the Theory of Everything, as One. But... One what?

2. ALGORITHMS:
Using the basic (0 x infinity) = 1 , model for TOE, let us apply known quantities to this general formula, and let us further assume that "m" is equivalent to "1", and that the photon "p" is set as a function of the speed of light, at "1/c2". The infiniton "I" is still unknown.

This would translate (0 x infinity) = 1 into the basic model [ p x I = m ].

Now, if we take photon energy to be set here at the "zero", and thus "1/c2" [or the inverse of the speed of light squared], and the "infinity" value set at "E", to represent the infiniton, which is as yet undefined, then we can easily see that this coincides with the famous E=mc2. Or, to put it differently: 1/c2 x E = m, which is how we structured the algorithm above.

Now, the "E" value is what needs to be determined to satisfy this equation, not as only an equation of "electromagnetic energy", which E=mc2 describes, but also as an equation that incorporates the gravity energies of G, the universal gravity constant, and of the still unknown "inifiniton" strong force. So this is where it stands thus far, to convert what is essentially a formula of energy-only into a formula that incorporates the Strong Force of nuclear gravity as the infiniton, or "I".

However, to satisfy the condition stated above that gravity, the G constant, is a left over product of the p x I interaction, then I would subtract it from the result of m. Therefore, I would restate the basic formula above as follows:
1/c2 x E = m-g

where "-g" takes the place of "G" since it is not a primary force but merely "left over" from the interaction within the atom (which is shown as negative because it is what is "missing" from the atom). Now, we could be further illustrated by showing that "E" within the equation is replaced with "mc2", so that we have [1/c2 x mc2 = m (-g)], which then (by bringing 1/c2 over to m) breaks down to mc2=mc2, which is =E.

So we are thus left with the formula: 1/c2 x I = m-g, for now... and we are looking for a value of "E" which expresses and approximates the Strong Force of "I".

I think of the photon as being the basic energy unit that is used not only in how space is structured, but also how life is incorporated, since photosynthesis is the basic interaction between living things and universal light energy. ( I.e., all living things feed off of the life energy of light as it is transformed first by plant life, and then converted into a food source that travels all the way through the food chain, even to us!) If so, then photonic light is the key that ties together physics and life energy, which further interrelates the material world with the animate. If a Theory of Everything is truly to be of 'everything', it would need to incorporate these interactions, as well as the mind-body connection.

For more info on TOE see: http://www.unifiedtoe.com/index.html

TOE, ALGORITHM, continued:

Please bear in mind that this is still a "work in progress", so all is subject to revision. However, having said that, there is an algorithm that seems to be emerging from our initial venture into this murky area of a "Theory of Everything".

Using ordinary language, we have taken the idea of an infinitessimal 'zero' interacting with an 'infinite' force to equal a unity of 'one'. This was first expressed as (zero x infinity = 1), which was then substitued with a value for the photon, as 1/c2, or one divided by the speed of light squared, and some value for what I called the 'infiniton' which is a very large 'strong force', which if expressed within the E=mc2 equation with m=1, yields 1/c2 x 1 x c2 = 1, which is a truism. We then further substituted c2 with some 'unknown' value and added the weak force of gravity, with gravity being the left over byproduct of this interaction, to complete the 'little TOE', so that it now looks like this: 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m.
If we set m = 1, as per our original definition of mass equal to a unity, then the equation becomes:

1/c2 x E(?) + g = 1, where it now stands.

So in ordinary language, we are interacting the photon, as represented by 1/c2, and the infiniton, as still undefined, to equal mass.

Now, if we substitute the value of E(?) with the high energy of mass and momentum in terms of electron volts, we get: pc = [E2-m2c4]1/2, where 'p' is the electron's momentum. (See math at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c2 ). This breaks down into pc ~ E, which at a velocity as a fraction of c becomes: v/c = pc/E, which as v=> c, pc => E. However, momentum 'p' can also be expressed as: p = E/c = h/w , (see referenced URL above), where 'w' is wavelength (I don't have the 'lambda' key), and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E = c x h/w , or finally: E = ch/w.

So now we have a possible value for E(?) above. I'm not totally happy with this because it does not seem to fit into the mental image I have of the infiniton, but let's take it to the next step to see where it goes. So if we substitute the E value in 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m above, the we get: [1/c2 x ch/w] + g = m. This is then further simplified by multiplying out 'c' into: h/cw + g = m.

3. TOE, The GREAT MANDALA OF BEING:

Being=> Consciousness=> Identity=> Change=> Motion=> Photonics=> Supergravity.

These are the seven great elements of the Theory of Everything.

Above is the snake biting its own tail, the great mandala, of how the universe is its own simulator. Each of the above is an identifiably separate but interwoven state of being element into which fall the whole, and from which then radiate the individual parts. That there is change and growth in the universe over time is one unifying feature to this Mandala of Being, and that all parts within the whole are interrelated at close and great distances, is the fabric that holds the mandala of everything together. Let us elaborate each of these categories of being as we close in onto the conclusion of a Theory of Everything. Rather than starting at the beginning, as most stories do, let us instead start at the end.

BEING:
We are. This is the great mystery of existence, that there are beings who are curious of their own existence, ourselves. Humans question, but more than that, they interact. We interact with the reality within which we individually live; more importantly, we interact with the reality of each other's existence, the being of other existences who then interact with us. Is this not the most wonderful mystery of all? That we could reach into the existence of another, and they into ours, is pure magic. By what reason, what great plan of existence, do we then meet the people we meet, discourse, relate at an intellectual distance, or in the intimacy of our feelings, touch other human beings's being, and even interact through agreement, or conflict? Is this not a miracle too little appreciated because of its universality, its commonness? I think that the accident of birth, and the events of meeting other beings, and what progresses from all this is not accident at all; rather, it is the most marvelous event of universal existence, that we are, together. Being is a magic miracle.

CONSCIOUSNESS:
If the first miracle of existence is being, then the second is consciousness. In ordinary language, we are conscious because we have a feeling of ourselves. But in universal terms, what I would call philosophical language, we are conscious because we live, we learn, we do, and we choose. These are characteristics that most living things share in common. We are alive with learning and doing and locomotion and choosing, even when we are not aware we do this. What distinguishes humans from most of the other animal species is that we have an acute awareness of our awareness, that we are conscious of our consciousness. Into this consciousness fall our thoughts and feelings, our loves and hates, our thinking of ourselves and others, and how we view the reality within which we exist. We are curious of how we were born, which we cannot remember, or what happens after we die, which we cannot truly imagine. Likewise, we are curious of what is happening around us, when did it begin, and of how it will end. But most curious of all is that life around us also is, and if taken to mean that it is also conscious in its own way, then we are all together in a sea of consciousness that is the fabric of a universe. It is a universe within which living consciousness is a condition of existence, which each living thing must make choices and then act in how it had chosen. We can choose because we are conscious, which we must do to survive. Consciousness is an integral part of our being alive.

IDENTITY:
Each thing is what and where it is. This is the basis of all identity, including us, the who we are. In a theory that encompasses everything, then being as an identity of inanimate matter is not so different from being of living things. We all share an identity of being within the whole, the fabric of a universe that is its own simulator. How each thing is interrelated into that whole then determines its role and place within that whole. If the whole is to be taken as being total, infinite in space and time, then we are all products of how that interrelated infinity has defined itself. This is more than merely A = A; rather, it is where A = everything else to infinity and back again to A. Within this new definition of A, some of us display characteristics of being alive, while others do not. We do not know that of what we are all built is not also conscious, but its expression as being alive is limited to how the infinite reality had defined it. Because no two things can occupy the same space at the same time, living things have a different universal identity from the inanimate objects, though life uses the inanimate to build itself a body within which to be alive. And when the game is done, we all return back to an identity of the inanimate, of which we remain in mystery. Each of us is as we had been positioned through space and time into the identity of being who we are, either alive or not. We are what and who we are.

CHANGE:
This is the pivotal point of the universe, that things change. We live in a dynamic existence which remains fixed or static only for periods of time, for in the end, all things change. When we lift up an object, and toss it away, we had effected change. But the universe had already allowed for this, and the change that took place did so within the parameters of what had been allowed. If the change was acceptable in some universally constructive way, then it was added back into the totality interrelationship that defined that change; if it was not acceptable, then it was rejected and failed to materialize. So it was with the changes that characterized living species, which then either evolved to accommodate changes in reality, or perished. This is always a biaxial event defined by both time and space, where the changes are registered within the whole, and from the whole came a redefinition in how this change fit into the interrelationships that were created from it. When change became so accepted that it developed consciousness, then the universal totality became alive. We live in a changing and living universe, which defines who we are individually in ourselves, in relation to who we are in the whole.

MOTION:
Everything spins. This is a fact of universal reality, that all things are in motion all the time. This motion is another miracle of existence, of the great wheel of being. However, this motion does not happen in a vacuum, rather it is influenced by all the other motions around it, either up close or at great distances. We live in a fluid universe where the fixed relations are constantly subject to change, and when this influence is felt, motion results. When life first appeared, it immediately reached for the ability to move, to move about, and to seek out what it needed for survival. Even plants, which are rooted to a spot, will move in successive generations to places more appropriate for survival, same as they will move towards the light of the sun. The forces of the universe perpetually exerted on each thing cause motion. Motion is everywhere all the time.

PHOTONICS:
Light is the messenger of the whole. We are continuously bathed in photonic light which reaches us from the greatest distances of universal dimensions. When the Hubble telescope finally worked, we were amazed to see fully formed stars and galaxies 15 billion light years away from us, a light still reaching us today, 15 billion years later. I suspect that we will discover that this light had been traveling to us from even greater distances. As each photon hits an atom it then releases an electron, which if then reabsorbed releases a photon. This is how the universe is built, of electromagnetic waves of energy quantized into particles of light which then interact with the basic units of matter as expressed by atomic mass. And all this is tied together into a universal whole effecting motion and change, which then is defined by interrelationship into identity, which then exhibits life and consciousness, which in the end becomes a unit of being. All these interact with one another, spatially and in time, at infinitesimally small distances, and infinitely large universal dimensions. Photonic light is absorbed by living matter, first through photosynthesis in plants and algaes, then eaten by animals, transformed into being, and in the end returned into the planet, and thus into the stars from which it came. We are alive on a great mandala of light, of being, and the photons are its messengers. Akhenaten was not so far off!

SUPERGRAVITY:
Now we have come full circle, from being to nothingness. If light is the messenger of being, then the gravity that holds together the universe as a great mass is its shadow. In the algorithms above, we theorized that: h/cw + g = m. This is not an absolute statement, only one that illustrates that the forces of the universe can be expressed in how they interrelate with one another. Brought to its simplest, the universe has no mass and no time, it is nothing. This nothingness is expressed at the center of each atom, same as it is expressed within the center of each black hole star, that nothingness is the superforce from which nothing escapes, not even light, a kind of supergravity. Yet, this infinite blackness is then relieved, or modified, by the photonic light that encounters it at close quarter, which then defines the atom. This is what is sought in the algorithm above (expressed originally as: [1/c2 x hc/w] + g = m = 1, where 'h' is Planck's constant, and 'w' is light wavelength, which then multiplies out into: h/cw + g = m; see Algorithm posts above), which is how light modifies the supergravity into a unit of mass. This is also the expression of infinity times zero equals one, where mass is then equal to one, photonic light is infinity mass, and supergravity is zero mass. Zero. Nothing. Being into nothing, until modified by light. This is the miracle, that electromagnetic waves of light bring out being, consciousness, identity, change, and motion out of itself, from an infinite reality, into a reality of everything. This is the light, as expressed by its interaction with nothingness. Light versus supergravity is the basic fundamental unit for a Theory of Everything: infinity versus nothingness. And nothingness gave in to infinite light to allow for one.

So the Great Mandala is complete, and the snake bites its own tail, as it had been expressed through the ages of visionaries and mystics. We have given this snake only a more modern face, a description that redefines reality in terms of how we now understand it, still subject to change. Each part of the Great Mandala connects to every other, and each can be further expanded infinitely. In time, we will evolve to better understand it, and with it evolve our consciousness to better understand and become our being. We are far greater than we know, and the universe is far simpler than we have made it. Like the concentric circles of Aristotelian and Ptolomeic astronomy, we had through Quantum Physics described the universal reality into multidimensional algorithmic functions curving space and time, when in fact, there is much less to it than that. We are not at the center of the universe, anymore than everything else is at its center; rather, we are simultaneously at the perimeters, while all things around us are bathed in light; and the concentric circles within which we travel are really around each other. And then how we choose to do this, this dance around each other, either with love and understanding and tolerance, or with conflict and pain, that is for us to be conscious of, to choose. Within everything, by how it was all infinitely designed, like the snake biting its own tail, we are the makers of our realities. We are the light filled scriptwriters, and players in each others plays. Think, whether through dreams or fear, or sexual attraction, the neurons in the brain are fired with who we are: Being. Or is it Love? This is why we were born: To Be. It is who we are. That is all.

CONCLUSION:
Such is the Theory of Everything, both as an algorithm of the basic photonic/infiniton interaction, which is embodied in the atom; and on a cosmic scale how electromagnetic waves, such as light, interact with the supergravity force, such as black hole stars, with gravity as the left over product that spans the universe. However, the Theory of Everything physics is not the whole of it, only the basic building block of how the universe is built. It is the phenomenon of Interrelationship that defines what IS, how each thing within the cosmic reality has found its place within the universal whole, in terms of everything else, ad infinitum. This is a Quantum jump in human consciousness, that we can step outside our subjective selves and objectify Being in terms of how it defines itself, including all life. That the universe is in motion and subject to change is daily observable; that it has come to Being in this dynamic state, of how it came to this from some primordial soup of non-structured plasma like being, is nevertheless still a mystery. We do not know the answer to this, and can only guess that sometime long ago, perhaps trillions of years ago, the universe existed only as a plasmic potential that gradually differentiated itself into the energy of light and supergravity it is today, from which were then born the first primordial atoms, and into which evolved all things as they are today. That some of these products of this interrelated evolution could now look back upon its existence, and wonder, is a miracle even a Theory of Everything cannot explain. We are the most miraculous product of an infinitely designed Totality of Being, and for that we should not only be overwhelmed and awed, but should be truly grateful and respectful of what IS, of ourselves, and of each other. I had asked above "One what?" In conclusion, the Theory of Everything is thus embodied in One, as a living, thinking being: It is each one of us.

Ivan D. Alexander

Ivan,

I think before you become too engrossed in establishing a formula, two issues should be resolved: 1) No data is available to prove black holes exist: 2) Your thoughts on photons lead to a problematic dead end. Follows are a series of links; among the many of them is a composite notion of where we must solidify a TOE. Every paper in every link has the potential to destroy every TOE theory imaginable; therefore, a complete understanding of the potential effect that just one wrong character in an equation renders it – worthless. To begin, please go to:

http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether_5.htm

It is the last article located at:

http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aetherqr.htm

You will find many links at the above URL, and all of them are relevant to what we are attempting to accomplish. To read the abstracts for every article presented, use this URL.

http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html

Before going much further, The Yilmaz Theory of Gravity should become familiar turf because it is the one Gravitational theory that makes sense, corrects the known errors in Einstein’s theories; moreover, it fits a Steady State hypothesis to near perfection. If the theory can be validated, it will destroy the BBT. Einstein, never actually bought into the BBT, neither did Fred Hoyle; however Hoyle could never overcome the flaws in his own Steady State theory, but the Yilmaz theory does exactly that. I have added work by Jason Douglas Brown to the new website by permission. It gives an excellent working position to learn how the theory works, the corrections to Einstein’s theories, refutations to others, and hopefully will assist by forcing present day cosmology to re-evaluate present patently false notions. A couple of internal links in the work by Brown do not work but one of the sites has ceased operation, the other apparently moved elsewhere.

http://www.newtheory.org/jason%20brown/newtheory.html

Einstein was to put it rather bluntly, intimidated by Minkowski, whose interpretations of Relativity actually gave rise to the BBT as eventually proposed by Lemaître, and others. See the following,

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html

To fully understand the problem of light, you must understand what and how the notion of – time – affects everything. There is no potential whatsoever that – time – can be any part of the necessary equations that will be formulated in this process. Time, is wholly, and fully an independent curiosity that is local phenomena that occurs between our ears, your ears, my ears, everyone’s ears. In other words, time must be relegated to precisely what it is; otherwise, all of this is an exercise in futility. You can grasp these notions by studying the following link.

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html

Before we establish a philosophical, theological, and common sense TOE, the science portions must be soundly grounded, for if it is not, the results for the general public is worthless.

Claude

"Time, is wholly, and fully an independent curiosity that is local phenomena that occurs between our ears, your ears, my ears, everyone’s ears."

I would have to agree! Only perhaps it's more of a universal phenom in the general context. If you could stop time, I dare say that consciousness could be understood, and as such the TOE would, I think, be almost comletely solved.

Imagine a spinning ball that is red and green all over. Only until it stops, can you accurately examine it and arrive at a definitive conclusion about [part of] its nature.

Walrus

Hi guys,

Hello Walrus!

"Between our ears" can it also be the heightened consciousness, intuition, that solves the red-green enigma of the spinning ball? "Time" freezes in our imagination only, since it either does not exist, or exists only as a measurable continuum of change, meaningful to us only, if not necessarily to existence itself. We are conscious of this, can stop action and examine it, and then let it go in the way the universe keeps redefining itself, with and without time, or our sense of observation. Like highly sensitized dowsers, we are in touch with the infinite, but the result is a finding... of what, a Truth?. And then we say "Wow!" Please add your TOE ideas! We truly still have a good long way to go.

Good to hear from you.
***********************************************************
Claude!

You are so right, that we need to continue to refine the elements of TOE. Your research is pointing more and more into the intricacies of what is actually happening in how the universal existence is interrelating within the All, into what is our reality. But this does not negate where we are starting from, which is at this point still only a "philosophical foundation" of TOE. The science behind this, and the final measurable and confirmed algorithms are still in the future. I am rather puzzled how my original (0 x infinity) = 1, postulated force interaction, turned into: h/cw + g = m, (where m=mass, g=gravity, c=light velocity, h=Planck's constant, w=lambda wavelength), which does not make intuitive sense to me but that's how the math works out. I suppose either photons have "infinite" mass, as some think, and then supergravity has "zero" mass, nothingness; or vice versa, which makes more sense to me; but either way, the math is the same. Then again, maybe this is intuitive after all, that the greatest possible opposites combine into mass, what is an electromagnetic wave interacting with a superforce of gravity, which thus results in the atoms of matter that populate reality. Gravity is then a leftover product, which is universal to all mass throughout the cosmos, and completes the whole.

So we have a start, but not yet a completion, for how do we interrelate all the contestable variables of neutrinos, muons, leptons, spins, strings, etc., into a final understanding of TOE? Philosophy can point the way of the journey, but the real journey is more in the domain of science. So, much more to be discovered, tested, verified, documented, challenged, debated, retested, until a satisfactory and verifiable conclusion arrives.

Mind you, this is all in the domain of perception, of a philosophical foundation only, of how understands my mind the most extreme Nothingness of the universe interacting with its most dynamic activity of All, which I call Light. But this is only a perception of how the two balance out into a philosophical unity, mass. Not "worthless", merely a new way of seeing how Nothingness is created into a unity of Being. The actual science behind this is still open to inquiry. However, unlike yourself, I do think that Black Hole stars are real. Somewhere out there, there will someday be proof of this beyond astrophysical speculations, but we can't travel there, and if we could, we couldn't radio back! How do you measure the immeasurable?

So exciting! Let's keep on truckin. Thanks again for references.

Talk soon, all the best, Ivan

PLASMA RESEARCH PAGES

Plasma basics:
http://www.plasmas.org/basics.htm

Plasma photos, from Aurora to nebula:
http://www.plasmas.org/photo.htm

Plasma internet resources:
http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/PlasmaI.html

So there is more to research, though plasma may be only an intermediate phase of energy and matter.

Still thinkin... Ivan

WJ, Ivan,

WJ, your words, “Only perhaps it's more of a universal phenomena in the general context,” triggered a brain synapses.

If we could stop all motion, I have no doubt we could fully examine every thing, but if we stop consciousness, there is no thing to examine.

Logic just spoke to me and said,

“The answer to questions of what being means, to be a human being, is encapsulated within our conceptual and real (true) human ability to reason.”

Your turn guys; I am about brain-dead for lack of rest. The past two weeks have been hectic.

Claude

Algorithms:

http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=11&topic=3

As posted on Examined Life Interdisciplinary, Physics, for possible comments.

Ivan
----------------------------------------------------------
Is there a philosophical/mathematical foundation for a 'THEORY OF EVERYTHING'?

On reading Quantum physics, on a possible Theory of Everything; i.e., Paul Davies "The New Physics" (Cambridge Univ. 1989), and John Gribbin "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little Brown 1998); I am struck by a common problem to which there seems to be no solution. Though best minds have studied this for over a century, from Faraday and Planck to Einstein and Fermi to Salam and Weinberg to Gell-Mann and Nambu and Wu and scores others, there is a lack of conceptual coordination, as expressed by the mathematics, of being able to relate the strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, and the weakest force of gravity, into a general theory. I suspect that it may be possible to re-coordinate the mathematical expressions where there is a 'basic common denominator' into which all functions have to fall, and from which all Quantum interactions of the higher levels would then find expression. Though mathematics is a language, one of how interactions relate, with its own grammar and structure, it is nevertheless only a language, much like ordinary spoken languages, and thus may lend itself to expressions of both truth and fiction. I will try to express below, in ordinary language, what I think can be translated into mathematical expressions, and from which I think we may find models that express reality closer to the truth than understood hitherto. And if so, then we may have found an expression, which can later be translated into mathematics, which may be the possible foundation for a Theory of Everything, not only as a theory tying together the forces of physical reality, but ultimately as the supranatural forces that tie together all living things that exist within it.

If we take into account that much empirical data on Quantum Electrodynamics and gravity has been gathered, and that this data generally bears out General Relativity as posited by Einstein and successors, then we should assume that the data is good, as it is being measured, and that only a way to fit the data into a more generalized theory is lacking. The math is at times tricky, requiring canceling out infinities in order to renormalize the equations as Gibbin writes (pp. 65-67): "Mathematically, the infinite mass of the cloud around the electron is compensated for by assuming that a 'bare' electron would have infinite negative mass. With careful mathematical juggling, the two infinities can be made to cancel out...); which leads one to think that infinities in calculations need to be removed, since it is improper to divide or multiply by them. However, what if infinities were the desired results for which we were looking, and from which we could draw a common denominator? Would measurements of quarks, leptons, muons, nucleons, electrons and nutrinos then fall into place? This would be the goal of a Theory of Everything, I would think.

So there may be another way to look at a "Theory of Everything".  This would be by interrelating what are the most extreme opposites imaginable into a unity, which could be expressed conceptually as:  zero x infinity = 1.

Now this is a rather bold philosophical statement, one not mathematically proven, but bear with me, for there is another way to express the same all inclusive formula using Einstein's famous:  
E = mc2.  This would be the result of conceptually substituting the above, 0 x infinity = 1, with expressions of photonic electromagnetic energy and supergravity strong forces, which interact to become an atomic unit of mass.  If so, then let us design a new algorithm representing electromagnetic waves of photonic light and atomic strong forces as such:

photon =  1/c2  (one over speed of light squared)
mass= m = 1 (so we set mass as the unity here)
Energy= E = mc2 (which is Einstein's famous formula)

Now by substituting the zero value with 1/c2, and the infinity value with E, and m as equal to one, here is how the new algorithm would look: 1/c2 x E = m.

So now we have what is really no more than a restatement of E=mc2, however it does not satisfy the need to express this algorithm in a way that incorporates the photon/electron force interactions within the atom.  So to achieve this, I would substitute the E value as follows:

If we substitute the value of E(?) with the high energy of mass and momentum in terms of electron volts, we get: pc = [E2-m2c4]1/2, (1/2 is square root) where 'p' is the electron's momentum. (See math at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c2 ).  By doing this, we are now able to get inside the atom and express how photonic light interacts with electrons as pc~E.

So this gives us an E value that is now expressed not as mass and light velocity squared, but as light speed and photon momentum.   At a velocity as a fraction of c, pc~E becomes: v/c = pc/E, which as v=> c, pc => E. However, momentum 'p' can also be expressed as: p = E/c = h/w , (see Momentum of Photon: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html#c2 ), where 'w' is wavelength (sorry!  I don't have the 'lambda' key), and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E = c x h/w , or finally, we now have what we want as E in terms of the electron interaction within the atom: E = ch/w.

So now we have an expression that satisfies both the all inclusive "theory of everything" formula of zero x infinity = 1, and the Einstein formula of E = mc2, but expressed as a electron/photon momentum value, which is E = ch/w.  In rewriting this back into the original, we now come up with this algorithm:

1/c2 x ch/w = m, which is almost a Theory of Everything, but not quite.

What is missing from this algorithm, same as it was missing from Einstein's, was the product of Gravity.  And this is where we have to make an educated guess, for there is a discrepancy between zero and 1/c2, since they are obviously not the same, which also applies to E = ch/w in representing infinity.  In order to rectify this, we need some additional value that can bridge the differences, and for this I would postulate that the missing ingredient is gravity, that which attracts mass to mass, as a very weak force of G (as expressed by F = GMm/r2).  However, rather than G, I would choose to express it as the gravitational constant 'g' to equal (cm3/g/s2).  Now, we have a value that spans infinity, as gravity, and is also the left over product of the photon/electron energy interaction within the atom, to become a remainder byproduct of gravity, if you will.  To bring this into the algorithm, I would thus either subtract it from mass, since it is what mass is missing and thus causes it to attract, or bring it to the other side of the equation and add it as an additional force within the photon/electron interaction, so that the final equations look like this:  either as 1/c2 x ch/w = m - g, or (1/c2 x ch/w) + g = m.  Or to say it more completely by giving g its (cm3/g/s2) value:  
(1/c2 x ch/w) + (cm3/g/s2) = m

So this is the algorithm of a Theory of Everything, where zero x infinity = 1 is satisfied as expressed in terms of photon/electron/gravity energy interactions.  In seeing it this way, we can say that the infinite mass of the photon interacts with the nothingness mass of the superattraction within the atom, what are commonly called gluons, with a left over byproduct of gravity.  

Implicit in this reasoning is that the more atoms form an element, the more mass if will have, and proportionally the more gravitational force it exerts.  Also implicit in this, though not yet discovered nor proven, is that gravity may in fact not be equal throughout the universe, but be stronger in the absence of photonic energy, and lesser where more photons are present.  It may also account for why physical matter represents only about ten percent of the total computed mass of the universe, for the rest is stored in the so called dark matter, that exists in greater abundance where there is a shortage of photonic light.

This algorithm also satisfies the Einstein formula of E=mc2, and by multiplying out the above it gives TOE an elegant simplicity as:

h/cw + g = m.

where:

h= Planck's constant
c= light velocity (varies at distances or through mass)
w= wavelength lambda
g= gravitational constant
m= mass = 1

Now, we have TOE, but is it usuable in this fashion?  

Yes, if we simply substitute values for each element that is meaningful.  For example, again using Einstein's relationship of E = mc2, we can make p = h/w = mv/(1-v2/c2)1/2 , so that pc = E, which then yields, if 'm' is set with a 'zero subscript' as rest mass, E = [p2c2 + (mc2)2]1/2. This can further be expressed as TOE algorithm, going back to the (1/c2 x E) + g = m, we get:

[1/c2 x (p2c2 + (mc2)2)1/2 + (cm3/g/s2)] = m

But now this is the limit of my rudimentary (high school) math, so I am forced to leave it here.  

I should also point out here that if all this is true, then what we know as our physical reality, the physical universe within which we live, is not more than a kind of holographic creation of light energy as it interacts with the primordial nothingness of space.  We live in a great super emptiness blessed by the light that forms all things, and perhaps even blessed by a love that exists within each atom as a form of consciousness.  In us, that consciousness has risen high enough in concentration to be aware of its own consciousness, that we are "I am".

Any thoughts?  Can this be refined further?  Anyone have their own Toe algorithms?

For more info on TOE see: http://www.unifiedtoe.com/index.html

Enjoy!

Ivan Alexander©

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ps: My friend Nelson, a chemist, later added to the TOE above:

"The difficulty in achieving a TOE isn't mathematical, it's conceptual.

Chemistry wasn't understood with the concept of an atom--we still didn't
know what made atoms different. Only when we had the structure of atoms
(electrons, protons and neutrons) could we understand chemistry.

The same thing happened with all electromagnetic phenomena when Maxwell
figured out the interrelationships between the electric and magnetic fields.
Two fields, four equations--the electromagnetic TOE.

Particle physics got TOEed with quarks. 4 quarks, 3 leptons, 3 neutrinos and
we've got all the particles.

So a successful TOE must by necessity be fundamental. What's fundamental to
the basic particles, electrodynamics, and gravity? That's the question.

As far as physical constants go they serve two purposes: to define a
relationship in terms of dimensional units (length, time, mass etc.) and
provide a numerical amount--a measure. The numerical amount will change
depending on the units of measure used. There are units of measure such that
all the physical constants are reduced to 1. These are called the Planck
units--they bring all the physical constants to unity. So C, h, G and so on
are all 1 when using Planck units.

> [1/c2 x (p2c2 + (mc2)2)1/2 + (cm3/g/s2)] = m

If you want a fundamental mass unit (fundamental to gravity, quantum
mechanics, electrodynamics and everything else to which mass can be applied)
you can derive it thusly:

m=(hc/G)^1/2 It's the Planck mass unit. To see more:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkm

Is there a single structure underlying all physical phenomena? Many think
so, thus the search goes on. The one thing that hasn't been examined in any
meaningful way is space itself. Is there a structure to space? Many think
so. That'd make for an easy TOE."

Nelson

Claude!

Good point. It seems some things in the universe we can stop (by certain forms of scientific examination), while we ourselves keep running. Or perhaps it is like the old movie the Omega Man (remember that one?). Time stops and someone examines the 'snaptshot in time' and tries to determine what happened.

The TOE must consider immortality to be absolute. In that sense, it is a looking beyond oneself, in time, to make sense out of everything-conscious existence and matter. Maybe it goes back to what anonymous said (cosmology) about steady-state v. big bang, etc..

Otherwise, logic and science has not been able to crack the mystery of how and why conscious existence emerged from inert matter.

Walrus

WJ,

Do you think conscious existence emerged from, or originated from inert matter?

Claude

Ivan: Your Algorithm Premise is flawed. Nothing x All = One...Is a Meta-Physic. I submit that since 'No-thing' is in fact both x & y, neither x nor y, Zero is a numeric construct. I suspect that a better path is to explore dual particle identities, i.e., the being of x = the non-being of x simultaneously:) G-man

Claude!

If consciousness is considered a metaphysical phenomenon, in its very essence, then I don't see how it could. On the other hand, if consciousness, in its very essence, is part of the mind-body problem, then to some degree inert matter comprises its essence. Or, in another context of cosmology and sentience, matter could be apparitional from the word go.

Three thoughts to choose from, and I'm sure there are more. Speaking of which, electrical phenomenon that causes objects to move, along with conscious matter-materialism, leads to the thought or inference of immortality.

Thoughts?

Walrus

Hi G-man, good point, about No-thing as being a non-thing-event, so questionable as one side of the equation, same as infinity cannot be used to multipy anything, so questionable too. So this is the leap of consciousness, that we extrapolate very small quantities to infinities in both directions equally, and muplitply these to create unity. Don't know if this is what the universe did to fill its singularity with 'all that is', but if it is, then it is great. Of course, only through empirical measurements and verifications could this theory of everything be proven. So, its out there on the table, but all are welcome to add, or substract, or toss it into the bin. In fact, my biggest worry about 'h/cw+g=m' is whether or not it is good math. The rest will follow.

Thanks, take care, Ivan

Everyone,

WJ,

Can consciousness be placed in any category?

I think not, for I have tried to prove it as noumenon, phenomenon, and abstract, but have not successfully did that. If consciousness cannot be categorized, consciousness is the same as being, which I have not been able to categorize either.

Somewhere, everyone is missing the boat, me included.

G-man,

You are correct, the math as expressed does not work, but dual its does not contain the answers either. Kant had it wrong; noumenon does not give rise to phenomenon. I once thought it possible, but noumenon is purely imaginary, an abstract if you will; therefore, without the ability to make manifest in reality that conceived of within abstraction, there is no point in pursuing a dual-ist notion. Base matter research is interesting, but it will not give us the answers we are looking for concerning a TOE. With better instruments, and the potential for us to learn more about particles I am positive science will inevitably prove something smaller awaits discovery; i.e., a lepton consists of even smaller entities, and those entities consist of even more diminutive parts. In other words, no such state where no thing – is - is beyond the ability of human rationale to understand.

Ivan,

Human rationale is bound by informational data; therefore, hypothetically speaking, we do not need to play with numbers to formulate a TOE, and if we do, nature will prove it wrong. Reason being, nature does not play a numbers game, consequently a game that is artificially constructed cannot be expected to deliver purely objective information that we require to build a TOE. To begin, we must use an assumption, admitting that assumption is/was objectively experienced; therefore, allowing subjective examination by everyone that elects to use any and every method of inquiry available. There is one set theory that will allow exactly that, and the set does not involve a numerical sequence for it consists of but one object; however, from that one object (a set of all sets) every other set can be proven logically, which does not give rise to the existence of all things as we know them, but can explain the existence of all things as we experience them.

A TOE does not require the explanation of how anything came into existence; instead, it only needs to explain why things exist. That removes the stumbling blocks of causation, of which, I am not so sure should have become a stumbling block. So, I begin with one logical premise, and then continue in stages.

1. The universe exists

The first question we must answer is; why does the universe exist?

Each of you must consider that question and formulate a response. You response will be subjective; therefore, subject to examination by everyone. Can you logically compose an answer that satisfies your own curiosity, and if not, why not?

If what I perceive as being true is true, and the universe has always existed, the universe exists of necessity. Necessary things cannot be accidental; therefore, ruling out the BBT in its entirety, yet openly allowing for singular events to occur as observed, and as human beings experience them; thereof, the second premise is established.

2. The universe is a necessity

Please note the specific phrasing whereas not to misconstrue fact of causing an idiomatic error, in that, a necessity does not suggest a causal factor, whence, if we use the word OF instead of A, the use of, OF, signifies a causal factor, of which, if the universe always has existed, it never originated, meaning, it never came into existence; therefore it is not OF anything, nor do we need further explanation, or rhetoric.

You must think outside of your heads!

Claude

Everyone,

Continuation of my last post-

1. The universe exists
2. The universe is a necessity

3. A necessity serves a purpose

If the universe is a necessity that implies the universe serves a purpose. But what is that purpose? Each of you must answer that question logically, and in a manner that satisfies your own curiosity. In this stage we must eliminate the notion that the universe could be a contingency.

4. A purpose is the functional use of an object or being to obtain a specific end.

Purpose cannot be misconstrued whatsoever, for if purpose is abused, the result or end is not achievable. It is in this area of thought where we must be very careful and justify by citing actual experience, or validated observations.

These are the four premises that situate existence, all existence. By using them in the order as iterated, we have a logical basis that provides us with the essential building blocks required to establish a TOE. We must keep in mind whimsy and or imagination cannot influence a TOE, for the first occasion that we incorporate either, the TOE then becomes an absurdity.

A wise man once said, “A person who contradicts nature is a fool.”

What is the first contradiction of nature presupposed by the BBT?

Answer: Something originated of nothing.

Claude

Claude!

Contradiction exists; belief is what follows. I say that in part because you are right, consciousness is a mystery. Or maybe said another way, consciousness exists. The who, what, where how and why's, is what precludes an 'absolute' TOE.

Enjoy the journey. Life is a garden; dig it.

:)
Walrus

WJ,

Thanks!! See, in difference we can establish a mutual understanding.

Claude

Hi everyone,

Truly propitious, or are they prospicience, thoughts entered past few days. Cool!

Claude,

Most succinct fundamental postulates. Yes, #1. "The universe exists." This is most definitely a given, or else there is nothing to talk about. #2. "The universe is a necessity." This makes sense to me only if the universe is also consciousness. If so, then it has a reason for the necessity to exist. If not, then why has it evolved consciousness? So I see as consciousness being a prerequisite for a necessity of being, for then existence falls into place. #3. "Necessity serves a purpose." This dove tails back into the necessity item, which translates into the purpose of generating, through its existence, consciousness. Why? Only a guess, but the universe needs a way to know itself. #4. "A purpose is the functional use of an object or being to obtain a specific end." To this I must answer that this is us, that we are the beings whose consciousness has reached a degree high enough, as opposed to that of our fellow living species, where we are conscious of our consciousness. We gave it a name: "consciousness". So that is the specific end, that we are conscious beings in all the spectrum of consciousness. I might add, however, that this process is not yet complete, and that our consciousness will grow beyond reason into realms which we at this point cannot yet imagine. The truth is out there... even outside our heads!

I should also mention here that all this makes sense to me quite easily when existence, the universe's reality, is viewed through the lens of interrelationship. This is because what interrelationship reduces to in the end is that the allness of existence redefines itself, in terms of everything else, for each part of itself, ad infinitum. It is the marvelous aspect of an infinite interrelationship is that it defines itself into what is, of necessity because of how is everything else, how the all allowed it to be. What you see is what you get.

In the end, for any TOE, we are the observers, and only through right thinking and right empirical observation can the sets within the ultimate set make sense to us, one that we can relate to reality, and one which can work for us, or perhaps even with us, when infinitely conscious enough.

WJ,

I dig it! Consciousness brought to its highest level, in my view, is faith. This is so because faith when tempered with reason is how we overcome our basest emotion of fear. The two are opposites, so we either gravitate towards fear, which we all do anyway, or towards faith, which takes an act of will. Of course, faith also entails risk, because if your faith is not supported by reality, by empirical evidence, by rational observation, by reason, then it becomes foolhardy. We all know that foolhardy beliefs can lead to rather unpleasant results, so the risk of faith is a serious matter. But I do like faith as the highest order of human reason, until proven wrong. The other emotion that is up there with faith, as opposed to fear, is joy which, sadly, like love, is too often unappreciated by so many of our fellow conscious beings of today.

Very powerful stuff, Walrus, not contradictions but rather mirror images of the same, in a conscious being.

G-man,

I've been thinking at length, while walking the dogs last night, on your comments about the validity of algorithms that employ both zero and infinity. This lead to an interesting brain bubble which looks like this: If we multiply any whole integer, or sum of whole integers by infinity, it is of necessity equal to infinity. Infinity multiplied by anything is always infinity, which seems rather vague, but such is that mysterious fog called infinity. However, and this is where it gets interesting: If you multiply infinity by any number less than a whole integer (actually less than 1/2, I think..), you get the result of one minus the fraction used. For example, to multiply 1/3 by infinity is equal to (1 - 1/3) = 2/3 (or 1/1000 x infinity = 0.999), which is the way infinity results when applied to fractions. (This is another way of seeing a very large fraction multiplied by its inverse as equal to one, i.e., 1/10,000 x 10,000 = 1.) The smaller the fraction, the closer you approach to its value of one minus the fraction, and the closer you approach to the unity of the integer, one. If the fraction is so infinitesimally small that it approaches zero, then by multiplying it by infinity, the result approaches the whole integer, one. (This is another variety of Zeno's paradox, in a way. I haven't worked on it fully, but I suspect this multiplication of infinity only works for fraction of 1/2 or less; above 1/2 to full integers, the results are once again infinite.) So, if this is correct, we can use infinity to multiply fractions, and get a workable result, which is one minus the fraction; we do not get meaningful results when we multiply any whole number by infinity, no matter how small or large, because the result is always open ended, infinity.

So taking this back to my TOE equation (1/c2 x ch/w), we have an example of a fraction times its infinity-unity (one minus 1/c2) and the closer you get to one; except it does not fit exactly, so there is a remainder, which I tagged on as gravity, to complete the mathematical expression. However, this is only an equation of those three forces: light photons (from microwave to infrareds), electromagnetism (electrons and their interactive forces within the atom), and supergravity (black holes and supergluon forces within the atom), and not all the other things that go into making a reality. This may in fact not explain anything at all, and if so then it is merely a mathematical curiosity. But if it is measurable and correct, then it vindicates the use of zero and infinity algorithmically, or at least that part which is any number less than one multiplied by infinity, to equal one minus the fraction used. Pretty cool, no? BTW, my wolf-dogs had a good time down by the river chasing rabbits and coyotes to build their appetites, even if not to satisfy it.

Hope all this adds some light, or at least some insight to how my mind understands these things. Though, I am the first to confess that in fact I do not know. My consciousness is limited to what the universal consciousness has ascribed to what I call my limited intelligence, alas, which at times is seriously lacking.

Enjoy!

Ivan

Everyone,

The basis of a TOE-

1. The universe exists
2. The universe is a necessity
3. A necessity serves a purpose
4. A purpose is the functional use of an object or being to obtain a specific end

Think about it - outside of your heads please!

Over the weekend I will put the next stage together.

Claude

Another brain bubble, continued from above:

Hi again G-man, all,

This came to me while lying down to rest, but closing my eyes only brought on another brain bubble, so here it is.

If the above is taken one step further, we get interesting results. Same as a fraction multiplied by infinity yields the integer one minus the fraction, we could do this with 1/c2, which is used in our TOE algorithm. So if you take our original formula of: 1/c2 x E = 1 - g, you can express it to have E = infinity. (This is not a statement, but merely an illustration.) If so, taking the mathematical principle of multiplying fractions by infinity, you get: 1/c2 x infinity = 1 - 1/c2, as we discussed earlier. Now think what this means! You may recognize it as another way of saying: (1/c2 x infinity) + 1/c2 = 1, which is same as the TOE algorithm restated, and it also fits the principle of multiplying a fraction by infinity.

Why is this so cool, you ask? Because it means that if E were truly infinite, which it may not be, then 'g' would be automatically equal to '1/c2'. Now! That would simplify things immensely, if it were so. But in figuring out E = hc/w, which we did earlier, we cannot make such a statement. However, if E approaches infinity, the algorithm: (1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m (where m=1, and pc=E=hc/w), then this formula is not so far off. It would imply that '1/c2' is also some value of 'g', which now makes sense as an algorithm that can incorporate gravity and photonic light as a function of each other. And that is really cool. Imagine, g ~ 1/c2, and thus the formula: (1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m, or multiplied out: h/cw + g = m, may in fact be right on.

So what does this really mean? Well, I have to go and walk my dogs, so cannot lie down again, which means that there is no rest for the wicked!

Cheers! Ivan

Ivan!

If the nature of reality cannot be known, then what follows? Perhaps the metaphor that faith moves mountains is appropriate here. Paul Davies tells us that pure logic (mathematics) falls short in uncovering the truth about the nature of existence. As conscious Beings, we do not know what it means to exist, let alone the nature of our essence.

FH&L is all we have. Otherwise, one must prove that mathematics is beyond a pure human construct, and has its own independent existence.

Walrus

Walrus!

I agree with Davies, and our friends Claude and G-man, that mathematics falls short of the truth. At best, in its purest form, it describes relationships (i.e., x & y, 1/n, + or -, = ><, etc.), but does not capture the truly big picture of a universe filled with consciousness. Then when using numerical digits to describe what is in essence analog reality, we really start to fall short. Yet, as an engineer or scientist will tell you, mathematics does have its usefulness. Approximations, like trial and error, can help us understand or replicate reality, though not philosophically pure enough to give us the truth.

I like Davies's vision of the universe as its own algorithmic simulator, from a math point of view, which interrelates all of reality within itself. The fact that this system then generates human beings like ourselves, all of life more or less conscious, is truly awesome.

All the best, Ivan

Brain bubble #3 "Pop!"

Hi Guys,

Upon further reflection, it seems that my theory on how to multiply infinities by fractions fall short of meaningful results. For example, how does one multiply 5/8, or 3/4, with the above formula? The results become progressivesly smaller towards zero as the fraction approaches one, which does not compute. So I am forced to abandon 'brain bubbles' #1 and 2, for they cannot be supported rationally. Still, they are a curiosity, and it may warrant further exploration. I got stuck on multiplying 1/2 by infinity and came up with two results, either again 1/2, or using an infinite sum of 1/2 factorial, I came up with 1. So something is wrong here. Ditto for the idea that 1/c2 ~ g, since this was contingent on bubble #1, so scratch that too, all tossed into the trash bin. Back to the drawing board... Then again, thinking out loud, knowing that any less than 1/2 value times infinity results in a value less than one, what happens with greater than 1/2 times infinity? Is it worth progressively more than one? For example, is 5/8 x infinity = the sum of 5/8! to infinity? Hmmm... have to walk the dogs some more.

Cheers! Ivan

Ivan,

Multiplication of fractions is specious, and multiplication of decimals is malicious; division of either is absurd, but when mixed with infinity you are dealing with absolute insanity.

Claude

Brain bubble #4, voodoo mathematics, or how to multiply by all infinities, and zero.

Okay, I think I got it, though the results are bizarre to say the least. Here is how multiplying by infinities results:

Starting with that nefarious 'zero x infinity' = 1, we can fancy that the results of multiplying by any other number within infinity will yield something akin to '1'. This would be understandable thus only if 'infinity' also means it has all the numbers on both sides of 'zero', so that whole integers are in effect also offset by their inverse fractions. So that 2 is also 1/2, and 3 is also 1/3...,10000 is also 1/10000... etc. So what happens when a number is 'pulled' from this infinite totality is that it is 'isolated' within the totality. Thus, any fraction below one is pulled from the result, which thus becomes 1 - the fraction. I.e., 1/4 x infinity = 1 - 1/4, or 3/4. This is true for all fraction from just under one to just above zero. So 7/8 x infinity = 1 - 7/8, or 1/8. Taking the fraction down towards zero yields results that approach 1; while taking fractions towards 1 equal results that approach zero. Very odd, but it gets better yet! So if every fraction multiplied by infinity is contained within the zero to 1 parameters, every whole integer multiplied by infinity is contained with the zero to infinity parameters. Let me illustrate:

1/16 x infinity = 15/16, since this is held on this side of 1.

1/2 x infinity = 1/2, since this is equidistant from both 1 and zero.

225/232 x infinity = 7/232, again held this side of 1, but now approaching zero.

So the larger the fraction approaching 1, the smaller the result approaching zero. But what happens when the result is either 1 or zero? Now it gets interesting:

Zero x infinity = 1 but,

1 x infinity = both zero and infinity, and itself as 1. !!!

Now this is the bizarre paradox, since how can this be? How can it be worth both zero and infinity simultaneously?

It can be understood, or at least imagined to be so, that once we get to one, we jump out of the 'zero to one' parameter, and into the 'zero to infinity' parameter of whole numbers. This is just a game of using digital numbers, but remember that they are all offset by their inverse at infinity, so that all the numbers and their fractions are being used. And thus, the only numbers isolated from this total infinity are those numbers being used for the equation, those that are not offset within infinity. Therefore, when the number is a whole integer, it now falls into both the 'zero plus' category, and the 'infinity minus' category. Whereas the fraction falls into the 'zero plus' and '1 minus' category. For example:

2 x infinity = 'zero +2' and 'infinity -2', so that the number 2 takes on a dual role.

5/4 x infinity = 1.25 and 'infinity -1.25, in the same way any number larger than one, no matter how large, since it is only that number that is isolated from the infinity totality, and all the others cancel out by being both whole integers and their inverse fractions.

Likewise, 1,000,000 x infinity = 1,000,000 and 'infinity - 1,000,000'.

Now this is math that can be appreciated only by Aliens, Mr. Nash, and makes no sense to us Earthlings. Though this may not constitute a proof as such, it might be a rules of the game, so to speak.

Why would it not result in 'one' plus the whole integer number, instead of zero plus the integer, you may ask? The reason for this is that 'one' is already the first integer above zero, so to add to it would violate the rule, since it is already represented as 'zero + one'. (The only exception is when the integere one is used, then it becomes zero, infinity, and 1, to reflect all the possibilities of infinity, since 1 divided by 1 is also one. This is the power of One!) Therefore, the rule of this infinity multiplication game is that all numbers below one answer to one, or less; whereas all numbers above one answer to themselves, or to a minus from infinity value. At 'one' itself, the value is dual, as well as itself, and can be represented either as 'zero' or 'infinity', which are the two infinity parameters starting points.

So this may explain the strange paradox when using fractions greater than 1/2, that the result tends towards zero; it also explains how numbers greater than one are defined as both themselves, and values approaching infinity minus themselves.

How can this be understood in real terms in how the infinity that is our universe is constructed? It takes a point of view that all things are interrelated to infinity to make any sense of this. Again looking through the lens of interrelationship as a function of identity, then any number is as the totality of infinity has allowed it to be in terms of the remainder of everything else. For the whole integer number, this leaves the result as being dual, both the unit defined, as well as the totality around it to infinity, minus the unit defined. So, seen this way, the duality is not a paradox at all, but rather a restatement of A = A, as being also A = 'infinity - A'. Pretty strange way of seeing things, but then this is only as an interrelated totality 'sees' itself. When the number is less than one, then 'one' becomes its 'totality,' in effect, and thus this is why the result is some number below one, since it represents the negation of the number from its totality, which is one. Any questions?

Well, you could tell I've been walking my dogs again, but in fact this strange way of seeing things came to me quite surprisingly while I was writing the beginning chapters of "Scriptorium", a story of the monks on the Island of Iona who, around 800 AD, wrote the Book of Kells.

Will have to 'think', when thinking of something else, of this again. Intuitive to the max? It's the only explanation. The question is, how can a proof of this sort be constructed? Can it be useful, if true, in our TOE? And can it be verified empirically and not just theoretically? Don't know, but it sort of makes sense to me. It's like taking Aristotelian identity mathematically to the next level. The result is a duality in infinity, which is pure voodoo I'm sure. Does it make any sense to you, or am I truly out to lunch?

Hmmm... Ivan


Ps: Does this mean that perhaps "1/c2 ~ g" is back in the running again?

Ivan: My only point is that 'Everything,' taken as
a totality, may indeed be equal to One,
perspectivally. But as such it is not knowable. We
can only 'know' x in relation, contextually, to a
~x, which in turn requires division, which is a
process function, which is a time-as-duration
funtion, which requires dimensionality. So, why
does 'Everything' express itself dimensionally?
G-man Th

Ivan,

Only one thing wrong with your hypothesis; what is infinity? It is not even theoretically possible to represent infinity numerically. Infinity encompasses all of everything, which means there is nothing external to infinity; therefore, infinity is a closed system of which encompasses all of everything within it. Once you climb aboard that merry-g0-round, no amount of numbers will prove anything whatsoever; instead, numbers always confuse the actuality of reality. In other words, what you must accomplish proves the fallacy of using numbers because it is not possible to write the algorithm demanded to accomplish fact.

The algorithm demanded is,

A polynomial algorithm incorporating exponential function – in other words, the faster you push the harder you go.

That is why Gravity is the force that controls the universe.

Claude

The basis of a TOE – Part II

In the first part we established four premises requisite to compose a TOE; those premises follow.

1. The universe exists
2. The universe is a necessity
3. A necessity serves a purpose
4. A purpose is the functional use of an object or being to obtain a specific end

Conclusion: The universe exists because of necessity, and serves a purpose as used to obtain a specific end or result.

Discussion: Here, we must attempt to elucidate the purpose served by the universe, but where to begin is our problem. If the universe always existed as a necessity, it is obvious the universe is not an accident; therefore, the purpose for that of which the universe serves is congruent. If the purpose of the universe is congruent, that means the purpose is not contingent, which means, the purpose of the universe is also a necessity, specifically of the logical type. If it were not, there would not be a purpose for the universe. Logic? Here, we must ask a pointed question: Can logic be totally external, and independent of a living entity that is capable of using those results from logical operations? I believe the answer is readily apparent from the use of modern computer apparatus. A computer can be programmed to perform calculations; however, the calculations that result are meaningless to the computer that formulated the result. If all of this is true the answer to the question asked is, an unequivocal and emphatic, no; therefore, there is but one conclusion for us to consider – there is no alternative. The purpose of the universe is to support life.

Second postulates –

1. Life exists
2. Life exists as a necessity
3. Live serves a purpose
4. Life is the means to obtain a specific goal

At this point, I digress in order that discussion can take place. From here forward, formulation of a TOE is relatively straightforward; it encompasses modern science, common sense, analytical thinking, and logical progression through conclusion. It does not entail the use of difficult formulas, nor are they even required.

Claude

Dear Claude,

You say: " Infinity encompasses all of everything, which means there is nothing external to infinity; therefore, infinity is a closed system of which encompasses all of everything within it."

I agree with this, and all of everything encompassed within it still holds, even though infinity is able to define points within itself, in terms of itself. We call that "A = A".

This is why I stipulated that for every number there was also to be considered its inverse, or else only half the infinity is being considered, which would be cheating. This means numbers go infinitely in both directions from one towards infinity, and one towards zero. "One" as G-man reminds us, is the All. When this is considered, the way to deal with it is immensely simplified, since it already represents itself at the point of any number chosen. So when we use infinity, we are actually using all the numbers in existence, except that they simultaneously cancel out as an inverse of themselves. What remains is a function as I described above, either 'one minus a number' for fractions, or 'infinity minus a number', and 'zero plus a number' for whole numbers. The original all inclusiveness of infinity is not violated, only redefined within itself. Do you see what I mean?


Hi G-man,

Would you believe I could also use the same process to multiply by zero? Crazy but true!

Indeed I too think that 'Everything' in Totality is equal to One. This is illustrated by numeral One having the power I gave it, either as the totality of fractions, or the starting point of whole integers. I do not think the thinkers of the Pythagorean school thought of this, nor their later Arab descendants who gave us Algebra. Now, to turn our attention to Zero.

This is really cool. Remember, we are pushing on Orthodoxy here, so must tread softly, so as to not offend.

If you take the original:

Zero x infinity = 1, and then by bringing 'infinity' over to the other side of the equation, it translates into:

Zero = 1/infinity, which you can now use in an interesting way.


This is critical. Let's say we want to multiply 5 by Zero. We then get, because '5 x infinity' is both 'infinity -5' and 'zero +5':

Zero x 5 = 1/(infinity-5). And because 'infinity-5' is also 'zero +5', we convert the equation into:

Zero x 5 = 1/5.

But this I cannot explain intuitively, so the math may be more esoteric than reality. Also, if I try this for a fraction, any number less than one, I get a weird result. For example:

zero x 1/2 = 1/(one-1/2) or 1 divided by 1/2, which is = 2.

So, zero x 1/2 = 2. That's okay, so far.

But if I use any other fraction, the results become greater than one, but not the inverse. For example:

zero x 1/5 = 1/(1-1/5) or 1/4/5, which is = 5/4.
zero x 1/12 = 1/(1-1/12) = 1/11/12 = 12/11
zero x 1/99 = 1/(1-1/99) = 1/98/99 = 99/98

zero x 15/16 = 1/(1-15/16) = 1/1/16 = 16
zero x 2/3 = 1/(1-2/3) = 1/1/3 = 3
zero x 7/8 = 1/(1-7/8) which is = 1/1/8 = 8
?????

Well?... It makes to no sense to me! How can a number multiplied by zero be more than ONE?

Let's FORGET multiplying by ZERO!!


Until I wake up next time, I am your humble un-Orthodox servant,

Ivan

Claude,

Again very succinct, and right on target with:

"The purpose of the universe is to support life."

I took it one step further by stating that the purpose is to support Consciousness, which I believe, faith here, is what Life is really all about. But tell us more. I am truly intrigued by how you see this TOE.

All the best, Ivan

Ivan,

I have received the answers from friends that could verify the math. According to them, I am correct; therefore, during the course of the next two weeks I should be able to finalize the TOE outline in its entirety. The next stage is the most difficult for the postulates have to merge into the first two sets but remain separate; by that, I must frame such arguments as subsets, and each subset must be applicable to subsequent sets as well as the first two.

One area that will give us serious problems is that of necessity. Any ideas that anyone of you can come up with would help immensely. Necessity is what dictates how things are in the universe at any given place. That is where consciousness enters the TOE, and what I proved theoretically is, every particle in the universe is – intelligent, and it is conscious!

Claude

Why do we Philosophize?

There are two ways to do philosophy. One is to debate an issue, find impossible contradictions, scrutinize to minutia, and in the end remain forever skeptical. This is good, for it is the best exercise of reason to keep us within the bounds of what is real, what is possible versus what is impossible. It is a tradition that goes back to the best minds of ancient Greece, and possibly beyond.

However, there is a second way to do philosophy. This way is to bring together diverse disciplines of knowledge into a complete whole, to formulate how all the pieces fit together, even when at first glance that seemed impossible. It is this second kind that is so exciting, that sets new horizons to scale new heights of human thinking. Like the tumblers of a lock all falling into place at once, the door opens, and we see things we had never seen before. Imagine reconciling the speed of light with the smile of a child, that is indeed wonderful. Dream, think, dare to imagine, that human consciousness can achieve its destiny not in a spirit of doubt and naysaying, but in a spirit of soaring ideas taking us where only imagination is our limit, and then, under the scrutiny of the cold light of reason, that it is all true. To see the Truth, that is wonderful.

And that is why we philosophize a Theory of Everything.

Ivan

Claude: Question: Is it possible that even though
we speak of necessary contigency, how to factor in
the possibility of 'life as accident'? G-man This
is

G-man,

In formulation of a TOE, I do not foresee contingency as problematic unless necessity is not sufficient within its definition whereas, accidents are necessary, of which if true, we have one huge problem facing us. So, how shall I explain self? Lets put it this way – If necessity = the universe, contingency is included by necessity to thwart failures; by that, life is not an accident.

Speak to me bro!!

Claude

Claude: You seem to be suggesting that...Chaos is
merely the unknown order of things:) G-man This
is.

G-man,

How else would you define chaos?

Actually, I would say,

Chaos is the unpredictable order of things.

To me, that fits new physics rather nicely.

Claude

Claude: We thus enter an interesting epistemic realm. Doesn't Order suggest predictability? And, is unpredictability (as a function of futurity...)a function, perhaps of proximate perspective, aka size? In other words, due to my tiny size and space-time location point, the light from stars millions of light years away are only now reaching me. Yet, imagining that I were much larger, I would first cease to notice days (which are a function of my small size and limit to a time zone...). Expanding even more, perhaps my size would encompass/embrace the distance between/separating the tiny me here and the distant stars my eyes see? My point: perhaps time (as measured motion through space's dimensional coordinate grid) is a function of physical size/proximity. Your thoughts? G-man

G-man,

Addressing duration whereas concerning locale is most difficult since at what point is it possible to delineate local time A, from local time B? One year on Jupiter is equal to about 12 earth years – so, if we are located equidistant from Earth, and equidistant from Jupiter – what time is it? I once asked Stephen Hawking that question, and he wheeled off the stage; reason being, there is no answer because in the universe it is not possible for time to be a uniform measure of anything, including duration. From that perspective is where an accurate TOE denies all potential for something to come of nothing, which can be proven quite easily by correcting E’s errors in both R and SR, a fact that I fully expect will destroy the BBT.

Order does suggest predictability; however, if the universe is endless and infinite in both duration and expanse, the universe is in essence a – wysiwyg thing; in other words, here inside the universe that we experience daily when traveling from point A to point B, you get what you see in reality as you travel. That is true if traveling to Andromeda, or even some star that is even further distant. As we observe the Crescent Nebula (NGC6888), an object 3000 light years away from us, we see it as it is, not as it was! If we could send a vehicle to the Crescent Nebula and record the journey on film, we would not observe a single change from beginning to end of our journey, except the size of it would increase accordingly as the distance away from it diminishes.

Maximum potential for the speed of light – 186,000 Miles per second
60 seconds = 11,160,000 miles – 1 minute
60 minutes = 669,600,000 miles – 1 hour
24 hours = 16,070,400,000 miles – 1 day
365 ¼ days = 5,869,713,600,000 miles – 1 year = 1 Light Year
3000 light years = 17,609,140,800,000,000 miles to the Crescent Nebula

That distance translates into an insane absurdity whereas the Big Bang is concerned. I ran the actual calculations, which proves it would take 132,699,437,000 of our earth years for the Crescent Nebula to be located precisely 3000 light years away from earth. What that means is, present cosmology estimates the universe is only 13 – 15 billion years old, but actual figures proves the universe to be more than 132 billion years old at the minimum!!

Claude

Dear Claude, G-man,

Sorry have not been keeping up, but been busy writing "Scriptorium", which is coming along nicely, and other stuff. But your posts made me think of something, which I then modified my entry for TOE in the Interdisciplinary at Examined Life under Physics:

"I should also point out here that if all this (TOE algorithm) is true, then what we know as our physical reality, the physical universe within which we live, is not more than a kind of holographic creation of light energy as it interacts with the primordial nothingness of space.  We live in a great super emptiness blessed by the light that forms all things, and perhaps even blessed by a love that exists within each atom as a form of consciousness.  In us, that consciousness has risen high enough in concentration to be aware of its own consciousness, that we are "I am"."

I also went on to say that say, as it applies to gravity;

"Implicit in this reasoning is that the more atoms form an element, the more mass if will have, and proportionally the more gravitational force it exerts.  Also implicit in this, though not yet discovered nor proven, is that gravity may in fact not be equal throughout the universe, but be stronger in the absence of photonic energy, and lesser where more photons are present.  It may also account for why physical matter represents only about ten percent of the total computed mass of the universe, for the rest is stored in the so called dark matter, that exists in greater abundance where there is a shortage of photonic light."

Getting back to your posts, Claude, I agree that the computations for the age of the universe as they are being presented now are pure nonsense, and that your number may be closer to the truth, though perhaps still far short of it! I suspect that when we get to understand light better, we will find that the universe had many more surprises for us. For example, we may discover that as we travel in any direction at great velocity, what happens is that the universe in effect travels towards us in like manner, and if so, then very distant space travel may be more simple than we currently imagine. We'll have to wait for better science to find out, however.

And G-man, I like the imagery of being bigger than the distance between us here and the source of light of far off galaxies, then 'time' as we understand it ceases to exist. And this can be extrapolated that to the universe itself, which is all of itself, in effect infinity, time is not a meaningful value, except to those of us little creatures who are concerned with the change we experience at our level. So we measure something that we call time, but a totality has no such measure, unless it were to focus into the connecting gears within itself to experience change. Then again, maybe the totality grows and changes from the smaller changes within it, and if so, then there may be some sort of time consciousness at the whole, since that is constantly being remanufactured by the totality of its parts.

Talk soon, later, Ivan

Ivan,

Just a quick note of explanation:

I cannot calculate an age for the universe. I can only calculate the age of NGC6888 in relation to a theoretical Earth age of 0 years, which is based on "a theoretical distance" the Crescent Nebula is away from Earth.

Claude

Algorithm updated.

This is just a notice that the entry of May 25,
2002, was updated with a new "Ps" footnote by
Nelson on the value of "m", which could be used to
rewrite the algorithm.

Ivan

Ivan, G-man, Everyone,

The following text is © Copyright protected in the fabric of the text. That done to protect specific data as researched and validated by persons other than myself, although the origin of presented concepts are of my own formulation. Use of this text is freely allowed so long as this © Copyright notice is included, and or affixed above the thesis presented with the understanding ownership belongs to the author of it.

---------------

Hierarchical structure of the universe- © Copyright embedded in the fabric of this text

1. The universe is the ground all things in the universe are rooted in, and emerge from.

1A. Being is the trunk of all existing entities or things inside the universe.

1A1. Nature is the first branch to emerge from the trunk of existing things in the universe.

1A1a. Reality is the second branch to emerge, and it grows from the first branch.

This iterates the basis of structure in the universe. As the tree expands, each branch then can grow exponentially within each dimensional aspect of which, there are but only four possible sub-categories. There is no metaphysical alternative to the hierarchical structure of the universe; moreover, there is no potential for mingling or mixing of these four basic categories as the universe is structured. Every factor in the universe is based on but four potential possibilities, which in essence denies several popular theories including the Big Bang Theory for origin of the universe, the theory that life could originate of inert matter, the theories of Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, Special Relativity, and the potential end of what we call, the Universe.

Discussion 1. The universe as a whole is the primary structure that supports everything inside of it; therefore, necessarily, it is the first order of priority, which in essence needs be the last frontier to be explored, evaluated, and eventually understood by the human enterprise. For us to believe it is the first place we should begin our search, is bound to lead us to failure; therefore, of necessity, emphasis for all research needs be prioritized appropriately whereas, human beings never lose the appropriate perspective of the lesser things inside the universe. The universe is the basis of every thing; therefore, the basic structure of anything demands that it is sound, and possess enduring qualities, of which the universe provides such mandated attributes without reservation. Hence, we can say, all things are Grounded in the universe without fear of being proven logically incorrect, and totally absent any ambiguous pretense.

Discussion 1A. Being denotes presence within the universe; thus, it is being that needs to be considered as the Trunk of all existing things in the universe. It is being that supports those things branching from the Trunk; therefore, being is rooted in the Ground, which is the universe. Being, therefore, is secondary in priority of research, meaning, it should be third on the list of research by the human enterprise. If we follow these priorities we can be assured of success in our endeavors as human beings to eventually understand exactly what our being means, and stands for.

Discussion 1A1. Nature is misunderstood by the human enterprise. It is misunderstood because nature is not a thing; instead, nature is the attributes of a thing. Hence, nature is easily misconstrued. Inherently human beings think of nature when in abstract modality of reasoning, which causes self-deception for nature cannot be made manifest as reality, for reality is not what we human beings experience. There is no mother nature; therefore, we must recognize nature for what it is precisely – the attributes of a thing. Whence we identify nature properly, we remove many mysteries that stymie human progress; thus, the nature of things is third in order of universal hierarchy, so it becomes second on the list for purposes of research, and understanding by the human enterprise. If we do this properly we should consider the nature of things as being the first Branch to grow from the Trunk that is Grounded in the universe

Discussion 1A1a. After an object has an identifiable nature, it obviously appears as its reality that we, human beings observe; thereof, Reality is forth on the universal hierarchy order of priority, which becomes first on the list of research by the human enterprise, so that we have a totally structured chain of evidentiary research that will provide us with a much improved and superior understanding of the world about us. Exact understanding of reality is contentious, for again, most people misconstrue reality. Reality is not what we experience; reality is the appearance of an object for us to observe. Reality is not an abstracted composite whole; instead, it is pure individual object appearance, and it is by all means mutually exclusive. Neither you nor I can penetrate, permeate, invade, know or experience the reality of another thing or being, material or immaterial. What we can do is observe the world about us, which is filled with the glorious reality of every individual thing within our view of our world as we, the human enterprise, experiences our Worlds. We can categorically state; Reality is the second Branch that grows from the first Branch that grows from the Trunk that is Grounded in the universe.

Every thing, object, creature, and being in the universe follows an identical hierarchical structure, no matter what the entity is. The structure applies to life, inert matter, objects, and all perceived abstract immaterial entities. It is inconceivable for something to come of nothing, or where nothing previously was; thereof, it is inconceivable that things can exist, which does not consist of material substance of some type. There are four states of matter, liquid – solid – gas – plasma; of the four, plasma is the least understood, yet it is the most common form of matter in the universe. Plasma is readily displaced by each of the other three forms of matter; therefore, we can safely say without fear of falsification, the universe consists entirely of matter, and there is no place inside of the universe where matter is not present. Necessarily, that means, the universe is a closed system, and would be impregnable from outside of it, because there is no outside of it. If there is no outside the universe, necessarily, that means, the universe has no beginning; therefore, it cannot end. If the universe has no beginning and cannot end, the universe is of necessity, which means it is endless, ageless, and shapeless; therefore, the universe is infinite. There can only be one infinite thing, that thing is the universe. Matter cannot be created, neither is it possible for matter to be destroyed; therefore, it is logically impossible for a universe such as ours to exist, if such existence is not – infinite. The nature of an infinite object cannot be denied, and in this discourse but one aspect proves beyond doubt that I am in fact, absolutely perfectly correct. Matter is infinite within every aspect of it; therefore, the universe is infinite in every aspect of it, which denies every potentiality that things can manifest of nothing, further proving the universe exists of necessity.

As the repercussions of all this begin their materialization in my thoughts; here, I openly challenge every human being to falsify one single aspect of this thesis.

Claude

Comparing our TOEs.

Dear Claude (and all),

I am most intrigued by your development of the four points of Hierarchical Structure of the Universe©, which in some ways parallels my seven points of Philosophical Foundation for a Theory of Everything, (Being, Consciousness, Identity, Change, Motion, Photonics, and Supergravity, which I followed up with the algorithm: h/cw + g = m). Your points connect to mine with some agreement at the Being and Identity levels, I would think, which you call Being and Nature, as well as Universe and Reality, which are implicit to my TOE. I did puzzle over why you had Nature before Reality in the branches from the trunk of Universe, but upon reading carefully your wording, it makes sense. As I understand it, Nature is not meant in the sense of what is the natural world as we know, but more as an intrinsic nature of things, all things, including living things. The result is a fractal like evolution of interrelated parts that then compose the whole, which is the all inclusive totality of an infinite Universe.

My one question is that you seem to discount the Universe of having the ability to evolve, which I find puzzling. Why is that? Can the Universe not have the capability of redefining itself? I think of consciousness, as being such an important component of the Nature of the Universe, that it is able to manifest itself more pointedly over time, this being the result of an infinity that is constantly redefining itself in terms of itself. This you may recognize is a basic principle of Interrelationship, how the whole lends value to its individual parts, so that with each change within the whole, a new totality emerges, which then again redefines its individual parts by how they relate to that whole. I would think this could be a basis for evolution, of consciousness, of living species, even of how matter interacts with itself. Surely nothing comes from nothing, but something comes from a great assembly of things to infinity, and back. Why not allow for that Infinity to grow? And if it is growing, then the visible end product is a more concentrated level of consciousness within the products of that growth, its living members who inhabit it, conscious mind. Think of this as being one possible explanation while life, at least on Earth as we know it, has displayed evidence of change over the millions of years, even as it does now in animal and plant adaptation to changing environments. I believe the evidence is there, that before the appearance of human beings, conscious beings in the way we are conscious, (that is conscious of ourselves as being conscious), very likely did not exist. Yet, that we should appear now, and very likely evolve consciousness further, possibly even into our mechanical extensions (artificial intelligence), then this may be a trend the Universe is manifesting within itself, what I would call evolution. Can this fit into your idea of TOE?

I ask this because I think we are on the right track. The mystery becomes less mysterious when we uncover some answers, though it is still a long mystery for now.

In looking over my notes, it seems that matter, and Reality, are very linked up together. Where I differ from your thesis is that I see matter only as building blocks of that self defining mechanism that gives the Universe its method of change, namely what I call interrelationship, or interconnectedness. This matter then gets broken down further into what I think it really is, which is the interaction between photonic energy and the supergravity of the universe, nothingness. However, this is a kind of paradox, for how could light come out of nothing? This I do not know, and I am loathe to turn it over to a Creator, for humankind has used this cop-out too often. So instead, I am stuck with an unsolvable mystery: Who started this whole process of modifying nothingness with light anyway? Not that I disbelieve that there can be God, but I do not want to lean on this too heavily, for who/what created Him? Who/what created the plasma that spans infinity? Or the photons? But if my way of seeing matter as really a kind of Universe created illusion, which for us is real, made of light interacting with supergravity to create the atomic world, then we live in a truly marvelous Illusion indeed! And when we die, do we see the illusion dissolve then? Don't know. So I am still thinking.

Lastly, I also detect in your thinking that you put the hierarchy of the human mind above that of the Universe. If so, then all thinking is geared to how the mind finds definition of what is; I see our mind's efforts to do this only as one more observation of how the Universe is already defining itself. So, in my TOE, it is the other way around. Am I correct in my understand of how you understand this? Just sharing my ideas with you, not a deliberate debate, for sure.

Take care my friend, let us hear more!

Ivan


Ps: It is we who look up at the stars while they had already been looking down at us, for eons, same as it was the stars that created the matter of which we make our bodies.

Claude & Ivan: I must say, I'm very impressed with the depth and quality of your thinking here, and am thoroughly enjoying it! We seem to be encountering an inherent structural limitation (despite variant rates of motion due to regional differences in gravitational force) in terms of how to sufficiently describe what it really is we're grappling with here, fundamentally...sort of like a Flatlander trying to describe the notion of a top surface and bottom surface of a flat object. How to see the back of one's head absent a mirror? Uncle Albert suggested that at light speed, a traveller might see the back of his own head. Yet at what speed would the same traveller be able to look into his own eyes? The inside/outside perspective dilemna (even if nothing is outside) also leaves us with the predicament of being unable to be in two places at once. How to become a Priveleged Observer?:)G-man

Ivan, G-man, Everyone

To this stage I have finished but five of a twenty-one-part thesis, after which the full TOE as formulated will be presented. I am not sure the order is pat, so as bits and pieces fall in place the actual order could possibly change. Each of the completed parts is posted here in this thread. The hierarchical structure was the most daunting to put together since the current use of the words Nature and Reality will be difficult to overcome; however, that old usage is patently flawed. Hopefully, in the hierarchy I addressed necessity, as it must be in order to overcome arguments based on contingency.

Addressing your questions Ivan: Logically, before an object can manifest its reality, it must possess recognizable attributes; otherwise, identity would not be possible. Think, how would it be possible to recognize a blossom on a tree as the cherry/apple/pear that it will become? You are correct concerning Nature – what most people call nature, eventually should be replaced with the word World. The phrase, “My world” to me is equal to what most people call, “Mother Nature.” My world is not the same as your world, for we do not observe the same panorama or vista simultaneously.

I do not use the word evolution for many reasons, but primarily, it gives credence to two impossibilities; 1) that somehow, life originated of its own volition; 2) living creatures over billions of years can change forms; i.e., fish to mammal. I can conclusively prove such change is not possible for there is no potential to change. Genetic mutations are never beneficial, and for those people who doubt, the evidence proving that has been accumulating since 1965, but withheld from public knowledge for reasons that most people would be told is “national security.” Every known attempt to prove mutation produces beneficial changes or alteration, have failed miserably. Mutations produce nothing but profoundly serious defects in all living organisms when they occur. The easiest way to verify this is to study research data on fruit flies (Drosophila).

Consciousness is not as difficult to understand as people make it out to be; therefore, there are several disciplines in the biosciences that are about to receive a wakeup call. Consciousness is the first order predicate for all particles; in other words it is the “copula” of all matter including plasma. Particles are conscious! Have you ever wondered how or why fire does its mystical dance? What about lightning?

Here is where we disagree. Life does not evolve. Life changes, but it cannot change from one genus and become a different genus, as Darwinian Evolution would have us believe. Homo sapiens was always Homo sapiens, in the same sense that Homo erectus was always Homo erectus; both are members of the same genus, but two distinct different species, and we know from our experience as breeders of lesser creatures, it is possible to breed one species with a different species; moreover, it also occurs in the wild. Did human beings evolve? The answer is no, human beings changed through interbreeding of different species. I can now use the following data that I have had since July 2001 because it has since been published. Washington U is but 235 miles from here, and I am often there for business reasons. I have known Alan Templeton since he moved to WU. UCLA has a recent paper by Alan online – Link follows the article.

“Alan Templeton, a geneticist at Washington University, reported that a new computer based analysis of 10 different human DNA sequences indicate that there has been interbreeding between people living in Asia, Europe, and Africa for at least 600,000 years. These data suggest that the complete replacement model of Homo sapiens origin is incorrect. According to Templeton, "humans expanded again and again out of Africa, but these expansions resulted in interbreeding, not replacement, and thereby strengthened the genetic ties between human populations throughout the world." This view is gaining support among paleoanthropologists, but critics say that Templeton's sample is still too small to be conclusive.” - Washington University Newsletter, July 2001, Published in Nature Magazine March 7, 2002

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/EP/Templeton_02.html

What you call evolution will not fit any TOE; however, an accurate TOE will include at minimum a composite explanation of life, although such a TOE does not need to prove the origin of life. By that, a TOE must account for changes as they occur, which in not easily accomplished without going to the extremes of complexity that only professional scientific researchers would comprehend.

Necessarily the universe consists of matter; so, it is sound to consider matter as a building block. Matter, of its own volition cannot do, work; matter must undergo a process to synthesize (convert) it to energy, which to my knowledge, that does not occur without cause. Cause becomes the sticky wicket that must be addressed, no matter how hard we attempt to avoid it. So, here and now is a good a place to try and provoke cause into giving up its purpose. Cause can be intentional or accident (note, I did not use the word accidental). Cause (noun) if done by intent (noun) is meaningful in the sense, planned, which demands “conscious action” by an entity; therefore, such action that results from such a cause has a purpose. Cause if done by accident (noun) is not meaningful in the sense, not planned, which proves that action is without purpose. Intentional (adjective) means to provoke action, which was planned on purpose by a conscious entity. Accidental (adjective) provokes an action that was not planned by a conscious entity; therefore, accidents are in fact, contingent, and without purpose.

At this stage I feel it imperative that I tie some of this together whereas, you can merge as much of it as possible into your own TOE. Two heads are better than a single head, which should allow us to present a single TOE that incorporates both perspectives!

Life is not contingent, and so far as I can discern no thing inside the universe is of contingency! What I have discerned is; every thing in the universe is a necessity; otherwise, what would be the purpose of it? The universe exists because it is the necessary “whole” that comprises the set of all sets. That means; every set in the set of all sets is a necessity; therefore, life is a necessity, which means life has a purpose without a glimmer of doubt possible.

Light, what is it? Light is a lumen that readily permeates plasma without potential friction hindering its progress. A photon is limited in its ability to penetrate, while the neutrino can readily pass through everything. That is why it is easier to trap photons than it is to trap neutrinos. Light is the result of matter synthesized into energy, which is a fusion process. The following link provides excellent reference information that is easy to understand. Start with the “About Fusion” button.

http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/

No entity or nothing started the process that modifies nothingness, for nothingness is an abstract conceived theoretical concept represented as O (symbol) that allows us to notate the absence of things. Such a theoretical O is the absolute totality of absurdity, of which, we must first objectify (give it existence) in order to converse about things coherently. There was no empty void, within which, the universe, as we know it, manifested or materialized. The universe is infinite.

I do place consciousness of the human mind at the apex of all existence, as human beings know it. That is not an arbitrary decision; instead, it is a logical necessity so contrived because of cause, purpose, and scope. Ok- earlier in this response, and elsewhere in my posts I have stated: “All particles are conscious.” That is the one explanation of which, will eventually prove the intelligent logic capabilities of what we call, the Universe. We can conclusively prove without an iota of doubt that the genes that comprise the human structure of living entities are acutely intelligent; however, intellect is useless if not consciously applied.

Consciousness is what you identify as – God!

Now, I removed the mystery, which had you stuck. I have known that for most of my life, but never fingered it until early spring 1990, although I came close on a few occasions when studying Spinoza. He was so close, so very close it is mind boggling that with the lack of proven scientific knowledge available today, during his life span, Spinoza wrote what he did.

I think most of your questions are addressed at this point; thus, I am wide-awake at 1:15am, and feel compelled to continue the trains of thought as conceived. So, next since I am prepared, lets tackle the subject of life origins. Remember, this is theory!

Our solar system birthed as a necessity from a single event magnitude preponderant (mini-big bang type event). Of that, there is no doubt. Life requires an ecosystem to support it, but an ecosystem such as that of earth requires extensive and continuous modifications to become habitable. No doubt that such a process of change to make earth into a suitable place would logically require considerable duration to transform earth’s ecology. We know the first life forms on earth were “spores.” We also know solar winds are capable of moving such spores across vast distances; therefore, the first mystery of how life originated on earth is solved. Moreover, such spores would readily convert to decayed matter once their life spans ended, which would become nutrients to support higher forms of life such as plants. We know the atmosphere of earth was much different circa 4.397 billion years ago, and there is no good reason for us not to believe that very tiny seeds (mustard seed or smaller) could also come from elsewhere riding the solar winds. This would explain how earth became fertile, and give rise to conditions that produced adequate oxygen to support even higher forms of plant life required to sustain living creatures. This is where I elect to stop, because animate life is the one mystery that will never be unraveled by humanity. That is the way it is, and the way it should be.

Claude

Claude: A few questions: What about the notion that Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny? (see the Nova documentary, "The Miracle of Life.")Second, must a TOE, which is essentially a particle physics-based theory of cosmology, delve into areas of evolutionary biology? (I recognize the two areas are connected, but...) You mention the term 'Cause,' yet in physics isn't this term actually referred to as Energy, with a capital E? Finally, I'm in agreement with you. However, your claim of necessity seems unprovable since the cosmic whole doesn't follow from a prior, and we can't gain exterior perspective in order to establish ratio. Just some thoughts:) G-man

Dear Claude, G-man,

This statement requires some pondering: "A photon
is limited in its ability to penetrate, while the
neutrino can readily pass through everything. That
is why it is easier to trap photons than it is to
trap neutrinos. Light is the result of matter
synthesized into energy, which is a fusion
process."

I have essentially omitted neutrinos from my
thesis because they do not seem to interact
anywhere, unlike photons which can knock electrons
off an atom, so there is interaction there.
Neutrinos may be, possibly, some sort of
communications energy generated by stars, and read
at some distance which I cannot imagine, where
they either turn into something else, or are
reabsorbed by another star, but really don't know.
Light, on the other hand, has an interactive
ability, which in using the algorithm based on the
premises mentioned, then interacts with the
supergravity within an atom. The question that
remains, at least to me, is why is an atom where
it is? Why would that supergravity be interacting
with light at that point of space, at that time,
and then remain fixed as an element of mass?
Where within the whole is this determined? I do
realize that stars are the generators of light
energy using fusion of matter, mostly hydrogen it
seems, but then how does light recombine into
mass? This is quite something, that it does in my
TOE, but only where it interacts with super
gravity. What happens to the light that enters a
black hole star, for instance? So many questions,
but the universe does reveal its secrets,
grudgingly, for those who search. The exciting
part is this, if light and supergravity are all
there is to existence, then the so called reality
of matter is truly as the Buddhist sages had
always claimed, an illusion!

Thinkin' some mo',
Ivan

G-man, Ivan,

Here we go-

G-man: “What about the notion that Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny”

When push comes to shove, in my own mind there is no clear distinction between:

Merriam-Webster

phylogeny 1 : the evolutionary history of a kind of organism 2 : the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism

AND –

ontogeny 1: the development or course of development especially of an individual organism

Biologically speaking, we can learn more from study of fungi than we can of pure plant or animal research when it comes to origins of life. Personally, I do not think that even by stretching human imagination beyond the absurd of absurdities, the potential for life to originate of inert matter remains impossibile; moreover, there is no indication that ever happened on this planet earth.

G-man: “Must a TOE, which is essentially a particle physics-based theory of cosmology, delve into areas of evolutionary biology?”

The answer is no, but in order to establish purpose for the universe, life is my prospect of choice because to put it bluntly, I have not been able to come up with another purpose for the universe to exist. By that, I think a viable TOE must address the basic issues of life.

G-man: “You mention the term ‘Cause,’ yet in physics isn’t this term actually referred to as Energy, with a capital E?

To some extent, some physicists refer to Cause as E; however, recent disciplines do not adhere to the practice. Most likely, that is because it is very difficult to explain how the universe goes about its work of converting energy to matter, and matter to energy. The truth is if we understood that, a viable TOE would have been formulated fifty years ago, before the BBT become a perceived law instead of theory. The answers we seek will in the future be found via Omegatron Dynamic studies not QM or derivatives. Omegatron Dynamics deals with particles smaller than quarks, ect.

G-man: “However, your claim of necessity seems unprovable since the cosmic whole doesn't follow from a prior, and we can't gain exterior perspective in order to establish ratio.”

Can any claim of necessity be proven? Yes, for we know that oxygen is necessary for life to exist, as we know life. From knowing that necessity, we can establish a purpose for the existence of oxygen; otherwise, it would not impossible for us to establish the purpose of oxygen. Without purpose, necessity is without predicate that in effect renders both as absurdities. Logic, cannot deal with absurdities, so logic demands predication of subject.

Proposition

Nothing exists without purpose

To nullify the proposition demands refutation, which cannot be accomplished simply because it demands validation by producing something that does not exist. There is no possible rebuttal to the proposition. Nothing exists that is not necessary. Think about it for a bit; then, provide some evidence of whatever that is without purpose, as we know the world that we live in. This applies only to material things, entities, and/or objects; it does not apply to abstract concepts of the human mind or those perceived/believed immaterial whatever’s.

The Cosmic Whole is 1, undivided; therefore, if people reject the TOE, as it will be formulated, they must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that, something can come out of O – and I defy everyone on planet earth to prove the fact! Think about it- Great big huge set of all sets – What does that mean? It means, The Master Set, with no set preceding it; therefore, it proves the universe is infinite; yet moreover, there is no prior anything to fret about because it always was, which in renders the challenges to the eventual TOE- moot.

In light of your questions, I believe that WE have successfully removed the “causal” factor that has stymied progress for centuries. If that is true, we have clear – open sailing ahead of us.

Claude

Ivan, G-man,

Ivan, you are not alone in understanding the neutrino, and its role in the universe as we, human beings know it. I am not sure that anyone understands the neutrino, but the neutrino solidified the TOE I am attempting to build because, The Universal High Order of Everything remains A constant throughout the entire realm of the Universe. Every factored set (in our set of all sets) includes four specific sets that break down into four subsequent sets. The one that you propose consists of seven each subject areas: Being, Consciousness, Identity, Change, Motion, Photonics, and Supergravity whereas, there are but four possible. In your version, Consciousness is grounded in the Universe, Identity is grounded in Nature, Being is grounded in the Trunk, Motion is grounded in Nature, Photonics is grounded in Nature, Supergravity is grounded in Nature – the fault is, nothing is grounded in Reality, of which = Life. Everyone must remember, be sure to accommodate the changes I proposed for Nature, and Reality.

The Master Set of All Sets

1. Universe - ground
2. 1A. Being – trunk
3. 1A1. Nature – 1st branch
4. 1a1. Reality – 2nd branch

Breakdown structure

1. basic set
a. set a
set 1a
set 1b
set 1c
set 1d

That structure continues through the four basic sets; thereafter, each sub-set will continue in the four-set grouping as established in the first five theses as posted on your forum.

Now, on to the neutrino: There are four basic forces known in the universe, they are: 1) strong force: 2) weak force: 3) electromagnetic force: 4) gravity. Of the four, we know less about Gravity than any of the others. There again, verifies my use of four sets and four sub-sets, because everything in the Universe is based, and biased accordingly. Since 1998 we have known the neutrino has non-O mass, which confirmed a Russian finding in 1985 that was not validated until collaborated by the Super-Kamiokande experiments. We also know that neutrinos interact with gravity. A neutrino is partner with its electron, while the muon neutrino is partnered with the muon electron; the tau neutrino is partnered with the tau electron. [Note: taus and muons (both are electrons) are heavier than an ordinary – electron]. There are but three different neutrinos. There is adequate evidence to believe no more will be discovered; however, that would be contrary to the high order as formulated, so I am willing to bet there is another neutrino lurking out there, and just to prove my point, I will name it before the fact of discovery – Omega it shall be called. It is less dense than an ordinary electron neutrino, hence its partner electron has not yet been discovered, or identified, which will be known as the Omega electron. When the rebuilt very high energy LHC collider at CERN fires up after being rebuilt, these will be among the most important and persuasive new discoveries of this decade.

Ok- now to the nitty-gritty: Neutrinos have mass, photons do not, at least under present definitions of mass; therefore, the photon always travels at light speed (theoretical c, the coefficient of light or potential speed). Next is a link that explains photon versus mass, and correlates the data through questions. Please note: The information concerning the relationship of the photon, and the theory of General Relativity is patently flawed!

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/wonderquest/photonmass.htm

Question: The photon has no mass, how could it theoretically react with Gravity?

Ivan, an algorithm will not work to accomplish that, which must be accomplished. The algorithm function is not applicable to particle physics because it cannot address what is known as Polynomial Exponential Dynamics. To put that into perspective, we must at least visit the definitions of words involved: Polynomial, Exponential, Dynamics.

Merriam Webster Online-

Polynomial: a mathematical expression of one or more algebraic terms each of which consists of a constant multiplied by one or more variables raised to a nonnegative integral power (as a + bx + cx2)

Exponential: 3 : expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate>

Dynamics: 2 : an underlying cause of change or growth

Fact: We cannot write polynomial expressions using, the exponential functions required to formulate an algorithm that would serve the purpose to solve the problems facing us, because the dynamics involved are unknown.

If we could write a Polynomial Exponential algorithm, Albert Einstein, or one of his contemporaries would have done it; it is common knowledge that is the only method, which is capable of solving the intricate and inherent problem associated with analog devices. The Universe is most certainly an analog device! That is a HUGE problem whenever “time” is a factor of any equation. In other words, it is impossible for us to “digitize” an analog device, which proves calculations with, time as a constant, will not function properly. That is the basic problem of the Hubble Constant, both Relativity and Special Relativity, and Newtonian Gravity. Gravity is the best example because it is a purely weak force, and it stymies every method of humanity to calculate the logistics of it, in real mode, and simulated mode. Right now, I am willing to say, Gravity exceeds light coefficient of 186,000mph by as much as 70%; i.e., 316,200mph; theoretically it could possibly double, or even triple it!

Ivan: “Why is an atom where it is?”

The answer is: An atom is where it is, precisely, because it is there of necessity.

Ivan: “Why would that super-gravity be interacting with light, at that point of space, at that time, and then remain fixed as an element of mass?”

The answers are: Super-gravity does not interact with light (remember, R and SR are both flawed because E listened to Minkowski). The remainder of the clauses is not relevant.

Ivan: “I do realize that stars are the generators of light energy using fusion of matter, mostly hydrogen it seems, but then how does light recombine into mass?”

The answer is: Light, does not recombine into anything; instead, light is residual mass of the elements converted to energy through the fusion process; thus, the photon is without mass, therefore, the neutrino obviously is the residual mass of fusion energy production.

Here, one must grasp the significant importance of the neutrino, for the photon is without mass – if the neutrino did not possess mass, the two laws of thermodynamics would have been totally compromised; moreover, it would have totally wrecked both R and SR along with them, and I mean, absolutely totally annihilated all of them!

Ivan: What happens to the light that enters a black hole star, for instance?

The answer is: Nothing!

Black holes have not been proven to exist, which is contrary to popular opinion of the BBT proponents. Fact is: What is perceived to be a black hole is a dead neutron star. To begin considering all this, I suggest an excellent book - "Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars", by Stuart Shapiro and Saul Teukolsky (1983, John Wiley and Sons).

Although I do not agree with much of the book, it is excellent reference material.

Next- off the deep end: The following quote is from a paper by Emmy Noether.

Emmy Noether: “Another line of reasoning, and the majority view at present amongst theorists is, “Supersymmetry.” Supersymmetry is a hypothetical extension of our understanding of space and time to include additional dimensions that are “fermionic.” This means that the dimensions themselves have weird fermionic properties. For example, a particle that is a boson, such as the photon, when pushed in the direction of a fermionic dimension becomes a fermion, called the photino. Or, a quark, which is a fermion, when pushed in the direction of the fermionic dimension, becomes a boson, called a, “squark.” So, supersymmetry predicts that for every fundamental observed fermion (boson) in nature there must exist a corresponding “superpartner'' boson (fermion). We don't yet see these “superpartners'' in nature, so if supersymmetry is a valid symmetry, something must be hiding it at the relatively low energies where we make our observations.”

Believe me, Light and Gravity is not all there is to existence, and Life is not an illusion.

Thank you Peter Higgs!

Claude

Claude: Your reference to Set Theory illustrates my point about proving necessity for any Master System. (Your oxygen example only applies within a system, as a subset, as it were.) Consider the Russell Paradox: since the set of all sets does not include itself, it is impossible to determine whether or not it is indeed, truly such a set of all sets. Also, Godel's incompleteness theorem pertains to this. (Which is not to deny the reality of necessity, but simply to challenge its verifiability:) Consider a new idea I just had: What if 'God' were actually the Dimensionalizing of Dimensionality?:) G-man

Question: of necessity, must an ionic charge also entail mass? In other words a charged particle with zero mass could still be magnetically influenced, correct?:) G-man

G-man,

To get rid of the Russell Paradox is no problem, and we also solve the necessity issue simultaneously. First we visit the dictionary for the common definition of a set, and then the common definition of the universe.

Merriam Webster

set 2 : a number of things of the same kind that belong or are used together

universe 2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization

The two problems are associated directly, and interrelated. A set can consist of any number of objects so long as the object[s] are of the same type; i.e., teacups, and include one each of the object[s]. There is only one universe we can validate today; furthermore, because of its extreme vastness the odds of finding another different universe besides this one are beyond calculation. According to the common definition of set, a set can consist of any number (digit[s]) of objects. 1 is a number, and if there is only one of anything, it is unique, and the owner of it is in possession of the entire collection of that object; in other words, there are no more objects to add to the set or collection. That is the principle of identity at work, and cannot be nullified, falsified, or invalidated. Identity is one key to logic that when an object is identified, it cannot be changed, for nothing can possess two identities simultaneously. Here, is where the Principle of Non Contradiction proves its merit, and further substantiates the Principle of Identity.

The universe fully complies with its definition, and it is self-inclusive, which proves that it contains itself in that, it is a closed system; if the universe were not a closed system the first and second laws of thermodynamics would not prove function as they do. Also the universe is independent since it is a closed system, and it is organized within its whole, because all of its parts are contained within it. A whole is an object that is not missing any of its parts. The universe cannot be missing any of its parts, because it is a closed system.

In light of the above discussions, the universe fully qualifies as a complete set, and it includes one of each universe, which is required to complete a set because it contains itself, and there are no more universes to enlarge the set beyond itself.

If we cannot use common definitions when establishing fact, there is no point in such exercises as this, for nothing makes sense if the language we use is not intelligible and logical, meaning it is adequate for defining the realm of our existence.

Godel’s theory deals only with numbers; and does not apply to the universe because the universe does not function according to numbers; therefore, the theory is worthless when it comes to analog logic function. It is impossible to program an analog device using any type of digital (numerical) calculation. If you do not believe that, ask any engineer that works with hydraulics and fluid dynamics.

How about – Consciousness Dimensionalizes Dimensionality……

G-man: “Question: of necessity, must an ionic charge also entail mass? In other words a charged particle with zero mass could still be magnetically influenced, correct?”

Concerning ionization and mass: The answer is yes, but we do not know the duration that photons retain the charge, but such charged particles generally attach (wrap around) the field lines of earths’ magnetic field. Photons (all types) readily ionize, and photon mass is O according to present definition. I don’t think anyone will challenge the facts, unless for some reason the definition of mass (a numerical factor) must be changed. The big problem is scientists are using two definitions of mass. Follows is a pertinent link.

Photon – Mass

Lets take a look at necessity again: Think experiment – New earth, flush with vegetation, sparkling clear water pure as a perfect brilliant diamond; billions of creatures of all types, finned, winged, legged, walking, flying, swimming, and including every species of those critters we know so well, but one – the earth is absent human beings.

Why would the earth exist in such a state?

But one answer fits – yours________?

Is it conceivable the earth of the think experiment would be an accident?

But one answer fits – yours________?

Would accidents on earth in the state outlined be beneficial?

But one answer fits – yours________?

The one and only thing which defeats the human brain is “Absolute truth”, for whatever the mind thinks, whether True or False has a Truth Value?

The brain and its support systems are capable of performing wonders. It is programmed and destined (an innate ability) to control (indirectly and/or directly) the forces of nature. This control diminishes as the mind develops infinite virtual relationships to manage Reality and is fully effective only when it handles (comprehends) the Whole Truth in light of a single relationship between Simplicity & Complexity, simultaneously existing as one entity.

The introduction of the so called “Cosmological Constant” as a balancing factor is admittance of the fact that science is moving away from totality, with scientists and philosophers gravitating more towards localized solutions through adhoc measures, instead of focusing on “Universal Applications” based on Reality, which speaks for itself.

Claude

G-man, Ivan,

This one just for fun - brain about shot so need a perk-up.

The Universal Positioning System answers the questions raised by Aristotle, Zeno, and Leonardo-da-Vinci, concerning issues of infinity and resolves all related paradoxes. It gives you, your specific location and direction anywhere within infinity, and explains how energy particles find their direction in the universe. It also explains the basic flaws in the Adiabatic Process, and the Carnot Cycle.

Adiabatic Process

Carnot Cycle.

Claude

SIMPLIFY!

Hi G-man, Claude, and everyone else out there in the universe,

If I may be so bold as to suggest the universe is of necessity lazy. It appears to prefer economy to clutter, hence things tend to get defined by reduction to their simplest form, and thus allows itself to be reduced from complexity to basic principles. In this vain, the universe is less a catalog than a physical expression of its principles on the most economical scale possible, thwarting chaos and reducing itself to its basic necessary elements of being. That is my view of how it works.

Having said that, we humans, on the other hand, tend to make things sometimes unbelievably complex. Take the multiplicity of gods our ancient forefathers had invented for the universal pantheon. It took millennia to one day reduce it to only one God, and that was a phenomenal achievement, in my view. It is the same for our Theory of Everything, where we can catalog 7 or 4, or 4000 basic elements, and not really reduce it to its objective, which is One, unity, multiplicity reduced to its most simple form. In effect, TOE is once again a search for God within the pantheon of physics and philosophy, all brought down to its basic common principle, a denominator that encompasses all within One.

This is what I mean by a lazy universe, that the mechanics of how its individual components fit together many be an infinite multiplicity of complexity, but the basic principle is pure simplicity. And that is what I had originally offered in my approach to TOE, to take the most simple elements I could find, because I too am lazy, and combined them into a unity that expresses the basic principle of universal being. For this reason, I chose, not arbitrarily mind you, the functions of working zero against infinity into a unity, from which sprang the later algorithm by borrowing, through sheer laziness on my part, from Einstein's famous formula. This formulation was motivated largely by a realization, while still learning basic geometry, that the inverse of a zero slope is an infinite slope, which is its perpendicular, as later illustrated by calculus. I also realized rather quickly that any whole integer has its inverse in a fraction, so that all numbers expressed from one to infinity are also expressed from one to zero, in like manner as inverses of each other. This I loved, because it proved to me how lazy the universe really is, that it was happy containing all of existence within those parameters of zero to one, and from one to infinity, sublimely simplified by having them cancel out into one by applying their inverses against each other. So 1/n x n = one, always, no matter how big or small, all the way to infinity, and hence, to zero. This is also why I had expressed that silly exercise earlier of how to multiply by infinity, or by zero, to show how this wonderfully simple numbering system works. Whether or not the universe is digital or analog is not material here, for we are looking at a principle, and this happens to be sublimely simple, expressed as "zero x infinity = 1".

Where am I going with this? This is in answer to the many ideas posted here, all excellent mind you, whether neutrinos are better representatives than photons of universal energy, or whether ion charge has mass or not, or whether an atom is there because of necessity. Necessity by what, by whom, by what forces that made it necessity? These are questions either of mechanics, such as the nutrino/photon question, or of principles, such as those of necessity. I think philosophy excels where principles are concerned, but is rather cumbersome and ineffective where mechanics are the issue, which are best left to patient scientists who will research it ad nauseum. Where they get in trouble, however, is when scientists think themselves philosophers, and what do you get? The Big Bang? Really? The one God idea is better than that, and that one is over 5,000 years old.

My proposal is to keep the TOE on this edge of simplicity, and not stray into the multiplicity world of the scientist, or cataloguing, for that leads only to bad philosophy and good confusion. The universe is lazy, it likes simplicity, and I dare say that in the end, when all is reasoned and done, and measurably confirmed, the TOE that describe "All that Is" will be laughably simple. Or as Henry David Thoreau had said "Simplify, simplify!" Except he should have only said it once.

Cheers guys!

Ivan

Ps: thanks for the great links! I did look in on the posts on Examined Life regarding Consciousness, et al, and decided that there was too much confusion, and ego, to enter there , so am happy as a reader only.

Claude: Once again, at this point the focus needs to be on method...how we arrive at the content of assertions. The reality of the infinite (as sizeless, spaceless, timeless) can't be proved in finite terms...because it can't be ratiocinated. We are limited by a finite reference point. Imagine, again, being in Flatland, trying to gain a view of one's underbelly or backside:) Your method seems to be a bottom-up, expanding via inference from the inside. Which is fine. However, one suspects inherent limits ultimately to such an approach. Meaning that ultimately we are left with a meta-physical TOE:) G-man

G-man, Ivan,

Fact: The universe is not concerned with its physical part, but who will believe otherwise?

Claude

Claude: the issue isn't, at this point, about Reality. It's about Epistemology...How it is we go about knowing what it is (you) intuitively 'know':)G-man

G-man,

That comes in Thesis 11, 12, 13. The first twelve are foundational.

Claude

G-man,

Yes, that is correct as posted - 13 compiles 11 and 12.

Claude

Ivan: FYI: It was the math genius Ramanujan who first postulated (as the "God theorem") that 0 x infinity = One. see "The Man Who Knew Infinity," on Amazon. The problem with a purely math-centric approach for a TOE is that it ultimately leads to a meta-physic. We still need to be very mindful to particle physics (as it pertains to cosmology). To me a TOE need not provide ultimate theoretical bases for all disciplines. Rather, a TOE will unify all basic forces and explain the necessity of perpetuation. Consider: "It is because the universe never achieves its constant that it is without beginning or end." If achieved constancy = either light speed or super gravity, and alpha/omega time occurs only at either achievement, then the universe largely consists of values > than super gravity and < than light speed. (Is super gravity, in terms of Energy, akin to 0-degrees Kelvin?:) Anyway, this is one example of some ideas. We need to look at forces and perameters that we know and can work with:) G-man

Ivan: Please see http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm.

What's your take on it?

G-man

Hi G-man,

The cosmology of the writer has infinities cancel out at zero, since he/she applies negative infinities to positive infinities. Mine cancel out at One, since I apply numbers to their inverse. I am also glad to know that I have a predecessor in the "zero x infinity = One" landscape, for now, like in the Little Prince, I do not feel so alone!

Thanks for link. I also liked this one: http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Ivan

A long winded WHY.

Hi Claude (G-man &all),

I think I can see we've been talking at cross purposes, though that is not necessarily a bad thing. In reviewing your entry of May 29, 2002, I realized that your fundamental question to TOE is "why", whereas my question was focussed on modeling "how". Or, as you then wrote: "The first question we must answer is: why does the universe exist?" On the other hand I wrote in my entry of May 24, 2002: "...I think we may find models that express reality closer to the truth than understood hitherto". Thus lies the crux of how our approaches to TOE have been divergent.

That said, if I were to look into the "why" of the universe, and again model some theory that would satisfy why the universe exists in its observable form, I would very likely start with identifying developing trends, of what had been happening in some manner of observable change over the registerable time observed. In a word, I would study life, and how life had changed over time. So there is of necessity, a necessity, of a time line here, where something is changing in how the universe continues to manifest itself. That change is that life is developing progressively greater consciousness. This means that the jellyfish, which were already part of Earth's reality billions of years ago, are less conscious than mammalian life which is only millions of years old, and certainly below the conscious level of humans, who in the last million years have become conscious enough to understand, or at least examine, their own consciousness. Hence, we have psychology and philosophy, which the jellyfish is very likely totally unconscious of, though it may experience a form of consciousness of which we are ignorant. I should note that I define consciousness as the ability to respond, to learn, to choose, and the ability of locomotion to exercise that choice. So when a jellyfish is using its gelatine form to propel itself through water to reach a better food source, it is exercising its rudimentary consciousness to do so.

Where does this go? What this means to me is that the necessity of the universe, the why factor, is somehow tied into its developing consciousness. And why would the universe do this? Now I need to reach into my consciousness to answer this, for each one of us is conscious in our own way for our own purpose. For me, this consciousness is the essential element of that universal existence that needs to express itself, to become made manifest within the life forms that possess it, so that in the end, we can exercise that consciousness to do work. That work is then codependent on our existence within this universe, either to examine and understand, or to do and change, in such a way the universe cannot do without us. In effect, God, if I may use this most abused term in a secular sense, creates consciousness so we can be conscious of God; and in so doing, we then do God's work in a way God cannot do without the creations endowed with their consciousness of who they are in the universe. Of course, our consciousness is still a rather new and crude development, though we can almost work with our consciousness, so there is much more to the time line for further development of that consciousness. We should consider ourselves of infinitely great fortune that we had been chosen for this important work.

As far as your statement "we do not need numbers to formulate a TOE... nature does not play a numbers game, consequently a game that is artificially constructed cannot be expected to deliver purely objective information..."; to this I would respond by pointing out that letters are an artificiality too, which we use in language. It is the same for numbers, they are merely the letters of another language, called mathematics. Either way, language is language, so we use it to express nouemenal ideas, which if they model reality closely enough, gives us some understanding of what it is we are trying to understand. Numbers are no more than one more tool with which to do the work demanded of our consciousness.

What will the future look like, when we are conscious enough to do the work demanded? My guess is that at some point in time, our consciousness will rise to the level where we will see how it is we interact with the consciousness of the universe, right down to the atomic and subatomic level, and discover that we influence reality with our being,with our thoughts, with our love, in ways we had never before imagined. Dream, feel, yearn, ask, and do, and the universe will do all these with you. But we are not there yet, in my opinion, and our TOE will not be so much an algorithmic expression of how everything fits together into being, into its isness, but more a way of being that makes each of us centers of consciousness within a much greater consciousness of Being. Who we are may be much bigger than we presently imagine.

I hope this adds something of value to our quest.

Ivan

Ivan: I suspect that the whys may ultimately point to the necessity of the hows. Example: The general question of 'why something, not nothing?' further breaks down to a complex set of questions, i.e. why is there fundamental matter in the universe...why do atomic structures assume the forms they do, etc.? Indeed, by understanding better the hows, I think it ultimately leads us a tiny bit closer to the whys...and perhaps necessity:) G-man

Ivan, G-man,

A TOE must address how and why, in order to understand both, and combine the best of existing theories concerning both into one. Otherwise, the TOE would not be meaningful or useful to everyone. I do not understand – why, everyone is concerned with duration of any or every thing. Duration does not affect a thing, motion affects everything; therefore, motion is the key that unlocks the universe and its secrets, and provides common ground for understanding those secrets.

Einstein often said, “God does not play dice.” I agree, but playing with numbers is what Albert Einstein was talking about, not chance. Albert knew digital computations would never be made into a reliable language because it is a digital system, and the universe is a pure analog closed system. That is precisely why Einstein never fully accepted quantum theory, and knew his own theories did not provide the answers he, himself, searched for. The best example I can think of to demonstrate the hard problem of numbers is: How do you say,

“The sky is beautiful?”

using numbers? Numbers, cannot be made to say anything about the reality of an object, no matter how hard we try; therefore, I disagree with the notion that numbers could be a language, or are a language, because it cannot be demonstrated. Numbers cannot express emotion, but every language spoken by humanity can, and does so readily. Numbers are a method of calculation – a language is required to utilize numbers, but numbers cannot utilize language. Here, I must ask – Which is primary, language or numbers? It is most evident human beings survived without using numbers, and animals readily demonstrate their ability to survive. No, I don’t know what language an amoeba speaks, but I would venture a guess they can and do communicate with one another.

Ok- we are not going to escape the subject of God, no matter how bad we want to, for it is an issue that will never go away. From study of many ancient texts we can prove that people were quite intelligent, yet today few people will acknowledge or give them credit for their intellectual enterprise, which I think is blatant foolhardiness! It takes but a few words to make the point I am about to make: “In the beginning was the word, and the word become flesh.” Yes, the opening of the Gospel of John, but the author of those few words knew at least one thousand nine hundred years ago, they were the key that could unlock the mystery of life! Before anyone jumps my case, the answer is yes, I believe in God, but not the God of Judeo-Christian scripture or any other ancient writings.

Next up – force

Claude

The Four Forces of the Universe-

Strong Force
Weak Force
Electromagnetic Force
Gravity

Again, the four forces identified by science, reinforces the conceptual Hierarchical Order of Structure of the Universe. The conceptual Hierarchical Order further retains the sense of order as perceived by humans, of which could possibly be subject to change; however, if in fact such a change is required, it would demand conclusive, irrefutable proof.
____________

The four forces of nature are the strong force, the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the gravitational force. We are more familiar with gravity and electromagnetic force; however, a brief explanation of each is necessary for understanding how each force’s functions result with observable phenomena. First is a comparison of the relative strength of each force, and the functions associated with them.

The strength of a force depends on the distance over which it is acting. Gravity, the force exerted by one object on another drops according to the square of the distance between the two objects. The equation for the force exerted by gravity is:

F(gravity)= -GMm/(distance-squared)

where G is a small constant, and M and m represent the masses of the two objects. The minus sign merely indicates the force is attractive. We say the "range" of the gravitational force is "unlimited" because it exerts its presence across an arbitrarily expanse of distance. The force of gravity diminishes as distance is increased between two objects. The electromagnetic force has a similar formula. The repulsive force between two electrons is:

F(EM)=Cee/(distance-squared),

where C is a large constant. The e (typed once for each of two charges + - ) is the charge of the electron. Please note: the strength of the force drops with the distance between the charges in a way identical to gravity. Also, if we were talking about an electron and an anti-electron (which has the opposite charge), then there would be a minus sign indicating the force between opposite charges is attractive.

We can compare the strength of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force on two electrons by taking the ratio between the two forces. The distance-squared cancels out and we are left with:

F(gravity)/F(EM) = Gmm/Cee.

I intentionally omitted the minus sign, so we must remember, that gravitational force between the electrons is attractive and the electromagnetic force between the two electrons is repulsive. When I plug in the values for G, m, C, and e, the ratio is 2.4x10^(-43), which in words would be stated as: two-point-four times ten to the minus forty-three. That is a very small number. In other words, gravitational force between two electrons is very weak if compared to electromagnetic force. The reason we feel the force of gravity, although it is so weak, is that every atom in the Earth is attracting every one of your atoms, and there are a lot of atoms in us, and the Earth. The one reason we are not knocked about by electromagnetic forces is, we possess a near equal amount of positive and negative charges, so, in essence, we are electrically neutral.

I think he weak force is inappropriately named. It's thought to be as strong as the EM force, yet unlike the EM force, it is a short-ranged force. In fact, the range is only about 1/100 the size of an atomic nucleus. The weak force is outside of the realm of daily human experience. It can be studied via super-colliders by using the accelerator to produce particles, which transmit the force. These are real particles, and are identified as the W-boson and the Z-boson. Because they are very massive, we must a high-energy accelerator to produce them. The large mass of the W-boson and the Z-boson is also the reason the force has a short range. The particles, which carry the EM force is called, the photon (yes, light). Because photons are without mass, the EM force potential is long range as was described above. The weak force and the EM force have been found to be linked at high-energy or, equivalently, short range. They both can be described by one set of equations, which is known as "electro-weak" theory. Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Abdus Salam made these observations from 1967-1971. They were the Nobel Prize recipients in physics for unifying those forces.

Last we must consider the strong force. This is outside of the experience we get in everyday life (not that it doesn't have everyday life consequences). Remember that a proton or neutron is composed of three quarks – those quarks have strong charges, and are bound together by the strong force. Unlike the case of the EM force, where there is one electric charge and one anti-charge (plus + and minus - charges) there are three strong force charges and three anti-charges. We call the three strong force charges "red", "blue", and "yellow," and their anti-charges are called "anti-red," “anti-blue and “anti-yellow.” Those particles, which transmit the force, are called gluons. Gluons are without mass, like the photon; but, unlike the photon, which is electrically neutral, the gluons carry very strong charges and a different very strong anti-charge. A gluon might be "red-anti-blue” (for example) or any combination thereof, and there are eight types of gluons. We call the three charges "colors" although they have nothing to do with what we see.

Since the gluon is without mass, you might think the range of the strong force is infinite, like the EM force; however, after studying behavior of the strong force, it becomes apparent that the three quarks in a proton or neutron behave as if they were bouncing around freely in a relaxed elastic spherical container. None of the quarks can escape the container, for when a quark reaches the boundary of the proton or neutron the force begins to act, and increases exponentially with every incremental increase of distance between the quarks. That is vastly different from the other forces, which get weaker at longer distances, and it occurs because the gluons have the color and anti-color charges. The strong force also acts between protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus; the manner is similar to that of simple chemicals, which are held together by electromagnetic force. A nucleus such as helium, which has two positive EM-charged protons, is stable because the strong force overcomes the electromagnetic forces. The strong force binds those two protons with about 25-35 MeV of energy. The electromagnetic forces attempt to push the protons apart. The net result is such that it takes approximately 1 million electron volts of energy to separate the two protons. In contrast, the electron is bound to a proton in a hydrogen atom by only a few electron volts. By now you know enough to consider the size of the nucleus in comparison to the size of an atom to judge if this is truly a fair comparison The strong force is indeed, strong.

It is believed that if we could study the electro-weak and strong forces at very high energy levels, we could learn if they were linked together somehow, like electricity and magnetism are to form EM, and like EM and the weak force are to form electro-weak. Such a theory would be the often-mentioned, Grand-Unified Theory. We also have good reason to believe that it might be possible to include gravity with the other three forces. Such a theory would be called, Super-Grand-Unified Theory. The “Superstring Theory,” is a candidate.

How strong is the strong force? The answer is, it depends on the range. At short distances the strong force is weak; at long distances it is very strong. That effect is completely different from the other three forces, and arises because the force transmitters (gluons) are without mass; they have strong-charges, and different strong anti-charges.

For those of you interested, I heartily recommend,

“The God Particle,” Leon Lederman, Dick Teresi, February 1993; Delta Publishers, ISBN 0-385-31211-3

Claude

Claude: Thanks for the excerpt. I'm familiar with the book. This is what a traditional TOE has been aiming for...a way to unify all the forces into a single underlying force. Is this still what a TOE should be focused on? And if so, is tying Quantum & Relativity together (via String, et al.) ultimately what a TOE will purport to do? G-man

G-man,

Relativity and Special Relativity have too many errors for inclusion in a TOE. The same can be said of String. The forces can be unified now (I am working on it now) based on the Yilmaz Theory of Gravity, which is largely ignored by institutionalized physics. QM is not progressed by verification through observation. Presently, the focus is on particles, of which attempts beyond proving the Higgs Boson will be too costly to chase. Of course, I am counting on CERN after the LHC is done 2005- Got to find the Omega neutrino, and the associated dynamics a shove.

Claude

G-man, Ivan,

Follows is the best information I have ever found concerning Newton Gravity (the Grand Sham of Physics), and the original law as formulated by Kepler. This is but one case of “Institutionalized Science” playing games with the truth. Were not each of you taught, “The Law of Gravity was formulated by to Sir Isaac Newton?”

Newton’s Lie

Claude

Dear Claude,

Great, great! It had not occurred to me to apply electron force and gravity force like this. What a smart idea. Do you think perchance that the so called weak force is a self negating force within how the other three forces interact within the atom, so that there is a kind of canceling effect, which thus results in the force being contained within a very small space? I've never seen this mentioned anywhere, so am asking only as a curious observer, as I munch on corn chips with salsa, and a small glass of red wine, all of which are made up of strong and weak forces, but these gluons truly taste good!

I suppose this self canceling within a contained space is observably true when we examine the strong force, though for different reasons. However, this still remains intensely complex, since we are dealing with different forces that do not exactly fit into each other. So the search, as you had demonstrated above, is to find the interrelationships that bring these diverse forces together, or some common denominator that explains them all. Could it be that our science, Super Strings and all, is focussed on the wrong end of the microscope? And instead we should be looking at a bigger picture than splitting atoms, but rather how things fit together on a very grand scale, of astronomical proportions? And from those observable forces then come back into the atom and understand how they all fit together. This is just a nouemenal idea, studying things in themselves without prejudice, and without the influences of errors committed to date by our scientists who are fixed on splitting the atom into smaller and smaller units. The answer instead may be in combining large and larger sets, and seeing how these interact within themselves. Thus by taking Kepler's k2 = R2/T2 = G, not equal but same as, and giving it the power of G, we arrive at another constant for the h/cw + g = m, I had postulated earlier. Now it becomes (h/cw) + (r2/t2) = m, where m is set to equal one. But this is a One that applies equally to here and to the totality of infinity.

Interesting idea, but it still leaves us with the question of why weak force and strong force are so different from each other. Again, going back to EM as photons, does light behave differently within the close confines of an atom, as opposed to the vast reaches of space? Perhaps, or perhaps not. I am reaching, but if it does, then light has a self effacing quality that renders it slower at very great distances, and self canceling at very small sub atomic distances, say less than a wavelength. Can this be? Ah, well, I'll get another glass of wine and think some more.

Thanks so much for your reference links, Claude. I think this is the magic of the internet, that we can footnote statements with actual reference links to someone else's work.

G-man,

What do you make of this? Is Claude onto something here, not a numeric digital answer to TOE, but one of analog relationships, which may in turn become organic, or even conscious, relationships? This is not to say that a digital representation is worthless, for we know from actual experience that math, within parameters of acceptable probabilities, works in real life. I remember when still a kid in school taking an elective to fill up my semester, I took a shop that measured micro measurements. It was boring, but interesting to see how each measurement was plus or minus the expected results. That's real life, that it is somewhat chaotic, and thus plus or minus the math.

I'm still sticking with my lazy man's version of TOE by rewriting E=mc2, since this energy formula was proven conclusively with the blast at White Sands, NM, and many more since then. So my zero times infinity equal to one remains my primary working model, but each new input into it does flesh it out some more. I think that the prior posts eliminating Relativity as a function of space and time is valid, for this creates an idea that time is a physical factor of space, which it is not, and merely takes us away from the subject. Such an error early in the thinking process merely compounds with additional inputs and time. So the TOE search continues, but now we are narrowing it down just a bit, away from errors, and closer into where it's happening. A conscious atom is still the best bet, powered by a photon like energy that has specific ways of interacting with the supergravity strong force, but not necessarily fixed in all cases. So, is infinity behind the unpredictable nature of QM? Is there a much larger eye looking in on what it is we are looking at? Is consciousness really from out there, rather than from in here? Hmmm.... interesting thought, so that the reality within which we are fixed is itself a living thing that is not fixed in how it interacts with itself. What would have Ramanujan said? Maybe with "Ohmmm" we can get a better picture of this!

Great stuff guys! Ivan

Ivan,

You need to move away from conventional gravity – Newton toyed with Keplar’s ideas and what came forward is a mess. The problem is, both are identically wrong since Sir Isaac merely added fluff to what was a pure formula. You need to move on and learn to use Yilmaz Theory of Gravity. I hope to unify the four forces as one using Yilmaz as a base, and then via induction, interpolate strong, weak and EM into it. Let’s face facts, as we know them: A force is a force; therefore, a force is never, not a force. Primary then is Gravity, which deals with all mass, but the interplay of, strong and weak have very little effect (the math proves, essentially none) above base particle levels whereas, G and EM are the major players. In truth it is EM interacting with G that causes observable effects in the universe. The photon is the wrong factor since it is zero mass, and does not cause any of the major effects of our concern; reason being, the photon interacts only with EM whenever it attaches (wraps around) a field line (string or thread) in an electromagnetic field, and it cannot interact with G.

Ok- down to the nitty-gritty! Think- After some 75 years, nobody has explained why a photon exhibits properties of both wave and particle – why?

A zero mass photon has absolutely no potential whatsoever to possess energy; however, if the photon is a wave, we have an AHA, that should give us a clue. That aha is a fact, the photon is a “lumen,” and it is both a Wave and a Particle, but it still adheres to the PNC because it is one or the other but not at the same time! You can observe what are “photons” by watching a campfire burn. Where do they go? They go affix selves to the earth’s electromagnetic field, where they eventually decay, and become recombined as ions, which are useful little critters and today power Deep Space 1 as it orbits the sun operating on its own forever. The radios of Deep Space 1 are turned on and functional, just in case future generations want to contact it for some reason.

Deep Space 1

Ion Propulsion

Developing the Equation for Photon Decay

Please pay attention to “Unbounded Wave Equation (Dettman) at the above link, it tells us specifically, “based on the idea that the decay process is intrinsic to the photon wave.”

Relativistic Heavy ION Collider

Note: Why did the Brookhaven National Laboratory use 10 years, and $397,000,000.00 to build the RHIC?

Claude

Is it possible that the quest for rest (at an object's center of gravity) perpetuates motion...that inertia is somehow self-negating/self-perpetuating? Food for thought:) (Ivan, Claude: some great thinking, guys!:) I'll have to mull it. G-man

Ivan: Question: is it possible that analog and digital are an interactive informational necessity in nature? If anything, I'm more inclined to think analog is organically more fundamental than digital. And, the two 'modes' may be one in the same somehow:) (Consider DNA and rNA...) G-man

Quick point, re: bookkeeping. While our pursuit of a TOE is vital, it's also important to keep track of the path that leads there. My suggestion is, it might be wise to see how any novel progress fits in contextually (backgroundwise) with what began as Grand Unified Theories (eg., Georgi & Glasgow, 1974), which lead to Superstring/Supersymmetry M-Theories, and ultimately to earlier TOE versions and where we are now, exploring Alternative TOE's. I'm not saying this to sound like a pedantic secretary, but rather hoping to help us see where our ideas are evolving relative to past thinking on this. It might be a good idea for both Ivan and Claude to each separately post their own historic background summary concerning GUT & TOE. Just a thought:) G-man

Ivan,

One more factor to consider: What did the first blast result at White Sands really prove? It only proved that an atom could be used to generate a chain reaction (nuclear fission) - nothing more, nothing less. Fact: e = mc2 but mass is not equal based on density factor specific to gravity; therefore, 1# of ‘stuffits’ does not = 34,596,000,000# of energy. The problem is, all numbers and equations are hypothetical. Truth is, Albert Einstein was not a genius, for Albert Einstein made a wild guess and kept at it for ten years, and the result was e = mc2.

You may be asking, “What in the heck is Clyde talking about?”

Clyde is talking about – Thinking outside of your head because that is how every great concept/idea/theory originates, and the establishment seldom accepts the results.

G-man,

G-man: “Is it possible that the quest for rest at an object’s center of gravity perpetuates motion … that inertia is somehow self-negating/self-perpetuating?”

That is not food for thought, but we need to rephrase your question into the form of an answer.

How about: The quest (necessity) for a spinning object to cease its motion at its center of gravity is fully capable of generating perpetual motion.

That is what Sir Isaac never understood, and few physicists are capable of calculating the effects of centripetal motion; that is why the Yilmaz theory of G is superior in all aspects. Here, I must say, the effects cannot be calculated digitally – that can be accomplished by analog exponential function, which is pure, and I do mean, an absolutely pure hydraulic reflexive reflective reaction.

G-man question 2: Is it possible that analog and digital are an interactive informational necessity in nature?

The answer is an emphatic and resounding no! Concerning RNA/DNA, the tables are not digital – the tables as designed are a monolog – single information system whereas, each of the specific components are singular. Fact: DNA replication occurs exponentially, not digitally.

The bookkeeping problem is why I set the format – to this point no assessment has been made since too many components remain to be included. Perhaps after #13, we can do some type of assessment.

Claude

Claude: Re: monolog. What is the sound of Jay Leno talking if there's no audience or TV cameras around?:) G-man

G-man,

Why do you find me doing this on forums instead of watching Jay Leno?

Claude

Claude: Is it time once again for Buddha to speak of Ana, Mono, and Digi..?:) G-man

Hi guys!

RE "The photon is the wrong factor since it is
zero mass, and does not cause any of the major
effects of our concern; reason being, the photon
interacts only with EM whenever it attaches (wraps
around) a field line (string or thread) in an
electromagnetic field, and it cannot interact with
G."

I place my bets and I takes my chances.

Remember that G, in my TOE, is only a left over force, what's left from the EM and SuperGrav interaction, which creates mass. In our corner of the universe, G appears to be constant, because the level of EM here is constant, but go beyond the solar system where there is less photon light, and gravity intensifies, which means any object beyond Pluto starts to weigh more, the further it goes, the more mass it gets. This will be so until it reaches another sun system, then its mass will lighten again, as more photons are present. Well, that's my intuitive bet, supported by my rather odd math, which adds up to having an infinite like force, the photon (zero mass), interact with another infinite like force, super gravity (infinite mass). Whether or not the photon has mass is irrelevant in this case. It's in their ability to modify each other that matters.



RE "ditital vs analog" conundrum, there is
evidence both exist in the universe, as you point
out, so neither is right or wrong, just get
different applications.

One apple, two apples, three... these are digital. But all the apples on a tree, that's analog, how they interact with the tree. But if you then call the tree with apples a unit, a set, then it's digital again. Interact apple tree with apples and the forest, then it's once again analog. What does this mean? It means that interactions between sets, or within sets, are analog; sets themselves are digital, as is any one piece of information, which itself constitutes a set by default.

It's 1 AM, so will review all this stuff manana.

Hasta la vista, amigos! Ivan

"Mystery force tugs distant probes."

Hello again, G-man, Claude,

Some more food for thought, if not conclusive evidence, yet.

Here is a BBC Sci/Tech article, May 15, 2001, on deep space gravity which may give a clue to what I mentioned above, that gravity is not a constant everywhere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1332000/1332368.stm

Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_168000/168410.stm

This may not explain my thesis on gravity, but it does show that there are still unknowns about this force. Gravity has also shown not to be constant everywhere on Earth, so some places pull more on us than others, but I suspect for reasons of mass rather than photonics. See gravity map at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1668000/1668872.stm

Conceptually, if my view on gravity is correct, then it should be a modifiable force. This would mean, and measurements can be designed for this, that the more photons are applied to mass, the less gravitational mass it would exhibit. In effect, mass showered with light should become less dense without causing it to change dimensions, if the mass dimensions are determined by the atom's internal forces. Like a hot air balloon, it would rise away from the gravity center of a large body for similar reasons: whereas a hot air ballon rises because it has less dense mass than the surrounding atmosphere; a light filled mass (lightened?) would rise because of its lower response to the gravity density around it. Not unlike Crook's radiometer, light can effect motion as it modifies the atomic activity within the metal blades. Thus, if a metal plate were bombarded with photons, it would take less force to give it momentum, and if such a plate were bombarded on one side more than the other, a motion would result. This may not work within the density of an atmosphere, however, since the atoms around the metal plate tend to cancel out the effects, but it would be evident in the near total vacuum of space. Some free floating atoms are still needed for interaction with the electrons given off by the bombarded metal plate, I suspect, since the electrons given off are attracted faster to the few freely floating atoms remaining. Too many atoms, however, the effect is nulled by the photon bombardment effect experienced on the surrounding atmosphere, same as it is on the metal plate, so they cancel out. This should nevertheless work in a total vacuum, though not as well, since the electrons released reunite with the metal plate, it being the only other mass available to connect with once they are released, so that they are once again reabsorbed by the plate, canceling out the effect. So a near vacuum best offers some optimal ratio for this photon driven motion effect to result.

None of this has anything to do with centrifugal force, nor with space curvature as currently believed. Rather, the modifications to G are photon based, and the variable is then the amount of energy present in the vicinity of where the G is being measured. This may be radio decay energy, or heat energy, or light, all of which would then have some modifying effect on gravity. Because we are experiencing gravity within a set system that is more or less stable gives us the impression gravity is constant. But this is merely a function of the stability of our system. Go out into the cosmos where this is not the case, exploding stars, very dense neutron stars, black hole stars, and all the rules of gravity constancy change. What I think happens in a black holes (thought some do not believe they exist!) is that the supergravity forces, what I call infiniton forces, are so concentrated in that one area that the usual modifying effect of photonic energy fails to do its usual trick, of modifying this superforce, and hence the supergravity rules, and no mass can be formed. That these black holes should be at the center of galaxies makes perfect sense, given my ideas on gravity, since nature abhors a vacuum, same as it abhors a total lack of photonic energy, and thus tries to fill that void. In the case of black holes, it tries to fill it with photonic light, much to the detriment of the nearby stars that get swallowed by the black hole, alas. Luckily, our sun is very far away from that event horizon. Remember, when it is all measured and done, mass is no more than photonic energy interacting with the otherwise natural state of the universe in its supergravity mode. Take away that photonic energy, and you get nothingness to the max, which is a total absence of matter, leaving behind only the very strong force that collapses all existence from its illusion of being into nothing. Boy! What kind of universe is this? Well, at least it is stable enough to give us a chance to ask the question.

One more cosmic thought: The reason atoms are where they are is because once they are created, they maintain their identity in perpetuity, until they are dissolved by some fissionable force, where then new atoms are created. But that unit of energy derived from the photon/infiniton interaction is a real atomic mass that maintains its identity, an identity which once created lives on indefinitely, and then proceeds to interact with all the other atoms in that infinitely interrelated dance we perceive as physical reality. So every atom is where it is because of how all the other atoms have allowed it to be there. However, these are just the elements of TOE dealing with physics; the consciousness part of atomic identity is much more exciting!

Well, got to get back to "Scriptorium", now on Ch. 13.

We're breaking new ground here, guys. Think outside your collective "heads"!

Ciao for now, Ivan

Ivan,

You are going to continue fighting the problems of gravity if you continue to use that modeled based on Newton, Relativity, and Special Relativity; besides, Newton’s Gravity Theory was a corruption of Keplar’s. See my post of June 22, 2002 - 12:29 pm: Specific the link ------ Newton’s Lie. The first two links of your post above reveal the direct result of believing in a faulty and terribly flawed theory as it stands today.

Photons – do not interact with gravity.

How do you propose to modify – gravity? G is strictly related to mass, and the density of the mass involved. Remember, photons are zero mass; therefore, the amount of energy of a photon is not measurable. Unless existing physics decides to alter the definition of mass, existing theory of G is prone to grievous errors, especially via present calculation methodology.

I do not understand your use of – Superforce – and – Supergravity-

What are they?

Science has identified – strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, and gravity-

All matter in the universe is subject to atrophy; therefore, atoms decay just like everything else-

Claude

Claude,

With "Photons – do not interact with gravity"
you're missing the main point: Photons create
gravity. Gravity is what results from photonic
interactions with the universe's primordial
supergravity force, after the photonic EM modifies
it into mass. Gravity is only what is left over.
If the level of modifying activity is very great,
the remaining gravity is less. If no photonic
activity succeeds in converting this primordial
supergravity into mass, you get black holes.
Superforce is what is in the black hole, a gravity
so great that everything is swallowed by it, even
photonic energy.

Why do you keep going back to the four forces of
science if you do not accept their a priori
theories? It has to go either one way, as science
see it now, or the other. I propose the other,
only a proposal due to thinking outside the box.
But I am willing to listen to anyone's proposals,
for the truth is out there.

Take care, friend, you are so serious!

Ivan

Question: the fact that G is non-homogenous and discontinuous...does it necessarily eliminate the possibility that there are large gravity centers, such as 'black holes'? Even if we can determine mathematically that G is not a constant but a variable value, does this alone eliminate superG? G-man

G-man,

Not knowing which meaning of homogenous you are referencing, follows is the three most common definitions of homogenous- Merriam Webster:

1 : of the same or a similar kind or nature

2 : of uniform structure or composition throughout <a culturally homogeneous neighborhood>

3 : having the property that if each variable is replaced by a constant times that variable the constant can be factored out : having each term of the same degree if all variables are considered <a homogeneous equation>

Gravity from the inside looking out at the universe is homogenous according to the first, and second definitions, but not according to the third definition, only because the earth is not a true sphere. I do not believe it is possible for a true sphere to exist. G can be said to be discontinuous, but only because R and SR is flawed. Gravity based on Keplar-Newton through R and SR “suggests” the potential for black holes to exist. Of 17 candidates to be identified as black holes, none have been confirmed; moreover, no candidate exhibits the essential properties, and black holes are dependent on an infinite regress. With that I will leave you to ponder the intricate processes required to accomplish fact.

So, compare Keplar/Newton/Einstein Gravity to that of Yilmaz at the following link. When you get there, scroll down to Table 2-

Yilmaz Gravity

Supergravity is someone’s bad nightmare.

Claude

Hi G-man,

No, I would not call G discontinuous, though it may be non-constant. If you mean discontinuous that in places it somehow changes, that's not how I see it, for once it is activated from a given mass, it is an infinite constant, which means it acts in its given level of force according to the inverse square rule. What I am getting at is that gravity is a left over force from the photon/infiniton interaction, and thus the level of gravity in any given area is contingent upon the nature of that interaction. So once gravity exists within a given mass, it is what it is. However, should that mass pass through another area where the photon/infiniton interaction is either stronger or weaker, then there is either less or more gravity from that mass in that region. To illustrate, I send a probe into space, and it travels from Earth to Pluto. While in that area affected primarily by the sun's photons, the probe's gravity mass stays fairly constant, until it reaches the outer planets, for there the photon energy is weakened, and what results is the probe starts taking on more mass. As it flies past Pluto and covers the same distance again as from the sun, its mass would again increase because of the rarity of photonic energy out there. Take a comet which flies way past Pluto in a large elliptic orbit and then comes in close to the sun. While it is out in the dark regions of space, the comet had greater mass, and hence gravitation force, then when it is in the vicinity of the sun. Then when it swings back out into space again, its mass would grow again. (This may also explain why the orbits are elliptic.) But at any given time, the gravitational mass it exhibits is what it is, which then radiates that force in all directions, both towards the sun and away from it, with equality. That force changes only as the mass passes through different parts of space.

Another interesting thought: If the mass inside a light activated space probe is diminished due to increased photonic activity, then the g-force is also diminised. Hence, the pressure of acceleration is not felt as much inside the light activated craft. Pretty cool!

Now, mind you, this is only a speculation, for without actual measurements in search of these gravitational variables, the theory is only a proposal, and not more. However, should these gravitational variable prove true, it is not that we need to rewrite Kepler's, or Newton's, laws of gravity, but merely recognize that they work well in the vicinity of our star system, but change at great distances in the coldness of space. Remember, space is never totally cold, so there is always some photonic energy available to moderate atomic mass. If there were no photons, the atom would decay into what it started as, a miniature black-hole, and it would collapse in with other little black-holes of supergravity unrelieved by photonic light. The result? A cold star becomes a very dense neutron star.

This is not physics as we know it, of course, but it may be a common denominator of how the forces result in the four forces known to science at this time. (Also, forget the 14 or 27 time dimensions of the new physics-- pure myth.) Therefore, if so, then studying the effect of light on mass should be the next step to discover these interactions, as opposed to spending more and more money on larger and larger atomic colliders.

Well, anyway, that's how it looks to me from this corner of the galaxy.

The truth is out there, but we have to have guts to go get it! Ivan

Claude!

You were posting as I was writing. Thanks infinito for Yilmaz's gravity link.

It will take me some time to grok it.

Ivan

Ivan, G-man,

How do we know black holes exist? We don't, and the answer lies in Einstein's General Relativity theory and its attendant "field equations". The field equations are a class of math problems, which describe how gravity works in General Relativity. They deal with things like masses, spherical objects, and space-time curvature.

An interesting feature of Einstein's field equations is that there are an infinite number of interchangeable solutions to them. Quantum physics god Wolfgang Pauli described the situation in his book Theory of Relativity: "...the many possible solutions of the field equations are only formally different. Physically they are completely equivalent."In other words, there is nothing in any of them, which specifies that any one of them is the unique "right answer." Each solution is a system for describing physical events, and therefore may not contradict another solution with respect to the fundamental nature of those physical events.

Does Einstein's Theory of Relativity predict the existence of black holes? The answer is commonly thought to be "yes," although the real answer, according to this route of analysis, is "yes and no." The solutions to Einstein's field equations must be said to be ambiguous on this point. What we face is the sudden possibility that black holes might not exist.

The field equations have been lauded for years as "predicting" black holes. When this is said, what they really should be saying is, "You got your mathematical singularities in my description of physical events." You see, as Tom Van Flandern understands, "Singularities [or infinities] occur routinely in mathematics." And they just as routinely do not translate into physical singularities or infinities. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation contains a singularity, which is commonly dismissed as a physical impossibility and as a partial inadequacy of the theory on that point. The most well known example of a mathematical singularity predicting something impossible is the “Ultraviolet Catastrophe.” Here there were these equations, which indicated that the energy of re-radiation of absorbed light should go to infinity. Some simple, good-old-fashioned hands-on lab work was all it took to clean those equations right up, avoiding the ludicrous infinite values, and correctly describing the physical situation. Essentially in all cases, except in the case of black holes, nature presents a physical constraint, which stops singularities or infinities from forming.

Why should the black holes get an exemption? Some charge that General Relativity has been "taken over" by mathematicians, as opposed to the physicists, who would presumably have had more sense about the whole thing. Einstein himself (a physicist) rejected the idea that just because the math got a little hairy, his theory "predicted" black holes. In a paper written late in his career, Einstein asserted that the mathematical singularities (known as the Schwarzchild singularities) in his field equations "do not exist in cases which have physical reality...and do not exist in physical reality...the question (is) answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting...a singularity."

That being the case, we might as well also admit that the observational evidence for black holes is, well, minimalist at best, and most likely are an impossibility . It all has to be inferred, right, and I mean exact or perfect, because of events happening around the supposed black hole, since no information, light, or matter of any kind can ever escape from a black hole to directly provide evidence of its existence.

Nobody's saying there aren't supermassive objects out there (Van Flandern for one believes they can get far larger than current accepted theory allows). But what has become clear to us is that--at the very least--this question of the existence of black holes is a wide-open one, but we have no evidence black holes exist.

-The Einstein quote is from "Annals of Mathematics", vol. 40, #4, Oct. 1939.
-Confirmation for the Einstein quote is verified in, Seeing Red,” Halton Arp pp 228-229

Claude

Claude, G-man,

Here are a couple of links to evidence of Black Hole stars:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/nslens_math.html

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html

Ivan

Ivan,

The 1993 information at the first URL is terribly outdated, and is mostly irrelevant because the Schwarzchild singularity calculations are errant.

The original Schwarzchild solution from 1917 was applied to singularities in 1967 by Werner Israel. He showed that non-rotating black holes would be perfectly spherical and the only other information the system would carry would be its mass. A Schwarzschild black hole is static; meaning it has no spin and no charge. The Reissner –NordstrØm Solution was developed by Heinrich Reissner in Germany in 1916 and independently by Gunnar NordstrØm in Finland. The solution describes a singularity whose spin and/or charge is none zero and though the equation is theoretically accurate such black holes are improbable in nature given that the electric charge would be a strong conductor for opposite charges and would soon become electrically neutral. Here, as Roger Penrose stated, “The law of cosmic censorship says -"Thou shall not have naked singularities". ...

If a singularity were to be charged it is believed that the immense electric field around the charged hole to be so great that the individual atoms arriving at it would be deconstructed with sub-atomic particles pulled apart before they would reach the hole, whereas this is not the case for a rotating black hole. Obviously all forms of singularity have a gravitational field of equal magnitude, which is very powerful, but not in all cases powerful enough to annihilate ordinary matter at a distance. Another difference is that with the charged hole, one can assume a point singularity, that is one can assume that all the matter of the hole is contained in a geometric point and that space-time has completely bent around this point, whereas with a rotating black hole one gets ring singularity, hence a spinning disk. A rotating black hole is sometimes referred to as a ring singularity. This is where the point becomes stretched into a doughnut shape. For a time it was believed that these types of singularity may have allowed faster than light travel. This is further explained by the Einstein-Rosen-Poldosky-Bridges. Given that most stars are rotating relative to the local inertial system and are consequently not spherically symmetrical, it was found that the basic Schwarzschild calculations were not correct.

Claude

Even if we take an agnostic stance re: black holes, the existence of gravity (in various force strengths that are proximity dependent) and the likelihood of very immense gravity centers suggests that it can't just be dismissed or ignored. It may be that a definitive answer is not necessary for a TOE. Also, while black holes may be a result of inference, it would not be exactly an infinite regress, per se:) G-man

A few basic questions: Let's imagine (and momentarily set aside all we know to be the case which might make such even remotely possible) that we're accelerating through space. As our speed increases, wouldn't 'stuff' tend to slough away (either from friction, heat, etc.). Wouldn't a basic reduction of mass occur, at least to a certain point? In other words, the faster we accelerate the more mass that is shed until upon achieving light speed mass would equal zero. Here's my point. Uncle Albert says that to reach c an object's mass would become (infinite?). But it would seem more critical to consider the Energy value (versus the mass) in this regard. It seems that mass would not be (infinite?), since it's being shed, and the conversion of mass to zero would seem, perhaps, to require some inverse ratio of E. Just thinking out loud. Feedback? G-man

Hi G-man,

Yes, I think the way you see mass at C makes more intuitive sense than what uncle Albert calculated, since at light speed, mass essentially converts back to some function of energy, which has zero mass. This would not be contrary to the way I see mass and gravity as a function of EM photonics. As far as black holes are concerned, I agree that we can know them only through inference, since it is impossible to see a black hole, almost by definition, since the light there cannot escape. I do think there are very large gravity centers, what I call supergravity, which are far greater in density than anything our physics can explain, and this we can know from how the surrounding stars behave around those massive supergravity stars. As to what happens when we are in their vicinity is at best a guess. Infinite regress? Not necessarily a Big Bang event, but something that takes us into a single infinitesimal point of infinite density, which is truly awesome, primordial even.

Hi Claude,

A rotating black hole makes more sense than a stationary one, if only for the simple reason that spin is a given throughout the universe. I also agree that a truly spherical mass is an impossibility in the universe, first because this would contradict chaos theory, and second because orbits are never spherical but always elliptic. I think the interaction between forces, all of them, conspire to prevent geometric purity, and what we have is rather a dirty universe full of distortions. But these distortions are such only to us, for to itself, given how they are the products of how the universe's interrelationships interact with each other, ad infinitum, those dirty irregularities are exactly as they should be.

The links above were included only as curiosities, not proofs, and I suspect you are right, that the math is questionable. But what math isn't? Even my own makes me scratch my head saying that this truly cannot be. But if a model approximates reality, then it is worth as just that, only a model.

Take care, friends, gotta run the dogs.

Ivan

Ivan,

As a follow up, the following Abstract bares facts openly, without prejudice concerning black holes. Key phrase from the paper,

“We show that the black hole will never reach extreme Kerr state under any circumstances by accreting Keplerian angular momentum from the last stable orbit and the cosmic censorship will always be upheld.”

Black Hole Spin Evolution and Cosmic Censorship – April 1999

Claude

G-man, Ivan,

Gravity – does not vary in strength intensity per unit of mass. Gravity is gravity, what people identify or call variance occurs because of total mass. Stop – and – think: What must transpire for a black hole for form? A black hole can only be an infinite regress – otherwise it would not progress beyond the event horizon! Ok, each of you should read the abstract at the following URL.

Extremal Black Holes and the Limits of the Third Law

And the entire paper at the following URL-

Classical Black Hole Thermodynamics

G-man – Uncle Albert was wrong- He was most vague concerning m x c = infinite mass, and his numbers were not quite – correct.

Every candidate to be “identified” as a black hole share one common trait – all of them emit light from the cores of them- even Hawking will not respond to queries about that problem.

I will not say, Black Holes do not exist for anything is possible (Murphy’s Law), but I will say – Incorrect and Inadequate Math is what gave rise to the concept of black holes. Problem is, actual pictures prove the 17 candidates are something else, not black holes.

Claude

Claude, the traditional view is that mass is proportionate to gravity. Are you suggesting that mass is actually a function relative to greater/less mass? (i.e., the Moon around the Earth around the Sun around...?) I tend to agree that G, as a force, is different than e-magnetism, whose force involves ionic polarities. Please clarify:) G-man

G-man,

Gravity is based on total mass. To explain, follows is a direct comparison between the moon and earth. Moon’s matter is nearly 40% less dense than earth’s matter; therefore, earth’s matter weighs more per volume measure. If earth’s matter were the same density as that of the moon, earth would weight less, and earth’s gravity would be less. Because the earth is not a true sphere, and is larger around equator by about 21.3km, gravity is not equal around the earth and varies by .00334% - In other words, a 100# object weighed at either pole, would weigh 100.334# at the equator.

A 100# object weighed on earth, would weigh 16.6# on the moon. If earth’s density were the same as the moon, that same 100# object would weigh 60.7# on the less dense earth.


(Moon/Earth)-----------------------Moon---------Earth------Ratio
Mass (1024 kg)---------------------0.07349-------5.9736-----0.0123
Volume (1010 km3)------------------2.1958--------108.321----0.0203
Equatorial radius (km)---------------1738.1--------6378.1-----0.2725
Polar radius (km)--------------------1736.0--------6356.8-----0.2731
Volumetric mean radius (km)----------1737.1--------6371.0-----0.2727
Ellipticity (Flattening)----------------0.0012--------0.00335----0.36
Mean density (kg/m3)----------------3350-----------5515-----0.607
Surface gravity (m/s2)-----------------1.62-----------9.78-----0.166
Escape velocity (km/s)-----------------2.38-----------11.2-----0.213

NASA Planetary Fact Sheet

Claude

Claude: Exactly. My point: How to explain G's em if afterall G is simply a volume function of m? G-man

G-man,

G-man: How to explain G’s em if afterall G is simply a volume function of m?

There is nothing to explain. The electromagnetic field has nothing to do with gravity. The earth experiences polarity reversal of it’s electromagnetic field every 500,000 years or so, which the only repercussions are, creatures that migrate will have a difficult time returning place to place; and, magnetic compasses will not function properly. The earth’s magnetic field is not even predicable, and varies because so many factors are involved. The magnetosphere of earth, and gravitational fields of earth are not known to interact with one another.

Claude

Claude, Ivan...it's summer, time to have fun:) check it out:
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/gusp.html

G-man

Hi Claude, g-man, all,

Questions RE: "Gravity is based on total mass. To explain, follows is a direct comparison between the moon and earth. Moon’s matter is nearly 40% less dense than earth’s matter; therefore, earth’s matter weighs more per volume measure."

If your statement is taken prima facie, then the moon's mass density is also a function of its gravitational density. If so, then would a larger moon, having more gravity density, also have greater mass density? And, under my theory, if the moon was moved out of the photonic effect of our solar star and positioned far beyond Pluto, would it experience greater gravitational density, and thus greater mass density even if it were the same size? Just some questions on my mind regarding the effects and causes of gravity.

Ciao for now, Ivan

Ivan,

No matter where the earth moon is located, the gravity of it would remain the same.

It is the total weight (weight = mass) of the moon that determines the gravitational pull of it.

The density of mass simply determines the size (volume) of an object.

Think of a trash compactor – I have a standard paper bag, and fill it with trash; it weighs 10# and its volume is full – then I run the compactor, it compacts the trash whereas it is only 10% of its original volume, but still weighs 10#. The gravity of that bag would be the same if compacted or not compacted.

Claude

Claude,

I understand what you are saying, but I propose
that this would not be so everywhere, that gravity
for a given mass is not equal regardless of where
it is in the universe, though it's mass may be
the same, or maybe not. In effect, the compacted
trash in the bag would weigh less in the vicinity
of an active star than in the vicinity of a dead
star, where it would weigh more, though it is the
same bag. Now, think of this, how could this be a
possibility? If gravity is a constant throughout
the universe, how can it vary locally? That is
the question.

Another way is this: the same amount of garbage in
a bag, one compacted, the other not, both having
equal gravity. Now take one bag elsewhere, and
though the mass, as measured here is the same as
before, the gravitational pull is not. Or, if
this were measured and found to be true, would its
mass also be affected, since mass and gravity are
linked. So, what the question may be instead is
this: does mass per a given body vary as it finds
itself in a differenct environment in the
universe? Is mass greater near a dead star than
near a live star, for example? Interesting
question, at least to me!

Ivan

So, how to explain weightlessness in space? It would seem that mass is relational to other centers of mass (whose effect is gravity). Where am I off here?:) G-man

Yes, G-man, looks like you're "lost in space"!
You still have gravitational attraction in space,
but it's always relative to the mass and distance
squared, so small mass has small gravity. My
point is that this small gravity may be bigger
near a dead star, but smaller near a photonically
active star. Now, this is subject to observation
and measurement, so is only a proposal, but if it
turned out to be true, then it changes
Newton/Kepler's law somewhat. We need to look for
evidence to see if this is so.

Oh, by the way, is there something wrong with
the link you pasted in, Summer Fun? It doesn't
seem to work for me. You can e-mail me if there
is a correction, and I'll fix it.

Ivan :)

Ivan, G-man,

Gravity is not difficult to understand, but both of you are trying to make it difficult.

Gravity is strictly the function of mass or total weight of an object. Gravity, only varies here on earth because the earth is not a true sphere, and gravity here on earth only varies by the .00334% factor given earlier – and that is because of the difference in sizes if measured vertically and horizontally. The earth is larger around the equator, than it is around the poles. We measure gravity everywhere in relationship to earth, so we know the potential “pull” of other objects so we can calculate the “escape velocity” of them. It does not matter where you are in the universe, gravity is gravity and it can be calculated consistently by using the same formula when the mass (total weight) is known.

The formula is a Universal Constant – Gravity = (G * m1 * m2) / (d^2)

Where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects for which you are calculating the force and d is the distance between the centers of gravity of the two masses ("^2" means "squared").
G has the value of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne * cm^2 / gm^2. That means that if you put two one-gram objects one centimeter apart from one another, they will attract each other with the force of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne. A dyne is equal to about 0.001 gram weight, meaning that if you have a dyne of force available it can lift 0.001 grams in earth's gravitational field. So 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne is a miniscule force. When dealing with massive bodies like the earth, which has a mass of 6E+24 kilograms, gravity is a powerful force. .
I do not know where either of you got the notion that gravity is local phenomenon, or varies according to factors other than mass weight, but both of you are wrong.

Try the following URL –

http://www.gcse.com/eb/gtest.htm

G-man,

When you are in space, you are not in direct contact with earth – fact is, you experience weightlessness each time you jump off the ground or floor.

Claude

Ivan,

There is no evidence to support your hypothesis. Actual tests involving our own sun, and planets in our solar system disprove it, as well as tests conducted on nearby stars of every known type. That is just another reason that it will be very difficult to prove black holes exist.

Claude

Claude,

The reason I bring up my hypothesis of varying gravity effect on mass in relation to photonic proximity is because it would also explain why the cosmos is lumpy, having large areas of very little matter, and most of it concentrated in the vicinity of photonically active stars. Given my theory of gravity being an effect of photon/infiniton interaction, where mass is less in vicinity of higher EM photon activity, then mass that is away from such activity is gravitationally 'heavier' and thus migrates towards those photonically active areas where mass is 'ligher', where they find gravitational stability, or a kind of graviational 'equilibrium'. This would mean that star light areas are gravitationally 'lighter' than deep space far from such light, and thus the 'heavy' mass of deep space gets drawn into the star areas, in effect, to 'lighten' their gravity mass. All this makes sense if the algorithm [(1/c2 x hc/w)+ g = m] is some approximation of what is.

Just thinking outside the gravitational envelope. This might also explain the 'black hole' effect where a great amount of photonically active material is surrounding a supergravity center, since the black hole phenomenon approximates, in much more concentrated form, the 'heavier' gravity effect of deep space. When seen this way, one might almost make the case for atomic 'consciousness', since give the above, the 'light' tries to compensate for the heavy gravity deficit of deep space, or black holes. What are they thinking of?!!

Just having a mental fun, later,

Ivan

Ivan,

What you are doing is, "ignoring" the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. First, there is no "heavy mass" in deep space, for there is no “deep space.” All space– consists of 99.9% plasma, which is a given; therefore, we cannot ignore the 1st and 2nd thermodynamic laws for if we do, that would disprove E=MC^2. It is the modifications made to E=MC^2 that are faulty, not E=MC^2 itself.

Claude

Sorry to sound so child-like: I'm just trying to make sure I'm grasping things consistently. If, as Claude suggests, G in fact is not a force independent of mass, but instead is actually a greater degree of mass relative to lesser mass, then the standard w = m x g would be a redundant, non-sensical statement inasmuch as m and g would be identical except in quanta. Hence, a ratio between the two terms would first be required to make constant the two as independent variable. (i.e. g = any m-value > than any m-value that is < g:) I'm not trying to sound like a Vacuum-head. Just seeking more conditional refinements:)G-man

G-man,

Look at it this way -

no mass = no gravity

Claude

G-man, Claude,

The reason the astronauts are weightless in space
is because their orbit balances out centripetal
and centrifugal forces to zero. If they were
stationary at 300 above Earth's surface, they
would weigh only 15% less than at sea level. If
you go far enough away from the solar system, you
might experience no gravity, but there is always
some gravity in space, it pulling from distant
planets and stars. The BIG question in my mind is
does mass experience this gravity differently if
it is in the vicinity of a star, or very far from
it, i.e., does mass vary in relation to its
proximity to a photonic EM source, or not? This
is the anomaly I think worth searching for.

Ivan

Ivan,

Your question: "Does mass experience gravity differently if it is in the vicinity of a star, or very from it, i.e., does mass vary in relation to its proximity of a photonic EM source or not?"

I am not sure that you do understand gravity and photon interaction, which is an inherent problem for people who accept the Einstein theory of General Relativity at face value.

General relativity uses a geometry that is extremely difficult for people to understand or visualize. This geometry describes not only a curved space, but also a curved time. It is the geometry of curved four-dimensional space-time, which is confusing.

Fact: Gravity has no effect whatsoever on a photon.

A photon is without mass – the figure established 1994 for the upper potential limit of the photon mass is: 0.0000000000000006 electron volts for the mass of photons, with a high certainty of + or - .00000000001% in the results as measured by the Charge Composition Explorer Spacecraft. The number is so very small, it is effectively zero; it is equivalent to 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron, the lightest of all identified particles.

The photon always travels at c – the coefficient of potential speed of light-

Gravity, distorts the area (plasma – or space) surrounding stars, planets, etcetera; the net result is – it is that distortion that causes light seemingly to bend. A simple example can be observed anywhere on earth where vast stretches of flat landscape occurs, and along long stretches of flat highway. In the summertime, heat rises and seems to shimmer, so distortion occurs in that area immediately above long flat landscapes or highways. Heat distortion is known to be the cause of desert “mirages.” It is in that sense that so many people think light is directly affected by gravity, which it is not.

Photons, cannot, and do not interact with gravity. Sources of photons are governed by the same rules as all other objects; therefore, gravity is wholly dependent upon what an object consists of, and density of matter involved such as hydrogen, helium, etcetera.

The Hubble Space Telescope can take advantage of the distorted areas about stars and other objects in space through “lensing techniques,” whereas, such distortions can act similar to telephoto camera lens, which allows viewing objects that would not be seen otherwise.

Claude

Dear Claude,

This here "Photons, cannot, and do not interact with gravity. Sources of photons are governed by the same rules as all other objects; therefore, gravity is wholly dependent upon what an object consists of, and density of matter involved such as hydrogen, helium, etcetera" is exactly where you and I disagree. I understand photons have no mass, but that is not the point. The theory I am presenting is that photons interact within the atom by modifying the internal supergravity of primordial space into an atomic unit, and that this then displays gravity as a left over byproduct of this interaction. I know this is a totally new way of seeing this, but that is my proposal. The reason I suggested this way of seeing this goes back to my original algorithm above. The reason I am interested in gravity anomalies in non star regions of space, as posited above, is that it would point to the validity of how I see photonic energy interacting with this primordial supergravity to create atomic mass, which then includes the weak and strong electromagnetic forces within the atom as how this interaction manifests in the atom.

I hope you do not think I do not understand physics as it is understood today. In fact, I am knowledgeable of it. It is just that I think it is focussed on the wrong things, and thus keeps coming up with multiple space-time dimensions, which I find about as absurd as the Big Bang concept. There may be a much simpler way of seeing what happens, and thus how gravity is a result of interactions of which we are still ignorant. That is the challenge, to find evidence of this being so. If there is no evidence, then I drop my proposal. It is that simple.

Later, Ivan

Ivan, you're raising good points. I still do not understand how photonic curvature can be explained without applying gravity to a model. I'm open to both views (yours and Claudes), but the fact that photons (which are ionic) have zero mass doesn't exempt them from gravity, unless gravity somehow exerts electromagnetics. Perhaps more clarification by Claude re: gravity is still needed. I'm still back at a traditional understanding of gravitational force...F=G(m(1)m(2)/R^2)r:)I seem to be stuck there, still unable to reduce gravity simply to mass. Maybe we should move to #3, Ivan, so you can archive this and free up some space. G-man

Ivan,

Ivan: “The theory I am presenting is that photons interact within the atom by modifying the internal supergravity of primordial space into an atomic unit, and that this then displays gravity as a left over byproduct of this interaction.”

Photons act like waves, and the energy of a photon is precisely related to its wavelength.

Photons have no method to interact with an atom- A photon can only mess with, and/or interact with an electron inside an atom, but it cannot alter the atom. Furthermore there is no such thing as primordial space, unless you agree with the BBT.

Solid objects, or matter, consist of particles (atoms and molecules), which does include electrons, which are a necessary part of an atom, and the smallest particle known to be + mass. Electrons only exist at certain energy states, and a photon, which makes contact with an atom can/may excite an electron inside of it to a higher energy state. That would only occur when the energy of the photon is “exactly” the same as the energy required to raise the electron from its present energy state, to another even higher energy state. If that occurs, photons of that particular wavelength are absorbed so the matter becomes opaque to the light radiation.

In other words, the interaction of photons with atoms can increase the energy state of an electron inside of an atom, but all that does is give “opacity” to the atom when it absorbs the photon – it causes no other effect, or affect. There is no potential to alter the mass of the atom, and the photon then becomes part of that atom, but the mass of the atom is not altered. Put a flashlight against tightly closed but extended fingers of one hand, and then turn on the flashlight – look at the back of your hand – the obvious “red” that you see at the edges of the lines where your fingers touch reveals trapped photons in the atoms and molecules of your hand. That is the “total net effect” of your theory. Turn the flashlight off and the red disappears, but the photons were absorbed by the atoms and molecules of your hand, and become a permanent part of it.

Fact: What you perceive as space is not empty; in other words, there is no place in the universe that is void of material objects and particles. If you are talking about the – space inside an atom – there again, there is no empty space inside an atom.

Now to blow both of your minds: The earth supposedly has a hot molten core that is believed to be mostly nickel, or perhaps iron. Tell me, how is it possible for molten iron or nickel to possess “magnetic qualities?” Truth is, it is impossible for that to occur. Molten, or liquid metals cannot possess magnetic qualities for the electrons are in a fluid state; therefore, they cannot be polarized, or even charged by ions. Ok- how is it possible to explain the “magnetic poles” of earth, and why compasses function as they do?

Claude

G-man,

G-man: “I still do not understand how photonic curvature can be explained without applying gravity to a model.”

Photonic curvature does not happen; instead, gravity distorts the plasma or space surrounding an object. When radiated energy passes through that distortion, what radiated energy passes appears to curve or bend. That comes from many inherent errors in the theory of General Relativity.

G-man: “I'm open to both views (yours and Claudes), but the fact that photons (which are ionic) have zero mass doesn't exempt them from gravity, unless gravity somehow exerts electromagnetics.”

Fact: Because photons are O mass, they are exempt from gravity, and the effects of gravity.

Photons are not ionic! Photons are radiated energy, which is a waveform. Thus, in essence, a photon does not become a photon until “trapped” within an atom. That is a huge problem for everyone that does not rationalize when a photon ceases to be a waveform, and becomes a particle.

G-man: “Perhaps more clarification by Claude re: gravity is still needed. I'm still back at a traditional understanding of gravitational force...F=G(m(1)m(2)/R^2)r:)I seem to be stuck there, still unable to reduce gravity simply to mass.”

You are stuck at - Gravity = (G * m1 * m2) / (d^2) - for there is no place to go from there.

For gravity to function requires two objects with mass; otherwise there is no function whatsoever.

Claude

Ivan, G-man,

Lets KILL this thread, and if anything needs to move to #3, we can do it.

Ivan, I have also archived the threads involved, including the original-

Claude