Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything
- Thread starter •Ik•
- Start date
How does this have anything to do with the fact matter isn't primarily composed of leptons, as you implied? You're trying to avoid facing up to a mistake by trying to change the subject.
And besides, just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean you making shit up is a valid scientific approach or that you're a whiz at the long list of things you claim.
You should look up deep inelastic scattering experiments, quark-gluon plasma experiments and W-W decay phenomena. All of which support the quark model, which successfully predicted the outcomes of all hadron based experiments at places like Fermilab and now the LHC.
The fact you're unaware of or don't understand the experimental evidence doesn't mean it isn't there or you don't have to justify your claims.
Open a physics book. Obviously you're not as up to speed as you might think.
Is this your approach? You don't understand something so therefore no one else does and you're allowed to just make nonsense claims without evidence? Entanglement can be understood, at least on a basic working level, without too much effort, ie the material taught to undergrads is enough. Its not my job to teach you the entirety of a physics degree, if you were the whiz you claim to be you'd not be asking the sort of questions you are.
If you want to know specifically what to learn then I'll say but you'll likely have to learn a lot of prerequisites, as you seem quite unfamiliar with even basic concepts in science.
Virtual photons are not 'Bohrian'. And besides, just because you don't like a concept doesn't mean its not a valid explanation, your attitudes do not define how the universe works.
Given the wavelength characteristics of quantum objects only configurations which result in integer wavelength counts can exist in terms of electron orbitals. Hence there's no way to continuously radiate energy in the way classical mechanics predicts, the electron cannot drop below the ground state configuration, which is the smallest non-trivial orbital. Again, this stuff is 1st course in QM stuff, you should open a book, they can really be quite useful.
Simply making up stuff on subjects you don't understand doesn't 'solve' anything.
Speaking as someone with a 'theoretical physics' qualification I can confidently say you're not a 'theoretician'. There's more to doing theoretical physics than just making stuff up randomly, which you'd know if you had looked at what science involves. Instead you proclaim yourself a 'solver of problems' and a theoretician when you haven't the first clue what scientists actually do. Its ironic you claim you're competent at so many things when in fact you don't even understand the principles science uses.
Please provide one example of a real world phenomenon which isn't understood properly by mainstream science for which you have provided a working accurate model for, along with derivation of said model. If you can't then my comment about you having solved nothing is entirely justified.
S
science man
Guest
that's exactly what I was thinking about when I read the title of this thread.
wtf do you mean by that?
I don't he'd be as famous as he is if all he wrote about were claims. Have you even actually read any of his work?
S
science man
Guest
Agreed. Although since your claims seem to be nonsense. I think the education background you claim you have is complete nonsense. Please prove me wrong by proving to James that your theory isn't nonsense. After all, you say you perfer proof over claims, but yet all you made so far are claims.
@other members
I say James when Ik starts getting a bit scientific (or I guess what is supposed to be scientific to him e.g. Iq<-->gye) I can't understand what he's saying but do not feel I have the right to go against what he's saying unless someone who I know is a scientist such as James does. I'm sure you guys understand considering the lessons you guys have taught me.
Do tell, why couldn't a theory be constructed by one person?
As far as I can tell - throughout the history of humankind - one person has constructed every major theory that has ever existed. Sure, I will grant that many people contributed the empirical evidence, but ultimately, in the end, it is generally one person (and is some cases, two independent thinkers) who comes to the idea.
And, regarding the second part of the paragraph, Brian Greene and Dennis Sciama articulated the position about what the ultimate theory would be like:
and
Oh, and Stryder, a "release candidate" is pretty good way to look at it. I like that angle; thanks for sharing.
@AlphaNumeric: My list of empirical puzzles before was not meant to be a solicitation for responses; nor was it meant to be combative; it was meant to be rhetorical. Alas, symbols on a page do not always convey the sincerity or emotion of the writer.
As to whether I have an understanding of core concepts or not and as to the confidence one has about that understanding, I would submit that Ben Bernanke is 100% confident that he can control the economy.
So, being a member of the scientific community and a member of the world community, I always find that when I engage someone on an internet forum I treat them with humility, dignity, and respect. After all, isn't that how I should treat My Brother?
As for whether this is an ego trip: far from it. I have only one goal: World Peace.
@Bebelina. Yes, as the theoretical framework proves that there is Only One I, this means that I = Everything. In other words, the theory provides a framework for knowing what it is like to be the Universe.
As to another comment about what a gyre is, I'll get back to that. I can't post links yet, a couple more and I'll be able to address that issue directly.
Peace,
Ik
I subscribe too.
A person can come up with a theory, however for the most part what makes a theory a foundation is by that theory potentially fitting other theories into it that can be tested.
An example of this could be say Newtonian theory (that became a Physics law), it's not that until Newton their was no Gravity, in fact philosophers, scholars and other free thinkers had pondered about it themselves. Newton just happened to write it up a particular way and present it to a School of thought that's stuck to this day. (even with the advent of Digital Philosophy and Quantum Mechanics)
I guess you can say that old theories are much like old programs, when a new OS comes along for the most part the programmers try to maintain a "Legacy" compatibility so that the old programs run on the new machines.
In Physics and Philosophy this is also true, the old "tested" theories are "Legacy" to any new one, if the new ones can't handle the old theories correctly then they are assumed to be tested as "false".
In the instance of your own theories you will find that you quote many writers, scholars, playwrights and philosophers, to suggest that any thought or theory you have is "absolutely unique" would have required you to have no input from the outside world.
(As for why two people can come to the same conclusion miles away, it's something that initially was observed as aHundredth Monkey Effect, but apparently unsubstantiated and likely moved towards pseudoscience due to it's "Parapsychology" experiment type.
However even with the Hundredth Monkey ruled out, The Copenhagen Interpretation gives an interesting hypothesis if such a phenomenon occurred. After all if the universe was to be shaped largely by some event and that event starter didn't get up and do the initial action to gain the attention, the universe would suffer a huge change, what is more likely is that one of those that observed the initial idea would cryptographically recompile that idea from the other universe and bring it back into reality. This generates certain changes in regards to power/wealth distribution and "alters an entire branch" of peoples ancestral trees. (Some christians will be spouting "end of days" over it due to the whole "tree of life" trimming and burden of forbidden [stealing someone else's idea] fruits)
First things first, My Brother. I am extremely impressed with that reply: honest, sincere, level-headed, and choc' full of meaningful statements. *doffs virtual hat*
I like the analogy of the old operating software versus new. And I also agree that the current tendency for scientific theories is that they maintain the standard of Popperian falsifiability. Although this is not what you were exactly getting at, it is nonetheless an important point about any candidate scientific theory that hopes to replace its predecessor. Note, I qualify the term theory with "scientific" in italics to emphasize that there are many kinds of theories - music theory, literary theory, metaphysical theory, and so on. Not all are "scientific" in the classic sense but are nonetheless theories in the definitional sense.
The fact of the matter is that any theory that comes into existence in the evolution of the Universe is a consequence of all of the preceding event in the spatiotemporal continuum from the Origin of the Universe until present day. Jung actually goes even one step further in terms of ideas and their Source:
Anyhoo, getting back to theory. One thing that I struggle with is that in compiling Unity, I have discovered - much to my chagrin, mind you - that it is unfalsifiable. Now, this is a problem because it does not fit the standard concept of what a scientific model should be. However, I would point out that the final theory - that is, the correct model of the Universe - must be, by definition unfalsifiable. In other words, it must be correct. If it weren't unfalsifiable, it could never be true.
Being unfalsifiable means that any experiment performed now will yield results that are either predicted by or explained by the theory. Being unfalsifiable means that all evidence necessarily and indubitibly fits the model. Being unfalsifiable is a problem, you see, as the model can never be proven wrong. It is always correct.
Popper might not have expected such a model, but Kuhn would have.
As for the Copenhagen Interpretation, Unity proves that the Observer, in actuality, is the Observed.
As for the "Event Starter" and the "cryptographically recompil[ing]," I tell ya, that's where Unity addresses all of the issues of My Consciousness and My Mind, and all that those things encompass. And - based upon the empirical evidence accumulated from cosmology and the annals of psychology - those two things make up ~96% of the Universe.
As for those spouting the "End of Days," well, there certainly is enough evidence, now, isn't there? But isn't there always? I guess that's a whole 'nother issue.
Again, thanks for the comments and for the opportunity to engage in constructive discussion in this thread.
Peace,
Ik
Well, the evidence show that it takes much less energy to read and understand than it does to summarily reject and condemn. Thanks for gettin' my back, 420Joey, you're a mensch.
Peace,
Ik
Rhetorical or not, you've made no viable attempt to address any of the questions you ask. If you meant them to be rhetorical then your reason for bringing them up was along the lines of "There's lots of questions which might not presently be answered", as if what you're doing is an attempt at answering them.
What reason is there for anyone to think you're even vaguely capable of providing good scientific answers to such questions and others like them?
But he knows what the point of the economy is. He is familiar with the point of it, the way people interact with it, the way finance is done, the sorts of people who do it, the methods by which they go about doing their jobs. You appear not to know those things about science, you don't know how its done or the sort of things expected of a good scientist.
To use your analogy, you're like an investment banker who thinks that his job is all about appearances and confidence, rather than a firm understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes.
Your claims about yourself don't show any humility, so saying others should show some is a touch hypocritical, given you can't present any reason for anyone to think you live up to your claims.
Pretty much everyone wants world peace but if you think you're capable of achieving it through your own works then you are being egotistical. Feel free to explain how you plan to achieve it.
I don't agree with this. What makes a theory scientific falsifiable (in the philosophy of science) isn't that it sometimes definitely gets the wrong answer, but rather that there is actually is a notion of a wrong answer. Falsifiability is (very crudely) just testable predictions, where the test part means that you have a notion of failure.
I think you're reading "unfalsifiable" as "will never be falsified" in the sense of never having an experiment go against it, rather than "could never be falsified" in the sense of there being no conceivable outcome of any experiment that would go against it. While the latter is bad, the former isn't, really.
When we deride something for being "unfalsifiable", it is the latter point we are attacking. Indeed, a major point of scientific research is to bring us closer to the "will never be falsified" theory!
Last edited:
@BWE1: An inspection of the parsed theoretical framework reveals that I am The Theory and The Theoretician all rolled into One.
I am the Model Itself. It could be no other way with a complete and consistent theory.
Thanks for the encouragement.
@funkstar: Agree or not, semantics or pedantry, I have been unable to find anything that falsifies Unity. Anything that funkstar says or does in response to this post - or has said or done in the past - is modeled by Unity.
@AlphaNumeric: It's a catch-22. If I say I've done it, I'm told - no, you haven't; you're crazy; you're a tyro. So, then, what is someone who has compiled the complete and consistent, irreducible theory of the Universe supposed to say?
@Emil: Well, in short, science as I know it comes to an end. Please consider the breadth and depth of infrastructure that supports the scientific endeavor and then consider how that collapses in response to theoretical fulfillment.
Peace,
Ik
I am the Model Itself. It could be no other way with a complete and consistent theory.
Thanks for the encouragement.
@funkstar: Agree or not, semantics or pedantry, I have been unable to find anything that falsifies Unity. Anything that funkstar says or does in response to this post - or has said or done in the past - is modeled by Unity.
@AlphaNumeric: It's a catch-22. If I say I've done it, I'm told - no, you haven't; you're crazy; you're a tyro. So, then, what is someone who has compiled the complete and consistent, irreducible theory of the Universe supposed to say?
@Emil: Well, in short, science as I know it comes to an end. Please consider the breadth and depth of infrastructure that supports the scientific endeavor and then consider how that collapses in response to theoretical fulfillment.
Peace,
Ik
