Mosheh Thezion

A unifying field theory

Recommended Posts

From : http://empiricalchurch.org/theory/

 

The following image was draw by my own hand, being Mosheh, and represents, as well as I am able, a description of the theory.

 

My proposals are based around the idea of a natural progressive dimensional pattern of formation for our universe as space and time and matter.

 

This image shows a potential pattern for consideration, which suggests 16 dimensions, while in theory we may consider and discuss potentially upto 28 dimensions. Below is illustrated a simple natural progressive rise pattern for dimensional motions and transitions of state on a spatial ether, as a transindental fluid, which condescends to obey certain natural laws set forth by the variable quality of the applied energy, as force, in the development process of universal formation.

 

The texts which follow will be my attempt to make sense of this image to you, so that you may precieve its use and value and how it clearly relates to many religious and spiritual considerations which I have found can only serve to strenghtens ones faith in a God of some kind, and does so with honest theoretical perspectives on real established empirical evidense, in other words, all of modern science.

 

Hence the Reason for an Empirical church.... Because my personal faith is derived through science and made clear with theory, which is based in very real evidense. It is my belief that there is every, every, every good reason to believe in a God of somekind, based on the evidense.

 

I discovered, that the proposed dimensional progressive pattern fits very nicely with the very pattern found in Genesis chapter one, and more than this, theory was developed by examination of the evidense, and it is my belief, because, I have found that the evidense overall tends towards suggesting the application of energy from an outside source, since the idea of internal storage as from a big crunch, is extremely problematic to even consider with any seriousness.

 

This source of applied energy would then be a God of some kind. Hence my faith which is based in evidense and organised into clarity by the highly complex yet simple theory I will now attempt to explain.

 

(Special NOTE : As you read this you will come to the section regarding atoms, and nucleons, and you will notice that I propose simply solid nucleon cores, which is fitting with this here description of a 4 circle rise patterm and 16 dimensions, however, such is not written in stone, and as an abundance of evidence suggests nucleons are piles of Nuetrons and Protons, I accept that such may very well be the case, such that, in the 11th dimension, when the nucleon core mass explodes, and forms the solar system, that explosion is likely to of been in the form of a mass nuetron emmision, and as we all know, nuetrons will decay in 12 seconds to form a proton and an electron, and as such, such a 11th dimensional expansion, or explosion, would result in a nuetron cloud, which quickly decays into protons, and in that jumble, these protons and nuetrons, would likely combine and form the various atoms which we know of today. So, while my given proposal of solid nucleons, may be completely wrong, this does not damage or infer that Theory as a whole is wrong, in fact both senarios fit quite nicely, and there is no major conflict.

However, this kind of discussion, would be found in a larger discussion of upto 7 circle rises, and 28 dimensions, which would then also suggest various levels of complexity within the realm of photons and magnetic and electrical forces, which are as yet un-seen, and the author, myself, chooses to keep these consideration to myself, as propriortory knowledge to be used in research and development in my own laboratories. Yet for those of you with the skills and knowledge to do so, you should be able to quickly infer exactly what I mean by various levels of complexity in the realm of the sub atomic, meson, and photon realm.)

 

 

bcjpeg.jpg

 

There is more.. much more...

 

such as....

 

 

ftjpeg.jpg

 

 

and....

 

 

solarjpeg.JPG

 

 

 

 

timejpeg.JPG

 

 

 

There is more... but ... this... explains all the basics.

 

 

Arguments please... but before you say it... yes.. it has some spelling errors.. as I wrote this on a primitive machine long ago, without spell check.. so.

 

any real arguments are welcome.. of course.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it did... I am the founder.

follow the link at the top...

but... its a pluralist religious order... where all religions is studied.. and truth... is tempered by science, evidence, and theory.. and when they fit... then they fit.

I should point out this...

 

from : http://empiricalchurch.org/createvolutionism/

bibonejpeg.JPG

and..

of course.. there is more.... but thats enough to start with....

Remember... it was not my intention to support Genesis.... it just turned out that way.

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnStu    31

The drawings are quite well done, and they do make sense. I see the connections/line of thought here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm... and that... is not an argument.

I only respect people when they can at least try... try.. to tear it to pieces....

You.. will find that much harder to do than it seems at first.

 

lets start the debate.... shall we... or back away.

 

I did not post this, expecting to be treated nicely.. I expect an attack.

 

I guess I will have to wait for someone else.

 

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should repeat... the links... lead to 30 pages.... with pictures...

I did not post 30 pages... as it would eat up band width... but will post them as needed.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

I'll start...

 

theory page one... from : http://empiricalchurch.org/theorydetails/

 

theo111jpeg.JPG

 

 

 

theory page two....

 

 

theo222jpeg.JPG

 

 

and theory page three...

 

 

 

theo333jpeg.JPG

 

 

 

 

 

That... is a good start....

 

That... explains the basics...

 

I will await the attack....

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Edited by Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only respect people when they can at least try... try.. to tear it to pieces....

You.. will find that much harder to do than it seems at first.

 

lets start the debate.... shall we... or back away.

 

I did not post this, expecting to be treated nicely.. I expect an attack.

 

Noone has attacked it because it is too incoherent. Very few or none of the technical terms you are using have their traditional meanings and you have said nothing specific enough that it would allow anyone to test your hypothesis against observed data.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm... and that... is not an argument.

I only respect people when they can at least try... try.. to tear it to pieces....

You.. will find that much harder to do than it seems at first.

 

lets start the debate.... shall we... or back away.

 

I did not post this, expecting to be treated nicely.. I expect an attack.

 

I guess I will have to wait for someone else.

 

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

My argument is that this is not a field theory. A field theory has a formal mathematical definition. Don't claim to have a field theory when you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory... as proposed... is a description of a dimensional progressive pattern.

It is my claim, that all... all.. of what is known as empirical evidence.... fits.

It is based on what the abundance of evidence suggests.

 

I have found nothing which cannot be fit... fit... into the progressive dimensional pattern as described.

 

This is very simple people... too simple.

 

Some of you, want an equation to explain it all... and that.. if you understood the theory is harder to produce than you would think.

As.. there are numerious variations which can be considered, and those variations would change what we would put forth as equations of everything.

 

here is the problem...

 

theoflawsjpeg.JPG

 

 

So let me be clear... its not complete.

ITS A WORK IN PROGRESS.

HOWEVER.... the basics are there... as a presentation of a dimensional progressive pattern.

 

The theory... proposes a Dimensional Progressive pattern, in levels of energy manifesting as levels of motion (state) of a spatial ether (space), where in the developmental patterns of energy are pre-destined by the quality of the applied energy... the first and foremost quality of that applied energy being PI.. which sets the scales of what we know of as dimensions.... for if PI.. had a different value then the progressive development would of been different.

 

If I had that equation of everything... and had it all correct, then it would be like holding the keys of the universe, and even if I had it, I would not share it here.

 

The point of all of this...

IS THAT IT FITS ALL THE ABUNDANT EVIDENCE.

IT CAN... propose many things... sure.

But what matters is that it fits with the evidence... that is my claim.

It unifies all forms of energy.

It unifies all the sciences under one theory.

It unifies all of creation as being... one natural pattern of formation, where in we CAN SEE CLEARLY... HOW IT FORMED.. AND HOW THIS THEORY FITS.

THAT.. is my claim... that it fits.

 

If you want to crush it... the best way.... is to point to evidence which suggests otherwise.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well what testable, quantitative, falsifiable predictions does your theory make? This is the most essential part of any theory. If you want to know whether your theory is worth anything or not, use it to make a genuine new prediction that could, if wrong, completely invalidate your theory.

 

Also as a word of advice, people like me hate opening a thread titled as a unifying field theory, just to find that it isn't a field theory at all. Don't call it a field theory when it is not. You should avoid using technical words differently than they are used in mainstream science, it is very off putting for people trying to read things that use words differently than they are used to using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by the idea... that every test... and every bit of evidence you can find... WILL FIT.

To ask me to find new tests... is asking a lot.. as 1000's of smart minds.. are running those tests right now.

My claim... is that the actual evidence... of all these tests... the real evidence... will fit... if not perfectly.. then generally... and it is the imperfections... which lead to consideration which will result in clarification of the details..(number of dimensions) ... or problems in quantification as discussed.

 

I built theory.. by studying the flaws of modern theory... how theory does not perfectly fit... and that.. lead me to this..

I... am not saying that... I have it perfect... that its done.. that its perfect... hardly.

its a first step.

I show you the dimensional progressive pattern... I can show you how all.. ALL.. the evidence fits... that... is a big deal... it has value.

I... share this... in hopes... that you could use it... that is all.

It fits... and I dare say.... any test being done... will support it, if you can get past biases in interpreting the results.

many hold biases... and presume evidence says one thing.. when... low and behold.. I can show that it can say something else entirely.

 

I use the term... unifying field theory... simply because that is what it does... but its not finished... not by a long shot.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ACG52    364

I stand by the idea... that every test... and every bit of evidence you can find... WILL FIT.

To ask me to find new tests... is asking a lot.. as 1000's of smart minds.. are running those tests right now.

My claim... is that the actual evidence... of all these tests... the real evidence... will fit... if not perfectly.. then generally... and it is the imperfections... which lead to consideration which will result in clarification of the details..(number of dimensions) ... or problems in quantification as discussed.

 

 

You're not being asked to find new tests. You're being asked what actual predictions of physical phenomena in the universe does your Wild Ass Guess make. Because until it actually makes testable, falsifiable prediction, it's not a theory, it's not even an hypothesis. It's a WAG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I have been asked for, and when I build a proper lab.. I may come up with some.

As of now... it is signifigant enough.. to use.. and fit.. all the results FROM ALL PAST TESTS... ALL EVIDENCE.

The fact is.. there is a mountain of evidence.... if... it all fits... then... IT FITS.

You.. are asking me for more than this.... new tests... but they are not needed... IF ALL EVIDENCE FITS.

BUT... yeah... your right... the burden is on me... and all I can hope to discuss at this time.. IS ALL OF MODERN SCIENCE AND ALL EVIDENCE.

I FOR ONE... THINK... that would be enough... for now.

And... any theory... to be worth anything... MUST BE ABLE TO DO EXACTLY THAT.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Klaynos    721

You need to show it fits by presenting some numerical, falsifiable predictions.

 

Anyone can claim it fits that doesn't make it true. Without numerical predictions it's difficult to see how you can claim that it fits the evidence because that requires numbers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ACG52    364

You haven't shown anything fits. So far all we've gotten is word salad, hand-waving, and a lot of ellipses...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again... so you want me to show how it fits... well... I will have to post all of modern science.. but ok...

 

starting with...

 

evidsiggestjpeg.JPG

 

 

 

If you want me to get specific.... it would help... if you could request a particular branch of science.

 

The claim I make... is as huge as all modern science.

 

Where do you want me to begin.?

 

To start... the dimensional progressive pattern... is suggested... first and foremost... by the motions of Super clusters, Galaxies, and stars....

 

Their motions... with left over core masses.. and massive galactic cores... all... suggest a pattern.

it took me 7 years... and 7000 pages of hand written notes... to finnally see it...

 

Dimensional motion... is motion on space... itself.

1D...

2D..

3D..

if we force it to keep rising in levels of energy as motion... we get time and the fundamental particle (4D) , we get photons(5D)... then magnetic fields(6D), then matter 7D)... and also.. the big bang... (at 8D)

 

 

And if that matter... which is energized space... under tension... is made to rise in energy again... what would it do?

WHAT COULD IT DO?

 

it could.. break down... and spread out.. and take up motions.... more and more motion... in space.

9D, orbiting super clusters...

10D orbiting galaxies..

11D orbiting stars...

12D orbiting atomic cores...

all... higher and higher levels of dimensional motion... on matter in space... matter made from that space.

 

This is simple stuff, yet highly complex...

 

You ask for mathmatical proofs... which I cannot provide, as there are too many variables to consider.

 

I post this... because so many of you are blinded by big bang logic... which.. is flawed to say the least.

 

I stand by again... the statement... that provided any evidence.. I can show how it fits.

if you want me to provide it all... it will be no less than 300 pages.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sir... i was asked for new tests... but lets face facts... 1000's of scientists are doing tests... to test everything...

I base theory... ON THEIR RESULTS.

It is not easy... to develop new tests... have you ever tried????

 

The first thing you must do... is make sure someone has not already done it.

 

I base my proposals on the results other have found..

 

To quote Newton,

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

 

That... is exactly.. what I am saying... nothing more.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fine, to make thing very easy for you.

 

Use your theory to calculate the radius of the first electron energy level in a hydrogen atom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again... i offer a presentation of a dimensional progressive pattern... which can be found to fit evidence.

It explains why...... fundamentally... why... atoms exist... as they do... as you already have the numbers you ask for.

 

for example..

 

atomjpeg.JPG

 

 

 

The most important question of why... to be answered for electrons.. is why do they interact with photons.. and form inductive fields... why?

 

To this I propose a basic model for an electron.. which allows for this.

 

The obsorbtion spectra of Hydrogen for example... having to do.. with its orbit... and rates of spin, relative to the oncoming photon which could be obsorbed.. or not.

 

I am not afraid to admit.. i cannot give you specific as you desire... but given the evidence.. the facts of energy levels.. it fits, and is explained for why in theory.. based on design.

 

I do not imagine this will be enough for any of you... I admit that.

 

This is meant to be food for thought... i said.. its a work in progress... which to my knowledge fits it all.

 

My gain from this conversation will come.. when you can show me something that does not fit.... for if it does not fit.. it shows the flaw, and the flaw.. leads to clarity through the fog... the fog.. which veils.. the equations which would give me.. the keys to the universe... which is what you are basically asking me for.

That is what you want... and i cannot give it to you.

 

But that does not bother me... as the concept.. theory... still has great worth and value, and my hope is that you.. who consider yourself smarter than me, could use it.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ACG52    364
again... i offer a presentation of a dimensional progressive pattern... which can be found to fit evidence.

It explains why...... fundamentally... why... atoms exist... as they do... as you already have the numbers you ask for.

 

 

So... you can't... make any predictions... fro...m your word... salad. :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Klaynos    721

again... i offer a presentation of a dimensional progressive pattern... which can be found to fit evidence.

 

You need numbers to "fit evidence," that is how modern science works.

 

It explains why...... fundamentally... why...

 

Then you are not doing science, you're making up stories. That is not useful I'm afraid, how is useful.

 

atoms exist... as they do... as you already have the numbers you ask for.

 

No no no, we need numbers produced from your idea, not measured values or values from accepted theories, else you are not only adding nothing but also not capable of matching what already exists.

 

for example..

 

There are not numerical predictions in your image.

 

The most important question of why... to be answered for electrons.. is why do they interact with photons.. and form inductive fields... why?

 

That isn't what you were asked. You were asked to make quite a simple prediction. I assume from your avoidance that you cannot do this.

 

To this I propose a basic model for an electron.. which allows for this.

 

Then please answer the question, as it stands it appears you cannot. Any model, as the term is used in science would be able to produce this number or be deemed irrelevant.

 

The obsorbtion spectra of Hydrogen for example... having to do.. with its orbit... and rates of spin, relative to the oncoming photon which could be obsorbed.. or not.

 

I am not afraid to admit.. i cannot give you specific as you desire...

 

Therefore you do not have a theory, you do not have a model, and it certainly cannot be said to "fit the evidence" all it does is tell stories about the evidence which is useless. I strongly suggest before you spend any more of your time writing another 7000 pages that you put that time to use and read about what modern science entails. It is NOT story telling. It is the mathematical modelling of how the universe works and the comparison of those numerical predictions to reality. Your idea does not allow for either of those things, it is not science.

 

but given the evidence.. the facts of energy levels.. it fits, and is explained for why in theory.. based on design.

 

Again, stating something as true does not make it so.

 

I do not imagine this will be enough for any of you... I admit that.

 

This is meant to be food for thought... i said.. its a work in progress... which to my knowledge fits it all.

 

My gain from this conversation will come.. when you can show me something that does not fit.... for if it does not fit..

 

It is impossible to show anything fits or does not fit with what you have presented.

 

it shows the flaw, and the flaw.. leads to clarity through the fog... the fog.. which veils.. the equations which would give me.. the keys to the universe... which is what you are basically asking me for.

That is what you want... and i cannot give it to you.

 

Please go do some reading.

 

But that does not bother me... as the concept.. theory...

 

It's not a theory. At best it's a vague thought.

 

still has great worth and value, and my hope is that you.. who consider yourself smarter than me, could use it.

 

As explained it has no worth as is to current science, it shows that you need to understand the current implementation of the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now