Theory: A contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory. One modern group of meanings emphasizes the interpretative, abstracting, and generalizing nature of theory. For example in the arts and philosophy, the term "theoretical" may be used to describe ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable. Theory abstracts. It draws away from the particular and empirical. By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is a word still used in theological contexts to mean viewing through contemplation — speculating about meanings that transcend measurement. However, by contrast to theoria, theory is based on the act of viewing analytically and generalizing contextually. It is thus based upon a process of abstraction. That is, theory involves stepping back, or abstracting, from that which one is viewing.[1] A theory can be "normative (or prescriptive),[2] meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards".[3] A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[4] As already in Aristotle's definitions, theory is very often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because pure theory involves no doing apart from itself. A classical example of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[5] In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[6] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[7] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.
A theory can be "normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.
It has taken two years to develop this theory,and it is still being developed.
I am interested in quantum mechanics. If you do not fully understand theory, read no further. http://youtu.be/qtYfz72MmtM
Infinite: limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate. Boundless, unbounded, unlimited, never-ending, interminable.
When we look out into the universe there appears to be some kind of duality, male, female, light, darkness, positive, negative on and on, from the macro to the micro. One could make the assumption that this duality must exist through all of creation. After all, how could any thing be created without the male and female union? So we are left with a universe that is endlessly trying to balance it's self out, or to put it another way, to find zen. One could make an assumption that in order to achieve zen all the universe needs to do is stay in the middle, not too much light, not too much darkness. If this were the case however, the universe would become stable and no longer expand. Science shows us that the universe is expanding presumably forever. The universe is not infinite. It can be measured and it has an edge. It's the space that the universe is expanding in that is infinite. Science works by proving it's self wrong. There is no such thing as scientific fact, only theory. A simple example: At one time scientific minds thought the Earth was flat and that the sun and planets revolved around it. Something stands as scientific fact only until science proves it wrong. What is fact today, is tomorrows fiction. So one could say that we acquire knowledge not by knowing what is right, but by learning what was wrong. When we use the word "God", what do we mean? God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Clearly because the universe is not infinite this definition will not do. I would like to use the term "the all" as I feel it more closely represents what I would consider truth. All: used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing. Everyone, everybody, each person, every person "all are welcome" each one, the sum, the total, the whole lot. Everything, every part, the whole amount, the (whole) lot, the entirety. For something to exist, it would mean that it is indeed part of the all, not somehow outside, the all has no edge. The all is all knowing and is the source of all thought. Enlightenment: Insight, understanding, awareness, wisdom, education, learning, knowledge, illumination, awakening, instruction, teaching, sophistication, advancement, development, culture, refinement, cultivation, civilization. In the word enlightenment there is the word light, and in the definition the words illumination, wisdom, and knowledge. So we could make the assumption that knowledge is light. Light is energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Force: strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement. Strength, power, energy, might, effort, exertion; impact, pressure, weight, impetus. The light force is the driving force behind the expansion of the universe, and therefore, our awareness because as the universe expands so too does our knowledge of the universe it's self. Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or information, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about. Darkness: The partial or total absence of light, blackness, gloom, dimness, murkiness, shadow, evil, wickedness, sin, iniquity, immorality;devilry, the Devil. Now with the understanding of "the all", and that light is knowledge, how can there be any darkness? There is no such thing as an evil plant or animal, or man. There is only ignorance and ignorance generates fear of the light. We are not male or female, black or white, American or Russian, human or animal. We are light and we can not be created or destroyed. We are eternal, there is no difference between us and "the all", we ARE "the all'. The universe is mental: when we look out, we are really looking in. When a person uses certain psychedelic plants they experience other realities beyond our current ability of understanding. When they make these journeys they are not blasting off to some new place. It is in fact a journey deep into ones own mind and the higher intelligence is their own. When I say light what I really mean is information or knowledge or thought. When we see light what we are really seeing is the information that indicates light. It's the same principle as listing to music with an electronic device. Electronic information is sent to the speaker. The speaker vibrates and causes sound. The sound is picked up by our ears. Then brain then takes the audio information and converts it into thought, that then paints the picture in our mind witch allows us to hear and understand the information as music. So there really is no light or darkness, just thought. It is indeed a paradox in the since that from nothing came something. To illustrate this point I would like you to imagine this: Nothing...but to try an imagine something is not nothing, it is something. The nothing is not black or white it is nothing. The nothing is like air, it is colorless and see through. The nothing is not air because air is something. The nothing is thought. Since we cannot imagine the nothing as nothing I will ask you to imagine it as a black void. Out of this void a single thought: What? Intensely a single white dot appears off in the distance. The dot immediately produces another thought: What is that? Now time does not exist in the void but I would like you to think of this thought as repeating over and over for a very long time. As the time that doesn't really exist goes by the dot grows bigger and bigger until the black void becomes the white void. When this happened the void realized that the white dot was it. Like looking in the mirror. The shock of the realization causes the mirror to shatter and the void or nothing becomes the creator.(The big bang) Where you able to imagine anything I just described? If so the you proved my next point. The universe is mental: You where able to take information into your brain and convert it into thought and produce a reality in your own mind. _________________________ I was asked: "I can imagine that you have seen everything at the same time, I have not been able to do this, but I can imagine that someone would be able to do so. As to duality, its true, our body is symmetrical and many parts of our body are in pairs. When looking at the Mona Lisa we could say we use doublethink, we see different with our conscious mind and different with our subconscious (I'm not going to discuss multithink right now). As to infinite I claim that it is possible that there is more than one infinity if one accepts the notion that infinity is a finite set. You seem to see everything in a duality, a person posted on this forum before and claimed phenomena showing up in threes (Pathos, Ethos, Logos etc etc). When you talk about "the all" it conjures up my notion of Totality. I think Energy=Matter and Matter=Energy=Light, so yes, you could say everything is light at a different frequency. Light (Energy) can be on a scale (0%-100%). Question: What is the speed of thought? I stated: I am everything anything and nothing at the same time, at once. If our universe is a computer simulation, what is the frequency of it's CPU?" Think of thought as being a force, like gravity. What is the speed of gravity? Gravity's speed is consent. It is always happening and effects everything in the universe. Thought is always happening, and is everywhere in the universe. You are not in your head. You are the outside information or thought we see as our world , our solar system, and everything we can see in the universe. If we can observe in the the universe, a thought created what we observed. Quantum mechanics shows us this. The moon is only the moon when your looking at it. Thought is a force , energy who's speed is consent and is everywhere. As we know energy cannot be created or destroyed, thus we can never be created or destroyed. As for the frequency, theoretically since all there really is is thought it can be any. It would automatically be tailored to the receiver. Theory of everything taken from Wikipedia: A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory refers to the hypothetical presence of a single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[1] ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a ToE. The two theories upon which all modern physics rests are General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on the force of gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QM is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QM successfully implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions (so-called Grand Unified Theory) between the three non-gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QM, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible - they cannot both be right. Since the usual domains of applicability of GR and QM are so different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be used. As it turns out, this incompatibility between GR and QM is only an apparent issue in regions of extremely small-scale and high-mass, such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). To resolve this conflict, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of GR and QM into a seamless whole: a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena. In pursuit of this goal, quantum gravity and quantum field theory have recently become an area of active research. Over the past few decades, a single explanatory framework, called "string theory", has emerged that may turn out to be the ultimate theory of the universe. Many physicists believe that, at the beginning of the universe (up to 10−43 seconds after the Big Bang), the four fundamental forces were once a single fundamental force. Unlike most (if not all) other theories, String theory may be on its way to successfully incorporating each of the four fundamental forces into a unified whole. According to string theory, every particle in the universe, at its most microscopic level (Planck length), consists of varying combinations of vibrating strings (or strands) with preferred patterns of vibration. String theory claims that it is through these specific oscillatory patterns of strings that a particle of unique mass and force charge is created (that is to say, the electron is a type of string that vibrates one way, while the up-quark is a type of string vibrating another way, and so forth). Initially, the term theory of everything was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of the 1960s — was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Physicist John Ellis[2] claims to have introduced the term into the technical literature in an article in Nature in 1986.[3] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of theoretical physics research. I ask. Dose my theory not answer all of the requirements as stated above?
