grzegorzsz830402

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

how can you remain objective when measuring "reality"?

Be consistent: do not name something particle when something do not meet requirements that all other have to meet.

Same with time, time do not meet the requirements to be a dimension. It is a useful concept not dimension. 

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Yes, bring it on!

4 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Do those members have access to high rank science society members?

So, they could bring to their attention Theory Of Everything, that they are personally convinced about, to meet all the criteria.

Can you state, that you also meet this requirement?

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If you have a mathematical model to accompany your explanations it would help a great deal. Any ToE discussion thread needs to start in the Speculations section.

3 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.^[

IIt all depends on what is being considered. 

"Gravity (or the acceleration due to gravity) is 9.81 meters per second squared, "

Current model have the numbers.

What is lacking is: coherent theoretical framework of physics .

5 minutes ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

If you have a mathematical model

Mathematical model is "high resolution" 

theoretical framework is "low resolution"

Description is accurate at scale that is being consider. 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Do you mean you don't use mainstream physics?

I have to say Yes and No to this question.

A theory of everything (TOE^[1] or TOE/ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.^[2]: 6 Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.^[3] 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Does this forum have a member/members that feel competent to assess such theory?

As, it can challenge some currently accepted and deeply rooted assumptions about reality. 

Do those members have access to high rank science society members?

So, they could bring to their attention Theory Of Everything, that they are personally convinced about, to meet all the criteria.

It present no value, for me to share and convince anyone to my Theory Of Everything, and in aftermath, for that to stay between us.

Because communicating Theory Of Everything make sense only if it would benefit society at large.

If, I would have access to high rank scientist, that could assess and validate Theory Of Everything and make it part generally accepted science. Then I would not post about it here for obvious reasons. 

Having such theory, without ability to communicate it, to anyone who could validate that theory, offers no value for you either.

If you read this let me know if you meet criteria.

If you don't meet criteria, you can still be of great merotical value to validate or void my Theory Of Everything. 

Yet, at least one member needs to meet criteria for me to start presenting my Theory Of Everything. 

If you would have such Theory, what value it would have for you, to share it with me. Only value it could have if I could help you void it.

Having something of value and not being able to share it, do not evoke positive emotions. 

That is why I look either for: voiding or validation.

So, without at least one member meeting criteria, I could benefit only from my theory to be voided.

In those circumstances, only voiding approach makes sense.

And if accomplish, it would be a great relief for me.