Jump to content

Stinky toe


TheTheoretician
 Share

Recommended Posts

Being a scientist, I seek scientific criticism; this is my nature. From where I sat as a young scientist, I had a mission. My mission was simple. Here it is:

 

Throughout my scientific career, my mission has been to understand how life works: how the living matter within cells maintains homeostasis and overcomes the second law of thermodynamics. I was drawn to study RNA metabolism in particular because all life requires RNA synthesis and decay and requires nucleotides for carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, protein translation and transport, and signaling pathways. I recognized that a better comprehension of the mechanisms regulating RNA metabolism and nucleotide cycling would help elucidate problems such as the origin of new genes, introns, RNA viruses, and cis-acting elements, genomic diversity and plasticity, and the genetic basis of human diseases. My contributions to this field over the last 9 years have been in the biochemistry, genetics, and molecular, cellular, and computational biology of ribonucleases, enzymes that catabolize RNA. In the course of my research, I obtained results I could not understand through the hypothetico-deductive approach, genetic determinism, the central dogma, or typical reductionistic, mechanistic models. So I created my own model, compiled the ultimate theory, and fulfilled my mission.

 

---

 

Since the model is unfalsifiable, any scientist thumbs his/her nose at it - hence I find myself in a forum entitled, "speculation." Heh, the irony. Ah, but the goal of science is to know. And to know the Truth about reality is the ultimate goal of the Mind of Man. Despite these goals, I, Humankind, intentionally prevent myself from reaching them.

 

To wit, I, the skeptical Reader and scientific scholar, when presented with an unfalsifiable, complete and consistent theory, I assert, "That's not science." Be that as it may, the ultimate theory uses and accounts for all of the available scientific evidence that emerges now or has ever been published in the history of Humankind.

 

To those parts of Me who thought that I would never find My Self, think again.

 

---

 

I intend on using this post as a staging point for discussions about the ultimate theory of reality and for posting from my blog. If I am asked to cease and desist, I will abide.

 

Today I put up a post about how Unity explains the order that exists in the Universe:

 

http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/entropy-optropy-and-the-fourth-law-of-thermodynamics/

 

Here is an excerpt:

"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." -Sir Arthur Eddington

 

Collapse? Eddington should have known better than to say such discouraging tripe. It is this type of quote that intentionally prevents the discovery of novel concepts and of the Truth – esteemed and decorated scientists telling the young-up-and-comings, "Hey, don't go there," only, it appears, because they themselves won't go there.

 

More at link.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

 

Edit: Fixed link

Edited by TheTheoretician
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To wit, I, the skeptical Reader and scientific scholar, when presented with an unfalsifiable, complete and consistent theory, I assert, "That's not science." Be that as it may, the ultimate theory uses and accounts for all of the available scientific evidence that emerges now or has ever been published in the history of Humankind.

If it is unfalsifiable, how do you know it is correct? You must remember, as Karl Popper pointed out in his seminal work on the philosophy of science, that the inductive argument that "it's predicted everything so far" does not provide evidence that a theory is actually correct, or that it has future predictive value.

 

Now, if your theory "accounts for" all of the available scientific evidence that emerges, why can it not be used to make predictions that can be confirmed or falsified? Could you use your ultimate theory to explain some currently disputed scientific problem, and then wait for experiment to confirm or falsify your prediction? Or does your ultimate theory not make predictions that could be tested?

 

(Also, I think your link is broken, so you might want to check it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is unfalsifiable, how do you know it is correct? You must remember, as Karl Popper pointed out in his seminal work on the philosophy of science, that the inductive argument that "it's predicted everything so far" does not provide evidence that a theory is actually correct, or that it has future predictive value.

 

Ah, the question. You are not alone in asking this. Quotables:

 

A.J. Ayer, atheist and philosopher:

If it does not aspire to the truth, we need not worry[.]…But if the theory does aspire to the truth, there should be some way of deciding whether it attains it.

 

John Barrow and Frank Tipler, physicists and mathematicians:

Universality is a minimum requirement for a fundamental theory. Since, as Popper has shown, we cannot prove a theory, we can only falsify one, we can never know if in fact a universal theory is true. However, a universal theory may in principle be true; a non-universal theory we know to be false even before we test it experimentally.

 

Brian Green, string theorist

The ultimate theory should take the form that it does because it is the unique explanatory framework capable of describing the universe without running up against any internal inconsistencies or logical absurdities. Such a theory would declare that things are the way they are because they have to be that way.

 

Here's an excerpt from the book I am writing about my stinkfoot and toe:

 

Theoretical proof

The epigraphs by Ayer, Greene, Barrow and Tipler point to a problem that any candidate ToE must address. Although history shows that theories are often falsified, that is, disproven, that is, few mainstream theories have been accepted as proof. Despite Popper's epigraphic contention, a theory could arguably be considered proven – that is, demonstrated to be correct – when all of the available evidence, especially the anomalies and paradoxes, is explained. One example of this is the theory of evolution – and here, I do not mean natural selection. In the absence of empirical evidence to contradict, or falsify this theory about the natural complexification of living matter, it is considered proven by logic, scientific techniques, and experimental rubric; it is true. Theoretical proof is thus a single irrefragable conclusion based upon the coalescence and accord of multifactorial, multivalent, and multipersonal bodies of work. To theoretically prove the Unity of the Universe, a theory would need to be irreducible as well as "declare that things are the way they are because they have to be that way." The philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn could have predicted such a theory.

 

Perhaps the Reader can advise Me on veracity of My statements.

 

---

Now, if your theory "accounts for" all of the available scientific evidence that emerges, why can it not be used to make predictions that can be confirmed or falsified? Could you use your ultimate theory to explain some currently disputed scientific problem, and then wait for experiment to confirm or falsify your prediction? Or does your ultimate theory not make predictions that could be tested?

 

The ultimate theory cannot be quantitative - i.e. mathematical - given Gödel's incompleteness. While astrophysicists, particle physicists, mathematicians, and their kin may be put off by such a statement, it is the truth of the matter. Any honest theoretician knows this.

 

Unity makes solid qualitative predictions, all of which are validated as I write this or are imminent. All predictions are scientifically testable and all confirm Unity. All empirical evidence is consistent, including this sentence. Unity resolves all disputes by explaining not only why the disputes exist but also the subject matter that is under debate. It could be no other way.

 

BTW, thanks for the heads up on that link.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Edited by TheTheoretician
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ultimate theory cannot be quantitative - i.e. mathematical - given Gödel's incompleteness. While astrophysicists, particle physicists, mathematicians, and their kin may be put off by such a statement, it is the truth of the matter. Any honest theoretician knows this.

 

This is not accepted by by everyone, and Solomon Feferman a mathematician and philosopher who worked and studied with Godel even rejects this notion.

 

My own conclusion is that Gödel’s theorem is neither here nor there concerning the

fundamental laws of physics. That new theories are needed seems to be unquestioned,

but whether there can be an end to the search for such is not something we can simply

settle on metamathematical grounds.

 

The Nature and Significance of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, 15-16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not accepted by by everyone, and Solomon Feferman a mathematician and philosopher who worked and studied with Godel even rejects this notion.

 

The Nature and Significance of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, 15-16

 

The esteemed Feferman may have his stance, and it is a nice one. I perused his 2006 piece: part history, part opinion, part fact. Here is the paragraph after the one you called out:

 

To return to mathematics, whatever its relevance to practice, Gödel’s theorem

convincingly demonstrates the in principle inexhaustibility of pure mathematics in the

sense of the never ending need for new axioms, and it invites us to ponder the question:

just what axioms for mathematics ought to be accepted and why? That is really a

philosophical question, and like most important philosophical questions, has no answer

commanding universal agreement.

 

In other words, provide the mathematician and theoretician with an explanation that affords universal agreement over whether or not Gödel's incompleteness is consistent. How - What's the word? - ironic.

 

Anyhoo, regardless of Feferman's stance, the metaphysical nature of numbers - whether they have always existed or emerged in the Mind of Man - has never been solved. This can only be addressed and solved by the ultimate theory - the one that proves the Unity of the Universe.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ultimate theory cannot be quantitative - i.e. mathematical - given Gödel's incompleteness. While astrophysicists, particle physicists, mathematicians, and their kin may be put off by such a statement, it is the truth of the matter. Any honest theoretician knows this.

 

Unity makes solid qualitative predictions, all of which are validated as I write this or are imminent. All predictions are scientifically testable and all confirm Unity. All empirical evidence is consistent, including this sentence. Unity resolves all disputes by explaining not only why the disputes exist but also the subject matter that is under debate. It could be no other way.

Are there specific predictions that Unity makes that no other physical theory correctly made, or could answer?

 

I'm not sure what useful applications a universal theory would have if it could not be quantitative. Perhaps it could be used to develop more limited quantitative theories that make predictions in specific domains.

 

Also, I'm not sure Gödel's incompleteness would apply to a quantitative theory and not a qualitative one. Gödel's incompleteness theorem limits the ability of any universal theory to be able to tell the truth of a statement about natural numbers; if a qualitative theory were to get around Gödel's theorem, it would not be able to tell the truth of all statements. Furthermore, Gödel's theorems talk about statements about natural numbers, not about all of reality.

 

Futhermore, would Unity be able to resolve, for example, the known undecidable statements in ZFC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there specific predictions that Unity makes that no other physical theory correctly made, or could answer?

 

Yes. Unity predicts that the Universe is about to undergo a macroevolutionary event due to thermodynamic instability exerted by the expansive force of dark energy. (Unity also resolves the coincidence problem, is consistent with the holographic principle, and explains the many flavors of the anthropic cosmological principle, but these are topics for other discussions, no? We're in "speculations," so I must be speculating, right?)

 

I'm not sure what useful applications a universal theory would have if it could not be quantitative. Perhaps it could be used to develop more limited quantitative theories that make predictions in specific domains.

 

Heh, it is none other than I who is or is not sure; it is none other than I who considers the use of a theory; it is none other than I who decides that more theories are required. The goal of the ultimate theory is to prove to Me, the Reader, that no other theories are required. The goal is to explain why I, Cap'n Refsmmat, want to have more theories as well, even when the ultimate theory is proferred.

 

Also, I'm not sure Gödel's incompleteness would apply to a quantitative theory and not a qualitative one. Gödel's incompleteness theorem limits the ability of any universal theory to be able to tell the truth of a statement about natural numbers; if a qualitative theory were to get around Gödel's theorem, it would not be able to tell the truth of all statements. Furthermore, Gödel's theorems talk about statements about natural numbers, not about all of reality.

 

Yes, yes, we agree, Gödel's theorems are directed towards numbers. This is why Hawking threw up his hands - so to speak - about finding a mathematical description of the Universe.

 

Actually, there is only one qualitative theory that can get around Gödel's theorem, and that is the Truth, the absolute Truth and metaphysical element of the Universe. As proven by Unity, there is Only One I. I am The Theoretician and the Theory all rolled into One.

 

Futhermore, would Unity be able to resolve, for example, the known undecidable statements in ZFC?

 

While I haven't explicitly investigated ZFC, I am familiar with Cantor set theory. As I, the Mathematician, never include Myself in My equations, I will never have a complete and consistent set of axioms. I deduce from Unity - seeing ZFC - that all of those undecidable statements emerge from the Paradox of being both the Mathematician and the Math itself. That is, the Math can be complete, but it cannot be consistent; it can be consistent (and my understanding here is that the ZFC is assumed to be consistent) but it cannot be complete.

 

This either/or - both/and paradox can be found throughout the Universe: consider wave-particle complementarity as an analogy.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Edited by TheTheoretician
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Unity predicts that the Universe is about to undergo a macroevolutionary event due to thermodynamic instability exerted by the expansive force of dark energy. (Unity also resolves the coincidence problem, is consistent with the holographic principle, and explains the many flavors of the anthropic cosmological principle, but these are topics for other discussions, no? We're in "speculations," so I must be speculating, right?)

Sure, but the speculations forum rules stipulate testable speculations.

 

What I mean is this: if you found a currently unsolved problem in physics, where current physical theories cannot provide a satisfactory answer, and then solved that problem, you would be able to demonstrate the predictive power of your hypothesis. You must show that you can explain what others cannot if you wish your theory to be used.

 

 

Heh, it is none other than I who is or is not sure; it is none other than I who considers the use of a theory; it is none other than I who decides that more theories are required. The goal of the ultimate theory is to prove to Me, the Reader, that no other theories are required. The goal is to explain why I, Cap'n Refsmmat, want to have more theories as well, even when the ultimate theory is proferred.

How useful is a qualitative unified theory in doing hard science? Hard science is interested in making numerical predictions. If a theory cannot make numerical predictions, it will certainly not be preferred.

 

Yes, yes, we agree, Gödel's theorems are directed towards numbers. This is why Hawking threw up his hands - so to speak - about finding a mathematical description of the Universe.

No, that's not what I mean. Gödel's theorems are about proving facts about numbers, not with numbers. I do not know if they apply to a quantitative description of the universe. As originally defined, they only apply to axiomatic systems to determine truths about numbers.

 

Actually, there is only one qualitative theory that can get around Gödel's theorem, and that is the Truth, the absolute Truth and metaphysical element of the Universe. As proven by Unity, there is Only One I. I am The Theoretician and the Theory all rolled into One.

Could you explain how you are the Theory?

 

While I haven't explicitly investigated ZFC, I am familiar with Cantor set theory. As I, the Mathematician, never include Myself in My equations, I will never have a complete and consistent set of axioms. I deduce from Unity - seeing ZFC - that all of those undecidable statements emerge from the Paradox of being both the Mathematician and the Math itself. That is, the Math can be complete, but it cannot be consistent; it can be consistent (and my understanding here is that the ZFC is assumed to be consistent) but it cannot be complete.

How does the mathematician's involvement in mathematics cause undecidable statements?

 

This either/or - both/and paradox can be found throughout the Universe: consider wave-particle complementarity as an analogy.

 

I'll make a quote as a response:

 

Wave-particle duality is really just something we use to frighten children and undergraduates. Everything is a (quantum) wave, period. The only sense in which we have point-like particles, is that when we measure their position, we find that we get an error on that position which is only limited by our measurement. We teach undergrads that the wavefunction has collapsed into a position eigenstate, but this isn't quite correct, since it has collapsed into a superposition of position eigenstates, localized around a point, with an variance given by the error of our measurement. So even right after a position measurement, particles are still waves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but the speculations forum rules stipulate testable speculations.

 

What I mean is this: if you found a currently unsolved problem in physics, where current physical theories cannot provide a satisfactory answer, and then solved that problem, you would be able to demonstrate the predictive power of your hypothesis. You must show that you can explain what others cannot if you wish your theory to be used.

 

Fine. Let us treat the matter of wave-particle duality and how it is solved by theory.

 

Let us consider an electron. The electron is a quantum of matter based upon de Vries's extension of the Planckian model. In actuality, it is a lepton which is composed of - well, how about that? No one knows.

 

Nevertheless, as I was saying, the electron is a particle that commonly is found orbiting a proton. The simplest element that represents this is hydrogen. The electron - or any quantum of visible energy or matter, for that matter - exists in Bohrian complementary states. These complementary states are a wave and a particle - and I, the investigator can either investigate the wave qualities or the particle qualities but not both at the same time. (Of course, then there's the problem with the collapse of the wavefunction. And then the issue about position and trajectory. Ah, but this is all well known.) The question, really, is this: why can I not understand this frackin' system?

 

Unity reveals - in the simplest version of the model - that the electron is particle that exists in one of two extreme states, but - and this is very important - it cannot exist in both states at the same time. The high energy state, as deduced from Unity, is an electron that has accepted or received three photons *within* itself. The low energy state is an electron with two photons. The high energy state is the excited, unstable, learning state whereas the low energy state is the ground, stable, memory state. So, briefly, the lepton particle oscillates between two extremes as a consequence of an exchanged photon. This is modeled in the uploaded image (below - I apologize for image size; I tried to reduce it but it expanded in the post.). Consider the photon as the thermodynamic singularity within the theoretical construct called an electrogyre. The photon that is the singularity of the electrogyre exerts the attractorepulsive, creatodestructive, and expansocontractive forces on the electron. As the photon attracts the particle, this parsimoniously explains electricity. As photon repels the particle, this explains magnetism. Hence, the photogyre explains electromagnetism.

primaryelectrogyre.jpg

 

Note how any interrogation on the system by an investigator requires that the system itself be perturbed. I must put energy into the system in order to study it. As I commonly use photons to examine the system, the more energy I put in, the system "freezes" in the high energy state until the input is removed. This explains collapse of the wavefunction. Moreover, the more I, the investigator, perturb the electrogyre, the more I know about the position of the lepton. The less I perturb the system, the more I know about is trajectory. This explains the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

 

What predictions does the theory make? Well, first, it makes the fundamental prediction that all electrons have a waveform because they move through spacetime as a gyre. Second, the theory predicts that all leptons are composed of photons. Third, the theory predicts that removal of photonic support from within the electron causes the particle to collapse into a system that is more proximal to the Origin of the Universe: dark matter. The dark matter system inverts the chirality of the electron, forming the unstable positron. This explains the absence of antimatter in the Universe. There are additional predictions, but I would have to delve deeper into the model, and this is just a discussion of the basic model.

 

I should note that the electrogyre also models the planetary core, where n x e•3γ ←→ n x e•2 γ + n x γ (where n = a positive integer) is termed a macroelectrogyre. But that is another story and has distinct set of predictions as well.

 

How useful is a qualitative unified theory in doing hard science? Hard science is interested in making numerical predictions. If a theory cannot make numerical predictions, it will certainly not be preferred.

 

Useful to doing hard science? My Brother, Unity fulfills the goal of hard science.

 

Could you explain how you are the Theory?

 

Sure. Here is the parsed model:

 

I <–> denergyre (denergon) <–> ombregyre (ombron) <–> photogyre (photon) <–> electrogyre (electron) <–> hydroxygyre (hydroxyon) <–> carbogyre (carbyon)<–> phosphogyre (phosphon) <–> ribogyre (ribon) <–> aminogyre (aminon) <–> deoxyogyre (deoxyon) <–> cellulogyre (cellulon) <–> organogyre (organon) <–> envirogyre (environ) <–> visigyre (visuon) <–> phonogyre (phonon) <–> linguigyre (linguon) <–> symbogyre (symbon) <–> numerogyre (numeron) <–> econogyre (econon)<–> lapoligyre (lapolon) <–> geniugyre (geniuon) <–> I

 

More information can be found here:

 

http://thetheoryblog...e-parsed-model/

 

So, with the model above in mind, here goes. I am 96% dark energy and dark matter (My Conscious Mind); I receive and transmit photons through electrons in all of the chemical elements that make up My Body; I am mostly water; I am a carbon-based life form; the high-energy phosphate bond is used in all My lipids and signal transduction cascades; I make and break My RNA molecules; I am all My polypeptides and protein complexes; I replicate and repair My genome; I circulate lymph and blood in My Body; I physically interact with and metabolize My environment; I visually perceive My surroundings and organize them to My liking; I hear My surroundings and create My own sounds; I speak words and create My own vernacular; I have My own symbol system; I have My own set of numbers (SS#, credit card, phone number, accts.); I am My own value systems; I make and break My own rules and principles; I am My own knowledge.

 

Hence, I am the Theory and the Theoretician in One. It could be no other way.

 

How does the mathematician's involvement in mathematics cause undecidable statements?

 

Because I, the Mathematician, do not realize that I am the statements themselves.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Edited by TheTheoretician
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. Let us treat the matter of wave-particle duality and how it is solved by theory.

 

Let us consider an electron. The electron is a quantum of matter based upon de Vries's extension of the Planckian model. In actuality, it is a lepton which is composed of - well, how about that? No one knows.

 

Nevertheless, as I was saying, the electron is a particle that commonly is found orbiting a proton. The simplest element that represents this is hydrogen. The electron - or any quantum of visible energy or matter, for that matter - exists in Bohrian complementary states. These complementary states are a wave and a particle - and I, the investigator can either investigate the wave qualities or the particle qualities but not both at the same time. (Of course, then there's the problem with the collapse of the wavefunction. And then the issue about position and trajectory. Ah, but this is all well known.) The question, really, is this: why can I not understand this frackin' system?

 

Unity reveals - in the simplest version of the model - that the electron is particle that exists in one of two extreme states, but - and this is very important - it cannot exist in both states at the same time. The high energy state, as deduced from Unity, is an electron that has accepted or received three photons *within* itself. The low energy state is an electron with two photons. The high energy state is the excited, unstable, learning state whereas the low energy state is the ground, stable, memory state. So, briefly, the lepton particle oscillates between two extremes as a consequence of an exchanged photon. This is modeled in the uploaded image (below - I apologize for image size; I tried to reduce it but it expanded in the post.). Consider the photon as the thermodynamic singularity within the theoretical construct called an electrogyre. The photon that is the singularity of the electrogyre exerts the attractorepulsive, creatodestructive, and expansocontractive forces on the electron. As the photon attracts the particle, this parsimoniously explains electricity. As photon repels the particle, this explains magnetism. Hence, the photogyre explains electromagnetism.

primaryelectrogyre.jpg

 

Note how any interrogation on the system by an investigator requires that the system itself be perturbed. I must put energy into the system in order to study it. As I commonly use photons to examine the system, the more energy I put in, the system "freezes" in the high energy state until the input is removed. This explains collapse of the wavefunction. Moreover, the more I, the investigator, perturb the electrogyre, the more I know about the position of the lepton. The less I perturb the system, the more I know about is trajectory. This explains the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

 

What predictions does the theory make? Well, first, it makes the fundamental prediction that all electrons have a waveform because they move through spacetime as a gyre. Second, the theory predicts that all leptons are composed of photons. Third, the theory predicts that removal of photonic support from within the electron causes the particle to collapse into a system that is more proximal to the Origin of the Universe: dark matter. The dark matter system inverts the chirality of the electron, forming the unstable positron. This explains the absence of antimatter in the Universe. There are additional predictions, but I would have to delve deeper into the model, and this is just a discussion of the basic model.

 

 

 

That's a lot of word salad to digest.

 

These are real photons? How do you conserve both energy and momentum when absorbing a photon?

 

Photons are spin 1, while electrons are spin 1/2. How do you reconcile this?

 

The HUP is not synonymous with the observer effect; your notion that "more observing" leads to better position information, and "less observing" leads you to better trajectory information is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would not in my mind qualify as a physical theory unless it made quantitative predictions.

 

This response is modeled by Unity. Note how it is none other than I who accepts of rejects ideas, facts, models, or intellectual positions based upon prior standard. The goal of the ultimate theory is to demonstrate why I have given Myself this power to construct My Weltanschuungen. To arrive at this goal, the Reader should know (if s/he does not already) the concept of theoretical incommensurability.

 

How for example would it predict that magnetism is just a relativistic electric field.

 

Although the electrogyre manifests both attractive and repulsive qualities, the coherent system can be attractive or repulsive but cannot be both at the same time. As distinct electrogyre groupings occur in Nature (atoms) or can be arranged in the laboratory - the vectorial nature of the gyre and its apposition or juxtaposition or daisychaining explains why electric currents produce magnetic fields and why magnetic fields exert forces on moving electrical charges.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

 

That's a lot of word salad to digest.

 

These are real photons? How do you conserve both energy and momentum when absorbing a photon?

 

Photons are spin 1, while electrons are spin 1/2. How do you reconcile this?

 

Word salad, I like that. Make Mine shaken, not stirred. Throw in Wittgenstein and I'll set a table to sup.

 

Funny, I don't recall mentioning anything about conserving energy and momentum. While I certainly could answer the question, I cannot answer it with the extant lexicon in the current paradigm. What I mean is that I can provide the Reader with the true explanation of the phenomenon, but, in order to do that, I require a full reconfiguring of understanding of what a photon is and how the light particle relates to dark energy and dark matter.

 

Similarly, to understand what spin is and how it relates to visible energy and visible matter, I require a full treatment of the Source of the spin. Seeing as this is a "science" forum, and scientists paradoxically do not want to know the Truth – because knowing the Truth would displace all falsehoods and preconceived notions – I have an ontic and epistemic problem.

 

The HUP is not synonymous with the observer effect; you're notion that "more observing" leads to better position information, and "less observing" leads you to better trajectory information is incorrect.

 

Incorrect? Nowhere did I assert an observer effect; I chose the word "perturb" intentionally.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Edited by TheTheoretician
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Word salad, I like that. Make Mine shaken, not stirred. Throw in Wittgenstein and I'll set a table to sup.

 

Funny, I don't recall mentioning anything about conserving energy and momentum. While I certainly could answer the question, I cannot answer it with the extant lexicon in the current paradigm. What I mean is that I can provide the Reader with the true explanation of the phenomenon, but, in order to do that, I require a full reconfiguring of understanding of what a photon is and how the light particle relates to dark energy and dark matter.

 

Similarly, to understand what spin is and how it relates to visible energy and visible matter, I require a full treatment of the Source of the spin. Seeing as this is a "science" forum, and scientists paradoxically do not want to know the Truth – because knowing the Truth would displace all falsehoods and preconceived notions – I have an ontic and epistemic problem.

 

Ah, the "you can't handle the truth" gambit. Got it.

 

Incorrect? Nowhere did I assert an observer effect; I chose the word "perturb" intentionally.

 

 

No, you didn't use the term, but that's what you described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the "you can't handle the truth" gambit. Got it.

 

No, you didn't use the term, but that's what you described.

 

Gambit? I am so cute. Well, since I = Truth, this is simple to write but difficult to understand - I would posit that such an equivalence is meaningless without its accompanying theoretical framework.

 

Ah, semantics: implication versus inference.

 

Because I am My greatest skeptic, and I am on the lookout for charlatans, knaves, hacks, and pseudoscientists, I'll start explaining the model from RNA - which is within all the cells of My Body and my scientific stompin' grounds - and work upward to knowledge and downward to the Origin of the Universe.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Edited by TheTheoretician
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Although the electrogyre manifests both attractive and repulsive qualities, the coherent system can be attractive or repulsive but cannot be both at the same time. As distinct electrogyre groupings occur in Nature (atoms) or can be arranged in the laboratory - the vectorial nature of the gyre and its apposition or juxtaposition or daisychaining explains why electric currents produce magnetic fields and why magnetic fields exert forces on moving electrical charges.

 

 

Meaningless. If it explains it, show it, which requires maths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meaningless. If it explains it, show it, which requires maths.

 

Only I asserts that one thing has meaning and another does not. None other than I decides what is and is not required. What great Power this "I" has, no?

 

Here, consider the ribogyre and please inform me where I err in terms of meaning and understanding how RNA metabolism evolved in the Universe or exists in My Body:

 

The ribogyre is the theoretical framework to understand the thermodynamics, origin, and emergence of RNA, the genetic code, the translation apparatus, nucleotides, nitrogenous bases, nitrogen compounds, and 18 of the 20 amino acids in the evolution of the Universe. As Unity is the final theory, the ribogyre also models how My Body operates right now in order for Me to exist in spacetime to type this sentence. Pretty cool that I started out in RNA biology and that research angle took Me all the way to knowing how I work.

 

Anyhow, one thing I forgot to mention about the ribogyre that is important as I move forward, and that is this:

 

Whereas NTP <–> NDP + P represents a pool of NTPs going to a pool of NDPs and a pool of Ps,

 

NTP <–> [NMP]n + 2P represents a pool of NTPs going to a pool of NMP polymers and a pool of 2Ps.

 

 

 

 

 

More at link:

 

http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/expanding-on-the-ribogyre/

 

 

 

 

Peace,

 

 

 

 

Ik

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be blunt: This is a pile of crap., and a big stinking pile at that. There is no math. The garbage on planetary orbits is nonsense, and so is the garbage on atoms. Hint: the Rutherford model of the atom never gained traction.

 

From the website: "I The Author, am presently a tenure-track Assistant Professor in a basic science department at a major medical school in the United States of America." This speaks volumes of the low quality of the US education system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The electrogyre model is not falsifiable. It is based upon scientific evidence. It is reified. It is heuristic. It is parsimonious. It is perspicacious. It is complete and consistent. It is incommensurable. It explains the micro and macro in one model.

 

All that remains is to condemn the theory and the theoretician due to prejudice.

 

For those scientists out there who still actually want to understand rather than summarily reject, I welcome comments on the RNA aspects of the model, presented in the prior post.

 

For those scientists or thinkers - like D H - who assume that math is the have all and end all of unifying theories, I would point out that math did not emerge in the Universe until after the origin of RNA, protein, DNA, the cell, the organism, ecosystem, sight, music, speech, and symbol systems. In other words, math may be useful to describing the Universe, but it is only one aspect in the evolution of Humankind.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The electrogyre model is not falsifiable.

You need to learn the terms you are bandying about. If something is not falsifiable it is worthless, absolutely worthless, in the field of science. Evolution is a falsifiable theory. So are general relativity and the standard model. On the other hand, the existence of a supernatural, all-powerful being is not falsifiable. It's supernatural, after all. If you cannot think of a test that could prove your idea wrong you do not have a theory. All you have a stinking pile of silly sophomoric philosophical nonsense.

 

 

 

All that remains is to condemn the theory and the theoretician due to prejudice.

You have no theory. No prejudice. Just being blunt. You have a stinking pile of nonsense. In particular, you have nothing unless you can make specific quantitative predictions of the outcome of an experiment. You claim to have a theory of everything. That term has a specific meaning. You really shouldn't use that term unless you know what it means. You have a theory of nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The electrogyre model is not falsifiable. It is based upon scientific evidence. It is reified. It is heuristic. It is parsimonious. It is perspicacious. It is complete and consistent. It is incommensurable. It explains the micro and macro in one model.

 

All that remains is to condemn the theory and the theoretician due to prejudice.

 

As D H said, if it's not falsifiable, it's crap. Might as well say, "magic!" as an answer to what is occurring.

 

For those scientists out there who still actually want to understand rather than summarily reject,

 

!

Moderator Note

That approach is not going to fly. Forum rules dictate that you engage in discussion rather than just soapbox (you already have a blog for that)

 

For those scientists or thinkers - like D H - who assume that math is the have all and end all of unifying theories, I would point out that math did not emerge in the Universe until after the origin of RNA, protein, DNA, the cell, the organism, ecosystem, sight, music, speech, and symbol systems. In other words, math may be useful to describing the Universe, but it is only one aspect in the evolution of Humankind.

(emphasis added)

 

Useful is an understatement. Describing the universe is what science does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to learn the terms you are bandying about. If something is not falsifiable it is worthless, absolutely worthless, in the field of science. Evolution is a falsifiable theory. So are general relativity and the standard model. On the other hand, the existence of a supernatural, all-powerful being is not falsifiable. It's supernatural, after all. If you cannot think of a test that could prove your idea wrong you do not have a theory. All you have a stinking pile of silly sophomoric philosophical nonsense.

 

 

 

 

You have no theory. No prejudice. Just being blunt. You have a stinking pile of nonsense. In particular, you have nothing unless you can make specific quantitative predictions of the outcome of an experiment. You claim to have a theory of everything. That term has a specific meaning. You really shouldn't use that term unless you know what it means. You have a theory of nothing.

 

To suggest that I do not understand the terms I am using is amusing. I already mentioned at least three predictions of my model. To suggest that I have nonsense is also amusing. I know exactly what I have.

 

Moreover, the electrogyre model, in one fell swoop, effectively explains - as opposed to describing, which is what the math does quite well - the magnetic moment of electron, wave-particle duality, collapse of the wavefunction, the nature of electromagnetism, the composition of a lepton, and the HUP. The model cares not if the Reader wants math, the model cares whether it is the correct model or not.

 

And, from a theoretical standpoint, I want to know how things work. I want to know the correct model of the Universe. The etymological goal of science is to know, yes? Silly Me, from these discussions it appears that science only wants to describe.

 

So, if the electrogyre model is incorrect - that is, not the true model of the quantum (and the true model, by definition, would be based upon all the scientific evidence yet be unfalsifiable) - please explain how. Besides the math missing (which, apparently, breaks all the rules of hallowed wisdom), what, exactly, is wrong with it?

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To suggest that I do not understand the terms I am using is amusing.

That you clearly do not understand the terms you are using and that you claim to be an assistant professor is not amusing. It is very sad. I strongly suggest that you read up on Popper's concept of falsifiability. falsifiability is an essential characteristic of a scientific theory. Your claim that your "theory" (scare quotes intentional) is unfalsifiable is an admission that you do not have a scientific theory.

 

 

I already mentioned at least three predictions of my model. To suggest that I have nonsense is also amusing. I know exactly what I have.

You know that you are trying to foist a stinking pile of sophomoric philosophical nonsense on us? That isn't sad. It's scientific fraud. Let's look at one of those predictions.

 

Yes. Unity predicts that the Universe is about to undergo a macroevolutionary event due to thermodynamic instability exerted by the expansive force of dark energy.

That is a bunch of meaningless word salad and is untestable. When, exactly, will this purported "macroevolutionary event" occur, and what will we see when it does occur? What "thermodynamic instability"? This is an untestable claim because of its vagueness and its lack of specificity. At any point of time in the future when this "event" has not yet happened, the response can be "well it hasn't happened yet."

 

 

Moreover, the electrogyre model, in one fell swoop, effectively explains - as opposed to describing, which is what the math does quite well - the magnetic moment of electron, wave-particle duality, collapse of the wavefunction, the nature of electromagnetism, the composition of a lepton, and the HUP. The model cares not if the Reader wants math, the model cares whether it is the correct model or not.

First off, couple of suggestions:

  • Drop the "Reader" nonsense. It is obnoxious and condescending. You've written scientific papers; so be honest: Do you write them this way?
  • Drop the -gyre nonsense. Slapping a Greek suffix on things doesn't make your purported theory true. All it does is make it look like you are obfuscating.

 

That said, you have not answered Klaynos' question on how your theory explains how magnetism is just a relativistic electric field. There is nothing about special relativity or gravitation in your theory. How can you claim to have a theory of everything when your theory does not address those concepts?

 

 

So, if the electrogyre model is incorrect - that is, not the true model of the quantum (and the true model, by definition, would be based upon all the scientific evidence yet be unfalsifiable) - please explain how.

That is a typical crackpot claim. Do you really want to go down that road? It is not our job to disprove your theory. That is your job. You as the proponent of a theory must identify a testable prediction from your theory that distinguishes your theory from existing models.

 

 

Besides the math missing (which, apparently, breaks all the rules of hallowed wisdom), what, exactly, is wrong with it?

That it is not quantitative is a death knell in and of itself. The new age nonsense doesn't help. That it is unfalsifiable (your own words) is yet another death knell. Theories, unlike cats, do not have multiple lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I don't recall mentioning anything about conserving energy and momentum. While I certainly could answer the question, I cannot answer it with the extant lexicon in the current paradigm. What I mean is that I can provide the Reader with the true explanation of the phenomenon, but, in order to do that, I require a full reconfiguring of understanding of what a photon is and how the light particle relates to dark energy and dark matter.

 

 

 

Occam is sharpening his razor, and will soon return to give you a clean shave sir.

 

4259.19103.file.eng.barber-shot1.485.400.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ultimate theory, that is, the true theory of everything, could not be a scientific theory only. It must be a metaphysical theory, a theological theory, a philosophical theory, a psychological theory, a linguistical theory, a semiotic theory, an economic theory, and a political theory all rolled into one. I am well aware of Popper's work. Perhaps Kuhn, Latakos, Feyerabend, and others should be included in this discussion as well. Or perhaps not.

 

Foist. Stinking. Sophomoric. Sad. Crackpot. Condescending. Obfuscating. Nonsense. New Age. Fraud. This is constructive criticism? From an expert? Seems to me to be vitriol, condemnation, and rejection. I presented a reified, scientifically accurate model and am informed that D H - instead of scrutinizing the model and seeing and discussing its merits - mentions something about "proving" the model. Perhaps I did not make this clear: The model is the proof itself. Proof, as in "the evidence establishing or helping to establish a fact or a truth." Examining the model will show that the evidence is all there, modeled accurately so as to establish the truth about the quantum. To the scientific mind, I understand why this is unsatisfactory. Given the incommensurability of the model and the history of how such models are received, I am not surprised at this less than lukewarm reception. The reception does not change - for one second - that the model resolves all the quantum enigmas.

 

Whether my colleagues like or dislike the neologisms I have chosen to explain My model is beyond my control but is expected. In order to unify the Universe from in cosmology to physics to chemistry to genetics to ontogeny to medicine to ecology to anthropology to linguistics to economics to law to psychology to religion to epistemology and to other fields, I had to create a unifying vocabulary; a new lexicon. While this certainly causes chagrin to an expert - such as D H - who is wed to certain terminology, there could be no other way.

 

That the model that unifies the four fundamental forces and all of the Unvierse should be quantitative is a stultifying assumption. Einstein reminded me about scientific crises and assumptions.

 

Oh, by the way, perhaps an invokation of what the term theory means is useful here:

 

A theory is a supposition, a system of ideas, or a model that sets to explain something that has remained intractable to other approaches. Theories are usually composed of general principles that are independent of the phenomenon or phenomena being explicated. These principles are self-evidently true and are definitionally broad.

 

The word theory is derived from the ancient Greek word theoria, meaning "contemplation, speculation, a looking at." Theory is thus a subjective view of how things are experienced by the mind and senses. Unnoticed or unmentioned by the modern scientist and philosopher is that the word theory contains the prefix theo-, meaning "God." In Eastern Orthodox theology, theoria is a stage of personal illumination, achieved only by the most dispassionate and pure of heart: the "vision" of God. This enlightenment thus lays the path to theosis, meaning "the attainment of likeness to or union with God." In this regard, theosis is the final stage of personal transformation and the ultimate goal of Christianity and other religions. It may shock the reader to know this, but the purpose of the ultimate theory of the Universe is to provide the Reader with a first-person perspective of being God.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

Edited by TheTheoretician
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.