Jump to content
Mosheh Thezion

A unifying field theory

Recommended Posts

ok...

 

its not a theory... its not even a hypothesis... if that makes you happy.

 

its delusional drawing of a madman... which... just so happens to explain for the formation of the universe, but.. at this time is not quantified.

 

Now... having said that...

 

Can you say... it is crap?

 

Because I want to hear you say... the concept of a dimensional progressive pattern is nonsense... or not.

 

I offer you something new... a new perspective on the evidence.. another way of looking at the same evidence.. and it fits.

 

For you.. to ignore it... says more about you, than it does about me.

 

I share this... as a gift.. and to hear you tear it apart... for what it is.

You.. most... are wanting to tear it apart for what it is not.

 

Mind you.. this proposal... contains many of the aspects of big bang, and string theory, and chaos theory... but with real clarity... dimensional clarity.

 

I am not afraid to say... I would need help to improve it... quantify it... as the math required to express it, must be dimensional, and transcending from dimensional levels to dimensional levels... and I have found it difficult to quantify because as far as I can tell it needs a new system of math, which allows for dimensional progression from 0, upto no less that 16 dimensions... so yes.. I need help... lots of help.

I said from the beginning .. its a work kin progress... which... I claim... can be found to fit the evidence.... it literally explains for it, conceptually.

 

mind you... this is not my first discussion of it.

I have done this before, and those of wise mind and science skill, eventually... learn to like it.. and consider it... yet, others... who get upset.. never like it, as they insist it fit into the box they think it should fit.. exactly... and they are wrong. IT ONLY HAS TO FIT THE EVIDENCE.

 

 

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok...

 

its not a theory... its not even a hypothesis... if that makes you happy.

 

its delusional drawing of a madman... which... just so happens to explain for the formation of the universe,

 

I'm not going to comment on whether you are delusional or a madman, I don't really think it matters.

 

What I am going to say is that it doesn't explain anything within the grounds of science. It is not science, it is story telling.

 

but.. at this time is not quantified.

 

Now... having said that...

 

Can you say... it is crap?

 

Crap, no, meaningful, also no. Within science you cannot state whether something is crap without it making numerical predictions, these predictions are then compared to observational evidence, which will be both numeric and stated with errors. Without numerical predictions all we can say to you is that it is not science.

 

Because I want to hear you say... the concept of a dimensional progressive pattern is nonsense... or not.

 

It's not science.

 

I offer you something new... a new perspective on the evidence.. another way of looking at the same evidence.. and it fits.

 

You've offered a story, it doesn't fit, it cannot be said to fit without numbers.

 

For you.. to ignore it... says more about you, than it does about me.

 

You appear to have a lack of understanding of what is involved in the scientific method, I suggested you went away and read about it, that's not dismissing it that's trying to help you understand why it is not worthwhile and cannot be analysed within science.

 

I share this... as a gift.. and to hear you tear it apart... for what it is.

You.. most... are wanting to tear it apart for what it is not.

 

Again this cannot be done without numbers, words are too flimsy too open to interpretation, they were replaced in science a long time ago,

 

Mind you.. this proposal... contains many of the aspects of big bang, and string theory, and chaos theory... but with real clarity... dimensional clarity.

 

No it cannot because they are all mathematical in nature, this is not.

 

I am not afraid to say... I would need help to improve it... quantify it... as the math required to express it, must be dimensional, and transcending from dimensional levels to dimensional levels... and I have found it difficult to quantify because as far as I can tell it needs a new system of math, which allows for dimensional progression from 0, upto no less that 16 dimensions... so yes.. I need help... lots of help.

 

There is multidimensional maths available, have a look at vectors, tensors and matrices for more information.

 

I said from the beginning .. its a work kin progress... which... I claim... can be found to fit the evidence.... it literally explains for it, conceptually.

 

mind you... this is not my first discussion of it.

I have done this before, and those of wise mind and science skill, eventually... learn to like it.. and consider it... yet, others... who get upset.. never like it, as they insist it fit into the box they think it should fit.. exactly... and they are wrong. IT ONLY HAS TO FIT THE EVIDENCE.

 

 

Whether we like it or not, it's not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok call it what you like...

 

but..

 

I present a Dimensional progressive pattern, for universal formation.

I describe it in detail.

I show how every aspect of universal formation fits as part of this dimensional progressive pattern.

 

That.. is what matters.

Big bang... shows a completely different formation pattern, and has huge holes in it.

 

I have filled those holes.

 

I show you... steps... step by step... following a dimensional progression... dimension 1.. dimension 2.. dimension 3.. dimension 4... etc...

and.. all that we know of in science.. about the universe... can be found to fit.

 

is it perfect???? no.

is it quantified??? no.

 

Is it worth considering as food for thought???? YES.

 

I would think.... science minded people.. would crave new ideas... new concepts... new proposals.

 

What i find here... is not what is expected from those who love cosmology.

 

is there anyone who loves cosmology and is not blinded by the biases they picked up in school.???

 

Those who really know... know... THAT what we DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, IS GREATER THAN WHAT WE DO KNOW.

 

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Edited by Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I show how every aspect of universal formation fits as part of this dimensional progressive pattern.

How does your unifying field theory correspond with all the other accepted unifying field theories in the Speculations forum which also successfully explain all of physics or solve the universe etc? What sets it apart?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that sets it apart... is the proposed.. Dimensional progressive pattern for universal formation... that.. is the part that matters.

it.. shows that the evidence.. can be looked at... in a different way... and most of the aspects of big bang, and string theory, etc... can still fit... if we clean them up.

I.e.. my proposal included BIG BANG... but.. as shown.. The Big bang... was not the beginning... it was step number 8.... not step number one.

 

Remember... as a founding thought... I discuss how... a zero dimensional object... cannot instantly form into a 3D space...

it would have to rise up... and I show how...

I show 4D... and how it forms time.. and the original particle.

I show how that original particle.. becomes photons..

I show how photons.. transform into matter.

and how that matter... formed at the center of space... to experience that BIG BANG..

 

That.. is the point... the dimensional progressive pattern.. shows all of universal formation... neatly.. cleanly.. even if its is still foggy on quantifiable details.

And the reason it is not quantifiable is that fog... it is not perfect... but expresses the basics of the concept.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That.. is the point... the dimensional progressive pattern.. shows all of universal formation... neatly.. cleanly.. even if its is still foggy on quantifiable details.

Meh... physics isn't an exact science anyway. I'm sure that "foggy" is still better than whatever they got so far. Whatever that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing here but word salad with a lite vinigrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without numbers you still cannot say it fits. I'd suggest you go away and try and understand modern science a bit first.

 

Repeating yourself does not make you correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more time goes on, the more dimensions theories have. You don't need all sciences to describe the universe, it's the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the reason it is not quantifiable is that fog... it is not perfect... but expresses the basics of the concept.

 

here's the problem, then. How can you know it IS the 'basics of the concept' without quantification? How can you be so sure that what you have it right without checking it? What kind of hubris is that? How do we know that someone else who comes along with a different story, and even prettier pictures with more swirls and whirls in them isn't right? What seems right in your head is not enough to be accepted as a science. We've moved past just believing whoever is in a position of power, whoever can weave the best tale, whoever can seem the most 'logical', and whoever can shout the loudest to believing the person who shows their idea matches the observations the closest. That is a really important piece of progress there -- because how well ideas match observations is objective. There is no voting about it, no aesthetics, and no interpretations needed. It is just as simple as: idea A is right more often than idea B, ergo idea A is preferred. That certainly doesn't mean that we stop looking for ideas C, D, E, and Z to be even more right than both A and B. But, it does mean that we don't consider ideas that cannot objectively show themselves how correct or incorrect they are.

 

So, I'll repeat the same things that others have been asking, albeit in a slightly different way: is there any way you can demonstrate objectively that your idea is better than anyone else's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to me, that no one is even trying to consider it, and ok... thats fine.

I offered it... i shared it.

I stand to describe it, and show that it fits.

I say this concept of a dimensional progressive pattern fits, because it does... it shows all of creation step by step, and explains for why.

the why... is the dimensional progression.

I even provide visual aids to make it easily understandable.

 

my claim is... name any known evidence, and it can be found to fit.

the motion of all heavenly bodies... fits.

The formation of galaxies... fits.

the nature of atoms.. fit.

gravity fits.

time explained and fits.

red shifts.

left over cores from stars.

supposive black holes.

the big bang.

strings.

it also shows why chaos theory, is actually not chaos.

even life form development... is reflective of this same progressive dimensional pattern.

 

I was able to see this... by collecting all the real evidence, and studying the flaws of existing theories... those flaws... lead to this idea.

I offer it.

but thus far the major attack has been on quantification and my methods....

which ok... I am flawed... my methods are flawed... my discussion on quantification is flawed... the proposal itself is flawed.

its my ramblings....

 

ok... sure... I lose the argument... YOU ALL WIN... I am humbled...

 

Now,... does anyone have any questions about the dimensional progression that is not explained by what I have provided.

its a simple concept, and yet understandably complex for those who first look at it.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have misunderstood but, did you just say that protons break down in to electrons and photons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have misunderstood but, did you just say that protons break down in to electrons and photons?

 

umm.. no.. and yes.

 

protons.. do give off positrons.. to become neutrons... and free neutrons only last 12 seconds outside a core.. and after 12 seconds will emit an electron and become a proton... and there is speculation that neutrinos are emitted, and always there is the possibility that a photon can be emitted by said processes depending on the energy levels of the particles during such.(side effect)

 

In theory... i propose that matter.. is likenned to a ball of string.. that string is the fundamental particle... that particle is like.. like.. electrostatic force, but maybe neutral such as gravity... without what we call polarity... and that in the process of decay.... positron and electrons emission... may be as I suggest being the unraveling of the upper most layers of the nucleon... i.e..

a proton... has a positive layer... which when unraveled becomes a positron. as such.

A neutrons top layer is opposite, and when unraveled becomes an electron as such..

 

this.. is where we can begin to consider AN ACTUAL DESIGN FOR THE ELECTRON.... and that design would be universal and if tested and confirmed could.. yield any number of advances... (I offer the basis for considering this and offer a first consideration for that design. if you look page for the atom page.)

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Edited by Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to me, that no one is even trying to consider it, and ok... thats fine.

 

it seems to me, that you haven't even considered many of the replies to you in this thread. I will gladly consider your idea is you can demonstrate some objective way that it fits with what we have observed to date.

Edited by Bignose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the minor fact that your theory appears to rely on the existence of ether (by which you appear to mean luminiferous aether) which was pretty definitively proved not to exist way back in 1887. Look up the Michelson Experiment.

Edited by bob000555

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the minor fact that your theory appears to rely on the existence of ether (by which you appear to mean luminiferous aether) which was pretty definitively proved not to exist way back in 1887. Look up the Michelson Experiment.

When I say ether... I mean it as Tesla described it... space is.. a transindental fluid which condescends to obey certain natural laws... laws which formed matter from it, and in it.. and is the medium... in which everything in the universe exists....

ether means.. space... when I use it.

The bible... describes it as the waters.. in genesis chap one.

 

 

 

 

it seems to me, that you haven't even considered many of the replies to you in this thread. I will gladly consider your idea is you can demonstrate some objective way that it fits with what we have observed to date.

Im sorry... I answer what I can answer, and when I cannot I say.. I cannot.

its hard sometimes when people place a question in a long paragraph where they attack so many things.

the best way to ask a question.. and get direct answers is to use a numbered format.

as ...

1)

2)

3)

that.. makes it impossible for me to miss the direct question.

I never said I was perfect.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry... I answer what I can answer, and when I cannot I say.. I cannot.

its hard sometimes when people place a question in a long paragraph where they attack so many things.

the best way to ask a question.. and get direct answers is to use a numbered format.

as ...

1)

2)

3)

that.. makes it impossible for me to miss the direct question.

I never said I was perfect.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

seriously? ok, whatever, here is my question in a 'numbered format':

 

1) provide some objective evidence that your pictures with all its whirls and swirls are a better idea than anyone else's pretty pictures with different whirls and swirls. Major emphasis on objective.

 

when can I expect a direct answer to this question? Or an admittance that without objective evidence, that all you have is a story and not science?

Edited by Bignose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry.

This board sucks.

The mods banned me for 2 weeks, as some form of punishment.

I will not be wasting my time here further.

There is no point, as I am providing them content, and they act as if I should thank them.

 

This is sad.

 

If anyone has a question for me, just google my name, and you will easily find contact information.

 

This site, does not allow me to post it.

 

And so... to the Mods, "you know what you can do."

 

And to the owners.... "You should fire your mods, as they are oppressive and drive people away."

 

Again, this board sucks, and so good bye, I will not be back, as there is no point because there is no free speech here.

 

Again... I am easy to find, and would gladly respond to anyone with a real question.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good bye, I will not be back, as there is no point because there is no free speech here.

 

Why would you think that there is? This is a private website. The price of participation is following the rules, which I don't think are oppressive or unreasonable.

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

×
×
  • 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.