Tools for the Theory of Everything, TTOE

Ok, how bout a link to the site?

Rogi, to know truth and to be set free you must first register as a user on CR4... That is the first step toward enlightenment...

Yes, please publish a link so we can check it out.

Would love to read more so I would like to see the link as well.

Not clear though what the two major goals have to do with your work on the 1970 concept, unless that is the second goal! Hmm

I'm also very interested in learning systems and have been refining my own in my spare time. I take a systematic approach to learning. Any new ideas are appreciated and I may have a few concepts for you.

Brad

Thank you, all.

The Website is still under construction, http://www.ttoe.info. I am not a computer-phile. It seems computers do not like me either, ever since my 1^st one, 1981. So, there will be some great struggles I have to go through yet to get the site on the Web.

I have attempted several Websites and Blogs. As yet only one is running.

I have just opened a blog, http://colincware.wordpress.com/. I have yet to put something "About" me on it. I have explained more of my plans. Any comments you make there and/or here on CR4 R4E will be helpful especially when we get a large following. The major difficulty now is to overcome, out there in the world, are that researchers, physicists, and professional scientists will not respond to me after I disclose to them what I have. And the Catch 22: I cannot publish in peer-review professional journals until I get published in a professional journal!

If I have not gone through the years of studying the zillion theories, how is it possible – really, how is it possible – for someone to find an understanding of what is the true! Nature of the Universe, NOU (pronounced "new" like you)?

One such example is our very own R4E, Burt Jordaan. I have purchased his "Relativity 4 Engineers." His explanations do not require all the knowledge of the fast-becoming complex-multitude of theories. Rather, all that is needed is to recognize NOU is based on very simple, well-understood physical properties – that have been in existence from Time? Immemorial, which Burt uses. There you have it. The "time?" requires some defining which we will do on the Internet with all the help I can get.

Please, your comments will be appreciated.

soaralone1

Brad,

Interesting comment. I have been working on TTOE about 5 years, so I do have an investment in on its success. So far, in very simple college level mathematics, I have been finding what our physicists call their "holy grail."

In my work, there is NO theory -- just simple mathematical statements.

I will continue with my success, thank you.

soaralone1

Hi Sterling,

Thanks for the lead to Tom Bearden. How to contact him?

I do not know how or why the 6 "Off topic" votes. My vote entered is "On topic" thanks again.

soaralone1

soaralone1 Here are links pertaining to Tom Bearden

Home/Index Page Tom Bearden Web Site

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...627424,00.html or Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head.

Faq Page and Contacting Tom Bearden by Email

Hi, soaralone1,

My work is on accelerated learning, retention, and feedback loops to correct faulty knowledge. I've had to set it aside to finish out my legal work.

Hope to listen in to keep my feet wet.

Thanks

Brad

p.s. the 6 wasn't for off topic it was for sarcasm. Your topic, your is he one that counts.

Ya, I am very much there.Would like to be involved. Anything with audio, visual, text kind of subject would be excisting for people to learn. SOme how this has become a secret domain of companions. What is lacking is space where theory and practicals are together and which what i expect from this site

Shivaram

Thanx Shivaram,

I have your wishes definitely in my plans. Please keep watching.

soaralone1

There are two books that may shed some light on your quest if you do not already have them.

First is "Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature" by Steven Weinberg, paperback 352 pgs. 1994

Second is The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy" byMark McCutcheon, paperback 424 pgs. rev. 2nd ed 2004

They might save a gallon or two of mid-night oil!

No use of doing it over if it has already been done before.

But then again you/could/you be one of those two authors?

Hi SS,

Very good suggestions. I will get to following up soon. I have voted yours is a very good comment.

As for your last comment, let's see what the books may say. I appreciate the thought.

soaralone1

Is there someone whose disbelief does not outweigh his/her seeking non-theoretical TOE? This apparent difficulty paints the picture of the fabled castle with walls, moat, and drawbridge – to protect the theoretical turf within. TTOE is beautiful, simple, Real, mechanical, and mathematical. TTOE has the same, real physical contents and constants as TNOU, for the same Universe. I wonder how many others are becoming more convinced the "seekers" want to "talk" seeking, but are really set to defend their theoretical turf.

soaralone1

soaralone1 If it works I'll use it, at least until something better comes along.

Beliefs are understandings of how we think things work or are. Convictions are when we elevate a belief until we ignore evidence that questions or disproves our belief. Everyone hold convictions and needs to question them so they understand the dynamics that surround the belief instead of just accepting it and being lazy.

The problem is it is work and takes time. It is hard for people to realize an attack on their belief is not an attack on them personally. To have a conviction questioned takes one out of their comfort zone. Their are many perspectives that have to be considered: Bias; Dogma; Data variables; Culture; Other convictions; etc. Yours and theirs.

Beliefs/convictions are tools we use to deal with the world. Few people have a problem using a better hammer but most need to be open to a new belief, even in science. That is why over whelming evidence is required because then a tipping point is reached to start a new belief that in time turns to a conviction.

We do this because we are great pattern finders both consciously and subconsciously. The problem is we don't actively review these patterns that we base our beliefs on.

Hope this enlightens your endeavor to change the paradigm/dogma.

Brad

Brad, you have made some very good comments, right to the point - of the wall I am trying to "fly" high enough to be seen by those within the castle.

<Few people have a problem using a better hammer but most need to be open to a new belief, even in science. That is why over whelming evidence is required because then a tipping point is reached to start a new belief that in time turns to a conviction.>

My "wall" is what information must be presented to "those within" to just get beyond the tipping point -- gentle, enlightening, believable, intriguing, factual, physical properties, face-saving -- to absolutely end in an unquestioned honorable position. I am very interested in what specific data do "those within" need to overcome their disbelief the Holy Grail may be described so simply -- without theory's cumbersome complexities. What [just slightly] overwhelming evidence?

Hi U V,

It has been sometime since I have been here on this blog. And to think I initiated it, I should be "ashamed" for not visiting here more often.

Well, for all my friends here, I offer the following for one and all to dig their teeth into. Every bite has hard, mathematical, real - not theoretical - data to back up the statements.

There is one disbeliever amongst us, I am very sorry to say. The disbelievers are needed to digest my mathematical work -- I very sincerely want it torn to shreds if the tearing is justified. The math may be all that can be questioned since results fit in precisely in to all the observations they describe with all the physical properties known by any scientist and scholar of the Universe. There are no theories. Nature is not theoretical but REAL and tangible.

I ask; what and how many physical properties of TTOE define the basic Universe? That is, what constants of TTOE known to us in 1903 CE (AD) when entered into one - single - equation mathematically yields the visible size of the Universe? This Value Equals (in the middle of) the Theoretical Values. (VETV)

Then adding in what and how many 1903-known TTOE constants can define the properties of man-made Time (VETV), properties of the velocity of electromagnetic radiation in space (VETV), provide answers to the apparent expansion and acceleration (VETV) of cosmic bodies in the Universe? TTOE do give specific new constant to close in on TOE.

Without adding any more known properties, TTOE can give the mathematical mass of the Universe; TTOE defines the energy of the Universe, and from this, the Second Law of Thermodynamics calculates the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature (equal to what is observed/recorded).

soaralone1

Well, ALL you "Dark Matter" pursuers, let's do some looking around for the Tools for defining TOE, TTOE.

Let's check what properties of the Universe were known before 1902.

We know now what was known then:

1) electrons,

2) they were negatively charged,

3) a quantity of them made a Coulomb,

4) James C. Maxwell used the Coulomb in his Electromagnetic EM equations,

5) establishing the velocity of light (EM radiation) well proven by 1902,

6) Maxwell used the Oersted in the EM equations, and

7) Planck had established a heat (temperature) energy relationship.

The 17th Century harbors many more exciting discoveries in physics and science.

However, they are not needed to mathematically illustrate other, very neat, logical TTOE explanations for apparent expansion - and for apparent acceleration - of the cosmos. If these are simply examined, there is every likelihood there is no need to seek "Dark Matter".

Perhaps you may recall my very humble desire is to have at least a few of those researchers, scientists, and physicists become familiar with the Tools of finding TOE, TTOE.

This response to my own introduction of this thread was to encourage all members and guests of it to reach out, not for just us, but for those researchers to employ TTOE. TTOE have universal applications to reach any realm in the study of physics, and all are in hard, mathematical, real - not theoretical - TTOE terms. Any astrophysicist will be able to tie - directly tie - his/her work to any atomic physicist, and vice versa through use of TTOE.

I look forward to one of you members or guests to introduce one of those renowned theoretical physicists to this TTOE thread so that we might find some real, true benefit for that professional theorist. In return, I would like to acknowledge some benefit to the "Dark Matter" members and guests. I truly, sincerely wish this to happen.

soaralone1

It's possible that to read http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and the first couple of pages in V1), may be useful for this blog. Best.