Is there a Theory of Everything?

Humancafe's Bulletin Boards: ARCHIVED Humancafes FORUM -1998-2004: Is there a Theory of Everything?

By Claude on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 11:46 am:


At Claude's personal request, I am removing this thread on "Theory of All Things", and thus all entries by Claude are here erased.

However, as thread has continued in the spirit with which it was started, and to which many had contributed, I am leaving it open under the title of "Theory of Everything".

Sorry for inconvenience, but I hope this satisfies all parties involved.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 12:37 pm:

Dear Claude,

RE Theory of All Things.

Thank you! For your insights and comprehensive theory of Existence. So much food for thought, since it is the product of grueling thinking 'over time'. Especially impressed with: "Gravity travels faster than light; therefore, gravity bends light and extends the distance of travel..." Wow! Ever wonder why when looking at Hubble telescope pictures of 13 billion light years away (13 billion years ago, see link below), the galaxies are already fully formed? I suspect the 'Big Bang' theory will yet prove to be a big bust, and only the fancy of imaginative astronomers.

Or think of it this way: If those distant galaxies are 13 billion light years away, and we are here at ground zero, then there are 13 billion years of space between us. What's wrong with this picture? How can a universe that is reputed to be only 13 to 15 billion years old have expanded so quickly that both we here, and the galaxies most distant we know of, both exist already fully formed, at the same time? Surely, then the Big Bang would have expanded at a velocity much greater than the speed of light C. Either that, or we did not exist as a galaxy 13 billion years ago. But if that is so, then as we look 13 billion light years distance in all directions of space, then they all happened before we did, which does not make sense. So the Big Bang, to be consistent with a universe where C is the greatest coefficient of velocity, and where the Doppler light red shift is the root of this theory, would mean that the original universe expanded at a velocity we cannot imagine, which may be no more than pure fancy, and thus untenable.

13 billion light years away

Or is the 13 billion light years really here, and what we perceive as a universe expanding over time merely an illusion? Or is the Doppler red shift an illusion?

Will study your ideas more, as deserves.

One in the All,


By davet84 on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 04:36 pm:

Hi Claude,

I would say that another 'essential ingredient' of my existence today is that I was blessed with having parents whose religion didn't include a belief in infanticide.

I guess you disagree with Aristotle's claim that 'Existence does not belong to the essence of a thing'.

That claim comes from Schopenhauer's 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason', which I am currently reading. I have to say that without Schopenhauer's existence, the essence of Philosophy would be such that I would likely not want to have anything to do with it.

Here's the passage from which Aristotle's notion was extracted (p21):

With Descartes the existence of God lies in the concept of God, and thus becomes the argument for his actual being; with Spinoza God himself is in the world. Accordingly, what was mere reason of knowledge with Descartes is made into reason of fact by Spinoza. If in his ontological proof Descartes had taught that God's existentia follows from his essentia, Spinoza makes of this his causa sui, and boldly opens his ethics with: "By cause of itself I understand that whose essence (concept) involves existence"; - deaf to Aristotle who exclaims to him: "Existence does not belong to the essence of a thing." Now here we have the most palpable confusion of reason of knowledge with cause. And if Neo-Spinozists (Schellingites, Hegelians, and others), with whom words are usually regarded as ideas, often indulge in pompous and solemn admiration of this causa sui, then I for my part see in this causa sui only a contradictio in adjecto, a before that is after, a bold and preemptory order to cut off the endless causal chain...The proper emblem for causa sui is Baron Munchausen on horseback and sinking into the water, gripping his horse with his thighs and lifting himself and the animal up by means of his own pigtail, with the words causa sui underneath.

What say you? Should I throw the book away?

How does your definition of our existence (father's sperm and mother's ovum) account for the endless causal chain before and after the events of the arising of the sperm and ovum.

What about human development? The zygote, the stem cells, embryo, the fetus, the newborn, the infant, the child, the adolescent, the adult (who then produces the sperm or ovum) all have their 'essences' don't they? What about the sociological, anthropological, ethical, biological, medical, political, aesthetic, social, vocational, at home essences of our being?
Are their not endless causal chains which give rise to the essences to which these categories relate?

Is there a case for asking why one's 'academic philosophy' should differ from one's everyday speech, actions, and relations in life?


By Ivan A. on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 05:10 pm:


Hi Dave, Claude,

RE: ESSENCE: n. (Lat. essentia)...

1. That which constitutes the particular nature of
a being or substance, or of a genus, and which
distinguishes it from all others. Mr. Locke makes
a distinction between nominal essence and
real essence. The nominal essence, for
example, of gold, is that complex idea expressed
by gold; the real essence is the constitution of
its insensible parts, on which its properties
depend, which is unknown to us.

2. Formal existence; that which makes any thing to
be what it is; or rather, the peculiar nature of a
thing; the very substance; as, the essence of

3. Existence, the quality of being.

4. A being; an existent person; as, heavenly

5. Species of being.

6. Constituent substance; as, the pure essence of
a spirit. [Locke's real essence, supra.]


Now, fast forward to 2002, and what have we got?

"The quality or qualities of a thing that gives it
its identity." --The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language.

So there we have it, ESSENCE is now equated
with IDENTITY. Why didn't they say this in
the first place? Now, fast forward again, and we
= ESSENCE. Finally beginning to make
sense! So now we can interrelate all the forces
of existence, of being, of bioforce, of essential
force, of universal totality contextual force, and
we come up with BEING, defined as its IDENTITY, in
its totality ESSENCE.

Thank you Mr. Webster!


By G-man767 on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 09:07 pm:

Hi All: I just checked in here. Thanks for the
invite, Claude. I'll need a few days to cogitate
all I've read thus far. initial take is:
I like it! I've had many brain fart journal
entries of my own over the years (i.e. "It is
because the universe never achieves its constant
that it is without beginning or end.") However,
proving such elusive insights is the real
challenge. The great thing here is...we have a
group of folks that are using their gray material
in expansionary ways. I do believe that a TOE is
possible. (Yet its discovery may lead to psychotic
episodes, due to analog distortions...:) G-man
This is..

By davet84 on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 10:18 pm:


I needed to go back to the contradiction thread to get some context here...

You had written:

They are your thoughts on the subject of existence and time.

You seem to have found your answer to the question of how the PNC allowed for your conclusions on time. As you say, your conclusion is also congruent with Aristotle.

Was your answer something to do with that which is beyond the diameter of Earth? Is that the presupposition, that to accept this 'science', we must first imagine ourselves outside the confines of Earth?

This seems to have lead you to introduce 'substance' and 'essence of substance' into the picture, though I'm not sure how that follows from all of the above. I think we have concluded that contradiction does not exist in the category of predication of substance. But just as Aristotle introduced the other categories, and therefore, other 'respects', we may also introduce all of the other categories in respect of essence. It's complicated, but 'that's life'. Then we'd have 'essence of quality', 'essence of state', 'essence of relation' etc.

If you want to confine essence to substance then that's fine. If you want to say the essence of human substance is the combined essence of a sperm and an ovum, and then live your life with that as your 'reason to be', that seems ok. Can you prove your system will work within the confines of the Earth? Could we not say that our essence is attributable to the sperm and ovum of the first humans that emerged from the primate line?

Personally, I would pick out 'relation' as more conducive to the understanding of 'essence' of social beings such as humans. It fits in with job advertisements, which list a bunch of 'qualities' under 'essential criteria'. Hard to imagine a job where the essential criteria is a belief in the non-existence of time.

I don't feel the need to dismiss 'substance'. Indeed, in human relations the topic of the essence of our substance would be a good starting point prior to the considerations of all the contraditcions and conflicts that pervade our lives. By relation we can move from substance to 'change', including the fact that people change their minds. It also aligns to a humanistic anthropolitical view more readily wouldn't you say?

I'm not sure how the premises that we can't get something from nothing, that the universe is one set, that the big bang is a false view, and that time doesn't exist should lead to any conclusions about how one should live their life. Whoooshh, that goes straight over my head.

The interesting thing for me is that, from totally different viewpoints, both you and Schopenhauer arrive at the notion that time only exists in our abstractions. You arrive at it from an objective perspective, employing, as you have stated before, common sense, formal logic, predicated logic. Schopenhauer arrives at it from a subjective perspective employing the principle of sufficient reason.

Deep insights, no doubt, but to me merely evidence that we evolved here on Earth to live here on Earth. Wasn't nature rather brilliant to have given us the capacity for abstractions such as time, space and causality? They sure are amenable to survival. How 'good' it was that the endless chain of causal events that is evolution (which prexisted all our mothers and fathers, and can account for relation) should have it so.

I am starting to envision a mobius strip where time appears when I want to catch a bus, but disappears when I want to consider my life as a Universal Being whilst travelling on the bus. Time reappears after I catch the Universal Bus back to reality, get off the 'actual bus', and make my luncheon appointment.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, February 24, 2002 - 11:51 am:

Hi G-man,

Welcome! Yeah, this place can get full of beans,
but we have fun, no one to tell you "no, no, no".
The operating motto is "all ideas are welcome".
So brain calisthenicss are always way cool!

Ciao, ciao, Ivan

By Ivan A. on Sunday, February 24, 2002 - 12:39 pm:


Hi Dave, Claude, G-man, All,

A Theory of All Things should be able to incorporate the event that ties together existence as an interrelated totality, especially one that is in constant motion. So Time is not a substance within it, any more than a point or line is a substance, though we use these concepts to understand our reality; rather, they are relationships that comprise the whole. If I were to give Time an essence, I would say that time is the interval of space that opens and closes with each new relationship formed, so that when two things touch and separate, in that event an element of time was created. So, by this definition of Time as an event of interrelation, where there is not activity, or motion, where the relations are fixed, static, time ceases to exist. However, since we live in a dynamic universe, one that is in a perpetual state of motion, then Time exists all the time. And from this flow of Time comes change, evolution, a past and present and future, and the ideas in our minds that form to identify what the universe is doing with itself. So, no activity equals no time; activity equals time; how we choose to measure this time then becomes a matter of our choice.

Whooosh, much of this flies over my head too. But there is a fundamental reason for defining things like Time, Big Bang, Essence, etc., it is because they form the basic premises from which we are able to construct philosophy of Being. We are, that we can well ascertain; we are who we are, that is innate to our knowledge of ourselves; we are who we are in relation to all the other things and whos, that requires philosophy, for then we are either interacting with everything one way or another, as is our choice. What that choice will be is then the product of our philosophical thoughts, even when we are unawares that they are (as for most people, I fear). But if I wish to make a conscious choice, then I must have some philosophical construction based on valid premises, so that the whole thing holds together, with PNC if possible.

As it applies to: [Px0)(x0)(x0)(x0] that

The potential of nothing, is nothing; therefore, of nothing, nothing can possibly manifest,
I would think can be restated as:

[Px(1)(x1)(x2)(x3)...] =1 , which then restates as:

"The potential of one is One; therefore of one all numbers can manifest, to become One." ??

Thanks for the link on "Time", I will take a look when I have the _______!

Later, Ivan

By davet84 on Sunday, February 24, 2002 - 03:57 pm:


Wouldn't you say that 'humanity', indeed 'life' is an accidental feature of Earth which Earth need not have. If we start to strip everything away merely to satisfy Ockham (who's dead anyway), what will we have?

I think we do need Ockham to be able to distinguish precise facts. But the reverse is true when we need to distinguish 'living conditions'. We could call that 'Ockham's blunt razor of plenitude'. Earth has already set the standard on beauty and plenitude in living conditions. Why change the rules of plenitude and diversity? Especially when we are ideally evolved to appreciate it.



By davet84 on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 12:50 am:


Your opinions on Einstein's motivations are very interesting... and give a rather elegant example of arbitrary judgements.

About the only 'new evidence' I could find at the site was that 'it's good to have a competing theory', and that he feels a bit sorry for Fred Hoyle. As the gentleman writes in one of his essays 'it wouldn't be much fun if there weren't some controversy'.

Anyway I’m sure the players will be able to convince the funding bodies to provide a few zillion so they can develop the equipment to observe the cosmological constant in all its glory. Who knows there will probably be some good military applications that will come out of the research.

On the other side of the controversy, apparently, the Big Bang never disappeared and the seeming Steady State is explained by the possibility that the Universe is currently ‘middle aged’. There’s something called ‘vacuum energy density’ that they’d like to confirm by some additional funding and research as well.

The following quote is from
Astronomy Research at UCLA

This term acts to counteract the gravitational pull of matter, and so it has been described as an anti-gravity effect.
Why does the cosmological constant behave this way?
This term acts like a vacuum energy density, an idea which has become quite fashionable in high energy particle physics models since a vacuum energy density of a specific kind is used in the Higgs mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking. Indeed, the inflationary scenario for the first picosecond after the Big Bang proposes that a fairly large vacuum energy density existed during the inflationary epoch. The vacuum energy density must be associated with a negative pressure because:

The magnitude of the negative pressure needed for energy conservation is easily found to be P = -u = -rho*c2 where P is the pressure, u is the vacuum energy density, and rho is the equivalent mass density using E = m*c2.

The OmegaM = 1 model is on the left, the OmegaM = 0.25, lambda = 0.75 model is on the right. The green line across each space-time diagram shows the time when the redshift was z = 1, which corresponds to approximately to the most distant of the supernovae observed to date. Using a ruler you can see that the angular size distance to z = 1 is 1.36 times larger in the right hand diagram, which makes the observed supernovae 1.84 times fainter (0.66 magnitudes fainter).

In the past, we have had only upper limits on the vacuum density and philosophical arguments based on the Dicke coincidence problem and Bayesian statistics that suggested that the most likely value of the vacuum density was zero. Now we have the supernova data that suggests that the vacuum energy density is greater than zero. This result is very important if true. We need to confirm it using other techniques, such as the MAP satellite which will observe the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background with angular resolution and sensitivity that are sufficient to measure the vacuum energy density.

For me, I guess its back to school days where there were three theories of the Universe. I thought the old ‘Pulsating Universe’ was quite elegant… a bit like a big lung.

Meanwhile, it’s time for me to do my ‘Meals on Wheels’ shift…

Maybe we should look up 'arbitrary' in the Websters... ah yes…

Definition no. 2 seems appropriate ‘Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference’

So, in our new future philosophy, one is free to choose one's religious orientation as well as one's 'theory of everything'. For those who aren't keen on the authority of scriptures or who can't grasp college math... we can be 'philosophical' about it. After all we still have another 11 billion years 'til the Universe 'breaths in' again.

Lotsa fun this theory of everything business...


By WJ on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 11:05 am:

Hey Guys!

..Thought I'd come by wave the banner a bit. Kant was wrong, plain and simple. Kant's God (his own consciousness) is dead.

In this unexplained physical (and mental) world, existence precedes essence. Beyond that, essences, such as the essence of consciousness, would be quite metaphysical. And absolute knowledge of that would require something more than Kantian metaphysics.

Don't fear the truth, it won't bit you! Until we can create a mind and a universe (out of nothing)as we know it, existence preceeds essence.


By Ivan A.. on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 06:08 pm:

Hi Claude, Dave, WJ, G-man, and all,

Thanks for the link to Time above. In reading Dr. Kitada's paper, I came across this:

Time has been, however, a notion whose existence nobody doubts. These academic activities have been assuming the existence of some time-coordinates, and people speak about things as if they move or change following the order prescribed by time. But what is time? Is it an existence in the same sense as the existence of other objective things? Time is not such an existence: Time does not appear until we measure it by some equipments, i.e., by clocks. Time is just a movement of the hands of clocks, and time is not an a priori existence which measures motion. Quite contrarily, just the motion of hands of analogue clocks, or just the change of figures of digital clocks measures time.

This made me think of atomic clocks sent off into space versus identical clocks remaining on Earth. Would the space traveling clocks, after having revolved around the solar system at very great velocities (aboard a comet?) and over many years, when retrieved and brought back to Earth really have different readings? I suspect not, given that I think Time is merely a human construct to measure change, and thus the two sets of clocks would, in spite of Einsteinian physics, nevertheless have the same readings. Or, as per above, time is "not an a priori existence which measures motion", i.e.., time does not generate change; rather it is the other way around. So change effects time, which we then find ways to measure; but time does not generate change. So we cannot reverse the process, and time is a movement in one direction only, forwards and not backwards. It could be possible to theorize going backwards by replaying change backwards, like in an infinite regress, but this does not happen of its own, only in our imaginations, or by playing back motion in reverse.

Don't know if this adds anything of value to the discussion, but it is fun thinking about it, when I've got the T______.

Still thinking, considering a Theory of Everything...

Link to FAQ in Cosmology:

Ciao all! Ivan
By WJ on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 11:51 am:


"But what is time? Is it an existence in the same sense as the existence of other objective things? Time is not such an existence: Time does not appear until we measure it by some equipments, i.e., by clocks. Time is just a movement of the hands of clocks, and time is not an a priori existence which measures motion. Quite contrarily, just the motion of hands of analogue clocks, or just the change of figures of digital clocks measures time."

Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, he seems to be saying two things. Time does not appear before we actually measure it, and time is not an apriori existence.

Back to Claude's intitial thought about conception/procreation, we would obviously need time to exist. So in that sense time appears before we measure it because if I look at a Being, you correctly assume that time was involved in his/her existence.

Would this not be one in the same as aposterior? Or, is it time itself that comprises the essence of existence? If so, what is time? Human life? Consciousness?

If the answer is then yes that existence is dependent on time, what is the actual essence of consciousness and life?

Perhaps Claude would know?


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 05:06 pm:

TIRED LIGHT Syndrome? Or, is the velocity of light really C?

It may seem odd to ask these questions in a philosophy context, since it should fall into the domain of science. But these are questions of cosmology, and how we construct an image of existence within a universe, that may or may not be what it appears to be, is then critical for an understanding of Existence.

So, is the Red Shift at very great cosmic distances due to an expanding universe, a curved space universe, a flat Euclidean universe, or due to the nature of light itself? Most of current physics and astronomy, ala Einstein's Special Theory, supports the expanding universe theory, though the science due to the use of constants is questionable, and the debate over whether or not the universe is flat and infinite, or curved and self enclosed remains. The links below offer some insight into the matter. However, all these studies are based on the speed of light as a constant of C, which in itself may be open to doubt, so that much of what we are measuring at very great distances may be faulty from the start. Then again, this is the best we have to work with, and unless it can be shown that light behaves differently in space at great distances, then the science as it is now accepted is judged to be good. So the question becomes: Is the cosmological science clustered around a speed of light constant of C good science?... Not a 'win or lose' proposition, merely one of philosophic understanding. Or, is it really all about Time?

Big Bang, or big bust, or a universe alive with a mystery 'whose' essence is not so easy to dissect? What happens to the Cesium atomic clock over great distances at great velocities? Is there a cosmological 'constant' of Time? In the end, as Walrus and others have suggested, are we really talking about a universe alive with God?

Time will tell.

CMB (Cosmic Background Model) radiation redshift? No!

Errors in Stolmar Cosmic Background Model

Other Possible Cause of Red Shift

Or, as per "Other Possible Cause", light photons experience a half-life; and if so, where does the 'lost' energy go? I would think that this may be crucial to an understanding of a fundamental property of how the universe is built, what happens to light over distance and time, and one which is critical for a cosmoligical Theory of Everything. Another possible cause of distance related Doppler red shift may be that the photon energy 'leaks' into another dimension, another universe, and one which is 'accessible' only at very great velocities, or at great cosmic distances.

All the best, Ivan

By G-man767 on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 09:12 pm:

In a nutshell, here's my own personal TOE: Both
light velocity (c) and absolute gravity (G)=
simultaneous alpha/omega time. Both c and G are
equivalent to each other, and represent the
universal constant. All values less than c or
greater than G have only potential time. Hence,
Time has not yet begun, yet 'Now'= alpha/omega t.
I also think that if Matter=Potential Energy, then
a current function of Matter=E. Suggesting further
that all values less than c also have c (or G) as
their ultimate constant. Strange ideas, I know.
Just thought I'd float them:) G-man

By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:07 am:

Since time does not seem to subsist without motion or even rest, if motion is abolished, and likewise rest, time is abolished. Nonetheless, some makes the following objections against time. If time exists, it is either limited or unlimited. But if it is limited, it began at a certain time and will end at a certain time. Consequently, there was once a time when time was not (before it began), and there will once be a time when time will not be (after it has ended); which is absurd. So then time is not limited. But if it is unlimited, since part of it is said to be past, part present, and part future, the future and past are either existent or non-existent. But if they are non-existent, and there remains only the present, which is momentary, time will be limited and the original difficulties will follow. And if the past exists and the future exists, each of these will be present. But it is absurd to call past and future time present; neither, then, is time unlimited. But if it is neither unlimited nor limited, time does not exist at all.

Further, if time exists it is either divisible or indivisible. Now it is not indivisible, for it is divided, as they themselves declare, into present, past, and future. Yet it is not divisible either. For each divisible thing is measured by some part of itself, the measure coinciding with each part of the measured, as when we measure a cubit with a finger. But time cannot be measured by any part of itself. If, for instance, the present measures the past, it will coincide with the past and will therefore be past, and similarly it will be future in the case of the future. And if the future should measure the rest, it will be present and past, and so likewise the past will be future and present; which is nonsense. Neither, then, is time divisible. But if it is neither indivisible nor divisible, it does not exist.

Time, too, is said to be tripartite, partly past, partly present, and partly future. Of these the past and the future are non-existent, for if past and future time exist now, each of them will be present. Neither is the present existent; for if present time exists it is either indivisible or divisible. Now it is not indivisible, for what changes is said to change in the present time, but nothing changes in indivisible time - iron, for instance, into softness, and so on. Hence present time is not indivisible. Neither is it divisible; for it could not be divided into a plurality of presents, since time present is said to change into time past imperceptibly owing to the rapid flux of the things in the Universe. Nor yet into past and future, for so it will be unreal, having one part of itself no longer existent and the other part not yet existent.

Hence, too, the present cannot be the end of the past and the beginning of the future, since then it will both be and not be existent, for it will exist as present, but will not exist because its parts are non-existent. Therefore it is not divisible either. But if the present is neither indivisible nor divisible, it does not exist. And when neither the present nor the past nor the future exists, time too is non-existent; for what is compounded of things unreal is unreal.

This argument, too, is alleged against time: If time exists it is either generable and perishable or ingenerable and imperishable. Time is not ingenerable and imperishable, since part of it is said to be past and no longer in existence, and part to be future and not yet in existence. Neither is it generable and perishable. For things generated must be generated from something existent, and things which perish must perish into something existent, according to the postulates of the Dogmatists themselves. If, then, time perishes into the past, it perishes into a non-existent; and if it is generated out of the future, it is generated out of a non-existent, for neither of these is in existence. But it is absurd to say that anything is generated from a non-existent or perishes into the non-existent. Therefore time is not generable and perishable. But if it is neither ingenerable and imperishable nor generable and perishable, it does not exist at all.

Further, since everything, which becomes seems to become in time, time if it becomes, becomes in time. Either, then, it becomes itself in itself or as one time in another. But if it becomes itself, it will be at once both existent and non-existent. For since that within which a thing becomes must exist before the thing, which becomes within it, the time, which becomes in itself does not yet exist in so far as it becomes in itself. Consequently it does not become in itself, nor yet in another. For if the present becomes in the future, the present will be future, and if in the past, it will be past. And the same may be said of all the other times, so that one time does not become in another. But if time neither becomes in itself nor as one time in another it is not generable. And it has been shown that it is not ingenerable either. Being, then, neither generable nor ingenerable, it is wholly non-existent, for each existing thing is bound to be either generable or ingenerable.

--Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Chapter XIX. --- Concerning Time

By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:07 am:

As a residence, I prepare a Euclidean quantum space, and within that space I define a quantum-mechanical clock, which measures the common parameter of quantum-mechanical motions of particles in a (local) system consisting of a finite number of particles. Since clocks thus defined are proper to each local system, and local systems are mutually independent as concerns the relation among the coordinates of these systems, we can impose relativistic change of coordinates among them. And the change of coordinates gives a relation among those local systems, which yields relativistic quantum-mechanical Hamiltonians, explaining the actual observations.

These are technical explanations. Behind these, I have an image of the universe as a whole within which is all and which cannot be grasped. As such an existence we cannot impose any global time on the universe by nature. The universe inasmuch as it is the universe it is nonsense to assume any global time-coordinates for the total universe. I thus take a universe without time. Hitoshi Kitada –

By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:08 am:

Every important philosopher, from Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle, through
Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Kant, has recognized that time cannot be a
thing, something that exists in the world. The most prevalent view --
certainly that of Spinoza, but largely shared by others -- is that time is a
measure of duration, while duration is the contingent mode of existence
proper to finite things.

Lance Fletcher- President The Free Lance Academy Foundation

By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:09 am:

Space and Time, "Considered logically, they are free creations of the human intelligence, tools of thought, which are to serve the purpose of bringing experiences into relation with each other, so that in this way they can be better surveyed."
A. Einstein- The special and the General Theory of Relativity

By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:30 am:

Does time exist?
Good philosophical commentary in that most physicists will say: "it exists because we believe it exists". This is a truism only in our understanding of time/space time. There could be a very different reality where time is simply a manifestation of our perception.
With all of that said, you must realize that all of physics that we know of today is simply based upon our perception of what we observe. All of the physical theories (even back to Newton) are STILL theories. None have been unequivocally proven. Effects of various theories have been observed. These theories are simply our attempt to place some science into what we observe.
So, does time exist? In our perception it does. But who is to say that our perception has been proven yet?

WT Johnson

By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:32 am:

Time is a man made concept. Time (i.e. one revolution of the earth, one orbit of the earth around the sun) allows the comparison of one process (including organic processes) to another. The earth does not orbit around the sun because of time.

If the earth took 400 days to orbit the sun in the year 2000, we would all expect that something had changed. The earth's mass, the sun's mass, the so called universal gravitational constant and so on.

Special Relativity

It is expected your question was asked because in S.R. time is presented as a variable.

Einstein's derived equations are the same as other equations which were earlier known to correctly model observed physical processes. It was known from Thompson's experiments with the electron that as the electron's velocity approaches the speed of light, the electron's inertial mass increases. It was also known that as radioactive particles' velocity approaches the speed of light, that their half life increases.
With these equations in hand, Einstein made assumptions and then proceeded to attempt to derive the equations (Einstein's derivation includes fudges) which theoretically modelled matter as its velocity approaches the speed of light. (The equations modelling the change in matter as it approaches the speed of light were developed separately by others. It is believed by many that Einstein copied and combined the derivations of others. Einstein stated that he was unaware of the work of others and said he had come up with S.R. while working in a Patent Office based on first principals.) Einstein had three objectives for his derivations:

1.) Prove by derivation that space was empty.

2.) Prove by derivation that although space is assumed to be empty and have no properties, that the space co-ordinate system does have properties and changes in the area of the moving matter as matter moves through the empty space.

3.) Prove by derivation that time slows down in the vicinity of matter, as matter moves through the empty space. Prove by derivation that inertial mass is velocity dependent.

If Einstein's equations are viewed only as equations separate from his derivations (S.R.) no harm is done. Einstein's equations are like Maxwell's equations. They are both theoretical models, that model processes in a limited way. (see for example Astley: Maxwell's Fields & Charge or Newton's Model: Applications & Limitations in this forum for a discussion of theoretical models.)

A more thorough explanation of the phenomena which Einstein's derivation is based on will be presented later. The following is a general challenge to the S.R. objectives using fundamental principals.

If space is empty (SR) all properties of matter must be carried by particles. If particles travel through empty space there is no reason or cause to initiate the observed change in the particles' properties.

Conversely, if space is full and there are no particles only states in a single field, it is expected as the states move through the field that they will change. The change in the field state slows down the process, which causes the radioactive "particles" to decay. If space is full and there are no particles, there is no space wind.

Paul Astley

By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:35 am:

New Scientist

Does time really exist?

TIME seems to be the most powerful force, an irresistible river
carrying us from birth to death. To most people it is an
inescapable part of life, a fundamental element of the Universe.

But I think that time is an illusion. Physicists struggling to
unify quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of
relativity have found hints that the Universe is timeless. I
believe that this idea should be taken seriously. Paradoxically,
we might be able to explain the mysterious "arrow of time"-the
difference between past and future-by abandoning time. But to
understand how, we need to change radically our ideas of how the
Universe works.

Let's start with Newton's picture of absolute time. He argued that
objects exist in an immense immobile space, stretching like a
block of glass from infinity to infinity. His time is an invisible
river that "flows equably without relation to anything external".
Newton's absolute space and time form a framework that exists at a
deeper level than the objects in it.

To see how it works, imagine a universe containing only three
particles. To describe its history in Newton's terms, you specify
a succession of sets of 10 numbers: one for time and three for the
spatial coordinates of each of the three particles. But this
picture is suspect. As the space-time framework is invisible, how
can you determine all the numbers? As far back as 1872, the
Austrian physicist Ernst Mach argued that the Universe should be
described solely in terms of observable things, the separations
between its objects.

With that in mind, we can use a very different framework for the
three-particle Universe-a strange, abstract realm called Triangle
Land. Think of the three particles as the corners of a triangle.
This triangle is completely defined by the lengths of its three
sides-just three numbers. You can take these three numbers and use
them as coordinates, to mark a point in an abstract "configuration
space" (see Diagram, p 30).

Each possible arrangement of three particles corresponds to a
point in this space. There are geometrical restrictions-no
triangle has one side longer than the other two put together-so it
turns out that all the points lie in or on a pyramid. At the apex
of Triangle Land, where all three coordinates are zero, is a point
that I call Alpha. It represents the triangle that has sides all
of zero length (in other words, all three particles are in the
same place).

In the same way, the configurations of a four-particle universe
form Tetrahedron Land. It has six dimensions, corresponding to the
six separations between pairs of particles-hard to conceive, but
it exists as a mathematical entity. And even for the stupendous
number of particles that make up our own Universe, we can envisage
a vast multidimensional structure representing its configurations.
In collaboration with Bruno Bertotti of Pavia University in Italy,
I have shown that conventional physics still works in this strange
world. As Plato taught that reality exists as perfect forms, I
think of the patterns of particles as Platonic forms, and call
their totality Platonia.

Platonia is an image of eternity. It is all the arrangements of
matter that can be. Looking at it as a whole, there seems to be no
more river of time. But could time be hiding? Perhaps there is
some sort of local time that makes sense to inhabitants of

In classical physics, something like time can indeed creep back
in. If you were to lay out all the instants of an evolving
Newtonian universe, it would look like a path drawn in Platonia.
As a godlike being, outside Platonia, you could run your finger
along the path, touching points that correspond to each different
arrangement of matter, and see a universe that continuously
changes from one state to another. Any point on this path still
has something that looks like a definite past and future.

Now's the place

But we know that classical physics is wrong. The world is
described by quantum mechanics-and in the arena of Platonia,
quantum mechanics kills time.

In the quantum wave theory created by Schrodinger, a particle has
no definite position, instead it has a fuzzy probability of being
at each possible position. And for three particles, say, there is
a certain probability of their forming a triangle in a particular
orientation with its centre of mass at some absolute position. The
deepest quantum mysteries arise because of holistic statements of
this kind. The probabilities are for the whole, not the parts.

What probabilities could quantum mechanics specify for the
complete Universe that has Platonia as its arena? There cannot be
probabilities at different times because Platonia itself is
timeless. There can only be once-and-for-all probabilities for
each possible configuration.

In this picture, there are no definite paths. We are not beings
progressing from one instant to another. Rather, there are many
"Nows" in which a version of us exists-not in any past or future,
but scattered in our region of Platonia.

This may sound like the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum
mechanics, published in 1957 by Hugh Everett of Princeton
University. But in that scheme time still exists: history is a
path that branches whenever some quantum decision has to be made.
In my picture there are no paths. Each point of Platonia has a
probability, and that's the end of the story.

A similar position was reached by much more sophisticated
arguments more than 30 years ago. Americans Bryce DeWitt and John
Wheeler combined quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of
general relativity to produce an equation that describes the whole
Universe. Put into the equation a configuration of the Universe,
and out comes a probability for that configuration. There is no
mention of time. Admittedly, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is
controversial and fraught with mathematical difficulties, but if
quantum cosmology is anything like it-if it is about
probabilities-the timeless picture is plausible.

So let's take seriously the idea of a "probability mist" that
covers the timeless Platonic landscape. The density of the mist is
just the relative probability of the corresponding configuration
being realised, or experienced, as an instantaneous state of the
Universe-as a Now. If some Nows in Platonia have much higher
probabilities than others, they are the ones that are actually
experienced. This is like ordinary statistical physics: a glass of
water could boil spontaneously, but the probability is so low that
we never see it happen.

All this seems a far cry from the reality of our lives. Where is
the history we read about? Where are our memories? Where is the
bustling, changing world of our experience? Those configurations
of the Universe for which the probability mist has a high density,
and so are likely to be experienced, must have within them an
appearance of history-a set of mutually consistent records that
suggests we have a past. I call these configurations "time

Present past

An arbitrary matter distribution, like dots distributed at random,
will not have any meaning. It will not tell a story. Almost all
imaginable matter distributions are of this kind; only the tiniest
fraction seem to carry meaningful information.

One of the most remarkable facts about our Universe is that it
does have a meaningful structure. All the matter we can observe in
any way is found to contain records of a past.

The first scientists to realise this were geologists. Examining
the structure of rocks and fossils, they constructed a long
history of the Earth. Modern cosmology has extended this to a
history of the Universe right back to the big bang.

What is more, we are somehow directly aware of the passing of
time, and we see motion-a change of position over time. You may
feel these are such powerful sensations that any attempt to deny
them is ridiculous. But imagine yourself frozen in time. You are
simply a static arrangement of matter, yet all your memories and
experience are still there, represented by physical patterns
within your brain-probably as the strengths of the synapse
connections between neurons. Just as the structure of geological
strata and fossils seem to be evidence of a past, our brains
contain physical structures consistent with the appearance of
recent and distant events. These structures could surely lead to
the impression of time passing. Even the direct perception of
motion could arise through the presence in the brain of
information about several different positions of the objects we
see in motion.

And that is the essence of my proposal. There is no history laid
out along a path, there are only records contained within Nows.
This timeless vision may seem perverse. But it turns out to have
one great potential strength: it could explain the arrow of time.

We are so accustomed to history that we forget how peculiar it is.
According to conventional cosmology, our Universe must have
started out in an extraordinarily special state to give rise to
the highly ordered Universe we find around us, with its arrow of
time and records of a past. All matter and energy must have
originated at a single point, and had an almost perfectly uniform
distribution immediately after the big bang.

Hitherto, the only explanation that science has provided is the
anthropic argument: we experience configurations of the Universe
that seem to have a history because only these configurations have
the characteristics to produce beings who can experience anything.
I believe that timeless quantum cosmology provides a far more
satisfying explanation.

In Platonia, there are no initial conditions. Only two factors
determine where the probability mist is dense: the form of some
equation (like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation) and the shape of
Platonia. And by sheer logical necessity, Platonia is profoundly
asymmetric. Like Triangle Land, it is a lopsided continent with a
special point Alpha corresponding to the configuration in which
every particle is at the same place.

From this singular point, the timeless landscape opens out,
flower-like, to points that represent configurations of the
Universe of arbitrary size and complexity. My conjecture is that
the shape of Platonia cannot fail to influence the distribution of
the quantum probability mist. It could funnel the mist onto time
capsules, those meaningful arrangements that seem to contain
records of a past that began at Alpha.

This is, of course, only speculation, but quantum mechanics
supports it. In 1929, the British physicist Nevill Mott and Werner
Heisenberg from Germany explained how alpha particles, emitted by
radioactive nuclei, form straight tracks in cloud chambers. Mott
pointed out that, quantum mechanically, the emitted alpha particle
is a spherical wave which slowly leaks out of the nucleus. It is
difficult to picture how it is that an outgoing spherical wave can
produce a straight line," he argued. We think intuitively that it
should ionise atoms at random throughout space.

Mott noted that we think this way because we imagine that quantum
processes take place in ordinary three-dimensional space. In fact,
the possible configurations of the alpha particle and the
particles in the detecting chamber must be regarded as the points
of a hugely multidimensional configuration space, a miniature
Platonia, with the position of the radioactive nucleus playing the
role of Alpha.

Ageless creation

When Mott viewed the chamber from this perspective, his equations
predicted the existence of the tracks. The basic fact that quantum
mechanics treats configurations as whole entities leads to track
formation. And a track is just a point in configuration space-but
one that creates the appearance of a past, just like our own

There is one more reason to embrace the timeless view. Many
theoretical physicists now recognise that the usual notions of
time and space must break down near the big bang. They find
themselves forced to seek a timeless description of the
"beginning" of the Universe, even though they use time elsewhere.
It seems more consistent and economical to use an entirely
timeless description. But for these ideas to be more than
speculation, they should have concrete, measurable results.
Fortunately, Stephen Hawking and other theorists have shown that
the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can lead to verifiable predictions.
For example, established physical theories cannot predict a value
for the cosmological constant, which measures the gravitational
repulsion of empty space. But calculations based on the
Wheeler-DeWitt equation suggest that it should have a very small
value. It should soon be possible to measure the cosmological
constant, either by taking the brightness of far-off supernovae
and using that to track the expansion of the Universe, or by
analysing the shape of humps and bumps in the cosmic microwave
background. And a definitive equation of quantum cosmology should
give us a precise prediction for the value of the constant. It is
a distant prospect, but the nonexistence of time could be
confirmed by experiment.

The notion of time as an invisible framework that contains and
constrains the Universe is not unlike the crystal spheres invented
centuries ago to carry the planets. After the spheres had been
shattered by Tycho Brahe's observations, Kepler said: "We must
philosophise about these things differently." Much of modern
physics stems from this insight. We need a new notion of time.


New Scientist

By WJ on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 10:25 am:


I still don't understand. In spite of the cosmological arguments setforth, on a micro human level, if time was an illusion (not real) then we would not exist. It requires time to give birth.

Or, if time is an illusion, we are in fact timeless spiritual Beings living a physical life that is relative to time. How bout that for a leap of faith!

What do the physicists think of spiritual essence and existence? Probably the way physicist Paul Davies considers the 'Mystery at the end of the Universe'!



By davet84 on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 02:12 pm:

I find I am with you WJ.

I have a book titled the world Treasury of Physics and Maths. It's a series of essays by prominent Mathematicians and Physicists. In one essay a mathematician makes the observation that he and his colleagues must admit that mathematics (in the research sense) has hit something of a wall. He says that mathematics will become something of a hobby for those inclined that way.

There is a branch called 'Concrete Mathematics' which is very much alive, that used in computers and engineering etc.

For me, and I suppose for 98% of people who don't understand even the first few lines of a Maths book, there is just that 'mystery at the beginning' and the 'mystery at the end'. There is also that 'something in the middle' which is less mysterious, and which we can live with and relate to.


By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 03:19 pm:

Did the earth, moon, sun, stars, and the universe exist before you were born?

For a thing to exist, it must have definable properties.

To prove time exists you must define the properties of it.

Define the properties of time.

“The growth of science, military and space requirements, and the explosion in communications traffic demanded ever more accurate time standards, beyond that provided by NIST’s original 1949 atomic clock. In 1960, a clock called NBS II, based on the natural frequency of the cesium atom, became the national standard of frequency, supplanting a set of quartz crystal oscillators. It measured frequency and time intervals to an accuracy of one second in 3,000 years. Since then, six even more accurate cesium-based clocks—the latest is accurate to one second in nearly 20 million years—have taken over as keepers of official national time, which is determined through a coordinated effort with the U.S. Naval Observatory. NIST shifted from an astronomical to an atomic definition of the second in 1967, when the international community defined the second as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a particular type of cesium atom. To reconcile differences between the atomic time scale and the Earth’s rotation, “leap seconds” are added from time to time.”

As can be discerned, the basic unit of measurement for time was an arbitrary decision at the onset. The concept of time is flawed because it is based solely on the earth rotating about the sun as it spins on its axis. That proves time is a measurement of motion, not a measurement of the concept of time. The basic flaw with the concept of time can be put this way: Time is circular, and as such, time allows for infinite regress, which is contrary to the law of motion. Motion is always forward, it is not possible to reverse momentum of motion.

To understand why time is a measurement of motion, not time,

Click Here


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 06:20 pm:

Dear Sextus,

Welcome! You speak volumes!

Or, as it may also pertain to Time, I wrote in The Examined Life Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 8: "The Rule of Interconnectivity: Logic",
The Rule of Interconnectivity: Logic :

Reality is a phenomenon of energy converted into matter that connects with itself at all levels of contact. This may be at the contact of gravitational force, or through electrical and electromagnetic forces, or spatially where two things cannot occupy the same space in time, of through the force of physical contact.

So, if this is correct, then reality exists within its own version of Time, which is at the point of where things connect within it. With each change in these connections, an element of time is created, which then exists independent of our mind's observation of it. But because we do observe this change we find a way to measure it, usually by some reference to a uniformly consistent event, like Earth's rotation or the motion of heavenly bodies, which is what we call Time.

If so, then this is a primary element of a Theory of Everything, that we have a concept for what is Time. The other element mentioned above is that of some universal constant, like C.

Take care, keep on trukin' with your ideas! Truly appreciate it.

G-man767 on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 09:01 pm:

Re: Time. see
. Also,
McTaggert wrote some interesting ideas on this as
well. For a theologic perspective, see William
Lane Craig:) G-man This

By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 10:06 pm:

Motion is; time is a measure of it, motion. Reality is, time is not. Reality is motion, but does not include time. Motion imparts reality through consciousness. Consciousness sees motion, and knows reality, but time is not a part of reality or motion. Time is outside of motion, and outside of reality, thus it does not exist.


By G-man767 on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 12:30 am:

Sextus: You're suggesting the 'time-as-duration' idea. Yes, indeed, 'time' is the meaure of motion/change/transpositioning/etc. Yet, even more fundamental to motion is...dimensionality itself, as extention, differentiation...the space through which motion can occur. Also, measure is an observer-observed function/event. And, all measure is in effect a memorialization, a remembrance...a live show taped. Time is all the motions that happen, yes. Yet when x has moved from point A, and arrives at point B, does point A, as a past aspect of all that is x...does point A vanish forever? And, how to explain time's arrow? G-man

By Sextus on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 07:40 am:

When x leaves A, A continues to exist but changes still occur with A the same as if x was present. Think of it this way . . . Time’s arrow is located within your brain, when brain shoots the arrow of time at an object, it, the object, immediately becomes history stored within your memory. Time’s arrow emerged of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but it is a useless idea without substance. Time collapses into itself, and it does not exist.


By WJ on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 05:19 pm:

Hi Sextus!

I don't want at all to interupt the thread topic because there is much information to digest. Respectfully, I must point out a small flaw in your thesis though.

"For a thing to exist, it must have definable properties."

Of course you are probably familiar with the mind-body problem. How do you define emotion?



By Sextus on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 11:20 pm:

The subject of this thread does not concern emotion.


By Ivan A. on Friday, March 1, 2002 - 06:02 pm:

Hey Sextus,

A Theory of Everthing is of everything! Would you agree?

Cheers! Ivan

By G-man767 on Friday, March 1, 2002 - 08:15 pm:

A TOE could simply be a single coherent
explanation of how Everything works and recycles.
But it would have to successfully tie together
disparities between Quantum, Alternative, and
General Physics approaches:) G-man This i

By Sextus on Friday, March 1, 2002 - 08:32 pm:

G-man is right, and the hard part will be tying things together. A guess is, the TOE will disprove 98% of conventional physics, 99% of quantum mechanics, and 99.5% of alternative physics as the disciplines stand. Is the world ready for such a theory? The world is ready, but the world of science is not.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, March 2, 2002 - 11:52 am:

Hi G-man, Sextus, All,

Here is something I wrote in response to Dave's thread (Humancafe at Humancafe), as it applies to TOE, which I think addresses your posts above:

I suspect that we are headed towards an all encompassing Theory of Everything. Maybe this will take more time than we care, but an idea that can interrelate all the knowledge of our physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, spirituality and philosophy; it might yet yield something that may be closer to the organic whole of what is our universe, a One that is endowed with Life. I'd like to give it a name in advance, if I may: I'd call this 'Theory of Everything' a new 'Bio-Physics'. I envision our understanding rising to a point where we are able to incorporate reality as it incorporates itself, which means that it is not merely an 'inert' reality of universal physics, as is our present understanding, but rather envisioned as an 'organic' understanding of how the universe works, how it creates Life within the Cosmos. We live in a physical universe that is biologically active, and our physics needs to reflect this living reality. We will need some powerful brain power to get to that new level of Truth, but I believe it is on the path of our human evolution as conscious beings.

Sextus may be right, that this new understanding of a 'bio-physics' may disprove 90+% of what we have come to believe as 'scientifically' true. Remember that in Medieval times, astronomy was taught that the Earth was central, and all the planets, sun, moon, and stars revolved around it; the mathematics and physiscs to 'prove' this was unbelievably convoluted, though Aristotelian. It took a Copernican revolution to show this was wrong, and the elegance and simplicity of the new astronomy was astounding. Well, I suspect we are headed that way, that the universe figured out for itself a 'bio-physics' that is far more simple and elegant than we are imagining. Like G-man says, it 'recycles', and like WJ says, it will have to also address the 'mind/body' problem. All in all, this new TOE will show how all of universal reality interconnects within itself, both out there and within each living thing. Can it be that the new bio-physics is really about the energy of Life? Or is it a physics of the interconnections within the neurons of biological and universal Mind?

G-man767 on Sunday, March 3, 2002 - 11:58 pm:

And yet, given the various limitations we find in terms of Cantor (i.e. Actual vs. Potential Infinity), Godel (Incompleteness/ Indeterminacy...), et al., it may be that a TOE (as theorem) can serve only as a description of how things behave, as in say, some vast, intelligent, supercomputer-like convection system. Yet it may be unable, due to an inherent physical limitation of getting 'outside,' to explain 'why,' just simply the 'how.' (Imagine if...the entire universe, and its countless galaxies, were all rolled up into what amounts to but a subatomic spec...belonging to some strange larger scheme. And how could such ever be more than mere speculation, however poetic its inspiration might be??:) G-man

By Sextus on Monday, March 4, 2002 - 12:48 am:

If those limitations as expressed by G-man are true, logic, knowledge, empirical methods, and astrophysics of science in general are wasted efforts. A case can be built that refutes Cantor’s notions rather soundly, and such arguments are available concerning a potential of infinity since Cantor’s medium is numbers, which do not exist in the realms of nature, and the universe, specific. Numbers are human conceived, but numbers are well known for their propensity to confuse instead of solving problems. In fact, numbers can cause a person to go insane which is precisely what happened to Georg Cantor; thus we must ask the subtle question: If numbers can cause insanity in human beings, are numbers insane?

The answer is yes; numbers are insane unless properly used. Logically, there is only one number, 1, and all other numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, and 9 are mere representations of more than 1, or ||, |||, ||||, |||||, ||||||, |||||||, ||||||||, and |||||||||. That is the fallacy of numbers, and flawed answers result from it. It is written C = the speed that light can travel in 1 second if when in a vacuum; however, the speed that light actually travels cannot be measured since time is an arbitrary method of measuring the duration of motion, but time cannot measure time since time does not exist; therefore, any measurement that uses time is at best, speculative when it comes to nature, the nature of anything.

Concerning Gödels ’ Incompleteness theory, please read the following.

“In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules an axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.”

Please note, Gödels’s theory again deals with numbers, in much the same manner as that of Georg Cantor. It is in the application of numbers that the Incompleteness Theory was contrived; however, if numbers are properly used, the Incompleteness Theory is bullshit (sorry, but I know of no other way to put this message across), in exactly the same way as Cantors’ dealing with Infinity.


By WJ on Monday, March 4, 2002 - 09:43 am:

Hey Ivan, (Sextus)!

Of course, as always, I agree with you Ivan. If Sextus proclaims that;

"For a thing to exist, it must have definable properties."

Obviously, Sextus does not have a comprehensive understanding of the word 'exists'. And since I'm a staunch opponent of analytical thinking, I just wanted to point out that major 'deficiency' in the use of that approach and/or the [Sextus'] aforementioned propostitional statement about existence viz. definable propertes.

Does consciousness exist, and if so, how should it be defined?

By G-man767 on Wednesday, March 6, 2002 - 02:09 am:

Sextus: Take yer chill pill:) No one has ever said that the ideational realm of Logic/Math is absolutely correspondingly REAL, as in the kind of Physical Reality that happens during a head-on collision. The point & EDIFY. Like po folk grazing at a fancy salad bar:) G-man

By Sextus on Wednesday, March 6, 2002 - 09:33 am:

To edify is to enlighten or inform, instruct or build, but when that built is not correct, or flawed what is the purpose of doing so? Is it possible to enlighten or inform, instruct or build, when that information presented is flawed?


By WJ on Wednesday, March 6, 2002 - 01:37 pm:


"Is it possible to enlighten or inform, instruct or build, when that information presented is flawed?"

Absolutely yes. Of course, this assumes certain methods or means of testing are axiomatically correct to begin with. But then again, why can't we create a universe?


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 6, 2002 - 05:32 pm:

Hi WJ, G-man, Sextus, and all,

RE "For a thing to exist, it must have definable properties."

This is a tricky area for me, since usually things that 'exist' have definable or identifiable properties, but from whose point to view? For example, can things exist we don't know exist, such as spiritual worlds, black matter, or paraconsistent events? Or can they exist as definable by a state of contextual interconnectivity and defined by the totality rather than by any known observer? In other words, can existence go beyond the world of known perception? I suspect this is so, that we live in a mystery filled universe, and we, with our imperfect minds, are merely imperfect observers of a sublimely perfect reality.

What about Love? How do we give love 'definable' properties? Yet, I am quite certain it exists.

Just thinkin' out loud,

By Sextus on Wednesday, March 6, 2002 - 09:38 pm:

Does love exist?

What is love?

I love music. I love fresh corn. I love a beautiful day. I love clear nights with a bright moon shining. I love my pet. I love my children.

Love is an emotional attachment to a concept, person, place, or thing.

What is so difficult about that?


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 6, 2002 - 10:17 pm:

Hi Sextus,

Most deffinitely I agree, love exists! What I am
puzzled by is how do we give this feeling of love
'definable properties'? What is an 'emotional
attachment' as a property? This is one of those
things I have difficulty explaining (to myself)
though I fully agree they exist.

Ciao, later, Ivan

By Sextus on Wednesday, March 6, 2002 - 11:42 pm:

An emotional attachment occurs through the experience of a relationship with the person, place, thing, or idea. Such experiences that move us to love something is the result of a personally pleasing or pleasurable interaction that enhances our lives, and makes our own life more meaningful.


By G-man767 on Thursday, March 7, 2002 - 01:36 am:

Form, as spatio-temporal dimensionality. Should we approach it from a Physics (aka, Optics, etc.) standpoint, or from that of Aesthetics? Afterall, can't we achieve the same wisdom conclusion by reading Ovid and Plato in the same lesson?:) I mean, it all in the end somehow ties together, doesn't it...even if its confusion of precise networked connections escapes our exact recollection? And yet, I was hoping that one us here, somewheres, had the foresight and wherewithal to be keeping a record, so as to perhaps plot some retraceable map...:) G-man

By Sextus on Thursday, March 7, 2002 - 09:55 am:

I think we must first approach this from the Aesthetics standpoint. Once established, we should be able to theoretically tie it together with physics, and bridge gaps with common sense and strong evidence via observation. By observation I mean, using available data from the sciences to enhance empirical credibility, when such information is verified by more than one source. That information available concerning the background radiation gives us an excellent starting point, and there are several knowledgeable people that are seemingly ready to buck the present institutionalized versions of the Big Bang.


By WJ on Thursday, March 7, 2002 - 10:21 am:


Love is an enigma beyond all human understanding. Yet, it is something most human's encounter as an experience from living life, in one form or another.
Gee, does that capture the essence of Love?



By G-man767 on Thursday, March 7, 2002 - 12:49 pm:

Ain't Love one helluva a Phantasm!:) G-man This

By WJ on Thursday, March 7, 2002 - 01:42 pm:

Good one G! Perhaps a new thread is in order: Platonic illusions? What are they and why should you care!

Fact is, illusions are illusions; mysteries are mysteries. In this case, no amount of thinking will change love to a purely objective true concept or phenomena. It's like an [emotional] wave. One can only choose to ride with it, and see where it leads! And other's choose not to ride at all [believe in it]. Those folks would be considered existing in a mild state of denial!


All you need is Love, yha, yhadada, dah

By G-man767 on Thursday, March 7, 2002 - 09:19 pm:

Personally, Love is the Greatest, most Mysterious
thing of all! It's huge! But how does it tie into
a TOE? (I suspect that on a Self-Realization
level, One is All, and All (you need) is
Love...Because the World is Round...and in the
end, the Love you take is equal toooo...the Love
you make...:) Still, what's the algorithmic code
that ties it all into a TOE? G-man Thi

By G-man767 on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 12:46 am:

Getting back to a TOE, I suspect that such theory will at least be able to answer somewhat the necessity for spatial dimensionality. Research into k-besons tends to be examining why particles assume the forms of matter that they do. Would such TOE be able to answer Uncle Albert's lingering Q: Why is there something, not nothing? G-man

By 1st Post on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 12:18 am:

Would TOE include something like this?


By Ivan A. on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 11:52 am:

Dear 1st,

Cool! Way cool.

I will study 'Theory'. Am working on my own, but
not there yet.


By G-man767 on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 01:28 am:

After the 3rd stanza, much inferential speculation begins. As I've noted before, a TOE need not account for a 'God' (according to some cosmologic argument). It also wouldn't require a definition of 'Consciousness,' per se (especially if it demanded a unification of science and metaphysics). I believe a TOE in its advanced technical description must account for what amounts to a limitation that was noted long ago by the ancients: if the eye that sees cannot see itself, it can only know sight through the experience of seeing. As I sit across a negotiating table from my opponent, I try hard to imagine myself walking in his shoes, and how he sees/knows me, from his seat. Still, I can never achieve absolute certainty. How to see all angles, all perspectives...given the limits of my viewing proximity? I see a face, but not the back of the head. I can hear a voice, read expressions, sense tonalities...I can empathize. But I can't read thoughts, for sure. If only mine eyes could be in all places at once:) G-man

By Ivan A. on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 11:14 am:

Dear G-man, 1st, All,

I must also agree that for TOE, we should not invoke a 'God', and rather keep it philosophically secular, otherwise, God becomes an easy out, and answers get thrown back into religion, not science.


I was at a party last night with a group of scientists, mostly computer geeks, but also a few physicists, and one patent attorney. So we turned to the question of TOE, and some interesting points came out.

1. There are many more cosmic constants in operating algorithms of TOE than we are presently aware of, possibly as many as 17. (About 4 are used currently.)

2. The 'steady state' universe has been totally and unquestionably dis-proven, so that the idea of red shift over distance 'must' account for an expanding universe. This is an almost 'religious' belief by physicists. (I'm not sure I buy this one.)

3. Gravity travels either at C, or faster. There were several opinions on this, and some believed gravity is instantaneous, in that it is outside time. I asked if geometric relations over great distance are instantaneous (yes), but how do they communicate these relations over space (didn't know)?

4. There are good books written about TOE, but I can't recall titles...

Otherwise, lots of good food and drink, and party broke up around midnight, well talked out and mentally challenged, no check points, so made it home the wiser.

Cheers! Ivan

By Anonymous on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 11:54 am:

TOE official page

Realistic realism really realizes real reality — certain uncertainty certainly ascertains certainty.


Fluid Dynamics = experimental Mathematics = experimental Theory of Everything.

By Ivan A. on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 12:42 am:

Complex Big Bang??

Dear All,

In reading through "Gravity's Lens" by Nathan
Cohen, Phd. (1988 J. Wiley & Sons, NY), I came
across some interesting points regarding cosmic
expansion. pp. 170-179

The text alludes to a 'complex Big Bang' which
cannot be explained simply through Hubble's steady
expansion model. In particular, the universe is
far from uniform in its expansion and rather lumpy
at that. Cohen says:

"The expansion, in general, is not debated, but
the streaming adds an intriguing point -- what is
its cause? Is something, perhaps unseen, pulling
at clusters, lining them up, and forcing them to
move? What could cause streaming in the context
of the expanding universe -- or is the universe
not the result of a Big Bang? In failing to
account for this motion, how flawed is the Big
Bang model? What crucial factor does it lack?"
--pp. 177-178.

This to me is telling, that either some dark
matter is acting on the universe's alleged
expansion in some mysterious and incomprehensible
way, or that the steady expansion of the universe
as evidenced by the redshift of distant objects is
due to some other cause, or that the redshift is
giving us an erroneous reading, and that there is
no expansion at all, only movement. Furthermore,
there is a large mystery as to how gravity acts
over great distances, and what we may be
calculating within the dimensions of our
observations may not act the same over very great
distances. Gravitons may not be like photons, but
rather like a web that stretches simultaneously
over infinite distances instantaneously.
Regardless, until further research, it is only
speculations, same as the fantastic tale of the
Big Bang may be a fantasy of near infinite

We need more research, but I do suspect that a
Theory of Everything may be possible, one that
encompasses not only the laws of physics and
chemistry, but also biology and psychology, and
even... this is a stretch... cosmic spirituality.

Keep looking!


Ps: Thanks for the "TOE official page".

By WJ on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 10:22 am:


I haven't read all of this, but has Davie's concluded that God was/is an electrician, as opposed to say a mathematician?


By WJ on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 04:55 pm:

It was ironic today when out of nowhere a co-worker was explaining how the heart beats without a brain, (as in transplants) while explaining an auto accident, etc.. . Then I was thinking about electrical impulses that energize (the 'genesis' of) the heart function as well as electromagnetic fields from ghosts/spirits and other phenomenon... .

Perhaps one can reasonably infer that God is an electrician(?)

The essence of Matter and solipsism! (See the discussion between mitch and... .)


By Ivan A. on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 11:38 pm:

Hi WJ,

Haven't gotten into Davies yet far enough to know if God is an electrician, mathematician, or some biblical magician...!! But will keep at it.

Still reading J. Gribbin's "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything", though I'm slow at it, trying to finish "The Secret Agent" by J. Conrad at same time. But I'll get there yet. Will look for clues as to God's secret metier. Of course, I have to bed, or my 'metier' tomorrow won't be worth a damn.

Ciao, later, Ivan

By Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 05:53 pm:


Imagine two atomic clocks on the same bar, of some great length, which is placed on a pivot very near one end of the rod, and then set to spin at great speeds. Hence, on end of the rod, further from the pivot, is traveling at much greater velocity than the other end of the rod, which is close to the pivot point, traveling at much slower velocity. Keep this motion experiment in action for let's say two or three years. Then measure the time display on both atomic clocks.

Question: Will the two clocks show the same time? Or will they reflect Einsteinian time, where one clock, the greater velocity end of the rod, displays a slower time?

...Just a mind game...

By Ivan A. on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 06:40 pm:

Ha! Fast Clocks-Anonymous!

Good joke. So, if the clocks show different
times, as per Einstein, then we have a conundrum?
How could we have different times on the same rod?

Very good! Ha, ha! I love it.


By Ivan A. on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 02:15 pm:


(work in progress)

On reading Quantum physics, on a possible Theory of Everything; i.e., Paul Davies "The New Physics" (Cambridge Univ. 1989), and John Gribbin "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little Brown 1998); I am struck by a common problem to which there seems to be no solution. Though best minds have studied this for over a century, from Faraday and Planck to Einstein and Fermi to Salam and Weinberg to Gell-Mann and Nambu and Wu and scores others, there is a lack of conceptual coordination, as expressed by the mathematics, of being able to relate the strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, and the weakest force of gravity, into a general theory. I suspect that it may be possible to re-coordinate the mathematical expressions where there is a 'basic common denominator' into which all functions have to fall, and from which all Quantum interactions of the higher levels would then find expression. Though mathematics is a language, one of how interactions relate, with its own grammar and structure, it is nevertheless only a language, much like ordinary spoken languages, and thus may lend itself to expressions of both truth and fiction. I will try to express below, in ordinary language, what I think can be translated into mathematical expressions, and from which I think we may find models that express reality closer to the truth than understood hitherto. And if so, then we may have found an expression, which can later be translated into mathematics, which may be the possible foundation for a Theory of Everything, not only as a theory tying together the forces of physical reality, but ultimately as the supranatural forces that tie together all living things that exist within it. We would know we had achieved this goal, perhaps albeit an unachievably lofty one, when we can translate the mathematical language into observable and measurable phenomena in the natural world.

If we take into account that much empirical data on Quantum Electrodynamics and gravity has been gathered, and that this data generally bears out General Relativity as posited by Einstein and successors, then we should assume that the data is good, as it is being measured, and that only a way to fit the data into a more generalized theory is lacking. The math is at times tricky, requiring canceling out infinities in order to renormalize the equations as Gibbin writes (pp. 65-67): "Mathematically, the infinite mass of the cloud around the electron is compensated for by assuming that a 'bare' electron would have infinite negative mass. With careful mathematical juggling, the two infinities can be made to cancel out...); which leads one to think that infinities in calculations need to be removed, since it is improper to divide or multiply by them. However, what if infinities were the desired results for which we were looking, and from which we could draw a common denominator? Would measurements of quarks, leptons, muons, nucleons, electrons and nutrinos then fall into place? This would be the goal of a Theory of Everything, I would think.

Let us make a basic assumption about how is structured the universe: "Unity is found in opposites." There is ample demonstration of this, that positive and negatives attract to form a unity, much as the two poles of a magnet cancel out in between to remain one complete force. So the pluses and minuses of the universe seem to cancel out, whether in a state of stability, where all things rest in balance, or dynamically, in a state of becoming. This principle applies as well to atomic and subatomic existence, implying that there is a kind of balance in existence that normalizes the opposites into unity, or what we then perceive as a kind of existential-reality stability.

If this is so, that opposites normalize into unity, then it would seem that a logical place to search for a basic assumption for a Theory of Everything would be in the two extreme universal forces that are opposed to each other. I would recommend that from the observable universe there are two such very great forces: Quasars and Black Holes. One is the brightest object in the universe, the Quasar; the other is the darkest, the Black Hole. Now, this is not a starting point, but rather an observation from which a starting point can be established. So the next step would be to identify from our known observations of physics the two opposing forces that influence matter and its creation or destruction. For this I would suggest "Photons", as light, as representative of all electromagnetic waves of all magnitudes, in all spectrums; and an "unknown" as the opposite to photons, as that which represents the 'dark' force. It is this 'dark' force that I think is missing in Quantum physics as it now stands. There are measurements and theories of Strong Forces, gluons, that bind the proton and neutron together. However, these are little understood, and if one were to theorize instead that such a force, being the 'glue' Strong Force that holds together the nucleus, then it may approach forces of 'infinite magnitudes' similar to what we observe in Black Holes, a kind of Total Force. Or perhaps it could be best described by the measurable force of the 'unknown' X particle, or 10 (to 15th) GeV, i.e., 10 million million times the electromagnetic weak force; then we would be seeing it as equivalent to a force at the time, theoretically, of the Universe being only 10 (to minus 37) seconds old, or at the very beginning of the so called Big Bang. (I am skeptical that the Universe started this way, and think that instead this may be happening on a continuous basis throughout the cosmos as tiny 'mini-bangs', but this is not important for this purpose here.) So we are then looking, from this deduction, for a dark 'strong force' to be opposite electromagnetic 'light photons' that approximates the binding force of the universe at its 'creation', in effect, with near infinite gravity cohesion. This is not to be equated in any way with 'gravity' as we understand it, what is keeping me in my chair as I write this, but rather as a force so powerful that in theory it contains all of existence within it at the 'birth' of the Universe.

Much of physics, it appears to me, is fancy, as the Big Bang is a fanciful account imagined because of how the math works out; same as measuring the colorful eightfold path of interquark forces leads to mathematical expressions for which our minds are not equipped to imagine; to imagining photons as being both particles and waves. In this case, the fancy as deduced here is that there is a force that approximates a compressed universe into its singularity, which is so powerful that even photons cannot escape it, except at close quarter as within the atom. This is why I alluded to earlier to the Black Holes, because they are evidence of such a force. So, to give this 'unknown' force a name, one that has not been used in the colorful description of Quantum physics, and one which approximates the nature of this force, being gravitationally near infinitely powerful, I would give it the name of a gravity "infiniton". This is not to be compared to a 'graviton' which measures a very weak force, that of gravity, but rather the very strong force of the 'infiniton', which is inside the atom.

Now, by default, because we do not know this force other than through its various manifestations as evidenced by how it interacts with photonic electromagnetic energy, we are then forced to treat it as an unknown, yet one of near infinite, or even infinite, properties. One can look at the universe's Black Holes for evidence of how these infinitons work, that they are able to absorb all light and matter into themselves, to go... where? The answer is Nowhere, for they simply reabsorb into what the Universe is made of, nothingness. On the other side of the polarity is what the universe radiates with, the electromagnetic energy of light, or photons, in all its spectrums from X-ray to infra-reds. Then, how these various energies interact with the infinitons is what manifests as created matter. These interactions are then measurable in Quantum physics, from which we can gain an understanding of how light interacts with the properties of the infiniton 'dark matter'. Thus, if so, then Quantum physics should become greatly simplified. On the other hand, the Big Bang would come into question because this theory would point that, over great distances of space, light is being gradually absorbed by the resulting 'dark force'. So in cosmic space, over those distances, light would red-shift with time, not because of space expanding, but because the dark matter left over from the interaction of photons and infinitons acts like a drag on it. In the same manner could be measured how photons knock out electrons from metals, or how the wave-particle nature of electromagnetic energy interacts at different levels of the nucleus to measure at what state is the energy within the atom, away from the all collapsing force of the infiniton. All these would be measurable evidence of the interaction between photons and infinitons. The rest would then be arithmetic, to design a periodic table of how various levels of energy between the photons and infinitons interact within the atom. And when this is done, we then are close to arriving at a Theory of Everything, because then we can incorporate gravity and dark matter into the equation.

How photon energy and infiniton energy interact explains the mechanics of atomic structures as they exist in our observable reality. However, the offsets between these two powerful opposing forces are not total, in that there is a leakage that then 'renormalizes' with what happens in the universe. That leakage, I suspect, is what is left over from the attractive force of the infiniton as it is modified into atomic existence by the electromagnetic forces of photons; the resulting byproduct force, which is a rather weak force, is Gravity. In the equation of TOE (still unwritten), the universal constant would then work out to be what is left over as gravity, as the force that then unites all of existence into a comprehensive whole everywhere throughout the cosmos. Gravity, as a left over force of infiniton attraction, is then spread out evenly to affect all objects, and even the photons themselves, over great distances. This is evidenced by successfully using 'gravitational lenses' in space astronomy, where the gravity of distant galaxies act as a lens on the light coming from behind those galaxies, and magnify it to be picked up by orbiting space telescopes. So photons and gravity do interact, but because this interaction is rather weak, it is observable only over very great distances, unlike the strong interactions between photons and infinitons within the atom, where they interact directly. Because this weak interaction is happening all over the existing cosmic space, it creates a kind of 'shadow' through which light must struggle, which we then think of as 'dark matter'. I do not think this dark matter actually exists, but it is only a manifestation of how light interacts with gravity over great distances. So, like gravity, dark matter is then a waste product of the photon-infiniton interaction, and is measurable only by how light interacts with it over great distances. Therefore, in the final equation of TOE, Gravity is only a left over constant from the subatomic interactions of photon electromagnetic energy and the very dark glue of infinitons as the near infinite common denominators of the universe, of nothingness.

It should be understood that this Theory of Everything is being sought after in a philosophical sense, fanciful or not, rather than strictly in a Quantum physics sense, though the mathematics developed from it could lend itself to physical observation. This would be the test, that the math measures against observable reality, whether in a better understanding of Quasars and Black Holes (which may in fact not be collapsed stars at all, but rather 'infiniton stars'), or how energy is exchanged both within and without the atoms. It may yet prove that Gravity as a force is duplicatable, perhaps at levels far in excess of those exhibited by natural bodies in space; same as it may prove that the velocity of light is not the greatest speed in the universe, that there are things much faster. Though I could envision this only as a theoretical philosophical idea, that the infinitons mentioned above have instantaneous force, that they attract outside the values of time, and thus their 'leakage' of gravity is likewise instantaneous in its potential attraction; but if so, then gravity is 'felt' over immense cosmic distances instantly also, though only as a byproduct weak force. This could mean then that gravity is a faster 'communicator' within the universe than light, and if so, the 'interrelationships' that span the universe are intercommunicating instantly all the time, which could lead into a whole new way of seeing how the Universe interacts with itself.

In the end all things come back to us, for we are the seekers with our being, and we are the storytellers. We have to find meaning which will give us a sense of understanding of how things are, of how existence affects us in our minds and bodies. It is for this reason that we have posited a concept of 'being', to which we belong and within which we feel our inner existence. That this 'being' can then be connected to outer existence in some unified way becomes the goal of the Theory of Everything, and either we find our consciousness connected to all existence within this being, or we do not. If reality is a vast interrelated phenomenon of itself, of how it interplays between the universe spanning electromagnetic energy of photons and the universe crushing infinite gravity force of infinitons, then how this drama creates both matter and life within its existence becomes a potentially unifiable theory, of everything. Life and mass, consciousness and light, all become interrelatable as one, canceling out unnecessary opposites, one vast interrelationship that is able to coordinate itself from the largest dimensions, and to identify itself into the smallest parts. And, to be true to itself in a principle of mutually canceling opposites, both Consciousness, the byproduct of Life, and Existence, the 'isness' of Itself, combine into Being, the Who we Are. And thus, what had been seen as an existence of the duality of Mind and Reality now becomes combined, the Theory of Everything, as One. But... One what?

(This is work in progress; math based on [(O x infinity) = 1], to be developed, where the 'photon' and 'infiniton' are alternately both set to equal 'zero' or 'infinity', depending on from which direction it is approached, either as GeV mass or E energy, whereby 'mass' values are always equal to 'one' whole intergers, as evidenced by atomic compositions.)

Ivan Alexander

By G-man767 on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 01:09 am:

Question: do positive/negative polarities ever cease to repel, given say acceleration to a plasmic state?:) G-man

By Ivan A. on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 01:13 pm:

Possible TOE continued:

Using the basic (0 x infinity) = 1 , model for TOE, let us apply known quantities to this general formula, and let us further assume that "m" is equivalent to "1", and that the photon "p" is set as a function of the speed of light, at "1/c2". The infiniton "I" is still unknown.

This would translate (0 x infinity) = 1 into the basic model [ p x I = m ].

Now, if we take photon energy to be set here at the "zero", and thus "1/c2" [or the inverse of the speed of light squared], and the "infinity" value set at "E", to represent the infiniton, which is as yet undefined, then we can easily see that this coincides with the famous E=mc2. Or, to put it differently: 1/c2 x E = m, which is how we structured the algorithm above.

Now, the "E" value is what needs to be determined to satisfy this equation, not as only an equation of "electromagnetic energy", which E=mc2 describes, but also as an equation that incorporates the gravity energies of G, the universal gravity constant, and of the still unknown "inifiniton" strong force. So this is where it stands thus far, to convert what is essentially a formula of energy-only into a formula that incorporates the Strong Force of nuclear gravity as the infiniton, or "I".

However, to satisfy the condition stated above that gravity, the G constant, is a left over product of the p x I interaction, then I would subtract it from the result of m. Therefore, I would restate the basic formula above as follows:

1/c2 x E = m-g

where "-g" takes the place of "G" since it is not a primary force but merely "left over" from the interaction within the atom (which is shown as negative because it is what is "missing" from the atom). Now, we could be further illustrated by showing that "E" within the equation is replaced with "mc2", so that we have [1/c2 x mc2 = m (-g)], which then (by bringing 1/c2 over to m) breaks down to mc2=mc2, which is =E.

But that is not the point, for what is important here is that if we remove the "m" from both sides, and I take liberties here to do so to illustrate (remember, m=1), we are left with "-g" or [1/c2 x c2 = 1-g], which is the gravity we are seeking, or better yet as [(1/c2 x c2) + g = 1], which brings "m" back to = 1, on the right side of the equation. This is another way to approach the value of "mass equal to one", so that the value of gravity, which is the left over from the photon x infiniton interaction, is now on the same side of the equation as 1/c2 x I, to which is then added force of "g" to complete it; on the other side is mass equals one. Finally, when this algorithm is found, it will translate into the gravity formula [F=GMm/r2] as formulated by Newton. Please note the small "g" will turn into the "G" when the TOE solution is found, but is now best expressed as a gravitation constant = cm3/g/s2 (?).

But how...? Is there a value for "E" that works better as an expression of "I", that is not electromagnetic in nature but its inverse as an "infinitely" strong force instead, and a value which also retains "m"? I suspect that there is some way to see this as E = nuclear Strong Force, but don't know yet.

So we are thus left with the formula: 1/c2 x I = m-g, for now... and we are looking for a value of "E" which expresses and approximates the Strong Force of "I".


Ps: G-man, postivie/negative plasma state? .. don't know. You? Any ideas? ...anyone?

By G-man767 on Monday, April 8, 2002 - 11:46 pm:

Ivan: Excellent & challenging. I will respond after deeper analysis. But a few inserted thoughts. In this week's "Economist" magazine (April 6-12, 2002) there's an article in the Science section, entitled, "The inconstant constant." I realized that so many scientists are focused on the precise exactitudes of all the various formal constants, as listed in physics text books. (Similar to the literal vs. metaphoric/figurative debates in theology and Biblical scholarship.) Missing, it seems, is an even more fundamental (and perhaps too obviously evident fact) inquiry. Given: All 'constancies' have been determined as such according to various means of measure/measurement/measuring. Also, all constancies are measurable only in relation to inconstancies. Which suggests two critically important points: (1) Relational Perspectivism as determinant (preconditional/prerequisite)measurement function; and (2) Ratiocination as cognitive measuring tool/means. Indeed, algorithmic precisions are vital to any potential TOE. But we must also remain ever-vigillant in our tireless reductive inquiries, i.e., beyond mere identifying of nominal (always/nearly always)constants, if said constants to be knowable/known occur within a context of variables...we must address the two-sided question of: what makes relationality a necessary condition for positive knowledge, as ratio?; and, is it possible that because constancies only occur in relation to inconstancies...that the impossibility of their mergence is a perpetuative factor? G-man

By Ivan on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 05:07 pm:

Hi G-man, thanks for The Economist/Science article referenced, which I found at .

I too find puzzling that algorithms generate these 'constants', which must be some function of how the mathematics ratios relate to the real world of astrophysics. As the article suggests, these so-called constants are not always so constant. Could it be that if we were to develop TOE using a new kind of universal math that some of the constants, like Planck's constant, or the alpha constant, for example, be eliminated? Even the speed of light is suspect, since the electromagnetic wave energy may in fact prove to not be so constant through the great distance dimensions of space, as was suggested in this article by Barry Setterfield: .

Still thinking of how to interrelate E into the infiniton value of the equation, which may yet necessitate another constant, or not. We'll keep looking.

Take care, Ivan

By Ivan A. on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 05:33 pm:


Ps: On further reading "The inconstant constant" in the Economist, I think the alpha constant is: a = e2/ch x 2pi = 137.036, (where 'c' is speed of light, 'e' the electron energy, and 'h' Planck's constant) , which may turn out to be an important number to reconcile the photon, which is also expressed as 1/c2. This may show in the end that for TOE, the photon is the best constant (which means that 'alpha' is somehow relative to [p=1/c2] in the final solution? Or would 'e', as an expression of 'p', also be relative to 'a'?) It's all part of finding the pieces that fit the equation, I would think. For example, is 137.036 a divisor for E, or multiplier for p?

I think of the photon as being the basic energy unit that is used not only in how space is structured, but also how life is incorporated, since photosynthesis is the basic interaction between living things and universal light energy. ( I.e., all living things feed off of the life energy of light as it is transformed first by plant life, and then converted into a food source that travels all the way through the food chain, even to us!) If so, then photonic light is the key that ties together physics and life energy, which further interrelates the material world with the animate. If a Theory of Everything is truly to be of 'everything', it would need to incorporate these interactions, as well as the mind-body connection.

For more info on TOE see:

By eVisitor on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 05:26 pm:

The electron and its properties: The electron as a bullet

It has a mass of 9*10-31 kg or 1 two thousandth of the mass of a proton (or one million millionth of the mass of a speck of dust).

Electron tracks
(Source: CERN)
"When the electron is shot out of the muzzle of an electron gun it emerges with a particular velocity and travels along a well defined trajectory. The electron carries a precise charge of 1.6*10-19 coulombs. By careful design, an electron gun can make the electrons spin - like the rifling inside the barrel of a gun can make bullets spin.
All attempts to measure the radius of the electron have failed! All we know is that the radius is less than 10-18 m; that is, its radius is one hundred million times smaller than that of the atom. All the known properties of the electron are consistent with the assumption that its radius is zero. As far as we know, the electron has no structure."

Question: Does the electron have a meaningful mass, as it applies to "TOE"? Or is it only the "messenger" of photonic force on the strong force within the nucleus?

Clearly these messengers help hold the world together to enable atoms to join together into groups, even in living things. What is their relationship to the Strong Force as a function of photon energy?


By Claude on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 02:19 am:


I decided to revisit this thread, and now it appears everyone is lost.

Until each of you removes all numbers from your thinking, no place is where you are headed, and the futility of finding or learning, nothing new. The "digital" human mind cannot cope without numbers, but in the real world of our (your, my) existence, numbers do not exist, neither thinking minds for that matter.

What exists is a perpetual motion machine that is totally analogous in function - You call it reality. It consists of a multitude of entities in pure analog perpetual motion, with each entity wholly dependent on all other entities. There is no such thing as constants, neither inconsistency. Everything is perpetuity based, and biased accordingly. Thus, perpetuity of motion is analogous; therefore, cannot be stopped – meaning, it never began, it simply is.


By Ivan A. on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 04:10 pm:



I decided to revisit this thread, and now it appears everyone is lost.

Until each of you removes all numbers from your thinking, no place is where you are headed, and the futility of finding or learning, nothing new. The "digital" human mind cannot cope without numbers, but in the real world of our (your, my) existence, numbers do not exist, neither thinking minds for that matter.

Hi Claude,

Glad to hear from you! I understand what you mean, that we try to 'intellectualize' through digitizing the analog nature of reality in our formulations of how things work. For example, this is analogous to how the early Babylonians, and Egyptians, digitized the Earth's revolution around the sun, by breaking up the year into 12 months, and then further break this down into the Earth's rotation so that they fit 360 days into the year. But is this not an example of 'digitizing' what is in essence a fluid 'analog' phenomenon? Of course, the 360 did not fit well into the 12 month year, so they had to adjust it periodically by adding extra days to complete the year that is closer to 365.25 days annually. ( Note that the Babylonian math of the time repeated number cycles at 60, so that we now have 60 minutes to the hour, for example, or 360 degrees to the circle, etc.) If so, then the inability to fit the annual days into the year calls for a 'constant' of 1.01458 to renormalize the 360 days into the analog year of 365.25 days. Ditto for the lunar cycle measured by Earth days. Which makes me think that constants are just that, a way to renormalize digitally what does not fit into an analog reality. This is also the difficulty I envision in formulating a credible TOE, that some sort of constant will be needed to renormalize gravity-strong-force with electromagnetic forces, or as you say, "what simply is".

An aside, when the Pythagoreans realized that the square root of 2 is an irrational number, they killed the unlucky mathematician who made the discovery, since he profaned the purity of numbers. Let us hope we have grown more tolerant of the fact that analog is not always translatable into digital, yet even if imperfect, like the calendar we use today, it still proves useful.

"Still headed"... Cheers!

By Ivan A. on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 09:50 am:

Dear eV,

Thanks for your input and link to physics page.
And welcome!

RE "Question: Does the electron have a meaningful
mass, as it applies to "TOE"? Or is it only the
"messenger" of photonic force on the strong force
within the nucleus?"

It seems from the above that electrons do have
some mass, very small, that appears to be defined by momentum rather than from mass as we think of it in the atom.

In my ideas above, I set mass at one ( m = 1), as the TOE constant, though I realize that the Special Relativity theory puts light at one, and general relativity, I believe, puts the strong force as one. In anycase, what's left over from the photon x infiniton interaction is mass which is equal to one minus the gravitational constant (m = 1-g), which is the left over product of universal gravity.

Aside, I also think that gravity can be affected by other
causes, such as rotational motion, at a distance,
and think of it as an infinite force, though very
weak. So as it stands for now, TOE is:

1/c2 x infiniton (undefined) = m - g.

Thanks, still thinking,

By Claude on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 09:51 pm:


I always knew - 1.999999999999999999999999999999 wa an unlucky number. How odd that is the result when

x 1.4142135623730950488016887242097
= 1.999999999999999999999999999999

Now you know precisely what I mean. Reason being? The Square Root of 1 is 1; therefore, numbers digits) always fail!

Ok, how do we calculate without numbers?

Simple really - use only symbols!


By Claude on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 01:00 am:


Sight, is not a thing; therefore, since it is not a thing, it cannot be seen. Can you see your “taste, feel, hear, or smell?” Of course not, you can only experience your sight. So, what else can we say about the world of universals? Can you see reality? No, but you can and will experience it; so, does reality exist? Again reality is not a thing, reality is experience as it occurs to, and before us daily; however, reality cannot be a thing, but reality is fully comprised of everything, everything that is. If reality is not a thing, then reality does not exist; therefore, only things consisting of “material properties” exist. What that means is, the entire universe is a solid object with no voids within it. Where this leads, is thinking outside of your head, instead of inside it. When trapped inside our heads, we cannot see what should be obvious to us since we are looking “out at the world,” instead of looking at what is “inside the world” of our existence. We look out and see reality, but we need to look inside the world so we can see what is outside of reality.

Outside of reality is the past, as is the future; therefore, if my theory is correct, science is totally lost in the pursuit of physics as learning anything about the origin of the universe, or even our solar system for that matter. If I am right, the photographs taken by Hubble will eventually prove it if we can ever see through the Milky Way. What lies beyond it holds the key that only a handful of people world wide are searching for, which proves beyond doubt the universe is perpetually expanding in straight line of sight directionally from every point within it as it always has in eternal perpetuity. That key has nothing to do with Redshift phenomena, but it has everything to do with an unknown force which powers the universe. For now, I am content to identify that force as “imbalanced ions.”

I think you area capable of taking it from here.


By G-man767 on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 01:43 am:

Quick note: I suspect we get lost when we over-focus on specific details, i.e., regardless of the exact ratio of mass of electron-to-proton, the important point is...mass is common to each (in a relational proportionality). The key is trying to establish commonly shared generalized aspects amongst all things. A TOE is about finding an underlying unifying force common to all, yet whose commonality also serves to explain the necessity for dimensionality and differentiations. (One might wish to revisit some of the ideas in Vedic Physics & Tesla in this regard:) G-man

By G-man767 on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 02:18 am:

Q: In terms of how we're defining 'Everything' here...would this also include...anything, and/or nothing, either possibly actual or actually potential?:) G-man (see

By G-man767 on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 02:46 am:

A few more questions: (1) What is the relation of light velocity (c) to blackhole gravity (G)? (2) Must a TOE also account for epistemologic rationales? Example: Is it possible that 'time' is at once locally actual, but as universal totality is so incomprehensibly aionic and layered in scale as to be immeasurably irrelevant? (Meaning that our attributional assignments of 'first' cause perhaps arise only as functions of our microbe-like perspective?)Is it possible that the fundamental intrinsic intelligence of all things necessitates dimensionality to make possible the evolutionary emergence of matter-beyond-itself-becoming self-cognizant? The real point I'm raising here is: Is it possible that a TOE will ultimately be doomed to the limits of this sort of speculative, religio-metaphoric descriptivism? G-man

By G-man767 on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 04:33 am:

Analysis sought. Is it possible that two overall universal perameters factor into a TOE? Namely: zero mass & infinite mass, which each are opposite extremes of Energy (E)? Consider, at (c), mass=0. (Prior to achieving c, during acceleration, an object's mass ultimately--in theory--becomes equal to that of the whole universe.) What quantity of E is required, in theory, for an object to achieve c? My real question comes to this: Is it 'possible' that Alpha/Omega time occurs simultaneously only upon the achievement of the zero mass, infinite mass perameters, which are energy, velocity, & gravity functions? G-man

By Claude on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 12:41 am:


Close, you are very close to burying the nail with one blow.

G-man: “A TOE is about finding an underlying unifying force common to all, yet whose commonality also serves to explain the necessity for dimensionality and differentiations.”

The underlying force common to all is, “imbalanced ions” (for want of a better descriptive term). It is imbalance that imparts motion, all motion. Question is, how can a specific set (or mass) of ions induce motion? I think science has already found the answer, but nobody has recognized the fact!

Pay particular attention to

Think outside of your head, and look inside reality to find what is outside of it!


By Claude on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 01:16 am:

G-man, Ivan,

To help each of you climb outside your heads to see what is outside reality, both of you need to give up on the Redshift myth- Once done, your minds will be free to explore what will inevitably become the new "truth" of cosmology.

Killing the Redshift myth- Some of this information is dated April 4, 2002!!!!!!


By Claude on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 01:27 am:

G-man, Ivan,

To tie some of this together -

To explain how redshift might be related to age, is it possible instead of elementary particles having constant mass, as orthodox science assumes, they come into being with zero mass, which then increases, in steps, as they age. When electrons in younger atoms jump from one orbit to another, the light they emit is weaker, and therefore more highly redshifted, than the light emitted by electrons in older atoms. To put it another way: as particle mass grows, frequency (clock rate) increases and therefore redshift decreases.

Think outside your heads - Imbalanced ions induce all motion!


By G-man767 on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 02:12 am:

Claude: Thanks for the links. Great to hear from you again. Please re-email me your URL and e-mail address:) G-man

By Ivan A. on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 11:26 am:

Dear Claude, G-man,

Great ideas, all worth more contemplation before I can add to them. I'm also intrigued by the red-shift phenomenon, which I never quite felt comfotable with, as it being due to universal expansion, though the 'tired light' theory was disproven, I believe. As regards:

"When electrons in younger atoms jump from one orbit to another,
the light they emit is weaker, and therefore more highly redshifted, than the light emitted by electrons in older atoms. To put it another way: as particle mass grows, frequency (clock rate) increases and therefore redshift decreases."
This seems like a new way of explaining the 'tired light' theory, or to call it 'new-old light' instead.

For myself, I'm still stuck with how to describe E within the TOE equation, such as it is thus far. I'll check out your links above, and keep scratching.

Take care, Ivan
G-man767 on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 12:00 am:

Ivan: If E can only be understood in terms of Ratio, is it possible that the structural contextual 'limit' of such 'ratiocination' might have difficulty explaining E whose value/identity might possibly be variable...oddly, perhaps even at once both a positive and anti-value?:) G-man

By Ivan A. on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 05:27 pm:



n addition, the redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those observed values occur at values of z= 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+z2) = 1.23(1+z1). [For example, 1.23(1+0.3) = 1.60]. The very 'existence of this quantization' alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells 'with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement'. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!

(And, if the universe is really expanding as Big Bang proponents say, everything should be getting farther away from everything else. Collisions of previously unrelated objects should be highly improbable.) --Halton Harp, astronomer

I'm with Copernicus,and Harp, on this one, that an Earthcentric view of the universe is most likely in error. As per above, especially regarding the quanta values of redshift, this may not be indicative of Big-Bang type space expansion, but rather some function of how light acts over great distances of cosmic space. If so, then we are not at the 'center' with all of space receding from us equally in all directions. There is need for a better theory for this phenomenon, scientifically speaking. Philosophically speaking, we need to reevaluate the scientific Big-Bang 'mantras' sung today. Just because 'everyone' says so ain't necessarily so. I suspect the redshift based theory of universal expansion will someday be discredited.

See "Exploding the Big Bang": Exploding the Big Bang

Thanks for links and updates,
Ivan A. on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 06:17 pm:

TOE ALGORITHM, continued:

Please bear in mind that this is still a "work in progress", so all is subject to revision. However, having said that, there is an algorithm that seems to be emerging from our initial venture into this murky area of a "Theory of Everything".

Using ordinary language, we have taken the idea of an infinitessimal 'zero' interacting with an 'infinite' force to equal a unity of 'one'. This was first expressed as (zero x infinity = 1), which was then substitued with a value for the photon, as 1/c2, or one divided by the speed of light squared, and some value for what I called the 'infiniton' which is a very large 'strong force', which if expressed within the E=mc2 equation with m=1, yields 1/c2 x 1 x c2 = 1, which is a truism. We then further substituted c2 with some 'unknown' value and added the weak force of gravity, with gravity being the left over byproduct of this interaction, to complete the 'little TOE', so that it now looks like this: 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m.
If we set m = 1, as per our original definition of mass equal to a unity, then the equation becomes:

1/c2 x E(?) + g = 1, where it now stands.

So in ordinary language, we are interacting the photon, as represented by 1/c2, and the infiniton, as still undefined, to equal mass.

Now, if we substitute the value of E(?) with the high energy of mass and momentum in terms of electron volts, we get: pc = [E2-m2c4]1/2, where 'p' is the electron's momentum. (See math at: ). This breaks down into pc ~ E, which at a velocity as a fraction of c becomes: v/c = pc/E, which as v=> c, pc => E. However, momentum 'p' can also be expressed as: p = E/c = h/w , (see referenced URL above), where 'w' is wavelength (I don't have the 'lambda' key), and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E = c x h/w , or finally: E = ch/w.

So now we have a possible value for E(?) above. I'm not totally happy with this because it does not seem to fit into the mental image I have of the infiniton, but let's take it to the next step to see where it goes. So if we substitute the E value in 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m above, the we get: [1/c2 x ch/w] + g = m. This is then further simplified by multiplying out 'c' into:
h/cw + g = m.

Hmm... nice little TOE... Standing back and looking at it, is there a chance this could express something we're looking for? Now, if we take the gravitational constant 'g' to equal (cm3/g/s2), then the bigger TOE is beginning to look like this: (h/cw) + (cm3/g/s2) = m. This then becomes, if both sides are divided by m: [(h/cw) + (cm3/g/s2)]/m = 1. And if m=1, then it further reduces to:

TOE(?) = h/cw + (c/g/s2) = 1
where w is lambda wavelength.

We're probably not there yet, but this may be pointing in the direction we're seeking, which in ordinary language, the Theory of Everything translates into: "Planck's constant divided by the speed of light times its wavelength plus the gravitational constant equal one."

Maybe... though we can further expand this by substituting other values for each listed. For example, using Einstein's relationship of E = mc2, we can make p = h/w = mv/(1-v2/c2)1/2 , so that pc = E, which then yields, if 'm' is set with a 'zero subscript' as rest mass, E = [p2c2 + (mc2)2]1/2. This can further be expressed as TOE algorithm:

[1/c2 x (p2c2 + (mc2)2)1/2 + (cm3/g/s2)]/m = 1
which is the same as 1/c2 x E(?) +g = 1.

Now, that looks like a really Big TOE! Crazy Baby! Gotta love those photons!

But like I said, now that you're falling down laughing yourself silly slapping your knees till your sides hurt, this is only "work in progress".

Take care, have fun, and E(?)joy!


Ps: the algebra page can be found at:

By G-man767 on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 12:49 am:

Ivan: I'm loving every minute of this!:) But why 1, not zero? Or, as Claude suggests, is 1 the result of an imbalanced zero?:) G-man

By G-man767 on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 01:50 am:

Questions: Even if an algorithm can sufficiently describe a fundamentally unified operative modality for all things (not unlike Mendelbrodt's simple fractal equation, for example), does it/can it also answer for us the 'necessity' of why it must be as it is? Claude alluded to ionic imbalance (which includes polarities, mass/charge differentials, molecular mass variances, etc.). Even the ECKANKAR folks (who were probably the first so-called 'New Agers' on the block) tend to define the nature of 'reality' in spectral wavelinear (vibratory) terms...pyramidically, of course, from white light at the apex...all the way down to mud creatures, like myself. But ultimately, such descriptions seem analogic. Which alas (re)raises an important question: If a TOE Algorithm cannot surpass its descriptive function, to include within itself the purpose for its own necessity...then, is it ultimately a TOE? If ultimately an algorithm describes precisely how all forces are ultimately unified within x dimensional coordinate grid(s), then doesn't it ultimately open up a whole new set of questions, and still leave the basic old ones unanswered? (The traditional onto-metaphysical answer as to the necessity of dimensionality is: to make it possible for Being to Know itself. Sort of lacks precision, doesn't it?:) G-man

By Claude on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 03:29 am:

G-man, Ivan,

Think outside the head -

imbalanced ions


By Ivan A. on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 10:35 am:

Hi Guys,

Truly, thinking inside the head, here, but will go
outside too for real TOE. This is just the
groundworks to establish some common units. Why 1
rather than zero? One represents unity, all,
infinity as a totality, the atom, any object. So
this is why I chose m = 1, however, I also like 1
for probability reasons, since it means certainty,
as opposed to zero, which means impossibility, or
fuzzy logic which uses one as certainty too. Of
course, whether 1 works or not depends on the
actual measurements and computations. So, it is
all work in progress... to be continued. But
please, add your ideas, for sure. Glad you're
enjoying the math.

Take care, Ivan

By G-man767 on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 04:35 am:

Ivan: You seem to be alluding to what amounts to an age-old Judaic notion: "When dead, you're dead. Beyond which, it's all a those still alive." My point in asking was: 0...1...infinity...tend to be 'quantitatively' perceptually determined. Example: My 18 month-old son. Super-friendly, jovial...after major farts, immediately laughs incessantly. Together we watch Discovery Channel, and watch Lions chase, devour, eat alive...every kind of prey. Science Channel, too. So, Ivan...Why is it, How is it...that Things Must be As They Are, for that They might always continue to be as they Might/Would/Shall Be...extending from what first was until what in the very end will/is ultimately deemed to be? (Nevermind that my Appalachian alter-ego sat in to write this. I have a great respect for the fundaments of English that are coming to be...which often, at least for me, seem to be already broken, and begging for reconstructing:) G-man

By G-man767 on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 04:39 am:

Ivan: Apologia pour problemente...via Vino:) G-man

By Ivan A. on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 12:01 pm:

Dear G-man,

Who's to say that when Things must be As/Might
have been/Should/Would/but wasn't, that they are
not all as valid of each other, when we're dead,
or guess not alive, any more than when we are not
dead, but cannot see the other side? Philosophy,
for all its wonderful twists and turns and
refinements, like the strange babblings of shamans
in trance (which I had seen first hand while
carrying a parasol in helping dedicate a Hindu
temple in Bali), that we make sense only to
ourselves, and even then. For we are the mystery
makers living inside our own and each other's
play. Apologia veramente accettare!

By Claude on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 10:40 am:


I don't agree with the theory, but more and more physicists and astronomers are slapping the Big Bang around.


By Ivan A. on Thursday, May 2, 2002 - 05:36 pm:

TOE... outside the box.

G-man asks: "Questions: Even if an algorithm can sufficiently describe a fundamentally unified operative modality for all things (not unlike Mendelbrodt's simple fractal equation, for example), does it/can it also answer for us the 'necessity' of why it must be as it is?"

Claude admonishes: "Think outside of your head, and look inside reality to find what is outside of it!"

And I posit the algorithm to express the interaction between photonic light and super gravity with:

h/cw + g = m = 1 , where h is Planck's constant, c is light velocity, w is lambda wavelength, g is the gravitation constant, and m is mass, which is all set to equal one; so that the interaction between light and super gravity is modified by the gates of electrons and exchange of energy, so the end result is mass, the basic building block of universal reality. (see entries above April 6 & 25, 2002)

But does this represent the Theory of Everything? Or is there another way to approach this all encompassing thesis from a totally different direction? Or, as WJ reminded us: "Love is an enigma beyond all human understanding." Not so different from Sextus's: "I think we must first approach this from the Aesthetics standpoint." Dave had said: "In one essay a mathematician makes the observation that he and his colleagues must admit that mathematics (in the research sense) has hit something of a wall." So have I. Soooh...

Stay tuned... I'm working on something new!

Take care, talk soon, Ivan

By Claude on Friday, May 3, 2002 - 11:06 am:

Think outside the head-

E=MC2 – Now, consider thought. What is thought? Is not thought, energy in motion? If that is true, then all math formulas will continue to fail very early in our little game of reckoning because numbers are static (arbitrary). How does thought apply to physics? More explicitly, how are we going to reach a TOE if we cannot explain how thought enters every equation; therefore, math (numbers or equations) is not the method that will eventually establish the TOE we are searching for.

After considerable thought, human thought is the only model that is wholly applicable across the spectrum of existence as it applies to the universe inasmuch, thought functions precisely in the same manner as the universe functions. Thought is continuous just as the universe is continuous; therefore, can we say, the only thing we have to compare with the universe is – human thought? I have tried to design models of the universe, but each of them fails because I have nothing to use for comparison; in other words, what could we use as a comparison?

Premise: Human thought is comparable to the universe.

If the premise is true, we should be able to build a model of the universe based on three factors – motion, energy, and matter. If physics is correct, and matter cannot be created or destroyed, we can now declare the following as the 1st law of perfection.

1. The universe has always existed.

Now, physics cannot have its cake and eat it also with the big-bang theory, for the bang kills self, inasmuch, before the bang – nothing was, or, physics is totally wrong if we stand on the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Yes, I fully believe in that Principle, but the big-bang theory totally ignores it.

Before I dwell any deeper, I will say, I am now fully prepared to take this to a final model for everyone to consider; however, I am very unsure of the repercussions that can, or will cause considerable reactions among several specific segments of civilization as we know it today. Is the world as you know it prepared, for there are several statements that I can make now, today, with near certitude of being 100% accurate.

Think about it, please?


By Claude on Friday, May 3, 2002 - 02:15 pm:

Step 1 – Formulating a TOE

Premise: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Premise: Motion cannot create itself.

Premise: Energy cannot create itself.

Premise: Matter cannot create itself.

If the above premises are true, the universe could not have been created amidst – nothing; therefore, can we say,

“The universe has always existed.”

If the universe has always existed, it is impossible for factor known as time to be a viable part of our reasoning process; therefore, can we say,

“Time does not exist.”

This is the first step to establishing a TOE that must withstand all types of inquiry from reasonable and scientific perspectives. Science, and logicians of every persuasion must verify this step; otherwise, the effort is futile for it is basis and criteria for establishing a viable TOE.

Think of it this way, outside of your head please-

If time does not exist, how old is the universe?

Necessarily, the universe is timeless; therefore, the universe is ageless. If the universe is ageless, then what you see is what you get, in the universe that is – the universe of reality, as we know it, is perpetual. What we observe in the universe is the result of motion, and it is our minds that make note of changes as they occur, but the problem is, changes never stop occurring because of the nature of motion - motion is continuous; thus, changes also are continuous. When we sleep, we cannot observe the ongoing changes around us, but when we wake up, we can discern very slight changes that occurred while sleeping. The grass is taller this morning than when it was last night before going to bed; therefore, the change is “perceptible” to us, but had we watched the grass continually during the night, we would not notice the amount of growth this morning!

Think about it – outside of your head, please!


By Ivan A. on Friday, May 3, 2002 - 04:07 pm:

Hi Claude,

An ageless, timeless universe can make sense, if we allow for motion based change within it. For example, rotational spin can be counted as a unit of time for each rotation; changes in relationships between objects, where each change is counted as a unit; biological progression, where each change of the organism's biophysics, or growth in a Petrie jar, is recorded as a change. I tend to agree that we are trapped in a notion of time because that is how we perceive change, but it does not mean the universe counts time, when taken as a whole. So the "macro" is beyond time, but the "micro" registers time within each unit of change. Can time go backwards? On the macro, it makes no sense, but on the micro, I think it depends on how we view the perception of time. Does time go backwards when an organism is dying, for example? I think not, but once it is dead, time goes back to what it was in the macro, timeless.

I would redesign the Theory of Everything by starting out with Macro first, and then work it back down to Micro: Being=> Consciousness=> Identity=> Change=> Motion=> Photonics=> Supergravity. These seven states-of-being are thus reduced to their basic interrelated components of photons v/s super-strong-force, which then completes the circle of a timeless-macro-micro-being. If so, then the basic state of being of the universe is a timeless super gravity modified into the universal existence by photonic interaction, which through self induced motion and change metamorphose into matter's individual identity, which then develop consciousness to define the "whoness" of living things, which is the interrelated definition of their being. In the end, it's all about Being.

Or, as WJ and others would say, Being = Love. At a later date, I'll elaborate further.

Take care, talk soon, Ivan

By Claude on Saturday, May 4, 2002 - 01:18 am:


When you think about it according to present bang theory, there was nothing to originate motion, let alone matter and energy, which are both requisite before motion could begin. From that aspect, I do not think any modern physicists can, or will answer specific hard questions when put to them. The answers I have received have all attempted to explain away the core problem, which is more difficult than the chicken – egg. We can explain and create a vacuum, but a vacuum cannot exist without the place where it is contained.

I do not think it possible to use reductive methodology to accomplish what we are trying based on one premise: Motion cannot be reduced. You can increase or decrease speed of rotation, or movement; however, in actuality, motion is not reducible.

Photons are result of synthesized matter as it converts to energy; therefore, they cannot exist prior to process origination, which dictates matter is the basic building block from which all things originate, including energy. What that means is, the entire universe is a solid (plasma) entity, and there cannot be even a simple void anywhere within it. Recent QM information proves without any doubt that when science believes it has identified the smallest particle, that particle consists of even smaller parts; thus, reductionism does not work, and cannot work because we are limited in our ability to comprehend structures of such minute dimensions. Theoretically, you can take a grain of sand and fracture it into an uncountable number of pieces; that is the hard problem of defining a TOE. Truth is, there is no place in the entire universe where “nothing is” – fact being, there is something everywhere in the universe.

Think of it this way – The universe is exactly like a huge mass of Jello – unrestrained in every direction infinitely. Because the mass of the universe is solid, and infinite, there is no potential for the word (nothing – the absence of a thing) we use to suggest O. With no potential for O – everything is most definitely – 1 – in every respect. If this is true, we can postulate our TOE without further information.

I can prove using electron acceleration that motion is not possible without a place for that motion to occur, and I can prove using fluid dynamics propulsion is not possible without a solid entity (place) for it to occur within. For motion to begin it must have some thing to – push – energy provides only push, energy cannot produce – pull. Thus, gravity is not what everyone perceives it to be; therefore, gravity cannot be energy induced. Gravity is in fact the result opposite of centrifugal force, centripetal force, which is stronger than the centrifugal force of the earth’s rotation; otherwise, the centrifugal force of earth’s rotation would throw everything off of it, including its own outer shell.

If I am correct, the entire universe is spinning for if it were not, equilibrium would not be possible; therefore, individual galaxies are limited within the range of their motion inside the universe. There can be no singular center of the universe; instead, every object in the universe is necessarily located precisely in the middle of it.


By G-man767 on Saturday, May 4, 2002 - 03:22 am:

Hey, Claude: I had a thought, during a rare moment of thinking as it were. Funny thing though. During the time I was thinkin', I didn't realize the fact that I was actually thinking. (D'ya suppose Einstein ever felt the same way?:) Question: Is there the equivalent of a Supra Maxi or Ultimate Meta-Meta...(and I ain't tawkin' Metamusil or Maxipads here:) I mean, it ain't always easy to measure the boundary lines that delineate where thinking about thinking a thought I was just about, getting ready, to terms of knowing whether I really thought I thunk it, in a way that would allow me to know the difference or not. But, all said, Claude...YOU ARE DEFINTELY ON THE RIGHT TRACK 100%:) You've re-introduced mystery:) G-man

By Claude on Sunday, May 5, 2002 - 01:09 am:


Supra Maxi? Ultimate Meta-Meta? Boundary line?

The human mind knows no boundary; therefore, I do not perceive how it could fathom a boundary when in thought, and then apply it to thought knowingly, when a thought ends or begins. For that matter, our brain is all matter much like the universe is all matter; if that is true, our brain functions precisely like the universe. Our thought is unrestrained, but it is restricted by the amount of knowledge we possess, or is it truly restricted in any manner? What is knowledge? What does knowledge do for us? Is knowledge actually knowledge? After wrestling with these thoughts for too many years to enumerate, four factors come forefront for elucidation.

1. Knowledge can only be knowledge if the facts such knowledge is based on, are true.

2. Truth is the way things are in the world, not how things appear in the world.

3. Truth cannot be falsified.

4. Knowledge allows us to make 100% accurate predictions.

Based on existing true scientific knowledge, I can prove without doubt the universe has always existed; however, I cannot use numbers or equations when doing so. Reason is, numbers lie in every equation that does not balance perfectly; i.e., the following table.

The square root of 1 = 1
The square root of 2 = 1.4142135623730950488016887242097
The square root of 3 = 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
The square root of 4 = 2
The square root of 5 = 2.2360679774997896964091736687313
The square root of 6 = 2.4494897427831780981972840747059
The square root of 7 = 2.6457513110645905905016157536393
The square root of 8 = 2.8284271247461900976033774484194
The square root of 9 = 3

The only valid numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 – the numbers 5, 6, 7, 8 are invalid; also, so is the placeholder 0 because it signifies – nothing or O. The reason 0 is invalid is it represents nothing, and in the universe it is an impossibility. What this means is, no thing can begin or originate without something preceding it. In other words, we can cut a pie in six equal slices, but you cannot divide a pie into six equal slices without having a remainder. Now to prove my point –

Square root of 6 = 2.4494897427831780981972840747059
Multiply square root of 6 - 2.4494897427831780981972840747059
X the square root of 6 –X--2.4494897427831780981972840747059
Equals = 5.9999999999999999999999999999978, which is surely not six.

The rational behind this is, the digital system works to some extent when calculating straight-line (linear) functions; however, when we must calculate circular dimensions, digits quickly lose it. All major orbiting entities in the universe are circular in dimension; therefore, we cannot calculate curvatures with any great accuracy, and this is where the problem lies for physics, and physicists. Nothing in the universe functions in straight planes of motion because all motion in the universe is circular. In other words, motion in the universe is under near perfect nay, absolute control by the entire mass of the universe. It is the universe’s motion that gives us equilibrium whereas, we are sitting in our chairs with our heads pointing up, when in fact at 10:55pm CDT my head is pointed away from the sun; it is not pointed up, neither is it pointed down! The gyroscopic effect of motion of the entire universe that causes it, if the entire universe was not spinning, the earth, sun and all things in the universe would simply “fling” themselves out of orbit. Why? It is universal motion that counteracts centrifugal motion of individual rotating and orbiting entities.

What creates gravity?

Think of a centrifuge - madly spinning at hyper speed; what happens? If present theory of gravity is correct (which it is not, and cannot be), what should happen at the center of the centrifuge?

Here, I draw upon Minkowski and his theory concerning the General Theory of Relativity so bear with me and read.

“What causes Gravity?

One of Einstein's old tutors, a man by the name of Minkowski showed that the special theory of relativity could be expressed in an interesting way.

The world we live in consists of four dimensions, the three space dimensions and one that is not exactly time but is related to time (it is in fact time multiplied by the square root of -1). This is not at all easy to understand but it means that space-time as we call it has some rather weird properties. In particular, when you move through one of the space dimensions you also travel, unwittingly, through time. You do not notice this, indeed as far as you are concerned nothing happens to you at all, but someone observing you would say that you have traveled through time. Of course, we are always traveling through time, but when you travel through space you travel through time by less that you expect. The most famous example of this effect is the 'Twins Paradox'.

All the effects of special relativity, such as the slowing down of clocks and the shrinking of rods follow from the above. In fact, it is often better to think of some things, such as electromagnetic fields as being four-dimensional objects. However, the important thing to remember for the moment, is: when you move through space you are compelled to move through time but, when you move through time (which of course you are always doing) you do not have to move through space.

So, what does this have to do with gravity? It is quite simple! When a mass is present in the above space-time it distorts it so that whilst it remains true that traveling through space causes you to travel through time, traveling through time now causes you to move (accelerate) through space. In other words just by existing, you are compelled to move through space - this is gravity.

The particular advantage of this theory of gravity (General Relativity) is that it explains, at a stroke, all the observed properties of gravity. For example the fact that it acts equally on all objects and substances becomes obvious when you thing of gravity as a distortion of space-time rather than a force.

Imagine that you are in free space, away from any planets or stars, when suddenly a planet is created quite close to you. You would not be aware that anything is happening to you, you would feel no force, but you would find that you started to accelerate towards the planet. This is just like the case where you travel through space, you are not aware that you have also traveled through time but people observing you are.

Can you feel gravity?

You can argue that we do not. What happens is that, as you pass through time, the distortion of space-time caused by the presence of the earth accelerates your body towards the center of the earth. However, when your feet are touching the ground, the ground exerts a force on your feet in an upwards direction which pushes you in the opposite direction. In other words you are being accelerated upwards with respect to space-time by the force of the ground acting on your feet. It is exactly the same as the force which seems to push you back in your car seat when you accelerate, what is really happening is that the seat is pushing you forwards.”

What is wrong with Minkowski’s notions?

Early on Minkowski says,

“The world we live in consists of four dimensions, the three space dimensions and one that is not exactly time but is related to time (it is in fact time multiplied by the square root of -1).”

This is the first of many compounded errors: 1) The world we live in consists of four dimensions – length, width, height, and depth – Therefore, there are four dimensions to space, not three. By that, we are burdened with something called, space-time: 2) It is not feasible to acknowledge any –negative number (square root of –1). What that demands of us is, to condone the second grievous error by ignoring the fact that a negative number is in every aspect an infinite regress, which is not possible. I ask you, what is the square root of –1? It is in fact –1, which does not tell us anything of value; moreover, it cannot be computed, period. Try it: C x 60 minutes = 669,600,000 miles X –1 = ? What is your answer?

Next, comes the truth of the present state of the art concerning the cause of gravity.
What causes gravity?
Question: What causes gravity?
george w mckenzie

Hmmm. Deep question. So far as I know the force of gravity
is something that is observed, but nobody can say what the
cause is. In other words, it is observed that by postulating
a force of gravity, we can explain the attraction of different
objects to one another and can compute orbits of the planets,
satellites, etc.

Gravitational force is proportional to the masses of the two objects
that are attracting each other, so that an object with twice
the mass will attract with twice the force. The gravitational
force also falls off as the square of the distance, so that
an object that is twice as far away will attract with four
times less force. These are postulations that Isaac Newton
made which allowed him to accurately predict the movements
of the planets and other physical phenomena, but is not
an explanation for the cause of gravity.

Gravity is centrifugal motion in reverse; we call it centripetal motion. Centripetal motion is not an inherent attribute or force of individual planets; instead, it is the natural product or force that occurs because of universal motion; i.e., the motion of the universe itself. It cannot originate from an object’s own motion, it is the result of universal motion, which in essence is what controls the aspect ratio of gyroscopic function. Equilibrium!!

The final lie concerning gravity is it involves time, or elapsed time. Time, has nothing whatsoever to do with space, the universe, gravity, or anything else in the universe but man, and mans’ devices. If the universe never began, that perceived as time could not begin, and if something does not begin, it always existed, or does not exist, and it it always existed, it would be timeless anyway. According to the latest findings of some Canadian Cosmologists the universe is 13.5 billion years old, but wowie, some ole US Cosmologists have discovered stars that are 15 even 16 billion years old, and Hubble has taken pictures that supposedly reveal some very ancient stars that nobody (at least no one that I am aware of) has even hazarded a guess as to their age.

Yes G-man, there is an Ultimate Meta-Meta, and you write it out, +1


By Ivan A. on Sunday, May 5, 2002 - 11:50 am:

Hi Guys! Great posts!

Claude, I think you are right on with your notions of time and gravity, that they are not a relationship of one another. "When" did you formulate these theories? I too think of time as a human invention, something we perceive because of change. However, I think of gravity as a byproduct of atomic structure, that it is a left over force from the photon-supergravity force interactions, just the way they play out. I don't have any proof of this, yet, but think in "time" we will find this to be so. The centripetal force, as opposed to centrifugal, is inherent in how vector motion plays out in reverse. I also suspect, a suspicion only, that we can create motion without an outside force to push on matter. This can be illustrated with molecular vibration: If all the molecules vibrate in such a way that their actions cancel out, then there is not induced motion; but if some molecules move a little more in one direction than all the others, then motion is created, since those molecules will now "pull" all the others in that direction. Think of a magnet action on iron, or electrostatic force on a piece of paper, and how "motion" is created, not by "push', like a billiard ball striking another, but by what appears to be a kind of "pull". But the pull is from inside the object moving. This same principle may be applied to gravity, where what appears to be a gravitational "force" pulling on matter towards the center of a body may be no more than the effect of where some molecules are bumping more towards the direction of falling into the planet, which is the result of that left over "byproduct" of atomic structure. But all this needs to be confirmed observationally, and cannot be accepted 'a priori'. Which is also why I am not sure that pure Truth is something that exists of and in itself, but rather is what the human mind concludes, much like its ideas of time, to be the case. The universe is its own algorithmic simulator, as per Paul Davies (Mind of God), and thus the interrelationships that coordinate its activities are the "ideas" with which the universe "thinks" of itself. We, as human observers, can at best simulate some of that thinking with our own, come up with our own "truths" about what is happening, and create approximations to explain this. In the same way digital never quite simulates analog, as you illustrated above, our ideas never quite simulate the interrelated phenomenon that is existence.

By Claude on Sunday, May 5, 2002 - 02:04 pm:


If I am on the right track, gravity cannot be the result of anything but the combined mass of the entire universe as it rotates. Perhaps rotate is not the proper term; instead, it most likely is “as the universe spins wildly.” I am very well versed in gyroscopic effects, and such effects are the only potential source of gravity, and the obviously required negating force (unknown). Gravity plays strange games with our observations, and recently there was a galaxy identified that is spinning in the opposite direction that it should. What that means is, strong nuclear force is not capable of producing such rotation, and we must go outside of our heads to examine what potential is capable of generating such bizarre nay, obtuse behavior. Understanding the molecular mechanics of small particles is not of any help whatsoever in this area of research. Remember this, in nature – fission cannot, and does not occur as large-scale events, and when such small-scale events occur, they are in fact spontaneous. Fusion occurs in nature, and does so regularly, but we can ascertain if a fusion event is about to occur. We have learned this through study of sunspots, and it is fusion that is responsible for stars such as our sun.

Because gravity increases and decreases based on mass, and distance, mass and distance are the only factors we can use to determine the cause of gravity. To use other factors is of no value to our research or us because reductive techniques simply fail when we move from study of large events to smaller “particle events.” Individual particle events cannot play a significant role whereas concerning gravity because of the miniscule scale should not, and will not react in the same manner as large events, of which we must use as base one information.

I think the entire science community is lost when it comes to light, what science today calls – space-time, and time itself. There is one interesting theory of space-time, which I do not agree with for several reasons, mainly because they are trying to claim that space-time is where all the missing matter is in the universe. I do not think there is any missing matter in the universe, but of course I do not accept the big-bang theory as being valid, so that is one aspect in my theory that is of no concern. There is enough data on Redshift in hand worldwide to dispute the Hubble Constant, which has been revised seemingly on a monthly basis since first established. Hubble established the constant at 500 km/s/Mpc, but it is has been under constant revision ever since and is now set at 50 KM/s/Mpc by Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Institutions, but Gerard DeVaucouleurs of the University of Texas, has obtained values that indicate Ho to be around 100 km/s/Mpc. Ok – if the physicists/cosmologists cannot agree, what are we to do with two Constants, of which one is twice as large as the other? Moreover, Hubble set it at five times greater than one estimate in vogue today, and ten times greater than the other school of thought. I do not think such disparities are responsible science; instead, I think it is different schools that are simply lining their pockets with research grants from NASA, which comes out of our pockets!

In labs for many years science has attempted to prove – pull – is theoretically possible, but there is not one snippet of data available that supports the premise. Magnets do not “pull” themselves together; instead, they – push – themselves together just as they push themselves apart. It is the same for all types of force. Gravity is not a force, and should not be considered as such since it does not derive its function from energy of any type, or at least any type of energy that we have identified up to this point of scientific research. In actuality, gravity is precisely opposite of force inasmuch, gravity is an anti-force. That is why it is so difficult to approximate gravity in the lab, which has not been done up to now by science. Because of the strength of gravitational fields, it requires great force to overcome them; truth is light particles are subject to distortion by gravity, which, again, denies that C is actually the speed of light. As I have continued to state, C can only be the maximum potential velocity achievable by light.

Polarization holds the key to our TOE, and up to this stage I am convinced that forces do not play a significant role in the universe. I think forces can be partially responsible for some balance, but nothing else so far as how the universe actually functions.

I believe we can eliminate the Redshift problem with a simple experiment, which will explain the phenomena, but as of yet nobody wants to hear my voice on the matter. The measurement of light magnitude seems to me to be a very poor indicator of distance. With the precision instrumentation available today, I think a sequence of photographs by Hubble can destroy the Redshift argument, and do so rather quickly. I do not think any galaxy is flying away from our own Milky Way at great velocity; instead, if we view every object in the universe as the exact center of the universe, which, necessarily they must be, we are capable of actually detecting very slight movement as evidenced by recent planet discoveries. At any given distance, velocity can be determined by time-lapse photography, and it can be done very accurately.

It is predicted our own Milky Way will eventually collide with the galaxy Andromeda, but if that is true, someone is lying to us about an expanding universe. How is it possible for two objects to collide if they both originated from the same, bang? That flies in the face of the bangie-bye-bye, and most other theories existing today among the scientific community; moreover, the fact is not congruent Relativity as written, and published. If the bangie-bye-bye is fact (which it cannot be), existing published experiments of fission and fusion deny the potential of such object collision.

Only a never-ending chain of singular events can explain such phenomena.

We know that particles can act as waves, and waves can act as particles. Here, is where I part company with the scientific community. Waves are particles in motion. With recent knowledge that some types of waves surpass C (Patented and Copyrighted data exists), it should be evident that science must rethink existing theories of how such interactions can occur. The United States desperately needs to build the giant Supercollider in Texas, and if we do not, the polarity issue concerning Neutrons, Protons, and Electrons will not open the door to the instant acceleration factors that must be discovered. I do not think that the world as we know it will survive beyond the 25th Century for many reasons, and the most pressing issue is to gather the information available that will allow us to move beyond IT where it seems we are now stymied. The IT is motive force that is independent of a fuel source such as existing hydrocarbons. We must discover such motive force before it is too late for us to learn how to use IT. That is the only possible way that exploration of space can occur in the next 100 to 200 years, which will allow us to find another place in the universe that is capable of supporting life as we know it. I cannot conceive of other life forms that are different from what we now know; therefore, the only alternative that we have is to find another place in the universe that will support life. If humanity does not “SEE” this, and put priorities in the proper perspective, we will annihilate ourselves, if not by one method, humanity will find another.

With present technology, humanity is destined to oblivion; by that, the present concerns of world peace are slowly eroding our ability to gather the huge chunks of data that can move us to instant travel across billions of miles in seconds. If we do not do this thing, I am sorry to be a part of the human race.

Ivan, I have been working on this project for too many years to reveal, often at great cost to my family. No, I do not regret the effort and expense because in my own mind it is the only pathway that I have to follow. Where this path is going only God knows, and it has many twists and turns. In my own mind, science cannot pave the way for humanity if we do not do our part by demanding that science stops wasting resources, and puts priorities in proper perspective.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, May 5, 2002 - 02:18 pm:

TOE continued: the Great Mandala of Being.

Being=> Consciousness=> Identity=> Change=> Motion=> Photonics=> Supergravity.

These are the seven great elements of the Theory of Everything.

Above is the snake biting its own tail, the great mandala, of how the universe is its own simulator. Each of the above is an identifiably separate but interwoven state of being element into which fall the whole, and from which then radiate the individual parts. That there is change and growth in the universe over time is one unifying feature to this Mandala of Being, and that all parts within the whole are interrelated at close and great distances, is the fabric that holds the mandala of everything together. Let us elaborate each of these categories of being as we close in onto the conclusion of a Theory of Everything. Rather than starting at the beginning, as most stories do, let us instead start at the end.

We are. This is the great mystery of existence, that there are beings who are curious of their own existence, ourselves. Humans question, but more than that, they interact. We interact with the reality within which we individually live; more importantly, we interact with the reality of each other's existence, the being of other existences who then interact with us. Is this not the most wonderful mystery of all? That we could reach into the existence of another, and they into ours, is pure magic. By what reason, what great plan of existence, do we then meet the people we meet, discourse, relate at an intellectual distance, or in the intimacy of our feelings, touch other human beings's being, and even interact through agreement, or conflict? Is this not a miracle too little appreciated because of its universality, its commonness? I think that the accident of birth, and the events of meeting other beings, and what progresses from all this is not accident at all; rather, it is the most marvelous event of universal existence, that we are, together. Being is a magic miracle.

If the first miracle of existence is being, then the second is consciousness. In ordinary language, we are conscious because we have a feeling of ourselves. But in universal terms, what I would call philosophical language, we are conscious because we live, we learn, we do, and we choose. These are characteristics that most living things share in common. We are alive with learning and doing and locomotion and choosing, even when we are not aware we do this. What distinguishes humans from most of the other animal species is that we have an acute awareness of our awareness, that we are conscious of our consciousness. Into this consciousness fall our thoughts and feelings, our loves and hates, our thinking of ourselves and others, and how we view the reality within which we exist. We are curious of how we were born, which we cannot remember, or what happens after we die, which we cannot truly imagine. Likewise, we are curious of what is happening around us, when did it begin, and of how it will end. But most curious of all is that life around us also is, and if taken to mean that it is also conscious in its own way, then we are all together in a sea of consciousness that is the fabric of a universe. It is a universe within which living consciousness is a condition of existence, which each living thing must make choices and then act in how it had chosen. We can choose because we are conscious, which we must do to survive. Consciousness is an integral part of our being alive.

Each thing is what and where it is. This is the basis of all identity, including us, the who we are. In a theory that encompasses everything, then being as an identity of inanimate matter is not so different from being of living things. We all share an identity of being within the whole, the fabric of a universe that is its own simulator. How each thing is interrelated into that whole then determines its role and place within that whole. If the whole is to be taken as being total, infinite in space and time, then we are all products of how that interrelated infinity has defined itself. This is more than merely A = A; rather, it is where A = everything else to infinity and back again to A. Within this new definition of A, some of us display characteristics of being alive, while others do not. We do not know that of what we are all built is not also conscious, but its expression as being alive is limited to how the infinite reality had defined it. Because no two things can occupy the same space at the same time, living things have a different universal identity from the inanimate objects, though life uses the inanimate to build itself a body within which to be alive. And when the game is done, we all return back to an identity of the inanimate, of which we remain in mystery. Each of us is as we had been positioned through space and time into the identity of being who we are, either alive or not. We are what and who we are.

This is the pivotal point of the universe, that things change. We live in a dynamic existence which remains fixed or static only for periods of time, for in the end, all things change. When we lift up an object, and toss it away, we had effected change. But the universe had already allowed for this, and the change that took place did so within the parameters of what had been allowed. If the change was acceptable in some universally constructive way, then it was added back into the totality interrelationship that defined that change; if it was not acceptable, then it was rejected and failed to materialize. So it was with the changes that characterized living species, which then either evolved to accommodate changes in reality, or perished. This is always a biaxial event defined by both time and space, where the changes are registered within the whole, and from the whole came a redefinition in how this change fit into the interrelationships that were created from it. When change became so accepted that it developed consciousness, then the universal totality became alive. We live in a changing and living universe, which defines who we are individually in ourselves, in relation to who we are in the whole.

Everything spins. This is a fact of universal reality, that all things are in motion all the time. This motion is another miracle of existence, of the great wheel of being. However, this motion does not happen in a vacuum, rather it is influenced by all the other motions around it, either up close or at great distances. We live in a fluid universe where the fixed relations are constantly subject to change, and when this influence is felt, motion results. When life first appeared, it immediately reached for the ability to move, to move about, and to seek out what it needed for survival. Even plants, which are rooted to a spot, will move in successive generations to places more appropriate for survival, same as they will move towards the light of the sun. The forces of the universe perpetually exerted on each thing cause motion. Motion is everywhere all the time.

Light is the messenger of the whole. We are continuously bathed in photonic light which reaches us from the greatest distances of universal dimensions. When the Hubble telescope finally worked, we were amazed to see fully formed stars and galaxies 15 billion light years away from us, a light still reaching us today, 15 billion years later. I suspect that we will discover that this light had been traveling to us from even greater distances. As each photon hits an atom it then releases an electron, which if then reabsorbed releases a photon. This is how the universe is built, of electromagnetic waves of energy quantized into particles of light which then interact with the basic units of matter as expressed by atomic mass. And all this is tied together into a universal whole effecting motion and change, which then is defined by interrelationship into identity, which then exhibits life and consciousness, which in the end becomes a unit of being. All these interact with one another, spatially and in time, at infinitesimally small distances, and infinitely large universal dimensions. Photonic light is absorbed by living matter, first through photosynthesis in plants and algaes, then eaten by animals, transformed into being, and in the end returned into the planet, and thus into the stars from which it came. We are alive on a great mandala of light, of being, and the photons are its messengers. Akhenaten was not so far off!

Now we have come full circle, from being to nothingness. If light is the messenger of being, then the gravity that holds together the universe as a great mass is its shadow. In the algorithms above, we theorized that: h/cw + g = m. This is not an absolute statement, only one that illustrates that the forces of the universe can be expressed in how they interrelate with one another. Brought to its simplest, the universe has no mass and no time, it is nothing. This nothingness is expressed at the center of each atom, same as it is expressed within the center of each black hole star, that nothingness is the superforce from which nothing escapes, not even light, a kind of supergravity. Yet, this infinite blackness is then relieved, or modified, by the photonic light that encounters it at close quarter, which then defines the atom. This is what is sought in the algorithm above (expressed originally as: [1/c2 x hc/w] + g = m = 1, where 'h' is Planck's constant, and 'w' is light wavelength, which then multiplies out into: h/cw + g = m; see Algorithm posts above), which is how light modifies the supergravity into a unit of mass. This is also the expression of infinity times zero equals one, where mass is then equal to one, photonic light is infinity mass, and supergravity is zero mass. Zero. Nothing. Being into nothing, until modified by light. This is the miracle, that electromagnetic waves of light bring out being, consciousness, identity, change, and motion out of itself, from an infinite reality, into a reality of everything. This is the light, as expressed by its interaction with nothingness. Light versus supergravity is the basic fundamental unit for a Theory of Everything: infinity versus nothingness. And nothingness gave in to infinite light to allow for one.

So the Great Mandala is complete, and the snake bites its own tail, as it had been expressed through the ages of visionaries and mystics. We have given this snake only a more modern face, a description that redefines reality in terms of how we now understand it, still subject to change. Each part of the Great Mandala connects to every other, and each can be further expanded infinitely. In time, we will evolve to better understand it, and with it evolve our consciousness to better understand and become our being. We are far greater than we know, and the universe is far simpler than we have made it. Like the concentric circles of Aristotelian and Ptolomeic astronomy, we had through Quantum Physics described the universal reality into multidimensional algorithmic functions curving space and time, when in fact, there is much less to it than that. We are not at the center of the universe, anymore than everything else is at its center; rather, we are simultaneously at the perimeters, while all things around us are bathed in light; and the concentric circles within which we travel are really around each other. And then how we choose to do this, this dance around each other, either with love and understanding and tolerance, or with conflict and pain, that is for us to be conscious of, to choose. Within everything, by how it was all infinitely designed, like the snake biting its own tail, we are the makers of our realities. We are the light filled scriptwriters, and players in each others plays. Think, whether through dreams or fear, or sexual attraction, the neurons in the brain are fired with who we are: Being. Or is it Love? This is why we were born: To Be. It is who we are. That is all.

Such is the Theory of Everything.

Ivan D. Alexander

My special thanks to my web friends Dave, WJ, eV, Sextus, G-man, and Claude, for their interesting and challenging ideas, all of which helped in formulating the Theory of Everything above, sometimes with unexpected results. Of course, all the ideas above are works in progress, and of necessity subject to modifications.

Thank you!

By Claude on Monday, May 6, 2002 - 01:02 am:

Hard choices, and the Reality of making them

If a TOE is to be established, two problems must be elucidated, discussed, and agreed upon.

1. Does time exist-

If the universe was created as big-bang theory predicts, necessarily time is a factor that must be defined, proven as defined, and ascribed to the universe in general. It cannot be ascribed to specific locales, with differing aspects for each locale. That flies straight in the face of the PNC. In other words, time here on earth must be identical to time if on the planet Pluto, the Sun, or the galaxy Andromeda.

Logically, based on the above stated criteria, can we ascribe a universal time to the entire universe? If not, time does not exist.

2. What does the universe consist of-

The universe exists; therefore, that is a given fact, and can be declared, undeniably true. Since the universe exists, it must have specific properties. For something to exist, it has properties common to existence itself. What constitutes existence?

Name one thing in existence that consists of immaterial properties.

Logically, I cannot comprehend an existing thing that consists of immaterial properties.

With this line of thinking, we are entering the world of universals, which must soon be formally defined, and solidified as to what constitutes a universal. The problem stands in the face of future progress, and must be eliminated; otherwise, humanity faces a problem of the greatest magnitude – Which being, where does imagination end and reality begin?

At what point does imagination become reality?

I think the correct answer is,

“Imagination ends when that imagined can be produced and proven to exist in reality, as we human beings, know it.”

If the answer as stated is true, is human logic presently capable of making the hard choice to deny that immaterial entities cannot possibly exist? There are lots of things that we as human beings do not know, and will never learn about; to think otherwise defies logic. If we are not capable of making this one hard decision, what we are attempting to do here is nothing but pure whimsy.

I am prepared to make the following statement in good conscience, and defend it.

Nothing exists that does not consist of identifiable material properties.


By Ivan A. on Monday, May 6, 2002 - 09:46 am:

Hi Claude, you said

If I am on the right track, gravity cannot
be the result of anything but the combined mass of
the entire universe as it rotates. Perhaps rotate
is not the proper term; instead, it most likely is
“as the universe spins wildly.”

and I agree that this works hand in glove with how
the universe creates gravity, not because I see it
the same way you do, but because I think that this
rotational motion you describe is universal. All
identifiable things spin in some way in the
universe, perhaps some at the subatomic level,
while others at galaxie spiral levels, so a great
big engine of universal rotation is put in motion
from eternity to eternity, timelessly that is.
Funny how in your mind, I suspect, as in mine, we
equate eternity with "no time"! But really, if
gravity is either the byproduct of
photon/infiniton interaction, or due to universal
spin, then both may be interactions of each other,
which makes it particularly interesting, if not
altogether difficult to understand. I think it
Nothing exists that does not consist of
identifiable material properties.

Indeed, as material properties, this is a truism.
But as non-material properties, can it also be
true? How does one define love, for example?
Yet, it must exist, I would think... Well, gotta
run, off to work.

Take care, talk soon, Ivan

By Claude on Monday, May 6, 2002 - 12:33 pm:


Not wanting to get into this aspect presently, but if we can discover the mechanics involved concerning the wrongly rotating galaxy recently discovered, I think we can solve a biological problem in the process -That being, nucleotides. Science has confirmed that earth is left handed, as is the Milky Way. If what I suspect is true, there is a direct correlation to the life process.

The universal problem will not go away until someone solidifies it, nails it down, and all philosophers agree. Abstracts – do not exist; they are imaginary concepts but in nature, such phenomena are unknown. I honestly think the only answer is that of Abelard, and his conceptualism concerning treatment of universals. I know the mainstream notions of philosophers disagree with me on this, but why should we acknowledge love as a thing, or for that matter, numbers? Love is an emotional state, not a thing; moreover, love or any emotion is not lasting or enduring – they come and go. Do words exist? Of course not, words are abstract constructions, and do not exist in nature. I am thinking only of the material world, not the abstract ability of human imagination. When we give existence to something that does not exist in reality, as we know it, naturally, it is “artificial.” For us to speak about anything demands that we first objectify it, and we do it readily, but you cannot produce – nothing – in nature because it, nothing, O – simply cannot exist, but we readily objectify – O – in order to speak of the theoretical – place, where nothing exists.

Universals are problematic on a grand scale. But, remove observers from reality, and the universal problem cannot manifest. Does love exist in nature? What about hate, anger, words, numbers? Stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon and show me numbers to view? Such notions are abstracts – remove abstracts and you will be able to view the majestic awesome beauty of a pure world – one uncluttered with human imagination. That is my view of the universe; it is a view that I try to observe at least once daily, every day, for it allows me to think without burden of concepts, words and human distractions. In fact, we have designed the view from our large screened in patio whereas we can look out and see nothing of human endeavors, not to the north, east, or south. I can watch the sunrise in its entire glorious splendor in a silent world uncluttered by the civilization of humanity.

I refuse to give existence to anything without material properties. Reason being? I cannot, and have not, found immaterial things in reality; therefore, I do not give them existence. I believe existence is pure, unadulterated, and unmitigated. I put love in a category reserved for such concepts – I call them feelings, and they are an integral part of human existence but only occur as human experience in an existing human, or perhaps other creatures that can experience emotions. If emotions are an integral part of human existence, they cannot, and do not exist; instead, they are an attribute of existence.


By G-man767 on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 - 01:56 am:

A few quick points: (i) This entire thread should be saved--by someone--and compiled into a short text; (ii) Claude, you're clearly a brilliant, well-educated guy. Yet sometimes, your focus on horizonal results seems to make you sweep aside some of the very close immediate subtleties that may have import. Example: my point that Knowledge=Ratio. There's an extremely subtle aspect that I suspect you've dismissed before due pondering; (iii) Ivan. You, as well, astound me. But if ever you might--temporarily--abandon your descriptive mastery of dynamics...perhaps you might, in still silence, simply wonder: what is the nature of spin? Is it possible that the surface seeks its center? Is spinor/orbital motion-as-spin, oddly, perhaps, somehow linked to the quest to seek rest/home/center? (I say this, Ivan, in hopes that you might extend beyond mastery of how...but perhaps towards finding a necessity of how it must be so...such as it is. For whatwhy might incline decline but for to incline again...? How broad Is Convection?:)G-man

By Claude on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 - 10:08 am:


I am well aware that side issues often overcome the basic thrust of my endeavors, but what I have learned is, to tie two or more aspects together requires me to jump square into the middle of something I am not prepared for. Thought organization is difficult, especially when the brain is too far ahead of the fingers. If it were not for my database (one that is getting rather large), much of the information I have on file would never get into my brain, or thought process. I have two search engines collecting data from many sources daily that catalog info according to subject and source, but I still must study it before it is filed permanently. That explains why there are gaps in my posting info to the various sites of interest such as this one.

You, G-man, are excellent at drawing out information, and I fully realize that I am obtuse when it comes to responding directly to queries; thus, it is people like you that drive me to finalize a segment of thought. I agree with you that this thread needs to be saved, and a short composite compiled. Ok- you have the tools, knowledge, and ability to toss out the chaff and do that – so how about it?


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 - 05:40 pm:

Hi G-man, Claude, and All,

I too think this TOE has turned out rather well, and would welcome input on how to consolidate the ideas presented into a more concise form. Maybe a kind of question and answer dialog? I am sure there is still so much more we can say about this, but we are off to a good start!

Take care, talk soon, Ivan

By G-man767 on Thursday, May 9, 2002 - 09:22 pm:

Claude & Ivan: One topic that needs further
fleshing out here (beyond spatio-temporal particle
physics dynamics) is: Time. The Einstienian model
tends to fuse space-time, such that Time=rate of
speed over distance travelled. There are many now
that suggest Time is not real, i.e. Dr. Julian
Barbour. I raise this area again because I believe
it's as fundamental to a TOE as is research into
k- & b-mesons (currently being done at SLAC, which
is attempting to answer why the physical universe
consists of matter). Claude, you mentioned earlier
inbalance (aka asynchronicity, asymmetry). Again,
how can we ever answer questions concerning
'necessity'? How is it that the universe 'must' be
as it is...this way? Is this beyond the scope of a
TOE? G-man This is...

By Claude on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 02:44 am:


The time issue will not go away until we make it go away. Two problems face us on this; 1) If the universe always existed, time is useless baggage; 2) for anything to exist, it must have properties. Nobody can identify the properties of time; moreover, to do so is what I call an “arbitrary necessity,” which in reality, arbitrary necessities do not exist. I proved long ago the problem of time dilation according to R is a fluke, and I have valid papers to back me up on this. Time – at the earth’s surface does not, and cannot dilate. That is the crux, and fallacy of time. The time dilation mistake has eaten on science and exploration of space for more than 75 years now - At ground level, even following earth’s curvature, time will not dilate no matter how fast the clocks are moved; that only happens when the altitude is higher than ground level, and it escalates with altitude. I do not buy into much of Barbours fluff, but he is right that “time does not exist.”

Minkowski blew it with dimensions – there are four dimensions to space, not three. The dimensions are the same – length, width, height, and depth, the same as a cardboard box or circle. We can only observe – horizon-to-horizon, even with instrumentation it holds true; by that, we cannot measure dimensional characteristics accurately when it comes to the universe. I think this is partly the problem with the Hubble Constant and Redshift as many people are now beginning to doubt. In the original TOAT that I posted here, time was denied most adamantly, and I still deny time exists. Moreover, nobody can or has proven that time is a “universal attribute” of the universe.

Concerning SLAC – that is a brain trust with mostly one ax to grind – chiefly the DOE and a lot of it is nothing but pure hyperbole and fluff. Stanford has built an empire and knows it, and Stanford is the reason we do not have the SuperCollider in Texas. That would have taken away too much of Stanford’s Grant money from NASA and DOE. In the end, as I have stated elsewhere, someone will wise up and break QM into parts, and when that happens, maybe, just maybe we will get some pertinent and straight info from QM – instead a lot of conflicting information that does not make much sense. But don’t hold your breath that QM will ever merge and/or verify R or Special R!

The potential of nothing, is precisely – nothing. If that is true, there cannot be anyplace in the universe that is void of matter; instead, the universe is all matter, and none of it is anti-matter! Visit,

and listen to all the hype; problem is, if the bang is false, and proven as such, watch and see what happens to all the anti-matter.

Remember, you read this here – first.

Anti-matter is nothing but matter in the synthesis process of becoming energy.


By Ivan A. on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 10:53 pm:


Hi Claude, G-man,

Indeed Time is being worked through Relativity into a kind of cosmic dimension of space. I think this is due to how the math works out, how space and time are interrelated at light speed. However, math is like any language, which can be used to express truth or fiction. In my opinion, and that only, I think the idea of Time as a dimension of space is fiction, a gross error in thinking that leads us to chase after a cosmic illusion. If so, then Time is no more than a human creation, which does not negate it from our perception of the passing of time as a mental tool to understand past and present and future, but it does not exist in and of itself outside of our inventing it. Time in the cosmic sense exists only as a passage of how things change, and has no bearing on how the universe is constructed. So Space-Time is not real, only an interesting mathematical expression, poetic in nature, same as the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, not real but enchanting in its imaginary possibilities. But then again, scientists, like philosophers and mathematicians, may also entertain the absurd!

Later, Ivan

By Claude on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 12:24 am:

Ivan, G-man,

Follows is a URL that each of you should muddle through. It is the American Astronomical Society home page – in it, you can read so much information it can overwhelm you. I would suggest beginning your study of the available information at - and do read the list in order. If you work your ways through all of the info listed by clicking on each item in order, you will spend two or three evenings learning just what studies are underway. Hopefully, it will work its magic on both of you, and help you kick the traces of convention. What is ongoing in cosmology is seldom known to the general public, but you will quickly grasp what you see and hear is not what you get. The overall consensus of our own NASA and educational facilities is one of – “Never let the truth be known, continue to explore but in no way do you reveal that being explored.”

Do not be satisfied just to read the short abstracts – follow through with any links to the actual research being done if those links are offered. For instance, when you click on the link to “10.htm” you will find an abstract – at the bottom of the abstract, you will find the link -which is the link to the actual research page.

Of special interest to both of you should be link – 1016.htm – It has a link to a long study of Optical Variety of Quasars done at Colgate. After reading through the available data, it should be apparent to you the Redshift problem is actually not a problem, but powers that be, continue to expound on it. If you note – in any of the links, you will be told, “DO NOT QUOTE.” Wonder why? The answer is, Halton Arp is right – Redshift problem is nothing but a boogey-man, which eventually will prove beyond doubt, the Universe is as it always was, and has forever been, existing. One specific study that if we could get to it verifies that Redshift is not a problem, and the universe is not expanding – that study is at 1146.htm, but alas – no further link. Another such link is 149.htm – it is a study of that mysterious Redshift anomaly that birthed the Hubble Constant. I emailed the Japanese author, but he has not responded to my queries.


By Claude on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 12:32 am:

Journal of Theoretics Vol.3-1
Feb/March 2001 Editorial



[Editorial note about the Editor-in-chief: Dr. Siepmann is an expert in timing technology having written numerous articles about it, having several patents pending in the field, and by heading the R&D department of LightTime which has developed and is refining the use of light for the purposes of measuring time. He has been written about this subject quite often for both the national media as well as the scientific community. We are indeed fortunate to have him volunteer his "spare" time to the Journal of Theoretics.]

Why Time does not Exist

The concept of time is probably the most misconstrued and misused concept in science. Most scientists as well as the public think that “time” actually exists, just like the physical dimensions of length. Some have gone so far as to even give these “particles of time” the name “chronons.” Many of the so-called reputable journals even publish articles by these ignorant practitioners of voodoo science.

You should have heard the gasps from a presentation on time to a group of scientists when I told them that time did not exist. It was like I had blasphemed their sacred religion. Let me try to explain the concept of time so that you can go forth and spread the factual truth to those with open minds:

The concept of “time” is actually quite primitive with early man recognizing that their were repeated cycles of natural events which could be used to measure the duration of other events. From the recognizing that the four seasons were such a repetitive cycle, to that of a cycle of day/night, which we later came to understand was one revolution of the Earth about its axis. Then came the falling of sand in an hourglass to the repetitious swing of a pendulum, and currently to the oscillation of a quartz crystal.

From all of these definitions of a “unit” of time, we have been able to artificially divide it. The most basic subdivision is that of a second which is 1/3600 of one revolution of the Earth, which we have most recently defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium - 133 atom. The smaller the repetitive natural event that we can measure, the more accurate our measurement of time can be.

But in all of this where is Time as a physical entity. Nowhere. All we have done is to define the duration of a physical event.

Einstein really screwed up most everyone’s perspective with his erroneous use of time and reference (the subject of my next editorial). After his Theories of Relativity, everyone thought they could go and measure time like one would measure the length of a box with a yardstick. I’m not saying that the concept of time does not have a purpose in the measuring of a single event by comparing it to the number of repetitive cycles of a naturally occurring event (i.e. the time it takes me to run a 40 yard dash to the number of quartz oscillations in my stopwatch).

Then how can time work in Einstein’s formulas. It works in the same way that gravity does. Neither gravity (or its “gravitons”) nor time (or its “chronons”) exist as discrete entities. Gravity is nothing but the reactive force from Space to its displacement by matter. Likewise Space and its density cause what we see in the relative variations of the duration of these repetitive naturally occurring events. The more dense that Space is, the slower time is. This is why time slows down as gravity increases.

If one really needed a true concept of time, the best that I could give would be the linear duration of the lifecycle of the universe. This would be the only true time absolute that is not affected by the density of Space, as all time in this universe would have the same starting and ending point. Any subdivision would therefore be allowable. The problem is that we being the ignorant mortals that we are do not know the duration of the universe’s lifecycle (someday with better technology and theory we can do so based upon the expansion and contraction rates).

Therefore the best definition of time using its current understanding would be: “Time as a physical entity does not exist but we have utilized this concept to make relative comparisons of event durations to that of repetitive and reproducible naturally occurring cycles or subdivisions thereof.” But I would like to take time beyond that to my practical definition of time.

What is the only true constant in this universe besides its lifecycle? The speed of light of course. Time can be easily defined as, “The duration that it takes a photon to travel a preset distance divided by the speed of light.” The smaller that we can define the distance that a photon travels, the smaller the unit of time that we can measure. With this definition, there is virtually no limit to how infinitesimally small of a unit that we can measure. Also we are not limited by using repetitious natural event for our measurement.

In summary, time as a physical entity does not exist, rather it is a means for comparing the duration of an event to the duration of another which is considered the reference standard. Optimally, this reference standard should be the duration that it takes light to travel a preset distance, as this would finally make sense out of our reference standards as we would have the same definition for distance and time: t=d/c and d=c/t.*

James P. Siepmann

*Though NIST currently uses the standard of d=c/t for the meter, it has alas failed to make the next logical step of using the same concept for time (t=d/c). Maybe someday they will listen…

Journal Home Page


© Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 2001 (Note: all submissions become the property of the Journal)

Posted by Claude

By Ivan A. on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 01:53 pm:


While driving through Anza Borego desert yesterday afternoon under a clear blue sky, I had a moment of clarity where all the desert's stark beauty under the hot sun which encompassed the rocks and mountains and sky and sandy valleys and all the plants and animals, that they were all the product of light. That everything I saw was photonic light interplaying with infinite darkness resulting in everything that was out there, and in me. Wow! It was a startling realization, seeing it this way, that it was all made of only light.

No, I was not doing mushrooms. But we, my two wolfdogs and I, did find three Indian settlements perched on three separate saddlebacks each overlooking two valleys and identified by the mortar and pestle, metate, holes on large flat stones at the sites. Also found some crude stone tools, many stone flakes, and three pieces of crude pottery shards, all left in situ. Only found one large stone with pictographs, which I think depicted magical symbols of rain, lightning, and flowing water. One glyph reminded me of a large triangular food basket laying on its side, empty. These were done in red pigment over a large stone, which I guessed belonged to the shaman's shelter site. You could tell which sites were more desirable by how many metate holes there were, the more expensive real estate, and which usually were easier to get to. This shaman was poor.

Still, that momentary vision of how light was the all, truly was magical. It gave me a momentary inner meaning for our Theory of Everything.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 02:10 pm:

Hi Claude,

RE t=d/c, this is okay, but it still does not mean time exists in any way other than as an abstract unit of measurement. I do not know if time actually slows down in dense gravity, say around a black hole star, but if c is a variable, as I suspect it is under different circumstances, say going through cosmic dust clouds, or over very great distance, then light is not as good a universal measure as something else. That something else would default to gravity, but we are not well equipped at this point to measure this.

I will explore your other references. Thanks for bringing them to our attention.

Ciao, ciao, Ivan

By Claude on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 03:22 pm:


I agree - time still is an abstract unit of measurement, and an arbitrary one at that. So, for all intents and our purposes, time does not exist.


By G-man767 on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 02:26 am:

Claude, Ivan: Noted, 'time,' could plausibly be a component of a what amounts to a psychological GPS coordinate locating system. (Fact is, in an observer-observed paradigm--thank you, Uncle Albert!--we can't rule out that 'time' itself in a qualia (perceived) of durational, motioning material spatiality.) Which thus leads us to 't' some sort of inferential overlay which somehow enhances perception's approximate measurements of dimension? Curious. Assuming no observer, would 'time' exist? (Go with me on this...forget the Zen 'One hand clapping,' for a moment.) Absent an observer (however hypothetical), change & motion continue to develop directionally. Enter observer to perceive said motion. Observer, equipped with stop clock, proceeds to measure 'Time,' hence, as measure, is extrapolated snapshot. But the substrate from which 'it' is continuous process. So, the only way to conclude that 'Time' is either illusion, unreal, or to suggest that any measurement within the totality of a fluxating system is ultimately arbitrary and can have meaning only within such system. As a whole, particular spatio-dimentional coordinate designata are referentially irrelevant/insignificant. Time, for a whole/entire system does not/cannot exist simply for lack of any reference frame from which to measure. (Ah, well. Enough for now. I'm tired.) G-man

By Claude on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 11:33 am:


Reference frames are always historically past when snapshot is taken; in other words, we cannot take a snapshot of the future, or even now for that matter, for when the lens closes, that closed upon, is past, prior to capture of the frame itself.

In essence what you are doing is redefining time dilation - as it occurs.

Fact: A single reference frame is not possible to capture as things within the frame are, or appear. I suspect this is a problem that we cannot overcome, no matter what approach we take to solve the dilemma. The best way I can think of to show such phenomena is, the flight of an aircraft at supersonic speed - above 1700MPH. It is possible to freeze the aircraft in flight, but you cannot freeze the objects that surround it. There will be distortion of the background, or the aircraft, and it is not possible using all the tricks of photography to overcome such distortion. That, in essence, is, time dilation at work. In the real world, the world of reality, such distortions do not occur, they only occur whenever we attempt to "freeze" a frame.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 05:34 pm:

Hi G-man, Claude,

RE "Assuming no observer, would 'time' exist?" -and-

"A single reference frame is not possible to capture as things within the frame are, or appear."

Both your ideas capture something of the illusion we experience as time. First, time is something germane to our phenomenal perception, that we experience changing conditions, so that time is perceived as the passage of events of change. It is more difficult to perceive time if no motion exists, for example. Second, when motion does exist, then the observation of time may either be triangulated, as from the observations of observer and observed moving separately, or be experienced linearly, as counted by a steady measure of the clock. When time is triangulated, then it may appear differently to different observers from different reference points in motion; time would still move linearly, but would appear not to be. Uncle Albert was apparently fascinated by this, so a whole new branch of astrophysics came into being. But that does not mean time is anything more than an abstraction we create to measure change. Like one hand clapping, or the tree falling in a deserted forest, time does exist san-observer, crystal atoms still vibrate within their predictable rate, except that then there is no one to measure it.

Cheerio! Ivan

By Claude on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 02:45 am:


Is time germane to our phenomenal perception?

I cannot categorically accept that notion because it removes motion from the equations that inevitably someone must make; remember, it is motion that causes our perceptual changes, not the passing of time. Enter a “dirty” word – stasis, 2nd definition: 2: a state of static balance or equilibrium. For our purposes, the universe is always in a state that I identify as, attempting to obtain and maintain stasis; i.e., equilibrium. If that is true, the universe is constantly in motion to offset any imbalances present anywhere within it; it is within such imbalances the key to our search for a TOE is to be found. In other words, to prove a TOE will eventually demand an explanation of why – anything at all ever occurs in the universe.

If the universe ever obtains a – steady state – nothing can, or will occur within it; by that, the difficulties we face in attempting to formulate a TOE are twofold; 1) why do events occur within the universe; 2) what is the cause of such events. Bottom line is, no matter which direction we elect to take, I cannot foresee any way around the inevitable truth of where this is going to take us. Current technocrats of physics and molecular biology are nearing a crossroads with four intersections; three of them lead into blind alleys, but the fourth is paved with pure gold. That golden highway is bio molecular physics (BMP), which means, in essence, raw physics cannot solve the problems concerning function of the universe. The reason I have came to this conclusion is the universe is a functioning mechanism with vital processes. Vital processes are the life functions of a living entity, so a serious question must be asked at this point.

Is the universe a living entity?

If the answer is yes, physics cannot give an accurate accounting of the “vital processes” the universe requires to function. If the answer is no, we do not exist.

Since I exist, and I can see these words appear on the monitor in front of me, I cannot deny my own existence; therefore, from this stage forward, I have but one alternative, that being, to treat and consider the universe as a living entity. Yes, I have thought of many repercussions concerning this line of reasoning, which will eventually merge all sciences into one theoretical field: Omegatron Dynamics.

Life can only originate from a living source. Life, cannot manifest of nothing, neither will life manifest of inert, non-living matter. We can prove this in our labs today if we would only acknowledge the fact. Nothing can be its own agent; therefore, let me toss this out for everyone.

What does the word life mean?

Webster’s third definition: Life c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Does that definition fit the universe? If so, I am prepared to take the next step.


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 05:01 pm:

Hi Claude, all,

It seems to be the case that life cannot be arbitrarily created. This, however, does not mean that it cannot have originated from inert matter at some distant past and, once done so, that new life cannot now occur. At least, this is a reasonable possibility, that it only happened then and no more. Then, if so, all life is descended from that earlier genesis, which could also mean that present living things prevent competition from newly created life by digesting it before it has a chance to germinate. This, I would suspect, could be shown in a laboratory, and if so would explain why no new life is being created.

On the other matter, one of equilibrium, there are chaos theory studies done by the Santa Fe Institute, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, which claims that very large systems are chaotic a priori and that they first tend towards extremes, only to appear as tending towards equilibrium as these extremes flatten out over time.See: also: . So we may not accept equilibrium as a universal, but rather as the normalized anomaly that will no doubt be subject to change.

Can physics solve the puzzle of life? Well, life uses the physical universe to form itself bodies within which to exist, so there should be some link to that reality. However, at this stage of our understanding, and working only with the forces of physics we understand, my answer would be "no". Perhaps when we identify new forces that interact with biological systems more directly, a kind of life-force, if you will, then this may become more understandable.

These are only random thoughts, but wanted to share them with you, since they were stimulated by your insightful observations.

Take care, talk soon, Ivan

By Claude on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 11:35 pm:


Only a few minutes so will restrict response to the chaos part of your post.

Chaos theory is exactly that; however, there are no working models of chaos, so all that comes from such exercises is speculation for there is no method to test or prove facts as guesstimated. Define chaos? How would you describe an atomic explosion? Would it be chaotic? From more than 100 such studies on record concerning atomic explosions, the consensus is, Atomic explosions are totally predictable from the point of inception, through completion of the all after effects.

Think, outside of your head: How is it possible for a state of chaos to result if entities involved are not conscious?


By Ivan A. on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 03:41 pm:

Hi Claude,

I think one way to understand Chaos theory is that motion, or oscillation, gets more erratic with time. Usual example is dripping faucet, where the drip is chaotic in nature, unpredictable. Of course, since nature is its own algorithm simulator, an equation does exist which interrelates all the possible variables into how the drip will manifest; it's just that it is impossible to use linear thinking to figure this out. Still, having said that, there are certain parameters within which the drip has to fall, which creates a kind of stability, as long as the dripping stays within the parameters. In the same fashion, most chaos tends to stabilize somewhere so that patterns begin to repeat themselves. Fractals are an example where the chaos is open ended and infinite in nature, since no pattern repeats. Same in mathematics, where some numbers never repeat, i.e., pi. So the value of chaos theory is that it acknowledges that the geometric perfections lauded by ancient philosophers is truly the exception to the rule. Even the motion of planets are not fixed in their orbits, but rather are given to chaos. Very interesting, I think, but remember that the universe is its own simulator, perfectly so, so we are only the observers of what is an incredibly rich and beautiful system, even Chaos.

All the best, Ivan

By Xpost on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 05:27 pm:

Hi again, this is a cross-post from the Inexpressible challenge:

"...Now - back to ‘time’. If we speak of the beginning of time - we are trying to define a point. And to do that we need a point after and a point before - but if there is no point before - the point we are trying to define can not be defined and therefore has no existence. ‘When was the beginning of time?’ is a question that simply can not be asked and has no answer.

Secondly: time is a human experience. Just like sound. If sound waves travel through the air - they remain sound waves - it is only once they impact a human ear - that the human experience transduces them to the human experience we call sound. Therefore - sound does not exist outside of a human to experience it. (Optional: Look up ‘Schroeder's Cat’ regarding the definitions of reality according to quantum physics)

If there is no human to experience time (for it is a measurement made within us based upon our experiences of senses) - then without a human around to have the experience - there is no - time."...

(by Ray Kaliss)

--The entry above is excerpted from the challenge: "We cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time," though Ray's input offers some insight into Time per se. In effect, there is no "time", except as what appears in our consciousness as a measure of its passage. So it may be possible to triangulate space and motion, but how does one triangulate time? This has been the illusive quest of the Relativity crowd, I suspect, which is a fine brain tease, but really not indicative of how the universe is constructed. Therefore, if so, then the "space-time" continuum does not exist as described by Relativity. This leaves space to be what it is, a spatial relationship, and time what that is, a human measure of changing relationship within space. Not sexy, I'm sure, but closer to the truth.


By Claude on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 12:35 am:


Let me put Chaos Theory into perspective. Chaos Theory was/is an attempt to categorize events, of which, cannot be categorized. Your thoughts about Fractals miss the mark, for fractals can only prove the Principle of Identity, nothing more, nothing less. Look at it this way, no two of anything are identical; therefore, the study of fractals is equal to the study of individual snowflakes, each one possesses its own identity. What else can be said about snowflakes? Chaos necessarily would diminish with duration, and the laws of energy demand it to be so since there is no place that is friction-less. If we study two protons, neither will be identical to the other, the same holds true for quarks and leptons, or photons for that matter, and all of them are matter.

The bridges between Quantum Mechanics and Natural Mechanics, will never meet those of Newton’s Mechanics; that is the triune problem of the sciences, much like the problem of – pi – of the ancients. The symbol, pi – gets us close to being able to calculate the geometric dimension of circles and spheres; however, one must always remember – the end result will always be off by at least 1 decimal point. To get where we want to go, that is not good enough!

Nothing can be half-dead, or half-alive; it is either dead, or alive.


By G-man767 on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 01:24 am:

Let's go back, before jumping too far ahead, too fast. 'Time,' as durative motion over distantiated/extended spatial dimension is, I suspect, a key factor in a TOE. It provides the possibility for measurement functionality, which is our epistemic basis. (Chaos-Complexity, like fractals, fuzzy logic..., is interesting, but in fact may be a detour from the path of Super Symmetry that ultimately leads to a highly novel Super String understanding.) How is it that it must be that 'things' are constituted as they are? (Yes, Complexity exists, as an aspect of futurity, which retains a significant level of unpredictability. But 'Complexity' is a decidedly descriptive feature, whose realization comes after and is made possible by...far more fundamental schtuff:)G-man

By Claude on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 02:33 am:


Time, is precisely the reason a TOE has not been established. Things ARE constituted as they ARE, which is exactly what the concept or notion of time prohibits us from understanding. ARE always IS, they ARE not past or future but the present; therefore, we must understand IS for singular entities, and ARE for all entities.

I was hoping you would not get into superstrings and theory, for that is going to confuse everyone even more than ever before.

Do you honestly understand the implications of proving the Higgs boson status as being or not being? Think about it, outside of your head please. Proving that the Higgs boson exists, or does not was the primary reason the Board of Directors of CERN decided not to extend testing at LEP in Geneva.

If the Higgs Boson is proven to exist, the BBT dies.

Why do you think Congress killed funding for the Huge SuperCollider in Texas?


By Ivan A. on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 04:00 am:

Hi Claude, G-man,

I've been thinking, outside my head, that when we look at reality through the lens of interrelationship, then we see it as it is defining itself. This means that all the concerns over chaos, time, bosons, fall off into obscurity, since these are not the concern of a reality that is its own algorithmic simulator, and rather only of concern to us. But think what this means! This then means that the reason, which we with such difficulty assign to reality, is already reasoned within itself. So this kind of thinking, that reality is already simulating itself into being, then requires a new kind of thought: How does it do this? Another way to look at this is to say that it is not human reason that assigns meaningfulness to reality, but rather that it is already infinitely reasonable itself, when seen through the process of an interrelated totality defining itself from its greatest dimensions. And if so, then there is now room to find what is the mechanism that makes this possible for reality to simulate itself. In other words, are there forces out there that operate this process of which we are not yet aware of? Is there some other form of energy that makes it possible for a TOE, as it is already expressed within itself as reality? I have a hunch that such a force is yet to be discovered, and I would put my money on photonic light interacting with a superstrong force of gravity. This may mean that there is another force not yet accounted for.

Well, it's 1am, so better call it a day.

Talk soon, ciao! Ivan

By Claude on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 11:29 am:


You are beginning to get the big picture, and it only begins to manifest when you climb outside of your head to examine what is occurring in reality. Reality presents itself as it IS, and everything we observe in reality as they ARE. In essence, what you see is what you get in reality; in other words, reality is real, and our minds recognize it as such, but what we see or observe is not simulated. Reality in itself is totally reasonable inasmuch nothing is simulated within it; moreover, reality is the purest form of appearances, and within reality is the appearance of real objects. By climbing further out of our heads we can actually state with staunch conviction: Reality is pure objectiveness, or, Reality is objectiveness in its purest form. Fact: We do not subjugate reality, and we cannot alter that notion. Human attempts to subjectively study reality fail because we are ignoring the objective factors of reality, which deny every abstract approach we take because we are in actuality using human imagination to subjectively study the purely objective aspects of our experience of living in reality.

I will put my money on neutrinos as the potential force interacting with universal gravity as the energetic function that causes all motion in the universe. Photon decay denies the potential for them to be such a force, but neutrinos have the ability to “learn” their jobs, and they learn it rather quickly; fact is, spontaneously. Neutrinos will readily penetrate or permeate every known substance, and if I am correct, that is the force that gives us LIFE, and is the “prime mover” in the universe; however, neutrinos obey only one Law, that is the Law of neutrinos (whatever that is?). See to ponder. Yes, neutrinos have mass and you can find the evidence at the following URL,

In the realm we are now in, I do not think much progress is possible concerning particle studies, string theory, super, or even hyper symmetry. QM cannot help us, for it cannot provide the definitive explanations most of us demand. I think if Albert had devoted the last thirty years of his life fine-tuning SR to overcome its gravitational problems he just might have given us the answers before he died.

I am convinced it is a wildly spinning universe that determines gravitational effects that we are concerned with, but I have not figured out how each object in the universe can be located precisely at the center of the universe continually, but by accepting spontaneity as viable phenomena, that could possibly occur automatically. Scientists and cosmologists have always been concerned about the “aether” (my spelling) and if it can possibly exist. I think we should consider the aether is plasma, of which, is the basic form of all matter, necessarily, of which, the entire universe consists of, and that is what we call or see as space. If that is true, immaterial things do not exist.


By Claude on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 11:39 am:

Ivan, G-man,

I honestly think we are close to being able to put forth a TOE. I also think this thread needs to be backed up for future reference. I am working on four papers but need to run them by a couple of physicist friends before putting them in final format.

My concern is, if we try to put this together now, it will be too complex for most people to grasp. A TOE must be simple, but logically correct, and scientifically sound. To do that, we need to base our final TOE on the first and second laws of Thermo Dynamics, which in essence are the Holy Grail of science since both have been conclusively proven, tested, and verified.

I think I can show that gravity is a pure force, not an effect. Logically, I can explain it, but thus far trying to put it into words has proven to be most trying.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 02:13 pm:

Dear Claude,

Yes, please finish your TOE papers, and share them with us! I will think more of your suggestion re neutrinos, fascinating possibility. (I'm making a backup copy for my HD, though the server also makes backups.)

G-man, do you have a paper too? I think this is the most fun, to put it all together. Perhaps we should post some abridged version of the above work into the Examined Life Interdisciplinary Forum, under Physics?

Ciao, ciao, Ivan

By Claude on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 09:08 pm:

Wakeup Call #1

Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771
Monday, May 14, 2001 / 3:30 PM, Building 3 Auditorium
Carroll O. Alley
"Laser Ranging to Retro-Reflectors on the Moon as a Test of Theories of Gravity: Does Gravitational Binding Energy Gravitate?"
ABSTRACT -- The first Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector (LR3) was deployed during the Apollo 11 mission and has been used continuously for nearly 32 years. Additional LR3s were placed on the Moon by the Apollo 14 and15 astronauts and by the Soviet roving vehicles Lunakhods1 and 2. The concept of the experiment originated in the research group of the late Professor Robert Henry Dicke of Princeton University. The measurements require the detection and accurate timing of single light quanta because of the very weak returned signals.

The accuracy has improved from about 30 centimeters initially to a current value of about 3 centimeters. Important new results in the dynamics of the Earth-Moon system and in geophysics and selenophysics have been obtained, including the probable existence of a small molten iron core in the Moon.

The most significant results relate to gravity theories. Einstein’s general relativity is not adequate to describe the motion of the Earth-Moon-Sun system. It is the curved spacetime gravity theory of Yilmaz that treats gravitational energy correctly. Following a review of the history and experimental techniques, including video clips of the deployment of the Apollo 11 LR3 and of ground station ranging operations, the gravity theory situation will be explained.

The Yilmaz theory and the problems with general relativity are discussed in the recent paper, "Energy Crisis in Astrophysics: Black Holes vs. N-Body Metrics", by C. O. Alley, D. Leiter, Y. Mizobuchi, and H. Yilmaz, Prof. Yilmaz will give a special seminar on the new theory of gravity in the GSFC Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics on Monday, 21 May 2001 at 2:00 PM in Room 8 of Building 2.

SPEAKER -- Carroll O. Alley is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland College Park campus where he has taught and conducted research as director of the quantum electronics research group since 1963. He was the principal investigator for the Apollo 11 Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector experiment and served as the first chairman of the Lunar Ranging Experiment team.

He received B.S. degrees in mathematics and physics from the University of Richmond and earned the Ph.D. degree from Princeton University, where he studied theoretical and experimental physics and electrical engineering. His experimental thesis developed new optical detection techniques for the hyperfine ground state resonance in optically pumped rubidium gas cell atomic clocks. This type of atomic clock, which was invented at Princeton by Professors R. H. Dicke and T. R. Carver, is now the preferred choice for the Global Positioning System satellites.

In 1973 he received the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his work on the lunar laser ranging experiment.

Colloquium Committee Sponsor: Dr. Eugene Waluschka, GSFC, 301-286-2616
Next Week: "Ultrafast Optical Phenomena", Anthony Johnson, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Engineering Colloquium home page:

By Claude on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 09:16 pm:

Wakeup Call #2

General Relativity without Black Holes
by John G. Cramer
Alternate View Column AV-100
Keywords: alternative general relativity Yilmaz theory black holes
Published in the April-2000 issue of Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine;
This column was written and submitted 10/19/99 and is copyrighted ©1999 by John G. Cramer.
All rights reserved. No part may be reproduced in any form without
the explicit permission of the author.

This page now has an access count of:
This column is a milestone. It's the 100th Alternate View column that I've written for Analog over a period of 16 years beginning in 1983. I was on a sabbatical in Berlin when Stan recruited me to write the column after Jerry Pournelle, my predecessor as AV columnist, decided to step down. The AV columns are a soapbox that was too attractive to pass up, and I've used them to promote an interst in science and to feed cutting-edge science ideas, primarily in the areas of physics and astrophysics, to the readers and writers of science fiction.

In this column I want to examine a recent variant of General Relativity that predicts, among other things, that black holes do not exist. General Relativity (GR) was first formulated by Albert Einstein in 1913. Today it remains the standard model for gravitation. Over the past 86 years it has survived many experimental and observational tests and challenges without requiring modification. Even the recent Type 1A supernova observations that are taken as indications that the vacuum itself contains energy (see my column in the May-99 Analog.) have not required a modification of GR. Einstein anticipated the possibility that space contained energy and introduced the "cosmological constant" in the theory to account for it. Most physicists today consider GR to be the epitome of a nearly perfect theory. It was carefully constructed on a foundation of physical reasoning and mathematical elegance, and it has a certain intrinsic beauty. GR sets a very high standard that makes theories in other areas of physics appear contrived and inelegant by comparison.

Nevertheless, a small group of dissident theoretical physicists has recently been pointing out certain problems with orthodox GR and advocating a modification that has interesting consequences. It's this GR variant that I want to focus on here.

In standard GR, gravity is considered to be "geometrical", to be a consequence of the curvature of space produced by nearby mass-energy.. If a mass or an energy-containing field is present in space, GR predicts that the space will become distorted. This distortion or curvature of space produces gravitational effects like the attraction between masses and the gravitational bending of light rays.

The exception to this rule is the gravitational field itself. While there is energy stored in the gravitational field, unlike all of the other known energy fields (the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions) the energy present in gravitation does not, in conventional GR theory, produce space curvature. Starting with Einstein, the justification for this is that to have gravitationally-produced curvature would be "double counting", that since gravitation was produced by the curvature, it should not make more curvature.

However, Einstein's choice of excluding gravitational energy as a source of curvature leads to problems with local energy and momentum conservation. With the exception of gravitational energy, the law of conservation of energy applies to all fundamental interactions "locally" at all points in space. Because gravitational energy does not produce curvature, it does not respect local energy conservation. While energy is conserved in a large volume of space in GR, it is not conserved point-by-point.

Another well-known problem with GR is that many of its solutions have space-time "singularities", places where the mathematics "blows up" to give infinities in certain physical quantities. An example of this problem is the event horizon of a black hole, where time "freezes" at a certain distance from a super-massive object. Inside this boundary is a singular region, a place where mathematics cannot take us. Such mathematical anomalies in the solutions of Einstein's equations are very disturbing. They have been taken by some, including Einstein himself, as a signal that something may be fundamentally wrong with the GR formalism in the regime where very strong gravitational fields are present.

A third problem with GR is that we are sure there must be some comprehensive theory (quantum gravity) that describes gravity at the quantum level, yet orthodox GR theory seems to be incompatible with standard quantum mechanics,. Almost all of the attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity have failed, in part because the singularities of general relativity seem to be incompatible with the quantum formalism. The one exception to this incompatibility is superstring theory (see my AV column in the December-1999 Analog), a theory that cleverly avoids the point-like particles that make singularities. However, superstring theory is still in the development phase, and has not yet reached the point where it can be confronted by measurements or make testable experimental predictions.

The revision of general relativity theory that I want to tell you about is the work of a group of dissident physicists led by Hüseyn Yilmaz of Tufts University. They claim that a slight modification of the orthodox GR formalism cures the problems described above and offers other mathematical advantages. The Yilmaz version of general relativity modifies Einstein's equations by introducing the assumption that gravitation, like all other energy fields, produces space curvature. Yilmaz implements this by adds a gravitationally produced "stress-energy tensor" to Einstein's equations. The resulting variant of general relativity conserves energy locally and has no singularities. Yilmaz also claims that it can be quantized and that, unlike GR, it reduces to Newtonian gravitation and mechanics in the weak field limit. It can be shown to be a "gauge theory" (very similar to electromagnetism), a characteristic that makes it more mathematically tractable and easier to obtain multi-body solutions.

When the gravitational fields are relatively weak, the Yilmaz version of general relativity makes predictions that are observationally indistinguishable from Einstein's version. It is only in the limit of strong gravity that the differences between the two theories become apparent in their predictions. This happens when the extra space-time curvature of the gravitational field becomes important. The most dramatic difference is that the Yilmaz version of general relativity is better behaved mathematically and contains no singularities or event horizons. In particular, the Yilmaz theory predicts that there are no black holes. A massive star may collapse to a state more dense than a neutron star, but it never reaches the pathological black hole state of a time-frozen event horizon cloaking a singularity.

At first glance, this prediction would appear to be fatal to Yilmaz relativity. The headlines from recent astronomical observations, particularly those with the new x-ray and gamma ray telescopes, are said to have confirmed the existence of black holes. However, careful examination shows that the new data confirms the existence of collapsed stars that have extremely hot accretion disks and are too massive to be neutron stars. That observation is compatible with Yilmaz relativity. There has never been an indication of actual event horizon. In fact, up to now there have been no astronomical observation that would falsify the Yilmaz version of general relativity.

There is, however, the possibility of observational tests. When a massive star uses up its nuclear fuel and begins to cool, it goes into a catastrophic collapse called a supernova. For stars of about the mass of our Sun, the collapse process is halted by nuclear forces, and after the supernova explosion a neutron star is left behind. For more massive stars the nuclear forces are insufficient to overcome gravitation, and the star continues to collapse to something much smaller and denser than a neutron star (call it a "black hole candidate"). The Yilmaz version of general relativity predicts a larger maximum mass for neutron stars than does orthodox GR. Thus, observation of a very massive neutron star would tend to support the Yilmaz theory. In this context it is interesting that recent fast X-ray observations (see my AV column in the November-1998 Analog) suggest a neutron star with about 2.3 times the mass of the Sun. This is a very large mass for a neutron star. It is at the very outer limits of what standard GR can accommodate and requires considerable tinkering with nuclear forces at high densities to make it possible. This is not definitive evidence, but it does tend to provide some support for the Yilmaz theory. There are similar suggestive data from the spectral shapes of X-rays from neutron stars.

The advocates of the Yilmaz theory list the following additional advantages (not discussed further here) of the Yilmaz theory over conventional GR: (1) it predicts a definite stress-energy tensor while GR does not; (2) it provides exact solutions for gravity waves of arbitrary field strength while GR does not; (3) it has a true Lagrangian while GR does not; (4) it implies Einstein's equivalence principle, while GR must take equivalence as a separate assumption; (5) it is quantizable while GR is not.

The Yilmaz theory is not widely accepted among general relativity theorists. Several critics have published detailed criticisms of the new formalism and its interpretation, and a heated debate has developed in the literature between the Yilmaz group and its critics (see the references).

It is also worth noting that many theorists, the most prominent example being Steven Hawking, have established their reputations based on theoretical calculations that involve black holes. Much of the recent progress in string theory has come by realizing that there is a duality between strings and black holes. What are the implications for theoretical physics in general and string theory in particular, if it were shown that black holes are not real objects, but only artifacts of an unfortunate omission by Einstein in the formulation of general relativity? An unbiased observer can only say that it is a very interesting controversy that must ultimately be resolved by careful calculations combined with observational tests.

The controversy also raises a question that should be of interest to the SF community. Do black holes exist? Or are they only the products of an inadequate theory? The plot lines of many works of hard science fiction, indeed many that have appeared in this magazine, depend on the existence of black holes and on the interesting violence that they do to space-time. Perhaps gravity near collapsed stars is much different than we had imagined. Perhaps there are new effects that become apparent only through application of the Yilmaz version of general relativity. Perhaps there is material for a whole new generation of hard SF here.


AV Columns On-line: Electronic versions of more than one hundred past "The Alternate View" columns by John G. Cramer are available on-line on WorldWideWeb at the URL:



The Yilmaz Theory:

Hüseyn Yilmaz, Phys. Rev. 111, 1417-1426 (1958).

Hüseyn Yilmaz, Annals of Physics (NY) 101, 413-432 (1976).

Hüseyn Yilmaz, Il Nuovo Cimento 107B, 941 (1992)

Carroll O. Alley, Per Kennett Aschan, and Hüseyn Yilmaz, preprint gr-qc/9506082 in the LANL Archive, (30 June, 1995).

Laro Schaltzer, "There are no Black Holes!", commentary on the Web only at

Criticisms of the Yilmaz Theory:

Charles W. Misner, preprint gr-qc/9504050 in the LANL Archive, (28 April, 1995).

F. I Cooperstock and D. N. Vollick, Il Nuovo Cimento 111B, 265 (1996).

By Claude on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 09:57 pm:

Wakeup Call #3

Gravity - Push Theory

There are many difficulties with the standard view of cosmology based on Einstein's equations and the ``big bang'' hypothesis. These difficulties include the following.

1. The missing dark matter.
2. Some stars seem to be older than the apparent age of the universe.
3. The universe seems to be expanding faster over time rather than slower, necessitating a clumsy use of the Einstein fudge factor (capital-Lambda).
4. Pioneer satellite slows down faster than expected when leaving the solar system.
5. The incompatibility of standard relativity with the absoluteness of angular momentum. In other words, standard GR is incompatible with the Mach principle, which states that zero acceleration is always relative to the rest of the mass in the universe. This cannot be explained within standard GR.
6. Philosophical difficulties with the idea of time not having an infinite past.
7. The missing neutrinos from the Sun.
8. The non-detection of gravitational waves.

(If Einstein's equations were correct, then these waves should have been detected a long time ago.
About the end of the 19th century, the perfectly clear skies of the physics of Newton and Maxwell were disturbed by the “clouds on the horizon,” including the non-measurability of the relative velocity of the electromagnetic aether in the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887), and the dual particle/wave nature of matter and light. I have been expecting that around the end of the 20th century, the orthodox physics of the 20th century will be similarly disturbed by a new revolution. In particular, orthodox general relativity is requiring more and more patches, like Ptolemy's epicycles.

All of the above problems disappear or are reduced by adopting the “Push Theory of Gravity.”
In the push theory of gravity, there is an absolute upper limit for gravitational force, which corresponds to the total mass in the universe. Gravity is actually caused (in the push theory) by particles emitted by all of the other masses in the universe. As a consequence, there are no black holes. It also follows that the gravitational effect of an object is an exponential function of the thickness of the object, integrated over solid angles. Therefore there is a small gravity deficit when you approach a planet very closely. Similarly, there should be a surplus gravitation field as you leave the solar system, relative to the inverse square law.

The upper limit on the strength of gravity implies that Einstein's general relativity equations will have to be corrected so that gravitational field strength can never exceed a fixed upper limit. This is analogous to requiring that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Trying to extrapolate the success of general relativity from its successes under low field strength conditions to very high field strengths is analogous to extending both Newton and Maxwell's equations to motion at and beyond the speed of light.

The origin of gravitational force in other masses has the consequence that the force is repulsive at large, cosmological distances, but attractive at short distances. And this easily explains many dynamics of the universe. The attraction at short distances (on the cosmological scale) is due to “shadowing.” That is, a planet throws a shadow on nearby objects, which means that the force from that side is reduced. Clearly the effect of this force will be proportional to the size of the shadow, which follows an inverse square law.

Gravitational deflection of light is explained in the push theory by the fact that gravitational force is lower near the Sun than required by the inverse square law. Classical gravity (Newtonian) predicts twice the deflection of the Einstein theory. But the Einstein value is closer to the observed value. This is explained in the push theory by the reduced gravitational field near the Sun.

NASA has now confirmed the increased gravitational field as observed by Pioneer space probes outside the Solar System. This cannot be explained by the Einstein or Newton theories, but it is explained by the push theory.

The push theory of gravity would imply that the gravitational field strength inside the Sun would be lower than predicted from the inverse square law. Consequently temperatures inside the Sun would be lower, and the rate of neutrino production would be lower. This could explain the deficit of neutrinos coming out of the Sun.

It was announced about 19 June 2001 that the missing neutrinos have been discovered - as transformations from electron neutrinos to tau and muon neutrinos. But they don't have this all quantitatively worked out. There seems to be a lot of room for error. Personally, I'm skeptical about the announcement of the massive neutrinos being discovered. It is not a direct detection in any sense. They obtained one set of results in Japan, and then another one from a different source, and they're saying that the difference is all due to the fact that they were only detecting a subset of the neutrino types. They then infer that their theory about transitions between different types of neutrinos is confirmed. It doesn't really confirm this at all. The numbers are so rubbery that even if some neutrinos are missing, there could be many other theories, which are consistent with the results. The results would be more convincing if the results could be replicated at different distances from the Sun. But that would be too difficult. I think it's still more likely that the gravitational field strength and temperatures inside the Sun are just lower than previously thought.

It is sad that the general media accepts that the big bang, and black hole theories as being already proved. Neither of them has been proven. Even physicists talking to the media talk as if these theories were proven already. That is irresponsible science, and degrades the status of cosmology.

On August 15, 2001 it was announced that some scientists have inferred that the speed of light may be changing (New York Times). Taken together with the discovery that the A force of gravity may be greater than expected at large distances from the Sun, this is starting to shape up as the “clouds on the horizon” which mounted up at the end of the 19th century and ultimately led to revolutions in physics such as quantum theory and relativity. I have been waiting for some time for these new “clouds on the horizon” of physics at the end of the 20th century.

For no logical reason at all, I am expecting another big revolution in physics during the next few years. There are many things in physics that just don't make sense. I don't mean that they contradict the logic of daily life. That's obvious. What I mean is, physics has a lot of internal contradictions. Two of the biggest holes in current physics are; 1) the fact that quantum mechanics applies only to small systems, not the whole universe; and 2) that consciousness is not represented in any physical theory. It appears consciousness is affected by the mechanical evolution of events in the universe, but consciousness does not affect the physics machine. This asymmetry is very unusual. It seems more likely that the “consciousness subsystem” of the universe should have a reciprocal effect on the “mechanical subsystems” which obeys the laws of physics. Similarly, the fact that quantum mechanics cannot be applied to whole systems but require external observers is an extremely serious hole in physics.


By Claude on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 10:08 pm:

From the New York Times

© New York Times, August 15, 2001


An international team of astrophysicists has discovered that the basic laws of nature as understood today may be changing slightly as the universe ages, a surprising finding that could rewrite physics textbooks and challenge fundamental assumptions about the workings of the cosmos.

The researchers used the world's largest single telescope to study the behavior of metallic atoms in gas clouds as far away from Earth as 12 billion light years. The observations revealed patterns of light absorption that the team could not explain without assuming a change in a basic constant of nature involving the strength of the attraction between electrically charged particles.

If confirmed, the finding could mean that other constants regarded as immutable, like the speed of light, might also have changed over the history of the cosmos.

The work was conducted by scientists in the United States, Australia and Britain and was led by Dr. John K. Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. It is to be published on August 27 2001 in the field's most prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters.

Scientists who have examined the paper have not been able to find any obvious flaws. But because the consequences for science would be so far-reaching and because the differences from the expected measurements are so subtle, many scientists are expressing skepticism that the discovery will stand the test of time, and say they will wait for independent evidence before deciding whether the finding is true.

On the other hand, the finding would fit with some theorists' new views of the universe, particularly the prediction that previously unknown dimensions might exist in the fabric of space.

Even scientists on the project have been deliberately cautious in presenting their result. Describing the implications of what his team observed, Dr. Webb said, "It's possible that there is a time evolution of the laws of physics."

Dr. Webb added, "If it's correct, it's the result of a lifetime."

Dr. Rocky Kolb, an astrophysicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory who was not involved in the work, said the finding could not only force revisions in cosmology, the science of how the universe began and later evolved, but also add credence to an unproven theory of physics called string theory, which predicts that extra dimensions exist.

"The implication, if it is true, would just be so enormous that it's something people should look at and take seriously," Dr. Kolb said. "This would upset the apple cart."

The magnitude of the change apparently observed by the group is minute, amounting to just 1 part in 100,000 in a number called the fine structure constant over 12 billion years. That constant, also referred to as alpha, is defined in terms of more familiar quantities like the speed of light and the strength of electronic attractions within atoms.

But even that small change would rock physics and cosmology, said Dr. Sheldon Glashow of Boston University, who received a Nobel Prize in physics in 1979. The importance of such a discovery, Dr. Glashow said, would rank "10 on a scale of 1 to 10."

Considering the unexpected nature of the finding, both Dr. Glashow and Dr. Kolb said the chances were high that some more mundane explanation for the results would turn up.

Dr. John Bahcall, an astrophysicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., said the complicated analysis that was required to infer the tiny changes from the observations could — in principle, at least — be obscuring possible errors.

"The effect does not scream out at you from the data," Dr. Bahcall said. "You have to get down on all fours and claw through the details to see such a small effect."

But others said that the team had been very careful and that any unknown source of error would have to be extremely subtle to be missed.

"If they were claiming anything less dramatic, probably most people would find their work very careful and believable," said Dr. Massimo Stiavelli, an astrophysicist at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.

"Exceptional results deserve extraordinary proof," Dr. Stiavelli said, adding that he was reserving judgment until further evidence became available.

The work relied on observations of light from distant beacons called quasars, which shine with a brightness equivalent to billions of suns. The light is probably emitted by matter torn from young galaxies by the powerful gravity of a black hole.

Besides Dr. Webb, the team included three other scientists at the University of New South Wales, Michael T. Murphy, Dr. Victor V. Flambaum, and Dr. Vladimir A. Dzuba; and one physicist at Cambridge University in Britain, Dr. John D. Barrow. Three American astronomers who are experts on quasars were also members of the team: Dr. Christopher W. Churchill of Pennsylvania State University; Dr. Jason X. Prochaska of the Carnegie Observatories; and Dr. Arthur M. Wolfe of the University of California at San Diego.

The observations, made by the 30- foot-wide Keck Telescope on Mauna Kea, in Hawaii, looked in detail at the absorption of quasar light by gas clouds in deep space between Earth and the quasars. Metal atoms like zinc and aluminum are often present in trace amounts in the clouds.

The absorption of light by such atoms creates dark spikes at various wavelengths in the quasar's spectrum, with a pattern so well defined that it is often likened to a fingerprint. The value of those wavelengths is directly related to the value of the fine structure constant.
But the fingerprint seemed to change in time, Mr. Murphy said, indicating that the constant grows larger as one goes nearer to the present and was not really constant.

"What we have found is that, statistically, there is a difference between the fine structure constant a long time ago and here on earth," he said.

Far from being of interest only in understanding atomic behavior, said Dr. Barrow of Cambridge University, the effect would be important "because it gives you such a feedback into fundamental physics."

String theory, for example, could accommodate changes in quantities that accepted physics theory considers immutable. String theorists postulate that space contains tiny, unseen dimensions. Any change in the size of those dimensions — much like the expansion of the universe in the space we are familiar with — could change quantities like the fine structure constant, said Dr. Paul Steinhardt, a physicist at Princeton University.

Dr. Steinhardt said most theorists would have expected those changes to have occurred in the first seconds of the universe's life and be virtually unobservable by astronomers today. Still, he pointed out that several years ago, other astronomers unexpectedly found that the present universe is apparently filled with a mysterious kind of energy that counteracts gravity on large scales. Perhaps the two effects are somehow related, Dr. Steinhardt said.

Other scientists pointed out that geologic processes, like naturally occurring nuclear fission, have been used to determine that the fine structure constant has probably changed little over the past two billion years on Earth. But researchers on the new paper point out that their results reach back much farther in time, and that interpreting the geological results is also a complicated matter.

But a few physicists, like Dr. Jacob D. Bekenstein of Hebrew University in Israel, noted that some theories have long been predicting a change in some of nature's apparent constants. Dr. Bekenstein called the findings "potentially revolutionary" and said he was inclined to believe them.

"After much thinking about this issue," Dr. Bekenstein said, "I think the quasar observations may have found the real variation."

By Ivan A. on Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 11:00 pm:

Hi Claude!

Volumes, truly appreciate your work. And even constants are not constant at great distances, so the search goes on. I'm especially intrigued by Wake Up Call #2's:

"The revision of general relativity theory that I want to tell you about is the work of a group of dissident physicists led by Hüseyn Yilmaz of Tufts University. They claim that a slight modification of the orthodox GR formalism cures the problems described above and offers other mathematical advantages. The Yilmaz version of general relativity modifies Einstein's equations by introducing the assumption that gravitation, like all other energy fields, produces space curvature. Yilmaz implements this by adds a gravitationally produced "stress-energy tensor" to Einstein's equations. The resulting variant of general relativity conserves energy locally and has no singularities. Yilmaz also claims that it can be quantized and that, unlike GR, it reduces to Newtonian gravitation and mechanics in the weak field limit. It can be shown to be a "gauge theory" (very similar to electromagnetism), a characteristic that makes it more mathematically tractable and easier to obtain multi-body solutions."

This is most intriguing, especially since it works at local dimensions of Newtonian physics.

Much to read, will do so.

Thanks again, Ivan

By Ivan A. on Sunday, May 19, 2002 - 11:31 pm:

Dear Claude, and All,

RE Gravity in Motion:

There is something that puzzles me, as regards
gravity. If gravity is a product of motion, then
why is it that we cannot duplicate it? Spin is
something we can duplicate, and even spin
acceleration is performed by iceskaters when they
bring their arms in towards their body's axis, so
they spin faster. However, even non spinning
astronomical bodies have gravity, in relation to
their mass, such as the moon, for example. I can
appreciate the centrifugal vs. centripetal force
as being coefficients of each other, but why
cannot this centripetal force be created
artificially? It is for this reason, that we
cannot, that I believe gravity to be a left over
product of photon/'infiniton' forces within the
atom, where the balance between these forces is
always off by a small degree, not because of space
curvature as postulated by AE, but because gravity
always comes out slightly ahead. And if so, then
this vision of gravity would also fall neatly into
the results of "push theory" of gravity, though
for different reasons, not due to the actual push
of other particles. Only the total effect is the
same, that gravity cannot exceed the total
universe's mass. If this is consistent, then we
cannot duplicate gravity, except to construct very
large objects.

However, we can duplicate motion driven by the
same dynamics that drive all objects to have
motion, by altering their molecular vibration
balance, so that the molecules have a bias in one
direction vs. another, in the direction of motion.
Could it be that the radiometer, which you find at
HomeDepot to illustrate the light blocking ability
of some window glass, is actually motion due to
photonic light affecting how it interacts with the
molecular structure of the spinning blades? Note
the blades, which are black on one side and white
on the other, spin away from the black and towards
the white. The common theory is that it is
because a few molecules are left in the not
perfect vacuum within the bulb, so they bounce
more aggressively on the hotter black side. I
think the reason is different, and would love to
find research on this. My guess is that the
photons are knocking off more electrons from the
darker sided blades, which are metallic, and less
so off the white side, so that the blades are
propelled as seen. This happens better in a near
vacuum because the electrons are free to propel
away from the blades; in an atmospheric
environment, unless this process if very powerful,
the electrons merely bounce back and get
reabsorbed by the molecules, so no bias results.
And this is motion that can be duplicated, if we
can figure how to throw more photons on one side
of the plate so that electrons are thrown off,
which then gives the molecules wobble in favor of
the direction desired.

Think what this would mean! No more stinky
gasoline powered engines. Watch out ExxonMobil!!
It would also mean we have indirectly recreated
gravity, in motion.

Of course I could be totally wrong on my understanding of how
works Crookes Radiometer, which is used only as a toy,
at present.

Here are some links which talk about it, with 3 points of view of how this works:

* * * *

Any ideas on this gravity issue? I don't buy that
super complicated space curvature stuff at all,
think it is pure bunk, and throw it into the same
trash bin used by Copernicus when he threw away
that nonsensically complicated Ptolemeic epiclical
earthcentric astronomy.

Still thinking, I think....

By Ivan A. on Sunday, May 19, 2002 - 11:42 pm:

Ps: Why are UFOs (if they exist) dimmer when they
slow and brighter when they accelerate? Photons!

Figure it out Chevron, Texaco, Getty, Arco. The
truth is out there.

By Claude on Monday, May 20, 2002 - 02:35 am:


We cannot duplicate gravity for one reason that I am aware of, nobody has figured out how to do it. This is precisely what I sent to a couple of physicist friends to verify by the numbers, for if I am correct, we only know half of the law of gravity (maybe ¼ of it). I am not so sure, but I believe that a few people do know the complete Laws of gravity.

Gravity varies with density of mass + distance.

Asteroids possess gravity. The question is how? The answer is, gravity is not an effect, but is in fact a distinct characteristic of one mass, spinning around another although the mass in the center is static.

You are correct that gravity cannot exceed the total mass of the universe; however, if the universe is infinite as we suspect it is, that means gravity is also infinite, and we do have some indications that is true. The push theory of gravity best fits all existing knowledge of it.

If you think “neutrinos” instead of photons, me think you have got the grand picture of where I am trying to go with this.

Visit for photon decay in Redshift theory –

Visit two-photon decay theory –

Next, visit a revelation of Neutrino Decay –

What you are going to study is pertinent at deeper levels of experimentation, and theory building; however, be careful not to get lost in the quagmire of what I have began to call, theostition = defined as, belief in theoretical assumptions.

It is necessary to warn you about mass – photons cannot have mass – which means, photons are not able to “do anything,” specifically, work. Work, requires energy; therefore, photons cannot have any effect on gravity.

Now, them pesky little neutrinos are a different story since 1998.

My specific interest is in the muon neutrino – It is unique in that it is composed of two different masses! Me want to know just what those two masses are. I think I know, but not to tell it here. When you get to the next website –


Ivan, a direct email to you will follow this post.

I would not touch your last question as posted May 19, 2002 – 11:42pm with someone else’s gloves.


By Ivan A. on Monday, May 20, 2002 - 04:17 pm:

Hi Claude,

Neutrinos seem cutting edge physics, but I do not know how to relate them into everything.

This is why I brought up the radiometer example in post above, because this is something commonly observable, that photonic light strikes free spinning metal blades, one side being darker and absorbing light, while the other is white, reflecting photons, so that you have an effective spin away from dark side, and motion results. This is pretty simple stuff. I don't know if neutrinos play a meaningful part in this resulting motion, however. Photons have no mass, but they have an effect, which makes them interesting. The resulting motion is indirect, not due to photonic mass, which it does not have, but due to the release of electrons as the metal blades absorb photons. Obviously the darker blades absorb more photons than the white blades, which reflect light better, and thus the motion is as it is. This is what is. Now, the question, why is this so? How can light effect motion? Fascinating, I would think, and so simple.

And possible answers to this question I can work into a TOE.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks again for great links, Ivan

By Claude on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 07:41 am:


The basic premise for a TOE must be grounded in provable fact, but where to begin? First, we must be able to make a statement concerning the universe that nobody can or will refute, so I opt to use an open statement that reveals what the universe consists of. The statement is not mine, but one sanctioned by NASA, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and generally acknowledged by physicists everywhere.
The universe consists of plasma.

Source – NASA: "99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. "Very little material in space is made of rock like the Earth."

Plasma is not a gas, liquid, or solid - it is the fourth state of matter. Plasma often behaves like a gas, except that it conducts electricity and is affected by magnetic fields. On an astronomical scale, plasma is common. The Sun is composed of plasma, fire is plasma, fluorescent and neon lights contain plasma.

I propose that plasma is the “aether” of the universe, which is readily displaced by any of the other three states of matter identified as gas, liquid, and solid. Science has long toyed with the notion of aether, but until now, I am unaware of any theory that acknowledges a thing that exists necessarily must consist of some thing, of which, that thing must have at least one identifiable property. The universe fully qualifies to be identified as a thing, so necessarily it must consist of a thing, or things we can readily identify. Matter is a thing, but we must acknowledge that matter exists in four differing forms: liquid, gas, solid and plasma.

Logical and undeniable fact: No thing can manifest of no thing.

If no thing can manifest if nothing is present, there is only one logical possibility that can explain the existing universe: The universe has always existed proving all theories, which suggests the universe has a beginning, is without any potential whatsoever. Here, I think it imperative that we acknowledge existing knowledge: specifically, two theories that are thoroughly embedded in the science community. Those are the theories of General, and Special Relativity as conceived by Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein denied that an event, identified as Singularity, was theoretically possible according to either theory concerning Relativity; however, I stand on the premise, both theories contain minor flaws, of which, have been blatantly misused or misconstrued by science since the theories were originally published. There are existing, known modifications to the Einstein theories when applied that correct the original errors as conceived, proving both theories are viable when, or if applied to existing knowledge within the realm of cosmology. Those modifications are well known, but rejected by the many scientists and physicists who accept the Big Bang model as representative of the origin of the universe. Two men are responsible for those modifications: 1) Huseyin Yilmaz of Tufts University; 2) V.N. Strel’tsov, Laboratory of High Energies, Moscow Russia.

Next, I think it imperative that we acknowledge two existing laws based on knowledge widely available, which have been proven viable beyond a reasonable doubt, they are: The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

What that means is: The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, and changes from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics is known as, Conservation, and states that energy is always conserved, and it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.

What that means is: This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A spring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use, or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some of the energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins if or when organisms cease to take in energy, and then die.

General Statements

I do not think detailed explanations concerning Quantum Theory and Mechanics are of great significance concerning a TOE. Because of the massive amount of differing, and often, controversial nature of Quantum Everything, it is beyond the scope of a TOE to wander into the wasteland realm of Particle Physics, and Omegatron Dynamics. If the basic building block of the universe is matter, which I think most everyone will agree, there is no good reason to expand a TOE beyond the basic perimeters that we set forth, and explain with clarity. I honestly think enough valid data is available to write a TOE and deliver it to the world. Undoubtedly many people will deny that present science is capable of producing such a Theory of Everything; however, I now possess substantial data and information that should withstand every inquiry, be it scientific, theological or from a perspective of ordinary common sense. From a scientific perspective, I do not think any single notion has not been presented before. From a theological perspective, there is but one notion that will prove contentious; that being, the denial that God could be ascribed as creator of the universe. From a common sense standpoint, simple logic is the standard that must be adhered to; in other words, what you see is what you get, with no hidden anything that consists of immaterial properties. I think it imperative that we as human beings finally acknowledge, if it does not consist of material properties, it cannot, and does not exist.

Human beings give existence to what become things when objectified in order to speak about them. Necessarily we objectify a subject to be able to speak of it; however, that of which we objectify does not exist in nature. Therefore, I propose a new category for all people to consider; that category is, Subject. Into the category of Subject, I place those conceptualized or abstracted notions humans identify as universals; by universals, I mean commonalities among entities. Consciousness, emotions, abstract concepts, numbers, or even words are subjects since they do not exist in nature, although some subjects could rightly be considered as being a characteristic, or as an attribute of nature.

These considerations are my basis to establish a TOE. A TOE must be viable, testable, and ultimately understandable, not only to the scientific community, but to the general public at large, world wide. If we cannot meet the criteria and back it with observed as tested data, and sound scientific methodology, there is no point to continue.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 10:28 pm:


You say" "A TOE must be viable, testable, and
ultimately understandable, not only to the
scientific community, but to the general public at
large, world wide."

I totally agree, that for TOE to be credible it
must be understandable by the common man.
Subjective phenomenon in conscious beings is also
part of the whole thing, though we objectify to
understand. Only Being can be experienced on the
subjective level, and those of us who are
conscious of this are fortunate indeed. More
conscious beings is the ultimate goal of TOE, in
my subjective opinion.

Thank you so much for all your valuable
contributions. Someday, I hope we can share in
the final thing, and bring forth something truly
new and revolutionary. I believe we're going
there. And it will be wonderful.

All the best, Ivan

Add a Message

This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Post as "Anonymous"