Hi, all
Feel welcome to make any ToE comment or just sign as a guest. Or to make comments about the web design or suggestions of improvements or whatever you would like to contribute with.
This website was set up in March 17, 2011. And my own search or quest for ToE did begin in the early 1990’s. I always have had a serious interest and a fair approach for astrophysics and classic physics since the the mid 70’s.
I strongly feel that people should help each other in daily life and in other issues that are of life and live concern. My primarily education is a engineer class in low power electronics and works with small scale computer systems since the early 80’s.
April 19, 2011
/admin
Hi,
Noticed a most interesting article in the Scientific American magazine about the concept of ‘Theory of Everything’ itself. How mathematics cannot trump physical evidence. The article expresses this point of view with examples by Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem and Galileo’s conviction of the necessity of experimental correspondence.
/admin
November 20, 2023
Link to the article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com
Drifter says:
May 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM
It appears that dark-matter is the cauldron of primodial soup(aether) in which a strange but apparently observable alchemy takes place, between the unmanifest and the manifested; The Unseen and the seen, The unknown and the known.
Drifter says:
May 15, 2011 at 5:14 PM
Great sight design and content, you are not alone.
Love and regards
Drift
Labelwench says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:44 PM
I would share with your viewers a link that was posted by Melanie, of another forum, as I found it both interesting and very comprehensible for a wide audience.
http://centeredlibrarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/dark-matter-matters.html
Greetings from a fellow seeker from the land of the midnight sun.
admin says:
November 16, 2011 11:26 AM
Hi, Ava202
So, also my view, Big Bang not required. My primarily objection concerning BB is the math involved. The mathematics for calculating Big Bang are dealing with elements, to my opinion, that are at the borders of good and fair math. I’ve heard that a mathematician can prove an apple for a pear or vice versa. Maybe the case is so here for BB.
Regards
/admin
May 16, 2011 at 11:46 PM
My view. Big Bang not required. Only one primary fundamental “stuff” in the Universe. Gravity is due to curvature of space. Only 3 dimensions in reality. A little more info can be found in my postings on (www.toequest.com) (page does not exist anymore/ admin comment).
Good luck here. Do not let off subject posts drown out your interest in Physics.
admin says:
May 12, 2011 at 8:47 AM
Hi, Labelwench
I’ve copied your Guest book post also to the Discussion section due to the link you provided. Having some comments on the “stuff” at the linked site:
Labelwench says:
I would share with your viewers a link that was posted by Melanie, of another forum, as I found it both interesting and very comprehensible for a wide audience.
http://centeredlibrarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/dark-matter-matters.html
End of quote.
The Blogspot site has an animation presenting space matter exploration versus particle science and how these two fields of physics begin to share mutual knowledge.
There is, in the beginning of the animation, a brief explanation of the 4 ways that matter (things) interact: The description is not all correct but the animation tries to explain how “matter” interact but is an allegory of the physical explanation of the 4 fundamental forces in nature or universe. And the telling of the 4 forces of nature has a slight different version.
Also the short part just before, telling about what matter is made of in space is also not quite in line with standard explanation. The 75%, which in the animation is told that we don’t know anything about is normally in these physics accounts said to be dark energy. Else this short part is in line with standard physical descriptions of distribution of matter.
Further the film is telling how the physic fields of space exploration and particle science begin to deal with mutual knowledge. And especially how the before so grave particle scientists more seriously begin to join, for example, space matter seminars and such meetings.
It’s a hasty animated movie of about 6 minutes that obviously is made by younger and inquiring students. More than a standard physical description of matter and particles.
You can take this post for a brief review of the animation.
I’ll give it 3.5 stars of five.
Regards
/admin
admin says:
April 25, 2011 at 8:55 AM
Hi, all
TOE must basically describe the small compared to the big – Microcosms to Macrocosms and all the “way” between.
One can say that any thinking starting from Microcosms is a inductive reasoning. And the symmetrically thinking starting from Macrocosms is based on deductive reasoning.
This inductive and deductive manners of thinking are noticed because there seem to be some problem at scientists to fully handle the deductive form of viewing on any matter or problem.
So, basically when now Hawking and Mlodinow recently has stated that a TOE never will be written or found, I do more recognize inability in reasoning in the deductive form at scientists or any other person viewing any problem whatsoever.
I do not state that Hawking or Mlodinow are disabled in deductive thinking – but the disability is noticed by me in general. This is a bigger problem than we can imagine at first glance. I do incorporate the global environmental problems in this handicap of man.
So, therefore a TOE is not only difficult by its physics – but probably also is hard to find due to disabilities in the finders of TOE. Man is often good in inductive thinking, but rather often is handicapped in the deductive form. We apparently has problems in the Macrocosms way of thinking.
During the last about 15 years when I’ve been writing in physics sites I’ve almost every time when mentioned Big Bang been struck by the dim or unclear manner all sorts of physic people has written or mentioned this Macrocosms view of physics. People are, in my humble manner of expressing, not so good in arguing about Big Bang physics. They can’t really convince me about BB. OK, Big Bang mathematics IS hard. Nevertheless my notion of general problems in deductive form of thinking stands. And therefore my general BB critics also stands.
Although, I am aware about that BB is a part of the standard model.
Regards
/admin