Need help? Check out our Support site, then


WordPress.com Forums » Showcase

12

Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything

  1. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Hi, just realized that WordPress has its own forum for self-promotion. Well, if anyone is interested in theoretical frameworks, I am presenting the theory of life over at my blog. I have been doing it for about three months now and will probably blog up until and through the release of a book on the same subject matter.

    Now that I know this is here, I think I'll throw up some new posts from time to time to drum up interest/attention, i.e. shameless self-promotion.

    Any comments or criticisms welcome.

    Peace,

    Ik

    The blog I need help with is thetheoryblog.wordpress.com.

  2. theintentionalsage
    Member

    I don't know if you've heard of Nassim Haramein, but you may want to look into him as it relates to a 'theory of the universe.'

    His 4-DVD set is jam-packed with information and he's an entertaining orator.

    With Love and Gratitude,

    The Intentional Sage

  3. timethief
    Member

    @theoryofuniverse
    Will you please consider using a single thread for promoting your posts here in this forum and update it as you publish each post? I'm suggesting this because there are so many of us. If we each created a thread for every post we publishied they wouldn't remian visible on the front page for very long at all before they would be bumped off the page.

  4. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    @ timethief, sure. That's what I was intending.

    @ theintentionalsage, yes, I have heard of NH. I agree, he is an entertaining orator. Alas, however, his theory is incomplete. Being incomplete, by definition it is not the correct theory of the Universe. The correct theory must be complete and consistent and encompass all aspects of physical, biophysical, geophysical, chemical phenomena - and that's just in the scientific realm. Of course, theosophical and philosophical matters must also be addressed and resolved by the theory to be correct.

    Here is the post on my blog from today:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/status-report-ii/

    and an excerpt:

    On August 30, 2010, I submitted my book proposal to 33 publishing houses, groups, and presses that accept unsolicited manuscripts, proposals, and query letters. The proposal itself was described in the first status report. In this status report, I describe my progress, the responses I have received, and discuss my plans.

    Of the 33 submissions, in the first month I have so far received 15 rejections. This is actually a good thing, and I will explain why below. I present these as publisher, rejection date, and whether the submission was a full proposal(P) or query only(Q)...

    ...more at link.

    I will probably, as time permits, go back into the last three months of my posts and put some of them here as links and excerpts. I welcome comments, criticisms, and advice from any and all members of this forum and passers-through.

    Peace,

    Ik

  5. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Today I posted on my blog how Unity evinces a new Law of Nature in the Universe - this Natural Law explains how macroevolution occurs. You know, that fundamental question that has never been answered by any evolutionary thinker, including and especially Darwin.

    Here's an excerpt:

    The earliest natural philosophers (Figure 1) wanted to understand the fundamental organizational principles by which Nature worked. Over the centuries, these so-called Laws of Nature have emerged from much time and energy devoted to experimentation and thought. Well-established and high-profile Laws of Nature include Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, and Boyle’s Law, among others.

    Several investigators and theoreticians have written books about the search for the Laws of Nature that have yet to be found, including Steven Weinberg, “Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature,” Per Bak, “How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality,” Stuart Kauffman, “At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity,” Harold Morowitz, “The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex,” and Eric Schneider and Dorion Sagan, “Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life.”

    What unifies these books and these individuals is the expectation that there are additional Laws of Nature that await discovery. These Laws – the ones that have not yet been identified, discovered, or proven to exist – are one of the Holy Grails of science...

    More at link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010 ... imergence/

    Comments and advice welcome as always.

    Peace,

    Ik

  6. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Today I reflected on where I am now and where I am going:

    Quote
    As the Reader may know, I have theoretical proof that I exist – validating the philosophical premise of Réné Descartes; theoretical proof of the Unity of the Universe – validating the scientific argument of Dennis Sciama, among others; theoretical proof of the following equivalence: I = God, validating the mystical assertion of Jesus of Nazareth (Figure 1).

    Despite being able to articulate and proffer a theoretical model that presents this proof – and I do not throw this word around blithely – the Cognoscenti and the layreader alike want nothing to do with it. This is proven as much in the second status report, in the continuing stream of rejections, and by the mental ennui of the desultory Reader. At first I envisioned that there would be an interest in reading, interpreting, and promoting such a theoretical model both online and in print. What a naïve idea I had: I thought that in achieving the ultimate goal of science, religion, and philosophy (the ultimate theory), that members of Humankind in a position of authority and knowledge would be interested in it. Naïve no more.

    Full post here:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/on-anonymous-blogging-envincing-the-truth-about-the-allegory-of-the-cave/

    Peace,

    Ik

  7. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Here's an old post from July 2010 that tells the Reader how I got into theory:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/it-from-bit/

    And an excerpt:

    "A bit of history here to give you insight into how I got into theory.

    I am a molecular biologist/cell biologist/geneticist/biochemist. I have trained in the model systems Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Drosophila melanogaster for ~20 years, and those are the two systems I use to study basic biological problems.

    When I arrived at my faculty position, I began work to understand a set of enzymes called ribonucleases (RNases), proteins that degrade or process RNA exonucleolytically (from one end of the RNA) or endonucleolytically (within the body of the RNA). One major intellectual gap in the field when I entered it was how these RNases functioned in vivo, that is, where they localized in the cell, how their activity was regulated as a consequence of cell cycle progression, their post-translational modifications and how they assembled into function protein complexes.

    I’m aware that’s a mouthful, but more to come."

    More at the link.

    Peace,

    Ik

  8. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Today I posted on how Unity solves the centuries-old problem of wave-particle duality of light.

    Here's an excerpt:

    Lorentz. Thomson. Planck. Wien. Nernst. Sommerfield. Rutherford. Hasenöhrl. Stark. Einstein. Ehrenfest. Franck. Born. Debye. Bohr. Schrödinger. de Broglie. Compton. Kramers. Klein. Pauli. Heisenberg. Wigner. Dirac. Jordan. The 1927 Solvay conference saw many of these great scientists assembled together (Figure 1).

    Who are these scientists? They are the most prominent founders of quantum theory as decided by Max Delbrück in his book, “Mind from Matter?” Most of these scientists contributed to the development and understanding of the quantum from the late 19th century to the early 20th century. The largest amount of quantal thought and experimentation occurred from 1900 to 1930.

    Fast forward to today and that list expands significantly. There have been many attempts to understand the quantum – almost all of them mathematical – and this quote here from the late great Richard Feynman (Figure 2) sums up the current understanding from nigh a century of thought:

    “I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics.”

    -----

    And here is the link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/solving-the-paradox-of-quantal-wave-particle-duality/

    Peace,

    Ik

  9. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Today I posted how Unity addresses Einstein's quip about whether or not I play dice with the Universe. Here's an excerpt:

    ---

    “Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn’t play dice.” – Albert Einstein

    Einstein was correct: I do not play dice with the Universe. Paradoxically, however, I do play dice in Vegas (Figure 1). Moreover, since Unity proves there is Only One I, I have played and do play dice in board games, Dungeons and Dragons (Figure 2), Cosmic Wimpout (Figure 3), drinking games, parlor games, and so on. Adding to the paradox, since Vegas would not exist but for the Universe, Vegas is deduced to theoretically be the Universe, say as much as this sentence is. Hence, consistent with the Paradox that I am, I both do and do not play dice with the Universe. I am the dice themselves. There is no other interpretation that is True.

    In this post I introduce the electrogyre model. Like the neologism sounds, this model demonstrates that the electron gyrates, or moves through spacetime as a gyre or vortex. This model is important for several reasons:

    1. It is the only complete, consistent, and unfalsifiable model of the electron (or any lepton for that matter) that has ever been proposed in the history of Humankind;
    2. It explains both the workings of visible matter in all “living” (animate) systems – proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, organelle, cell – but also “non-living” (inanimate) physical systems – car, building, book, rock – as well;
    3. It explains the microcosmic quantum, the individual electron that exists in the atomic orbital, and the macrocosmic quantum, the individual macroelecton that exist in a solar system as a planetary core orbiting a star;
    4. It provides the correct explanation of the composition of the lepton;
    5. It explains the origin of chemical elements in the Universe and the reason why Hydrogen is the most common in the Universe;
    6. Because current quantum theory is used to understand both the electron and photon, the electrogyre is useful for treating enigmas found in both systems. I will touch on a few of these in the next few posts.

    And here's the link IYI:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/the-electrogyre-model-playing-dice-with-the-quantum-chemical-elements-planets-antimatter-and-god/

    Comments?

    Peace,

    Ik

  10. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Today I posted about how Unity - the correct theory of everything - solves four of the major quantum puzzles that have existed for a century or more. Several of these solutions confirm what many of the great mystics, philosophers, and mystic scientists have asserted about the Universe. That is, that the Observer and the Observed are, indeed, One. Unity proves this assertion to be true.

    Here is the link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/i-quantum-reconstructing-the-collapsed-wavefunction-with-heisenbergian-certainty/

    and here is an excerpt, IYI:

    The only way to understand the quantum is through theory. And current theoretical offerings are incapable of explaining the quantum in toto. Thus, only a new theory – incommensurable with the current fare – will fulfill this task. Because incommensurability quite literally means that the new model will not be of the same standard as the prior model, this unavoidably causes great chagrin to thinkers and scientists in one mode of thinking and modeling that is “accepted.” In order to move forward in science and evolve Homo sapiens, I must consider new ways of looking at and thinking about reality, life, and the Universe. As part of this process, I must come to terms with the fact that I, the scientist, am not only composed of the quanta that I study – but that I am the quantum I study (Figure 1).

    This is the third blog post about how Unity – the complete and consistent theory of everything – solves quantum enigmas. In the first post, “Solving the paradox of quantal wave-particle duality,” I presented the core gyromodel and demonstrated how its structure elucidates the wave-particle paradox that has befuddled the Mind throughout history. The second post, “The electrogyre model: Playing dice with the quantum, chemical elements, planets, antimatter, and God,” introduced the electrogyre, the theoretical model to explain the origin and existence of electrons and the visible matter that exists in the Universe – all the chemical elements and planets. These two prior posts are fundamental for understanding the information discussed in today’s post, so it may be worthwhile to revisit them. Moving forward, I will discuss several issues that are clarified or solved by the electrogyre model: electromagnetism, collapse of the wavefunction, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the two slit experiment.

    Comments welcome as always.

    Peace,

    Ik

  11. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    New post today about the metaphysics and theory of One I entitled, "Gedankenexperiments, metaphysics, and Weltanschauungen, oh My!"

    Here is a link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/gedankenexperiments-metaphysics-and-weltanschauungen-oh-my/

    and here is an excerpt:

    I would like to propose an exercise. The ultimate goal of this exercise is to show the reader not only that another World is possible but how another World is possible.

    But first, I must address the compound question: Who decides what is and what is not possible? Well, quite frankly and truthfully, I do. That is, I – the one who considers seemingly impossible ideas – decide their veracity. This answer applies to any person. I would like to share a germane quote:

    Alice: There is no use trying; one can’t believe impossible things.
    White Queen: I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
    ~ Lewis Carroll

    Note that while Alice throws in her veritable mental towel/scarf, the White Queen prods her to pick it up (Figure 1). Thank goodness that this epigraph and the World harbor a White Queen mentality: For what at one time seemed impossible (that the Earth is round, the Sun is the center of the Solar System, that energy moves in packets called quanta) is not only possible, but now proven fact.

    How could this be? How do things progress from being impossible to possible to true?

    ----

    More at link.

    Peace,

    Ik

  12. timethief
    Member

    @theoryofuniverse
    You posted another thread here "Test" http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/test-26?replies=1

    You can locate all threads you start and have posted to by simply clicking the "Member" link under your username.

  13. timethief
    Member

    @theoryofuniverse
    Also if you don't mind me sharing my opinion and response to these lengthy posts you post into Showcase threads then here goes. A brief excerpt with a "hook" is all that's required and expected in a Showcase thread. Your excerpts are so long that I haven't read a single one of them.

  14. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Today I wrote about liquids, solids, and gases. More specifically, I wrote about liquid water, frozen water, and water vapor and their interchangeability. The title of the post is:

    [i][b]Heterodox theoretical explanations of how and why matter exists in and interconverts among three states[/b][/i]

    Here is the link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/heterodox-theoretical-explanations-of-how-and-why-matter-exists-in-and-interconverts-among-three-states/

    Peace,

    Ik

  15. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    "The goal of the ultimate theory – that is, the complete and consistent theory of the Universe – is to synthesize all of the available empirical evidence that has been collected over the history of humankind into one simple and clear framework.

    In short, the ultimate theory would account for and unify all of the ideas, facts, and models that have emerged through the three major manifestations of ideation: science, philosophy, and religion. The ultimate theory would be expected to resolve all enigmas, paradoxes, anomalies, and arguments in those disciplines.

    There may be a reader that considers the ultimate theory an out-and-out impossibility. So be it, but I welcome that reader to consider an exercise on what is and is not possible, here. Moreover, if the ultimate theory is, indeed, impossible, then, by the virtue of such a grand claim, the reader must grant that the entire intellectual exercise is a delusion.

    Why a delusion?"

    That's an excerpt from today's blog post called, "Scientist; synthesist; Sisyphus at rest."

    If there's any interest, the remainder can be found here:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/scientist-synthesist-sisyphus-at-rest/

    Peace,

    Ik

  16. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    I spent some time today discussing the gyre as a core model undergirding nature. I welcome commentary. Here is the link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/turning-and-turning-in-the-widening-gyre-a-core-model-compatible-with-the-requirements-of-chaos-complexity-emergence-evolutionary-and-systems-theory/

    And here is an excerpt, IYI:

    Recently, I was asked, “What’s a gyre?” While the answer to this question is readily and easily determinable by a simple google search or dictionary thumbing, I deduced a deeper discussion of the character and form of the gyre was necessary to explain My Self to Myself. This is a long post, as there is much to discuss.

    In the course of compiling this post, I realized that I have not yet provided an overview of gyre structure and function in this blog. Moreover, I have not descibed the merits of simple gyre from a standpoint of theoretical unification. Indeed, many fields that want to unify the empirical evidence in multiple fields – chaos theory, complexity theory, emergence theory, evolutionary theory, systems theory – lack a core framework upon which the data can be fit.

    http://thetheoryblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/figure4-1mod.jpg
    Figure 1

    Mea culpa, since I have already introduced and explained the gyromodel (where the gyre is modeled as the two half-turns in the left side of the equation in Figure 1) and applied it to the photogyre (origin of visible energy), electrogyre (origin of visible matter), hydroxygyre (origin of phased water), carbogyre (origin of organic matter), phosphogyre (origin of phosphomembranes), ribogyre (origin of RNA), aminogyre (origin of protein), and deoxygyre (origin of DNA) – all of which use the gyre as infrastructure.

    An overview of the gyre is fundamental to understanding why it is a leading candidate as the core model of the Universe. So, then, what is a gyre? Basically, a gyre is a spiral or a vortex, derived from the Latin gyrus – a ring. Looking at it en face reveals the swirling, turning, churning architecture around a central point (Figure 2).

    http://fc03.deviantart.net/images2/i/2004/06/c/e/Swirling_Vortex.jpg
    Figure 2

    All gyres in nature share many key aspects. Here, I introduce, define, and refine these characteristics as they relate to the gyromodel and provide specific examples to facilitate understanding. I close with a brief discussion of how the gyromodel elegantly fits the requirements and expectations of four prominent mainstream theoretical fields."

    Peace,

    Ik

  17. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Today, a seasonal post. No science, just commentary about and to Myself.

    Linky: http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/to-achieve-peace-on-earth-i-must-make-peace-with-myself/

    Excerpt: "I’ll make this post brief, as the end of year is filled of time of reflection, introspection, coalescence, and renaissance. I see all that I am, all that I was, and all that I may become. I wrote about this in another post: Self-reflection.

    Enough reflecting on reflection. Today I would like to talk about peace. In particular, Peace on Earth.

    I see other blogs are talking about or saluting peace this time of year: here, here, and here (among many others). But this is a different post than those, as may become apparent momentarily.

    My goal is World Peace. I would ask Myself – that is, the Reader of this line (please see the post titled Gedankenexperiments, metaphysics, and Weltanschuungen to know what I’m on about regarding the use of “Myself”) – how much longer I must fight Myself only to watch My Children die (Figure 1)"

    [img]http://thetheoryblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/soldier-carrying-child.jpg[/img]

    Peace on Earth,

    Ik

  18. geistbites
    Member

    This all sounds very interesting, but it's quite possible that the philosophical cognoscenti and the intelligent layperson are likely to be put off by theosophy. Grand notions like 'the theory of the universe' are often difficult to stomach for people uneasy with that oh-so-modern blend of New Age spirituality and abstract science.

  19. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    True, and yet there is no way to have a revolution of the Universe unless I reveal My Self to Myself.

    That is, as deduced from theory, the only way to undergo macroevolution is Me waking Myself up to who and what I am.

    More to the point, theosophy as a concept ends at the Apocalypse, at which point I can finally *be* God and not have to wax about loving (sophism) who and what I am.

    Peace,

    Ik

  20. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Today I put up a new post, IYI. I discussed where I am and where I am going.

    Here's an excerpt:

    "In this blog post, I aim to be thoughtful and forward-thinking. I have reorganized my 2010 posts to tell a different storyline than the one that emerged chronologically.

    I started the blog in mid-July 2010 – see The Beginning – with the intent of building my virtual platform. I wanted to increase interest in and to provide an online forum for discussing the book I have written, “The Theory: First-person perspective of being the Universe.” After 5 1/2 months, I have received ~9400 views, thus extending the platform. Thanks for the nucleation. However, it has not been substantial enough to convince editors, publishers, and agents in the pansophic subject matter of The Theory. I wrote about my progress in this regard in Status report I , II, and III. I plan to submit a fourth status report in the weeks ahead. In it and subsequent reports, I will discuss my experiences with literary agents, online fora, and IRL as well as expound on my intentions for a peer-reviewed manuscript and scientific meetings.

    http://pandapartypics.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/1966-550x-kim-kardashian-complex-magazine-01.jpg Figure 1

    When I started blogging, I immediately engaged other bloggers in discourse by discussing the nature and origin of pain in What is the purpose of pain? I learned that the uniqueness of my responses – all deduced from Unity and articulated from a first person perspective of being God – created more confusion that clarity. Additional issues of theological and philosophical topics were discussed, as in the post I-It; I-Thou; I-I and On Anonymous blogging: Evincing the truth about the Allegory of the Cave. I have deduced that writing about resolving Plato’s or Martin Buber’s problems were not – to some men and women – hot-button and engaging topics as compared to, say, Kim Kardashian’s voluptuousness (Figure 1)."

    And here is the link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/2010-bloughtfulness-and-2011-blauguring/

    Peace on Earth,

    Ik

  21. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    A new blog post about the theoretical positioning of My Mind and discussion of its Unity.

    Here is the link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/the-darkness-that-is-my-mind-dark-matter-that-is/

    And here is an excerpt:

    No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think.
    ~John Stuart Mill

    As many of my readers know, I started my theoretical work in the field of RNA molecular biology. After demonstrating to myself the power of the gyromodel to explain fundamental unanswered questions (origin of genetic code and translation apparatus, for example), I moved into other realms. Although I had sojourned in these intellectual domains many times throughout my career, I had not tarried long enough to be called a specialist. One of those domains was quantum theory. When I understood the quantum through theory (discussed here, here, and here), then I set out to model visible energy, dark energy and dark matter. And here is where I return to my storyline that I left at the end of last year.

    What I kept stumbling upon was the core problem on how consciousness and physical reality related to one another. That is: What is the exact relationship of the conscious mind to matter? Now, many, many philosophers, psychologists, and cognitive scientists (I could spend at least twenty posts discussing each of them and their ideas) have tried to tackle this problem through thought and experimentation, but no agreed-upon solution has been forthcoming. Indeed, what is this thing called My Mind (Figure 1)? Can theory resolve this long-standing problem? The answer is yes. In this post I share with you how Unity models the relationship of My Mind to visible energy.

    Peace on Earth,

    Ik

  22. xbardulce
    Member

    Please consider this Dark Matter interpretation where you need no math to understand it ( excerpt from http://RecipeForaNation.Wordpress.com ) :

    " ... envisioned the dark matter as an ultra fine fluid , with almost zero viscosity , in which vortexes spinning close to the speed of light represent subparticle matter that can aggregate joining their vortices to form larger particles and atoms , explaining particle spin , the finite yet universal nature of the speed of light and the result of passing photons through a narrow slit .

    It advised using nanobots to join vortices of converging spins to achieve the strongest bonds ...
    ... At the base of the rules governing dark matter lay the impossibility of having ‘ void ‘ , said the Cube . Indeed , by definition , absolute void , the absence of anything is just that , nothing and therefore non-existent

    So if nothingness does not exist , somethingness must take its place which means the Universe has no beginning and no end on the time scale . Hence no ‘Big Bang’ .

    This in turn causes the dark matter to have its extremely fine yet super fluid properties since it has to occupy every single minute space . Further more , a deriving property but for the same reason of occupying any void , makes dark matter un-elastic and un-plastic to the effect that it is uncompressible. This has far reaching consequences because as such , the dark matter transmits vibrations instantaneously across the Universe ... "

    I would love to bounce ideas with you !

    Best regards ,

  23. xbardulce
    Member

    In essence we both agree : atoms and subparticles are dark matter sppining .

    Now , just how Small /fine has the dark matter superfluid has to be in order to :
    1) do not dissapear ( void doesn't exist )
    2) to fill in the smallest spaces so void would not be present .

    The tendency to go to negative infinite is blocked ( or limited ) by the imposibility of dark matter to vanish .

    What do you think the number is ?

    Cheers ,
    Urod

  24. xbardulce
    Member

    By the way , we'll know that we were sucesful in understanding the Universe when we'll be able to explain it without any math to a 10 year old in a half an hour or less ...

    Urod

  25. xbardulce
    Member

    .... and my tool : considering that the Universe/Nature is absolutely and 100% Logic , than using carefuly just logic we can dechipher completely nature from our armchair .

    Cheers ,

    Urod

  26. xbardulce
    Member

    One thing I didn’t see in your theory : how did the dark matter got spun to became vortices spinning at the speed of light ( forming us and the sub-particles).

    I have my own logic train on this one – part explained in all its simplicity in my story Recipe for a Nation.Wordpress.com , but I am concerned that I missed your explanation due to the large volume of text that I did not read on your blog .
    If you have one can you please tell me or direct me to the page and link , thanks !

    Urod

  27. xbardulce
    Member

    BTW , the rotation of our Galaxy indicates the spin direction of all particles ( due to the way they are spun ) , does this agree with your theory ?

  28. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    Hi Urod, I just responded to the post over at the blog, and I'll respond here too. Galaxies have spin imparted upon them by gyrating systems within themselves - modeled just as Matrioshka dolls or Chinese boxes. A left-handed subgyre imparts left-handed chirality onto the information, energy, and matter (IEM) particle in the supervenient gyre. Vice versa for a right-handed subgyre.

    Interestingly, the chirality of the IEM particle is opposite to the gyrating system itself. In other words, when the particle spins dextrally, the gyrosystem spins levorally.

    All of the evidence fits this axiom from the subatomic level up to the organism (think only D-glucose and L-amino acids and right-handed DNA and you'll see what I mean).

    Dark matter emerges from dark energy. I will discuss this in upcoming posts.

    Peace on Earth,

    Ik

  29. theoryofuniverse
    Member

    This was a short but fun blog piece on QM and GR:

    Link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/resolving-quantum-gravity-theoretical-unification-of-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity-with-the-photogyre/

    Excerpt:

    "The information paradox is an interesting problem in cosmology and astrophysics regarding black holes (Figure 1). Bekenstein and Hawking went at it over this matter, but that’s another story that has made its way into many nonfiction books. Basically, the paradox, as stated in wiki:

    The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to evolve into the same state. This is a contentious subject since it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that in principle complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time. A postulate of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function, an abstract concept not present in classical physics.

    Figure 1

    For the unindoctrinated in scientific terminology and concepts, this is a lot to take in. Thus, it is useful to shed light on several aspects of this matter. Quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) are the two major mathematical models of the physical realm. Quite simply, QM models things small and GR models things big. There’s more to it than that, honestly; go to the links or do a web search if interested.

    What’s important to know is this: there is no single theory that has been able to unify these two physical models - the goal being a theory of quantum gravity. More on this below."

    Peace on Earth,

    Ik

  30. xbardulce
    Member

    Great to have you back Ik !

    I replyed on your blog but I started a new thread at the Of Topic forum .
    It's called ' The explanation of the Universe and the Unifying Property (Law) without math , a Collective effort ' , so if you don't mind let's move the open discussion in of-topic forum , thanks .

    P.S. : the Recipe for a Nation has been hacked , the Elite didn’t like it , but if you want a copy send me your e-mail . Right , all got underground .

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic

Tags