Saturday, January 5, 2013
The above article confirms the ToS view that space is a "quite stable and calm" place as discussed at the Viewers Q&A November 19. There is no Quantum Foam when the Grid is in place!
Facebook Page Now Open and Lumo's Tennis Racket
I have now opened a Theory of Something facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Theory-of-Something/421818067874247. I am not sure how active I will be able to be there though.
And today famous Lubos Motl posted a long blog entry about the Theory of Something, having interpreted the magnifying glass in the picture below (from the video http://youtu.be/q5pyRlqSbeE) as a 2 dimensional tennis racket thing!? I actually believe Lumo's is a lot smarter than that, if he just would open the ToS, which he apparently had not, when writing the blog entry.
Below is my response to: http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/01/theory-of-something-qm-has-reached.html. It was still "awaiting moderation" when I wrote this. Hope he publishes it and responds after reading up on the ToS.
I would like to see real reviews from the scientific community, even if Lumo is a bit controversial after calling scientific colleagues crackpots too many times.
Hi Lumo, G.D. Tosman of Theory of Something is here. Good of you to have a look, but please look deeper! The picture does not show a TENNIS RACKET – It is a magnifying glass and the structure inside is 3 dimensional (even if your screen is 2D…).
The tennis racket view is an original approach though. :) Other approaches yielding similar conclusions are usually based on that “the Theory of Something is too good to be true” (or explains too much and even changes the fundamentals), so it must be crackpot. (long continuation after Read more)
It does that, but it is NOT! You won’t believe until you read the ToS document, but I suggest you start with the Summary document http://bit.ly/ROyJJf that also lists the support for and proofs of the ToS, especially since you repeatedly assume that there is lack of evidence and understanding.
Was my picture really that bad or are you just joking? 2D structure!? The Theory of Something has actually 3 dimensions plus time, while you (M-version of string theory, isn’t it?) have 11 – Do you need 12 now and want to take one from me? :)
In the era of everyone running in the same direction, often with little thought of why, where only incremental deviations from established ideas “are allowed” or regarded, I am proud to be childish and infantile. It was a child that said the emperor was nude…
You write a lot without having noticed “ToS 8.2” etc. - Those are section references into the Theory of Something document http://bit.ly/OcPPFt. There were such references even in the “bizarre” video http://youtu.be/q5pyRlqSbeE, in the 3D pictures following my magnifying glass/your tennis racket picture. For example, under the Grid picture it said “See ToS section 3 for details.” Those references you also find under the “amazing statements” and “infantile pictures”. Check them up!
Now to some clarification in relation to what you wrote (with the misinterpreted tennis racket perspective, we may forgive…):
You wrote> “Now, look at the complicated pattern. Could it arise naturally? Why? Why don't you draw another grid, a hexagon grid with three holes, each containing a pair of concentric elephants? This is not just a satirical rhetorical question; I am totally serious about this question.”
- That is in ToS section 3. A brief guide of why particles (negtrinos), with only two qualities, charge and magnetic momentum, arrange themselves in a structured cubic Grid is: The structure is outlined in Figure 14, which leads to the forces outlined in Figure 18 and some classic electromagnetic calculations give that with a charge of -1/3e and a magnetic energy (corresponding to the magnetic moment) of 57keV (1/9 of the electron mass energy), the negtrinos arrange themselves in a balanced energy-less cubic structure with 10 pm between them.
These numbers then appear at several places in the ToS, making everything fall into place. You, of course, have to read up on the ToS to get the full understanding. – You won’t get it all in a 3 minute video.
That is why the Grid and Grid Room is not “a pair of concentric elephants” :)
To be serious, this part of the ToS was quite difficult to figure out. At first I only considered the repelling charges (without the balancing attracting magnetic forces), but then I came into the now popular super symmetry problem or why vacuum energy is 10^100 times larger than the dark energy seen. That was resolved by the balanced energy-less Grid that does not blow up the universe. (A charge-only Grid would be unstable anyway – Earnshaw's theorem, ToS 3.1.)
In this context, it not so far away to consider what the dark energy actually is: A tiny overpressure in the Grid leftover from the additional charge that was injected at the Big Bang, but that is in ToS 5 – not on the magnifying glass picture – as you say “there is no evidence on that page that the author has understood”.
And, to state that everything isn’t 100% proved (yet), this part requires computer simulation for further support. I don’t think there is an analytical solution, not even if you make Fourier transforms of it and look at it from a frequency domain perspective (which is the QM perspective).
Maybe you can figure out if such an underlying reality (the Grid structure) could fit any of the 10^500 possible solutions of string theory? (I am serious here also.) If that is possible, could it take into account the slight non-symmetries shown in Figure 14? I believe those are essential for forming the spherical Grid rooms that are essential for atoms. If my first riddle in ToS 4.5.9 is solved, I think it will be a break-through in the understanding of the atom. Currently I just have a clue to the answer of that riddle.
I also want to say that you do general statements that I definitely agree with, such as:
“Nature simply has reasons explaining why the things are the way they are and they're often reasons that may only be accurately formulated in the language of mathematics.” (Check section ToS 8) and “Nature isn't man-made. The laws of physics that dictate the shape of patterns are natural mathematical laws. Why would they produce something so similar to complicated man-made objects such as modified "tennis rackets"?”
Read how I actually derived Newton’s mechanical laws (Don’t just say it is not possible – that they are fundamental physical laws that cannot be derived – I also thought so, but with classic electromagnetism as the top fundamental law in the ToS, it became a necessity!) http://bit.ly/A-Anonymous. There I say almost the same thing (but with no tennis racket…).
There is also one thing you say that I had to revise during the development of the ToS. You state “A true description of Nature isn't necessarily easy to be visualized.” but I have been very surprised how much that actually can be visualized and understood in detail. With my “odd assumptions”, things just fell into place! In the middle of http://www.theoryofsomething.com/p/introduction.html there is quite an amazing table of what could be visualized and understood if you read the ToS. Do it!
The ToS is simple and beautiful http://bit.ly/TheCreation, vastly less complicated that other theories not achieving a third. But it takes some reading, efforts and understanding to deviate from 100 years of “side-tracking”.
So, now when I have exposed the secret of that a magnifying glass is not a tennis racket, maybe you can be more careful with the number of dimensions that we don’t have so many of in the real world and give the people that asked for your view of the Theory of Something a better go through? I will be quite interested to see which holes you actually find. Please make a reference into the ToS then! :)
And if you don’t do your homework until next review, I will ask how you explain that in the ToS you can actually CALCULATE Planck’s “constant” http://bit.ly/PlanckProof and the gravitational “constant” (ToS 5.5.1) from the dark energy in the universe. The numbers match up! Explain that without the ToS and I will be impressed.