Alright, well this is a mathematical thought I just went through now. It is associated with the general idea, and this seems to be the place to put it. It has incredibly profound implications. Now, this is 'math,' and if you think you don't like math you might not really ponder what is being said with these equations, perhaps because you will think they are complicated. These are actually very intuitive ideas, expressed using math. If you understand the 'idea,' the math makes perfect sense. E=hv THEREFORE E/v=h THEREFORE v is inversely proportional to h THEREFORE v=E/h THEREFORE v is directly proportional to h E=mc^2 c^2=E/m THEREFORE E is inversely proportional to m THEREFORE E is directly proportional to v CREATE variable t, which is equivalent to E CREATE variable s, which is equivalent to m t=v/m c = speed of light c is proportional to v^2 THEREFORE E=mv^2 THEREFORE E is directly proportional to v^2 DUE TO E-t equivalence, t=mv^2 DUE TO t-v equivalence, v=mv^2 DUE TO m-s equivalence, v=sv^2 DUE TO v-c equivalence c=sv^2 c = speed of photon in 'empty' space We can thus operationally define empty space. Empty space is what exists in a theoretical state of no mass, or physicality. We can say this is equivalent to there being no spatial dimensions, 'space,' hence variable s. Let us then create variable z, representing 'zero' spatial dimensions. Since z represents empty space, we can define a limit of 0 for variable z. 2-dimensionally, on a graph, we can represent this spatial dimension by x. Let us give t, 'time,' the graphical dimension y. z(as x approaches 0) = xv^2 DUE TO E-v^2 equivalence, z=xE E=z/x^2 z=Ex^2 DUE TO z = 0x z = E(x/0x) DUE TO E-t equivalence z = t(x/0x) DUE TO E-t , t-y, and x-z equivalence LIMIT OF x(as x approaches 0) = y(x/0) THEREFORE y-x equivalence THEREFORE LIMIT OF x(as x approaches 0 from either positive or negative numbers) = LIMIT OF y(as y approaches 0 from positive or negative numbers) ALSO LIMIT OF x(as x approaches infinitely large positive or negative numbers) = LIMIT OF y(as y approaches infinitely large positive or negative numbers) These limits essentially define the x and y axes. These axes define perfect 90 degree angles, defining a circle. Since these 90 degree angles are themselves perfect, due to the symmetry of the equivalent limits, they are actually unable to be 'perfectly' modeled, due to the assymetry of inversely non-equivalent limits. This inability to perfectly model data is related to chaos math. Due to this perplexing fact of both equivalent and non-equivalent limits approaching 0 and infinity, we can only define a bisecting line by another limit. That limit is 90 degrees, as it approaches itself. Angle = 45+(90 degrees, as it approaches itself) Due to this impossibility of 'perfect' modeling, we cannot say that the graph 100% accurately contains the form of the graph. It is always slightly disturbed by the existence of the limits. Therefore, despite the fact that four 90 degree angles defines the circle which defines a graph, four 'quadrants' cannot be said to ultimately define the reality of this equation. Since 90 degrees is always approaching itself, it can have virtually any value, from negative infinity to positive infinity. Therefore, circles can be defined according to virtually any point, graphically, in 2-dimensional space. In 3-dimensional space, these can be represented by 'balls.' We can, using this methodology, define the first three dimensions, using the model of angles bisected by lines. The 1st dimension has no line, therefore 360 degree angle. The 2nd dimension has 2 180 degree angles, bisected by 1 line. The previously define equation can therefore be demonstrated to define the third dimension, using a standard infinitely-close-to-perfect 2-dimensional graph. The x-axis is defined by y approaching 0 The y-axis is defined by x approaching 0 3-Dimensional reality is defined by a perfect 360 degree circle. The implication is that we can, in 3-Dimensional reality, understand the 'graphical' representation of 3-dimensional reality, from a 4th-dimensional perspective. That would be defined by a perfect 3-dimensional 'ball' that is defined by being perfect in terms of 2 dimensional lines spreading out at every possible angle(approaching infinity).
Also please explain what "inversely proportional" and "directly proportional" mean. I tried wikipedia but it doesn't make sense. Could I get an example????/
We can thus operationally define empty space. Empty space is what exists in a theoretical state of no mass, or physicality. We can say this is equivalent to there being no spatial dimensions, 'space,' Empty space is not empty (between one and ten atoms per cubic meter) and it has physicality. The math is meaningless. MelT
upon further reflection I think I understand I think this theory makes a lot of sense.......alot of NONsense!!!!
I'm still waiting to hear about the 8 levels of energy and the corresponding 8 horizontal elements... I must have missed that chemistry lesson? Unless we're talking about the octet rule?
^ it seems like we wove that in there somehow but then he appears to say it has something to do with consiussness and also you can predict everything from that.
The first time I took acid the word "pedantic" was constantly flying around my mind, like a weird mantra being chanted against my will. Must have something to do with this theory, surely. Cannot discuss or mention other drugs - WW
Yeah you were probably at the highest vibrational state your time wave could handle and thus were about to cross over to a higher wave and transcend all quantum information. Remember the words I'm saying don't matter, just understand.
8 periods x 3 functions of the neuron(dendrites, cell body, axon) Dendrites receive information, cell body integrates it, axon transmits it. These correspond to the 3 functions described. Each of the 8 periods has a certain 'essence/energy,' and each energy goes through three basic functions, corresponding to the three basic functions of our nervous system, through which we take in/integrate/transmit all information.
Ok but there is info processing in the dendrites. Dendrites have multiple recievers and one reciever can modulate the signal from another. Also the tiny nubs on dendrites grow and change all the time (which is thought to be connected to learning) Also in some cases the axon sends a signal back up itself after firing it's action potential. Furthermore what does the fact that because humans group three basic parts of a neuron together (why no mentions of glial cells?) have to do with anything? Like Melt said your just dicking around with numbers and just because theres a 3 or 7 or 9 or whatever Power number you want to talk about in something means nothing. What I mean is there is no 3 step process in neurons only if you define the three steps as that. There are an many more smaller steps within the neuron. Hell you could track the movement of each molecule and call that a step. You could break it down into way more steps. What about the synapse? Why is that not included in this model?
It is standard to define a neuron into three functions. What Is a Neuron? "There are three basic parts of a neuron: the dendrites, the cell body and the axon." I'm not making it up. Take in info, store/integrate, transmit. These are the three basic energy-process, as seen in the neuron.
Yeah the information is true. Three basic parts. Tons of smaller parts that make up a neuron. Why don't those numbers matter in your theory? a human could be said to have 4 basic parts: head, chest, arms, legs. Right? But that ignores the heart, lungs and everything else that makes a human.
1. reception 2. storage/integration 3.transmission of Energy. What cannot be modeled according to one of those three functions?
All the other nuances of how a neuron works. And all of the repair functions that other cells do to neurons. What about glial cells? They help neurons grow and provide neurons with "nutrition". Glial cells are known to be involved with the short term memory effects of cannabis. and let me ask What kind of energy do you think is being transmitted?
OP claims to have a theory of everything, but doesn't understand simple algebra and the difference between proportional and inverse proportional relationships. He also doesn't even seem to know about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (the main cornerstone of quantum mechanics, one of the theories he claims to unify) and "empty space". I also see no mention of Einstein's field equations of general relativity, perhaps because they are too mathematically formidable for the crackpots. If the OP is trying to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics, then you're late to the party by almost 80 years as Paul Dirac unified both fields back in the 1930's. A true theory of everything would reduce to the familiar Schroedinger equation for the interactions on the microscopic scale and to the general relativistic field equations (10 very elegant nonlinear partial differential equations) for the macroscopic interactions of celestial bodies. I also see you throwing around terms such as "energy", "quanta", "frequency" and clearly do not understand that these are precise terms as defined by physics, another popular method employed by the crackpots. The only term missing is "vibrations". In short, this thread should be closed and you should feel ashamed of yourself for perpetuating this pseudo-scientific bunk as real science.