physica

Very noble of you Tar, trolls lurk under bridges and crawl out to call people names. Notice I haven’t done this when people are calling you out like the instant when someone compared your reasoning to a wet noodle, although I agreed with him I thought it would be too pathetic to cower behind that person and jeer yeah he is and not add anything to the conversation. And there's that time when you threw a hissy fit and branded me responsible for the neg rep you got off multiple people. Now you're calling me names, 5 year old kids must be envious of your maturity. Still I suppose it’s easier for me to take the moral high ground because I’m not getting completely bossed. So now a mod has called you on your waffle we can actually concisely get down to what you’re saying. You’re saying that we see Achilles overtake the tortoise so we don’t have to logically describe it. I can see why you used all that waffle now. You’re certainly not a deep thinker; I’m a bit confused as to why you’re on a science forum if you take this position. I think your -60 rep is telling you that science isn’t for you. You’re saying that even though logically there’s a paradox I’m going to ignore it because the observation tells me that it happens. Anyone with a modicum of scientific ability should say: well the observation contradicts my logical approach to describe it; I must learn and improve my logic in order for it to fit the observation. At least Tar tried to take a scientific/philosophical approach to it. Pity he then decided to cower under a bridge and jeer at people he didn't like as opposed to adding anything to the conversation. Don’t get me wrong Tar I’m not feeling angry, just pity towards you, I mean it can't feel great using the tactic you just pulled. Luckily many great minds throughout history have grown out of childhood and thought deeply at Zeno’s paradox, that’s why there are multiple books on the subject, it holds a place in Stanford’s annuals of philosophy and is taught in many mathematical philosophy courses at many universities. It is also used to introduce mechanics in physics textbooks.

You obsession for living forever is misguided. I've worked in and emergency department for 4 years and I've seen plenty of people die. The thing is they die of cancer, heart attacks, stroke etc. Age related diseases are around because of time itself. Old people are more likely to get cancer because they have been splitting their cells for longer (young people also get cancer), they have had fat building up in their blood vessels for longer. Sure aging doesn't help but if I got given a potion that would stop me from aging chances are I'd still have the same life expectancy (most probably a little longer).If you want to give yourself a long life eat well, exercise and don't smoke. Also quality of life is important, don't waste your life obsessing over a depressive inevitable outcome.

Now most of you last post if just waffle but we do have something we can develop: How is it? You can't just say something and not back it up. Now I'm going to have to repeat myself. A direct quote from the stanford annuals of philosophy "That said, it is also the majority opinion that—with certain qualifications—Zeno's paradoxes reveal some problems that cannot be resolved without the full resources of mathematics as worked out in the Nineteenth century (and perhaps beyond). This is not (necessarily) to say that modern mathematics is required to answer any of the problems that Zeno explicitly wanted to raise; arguably Aristotle and other ancients had replies that would—or should—have satisfied Zeno. (Nor do I wish to make any particular claims about Zeno's influence on the history of mathematics.) However, as mathematics developed, and more thought was given to the paradoxes, new difficulties arose from them; these difficulties require modern mathematics for their resolution. These new difficulties arise partly in response to the evolution in our understanding of what mathematical rigor demands: solutions that would satisfy Aristotle's standards of rigor would not satisfy ours. Thus we shall push several of the paradoxes from their common sense formulations to their resolution in modern mathematics. (Another qualification: I will offer resolutions in terms of ‘standard’ mathematics, but other modern formulations are also capable of dealing with Zeno.)" There is mathematical proof via calculus and geometry that Achilles can overtake the tortoise or that a man can reach the door. There isn't lingual proof because it contradicts its self. Lingually you can't say that an infinite number of processes or steps has a finite outcome. This is why Tar has tried to come up with possible lingual solutions to the paradox. You can say I'm wrong but you have to come up with some really heavy evidence as it is general consensus that maths can solve the paradox but words can't. http://plato.stanfor...s/paradox-zeno/ I know it's hard to take a bossing but answer my points directly.

yes I'm will strongly state that science is best put in mathematics. Zenos paradox is the prime example. There is mathematical proof via calculus and geometry that Achilles can overtake the tortoise or that a man can reach the door. There isn't lingual proof because it contradicts its self. Lingually you can't say that an infinite number of processes or steps has a finite outcome. This is why Tar has tried to come up with possible lingual solutions to the paradox. You can say I'm wrong but you have to come up with some really heavy evidence as it is general consensus that maths can solve the paradox but words can't. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/ so to simplify it for you, you're wrong unless you can come up with a lingual solution to zeno's paradox, if you do then great because you'll be proving 100s of years and many famous philosophers wrong. You think you're cornering me but you're really hanging yourself I'm humble when I've been shown to completely misread a basic sentence, and base why whole argument on a basic misunderstanding of the topic and the black and white proof is posted in my face: A direct quote from the stanford annuals of philosophy (link given above in post) "That said, it is also the majority opinion that—with certain qualifications—Zeno's paradoxes reveal some problems that cannot be resolved without the full resources of mathematics as worked out in the Nineteenth century (and perhaps beyond). This is not (necessarily) to say that modern mathematics is required to answer any of the problems that Zeno explicitly wanted to raise; arguably Aristotle and other ancients had replies that would—or should—have satisfied Zeno. (Nor do I wish to make any particular claims about Zeno's influence on the history of mathematics.) However, as mathematics developed, and more thought was given to the paradoxes, new difficulties arose from them; these difficulties require modern mathematics for their resolution. These new difficulties arise partly in response to the evolution in our understanding of what mathematical rigor demands: solutions that would satisfy Aristotle's standards of rigor would not satisfy ours. Thus we shall push several of the paradoxes from their common sense formulations to their resolution in modern mathematics. (Another qualification: I will offer resolutions in terms of ‘standard’ mathematics, but other modern formulations are also capable of dealing with Zeno.)" I know it's hard to take a bossing but it's fairly embarrassing to completely ignore the fact that the foundation of your argument was based on a fairly basic misunderstanding and then go on to accuse others of ploys and getting cornered. I can see now why you have a -60 rep

Ok so there are now 8 statements that I have raised that you have failed to address. I understand why because they punch massive holes in your argument. The major one being: Which is the wrong way round. The paradox reveals that lingual statements about infinity contradict reality and that the maths actually logically enforces reality. Of course you now glaze over this. Instead of showing a modicum of humility you then derail the thread further. Just for the record the thread is about possible lingual solutions to Zeno's paradox. Sigh here is the part where I correct every trash statement you've made in order for you to go down a tangential path on one correction I've made and throw out another three trash statements. Again this thread is about Zeno's paradox. He either overtakes the tortoise or he doesn't there's nothing woolly about it. Also lingual statements are not more simple. Words have more than one meaning and change throughout time. The value 2 has always been the value 2. Now it's easier for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about too make it look like they know what they're talking about because lingual approaches are more woolly but this doesn't solve problems or paradoxes. Now to avoid more off topic trash read my prompt: tell me how a more woolly approach aids in determining whether an event happened or not. Where have I implied this???? show me. The only time I talk about absolute is: When I'm stating that maths hold closer to absolute truth than lingual that doesn't mean I'm saying absolute truth exists. I can say a horse is closer to a unicorn than a dog but again that doesn't mean I'm saying that unicorns exist. Where did I say it was??? again show me a quote. Another basic English lesson. You can say vague statements about something that isn't a vague entity. I can say vague statements about the earth, it doesn't mean that the earth is a vague entity. To make it relevant to this thread you can say vague statements like this: But that doesn't mean that Achilles overtaking a tortoise is vague and abstract, or that the approach of applying maths to solve a problem that a lingual approach has failed to do is vague. To conclude, you clearly misread and didn't understand zenos paradox which is proved the first quote in this post. Then to save face instead of admitting you made a mistake you went down this tangential path of absolute truth and you keep trying to pull me down that path implying that I think maths knows the absolute truth about everything. Here we are dealing with logic. Below is a definition: Logic is concerned with the patterns in reason that can help tell us if a proposition is true or not. However, logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense, as for instance a metaphysician does. Logicians use formal languages to express the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some interpretation or truth within some logical system.

Don't worry Dekan is chasing you with -91. It will be interesting to see who gets there first. I think it's a cool outlook not to get too hung up on internet ratings as life is too short...... however, it might be helpful to take note on what went wrong on the posts with -3 or more. Sorry to say my money's on you simply because you're 5 negative points ahead of him. Although you say some crazy stuff you don't come across as arrogant or cyclic, you seem to read the posts you're replying to and you don't waffle so, I think you're a nice guy too.... a bit crazy but nice.

is this because you're coming up to 100 neg rep points? I've never seen that before

Prove it. Make a lingual statement (without maths) that proves that an infinite number of processes or steps has a finite outcome. Show me where I've quoted you how it depicts that you understand what the paradox is about??? The woolly approach is the weakness this is why the paradox is created. Can you be more specific about the norms??? Once again no specifics, just waffle

I like how you completely ignore the fact that you got the whole premise of your argument the wrong way round. Ok we can focus on another tangential conversation that you're leading us down. You've miserably lost the main area of the argument so you may as well derail this thread even further. Yes the brain is used in this discussion but this point has little to do with the argument. Why stop at psychology? Why not go into neuroscience?? Why not go into biochemistry of neuroscience?? I also needed to eat in order to function so I can type. Instead of using vague statements to point out that psychology plays a role in this debate point out where I have gone wrong. I have been specific as to where the whole premise of your argument falls down. Saying vague stuff about psychology isn't relevant to a debate about maths being able to explain what lingual statements can't.

This is just waffle. Let's get concise. I notice you don't address any of my points head on, just waffle. Again I will quote you directly, this time actually reply to them. What has psychology got to do with it? I'm wondering if you've actually read anything on this or even the thread for that matter. The lingual approach states that it is impossible to overtake the tortoise because you can't lingually state that an infinite number of steps results in a finite process. The mathematics actually says you can overtake the tortoise. Actually read my first post properly. It is the lingual statements of infinity that contradict the observed world and the mathematical statements of geometry (if the tortoise is stationary) and calculus (if the tortoise is moving) that don't contradict the observed world. Once you've read my original post properly you'll realise that the rest of your rambling actually argues in favour of mathematics.

ADVANCE after 4 years of clinical emergency medical experience I can say there is nothing special about your dream.It certainly isn't proof of anything. The Human brain is very vulnerable to organic chemistry. Drinking alcohol is a very simple example of altered perceptions by chemical induction. Something as casual as a nasty urine infection can cause hallucinations. This is why patients have be to medically cleared before seeing a psychiatrist and personal experiences are not taken seriously as scientific proof. If you are experiencing something that is taking its toll on everyday life you should seek medical attention.

ADVANCE as an outsider looking in on this thread I think they have been very patient with you. You have showed no aptitude in science and your posts resemble a 5 minute google search as prep and they have again and again explained why certain concepts wouldn't work. You will not find people this patient in university academia and definitely not in industry. I understand that you're only 18 and it is a little hard to have your scientific aptitude tested against people who have been studying and working for years in science but do not disregard this experience. You will fall off your bike when you learn how to ride it.

I didn't say you were suggesting time travel is the order of things.Seriously every reply you give me I have to correct you on what I said. I notice non of my corrects are ever challenged. I wonder if you just skim read all posts or it's some sort of tactic that you hope will occasionally bypass every now and again. The main point of my thread is that you and Tar simply summed up time travel in one or two lines and it was very superficial ignoring the multiple solutions to the multiple paradoxes that time travel brought up. I'm also skeptical of time travel but I don't use flippant one dimensional comments on time travel to prove my point about something.

I'm sorry you have to elaborate. You statement makes little sense and huge leaps. I don't usually go down the english route here but we have to as this sentence doesn't make sense. Considering that we are using English to communicate we use english definitions. contradiction (in terms of logic): strange because of not agreeing with what is usual or expected seeming: appearing to be real or true, but not necessarily being so; apparent actual: existing in fact; real This doesn't even make sense. Seeming + contradiction = no contradiction (as something appearing to be a contradiction isn't a contradiction). What you are saying here is: I guess paradox is used by Zeno as it should and means no contradiction instead of a contradiction. Zeno's paradox is a contradiction, your statement makes no sense at all. How??? Also there's nothing about absolute truth in this, why have you started talking about it? How??? Again there is nothing about absolute truth in this thread. The paradox highlights that maths can successfully describe how an infinite number of steps can result in a finite outcome but a lingual theory can't. If we are going to bring a term like absolute truth into the debate it is a very basic standard to define such a term. definition of absolute (philosophy):a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things. As you can see maths holds closer to this definition than a lingual approach. Words change meaning over time and in different contexts. 1+1=2 is universal. If anything you bringing in absolute truth strengthens the case for mathematics. Again this doesn't make sense. What you are saying here is: There, as we know the paradox doesn't exist as a contradiction but only as a non-contradiction, as long as you don't demand a solution that is universally valid which doesn't have to be put into context. Let's wrap it up here. Zeno's paradox is a contradiction. Lingually it seems logical that an infinite number of processes or steps will not have a finite result. However, applying this logic to Achilles and the tortoise means that he can't overtake the tortoise. There is the contradiction. The lingual approach offers no answer that we know of yet. However, the mathematical approach does offer a solution to Achilles overtaking the tortoise. What's more it is absolute as the solution is universal and doesn't have to be applied to this situation to be true.It can be applied to any situation involving infinite steps and it still holds up. In future avoid words you don't understand and define the terms you introduce. Also one liner that doesn't make sense doesn't disprove something. You have to explain why it disproves something.

Tar and Mike I suggest you read a little on time travel considering you're discussing it. There are many paradoxes that rise from the concept. One well known question is if you went back in time and killed your grandfather would you still exist? If you killed your grandfather he wouldn't create you mother or father and they would be able to create you, so you wouldn't be able to go back in time to kill him. There are 14 proposed solutions to this question ranging from multiple universes to the time loop re correcting itself and someone else being your grandfather instead and nothing drastic would have changed. Considering the last solution you wouldn't be able to change history. Now lets take your statement at face value and ignore all the paradoxes that arise from time travel and all the proposed solutions. History has shown us that events are so complex that it's hard to engineer them. Let's look at government funding for universities in the USA. Funding was increased to lower tuition fees in the 1970s. It was done on the premise that working class children would not be held back by these fees. When they crunched the numbers years later they found that because nearly all upper middle class children were going to university and very few working class were attending that the upper middle class's university education was being funded by working class tax payers money. It turned out to have the complete opposite effect of what it was supposed to do even though it had good intentions, Now lets look at Tar's statement again and say that time travel is real and people in the future are doing it. You can't use the point that bad things happened in the past to make an assertion on time travel. Time travelers may have tried to intervene and the result could have been the A bomb being dropped on Japan. Advanced technology doesn't mean advanced decisions, history of war has shown that. Also if a time traveler went back in time and altered history events would unfold and eventually create a different world with you in it, but how would you consciously know that history had been changed? It would be the history of the world you grew up in. If you went back and didn't introduce yourself to your future wife at the party she would be none the wiser, she would simply live her life without knowing you. Now considering that the universe doesn't revolve around anyone on this thread they cannot claim to be wise to changes in history. Personally I'm skeptical of time travel but my brain isn't amazing enough to logically point out that time travel is illogical (especially in a lingual sense, we've known since BC times that lingual approaches are very illogical and limiting). What does this even mean?

This is a very vague question. Cost and outcome varies depending on the trial. If there's 10 year follow ups etc the cost will change dramatically. Ethics and regulation is also a huge area that varies. One myth that many people believe is that increasing regulation will help, however, in the UK this has just made it worse. Mainly big corporations only have the resources to rinse through the red tape in turn making independent researches and universities stay in the game as long as they have the corporations backing and approval. I've worked in a research unit for a short time that was solely set up to provide a service of slamming through trials for companies as quickly as possible. There's a whole industry based on getting trials through regulation and they sell their services and facilities to these pharmaceutical companies. Clinical trials is a massive industry. In terms of the science some of the worst most shoddy science I've seen has been on clinical trials but you can become very rich with very little brain power as long as you keep your finger on the technicalities of the excessive regulation and abuse it. In theory I guess it could be good for the economy as a load of people with very mediocre skill sets can make a lot of money.... however, you have to know how much of that was rinsed off the government or charities. I attended a 3 course dinner with open bar and live music at the Wardolf hotel in London. Imagine how I felt when I found out that the posh evening of patting each other on the back was paid for by medical research charities. Clinical research isn't cost efficient by far but it does keep money flowing. As my area is science I don't really know enough economics to really give a reasonable economic analysis. Hopefully someone with more economic knowledge can read my post and elaborate on this. I suggest this thread should be moved to the political science area.

Ok I think you're missing the point of Zeno's paradox. If you feel a little in the dark watch this video. Now lets look at the basic term of a theory (this is what's taught first year of any science degree). A theory can be put to the test however, if one thing disproves it the theory doesn't hold. Now let's apply this concept to the paradox. The paradox states that in order to overtake the tortoise Achillies would have to get to the place where the tortoise is. However, by the time this is done the tortoise would have moved. Achillies would then have to get to the tortoise's new position. The gaps will become infinitely small meaning it will take an infinite amount of steps for Achillies for overtake the tortoise. This is where the paradox emerges. The solution took many years and calculus. A simpler paradox is a man trying to reach the door. In order to get to the door he has to travel half the distance. He then has to travel half the distance again. These half distances get infinitely small. Again saying that it take an infinite amount of steps means that the man won't reach the door. This one can be solved more easily because the door isn't moving using the mathematics of geometry. Le'ts say the distance between the man and the door is one. We can prove mathematically that an infinite series can still be finite. We get a square with an area of one. We can split up the square as many times as we like (an infinite amount of times) and the segments will still equate to one meaning that the man can reach the door. These paradoxes showed that lingual approach is inferior and fails to describe the most basic processes that we see in day to day lives logically. This is why science pushed towards maths. Now let me simplify and sum up what you have to do in order to avoid circular conversation we don't want a repeat of what happened in the lingual theory of everything discussion. If one thing disproves a theory we can't cover that up with other examples that one thing disproving it has to be addressed No one is disputing the fact that a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one, that's why it's a paradox. Coming up with examples of faster moving objects overtaking slower moving ones is just waffle, it's a straw man argument. To avoid waffle try and get your head away from the warrior and the tortoise concept, it's an example to out things into context. You clearly get hung up on these and fail to see the bigger picture. I'm going to spell it out for you now. What these paradoxes show is that lingually it is illogical to take an infinite amount of steps to get to a point and state that you'll get there. What you have to prove lingually (without maths) is that an infinite amount of processes or events will have a finite outcome. I suggest you read up on the paradox and previous lingual and mathematical arguments on infinity before posting on this thread again. Frankly it's nothing short of arrogant to attempt to solve a paradox that has taken 100s of years and stumbled many great minds after thinking about it for a couple of days and summing it up in 170 words.

This statement is dripping with arrogance. So you're telling me that your brain is so amazing that if you lived before space travel you would be able to look at your surroundings and work out through common sense that the earth is round and that we orbit the sun without any mathematical guidance???? can you give me an example where a lingual theory has solved a problem that maths can't???

I'm confused as to how this addresses the problems that I have raised. You have completely bypassed the point that lingual statements cannot logically clear the paradoxes in BC times. Why do you continue to avoid addressing this? This pushes forward that the whole premise of a lingual theory is flawed. I'm guessing that you haven't really read up on the paradox considering that you don't tackle it. Below is a link to a video that concisely sums up the paradox and makes the point that maths can logically solve it but lingual statements can't Now can we spare the waffle and address this. You cannot ignore a concept that completely destroys the whole foundation of you approach because you don't like it or you don't understand it. Now I understand that it is hard accept that something you've worked on is completely flawed and useless. However, your posts on this thread are borderline religious cult preaching.

Mike you continue to ignore the fact that there are many counter intuitive outcomes and paradoxes in the universe. You don't address the fact that if something is vague enough to encompass everything it will not be specific enough to give direction in these paradoxes and counter-intuitive outcomes. Zeno's paradox was raised to make the point even describing how a faster moving object overtakes a slower moving one isn't as straightforward as it looks and that the lingual theory failed, we had to wait for calculus to explain it. However, instead you've just ignored it again and again. If you can't use your lingual theory of everything to explain Zeno's paradox then the whole premise of you lingual theory of everything is flawed. This is a classic example of why people should read before coming up with theories. Zeno's paradox is just one of the many paradoxes that illustrated that lingual theories failed even in the BC era and we had to wait for advancements in maths to describe these. This is why scientists ask for maths, because the lingual approach was proven to be inferior. Now there's a lot of work in developing a theory. The premise of a lingual theory is flawed majorly. Before you even work on developing a lingual theory you will have to read Zeno's paradox (and the other paradoxes that I've listed) and prove that they can be solved by the lingual method. If you cannot do this (many others have failed and it was an achievement of mathematical philosophy that solved it) then working on a lingual theory of everything is a complete waste of time.

Nice waffle but how does this answer Zeno's paradox hydrostatic paradox, Aristotle's wheel paradox and Ehrenfest paradox in relation to your theory? In other words how does your theory aid someone in understanding these paradoxes? The conclusion still stands that this theory is trash

This statement is so arrogant. You clearly haven't looked into entropy before posting this. Did you think that a flower will stump entropy? Were you confident that 100s of scientists never looked at a flower the way you did and wondered if it defied the laws of thermodynamics??? A 2 second google search will tell you the following. Entropy and life has been looked into since 1910. Life like plants keep their entropy low by exporting it. Because of this we look for increases in entropy when we look for any signs of life. Because biological processes usually happen at constant pressures and temperatures we use Gibbs free energy (this is taught a school). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life Seriously obtain a basic education in entropy before trying to use it in debates. If it's perplexing to you I suggest you start reading the physics behind it in order to understand why people are saying it. It's very arrogant to point out that their statements are perplexing when showing little aptitude in physics and shower no desire to learn it but instead insist that you've got a logical take on it. It's ok to look at stuff and think about the implications. However, one has to be careful with the way you do it. History has shown us again and again that looking at stuff and thinking about it leads to wrong conclusions. People looked at their surroundings and thought that the earth was flat, they saw the sun rise and thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Through mathematical reasoning and science, providing testable hypothesizes and testing them we found out that the previous people who looked at stuff and thought about the implications were wrong. I took a step back from clinical to go back to university to study physics. I did this because I like looking at stuff and thinking about the implications. I went back to study because I wasn't arrogant enough to think that my brain could work it out without mathematical guidance. I am not arrogant enough to think that if I lived in BC times that my brain is so amazing that I would be able to just look at the sun and work out that we orbit it as opposed to it orbiting us. However, this thread is the opposite, there's a lot of: oh well it's really complex which amazes me so I reckon, or :I saw some waves and I thought this. The scientific concepts used are so poorly understood that a 2 second google search would stop them posting what they have posted. Now you're clearly interested otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time on these threads so you have two choices, continue bumbling around with arrogant statements that really just display lack of understanding and frustrating the rest of the people on this thread or spending some of your time learning maths and physics...... or at least the physics that you intend to use in debates.

Sorry haven't been on the scene for a while, loads of work to do at the moment. Mike you need to elaborate on your distribution. What it is saying is that it is just as likely to become more ordered as it is likely to become disordered. This flies straight in the face of accepted science. There is a consistent rule to this. If you say the contrary to or dismiss well established and accepted science, logic of concept (such as a paradox) you have to be very particular and detailed about where it falls down. I'm not saying you are but it is reasonable to describe it as arrogant if you dismiss a well established concept without going into great detail about where it falls down. Also you haven't given the parameters for this bell curve. Lets say we want to find the probability of a particle in a gas having a particular speed. We'd use a definite integral under certain parameters but if we heat up the gas the distribution will shift giving a completely different distribution curve. To put it into context if you sketched this in a second year degree physics exam you'd fail because it doesn't say much at all. I've looked at the comments after the post and other people also have an issue with it. You shouldn't re post something if you haven't addressed the concerns. These threads are very long... I think it's because there's a couple of people here who waffle a hell of a lot and go round in circles.

hahahahah so we have some word association. Once again you did not go the specifics. To sum up your post. There is a solution to this by this guy (good start, I also state that there are solutions to the paradox but your theory doesn't give direction in achieving a solution that's why it's failing.) The solution was recognised in the situation of a boat going down a canal (tube) yeah tubes of opportunity Yeah ever since first school I always needed more than word association. Classic cheap tactic, gloss over the specifics. What is this solution. Don't revert to another cheap tactic that I'm refusing this solution. We just need to know to details so we can see why your tubes of opportunity helps me understand this solution. To sum up you've said that there is a solution and you've said that your theory helps understand this solution but you don't actually describe the solution in relation to the paradox. How does this solve the paradox would be a basic, good start to a reply. Are you sure you're not trolling?? This is a complete joke. Now there has been a cheap tactic thrown about that I've got this goad pet Zeno's paradox. Even though it's a well established paradox where whole books have been written on it let's crank it up a notch. How does this joke of a theory explain the following? hydrostatic paradox, states that an object can float in a quantity of water that has less volume than the object itself, if its average density is less than that of water. A more general formulation of the paradox is that "that any quantity of water, or other fluid, how small soever, may be made to balance and support any quantity, or any weight, how great soever". The implication of this is that a large, massive object can float in a relatively small volume of liquid, provided that it is surrounded by it. One extreme application of the paradox is that a battleship can float in a few buckets of water, provided that the water surrounds the hull completely and that the ship would have floated had it been in open water. Aristotle's wheel paradox is a paradox from the Greek work Mechanica traditionally attributed to Aristotle. There are two wheels, one within the other, whose rims take the shape of two circles with different diameters. The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution. The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. But the two lines have the same length, so the wheels must have the same circumference, contradicting the assumption that they have different sizes: a paradox. The fallacy is the assumption that the smaller wheel indeed traces out its circumference, without ensuring that it, too, rolls without slipping on a fixed surface. In fact, it is impossible for both wheels to perform such motion. Physically, if two joined concentric wheels with different radii were rolled along parallel lines then at least one would slip; if a system of cogs were used to prevent slippage then the wheels would jam. A modern approximation of such an experiment is often performed by car drivers who park too close to a curb. The car's outer tire rolls without slipping on the road surface while the inner hubcap both rolls and slips across the curb; the slipping is evidenced by a screeching noise. Alternatively, the fallacy is the assumption that the smaller wheel is independent of the larger wheel. Imagine a tire as the larger wheel, and imagine the smaller wheel as the interior circumference of the tire and not as the rim. The movement of the inner circle is dependent on the larger circle. Thus its movement from any point to another can be calculated by using an inverse of their ratio. The Ehrenfest paradox concerns the rotation of a "rigid" disc in the theory of relativity. In its original formulation as presented by Paul Ehrenfest 1909 in relation to the concept of Born rigidity within special relativity, it discusses an ideally rigid cylinder that is made to rotate about its axis of symmetry. The radius R as seen in the laboratory frame is always perpendicular to its motion and should therefore be equal to its value R0 when stationary. However, the circumference (2πR) should appear Lorentz-contracted to a smaller value than at rest, by the usual factor γ. This leads to the contradiction that R=R0and R<R0. The paradox has been deepened further by Albert Einstein, who showed that since measuring rods aligned along the periphery and moving with it should appear contracted, more would fit around the circumference, which would thus measure greater than 2πR. This indicates that geometry is non-Euclidean for rotating observers, and was important for Einstein's development of general relativity. How does this theory of everything explain these concepts? The truth is it doesn't. Let's review, there hasn't been a single post showing how this theory of everything aids someone in understanding Zeno's paradox. The maths says it's possible the logical statements say it's impossible. The theory of everything doesn't get direction for which path to take. Mike has hinted that there may be a solution and that there is some word association but we have yet to hear the specifics. The theory is also failing to aid the understanding of the other physics paradoxes that I have presented. To be honest a theory of everything is a very arrogant premise. Many amazing scientists and philosophers have failed to unite physics under one theory. There are many counterintuitive findings and nuances in nature that a theory of everything has to be very vague to capture it all, thus it will be too vague to give direction in paradoxes. It's understandable for a child to think they've come up with something that encapsulates everything but for an adult to come up with this just makes depressing reading and a slight loss in my belief in democracy. So let's try and show me how this theory helps someone understand Zeno's paradox, hydrostatic paradox, Aristotle's wheel paradox and the Ehrenfest paradox. Mike I appreciate that it must to hard to spend time on something that fails so miserably but don't take this personally. I don't know you at all, I just think the theory's complete trash.

that's still fairly vague, are we talking about pulmonary hypertension? Left ventricle heart failure? transudate and exudate in the lungs??