univeral theory

And as such, when we translate the equation like1+0=1 or 6+3= 9 into the context of physical phenomena, by substituting the arithmetical variables with physical variables and we say for example that; W=F. d, Where; W= work F = force d = displacement just forexample Does the equation become dimensional? And can the dimensions cancel out?

dear ophiolite sorry for my disturbances,but iam just struggling to understand some fundamental application of dimensional analysis from your point of view. Does your comment try to mean that pure arithmetical or algebraic equationsthat are not assigned with any physical measurable units have no physicaldimension? And thus they are dimensionless un less attached to a given physicalquanty? and further they are not subject to dimensional analysis?

Dear reader; It seems that iam off target! And I beg your pardon: Withthe help of mathematical illustrations and explanations, may you please show me(step by step) on how to check an equation like E=MC2 in dimensional analysis? Please I beg.

Dimensional analysis: There are two basic concerns of dimensional analysis in its activity area; 1. Conversion 2.Similitude Such that; a given phenomena can be converted into different dimensional framework and the phenomena remains the same. For example; 30minuts can be converted into ½ an hour, or 1800seconds and the phenomena described remains the same (30minuts). Now I appeal to any reader to first concentrate on example 1 below, if it is wrong please be free to challenge it and if it is right then proceed to another step of reading: Example 1: when we say that 9 = 6+3, with dimensional analysis we are correct. Reason being, that we have just converted 9 into another dimensional framework of 6+3 and the quantitative phenomena which we are describing (9) remains the same. Example 2: supposing another person advances our 6+3 into another dimensional framework and says that; 9/+ .-(√9 )=6+3, in dimensional analysis he would be right. Reason being, that he has just advanced the dimensional framesork of6+3 to the dimensional framework of 9/+ .-(√9 ) but the phenomena described would be the same with out even loosing any quantity phenomena from any side of the equation. Perhaps our task here is to solve the equation of 9/+ .-(√9 )= 9/-3 . 3 =6.3 or 6+3, thus the equation yields absolutely the same phenomena from both sides of the equation. Example 3: and supposing another person dimensional framework of the equation is 9/+ .-(√9 ) = 9, in dimensional analysis, it is a matter of checking whether he is right at both sides of the equation through conversion. And here we shall have 6+3=9 which is the same as saying that 9=9. I would prefer that we first check the above motioned scenario before proceeding to any other complicated phenomena with details of physical relevance.

This is the last equation from post #81 9km/h/displacement cycles . displacement location (√displacement range) =9km/h. I think we are having 9km/h at both sides of the equation. And i think "kilograms ≠ beauty"but “kilograms= kilograms” It is derived from the Q2 equation located at #58 equation 3 which is s/(+ .- √s)=s

“I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as the study of truth; as having a nimble mind and versatile enough to catch the resemblance of things(which is the chief point) and at the same time steady enough to fix and distinguish their subtle differences….” Francis bacon “Think things, not words” or else, raise a question where you feel you don't understand well.

In complex phenomena modeling, we need the most economical and most efficient methods of expressing a given phenomena in relation to the mathematical simplicity of solving that phenomena. According to the principle of similitude, a given measurable phenomenon can be expressed equivalently through different units of measurable dimension and the results of all these dimensions reflect the same phenomena. All measurements can be represented by numerical digits. And the value of a given numerical digit depends on the unit measurement of a given dimension that it represents. Thus; the numerical value of 10 is greater than 1, but 1 can be equal to or greater than 10 depending on the unit measurement of a given dimension that it represents. For example; 1centilitre equals 10 milliliters and 1 deciliter is greater than 10 milliliters. Thus the central mechanism of dimensional analysis is the degree of result equivalence arrived at through measuring all the dimensions that reflect the same phenomena. According to Wikipedia, “in physics and all science, dimensional analysis is the practice of checking relations among physical quantities by identifying their dimensions. The dimension of any physical quantity is the combination of the basic physical dimensions that compose it”. According to Bridgman, “The principle use of dimensional analysis is to deduce from a study of the dimensions of the variables in any physical system certain limitations on the form of any possible relationship between those variables. The method is of great generality and mathematical simplicity”. This is all about converting one thing to another. Such that; Given the definition of a physical quantity, or an equation involving a physical quantity, you will be able to determine the dimensions and SI units of the quantity Given an equation, you will be able to determine if the equation is dimensionally correct or incorrect. My friend quoted our quantum frames of energy conservation equation - Q2 = (s/1/( + .-(√s) )=1, which according to him that it fails dimensional analysis (which according to me I think he just missed out some fundamental points of either dimensional analysis or the Q2 equation). Let me re-illustrate this with the univaso equation of work which is W=gv2 (where w=work, g = gravitation and v2= velocity square) that the Q2 equation does not fail dimensional analysis. W=gv2 implies that there are two basic dimensions of work which is gravitation and velocity square. And according to dimensional analysis’s principle of similitude, the mathematical measurement of gv2 must be equivalent to W. their equivalence can be checked by the Q2 equation, such that; (W/1/g . v^2 (√W) )=1 And, ∂( W/1/g . v^2 (√W) )=1+or-1 And even if it is analyzing the dimensions of a given physical quantity say 9km/h, both the basic dimensions of speed (time and distance) still match at both sides of their function. Remember; Time is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement range of its Q2 as a function of cycle’s responsiveness. Distance is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement range of its Q2 as a function of location responsiveness. Such that; 1). (displacement range/1/displacement cycles . diplacement location (√displacement range) )=1 Or ; 2). (9km/h/displacement cycles . diplacement location (√displacement range) )=9km/h.

When it comes to intellectual proceedings, the cutting edge begins with conceptual reduction to practice. 2. When it comes to confirmation, we don’t need to be there at every phenomenon to make a confirmation, we only need to check the feasibility study of it and then confirm its validity or relevance to the phenomena. 3.And when it comes to time travel, time is never a conservable content but just a measure of the responsiveness of a given conservable content (energy) and thus time is not an independent dimension (phenomenon) of existence. And as a dependent variable, it operates with in the limits of a variable it depends on and those limits are the limits of its travel. Beyond those limits there is its beginning and its end. All laws of conservation describe the responsiveness of energy due to its displacement thus conservation has a beginning and an end. Beyond the limits of conservation there is energy in its virgin sense. So beyond time there is energy. And if we stand on that energy, we can make a perfect feasibility study of our universe through its time travel.

(s/1/+ .-(√s) )=1 this is the equation for the quantun steps of anergy conservation (Q2). infact iam just wondering where did you derive such an interpretation with reference to the meaning of my equation. please quote me interpreting this equation to mean what you are saying or elaborate from where did you derive such a meaning with reference to how i defined the equation. For a theory to qualify a TOT, it is an obvious scientific and philosophical justification that it must not only depend on laboratory experiments for its proof. This is because even the accuracy or inaccuracies of lab tests depend on how it is exploited. And because even the living experiences of our ordinary behaviors are part of TOT as it is also part of them, it is just a matter of relevant interpretation to confirm it. The specific need of lab is to test and confirm the predictions made by this theory from specific ends of existence that is out of reach by our ordinary daily experience but not to determine its usefulness. This is because even the being of every thing and its life style must be an already benefit of the claims of this theory. You just need to look all around you and make critical interpretation or the interpretation of all that around your environment. Wherever there has been classical work (W=Fd),univaso work has been there inform of (W=gv2). Wherever there has been gravitational constant, univaso gravitation has been found there. Wherever there has been the constant speed of light (c2),univaso theory has been there. Whenever there is Planck constancy (h), univaso theory is there. Whenever there has been albrecht giese mass ,univaso theory is there. Wherever there is space or time, univaso velocity is there. Whenever there is Andy pibernick’s Q2 univaso theory is there-to mention but a few. But if this is not enough to demonstrate laboratory testability of such a framework, then in scientific faith the twenty first century labs would claim no scientific civilization at all or else, they would come out publicly and flamoyantly to denounce the pedigree of the authors and agitators of the above refferenced work as iam also ready to denounce this theory if it fails any feasible test.

If I were you, I would start By quoting areas where I want to challenge univaso theory based on dimensional analysis and provide feasible evidence to challenge that area. Other wise; “….what a man means by a term is to be found by observing what he does with it, not by what he says about it” Percy w. Bridgeman(one of the greatest celebrities of dimensional analysis).

Dear klaynos; I apologize if I responded irresponsibly by not voting for platform reputation of your post. My intension was just to discourage as much as possible any post with comments whose interpretation alternative can be ambiguous. But waiting to see what I had fore seen was just a test of time. To be responsible to all the readers of this thread, I beg you to be sympathetic to a group of people with out enough time to specialize in the semantics of provocative remarks. Honestly; what ever the degree of comfort which a professional can enjoy by reading dimensional analysis with reference to univaso theory or reading univaso theory with reference to dimensional analysis, but to an armature – this comfort can be missed out if ‘it is not referred to through an attractive aroma of its spices’.

With experiments; Interpretations depend on calculations and calculations are the basic problems of understanding physics in the laboratory world. But with experience; calculations depend on interpretation and interpretation is the basic problem of understanding physics in the feasible world. REVIEW NOTICE: A friend of mine is advising me to consider the re-definition of Q2as the quantum frames of energy conservation rather than quantum steps of energy conservation. That there; there is a lot of experimental and practical implication. what would you say?

My ‘simple’ familiarity with dimensional analysis is that; Dimensional analysis is the basic combination of independent variable per a unit of measurements. The philosophical problem of physics has never been in the observation or experiencing the phenomena. But it has always been in the calculation and interpretation of the phenomena. The frame work of the term is the relevant behavior of it with reference to its meaning. But that is my personal familiarity with dimensional analysis. But what about yours? her’s, his or that of any others? Such that we can all be comfortable as well with enjoying it with in the framework of univaso theory. Sincerely speaking; dimensional analysis is one of the professionally competent shapes of knowledge in support of univaso theory. And univaso theory personally; is very great full with dimensional analysis. But with in the civilization framework, we need to present our ideas as creative frames from the work of a given shape of knowledge.

True, the Quran says that; ‘‘and of everything have we created pairs…of opposite variability'' Quran 51:49…53:45. And from this claimed background, we formulated the theory of everything that states that; “the framework of everything is constantly a conflicting opposites called symmetry and complementary. These opposites are unified through patterns that are inversely proportional to their coordination and directly proportional to their regulation – and when the equilibrium constant of complementary opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry breaking prevails and the unity of the framework is realized” zaid. This does not imply absolute opposites, but it implies relative opposites. With absolutism, every thing is single and one - as far as this theory is concerned. But with ‘relativity’, the framework of any single unit of a thing is made up of two ‘absolute’ opposites and conflicting variables. Space or time is just a measure of energy responsiveness to the displacements of its quantum steps of work conservation (Q2 ) as a function of a given frame of consciousness. And when dealing with space or time, we utilize a res cogitan frame but not res extensa. After all, the framework of res cogitan(consciousness) is composed of two opposite reference frames. reality illusion With GOD’s consciousness, the responsiveness of its energy to the displacements of its Q2 is a reality. While with material consciousness, the responsiveness of energy to the displacements of its Q2 is an illusion. The framework of reality is both relative and absolute. With absolutism, the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacements of its Q2 is through independent variables. While with relativity, the measure of the responsiveness of energy to its Q2 is in units (combination of independent variables). And this is the foundation of dimensional analysis. With in the framework of velocity square (V2), space is a complementary opposite of speed in absolute terms. Such that; change of speed, is directly proportional to the change of space and vise versa. Thus, change of velocity is inversely proportional to the change of space as opposed to the change of speed in relative terms. And with in the framework of speed, time is the complementary opposite of distance. Worth noting; that, Space is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement area of its Q2 as a function of geometrical responsiveness. Speed is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement area of its Q2 as a function of the responsiveness rate. Time is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement range of its Q2 as a function of cycle’s responsiveness. Distance is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement range of its Q2 as a function of location responsiveness. Direction is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement side of its Q2 as a function of vector responsiveness. Dimension is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement side of its Q2 as a function of frame responsiveness. Velocity is the measure of energy responsiveness to the displacement acceleration of its Q2 as a function of work responsiveness. Lastly; With all my gratitude and respect, I thank you for this wonderful post. I appeal to you please - that you keep up with such professional competence.

The factual phenomenon which explains the existence of ‘the evil twin brothers’ and their annihilation cycles from their true physical sense; is through the Chinese philosophy of yin and yang. Where; any of these twins can not exist at any quantum step of energy conservation (Q2) with out coexisting with the other. Even with matter – anti matter particle collision and annihilation, this phenomena can still be detected and observed ….(check out for Feynman particle physics). The phenomena you are looking for where the 'evil twin brother’ will annihilate this universe, without leaving any energy, matter or space is mythical or speculative. And if you have any scientific evidence for it, iam willing to reconsider its inevitability. Never the less, the annihilation frame work of the universal ‘evil twin brother’ from ‘the conservation of energy’ point of view can be described as quantum steps of energy conservation (Q2). There are two frames of Q2: res extensa res cogitan With in res extensa, the annihilation cycle is called ‘saMsara’ or rebirth (Hindu Buddhism). While with in res cogitan, the annihilation cycle is called ‘karma’. With res extensa, the Q2 predicts that energy will continue to transform through different quantum steps in as much as this transformation is inversely proportional to the coordination of their ‘samsara’ and directly proportional to the regulation of it. With this phenomenon, energy will not cease to be, but a given conservation form of its Q2 step will (and when this happens, with res extensa - we call it collapse of the form at a given Q2 step). After all, where there is still GOD, there is still energy and as well, the formation of matter. And where there is still the velocity square (Q2) of matter, there must be space of course. With res cogitan, the Q2 predicts that energy will continue to react through different quantum steps in as much as this reaction is inversely proportional to the coordination of its ‘karma’ and directly proportional to the regulation of it. With this phenomenon, energy will not cease to be, but a given cause of its Q2 conservational step will(and when this happens, with res cogitan - we call it cause of the effect at a given Q2 step).After all; with Newtonian physics every action has a reaction ‘the universal law of action reaction’.

From the point of view of the quantum steps of conserving energy (Q2 ), suppose that these steps are magnetic such that; (s/1/+ .-(√s) )=1 Where S = E = energy. This implies that the unity of universe as a function of matter and anti-matter will be the summation of both matter and antimatter. How ever we need to find the quantity of matter as opposed to anti matter in the universe. Remember that one is the opposite dimension frame of the other, and remember that the equilibrium constancy of these opposites is 1. From the arithmetic theory (or specifically number line) we count two to one steps from positive one to negative one (i.e. from positive one to zero and from zero to negative one) to get the ratio of negative quantity as a function of constant 1. And for a positive quantity it will only be 1:1 So, in group theory the negative quantity will have a higher field ratio of group isomorphism as compared to the positive quantity, and perhaps the ratio of 2:1. And thus the quantity discrepancy of matter as opposed to anti matter.

First of all, the view of one GOD is not only my view. But the general view of our logical existence as can be proved by our level of scientific measures. The creator has no opposite. But with in the framework of existence, His being is opposite to that of nature – thus; GOD’s being is infinite as opposed to the finite being of nature. "We cannot fully understand the beginning of anything until we see the end" G. Spencer Brown (laws of form). The fact that GOD is the creator; HE is the final focal point of the feasible being (existence). “He is the beginning, and the end, and the reality, and the illusion, and up on everything he is the unlimited knower”57:3 Quran. Perhaps; the opposite frame of creation is procreation - as the ability to transform the basic resources of nature into other forms of products (“replication”; by G. Brown in the laws of form). Remember that this differs from the ability to form the basic resources of nature (“creation”; by G. Brown in the laws of form). Try out this for some information about the laws of form: http://www.lawsofform.org/ideas.html http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DISTINCT.html http://www.doyletics...arj/lofmart.htm

Existence: “If I was to make brief definitions of existence to different classes of people, I would say that existence is the being that is feasible and can persist with out this feasibility. To peter J, I would say that existence is a feasible being, and to a mathematician I would say that existence =1, +or-1 or ∂ (1, 0)” zaid. And as you requested my answers in rational/logical way, let me not answer you by philosophy alone, but also with mathematical proof. First of all: “iam; and because iam not what I was, I will be”. This philosophical description of existence demonstrates that, our being is just an equilibrium frame of what we were and what we are ought to be in both negative and positive dimensions of our quantum steps of being respectively. Remember that” the framework of everything is constantly a conflicting opposites called symmetry and complementary. These opposites are unified through patterns that are inversely proportional to their coordination and directly proportional to their regulation – and when the equilibrium constant of complementary opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry breaking prevails and the unity of the framework is realized” zaid. From the definition of existence, it demonstrated that our existence has two opposite reference frames; -1 or +1. Not well that our reference frames are combined with logical OR. This implies that the equilibrium frame can be either XOR or AND of the reference frames in question. When these frames are combined with AND, the framework of this combination must be reciprocal with in its symmetry set and the whole framework must equal to 1. If the frames are combined with XOR, the reference frame must be inversely proportional to the coordination of these frames and directly proportional to their regulation. After all we all know from the conservation of energy point of view that energy within an enclosed system does not increase or decrease but remains constant. And this is true from Newtonian and Einstein physics. So as far as the present knowledge of our universe is concerned we all exist. And this is not just thoughts , but science.

Attention: Quantum steps of conserving energy (Q2) = 1)- (s/1/(+ .-(√s) )=1 2)- ∂(s/1/(- .+(√s) )=1+or-1 3)- s/(+ .- √s)=s 4)- (s/(√s)+ .-)∩((s((√s)+ .-) )(((√s)+ .-)/s) ) )=s 5)- (s/1/((√s)+ .-)∩((s((√s)+ .-) )(((√s)+ .-)/s) ) )=1 6)- ∂ (s/1/((√s)+ .-)∩((s((√s)+ .-) )(((√s)+ .-)/s) ) )=1+or-1 Where: S = E = Energy Check out for the Pauli Exclusion Principle

I welcome you with all my pleasure. And as a token of welcome; please remember that the philosophical problem of physics has never been in the observation or experiencing the phenomena. But it has always been in the calculation and interpretation of the phenomena. So, when reading the Quran – dig deep and try as much as possible to be mathematical, scientific and sober. Remember that it is only a sober mind that can articulate with his instincts and explore the true secrets of any literature as opposed to its feasibility. By sober I mean; “a mind that is not corrupted by cram work, fame, delusion, belief, custom, power , influence, excitement or anger, revenge or favor but only corrupted by the thirst of knowledge as backed by the truth of the reason and the logic behind the phenomena in question”.

Attention: check out for this more accurate statement of univaso theory as a correction of the previous statements; 1- “the framework of everything is constantly a conflicting opposites called symmetry and complementary. These opposites are unified through patterns that are inversely proportional to their coordination and directly proportional to their regulation – and when the equilibrium constant of complementary opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry breaking prevails and the unity of the framework is realized” zaid. 2- Energy is equivalent to work times the quantum steps of conserving this work. There for, E=WQ2. Where E is energy W is work Q is the quantum steps of conserving work This does not contradict with pibernick’s E=MQ2 or Einstein’s E=MC 2as mass is work conserved in material form. But as human consciousness do a lot of illusion work that can not be conserved in material form, the general equation for energy that incorporates both material and illusion work is E=WQ2. Worth noting is that energy is the ability to do work in both Newtonian and Einstein physics. 3- Work is equivalent to gravitation times the velocity field of this gravitation. There for, W= gv2. Where W is work g is gravitation v 2 is the velocity field this does not contradict with Newtonian and Einstein work(as massive displacement).but it is a general formulation of work as massive displacement and turbulence.

Iam very pleased to have you, and iam proud of your comments as they brought me to extra facts of my theory that made me realize some fundamental errors done in the previous formulation. It is not true that “the cause or foundation of everything is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite…….”. But it is true that “the framework of everything is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature…….” “A thing is any work of feasible reality/being. GOD IS GOD…… God is not a thing because God is not a piece of work done by any other form of existence that can be explained by human reason, theology or mathematical logic” - “I know that my nature is weak and limited and that God is limitless, incomprehensible, and infinite…” Descartes The dogma is “In the beginning there was God. God made a piece of work. That work is an opposite group of isomorphic omniversal”. 4- In reference to the framework of reflection; “every thing is a reflection of a given potion of GOD’s consciousness with in a symmetry group translated into a word of feasible work called nature”. Thus; “The framework of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature, this symmetry breaking is circulated through conflicting patterns that are directly proportional to their regulation and inversely proportional to their coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of this opposites is established, reciprocal is realized and unity prevails”. More of the details; refer to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70242-universal-theory/page-2#entry714893

first of all i thank you for this good attentional supplement you made to me, i apologize for the under explanation and presentation of my work and i promise greater improvements. back on the topic : We all know from the universal constancy point of view, that our present experimental statistics confirm that; .g = 9.8 m/sec2 for acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the earth, C = 3.0 *108m/sec for the speed of light in vacuum, h = 6.6 * 10-34j sec for plank constant or specifically for quantum action And Rab = 0 for the vacuum Einstein equation Let us suppose that gravitation is the grand phenomena through which our universe can be unified. According to univaso theory we say that; 1) - (9.8/1/((√9.8)+ . -)∩(9.8 ((√9.8)+ . -)((√9.8)+ . -)/9.8 ) )= (9.8/1/(-3.130495168 . + 3.130495168 ∩ (0)))= (9.8/6.669504832 + 3.130495168 ∩ 0) = 1 Remember that; C = 3.0 *108m/sec for the speed of light in vacuum ≈ 3.130495168 h = 6.6 * 10-34j sec for plank constant or specifically for quantum action ≈6.669504832 And Rab = 0 for the vacuum Einstein equation = 0 This implies that g = ((h c)∩(Rab))2 From the above framework, we can not conclude that this is just a phenomena coincidence relevant to numerology. We only need to analyze and scrutinize the accuracy of the statistical data that we have but the relevance of the theory behind the framework of the data statistics remains correct.

I would advise that you consider some revision of your quotations in reference to the maxims of scientific phenomena. Some where some how you say that, “It is the way nature is,if you don’t like it, go some where else…to another universe where the rules are simpler, phylosophically pleasing…”recheard fyenman. “……..that seems to make sense, that presents its self as technically competent, non scientists are technically gulled by fake science”henry bauer. No. no. No. – my friend. The maxim of the phenomena in reference to feasible existence is not constant competence of the phenomena. The maxim of the phenomena- in science and specifically in chemistry is complete metamorphosis to a given competent phenomena and thus; competent framework. Even in philosophy where your comments are “featuring” now; the maxim of the philosophical phenomena is that “let the shape of knowledge create ideas, and let the creative ideas shape our knowledge. This is the way civilizations is - and if you are not prepared for it now, wait for it then. But if the frame work of the civilization you are waiting for establishes an equilibrium unity with the ideas we are creating now, then refer to them”. I think there you will be able to notice that “The cause of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature, this symmetry breaking is circulated through conflicting patterns that are directly proportional to their regulation and inversely proportional to their coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of the conflicting symmetry pairs is established, reciprocal prevails and unity is realized” zaid. Dear sinior member; Don’t think that I under estimate your concern from the comment as a form of peer review advice. Its objective sense is that the presentation of my work is still vague, and iam working on it as I have been joined by expert volunteers in the field of research presentation. You know, some times it is constructive to take advantages of subjective weaknesses to elaborate the relevance of univaso theory to all the phenomena and above all scientific disputes ferterlise scientific work. My work is still in its infancy. And I can not rule out that its metamorphosis will undergo a lot of updates and corrections. It is zygotic in this reference frame but it is a competent lady or gentleman (who is even a senior member) in another reference frame. What differ; are just different quantum steps of conserving this mass of gentleman or lady called a senior member. Isn’t it predictable Mr. senior member?

Please don’t bet now….no.no.no…just wait a while. If iam the one to summarize your comment; I would say that it was misunderstanding - in philosophy, they would say that it was mis conceptualization – in physics, they would say that it was off target – to a mathematician, he would say that false attempt – to a computer it would deny that no – to a legal advocate he would say wrong idea, and in the declaration of human rights, it would be freedom of speech. But regardless of the frame from which we coordinate our summaries in reference to the comments you made in relation to the concept of the univaso theory, we are all describing the same phenomena embedded with in the concept of your comments in reference to the theory. Such, that; any change in the concept you have, will lead to a proportionate change in the summeries we make in a pattern that is inversely proportional to the coordination of the concept of univaso theory and directly proportional to its regulation. Else add a concept to your understanding or subtract a concept from your understanding until the equilibrium framework of concept addition or subtraction (concept symmetry framework) is reciprocal with the general concept of the univaso theory. Isn’t it brother? Dear brother; With the help of the world with in your comments, we are trying to integrate the concept of univaso theory to your axiomatic understanding. The concept of the theory does not imply that there are two allahs, it only implies that there are two reference frames from which nature can be optimally unified. These frames are opposite and their unity is reciprocally symmetrical. Thus “The cause of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature, this symmetry breaking is circulated through conflicting patterns that are directly proportional to their regulation and inversely proportional to their coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of the conflicting symmetry pairs is established, reciprocal prevails and unity is realized” zaid. From this link http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=4364 the paper discusses the concept of feasible existence as a function of consciousness. Where the consciousness of ALLAH creates reality and the consciousness of nature creates illusions. And when these two opposite reference framework of consciousness intersect (universal consciousness symmetry framework), they provide for the foundation of our feasible existence. The feasible existence is nature is finite as opposed to GOD’s feasible existence which is infinite.