Strange

Because a theory of everything should be able to predict... everything

Calling it a story is much better. But it isn’t a theory. It is a story based on two theories. But it has gaps. For example how life started. So it isn’t even a story of everything. (It also doesn’t say anything about quantum theory or how your computer works.)

That is your opinion. But it seems to depend on using a different definition of “theory of everything”.

They are two separate and independent theories. The theory of evolution existed before GR and was not changed by it. Similarly GR is not affected by changes in our understanding of evolution.

Because it is an unsupported claim. Answer Ghideon’s question. Otherwise I will report you for trolling as well.

Answer Ghideon’s question.

There is no science in this thread. Just empty claims. If you can answer Ghideon’s question you might change my mind (not holding my breath).

You claim to have a "theory of everything". You also claim the Big Bang model is wrong. Therefore, you need to explain, using your pixels: the source of the CMB why it has the spectrum it does why it has the temperature it does the relative proportions of hydrogen and helium the redshift-distance relationship (Hubble's law) Clearly, with all your waffle, you are not able to do this. You do not have a theory of anything. No, it is the scientific conclusion based on objective evidence. Of course not. It is just one man's personal opinion. Nothing to do with science. Rather like this thread. Reported. I am actually very disappointed. I thought you might have had some interesting ideas around the concept of the universe being quantised or a cellular automata. But you have nothing at all. Oh well. This is not a logical response. Saying that science cannot explain everything doesn’t mean it can’t explain anything. We already understand many of the causes of cancer and have effective treatments for many. Science will improve this. (Pixels won’t) It is but that doesn’t mean it can explain everything. These are two separate, theories. They are unrelated and n that any changes in one have no effect on the other. They are also not theories of everything as they don’t include, for example, quantum theory. Which is, famously, not compatible with GR. So, yes, you are wrong. It seems implausible that someone with such profound misunderstandings could come up with a theory of everything. And you haven’t.

Evidence of what?

Of course not. How is this relevant. Yesterday, I almost posted a comment saying, Don't be one of those people who just spends page after page tap-dancing around the subject, claiming to have some great insight but never saying what it is. It turns out that you are one of those. If you don't present your theory in the next post, I will request that the mods close this thread.

I think that is the problem with this definition of proof. For example, Newtonian gravity hasn't (and won't) disappear because we have a better ("more proved"?) theory of GR. So the "proofs" of Newtonian gravity still hold, even though we know it is "wrong".

Not sure why this is relevant. But I don't think it is a great example. For example, when I first moved into my house we had to use a cardboard box to eat off. Was it a cardboard box or a table? Both? Neither? It changed from one to the other? Sounds pretty subjective to me. I would prefer to say that something that we can measure is objective. As for "fact", that isn't really a term used much in science. I would say that the closest thing we have to a "fact" in science are theories that are so well established that is impossible to see how they could be wrong (evolution, GR, Big Bang, etc) But you claim to have a theory that explains everything, so it shouldn't matter whether we agree on what is subjective or not. This is supposed to be a science forum, not an opinion forum. But whatever. If you want to use your definitions of subjective and objective, go ahead. Just get to the point.

When do we get to your theory?

Better move it to Speculations then

Why is that any different from the same laws applying everywhere in a non-pixelated universe (which seems self-evident)? What is "the mystery"? We have solved lots of different puzzles but there are still many questions. In that case you need to explain, using your pixels: the source of the CMB why it has the spectrum it does why it has the temperature it does the relative proportions of hydrogen and helium the redshift-distance relationship (Hubble's law) Can you do that? Irrelevant. This is about your "theory" not other people's opinions. Does this mean that there is more to your theory that "its all pixels"? I certainly hope so, because that doesn't explain anything.

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. The important point is that you need to show that the question is answered by a pixelated universe. Can you do this?

Huh? Do you mean that your theory, in its entirety, is: "the universe is made of pixels"? That's it? That's all there is? It might or might not be made of pixels. You need something more than this bald assertion to convince people this is right. In an intro to philosophy class you might get away with some sort of logical argument based on, say, the fact that integers exist or something. Ideally, you would go on to show that this idea has some explanatory power; that it can answer unanswered questions or explain why charge is quantised (and has the value it has) etc. But as this is a science forum, you need something a little more concrete: you need evidence. You need something that indicates that the universe is "pixellated" or quantised. As I say, this is a very old idea (with many variations) and attempts have been made to find evidence for it. So far, all the evidence is that the universe is continuous, not discrete. I am beginning to think it is because you don't know what "theory" means. I hope I have made it clear what I want from your theory: I want to see the evidence that supports it; I want to see what questions it can answer. If it is a theory of everything, then presumably it resolves the conflict between GR and quantum theory (this is what most people mean by "theory of everything") in which case, it should be able to tell us what happens inside a black hole (what replaces the singularity, do wormholes exist, etc) for example. So far, all we have is your claim that this idea is true. We need some reason to believe that.

Good catch! This doesn't look like a very prestigious journal. I wonder if he paid to have it published.

It needs to do more than that to be useful. What calculations can you perform with this model? What new technologies can we develop based on it? But maybe we should leave those questions until after you have told us what your theory is. When are you planning to do that? After all, it is apparently very simple, so what are we waiting for?

Still not the main cause of mutations. And, as you the one making the claim, have you done the experiment, what are the results and do they support you or not? Or are you just making stuff up?

You were very keen to discuss this yesterday. Why has it all gone quiet now?

As a concept, this is not new. One of the best known advocates of this approach is, perhaps, Stephen Wolfram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram#A_New_Kind_of_Science Apart from that, many theories of quantum gravity (in which 4D space-time is an emergent property) are based on similar ideas; for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation And there have been many others. So now you need to show (quantitatively, not in a hand-wavy kind of way) that your approach actually produces results that match what we see in the real world. We will need evidence to support that claim (as will the schools).

It is true that scientific theories are contingent and always subject to change with new evidence. However, there comes a point when there is so much evidence for a theory it is almost impossible to see how it could be wrong (see, for example, the theory of evolution by natural selection). The Big Bang model / general relativity fall into this category. There are very few theories in the history of science that have actually turned out to be completely wrong. Geocentrism was one. Phlogiston another and the steady state universe a third. I struggle to think of any others. Even Newtonian gravity, which has been superseded by GR does not fall into this category. It is still good enough for many (most) purposes. Then you would have to provide a mathematical model that is consistent with all the evidence and produces equally good or better predictions than GR. Unless you can do that, I don't think your (unspecified) conclusions are likely to be worth much. I don't believe that is true. One of the reasons that the scientific method has evolved to what it is today is to eliminate, as far as practical, the various biases introduced by the human mind. Hence double-blind trials, etc. Maybe you should start another thread in the Speculations forum where you present this new theory. I don't see how this can work (but it will be interesting to see what you suggest as the "bottom layer"). For example, there are various suggestions that space-time and quantum theory (lets call them A) are emergent from some lower level theory (lats call that B). So, in he world everything in A is explained as being a result of B. But now we can ask, "why B" and so we look for some underlying theory (C) which explains that. And then we ask "why is C the way it is" and so we look for D and the E and then ... I cannot imagine how that can ever bottom out (except by saying "God", but that is just a way of stopping any further enquiry). All our experience so far seems to be that each better theory is more complicated than the previous. I see no reason why a theory of everything should be simple. That seems like wishful thinking. Why should the universe be easy for a random ape on a small planet on the unfashionable side of the galaxy? That depends on what you mean by "real". If it is the best, and currently only, explanation we have, does that make it real? Is the Newtonian "force" of gravity real? Or did it used to be real but isn't any longer? Until you define what you mean by "real" and how it can be tested, the statement is fairly meaningless. We can only know what our senses and measurements tell us. That may or may not be the same as "reality". They tell us that the universe behaves exactly as if space-time were a real thing. Thats as close as we can ever get to saying something is real, as far as I am concerned. That is an argument from incredulity or ignorance. The fact that you don't understand how GR works, doesn't make it wrong. I have heard the same claim hundreds of times from different people with wildly different ideas (and in some cases, wild ideas). They may say the "truth" is vortices or string or aliens or god or their own brain or ... In all cases, they are absolutely convinced that they, uniquely, have had the vision and insight to find The Truth. None of them can offer any evidence why we should believe any one of them and not the others. I somehow doubt you can either. But I am always open minded to see what evidence people can provide. OK. So are you going to tell us what this amazing theory is, or just keep making empty boasts about it?

Quite.

Oh, FFS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray Mainly originating outside the Solar System Maybe you are confused by the fact that the solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field affect cosmic rays.