The theory of everything

[BillT]

I believe i discovered the theory of everything. But i'm not sure about that. I would like and appreciate any opinion, comment and review for this. You can read my research at the following link :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/251000080/The ... Everything

Also i attach my research in pdf file format.

Work_3.pdf

Edited August 22, 2016 by BillT

[Bignose]

It would be nice (and compliant with the rules, I might add) if you didn't force us to download anything. Can't you put something on this forum for us to discuss without forcing a download?

 

'Theory of Everything' is awfully broad, too. Posting here should help you focus on something specific.

 

I have a few suggestions 1) Demonstrate, using your ToE, how to derive the equations for a geostationary satellite. 2) Demonstrate, again using your ToE, how accurately you can predict the cosmic background radiation. 3) Demonstrate, using your ToE, how to estimate the drag of the Eppler E193 airfoil at a Reynolds numbers of 2 and 200,000 4) Using your ToE, show us the temperature profile of our sun, including the corona.

[Strange]

I believe i discovered the theory of everything. But i'm not sure about that. I would like and appreciate any opinion, comment and review for this.

 

 

1) Equation 1 is incomplete and not applicable to things with no rest mass (i.e. light / photons).

 

2) The assumption in sentence 2 is contradicted by evidence.

 

3) Therefore, equation 2 is meaningless because of (1) and (2)

 

4) The "solution" of equation 2 is mathematically nonsense, physically meaningless and contradicted by evidence.

 

I don't think it is worth going any further.

 

But please feel free to answer Bignose's challenges.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Strange

[Sensei]

If it's Theory of Everything, then please be so kind, and show us, using your equations:

fusion, radioactive decay of isotopes, how to make mesons pion, kaon, decay of mesons 2nd and 3rd generations, decay of leptons 2nd and 3rd generations, annihilation etc.

 

Of course you're aware that you can see all these effects by naked eye?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92998-universal-evolutionary-process/?p=900023

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by Sensei

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

The relevant section of Rule 2.7:

members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links

 

IOW, post what you wish to discuss here.

 

[Sriman Dutta]

Your TOE does not include QM.

[Dimitri]

A true Theory of Everything would have to be more compelling that a set of equations. The one thing theorists keep missing in such Ideas is the thing they use to create their Ideas--that is Mind. To have a Theory of Everything you would have to explain, show, or at least have an Idea of how Consciousness, or Mind entered into the universe. But Mind is the one universal factor and I suggest, the most fundamentally important factor of all, that needs to be explained. How is it that we Thinking Beings can contemplate the Idea of the universe, and formulate Ideas on how it all came about. Mind needs to be included, not excluded, in a true Theory of Everything, otherwise it is not a Theory of Everything. Science can only deal however with physical reality. It's limited in its scope. There needs to be a sensible, rational division here between what we can calll Science and what we can perhaps best call Philosophy, or speculative philosophy--and that takes us to metaphysics. I make room for both science and metaphysics, but the one must compliment, not undermine the other. It seems we're approaching close to a theory of everything however given that big bang cosmologists have overturned the Kantian antithesis that has it that the universe had no beginning in time (what Kant calls his First Antinomy). If Kant were alive today, he would have looked upon this finding in science as profoundly important. The idea that the universe had a beginning in time is crucially important not only to science, but to theology and metaphysics.

[Strange]

A true Theory of Everything would have to be more compelling that a set of equations.

 

 

I don't think you know what the word "theory" means.

 

 

 

The idea that the universe had a beginning in time is crucially important not only to science, but to theology and metaphysics.

 

There is, currently, no evidence that the universe had a beginning. And neither theology nor metaphysics have anything to do with science.