TONS of stuff, or just some stuff?
I have also replied to you, which you have also IGNORED.
Does 'everyone' know I am a troll or just some?
Also, what is a troll?
TONS of stuff, or just some stuff?
Does 'everyone' know I am a troll or just some?
If by 'them', you mean assumptions, which you state that I am supposedly making a lot of, then what assumptions do you think or assume that I am making?
Did I make that actual claim, or did I say 'information', in books, is used to, supposedly, 'validate' things.
Is that really what you think?
Did I say, you did or did not say that, or did or did not say otherwise?
So what? That has NOTHING to do with what I wrote here.
You can presume all you want. If what you presume is actually true or not is another matter.
Okay.
Parts of I already have.
Yes okay.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 am I too would very much like to see ken produce this Theory Of Everything so can you do that please
How long do you really think it would take one person to write some thing, like a theory of everything, in which there is NO ambiguity and also NO need for any person to ask any questions?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 amMake it as detailed as you can so that there is no ambiguity and also no need to ask any questions
That is very easy indeed. But I can not even get human beings to look at an imagined scenario, in order to find some thing out, let alone get people to look at some thing that they already KNOW FOR CERTAIN is NOT true or does NOT exist.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 amI shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
HOW do you KNOW that?
To Me, this is NOT about either proving any one (any thing) wrong nor falsifying any thing also. This is just about how any and every person can see the truths and see the falsehoods in any thing in which there is supposedly two sides of.Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pmIt wouldn't unite them, but rather eliminate them, else it would not serve the purpose of proving that we're all wrong.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 amI shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
'Science' like absolutely any thing is what you, your self, make it.
That is EXACTLY NOT WHAT I SAID.
Again, HOW do you KNOW that a theory of everything does NOT already exist?
That has already been shown, and proven.
I had not thought of that before. Thank you.
If it is a sensation or not is yet to be seen.
If you really believe you gave "tons" of links, then that speaks for itself, and, if you really believe you gave them to "all" of My questions, then you are more blinded than previously thought.
Can only find a couple or so. By the way they NEVER really answered the actual questions I was posing anyway.
People can conclude any thing they like. But from what I have observed older human beings any way usually more so conclude from their own beliefs and assumptions, which can be totally distorted, than they do from actual real and true facts.
As you have made the claim you should be able to demonstrate it so can you please do soken wrote:That is very easy indeedsurreptitious57 wrote:
I shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
No because you have made the claim that they are easy to unite and that is not conditional on anything elseken wrote:
Would you care to explain what parts if any you think are not united between general relativity and quantum mechanics
If you did then I would know what parts you are very interested to see how I try to or could actually unite
You appear to be very quick to jump to a conclusion, which you seem to believe is absolutely true and correct.
But just because you, and others, believe and say "all physical process run slow" that does NOT mean that it is true, right, and correct. Especially since that belief is based solely on a couple of examples of when it was said "a clock has run slow" with speed.
If that has NOT yet been shown and thus proven and/or evidenced, through tests and/or experiments, then HOW do you KNOW that this would, of course, happen?
Again is this a proven unambiguous fact that could not be disputed, or just an assumption of what would happen?
This would ONLY be noticeable relative to other human beings devised and created clocks or relative to earth's revolution in relation to the sun.
No because you have made the claim that they are easy to unite and that is not conditional on anything elseken wrote:
Would you care to explain what parts if any you think are not united between general relativity and quantum mechanics
If you did then I would know what parts you are very interested to see how I try to or could actually unite
I believe this is the exact quote, page 52 I think.ken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:34 pmThat is EXACTLY NOT WHAT I SAID.Noax wrote:His post asked if we would accept his TOE if he produced it.
Your ability to read actual words written down and twist them into what you imagined is being said is a result of the actual BELIEFS that you already have and hold onto, and from making up assumptions, which are based on past experiences.
My summary of it hardly seems to be "EXACTLY NOT WHAT I SAID". OK, you asked about our opinion of you having such a theory, and not how we would react if it was actually produced, and the reaction I suggested was presuming it passed falsification tests. Without the tests, it would be a Theory of Nothing, despite any title you might care to slap at the top of it.ken wrote:Are you in any way, shape, or form at all open to the possibility that I already have a better theory or better still already have A "Theory" of Everything, which would obviously do away with ALL other theories?
And you accuse me of twisting. I said that your TOE doesn't exist and that you are not going to produce one. It was a comment about you, not about the theory potentially being produced by somebody else.Again, HOW do you KNOW that a theory of everything does NOT already exist?Noax wrote:That is not a claim that it exists, and of course we all know it doesn't.
Such a troll post. I meant all of us reading this thread, yourself included. Your language skills are weak indeed if you really needed to ask this.By the way who is the 'we' you refer to here?
Yes, I believe this elevates it to a claim, not of existence of the theory, but of the ease of producing one.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 pmAs you have made the claim you should be able to demonstrate it so can you please do soken wrote:That is very easy indeedsurreptitious57 wrote:I shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
Well, if you want to be even more specific, what people who have bothered to look at the experimental data know, is that the clocks were reported to read times that were in line with what relativity predicts. If you break the habit of a lifetime, and do some research, you too can read the papers to that effect. As I said, you can attribute that to a fluke, a conspiracy, divine intervention or that relativity actually describes reality fairly successfully.
Great. So you won't mind repeating them.