h a l f b a k e r yBuy 1/4, get 1/4 free.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
T.O.E. Essays
Speculations about how to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics more compatible with each other. | |
T.O.E. = Theory of Everything
This "idea" was sort-of posted once before on the HalfBakery. The idea consisted of four longish essays that were actually posted on another web site. A link inside that prior posting, here on the HalfBakery, pointed at the site where the essays were located. However
in the dot-com crash, the hosting site died, and the link became bad -- and routine clean-up here at the HalfBakery discovered the broken link and eliminated the "idea" here. So it goes, some days.
Well, folks, I found another place to post the essays (see link below).
AND the first of the four has been thoroughly rewritten, to deal with a significant error. Hopefully, they now stand more firmly than before, in terms of presenting a blazed trail, toward that primary goal of Physics. Also, they have been converted into .PDF format, so as to preserve accurately such things as mathematical symbols like the Greek delta.
As a bonus, an additional document has been added to the group-of-four-essays, which presents a bunch of equations associated with the fourth essay. That essay attempts to present an overview of quantized gravitation, which of course would be a major part of creating a T.O.E.
Feel free to peruse those essays, and post any comments here!
T.O.E. Essays
http://www.nemitz.net/vernon/v_madsci.htm
Here's an active link to the Web address described above. [Vernon, Apr 02 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
A speculation in conceptual logic
http://vernonnemitz...on-131braj0vi27a-2/
"Simple" quantum gravitation, using certain of the notions that were posted here years ago. (Originally posted as a Google "Knol", but Google decided to stop hosting knols, so it got converted into a WordPress blog posting. [Vernon, Oct 29 2008, last modified Dec 10 2013]
[link]
|
| |
Theory Of how Everything
becomes boring if only repeated
often enough. Do we have to
suffer this again? |
|
| |
I am NOT going to read those
essays. I am sure they are
trash, and unentertainingly dull
trash at that. |
|
| |
What happened? Flushed the idea and reposted it? Does [Vernon] think it'll get a better reception the second time around? And what about this makes it more than an advertisement? |
|
| |
neelandan, your prejudice is showing. A bald statement that something-or-other is trash should be supported by evidence. So, why don't you read enough to find the sort of error that makes your declaration of "trash" valid? |
|
| |
PeterSealy, my "Faster Than Light?" idea here on the HalfBakery could be called a theory of nothing. But it happens that the nature of the vacuum is also an integral part of the T.O.E. essays. Next, as you may recall, my original posting stated plainly that I thought the essays were too long for the HalfBakery, and weren't you glad I didn't post them here? So I am simply repeating something that people agreed with enough, it earned some croissants -- and shouldn't have become lost, to need repeating. |
|
| |
phoenix, the original post of the T.O.E. stuff here on the HalfBakery was not deleted because there was something wrong with having it here. As I already noted at left, the actual location of the files got killed in the dot-com crash. The essays were not at fault. The posting now is no more an advertisement than it was originally. |
|
| |
Vernon, for you to think "the essays were too long for the HalfBakery" - they must be really damn long then. |
|
| |
waugsqueke, it is not so much that any one of those essays was long (double-spaced: 23, 14, 14, and 20 pages), it was that there is a group of 4 that belong together, and together they really are quite long.
Then there is the fact that the essays use a fair amount of special text, such as bold, italics, superscripts, a fixed font table, etc., which just can't be displayed here. |
|
| |
Aw, c'mon guys - don't be so harsh on Vernon - Whether Speculations about how to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics more compatible with each other are correct or not, he puts more effort into a single idea (Which may be the problem) than most of us put into all our ideas combined. Croissant for saving Server space. |
|
| |
Folks, the third of the four T.O.E. essays has just been updated (4 pages appended, mostly dealing with discoveries made since 1995, when "The Balanced T.O.E." was written). Its total length is now 18 pages, double-spaced. I think the essay has survived without being beaten up by those discoveries, but perhaps someone out there can let me know for sure. Thanks! |
|
| |
To be fair to Vernon, I went to his site and (tried to) read those essays. I read through the first few sentences of each, looking for an introduction, then scrolled past and looked at the end hoping to see a conlusion. |
|
| |
I have reached a conclusion: These essays do not belong here. They are destined for more glorious parts. |
|
| |
If you will go to AfroAssaults' page, Vernon, you will find a link to a place where you can shove yourself and take those damn essays with you. |
|
| |
neelandan, thanks for trying. Too bad you failed. |
|
| |
In case you didn't notice, each of the links to the essays is accompanied by a very brief description of the topic covered. The essays themselves are not formatted as formal technical papers, simply because they ARE essays. They are not required to have either abstract or synopsis or overview or summation. They simply start, flow for a while, and stop. Kind of like what an editorial does. |
|
| |
So loosen up your bias, go with the flow, and try again. You may be pleasantly surprised to find something worth thinking about. |
|
| |
//They simply start, flow for a while, and stop// |
|
| |
A tale told by Vernon, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing. |
|
| |
[neelandand], your mere claims are worthless without evidence. Prove them. |
|
| |