Pro – ‘The Tao Te Ching’

Tao means roughly ‘the way’ or ‘the path’ and Taoism is more a way of life than a religion. After I discovered what would become Pro theory I finally knew how to understand everything and so I began to read the Tao.

It remains the best book I’ve ever read, its gentle suggestions and constant insights are valuable beyond riches and correct beyond words. Every great idea needs a philosophy behind it and for my own life I choose the Tao. I’m just going to leave this thread as a work in progress as I hand copy passages from what I feel is the best translation of this wonderful book.

One of its main principles is subtlety and just for an example I’ve been trying to find the words to write an introductory passage here but I’m trying too hard and so I’ll take this message as a sign and let the Tao do the talking. This thread is in the theory of everything forum as it goes with Pro theory as a guide that does not directly contradict any religion but that is open to interpretation and exploration by the individual.

I’m closing this thread until I’ve copied the full text out from my book so that I can complete it fully as a whole first before any replies. If anybody wants to discuss this while I’m still copying the words out please start your own thread about it. There are lots of online translations of the Tao but I feel that this is the best 🙂

********************************************************************************************

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The Tao that can be talked about is not the true Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Everything in the universe comes out of nothing. Nothing – the nameless is the beginning; While Heaven, the mother is the creatrix of all things. Follow the nothingness of the Tao and you can be like it, not needing anything, seeing the wonder and the root of everything. And even if you cannot grasp this nothingness, you can still see something of the Tao in everything. These two are the same only called by different names – and both are mysterious and wonderful. All mysteries are Tao, and Heaven is their mother: She is the gateway and the womb door.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Life, all life began without words. Life is made – and no one owns it. The Tao is neither selfish nor proud. The Tao is generous and graceful in what it does without ever claiming any merit. And the sage’s greatness lies in taking no credit.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

If the sage refuses to be proud then the people won’t compete for his attention: If the sage does not buy treasures then his people won’t want to steal them: If the sage governs with vision then his people will not go wrong. So in his wisdom, he restrains himself:- by not being greedy for food- by not dominating the State- by keeping himself healthy and fit. The sage always makes sure that the people don’t know what he’s done, so they never want to be in control – and are never driven by ambition. He keeps them in truth like this acting invisibly. You see, if there is nothing to fight for then there is nothing that can break the flow.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The Tao pours out everything into life – It is a cornucopia that never runs dry. It is the deep source of everything – it is nothing, and yet it is in everything. It smooths round sharpness and untangles the knots. It glows like the lamp that draws the moth…Tao exists, Tao is but where it came from I do not know. It has been shaping things from before the first being, from before the Beginning of Time.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

What is going to be diminished must first be allowed to inflate. Whatever you want to weaken must first be convinced if its strength. What you want to overcome you must first of all submit to…What you want to take over you must first of all give to – this is called discerning. You see, what is yielding and weak overcomes what is hard and strong: (And just as a fish can’t be seen when he stays down in the deep don’t show your power to anyone).

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The Tao goes on forever Wu-wei – doing nothing. And yet everything gets done. How? It does it by being. And by being everything it does. If people and rulers go by this then every living thing will be well. And if parts want to separate the true leader will use the centrifugal weight of this original unnameable Oneness. It is simple: If no one wants anything for themselves then there can be peace and all things will know peace the way music ends in peace.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Beauty and mercy are only recognised by people because they know the opposite which is ugly and mean. If the people think they know goodness then all they really know is what evil is like! Nothing, and Heaven share the same root – Difficulty and ease are a part of all work. The long and the short are in your hands, above and below exist because they each do, what you want and what you say should be the same… Neither future nor past can exist alone. The sage has no attachment to anything, and he therefore does what is right without speaking by simply being in the Tao.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The guide who walks the Way never resorts to violence. The sage goes to the left side of the Emperor. While the man of war goes to the right. Weapons are terrible things – and no sage will have anything to do with them, unless there is no alternative. The sage wants peace and quiet. No victory is free of grief, and so the celebrate one is to glory in the death of innocent people. No one who revels in death like this can be true to the Way or is fit to rule in our world. At glad times, the place of honour is on the left, after disaster it is on the right. So in the army, the officers stand to the left while the general stands to the right. So the whole thing is staged like a funeral. When a war kills many, we must mourn for them – and if you win the war, you must grieve it.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The Emperor’s advisers will never recommend violence if they know what the Tao is. If you use the strategy of warfare it can only result in revenge. After troops have tramped by only weeds grow in the broken ground. There can be no harvest, and everyone is left starving. If you need to take action, only do what is necessary. Never abuse your power.And if you’re successful, don’t be smug; If you are a success, don’t trumpet it – if you think you’ve won, never overdo it. Those who use force soon end up without it – and this is not the Way.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The Tao has no name, it is a cloud that has no shape. If a ruler follows it faithfully, then every living thing under heaven will say yes to him.Heaven and earth come together and a sweet dew-rain falls. The people do not know why, but they are gathered together like music. Things have been given names from the beginning. We need to know when we have enough names: this is wisdom. At the beginning of time the sage gives names to everything – seen and unseen. A ruler who walks the Way is like a river reaching the sea gathering the waves of the streams into himself as he goes.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

When you know the true being of another, you can judge – and if you truly know the Tao you will be in the light. It takes force to control people: but if I am humble, I can never be overcome. If you know what you have is enough you will be satisfied. But if you think you don’t have enough then you will never have enough! If you follow the Tao, what you are will last.You will live, and live, and outlive yourself again.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The Great Tao goes everywhere, past your left hand and your right – filling the whole of space. It is breath to every living thing, and yet it asks for nothing back. It feeds and creates everything, but it will never tell you so. It nurtures all things without Lording it over anything. It names itself in the lowest of the low. It holds what it makes, yet it never fights to do so, that is why we call it Great. Why? It never tries to be so.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Everyone will gather to the person who rules in the light of the One. To trust such a being is to live in true happiness and healing. Good food and sweet music may make you stop – you listen in passing. But the Tao: how does it seem? Oh, tasteless and shapeless by comparison. You cannot even hear it. Is it even worth trying to? Yes, my friend because it is unending.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Heaven and earth are not like humans. The Tao does not act like a human. They don’t expect to be thanked for making life, so they view it without expectation. Heaven and earth are like a pair of bellows: they are empty, and yet they can never be exhausted. Work them, and they produce more and more – there’s too much talking, it’s really better to stay quiet. There are too many laws when all you have to do is to hold on to the centre.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The Tao is the breath that never dies. It is a Mother to All Creation. It is the root and ground of every soul – the fountain of Heaven and Earth, laid open.Endless source, endless river. River of no shape, river of no water drifting invisibly from place to place…it never ends and it never fails.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Heaven and earth are enduring. The universe can live for ever because it does not live for itself. And so both last – outliving themselves. The sage guides his people by putting himself last. Desiring nothing for himself, he knows how to channel desires. And is it not because he wants nothing that he is able to achieve everything?

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The sage’s way, Tao is the way of water.There must be water for life to be, and it can flow wherever. And water, being true to being water is true to Tao. Those on the way of Tao, like water need to accept where they find themselves; and that may often be where water goes, to the lowest places, and that is right. Like a lake the heart must be calm having great depth beneath it. The sage rules with compassion, and his words need to be trusted. The sage needs to know like water how to flow around the blocks and how to find the way through without violence. Like water, the sage should wait for the moment to ripen and be right:water, you know never fights it flows around without harm.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Hold yourself back from filling yourself up, or you’ll tip off your stand. You can hammer a blade until it’s razor-sharp – and in seconds, it can blunt. You may amass gold and jade in plenty but then the more you have, the less safety…Are you strutting your wealth like a peacock? Then you’re setting yourself up to be shot. You bring about your own disaster because you’ve got too much. Let go, when your work is done: That is the Way of Heaven.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Can you nurture your souls by holding them in unity with the One? Can you focus your ch’i – your energy and become as supple and yielding as a baby? Can you clear your mind of all its dross without throwing out the Tao with it? Can you do it without self-interest so you shine like a diamond? Can you love the people of your nation without being pulled into action? Can you turn around and let Her rise up over you? The world spans out in four directions – and can you be as embracing? Birthing, nurturing and sustaining: The Tao does this unceasingly…It gives without holding on to what it’s made, it gives everything essence, without reward. It knows, without flaunting it. It is serene beyond desiring – and this is its virtue and its Source.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

TAO Thirty spokes on a cartwheel go towards the hub that is the centre – but look, there is nothing at the centre and that is precisely why it works! If you mould a cup you have to make a hollow: It is the emptiness within it that make it usable. They all do what they are made of to do what they do, but without their nothingness they would be nothing.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The five colours blind the eye – the five notes deafen the ear…The five tastes deaden the mouth: Riding the chase on horseback drives you crazy when you overdo it; And wanting what’s precious you do what distorts your being. The sage knows this in his gut, and is guided by his instinct and not by what his eyes want.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Most people fret about themselves and their status, but you don’t have to do this. What is success and what is failure? If you have prestige and favour, all you worry about is that it’ll get taken away. And if you have a lowly place you are still basically afraid. So both, at the root, make for fear. What does it mean that success is a problem? It means people are too bound up in themselves. If they weren’t so self-obsessed they’d have no need to be worried. If you can put yourself aside – then you can do things for the whole of the world. And if you love the world, like this then you are ready to serve it.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

When you gaze at something but see – nothing; When you listen for a sound but cannot hear it; When you try to grasp it and find it has no substance – then these three things, that go beyond your mind are moulded together in the One. Its surface doesn’t shine, but nor is its base dull. Given this, it is only knowable as no-thing. Confront it – it has no head; Come behind it, and it has no tail…If people could follow the ancient way, then they would be masters of the moment. And if you know the Way then you have seen the timeless way of the Tao.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

In ancient times, the leaders were as subtle as sorcerers. No one knew what they were about to do. How can we describe them to you? They were like soldiers about to cross a cold river, hesitant, watchful and uncertain. They were cautious like people who know there is danger. They were over-polite, like practised house guests. They gave way like ice, melting. They were simple like uncarved wood. They were empty like deserted valleys. They were muddy like unreflecting water. The mud will settle, and it is hard to wait for it. But if you can, then you can act. If you follow the Tao without pretension you will never burn yourself out.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The sage rules from the purest motives relying wholly on quiet and inner peace. He watches the seasons rise and fall and if he knows how things grow, he knows they are fed by their roots. And they return to their roots;To grow and flower and flow. Every thing must have its roots, and the tendrils work quietly underground. This quiet feeding is the Way of Nature.If you understand ch’ang – this principle of nurturing, you can understand everything. Not understanding it will lead you to disaster.If a sage knows this, he can rule and he will do so with patience and justice. Any man can become wise in this and he can walk the Way of Heaven. And if you walk that way you will be royal in the mastery. Life can end in pain – but if you live like this, under the Tao, you will fill your days with breath.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The highest form of government is what people hardly even realise is there. Next is that of the sage who is seen, and loved, and respected.Next down is the dictatorship that thrives on oppression and terror – and the last is that of those who lie and end up despised and rejected. The sage says little – and does not tie the people down; And the people stay happy believing that what happens, happens naturally.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

When the Great Tao is lost sight of – then people have to try to be kind and gentle. They try to compensate by being clever but this only breeds hypocrisy and sleight-of-hand. When families fall out relationships sour into useless formality. When the nation is misled and in chaos ministers mouth empty promises.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

If the sage could abandon his wisdom and skill, then everyone would be a hundred times better off.If the sage could let go of holding the scales, then everyone would flow in the web of harmony…And if the sage can give up looking to gain, then there will be no theft or exploitation. Now while these three things are important they are not enough: The people themselves need to learn simplicity. They shouldn’t need to know more than they do, and should have as few things as possible.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Listen, give up trying to be so learned and things will be a lot easier. Is there any difference between a yes and a no said insincerely? Is there really much of a difference between being angry and pretending not to be?What the people are afraid of I also need to fear. And what do most people do? They go looking for a good time. They go looking for fool’s gold and auspicious signs. Only, you see, I am lazy and I don’t give a damn about fame or money. I am like a child that cannot bring himself to smile.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

What do the people want? Money and things. And yet I find I have nothing, and I don’t care. I am as unambitious as any fool. Most people seem to be bright and sharp and how do I feel? Like a blunted sword. The people, the people are like waves of sea and I am drifting between them and wherever they are blown. And the people, the people are so busy! But I have nothing to bother about. I am a bumpkin, a lout. I am different, I am strange. I live for the Mother.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The Body of The Tao is a mist beyond your eyes. Tao of No Body, and yet within it is All Creation. Like a seed in the dark, and a dim light and from it, comes everything. Root, stem, leaf…its essence is in everything. Everything is born from this Tao. I say so, and I can prove it! From the beginning of time until now the Tao is eternal because it is creation. How do I know the Tao is the root of all being? I know this.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Learn to yield and be soft if you want to survive. Learn to bow and you will stand in your full height. Learn to empty yourself and be filled by the Tao…the way a valley empties itself into a river. Use up all you are and then you can be made new. Learn to have nothing and you will have everything. Sages always act like this, and are Children of the Tao. Never trying to impress, their being shines forth. Never saying ‘this is it’ people see what the truth is. Never boasting, they leave the space they can be valued in. And never claiming to be who they are, people can see them. And since they never argue, no one argues with them either…So the ancient ones say, ‘Bend, and you will rule.’ Is this a lie? You’ll find it is true. Be true to yourself, and all will go well with you.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

It is a natural thing to talk sparingly. And surely, this is right – even a great wind and lashing rain do not go on forever. It is naturally so.Both Heaven and Earth know it. And if neither can hold on to such an outpouring for long what makes people think they can? If you follow the Tao, all you do will belong to it. If you act with Virtue, all you do will have its power. If you lose these – then every way you will be lost. If you go the Way of Tao, it can only be with you. If you go the Way of Virtue, its purity will sustain you. But if you go the way of loss, then that will be your name; And if you cannot trust, no one will trust you.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

A man on tiptoe can’t walk easily. The man who strides on ahead is bound to tire. The kind of person who always insists on his way of seeing things can never learn anything from anyone. Those who always want to be seen will never help others to be. The showman is never secretly respected by anyone. People like these, say the Wise Ones are as useless as the left-over food at a feast: No true follower can relate to them.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Before the world was and the sky was filed with stars…There was a strange, unfathomable Body. This Being, this Body is silent and beyond all substance and sensing. It stretches beyond everything spanning the empyrean. It has always been here, and it always will be. Everything comes from it, and then it is the Mother of Everything. I do not know its name. So I call it TAO. I am loath to call it ‘greater than everything’ but it is. And being greater, it infuses all things moving far out and returning to the Source. Tao is Great, Tao, the Great! It is greater than Heaven, Greater than the Earth – Greater than the king. These are the four great things, and the ruler is the least of them. Humanity is schooled by the Earth; Earth is taught by Heaven, and Heaven is guided by the Tao. And the Tao goes with what is absolutely natural.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

What holds, what you can trust is the same as this quietness – and it is light hearted. This quiet light-hearted silence is the key to being free from emotion. The sage never abandons the Tao, He never lets its weight out of his sight. He may live in a fabulous house but he never gets caught up wanting to – and though there are always temptations, He stays unswayed, and smiles. So why is it that out rulers seem so bright, but are glib and insubstantial? Losing the weight of the Tao means you lose your root; And when you can’t sit still you lose the source.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

The sage who goes by the way leaves no traces. The sage who speaks the true law never slips up – He never calculates what profit he can make from what he does. He keeps out thieves with his wisdom! He’s never robbed – He makes sure the rules are binding, then no one can undo them:He is aware of everyone, leaving no one uncounted; He cares like a parent, and wastes nothing. This is the essence of harmony. So, a good man is a model for a bad one and, misguided, he is touched by his goodness. Not to follow a teacher here. To love his precious message is to lose the Way, however clever you are – this is the essence of the matter.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

Understand the thrust of the Yang – but be more like yin in your being. Be like a valley that parts to its stream; Be like a stream for the earth…And channel it, so it flows – to the sea. Be newborn – be free of yourself, be humble, be earthy, be a valley for the whole world. Be a channel for the energies here – weave them in a true and practical way so they can link up with the Way and become one again. Oneness generates everything: When the sage rules in the light of it, He rules everything. A wise man never tries to break up the Whole.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TAO

If a ruler behaves as if he’s invented the world, He will do no good at all. The earth is a sacred vessel – and it cannot be owned or improved. If you try to possess it, you will destroy it: If you try to hold on to it – you will lose it. Some are leaders, then, and others follow. Some drift like the wind, and others drive hard. Some are thick-skinned, and others have no armour; And some are destroyers, and others they destroy. So now you know why the sage abandons greed, all false charm – and every last bit of pride.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

The highest kind of man has innate goodness, and that is what he rules with. The lesser man brags about how good he is – and isn’t much good, I can tell you. A Man of Te rules by Wu-wei doing nothing for himself or of himself. The lesser man acts from his ego and what he wants is gratification. A man who rules with compassion acts through it – and no one even realizes. A legal man acts judiciously but he is still serving his own ends. The rigid man uses laws and if people don’t like it, force. If the true Tao is lost then morality takes its place. If that fails, we have ‘conscience.’When that fades, we get ‘justice.’When that disappears, we have the status quo. Confusion reigns. No one knows what’s going on. Predictions and prophecies abound – and they are merely gloss on the Tao, they are the roof of all twisted guidance. So the sage only looks at what is really real. He doesn’t just look at the surface – He blows away the dust and drinks the water…He doesn’t just go for the flower but also for the roots and the fruit. Blow away the dust, now: Come to the living water.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

From its first days, the universe came from the One. The heavens are one, and clear, and round because of it. The earth is one, and is its firm infused foundation…The spirit force is one, with all it brings into being – the valley is a oneness, and so it flows and renews all things. Everything is one – every living thing is one, and alive! Kings and lords are one in a kingdom that is one. And they can only rule truly because of the One. If Heaven wasn’t clear, then the sky would fall down. If the earth cannot be peaceful, it will tear itself apart. If the Spirit cannot bless, then no one will believe in it – if the valley can’t rebirth, then the valley will run dry. If life can’t be itself, then life will be nothing: And if the king is nothing, then the world will be at war. Everything has both yin and yang in it – and from their rise-and-fall-coupling comes new life. The highest authority needs the basement as its base and the depths are the foundation of the heights. That is why rulers call themselves lonely, like souls in a wilderness who have no home. And, in doing so, don’t they see then that their roots lie with the people? To see yourself as extraordinary is to stand out like jade among ordinary stones; But what people ignore – the lonely, and the worthless – is the rock a true leader finds himself on. You see, you win by losing – and you lose by succeeding.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

The Tao moves in every direction at once – its essence is fluid and yielding. It is the maker of everything under the sun: And everything comes out of nothing.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

When the wisest student hears about the Tao, he follows it without ceasing. When the average student hears about it he follows too, but not all of the time…And when the poor student gets wind of it he laughs at it like an idiot! And if he didn’t, then it wouldn’t be the Tao! That is why the ancient ones said: The path that is bright seems dull, and the one who is going towards the Tao seems, in fact, to be going backwards – and those that think the Way is easy will find it extremely hard. The greatest virtue is to be empty like a valley. Those who think they are perfect never are – those who feel that they are, feel inadequate to the task, and morals seem to be no more than a contrivance. A great square has no corners: A great work is never done with; A great shout comes from a whisper, And the greatest of forms is beyond shape. Tao without substance – invisible – ever-creating.Forever creating.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

The Tao gives birth to the One: The One gives birth to the two; The Two give birth to the three – the Three give birth to every living thing. All things are held in yin, and carry yang: And they are held together in the ch’i of teeming energy.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

The very softest thing of all can ride like a galloping horse through the hardest of things. Like water, like water penetrating rock. And so the invisible enters in .That is why I know it is wise to act by doing nothing. And how few, how very few understand this! People teach in the world what I know to be true: If you live violently that is how you will die.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

What really matters most, your image or your soul? What do you care about, your money, or your life? What’s actually the best, making it – or losing? If you pour all your energy into one thing, you’re sure to harm the rest of your being and if you invest it all in profit – you’ll end up losing the whole lot. If you’re not always wanting, you can be at peace. And if you’re not always trying to be someone you can be who you really are and go the whole way.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

The great thing done is never perfect – but that doesn’t mean it fails: it does what it is. Real richness means to act as if you had nothing because then you will never be drained of it. The greatest straightness seems bent, the greatest ability seems awkward, and the greatest speech, like a stammering. Act calmly, not coldly. Peace is greater than anger.Tranquillity and harmony are the true order of things.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

When the Tao runs the world, the horses work the farms. Without Tao the horses are led into war along the borders. You see, if people want more and more it can only lead to disaster. Greed is the seed of apocalypse – it is the catalyst of selfishness: me, me, me! If people could only be glad with all they have, if they only knew it, they’d be happy.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

Without going anywhere, you can know the whole world. Without even opening your window, you can know the ways of Heaven. You see: the further away you go, the less you know… The sage doesn’t need to travel around. Why? This is because he can still understand. He sees without needing ‘to see.’ He never does anything, and yet it all happens.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

Usually, people read because they want to know – but the more you study the Tao, the less you want knowledge. And as you want less and less, you come closer to not-doing.Wu-Wei – this is the way to get things done. The best way to run the world is to let it take its course – and to get yourself out of the way of it!

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

The sage is never opinionated, He listens to the mind of the people.’ I am kind to people when they are kind to me. I am kind to them even if they hate me. Virtue – Te – is its own reward. I trust those who trust me, I also trust those who have no faith in me: What I give, I receive. A sage is self-effacing and mindful of offence. He sets himself as his own example. How shall I treat you, my son? Like a child.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

In the normal way of things every three in ten live long, while every three in ten die young – and for those just passing through their lives (that is, every three in ten) the chances are the same. Why is this? Well, it all depends on how identified they are with the mundane world of matter. People who know how to live will never do things that threaten their lives, any more than a traveller who knows this will run towards a tiger or wild buffalo. Living well is like wearing a kind of armour that nothing can penetrate. Living badly is like being attacked! A practised sage is invulnerable to attacks that punch like a buffalo’s horn, that claw like a leaping tiger – or that stab like a knife in the back.And why is this? It is because he is impeccable.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

Everything streams from the Tao, everything is nurtured by Te. Everything is made out of substance. Everything is created by the Tao of Nature – and from everything on earth that surrounds it. So every living thing should bow to the Tao, the Tao and its Virtue because they are what it is. Everything that breathes comes from the Tao, and the Virtue feeds and takes care of it. They grace things without possessing them, they benefit everything but ask for nothing back, they give themselves into everything without seeking control. This is the essence of the original intention.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

Every living thing comes from the Mother of Us all: If we can understand the Mother then we can understand her children. And if we know ourselves as children we can see the source is Her. And, well, if your body dies – there’s nothing to be frightened about. If you keep your mouth shut and stay inside – then you’ll live a long time. If you blurt out what you think to everyone, then you won’t last long. Value littleness. This is wisdom. To bend like a reed in the wind – that is real strength. Use your mind, but stay close to the light and it will lengthen its glow right through your life.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

If all I know is a fraction – then my only fear is of losing the thread… The Great Way is easy but people are forever being taken down sidetracks. They look after the palaces, but ignore the fields! The granaries are empty – but they wear wonderful clothes! They go about with arms and gorge themselves on fine food and drink. How rich they are -and they have stolen it all from the poor. They are the robber barons of now – this is not the real Tao!

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

What is built on rock cannot be pulled down. What is held lightly can never be lost. Meditate on virtue within yourself, and you will find the benefit of virtue. Use it as ground for the family, and your virtue will last for generations. Take it as your guidance for the village, and the place will blossom for years to come. Use it to guide the nation, and that nation will create abundance. Be guided by it for the Whole, and it will flood its way over the world. So, look at someone else as you would yourself and treat other families as you would your own. See your community in other communities, think of all countries as part of your being and treasure the world as the round centre of everything. How can I see the world like this? It is because I have eyes.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

Those who have true Te are like a newborn baby.- and if they seem like this, they will not be stung by wasps or snakes, or pounced on by animals in the wild or birds of prey. A baby is weak and supple, but his hand can grasp your finger. He has no desire as yet, and he can be correct – he can cry day and night without even getting hoarse, such is the depth of his harmony. It’s stupid to rush around. When you fight against yourself, it shows in your face. But if you draw your sap from your heart then you will be truly strong. You will be great.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

If you know what it is, don’t talk it away: If you do, then you don’t understand.Hush, keep it in, and your doorway shut – steer clear of sharpness and untangle the knots. Feel your lightness and let it merge with others, this, we say, is our basic oneness. The sage who does this doesn’t have to worry about people called ‘friends’ or ‘enemies’ with profit or loss, honour or disgrace – He is a Master of Life instead.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

To rule a nation, use justice. To win a battle – cunning, but remember: Wu-wei is the only true way. How do I know this? I will explain: The more rules you have, the more unhappy people are. And the more weapons there are, the worse things happen. The more we want luxuries, the more we abandon simplicity – and the more laws you pass, the more we will break them. So the sage says: I do nothing, and the people come together. By leaving them alone I let them be on the path – by not using my power, they become rich in themselves. And if I want nothing, they will return to the essence of their being.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

If you govern with a generous hand – then your people will be good people. But if your system is too constricting then your people will outwit you… Good fortune, we say, can come from disaster: and the reverse is true as well. Who knows where all this will lead? Honesty can flip into deceit in a moment, people trying to be good can fall into the dark and it can take them years to get out of it. So the sage is like a razor, but he doesn’t cut, he is straight as a die, but not pointedly so – he is bright, but not blindingly so…

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

When ruling the world and serving Heaven, the sage uses simplicity in everything he does. Simplicity comes from letting go of what you want. If you’ve been true to yourself earlier in your life then Te builds up in you like a well that never fails. Nothing is impossible, then – and nothing can stop you. And if you have no limits – then you can hold the State. If the sage can find the Mother of a Nation then he will govern for a long, long time. All this comes from the rootedness in the Tao, The Tao of Ages, the Mountain Of Vision And Of Wings.

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’ TE

Ruling a big country is like cooking a small fish, you have to handle it with care. If a sage uses the Tao then evil forces have no power. He doesn’t harm people either. Through Te, you see we have harmony.

********************************************************************************************

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’

Didn’t realise I’d closed this topic :p Thiago, I’m not 100% sure whether there is a doctrine within Taoism that says we must meditate or not but in my view meditation is just the same as deep thought.

The Buddha said that the highest form of meditation is that which we do every day in our normal thoughts. Things like positive thinking and similar.

So I wouldn’t necessarily say that Taoists meditate in the classic Buddhist way but we wouldn’t be against it either. Taoism is really sort of a folk wisdom way of living and it doesn’t mention any God specifically which is the main reason that I am a Taoist so to speak.

Taoism isn’t so much a religion in the sense of me saying ‘I’m a member of the Taoist faith’ it’s more like a way of life. I know many people say their religion is a way of life but Taoism is actually more of just a way of life, it’s all about harmony and balance through nature and doesn’t attribute creation to anything in particular, just to heaven or ‘the mother’ which means the universe.

I like it because it fits in with Pro theory and the three pronged forces that I often speak of. I believe that only by harmonising these three separate forces into a unified answer of three potentials can we create a theory of everything.

This balance is the basis of my whole theory really. Three things at once, no more no less. Hope this helps 🙂

Thiago – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’

So, as you wanted me to ask here, how do Taoists see the world (like God and stuff)? Is there a book that’s like a bible, or Taoism is based on many books?

I really enjoyed the Tao Te Ching book, it really looks like Taoism “philosophy” is like Buddhism (probably because of the culture of where it came from, that’s Asia).

I know that there’s some people that follow a Buddhism/Taoism religion. And… do Taoists follow some rules like some Buddhists do (like to not eat after mid day…), or is it like “do whatever you want, just don’t kill, lie, envy…”?

Btw, I don’t follow any religion, my religion is my philosophy, I see something good in all religions, but they always have something that I don’t agree, but most of what I believe comes from Buddhism. Why Buddhism?

I had thought already that what make us sad is because we want stuff, and what make us happy is when we have what we want, so if you don’t want anything, you will be happy, if you want to have everything, you will live a sad life. Well, that’s all! 😛

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’

Hi Thiago, it’s good to hear from you 🙂 I’m not entirely sure how to answer you here as I only really know the Tao Te Ching as the main Taoist text.

I’ve heard it said that Taoism is often coupled with the writings of Confucius, as he writes specifically about moral conduct and how to live a good life as a compliment to the Tao. Traditionally Taoism seems to be associated with three major texts, the Tao Te Ching, the I Ching, and the Chuang Zu.

I’ve not been able to find a copy in print of the Chuang Zu but I think it’s a kind of more down to earth text as opposed to the Tao Te Ching itself. The I Ching on the other hand is a divination oracle, said to have been copied down from old divination bones that were cast upon the ground by priests to read the future.

As far as I know Taoists don’t see a God as such, they just see the wonder and beauty of nature and the universe without attributing its formation/creation to any being or other. Taoism is similar in some respects to Buddhism which I’m also quite familiar with but the two are distinctly different in their ideas and how they approach creation and the after life etc.

Buddhism is mainly concerned with what is known as ‘the Buddha mind’ which is a perfect and serene state that is incorruptible. They say that the Buddha mind is always clear and bright and a truly enlightened being or person will have no need to adjust their thoughts after their perfect state of achievement.

Taoism is different also in that it doesn’t talk as specifically or rigorously about any perfect state of mind, it’s all about just living a peaceful and quiet life, without needing to describe and explore and categorise our existence.

What I’m saying here isn’t Gospel in the sense that I know everything there is to know about these philosophies, I can only tell you what I know myself. I don’t know of any rules that define Taoism such as fasting or prayers etc like we might see in some forms of Buddhism so I think you’re right, it seems to be a case of just following the Tao (the path or the way) and not killing, hurting, or being too full of yourself.

I like what you think about lowering our standards in life, and it’s true that the more we want the more disappointed we become. The Tao says ‘the more we have the more we worry that it will be taken away’ (or words to this effect).

I think that when it comes down to it this is common sense isn’t it. The richer we become in the personal sense the more we worry, they say it’s lonely at the top and I believe this to be true. If you’re the best at whatever it is you do, then you will always be worried about somebody being better than you.

I also think it’s important to note that the original Buddha was a very rich and spoilt prince in India so it makes sense that one who was born with great riches may renounce them all in later life in a similar way that many modern millionaires started as a child of very poor parents and so sought wealth.

It’s just the opposite to the Buddha, he was rich and became poor and many people began poor and ended up as rich.I hope this helps 🙂

Thiago – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’

Thanks, so my thoughts about Taoism are kinda right, I will try to find some copies of those two books to read, I’m sure it will be a good knowledge for life.

And yea, I pretty much know about that what keeps people sad is that they don’t achieve what they want, I used to be a really competitive guy and not so good with competition (I used to fail many times), after I realized that I shouldn’t worry so much about it (and now, I don’t care about it at all), I’ve started to win more and live my life in peace.

I really see those books priceless, It’s really easy to find books that can tell me anything(that’s already discovered) about physics, calculus etcetera, but finding books that can actually teach me about this miracle, that’s life, it’s really hard =P

Pro – ‘Re: The Tao Te Ching’

No problem Thiago 🙂 You will surely be able to find a copy of the I Ching divination oracle as it’s quite popular I think but I can’t even find the Chuang Zu myself yet, if you find a copy in print I’d love to hear what you think of it and what it says.

I used to try to be competitive too actually but in the end I decided to just live my life the best way I’m able to and hope for the best. I find that instead of trying to look on the best side of things it helps me to think instead ‘Don’t look on the worst case scenario’ rather than trying to look positive.

It’s like with my videos on YouTube, I’m not so worried that people like me, I just don’t want anybody to dislike me if you see what I mean.

It may seem that the two statements seem very similar but they are slightly different. Rather than me trying to please people I try to not displease them instead if that makes sense.

I’ve looked for a Taoist monastery in England before lots of times but I couldn’t find one, only a Buddhist one which is different to Taoism and not quite what I’m looking for. You’ll have to let me know how your search progresses :peace:

Concept of Duality in nature

illuminati – ‘Concept of Duality in nature’

Hi all, I’m a currently a college physics student trying to develop my own “theory of everything”.

I’ve been trying to solve the riddle of duality in nature but have been unsuccessful due to limited academics. So far I’ve only taken basic modern physics class and with ideas I’ve learnt I tried to connect religion and language.

I’ve attached an incomplete paper regarding my philosophical inquiry. I know this might not make sense because its not filled with complex mathematics but with simple geometry, but you guys can help me out and point if I’m going in wrong direction.

Please give me honest opinion and don’t be sarcastic as I’ve already mentioned that my academics are limited. However, I’m glad that I’ve at least tried.

P.S. since I was unable to upload my paper I asked admin (Pro) to upload my paper under this thread. This paper is incomplete and I’ll go on including this concept in my own version of “theory of everything” as I progress academically in my mathematics. Thank you.

leroyperez2 – ‘Re: Concept of Duality in nature’

Hi all I am not getting the concept of Duality in nature, as I am little bit weak in Physics, so it will be nice if you could explain me it in detail.

Pro – ‘Concept_of_Duality’

Concept_of_Duality is a physics paper uploaded by user illuminati…[URL]http://www.fprotheory.com/math/PhysicsPapers/Concept_of_Duality.pdf[/URL].

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Good job Illuminati. As zero is, so too are we and all that is or is not. I used Vesica Pisces as the symbol to describe your left/right brain with the middle as the connection analogy.

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Vesica_Piscis.svg[/IMG] but over all we have been speaking of the same Idea + – 0 not one but all three as the whole idea.

My past life is here [URL=”http://www.fprotheory.com/showthread.php?t=188″]http://www.fprotheory.com/showthread.php?t=188[/URL]~ Adam.

illuminati – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Hi Adam thank you for your response, Here’s how I extended the concept of my infinite potential to give the relation between the energy and matter in form of flashing light. Please respond if I’m going in right direction thank you.

This was what occurred to me currently while thinking of the concept of duality and string. I was looking at the lecture by Garret Lisi on E8 structure of particle distribution and found out that we’ll be able to find the missing particles if we look into the “infinite potential quantum well” I deduced using basic geometry.

The links that matter wave is connected with antimatter wave by cosmic waves eventually making a symbol zero which represents nothing as discussed by Buddhist religion.

So if the connection zero is represented in form of flashing lights. I.e if light is constantly flashing and we get simultaneous light and dark that is 0 when light is off and 1 when light is on in form of simple binary signals.

Its like you’re in matter world when light is off and in “enlightened” state when you are in where light is on. So the cosmic wave link between matter and anti matter wave gives rise to matter when the geometric figure is zero and lightened state is when they annihilate to form light.

So this can be in form of vibration of string from “somethingness” to “nothingness” constantly.

But if we think how exactly these vibrations of whole system works, we relate this to the missing particles or the hidden cosmic rays or “lifetrons: the particles that give life to living organisms” , that enter through the potential wells through different channel, mostly black holes and pass through the virtual portal from our skulls into our brain basically suggesting our brain that we’re alive by vibrating the basic sub atomic particles in our body or body of any matter object.

This happens so fast that we’re alternately living in an absolute quantum state because we constantly see matter and light at the same time, i.e. when we look into the surroundings”.

Hence when many physicist against string theory say “what exactly is vibrating when there is nothing to vibrate?”, but I say the state of matter and anti matter is vibrating from existence to non existence (which produces pure energy in form of light).

This is linked to Schroedinger’s “dead and alive cat” there are two possibilities one light energy produced by annihilation and another where linked matter and antimatter world exist, thereby giving only one possibility an instant of time.So I think that every thing is connected by a single string giving the sense of life and matter world. But the undiscovered particle “lifetrons” is the main key to explaining the existence of whole life and matter world.

Looking at my geometric figure you might say what’s the guarantee that cosmic waves link matter and anti matter world in a form of symbol zero, we can link that opposite poles attract, that is the cosmic waves are bent where the field of strength of these two world are the strongest it bends the most and least where there is none, i.e. like the wave linking two poles of these two magnets placed side by side in a three dimensional spaces.

And the channel through which this two world are linked might be black holes where the wave’s space time gets curved and the waves are thrown out into infinite potential until caught in the field of anti matter world.Similarly if we link Einstein’s e=mc^2 formula to this thought, the matter world in which we are is constantly changing from matter to energy(light) and vice versa like a flashing light.

First there is matter and antimatter world when the geometry is ‘0’ and the force of attraction between them gets very big then they attract each other to give out light in third dimension 90 degrees outside the plane where ‘0’ disappears to give symbol ‘1’ (this is just an imagination).

Each interval of time inside the quantum worlds is a infinitesimal section of a sine wave of light and cosine wave of matter and superimposing with each other to amount to zero wave hints at the void world. I exactly don’t know what this void world is but some religion say that this system of nature is “void” and everything in this world is made up of one single string maybe called “lifetrons” which might explain this but my work is still in progress.

I hope to get some more concepts and mathematical equation of my work.

illuminati – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Haha just realized where the concept of “Let there be light and there was everything came” from my hypothesis above and also Adammedici, I think you explained the transfer of cosmic energy in my matter and anti-matter well by your hypothesis of “vacuum creating energy” in “Giving God a name” thread. Thanks.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Hmmm where to start. First I would preface whatever I say with a deep truth: all that matters is what you think. Too many philosophers/mathematicians/scientists have been dissuaded from innovation because of the intolerance so called superiors may have towards new ways of thinking.

Are you going in the right direction? I think so, but without a test to prove it or an equation to quantify it; so far as the scientific mind is concerned it is one of a long list of possibilities.

I opened a fortune cookie yesterday that told me the trick to having people comprehend what you say is by keeping it short and Simple. I realized this was no ordinary cookie… Explaining the Universe/God in a short and simple way is quite hard even if it is made as simple as Pro’s theory +, – , 0.

I think you will know if you are going in the right direction when you can simplify your idea into an equation an inch long. But when you get to that zero which IS the universal constant and which you HAVE identified in your paper (which means you have evolved passed the minds of the limited) the respected scientific community rejects it outright.

They (physicists) tend to not like zero’s because it confirms the infinite exists.

I regard this as putting a limit on your mind. If you accept that you are part of something infinite you have nothing to ever fear, and know there is nothing that is impossible. If you can not except infinities then you are putting your mind in a prison and giving it boarders and walls that it can never surpass ~Adam.

illuminati – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

You are absolutely right Adam, I’m still an 3rd year undergraduate student and question of quantifying my hypothesis by equation might be limited due to my limited courses in Mathematics.

However, the thing you talked about down here:(“If you accept that you are part of something infinite you have nothing to ever fear, and know there is nothing that is impossible”) might be verified by little probability.

For example: Consider a spider inside a room at any point in space. Quantum mechanics says there is infinite possibility of finding that spider at any point in space inside that room.

So the probability becomes P=1/∞, which is equal to 0. so ∞ probability is basically equal to zero explaining the void world. Also i was listening to the lecture of Roger Penrose on series of multiple big bangs.

So might this be related to my flash light hypothesis that annihilation (when light is on i.e. 1) explained in my diagram is the point of singularity whereby energy is changing into matter and anti-matter (which most physicist explain as big bang) and when the two wells are expanding creating “vacuum energy” as you explained they are attracted again to annihilate and this phenomenon continuing for infinite number of time??

Well give me your feedback. I’ll keep you updated on my work. Illuminati.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Thanks. While I have read your paper several times I am still a bit of a neophyte on some of it however, the most important diagram I saw (and one of the simplest) was the second one showing wave and anti-wave. This is called destructive interference and is a phenomena of all waves hence all energy.

If you consider those two waves as a part of a whole system, that whole system is three parts made up of two waves. This is very illogical via 2=3.

But it is true, the system is made up of wave and anti-wave and together the two waves cancel. So the whole system is Zero, wave, and anti-wave all at the same time….. 0,+,-. haha Pro again.

But this can be explained with the Vesica Pisces symbol I use as well…. What I’m trying to say is that Pro, You, and I (as well as all who’ve taken on zero) are all trying to say the same thing in different ways.

It is very cool that three people with separate lives to have all found the same idea and came to the same conclusion. And we all have met via our interest/obsession with this one phenomena. Perhaps we aren’t so separate after all. ~Adam.

illuminati – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Just watched Roger Penrose’s before the big bang video on YouTube and he talks about the idea I proposed in form of superimposing waves using cosmology way before I did. I was real pissed that my hypothesis has already been proven. haha.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Penrose? It dates much farther back than Roger Penrose, check out Georg Cantor in the late 1800’s. Or Archimedes who dates pre 200 B.C.

flammableeye – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Just have to completely agree 🙂

uponit_12 – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

[quote=Pro;1087]Concept_of_Duality is a physics paper uploaded by user illuminati…

I will make my response brief concerning problematic content or misinformation in your article posted in this forum. I will preface this by stating that I as a general rule I live by the motto question everything like many others, and therefore encourage others to do the same, and having said that even with some disagreement regarding some of your conclusions I think it is great that you take the time to actually think outside of the traditional box of acceptance which virtually everyone falls into.

Ignoring the religious context in the article, which creates more problems for your argument than benefits you may think it adds. Theoretical study which is often combined with experimental observation and analysis does not in any way work towards the support or negation of religious ideology, but if one is making assertions towards science, math, etc…

Which may stem from anything presented in the religious arena, you have now tried to validate the methods of study in science with opinion, perceived revelation, or hearsay, and the two absolutely do not mix, true or not.Back to disregarding this as a basis for duality, and addressing the problematic content. I will only mention one aspect of your approach in order to cut down content.

Concerning your observations on the atom and electron duality, annihilation, skin the portion of your document is clear now. What do we know about the atom, electron, protons, and neutrons (excluding the smaller particle existence)?

Well in order to make any assertions concerning the nature of electron movement or Heisenberg, the atom must resemble the hydrogen atom and deviations and exclusion from these general rules will apply for all other multi-atomic particles. We know that the hydrogen atom weighs ~1.008g, the proton weighs ~1.6e-27 kg, and the electron weighs ~9.9e-31 kg. Electron radii is ~e-22m and proton radii ~8e-15m.

While the proton does indeed on occasion have a complimentary anti-proton, typically the electron is the mediating balance of reactivity in either direction depending on which has greater quantity. A case addressing your assertion, assume you have a hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron.

To start with you do not have duality as the electron and proton number is variable and you are just as likely to have H+ and H- or H2 for that matter (even though they are not chemically equivalent).

Now assuming you have a solution of only Hydrogen atoms with each having equal numbers of protons and electrons (not real) so that you can actually determine what might happen if UV was to strike some electron in the mixture (this is a rare occurrence and therefore a small number of electrons are actually affected in the solution, as determined from measurement) it is assumed, or seems to be obvious, that the path of the electron with be ever so slightly modified.

If perhaps the energy level is just right, not too high or low) then the atom might release a proton (perhaps in the form of light) and this light or lack of can be measured. A very small number of the hydrogen atoms are now H- (for equality assumes some are H+ too) does this show that the hydrogen atoms are now less?

The answer is no. You perhaps have lost a value in the order of e-27kg per proton which by itself is 1800 times smaller than the atom itself. It might seem to be a process which gradually decreases the value of the hydrogen atoms which come into contact with the UV light but this is not true, even in a closed system where the water in the air will readily donate a proton if needed.

No matter what the equilibrium or number of protons and electrons in a system will never change, even if you consider protons can become neutrons and vice-versa (short periods of time). You have not decreased anything or annihilated anything. For no matter what the counter reaction to any reaction is happening with equal periodicity to the reaction under observation.

The exact effect the UV has on the trajectory of the electron has not ever been measured and unless something miraculous comes into existence it never will be, and so you have people like Heisenberg stating that there must be a duality and statistical analysis shows this movement to generate deviation in concurrent measurements of varying observables to be too great in extent for reliable results to be obtained.

A video you posted which makes not of this and the relevancy to the wavelength indicates you have read some about it, but also shows you do not understand the nature of combining the experimental evidence with the theoretical predictions is impossible when it comes to electron location in real-time, there really is only experimental observation and the formulas for which this could be understood have already been created.

You assumed that this might seem contradictory, and others have as well including myself at one point, but this is not true. While it may not have been clear to the founders of Quantum Mechanics as to what the electron was doing, it has since become reality and the probability density diagrams have easily shown where the electron travels and the probability of where it may be at any one time.

Of course you already know how this defies your interpretation of the Heisenberg Principle. All he had to contribute to this was to say that once the measurement had occurred applying it to the wave functions we currently know and use would only yield the value for one observable at a time, and no matter the triviality of the time increment imposed on the subsequent observation the value (even if it happened to be the same electron, which is impossible) would not be the same as if it had been the observable being calculated the first time with the data from the first measurement.

An unavoidable problem with the modern understanding of Quantum Mechanics, and the methods used to produce experimental data. As for you interpretation of the duality in reference to the Schroedinger wave function for analysis of the wave nature of particles, and the Heisenberg Matrices method of analysing the particle nature of a particle (odd but the only way to say it which is currently used).

There are some problems in his theory and some have been brave enough to try and publish something to that end, but unfortunately the common consensus if you make a discovery like the duality theory being false and even go so far as to develop another one, no one cares unless you do all the leg work for them and reform every other equation based on them as well. This is unfortunate but true.

Duality has been successfully argued as non-existent by several individuals with respect to Quantum Mechanics. One such site is: [url]http://milesmathis.com/index.html[/url] you will find this site very interesting if you like to questions things, and believe one large problem is conformity to prescribed methods of thinking and observation.

He in a way copies (among other things) the fact that duality has problems based in the fact that you have tried to apply a Cartesian coordinate system, or any other coordinate system to it for that matter. By doing such a thing you have now lost the actual importance of the particles position and location.

Assuming the particle occupies a position zero at any time relevant to itself and every other particle in the real world holds this very same property. Only analysis which would allow all points of view of this particle can bring the coordinate system into correctness.

Example let’s say you have a hydrogen atom and you hit it with UV and the machine makes the appropriate measurement of the light passing through, or actually the lack of light. What is wrong with this is that you have now assumed that the hydrogen atom is some distance from the source and you can only measure what happens within that coordinate system as a consequence.

If you do not see the fallacy in this perspective, you should read the article on his site concerning the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and you will see the problem and the resolution to such train of thought, which also unfortunately creates problems which your argument cannot cope with.

You should be able to read over the various things he has posted on his site some with mathematics and some without and learn a much more thorough and full proof method for making assertions like you have.Lastly, when making an assertion like yours regarding atoms and light, comparing it to skin at that point destroyed your original assertion by reason of relevance and scope of argument.

Quantum Mechanics cannot even be mentioned in the same sentence as anything occupying a system outside the boundaries of its perceived relevance. If you can find a way to do this a Nobel Prize is waiting for you.

Furthermore the argument on skin is incredibly shallow and lacking any real scientific evidence to make clear the reasons why you make the claim, and how it is shown to be true. Simply claiming the sun is destructive to the epidermis is not a viable means of argument, because the reason it is left out along with the actual consequence which you claim to be destructive, and the subsequent reason that such a consequence can be interpreted as being detrimental.

Anyway, that is might attempt at bring an issue to duality, there are others, and hopefully it makes since, and was detailed enough to follow.

TriPower – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hi I’m Tina from Australia….I first heard about Pro Theory in 2007 through a seemingly negative event. A guy on YouTube had posted a video ridiculing Pro…..I was curious about this “weirdo” that I visited Pro’s site……and never left figuratively speaking.

I think Pro gets a rough time about Pro Theory and a big part of me wants to fight his detractors off with a big Stick……I do this with Logic. Not that I’m an expert at it but it is something I find very useful.Anyway I rejoined this site because I wanted to use a new Username….TriPower = it’s how I feel in the sense that Pro Theory has empowered me.

Pro – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

[quote=Gidroscop;643]Hello everybody:wave:, basically I’m trying to understand more what our world really is.

I found that for many topics there are so many different opinions among people. I would appreciate to hear what you think about things like whether time travel is possible or not, what could be beyond our universe (if there is something), could there be other universes, and are there other civilizations.

(Sorry if it’s a wrong place to post this.)[/quote]

Hi Denis :wave:You can start your own topic if you like, just post wherever you feel your questions are best suited.

Pro – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Welcome to our newest member mravel :thumbup: I just read your profile, looks like you’ve got very similar interests to me, welcome :wave:

Andresen – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

[quote=Pro;149]If you’re new to this forum please introduce yourself here :)[/quote]Good Morning,I’m new to the ‘message board’ procedures.

It took me awhile to find where I could leave a message…And now that I found the place…I’m not sure what all will be interesting to talk about here.I have an interest in toes.

I’ve thought about them and have some things to say about them. That may be the thing I would like to chat about the most.Toes.

Tesla’ – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hello, Joined a few days ago but I couldn’t post yet for some reason. so I came back today to see if my account had been enabled yet and it has, obviously. I am female.

Just so there is no confusion. Tesla could be male or female but in most people’s minds it would be male.I came upon your site while searching for smilies and it looked interesting so I registered.

Haven’t really read anything yet here but will now, have a look around.

M_Vos – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hi Tesla :wave:Welcome to the forum, hope you will find some topic that interests you and if not you may create one =)

I’m a bit of a Nikola Tesla fan as well; the man had very good ideas and his theories have improved our understandings of the physical world a lot.

M_Vos – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

No, the person in the videos is Pro; he is the founder and owner of this forum.I’m a chemistry student who tries to give a small contribution to the discussions on this forum =)’

Tesla – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Ahh, I figured that out after I posted. Pro is VERY good looking man and quite endearing in his manner of speaking. :thumbup:

Pro – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

[quote=Tesla;1030]Hello,Joined a few days ago but I couldn’t post yet for some reason. so I came back today to see if my account had been enabled yet and it has, obviously.I am female.

Just so there is no confusion. Tesla could be male or female but in most people’s minds it would be male.I came upon your site while searching for smilies and it looked interesting so I registered.Haven’t really read anything yet here but will now, have a look around.[/quote]

Hi Tesla, I’m Pro, the person in the videos :thumbup:

I don’t know why you couldn’t post when you first joined, seems strange to me as I’m sure I’ve not got any controls set up on new members. Well, I’m sorry anyway, :thx: for joining us on here. Please feel free to collect every smilie on here, to get them on here I did the same, I spent ages looking for good ones on various forums.

Where abouts are you from, Europe, Asia, America?

Tesla – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Yes, searching and finding good smilies is very time consuming. I can see you have a good mix. If I come across any I find unique I will PM them to you for your consideration :thumbup:

At one point I had thousands saved but inevitable total destructive recovery got rid of them ALL so I had to start again. I had the url’s save in Notepad, not JUST the actual smilie sites too.

Yes, I couldn’t post here for a few days after I registered and once I was able to actually post I couldn’t use any smilies for a day or so after that. Maybe it’s something in the program.’

Pro – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

[quote=Tesla;1036]Ahh, I figured that out after I posted. Pro is VERY good looking man and quite endearing in his manner of speaking. :thumbup:[/quote]

:redface: Thanks for that, much appreciated, kinda makes up for all the negative comments I get :thumbup: :headspin:[quote=Tesla;1040]Yes, searching and finding good smilies is very time consuming. I can see you have a good mix. If I come across any I find unique I will PM them to you for your consideration. :thumbup:At one point I had thousands saved but inevitable total destructive recovery got rid of them ALL so I had to start again. I had the url’s save in Notepad, not JUST the actual smilie sites too. :COLeek:Yes, I couldn’t post here for a few days after I registered and once I was able to actually post I couldn’t use any smilies for a day or so after that.

Maybe it’s something in the program.[/quote]

That’s gutting, losing all your hard work 🙁 At least you’d got them saved though. Please do contact me if you find any good smilies, or whatever. I still don’t understand why you couldn’t post, I’ll have to look into it and see what’s going on.

Tesla – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

It’s not unusual. It’s happened to me before on many sites. It was explained to me that it’s a kind of stop-gap prevention kind of thing so new members won’t just join and start just posting nonsense with a lot of smilies.

Hmm, I see I can’t use the smilies again right now. Can’t even copy the url and use the image brackets.You should bring this to attention of whoever takes care of these things. You pay for this site, right?

Pro – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

I pay only for server space, the forum is run completely by me which is why I don’t understand. I know for a fact that I haven’t limited new users at all, you should be able to Blog here as well, I hope that’s still working.

Anyway, I’ll make a new test account and see what’s going on :)I’ve not even looked at the smilies I’ve got for ages come to think of it, I like these ones:

:blanka: :sonar: :terminator: :ravin: :pong: I put the text ‘ravin’ in myself, editing each individual frame. And this flare, such a hard move to do in real life: :breaker: And this mini GIF: :spam:

Protest – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

:coffeecomp: :matrix: :peace: :yes: :wave: 🙁 :blah: :banghead5: :nut: :sleep2: :welcomesign: :breaker: This is Pro with my test account and I seem to be able to use smilies with no problem.What browsers are you folks using? I use Firefox myself.

Tesla – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

IE.

Pro – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

[quote=Tesla;1051]IE[/quote]I thought you meant I.E. you can’t post smilies then but I now realise you mean Internet Explorer.

M_Vos – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Used Firefox before, but now I’ve been using Chrome for 6 months or so. Chrome is a stable browser and fast so very equal to FF if you ask me.

Tesla – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

[quote=Pro;1053]I thought you meant I.E. you can’t post smilies then but I now realise you mean Internet Explorer.[/quote]Hahahaha. I’ve heard THAT before.

Jenneez – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hello Everyone, It took me a little while to find the Introductions page, so not sure if it’s me or a glitch somewhere?My name is Jennifer and I absolutely love this forum! When I ran across it I got stuck reading all the interesting things in here…lol.

I grew up in the beautiful Ozark Mountains and I live in the United States in Missouri. A few things about me is I love to meet others, especially from all over the world.

I enjoy social networking and meeting new people. I have many interest such as business, marketing, arts and crafts, history, science, medical, entertainment, photography, music, hang gliding, family, friends, and so much more.Hopefully, I can visit here a lot for I am a very busy young lady. Look forward to chatting and getting to know everyone!:wave:

dzenkinrob – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

I already put my favourite song in another thread but didn’t introduce my self yet. So, my name is Robert and I come from US. Hope to find some interesting theories here to tell my friends later 🙂 Good luck everybody and see you in forum.

fileextension – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hello every one.. I’m John, 25 years… I’m new to this site. I am expecting to meet wonderful people, more fun and excitement.

dnljackson012 – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hello to everyone in this thread as well as in this forum. I like graphics and math. I’m looking forward to enjoying it in this forum. all the best to all of us. :wave:

chrisrwilliams – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hello everybody, I am Chris and I hope to interact with all of you here in this great forum.

wburke -‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hey everyone…Name is William and I look forward to meeting new people and sharing information.

burlhammonds – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hello all, I am Burl and I am really excited to be part of this forum. I am looking forward to interacting with all of your here. Let’s all learn. Thanks for accepting me as a member :thx:

d.hutchinson67 – ‘Re: Introduce Yourself’

Hi to everyone. I’m Daniel and I’m looking forward to enjoying it here in this forum.

Pro ‘Re: The Riemann Hypothesis’

So in my opinion all we have to do to solve RH is realise that there are three potentials within all numbers including the primes and act accordingly. If we can realise that numbers repeat themselves infinitely then we’re on track I feel.

All numbers start with these three amounts and end with these three amounts. Zero is neutral and so is real point one half and so this is the answer to RH. If we wanted to say definitely whether or not, or rather how likely it is, that RH is true then all we need to do is explore how likely neutrality is in this form.

Zero always has a neutral potential in theory and if the critical line of non-trivial zeros is both comprised of zeros and also in the neutral point between 1 and not 1 then we can reasonably suggest that RH is true.

This has been demonstrated by me in terms of numbers repeating themselves and also by me with the images I posted above showing the visual representation of RH. It all adds up to neutral, middle, in between or whatever you wish to name it as but the result is the same no matter how large or small the prime.Understanding the primes as repeating sets of three potentials is a bit like building a road so large that it defies observation.

You can build a road of any size but the fact remains that you can still drive on either the left, right or middle of the road. Numbers in all their forms are the same in principle.This is why I call Pro theory a theory of everything and also why I use the same kind of explanation for all these problems.

This simple opposites and neutral idea is not only the answer to RH it is the answer to everything :thumbup:

Pro ‘Re: The Riemann Hypothesis’

My first ever exposure to the RH was in a New Scientist article entitled (I think) “Does nature dance to music from the primes?” I read this article back in about 2001 or so and this got me into this problem and the nature and relationship of the primes to the sequences of nature and the universe.

I realised that if I could explain the primes and why they exist fully I could by default also explain the RH as the whole problem is simply about whether or not prime numbers follow a certain unchanging pattern.

Namely do all Riemann zeta function ‘zeros’ lie on the critical line ad infinitum?Let’s begin by saying that prime numbers as I understand them are numbers that may be evenly divided only by themselves and 1.

So this is the basic definition of our building blocks, I say this because the primes are said to be the building blocks of all other numbers.So on the building theme let us imagine that the RH is like a house built of bricks. We have discovered a completely built house made of bricks but we cannot work out its exact construction yet (ie solve the problem).

All we know is that the house seems to be constructed in a certain straight forward way but we’re not sure whether the whole house is made using this same method or not as the house is so enormous as the defy a physical exploration of it.The house is the RH, and the method of construction is the zeta function and critical line.

As I’ve said, the ‘house’ which equates, mathematically speaking, to the sum total of all possible primes, is so enormous that we may never be able to define its size finitely. The size of the group of all possible prime numbers is debatably infinite so using super computers to check all primes may not work no matter how fast our calculations become.

So we’ve got a possibly infinitely sized house with a possibly infinitely adhered to construction method (critical line) so what do we do? Well, it just so happens that when we look at the house we can see that it is made up of many many bricks (primes) which regardless of size or amount all follow the same pattern of formation (i.e. all are bricks).

All bricks are identical in one important aspect, they are all prime. This gives us an important inroad to studying the house (RH) as we can disregard the relative “size” of the house (which is almost impossible to comprehend accurately) and its construction method as we now know that it is built of infinitely repeating identical pieces (prime numbers).So now we’ve removed the basic stumbling block to our solution.

We already knew we had an extremely complex and possibly infinite idea to solve but now we know that this idea (RH) can be split up into repeating pieces that always follow the same pattern, otherwise they wouldn’t be called “prime” would they, if they were not evenly divisible by themselves and 1.

So now we’ve got the idea that understanding primes as separate from RH may help us with solving the problem.In my answer to this problem in this thread I’ve explained the origin of numbers and if you read my original answer to this problem you’ll see that Pro theory takes a completely different approach to most other theories as it attacks the notion of ‘singularity’ at its core.

By this I mean that even if somebody provided a solution to the Riemann Hypothesis the opposite and neutral potentials to their solution would still have to be accounted for to be totally accurate according to Pro theory.Solve one prime and solve them all.We just need to explain the notion of a single “prime” number to explain them all, they are all identical in their (prime) nature of construction, only the size differs and the idea of ‘size’ is relative at best.

The RH is just exhibiting neutrality simply speaking, the critical line with real part 1/2 is in a neutral position when seen visually.I honestly see the Riemann hypothesis as simple and dare I say it, easy to understand in principle. It’s just a mathematical problem that hasn’t yet been “proven” to have a singular answer.Pro theory suggests three simultaneous potentials at all possible moments.

As I’ve said before any singular solution would still be subject to opposite and neutral potentials in turn ad infinitum.The critical line is exactly that in visual terms, a line. Just a line. All we need to know is if this line continues unchangingly. Looking at this request for a singular answer critically we see that the three potentials still occur and so we completely and totally undermine the concept of “singularity” in the first place.

Pro – ‘Re: The Riemann Hypothesis’

I’m not for a moment saying that singularity doesn’t exist, I’m just trying to show my views on things here. The critical line is neutral as it occurs between the two axes when we look at a graph like representation of the RH.

My suggestion is that as the Riemann ‘zeros’ have real part 1/2 (as I understand it anyway) that 1/2 is the neutral point between zero and one.Therefore real part potential 1/2 will exhibit neutral distributional characteristics when studied in forward sequence such as the RH.

Come to think of it we could look at the Riemann zeta function in reverse or look at negative primes as well.All things (everything) work in both forwards and backwards directions and the point at which they are not definably either potential we get zero.

Incidentally, zero as a symbol is a loop, could be coincidence but it makes for an interesting aside I think.My reason for mentioning the loop is Pro theory and its looping properties, the zero(s) are the key to understanding this problem as after all it’s the zeros that seem to lie on the critical line subject to a contrary (opposite) instance.I think that it is simple to understand the RH.

All it says is that all of certain zeros lie on the critical line with real part 1/2. It is a singular statement isn’t it and according to Pro theory we know that in theory there are likely to also be opposite and neutral potentials within all singular statements such as the one made by Riemann.I can’t help but see it as simple like this. It’s real part 1/2 which is not real or non real it is half, neutrality in example.

I think it is because zero is a neutral potential in the first place, itself symbolising the point between numbers 1 or not 1, that zeros will appear to be distributed neutrally when studied in forward sequence like Riemann chose to do.Numbers have three possible potentials of formation I think and the key to “solving” the Riemann Hypothesis is simply to realise that zero is neutral and so is the critical line.

It couldn’t really be any more simple than that I don’t think.Riemann made a conjecture about an equation being either true or false and wasn’t aware that in literal theoretical potential three simultaneous answers are equally possible.

Pro – ‘Re: The Hypothesis’

So there’s a few things I could say now about numbers and the RH which after all is simply the observation of a pattern and a request for an unchanging “proof” of this pattern (ie the critical line).

If we look at what makes a number “prime” we see that it can only be evenly divided by itself and 1. There should be an opposite to the prime numbers as well according to Pro theory. So we now have prime numbers, an opposite to prime numbers, and neutral (between primes in this context).

Primes are simply repeating combinations of the same three fundamental amounts (1, not 1, and zero) as is the same with all other numbers in my view. Numbers are added together, multiplied etc but in reality they still contain only repeats of the same potentials, no matter how relatively “large” or “infinite” they may seem to be.

The RH is often cited as being able to provide an explanation of all numbers isn’t it. I think that if we understand numbers in the way that I stated above we can solve and understand the RH. Solving the RH involves accepting or realising that zero is neutral, the critical line is therefore neutral, and that there are no unchanging singularities ultimately.

By this I mean the fundamental idea of Pro theory and its opposite and neutral suggestions.So the RH predicts and manifests neutrality, as zero is neutral.

If you wanted to say “is zero always neutral?” I’d also suggest three potentials but having said that it’s reasonable to assume that in this specific context of the RH exposing neutrality within numbers that neutrality will always be present in the form of the critical (neutral) line.

This is about as accurate as we can possibly get with a “proof” of the RH. The RH IS the critical line in effect, the absolute crux of Riemann’s original statement was the critical line continuing forever.If indeed we assume that these numbers are transcendental then we can gain an inroad to studying the problem. Again we can see that for every even number there is an opposite.

In this case the opposite would be an odd number. Let’s keep things simple and just say that we have even and odd numbers. Pro theory adds neutral to the mix to complete the loop of three potentials simultaneously and then we have odd, even and neutral (zero) to deal with.To be honest it doesn’t surprise me that people associate the RH with QM and DNA sequencing as my whole point with Pro theory is that everything shares a common pattern of structure and formation.

If you look at DNA for example you see that there are two interwoven strands and nothing in the middle. There are not 10 or 50 million strands there are simply two opposite strands with neutrality in the middle. If we look deep into Quantum Mechanics we see that all atomic structure is based on protons, neutrons, and electrons. The same three potentials again.

If we sink into sub-atomic level we notice that sub-atomic particles are fractional versions of the same original charge. In other words no matter how small we go with particle physics we still see only the three fundamental potentials manifest. Anti-matter for example is the opposite of matter, the point between the two would be not quite matter or anti-matter wouldn’t it.

All anti-particles are opposites of actual particles.The RH asks us “Is this conjecture unchangingly true?”To which I provide three possibilities equally matched in potential.

The SDC asks us “Do these equations have a solution?”To which I provide the same argument.L and zeta functions are simply filters through which we pass values in the same way as every other mathematical function, at least this is how I see them.Perhaps my view is too simple to be properly translated into mathematics as I use a visual method exclusively for my study of RH and I don’t really refer to larger amounts than 1 (singular) More than 1 (not 1) and zero (neutral).

By saying this I only mean that it doesn’t seem to be worth my time to study other higher amounts of create my own commutative groups as in my view this would seem to complicate what is essentially a very simple problem (RH). Although I say this I don’t mean that I’m not interested in the work of others though, I just have my ideas and stick to them personally.

I often think about the “point” at which all number problems converge If there is to be such a point anywhere within the primes it will be the neutral potential of the prime zeros used as a base from which to study RH et al.

Zeros are neutral and the critical line is neutral in relation to the two axes when plotted on a simple graph and this translates into computer generated pictures of RH patterns in action. Zeros will always be neutral won’t they, pretty much anyway, so if zeros are (to quote Riemann) “very probably” neutral forever and the RH zeros lie “very probably” on the critical line we’ve got a proof or as near as we can get in my opinion.

We have to take the looping and infinite nature of all numbers into account here obviously but this is still the correct answer or at least I think it’s the most “correct” answer or “point” in the universally unchanging sense of what we know as “proof.”

So to sum up I’m offering my own version of a “proof” of RH, namely that all non-trivial zeros lie continuously on the critical line ad infinitum literally because zero is the point between a number and not a number. I think this makes sense.

Pro – ‘Re: The Riemann Hypothesis’

I’m editing this text as I go but I thought I’d post the majority of what I’ve said before so that eventually it will be able to be turned into a coherent document :thumbup:

Pro – ‘Re: The Riemann Hypothesis’

All I’m trying to say is:

1. All numbers are based on repeating combinations of three amounts or potentials.

2. All number problems are in turn based around these three repeating potentials.

3. If we can understand and accept the three pronged nature of all things we can see that zero is neutral and so is real part one half.

4. The critical line of Riemann zeros is essentially a neutral manifestation as it’s composed of neutral amounts (zeros).5. This is why when viewed visually the RH zeros seem to lie on a line between axes, at the point in-between real and non real, i.e. real part one half.

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Riemann_zeta_function_absolute_value.png/600px-Riemann_zeta_function_absolute_value.png[/IMG][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Zeta_polar.svg/600px-Zeta_polar.svg.png[/IMG][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Criticalline.png/600px-Criticalline.png[/IMG][URL=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis”%5DPhoto Source Article[/URL]’,

Pro – ‘Re: The Riemann Hypothesis’

I’ve been thinking a lot about Riemann and the primes etc lately, trying to come to some sort of semi-coherent conclusions. I find it difficult to write clearly without constant reference to opposites and the like which makes for less than easy reading at times I’m sure.

I’ve said before that if we can solve and/or understand a single prime number we can understand them all and by default we can also solve the Riemann hypothesis too.

It’s a lot more simple than currently allowed for. Let me explain.The point of RH is to find out in terms of both abstract theory (patterns etc) and actual calculations whether or not the prime numbers have a definite and unchanging structure or not. It really is as simple as that.

RH asks us a question and expects a singular answer as at the time it was first postulated (around 1859) singularities were taken for granted.So why are prime numbers so important? And why is it often said that solving the Riemann hypothesis will also fundamentally change physics?

The answer is again a simple one. Physics and mathematics are siblings, some might even say of the Siamese type. You cannot study one discipline without an inevitable cross over between the two. It works both ways, mathematics compliments physics and physics compliments mathematics.

So now we know that physics and maths are interchangeable disciplines with at least a fair amount of overlap. The easiest way to look at this relationship is probably to think of using mathematics to study and quantify physics and using the patterns and movements of physics (atomic structure et al) to visualise flows and changing patterns within mathematics.I think it’s worth noting that deciding which of the two disciplines came first in history is a bit like the Chicken And The Egg Paradox, singularly unsolvable.

Humankind has always wondered and measured and calculated since time immemorial and no doubt will continue to do so.Back to RH and the primes then and we’re left wondering just why the primes are considered more important than other numbers. The answer is that primes are said to be the building blocks of all other numbers.

Take this statement as literally as you like, the more so the better, prime numbers are the key to understanding all other numbers in current mathematical thinking.This comes back to my house analogy above, if primes are the bricks of which our house is built, and natural numbers are the cement, all we have to do is understand a single brick as the house is made of many repeated bricks.

Prime numbers create all other numbers because they repeat their same pattern over and over and over again. It is from this process of studying the primes in the positive (forward) sense that we derive all larger combinations. This is true regardless of the relative size or dimension of whatever number we happen to be studying.So if we accept that primes are repeated throughout the structure of all numbers no matter how large or small, no matter whether negative or positive numbers, we can finally see why we can understand a prime of any size because it always has the prime characteristic no matter what.

It shouldn’t necessarily take a load of complicated equations to come to this conclusion, all it takes is an understanding of potential as defined or at least suggested by Pro theory. Simply put this means that we need to look closely at what makes a number prime, and also what characteristics (if any) all numbers share between themselves.

A starting point for this could be a statement as simple as saying that all numbers share the same name of ‘number.’ Or all numbers share the same property of allowing themselves to be manipulated in certain ways, added to others for example.Continued below…

Pro – ‘Re: The Riemann Hypothesis’

All we need to do is to understand numbers, and therefore prime numbers also, from their very beginning. Their absolute fundamental and most simple forms need to be understood first. We cannot hope to truthfully understand RH without a good grounding in basic number theory first.

This is where Pro theory comes into play. We know that the theory suggests three simultaneously possible potentials within all things/everything.

Now without getting too far off topic here if we accept this changing potentials argument or at least apply it to our number studies some interesting conclusions arise. Let me explain.

Riemann was expecting a singular answer that didn’t change, he wanted a definite yes or no answer to his original problem. This has been attempted ever since his paper was published but as yet nobody has been able to prove this singularly. This is the important bit, the singularity.

It’s this single structure that we’re looking for here but in reality we have three potentials for everything, from maths to physics, to algebra, to the meaning of life to quantum physics. We need only note the common structure of electrons, protons and neutrons to see this at its most fundamental level.I’m not going into a rambling diatribe on Pro theory, opposites etc here but suffice it to say that this is the way all things work.

So numbers must surely follow this three pronged pattern of formation, named commonly by me as negative, positive and neutral for want of a better description.

Now we know that all things have both opposite potentials we can clearly see that numbers are repeating amounts. All numbers can run in the positive (forward) sense or in the negative (opposite or backward) sense. Numbers work both ways, this is why we have positive temperature scales for heat and negative (minus) measurements for cold temperatures.

Translated into numbers we see that numbers should follow some sort of three pronged pattern somehow. So if we look at numbers we have the commodities of 1 (singular) and the opposite to 1 (not 1 or more than 1) and we also have a third seemingly unimportant option of 0 (zero).

Zero seems unimportant because it is neutral, it’s neither completely 1 nor completely the opposite to 1, it’s in-between the two opposites, in just the same way that the middle is the point between left and right.No matter how large we make any given set of numbers it still comprises of these three repeating amounts or potentials. No matter how large any number is, it still debatably has both opposite and neutral potentials within it.

Numbers work in the same way that all other things within the universe do, in three ways.Now we look at primes. What I’ve just explained implies that primes must also possess an opposite and neutral potential.

When we think about it we see that there is indeed an opposite to the primes and that the primes also contain the neutral quality of zero. The position of zero within numbers studied or visualised in sequence becomes particularly important when we re-examine the Riemann hypothesis armed with this idea.Continued below…

Pro – ‘Re: The Riemann Hypothesis’

So we’re looking for a neutral potential within the primes and specifically within the Riemann hypothesis. Why are we looking for neutrality? The reason is because zeros are neutral and so is real part 1 half.

If we look at the following photographs we can clearly see that the numbers converge at the point exactly between real part 1 and real part nothing.

For the sake of clarity I’m referring to the middle of the crossed axes.

The absolute centre of the RH as defined here:[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Riemann_zeta_function_absolute_value.png/600px-Riemann_zeta_function_absolute_value.png[/IMG][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Zeta_polar.svg/600px-Zeta_polar.svg.png[/IMG][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Criticalline.png/600px-Criticalline.png[/IMG]

And this is why I’m constantly referring to the neutrality exhibited by Riemann’s idea, all the RH does is define neutrality within prime numbers simply speaking. I would ask you to note the importance of what I’m saying here as this is the key to not only visualising the RH but also to proving it.

Back to Pro theory then. My theory suggests that everything, whether number, flesh and blood, atom, tree or force has three potentials at all times no matter what. Armed with this knowledge and also knowing that RH is predicting a neutral pattern of formation within the primes we can begin to look at solving the problem.

donaldjeo12 – ‘Re: The Riemann Hypothesis’

FLORENCE, Colorado (AFJ) — American mathematician Theodore Kaczynski, who specializes in boundary functions, geometric function theory, and killing people, won the Clay Math Foundation’s $1 million prize for disproving the Riemann hypothesis.

The Riemann hypothesis involves the location of the complex zeros of the Riemann zeta function. While some mathematicians tried to prove it, others used powerful computers to search for counterexamples. Over a trillion zeros had been looked at, but Kaczynski noticed that they all had positive imaginary values.

He started looking at negative imaginary values, and almost immediately found a counter example, a complex zero that wasn’t on the critical line.

The Clay Math Foundation confirmed that he will be collecting the$1 million prize. Kaczynski said that he had little use for money, and will be donating the full proceeds to his favourite charity, a foundation that teaches underprivileged youngsters how to build letterbombs. Kaczynski had previously won the Clay Math award for other of their seven millennium math problems:

Finding a closed-form solution to the Navier-Stokes Equations. These equations are extremely useful for describing the flow of air or water around airplanes, ships,submarines, missiles, and, most importantly to Kaczynski, bombs.

He had also attempted to also win the RSA Challenge, which consists of factoring a large composite number that is the product of two primefactors. However, he was only able to find one of the two primefactors, so he did not win that prize.His future plans include proving the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyerconjecture, solving P = NP, and digging an escape tunnel with a stolen spoon.

Pro – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

So why did I write Pro theory?

Why do I bother to write at all?

Why do I think this is a theory of everything?

The answer is simply that this is the truth. Plain and simple. The truth is that this is the way that the universe works. It’s not complicated or impossible to understand, it’s the simple truth.

I know full well that I’m a very confusing communicator when I type and this doesn’t exactly help me with trying to get this theory understood and accepted by whoever it is that validates theories of everything but I’m just going to keep trying.

I think that current scientific knowledge is too often accepted as unchanging Gospel really. People may think I’m intentionally trying to be controversial here but I’m not. I just found out an idea, thought physicists and philosophers knew about it, and when I realised that they didn’t know about it, I started writing and eventually started making videos.

I’ve just been watching a light hearted biography of Aristotle and this reminded me of when I read a book called ‘The Story Of Philosophy’ a few years ago.

I remember reading all the different philosophies in a linear fashion, forwards through time, Greeks first, the Romans, then Medieval thinkers through the Renaissance thinkers towards the 20th century folks like Karl Popper.As I read each step forward in time seemed more profound than the other and then I realised after writing Pro theory that if I removed the words it was all the same kind of thing.

Each profound philosophy was simply trying to explain what we are and what the world is and how things work.The main thing that always keeps me going strong with my theory is when I read or watch arguments between philosophers and/or physicists. These arguments always seem to come down to one person saying one thing and another person saying the opposite.

This opposite position is after all the root of all argument is it not.I feel more than a little lost at the moment with all this thinking. For a long time I was neutral and I wanted to go into the woods somewhere and think and live on my own. It’s an idea I’ve always dreamed of since I was a child. The idea of there being just me in the woods on my own thinking and living a simple life.

I made a decision a few years after I wrote Pro theory, and this decision was to stay in society. I decided to stay with my family and friends because if I were to remove myself from society completely I’d have the Buddha mind which is always clear and bright but I’d just be neutral.

I wouldn’t have any purpose in my life other than random existence on my own and so I decided to try my best to help other people to understand in the hope that eventually something would happen.This is still what I’m trying to do but I’m pleased to say that over the years I’ve learnt the art of patience. No longer am I desperate to get this theory recognised by the world,

I’m now content to keep trying through what is known as ‘right effort.’ This just means that there is a subtle principle in life that says if you just try in a gentle way you have a good chance of getting what you want which in my case is peace and harmony in some form or another.

It usually takes me a long time to adjust to new things in my life and so I suppose this is why it’s taking me a while to get this forum going and get the topics I’m interested in written etc. I’m just taking it steady and hoping for the best. All I have to do is just keep trying to help people somehow :thumbup:

stevenz – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

I believe a theory of everything will also have to include psychology as well.

Many years ago one of the great psychiatrists ever, Sigmund Freud, said, in his theory of personality, that all behaviour is motivated by two basic forces, Life which he named “libido” and death which he named “thanatos”.

I believe these two forces are definitely related to the fundamental forces of nature because of the theory of the biological theory of “vitalism” which says that biological processes are not separate from the fundamental forces of nature.

Right now we have four fundamental forces if we can break them down to two we will get much closer.thanks. Stevenz.

Pro – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

[quote=stevenz;723]I believe a theory of everything will also have to include psychology as well.

Many years ago one of the great psychiatrists ever, Sigmund Freud, said, in his theory of personality, that all behaviour is motivated by two basic forces, Life which he named “libido” and death which he named “thanatos”.

I believe these two forces are definitely related to the fundamental forces of nature because of the theory of the biological theory of “vitalism”which says that biological processes are not separate from the fundamental forces of nature. Right now we have four fundamental forces if we can break them down to two we will get much closer.thanks,Stevenz[/quote]

I believe this too, Pro theory in order to be a theory of everything must apply to everything, psychology included. By definition, Pro theory is a set of three universally applicable principles, right across the board. My main point with all of my videos and literature is just really to say ‘hey everybody, this is a universally applicable principle (3 forces etc) I’ve given some examples (Pro Answers) and now I’ve set up a forum to flesh things out a bit.’

This is also why I’ve said in the past that I wish to share the experience fully, imagine trying to write an essay on exactly how Pro theory’s three simultaneous applies and works with literally everything. This would involve me writing about every single thing in every single time and place.

I’d have to write about every single word in every single language worldwide for starters. Every person in the world would need to be written about individually with an individual profile personalised and explained in every facet by Pro theory.In short me writing about every possible question and topic is physically impossible, I haven’t got the time nor the means to explain everything individually and so I explained the most pressing topics (Pro Answers) as an introduction in the hope that others would ask me more questions later on.

The easiest way to think of Pro theory is to think of the old saying ‘everything is made of atoms.’ Simple as that really. Growing up I was always fundamentally aware that my body and the air around me, the food that I ate were atoms at their lowest level.

This was long before Pro theory ever realised itself.So we look at atoms, we see electrons (negative), protons (positive) and neutrons (neutral).

We also see that when the neutron was originally discovered it was thought of as a composite particle, not as a distinct and separate entity as it’s now seen. In reality the neutron is composed of part proton and part electron, so to speak. When opposites meet in the middle we’ve got the neutron.This is scientific proven fact, everything is made of atoms.

This is not disputed in physics really, at least not in principle. The simple idea that all things in the universe are ‘made of’ atoms is not my idea but it’s the idea that led me to find Pro theory.Summing up as follows:

1. Everything in the universe is made of atoms (fact).

2. Atoms are made of protons (positive), electrons (negative), and neutrons (neutral).

3. If everything is literally made of atoms then everything must also literally possess the three atomic potentials.

If atoms create you and me, books, computers, emotions, thoughts, love, death, the moon, gravity etc then this means that it’s electrons (negative), protons (positive), and neutrons (neutral) that everything is made of.

Can you see this now? If you follow along it’s so simple :meditate:Atoms create everything, this is scientific fact > atoms contain three potentials therefore all their creations (life, love, the universe et al) must also contain these three potentials > just because an atomic creation is a computer, electricity, me, you, my car, a coffee mug, a physics textbook, the same fundamental fact remains > whatever it is we’re dealing with, any thing, and topic > atomic potential permeates in three ways.

If you can accept that everything is made of atoms, atoms have three potentials, and that everything therefore also has three potentials then you know as much as I ever will :yes:

Mr Scientist – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

Right – found a massive flaw in your theory. You base this on the condition that animals do not have a choice, and you also seem to base consciousness as a particular phenomenon for only human animals (because let’s face it… that’s what we are).

Well, this is wrong; how can animals not have choices? Do you base this strange hypothesis on the level of intelligence perhaps, because pigs are found to be just as intelligent as a two-year old child, maybe older.

Dolphins, elephants and apes can all register and ”know” their own reflections – this shows a great level of recognition and intellect. You also say animals do not act upon without thinking.

This is certainly not true also. How did you surmise this strange thought? Does a dog not choose to sit down if you offer them a biscuit? Does a dog not actually ”think” about that biscuit in order to sit? I think you should have thought through this better.

Pro – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

[quote=Mr Scientist;806]Right – found a massive flaw in your theory. You base this on the condition that animals do not have a choice, and you also seem to base consciousness as a particular phenomenon for only human animals (because let’s face it… that’s what we are).

Well, this is wrong; how can animals not have choices? Do you base this strange hypothesis on the level of intelligence perhaps, because pigs are found to be just as intelligent as a two-year old child, maybe older.

Dolphins, elephants and apes can all register and ”know” their own reflections – this shows a great level of recognition and intellect.You also say animals do not act upon without thinking. This is certainly not true also. How did you surmise this strange thought?

Does a dog not choose to sit down if you offer them a biscuit? Does a dog not actually ”think” about that biscuit in order to sit?I think you should have thought through this better.[/quote]

Hello, sorry it took me so long to reply to you. I wish to set the record straight here, my videos and ideas on consciousness are not reflective of my core theory whatsoever. These ideas on human and animal choices are my own interest, not strictly TOE related.My theory is as follows:

[quote]if you want to get really, really, really literal and technical about the TOE, everything has three simultaneous potentials plus the opposite plus neutral.Like it, or not, or neutral, this is how it is (but it also isn’t plus neutral). I apologise for my childish style of illustration here but to be understood Pro theory must be taken literally with no holds barred (plus the opposite plus neutral).

Whatever anybody says or states, I will ask them about the opposite and neutral potentials within their answer or statement, be it a TOE or otherwise.[/quote]By this logic I’m not stating any unchanging singularities, merely that all possible choices/outcomes/states have a theoretical opposite and middle (neutral) point also.

I would never actually say anything as a singularity without trying to account for all three potentials simultaneously.Have you read any of my other essays or my usual stock answers to people’s questions?

Tesla – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

[quote=Pro;329]I’m going to post a few of my new videos in for you as I seem to become more confusing with every word I type :p[url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwpXjN4dlJg”%5DYouTube – TOE Pro Theory Thoughts 1[/url][/quote] OK, this is the first video I have watched so far.

You explained it perfectly, I understood it.A couple of things stood out for me I.e.; thinking child-like and most people won’t “Get it” because of it’s simplicity. But aren’t you just reiterating the simple idea that something is either off or on?

Plus or minus? I know you say positive, negative and neutral, but isn’t that the same? I guess what I mean isn’t neutral a combination of plus and minus? I mean what exactly IS neutral?Let me just add this.

My mental state right now is very negative. I wish I could neutralize it.The possibility of adding more positive thoughts doesn’t seem to be helping. I just keep snapping back to the negative and I hate it. Any suggestions as to how to change this aside from unconsciousness?

Tesla – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

[quote=Mr Scientist;805]Let me be a barer of some harsh news. I am a physicist and I have studied many broad theories out there. Some of them are very good, but I tend to feel theories fail conceptually, mathematically and in every way consistently with the inexorable truth that full descriptions of the universe are incomprehensibly difficult to create due to a level of uncertainty.

I found you from a YOUTUBE site [url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP6nZsr_vqY”%5DYouTube – Theory Of Everything – On Understanding Consciousness #1[/url] , and I am about to sit down and see this theory of yours (which seems to involve consciousness?) – (I hope this is not going to be a solipsistic-natured theory) – they are purely cop-outs based on the theories of consciousness I have studied (which are vast).

First of all, there cannot be any true absolute theory of everything. Do you truly believe that the universe will allow us to reduce its complexities so easily?

I’m afraid too many variables and uncertainty exist for any true absolute model with both relativistic and quantum roots. And certainly if such a theory is plausible by even the most enigmatic conditions, the theory of quantum mechanics will undergo many changes yet before such a solution has presented itself.

Quantum mechanics is far too premature, and relativity far too incomplete to reconcile all these odds.[/quote]

I’m sorry but you said that in a repetitive thought process the electricity can’t get through. That puzzles me. I would have thought the opposite.

Pro – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

[quote=Tesla;1031]OK, this is the first video I have watched so far. You explained it perfectly, I understood it.A couple of things stood out for me I.e.; thinking child-like and most people won’t “Get it” because of it’s simplicity.But aren’t you just reiterating the simple idea that something is either off or on?

Plus or minus? I know you say positive, negative and neutral, but isn’t that the same? I guess what I mean isn’t neutral a combination of plus and minus? I mean what exactly IS neutral?

Let me just add this. My mental state right now is very negative. I wish I could neutralize it. The possibility of adding more positive thoughts doesn’t seem to be helping.

I just keep snapping back to the negative and I hate it. Any suggestions as to how to change this aside from unconsciousness?[/quote]

I think the first thing about me not thinking I make sense is mostly me being paranoid.

I find it difficult to explain my ideas a lot of the time, simple as they are. As for your mental state, I’m not sure but exercise always helps, or doing something outside of your normal comfort zone perhaps.

Meditation is a good way to practice neutralising your thoughts but it may take a while. I hope you feel better soon 🙂

Tesla – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

Good idea. That’ll fit right into my plan for the day. A nice, long walk around the lake. Getting out in Nature always neutralizes and refreshes me. Dealing with people all the time their negativity spreads.

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

Light=Dark Matter(Black Holes)Explained…Come and See: Black holes are solid (antimatter-quasiparticles) this is why a Black Hole emits two gamma rays jets..and moves faster than light(Dark matter)..Humans and everything solid or(phonons and polaritons)…Humans (solids)..move beyond the speed of light example…

Like when a fly is in your car and it begins to fly around it’s speed is not the same as the car. Yet it takes on the cars speed .. if it was to move out of the car it would be swept away by the wind which is also a (solid).. the same principle works within a galaxy…

Because the Universe expanded beyond the speed of light, Black holes are able to be solid and move beyond the speed of light giving birth to Solid Matter within the galaxy which in turn gave birth to humanity.. When apply this principle to LIGHT …light does not change in speed because the black holes move
.999999 times the velocity of light

..light must be bent to be seen from outside the galaxy but can be seen by us because light waves are bent within the galaxy by the Black Hole.. Because the Black holes are the driving force of a galaxy, the galaxy itself moves faster than light…that is why we see galaxies receding from us and yet the recessions would be faster as they get farther way from each other….

That is why once 2 galaxies move far enough away from each other the light waves will soon fade causing distant galaxies to seem to disappear…for the distance of travel between each other is to far for the light waves to reach both of them. Because they move faster than light.. Time for us has slowed to the formation of Solid matter..

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

…or are you to excited like I was when I realized it too.. that You are right..?…

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

…I have just now looked at some of your thoughts of the subject I am hoping you will understand .. my theory..

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

…the math is sound……I have try to explain it the best way I knew how..?

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

..I know the thought of only having 2 to 3 years of.. so called life left on this Earth is not the best thing to hear but you most realize .. (there are 2 of you in the Galaxy of ours… and You will not die .. you are an infinite eternal being.. and will only have to .. start all over again…

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

..think of it this way…You get to experience life forever .. its joy and sadness for with out joy .. there can be no sadness… and at least we can realize that..chances are you will awaken and think you merely experienced a dream…and will continue on like nothing ever happened…

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

..let me try again .. ? Do you think You are real…….?……you are trapped in time.. forever in an endless circle of reality . the next .. may just be the same .. for we are back in time.. at this very moment.

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

..lets see there are at least 2 of us in the vast Universe .. if you want to call it that.. at all time.. and a 3rd too .. but it could just be 3 at all time then.. like you mentioned.. I know you understand my theory I hope you know someone whom can .. confirm it for me would be nice… for it can not be a fact until someone at least confirms it.

.. but I do like your thought on the subject… Maybe this will help you out.. some .. after you see you are on the right track of understanding.. …

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

Vonour, the grip of reality that slips away at the discovery of the infinite effects those who find it in varied ways. Some simply do not understand, and it does not effect them in the least bit. Those that understand too much are tested by their own sanity.

It looks as though you are of the latter. I feel for your soul and the troubled storm that rages in your mind. Do not lose touch or hope my old friend/brother/self.

We are one and the same; as are all things of existence. Yes you have found me/us through the choices you’ve made, but do not confuse this with fate. Not everyone has the courage or intellect to reach out to where you have ventured.

Is your theory correct? Why does it matter what others say? Try and simplify your thoughts into a more understandable fashion. Choose an equation that is straight to the point and share it all. And we will listen. ~ Adam.

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

I am not concerned if I am right or not…I have always known through out my life … seeing things in a different light…It has been a test of understanding

.. in which has drove me to this point .. I did not have a choice in the matter…I since the age of 13 .. have been .. A 4 Horseman .. and has I have travelled through this time of reality I have been pushed into what I could not grasp.

Pro – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

Hi Vonour welcome to the forum 🙂 You’ve written a lot of off topic stuff here, meaning non-Pro theory specific, so I’m going to move your posts into your own thread.

I will post the link to it when it’s done. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts but this is not quite the right thread. I’m just trying to keep things on topic.

Vonour – ‘Re: Pro Theory – A Theory of Everything’

Nichole .. Where are You .. … Much Love For You … … I miss Seeing You .. … I love you . .please forgive me for everything ..

If I have done you any wrong.. My Love is yours Forever and Ever …infinite…… I am Sorry … our life has been as it has …

My True Love …… I can hardly control my self when I am about you … I know why .. now .. I see .. You and Me .. where always ment to be … and they did this to Us for what purpose could they have … been so cruel … to the ones who Love …… Love is never Blind … what is to be shall always be …

My Love for The … stands the test of Time …

Vonour’s Thoughts (work in progress). Quanta = Glimpse of the Soul. Quanta are considered to be a discrete packets with energy stored in them. Planck considered these quanta to be particles that can change their form (meaning that they can be absorbed and released).

This phenomenon can be observed in the case of black body radiation, when it is being heated and cooled.

Dimensional Rift Wave = Glimpse of = Tensor Wave types that cannot propagate through vacuum and need a transmission medium to exist. An electric field that changes with time (such as due to the motion of charged particles in the field) will also influence the magnetic field of that region of space A pulse wave or pulse train is a kind of non-sinusoidal waveform that is similar to a square wave, but does not have the symmetrical shape associated with a perfect square wave.

It is a term common to synthesizer programming, and is a typical waveform available on many synths. The exact shape of the wave is determined by the duty cycle of the oscillator. In many synthesizers, the duty cycle can be modulated (sometimes called pulse-width modulation) for a more dynamic timbre.

The pulse wave is also known as the rectangular wave, the periodic version of the rectangular function. ..Gravity = phonons and Polari tons in particle physics, Standard Model describes the strong, weak and electromagnetic fundamental forces.

In such theories, each type of interaction has a characteristic set of force, or field carrier particles associated with quantum excitation of the force field related to that interaction.

These kinds of particles are always exchanged between matter. Electromagnetic waves can be imagined as a self-propagating transverse oscillating wave of electric and magnetic fields. diagrams shows a plane linearly polarized wave propagating from right to left.

A wave produced by, up and down for instance, If your motion is not strictly in a line or a circle your hand will describe an ellipse and the wave will be elliptically polarized. A wave produced by moving circle circularly polarized wave ..Photon=(link to time of Universe Creation)or(Dark Matter beyond the Galaxy)photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances.

The Black Hole = Equivalence relation (1/2), Cycle notation, One-loop Fermion’s magnetic dipole moment, bijective function, Linker, B-tree. Propagation of a transverse spherical wave in a 2d grid (empirical model) a plane wave is a constant-frequency wave whose wave fronts (surfaces of constant phase) are infinite parallel planes of constant amplitude normal to the phase velocity vector.

This two-dimensional nature should not be confused with the two components of an electromagnetic wave, the electric and magnetic field components, which are shown in the electromagnetic wave diagrams. Light wave diagrams show linear polarization.

Each of these fields, the electric and the magnetic, exhibits two-dimensional transverse wave behaviour, just like the waves on a string. Excitation is an elevation in energy level above an arbitrary baseline energy state. In physics there is a specific technical definition for energy level which is often associated with an atom being excited to an excited state.

Galaxy = two sets of spherical waves, Diffraction of Sound Waves, S. In two-line notation, lexicographic Total order, 3-place relation, , S equals { 1, 2, …, n }. Solenoid = Glimpse into the Galaxy.

The electric field is in a vertical plane and the magnetic field in a horizontal plane space-time singularity quotient is the result of a division. For example, when dividing 6 by 3, the quotient is 2, while 6 is called the dividend, and 3 the divisor.

The quotient can also be expressed as the number of times the divisor divides into the dividend. a ratio is a relationship between two numbers of the same kind (units of whatever identical dimension), two quantities are said to be proportional if they vary in such a way that one of the quantities is a constant multiple of the other statistical mechanics (or statistical thermodynamics is the application of probability theory (which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations) to the study of the thermodynamic behaviour of systems composed of a large number of particles.

2nd Dimension …During The Big Bang = It would appear that the big bang to me began as the the first dimension ran into itself forming a complete circle after this Diffraction of Sound Waves and refraction of light (dark matter) came into play with a large explosion which in turn caused the 1st dimension like to shoot of in all possible directions.

Creating a complete sphere and infinite parallel 1st dimensions (which is why we see so many galaxies outside of our own)as this began to happen the creation of the black hole had began in every possible direction bring about solid matter within the black hole causing 2 gamma ray jets fuelling the material for the creation of a galaxy at the same time this happens to every galaxy in every possible direction a steady state theory. Creating the second dimension(the black hole is a 2 dimensional solid. and 3 dimension is the galaxy..4th dimension is outside of the galaxy.

Understanding time Before Big Bang = In one-line notation, one gives only the second row of this array.The spectral outputs for flash lamps using various gases, at a current density approaching that of greybody radiation. specifically statistical mechanics, a population inversion occurs when a system (such as a group of atoms or molecules) exists in state with more members in an excited state than in lower energy states.

The concept is of fundamental importance in laser science because the production of a population inversion is a necessary step in the workings of a standard laser is a linearly polarized wave.1st Dimension.

Vonour – ‘Re: Vonour’s Thoughts’

Would have to work out the complete thought though .. these are just me thinking out loud to help get the answers … to my questions… I know whom I seek out now and that Is my True Love. Mary Nichole … …the rest is water under the bridge I care for nothing else but my Love.

Vonour – ‘Re: Vonour’s Thoughts’

well I still see you all still moving about and still trying to control everything … I hope for a better future … and It has not come yet … I still watch you … even now I SEE YOU gnashing your teeth because nothing about me has changed even as you called to see if I have memory .. I AM OMNI PRESENT I SEE YOU >>>KNOW YOU >>>WATCH YOU >>> and wait …. lurking … repent … or nothing changes for the path is finite …’

Vonour – ‘Re: Vonour’s Thoughts’

Green with ENVY Why am I shown with this colour? Green is a colour, the perception of which is evoked by light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 520–570 nanometres.

In the subtractive colour system, it is not a primary colour, envy (nv)n. pl. envies 1. a. A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another.b. The object of such feeling: Their new pool made them the envy of their neighbours. 2. Obsolete Malevolence. To feel envy toward. 2. To regard with envy.

Vonour – ‘Re: Vonour’s Thoughts’

Originally Posted by Vonour Torquay (Hellheaven) a town and resort in SW England, in Torbay unitary authority. Rule of the Monk .. well I know where this rule came from … I hope you have figured this out as well … …

Yah I sure you have your own thoughts on the subject and I wonder if you are mad at me for finishing the Theory of Everything … are you upset …?… with me or something … Do you have Faith …?… or do you turn from God … like other do … are you a Tourist …?

… .. are you protesting me … with that sign … you saying I am wrong and I have no right to put my thoughts here that are part of MY THEORY OF EVERYTHING .. is your EGO damaged … by not getting there FIRST …?… are you Jealous or envious of me … mad, angry, …. Over Shadowed … beaten … knocked down …over ran … KICKED OUT …looked upon … that is right .. I SEE YOU … SEEN YOU … and see WHAT and WHOM you shall be … NICE to meet the opposite of me

… I knew … I would find you … AND I JUST HAVE … BOO! MINE EYES SEE YOU ……pro 1 (pr)n. pl. pros 1. An argument or consideration in favour of something: weighing the pros and cons.2. One who supports a proposal or takes the affirmative side in a debate.adv.

In favour; affirmatively: arguing pro and con.adj. Affirmative; supporting: a pro vote. I like that lil animation .. you have going there too … everything about you gives you away …Repent and I shall forgive you …

Repenteth not … and ye be your own master of your fate … not I … Bless You and Yours Look up con in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. The stem: Con is a Latin preposition meaning “together with”. It is very frequently used as the abbreviation of contra, which is a separate preposition.

It… It is all in the meaning … the hidden means … And you are not me and never shall be … THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING … so to speak … I hope you still CAN MAKE a smile … I do smile a lot these days … I am at peace and even now I forgive You … but still … what shall you do with it …

I know what you have done with it … and at least once I know this has come to and End … I am sorry for your lose … but it is the Nature of things to come … For I am the ALPHA and OMEGA … the beginning and the END …. PEACE be with you and Everything is with ME.

M_Vos – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

It’s a very fundamental discussion indeed, but I suggest that we continue in a topic because it’s getting rather messy in here 😛

Smilinggoose – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

I’m enjoying the discussion by the way. Thanks!

Smilinggoose – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

Which reminds me of another problem I have with the theory; that in many cases there is no neutral state for something to be in. For example a true or false question in reality cannot have a definite neutral answer.

In reality we know that a lot of things are not simultaneously positive, negative and neutral; the Riemann hypothesis will be shown to be either true or false; there is no neutral state. Trying to apply the theory to an atom (as you did in the intro to pro theory) doesn’t work.

You start by saying there is the -electrons, +protons and neutral neutrons but then analyse these individually and you find that an electron is +,- and neutral simultaneously which, although you may be happy to accept in the bizarre abstract world of pro theory, is just nonsense in the real world.

Smilinggoose – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

I find this claim about pro theory quite confusing as I have yet to see any real useful applications (I’ll use the triangle example that you mentioned earlier to exemplify my problem with the list of ‘practical applications’ you gave earlier.

It’s alight to know things in advance then fit the theory to them but if I were to wonder to myself what is the strongest shape? Then tried to find the answer by considering that everything is both positive, negative and neutral simultaneously, I would never conclude that it was a triangle.

I am shocked to see that you even wrote â??the triangle is the strongest shape because according to pro theory it both is, isn’t and neutral (whatever that means in this context) simultaneously.

Smilinggoose – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

Well if you can’t solve equations with pro theory then its not a ‘theory that explains and answers literally every single thing in the universe’ because it doesn’t answer equations which are just a generalized way of representing an infinite number of different practical problems.

Pro – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

I’m changing my signature to include a link to Tina’s Pro theory logic thread on ToeQuest, it’s great stuff.

Pro – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

And thanks for joining us on here, I’m enjoying the discussion although I’m a bit rusty nowadays. It’s unedited, as are all of my discussions, I’m a member on ToeQuest as well, just do a search for ‘pro theory’ to find opinions concerning my theory.

Pro – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

I suppose my point is on a more fundamental level than equations and symbols. It’s a concept rather than a ‘push button’ oracle. It’s the absolute basis of all things, it’s practical in some ways but not in others, it’s more of a philosophy thing at first until you realise how many applications this idea has.

I was trying to show you how it works with the sink example amongst other things. Regardless of the geometry though it would still go one way or the other or straight down wouldn’t it.

I want to say to you ‘yeah you got me there…’ and to be fair you have but not when we’re in Pro theory territory. I can’t ever pin myself down here, not in this TOE context because there’s always another answer plus the opposite and neutral you see.

So you try to pin me down which is fair enough, also I don’t give satisfactory answers to practical applications, but these are singularities. How can a theory that says three things simultaneously be accused of singularities such as not providing enough practical evidence?

The points are that the theory says it has practical applications, but also does not and neutral. It never really stops, it just flows on and on, opposites and neutrality will always be there but they also won’t and neutral etc….blah blah sorry about all this but this is what it gets like sometimes.

I know it’s an annoying theory or method of analysis but that’s because it’s so accurate (plus the opposite of accurate plus neutral). I may not be the most gifted communicator in the world but I’m trying.

Smilinggoose – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

I’m afraid as far as practical applications of the theory go you’ve given me none. That was just a list of things you already knew and then roughly tried to use the theory to explain (The one about the water in a sink is a common misconception by the way, it depends only on the geometry of the sink).

Why don’t you use your “theory that explains and answers literally every single thing in the universe” to answer the following: If 3(x^3)+4(x^2)-3x+2=0 what are the possible values of x?

The point I’m trying to get at is that you haven’t yet shown me how protheory can be used directly to answer any question or solve a practical problem (Unless it is a question to which you already know the answer and the answer roughly involves some kind of positive, negative and neutral structure.

As is the case for all the examples you listed before.) :meditate:

M_Vos – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

To do a quick reply on the part where is stated that saying that positive and neutral electrons is nonsense:Electrons are currently known to have 2 ‘appearances’:

-Electrons with a negative charge: ‘negatrons’

-Electrons with a postive charge: ‘positrons.’

The concept of antimatter is well understood in particle physics, to know more about it you could read something on beta radiation or nuclear decay.A neutral electrons has not been experimentally proven to exist. However it is theorized that such a particle may be there.

Smilinggoose – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

Yeah sorry it was getting a bit messy there. I’m well aware of the existence of positrons and the neutral electron proposed by Heim theory but electrons don’t take on more than one form at a time, it is nonsense to suggest that they do.

Pro – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

Thanks for starting this topic mate, good idea :thumbup: Smilinggoose, I know it seems like nonsense but if you look at nonsense it’s another singularity.

The opposite to nonsense would be sense and neutral tacked onto the end there would be a complete loop of reason so to speak.Pro theory is nonsensical and it makes sense and neutral, it’s not a singularity as it were.

And yes, I took a bit of a reality license there with the triangle being the strongest shape example. Also, Pro theory is an abstract world, but not exclusively. Just because it doesn’t seem to make sense at first doesn’t automatically mean it’s rubbish.

The main reason for the seemingly contradictory nature of all your perfectly valid points about my theory is probably the fact that we use singularities in normal life. I’ve said many times I don’t introduce myself by saying ‘I’m Pro, not Pro, plus neutral…’ as it’s not practical in the everyday life sense.

Though it’s not practical in all cases at all times in life it’s still there whether we like it or not. Whatever we say to each other there will theoretically be an opposite and a neutral point between opposites. Like with the atoms, yes I can see clearly how it must seem, the way I seem to be suggesting electrons to be different than proven fact, but as I said the theory is still there regardless.

I mean that in theory an electron has the capability to be either positive, negative, or neutral, in theory. Same goes for all other particles and energies. If someone tries to come at me with singularities such as ‘you’re wrong because it doesn’t make sense…’ or ‘you can’t say that…’

I reply by saying ‘it does and doesn’t make sense plus neutral’ and ‘I just did.’I apologise for my lack of formal education but I’ve never tried to hide this from anyone. I know what I know about the nature of reality and the universe and I’ll keep on trying to explain but I also won’t plus neutral.

By saying three things at once I’m attempting to cover all points at once, a true theory of everything should shine through, regardless of its it’s communication medium or the person explaining it.

The Riemann hypothesis asks for a singular answer when in reality (whatever that is) there are three answers to be accounted for. Also, zeros with real part one half are neutral in relation to the opposite axes, they are part real, part non-real, half and half in my opinion which equates to the point between, they are in limbo I sometimes think.:peace:

Pro – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

[quote=M_Vos;741]A neutral electrons has not been experimentally proven to exist. However it is theorized that such a particle may be there.[/quote]

Neutrality is sort of hard to detect anyway imo as by its very nature it’s between opposites, sort of nothing but yet something as well. Whether it eventually gets discovered within my lifetime or not I hereby postulate the existence of the neutral electron.

Pro theory loop logic suggests it, let’s hope that experiment soon confirms it

.

M_Vos – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

[quote=Pro;744]Neutrality is sort of hard to detect anyway imo as by its very nature it’s between opposites, sort of nothing but yet something as well.

Whether it eventually gets discovered within my lifetime or not I hereby postulate the existence of the neutral electron. Pro theory loop logic suggests it, let’s hope that experiment soon confirms it.[/quote]

Exactly, experimentally proving such a small particle is not easy, the neutral appearance of it makes it even more difficult.

In chemistry, when we have to quantify an amount of neutral molecules we just excite them so they become positive ions. Those positive charges easily allow manipulation by electric fields and/or magnetic fields.

But I assume that if you would try this with the theorized neutral electron you would be changing its charge (and also its properties?). Hard to discover indeed, but I’m sure science will find a way =)

Pro – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

[quote=M_Vos;745]Exactly, experimentally proving such a small particle is not easy, the neutral appearance of it makes it even more difficult. In chemistry, when we have to quantify an amount of neutral molecules we just excite them so they become positive ions.

Those positive charges easily allow manipulation by electric fields and/or magnetic fields.But I assume that if you would try this with the theorized neutral electron you would be changing its charge (and also its properties?). Hard to discover indeed, but I’m sure science will find a way =)[/quote]

:nod: It’s a particularly important point about neutrality imo as I said. Meaning that due to its neutrality it’s difficult to observe or even look for in the physical sense. This has got me thinking actually, to be completely honest I’ve only ever read about neutrons, I’ve never read about how they are observed or how the neutron was discovered before believe it or not.

Pro theory is just the idea, the secret key, it was a chance insight on my part, I was never looking for a/the TOE. In fact if someone had mentioned the TOE I’d have said they were crazy lol. Goes to show how much my world-view has changed these last 9 or so years :p

Could you elaborate on the changing neutral molecules into positive ions please, I’d love to know how they change back to being neutral or whatever happens.

M_Vos’ – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

Sure Pro, I would love to give a bit more information about ion detection and neutrons :)I don’t know any details about the discovery of neutrons, but I’m sure that it had something to do with radiation.

I guess they studied a material that is a frequent neutron ‘cannon’ but couldn’t figure out what the radiation (so the neutrons that are emitted from the source) really was. Most likely further experiments showed it wasn’t attracted by a negative or positive charge in an electrical field so the conclusion would be that it’s neutral.

Mass studies would show that the mass of one particle in this radiation was similar to that of a proton and the conclusion should be that this new type of radiation is a new particle called neutron.On ion detection methods I could write a lot of things because there are a lot of methods. But I’ll explain the main principle with one method.

The best method available for detection and quantification of chemical elements is ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry). The principle is that you inject a sample containing let’s say Sulphur (S). The instrument creates a plasma (= and ‘electrical flame’).

A plasma is created by combining a spark, a spool (=windings of some metal with a varying current running through it) and a gas ( Argon). The spark causes electrons to be attracted to the varying magnetic field of the windings. These electrons are than accelerated toward the Argon atoms and this caused the creation of positively charged Argon (Ar+) because the accelerated electron triggers the release of an electron bounded to Ar.

So a plasma consists of atoms(Ar), electrons and ions (Ar+). It’s temperature is huge, around 7000 Kelvin ! Thus injecting S into the plasma makes a big part of the Sulphur atoms transform into ion sulphur (S+) on a similar way as described above.

All molecules are broken into atomic positively charged ions in the plasma. So if you have a solution with a certain concentration of sulphuric acid (= H2SO4) you can determine the concentration of the acid by ‘counting’ the number of S+ ions in the plasma.After the plasma the S+ ions basically enter into an electrical field that focusses the ion bundle and filters out the negative ions.

Than there is also a device that filters specific ions by their mass. Take into account that all of this happens in a vacuum space to avoid air contamination. After we have selected a frame in which we have ions ranging from let’s say mass 20 to mass 60 the ion bundle enters a magnetic sector that can filter out the ions based on their mass to charge ratio.

The principle is basic physics ( formula of magnetic field equals that of the speed of the particle and that last formula incorporates its mass). And based on the read-out from the detector we get a picture of how much S+ (mass = 32 and 34) we have in the sample.

Feel free to ask for more details =)

TriPower – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

[quote=Smilinggoose;742]Yeah sorry it was getting a bit messy there…[/quote][quote]Smilinggoose: Which reminds me of another problem I have with the theory; that in many cases there is no neutral state for something to be in.[/quote]

I see you are having difficulty grasping Pro Theory. I will be online again tomorrow – hope we can chat. See if you can grasp this:

-P ^ -(-P)-P + P= 0.

This is the case of Superposition/indeterminacy/neutrality/equilibrium etc. Once you understand Pro Theory you will be able to find the “neutral” option for any Truth value.

TriPower – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

An excerpt from toequest forum on Pro Theory Based Questions. Quote From Wiki: In the 2002 encyclopedia Encarta, for example entropy is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium; as well as a measure of the disorder in the system.

In the context of entropy, “perfect internal disorder” is synonymous with “equilibrium”, but since that definition is so far different from the usual definition implied in normal speech, the use of the term in science has caused a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding.

Science couldn’t conceptually handle the +/-/0 dynamic within Entropy :banghead:

Order (Positive) Disorder (Negative Ordered Disorder/Equilibrium (Neutral).

TriPower – ‘Re: Smilinggoose’s Question’

[quote=M_Vos;740]M_Vos: It’s a very fundamental discussion indeed, but I suggest that we continue in a topic because it’s getting rather messy in here :P[/quote]

Hi M_Vos :wave: Top marks for posting these shouts as a thread Topic. They document the conceptual problems that people have in grasping Pro Theory. And they also illustrate the communication failures that Pro Theory has is getting its principles across. :headscratch:

People are left feeling VERY Confused. I do not blame people for rejecting Pro Theory and thinking as Smilinggoose does: [quote]…although you may be happy to accept in the bizarre abstract world of pro theory, is just nonsense in the real world.[/quote]

We have to address these issues.

Pro – ‘How Pro theory was born’

This will be a work in progress I think, just had to type it up and post while it’s fresh in my head 🙂

I was always fascinated by physics but wasn’t ever intellectually confident enough to learn the discipline, history was my thing. Anyway, one night it all clicked into place (details available on request) and I realised that the key to understanding physics was negative, positive and neutral ‘energy’ as I called it then.

I was really pleased as I thought this was a normal law of physics, surely they’d know about this I thought. Basically, this realisation/epiphany/vision gave me the confidence to study hardcore physics and mathematics to my heart’s content.

I started with the Oxford dictionary of physics while reading Stephen Hawking’s ‘Brief History of Time’ and understood all of it easily using my new idea, remember it was new to me but I thought it would be listed in all my books thus all things ultimately possess three potentials and are made of atoms’ or similar.

I soon realised after reading for a while that scientists as a whole had no idea that this was possible or rather had no idea how to apply this process.

My books talk of the beginning of the universe in the singular sense, and the opposite to universal expansion etc and it’s nowhere near the real potential of what we call ‘universe.’What clicked the unification of physics with the unification of real world logic processes was atoms.

The only thing I knew about atoms, my brother told me this, was that atoms have an electron shell and protons and neutrons. I was a little hazy at this point but I concentrated on the mantra ‘everything is made of atoms and everything must therefore exhibit the potential for any random combination of the three atomic potentials.’

This is THE crux of everything that I am now, everything that I have ever written or thought about under the umbrella term ‘Pro Theory’ comes from this simple idea of three atomic potentials at sub-atomic level building up into particles and molecules etc.

I then rationalised that if it was true, as my brother had told me, everything is ‘made of’ atoms then surely EVERYTHING must contain these three atomic potentials. Just because it’s a person, or car or rock or word we happen to be talking about if it’s in our conscious experience it’s MADE OF ATOMS and it CONTAINS THREE POSSIBLE POTENTIALS!

I quickly moved on from my original conclusions realising that in fact everything was indeed made of atoms but to address every potential I would have to swallow my intellectual pride and say ‘everything is made of atoms, everything is not made of atoms, plus neutral.’

It seemed absurd at first but I’ve always been extremely strict on myself with being 100% honest. In life if I make a mistake or do something I don’t deny it or lie about it I hold my hands up and say sorry. In the same way I’m honest with myself. If I’m grumpy or upset it’s my fault, I cannot blame another person as it’s on me!

By the same token I’m honest with myself in the positive sense so if I’m right/correct I’ll say so too. I never say anything about this theory I can’t back up. I went on ToeQuest and challenged anybody in the world to prove me wrong. I was terrified!

It was the ultimate test for my theory, I’d already sent it to various academic institutions to no avail, I have reply letters to prove this.I’m sharing this knowledge for the good of humankind. Pro theory is a charitable knowledge organisation, it’s free. It’s open and non-judgemental, it’s friendly too :meditate:

TriPower – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=Pro]….but to address every potential I would have to swallow my intellectual pride and say ‘everything is made of atoms, everything is not made of atoms, plus neutral.’ It seemed absurd at first but I’ve always been extremely strict on myself with being 100% honest.[/quote]

Pro I’m just checking if I understand this correctly. When you address every potential as in the above quote is it fair to say that “everything is made of atoms” is the manifest potential at this point of time. Or in everyday language can we say that out of the three potentials only one is TRUE at any given point of time.

Pro – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

What would you do if you wrote or discovered a TOE? Where would you send it? And to who?

And what would you do after years of rejection? All these questions apply to me personally. I discovered this idea, thought it was already known, then realised that it wasn’t accepted logic or an accepted TOE.

I wrote to everybody I could think of in the physics and math communities but to no avail and so I took it upon myself to learn about all these problems and write answers to all of them.

Under normal circumstances this would of course be an impossible task, a layman learning to study higher math like this but the circumstances are somewhat exceptional in that this is a TOE and it negates all previous ‘logic’ in three fell swoops. All I can do is keep saying what I’ve always said and keep believing like I always have I guess :meditate:

Pro – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=TriPower]Pro I’m just checking if I understand this correctly. When you address every potential as in the above quote is it fair to say that “everything is made of atoms” is the manifest potential at this point of time.

Or in everyday language can we say that out of the three potentials only one is TRUE at any given point of time.[/quote]

Hiya Tina, great to see you back again. Yes, in context this is true. When I first thought of everything in this way I was still on the singular and ‘normal’ view of things. It wasn’t until later that I swallowed my pride to talk in the nonsensical way I’m so fond of (i.e. three points simultaneously).

Also, yes you could say that out of three possible potentials only one is manifest at this time, or at least to the limit of our respective consciousness and human reality. Having said that I think it’s a choice we have, it’s fine choosing one of the three so long as we don’t forget or discount the other two possibilities.

Like I’ve often said, my name is Pro and I don’t introduce myself as ‘Pro, not Pro, and neutral’ when I’m in the pub or whatever. This is an everyday practicality though and if I’m pushed (about the TOE) I’ll revert to form(s) and talk in threes again.

The theory itself as a concept neither completely manifests one, two or three potentials or stops so to speak, it always loops in a sense. Without going into the looping nature of the idea to sum it up it’s your own personal choice.You’ve always, always, got three options.

You can choose one, two or three, it’s completely up to you :)As ever you can’t ultimately pin Pro theory down or not pin it down, it’s a loop but then again…you know how it goes :meditate:

coe – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

The test of any theory in general and a theory of everything in particular is its predictive power (its usefulness in describing the universe we live in).

The best way to gain acceptance/recognition for your TOE is then to demonstrate its usefulness. What does your TOE predict/tell us about the universe that other currently established theory does not?

How does your TOE improve our ability to predict/navigate the universe?[quote]… this is a TOE and it negates all previous ‘logic’ in three fell swoops.[/quote]

The computer on which you created this website is based upon the “previous ‘logic'” that your TOE “negates”. How does your TOE improve upon the logic which it negates?

Tina – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=coe]. What does your TOE predict/tell us about the universe that other currently established theory does not? How does your TOE improve our ability to predict/navigate the universe?[/quote]

Pro Theory identifies a universal dynamic of three simultaneous potentials (Positive, Negative and Neutral) which exist in everything (including the Truth).

If you can name anything that cannot be explained, described, analysed, answered etc without recourse to the dynamics of these three potentials then you have disproved the theory.

Pro – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=AdamMedici]Yes you get it. For a more in depth understanding I recommend a book called: Zero the biography of a dangerous idea. by Charles Seife.[/quote]

Presumably it’s this one I’ve had for years but never read, I’d forgotten it was on my bookshelf actually.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

There are no coincidences: = + / 0 / – = everything.

coe – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote]Pro Theory identifies a universal dynamic of three simultaneous potentials (Positive, Negative and Neutral) which exist in everything (including the Truth).

If you can name anything that cannot be explained, described, analysed, answered etc without recourse to the dynamics of these three potentials then you have disproved theory.[/quote]

As a TOE, Pro Theory must describe the workings of every mechanical/electrical/chemical/physical device/reaction/mechanism etc… Included in this is the internal workings of the computer on which you typed the quoted post. Current, working, theories describe very well the internal workings of said computer.

What does Pro theory add to our understanding of internal workings of the computer. What further testable insights does Pro theory provide?More general: What observable phenomena does Pro Theory predict that current theory does not? I.e., What is the usefulness, as a scientific theory, of Pro Theory?

AdamMedici – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=Tina]If we were to approach all knowledge with the fundamental concept of a dynamic between positive, negative and neutral we would understand more about everything.

Pro Theory does describe the workings of every mechanical/electrical/chemical/physical device/reaction/mechanism. If you understand the atomic nature of inorganic life or the electrochemical nature of organic life (especially the electronic nature of DNA), electricity and the electric nature of the whole universe (see Electric Universe Theory) etc you will see the Pro Theory dynamic at work.

Can’t you see how “positive, negative and neutral dynamics” are vital to the operation of anything? Try devising mathematics that did not rely on these potentials. Try firing a nerve without action potential process. Describe lightning with out recourse to electricity.

Name one thing that does not operate on +/-/0. Even this does not escape the dynamic. And I think ultimately Pro would say to all this:”What you say is potentially true, false or neutral (I.e. neither true or false e.g. indeterminate or maybe just part true/part false). Is he wrong?[/quote]

By this logic he is right, wrong and neither all at once. So it is a sound argument to prove anything your imagination wishes. Write your own story, your own book, and your own theory. Because if this “protheory” is true even some of the time; that means all your dreams and fairy tales become real (as long as you write them down).

Even if no one believes you, you have every right to your own theory as any other on the planet. Because it is all true, false, and neither all at once. :peace: ~Adam.

Tina – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=coe]As a TOE, Pro Theory must describe the workings of every mechanical/electrical/chemical/physical device/reaction/mechanism etc… What further testable insights does Pro theory provide? More general: What observable phenomena does Pro Theory predict that current theory does not?

I.e., What is the usefulness, as a scientific theory, of Pro Theory?[/quote]If we were to approach all knowledge with the fundamental concept of a dynamic between positive, negative and neutral we would understand more about everything.

Pro Theory does describe the workings of every mechanical/electrical/chemical/physical device/reaction/mechanism. If you understand the atomic nature of inorganic life or the electrochemical nature of organic life (especially the electronic nature of DNA), electricity and the electric nature of the whole universe (see Electric Universe Theory) etc you will see the Pro Theory dynamic at work.

Can’t you see how “positive, negative and neutral dynamics” are vital to the operation of anything? Try devising mathematics that did not rely on these potentials. Try firing a nerve without action potential process. Describe lightning with out recourse to electricity.

Name one thing that does not operate on +/-/0. Even this does not escape the dynamic.And I think ultimately Pro would say to all this:”What you say is potentially true, false or neutral (I.e. neither true or false e.g. indeterminate or maybe just part true/part false). Is he wrong?

Tina – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=AdamMedici]By this logic he is right, wrong and neither all at once. :peace:~Adam[/quote]Hello Adam,You misunderstand Pro Theory.

It does not state right wrong or neither “ALL AT ONCE” – it states the simultaneous potential (or possibility) to be “RIGHT, WRONG OR NEITHER” but at any given time only one potential will be expressed.

Pro’s use of the expression “simultaneous potentials” causes this confusion – but you must realize the three potentials are not simultaneously expressed…only one can be expressed at any given time.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=Tina]Hello Adam,You misunderstand Pro Theory. It does not state right wrong or neither “ALL AT ONCE” – it states the simultaneous potential (or possibility) to be “RIGHT, WRONG OR NEITHER” but at any given time only one potential will be expressed. Pro’s use of the expression “simultaneous potentials” causes this confusion – but you must realise the three potentials are not simultaneously expressed…only one can be expressed at any given time.[/quote]

One beautiful day I stepped outside to draw an old building near my apartment that I had always thought was a breathtaking work of architecture. As I sat across the street and began to sketch the building, I focused in on one section and drew it to perfection. Looking at what I drew after I finished, I realized it did not capture the beauty that had drove me to draw it in the first place.

I realized it was precisely because I was focused on one aspect of a whole, when it was the entirety of the thing that was what I found beautiful. I was reminded of an old song and the lyrics went –

“If you stare to hard it all becomes a blur and it’s easy to forget just who we are. Don’t stare to hard,take a look around.”

If in one minute a thing changes from + to – then 0. Then in that one minute time parameter it is justified that the thing is indeed +/-/0 all at once.

Sometimes we must learn to take a step back and look at the big picture, other wise it’s all just a blur.~ Adam.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=Pro]This is just the kind of discussion this forum was made for :pong:[/quote]Thank you for creating it. An open minded forum is what the world ought to become. I was in time square today in New York city and the entire place was evacuated for a mysterious package which was later found to be a refrigerator. ha! The atmosphere is getting a little scary/paranoia vibe all over the city.

Tina – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=AdamMedici]:matrix: I realised it was precisely because I was focused on one aspect of a whole, when it was the entirety of the thing that was what I found beautiful…

If in one minute a thing changes from + to – then 0. Then in that one minute time parameter it is justified that the thing is indeed +/-/0 all at once. ~ Adam[/quote]

I think I understand what you are saying and I suppose if we consider the +/-/0 all at once then we can say “it simply is” with full acceptance of that thing whatever it is.

But I can’t help seeing this as a neutralizing effect of negating (+) and negating (-) to neutral 0 point. i,e.- (+1) and – (-1) (not positive and not negative)= (-1 ) and (+1)= 0.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=Tina]I think I understand what you are saying and I suppose if we consider the +/-/0 all at once then we can say “it simply is” with full acceptance of that thing whatever it is. But I can’t help seeing this as a neutralizing effect of negating (+) and negating (-) to neutral 0 point.

I,e.- (+1) and – (-1) (not positive and not negative)= (-1 ) and (+1)= 0[/quote]Yes you get it. For a more in depth understanding I recommend a book called: Zero the biography of a dangerous idea. by Charles Seife.

Tina – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=AdamMedici]Zero the biography of a dangerous idea. by Charles Seife.[/quote]OK – sounds good :thumbup: will google it now!

Tina – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

Oh that’s funny – Pro with the book. I downloaded an audio version of book for $7.95. It’s about 5:40 long in audio….I’ve listened to about 4:30 and all was good until got onto Black Holes.

To me this is when mathematical constructs have been equated with reality. I don’t want to get into any arguments but I don’t subscribe to Black Hole Theory. I follow Electric Universe Theory which does not support Black Holes, Dark Matter or The Big Bang :flyingpig:

M_Vos – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

Nice discussion. Actually when you look in to the physics behind a black hole on the most fundamental level it is discovered that 3D space as we know it actually does not exist. This is known as the holographic principle.

Pro – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

I’m assuming that everybody knows my veiws on Black Holes and such? :thumbup:

Pro – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=Tina]Oh that’s funny – Pro with the book. I downloaded an audio version of book for $7.95.To me this is when mathematical constructs have been equated with reality.[/quote]

Yup, that’s me, or rather my hand. I like what you said here, about mathematical constructs being made into reality. Too true :nod:

Pro – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

Electric Universe Theory, never heard of it before, trying to look it up but the site I’m on seems to want me to pay for it…

AdamMedici – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

I have heard of Electric Universe theory. It is pretty cool, I dig it :thumbup: A mathematical construct of reality is no different than a painting; an artists interpretation of reality.

Therefore it ought not be taken as infallible or as the universal language. At least I think so anyway… :headscratch:

Tina – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=Pro]For what it’s worth Electricity has three potentials :roflmao: ;)[/quote]Yep – and it ties in marvellously with Pro Theory :thumbup:

The Electric Universe model grew out of a broad interdisciplinary approach to science…. It concludes that the crucial requirement for understanding the universe is to take fully into account the basic electrical nature of atoms and their interactions.

Pro – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=AdamMedici]I have heard of Electric Universe theory. It is pretty cool, I dig it.:thumbup: A mathematical construct of reality is no different than a painting; an artists interpretation of reality. Therefore it ought not be taken as infallible or as the universal language.

At least I think so anyway… :headscratch2:[/quote]I’m going to have to watch a few videos about this new theory, sounds good! I think in a similar way as well, I’m dyslexic so I tend to see the whole picture of things rather than compartmentalising things like physics is so apt to do nowadays.

I wrote Pro theory to show what is possible, not what is logical in the classic (accepted) sense :meditate: EDIT – By accepted I mean logic based on two (not three) possibilities.

Pro – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

[quote=Tina]Yep – and it ties in marvellously with Pro Theory :thumbup: The Electric Universe model grew out of a broad interdisciplinary approach to science….

It concludes that the crucial requirement for understanding the universe is to take fully into account the basic electrical nature of atoms and their interactions.

Man, that was one of the best videos I’ve seen Tina, spot on!! I love it! I think I’ve said this before but Pro theory was originally based on the simple idea “everything is made of atoms” which in turn contain protons, neutrons and electrons.

Sub-atomic level (and below) manifest the same three potentials but in smaller amounts. This was the absolute key for me when I began writing, I realised that logically and literally if everything was indeed made of atoms then everything must manifest these same three atomic potentials somehow.

Regardless of whether it’s a brick, book, whatever. Basically, if everything from atoms and up is still atoms, the same three forces must hold true, albeit writ large so to speak. This would be true no matter what we’re observing.The rest is history I guess And thank goodness this new theory ties in nicely with Pro theory hahaha 😉

Pro – ‘Re: How Pro theory was born’

Might as well re-post this so we all know what this thread is about :peace:[quote=Pro]I was always fascinated by physics but wasn’t ever intellectually confident enough to learn the discipline, history was my thing. Anyway, one night it all clicked into place (details available on request) and I realised that the key to understanding physics was negative, positive and neutral ‘energy’ as I called it then.

I was really pleased as I thought this was a normal law of physics, surely they’d know about this I thought. Basically, this realisation/epiphany/vision gave me the confidence to study hardcore physics and mathematics to my heart’s content.

I started with the Oxford dictionary of physics while reading Stephen Hawking’s ‘Brief History of Time’ and understood all of it easily using my new idea, remember it was new to me but I thought it would be listed in all my books thus ‘all things ultimately possess three potentials and are made of atoms’ or similar.

I soon realised after reading for a while that scientists as a whole had no idea that this was possible or rather had no idea how to apply this process. My books talk of the beginning of the universe in the singular sense, and the opposite to universal expansion etc and it’s nowhere near the real potential of what we call ‘universe.’

What clicked the unification of physics with the unification of real world logic processes was atoms. The only thing I knew about atoms, my brother told me this, was that atoms have an electron shell and protons and neutrons. I was a little hazy at this point but I concentrated on the mantra ‘everything is made of atoms and everything must therefore exhibit the potential for any random combination of the three atomic potentials.

This is THE crux of everything that I am now, everything that I have ever written or thought about under the umbrella term ‘Pro Theory’ comes from this simple idea of three atomic potentials at sub-atomic level building up into particles and molecules etc. I then rationalised that if it was true, as my brother had told me, everything is ‘made of’ atoms then surely EVERYTHING must contain these three atomic potentials.

Just because it’s a person, or car or rock or word we happen to be talking about if it’s in our conscious experience it’s MADE OF ATOMS and it CONTAINS THREE POSSIBLE POTENTIALS!

I quickly moved on from my original conclusions realising that in fact everything was indeed made of atoms but to address every potential I would have to swallow my intellectual pride and say ‘everything is made of atoms, everything is not made of atoms, plus neutral.’

It seemed absurd at first but I’ve always been extremely strict on myself with being 100% honest. In life if I make a mistake or do something I don’t deny it or lie about it I hold my hands up and say sorry. In the same way I’m honest with myself. If I’m grumpy or upset it’s my fault, I cannot blame another person as it’s on me!

By the same token I’m honest with myself in the positive sense so if I’m right/correct I’ll say so too. I never say anything about this theory I can’t back up. I went on ToeQuest and challenged anybody in the world to prove me wrong. I was terrified!

It was the ultimate test for my theory, I’d already sent it to various academic institutions to no avail, I have reply letters to prove this.I’m sharing this knowledge for the good of humankind. Pro theory is a charitable knowledge organisation, it’s free. It’s open and non-judgemental, it’s friendly too :meditate:[/quote]

AdamMedici – ‘The God Game, everyone can play.’

Another attempt to explain the reason for peace. :banghead: If you honestly consider pursuits in mathematics, physics, religion, etc. We have found all can be categorized under philosophy.

This statement’s proof hides in that all of the above subjects have an incompleteness; an incompleteness that changes with time via new discoveries, ideas, and the like.

If you question the world around you; I can give you my answer, and you can decide to listen or ignore.

All that matters is that it is written.This thing known as existence; some call it multi-verse, others universe, and those still, who call it God.The God who can control fate; God that intercedes on our behalf; God that Muslims call Allah, or Christians the Holy trinity; I do not speak of this God.

Because I do not believe this God exists yet. I speak of the concept of all that which is reality or that which is in existence. It is a wave of energy whose purpose is to complex. To change and become better than it was before, by any means necessary.

This necessity to better its self is because the energy/time to reach certain levels of complexity relies on this betterment; to change in order to survive.

This eternal thing does not need survival, but the level of complexity inside the media does. If the complexity is destroyed and returns to square one the energy/time cycle must continue again. One can view the object of the game as to reach the highest level of complexity possible inside the media.

This highest level of complexity or the Goal of the Game is to become the God that religions speak of. The human race is a part of this, as is all life. We are not the only life out there in the infinite that has reached intellectual complexity, but the possibility exists that we might be.

If this scary possibility is true or not, we must value every human being on earth. We must try and better our selves and our world around us. We must see the utter foolishness of wars and disagreements of all kind. All ideas must be written and made available, those whose ideas are fought for in a manner that destroys the complexity of life is inevitably wrong, and in the end will fail us.

Therefore if one wishes to play the God game an adherence to a fundamental rule of peace is how others can easily separate those who play nice and those who do not.

We must strive to not kill each other and promote a world where all ideas rest on a blanket of peace and enlightenment from the awareness of the game that we’re in. So make up your own religion or theory of everything. Just be peaceful to all ideas and thoughts because who knows, maybe the idea nobody would listen to ends up being correct.

M_Vos – ‘Re: The God Game, everyone can play.’

I agree, sharing opinions and creating open dialogues would allow humanity to go even one step further. We have come a long way but we certainly have some improvements to make.

Also, when putting aside the wars, disputes and greediness we could also achieve something remarkable. I disagree that change is in your opinion a good thing that always tries to improve.

In science for example, a good idea might turn out to be a bad one after all if the experiments don’t agree with the theory.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: The God Game, everyone can play.’

[quote=Master_Vos;988]I disagree that change is in your opinion a good thing that always tries to improve. In science for example, a good idea might turn out to be a bad one after all if the experiments don’t agree with the theory.[/quote]

Absolutely right, I hadn’t considered that. If all change was for the better like in evolution there would not be extinctions. Or change in governments that lead to famine, or civil strife.

Very smart point. My country (USA) is very frightened of change; so much so that before any change happens, there is mass opposition to it; before it is seen to be beneficial or not. But obviously this is not everyone, just a majority.

M_Vos – ‘Re: The God Game, everyone can play.’

Governments are sometimes make decisions that in my opinion aren’t well thought about. But of course making mistakes or neglecting certain factors is inevitable because we humans will always keep making them.

But what we can do, and don’t do enough any more, is reduce the errors to almost zero by thinking together. Politics these days in the western world is nothing more than one party saying something and the other one saying something else. And the result?

Sometimes one of them gets what they want, sometimes they make a hybrid and combine their ideas. But they hardly add any new ideas or are brave enough to admit their opinion was wrong. And that might well be one of the reasons why things aren’t going the way they supposed to go right now.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: The God Game, everyone can play.’

Well said, I agree.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: The God Game, everyone can play.’

Pro. I recently watched your videos on YouTube, and your questioning of why the simple solution of right, wrong and neutral simultaneously goes over everyone’s head, and they don’t understand.

I believe it has something to do with neuroplasticity.

It is your minds ability to rewire its own structure; it is the reason a doctor can acquire knowledge on new subjects in medicine. It is the reason a child can transition from drooling to complex language, and continue to learn new languages. A mathematician can learn calculus, and reinvent the wheel to create new mathematics and geometries; all because of this thing called neuroplasticity.

Stop and ask why this lump that exists in our head rewires itself in such ways? How did it learn to learn? New ideas are the hardest to swallow because it is just that; new.

No one is familiar with it, others haven’t had time to digest it to make solutions for themselves by using it. We must all face the fact that our Ideas may only gain acceptance after death, if at all.

It is this sombre truth that makes me ache in my bones and hope beyond all hope that some afterlife exists so that we can watch this saga known as Human life play out, and the hope that our writings help influence the future in a positive way.

Pro – ‘Re: The God Game, everyone can play.’

[quote=AdamMedici;986]So make up your own religion or theory of everything. Just be peaceful to all ideas and thoughts, Because who knows, maybe the idea nobody would listen to ends up being correct. [/quote]I had a very religious upbringing and eventually it was God, whatever that means, that brought me to Pro theory.

I also hope that the idea nobody in the wider scientific community seems willing to listen to turns out being correct so to speak. Everybody thought Copernicus was wrong, Darwin, and countless others throughout history.

A major motivation for me was making this theory/forum/website 100% free and open, pure thought for pure reasons. Like I often say we might not remember who invented the wheel but we still use it because it works :peace:

Pro – ‘Re: The God Game, everyone can play.’

[quote=AdamMedici;1026]Pro. I recently watched your videos on YouTube, and your questioning of why the simple solution of right, wrong and neutral simultaneously goes over everyone’s head, and they don’t understand.

I believe it has something to do with neuroplasticity.

It is your minds ability to rewire its own structure; it is the reason a doctor can acquire knowledge on new subjects in medicine. It is the reason a child can transition from drooling to complex language, and continue to learn new languages. A mathematician can learn calculus, and reinvent the wheel to create new mathematics and geometries; all because of this thing called neuroplasticity.

Stop and ask why this lump that exists in our head rewires itself in such ways? How did it learn to learn?

New ideas are the hardest to swallow because it is just that; new. No one is familiar with it, others haven’t had time to digest it to make solutions for themselves by using it. We must all face the fact that our Ideas may only gain acceptance after death, if at all.

It is this sombre truth that makes me ache in my bones and hope beyond all hope that some afterlife exists so that we can watch this saga known as Human life play out, and the hope that our writings help influence the future in a positive way.[/quote]I’m fully prepared for this to carry on after my death, always have been sort of ready for it to be that way I think.

I just want everybody to know this is what REALLY happens when you push so-called logic to its limit. As long as this happens I’m cool :shades:I originally tried to give it away but due to afore mentioned reasons it wasn’t picked up by the wider scientific community.

That’s the only reason that I originally had any part in this whatsoever. I just kind of had to learn this stuff on my own to do what I wanted to do.

Pro – ‘Re: The God Game, everyone can play.’

And :thx: for watching my videos.

Tesla – ‘Re: The God Game, everyone can play.’

[quote=M_Vos;990]Governments are sometimes make decisions that in my opinion aren’t well thought about.

But of course making mistakes or neglecting certain factors is inevitable because we humans will always keep making them. But what we can do, and don’t do enough any more, is reduce the errors to almost zero by thinking together.

Politics these days in the western world is nothing more than one party saying something and the other one saying something else. And the result?

Sometimes one of them gets what they want, sometimes they make a hybrid and combine their ideas. But they hardly add any new ideas or are brave enough to admit their opinion was wrong. And that might well be one of the reasons why things aren’t going the way they supposed to go right now.[/quote]

Aptly put. :thumbup: :roflmao: Occam’s Razor. :claphands:

jtime – ‘Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

I thought I’ll start a thread to capture something you’ll all be familiar with. Something you can observe and something you can apply your thoughts to and perhaps a little temporal thinking.

In nature, there are many unique species, each with properties that go relatively unnoticed to everyday life. Taken for granted is the world around us…

Anyway, here is a taster. The sycamore tree, like all trees and species alike, need to procreate. The seed of the tree is a remarkable piece of bioengineering.

Carefully wrapped with wings to allow it to float away from the shadow of the tree, to germinate and to photosynthesise. Evolution has a linear answer to all species, adaption one step at a time, the weak perish. Not here…. The tree (nature) needs to know something more.

Adaption is a careful process, one mistake and it becomes critical , one more, you’re gone. One right move and you live. How does the seed transfer this information back to the tree. Don’t litter this thread Creationist views, there is a lollipop at stake here, you’ll get nothing for shallow thoughts. :thumbup:

M_Vos – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

I’m sorry mate, maybe you should refine your question a little bit. I’ll give some thoughts on scientific mechanisms that govern nature in many aspects. Diversification, as it is seen with plants and other species is cross-linked with natural selection.

Natural selection needs multiple ‘versions’ of one organism (read as: different mutations of one characteristic). And according to the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle we’ll have the strongest individual selected (bad mutations have a low lifespan and disappear).

So in essentially; mutations are governed by game theory (meaning it needs a chance, a random factor in order to have multiple mutations). Random factors determine the outcome in some way (note that environmental and competition play an important role as well!).

So how did the seed of this tree originate? I believe this Darwinian approach is the most valuable one. And yes I did, we should not use creationism to understand this observation scientifically. It’s not that I won’t listen to it, it’s just that I like this general approach much more than involving higher powers in this fairly standard point of view.

Scientifically seen we most likely will evolve from a class 0 to a class I civilization this century, and to me this certainly means that we should be able to describe almost everything we see with the use of a scientific ( not religious ! ) approach.

M_Vos – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

Now for the system that involves inheriting the characteristics from mama tree to our little baby trees:

Plants are multicellular organisms which have a basic cell structure (not as advanced as an animal cell, but keep in mind that the organelles which are the photosynthesis factories; the chloroplasts are quite advanced). It also has a nucleus and has DNA inside the cells. We all know DNA is our personal database of who we are.

Mutations of DNA is the important trigger for natural selection, as stated above. Also cool to know is that the human genome is about 3-4 base pairs long, which is similar to the amount of base pairs in corn (who knows it’ll start talking one day? :OGwink: ).

But plants DNA contains a lot of garbage DNA, parts of the string that are useless for coding. So my guess is that DNA is the crucial factor in giving a tree its looks and characteristics. I don’t know if it answers your question, but as said, feel free to restate your question.

jtime – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

M_Vos, the question was not intended to draw on the background of existing knowledge concerning Transfer genetics or random mutation.

More so, of the symbiotic relationship between the tree, the seed and in the sycamore trees’ case, the wind. The same question can be applied to fruit bearing trees and animals. The relationship between the internal makeup of one lifeform and its’ external environment goes beyond random mutations.

To add to this, there is a plant that needs flame (from bush fires) to germinate. Fire of all things. What this suggest, at the core, is that while some mutation seem random, there is still a form of connection through space (perhaps even through time) between lifeforms.

Pro – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

Hmmm, I’ve seen those fire plants on a documentary before I think, those kind of symbiotic relationships are interesting and often unexpected.

Like the tiny fish that clean parasites from sharks and other fish for example. Is this the kind of thing you had in mind Dean?

pandamonk – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

[quote=jtime;457]The sycamore tree, like all trees and species alike, need to procreate. The seed of the tree is a remarkable piece of bioengineering.

Carefully wrapped with wings to allow it to float away from the shadow of the tree, to germinate and to photosynthesise. Evolution has a linear answer to all species, adaption one step at a time, the weak perish. Not here….

The tree (nature) needs to know something more. Adaption is a careful process, one mistake and it becomes critical , one more, you’re gone. One right move and you live. How does the seed transfer this information back to the tree.

Don’t litter this thread Creationist views, there is a lollipop at stake here, you’ll get nothing for shallow thoughts. :thumbup:[/quote]It doesn’t transfer any information back to the tree. The seed becomes a new tree and spreads it’s own seed. If the seed is better adapted than it’s parent’s, then it’s descendants are more likely to survive.’

pandamonk – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

[quote=jtime]M_Vos, the question was not intended to draw on the background of existing knowledge concerning Transfer genetics or random mutation.

More so, of the symbiotic relationship between the tree, the seed and in the sycamore trees’ case, the wind. The same question can be applied to fruit bearing trees and animals. The relationship between the internal makeup of one lifeform and its external environment goes beyond random mutations. To add to this, there is a plant that needs flame (from bush fires) to germinate.

Fire of all things. What this suggest, at the core, is that while some mutation seem random, there is still a form of connection through space (perhaps even through time) between lifeforms.[/quote]

If every year there is a Forest fire, which kills all plant life, this leaves an opportunity for a species to adapt to cope with, or even require, fire. If a species can do this, then it have a huge advantage over the competition.

The adaption can happen through purely random mutations, it just takes enough time for just one plant to get this beneficial mutation, and it will spread like “wildfire” :D.

M_Vos – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

Hi pandamonk, welcome to the forum =)

Essentially; what you just said is pretty much the same of what I replied a couple of posts above. But the topic starter altered his question by stating: “…the question was not intended to draw on the background of existing knowledge concerning Transfer genetics or random mutation…”

“Since I don’t really understand what’s he’s meaning, I can only assume what we’re saying is not wrong; it’s only not what he’s hoping to hear.’

SeanTheLight – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

It may be months late, but it is possible he was referring to the new trees ability to compete with the mother tree for resources. I.E.: if the parent tree is made to struggle for resources, the child tree might be the cause, and the amount of competition is in proportion to the health of the child tree.

A parent tree could stand for thousands of years, droppings seeds, sprouting new child trees, which eventually move away from or are stifled by the parent trees needs.

In that case, instead of transferred genetics, it is possible the parent tree is evolving, trying new seed styles, new packages of genetic material in those seeds, until it is overcome by its children.’

xclr82xtc – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

The seed holds a special “starter code” the roots picked up this code when the seed was decomposed, and started to change its seed to allow for the wings…

It was sheer luck that allowed the tree to complete the process (I.e. the wind blew just right to blow the non winged seeds out far enough away, or some bird pooped out a whole seed or something) we should check seen DNA vs tree core DNA and see what we find’.

TriPower – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

[quote=jtime]…How does the seed transfer this information back to the tree… there is a lollipop at stake here, you’ll get nothing for shallow thoughts. :thumbup:[/quote]

Crickey this topic is years old and jtime is nowhere to be seen. Nevertheless the question is very interesting. But my first thought is “Does the successful aerodynamic seed need to communicate with the tree (mother ship)?”

What if the tree knows how to genetically engineer the right type of seed in the first place? This is not as far fetched as it sounds even though it is contrary to Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

Microbiologists use the term ‘arms race’ to metaphorically describe bacteria’s ever present ability to develop anti-biotic resistance.

Fortuitous mutations – or engineered responses to the counter immediate threats? But if we consider that the successful seed does communicate with the tree then it can be explained in similar terms as quorum sensing (Quorum sensing is a type of decision-making process used by decentralized groups to coordinate behaviour. Many species of bacteria use quorum sensing…).

The concept of quantum entanglement also further helps us understand the possible mode of communication.

If we regard the seeds as not only clones of the tree but also as still entangled with the tree:” Wiki: Quantum entanglement is a property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart; even if the individual objects are spatially separated in a space-like manner.”

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

[quote=jtime]Don’t litter this thread with Creationist views, there is a lollipop at stake here, you’ll get nothing for shallow thoughts. :thumbup:[/quote] One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

I suppose it’s all in how you look at it mate. Both evolutionists and creationist are searching for the same answer just by opposite means.

The answer requires both because one without the other although it may seem fundamentally correct is still incomplete. This forum is a place where shallow thoughts do not occur…just some hollow spam links (which pro needs to get fixin).

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

Although on a philosophic level I disagree with Darwin’s views on not letting the “worst of our species” breed. And although you have ruled it out I still believe this problem falls neatly under: accidental genetic mutation that turns out to be an advantage for survival…- and so it is we have Sycamore trees….

At least until something changes to make that advantage a disadvantage. Now I’ll give you two lollipops if you can explain where mass comes from. :headscratch2:

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

No worries mate. I love this forum, I am in your debt for its creation. I get to vent my mind and watch Old school skate vids. Which reminds me I gotta post some Rodney Mullen videos.

Pro – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’

[quote=AdamMedici;1005]No worries mate. I love this forum, I am in your debt for its creation. I get to vent my mind and watch Old school skate vids. Which reminds me I gotta post some Rodney Mullen videos.[/quote]Nice one mate, thing is that all the spam used to be computer generated (which I could block in my Admin Panel) but now it’s human based so it’s actual people signing up and posting :spam: I’m just off to reply to the skating thread now :thumbup:

Pro – ‘Re: Nature holds many keys, solve this and you win a lollipop’ [quote=AdamMedici;985]

This forum is a place where shallow thoughts do not occur… just some hollow spam links (which pro needs to get fixin)[/quote]Sorry about the spam Adam, they sign up and because this is an open minded place I let the account alone until they post spam, then I’m on it asap. I get so many spammers sometimes that it’s difficult to keep up with em all :nut: