- This topic has 1 voice and 0 replies.
-
Posts
-
ProKeymaster
How Pro theory was born
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]
- The topic ‘How Pro theory was born’ is closed to new replies.
