Smilinggoose's Question

[ProKeymaster]

Smilinggoose’s Question

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.

[Author]

Posts