# Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2012, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862 "2012-11-13T06:09:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/361 "2012-11-17T16:35:18Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > why the hell does it matter how you take to mean the word “interpret”? I’m not the one desperately clinging onto semantics here. I don’t care the word being used, I’m saying the same phenomenon is taking place FROM the same xyz coordinates with wildly different results. This is all rather obvious and no one is even attempting to disagree with the point, only picking on words like “interpret”? wtf The use of the word “interpret” matters to us in the same way 3D matters to you. Which means they are mirror images of each other, both are ideas being challenged and both are obvious yet disagreed by the other party. Is it possible “interpret” and 3D are idea pairs, thus illustrating a virtual thought 5th dimension? ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/362 "2012-11-17T17:37:58Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > I’m reminded of a thread I participated with a poster called Jetblast. He had [a theory](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=548518) in which he passionately believed, that Jimi Hendrix had been murdered. He resembled **Anthem(0)** in that he typed way too much, treated everyone who responded with haughty disdain, and didn’t make any sense. He differed in that it was always clear what his purpose was: he thought Hendrix had been murdered and he wanted to convince us. > > I’m beginning to think that this thread is some sort of performance art. ``` I think people could go back and look at that "participation" and see how much validity it had. The thread in question was locked by a moderator who had a bias towards the subject and enforced contrived site rules in order to censor content. I left the site because it had no credibility at that point and was obviously serving dishonest people using pedantic word tricks and devices over honest seeking of the truth. What you wrote is fine and dandy, the only problem with it is Jimi was murdered. I was lucky enough to interview Dr Bannister in person a few months ago as part of my continued efforts. What he told me only reinforced the evidence behind Jimi's murder. There's a reason why Crotalus remembers me and it isn't because of the cheap slander he uses to dismiss my arguments. It is because the evidence is real and it bugs him. He has to convince himself the rubbish by which he described myself is the reason. It's very easy to say what he said when aided by the flagrant censorship of thread locking. In the last two years I managed to get hold of the London Coroner's Office autopsy report on Jimi Hendrix. It showed the exact same figures I quoted in the locked (censored) thread despite the gratuitous, ill-informed doubters. It turns out Jimi had a borderline lethal dose of barbiturate recorded in his blood. What this means is he had to have been unconscious for the last half-hour of his life. The opponents say there's too many variables, but they themselves don't admit that a borderline lethal dose of 9 Vesparax tablets and its accompanying 3.9% of blood level recorded at the autopsy requires a period of unconsciousness of at least a half hour before death. When we then examine the tiny 5mg per 100ml blood alcohol content recorded at the same autopsy it is in drastic forensic conflict with the "bottles worth" of wine Dr Bannister suctioned out of Jimi at St Mary Abotts Hospital. I heard Dr Bannister say in person that the amount of wine was shocking and it being over 5 bottles would be close to what he witnessed. Since the official story requires that wine being inside Jimi for that half-hour period of necessary unconsciousness it has no explanation for the blood alcohol content not reflecting an absorption of that large amount of wine during that period. And there is your forensic proof of murder captured by the London Coroner's Office at Jimi's autopsy. While patronizing me from a safe moderated distance, Crotalus thinks he can get away with calling this "haughty"... Jimi was murdered. There's no doubt about it as the credible forensic evidence proves. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/363 "2012-11-17T17:41:18Z")
Amazing. Let’s do it all again. And I didn’t even have to say your name three times. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/364 "2012-11-17T17:46:01Z")
does crazy attract crazy like moths to a flame? maybe not crazy. fervency? ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/365 "2012-11-17T17:49:19Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > Amazing. Let’s do it all again. > > And I didn’t even have to say your name three times. ``` This isn't a credible response to what I wrote. Thank you for doing it in public and showing the credibility of what you write. You're just in contempt of the credible evidence behind Jimi's murder and feel safe doing so from the gang-protected inside of Straight Dope. You're looking at what Crotalus calls "participation." ``` . ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/366 "2012-11-17T17:53:51Z")
This is one of the reasons it’s annoying when people call out other posters who aren’t participating. We’re not debating Jimi Hendrix’s non-murder in this thread, nor are we debating the fictional conspiracy suppressing the truth about TWA 800. We’re debating **Anthem (0)**'s theory, whatever the heck it is. If you want to comment on that, do so. If not, don’t hijack this thread. That also goes for people who want to snipe at conspiracy theorists. Confine your comments to the thread topic, everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/367 "2012-11-17T17:59:03Z")
Sorry, Marley. If I could undo it, I would. ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/368 "2012-11-17T17:59:27Z")
I’d be very glad to do so, but you locked the thread in question. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/369 "2012-11-17T18:05:32Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > I’d be very glad to do so, but you locked the thread in question. I think you are free to start a new one, if you can avoid the things that got the old one closed. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/370 "2012-11-17T18:06:44Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > I’d be very glad to do so, but you locked the thread in question. After almost 500 posts, yes, I did. Now: either enter the discussion **Anthem 0** ’s Theory of Everything or start/post in another thread about something else. Comments about moderation belong in the ATMB forum. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/371 "2012-11-17T18:08:11Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This is one of the reasons it’s annoying when people call out other posters who aren’t participating. We’re not debating Jimi Hendrix’s non-murder in this thread, nor are we debating the fictional conspiracy suppressing the truth about TWA 800. We’re debating **Anthem (0)**'s theory, whatever the heck it is. If you want to comment on that, do so. If not, don’t hijack this thread. That also goes for people who want to snipe at conspiracy theorists. Confine your comments to the thread topic, everyone. I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree a little bit here. Given that we aren’t sure what **Anthem’s** theory actually is, we can’t really exclude Hendrix or TWA from his theory. And in the interest of wrapping things up in a neat bow, I propose the following: Jimi Hendrix was IN the TWA 800 airplane ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/372 "2012-11-17T18:12:58Z")
In the name of the overt sophistry that seems to be the guiding muse here I’d love to see a thread addressing the issue of how 500 posts is the deciding factor in truth content? ---
**Author:** ![MDKSquared](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9e5f3/32.png) [@MDKSquared](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MDKSquared)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/373 "2012-11-17T19:01:28Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Is this a serious question? There are no similarities in the environments. Not a single one. You all are disagreeing with things you can’t possibly disagree with. Well the environment of my house is certainly different from the environment of a jungle. I guess the laws of physics must break down when I step out the door, right? > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Once again, you’re not accounting for your own limitations, but rather pretending they don’t exist. The fact that we have never seen an object which didn’t “appear” (in the crudest sense) to be three-dimensional means either one of two things. > > 1. All objects we’ve SEEN are three-dimensional, including planets, stars, people, cars, nuclei of atoms, etc. > > 2. Our ability to determine the “shape” of an object is limited strictly to two-dimensional surface areas, regardless of the actual number of dimensions the object contains and therefore EVERYTHING “looks 3D” to us. **1**. In other words you are saying “There COULD be objects we HAVEN’T seen that AREN’T actually 3D” Problem: You have no evidence for this. We could also say “There COULD be a parallel universe composed entirely of Leprechauns” but if we can’t see this universe, interact with it, or verify that it exists, why posit that it does? There could also be a unicorn 10 miles under your house. You haven’t ever looked there, right? **2**. So what’s the difference between a 2D world made to look 3D and a 3D world that is actually 3D? What’s the difference between a simulation of reality and reality? What’s the difference between modeling the movements of the solar system as rotating around the Earth vs. rotating around the sun? They’re indistinguishable in each case, and it doesn’t help us to mince words and overcomplicate shit. > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Earth, however, requires an entire year to get back to that starting point, during which time it’s “surface” undergoes through a very predictable and distinct pattern. And even then it’s _slightly_ off, and after a few hundred thousand more orbits, an ice age comes, etc. But the surface of Earth INHERENTLY undergoes predictable pattern changes within predictable time limits. The SURFACE does this. Mathematically, a hyperdimensional object would, in theory, behave the same - it would require more than one rotation to reach it’s starting point. It’s not the same as a billiard ball which simply rotates once before you can see the entire surface. Longwinded way of adding nothing to the discussion, lol. > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Does this NECESSITATE that Earth is greater than three-dimensions? No. But do you have any reason to reject the notion outright? Do you have any at all, other than blind allegiance to the baseless idea that “all objects everywhere are 3D all the time because that’s just the way it is”? Does our universe NECESSITATE that Thor, Apollo, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist? No. But do you have any reason to reject the notion outright? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/374 "2012-11-17T20:47:43Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > And in the interest of wrapping things up in a neat bow, I propose the following: > Jimi Hendrix was IN the TWA 800 airplane > [@Jetblast](#): > > In the name of the overt sophistry that seems to be the guiding muse here I’d love to see a thread addressing the issue of how 500 posts is the deciding factor in truth content? I could warn you both for ignoring my instructions, but I’ll make this my last reminder and continue the discussion in **Jetblast** ’s ATMB thread. ---
**Author:** ![Anthem\_0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Anthem\_0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthem_0)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/375 "2012-11-17T21:51:14Z")
> [@MDKSquared](#): > > Well the environment of my house is certainly different from the environment of a jungle. I guess the laws of physics must break down when I step out the door, right? the LAWS of earthbound physics DO break down in outer space. Pressure completely inverts itself, as does heat, as does motion, as do the LITERAL concepts of inside and outside. In fact, the only thing that DOESN’T change are the MATHEMATICAL equations describing these these laws. **And that, friends, is the entire point.** All this proves is that MATH works the exact same with negatives and positives. And our lazy shorthand of plus/minus and multiply/divide have blinded us to the consequences of such an oversight. Obviously REALITY COMPLETELY INVERTS once you enter outer space. However, MATH doesn’t. At least, that’s what laziness and apathy had led us to believe. The basis of my theory is that there is a quantifiable and clearly discernible difference between 1+1 and 1-(-1). And every single aspect of our existence is PROOF of this. This is Theory of EVERYTHING. I’m now ready to talk about the math behind the theory and am making a new thread because this one is a veritable clusterfuck at this point and introducing math would only continue pollute what could be an interesting discussion. Join me in making history. New thread incoming. It would be nice to keep it to math only. This one can continue for the personal berating of me, and I’ll continue to defend my ridiculous notions using no math whatsoever. > [@](#): > > **1**. In other words you are saying “There COULD be objects we HAVEN’T seen that AREN’T actually 3D” > > Problem: You have no evidence for this. Have you ever SEEN the Earth? I’m not trying to be funny, but have you ever seen ANYTHING in space except for from a picture taken through a telescope? Just because they look like large spheres doesn’t mean they are no structurally different than a billiard ball. Have you ever SEEN an atom except through pictures drawn from microscope information/images? Of course you haven’t. The only objects YOU have seen, shit that ANYONE has seen, are objects which are _small enough_ to fit comfortably on the SURFACE of Earth in order to be seen with the “naked eye” AND _large enough_ to squeeze into the invisible volume of Earth in order to be seen with the “naked eye”. This is a very definable space which stretches from pretty much the Surface of Earth to the edge of the atmosphere of Earth. As it so happens, this is the only zone in existence where both the laws of the quantum world and the laws of relativity BOTH WORK. This zone is the intersection of negative and positive. The evidence for this is unlimited once you account for human perception. Every question you never asked yourself because you took it for granted is actually EXPLAINED. Why do we detect the world through sight, sound, and touch? Why If your complaint is “this is philosophical”, why is that a problem? Did it honestly never occur to any of you that a **Theory of EVERYTHING** would have to, in some way, incorporate HUMAN PERCEPTION into the mix? Was it just supposed to be a mathematical equation which magically harmonized ALL of existence into a few variables? The math has already been done, the information has alreay been gathered. The only thing humans have yet to do is CONTEXTUALIZE the data and assemble it all into a working order. And doing so actually requires thinking and understanding…two ancient arts which have been completely lost in this age of “prove it mathematically or GTFO” screamed by blind followers of a once-noble cause who subconsiously MUST realize that physical reality only constitutes about 1-4% of EVERYTHING, but consciously refuse to admit to themselves what that means implies about our own inherent limitations using strictly mathematics to define REALITY. Well, if you guys worship math, then think about that number. 1% of EVERYTHING has a physical representation. Congratulations on thoroughly breaking down the 1%. The beauty is, if you want to understand the other 99%, then you don’t need any additional math from me to do so. All the math is already there. All you have to do is APPLY IT to the reality you see around you…(this is the the important bit)… IN CONTEXT. Example: If there is a > [@](#): > > We could also say “There COULD be a parallel universe composed entirely of Leprechauns” but if we can’t see this universe, interact with it, or verify that it exists, why posit that it does? There could also be a unicorn 10 miles under your house. You haven’t ever looked there, right? That’s only ridiculous because you’re falsely identifying the composition of a parallel universe rather than acknowledging that parallel universes most probably DO exist. Who cares what the internal compositions of them are as far as leprechauns? It’s not ridiculous AT ALL to say that there COULD be a parallel universe right next to us composed entirely of near-clones of US. You’re deliberately MAKING the analogy ridiculous by dishonestly adding a leprechaun for no reason other than to try to discredit the ACTUAL point…which is the existence of that parallel universe, not the population of leprechauns. Why do people argue like that? You must know that one proposition is ridiculous while the other is at least plausible, but simply unprovable. Intentional dishonesty has no place in debate. > [@](#): > > **2**. So what’s the difference between a 2D world made to look 3D and a 3D world that is actually 3D? What’s the difference between a simulation of reality and reality? What’s the difference between modeling the movements of the solar system as rotating around the Earth vs. rotating around the sun? > > They’re indistinguishable in each case, and it doesn’t help us to mince words and overcomplicate shit. The difference is one is an accurate representation of reality, and the other is wishful thinking based on nothing more than your own inherently limited perception. The difference is calling EVERYTHING 3D is stripping all context and human perception from the picture of REALITY and attempting to define all of reality using physical properties which only apply to 1-4% of calculated reality. Using the accumulated mathematics of all of history, you can only only _physically identify_ 1-4% of REALITY, and you are perfectly OK with that…so much so that you’ll openly ridicule anyone attempting to not only physically define the missing 99%, but also to explain WHY you can’t SEE it although it so obviously is there, both physically and mathematically. You are aiming your sights entirely too low. Give thinking and contextualizing a try. You don’t even have to change the math because Math works the same both ways. Using a little bit of common sense, you can even find the very clear boundaries where reality inverts itself and the properties of both the IN and the OUT direction. And applying MATH, you realize that the gaps in the numbers coincide perfectly with the clear borders which define the limits of our perceptions. Anyway, I’ll make the math thread in a bit. We’ll see how competent you hidden math geniuses actually are. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/376 "2012-11-17T21:55:00Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Anyway, I’ll make the math thread in a bit. We’ll see how competent you hidden math geniuses actually are. What are your qualifications when it comes to math? What degrees do you hold in this, or any other, subject? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/377 "2012-11-17T21:59:41Z")
> [@Some Dude on the Internet](#): > > Of course you haven’t. The only objects YOU have seen, shit that ANYONE has seen, are objects which are small enough to fit comfortably on the SURFACE of Earth in order to be seen with the “naked eye” AND large enough to squeeze into the invisible volume of Earth in order to be seen with the “naked eye”. I’ve seen the sun. Does the sun fit on the surface of the earth? Seems like it wouldn’t, but hey, I’m no math expert. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/378 "2012-11-17T22:09:24Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > the LAWS of earthbound physics DO break down in outer space. Pressure completely inverts itself, as does heat, as does motion, as do the LITERAL concepts of inside and outside. . . . You’d think the Apollo astronauts would have observed this… ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/379 "2012-11-17T22:09:36Z")
**Anthem (0)**, can you try and explain for the layman what practical application there is to adapting to this new method of perceiving our place in the universe? Is there any practical application to this knowledge that you can foresee if it is accepted as true? Isn’t a GTOE the modern scientist’s version of the Philosopher’s Stone and The Elixir Of Life - ie. a pipe-dream of people who can’t accept not knowing everything? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/380 "2012-11-17T22:17:17Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Have you ever SEEN the Earth? I’m not trying to be funny, but have you ever seen ANYTHING in space except for from a picture taken through a telescope? Just because they look like large spheres doesn’t mean they are no structurally different than a billiard ball. In rebuttal, I offer you [this argument](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0). I think you’ll find it compelling. By the way, I did speak to **Angua** , a woman who has literally spent many years of her life directly observing the visible and invisible universe through a variety of extremely expensive scientific devices, making predictions based on evidence and mathematical modelling and then checking those predictions against further evidence (as per the usual scientific method), and she did pop by to read the OP. Her response to me in its entirety was: > [@Angua](#): > > ::can’t breathe. laughing too fucking hard:: Since I know what her rather impressive credentials are and you have continually failed to present any despite repeated requests, I hope you’re not too offended when I accept her assessment of your theory over yours. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=20)