# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/21 "2012-11-13T23:57:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Needs more giant snail. Without giant snail, theory is incomplete. Giant snail explains all; no giant snail, no explanation. > > Small snail also incomplete, but better than nothing. Yeah, you’d think there was a snail. It’s an understandable conclusion that throws a lot of people off. See, the toroidal spirality of the a snail’s shell-shapification is suggestive of Sacred Geometry and Phi which all gets back to the Fibonacci sequence. But what you _haven’t yet realized_ is that, if you stand on one foot in a 6-dimensional plane, the fifth number of the main sequence- when turned on its side!- is really 12. Once you wrap your head around that you’ll get the rest. But yeah… I also went through a “snail phase” so I won’t be too hard on you. ---
**Author:** ![tomcar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tomcar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomcar)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/22 "2012-11-14T00:04:47Z")
Bipolar with schizoidaffective disorder ---
**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 14, 2012, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/23 "2012-11-14T00:50:32Z")
Interesting. So the people who frequent science forums are the ones least interested in discussing matters of reality about which they are unfamiliar. Science has poor representatives it seems. I suppose that should be expected since it’s probably more difficult to pretend being smart than it is to pretend being religious or to be skeptical of everything. But it is disappointing all the same. I’ll be more clear then. I WANT you all to tell me how and why I’m wrong. By all means, rip the content of my words to shreds - or rather attempt to do so. Best case scenario, you disprove a nutcase and have a good laugh about it. Or, you could actually flex your grey matter and relearn how to learn. Isn’t that what discourse is all about? Or has it truly devolved to circle jerks between groups of people who can’t follow a summary of a kindergarten course in higher-dimensional reality? Does your mother still chew your food and slice your peanut butter sandwiches for you as well? I can break it down further if necessary, but you’d be even more lost. If you’re confused on something, then ask. Specifics would be helpful, as your actual knowledge of reality is hilariously limited. Strutting around with your chests puffed out and according to your own calculations, you’re only studying less than 1% of reality known as “visible light within the tunnel of your universe.” You don’t even know the difference between time and space…these are _kindergarten subjects_ in most timelines. 8 planets? Seriously? How can you possibly differentiate between a planet and a moon if you can’t differentiate between Mars and a gas giant? How are you possibly considering these to be the same sort of object, just because from you perspective they all APPEAR to be orbiting around the Sun in the center? Which part of my post was unclear? Do you in fact observe reality in something other than two-dimensional surface areas of solid objects? Is the asteroid belt actually just debris left by a destroyed planet merely because you heard it from a guy with a tie about his neck and horn-rimmed spectacles? Despite the blindingly obvious fact that RIGHT after this point (which just so happens to span an area as large as the distance between the Sun and the start of the asteroid belt, about 2.5AU), suddenly all the planets become inverted gas giants all of which have their own ring systems and several lunar mass moons. Ironically, after the Kuiper Belt (which just so happens to span a distance similar to the distance between the asteroid belt and the Kuiper Belt, about 25AU), the inversion re-inverts and all the “dwarf planets” are rocky again. Outer Space is easy to decode if you **understand what it IS** …Chalk it up to coincidence if you want, or you can actually grow a pair, challenge me directly, and maybe even _learn_ something in the process. The hubris displayed by you all is legendary. 20 posts and not a single example of a disputed statement made. You all can certainly do better than this. Until tomorrow, gentlemen. At least try this time…I’ll wager you’ll be satisfied with the results if you do. Challenge yourself. You can’t ALL be beyond hope. I hope not. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/24 "2012-11-14T01:00:34Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Is the asteroid belt actually just debris left by a destroyed planet merely because you heard it from a guy with a tie about his neck and horn-rimmed spectacles? Actually, that’s a long-discredited theory. As best anyone can tell, there never was a single planet there; interaction with Jupiter prevented coalescence of precursor bodies into a single planet, and most of the original mass in that region was expelled from it (either to outside the solar system or into collisions with other planets). It’s a popular idea still in science fiction, though. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/25 "2012-11-14T01:01:46Z")
ninja’d ---
**Author:** ![Fatalis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Fatalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatalis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/26 "2012-11-14T01:05:45Z")
Time is a fourth dimensional hypercube ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/27 "2012-11-14T01:05:57Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Prediction: With no air resistance or friction, it should take the same amount of time for: > > 1. A _chunk_ of matter to fall from the surface on one side of Earth, pass through the center of Earth, and to cross through the surface of the opposite side strictly through the force of gravity. > 2. A massless particle to travel from the surface of the Sun, pass through the asteroid belt, and to cross through the surface of Jupiter. > > - because the exact same RELATIVE distance is being traveled in both scenarios. > > Results: 42 Minutes in both scenarios. Nope. While 42 minutes is the correct answer to 1, the correct answer to 2 is “between 36 and 53 minutes, depending on where Jupiter is in its orbit” ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/28 "2012-11-14T01:06:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Premises: > > 1. We don’t see in three-dimensions, we see in two-dimensional surface area. We can only see the OUT sides of objects. Wrong. We don’t see the outside of objects, we see the light which has reflected off of or been generated by objects. Start over. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/29 "2012-11-14T01:08:36Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Varying degrees of subjective bias and skepticism are expected, but objectivity and civility are _requisite_ for understanding.. Quite so. > [@](#): > > Does your mother still chew your food and slice your peanut butter sandwiches for you as well? How civil. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/30 "2012-11-14T01:30:59Z")
> [@Fatalis](#): > > Time is a fourth dimensional hypercube Time is nature’s way of keeping everything from happening at once. See? I can be deep, too! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/31 "2012-11-14T01:39:47Z")
I’ll give a go at “tearing everything to shreds” as requested, and see how far I get before boredom and/or brain aneurism stops me. > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Premises: These are not premises. These are assertions that need to be backed up with evidence. A premise is something that all participants can agree is true without further debate. As you will see, none of these three things falls into this category. > [@](#): > > 1. We don’t see in three-dimensions, we see in two-dimensional surface area. We can only see the OUT sides of objects. We can quite obviously see in three dimensions. Evidence: lack of depth perception when one eye is closed. If you have counter evidence, please present it. > [@](#): > > 1. What we call dimensions are determined by the inversion of INside and OUTside. Odds and Evens, binary. What we call dimensions are dimensions. They are determined by measuring things in various ways. Evidence: my ruler. To the best of my reasoning, the phrase “inversion of inside and outside” is meaningless outside of the context of folding laundry, as is the reference to numbers. > [@](#): > > 1. We call this effect relativity, and it is the motion which manufactures reality. We call _what_ effect relativity? Your pronoun has no antecedent. Your claim to have a new explanation for what “manufactures reality” is extraordinary, and must be backed up by extensive evidence. Such evidence is not presented. This statement is meaningless. > [@](#): > > Nutshell: > Let’s assume Spacetime is 4-dimensional. Most people translate this is as we live in three dimensions (up down, left right, forward back) and we move through the fourth, time. It’s better translated as the 4th dimension is IN and OUT In what way is it “better” to define the 4th dimension in this way? Why is it better? What is your evidence that such a point of view more accurately represents external reality? > [@](#): > > which is the direction microscopes look and the direction telescopes look, respectively. OUT is the composite of surface area which light is able to touch on objects, and IN is the invisible volume known as dark matter. You are completely misusing the name “dark matter”. Dark matter as understood by - and indeed invented by - physicists and cosmologists has nothing whatsoever to do with the internal volume of otherwise normal physical objects. > [@](#): > > **Airtight Visual Empirical Evidence** > **Outer Space is a hall of mirrors.** If this were true, we would see reflections when we look into space. We do not. This is clearly and obviously contrafactual. Aaaaaand boredom wins. ---
**Author:** ![Fatalis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Fatalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatalis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/32 "2012-11-14T01:48:01Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Time is nature’s way of keeping everything from happening at once. > > See? I can be deep, too! 😃 Time is fascist America’s plan to keep us in debt to Israel. 4 Cornered days etc 😃 ---
**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 14, 2012, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/33 "2012-11-14T02:05:49Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Actually, that’s a long-discredited theory. As best anyone can tell, there never was a single planet there; interaction with Jupiter prevented coalescence of precursor bodies into a single planet, and most of the original mass in that region was expelled from it (either to outside the solar system or into collisions with other planets). It’s a popular idea still in science fiction, though. The significant point is that _the layout of Outer Space completely changes just beyond this region_ which just happens to be a region of diffuse rocks which spans a region as large as the distance from the center of the solar system to the start of it. Suddenly, the planets are non longer smallish and rocky, they are enormous and gaseous…and each one has it’s own asteroid belt…and each sports multiple lunar mass moons which are small and rocky like the planets in the inner solar system, many of which have interesting internal compositions which you yourselves theorize COULD be capable of supporting life. I’m not entirely sure what positing the explanation of “Jupiter prevented coalescence of precursor bodies into a single planet” does to bolster an argument of any sort. It does nothing to address the fact that the composition of space _completely changes_ right after the asteroid belt. With this full context, you can either be satisfied in the explanation you already have - or you can consider the possibility that some trickery is afoot, and deep space isn’t necessarily what you’ve been led to believe it is. ---
**Author:** ![Fatalis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Fatalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatalis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/34 "2012-11-14T02:08:33Z")
Trickery is afoot alright m’boy, and your just the facthound to sniff out the trail of truth amongst this web of deceit and buffoonery. Save the universe, blind messiah. ---
**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 14, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/35 "2012-11-14T02:15:10Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Nope. While 42 minutes is the correct answer to 1, the correct answer to 2 is “between 36 and 53 minutes, depending on where Jupiter is in its orbit” If your premise that Jupiter is orbiting the Earth is correct, then that would be accurate. However, Jupiter doesn’t orbit the Sun in the center…it orbits the asteroid belt. Don’t respond with incredulity without first _thinking_ about what that means, how little it actually changes, and how much it explains. We live inside of the Sun…entering Outer Space inverts that image. The cool thing about the Theory of 42, aside from the obvious references, is it’s a great tool to learn the concept of dimensional relativity. Orbital resonance between celestial bodies follows a predictable, discernible pattern. ---
**Author:** ![Fatalis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Fatalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatalis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/36 "2012-11-14T02:17:52Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > We live inside of the Sun. We live inside of the Sun. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/37 "2012-11-14T02:20:44Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > If your premise that Jupiter is orbiting the Earth is correct, then that would be accurate. However, Jupiter doesn’t orbit the Sun in the center…it orbits the asteroid belt. Don’t respond with incredulity without first _thinking_ about what that means, how little it actually changes, and how much it explains. We live inside of the Sun…entering Outer Space inverts that image. > > The cool thing about the Theory of 42, aside from the obvious references, is it’s a great tool to learn the concept of dimensional relativity. Orbital resonance between celestial bodies follows a predictable, discernible pattern. Your claim was that the distance from the Sun to Jupiter was 42 light-minutes - that was wrong. If the distance from the Sun to Jupiter doesn’t matter, why did you make the claim? ---
**Author:** ![Fatalis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Fatalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatalis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/38 "2012-11-14T02:21:52Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Your claim was that the distance from the Sun to Jupiter was 42 light-minutes - that was wrong. If the distance from the Sun to Jupiter doesn’t matter, why did you make the claim? Methinks you’re missing the point. We live inside the Sun. Everything should come in to focus now:smack: ---
**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 14, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/39 "2012-11-14T02:23:19Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Quite so. > > How civil. If you’re going to completely ignore the context, why bother responding at all? As should now be evident, I’m not above counterattacking venom with venom. I’d greatly prefer not to however, which was the point in the original statement. Time is limited, and the longer we spend measuring our dicks, the more of it goes to waste. And you’d lose that contest anyway, so let’s just forego the territorial threat displays, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/40 "2012-11-14T02:24:43Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > If you’re going to completely ignore the context, why bother responding at all? As should now be evident, I’m not above counterattacking venom with venom. I’d greatly prefer not to however, which was the point in the original statement. Time is limited, and the longer we spend measuring our dicks, the more of it goes to waste. > > And you’d lose that contest anyway, so let’s just forego the territorial threat displays, yes? Yes - instead, please explain why you made a false claim about the distance from the Sun to Jupiter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=3)