# 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:** 24
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/461 "2012-11-19T21:16:00Z")
If physical laws really did invert, imagine the implications. The space station would crumple, buckling under the intense (borderline infinite) anti-pressure. Every piece of extraterrestrial dirt would immediately burst into flame due to the intense (borderline infinite) anti-heat. It would be infinitely bright. If the anti-pressure didn’t get you, the anti-gravity certainly will as all that non-mass exerts their push (not pull) on your pathetic massed body. Fantastic. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/462 "2012-11-19T21:28:16Z")
Does this mean he’s flip-flopped and we’re not gonna see the thread where he lays out the math behind his theory? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/463 "2012-11-19T21:37:36Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Does this mean he’s flip-flopped and we’re not gonna see the thread where he lays out the math behind his theory? he’s spent the last few pages back-pedaling on the math. he is now admitting that math will support the scientific reality everyone’s argued against him–now he’s stressing how valuable it is _we look at things with an askew perceptive_, because the math doesn’t change, _even tho reality inverts_. i am perplexed by this notion–all forces are exactly opposite in space, reality itself is inverted–yet the math remains the same as on earth? the fundamental laws of physics shift inconceivably–but the math stays the same…? this is just him conceding mathematical defeat because he’s not \*that \*dumb…he knows the math won’t work in his favor. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/464 "2012-11-19T21:39:31Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > I think I could walk away from this happy if **Anthem** acknowledged even this much reality. I don’t believe he _can_ - because this (erroneous) view is at the very core of the whole argument. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/465 "2012-11-19T21:52:59Z")
At extreme risk of appearing to support the theory you are refuting, I must take exception to this: > [@pancakes3](#): > > … The layer of gas that envelops the earth is held in by gravity. The closer to the surface, the more gas because the pull of gravity is stronger. The farther away from the center of the earth, the weaker the pull, the less gas. That’s why it’s harder to breath in higher elevations and people who scare ultra-high peaks like Everest need oxygen tanks. This is pretty much all wrong. The atmosphere is so thin in relation to the radius of the earth, that the slight difference in gravity on Mt. Everest vs. that at the bottom of death valley is insignificant. Yet the air **is** far denser at low elevations. This is due to the weight of all the air stacked on top of it, not to a difference in gravity. The pressure at the bottom of a 1000 foot tall cylinder of water on top of Everest (keeping it from freezing is left as an exercise for the reader) will be about the same as you’d find 1000’ below the sea. Air is far more compressible, though, so it’s density increases far more with pressure. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/466 "2012-11-19T21:54:27Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Does this mean he’s flip-flopped and we’re not gonna see the thread where he lays out the math behind his theory? Here ya go… 1. Convert all coordinates from Cartesian to Polar. 2. Substitute “infinity minus r” for r. “Out” is now “in.” Nothing much else changes, although solving equations for orbital mechanics gets a lot uglier. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/467 "2012-11-19T22:09:53Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > At extreme risk of appearing to support the theory you are refuting, I must take exception to this: > This is pretty much all wrong. The atmosphere is so thin in relation to the radius of the earth, that the slight difference in gravity on Mt. Everest vs. that at the bottom of death valley is insignificant. Yet the air **is** far denser at low elevations. This is due to the weight of all the air stacked on top of it, not to a difference in gravity. > > The pressure at the bottom of a 1000 foot tall cylinder of water on top of Everest (keeping it from freezing is left as an exercise for the reader) will be about the same as you’d find 1000’ below the sea. Air is far more compressible, though, so it’s density increases far more with pressure. conceded. however, i will still maintain that the reason we have an atmosphere in place is still due to gravity, yes? ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/468 "2012-11-19T22:29:05Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > conceded. however, i will still maintain that the reason we have an atmosphere in place is still due to gravity, yes? Well, I think you’re sort of both right. The atmosphere is there because of gravity and air is compressed more (or less) as a function of the weight (gravity again) of the air above it. I like to think of the surface of the earth as the bottom of an ocean of air. ---
**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 19, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/469 "2012-11-19T22:31:35Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Here ya go… > > 1. Convert all coordinates from Cartesian to Polar. > > 2. Substitute “infinity minus r” for r. > > “Out” is now “in.” Nothing much else changes, although solving equations for orbital mechanics gets a lot uglier. At what point am I supposed to reverse the polarity? ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/470 "2012-11-19T22:35:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > At what point am I supposed to reverse the polarity? Once you’ve got it all written out, simply hold it up in front of a mirror. ---
**Author:** ![MDKSquared](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9e5f3/32.png) [@MDKSquared](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MDKSquared)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/471 "2012-11-19T22:51:32Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > And here all this while I thought you were just pretending to be dense. Do you seriously not know the difference between the living environment in which you’ve existed for every moment of your life and OUTER SPACE. You’re so braindead you’re defining your the only environment you’ve ever known strictly in terms of an environment which you are not only incapable of comprehending, but which you also have never and will never be able to go to. Outer space is incompatible with life and you are living. At least your body is…I’m not so sure about your brain at this point if this is a difficult question for you to understand. > > This is a simple question. Yes it requires you actually THINK for once, instead of posting links which are arguing against the strawman arguments you’ve convinced yourself that I’m making. > **Can you think of an environment which is LESS like earth-space (the environment in which YOU live…ANY part of it, underwater, on the ground, in the air, ANYWHERE on the goddamn planet) than outer space? Is it even possible to conceive of such a thing? It is literally the opposite of EVERYTHING our existence is based on. But somehow the math works in both environments, so we think nothing of it.** > > In your wildest imagination, could you think of an environment which more dissimilar to YOUR WORLD than outer space? > > Quit running from the question. I love how you dodge every single question that directly crushes your argument. 1. Yes, I know the difference between my living environment and outer space. Holy shit. We ALL know the difference here, and we’ve all asked “So what?” and you have yet to come up with a response. 2. You don’t seem to understand that space is space. We live in space. Space is full of gas/dust clouds. Some of this pulled together into galaxies and stars, which underwent thermonuclear fusion that created new generations of stars, planets, etc. And our planet just so happened to have the conditions that were sufficient for life to eventually form/develop. Do you understand this? Being on the planet is certainly different from being out in the middle of space (not on a planet), but so what? In both situations, the same laws, the same math – applies. In one scenario you’re near a big ball of water/rock/atmosphere, and in the other, you’re further away (and dead). 3. Stop it with the “opposite” crap, lol. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. This is way too much fun. ---
**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 19, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/472 "2012-11-19T23:53:02Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > We know why, **Anthem**. > > Listen, you’re hardly the first or the twelfth or the hundredth person to pop in here with a new and exciting theory about something. And every time, we point out the obvious holes in the theory … So what are the obvious holes in suggesting that IN and OUT are representations of 4th spatial dimension other than “science hasn’t verified that for us yet”? What are the obvious holes in suggesting that we have no reason to blindly ASSUME that Earth is 3D, especially considering it has nothing in common with any three-dimensional object ON Earth. All you’re doing is defining the individual parts as the whole. Then, conveniently, you ignore the obvious holes in your own assumption - mainly, your OWN perception. If by “point out the obvious holes” you mean run in a line one after the other and demand MATH when the only relevant math was already posted in the OP (2+1, 4-1), and probably 4 or 5 times since then. Not one comment so far on that part though, naturally. Not even a question requesting an explanation. It’s been pretty clear from the jump that invalidation was the goal rather than the logical conclusion. > [@](#): > > We know what space is like, **Anthem**. We know all the gradations of the atmosphere from the ground all the way up to the top of the sky and on to the moon and beyond. We’ve been there. And yes, space is a harsh environment. And yes, we know why. This is just plain dishonest. The gradations are only noticeable to us because we’re inside of them. This is why I keep imploring you all to THINK about what you’re actually saying. You do realize that once you get to outer space that the gradation jumps instantly to a scale which is no longer comprehensible…and it STAYS that way. This is NOT the same environment in any meaningful way at all, size least of all. The distance between the clear gradients on Earth from the ocean depths all the way up to the edge of the atmosphere is literally ZERO compared to the distance to the nearest object in whichever “3D direction” you exit. This is how math actually works. When something tends _that_ close to zero, it IS zero. It’s irresponsible to throw the matter under the rug unresolved and just say “yes it’s harsh, and we know why.” It’s not JUST that it’s antithetical to everything in our environment. If it were ONLY that, then the matter would. It’s the immediate and permanent change in scale which is the biggest red flag that something significant has changed. “We know why” is not only dishonest, it’s plain intellectual laziness. > [@](#): > > And no, that doesn’t change anything about the laws of physics, no matter how much it means to you that it should. and here we go once again. Framing my argument as something that it isn’t, then attacking your own deliberate misinterpretation. I have specifically and repeatedly said that the mathematical equations which DESCRIBE these laws don’t change, but the concept BEING described changes entirely. This applies to literally every single definable characteristic of space. The math still works, but it’s describing another environment entirely. Mathematically, this is all solvable by simply differentiating between 1+1 and 1-(-1). Yes, the ENDPOINT is the same, but how is that at all helpful if your own extremely limited perception is capable of discerning the astronomical difference between the environment of London and outer space. Just because our lazy shorthand MATH can’t tell the difference doesn’t mean that the difference doesn’t exist. ---
**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 19, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/473 "2012-11-19T23:57:14Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > If physical laws really did invert, imagine the implications. The space station would crumple, buckling under the intense (borderline infinite) anti-pressure. Every piece of extraterrestrial dirt would immediately burst into flame due to the intense (borderline infinite) anti-heat. It would be infinitely bright. If the anti-pressure didn’t get you, the anti-gravity certainly will as all that non-mass exerts their push (not pull) on your pathetic massed body. > > Fantastic. What’s amazing is that you don’t realize that that is (more or less) EXACTLY what happens when objects enter outer space. We have to specifically design things in a way so that they are capable of withstanding the dramatic change of environment. How can you possibly be in here arguing this if you didn’t know that? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/474 "2012-11-20T00:08:35Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > What’s amazing is that you don’t realize that that is (more or less) EXACTLY what happens when objects enter outer space. We have to specifically design things in a way so that they are capable of withstanding the dramatic change of environment. > > How can you possibly be in here arguing this if you didn’t know that? “dramatic change” does not equal “opposite”. Please get this. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/475 "2012-11-20T00:20:06Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > **Can you think of an environment which is LESS like earth-space (the environment in which YOU live…ANY part of it, underwater, on the ground, in the air, ANYWHERE on the goddamn planet) than outer space? Is it even possible to conceive of such a thing? It is literally the opposite of EVERYTHING our existence is based on. But somehow the math works in both environments, so we think nothing of it.** > > In your wildest imagination, could you think of an environment which more dissimilar to YOUR WORLD than outer space? INside a black hole - the density difference between the inside of a black hole and space or earth makes both space and earth look almost the same, on a percentage basis ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/476 "2012-11-20T00:27:00Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > INside a black hole - the density difference between the inside of a black hole and space or earth makes both space and earth look almost the same, on a percentage basis Or even deep within the ocean. The pressure difference between outer space and the air is negligible compared to the air and thousands of feet underwater. It’s so much more difficult to engineer for this pressure differential that until this year, man had been to the deepest part of the ocean only once. [sup][When?] [For how long?][/sup] So you could also say more convincingly that the opposite of the surface of the Earth is deep inside the ocean. Which is really weird since we’re supposedly made up of water. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/477 "2012-11-20T00:27:39Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > What are the obvious holes in suggesting that we have no reason to blindly ASSUME that Earth is 3D Well… apart from pretty much all observed reality? Someone suggested you were a Solipsist. Are you? > [@](#): > > If by “point out the obvious holes” you mean run in a line one after the other and demand MATH when the only relevant math was already posted in the OP (2+1, 4-1), and probably 4 or 5 times since then. See, the thing about mathematical _equations_ is that they establish a relationship between various quantities- “equating them”, in a sense- so that useful logical inferences can be made. If I write “x + 2” on a chalkboard, there is no information. If I write “x + 2 = 10”, a whole world of math opens up for me. Do you now understand why equivalence is relevant when it comes to equations? > [@](#): > > The gradations are only noticeable to us because we’re inside of them. This is why I keep imploring you all to THINK about what you’re actually saying. You do realize that once you get to outer space that the gradation jumps instantly to a scale which is no longer comprehensible…and it STAYS that way. If nothing outside of our atmosphere is comprehensible, how did we land on the moon? Serious question. > [@](#): > > It’s irresponsible to throw the matter under the rug unresolved and just say “yes it’s harsh, and we know why.” It’s not JUST that it’s antithetical to everything in our environment. If it were ONLY that, then the matter would. Is “antithetical” the word you’re going to torture now? If I suck all the air of of a glass jar, does the edge of the jar take on any of the special properties to which you allude? > [@](#): > > I have specifically and repeatedly said that the mathematical equations which DESCRIBE these laws don’t change, but the concept BEING described changes entirely. This applies to literally every single definable characteristic of space. Provide one example. Just one example of a “definable characteristic of space” that “changes entirely.” Describe how it changes and precisely when the change occurs. ---
**Author:** ![MDKSquared](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9e5f3/32.png) [@MDKSquared](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MDKSquared)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/478 "2012-11-20T00:31:32Z")
> [@MDKSquared](#): > > You say “only physical evidence is permitted” as if we have something better. We live in a physical universe, dude. You don’t **have** the luxury of basing the truth value of something on anything more than that. All we **can** talk about are the effects. Gravity can be described mathematically, and to the extent that it is predictive, accurate, and reproducible. > > Asking what it “is” is meaningless. What is gravity? Why do magnets repel? All this stuff was addressed in the video I showed you earlier that you conveniently ignored. Asking why things are the way they are – or what they are – doesn’t get you anywhere. Gravity is a phenomenon of our universe, and that’s all we know. **We can ask what it “is” and come up with infinitely many answers to address it, so how do you know which one is true?** > > But that’s ultimately what makes metaphysics useless. It doesn’t offer any new knowledge. It just offers a possible interpretation no better than any other. It doesn’t help us predict anything new – which is huge because if you really had a Theory of Everything, you would be able to describe every aspect of our universe that empirical science hasn’t been able to yet. But you can’t, and there’s a reason for that: Your “theories” are no better than what science has to offer, because nobody can do better than what science has to offer. > > It’s a fundamental limitation of our epistemological basis as physical beings in a physical universe. Quoting this again so Anthem won’t ignore it this time. It’s such a crushing blow to his argument that he HAS to avoid it. I sincerely hope this guy is just playing around, because having such a twisted, strange view of reality is no way to go through life, man. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/479 "2012-11-20T00:33:42Z")
This is hopeless. **Anthem (0)** can’t even make a rigorous argument. He will continue to cling to his, well it’s not even a theory is it? He’ll continue to cling to his belief simply because he cannot accept the fact that he’s not vastly smarter than everyone else and we simply can’t see his superiority. ---
**Author:** ![MDKSquared](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9e5f3/32.png) [@MDKSquared](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MDKSquared)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/480 "2012-11-20T00:38:38Z")
It’s like a distilled form of the Dunning-Kruger effect in high gear. I can tell you guys this right now: I’ve debated a fair number of these Theory of Everything types. This conversation could literally go on forever until someone dies, the universe experiences heat death, or a moderator steps in. Anthem is not going to concede any point whatsoever, no matter how much sense you make. Meanwhile he’ll just continue to insult people who are “too dumb” to see the obvious brilliance of his Theory Of Tautological Nothingness To the Infinitieth Power (OUTside divided by INside variant). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=25)