# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 573
**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 21, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/573 "2012-11-21T16:26:53Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > This is one of multiple examples of you moving the goal posts. My original quote was to rebut your assertion that 1-(-1) went backwards through negative infinity and comes back around to arrive at 2. Now you’re changing the argument to something else, and falsely at that. If you’re disagreeing that 1-(-1) covers an entirely separate and infinitely larger set of numbers than 1+1, then you simply don’t understand how math works. There are multiple If you were arguing that it doesn’t matter in the end, that’d be one thing (which would still be wrong), but if you can’t even IDENTIFY the difference in notation then why are you arguing at all? You can’t actually be debating this point man, come on. > [@](#): > > The reason anyone sees light is solely because of the electrons. In fact, the basis for color itself is in the release of energy as electrons change energy levels. Not knowing this even in the basest sense proves that you have never taken a second semester, freshman course in physics. > > Furthermore, the teeny bit in the center contains 99% of the mass of an atom. Yup, more than 99% of the mass and less than 1% of the size. Once again, what we see What we SEE is the 99%. That means that as best we can determine, over 99% of the STUFF of the atom is in the center despite that center occupying less than 1% of the size of the atom. Are you trying to prove my point for me? And how can you simultaneously make a post about how we can SEE electrons then accuse me of not having taken a freshman course in physics? > [@](#): > > However, this bit of distraction doesn’t matter in throwing around the buzzword context, you’ve changed the entire meaning of positive and negative. You went from using +/- in describing spatial direction to describing electrical charge. That would actually be a violation of context. Are you literally trying to prove my point for me? Or were you unaware of the fact that electron clouds are the “indeterminate/invisible” part of the atom? Just because that particular bit of math completely agrees with me doesn’t mean that I’m changing my argument. My argument was based on the 99%/1% spatial representation actually, not on the fact that electrons have negative charge, but the charge matching up doesn’t hurt my argument at all. Even if you wanted to reduce that to coincidence (which it isn’t), it doesn’t effect my argument either way. I’m more than happy to discuss this in terms of spatial representation, which I have been doing all along…and which also agrees with my point, not yours. What are you even disagreeing with here? > [@](#): > > Most damning of which is that in your new, erroneous example of “seeing” an atom, you still have not proven how 1+1 is the opposite of 1-(-1). By claiming that we can only see the negative and not the positive, your analogy means that 1+1 does not even physically exist. Ok, let’s slow this down. Do you understand that 1+1 and 1-1 cover entirely different ranges of numbers except for their point of intersection? Seriously, do you understand at least that much? If so, then you understand what the “minus” means, and which “direction” (note the quotation marks) on the number chart that MINUS indicates motion towards, then you should understand that the (-1) at the end is telling you to stop at -1 from where you began, **not to turn around without making a single move in the direction indicated by the MINUS symbol**. This really isn’t something which is subject to debate. Your desire to WANT me to be wrong about everything I’m saying doesn’t make it so. If you honestly cannot understand the difference between “1 plus X” and “1 minus X”, then why are you arguing this subject at all? **It doesn’t matter if the x is negative, and THAT’S MY POINT.** When you take the shortcut of saying “oh, x is negative, so let me just jump up 1 here instead of jumping down ∞-1,” you at least need to be aware that you ARE taking a shortcut. That doesn’t change the mathematical notation, and doesn’t make the _statements_ equivalent…only the answer And assuming you meant that 1-(-1) does’t physically exist, then yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. _Gravity does’t physically exist. Nor does sound. And by physically exist, I mean they aren’t made of particulate matter_. Do you disagree with this as well? > [@](#): > > This is just one example of how earlier I had told you that I could take any line you wrote and tell you how you’re wrong categorically in many different ways. For those keeping score, there are 4 factual and logical errors regarding this one quote alone. And amazingly, you did nothing of the sort. This thread is so strange. You all spend pages and pages arguing against points I’m not making then claim victory like it’s a contest of some sort. How can you possibly justify that statement? You’re the one claiming that 1+1 and 1-(-1) are the same thing _just because the answer is 2_ in both cases. > [@](#): > > Hm. Another example of you taking my analogy to a literal sense and then misinterpreting the physics thereof. I stressed the word analogously to prove your “math” wrong using “language” and you completely ignore the logic wholesale and attack the argument from another direction. That’s the thing though, you didn’t prove the math wrong, you completely proved it RIGHT. Yes, when walking down the block, your PHYSICAL BODY is headed in a singular identifiable cardinal direction, but the SOUND of your footsteps absolutely does not (it goes in EVERY direction). _That’s MY point, not yours_. The + motion is solid and definable, the - goes everywhere at once. This is why I’ve been harping on the importance of context. Your analogy only made sense in your head because you associate a person walking down the street with the physical act of a person walking down the street. By adding context, your analogy completely disintegrates. You realize that a person walking down the street is only VISIBLE if you look directly at them, but you can HEAR them from anywhere in an X-meter radius. How can you not realize that this is proving MY point, not yours? > [@](#): > > Again you try to skew the argument from a spatial one to a physical one. You’ve missed the point completely of direction facing and direction approaching. I have no idea the parallel you’re trying to draw with the listening analogy. In any case, comparing sound to gravity is not just wrong, but confusingly wrong. Gravity is an inherent property of matter. Sound is the release of energy as particles in a medium vibrate against each other. Hearing someone walk has nothing more to do with gravity than baking a pie does. I did not. My argument is completely spatial. The 4th spatial dimension, the one WE’RE stuck INside of, is composed of IN (infinite collapse) and OUT (infinite expanse). Those are the directions “facing and approaching”, not forward and backward. Forward and backward are a description of one of the other small three spatial dimensions. And while the physical motion of walking travels in an immediately identifiable direction, sound is rather more difficult to follow because it travels in a completely different direction which we can’t SEE…it goes all directions at once. We hear and even feel this effect just fine, but we don’t see it. We can only SEE in the OUT direction. **To us, that OUT direction is the same thing as the 3D space we live in, but that’s only our perception of it. When you put it into CONTEXT, you realize almost immediately that _all light from outer space hits the SURFACE of Earth from one direction_…OUT. And the surface of Earth is much larger than the surface of our bodies. So if ALL that surface is facing OUT to outer space, then so is the entirety of the surfaces of our comparatively tiny bodies. Therefore, any movement we make on the surface of the Earth is a movement in the OUT direction as it RELATES to outer space. Despite being brutally obvious when you think about it, this is continually overlooked when describing our motions in relation to space. We don’t move through outer space…Earth does. Every movement we make on Earth (and even in space following the same logic) is a movement in ONE DIRECTION…OUT. Hence, when we move around in our tiny little 3D space on Earth, we are really just moving OUT in relation to the surface of Earth. This point is made very clear once you actually enter outer space and realize you can’t move anywhere at all other than the direction you started out going. Forward, back, up, down, left, and right are all derivative of OUT. Sound on the other hand doesn’t shortcut through OUT, it is strictly a product of the invisible IN.** And I’ve never compared sound to gravity in the sense that they’re the same thing. I’ve very specifically said that they are similar only in that neither of them have particle representation and can therefore only be described by the effects they have on bits of particulate matter. There is nothing remotely confusing about THAT comparison. There is a mountain of difference between what you’re saying I’m saying and what I’m ACTUALLY saying. Eventually, some of you are going to have to begin arguing against the actual words I’m using, rather than your own misinterpretations of those words. > [@](#): > > Well… if it’s all the same, then aren’t you secretly agreeing with me that 1+1 and 1-(-1) are not “polar opposites” of each other - at least with respect to sound? If sound doesn’t care how you get there as long as you get there, and without sight we can only assume that it gets there because we can only detect the “reverb” then aren’t you saying that if you get somewhere by +1 and -(-1) it’s all the same? Doesn’t that break down your in/out logic on the spot? Ok, there’s a bit of confusion here. 1-(-1) isn’t the polar opposite of 1+1. The “polar opposite” part was about the characteristics of outer space as compared to our Earthspace environment - a sentiment none of you disagreed with other than to pick a bone with the word “opposite”. The point was, clearly these are extremely dissimilar environments in every way imaginable (pressure, heat, light, sound, color, variance, SIZE, everything). I’m almost positive that I never used “polar opposite” or even “opposite” in the context of 1+1/1-(-1). The only thing 1+1 and 1-(-1) could be considered opposite is in regards to the route traveled to reach the destination, but I haven’t spoken on that subject, and I wouldn’t use those words to describe that relationship because my entire point is that 2-(-1) is JUST an integral part of our three-dimensional reality as the more recognizable 2+1. If I did use opposite in this context, then it should still be in a post here and I’ll gladly admit to the slip. However, you touched on a significant point. I’m not saying that it’s all the same if we get somewhere by +1 and -(-1)…I’m saying we’re INCAPABLE of doing one OR the other. BOTH of these ingredients are essential, though only the +1 end has a physical particle representation. Every movement we make is a movement through BOTH 2+1 dimensional and 2-(-1) dimensional space…we just aren’t making a clear distinction between the two, hence all the confusion about “dark” materials, and fruitless searches for gravitons and soforth. Once you understand that only the tiniest sliver of reality is even MADE of particles, then you free up quite a bit of room to actually piece together all the pieces we already have instead of trying to FORCE everything to fit a particle physics model. The proposition that gravity isn’t a “real” physical thing isn’t exactly a revolutionary concept. Most physicists who haven’t built their careers on the subject of particle physics are pretty open to alternate explanations of gravity which don’t involve particles because most of them realize the search is going to be fruitless. > [@](#): > > So really even with your patently wrong logic, you end up tying yourself up in not only factual knots but logical ones also. It’s hilarious. Again, I plead you to just drop your pretentiousness, own up to a bit of humility, and really a little would go a long way. > > It’s not so hard. I conceded a point earlier. I’m not infallible. Nobody on here is (though I have yet to see \*\*Chronos \*\*be factually wrong). > > Also, yes. I’m incredibly curious as to your background. Age, education, gender (!?) Maybe in offering that first bit of information the healing process can begin. Honestly, if any of you had taken the time to understand the point before immediately attacking everything I say just because I said it, I probably would have conceded several points by now. I actually encourage healthy intellectual discourse, but that can’t be done as long as I’m the only one talking about the actual subject. It’s difficult to concede on points which are made against arguments I’m NOT making. It’s very easy to rag on someone for unconventional interpretations of a reality which has been so neatly packaged and sold already, but that doesn’t make me a pretentious charlatan. Most people would have been run off by now, but my continued confidence is based on a lot more than my own inflated sense of self-worth and haughty pretentiousness. It’s pretty clear that not one of you has taken the time to understand the concept well enough to effectively argue against it, so I’ve not had much occasion to concede any point unfortunately. I refer to this theory as the Theory of Everything because it is precisely that. It’s not a theory of math, it’s a theory of putting math into context, beginning with our own perception of reality since that is the only sensible starting point. That my interpretation is different doesn’t invalidate any actual math, it just puts it into a framework which accounts for our extremely limited perceptions. The fact that the most frequent request in this thread is for MORE MATH only underscores my suspicion that none of you are understanding a word I’m saying. And I don’t think that has anything to do with ability, only willingness. I’d personally define that as pretentious, far moreso than a person who is being perpetually misunderstood standing their ground since they’ve been given no reason to reconsider anything their saying. I hate to state the obvious here, but there is not a single thing that any of you have said to me that I wasn’t already fully aware of. I’m not some ignorant moron who doesn’t know what the common interpretations of physics and outer space are. Even if I was, I can google things just as well as anyone else. But I don’t debate using other people’s words because there’s nothing to be gained from it. The only thing I’ve requested is the only thing I’ve been denied thus far…for someone to actually THINK about what I’m saying. Not to think about it long enough to compare it to someone else’s “disproven” theory so they can copy+paste an argument against THAT person’s theory. Actually think about it. Nothing I’m saying is invalidating math, so requests for math are only proving that NO ONE is understanding this point. I’m nothing if not patient, however. As far as my background, I may as well be a lowly patent clerk…for all the difference it makes. Pardon me for my reluctance to divulge personal information to a group of people who have clinically diagnosed me with a range of psychological maledictions based on nothing more than their repeated misrepresentations of my arguments and my own persistence in spite of it all. Overall, I’m probably not much different than many of you. I do know math though, at a staggeringly high level of competence. Well enough to know that the vast majority of people who think they know math really just know the shortcuts other people have taught them which aided them in passing tests. They can read and balance algebraic equations well enough, but they don’t find the questions of “why does this particular math work this way” to be a question of interest…whereas that’s the only part I DO find interesting. The actual calculations are quite uninteresting once you know the pattern. But the “why’s” are bloody fascinating. Memorizing facts via shortcuts is not the same thing as understanding the relationships between the working parts, however, and very few people are as obsessive as I am when it comes to connecting pieces of puzzles. That IS my life, both personally and professionally. And I am very good at my job. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862)._