# Thread: ToE - Final Proof - Bigger prize

1. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221

## ToE - Final Proof - Bigger prize

This is a promised 250 bucks to spot the flaw in the proof later. If its right I'll give a thousand bucks to BAUT.

Earlier I asked a question to spot the flaw in my reasoning for prooving the ToE and no one go it

I've done the proof and showed that ours is the one and only universe that can exist physically and mathematically.

I've got to rush (already late) to visit my son at Daddy's day at Kindy (pre school) but had to share.

The flaw is that the number of terms you need is not two, it is one. You can create something from nothing in one and only one way and it has to exist for nothing to exist.

Nothing is not just a single state, it is an OPERATION! All on its own.

I finally got it this morning. God may not play dice but he/she does have a one piece of wisdom to impart and that is the name of the operation that zero or nothing fulfills.

The operation is called: Grow (also known as 'the derivative' or 'integral')

0 is the derivative of any unit length, the simplest of which is the shape of zero itself which is a circle or one. Zero is the derivative of unit which can be one in length and 2Pi in length at the same time. Either one can be the base units (just means everything else has to be multiplied by either 2Pi or divided by 2Pi. The smaller one is c the derivative of the first two terms (1/2Pi or 2Pi divided by 1). 1/2Pi is the velocity of light and 2Pi is the unit mass (the biggest mass that can exist). This is asymmetrical and grows.

Be back soon.

2. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
All these offers for financial wealth...

ChrisCurtis, I think most people here would feel disinclined to accept such an offer assuming it was serious.

I prefer to think that those words were in humor however...

3. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221
It is serious. It is hard to describe how I feel. I am glad you are here.

I'll put the mathematical proof here later since it you'll get the concept first, though the proof is easy, I want to share what is coming out, because conceptually it obvious.

I'm still reeling from the first answers myself.

Here is one. The missing antimatter has been here all the time. In fact its existence guarantees our existence and so on. This is because of operation 0.

The operation zero on itself can be proven to contain itself which is the operation CPT invariance on zero, which is also known as the derivative of spacetime, which is also c, which is just space, which is both less than zero and but can contain by being a finite size bigger than zero but only in 3 dimensions, no other arrangement can be made.

The antiparticles are the particles themselves rotated through three dimension to create spacetime. This is the space that contains space time. It is made of the minimum and only space that can contain a finite set of infinitesimal time. The past and future never exist. There is only one and there can be proven to be only one moment in time which is derived from nothing as the container of itself. The difference between each reflection is the moment in all of space and all of time. It is Everything.

These are the dimensions we know. What is missing explains the theory of Everything. These are the three dimension we forgot about that are the result of everything. This is the dy/dx of just spacetime, which separates time from space.

Quantum mechanics and General Relatvity are simplfied next.

Hope you are blown away.

To look at the derivative, don't build a giant particle accelerator. Look in the mirror.

4. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2008
Posts
793
If this isn't mainstream why is it in Q & A?

5. Originally Posted by chriscurtis
The operation zero on itself can be proven to contain itself which is the operation CPT invariance on zero, which is also known as the derivative of spacetime, which is also c, which is just space, which is both less than zero and but can contain by being a finite size bigger than zero but only in 3 dimensions, no other arrangement can be made.....

Hope you are blown away.
No, because this is not understandable. I don't know if that is my shortcoming or yours....

6. Originally Posted by chriscurtis
Hope you are blown away.
If by 'blown away' you mean confused by your string of non-sequiturs, then consider me blown away.

7. The OP and post #3 by C. Curtis are exactly like the stuff people post in the ATM section. I think it would fit better there.

8. Originally Posted by chriscurtis
The operation zero on itself can be proven to contain itself which is the operation CPT invariance on zero, which is also known as the derivative of spacetime, which is also c, which is just space, which is both less than zero and but can contain by being a finite size bigger than zero but only in 3 dimensions, no other arrangement can be made.
I think I will have 1000 islands dressing with this word salat.

9. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
14,315
Originally Posted by chriscurtis
This is a promised 250 bucks to spot the flaw in the proof later. If its right I'll give a thousand bucks to BAUT.

Earlier I asked a question to spot the flaw in my reasoning for prooving the ToE and no one go it
Says you.

10. Originally Posted by Cougar
Originally Posted by chriscurtis
The operation zero on itself can be proven to contain itself which is the operation CPT invariance on zero, which is also known as the derivative of spacetime, which is also c, which is just space, which is both less than zero and but can contain by being a finite size bigger than zero but only in 3 dimensions, no other arrangement can be made.....

Hope you are blown away.
No, because this is not understandable. I don't know if that is my shortcoming or yours....
Perhaps ATM would be good place to start but then it may not get looked at. If you can get a paper published and some of the mathematics to confirm the concept. Does that make 0 a turning point or a reference?

If there were neutrino detectors in satellites it may confirm the idea especially if each planet and the sun generated right hand spin neutrinos at the poles. That would give a planar connection and almost massless string distribution along the entire neutrino and account for the missing mass while the connection of string neutrino structure would hold galaxy rotation positions to a static and stable structure. This gives point of reality reference.

Or am I just someone else that doesn't get it either. Best of luck with your work on the idea chriscurtis.

11. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221
Sorry guys, I reread what I wrote it is was not a good description. I was very excited.

This is entirely mainstream since it reduces GR and QM to much easier to understand concepts and derives the history of the physics of nature.

Here is the first part incremental steps from the first principle, the second part moves on the description of the four fundamental particles after the show that:

a. The unit that the Universe is based on cannot be chosen, it is always 2Pi, the derivative of a circles area, which is also the description of the 2D space between the unit radius and unit circumference.

Here is the first of two parts.

Mugaliens, i do owe you 100 bucks.

The Universe has one unique property. It can be proven that there is only one way for the Universe to exist. The proof simplifies Everything.

If there are no dimensions, this state is called the minimum.

This is the smallest possible number without it being zero is the minimum.

This is also called the unit.

It is also called the infinitesimal.

Infinity cannot exist in zero dimensions as it would be distinct from the smallest unit. So there must be a finite number of infinitesimals that can exist in zero dimensions, since it must be full or there would be the difference between the infinitesimal and the whole. This requires zero dimensions to be entirely full of a finite and equal amount of infinitesimals.

The unit, by its own existence, forces other numbers into existence that must exist as well. These numbers are 2Pi and 1/2Pi. These numbers are fixed and cannot be changed. The existence of the unit also creates 1/2Pi and 2Pi.

The 1/2Pi, unit, and 2Pi circle of unit circumference together create two circles with a space in between, one circle infinitesimally larger than the other.

Any unit which is measured that is the infinitesimal in zero dimensions can be contained by itself in two dimensions as the difference or 1D space between the circle of unit circumference and unit radius.

The ratio of these two numbers is 2Pi and is a circle in two dimensions that is the minimum space between the circles of unit circumference and unit radius.

It is a boundary condition. This boundary condition can only be described using a minimum of three distinct dimensions which are 1/2Pi, 1 and 2Pi since every point inside the two bounding circles changes the order of the three dimensions that describe it.

Since Pi has been proven to be irrational, its units cannot be mixed in terms of itself (2Pi), 1 and the reciprocal of itself (1.2Pi) which are the unit circumference, the 1D space and the circle of unit radius.

So, the once the unit is exists, the other two reciprocal irrational dimensions that are the bounding circles of the space between them.

Each of the three circles is described by 2 dimensions. Each circle shares a dimension with one and only one other of the of tw0 circles. As described, each point on each circle changes dimensional units as you go round the circle that is the space.

This change in units can be described in one and only one way since no numbers can be chosen.

As an infinitesimal point moves around the space between these circles, its three dimensional units change at every point from a,b,c to b,c,a to c,a,b c,b,a

It is a the 4D set of hyperspheres that can be described as changes in three unit dimensions that make every point within the circle different over time in 3 dimensions. Each change in time conserves the three dimensions, as the space between the circles is traversed over time. Each change in time turns all these coordinates through a quarter 4D turn which is Pi/2 and which is why the units change at after every moment in time. Another three more turns of Pi, the coordinates are at the start again.

This set of two points within the circles are each of smallest volume are act as smallest point particles in 3D travelling through a 4D spacetime while having an the spacetime has an intrinsic twist (or angular momentum) for around the axis of rotation in 3D for each four D particle.

The twist in time is a reflection of CPT around the 3D axis of every particle that is represented by over 4D. All of these particle volumes are always conserved. The boundary that surrounds each of these particles is impossible to break, since the circles never meet anywhere. This ensures that the 3D space always exists in time. Each particle has a finite cyclical lifetime but exists always.

This 3D plus 1T representation is the only Universe that can exist because we cannot choose any number to create it. It will exist anyway. It always exists because it represents itself from no dimensions, which is the unit, to the unit becoming a 4D space over time, which consists of constantly changing particles in 3D that seem to spin a quarter turn with each passing moment in time.

The maths is simple. Because these are circles, the particles can be described individually, in pairs and as a global system of change. The ratios between the dimensions are always the same unit.

The three dimensional units used to describe each particle in 3D space and time from each quarter turn to the next of each four turns are symmetric around a 4 D axis but not in 3D. This means that each turn of time is the derivative of the last one.

Since the unit of space is separate from the unit time in 3D, the ratio 2Pi will be the size of the space between each turn of that space and this is the only fundamental ratio that exists within the Universe describe. This ratio describes the surface and volume of each particle exactly. At the infinitesimal level, the particle has a flat unbreakable interface.

3D Particles over time can never get closer than a distance described by this 2Pi ratio. Since the unbreakable barrier 2Pi protects each particle, no particles can merge.

Due to the differences in dimensions, there will be an increase in the space over time relative to the conserved particles which is a result of entropy, or the action of the global system over time. Since each particle is the integral of the past (since the past is the derivative of the 3 different dimension), each particle contains the full history of the past as each new quarter turn through space time.

The quarter turn and three separate and different dimensions create a symmetry of four particles, all of which are similar with each reflecting one of four states that can exist with respect to 3 binary states. These are absolutely fundamentally conserved particles. They are the proton, the neutron, the electron and the electron neutrino.

Part two follows.
Last edited by chriscurtis; 2008-Sep-19 at 06:22 AM. Reason: Clarity

12. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221
Hey Michael, zero does not exist within the universe (or in any of the maths to describe it, just the unit which then expands to be three units and each has theratio between a circle unit circumference and a circle unit radius.

There is no missing antimatter. The four particles look different because each of the three spatial dimensions is distinctly different in 3D and they have the ratio 2Pi.

2Pi is several things. Fundamentally it represent the 3D space created between the unit circles that changes dimension at every point on the surface. Since every particle is also rotating in 3D, the particle can appear to be the same or it can appear to change when a boundary condition is near in 3D which is 2Pi.

Each distinct spatial dimensions shares one property with another or includes two the same since the arrangement can only be 00, 01, 10, 11

The 0 and 1 represent four things (as usual) charge and mass.

00 is the smallest of the four masses and uncharged -> this is the neutrino
01 is the second smallest and has charge in one direction
10 is the third smallest and has charge in the other direction
11 is the neutron and has no charge but the highest mass.

These mass can be calculated using the derivatives that create them. That 2Pi can become 3 derivatives 1/2Pi, unit and 2Pi, gives a relationship for 2Pi to charge, mass, space and time and mass are three important derivatives of this simple Universe.

2Pi is the boundary condition that is never reached in the circle within a circle and all the particle interactions that seem to occur in 3D occur as the space dimensions experienced by particle seem to change near the boundary condition. 2Pi is c or the unit spatial dimension over time.

c is also related to mass since is the derivation the other way round which is 2Pi is still and is the unit of mass. Therefore, once the constant is know, an observation in the actual universe the decouples the constants from 2Pi and we use c to build up all the units of nature.

The unit of mass then becomes 2Pi T/D and since t/D is c. The unit of mass can only be 2Pi/c which agrees with prediction.

The derivation 2Pi represents the boundary that splits space from time. It does this across space and within space representing the fundamental maximum velocity and fundamental unit of mass.

13. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221
So, the implications is that if you draw a circle of unit circumference and unit radius, the minute gap in the middle on the 2D paper cannot be describe in 2D coords. The circular path it follows can only be described in 3 dimensions of 1/2i, unit, 2Pi to describe it with respect to itself and the boundary circles above and below which are all different units.

These three coordinates change state as the uni direction of a point in the space moves with respect to time.

This 3D plus 1 over time can be seen as a collection of infinitesimal particles conserved over time. No particle is a dot on its own, it is a minimal dot that exists as the dot in one frame and a second frame and time is each movement from 2 frames to another. This translation can only be described using 4D.

When view in 3D over time, the space is twisted round on itself to be the bit inbetween its past and future boundaries at in the moment.

I'm working on producing the values for masses etc.

Because the space is finite in size, the normalized value from nature for the velocity of light should give us an exact size for the Universe with respect to our position in it.

14. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221
There are three dimensions and one of time.

Derivations of length with respect to time give spatial properties.

Derivations of time with respect to length give partical properties, first is mass, second is gravity and the third is across all the dimensions is something else that is weaker than gravity on the small scale but pushes the universe apart on the scales where there is no mass, probably in the form (1-(1-(1-a))) where the first two are mass and acceleration and the third actually looks MONDonian. This is the opposite of the integral (1+a + ((1+a)/a +(1+a)))/1+a/a) or something like that.

15. ## Most definitely ATM

Well, this should be moved from Q&A to ATM.

Originally Posted by chriscurtis
a. The unit that the Universe is based on cannot be chosen, it is always 2Pi, the derivative of a circles area, which is also the description of the 2D space between the unit radius and unit circumference.
Let's just, for the sake of fun say that this is a postulate?

Originally Posted by chriscurtis
The Universe has one unique property. It can be proven that there is only one way for the Universe to exist. The proof simplifies Everything.
I guess this will be shown somewhere somewhen.

Originally Posted by chriscurtis
If there are no dimensions, this state is called the minimum.
This is the smallest possible number without it being zero is the minimum.
This is also called the unit.
It is also called the infinitesimal.
So, no dimensions. Does this mean zero dimensions? I can understand that no dimensions would be a minimum, can't get much less then no (zero??).
But if it is the smallest number, this no-dimensions, then why is it not equal to zero 0? Do you want to say something else here? I guess so.
Otherwise, no-dimensions is your "unit" or your "infinitesimal" (kind of a strange name for a unit, but anywhoooo).
So, this does not really make sense.

Originally Posted by chriscurtis
Infinity cannot exist in zero dimensions as it would be distinct from the smallest unit. So there must be a finite number of infinitesimals that can exist in zero dimensions, since it must be full or there would be the difference between the infinitesimal and the whole. This requires zero dimensions to be entirely full of a finite and equal amount of infinitesimals.
wait wait wait wait wait!!!!!!!
there is no zero dimensions, there is no-dimensions, which was supposed to be not equal to zero (see above This is the smallest possible number without it being zero is the minimum.).
Quite naturally, infinity would be distinct from the smallest unit.
Why would there be a finite number of "infinitesimals" (or units) in zero dimensions? Well, actually you mean no-dimensions, but that just as an aside.
Then some strange stuff about the "zero-dimensions" having to be full, presumably by a finite number of "infinitesimals" or "units", otherwise there would be a difference between the infinitesimal and the whole, so I guess this means that the number of "infinitesimals" that are in the (no)zero-dimensions is 1, otherwise the infinitesimal and the whole cannot be the same.

Originally Posted by chriscurtis
The unit, by its own existence, forces other numbers into existence that must exist as well. These numbers are 2Pi and 1/2Pi. These numbers are fixed and cannot be changed. The existence of the unit also creates 1/2Pi and 2Pi.

The 1/2Pi, unit, and 2Pi circle of unit circumference together create two circles with a space in between, one circle infinitesimally larger than the other.
Some "new-age-like" babble about the unit forcing other numbers to exist. I guess one usually calls this math, but anywhoooo.

I think everything would work as well if one uses the values 1/2 and 2, or 1/e and e, but they are not linked to a circle I guess. So, get me right here, you do assume here that the universe is in Euclidean space.

A 2Pi circle of unit circumference??? I think you mean a 2Pi circle of unit radius (put the radius of a circle equal to 1 and the circumference is 2Pi, otherwise you can take a 1/2pi radius and have a unit circumference, you have to decide what you really want).

What is unclear is why you have two circles suddenly. there is the unit 1/2pi, from which you can make a circle with circumference 1 and there is the "2pi circle of unit circumference), what is what now, and why is the difference infinitesimally different, how do you view these circles?

Originally Posted by chriscurtis
Any unit which is measured that is the infinitesimal in zero dimensions can be contained by itself in two dimensions as the difference or 1D space between the circle of unit circumference and unit radius.
Does not compute, REWRITE in clear language!!!!!

Originally Posted by chriscurtis
The ratio of these two numbers is 2Pi and is a circle in two dimensions that is the minimum space between the circles of unit circumference and unit radius.
which two numbers? you mean the zero-dimension and the one-dimension "circle" or what? could you please express yourself more clearly?

Originally Posted by chriscurtis
It is a boundary condition. This boundary condition can only be described using a minimum of three distinct dimensions which are 1/2Pi, 1 and 2Pi since every point inside the two bounding circles changes the order of the three dimensions that describe it.

Since Pi has been proven to be irrational, its units cannot be mixed in terms of itself (2Pi), 1 and the reciprocal of itself (1.2Pi) which are the unit circumference, the 1D space and the circle of unit radius.
Now you have three circles of I guess radii 1/2pi, 1 and 2pi, or whatever. You have lost me, sorry (i guess I won't get any money now.

You seem however, to be stuck in Euclidean space, and even accept that Pi is irrational, and has a certain value. You might want to start with saying this before you begin, because it is all but straightforward that this should be.

16. Originally Posted by tusenfem
Well, this should be moved from Q&A to ATM.
Sometimes I can´t understand the mods´unfathomable ways...

17. Originally Posted by Argos
Sometimes I can´t understand the mods´unfathomable ways...
Well, you have to consider "Moderator Relativity", where thier time is dilated based on the size of thier universe.

18. Originally Posted by chriscurtis
....2Pi is the boundary condition that is never reached in the circle within a circle and all the particle interactions that seem to occur in 3D occur as the space dimensions experienced by particle seem to change near the boundary condition. 2Pi is c or the unit spatial dimension over time.....
What does any of this have to do with E8 or Garrett Lisi?

19. I am moving this thread from Q&A to ATM.

20. Tom
Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
186
Originally Posted by chriscurtis
It can be proven that there is only one way for the Universe to exist.
I can accept this as a premise; I suspect that the resulting "calculations" are easier to accomplish than what you've laid out here. In other words, I accept the idea given (in this case, anyway) but refuse your calculations.

I have none of my own to offer, either.

21. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221
Thanks Tom, I know what you mean. I didn't realise this had been moved to ATM as I've been shut away trying to understand the implications and make it easy to understand.

I'm just about there. In the meantime, here is something that has never been shown before to my knowledge which is part of the the proof.

All the constants of nature can be derived mathematically. There is a very slight disagreement with some where they are relative to others but it is an amazing fit.

If you start with c, the velocity of light and multiply it by Phi either up or down, you get all the constants, including PI right down to the Planck mass. The errors in not having an exact value for c or Phi start to show a little but it is hard to miss.

22. Originally Posted by chriscurtis
If you start with c, the velocity of light and multiply it by Phi either up or down, you get all the constants, including PI right down to the Planck mass. The errors in not having an exact value for c or Phi start to show a little but it is hard to miss.

c the velocity of light: 299 792 458 m / s
Phi, I assume you mean this magical number related to the golden section: 1.618 0339 887...

Now, the following statement "multiply it either up or down" ehhhhhh how do I do that? I only know one way of multiplication of numbers (know a few more for vectors and matrices)

c Phi = 485 076 184 m/s

Or should I multply c with every digit of Phi? (won't do that here)

And then "Pi right down to the Planck mass"? What should that mean? Are you missing some words in this statement, or am I so dumb that I don't understand you?

"The errors in not having an exact value for c or Phi" okay pi in units of c (whatever that would mean) is 1.048 10-8 and I am not even going to go on here, just don't have time to do meaningless calculations.

So, please START WRITING UNDERSTANDABLE ENGLISH and then after you have written something in an external editor LET IT REST AND READ OVER IT ONCE MORE AN HOUR LATER AND SEE IF WHAT YOU WROTE MAKES ANY SENSE.

But I have a feeling you are making up all this "on the go" as you are typing on the board.

23. "Multiply down" means divide?

Given Phi is "near" 1, I'm not surprised that you can multiply and divide c (in some unit of measure) and get "near" other constants.

Then insisting that the new number must be more accurate and that the commonly accepted values are wrong just adds to the fun.

It seems I could say, "Imagine A and B. A is an arbitrary number, say, 1, and B is a number smaller than the accuracy of anything we can measure. Wow, look how I can add multiples of B to A, and get any constant - like C or pi.".

24. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221
There is a maximum number in nature it seems and I found it as part of the theory. It is the maximum number that can be made in four dimensions by us that can exist.

+- 4^(4^(4(^4))) which is 3.4028 X 10 +-38 or the other end of Pi! Its not infinite at all.

Pi is at the centre of everything The symmetry puts Pi in the middle of 4D which is the minuses, the pluses, the powers and the minus powers.

It is also the number of predicted fundamental particles in existence in the theory.

25. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
I have one word for you...

26. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
huh?!

27. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221
Phi is not near one, it is 1.61. Nowhere near.

Multiply up or down = x^n or x^-1 sorry

Or x^2 is up 1/x^2 is down.

There is a reason for all this anyhow in nature it turns out it can't be any other way.

Having found out how to rationalize Pi (break a proof MUCH over older than me), I've completed the theory into a proof. I can also now rationalize every prime number in 4 terms or less. Pick any number up to 3.4 * 10e38 and I can tell you if it is Prime, the numbers above that need a subtraction then the four {a,b,c,d}

28. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423

29. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
Originally Posted by chriscurtis
There is a maximum number in nature it seems and I found it as part of the theory. It is the maximum number that can be made in four dimensions by us that can exist.

+- 4^(4^(4(^4))) which is 3.4028 X 10 +-38 or the other end of Pi! Its not infinite at all.

Pi is at the centre of everything The symmetry puts Pi in the middle of 4D which is the minuses, the pluses, the powers and the minus powers.

It is also the number of predicted fundamental particles in existence in the theory.
As I quoted the link above to poor ol' Graham.

Use Knuths Up arrow notation to make freakishly Humongous numbers.

I dunno what you're going on about with the "maximum bigness in nature" thingy...

30. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
221
The proof is simple.

Pi describes a circle in 2D that constant changes dimension from 1 dimension to the other and repeats over a quarter turn.

so as Pi is written out, it repeats like this:

3.141529

925141.3- +3.141529

It does it in other directions but this is the best

Take the number two to the right and substract your number from it unless it is zero.

0 ------0--00-----
1 0000030054010006
3.14159265358979323846

In two derivations you can establish a pattern.

It works the other way too.

Choose any number and it take four simple operations or less to find that number.

This is turns out to be true for every irrational number and so they can all be described this way. The problem that has existed is that infinity and zero have been treated as different or not numbers and not simply as minima but mathematically they simply describe a change on a smooth surface over a long distance or time that changes things globally but cannot be seen locally. E.g. the treatment of quantum mechanical space is euclidean (flat) since it doesn't deal with the global, just the local and cannot experience change except two particles appearing to interact.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•