The Complete and Consistent Theory by Erik David Andrulis

John Wheeler, whom you quoted, my favorite scientist. l like other his quote: "Some day a door will surely open and expose the glittering central mechanism of the world in its beauty and simplicity."(Gravitation,Vol.2 p.1197)

I tried to make closer this day.

See my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Yuri,

Thank you for your comment, but I am not sure what you meant by "I tried to make it closer..." Did you mean "closer" as in proximity? Or did you mean "closer" one who in the process to shutting up something (i.e. opposing Wheeler's yen for the open door). Or did you mean neither or both?

Regarding quotes, the one by Dyson at the end of your piece gave me pause. His first disastrous thing--the solution of all major unsolved problems in physics--would indeed be tragic, but no more or less tragic than watching physics continue forever without ever reaching its goal(s). Which tragedy is more tragic?

Peace,

Erik

Erik,

Your first section, "The limitations of current theories", is apply confirmed by the many essays in this contest. The term "incomplete information" presented by Georgina Parry in her essay, topic 1316, pretty much sums up of how contemporary science theories have become so jumbled. You mention many of the factors that have influenced the development of current theories. I believe economic incentives, the grants and funds directed toward "proving" certain assumptions, as being a major factor why the "scientific authority structure", a Thomas Kuhn term, defend certain theories with religious type zealotry.

On a less philosophical direction, have you had time to read the essay of Jerek Duda, topic 1416? I made this statement in a comment, "Do you realize that you are presenting material as to why ionizing radiation is so destructive to biological tissue, the rotational form of the energy field allows it to efficiently couple to DNA and other helical structures within the body."

I suspected that ionizing radiation might have a helical type form when I formulated the concepts in a paper I prepared, The helical structure of the electromagnetic gravity field .

My essay, topic 1294, exposed an assumption that has become so ingrained in everyone's thinking that no one recognizes it as an assumption

I mean closer Wheeler's "Some day"

Dear Eric,

I read with great interest your essay. It is very important and extremely interesting. Good luck in the contest!

Sincerely, Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Erik David Andrulis,

Very good essay. A pleasure to read. Thank you for submitting it.

James

Thanks for your comment and thanks for sharing those other works. I will peruse them.

Erik

Vladimir,

Thanks for your kind comment. All the best,

Erik

James,

Thanks for the compliment. There are many great essays here; my only hope is that that mine complements them in some small way.

Erik

Errata:

p. 5: "were this theory not true, it would not be the final theory." (removed extra "were")

p. 7: "I am not the system or physical object that I model" (added "the")

Erik,

I was excited by this essay, like hearing the peal of bells from a mountaintop, calling for the world to receive new ideas without being threatened or compelled to crucify those seeking the truth in science. There are some in the scientific community who claim that a large percentage of what can be known is already known, a belief held centuries ago. Knowledge will reveal itself in ever-expanding fashion, like a gyre, whose point of origin holds an elegant, simple secret.

Erik,

A truly interesting essay on the impact and assessment of a Unified theory in Physics.

Tetryonics - the charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter may well fit the bill as it is based on the priori principle that equilateral energy geometries are the foundation of all physical forces, fields, particles and their interactions.

Whilst you argue that theoretical physics is Mathematics, I would argue that Physics is GEOMETRY which in turn constrains the Maths that describes it.

An important point to reflect on here is that whilst Tetryonic's equilateral geometry changes our view of Energy in all its forms it does NOT change the Math used to describe the physics [save for where it reveals errors in the current formulation or physical perceptions of the Math], in complete agreement with James Jeans' statement in your essay.

You will note that even Einstein advised against the "prejudices of known facts" as highlighted at the beginning of my essay and that Tetryonics goes a long way to prove cautionary statements like that to be sage advise.

Through its equilateral geometry many mystifying aspects of physics are swept aside and revealed to be facets of a foundational equilateral geometry.

Perhaps the best examples of this is the early revelation in Tetryonics that SQUARE numbered energies in QM are in fact TRIANGULAR geometries, and that quantised angular momentum is not a rotational vector but a measure of equilateral geometry per unit of Time. [see attached].

To date I have applied it to QM, QED, Chemistry and Cosmology [as well as SR & GR] and I hope you'll examine Tetryonics [both the essay and my detailed work on the net] and see how it meets your criteria for a unified field theory of Physics.Attachment #1: 2_Figure_80.22__Geometric_Physical_Maths_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: 2_Figure_01.07__Quantised_Angular_Momentum_800x600.jpg

excellent thinking, Erik. Thank you very much.

To your essay mine ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1428 )could be added. In it I state that we first have to look for the so-called "I". Reasoning you can read in the essay.

The topic of this contest is to me a top priority in science. The whole cardhouse is built indeed on assumptions seens as truth. Nowadays science, especially physics, is more a religion, than a reality, although technology makes a lot possible, but that was also true then when the world was flat: no-one went to the edge and the brave ones never returned, which should proof the theory.

Well, stupidity and narrow-mindedness will always survive. Even when a TOE would be there and published (already done to my experience)it will not be accepted while as you stated clearly, these 3 assumptions are still held up.

So, I, can understand my (kind of) TOE and live with it and do with it. For me, that is enough.

warm regards

Jos Hoebe

Dear Erik,

I find yours judgments very interesting and yours article well informative. I am agree that mathematic is a tool only (it is true, a powerful!) that cannot solely to guide of researcher. The idea should be putted in the basis, then to use some logical system and common rules to build any self-consistent theory. I try do it in mine work that I am hoping may deserve your kind attention. (Topics 1430)

Sincerely,

George

Hello Mr Andrulis,

I am so fascinated by this evolution. Probably it is the reason why I have classed a little of all since the age of 16. It is in classing that I have found my theory of spherization. I classed the animals and the vegetals. I searched the links since this hypothetical BB. In classing, you see the generality of this evolution. I am also very intrigued you know by these amino acids.

If we take a simple gauge of whole point of vue.

so we have

quantum spheres(uniqueness serie).....we see the evolution on earth so on the line time, so 4.6 billions hydrospheroids......H ....CNO.....H2C2 HCN H2O CH4 NH3....and we see the evolution with the creation of amino acids. ....after the cells....the pluricells....the sponges,.... the medusas..and us now in simplifying of course....It is very intriguing. The adn becomes a real universal key......we can continue the classment in inserting ....planets , stars and BH .......and our UNIVERSAL SPHERE. Like that, the gauge can be seen witha real quantization.

In fact in classing, the spheres appear with a real rationality for the quantization of this mass. The mass polarises the light. But of course the serie is a finite serie.If not ,it is difficult to quantize this mass.

The evolution is a real universal project. The optimization spherization like the torch of essentials.

It is fascinating this evolution, we optimize, we spherisize, we improve , we are catalyzers inside a physical sphere.

Regards