The Complete and Consistent Theory by Erik David Andrulis

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

You are welcome.

The anthropical principle dances with the entropical principle. We are coded in our main central spheres in fact since the begining of this big polarization, this hypothetical BB. I see it like a sphere of light and its meiosis mitosis more the multiplication of the system of uniqueness. It is relevant considering the quantization of mass.This uniqueness serie is relevant considering the number of particules inside a closed evolutive sphere and its quantum and cosmological spheres.

We polarize, all mass polarizes and increases in mass at all momment. The mass polarises the light informations.

fascinating all this evolution.

Regards

Erik

B.t.w read my essay and send your opinion please...

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Dear Eric,

In the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my essay about it) alive beings and the matter carriers (nucleons, stars and so on) exist as equal opposite parts of Universe. What do you about it?

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Erik Andrulis,

I enjoyed immensely reading your essay and agree with what you say. You have done a great job outlining characteristics of a "complete and consistent theory". That is should be "explanatory" and "parsimonious " and "unifying " and "testable " and "revolutionary". And that "The complete and consistent theory foments that definitive revolution. It is the end of the quest for knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality and the beginning of knowing the ultimate nature of ... Truth". You are very correct in saying, "assumptions that undergird scientific theories are, quite shockingly, just like religious beliefs".

In my essay, "The Metaphysics of Physics", I delve into such issues and argue much of modern physics is metaphysical in essence. Mathematical models that seek to describe 'what is' the Universe are metaphysical and will ultimately fail. And I suggest in order for physics not to morph into metaphysics, we should limit our scope to measurements of 'what is' (what we do know to be true) and mathematical tautologies (not models) applied to measurements (what we know to be logically certain).

I hoped for more detail from you as to what such a theory might be, in your view. You hint at such revelations that have come to you through your own research. And I also have notions of what such a Theory of Everything may be. Like you, I also draw great inspiration from the wisdom of ancient Greece. And I see that wisdom in all areas of human experience. Including physics! One of my favorite such edicts is "know thyself" and "all things in balance" and "man is the measure of all things" and "all knowledge is self-knowledge". I use these to guide my thinking. And I would be very interested in your thoughts and reflections on the arguments and research I present in my essay. Please read and rate!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Erik

My present for you

Crystallographic picture of the world

http://www.galiulin.narod.ru/ufn022f.pdf

Erik

A very pertinent review of pertinent views. Wheelers "utterly simple idea" is correct for me, but the real problem seems to be recognising it. As Feynman said; The real answer will at first look wrong as It'l be unfamiliar.

I'm quite convinced that in my essay I've demonstrated an 'utterly simple idea' that takes us a giant step out of the current bog, based on solid logical foundations. Perhaps you may have a look as I'd value your views as someone with an understanding of the issues.

Well written, and best of luck.

Peter

Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. I will take a look at your essay.

Peace,

Erik