In my theory the two key words are action and technique. Action can be considered as any movement or motion of a particle. Technique can be considered as 'how the action is being performed'. For all other terms its dictionary meaning can be used. For example, if we consider "gravity" causing an 'action', that means a mass is moving under the effect of gravity. Here 'the movement of the mass under the effect of gravity' can be considered as an action. "Technique of this action" can be considered as 'Newton's Law of Gravity' or "GR". So, my theory is general in nature.
I understand that part. Your theory applies to any theory as long as that theory describes the action and how the action takes place. Correct?
The oldest civilization known to man through writing had a TOE based upon sound. This was the Sumerian culture. Recently a man who Walter Cronkite called "The Leonardo Da Vinci of our time" also developed a TOE (Theory of Everything) based upon sound. His name was Walter Russell. Walter Russell said that Plutonium ( he called it something else) must exist in a lecture he gave in 1926. Had he been believed then perhaps the atom could have been split many years earlier preventing the second world war. Walter Russell believes everything is a result of energy traveling in two directions always seeking balance. Most of his writings are dismissed because he includes god in his theory. This is the best TOE I have seen ... He has more free books online. http://abundanthope.net/artman2/uploads/1/The_New_Concept.pdf Have a read concerning the subject of your choice. His views are interesting and thought provoking.
@ AlexG, If I could open up a textbook explaining the how and why of telepathy I would not be forced to look outside mainstream science or accepted theory. Many thought the LENR thread was woo several years ago, and now it is accepted as real science (or you are not paying attention to it). from http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/skepticism_suppressedscience.html @ AlexG (cont'd), This was your comment on LENR then ... I think you would be extremely foolish to still harbor the same opinion now, although I cannot vouch for your own common sense on the matter. I am not even bringing LENR news to that thread anymore because I think enough has been said to prove it to any interested. I simply think any still doubting LENR are foolish and underinformed/undereducated on the topic in its current state, which is sad given the topics importance.
@ Beer W Straw, There is no link to mainstream science. Mainstream science is a term I used to describe accepted norms within science. Nor are there links to non existent books, or they would not really be non existent would they?
Arguing with a pseudoskeptic is useless. lol Yet I see you as the Woo Hoo ... Only time can tell for sure on either topic. For those who keep informed though, here is a link to start you off. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf Apparently AlexG is confident enough to write off all peer reviewed articles based on his "opinion". That is pretty clever of you AlexG (thinly veiled sarcasm).
I saw him give it in a presentation on YouTube. I have a really hard finding things on YouTube that I have seen before. I guess I should really start taking note of them. It was a rather big equation. It had W on one side and then all the forces of nature on the other. He then has S=K.logW on the top of his blog as if this is supposed to be a Theory of Everything(TOE). But then he doesn't say that he has found the TOE, seems to be typical ongoing behavior of his. He just present it to atheist in anti-religion conferences of people that don't know anything about physics. I guess he just pretends that they are all physicist while giving his lecture of finding the real TOE but then doesn't bother telling any real physicist that he has found it. What a TOE would actually even be. I think it could be the only theory that explains free energy. If you had a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) then proving how you could get something for free would then be able to explain how you got everything since everything else would be connected to it in some way in a GUT.
I agree with you 100%. He doesn't do anything but complain about everything anyone says without ever giving any real reason since he can't because he is a real pseudo-skeptic. They should make a pseudo-skeptic forum just for him to post in.
Why are you such a crank magnet? Walter Russell, telepathy and cold fusion?! You dumbo, he was asking for evidence of cold fusion. So where is the evidence for cold fusion? C'mon guys. I know AlexG is very demeaning but what he says is correct. A. Rossi is a proven scammer (and a very incompetent one at that). That's not a peer-reviewed article.
@ Eram, I will not bring the LENR topic to this thread anymore than it is. That was a guide to many peer reviewed papers, although you might have gleaned that had you bothered to read the link. This is common among Pseudoskeptics. They are so sure of their position they dismiss anything that could alter their views without reading. I have linked many peer reviewed papers in the correct thread, and they have gotten about as much response. I do not think those denying LENR are idiots, but they are not very capable of ascertaining the truth. There is ample evidence without even considering Rossi. Nice false argument. Do you have proof of this. No. You continue to make stuff up and I will stick to the facts. My response was sarcasm (lost on your understanding albeit), because of his lack of clarity. If I comment on your post I at least go to the trouble of pasting the significant portion and not copy paste the entire thing. There is plenty of LENR proof available to any non idiots willing to look for it, this might actually mean you need to research it yourself (although I'd wager you will spend more time trying to dig up dirt on Rossi to counter my last point than educate yourself on LENR).
Okay, I apologize for that. There is plenty on Rossi. Don't get me started. You better not think like that. Don't presume that I will do this or that. So you claim there is ample evidence of cold fusion. Unfortunately this claim appears to be very unsubstantiated.
