Theory of Everything

hansda said:
After developing this theory, i consulted one Physics Professor. He advised me not to discuss much about this theory with others but to straight-way submit it, in a Physics Journal for publication. He gave me the reference of Physical Review A. As per his advice, i think getting published in a journal would be better.
Click to expand...
I love this professor. :D


hansda said:
What you think is vague? My Theory or my answer to your question in the previous post?

I developed this theory in a different way and then i thought that this theory can be generalized for any action.
Click to expand...
It is very general and very vague. Remember that horrible discussion we had on Newton's cradle? Wasted my life.
 
eram said:
I love this professor. :D



It is very general and very vague. Remember that horrible discussion we had on Newton's cradle? Wasted my life.
Click to expand...

He should take the Professors advice and quit posting his theory on the net. Maybe we could refer all the cranks to this Professor?
 
What I find amusing about this 'TOE' is that I can't recall a single post by hansda which was scientifically correct in any way.
 
Tach said:
It will never happen, you are just posting fringe stuff, no self-respecting journal will EVER publish what you write.
Click to expand...

Your prediction is wrong.

After developing this theory, I made one invention which is published in a patent journal.

After that i developed another 'theory on money-flow' for which i obtained copyright. The extract of this theory can be seen in the net.
 
hansda said:
Your prediction is wrong.

After developing this theory, I made one invention which is published in a patent journal.

After that i developed another 'theory on money-flow' for which i obtained copyright. The extract of this theory can be seen in the net.
Click to expand...
Where?


I found this:
hansda said:
I think 'economics' mostly deals with money . If a theory can be developed for 'money-flow' , like current-flow of physics ; the science nature of economics can be developed to a great extent .
Click to expand...

hansda said:
You have rightly pointed out the basic theory for current-flow . This theory is very useful in the science for electricity . Many innovations happened from this theory .


Whether it is current-flow or currency-flow ; it is a flow .


So, if there is a theory for current-flow ; there also should be a theory for money-flow or currency-flow .
Click to expand...


http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/443645/theory-of-money-flow

The above link leads to an error 404.
 
przyk said:
By the looks of things, nobody has read Your Theory because you haven't made it available in a format that anyone could read or criticise.
Click to expand...

YES you are right. I haven't yet posted the 'mathematical proof' for my theory in this forum.

All I can say is that what you've produced here is worrisome. For instance you talk about having "mathematically proved" your theory. That alone makes it sound like you are describing something that is not a scientific theory.
Click to expand...
First i developed this theory, then i developed the mathematical proof for it. Then i consulted the professor for next steps.

Also, the definitions of "action" and "technique" you give in your [POST=3098337]post #25[/POST] sound so general and vague they could mean anything.
Click to expand...

Its a general theory. So, i tried to define "action" and "technique" in a general way to cover 'any action' by this theory.





That might make a bad first impression, but I don't see a manuscript being rejected on that basis alone.
Click to expand...

May be my explanations also were not very clear. That was my first attempt to publish in a peer-review journal.




That's automatic. Submit something to a Physical Review journal and you get an accession code. Even if your manuscript gets rejected at the editor stage two days later.
Click to expand...

That alphanumeric code to view online status of my paper was not automatic. That code was provided to me after some days of my submission of paper in a separate mail from them.

You should also be aware that physicists and journal editors will tend to be polite in email exchanges, especially if they weren't even motivated to read your work.
Click to expand...

YES they were polite.

It sounds to me like the physics professor you contacted was just trying to get rid of you by directing you elsewhere, for instance.
Click to expand...

I dont think so. He advised me to submit my work in a peer-review journal and gave me two references, Physical Review A was one of them.
 
Geeze Hansda, I am really embarrassed for you. Why don't you try out for a professional football team it would amount to the same thing you are doing here.
 
brucep said:
He should take the Professors advice and quit posting his theory on the net.
Click to expand...

Thats why i haven't yet posted the mathematical proof for my theory here in this forum, thinking it may not be safe to do so as per the Professor's advice.
 
AlexG said:
What I find amusing about this 'TOE' is that I can't recall a single post by hansda which was scientifically correct in any way.
Click to expand...

So, you are considering my theory as a potential 'TOE'. Do you think my theory is wrong?
 
hansda said:
First i developed this theory, then i developed the mathematical proof for it.
Click to expand...

This is what troubles me. Scientific theories are not mathematically proved. They are tested by experiment.

If you have a statement that is mathematically proved, then it will be true regardless of what experiments say. If something is true regardless of what experiments say, then it is not a scientific theory.

This doesn't mean that all research in science has to be a new theory or calculating predictions of an existing theory. For instance, you can take an existing theory or a large class of theories and reformulate it/them in an interesting way (Lagrange machanics is an example of this, for instance). But if you do that it is not enough to show that your reformulation is correct. It also falls on you to motivate it: you have to explain why what you are doing is actually useful and interesting and how it adds new insight that wasn't obvious before.


May be my explanations also were not very clear. That was my first attempt to publish in a peer-review journal.
Click to expand...

I can only go by what you've posted here, but it doesn't sound like you have anything that stands a chance of being accepted by a reputable physics journal. By the sound of things, you have a "theory" that is so vague and general that you could claim it applies to just about anything. In fact, following your claim that you have "mathematically proved" this theory, it doesn't sound like you have anything that could be considered a scientific theory at all.


That alphanumeric code to view online status of my paper was not automatic. That code was provided to me after some days of my submission of paper in a separate mail from them.
Click to expand...

And? That's normal. The point is, you get the accession code before your manuscript has gone through any sort of review.


I dont think so. He advised me to submit my work in a peer-review journal and gave me two references, Physical Review A was one of them.
Click to expand...

Well, you submitted to Physical Review A (and if I recall correctly, it got transferred to Physical Review E). What did the editor and referees say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top