TOEBI 3 Years Old

Once again another year has gone... it's time to recap some of the highlights from the past year. At first, a lot has happened! I personally have learned a lot about different phenomena and mathematics in physics. Also, I have had the pleasure to enjoy feedback from professional physicists like Berry and Yop. Both of these advances have guided TOEBI into more correct form which means, on the other hand, that some of the old ideas were dropped, i.e. the attempt to explain magnetic fields by static electron spinning vectors.

What is the current situation? According to Berry, there is no point for me to continue because I have failed so many times in my attempts to deliver something out of TOEBI. I can understand his point, but the thing which I don't understand, is what other reasonable underlying explanations there can be for Nature and its phenomena other than concrete, spherical, spinning objects, under the hoods of quantum mechanics and relativity? And being satisfied with the mainstream physics theories' depth looks like a failure to me. I believe we can do much better.

What can I do and what I'll have to do? To be more convincing, I need to go back to basics, FTEP dynamics it is. By creating a compact toolset from existing TOEBI principles which can be used in explaining and calculating every possible physical phenomena should do the trick. Is it doable? It should be if I'm right about the underlying reality of Nature. Can I do it? That's another question...

...But at least I'm f**king trying!!! Yuri Milner and other billionaires, few million euros would speed up the process considerably 😉

9 thoughts on “TOEBI 3 Years Old

  1. > It should be if I'm right about the underlying reality of Nature. Can I do it?

    Anwer: double no

    You're not right about the underlying reality of nature (just like the circle-squarer isn't right about his assumption that the circle can be squared at all) and (due to reasons, the mentioning of which is banned here) you cannot do it, anyway. And all the money of Yuri Milner and other billionaires couldn't change that.

  2. > the thing which I don't understand, is what other reasonable underlying explanations
    > there can be for Nature and its phenomena other than concrete, spherical, spinning
    > objects

    And you cannot understand, either, that this inability, this limitation of yours is not a scientific argument in favor of TOEBI?

    (Despite its depreciating appearance, this is a sincere question.)

  3. You're not right about the underlying reality of nature

    I wouldn't be so sure about that. And yes, I do understand that my inability to figure out other reasonable explanations isn't scientific argument in favor of TOEBI.

    I would like to hear about your explanation for quantum mechanics and relativity, what makes those tick? Can you produce anything? Or what mechanism(s) is behind all the interactions? Wrong questions? 😉

  4. >> You're not right about the underlying reality of nature
    >
    > I wouldn't be so sure about that.

    Exactly, you wouldn't be so sure about that (to put it
    mildly). Because you have no knowledge of any counter
    arguments. Just as the theorem of von-Lindemann and its
    implications are unknown or incomprehensible to the
    circle-squarer.

    > And yes, I do understand that my inability to figure out other
    > reasonable explanations isn't scientific argument in favor of
    > TOEBI.

    You did not understand my question. With "this inability,
    this limitation" I was referring to your inability to imagine
    anything else than concrete, spherical, spinning objects
    as the "last reason".

    By the way, what's the meaning of "concrete" here? The objects
    aren't made from concrete, are they?

    > I would like to hear about your explanation for quantum
    > mechanics and relativity, what makes those tick? Can you
    > produce anything?

    I never claimed to have a TOE (cf. also http://www.toebi.com/blog/uncategorized/major-update/#comment-1258)

    > Or what mechanism(s) is behind all the interactions?

    What qualifies as a mechanism? For you, that seems to be
    something obeying classical mechanics, right? What is the
    rational reason to expect such a thing "behind all the
    interactions"?

    > Wrong questions?

    No. But one should always keep in mind that for every newly
    distilled mechanism (no restriction to classical mechanics here)
    the question can always be repeated: "And what's the
    reason behind that?!?"

    If TOEBI would be correct (which it isn't), what's the reason
    for the FTEPs to interact in the way they do? (A way, which by
    the way you still fail to provide.)

  5. "Also, I have had the pleasure to enjoy feedback from professional physicists like Berry and Yop"

    Which were banned for some times when your ego couldn't take rebukes any more.

    "Both of these advances have guided TOEBI into more correct form which means"

    Not by any rational standards. TOEBI has no correct form whatsoever, it's not even mentioned once what happens when two elementary particles encounters each other. There's very few way of getting a mechanical ether theory to look more ridiculous.

    "According to Berry, there is no point for me to continue because I have failed so many times in my attempts to deliver something out of TOEBI."

    Nicely done, but according to Berry and me, your personal failure is only a small part of the problem. One of the major failure, by comparison, and as an example, is the total inability to convert charge into a mechanic spinning of particles, for mathematical reasons.

    "And being satisfied with the mainstream physics theories' depth looks like a failure to me."

    If by depths you mean complexity, then we know why you're wrong. Quantum mechanics principle are actually quite simple. The mathematics to make prediction from them are indeed more complicated. But it means you're bad at maths, not QM is complex.

  6. @Berry, by concrete I mean something so fundamental that even Nature in its current state can't break it, i.e. FTEP.

    @yop, by depth I mean the underlying mechanism of, for example, quantum mechanics. I don't have any problems with QM math.

    @Berry@yop While I was cruising I was thinking about your critiques. Obviously I have missed something along my journey (don't bother to make wisecracks)... Then I got stucked with yop's remark on "inability to convert charge into a mechanic spinning of particles". Then I realized the missing piece!

    Photons have momentum and you can use them for i.e. accelerating particles in a particle accelerator. My FTEPs have momentum too... electrons emit FTEPs and their momentum spreads around quickly because high FTEP density near them, so the repulsive force is obvious, right? That was the easy part. What causes the attractive force between protons and electrons? Or the repulsive force between protons? Now I do have an idea.

    I'll update FTEP Dynamics paper as quickly as possible for you to wonder.

  7. > by concrete I mean something so fundamental that even Nature
    > in its current state can't break it

    The word for that is indivisible.

    > i.e. FTEP.

    The "i.e." is a non sequitur.

    > Then I realized the missing piece!

    No, you didn't. You'll fail again. I repeat my question: How
    often do you intend to repeat this buffoonery of claiming that
    the next blog post or the next update will solve all your
    problems?

    > I'll update FTEP Dynamics paper as quickly as possible for you
    > to wonder.

    To wonder, why you still don't understand?

  8. > Then I realized the missing piece!

    No, you didn't. You'll fail again. I repeat my question: How
    often do you intend to repeat this buffoonery of claiming that
    the next blog post or the next update will solve all your
    problems?

    Actually, it might be so that I did realize the missing piece... and I want to be absolutely sure about it before I announce it.

    I need to make few arrangements, more about them later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *