"Whether we like it or not" is irrelevant. Honestly, there is no logic in your "theory". It's absolute nonsense and has nothing to do with mathematics or physics or the precise statements that you are misinterpreting. If you "really, really, really think about something" you don't come up with circular arguments like "simultaneously being correct, incorrect and neutral". Instead you study mathematics and its rigid structure to prove things rigorously and filter nonsense like this....
"Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere."
This is true (prove) or false (disprove), there is no inbetween. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I suggest reading up on mathematical logic -being the "pedant" you are, you may find it enlightening.
Actually Poincare knew the three sphere was simply connected. The conjecture was that any closed three manifold with the same fundamental group as the three sphere was indeed the three sphere.
interesting video, was skeptical at first but just took some time to see where you were going. Nice site as well. Thanks for contributing. I enjoyed it.
@mondaysroos3 Thanks for this comment, it means a lot to me :) Thanks for trying to understand where I'm coming from. I just found this out and realised that for it to get anywhere I'd have to learn how to understand physics etc, it's been over 10 years now actually.
You know, this theory of everything in practice brings you to so stupid situations like you know even, someone will break thermometer and you get psycho thermometer time and just your brother in future breaks thermometer or you know earth quakes, so maybe people plan this quakes.
Theory of everything, ok my dad teaches me from small, but I live near big tv towers and one the biggest in all world (647 meters) felt in Poland, but I didnt know that till 2004 maybe, anyway there is sign from God about communication, when I see black birds flying one the sky like one team and doing letter V or T or VIVA, so what people can do, if birds doing this?
I don't understand why you think that because a theory can be loosely analogous to a problem in 3 dimensional space it should have 3 simultaneous 'answers'.
And I just want to say, in addition, that accepting, refuting, and doing both/neither, all at the same time, does not make your argument logical. It only makes it humorous.
Education counts for a lot more than you acknowledge, or are capable of acknowledging. You're wrong in saying that it doesn't count for much, because big-league questions like the hypotheses which you laughably claim to have solved can only be solved by those with a proper education.
In the same way that I don't judge a person by their skin colour or name I request that people commenting on my lack of degree level education please respect me as I am. Please listen to me, read my website, then think about it for a while before you post comments of a judgemental nature about me. Just because I don't have a degree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll finish by saying 'I simultaneously oppose, agree with and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum.' Peace. Pro.
@protheory I was wondering what you think about the discrepancy in mass between the proton and the neutron. They each have three quarks, so why is it that the neutron weighs more than the proton? Shouldn't they have the exact same mass?
@carlmelanson1 To be honest it doesn't interest me too much. I can't really debate the finer points of human consciousness here in text but please look up my video on this subject for my views on measurement and quantification in physics etc. I don't think they should necessarily have the same mass mainly because the mass is changeable. Also, if I were to answer your last question directly I would probably say 'They should, should not, (and neutral possibility) have the same mass.'
@protheory I think it has something to do with the electric charge and its relationship with its environment, like all other physicists in the entire world. Your double plus neutral bullshit doesn't apply. Stop saying that. You DO NOT have anything close to a TOE. You're theory is composed of one sentence which you repeat to numerous people as if it explain the entire Universe. It does not. Stop claiming that you have a TOE, you're making a fool of yourself. It's embarassing.
@carlmelanson1 So you're back to insults again I see, and swearing this time too. I see you're also using capitals to try and ORDER me to think like you I imagine. I don't see why I should stop saying something just because some words appear as a comment on a video of mine, I could criticize your work too perhaps if you would only show it here like I am showing my theory. Now if I simultaneously oppose, agree with and neutralize all criticism what do you say? You can't say that? I just did.
@protheory Listen, buddy. All I'm saying is that it's people like you who make hard fr real physicists to be taken seriously. This is a complicated and difficult subject. You claim to have a TOE. And yet, where is it. Your site just repeats the same jargon over and over. Where are the equations? Where are the theoretical implications? For instance, if you have a TOE, it should incorporate the four fundemental forces and explain why they have a heirarchy problem. Also, 1/137? Why this constant?
@carlmelanson1 I'm listening, my TOE is on Toequest, also my website protheoryDOTcom and my forum fprotheoryDOTcom, where is your website and your theory? If you look on my website you will see an essay by me on the four fundamental forces explaining my theory and what it says about each force in turn. I also don't hold to unchanging constants (1/137) so trying to study anything under such constraints would not be something I'd likely do as I'm about 3 not 1.
@protheory How do you expect to explain the four fundemental forces without referring to the coupling constants? That's like trying to swim without getting wet. How do you expect to explain this without understanding the heirarchy problem? Have you ever even heard of it?
@carlmelanson1 I expect to explain them as three potentials as referenced on my website. And as I just recently said I don't hold to unchanging constants. Again, if you would care to show me your own work on whatever subject then perhaps we could have a proper conversation about it. To be honest I've got a lot better things to do than post YouTube comments back and forth all night but I'll keep going until you get fed up of insulting me :)
I respect your intuition, and the time you've put into developing this "theory," but you have not received a proper education.
Things like the Poincare conjecture and the Riemann hypothesis cannot be true, untrue, and both/neither at the same time. That would defeat the purpose of the conjecture, and thus the million dollar prize.
I'm with steeliestalker. Invest in an education, and once you've got 10 years of mathematics under your belt, try again.
Why don't you put some of your own videos up so I can laugh at you. I can't stand it when people assume they're better than others simply due to education, I've never been keen on arrogance. And you and your departments laughing at me...what does that prove exactly then big boy?
The Poincare Conjecture needs a rigorous mathematical proof, just like many other problems, including one that will unite the 4 forces of the universe. Playing with words, and saying that something is true, untrue, and both/neither just won't cut it.
And you admit to have never gone to university... Well, guess what. All of us in the science, mathematics, and probably even the philosophy departments would laugh at you.
Sorry, but this one isn't going to win you a million dollars.
I've been to the site, and looked at the "answers" to the problems, and sorry, but playing with words won't answer questions about the universe. You may argue that your argument is "logical," but this is science, and to refute criticism is fallacious. (And refuting, accepting, and doing both/neither is illogical).
Thanks Voltage1919. I've been trying to think of some tips for you but the best thing I can really say is to just try to believe in yourself and keep an open mind. Think and explore the impossible and the infeasible, and most of all just try to give it time. I firmly believe that anybody can learn almost anything given the right instruction and enough time :)
Hi axavierd, it's nice to meet someone who thinks like I do. Pro theory is a simple idea but due to what I'm talking about (math etc) a lot of people think the theory itself is complicated too. I've got a discussion forum linked to in the video description, setting up a brand new server soon, you're welcome to pop over for a discussion any time :)
Hello PiBBP, thanks for the comment. I'm afraid I've never studied formally in my life at university. I'm self taught 100%. I've got a discussion forum linked to in the video description top right, see you there :)
Your right, every can either be true, not-true, or niether. Its just obviously true because thats thought. What about BOTH true and not-true? And what about not true, not not-true, and not niether. They are not JUST neutral? because not true and not not-true are not identical.
"Whether we like it or not" is irrelevant. Honestly, there is no logic in your "theory". It's absolute nonsense and has nothing to do with mathematics or physics or the precise statements that you are misinterpreting. If you "really, really, really think about something" you don't come up with circular arguments like "simultaneously being correct, incorrect and neutral". Instead you study mathematics and its rigid structure to prove things rigorously and filter nonsense like this....
kumodrome 4 months ago
"Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere."
This is true (prove) or false (disprove), there is no inbetween. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I suggest reading up on mathematical logic -being the "pedant" you are, you may find it enlightening.
MTBMXrider 7 months ago
3 dimensions require 3 answers ? you off ya tits ?
Poincare said a sphere is the most basic 3 dimensional shape there is.
Right wrong and something in the middle...looooool nice science...
HubsNetwork 1 year ago
theory of youtube lol
Tomahawk1999 1 year ago
@Tomahawk1999 LOL!!!
ander211000 11 months ago
Actually Poincare knew the three sphere was simply connected. The conjecture was that any closed three manifold with the same fundamental group as the three sphere was indeed the three sphere.
TaterGumfries 1 year ago
Interesting
crbrown27 1 year ago
interesting video, was skeptical at first but just took some time to see where you were going. Nice site as well. Thanks for contributing. I enjoyed it.
mondaysroos3 1 year ago
@mondaysroos3 Thanks for this comment, it means a lot to me :) Thanks for trying to understand where I'm coming from. I just found this out and realised that for it to get anywhere I'd have to learn how to understand physics etc, it's been over 10 years now actually.
protheory 1 year ago
After next 2 thousands years they will open schools like fashion industry to stop this big problem.
TheNataliaRR 1 year ago
You know, this theory of everything in practice brings you to so stupid situations like you know even, someone will break thermometer and you get psycho thermometer time and just your brother in future breaks thermometer or you know earth quakes, so maybe people plan this quakes.
TheNataliaRR 1 year ago
Only you...
TheNataliaRR 1 year ago
My dear friend you have to get thiner, to get better results in what you doing...
TheNataliaRR 1 year ago
Theory of everything, ok my dad teaches me from small, but I live near big tv towers and one the biggest in all world (647 meters) felt in Poland, but I didnt know that till 2004 maybe, anyway there is sign from God about communication, when I see black birds flying one the sky like one team and doing letter V or T or VIVA, so what people can do, if birds doing this?
TheNataliaRR 1 year ago
Theory of everything in practice can by YouTube as well.
TheNataliaRR 1 year ago
The fact that you can say it on camera makes it possible?
Right, wrong and neutral simultaneously?
As a 'philosopher first and foremost' you should have heard of the logical absolutes.
joelmartens 2 years ago
Brilliant!
So if I understand you correctly, your theory of everything not only explains the Poincare Conjecture, it actually explains EVERYTHING.
So for example it could explain the theory of the Brontosaurus, as proposed by Miss Anne Elk (John Cleese) on Monty Python's Flying Circus.
Her theory (ahem, AHEM!) states that all Brontosaurus are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end.
So according to you this theory is true, not true, and neutral?
yoursuchagoodguy 2 years ago
loool
i forgot about that sketch
MyOtherBeaver 2 years ago
I don't understand why you think that because a theory can be loosely analogous to a problem in 3 dimensional space it should have 3 simultaneous 'answers'.
xopherl 2 years ago
Don't you mean it makes my argument humorous, not humorous and neutral all at the same time?
protheory 2 years ago
Nope, just humorous.
Get your degree and stop humiliating yourself.
terrencetao 2 years ago
And I just want to say, in addition, that accepting, refuting, and doing both/neither, all at the same time, does not make your argument logical. It only makes it humorous.
Education counts for a lot more than you acknowledge, or are capable of acknowledging. You're wrong in saying that it doesn't count for much, because big-league questions like the hypotheses which you laughably claim to have solved can only be solved by those with a proper education.
Stop humiliating yourself.
terrencetao 2 years ago
In the same way that I don't judge a person by their skin colour or name I request that people commenting on my lack of degree level education please respect me as I am. Please listen to me, read my website, then think about it for a while before you post comments of a judgemental nature about me. Just because I don't have a degree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll finish by saying 'I simultaneously oppose, agree with and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum.' Peace. Pro.
protheory 2 years ago
@protheory I was wondering what you think about the discrepancy in mass between the proton and the neutron. They each have three quarks, so why is it that the neutron weighs more than the proton? Shouldn't they have the exact same mass?
carlmelanson1 1 year ago
@carlmelanson1 To be honest it doesn't interest me too much. I can't really debate the finer points of human consciousness here in text but please look up my video on this subject for my views on measurement and quantification in physics etc. I don't think they should necessarily have the same mass mainly because the mass is changeable. Also, if I were to answer your last question directly I would probably say 'They should, should not, (and neutral possibility) have the same mass.'
protheory 1 year ago
@protheory I think it has something to do with the electric charge and its relationship with its environment, like all other physicists in the entire world. Your double plus neutral bullshit doesn't apply. Stop saying that. You DO NOT have anything close to a TOE. You're theory is composed of one sentence which you repeat to numerous people as if it explain the entire Universe. It does not. Stop claiming that you have a TOE, you're making a fool of yourself. It's embarassing.
carlmelanson1 1 year ago
@carlmelanson1 So you're back to insults again I see, and swearing this time too. I see you're also using capitals to try and ORDER me to think like you I imagine. I don't see why I should stop saying something just because some words appear as a comment on a video of mine, I could criticize your work too perhaps if you would only show it here like I am showing my theory. Now if I simultaneously oppose, agree with and neutralize all criticism what do you say? You can't say that? I just did.
protheory 1 year ago
@protheory Listen, buddy. All I'm saying is that it's people like you who make hard fr real physicists to be taken seriously. This is a complicated and difficult subject. You claim to have a TOE. And yet, where is it. Your site just repeats the same jargon over and over. Where are the equations? Where are the theoretical implications? For instance, if you have a TOE, it should incorporate the four fundemental forces and explain why they have a heirarchy problem. Also, 1/137? Why this constant?
carlmelanson1 1 year ago
@carlmelanson1 I'm listening, my TOE is on Toequest, also my website protheoryDOTcom and my forum fprotheoryDOTcom, where is your website and your theory? If you look on my website you will see an essay by me on the four fundamental forces explaining my theory and what it says about each force in turn. I also don't hold to unchanging constants (1/137) so trying to study anything under such constraints would not be something I'd likely do as I'm about 3 not 1.
protheory 1 year ago
@protheory How do you expect to explain the four fundemental forces without referring to the coupling constants? That's like trying to swim without getting wet. How do you expect to explain this without understanding the heirarchy problem? Have you ever even heard of it?
carlmelanson1 1 year ago
@carlmelanson1 I expect to explain them as three potentials as referenced on my website. And as I just recently said I don't hold to unchanging constants. Again, if you would care to show me your own work on whatever subject then perhaps we could have a proper conversation about it. To be honest I've got a lot better things to do than post YouTube comments back and forth all night but I'll keep going until you get fed up of insulting me :)
protheory 1 year ago
@terrencetao im sure euler would disagree
darkunorthodox 1 year ago
steeliestalker is totally right.
I respect your intuition, and the time you've put into developing this "theory," but you have not received a proper education.
Things like the Poincare conjecture and the Riemann hypothesis cannot be true, untrue, and both/neither at the same time. That would defeat the purpose of the conjecture, and thus the million dollar prize.
I'm with steeliestalker. Invest in an education, and once you've got 10 years of mathematics under your belt, try again.
terrencetao 2 years ago
Stop wasting our time and get a proper education. Until then, let us big boys handle the big boy problems, OK?
steeliestalker 2 years ago
Why don't you put some of your own videos up so I can laugh at you. I can't stand it when people assume they're better than others simply due to education, I've never been keen on arrogance. And you and your departments laughing at me...what does that prove exactly then big boy?
protheory 2 years ago
The Poincare Conjecture needs a rigorous mathematical proof, just like many other problems, including one that will unite the 4 forces of the universe. Playing with words, and saying that something is true, untrue, and both/neither just won't cut it.
And you admit to have never gone to university... Well, guess what. All of us in the science, mathematics, and probably even the philosophy departments would laugh at you.
steeliestalker 2 years ago
Sorry, but this one isn't going to win you a million dollars.
I've been to the site, and looked at the "answers" to the problems, and sorry, but playing with words won't answer questions about the universe. You may argue that your argument is "logical," but this is science, and to refute criticism is fallacious. (And refuting, accepting, and doing both/neither is illogical).
steeliestalker 2 years ago
Thank you.
protheory 3 years ago
You are right wrong and neutral, apart from the right bit.
edwardowen2 3 years ago
Thanks Voltage1919. I've been trying to think of some tips for you but the best thing I can really say is to just try to believe in yourself and keep an open mind. Think and explore the impossible and the infeasible, and most of all just try to give it time. I firmly believe that anybody can learn almost anything given the right instruction and enough time :)
protheory 4 years ago
Your very smart hope to be as smart as you.Have any advice for studying and learning new things.Would be greatly appreciated.
Voltage1919 4 years ago
Hi axavierd, it's nice to meet someone who thinks like I do. Pro theory is a simple idea but due to what I'm talking about (math etc) a lot of people think the theory itself is complicated too. I've got a discussion forum linked to in the video description, setting up a brand new server soon, you're welcome to pop over for a discussion any time :)
protheory 4 years ago
Hello PiBBP, thanks for the comment. I'm afraid I've never studied formally in my life at university. I'm self taught 100%. I've got a discussion forum linked to in the video description top right, see you there :)
protheory 4 years ago
Your right, every can either be true, not-true, or niether. Its just obviously true because thats thought. What about BOTH true and not-true? And what about not true, not not-true, and not niether. They are not JUST neutral? because not true and not not-true are not identical.
axavierd 4 years ago
Thanks for all the explanations on mathematical problems. You are pretty good at explaining those stuff, did you study mathematics at university?
PiBBP 4 years ago