Theory Of Everything - The Navier-Stokes Equations

If you would like to discuss any of my videos please join me on my new theory of everything (TOE) forums:

http://www.protheory.com (My Website)

http://www.fprotheory.com (My New Forum)


Please don't think me arrogant, I'm just a normal thinker that had an idea one day which turned into Positive Reacting Opposites (Pro Theory).

Please check out my channel and my website if you'd like to get a broader view of me and what I think. I'm a positive and friendly person but at the same time I've got to get some closure on this idea and this is my dilemma. I'm hoping that these videos will help me to explain.

I know it probably seems like a ridiculous idea at first glance, saying three things simultaneously, but when you look deeper into things you will see that it's not quite as ridiculous as it seems. My new forum is a mirror of my website open for complete discussion. YouTube comments and messages don't quite do as good a job as a proper discussion forum. I look forward to hearing from you :)

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Navier
• Stokes
• Equations
• pro
• theory
• of
• everything
• toe
• clay
• math
• institute
• millennium
• problems

[carlmelanson1]

@protheory I'm not trying to make enemies either, I'm trying to reason with you. You can't just claim to have a TOE without people hurling insults at you, man, especially if it doesn't even apply to the subject that you are attempting to explain. You do not even have the foundation of a theory of everything, not even close. If you want to have a theory, do it correctly. Do some research. That's what I'm doing. There are things that are very hard to factor in, like the Wheeler-deWitt equation

[protheory]

@carlmelanson1 Let's level here. You insulted me repeatedly from the outset and believe it or not I understand why. Seriously, I do, if I'd not had my own personal epiphany I'd be commenting here agreeing with you against this nutter called Pro or whatever. Not sarcasm I'm serious here. I will not back down from my theory and associated views but I'm not going to make an enemy here. I'd honestly love to read your book when it's finished, I'll even buy a hardcopy if you would sign it for me.

[carlmelanson1]

@protheory I'm not nearly close to being finished. As I said, it's a difficult subject. Unlike you, I would not make the outlandish claim that I have a definite TOE. I'm giving myself a deadline to finish it before christmas, it could be a thousand pages by then, because there's a lot to cover. You can't just explain all of it with one sentence. I appreciate the offer, but I'd rather see it published as a book. Why don't you do the same? Shouldn't you write a book about it if it's provable?

[protheory]

@carlmelanson1 Making insulting comments on the world's biggest video sharing site while claiming to have no camera sounds like an excuse to me. I've already offered to publish your work on my own server if you wish. It's free. I understand that you're writing as book but unless you're using a type writer why are you so reluctant to back up anything you claim? Why can't you copy the text of your book to a PDF file or Word document and post it as an attachment? You can e-mail me from my website.

[carlmelanson1]

@protheory I already told you, I don't have a video camera, and because it's a BOOK, I can't explan it to you in 500 character boxes on youtube. I'm going to try to get it published, like a normal person who has a theory about this subject. I'm not going to go on youtube and rant about things that I don't understand like you, sir. You still haven't answered any of my questions, which means that you do not even have a basic understanding of physics. You're doing it with your eyes closed.

[protheory]

@carlmelanson1 I'm still waiting to see your own theory, are you going to criticize me and insult me without so much as providing a website link or video response? You seem only too willing to insult me and SHOUT at me and yet you repeatedly fail to post your own ideas, and still seem to expect me to take you seriously. POST YOUR IDEAS IN PUBLIC IF YOU DARE

[carlmelanson1]

@protheory Holy jeeze. You are seriously deluded. Apparently you have the superhuman ability to computate contradictions and still be consistent. That's laughable. How many people have told you to go see a doctor? You're worse than Lisi, and surprisingly more arrogant. And WRONG!!

[protheory]

@carlmelanson1 So this is your 'proof' is it. Ok, if I say the simplest atom does not even have a neutron 99.985% of the time because it's evaporated into energy by a quantum inversion, including the opposite and neutral potentials is this still a proof you've given me? Also, if this had proven me wrong would I be able to say I'm wrong, right and neutral? I don't need calculations to explain Pro theory but I haven't noticed any of your calculations here either, where are they?

[carlmelanson1]

@protheory Yes, I can prove you wrong. Everything is not positive, negative, and neutral simultneously. For instance, the simplest atom does not even have a neutron 99.985% of the time because it's evaporated into energy by a quantum inversion, which is partially explained by the Koide Formula. Some electron's have a negative mass. How do you explain this? You're theory does not apply to reality. You do not have calculations to back up what you say.

[protheory]

@carlmelanson1 Am I to take your word for these points then? So you're writing a book, great, let's see it! Are you going to upload any video responses? Provide any evidence for your claims? Or otherwise back up any of your points? Also, I have my own question: can you 'prove' me wrong?