It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How a Surfer Dude Stunned the World of Science With the 'Theory of Everything'

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by Retseh

I'd doubt that you have the ability to judge the intelligence of others either. This theory is getting alot of notice from the WORLD'S top scientists, the theory although no theory is easy to understand, is actually quite simplictic on the lines of universal theorums. Wikipedia has quite a simple explanation of the theory, from a complex explanation to a much more understandable approach. I have had quite a few classes on Physics so maybe this makes more sense to me then others, but the theory has potential. There's no need to politely call people stupid, unless you don't understand the subject your commenting on.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:32 PM
This is BIG news!! Great find OP!!!
If this theory makes it possible for us to understand what gravity really is, deep space travel will indeed be within our grasp. Manipulating gravity is the key. I'm so excited about this , I can barely type a coherent sentence.
A thought did cross my mind, I couldn't help it. Wouldn't it be crazy if when they fire up the hadron collider and find out his theory is true, that at that instant they also destroy us? I'm on the fence about the collider and it's destructive potential, like I said, the thought just popped up, couldn't help it.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by welivefortheson
what an utter load of tripe................nothing near the actual reality of the universe.

i mean a gravity particle...cmon thats so 1800's..if gravity is a particle then how do black holes contain such massive gravitational force when particles cant exist inside them?,they should be extensivly more masless if gravity is a particle but that isnt the case.....end of theory in five seconds.
physicists yeah right ,nothing but ai science sabateurs.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by welivefortheson]

lol so true, yet all the sheeple just follow because they dont know any better lol

oh well, such is the story of physics

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by $upa-$tAr7is7

Since the very beginning of the field of physics, each scientist built on other scientists' ideals. Einstein most certainly built on the theories of Newton.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by MoothyKnight

I thought the same thing. Kinda goes with the multiple universe theory. We could just be one atom inside some other being.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by welivefortheson

I would love to hear your explanation.
I personally believe that everything is made up of particles, how else could it exist. However, these particles are so small that we may never have the capability to see them.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:14 PM
i think this is pretty stupid. it's another attempt by a wannabe to try and act like einstein. oh wow he figured out how to make some geometric shapes and how to spin them around. wow we learn that in kindergarten!

this is ignorant and is absolutely useless drivel!

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by daersoulkeeper

ok i may of bin a bit harsh with my words, i put my hands up. bt i cnt stand "biters" hes claimed it as his own. wen its obviously BS


posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:02 PM
Great post ! S & F.

I have emailed Stephen J Crothers, a family friend, to advise him
of this debate, and its source. He is an ATS member.

A thread on his theories is here:

If anyone can get through this theory , Stephen can.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by sickofitall2012

true bt its nt like he sed my theory is an add-on of the unified field, he's stole the whole idea as his own like "it jus came 2 me 1 day"


posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:06 PM
Stunning, if I understand this correctly then there is no empty space, everything is particles and depending upon their dimensional polarity they can be space, energy, matter or gravity. Does this theory tell us that gravity is indeed an unseen bombardment of particles from all directions creating a unified pushing force? So if gravity is a particle force then a large mass can slow them down thus keep us stuck on a planet!

Explains so much when you think about it in simple terms. It also tells us that we can change a particle into anything with one simple force by understand the polarity controls - hence we can remove/change the gravity particle to be less of a force (maybe light). Does this also mean we can create light from nothing? The mind boggles as what this implies.

The UK Bloke

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:31 PM

Originally posted by theukbloke
Does this also mean we can create light from nothing? The mind boggles as what this implies.

Movement creates gravity, and gravity creates energy, so an ideal breakthrough in the generation of energy would involve bypassing movement and directly manipulating gravity.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by maus80]

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:43 AM

Originally posted by BlasteR
If the universe really does take on the form of the E8 shape, it would have all kinds of implications and could possibly help us explain the big-bang better. For our universe to exist now as an E8, then it must have existed since it's birth as an E8 geometrical form. It's possible that using the E8 shape as a guide we could potentially figure out what caused the big-bang altogether (not to mention how elementary particles came into existence shortly after the big-bang occured).

Originally posted by theflashor
reply to post by BlasteR

I suppose the E8 theory pours water on the Big Bang theory as the Big Bang suggests life started from no where. But you need space for a big bang so E8 explains space. Damn my head hurts i give in.

There is a much simpler way to think of this same idea though.

Technically, the big bang is supposedly when time began for our universe (the birth of our universe).. Therefore, if our universe is currently in the shape of an "E8" geometrical form (as in this guy's theory) then it must have always been in that shape in order for our universe to exist in the first place. Especially if the E8 form is not only the shape of our universe but also somewhat of a higher intelligence that more or less determines the the laws/rules that govern all matter and energy in our universe.

Honestly, I can't even imagine how a universe could take on the shape of a perfect geometric shape and maintain that form throughout its existence. Its an interesting idea but extremely hard to get your head around. We know from astronomical observations and data that our universe is expanding and is going to continue that expansion for an extremely long time. If our universe is the shape of an E8 (in which that geometrical shape can never be altered) then it MUST be getting larger if our universe really is expanding. If it can expand and become larger with the expansion of the universe then it must have been much smaller in the distant past (as long ago as the big bang, for example). This is another way of looking at the big-bang scenario I talked about earlier..(and how the E8 could tell us alot about what happened when the big-bang occurred, just before it occurred, and maybe even why).

If the E8 really is responsible for not only the shape of the universe but also what is within it (and why it exists in the first place) then understanding the shape could literally give us a key to unlocking everything we don't currently understand about the universe. Understanding the E8 and how this whole process works could literally give us a window into everything in the universe we don't understand yet..

It would be like looking at a 6 sided dice and being able to use it to decipher everything in the universe we could ever think to ask.. If we could figure out how some parts of the universe fit into the E8 concept, then we could potentially use that information to decipher/decrypt the rest of the unknown information (alot like a computer program deciphering/decrypting unknown information based on what the computer program does know). We could, potentially, even create E8's in a big lab somewhere (Even the smallest one would be huge from what i've read) and manipulate it's properties in order to test different scientific theories on how it really works.


[edit on 7-2-2009 by BlasteR]

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:12 AM

Originally posted by maus80

Originally posted by theukbloke
Does this also mean we can create light from nothing? The mind boggles as what this implies.

Movement creates gravity, and gravity creates energy, so an ideal breakthrough in the generation of energy would involve bypassing movement and directly manipulating gravity.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by maus80]

I'm not so sure that's true though..
We do know that there is a close relationship between gravity and energy. For example, the relationship between earth's gravity and its electromagnetic field. IMO, each have the potential to affect one another in a variety of ways, yet they are quite different from one another at the same time.

The two can exist independently from one another. Energy is not necessarily a prerequisite for gravity and vice versa. If we really understood the correlations between the two and why those correlations existed we would understand alot more about both than we currently do.

Also, what scientists used to think about gravity is now in question for a variety of reasons. The simple existence of dark energy and dark matter, The pioneer anomaly, The flyby anomaly, and the fact that the voyager spacecraft are inexplicably slowing down over time as they exist the solar system.

Some good reading:

Three Spacecraft Reveal Unexplained Motion

This month's edition of "Astronomy" magazine.. Featured story this month is on gravity. You would have to purchase it or get a subscription online to their website.. You can see the cover HERE .

NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes
(there is also an ATS thread on this story HERE )

Is there something we don't know about gravity?
Spacecraft flybys and the Moon's orbit aren't following predictions. Whatever is causing this could usher in a new theory of gravity.
By John D. Anderson


[edit on 7-2-2009 by BlasteR]

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:29 AM
I would say his surfing helped , I mean if you are intelligent you cant help but think about the single Fq , constructive interference and destructive interference environment you rely on the get a good wave.

You combine that with time factors and you can get a pretty good idea of how the entire universe runs , both big and small.

Sometimes the answer is right there staring you in the face the whole time.

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by Godhood

In my mind, there is one basic problem with this guy's theory. It is built upon the works of many others. The inclusion of currently accepted electromagnetic theories, and in particular, Einsteins wave particle duality, in itself displays the basic problem. Einstein could not explain how light had both the qualities of a wave and a particle at the same time. Particles were explained away via characterizing photons as having no mass to make them fit Newtons first law (inertia). Which can push a solar sail to the end of the solar system with no mass?
Whether or not waves exist has been proven beyond a doubt, the simple Faraday cage utilized in a microwave is proof of this used everyday every time you fire up a microwave oven. So why does light not subscribe to Newton's third law? Or for that matter, how can this mythical particle shed it's inertia in a sinusoidal wave? Oh that's right, some bright soul decided the photon didn't have any mass, and therefore took up no space in the known universe. Then there is the the little problem of how light travels for thousands of years and still maintains a waveform without complete attenuation. Then there is that little problem of how something light years away can project an image (data) as has been recently proven with the discovery of extrasolar planets around other star systems.
Oh and while we are at it, there is the dark force, dark energy and many other colloquialisms that the "scientific community" is fond of tossing out there to explain things us mere mortals could not possibly understand.

Popularity is the cornerstone of modern science. There was a time when the earth was flat, then the sun revolved around the earth, then the earth around the sun and the universe around the solar system.
History is strewn with one popular scientific theory after another, and anyone proposing anything other than what is "popular" is branded as an idiot and or scientific heretic. (Witness the global warming debate. Many scientist who disagree with it are silenced with threats of removing their funding and or their jobs)

It has been proven beyond a doubt that electromagnetic energy travels in waves, (or you would be frying your brain watching your popcorn in the microwave) so why not start from there and start from what you can prove rather than making up mythical particles, energies, and characteristics thereof (wave particle duality, dark energy as examples).

Oh that's right, that's not popular is it? Why it would be just terrible to base science in reality and the admission that the majority of currently accepted "theories" falls apart at the seems when faced with a factual logic test.

Wake up people, as long as these lies are given the light of acceptance, 'real' scientific understanding of our universe and how to move about it will continue to elude us.

Reality Seeker

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:17 PM
I'm a tad bit confused.

We have Four Dimensions (Time and the Three Space Dimensions of Height, Width and Length) with theories suggesting 10 (or 11, depending on who you prescribe to) total Dimensions to account for some pretty wicked stuff.

128 Dimensions to E-8?

Please tell me this refers to 128 Faces on the Shape of E-8, or else I'm loosing all faith in this stuff. Because if we are going from 4 to 10-11 to 128, then I can explain the Universe.

There are X Dimensions, each affecting the other with X variables, each applying to X circumstances. I call this the "Vin Diesal" Theory, or "XXX". Or would that be Xlittle3?

It really is starting to seem that these academics are going "We've got 4 Dimensions we can varify, but I can't make it work with 4. Let me invent another. Hmm, better, but still doesn't work. Let me add a few more dimensions here, that I can in absolutely no way whatsoever defend or announce, to help explain my idea." And suddenly you go from a viable 4 to how ever many you happen to want to say is there, with no support or reason.

Now, I couldn't do any of the higher math in the article, I openly admit these guys to be smarter than I am (and I'm a fairly smart fella, BradKell or Brrexkl for those that know me, but being in Iraq has blocked some cookies or some such and I can't log on) and that is something I rarely concede. Still, there are things I DO know. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip... even if you say there are 1,000,000 other layers to that turnip that we can't process and that the blood lies in those layers.

After so long it stops sounding like Science and Reasoning and starts smacking of a Cop Out.

Relativity makes sense, matter and information (why the distinguishment here, would Information not be Energy and isn't Energy Matter? Our mind works off Electirical Impulse to store and retrieve Information, as does all our Technology... as far as I can determine Information is merely coded Energy, i.e. a form of Matter) as you can't receive the Information before it is sent. (The nutshell of relativity and why we can't travel beyond the Speed of Light, even though there are Warp and Instant Travel theories). Simply put, you can't have IT before IT gets there... or you get to IT. As c (Speed of Light) is Constant, then even you moving TOWARDS IT as IT moves towards you would not increase the Speed Traveled, merely decrease the TIME it takes to get there... only perceivable over the most appreciable distances since you would be traveling at just under 3 Million Meters per second (so if the distance traveled were only 2 Million Meters the 'Time Saved' by moving towards IT while IT moved towards you would be a very small fraction of a single second... I'd venture to guess with out calculating that we'd be down in the .0001 of a Second Range if not less.

IT must get to you, or you to IT, before you can have IT.

Simple, sensible. Outdated, perhaps. Many say the same of Sun Tzu's Art of War, yet it is still the single most sufficient collection (actually 13 Essays never compiled into one read by the original author) and authority on War to this day, borrowed upon by every great who try to explain War after Tzu.

Even if my statements on c and Relativity are wrong, or the great Albert himself is, it still seems as if people who should know better give up to quickly in things they can see and feel and know and try to explain things with mirages.

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:30 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong here...but isn't this still a theory? Since when has theory become fact? So the people who treat this theory as the conclusive...step out of the world of physics and into the world of English first!

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 09:48 PM

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:15 PM
Yeah... great... but all I see is a looser who is to lazy to get a stable job. I almost hate to see his girlfriend, honestly, would you stay with someone who refused to work and literally didn't where he was going to sleep next week. Yeah, he might be smart, but smart people can be morons too...

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in