Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MikeBrace

  1. You're barking up the wrong tree in sentence one. As I stated, the soul has nothing to do with religion. I can't help it if they highjacked the one part of you that makes you unique (if you have one). And it's explanations are not beyond known physical laws...just as your emotions are not. And it is possible that they are connected, but I haven't gone there yet. And, as I asked VictorMedvil, why are you on this forum?
  2. Not to be rude, but I have to ask; why are you on this forum [in the first place]?
  3. Then I take it you believe no one has a soul?
  4. It’s important that you understand word for word how I defined compassion for it is at the heart the definition of a 'soul'. Compassion defines the soul and is unique to the soul. Compassion is not the same as 'sympathy' or 'empathy'. Those are just emotions. Compassion requires a physical act. Remember how I said the soul controls the consciousness? Here is a good definition of compassion: Compassion (noun): The investment and/or expenditure of a personal asset on behalf of another living being, knowing that there exists a high probability that there will be an immediate negative ra
  5. It is important that you separate the religion from the definition. Your physical consciousness is the basic operating system that controls the living entity in order to meet its basic survival needs. That is your 'elephant'. It has nothing to do with religion. Not all living entities require a consciousness (an 'elephant') to properly operate themselves, but most higher, more evolved forms of life do have them. I think that most autonomous forms of life need one in order to survive. However, history has shown us countless number of examples there the physical consciousness can be influenced
  6. I think that most 'human minds' have accepted the fact that life is finite, so I'm not buying your concept that we created a 'soul' to transcend the end of our physical existence. Even you yourself 'died' twice [and yet] your consciousness did not. Even if you slipped into 'an inky black silence' it was [still] a state of existence that you recognized as a physical state of existence and could describe. And your conscious returned twice, so 'something' about you continued to exist after your body was not capable of harboring it. And when it was [again]. it came back. I will 'agree' in part w
  7. I've spent a lifetime thinking about 'the Soul'. Most people have a perception of what a 'soul' is, but I think few have actually defined it. I submit this for your review: The spark of life in you, your life force, is just your consciousness (you) collaborating with organic cells (also made up of matter and energy) on a very large scale in order to survive in a place where everything eats everything else just to stay alive. It’s who you see when you look in the mirror. Most, if not all living organisms [that do not belong to a collective] have a life force. We humans call it our consciousne
  8. I think you can create a proton and an electron strictly though mechanical means. I know you can magnetize and demagnetize ferrous metal by introducing the ferrous metal to a magnetic field though mechanical means, such as immediate contact (rub a magnet on a screw driver) or simply imparting kinetic energy (striking it hard with a hammer) to the metal in a magnetic field. I speculate that it you impact a neutron hard enough to break it apart, and you do so in a highly-magnetized field, you will spit out a proton and a neutron. And if they attempt to get back together through mutual attraction
  9. Final post on the UFoP; the Superluminal Drive. The speed of any object of mass is governed by the physics of two things: the force by which the object is accelerated and the medium through which it is traveling. If the object of mass [from herein referred to as the projectile] is born of the electromagnetic spectrum (ES) then we know its force is derived from the same, and its final steady-state velocity is the speed of light; 300M m/s (c). (I, for one, have always found it odd that the only projectiles we see (and measure) to be traveling at (or near) the speed of light are those projectil
  10. Thank you for offering the answer that was on the tip of my tongue (fingertips?) And now, for the conclusion...
  11. (Authors’ warning: this post is more personable and less scientific than the previous posts. I felt that if you have no just criticism of my work on the UFoP by now then I should show you the man behind the proof and let you decide if your time has been worth it). I will work on the equations (as I referenced a few posts back) and when I have the mathematical proof I will post it as well. It may be on this forum, it may be on another. However, I feel it is incumbent on me, as the scientist that built this UFoP, to explain my motivation for building it. I didn’t do it for recognition, or just
  12. The above quote is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the discussions in this post, and how they can go so badly astray and end up as bullshit. I use this post as not because it is in error, because it (like so many other posts in this thread) keep basing their arguments on informal fallacies; in this example it's the speed of light. Many on this thread keep thinking that the speed of light is a constant and the arguments based on this assumption are sound physics. I hate to break the news, but scientist have long ago figured out a way to slow light down, and I am talking about slo
  13. For many scientists the proof can be in the results or the proof can be in the numbers. I’ve been of the mindset that the proof is always in the results, and the numbers are just the icing on the cake. This mindset isn’t based on education, logic or personal psychology, but based on reason. I have learned [and seen] a multitude of manmade equations predict naturally occurring physics time and time again, however the scientific history of the physics behind those equations tells us that the physic is born of reason, and not of mathematics from theoretical equations. Theoretical equations produc
  14. If the previous theories and observations supporting these theories are true (factual) then in accordance with the laws of physics the opposite reactions of these postulates must be true. If the kinetic energy of Mass, and its interaction with other objects of Mass [in the Void], can create pressure waves and localized pressure differentials in the Void (both high pressure and low pressure) as well as change the localized density differential of the Void, than Mass can create not only Black Holes, it should be able to create pressure variations of a different physical characteristic as well, a
  15. (Dear readers, I would ask that as you read this post please allow enough time to understand and comprehend it, because of all of the posts in this thread this one discusses the most fundamental and controversial subject in physics: Black Holes and all of the ramifications of defining them) The postulate of using the density differentials between layers of particles to bend light is considered sound physics. However the historical postulate of the Aether was not needed to bend light, it was theorize as the medium of which light traveled in (or on, depending on your point of view). We have al
  16. I have previously listed the major constructs of my UFoP: Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; There are only two states of existence in the universe, Matter and Energy; Of the four ‘accepted’ Fundamental Forces in the universe, only Electromagnetic force(s) are real in origin, observed (and observable) and quantifiable; Gravity is not a Fundamental Force; And the Void is an energy field comprised of charged particles. In the UFoP I have accounted for the measured force previously attributed to ‘gravity’; #4 above is now redundant to #3 so I will remove it. In this thread I
  17. I wanted to start this section with a discussion of Strong and Weak Nuclear Force. Just as the Force of Gravity has evolved from String Theory & 9 dimensions to what we now describe as QFT, I have witness the birth AND discovery of numerous sub-atomic particles and the theoretical physics behind them over the years as well. I resent this caveats because the arguments for these solutions get stronger and stronger with each passing introduction of each new hypothetical particle and its hypothetical properties (such as Gluons, Quarks, Higgs Boson, etc.) as do the efforts to validate their exi
  18. As I referenced in my previous post I have always felt it incumbent upon me, as well as every other scientist working in the realm of theoretical physics, that if you are going to put forth a new theory one had better have a good reason why yours in better and be able to back it up with good, solid proven observations; bettering those that can’t do the same. I need to bring forth and present some observations and physics that are still not being adequately explained in GM; to which these observations did, in part give rise to QFT. The one such construct of GM and QFT is the principle(s) of I
  19. I'm no sentence structure expert, but doesn't that statement just imply that if the model is crap, isn't the equation defining this model also crap? Or am I missing something here? And how can an equation just 'approximate' measurable effects? It does or it doesn't mathematically describe net observations and/or measurements. 'Approximation' equations are mathematical equations, not physics equations.
  20. Before I continue with this construct (as promised in the previous thread) I feel this is proper time to supply a mental framework for my methodologies so as to avoid repeated arguments to this UFoP. I fully understand the significance of observation, verification and validation of any portion of any construct, and that in altering (or replacing) the fundamental bases for previous hypothetical constructs (such as GM and QFT) cannot and should not be undertaken without a direct, one-for-one replacement of ALL aspects of that construct, and that that replacement(s) needs to fully and complete
  21. (Sit down for a spell, this is a long one) I had just started being active on this forum when I came across one of the most oft repeated postulates in physics: Little Bang, on 24 Feb 2018 - 11:20 AM, said: It would help if we could take gravity out of the equation because it may be a function of another property of the Universe? I had seen this statement many times, and (as I made to reference earlier) A LOT of scientists have long since speculated that this may be the key to solving the ToE. So, in my efforts to solve Superluminal travel I ended up working gravity out of the equations, bo
  22. I’ll start this thread with an example of a straw model for a framework that I quickly put together in another forum: I’m not an expert in Fire, but if I developed a Unifying Framework for the physics of Fire I would start with this simple theory: Fire is the side product of the reaction with oxygen, therefore oxygen must be present in order to produce Fire. One of the Administrators (Eldritch Horror) responded in perfect harmony: “not to be a pedant, but fluorine is better at making fires than oxygen. ” My response was appropriate: Great post GAHD. To your point [researching the new kno
  23. This is a forum to discuss my approach for building this framework. More than that, it’s an attempt to complete it. The construct of this model, and how you can help, will be exemplified in my first post (to immediately follow this introduction). Before I start off please be sure to reference some the more basic discussion points of what I am talking about; Theory of Everything (ToE) and Theoretical Physics (TP). According to these to references they are related. For all intents and purposes I am attempting to define the ToE as it is referenced, but I prefer to call it a Unifying Framework o
  24. Great post GAHD. To your point [researching the new knowledge that you presented] Physicsforum.com tells us: Fire can (and does) exist without the presence of oxygen. All that is required is a strong oxidizing substance. There are other substances, like flourine or chlorine that can be good substitutes for oxygen. So now, all we need to do is change my unifying framework of Fire to say: Fire is the side product of the reaction with oxidizing substance, therefore an oxidizer must be present in order to produce fire. Wallah! With your help I have developed a near perfect unifying framework
  25. I found this thread interesting and enlightening. However, even I failed to address the fundamental points of this thread, discussing what changes to physics I think are necessary and why…and what needs improvements and what needs to be fixed. IMO there is not much (if anything) that needs to change in physics; it is, and has been, stable in its existence for 14+ billion years. It think what needs to change is ours and yours (our knowledgeable field of bloggers herein) perception of what physics is. We all have need to define every branch of science in our own way (if we truly want to call o
  • Create New...