Theory of Everything

It seems that Con was a bit frustrated with my questions regarding the specifics of String Theory. Especially the questions that asked "why? ". Apparently, Con thinks that the "why's" are not important. "Once you have a ToE, there's no sense in asking why it is the way it is. .. " I believe that understanding why things are the way they are, and why they do what they do, is of the utmost importance. Con states that strings are filled with energy that causes them to move, but didn't explain what governs the distribution of that energy from string to string. He said the Big Bang distributed that energy long ago, and leaves it at that. Apparently the distribution of the fuel that gives these strings life doesn't really need to be understood. Just that it happened. He doesn't feel that energy needs to be defined because it's such a mainstream concept, but fails to point out that it's also one of the most misunderstood concepts in physics. Einstein states that energy can be converted to mass, and vise versa. Aside from that, we don't really understand how it's different from matter, or how it actually works, or causes things to work. Up to this point, I haven't used any sources. The building blocks of my theory are fairly straight forward. I probably could have thrown in a source to back my explanation of ionic bonding or electrical current, but these were things I learned years ago. You have not yet explained how a particle can have less than three dimensions, despite claiming that you have. As for my alternative, I believe that all matter consists of three dimensional particles. "Perhaps if Pro referenced actual science that went against physical models, he"d be able to make an argument. " My theory doesn't go against physical models. Are you suggesting that objects in our universe are not three dimensional? Regarding space, you keep implying that I don't believe gravity has an effect on objects in space. I fully understand that gravity permeates all through-out space, affecting everything in it. But that doesn't mean that gravity is the same thing as space. I don't believe that if gravity disappeared, so would Euclidean space. For this reason, I believe that space is an ingredient of it's own. Nothing can exist without something to exist in. Perhaps you should elaborate on the specific aspects of GR that refute that notion. So far you have only pointed out that the gravity within space has an effect on things like stars, planets, and light, which I agree with. "This debate should not be questioning the very foundations of modern physics. " As the creator of this debate, I disagree. This debate can question anything. Furthermore, this is not a physics debate; it's a philosophical debate as its categorization implies. You've also mentioned the foundations of physics quite a bit, as if it's settled science, and arguments must adhere to them in order to be valid. Quantum physics (the bulk of your arguments) is probably the most theoretical of all sciences. String Theory hasn't even been validated or observed. It's the math behind String Theory that makes it appealing. "Saying that the bridge [between quantum and classical physics] would be closed if we had better tools is simply saying, a theory of everything is possible in principle, but we don"t have the resources to devise one yet. " No, it's saying that we don't have the resources to observe or make accurate predictions yet. Just because we can't observe the connections between quantum and classical, doesn't mean they don't exist, or that a theory can't be devised. "In other words, Pro"s position is basically that a theory of everything is not possible for us given our experimental deficiencies. " No. What I'm saying is that up to this point, a ToE is impossible to prove. And regarding faith, the very nature of a ToE is an exercise in faith. Again, String Theory has never been observed or confirmed. I'm glad you brought up thermodynamics, and essentially, unbalance. In previous rounds I mentioned the existence of opposites. That for every entity, there is another equal yet opposite entity. This applies to force as well. The opposite of balance is unbalance. Meaning that for my theory of balance to hold true, there would also have to be unbalance in the Universe. It unbalances the balanced, and is therefore part of the balancing process. Many times these unbalances are simply stepping stones within a balancing process. Think about splashing your hand in a calm pool. The waves permeate outwards, growing in quantity and size. A snap shot of this process would imply that things tend towards disorder and chaos; however, given time, you can see that these waves eventually cancel themselves out and return to equilibrium. I see the Universe in a similar way. Once serine and motionless. Then the Big Bang, God, etc. splashed its hand in the pool, setting off a chain of unbalanced waves crashing throughout space. A diverse soup of positively and negatively charged particles dancing with one another. I believe the purpose of the Universe, of all motion and the forces that govern it, is to return to a state of equilibrium, so it can be unbalanced once again. The great eternal pendulum. I hoped to spend more time discussing specific illustrations of balance but I've ran out of words again (which by the way was done intentionally to challenge each debater). Some of these examples would have included weather patterns, osmosis, human behavior, the economy, biology, and geology. I believe that space and matter are a given. No definition of the Universe could be complete without them. What's difficult to define are the agents of motion that govern the way these particles interact with one another. The Fundamental Force of Balance is my best attempt at a unifying force that dictates all movement.