Theory of Everything

If Pro is just going to point out all the details I’ve failed to define and explain, he’s done nothing to bring question to my case, seeing as his theory is far less detailed and specific. Why should I define energy? We know what kinetic and potential energy are. I don’t have the character space to explain high school physics. Energy is not a new idea. It’s a well established quantity. Moreover, Pro should have made this debate 10,000 characters if he expected all of the details to be fleshed out. There doesn’t have to be a specific reason why strings have the energies that they do have. String theory can simulate the universe’s origins, and the big bang is responsible for the energy distributions of the universe. Energy is dispersed and could, in principle, be referenced all back to the big bang. As I stated last round, one essential premise of this debate is that our field of scientific inquiry must reach an end at some fundamental point. Once you have a ToE, there's no sense in asking why it is the way it is since it’s inherently fundamental.I’d also like to note that it’s unfair for Pro not to back up anything with sources, as he should be doing, resulting in him having a significantly larger amount of characters. I’ve already explained how a point particle is conceived of as having 0 dimensions and a loop, 1 dimension. Shall I copy and paste, or can Pro just refer back to my original explanation? Pro’s rejection of point-particles is a self-inflicted blow to his case since he must come up with some alternative. There are countless well-established facts in physics that will raise a few eyebrows. Perhaps if Pro referenced actual science that went against physical models, he’d be able to make an argument.We already understand how the four forces affect the universe. Gravity, the strong and weak forces, and electromagnetism are all largely understood in how they operate. A ToE merely needs to provide a unification of them. The main problem was the graviton, but it was discovered that string theory’s mathematics incorporate such a particle. Pro says, "Con states that there is no separation between space, matter, and force." Not exactly. Space and gravity are not independent of the latter two. Space and time are, furthermore, not independent of each other; hence spacetime. Furthermore, I never said there was no distinction between them. If Pro wants to reject general relativity, then he needs to bring up a better argument than whatever it is he’s trying to say here. Space is not it’s own entity. We know this for a fact. If it were otherwise, I’d go along with Pro. This debate should not be questioning the very foundations of modern physics. Pro's notions of space as a container, and material objects as the contents of this container is severely outdated. It goes along with common-sense prejudices, but if we've learned anything from 20th century physics, it's that common sense is not a very competent guide when examining reality beyond an everyday classical level. General relativity has been confirmed time and again. One example is verification of GR's position that objects orbit in a straight path through curved space rather than a curved path through flat space (as Newton and Pro would predict). In situations involving extremely strong gravitational effects, the phenomena can be observed. One example is gravitational lensing. As seen in the image below, the galaxies appear stretched and twisted. This phenomenon confirms the predictions of general relativity since the intense combined gravitational force of the galaxies heavily distort spacetime around them. Light passes through the warped space, thus resulted in the distorted image [1]. I guarantee that Pro will be entirely at a loss to explain this phenomenon in any other way (to pre-empt: photons are massless and would not produce the same effect in classical physics even if they had mass). Pro’s notions of space, time, mass, and energy, are therefore, wrong. However, the mere fact that he opposes general relativity is enough to undermine his whole case.Pro says that quantum physics is the same as classical physics and the only reason we think different is because we don’t have powerful enough tools. Taking it on faith that quantum physics could explain classical observations is absurd because its self-defeating. It’s imperative for any theory of everything to incorporate large scales with nanoscopic scales. Otherwise, there’s a bridge between them. Saying that the bridge 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. In other words, Pro’s position is basically that a theory of everything is not possible for us given our experimental deficiencies. Even worse, it’s all based on faith that they can reconcile.Pro’s theory flies in the face of thermodynamics. It assumes everything in nature “desires” (whatever that means) equilibrium. From actual science, we know that energy is always increasing in disorder. Energy is conserved, so there’s never different amounts of it, but it changes form. It’s pretty much impossible for thermal energy (disordered energy) to become more ordered. Any time there’s sliding friction, or things breaking, or exploding, thermal energy is created. Thus, the total amount of disordered energy is always increasing [Source: any college physics book]. An electrical current might display some notion of equilibrium-seeking behavior, but in the vast scale of things, nothing is headed towards equilibrium. Moreover, we know that the universe is expanding rapidly, meaning all of matter and energy grow more distant over timeIt also seems to contradict the weak force, which is responsible for the radioactive decay. Why would particles undergo radioactive if the fundamental force in nature seeks equilibrium and balance? [1 ]http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...