User talk:AtoI

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkTroll 13:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Conceptional Theory/Law of everything.[edit]

Posted on User_talk:ClockworkSoul

The Law of Everything is 3.[edit]

Hi. I've posted in the TOE Discusson and have only been getting it deleted. I'm convinced that I'm on the right track, but I'm looking for any and ALL feedback to this matter. So far I haven't gotten any. I realize this is a high level claim, and expected of top scholars and distingushed scientists who entail a practical and highly objective point of view. I would like to add my own point of view in my own way. :)

I have written a document and have it available at the following URL.

http://aten.hostingave.net/~gary/toe.txt

I realize this must appear substandard and unacceptible for wide community publishing. But I want to get it out there and start on a whole new train.

Warm Regards,

AtoI 18:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)AtoI

ClockworkSoul Replies[edit]

Hello, Atoi. I'm very glad that you felt that you could come to me with this dilemma of yours. I'm not a physicist, but I'll be glad to try to help.

I read the web page you referred me to, as well as your many posts to Talk:Theory_of_everything. Its good to see that people still get passionate about ideas, but there are some flaws in your posting.

First, the writing style is very awkward and is difficult to read. Take for example, the following cryptic statement:

Explain:

111(333/111)333(111/333)111(333/111)333

8 c )

3 1 4 1 3 << look familiar?

If you want to make a logical point, I would recommend that you carefully explain your premises and conculsions, and walk your reader though your logic.

Also, I notice that when you do describe your premises, you tend to leave it to the reader to figure out how they are connected to your conclusions. For example:

what do we need to drink every day? A molecule of 3.

what keeps us safe from the sun? A molecule of 3.

how many laws of motion? 3

how many meals a day? 3.

how many times does a day job worker get a break? 3. hehe. that's just facetious but true.

how many corners/lines in a triangle? 3.

Infinity = 3.

In this statement, you seem to be implying that because you can find many examples of groupings of three, then three must be the nature of the universe. However, by similar logic, one could also say that the nature of the universe is blue, human, concrete, or an insect. Similarly, it can be said that most things are not pink, and therefore neither is anything else.

Lastly, from the WikiPolicy perspective, even if your ideas have a root in theories promosed many years ago, Wikipedia does not carry original research. Perhaps you may may have better luck submitting this idea to Physical Review?

In conclusion, though we genuinely value your input, and your ideas show alot of creativity, Wikipedia is not a good place to present them.

Regards, ClockworkSoul 20:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)