Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: space-time building blocks

  1. #1 space-time building blocks 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    For those out there who have not had the joy of reading about "circular geometrical time loops of 3-d space as the building blocks of space-time", prepare yourself for a simple run-down of the following claims.

    Basically, I am not going to offer any equations of proof here, now, in this post. I am going to outline what has been achieved care of those equations of proof. The equations of proof can be found at the www website download feature below.

    I was able to construct (using the equations of a circle as an algorithm connecting the geometry betwen a theoretical "past" 3-d space with a theoretical "future" 3-d space) a virtual reality of space-time that explains the construction of that 3-d space (constantly in a "now" time zone, comapred to the theoretical PAST and FUTURE time zones (which are really the algorithm of "before" and "after" circular-equation calculus)) in a manner so similar to what we already understand of space-time it is uncanny. The circular calculus explains all the relevant and salient features of atomic physics, subatomic physics, quantum physics (inculuding quantum entanglement), and astrophysics (including black holes and quasars). Please take your time to review the heavily documented article (www feature below). As yet, no criticism has been able to challenge any of the presented tenets since it's release 4 months ago.

    For those though who don't have the time, Ior want more enticement, if I could ask a question, it would be a question of "theoretical physics". My question would be this: would it be possible that a new use of "time" could be employed to better explain space-time. Another question: "is it possible to derive space-time purely in theory". Another question, if the answer of that question is no, then what has (for instance) Einstein achieved with his pure theory that has or has not lent itself to a purely theoretical understanding of space-time.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    I've read it.

    You may be correct, but as you said, it would cost a lot of money to prove.

    You should also be aware that no military and Government will take you on in fear of unsettling their current aerospace contractors.

    I doubt you will get anywhere in the foreseeable future.

    Your only hope is waiting for a global war to break out, obviously one relevant to the ecosystem, war for food, where new innovative ideas are a necessity, and in your case, it could seem, a more correct science offering a cleaner technology.

    Still, don't quit your day job.

    Understand how this world works.

    Don't waste your time too much in this forum. Anyone with a degree in this forum will be doing anything to defend it, at your expense, to your ridicule, no matter how cutting edge your theory is, no matter how many, as you put it, billions of dollars in research it could save a Government.

    But as I said, understand how the world works, and don't quit your day job.

    I admire your passion.

    Still, wasted passion is a folly.


    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Thank you.

    Still, a little empty, as you would understand, is how I feel.

    It would be nice for someone to say, "wow, not only are you right, but you forgot to mention your theory was also capable of explaining "such and such"".

    Yet, I guess I covered a lot of stuff.

    What IS proof though? Do I need a new equation that then suggests an experiment that can predict phenomena we have yet to witness let alone research? But that is what I proposed, a research venture, which I did not deceive anyone in suggesting (that) it would take quite a bit of engineering.

    You're right though. A theory as unexpected as this one would create so much concern, there would be a concerted effort to snub it, to protect other industries, and when it is sought for, those industries would have their backs up against the wall owing to threats from other competing industries.

    Don't quit my day job, huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Stream systems, I won't lie to you, your theory actually doesn't prove anything, yet.

    You have created an incredible piece of work that constructs a reality of space-time that suggests some type of circular geometry exists between a BEFORE time field of space and an AFTER time field of space. Well done.

    You have constructed what seems to be a basic unit of that space-time reality you call a stream system. Associated to that basic unit, presumably an atom, you explain the forces involved in those particles, subatomic and the like. Well done.

    In fact, all of what you have constructed "appears" to be similar to the general look of space-time.

    You have NO mathematics though similar to contemporary physics.

    You only have the equations of a circle you derived, and admittedly a very obtuse equation for pi, and yet also equations for force. You even jump to an equation for energy and mass. Yet you achieve such marks with no bearing or reference to contemporary standards of physics.

    My point is that you may have just constructed a "lens" of perceiving space-time a certain way. You say the theory is based on a theory of perception, and from that you derived the equations for a circle and sphere. Your lens of perceiving space-time though is "simple". It is a "simple lens". To compare your theory to a physics text is to compare apples with bananas. To be more specific, you may have simply created a way of perceiving space-time, mathematically, and nothing more, a way though that is too distant from the resolutions physicists would need for them to consider you for any type of commendation.

    Don't forget the world you live in. There is a lot more resolution, more research, more precision, than your theory presents. I can't see you convincing anyone other than those who want a cartoon version of space-time.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    A certain WAY of perceiving reality?

    Never thought of that (DaaaAAAA, of course it is). I thought it relevant (besides the vast oversights people throw at it) enough given the medical studies already achieved by that point in time before embarking on the theory. I did point out it was within the tramlines of zero and infinity for space and time though. I DID say it was a theory based on a certain manner of mathematically deductive perception.

    MMMmmmm.

    OK then, this is MY point. MY point is that I am only interested in the simple STEP of research it opens us up to, a STEP we would have otherwise been blind to, the HYPERSPACE "GRAVITATIONAL DRIVE" probability. I am only interested in that, because everything else we know, in physics, and who wants to convince a physics community anyway of something they would rather not want to know about (a type of G.U.T, especially from a cartoon theory).

    But, yet, a time-consuming step.

    Who cares though: given the equations, it's worth the research.

    Thank you anyway.

    No, seriously.

    How SIMPLE is it to drill oil?

    How simple is it to mine coal?

    It's simple, if you live on an oil well or a coal mine.

    The proposed HYPERSPACE theory and associated access to a new form of ENERGY I believe is RELEVANT, no matter HOW cartoonish or simple it seems in the theory as it is presented.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Once again, no.

    You are asking for time-consuming and presumably expensive research from those not in your field of pursuit.

    You won't find anyone.

    Your best chance is for an advanced civilisation to land on the planet with your presumably advanced science they already use (and technology) to tell you and everyone else that you are right.

    IMPROBABLE.

    Basically, you propose a field of space - time you term UNFOLDED and then claim that field, presumably, represents a potential energy field awaiting to be used, a type of hyperspace dimension.

    No one is looking for that.

    There is nothing about physics that suggests such a field of pursuit is valid: no theory, no hope for a theory.

    You propose nothing less than an improbable.

    Buy a lottery ticket.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    well, maybe you're ahead of your time.
    (and thanks for speaking coherently, as well as thumbnailing your thesis)
    what i think your major problem is, is that nobody is capable of taking your theory into practical usage.
    as such, i think you'd be better off learning something practical,
    like electro-engineering, or metalworking,
    and then try to figure out how to tap the energy in your theory.

    what makes einstein still popular, is the variety of practical usages
    his theory of relativity has had on our world.
    it seems theories can only move a set distance ahead from
    our engineering skills, before they hit a barrier of improbability.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •