Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: curvature of space-time

  1. #1 curvature of space-time 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Would Einstein be impressed with a theory that explained, with equations, the curvature of space-time?

    Equations? Equations for a sphere, circle, and the alrogithm for pi relevant to the curvature of space, as a mass would move in space from one time paradigm to the next.

    I am not suggesting that the curvature of space is purely circular. I am suggesting that circles of different sizes relevant to different time paradigms makes space "curved" between those varying magnitudes of time paradigm motion.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851


    If it stood up to testing I think Einstein would have been impressed.


    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    The tests have already been done though, care of physics research. The theory behind the curvature of space is a theory that explains how space is curved between two theoretical time paradigms. If I were to prove the theory, I would have conducted the tests physics research has already conducted. BUT, I would propose one new special researc venture relevant to "unfolded" curved space.

    The theory basically explains as pure theory all the relevant research results from trillions of dollars of global research over the past 100 years. That's fairly substantial, if you ask me, as a pure theory. Nothing to scoff at. Usually results come in, and then a theory is tinkered with. This theory is based o the logic of human perception applied to a special mathematical algorithm that explains the construcion of space-time, the one we perceive. That's an equivelant to the trillions in research over the years physics has been such a wortwhile pursuit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    The tests have already been done though, care of physics research. The theory behind the curvature of space is a theory that explains how space is curved between two theoretical time paradigms. If I were to prove the theory, I would have conducted the tests physics research has already conducted. BUT, I would propose one new special researc venture relevant to "unfolded" curved space.

    No! no! Independent testing of your work hasnt been done, otherwise you wouldn't be here looking for your first Physicist to look it over, yeah?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    No.

    As I have explained, I am in this forum to get my finger on the pulse of any attitudes towards the installment, the official installment, of the two extra time paradigms into the axioms of space-time.

    When I read the theory, I would think, "OK, how would I prove the structure of that atom", and then I would think, "hang on, someone has already done that and proved these results.....phew". I would then think, "OK, how do I prove the nature of a quantum", and then I would think, "phew, someone has researched that and proven that". I am Ssssoooooooo lucky physics has already researched and proven 99% of my theory, Ssssoooooooo very lucky.

    99% of the theory, the pure theory, has already been proven, except for the "unfolded" space-time field. I was hoping that the 99% of the theory that has already been proven would promote "debate" over the potential of that hyperspace unfolded space dimension. It hasn't yet. Kinda weird, don't ya think? I mean, how stupid would I be in asking someone to research results already researched? Weeeeeiiiiiird.

    I mean, I spend 300 or so pages on results we already KNOW to be true, and THEN I propose over two pages in that 300 or so thesis a new research venture.

    Let's not lose focus here.

    If this theory came about 100 or so years ago, it would have been WAAAAAAYYYYY over their heads, but thanks to the trillions of dollars in research that has already proven this theory, well, "phew" is all I can say. There is only ony thing that hasn't been researched, the "unfolded" space field. I am thinking it represents pure energy, that with the proper access we can use as the oil alternative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    In that case all I can then is, 99% of your work is superfluous and the remaining 1% needs independent verification.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I think you miss the genius.

    99% is no fluke.

    I have no degree in physics, yet I have presented my theory, well, the results of it, to this forum, and then via feedback I am told that the theory presents with features relevant to physics, not virtual-knitting.

    There is nothing superfluous about deriving from pure theory what trillions of dollars in research has struggled to establish.

    Think about it.

    page 5 of the theory: "in not challenging contemporary physics, this theory derives purely from theory what contemporary physics knows by research and experiment".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Considering 90% of people on here are wikipedia copy and pasters (at best). I wouldnt call that much of a substitute for peer review, would you?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems

    page 5 of the theory: "in not challenging contemporary physics, this theory derives purely from theory what contemporary physics knows by research and experiment".
    ....Yes , but this claim needs to be independently tested!
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    No, I am not here for peer review though.

    And besides, I make a post, someone goes to Wikipaedia, gets me an answer, verifies my theory is more accurate that previously thought, you know, life's good.

    I am here to stimulate debate on an issue not yet researched, somethig even the BEST fear to tread on.

    You also need to understand how the system works: those who rise through the ranks do so thruogh a type of allegiance not to let that institution come second to outside influences, such as the cocnept my theory presents with, namely a different way of handling, in theory, "time". Statistics would suggest this forum is the best way to approach the situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems

    page 5 of the theory: "in not challenging contemporary physics, this theory derives purely from theory what contemporary physics knows by research and experiment".
    ....Yes , but this claim needs to be independently tested!

    I know what you mean.

    But for a physicst to read the book and want to independently test what is already KNOWN by research, c'mon.

    I think you mean that the "unfolded" space field needs to be independently tested.

    Right?

    Maybe physicists would become annoyed at the idea their ability to read is an "independet test"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems

    page 5 of the theory: "in not challenging contemporary physics, this theory derives purely from theory what contemporary physics knows by research and experiment".
    ....Yes , but this claim needs to be independently tested!

    I know what you mean.

    But for a physicst to read the book and want to independently test what is already KNOWN by research, c'mon.

    I think you mean that the "unfolded" space field needs to be independently tested.

    Right?
    I mean: What ever you currently claim the percentage of you work is new to Physics needs to be tested.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    No, I am not here for peer review though.
    Well in that case, may I ask you to stop demanding that scientists take your claims seriously ?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    No, I am not here for peer review though.
    Well in that case, may I ask you to stop demanding that scientists take your claims seriously ?

    Why? Most of this forum is what you said it is.

    And just a quick question, "who do you know who has derived in pure theory what centuries of research has only reached through experimental proof"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems

    And just a quick question, "who do you know who has derived in pure theory what centuries of research has only reached through experimental proof"?
    I don know anyone who has proved that to me.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    How could you prove it, though, how would that person PROVE what we/you already know anyway by research?

    Would it be as simple as reading that theory and then saying, "oh, yeah, we've researched that".

    And then you may say, "O.M.G, ohhh myyyy godddd, could this be the theory that links all the field forces".

    I mean, FORGET the undiscovered unfilded space-dimension, what about the "theory that links all field forces". That should be music to the ears of anyone in theoretical physics, BUT it's not because they are angry it didn't come from physics (someone informed me of this issue).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I get what you are saying , but what I mean by "testing" is to take your claim and give it a jolly good shake and see if anything falls out. You yourself said you dont even have a Physics BSc, so it could be riddled with holes, and even one hole could mean it is total rubbish.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Imagine being given 8 years to properly review a 300 or so page manuscript.

    As I said, the real problem is the disenchantment the physics establishment has for the fact someone has that theory that links the field forces, and that someone is not a physicist. I have already been told that by a leading University Physicist, personally, in regard to the theory.......and so here I am, with a scientific forum that isn't so ignorant, yet more tolerant to those who aren't the scarecrow in the land of Oz, ideally.

    Does sucky wucky, a bit, don't you think, to know your teachers have that attitude?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Lots and lots of people have claimed to have unified everything. Yet we are still without that unification. I think your Physicist forgot to mention the thousands and thousands of actual Physicists that have also failed before you.

    If you had a 1000 claims and you could only push to glance at one, would you choose to look over one of the post-doctorate Physicists or a student GP?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    If you had a 1000 claims and you could only push to glance at one, would you choose to look over one of the post-doctorate Physicists or a student GP?

    That is precisely my point.

    That's why I am here.

    Believe me, I have reviewed MANY contenders and their grand theories of everything, BUT NONE actualy explai the THEORY behind the atom, the subatomic particles, the equations of Newton and Einstein, quantum entanglement, black holes, and so on. A serious grand theory explains every relevant stream of science and links them all together. NO ONE (except www below) has provided ANY evidence that suggests they have such a theory.

    But, you know, I don't mind: the more the theory is promoted freely, the more people decide to turn a blind eye to it because it is too difficult, that has it's advantages. It will. I also have the luxury of being the first to sit back and raise my glass at all the bull-dust research ventures science wastes it's time and money on.

    You know what it's like getting pissed while watching a planet going thruogh the scientific merry-go-round because it won't grow up? It's a luxury. It's luxurious. I enjoy it. But I am still bound to offer it, so as not being held liable for not offering something to a planet that needs it. So, I get pissed while offering posts.


    The lots and lots of people who claim to have a grand unified theory don't include subatomic physics, quantum entanglement, the curvature of space, and so on. You know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    If nothing else you have close to unbreakable self-belief.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Well, no.

    I have unbreakable trust in humanity.

    - I trust scientists are not lying about their research, that they are genuine.

    - I trust that science is headed in the right direction.

    - I trust great achievements in humanity are made through our better understanding of space-time (otherwise we would all be pebbles and bam-bam).


    If I then have a theory through my work and research in the medical sciences (for which I have not received a degree for) that is relevat to the sincere development of humanity, I will do my best to offer it, but in failing I will enjoy that as well by celebrating with each post here in knowing the impossibility of communicating with a physicist, as we both know.

    In regard to my self-belief, as I specify on page 344:

    The stigma attached to a theory of perception and its association to an “author”, a potential personality, has negated my use of any personal touch to this theory, any self-recognition.

    No apologies.

    Allow me to explain this in another fashion with less convincing words>>>>>>




    I actually don't think people realise the seriousness of the situation this book presents. I took a great risk in presenting this theory, as it presents key-hole fusion techniques with the unfolded space-time dimension. I presented the theory owing to the mounting evidence of our need as a species to give "natural resources for energy" a break. I also presented it because of the lack of vigilance being shown by agencies relevant to information-protection and by their encouragement for me to get "peer review". So here I am.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Anyway, can anyone provide any information on any current equations central to the curvature of space-time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    I don't think there are any.

    The concept of the curvature of space-time is a hypothesis that helps explain what equations cannot.

    Yet, you are claiming to have those equations.

    stream systems, you need to understand that science is not the church. If they don't want to listen to your claim, they won't, no matter how right it is. Science is not an establishment of virtue.

    As contemporary literature suggests, science has become an arena of self-importance at "all costs". Someone like you doesn't really stand a chance, unless one of them wants to concede, which of course is unlikely. My advice to you is to generate your proof and despatch it to an aerospace agency: bypass the scientific arena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    If I by-passed the scientific arena, wouldn't that make them seem all the moe childish. I mean, proof is proof, which I have. But it is the theory they are getting cnofused with, the explanation, the fact it adds a new calculus they did not learn at school. On top of that, the new calculus they have not learnt at school, they then accuse me for not writing in a more professional manner, like they've read it, digested it, and then said it wasn't astute enough as a writing, without offering any further insights, which numerous exist, non essential though to the general theory (I know, I have left them out of the initial version, just to see who is really yanking my chain when they tell me they are a scientist who has read the theory).
    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
  •