Notices
Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: relativity in a circular motion

  1. #1 relativity in a circular motion 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    can anyone here visualize how a walking on a conveyor belt thats moving at lightspeed is going to work?


    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Theoretically, you would need TWO conveyor belts, so as not to conflict with QUANTUM entanglement. In fact, those two conveyor belts moving at light speed would DEFINE how they interact with one another AS QUANTUM entanglement. Further to that, it would be demonstrated that SPACE-TIME operates according to that theory of two light speed conveyor belts.

    As it happens, I first came across that theory in 1999, and then spent the next 8 years researching it.

    It works.


    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Yes (indeed brother).

    It's not a bad theory.

    The way you explain it in your www download, the two "tori", associated to a stream system, as the two conveyor belts, very thought provoking.

    5 stars.

    DEJAWOLF: you raised an excellent question. Yet this answer here may be only one answer. There could be others. Still, feel welcome to have a look at the www download that directly faces your question without fear.


    In case you do look at the theory, the "tori" in the theory are basically the "conveyorbelt construct", the dual conveyor belt construct, that satisfies relativity and quantum demands. They represent the virtual scaffolding of QUANTA (the theory though explains it far better with the benefit of far more wording, as you could imagine).

    There is a limit to what we can say in this forum, as it is a new theory, understandably, so it is best we allow smoeone else to add another type of answer while we demorph.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Holy shit, what a psycho!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    We did say we would demorph, but that last response is not in the spirit of this forum. Please make it relevant to the question.

    Thankyou and goodbye.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Yes.

    Please make it relevant.

    Goodbye.

    It's up to you now.

    (it's a good thing we're leaving).
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Holy shit, what a psycho!
    I'd like to second this comment.


    Then to add something pertaining to the subject, no, I too am unable to visualize how that would work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    um, a conveyor belt cannot be moving at light speed.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    the conveyor belt is accelerating someone to lightspeed.
    and then that person walks on that belt. i figure the person is going to become infinitely flat, and not move at all.
    but if we think of the atoms in the conveyor belt, rotating around,
    are the atoms going to become infinitely flat separately?
    what is the uniformity of relativity?
    is the conveyor belt going to compress the itself into an infinitely small space? is it going to warp spacetime around it?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Why, it's easy! If the conveyor belt can move at light speed, then so can the person on the belt run at that speed in the opposite direction of motion. Simple, he stays still.

    Hey, why not allow the person to run faster than light speed? What's your objection to that? (assuming you have no objections to the OP)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    a conveyor belt can't do that either - the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit. You haven't specified an inertial reference frame here for starters, which makes talking in this setting very difficult for starters.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    um, a conveyor belt cannot be moving at light speed.

    I'd hate to be your teacher of anything new.

    No offense, but that is the dumbest answer WE have seen in this forum.

    You don't get it, do you, when someone is metaphorical with the conveyor belt thing, for example.

    I mean, my arse feels sore when someone gives the usual answer to any of my posts (hence the need to refrain from making posts), and then you post an answer like that which basically takes this forum to a new level of "what the".



    HAIL MODERATORS
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Yes.

    Cheer up.

    Children's books were the first step in helping us picture something in our mind.

    We pity you, though: you seem to have missed those essential first steps.

    Moderators note though, the comment, if it can be called that, showed no spirit at all of communication (please read dialogue from initial thread question).

    (in respect of this forum, no new posts will be offered anytime soon from we the author of these words, given the obvious if not standard feedback to anything presented by ours truly).


    HAIL MODERATORS.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Why, it's easy! If the conveyor belt can move at light speed, then so can the person on the belt run at that speed in the opposite direction of motion. Simple, he stays still.

    Hey, why not allow the person to run faster than light speed? What's your objection to that? (assuming you have no objections to the OP)

    aka two conveyor belts.

    (I SINCERELY apologise for not expanding on this answer, but my forum credits do not allow me such a privilige).



    HAIL MODERATORS.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    um, a conveyor belt cannot be moving at light speed.

    I'd hate to be your teacher of anything new.

    No offense, but that is the dumbest answer WE have seen in this forum.

    You don't get it, do you, when someone is metaphorical with the conveyor belt thing, for example.

    I mean, my arse feels sore when someone gives the usual answer to any of my posts (hence the need to refrain from making posts), and then you post an answer like that which basically takes this forum to a new level of "what the".



    HAIL MODERATORS
    This is an attempt at a thought experiment steamsystems - but it breaks the very fundamental tenet of the system it is trying to live in. It's nonsensical. So you may call it metaphorical but that does not change the simple fact that this question is meaningless. You can't be walking on a conveyor belt moving at the speed of light as there is no reference frame for you to use while trying to do your walk.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    (Guitarist was on the right track).

    The issue is puzzling. Basically, one belt is at "c". Somone on that belt would view someone else on that belt the same way, and vice versa (for that other person on the belt). To satisfy that seemingly impossible situation, take another belt, and run it the opposite direction. The question is, "how are those two space-time belts arranged". An answer exists. To explain it is something else; a difficult read.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Lest there be any scintilla of doubt, let me assure you all that my last post on this subject was entirely in jest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    News flash.

    Einstein didn't think anyone would believe his theories.

    Still, Guitarist, you're a sport.

    Guess you've missed this one, then.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Why, it's easy! If the conveyor belt can move at light speed, then so can the person on the belt run at that speed in the opposite direction of motion. Simple, he stays still.

    Hey, why not allow the person to run faster than light speed? What's your objection to that? (assuming you have no objections to the OP)

    Yes, Laughable.

    You MISSED a key component to the concept.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Stream:, interesting theory. It wasn't easy to pick the "tori" being likened to those "c" conveyor belts. You should also look into the idea of wormholes being associated to near light speed travel. Maybe your "unfolded" hypothesis relates to how theoretical crafts moving close to the speed of light would undergo an "unfolded" state from a "folded" state. Presumably then, creating an "unfolded" craft construct would automatcially allow wormhole travel, when put into effect. Presumably that's what you meant. Excellent. And you have the plans.

    If you ever fail with the contemporary scientific community, you certainly have all the scientific know-how to develop a new science fiction language, just to keep people amused while everything catches up.

    Shouldn't be long now before serious players come to the table. You have very convincing equations. Don't forget that: equations for a circle and sphere relevant to time-axis, not space-axis, point interoperation, central to space-time light cones. It is interesting, because you are acting very sublime, publically, about this whole presentation. Why?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Yes.

    The point has been made regarding the "communications dept", how poor it is, how more could be explained more succinctly.

    The trouble is being too precise.

    To be too precise with the theory, it has been calculated that the theory would go well into the 1000 page mark (as previous editions in earlier years bear testament to).

    The theory available is the most concise theory available, and even then it goes close to 400 pages.

    The problem is taking 3000 years of scientific theory, and converting ALL of that theory, all of that 3000 years, into a new time-axiom construction for space-time and point-point interoperation.

    Basically, the theory suggested, "let's see if we can arrive at the same conclusions (and then some) as modern physics, but using a new set of space-time axioms". That was achieved. The only problem is, it's a new language.

    Most in this forum find a "new language of physics" as abhorrent, and given this forum is genuinely a high-school/University forum, kids looking for quick answers or lengthy verbal abuses they are too scared to have in their school yard, it's no wonder. "Most". Not all. It's obvious though, namely the maturity factor, because their minds aren’t developed enough yet, BORED enough yet of their YEARS of research in physics, to consider new horizons. Only the truly developed and learned scientists dares to venture into the "new theory" realm, and usually write a book as a testament to that pursuit, a "book", and not some type of 20 page abstract. I have yet to come across anyone in this forum who has written a "book", as most learned scientists DO do after YEARS of research.

    So, to answer your question on "why this forum", I need to prove something about the "ideal audience". You see, a failure can actually be a success. Indirectly, I am highlighting that the theory is a little daunting for the "class room". I am highlighting that the theory should go straight to the aerospace-agency research ward.

    You see, I made this bet with someone very influential, globally, that the theory would not be understood by kids still in the classroom, and I think I have almost proved that. They are too structured, you see, with the way they are taught, too structured in their initial axiom initiation to space-time. My bet was that the theory, by default, will be contracted to an agency that employs people looking for those "outside the square" answers, that the theorist will not be called on to teach at Cambridge, nor receive a Nobel Prize, not for a long time. Even though the theory can be proved, the issue of explaining it causes way too much concern, so much concern that the theory must be developed in an agency, while everyone else in the scientific community seethes. The bet still stands, but day after day the proof mounts in my favor.

    The other point I am making is one to myself, that I did actually make the effort to get the theory across to those who presumably were genuinely interested in space-time.

    As for the evolution of my posts, well, the avatars, those images, they evolved as a way to adapt to the forum, eventually requiring me to find an avatar that symbolized a type of "self-conversation", owing to the lack of interaction (=matrix Twins). It's been fun, like going back to university, even like going back to school.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Yes.

    I noticed the changing images and the timing in regard to the posts and associated feedback.

    It's not easy not to rouse on these kids.

    When do you think this bet will end?

    How are you defining when the bet ends?

    Are you waiting for official approval from Boeing?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    We're forming a policy on how to introduce the theory, gaining evidence with associated answers to questions why people would find the "ideology" of it intolerable, and using that evidence as a reason to have it exclusively contracted to an aerospace agency working directly for more weighty social concerns of security.

    We can say this, because of the need also to uphold a freedom of information act. The best way to address the freedom of information act is to present the theory in this context now, and then offer proof why it was rejected, and why then it went into a more covert context, to keep the kids settled.

    The bet's over when we are confident we have enough evidence. Basically, we can keep a lid on the development of the crafts if there is universal evidence the theory was rejected, as with this forum. So, we don't give a forex if they reject the theory, but we can't jeopardise it at the same time.

    As for Boeing, we have no direct official link with Boeing other than a website image. Boeing contracts herself to entites such as the US Government (airforce, etc). The case here is that the development of the craft, say perhaps for Boeing, can be deemed classified. If the theory is the primary achievement, and the development of the craft depends on the theory, yet no one wants to read about the theory, the development of the craft can LEGALLY be classified. Hence, the use of this forum, to address that issue, for say Boeing perhaps (namely, what they can be authorised in the name of necessary "classified" restrictions, officially, based on evidence of "unsettled behavior in the community" withuot the classification).

    For instance, back with Roswall, the issue was how to release any information, (if there was any, if you know what I mean). So, the forum used then was the media, to see how the people would react. The people reacted badly, developing highly paranoid ideas of any possible ET's, so the explanation of the event had to be deemed classifed. Now, I have no direct information on Roswall, but, anything that would cause a potential "panic" in the community is, for the best iterest of that constitution, NOT RELEASED. As for the theory, sure, it's difficult to understand, but that's the grading: the best and most intelligent should get an invitation to the development of the associated technology. But, we're not waitig for feedback from this forum, as you can suspect. Not intentionally, but it is becomming obvious that feedback has been "moderated" (muffled).
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Could you get anyone into trouble though for making a favorable response to one of your posts?

    Could that jeopardise what appears to be a "Plan"?

    Is this a set-up that could weigh in badly on some of the kids here?

    They are not all kids, but in saying this, are you not altering the game?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    No.

    Take yourself for instance.

    If any positive feedback is gained, well, the theory has been designed such that when one understands a certain concept, they automatically think of the next step question. The "next step question" (question and answer principal, in the theory), of the theory on offer, is "what next". If anyone wants to put up their hand and be a part of the next step developments, the "what is left hanging in the theory" factor, the tech-applications (hence the sparse explanation in the theory download), it will be tendered to us. That is the webpage purpose, the "make a tender for development" offer.

    Basically, we are investigating who is serious about the the development of this technology, why, and all the lead up questions. It's an interview with the general public. "Are they ready yet", and if not, "why should that stop the development of the technology without the publics direct knowing".

    It shouldn't.

    The case is being proved here.

    Basically, a mandate is being created central to the NEED to understand the theory/science before any information regarding the craft(s) is(are) released. That which, basically, can't be explained, can't be understood, constitutionally, will cause panic if it is just left as an observable fact. We are avoiding any unecessay "social panic" by offering the theory first, and failing that, designing a mandate to keep the craft-deveopments classified. Let that be clear.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Be honest.

    Who are you?

    Who do you work for?

    What are your qualifications?

    We have the right to test you and your theory.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    LookingForRecruits, your questioning of me, your questions, are not the issue. In a case of law, it has been defined that the issue is not the experience of the observer (qualifications, professional work placement, etc etc etc) in the context of an operational craft, the question is on you and your "ability" to either understand how it works, or at least show some trust. Who I am is of no concern to scientific understanding. Space-time is space-time. One does not need a degree to have permission to understand space-time.

    Yet, even you now are proving what was feared, the "who are you, get out of my life" scenario.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    So, are you suggesting that the crafts are already operational?

    Are you suggesting that these crafts based on the science that you propose are in flight?

    And now you are addressing legal issues to keep it all classified?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    No.

    No "suggestions" are being made.

    Evidence is not a suggestion.

    Evidence does not constitute "suggestions".

    The clinical fact of this symposium, and I highlight this to you, is to focus on talking about the theory, nothing else. Focus on what is relevant. This is a public forum, and my presence is to discuss this theory, which is more relevant to science than politics, in this forum.

    All the general basic ideas have been presented, over the past few months, and they have been successively shot down, generating further evidence that the theory should be developed in a more "non-public" fashion.

    To add more dimension to your intrigue, the issue of the development of this issue, the "classification", and the associated craft, it has been determined that the issue will evolve to the point where there would exist one community that chooses not to accept/understand the theory and associated science, and one that does. The one that does either understands the theory or trusts it, the one that doesn't, well, take a look around. That "other" community separate to the one you see, you simply "don't see", other than in your own imagination, "science fiction".

    The other issue being considered is what "extent" should a constitution go to using that "new science" to protect their own people who choose to freak out with that new science and technology. The current judgment there is to not use that new science in the cotext of defending a people who choose to freak out, but keep it on the ready in case the constitutional sanctum is put under threat.

    So, currently, you won't see this new science defend a people who constitutionally have made a choice to consider that science as "foreign", alien, evil.

    Pity.

    If I can add, both NASA and Boeing are going to great lengths to create images of prototype crafts and associated scientific stories to promote the new science. These images (Boeing) and associated stories (NASA) are aimed to....., it seems, as presented to the public, through a public viewpoint....to eventually coalesce in a security-based identifiable manner that offers greater reassurance to a people, to create the image that such a science is now in the hands of a constitutional military, and not representative of an alien threat. Basically, a great effort is being made to get what appears to be a dummy-spitting scientific-public on-side.

    If I may, without being too perverse, the problem is "faith", because the majority of you are not physicists, meaning that you would be using your faith to accept this new science. In being an issue of "faith", the problem is how to manage the "alien V God" issue, in the minds of people. The request from here is to see the issue for what it is. Let those who do understand it "manage it". Anyone else, carry on; it is a "minimal impact" strategy that is in place (should be clear by now).
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    You are suggesting that generally people are more willing to cling to old ideas of space-time than accept new ideas?

    Why can’t someone in the physics fraternity be employed to then highlight exactly how the steps of conversion can be made?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    No one can be found: you are talking about leading physicists willing to drop their old assessments while inviting an entirely new one. Hawking for instance has said many things slightly contradictory to the new science (he has even offended Church officials).

    The disruption to the classical teaching system is enormous.

    The point here, in this forum, of offering the theory, is proving precisely that, namely that the scientific community is not ready to adjust.

    That's why I am here, in the forum, to prove that task is too difficult, just yet, but to of course then sequence a mandate to keep the development of the theory and technology under the required classification, while also keeping a look out for any positive signs in the scientific community, and of course the all-important link with the general community, the back-yard shed scientists.

    There is a gross implication of the theory the (scientific) community are not ready to accept, and it basically contradicts, without hesitation, the concept of the big bang. Yet, Einstein challenged the idea of the big bang with his steady-state theory. However, the problem the scientific community faces is transferring all the recorded data of what they have attributed (attested) to the big bang to another "dimensional" construct of the operation of space-time that happens from moment to moment, continuously.

    There is also the added perceived problem of industrial disruption. The proper course is of course to first establish the constitutional "fortress", and then filter the scientific/industrial understanding through agencies that are contracted to that constitutional fortress, not in a biased manner though, but in a manner that does not interfere with the freedom of choice of people. Hence "today".

    As you would imagine, with all that has been presented on this issue, the thing that gets people edgy is their isane belief that any "new" science must come from aliens, and that their, the people's, lives are controlled by alien masters offering that science. I mean, who in this forum would accuse me of being an alien, seriously? NO ONE. They would be called INSANE. No scientist involved with SETI or any other search for planets with life beyond this one would call ANY English speaking citizen an "alien". Think about it. More paradoxes exist with scientific "attitude" than "science itself".
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    What then does all of this depend on?

    It seems you are genuine.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    It depends on what society wants. People ultimately hold everything for ransom. They are the ones who revolt. The only alterantive to that is strong and mindful social planning by those defending constitutional integrity, 20 years plus (into future) social designs.

    Tricky, though (which is where faith comes in).

    What do you go for, with an "outlook"?

    What do the people "want"?

    I have already gathered evidence that the scientific protégés of this forum believe that the latest scientific bookshelf offering is geared to rake in the public cash. That was already known though. People, then (by that weak policy), rule science.

    "What does the public want", that's the question.

    The public wants what they elect, ideally. Yet politicians aren't very scientifically proficient. They do their best, but they aren't physicists. They do their best though to get the public involved in the serious issues, compared to all the commercials we seem more entrenched in. They "are" doing their best without seeming "fanatical".

    I think what this depends on is the issue of a constitution convening a serious-minded scientific body to search for needed explanations/results SOON, if people want something "soon". To eat their pride and focus on the theoretical facts. If politics can do anything, they should hold a scientific forum to search for IMPROVED THEORIES of harnessing space-time, and not better ways to mine simple substances.

    The US Government appears to be using a two-pronged attack on the scientific-ignorance of people. On the one hand the Republicans appear to be strengthening security, and on the other hand the Democrats appear be raising the public-awareness of the ecosystem. But, they can't tell anyone how to think. They can only do their best without seeming fanatical, while also representing the public.

    My forecast on the issue is as good as the feedback I get from this forum. I can't lose sight of that. Nor should anyone else.

    One could break this down between "allowable commercial suggestion" and "who gives a forex", hence the issue of using a way of persuading a people to realize the danger presented to them if they don't wise up.

    The concept of presenting a new ecofriendly science to a people who risk drowning, eventually (say by 2070, coastlines, water rising on latest condo developments), now, should be attractive. otherwise, what could happen to the idea of investment?

    What constitution is best prepared for the new flood? Are we wise enough to avoid it, and not make it Old Testament? What "new lesson" has been learnt to "avoid" this new flood, for instance? As one can imagine, people become inspired either 'for" or "against". The case still remains though, will people consider a complete and full review of their scientific wisdom.

    (it's like a renewal policy).
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    So, no one is in control?

    You are suggesting that the only person potentially in control is someone who is the result of long-standing social planning?

    Nice.

    Who are you then?

    You say an upgrade of the Old Testament is needed?

    People will ask if you are the return of CHRIST.

    Well, OK, politically, you are suggesting that a Catholic Church has the best leverage of social policy via a Democracy.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    You're getting the hang of this, aren't you.

    I'll tell you something, the BEST politicians appeal to constitutional integrity. Usually, the forefathers of the BEST (most free) constitutions bear reference to those who successfully, historically, broke the mold; trailblazers, like Jesus. I mean, he really broke a mould, two birds with one stone, state AND the then church.

    So, the social policies of the church, the catholic church, would, logically, represent policies a people would become accustomed to as a fair and proper warning system, especially in the context of putting into place proper spokespeople to inspire in the general voting public that responsibility of vigilance.

    We are faced with breaking a mould, there is no disputing that.

    In that context, what faith would be best employed to handle that situation? Don't be the faith, for instance, in this case, but think of what faith would be best employed to fulfil a needed task.

    Now look at my situation. I stay focussed on explaining the theory. I don't get lost in religious debate. Ideally, a person finds their faith on their own, and by definition, if everyone is standing in the same room, crowded, you find that God within......YOU DON'T LOOK FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

    Me, for that reason, I'm not your God. I can't save you. Why would someone depending on offering a theory for people to read and help themselves with "save" anyone as a "God"?

    Once again, as I presented, personal paradoxes are nore extreme than space-time.

    Yet, if someone can best explain something when a personal meditation on the mysteries of life is no longer useful, then the situation exists for a potential candidate to not conflict with the idea of saving people from what would otherwise be a disaster. Hence a political leader who becomes everyone's meditation on a required answer to what is perceived as a common problem.

    As specified, the US is doing it's best on that front without seeming fanatical.

    You ask about aliens, "no can tell.......ask the people".

    You ask about God, "no can tell.......ask the people".

    Politicians capitalise by their ability to do the math on social patterns of development "consistent" with not just age-old ideas, but ideas that extend well into our own future.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Summarise.

    You are basically suggesting that, as we have no history of proper eco-friendly social planning, we are to become the believers in an eco-friendly way of perceiving, a "nature-worship" system.

    Maybe you should explain.

    When exactly did Christianity profess to be "nature-worship", for instance?

    I understand you are not promoting a faith, but in joining the dots, you paint a contradictory picture.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Nature worship?

    Me?

    Naaaaaa.

    No, if you don’t get this deal, you will end up worshipping nature, and further to that, you will represent the ones who failed to capitalise.

    You are the one who suggests that the political agenda of today is in respect of nature.

    I call it SPINELESS.

    You try to become "eco-friendly"……..like being held in the jaws of nature.

    Whatever happened to understanding space-time, manipulating space-time, understanding "gravity".

    Imagine me trying to present a legal case to the US Government while telling them I am eco "friendly".

    Give me a break.

    It is for this reason that I think the US people will realise they still need their spine and thus vote Republican, unless of course the Democrats can propose something better than nature-worship.

    What we look after, we invariably are at the mercy of, which is why ideally God doesn't give a fourex for anyone.....he goes one better to keep everything moving.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    You seem rational.

    You seem to think that "what works", "works".

    You seem optimistic enough to be promotional.

    What about your dark side opinion?

    Provide me with that "other" assessment.

    Worst case scenario.

    What if people get so comfortable with your ideas, and then without warning decide to thoroughy deceive you.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    My initiation prior this forum was heavily instructed in dealing with loss: it was accepting failure from those already briefed on the issue.

    Their failure stemmed from inconsistencies that could only be put down to a breach of what works, politically, and thus one of those "pride, envy, bla" things.

    But, don’t get bogged down in failure concepts.

    If you spend time on something, it will dictate you.

    What do you want to be dictated by?

    This is why INVENTORS feel the MOST FREE, like BENJAMIN FRANKLIN…………the most practical person-physicist known to mankind, thus far.

    Give me an idea that is depressing, and I will highlight how it is not in the same vein as a new theory of time.

    As for me being deceived, what I give, well, this is the thing, what I give, this theory, I don't think it can be topped. If I could top it, I would still say that there was and is still more I could add. For me to trust someone then, in regard to the book, when in fact I have more to top, that can never ultimately be topped, for me to trust someone, I would trust they respect that, and if they don't, they make me a God.

    To answer your question then, "no": you won't let it happen.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    The only way I could be happy is if I was in league with you.

    As I am not, I am naturally doubtful, hesitant, regarding your every move.

    I am not in league with you, because I am at the mercy of the people and their opinion, owing to my substandard "appeal" to my Government, even in showing interst in your duty.

    For me to overcome that, I need to be what you term as some type of covert government project that will ultimately only defend the constitution of a free people who made consistent wrong choices.

    You are selfish.

    You are just making, strengthening, your legal case on this matter.

    You have earnt my respect.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    looking4recruits, others are on the path of theory I am on. I am not the only one proposing time being two-dimensional. In fact, it is front-page news for new scientist magazine, currently. The issue is, "who can make the most of it". I am lucky in that I have spent a full 8 hour per day, 365 days a year, for 8 or so years, on that very precise subject of theory and logical research development strategies. The one thing I lack, currently, is scientific-social networking and associated funding. But it will come, in time. But, that does not restrict others from also capitalising on this new frontier of theory and research.

    Check this out though:

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...dimension.html

    I can see where he stops short of getting the theory of everything, like with Einstein: they both struggle in the neuromathematics department.

    Basically, what Bars is proposing, I have applied "neuromathematics" to. What he fails to properly organise, currently, is how to properly PERCEIVE the new dimension of time. With neuromathematics though, I am able to fairly easily overcome that problem. My schooling in Medicine was very useful in that department.

    Bars proposes the following:

    emphasize symmetries and supersymmetries in much of my research on particle physics, field theory and string theory. From time to time the symmetry structures in physics have led me to discover new physical concepts, such as Two-Time Physics (2T-Physics), as well as a few new structures in Mathematics or Mathematical Physics, in particular in supergroups, non-compact groups, and noncommutative geometry. This activity also took me on side trips into applications of symmetries in other fields of physics. Consequently, supersymmetry in nuclear physics was experimentally confirmed as an approximate symmetry of bosonic and fermionic nuclei.

    I am able to replace the idea of symmetries and super-symmetries with the algorithm of perception, our neuromathematics.

    He's on the right track, though, except symmetries and super-symmetries ultimately paint the logic of "duality", which I have thoroughly and completely employed.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    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
  •