# Thread: proof time is circular

APPENDIX 0

Time.
Who proposed time was only a line of events we live in?
Who proposed time was the fourth dimension to the three dimensions of space?
OK, forget “who”.
Let’s define what time IS not what we have assumed it to be.
We know time is like an arrow, going from a start reference to an end reference, and that line represents whatever happened to the 3 dimensions of space. Take the following diagram of 3 dimensional space construct A becoming 3 dimensional space construct B, as indicated by a passage of time, C.

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

Nothing may have happened as a gross observation from A to B other than the passage of time in an otherwise stagnant situation. But, clearly, on the more atomic level, things were happening to suggest time was passing.

Time here is a line.

I am now going to introduce the idea that time is not just a line, but actually a feature of the three dimensions of space. I am going to do this by introducing two new dimensions of time, to give time more depth and breadth, namely the FUTURE dimension of time AND THE PAST. It is a little tricky to draw as a diagram though. Let’s be simple to begin with, and then get more complicated as it may be required for explanation purposes.

Take the following:

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

The system goes from BEFORE to AFTER. “A” was the BEFORE state, and “B” is the AFTER state, compared to BEFORE, and NOW represents the theoretical state of that process of A going to B……….indeed, a very weak description of “time”……..because we know that to label time as one dimensional as either BEFORE in relation to A, a three dimensional space-construct, and AFTER in relation to B, a three dimensional space construct, isn’t improving the theory of time as a one dimensional construct. So, let’s be a little more thoughtful.
Let us say TIME is a line…….a straight line.

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

Now let us say that line is INFLUENCED to travel into the FUTURE “away from” the PAST:

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

Basically, the arrow would tend to move towards AFTER away from BEFORE. And so, in completing the LINE as though influenced by BEFORE and AFTER in such a manner:

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

Time would move as a circle, AWAY from the outer BEFORE zone (time dimension) and towards the inner AFTER zone (time dimension).
THAT’S OUR THEORY OF TIME.
THAT’S ALL IT IS.
NOW what we have to do is work into that theory the 3 dimensions of SPACE.
IF WE CAN DO THAT, and then PROVE we can theorise with this theory of time the PROPER equations for a circle and sphere, we would have PROVED this new theory of time.

This theory has been PROVED.

Now, who is going to challenge the theory, the new theory, of time?

Be warned though, it took me at least 200 or so pages to wire the 3 dimensions of space into this new theory for time.........BUT, all the equations for a circle and sphere for time were achieved.

I have the theory, people.......this is no hoax.

2.

3. are you saying time is like a ring?

4. Yes.

Even eternity repeats in cycles........as a "ring of eternity" would symbolize.

Clearly I can't prove that..........you know, to you.

5. You're claiming to understand something in theory without having walked that path?

Do you claim to offer something you believe in?

6. I know I am aware, I know I reason, but I can't prove that........no one can...........we ultimately depend on being "witnessed", collectively by one another together to prove our existence.

Yet, what makes me sure of this theory is that it is relevant to "perception", that it is based on a theory of perception. Perception is something we can't prove, we can only validate with witnesses. So, I am looking for witnesses of my theory............and I explain that, namely that the theory is merely a "sighting" of a new world of science and technology yet to be explored or discovered..........that I have merely sighted it.

7. You want me to witness your theory, your work..........and in the process claim to open my eyes?

What are you, the messiah?

8. No.

The theory is a theory of perception.........your eyes, your perception, is just tweaked by a theory relevant to space-time...........it has nothing to do with me............and thus ideally I have no EXPERIENCE of that "concept" of opening people's eyes..........don't want any.

Your eyes basically, your mind, your perception, is opened in a way that has you perceive, better perceive, space-time.........

......HOW YOU fit into that with your whatever it is you do, that's up to you.

......how you DISCOVER the science in your own way is up to you.

Like, me for instance..........I am using the theory in a unique way, while I still have the time....................

I am actually a mathematical algorithm of logic, programmed by the maker of the theory.............here to promote the theory fairly.............

Would you believe that?

Of course not.........because technically we witness one another's reality based on universal and basic tenets of perception, not personal truths.

I think for instance, "faiths", well, they offer that "witness" capability to make us feel real........our perception real..........

What I have achieved is staying true to those codes of faith while providing a mathematical description, as much as our ability to be mathematical allows, to that common universal "I am alive" calling card. I am not saying I have found a "grail"........I have merely described maybe whatever you are doing in life, like or unlike anyone else, "mathematically".

9. If you want anyone to witness your work, give it credibility, you will need God himself to witness it.

do you feel that is necessary?

Have you ever?

This world has grown quite large on a certain understanding of time. For you to change that understanding, you will need an almighty power to "witness" your work and give it credibility.

10. who do you suggest?

The Catholic Church I have found does not review new scientific works regarding any relevance to an almighty power. The only Church that might do that is the Church of England, because they seem more scientifically inclined. But, even then, they offer Knighthoods to people with the wonky understanding of time.

11. This is what I am saying: "are you the messiah".

In the absence of anyone witnessing your work, and in it being valid, presumably, with you as the only witness, you could in effect become, as history would judge it, "the one".

Do you have any proof, physical proof, for it, other than equations?

How many years have you been promoting it?

I can see a future, if you are correct, in the absence of any formal review..........one of a world that outgrew it's ability to properly understand and live with our natural requirements. A world that became overcrowded, went to war with itself, a war with no end, owing to the great size of the cause, having people, the survivors, suspect their sciences were wrong to start with, for not being more understanding of our natural requirements.

If you say your science is more "natural requirement" based, and the scientific community still find it in their mind and heart to keep you out of their scopes of review, you need to prepare yourself for that role ahead.

12. I think you're playing with my head right now.

13. Your sanity seems to depend on people reading your book, as the alternative raises a possibility you claim as someone like me to be "messing with your head".

14. In understanding space-time, I will adapt with whatever.

At least I need to prove I tried to promote it before it was appointed, by default, that there then in failing to have people read it, needs to be a "1".

And even then the only thing in my mind that would have changed was some type of war over resources.........I wouldn't have become any more special.

It seems to me you are looking for "the one".

And it does seems that we are running around in circles with this dialogue, with this time we are spending on this subject of "proof time is circular".

15. "We"?

"seem"?

You are the one caught in a circle, it seems.......I am merely observing your dilemma.

If you are looking for help, you need someone powerful enough in the scientific community willing to accept that a change in theory of space-time is not only to their advantage, but that of their colleagues.

I am guessing you don't have the resources to actually prove your new theory for time, and so I am deducing you require a scientific agency willing to take you on with a research project to confirm your theoretical findings.

16. Maybe you can offer me a more specific suggestion, someone I can contact, perhaps?

17. This could be a test.

What if you are the one?

Should I, must I, encourage you to go through the process of becomming the one?

Should I encourage others not to read your book, to make an example, ultimately, of this scientific world, to then have you become greater than what you would be if people read your book now?

18. Yeah, spook everyone.

Wow.

I didn't know scientists are more worried about their own reputations than the very axiom-constructs they use to presumably get a reputation.

19. What you are trying to present, the concept of it, and the impact on the science world, is nothing to be scoffed at; and with you, presumably, as the only author.

It's hard to think you are worried about "spooking" the scientific world with it. It is certain that you will.

In fact, I would think that no one is reading it, no one of the theoretical science class, because you have suceeded in spooking them.

To me, to have that ability, it is a gift........it is a forerunner of commanding respect.

Your problem there is of course, on that path, do you have a strategy for developing your science, a vision for the world?

Do you have a philosophy that best fits this science, this new understanding of time?

20. 8 years has made me think a lot about that one........you know, what if people want me to become some type of visionary.........you know, if the theory is right.........if equations convert to actual physical proof, as they usually do with the equations of a circle and sphere and pi.

I am more a "user" of the theory. What I mean is, I usually wait for someone to ask me a question on it, and then give an honest "with all things considered" answer. If I became a visionary, I guess I would be surrounded by people asking me profound questions of society. I don't have that social network of being asked profound questions by people who ask any such questions. But, if the theory becomes proven, I guess I would be surrounded by profound people asking profound questions for me to then seem like a visionary. But, I don't have any ideas, because I am surprised that society has succeeded in the way it has anyway to have developed the way it has with a faulty science. I think what I mean to say is, "something is working already in society not to require me to be a visionary"..........society already has it's visionaries........all they need is an upgraded science, I hope.......and not ask much more from me.

Look, staying on track, with this discussion, I can offer sensible answers to sensible questions: if one day I am surrounded by a group of sensible minded people asking sensible questions to get a sensible response from me, OK, wow.

I guess I will hang up with these chat rooms when it is apparent I have knocked on all the necessary topic doors to get that ideal sensible response with though no response relevant to having viewed the theory evident. But, it's getting feedback on the situation, like the one you present, I could be faced with, that makes this interesting in the absence of anyone actually reading the the theory. Anyway, I wouldn't go to all this trouble if I hadn't arrived at valid equations, equations we all know as certainty, with this new theory of time.

I am sure some watch with interest.

I wouldn't though depend on a community that has been wired to perceive time differently.........you could be waiting a long time.

Try getting the attention of a research agency looking for that "alternative" approach...........and failing that, consider the other possibilites.

For instance, if you are familiar with the curse of Vulcan, of offering fire to people, unmeasured, maybe this time now is time you should spend on offering a type of structured illumination of purpose with your offer of a new theory of time, and thus presumably better and safer access to atomic energy.

22. Maybe I should leave it in the hands of God, or, maybe, the ones who are to officially witness the theory?

But you see, if I become the "one", according to your inferences, if nothing happens regarding the theory, I would need to have a vision "better" than the best the world could offer........in which case I would have to force people to read the book, otherwise they would read it because it would be the "right" thing to do for me. That doesn't seem to fit right.

The only scenario I can think of that does fit right, is that Vulcan, that curse-scenario, has already done his work with contemporary nuclear physics........a theory of space-time "unmeasured" compared to the theory of time I offer. My theory has more "measure" already built in it........in taking the line of two extra dimnesions of time.

The theory is no Vulcan.

23. You're suggesting that your theory on space-time and perception will help make people make wiser, more socially informed, decisions?

How?

By correcting our understanding of time?

You need to understand that it could speed up an in-built socially designed Apocalypse which many could accuse you for.

24. The theory won't speed up anything.

Time's added dimensions are equally proportioned into the past and future.

It doesn't change anything, it only buffers the time line into the past and future.

In fact, the theory suggests time is like the caduceus: the two snakes entwined around the sword, one snake being the past, the other the future, both as false time paradigms, the real time paradigm being the one we occupy, the sword.

I am reassured by the impact the theory will have, because historically the caduceus is the symbol for "health".

Maybe the planet, the ecosystem, will benefit from the new energy source offered?

25. Well may your theory ultimately prove beneficial. But today's social reality presents not with the genuine concerns for the ecosystem. You need to adapt to a world that operates like a hungry machine with the aim of staying on top of competing machines.

Does your theory offer a social machine greater "conquering" ability over other social machines, and if so, would you take that responsibility?

26. Are you suggesting the theory would end up being used primarily by a superpower military?

27. Historically, the then King's BEST KNIGHTS, his best military officials, went in search of the Grail: there was no outcry.

I think so.

Do you think you can be "handled" by a superpower military?

28. I think I can best explain the theory.

But, being "handled" by a super-power military, as you put it, by a virtual "fortress".........

......should that be a big deal?

Are not militaries, the best ones, here to provide a little structured sanity to an otherwise terrorised and chaotic world?

Some argue militaries create chaos, but in my studies of history, unofficial (using though the new theory), I have found that the best militaries ALWAYS have presented the BEST case for peace which has been rejected by their enemies.

The theory is that BEST CASE FOR PEACE scenario, to avoid that "vision of the future" you see for the planet.

So, no, it wouldn't trouble me.

This theory, the need for it, is the moral high ground for any military........I should be proud of that.

I know the social context the theory is being presented in, globally, the need for an alternative energy, the role of militaries, and how they can completely screw things up...........

No, I am honored.

29. Most do not see things in such a way.

You will be unliked.

Your only friends will be the ones you work for, as a nation......or maybe also the ones you help protect with your allegiance to that super-power military........if you're lucky.

I understand your situation though, when your book is finally read and understood. The path you travel ahead will be the path chosen by those in "power".........unless you can use your theory to be independent from that grip of those already in power.

30. So, in doing this post, introducing the fact a theory exists for three dimensions of time, with associated equations suggesting such a theory is valid, as a theory.......I realize, care of you, that I am going to be hated because I would be held in the grip of a super-power military, unless of course I have a way of being more powerful, presumably with my theory of perception, than the leading super-power base of power.

Wow.

What sort of "special power" would I need in order to remain, as you term it, "independent"........and how would I warrant that special power to the world, to normal every-day people, as the reason why I am not held in the grip of a super-power military?

Look, thank you for your feedback, but I presented a genuine case on a theory for time, a new one, and the last thing I want is to get off that track.

31. You have the scientific community spooked, it seems.

Enjoy it.

That's power.

You seem to understand your situation and are unphased by it.

32. Originally Posted by streamSystems

APPENDIX 0

Time.
Who proposed time was only a line of events we live in?
Who proposed time was the fourth dimension to the three dimensions of space?
OK, forget “who”.
Let’s define what time IS not what we have assumed it to be.
We know time is like an arrow, going from a start reference to an end reference, and that line represents whatever happened to the 3 dimensions of space. Take the following diagram of 3 dimensional space construct A becoming 3 dimensional space construct B, as indicated by a passage of time, C.

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

Nothing may have happened as a gross observation from A to B other than the passage of time in an otherwise stagnant situation. But, clearly, on the more atomic level, things were happening to suggest time was passing.

Time here is a line.

I am now going to introduce the idea that time is not just a line, but actually a feature of the three dimensions of space. I am going to do this by introducing two new dimensions of time, to give time more depth and breadth, namely the FUTURE dimension of time AND THE PAST. It is a little tricky to draw as a diagram though. Let’s be simple to begin with, and then get more complicated as it may be required for explanation purposes.

Take the following:

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

The system goes from BEFORE to AFTER. “A” was the BEFORE state, and “B” is the AFTER state, compared to BEFORE, and NOW represents the theoretical state of that process of A going to B……….indeed, a very weak description of “time”……..because we know that to label time as one dimensional as either BEFORE in relation to A, a three dimensional space-construct, and AFTER in relation to B, a three dimensional space construct, isn’t improving the theory of time as a one dimensional construct. So, let’s be a little more thoughtful.
Let us say TIME is a line…….a straight line.

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

Now let us say that line is INFLUENCED to travel into the FUTURE “away from” the PAST:

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

Basically, the arrow would tend to move towards AFTER away from BEFORE. And so, in completing the LINE as though influenced by BEFORE and AFTER in such a manner:

(imagine what it might look like, maybe just look at the download)

Time would move as a circle, AWAY from the outer BEFORE zone (time dimension) and towards the inner AFTER zone (time dimension).
THAT’S OUR THEORY OF TIME.
THAT’S ALL IT IS.
NOW what we have to do is work into that theory the 3 dimensions of SPACE.
IF WE CAN DO THAT, and then PROVE we can theorise with this theory of time the PROPER equations for a circle and sphere, we would have PROVED this new theory of time.

This theory has been PROVED.

Now, who is going to challenge the theory, the new theory, of time?

Be warned though, it took me at least 200 or so pages to wire the 3 dimensions of space into this new theory for time.........BUT, all the equations for a circle and sphere for time were achieved.

I have the theory, people.......this is no hoax.
So the AFTER state swirls away from the BEFORE state, creating something that looks like a oneway tunnel. But what if time only IS. What if time only happens NOW, giving us the illusion of a before and after state from our point of view? Is that the same thing perhaps? Or a little different?

33. You got it.

The "after" state has time act as though it is swirling inward away from the outer "before".........like time is funnelling into some type of vortex.

Yet, as you correctly identified, we exist on that now "rim", constantly. What we observe of reality is how the before and after time paradigms interact (explained in the theory) via the 3 dimensional space rim zone.

That time-ring rim we exist on, I had to add the three dimensions of space in accounting for the "before" and "after" zones, and in doing so, using that time a-priori, I was able to establish the equations, correctly, for a circle, sphere, and pi.

34. Nice The theory certainly sounds promising :wink:

But one more question.

Originally Posted by streamSystems
I am now going to introduce the idea that time is not just a line, but actually a feature of the three dimensions of space. I am going to do this by introducing two new dimensions of time, to give time more depth and breadth, namely the FUTURE dimension of time AND THE PAST.
Are those two new dimensions meant to be an illusion to understand how time moves? Just making sure I understand this correctly... :?

35. Yes, those two dimensions are false.

Earlier in this post I highlighted the similarity between the theory for time and the caduceus, the two snakes representing false time paradigms.

I am not saying we should vastly alter our theory of time. Time as we know it is still an arrow, only "curved", ultimately.

Take a look at the theory..........it explains it better........only if you have the time.

The illusion though, as you put it, is as real as your mind remembers things (past) and looks ahead (future).

........hence, the incorporated theory of "perception".......... 8)

36. Very interesting theory. Nice work :wink:

37. As I said, I don't have the resources to develop it, the "technology".

If you or anyone else does, be my guest.

I have looked at the "patent" aspects of the technology associated to the science, and it is impossible to lodge a patent about a technology that I can't prove owing to my lack of resources, nor would anyone approve of the explanation offered regarding any potential device.

But............like microsoft back in the early 80's, this thing will grow.

Get on board, if you're serious........otherwise, thank you for showing interest.

38. Well, I think it's going to take you a long time to get any real questions, because it's quite a read. I'm a little ways in, but not like where I could ask real questions yet.

I'm tempted to want to skim it to the end then go back. There doesn't appear to be a simple summary.

39. Here ya go. Time is a concept built to understand. It is that and nothing more it would seem.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Yet-a...%29.-8221t.php

40. Originally Posted by kojax
Well, I think it's going to take you a long time to get any real questions, because it's quite a read. I'm a little ways in, but not like where I could ask real questions yet.

I'm tempted to want to skim it to the end then go back. There doesn't appear to be a simple summary.

If science has become a type of language, this is a new language with new terms, owing to the anew additional dimensions of time. I would say it would take someone about 1 month to read it properly. That is why I am willing to pay a theoretical physicist well into the \$5000USD mark to give it a proper and thorough review.

41. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
You're claiming to understand something in theory without having walked that path?

Do you claim to offer something you believe in?

"theQuestIsNotOver" I think I understand on an about where you are.

Perhaps not your experience, but your stand so explain to me why you are thinking how you are thinking.

42. If science has become a type of language, this is a new language with new terms, owing to the anew additional dimensions of time. I would say it would take someone about 1 month to read it properly. That is why I am willing to pay a theoretical physicist well into the \$5000USD mark to give it a proper and thorough review.
What I'm curious about is what the new language offers us that the old one doesn't. Certainly there will always be something to gain from using a new perspective, of course. I guess what I'm asking is: are there any particular advantages that stand out?

If time is circular, does that open new possibilities? Does it make some phenomena like gravity (including the difference between its observed value at the subatomic level or galaxy level), or paradoxes like black holes more approachable?

43. YES.

This is why I am offering the theory for review.

In arriving at the equations that have had me suspect the theory has something substantial to it, it was necessary to court certain new ideas relevant to the mechanics of space-time that suggests a new form of atomic energy access.

The theory suggests that the space-time we exist in is a "resultant" equation, a "folded" version of space-time........but........space-time can also exist in an "unfolded" state, a state that represents a type of energy matrix, like an unsprung mousetrap.

Now, this is the thing........no one, and I mean no one, would have stumbled on that unfolded dimension of space-time by accident......because as the theory suggests it is a dimension of pure order.......pure logic. To stumble on it by accident, well, it would have been impossible. Stumbling is stumbling, accidents are accidents, pure logic and associated theory is pure logic and associated theory.

It's not FREE ENERGY...........it's a new way of harnessing the forces of the atom.

In respect of astrophysics, I don't suggest anything new in that arena, because technically "proof" is "proof".........so, blackholes, etc etc etc, let's first research this theoretical unfolded dimension of space-time......that's my wish.

It's as though I have cracked a code of space-time, and that code suggests that an unfolded and highly energetic level of space-time is approachable. yet, this is the thing: the research would be VERY expensive owing to the unique mechanical set-up of the oscillating charged points that are required to access this unfolded dimension of space-time.

44. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
You're claiming to understand something in theory without having walked that path?

Do you claim to offer something you believe in?

"theQuestIsNotOver" I think I understand on an about where you are.

Perhaps not your experience, but your stand so explain to me why you are thinking how you are thinking.
Anyone who presents a new theory on something that claims to explain space-time purely in theory without any experience required of exploring space-time needs to roughly describe how they can have others "believe" also in what they seem to believe in.

In the case though of what streamsystems seems to be presenting, if the theory can explain what we already perceive of space-time, seeing "is" believing. I think we went through that. That was my point though.....namely if the theory explained how we perceive, "seeing is believing"........it's not a theory asking people to be "believers".

45. I think part of the problem, Stream, is putting what you see into words that other people will understand. I think you ended up having to coin a lot of new terms and jargon, or new definitions for existing words, in the process of arriving at your conclusions.

Now that you've done so, it's like you're speaking a different language than English. (Though for all I know, real professional physicists might talk that way).

The idea that "time is circular" doesn't actually register any meaning for me. It's just a nonsense term for me.

I mean, a lot of things are circular. The sine wave path that photons take is circular in a way. Gravity creates a curvature of space time, in a way. What do you mean by time itself being circular? Do you mean that it's curved?

46. What I mean in saying that time is circular is that I have been able to prove mathematically that time moves in a circular motion format by virtue of arriving at the equations of a sphere, and circle, by adopting two new virtual dimensions of time, time "before" and time "after". By saying time is circular, I am saying that time is circular AFTER having gained mathematical proof for the equations for a circle and sphere, and even pi. It was and is the most brief thing I can present: "time is circular". To understand the exact nature of that circular process of time is to understand how those equations of a circle and sphere were derived (takes a few hundred pages).

To be a little more gracious with my reasoning, I have been able to derive the equations for a sphere and circle by suggesting that the geometry of space that exists between time "before" and time "after" describes a sphere (and thus obviously also a circle). Once again, the "how so" is a few hundred pages worth of reading.

Thank you though for noting the difficulty of the task of explaining space-time with two new dimensions of time and the need to adopt new terms that nonetheless have tried to remain as true to the english language as possible. It suggests you have had a look and have noted the gross task of that space-time theory overhaul.

I can actualy PROVE this theory, but I need a specialist team of mechanical and electrical engineers...............I am still doing a 9 to 5 to save up for that in realising that in tihs world no one is going to take a punt on something they have to spend time to read thoroughly.

If I can add, I didn't set out to try to adapt two new dimensions of time to a circular equation, to the equations of a sphere or circles, I adapted two new dimensions of time to a theory of perception and space-time based on 5 years of professional medical research.

I hate to be a party pooper for time-travellers back in to the past, but the theory prescribes a unidirectional time, as we understand it, and that to travel BACK in time is to basically have to complete a full "cycle" of time ahead minus however far back you want to go back in time. It's possible, but you cannot visit your own lifetime, because the theory is related to a theory of perception and time, meaning that you cannot overlap your own life.

47. Why don't you just post your proof here on the forums somewhere?

48. I apologise for not properly introducing it.

You see, I don't want to actually POST my proof in this forum. My challenge is to involve this new theorum with contemporary questions of physics. I just want to make the post available TO the forum. It's at a webpage found by clicking the www feature below. Besides, 350 or so pages of new space-time mechanics construction is a bit much to post in this forum.

49. On the other hand, having read many of your three hundred and fifty pages it is not something I would recomnmend to young children, those of a nervous disposition, or anyone with a regard for either good writing, or good science.

50. That's right.

It's dangerous stuff.

The science, when proven correct, will send a shiver through the entire civilised world.

"good" is is an adjective that does not properly equate to a writing (noun)relevant to the hard cold fact of space-time and how the reality of it will certainly SHOCK the entire physics establishment into a type of startled submission.

51. Originally Posted by streamSystems
"good" is is an adjective that does not properly equate to a writing (noun)relevant to the hard cold fact of space-time and how the reality of it will certainly SHOCK the entire physics establishment into a type of startled submission.
Yet having read - attempted to read - your thesis on more than one occassion I still have no idea what you are talking about.
Is this because I am of low intelligence? Several (very) high scores in IQ tets syggest not.
Is this because I am uneducated? An excellent degree and a lifetime of personal study suggest not.
Is this because my reading comprehension is limited? Nope. That won't fly either.

Could it be that you have failed to convey your idea in a clear, concise, yet comprehensive manner? That's it is where my vote falls for the moment.

52. Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Could it be that you have failed to convey your idea in a clear, concise, yet comprehensive manner? That's it is where my vote falls for the moment.
Personally, I think concise is the operative word here.

When SSs is concise she does make some sense.

53. You two characters are going to "Top Gun".

54. Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
When SSs is concise she does make some sense.
I agree: fragments of Shakespeare emerging from the random keyboard strikes of an army of bonobos.

55. The Bonobos?

Do you know their history?

I am presuming they convinced everyone their leader (their own leader, the Bonobo's (this explanation was provided for those who lack insight)) was stupid, in order to gain some type of tactical advantage the leader of the Bonobos clearly is not mindful of right now in this forum to be jacked to spell out.

The Bonobos, I am presuming, use a type of "common agent" you perceive as the cartoon image "streamSystems".

(and yet, you have not discounted the concept that the image of streamSystems in this forum culd be a simple IT angle from an otherwise completely unhackable IT God).

56. Originally Posted by streamSystems
The Bonobos?

Do you know their history?

I am presuming they convinced everyone their leader (their own leader, the Bonobo's (this explanation was provided for those who lack insight)) was stupid, in order to gain some type of tactical advantage the leader of the Bonobos clearly is not mindful of right now in this forum to be jacked to spell out.

The Bonobos, I am presuming, use a type of "common agent" you perceive as the cartoon image "streamSystems".

(and yet, you have not discounted the concept that the image of streamSystems in this forum culd be a simple IT angle from an otherwise completely unhackable IT God).
What the hell are you talking about? I really wish you'd try to make sense or I'm just going to start skipping your posts entirely because it's a waste of time to read it once, have no idea what you are talking about, and then re-read it a couple times only to realize that it's not worth reading in the first place.

57. OK.

Someone started talking about the "Bonobos".

I was then exercising scientific license in being hypothetical with that person............in searching in the dark for that mythical understanding of a name I was so maturely called.

Do you understand that much?

59. http://www.streamsystems.com.au/

Its an extremely large pdf, and no compact version appears imminent.

60. If you want a compact version, go to the APPENDIX.

Basically, for those who don't have the time, I have designed the book as a meaty meal that can be quickly consumed by following the hyperspace star gate links ,as you read the book, to the APPENDIX.

61. If you want a compact version, go to the APPENDIX.
My apologies.

62. It's fine.

I update the book thanks to this forum every week......time permitting (my other job, calculating stuff, injuries and the like).

The book is like an new ABC easy to read version for science bad types to explore the unexplored.

63. Originally Posted by streamSystems

The book is like an new ABC easy to read version for science bad types to explore the unexplored.
Or in short: trained Physicists, yeah? Fair enough, you're entitled to that opinion.

64. Yes.

But, you know, "candle in the wind" stuff.

65. candle in the wind stuff...Elton john......Gay....Gay stuff?

66. No.

Um......

Through the eyes of a Monarch?

67. What do you mean by candle in the wind stuff?/

68. I mean modern day physics is exactly that.

Modern day physics depends more on those who are dead than those who can, with a bit of collective insight, do something.

69. Modern day physics depends more on those who are dead
...Maybe so, but the great ones that are now dead were also alive once and still managed to change Physics forever.

70. I understand that, that the work of all those who have passed on is quite indespensible.

Yet, "new fresh ideas" cannot come from thse who HAVE passed on.

If a theory on space-time that properly measures space-time is to become available, it won't come from ideas of those who have passed on, as a reworking of their ideas. I think it will come from someone very much alive and well using a new approach to the macchinations of space-time.

71. Physics is better for surviving the test of time and still standing tall. If you overturned the tried and tested stuff with every whim, you will no longer have the scientific standard. I think there is a good balance between maintaining that standard but still allowing new science to enter the system.

New science is being written into the text books all the time(and to a smaller degree some is written out), but it has to be rigorously tested to get in!

72. I think the signs in this modern world are evident: a fresh new understanding no the axioms of space-time is needed.

I don't think, like you, any whimsical theory will get humanity anywhere.

The theory I present basically takes EVERYTHING physics has already estanbished for granted (hardly a whim) and THEN adds two new features (of time) to the axioms of space-time WITHOUT changing the overall theories of space-time, the forces, and so on, but using those two added features of time as a way to more properly explain space-time.

A whimsical theory is one that discounts all the works of the greats who have passed on.

Still, in saying this, I am but wasting my breathe.

73. I'm not sure how long your post has been in circulation stream, but I just came across it while I was looking to read one of my older theories that I posted on this forum and found yours.

In any case before I had read this I came to the same conclusion. Time is circular if not spherical. In fact this is the only possible explanation for how the universe was created. Meaning: How can something come from nothing? This question has been at the top of mind for a while and I keep coming to the same answer but the very thought of it is mind numbing.

Here are my thoughts---

Time exists on different segments of this ring like time dimension. Truly both the past and the present are connected at some point on this ring. Now if a ring is in fact infinitely long meaning it has no end then then we can say that time is in fact infinite. True, time is infinite but because things exist within this time and since things cant just exist, meaning they cant just spawn from no where then we must say that along this ring, at some point, all things brought into existence. You may be asking yourself,"How is it possible then for something to be brought into existence?"

The answer is, there was no origin an in fact everything came from the future, A to B. Where A is the beginning, the origin , and the future where everything originated from, and B, the start, the other side of the origin, and the past.

This is all merely visual and with words is hard to explain, especially with so few of them.

If you need clarification feel free to ask. Ill try and enlighten you to my logic.

In any case you have definitely stumbled across something but it requires one more answer. And the answer will come from this question,"Where is its origin". My little theory above might help a bit but I still have a hard time understanding how time travel is possible, which I really don't think it is. I'm not disagreeing with myself I'm just saying that these somewhat possible truths above involve things that are basically, imperceivable.

Do you need the dropship??
Thanks for your special attention to www.hw925shop.com .
We are the specialized watches/DVDS/ jewellery wholesaler in China ,We provide many Classical watches dvds and jewellery ,various hierarchical.all the items are in fine functions and the mode are all same as the original watches . Workmanship is very fine , 100% satisfaction guaranteed . because we do the wholesale business , all the item are all in stock and the quantity are enough. so it is possible for us to supply the competitive price and the large quantity for you . We will became your reliable and regular supplier .
we have had many worldwide customers still now , we are retaining the penrennial cooperation with them , and at the same time hope build a good partner relationship with you ! We will became your reliable and regular supplier .
we are plesure to offer the service for you !
Thanks and best regards
www.hw925shop.com
MSN : hw925shop@hotmail.com
Email：hw925shop@163.com

Xena Warrior Princess Season 1 6 DVD BOXSET
STAR WARS COLLECTION 6 DVD
Star Trek The Original Series Season 1-3 22DVD
Smallville Season 5 BOXSET 6 DVD
PROJECT RUNWAY SEASON 1 6 DVD BOXSET
Mr.Bean The Animated Series 4 DVD
Medium Season 1 BOXSET 8 DVD
FAMILY GUY SEASON 1-3 7 DVDs BOXSET
Disney 100 Years of Movies 102 DVD BOXSET
Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 1-7 50DVD
Barbie Collection 6 DVD BOXSET NEW
Baby Einstein Language Nursery 19DVD+CD NEW
Without A Trace Series 2 disc 8 DVD BOXSET
Without A Trace Season 3 disc 8 DVD BOXSET NEW
West Wing（1-6）36DVD NEW
Veronica Mars Season 1 disc 8 dvds
The Next Generation Season 1-7 disc 48
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy 6 DVD Collection
The Golden Girls Season 1-5 disc 15 dvds NEW
The Girls Next Door Season 1 disc 5 DVD
The Freshprince of Bel-Air Season 1-3 disc 18 DVD
The Dead Zone Season 1-4 Special Edition disc 15
The Apprentice Season 5 disc 8 DVD
Star Trek Enterprise Season 1-4 disc 27
Star Trek Deep Space Nine Season 1-7 48 dvds
Special Victims Unit Season 1 disc 8 dvds
SIX FEET UNDER Season 1 disc 6 dvds
Roswell Season 1-3 disc 17DVD+1CD NEW
OZ season 1-5 disc 18 DVD
NYPD Blue Season 1-4 disc 16 DVD BOXSET
Nip Tuck Season 1-3 disc 17DVD+1CD NEW
MASH Season 1-11 disc 33 DVD BOXSET
Married with Children Season 1-5 disc 14 dvds
LITTLE BRITAIN SEASON 1-2 DISC 8
Hill Street Blues Season 1 disc 6 DVD BOXSET NEW
Grey\'s Anatomy season 1 disc 4
Frasier Season 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,+11 disc 36 dvds
Everybody Loves Raymond Season 1-6 disc 30 DVDS
ER Season 9,10 disc 16
Emmanaelle The Private Collection 18 DVD BOXSET
Doogie Howser, M.D. Season 1-4 disc 25 DVD
Desperate Housewives Season 1-2 disc 13 dvds
Deadwood Season 3 disc 6 DVD BOXES
Deadwood Season 1-2 disc 11 DVD BOXSET
CSI MIAMI Season 1-3 Special Edtion disc 19
Criminal Minds Season 1 disc 8 DVD BOXSET NEW
Close To Home Season 1 disc 8 DVD
Charmed Season 1-8 disc 64 DVD
BBC Days That Shook The World (二) disc 5 dvds
Barbie Collection 8 DVD BOXSET NEW
Band of Brothers 5DVD
Bad Girls Season 1 disc 6 DVD
friends Complete season 1-10 DISC 36
friends Complete season 1-10 DISC 40+2CD
The Simpsons Complete season 1-17 DISC 96
Lord of the rings all 3 box set 12 dvds
Mash Complete Seasons1-6 Box Set 36 DISC
Star Wars the Complete 6 DVD movie Box set.
Sopranos Season 1-5 Individual Boxset
CSI INDIVIDUAL BOXSET SEASON 1-6 DISC 47
24 HOURS INDIVIDUAL BOXSET SEASON 1-5 DISC 43
West Wing INDIVIDUAL BOXSET SEASON 1-7 DISC 57
South Park INDIVIDUAL BOXSET Season 1-10 DISC 42
THE L WORD Individual Boxset 1-3 DISC 20
star gate INDIVIDUAL BOXSET SEASON 1-9
007 Complete season 20 DVD
Baby Einstein Complete season 21DVD
Star Trek The Original Series 1-3 22DVD
Star Trek Enterprise individual boxset 1-4 DISC 27
Monk Complete Season 1-4 DISC 16D5+1CD
seinfeld Complete season 1-6 DISC 20
The Shield Season 1-4 16 DVD
The OC complete season 1&2 14 DVD Boxset
GILMOR GIRLS COMPLETE Season 1-5 DISC 30
babylon COMPLETE Season 1-5 DISC 30
Six Feet Under COMPLETE Season 1-5 DISC 24
ER COMPLETE Season 1-8 DISC 49
Smallville INDIVIDUAL BOXSET SEASON 1-5 DISC 40
Queer as folk INDIVIDUAL BOXSET SEASON 1-5 DISC 38
Will And Grace INDIVIDUAL BOXSET SEASON 1-7 DISC 42
profiler INDIVIDUAL BOXSET SEASON 1-4 DISC 32
24 HOURS INDIVIDUAL BOXSET SEASON 1-5 DISC 43
Alias COMPLETE Season 1-4 DISC 24
ANGEL COMPLETE Season 1-5 DISC 30
The Shield Season 1,2,3,4,5 individual boxset 35 disc
STAR TREK VOYAGER INDIVIDUAL BOXSETSEASON 1-7
24 HOURS COMPLETE SEASON 1-4 DISC 24
Buffy COMPLETE Season 1-7 DISC 39
CSI Complete season 1-5 DISC 31
Star Trek The NextGeneration Individual Boxset 1-7
SEX AND THE CITY - Seasons 1-6 -SHOEBOX
x-Files season 1-9 DVD individual boxset
Babylon 5 Individual Boxset 1 -- 5
Star Trek Deep Space Nine Individual Boxset 1-7
SIX FEET UNDER SEASON 12345 individual boxset 32 disc
Queer As Folk Complete season 1-5 DISC 24
West Wing COMPLETE SEASON 1-6 DISC 36
SOPRANOS COMPLETE Season 1-6 new and sealed DISC 26
Ally Mcbeal Complete Seasons 1-5 DISC 30

75. Originally Posted by m1cojakle
I'm not sure how long your post has been in circulation stream, but I just came across it while I was looking to read one of my older theories that I posted on this forum and found yours.

In any case before I had read this I came to the same conclusion. Time is circular if not spherical. In fact this is the only possible explanation for how the universe was created. Meaning: How can something come from nothing? This question has been at the top of mind for a while and I keep coming to the same answer but the very thought of it is mind numbing.

Here are my thoughts---

Time exists on different segments of this ring like time dimension. Truly both the past and the present are connected at some point on this ring. Now if a ring is in fact infinitely long meaning it has no end then then we can say that time is in fact infinite. True, time is infinite but because things exist within this time and since things cant just exist, meaning they cant just spawn from no where then we must say that along this ring, at some point, all things brought into existence. You may be asking yourself,"How is it possible then for something to be brought into existence?"

The answer is, there was no origin an in fact everything came from the future, A to B. Where A is the beginning, the origin , and the future where everything originated from, and B, the start, the other side of the origin, and the past.

This is all merely visual and with words is hard to explain, especially with so few of them.

If you need clarification feel free to ask. Ill try and enlighten you to my logic.

In any case you have definitely stumbled across something but it requires one more answer. And the answer will come from this question,"Where is its origin". My little theory above might help a bit but I still have a hard time understanding how time travel is possible, which I really don't think it is. I'm not disagreeing with myself I'm just saying that these somewhat possible truths above involve things that are basically, imperceivable.

The origin (of time) is, and I am sometimes at horror to point out, at it's (time's origin) ënd: the moment you ask for a beginning in reference to a circle, you talk of the end......so, don't get stuck on that one.

Basically, if time is circular, get over the idea of a beginning and an end: leave that where it belongs, namely, with religion.

A circle has no beginning or end.

You should ask the question, "how does in fact the system of space-time repeat itself".

Clearly the answer can only be theoretical, because no one can live to prove that through experiment or experience.

Think about it though......that there is no beginning or end, other than what faith describes, which is not science.

For me, the beginning of time and the end of time cannot and should not be a part of scientific debate, just yet: the debate is more benal than the length of a piece of string.

I consider, through much theory, that space-time has a type of self-checking system ensuring that what we understand as LAWS are upheld, and that the conflicting factor to those laws, chaos, makes the overall circle of time the size that it is. Interestingly, some cultures explain ëternity"as the snake of chaos chasing it's tail (my apologies if that does not rank as an intelligent statement).

76. Since time is but the perception of movement through space and the universe is like the inside of a black hole, (i.e. if you get in a fast spaceship and left the earth, you would eventually be back where you started; no end of the universe) you could say time is circular with no beginning or end. That is on the large scale though. Locally in our little corner of the universe, we perceive time as linear.

77. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Since time is but the perception of movement through space and the universe is like the inside of a black hole, (i.e. if you get in a fast spaceship and left the earth, you would eventually be back where you started; no end of the universe) you could say time is circular with no beginning or end. That is on the large scale though. Locally in our little corner of the universe, we perceive time as linear.
Yes, that's why we have straight line clocks and watches, right?

Have so for hundreds, if not thousands of years as well, right?

OK, I'll drop the sarcasm.

Let's change the subject.

78. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Originally Posted by m1cojakle
I'm not sure how long your post has been in circulation stream, but I just came across it while I was looking to read one of my older theories that I posted on this forum and found yours.

In any case before I had read this I came to the same conclusion. Time is circular if not spherical. In fact this is the only possible explanation for how the universe was created. Meaning: How can something come from nothing? This question has been at the top of mind for a while and I keep coming to the same answer but the very thought of it is mind numbing.

Here are my thoughts---

Time exists on different segments of this ring like time dimension. Truly both the past and the present are connected at some point on this ring. Now if a ring is in fact infinitely long meaning it has no end then then we can say that time is in fact infinite. True, time is infinite but because things exist within this time and since things cant just exist, meaning they cant just spawn from no where then we must say that along this ring, at some point, all things brought into existence. You may be asking yourself,"How is it possible then for something to be brought into existence?"

The answer is, there was no origin an in fact everything came from the future, A to B. Where A is the beginning, the origin , and the future where everything originated from, and B, the start, the other side of the origin, and the past.

This is all merely visual and with words is hard to explain, especially with so few of them.

If you need clarification feel free to ask. Ill try and enlighten you to my logic.

In any case you have definitely stumbled across something but it requires one more answer. And the answer will come from this question,"Where is its origin". My little theory above might help a bit but I still have a hard time understanding how time travel is possible, which I really don't think it is. I'm not disagreeing with myself I'm just saying that these somewhat possible truths above involve things that are basically, imperceivable.

The origin (of time) is, and I am sometimes at horror to point out, at it's (time's origin) ënd: the moment you ask for a beginning in reference to a circle, you talk of the end......so, don't get stuck on that one.

Basically, if time is circular, get over the idea of a beginning and an end: leave that where it belongs, namely, with religion.

A circle has no beginning or end.

You should ask the question, "how does in fact the system of space-time repeat itself".

Clearly the answer can only be theoretical, because no one can live to prove that through experiment or experience.

Think about it though......that there is no beginning or end, other than what faith describes, which is not science.

For me, the beginning of time and the end of time cannot and should not be a part of scientific debate, just yet: the debate is more benal than the length of a piece of string.

I consider, through much theory, that space-time has a type of self-checking system ensuring that what we understand as LAWS are upheld, and that the conflicting factor to those laws, chaos, makes the overall circle of time the size that it is. Interestingly, some cultures explain ëternity"as the snake of chaos chasing it's tail (my apologies if that does not rank as an intelligent statement).
What I was trying to say was, "Where did all the matter in this universe come from.? Something can't just "be"? And I think that to answer that question we will have to merge the laws of time and space with the laws that govern matter on the atomic level as well as laws pertaining to dark matter and dark energy, which needless to say are from from being completed.

79. Where did all the matter come from?

Where did time come from?

Where did space come from?

What happens to matter when it is destroyed?

It creates energy. It creates the concept itself of great "potential" for something to happen, like the formation of matter.

To ask where matter came from, is to ask where energy came from. It's the chicken or the egg, meaning that neither came first or last.

The amusing thing about theorists of the big bang is that they try to put their very heads inside something they are not compatible with, as a thought process, as a mind, as an awareness that reasons, as a space-time construct, namely into the pre-big-bang. Well, OK, if can be amusing. Generally though it is sad.

80. I only think it is necessary to know those things because it is relevant to the completion of a true knowledge and the complete understanding of how the universe works.

I guess one could say clearly that Matter has always been, and call that a truth; but that doesn't mean that it didn't come from somewhere else.

A law might state that: if product(matter) exists then therefore it must have been at some point turned into product(matter).

I merely want to know where this product came from. For the answer to that law, in physical terms, I see time travel, or for lack of a better word, transference. Meaning the transference of matter form one time to another. How this is all done I do not know.

81. The creation of matter?

A large enough solar flare can create matter......throwing off rock, eventually, as cooled atomic particles coalescing to form greater structures of maytter. Still, that's not really the creation of matter, is it....because a sun is matter.

Asking where the energy and atomic particle matter came from, from a sun, a star, one could investigate perhaps that the idea of time itself carries energy, and associated to it, matter, and that to ask when energy (and matter) was created is to ask what time time was created, which isn't a logical thing to ask, because time was created at the beginning of time, but if time is circular, then there is no beginning or end to time.

Your question on the transference of matter from one time to the next is BEST handled by a theory that proses two dimensions of organic time (as related to matter), BEFORE time and AFTER time relevasnt to the same piece of mass. As yet officially the world has yet to consider such a new theory of time, for time, but (excuse the pun) give it time and they will consider the greater usefulness of it. (it's available as a download, by the way, at the www feature below).

82. Originally Posted by streamSystems
The creation of matter?

A large enough solar flare can create matter......throwing off rock, eventually, as cooled atomic particles coalescing to form greater structures of maytter. Still, that's not really the creation of matter, is it....because a sun is matter.

Asking where the energy and atomic particle matter came from, from a sun, a star, one could investigate perhaps that the idea of time itself carries energy, and associated to it, matter, and that to ask when energy (and matter) was created is to ask what time time was created, which isn't a logical thing to ask, because time was created at the beginning of time, but if time is circular, then there is no beginning or end to time.

Your question on the transference of matter from one time to the next is BEST handled by a theory that proses two dimensions of organic time (as related to matter), BEFORE time and AFTER time relevasnt to the same piece of mass. As yet officially the world has yet to consider such a new theory of time, for time, but (excuse the pun) give it time and they will consider the greater usefulness of it. (it's available as a download, by the way, at the www feature below).
My mistake. I should have clarified what I meant by "matter", or better, by" type of matter". I meant the the smallest possible unit/units of matter that if one increased in size to lets just say the size of an orange, they would be able to touch and interact with.

83. According to a theory (the big bang) that I consider really dumb, after the big bang came the creation of not just matter, but the forces and associated laws of space-time (occording to that theory). Basically, laws were set-down, forces, after the big bang. And this from atheists. How can a big bang set down "laws" if not stating that there is an overall law governing space-time such that all the matter created after the big bang had to settle in the manner it did. But, this is the thing: we have evidence that matter can be created into energy. Generally then, in time, all matter would actually disintegrate into energy, leaving an energy-universe, ultimately. No one proposes that theory though, suggesting that they either haven't thought of that, or that they consider energy can be converted into mass. If energy can be converted into mass, what is stopping that from happening in our own solar system, at a place where there is a huge amount of energy, like the sun? Sure, there are laws of enthalpy in the system of space-time, time seems to only move in one direction also, but given the correct pressure applied (and I use that term figureatively), who is going to state it is impossible for energy to be converted into mass? We already know by the photo-electric effect that atoms can absorb quanta............so what of quanta being converted into mass, in the necessary and correct conditions, whatever they "may" be (a little long to explain what they would be for a forum like this, perhaps).

84. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Maybe you can offer me a more specific suggestion, someone I can contact, perhaps?
I spent the weekend reading your three hundred and fifty six page minum opus on the web. I suggest specifically you contact a psychiatrist.
Your writing is trite, boring, disconnected, incoherent, unstructured, vague, rambling, clichéd, unimaginative, bland and soporific. And these are its good points!
Cognitive dissonance on this scale should be a criminal activity punishable by lifelong incarceration in a metropolitan sewage system. All I have the power to do, however, is to move this entire thread to pseudoscience.

85. Be my guest (it was evident though that the length of interest in this subject was annoying you).

I am honored though that you expected more of me.

Still, this IS your party and you can cry if you want to.

You are spitting a dummy though, aren't you.

But, may I comment on your critique, as brief and full of spittle as it is: I stated in the introduction that the theory on offer as the download is the "simplest" version possible: it is written for primary school students. I thought it would be easier to read. And in saying that, your criticism of the book is like criticising not the mind of a person, yet their sense of fashion. get over the style, and at least make an effort to "understand".

I have met people in my time who read literature as a way of exercising "style" of speech and not truly understanding the content of the words. You seem to be one of those people I have come across.

Let though this be an example to all who seek to read the book, as even outlined in the introduction: don't try to read and understand the book through an initial read, because it would take at least a week to read properly and digest all the "new" concepts of space-time proposed with the revision of "time" (namely, the added dimension of time).

For the record, Ophiolite, your state of mind, when this theroy is lauded by your own peers as being more than accurate, is your own. I have not tried to set you up or undermine your sense of human decency. How you look at yourself is up to you. Do not accuse me of being the one to have had you gone mad. You still have time to more properly address this issue.

86. I encourage all interested parties to go to Stream Systems website and form their own opinion of his/her theory.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement