Thread: does time have a signature

1. I have presented threads on the idea of time being a circle, however large (the big point (there) that time has no beginning or end (it's arbitrary)), and we know by light-cone theory (some of us know this) that radiation spreads outwards in a before and after fashion in a circular manner, thus presenting the idea of two light cones, one into the past, the other the future, but with this one I want to try something different. With this thread, I would like ask the question (as opposed to simply stating anything I think to be the case, as I have been accused of), to ask the question of time itself, whether anyone thinks the shape of time actually cleaves to the motion of a quantum of light. Does "time" basically, the flow of, have a "signature", a footprint, that we could recognise as a basic package of energy itself, like a quantum?

2.

3. Originally Posted by streamSystems
and we know by light-cone theory (some of us know this) that radiation spreads outwards in a before and after fashion in a circular manner,
Provide a citation justifying your assertion that light cone theory validates a 'circular manner' in the spread of radiation.
Failing this, provide such a validation here.
Further, define what you mean by 'the shape' of time.
Define what you mean by 'cleaves to the motion'.

4. Now, robot, let us take our time with this.

First, make sure you know what you are asking.

Second, make sure you can see the forest for the trees (and in this case, look at what I am asking, namely whether or not 1-dimensional time as you would know it actually has a 3-dimensional "signature").

Now, let me first explain what a signature is. I won't insult you by assuming that you don't know how to sign your own name, because I am sure you can, but I think you get my drift when I ask the question on whether it is possible or not that time has a "signature" that is 3-dimensional, as an 'axiom" of space-time, instead of just being a time "line".

Now, I will get back to you on getting some references for you regarding light cone theory.

For everyone else, please feel free to reply in your own unique way (don't see the previous answer as a be all and end all critque, even though the one making that critiaue would like that finality).

5. Originally Posted by streamSystems
First, make sure you know what you are asking.
I know exactly what I am asking and I have asked it exactly.
Originally Posted by streamSystems
Now, let me first explain what a signature is. I won't insult you by assuming that you don't know how to sign your own name, because I am sure you can, but I think you get my drift when I ask the question on whether it is possible or not that time has a "signature" that is 3-dimensional, as an 'axiom" of space-time, instead of just being a time "line"..
I did not ask you about the "signature of time". Stop trying to erect strawmen. Answer the questions.

I don't want references for light cone theory. I have a sufficient understanding of that. I want refrences relating to light cone theory that directly support your contention that time is circular. That is the point I am challenging. Respond to that point please.

don't see the previous answer as a be all and end all critque, even though the one making that critiaue would like that finality
I was not making a critique. I was asking you to answer questions that might provide clarity for an obtuse post and I was seeking independent verification of your claim that light cone theory supports your bizarre views on time. (If I was making a critique I would have written something like, 'more of the usual codswallop, I see, SS'.)

6. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
I don't want references for light cone theory. I have a sufficient understanding of that. I want refrences relating to light cone theory that directly support your contention that time is circular. That is the point I am challenging. Respond to that point please.
Ophiolite, it seems you do need references for light cone theory. You see, light cone theory employs the equations of a "cone", which are derived, as you would know, from the equations of a circle, relevant to a point in time that eminates in both directions of time from that point in time (I think you need to brush up on your physics). The issue with light-cone physics is aligning those light cones in a way that can explain, ideally, the nature of space-time, and in that case, the curvature of space (are you sure you understand physics?). Anyway, my point in this thread was if anyone considers that light, which really is a signature of a basic unit of atomic energy, a quanta, is in fact a unit of time, and thus more than a linear construct.

Ophiolite, is it OK with you if some of the forum members discuss this topic with me. I am sure there are other things you can do during this process than highlight how pig-headed you are to certain individuals.

Ophiolite, may I suggest the very simple explanation from the following webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone.

You see, light "cone" theory is light "cone" theory because from a point in time energy eminates, as the theory goes, in a "circular fashion". You might say, "obviously", but ask yourself why someone didn't propose that energy eminated in a square fashion, right? Ophiolite, you and your teachers (presumably) "assume" things, yes? Stop "assuming" things, Ophiolite. Stop "assuming" what conclusions I am jumping to. You are a belligerent and juvenille human being who needs more than a lesson in what is an "assumption" and what is a well-defined axiom of space-time. I suggest you go back to whatever institution that offered you a degree, presumably, in what you have, "presumably", and demand a refund.

Ophiolite, I think it is fair you state to one and all your exact qualifications. For instance, as it seems you are still at school, what level of study (late high school or preliminary University it seems) are you attempting to attain this year? If you in fact have a degree, please take the time, as you should, to act your age.

7. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Does "time" basically, the flow of, have a "signature", a footprint, that we could recognise as a basic package of energy itself, like a quantum?
Nope.

You can create time by tapping your pen on the table. Is that the 'footprint/singature' you're looking?

8. Yep.

That's what I am thinking.

But elevate the tapping of your finger to a Minowski light-cone "caterpillar" (think with me here on this one).

Mathematically speaking, would one light cone event to the next (and please refer to the following link to help illustrate this" ( http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modul...roduction.html
), Minowski time, ultimately represent the most basic fundamental representation of a thread of "time"?

Could it then be proposed that time obeys a type of circular motion feature in understanding, through our study of Minowski light cones, that light "cones" actually involve equations for circles?

I am now going to state here that I have equations for that caterpillar-like Minowski train of light-cone points in time that describe exactly the equations of a circle, and further to that, relate those equations to what we understand of a package of energy know as a Quantum. The only problem is though, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me, is that the style of writing of the theory is more suited to retards, because it is written in such a simple and childish fashion, to the point it is almost moronic. But, it is better to do the A B C on this new theorum of time than assume intelligence exists anywhere in in the context of offering a "new" axiom structure of space-time for time.

Anyway, could it be proposed that time is in fact that Minowski "current" of light-cones, and that it affects space the way it does? Can we allow ourselves the option of giving time more credit than a simple one-dimensional construct?

Back to the style of the proof on offer, if anyone would like to convert the style of that writing (www download pdf: http://www.streamsystems.com.au/ ) to their contemporary scientific jargon, I am willing to draw up contracts of co-authorship for you (including any potential royalties). All you need to do is prove you have a degree in theoretical physics, have written a critically acclaimed paper, and that you are sincere about improving what appears to be a style-faulty yet not theory faulty account of a theory of dual-time. Basically, I do not want to be responsible for writing the "official" scientific abstract, I would rather honor physics and leave that to a theoretical physicist. I have other interests regarding the theory.

9. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
I want refrences relating to light cone theory that directly support your contention that time is circular. That is the point I am challenging. Respond to that point please.
Ophiolite, it seems you do need references for light cone theory. You see, light cone theory employs the equations of a "cone", which are derived, as you would know, from the equations of a circle, relevant to a point in time that eminates in both directions of time from that point in time (I think you need to brush up on your physics). The issue with light-cone physics is aligning those light cones in a way that can explain, ideally, the nature of space-time, and in that case, the curvature of space (are you sure you understand physics?).
Still waiting for you to provide any reference - peer reviewed journal, text book, tabloid newspaper - that supports your contention that time is circular. All you have done here is to run together some words that include the word circle and use that as proof of your justification. That simply wont wash. As in the three hundred and fifty six pages of garbage you call a new theory you are simply doing a lot of pathetic arm waving.

To illustrate what I mean here is a further extract from your life's great work.
In further discussion of this, as we have suggested, it is as though we would have a spacetime horse with fourlegs, its movement as according to a STREAMOFCONSCIOUSNESS principle. This, as representing one right forefoot and one left hind foot on the NOTHING ground as the NOTHING PAIRING manifestation of one step of the sequence of model 3, with the left forefoot representing the INFINITE BEFORE of model 1 and the right hindfoot representing the INFINITE AFTER of model 2, the very NOTHING ground, representing the NOTHING PAIRINGS ofmodel 3. Yet in the next STREAMOFCONSCIOUSNESS step the left forefoot and right hindfoot would represent the next NOTHINGPAIRING manifestation of model 1 & 2, the right forefoot representing the INFINITEBEFORE of model 1 and the left hindfoot representing the INFINITE AFTER of model 2. And once again we would be standing upon the NOWHARMONICS of models 1 and 2, our PLATFORM of reference.

10. Ophiolite: Expecting me to give birth is not only unrealistic, it is also faintly ludicrous.

Get my drift?

11. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Ophiolite: Expecting me to give birth is not only unrealistic, it is also faintly ludicrous.

Get my drift?
I believe I get it precisely. However, if we are going to give space to Stream systems to purvey their brand of nonsense, then someone needs to make sure the stupidity and gross ineloquence of exposition is highlighted and ridiculed. I don't expect to make Stream Systems recognise how deplorably pathetic their efforts are: I just want to make sure no one, for one instant, makes the mistake of taking their babble seriously.
It would be much simpler to ban StreamSystems, but I am uncomfortable with censorship. I suppose it could be effective to say nothing and allow their disjointed drivel to speak for itself. However, I find myself incandescent with fury that a human being should take their intellect, their life experience, their powers of language and reason, their education, and throw all of this away on a mundane heap of incoherent nonsense. It physically hurts me to see such inexcusable stupidity paraded and defended as though it represented a break through in human understanding. For those reasons - not especially good ones, I agree - I shall continue to probe and prod.

12. Fury? Incandescence? Physical pain? Then you take this forum far more seriously than I do, my friend.

Ok, I know it's not on your bailiwick, but in a few mins I'm going to open a new thread on the Site Feedback sub-forum, because I absolutely agree with you about censorship.

13. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by streamSystems
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
I want refrences relating to light cone theory that directly support your contention that time is circular. That is the point I am challenging. Respond to that point please.
Ophiolite, it seems you do need references for light cone theory. You see, light cone theory employs the equations of a "cone", which are derived, as you would know, from the equations of a circle, relevant to a point in time that eminates in both directions of time from that point in time (I think you need to brush up on your physics). The issue with light-cone physics is aligning those light cones in a way that can explain, ideally, the nature of space-time, and in that case, the curvature of space (are you sure you understand physics?).
Still waiting for you to provide any reference - peer reviewed journal, text book, tabloid newspaper - that supports your contention that time is circular. All you have done here is to run together some words that include the word circle and use that as proof of your justification. That simply wont wash. As in the three hundred and fifty six pages of garbage you call a new theory you are simply doing a lot of pathetic arm waving.

To illustrate what I mean here is a further extract from your life's great work.
In further discussion of this, as we have suggested, it is as though we would have a spacetime horse with fourlegs, its movement as according to a STREAMOFCONSCIOUSNESS principle. This, as representing one right forefoot and one left hind foot on the NOTHING ground as the NOTHING PAIRING manifestation of one step of the sequence of model 3, with the left forefoot representing the INFINITE BEFORE of model 1 and the right hindfoot representing the INFINITE AFTER of model 2, the very NOTHING ground, representing the NOTHING PAIRINGS ofmodel 3. Yet in the next STREAMOFCONSCIOUSNESS step the left forefoot and right hindfoot would represent the next NOTHINGPAIRING manifestation of model 1 & 2, the right forefoot representing the INFINITEBEFORE of model 1 and the left hindfoot representing the INFINITE AFTER of model 2. And once again we would be standing upon the NOWHARMONICS of models 1 and 2, our PLATFORM of reference.

Ophiolite.

Agreed.

I won't post anything new regarding the theory.

However, in the near future an aritcle is coming up in a leading scientific magazine that supports my theory of dual-time, more connected to my theory that what you understand of linear time.

Let us wait for that.

I will.

Do you think you will be all-right?

Ophiolite, also, I suggest you stop taking substances that incur memory loss in you. This is the second time you have decided to quote from my book, extracts that highlight new scientific terms that actually took at least 10 pages of theory to define. Yet you quote from my book like you forget that it took about 10 pages to explain what DEFINED space is, what UNDEFINED space is, what a HARMONIC NOW is, and so on. You, "you", are the one who is pathetic. You are a poor judge, and no matter how eloquent, in being a poor judge, your words are useless. If I can use the term "magniloquent", I would, but that does you too kindly. Your words and criticisms, short of you fully spitting a dummy and banning forum members, are empty and flaccid. They lack proper vigilance of what they are trying to define, let alone criticse. But, as I said, let us wait until I can get proper criticism from the scientific journals. Any judge would laught you out of court based on your ability to properly form a case.

Ophiolite, drugs are harmful, and the fact that you read a paper and then forget about the previous pages explaining new terms highlights you suffer from short-term memory loss. It also appears that you over-compensate by embellishing your words with such fluff, sometimes people would get the feeling it is a long winded fart you didn't allow out the right way, but managed to let escape with all the perfumes you add to your criticisms via your lips.

Ophiolite, the way you use Englaish as magniloquently as you do, without proper judgment, make the english language appear as though it is fit for fools and thieves. You discredit the language, and any type of connection of the english language with proper and fair determination of what one perceives and what one does not. You are pre-deterministic with your criticisms, which will quickly have you become type-cast as an ignoramus.

Ophiolite, also, if you had read this thread properly, you would have realised that I was asking if anyone knew of any contemporary ideas relevant to new directions in physics regarding the signature of time being more closely associated to mathematical wizardry than simple line drawings. You it appears have no regard for mathematics. Sure, I can hear the abuse coming, "show me your mathematics", but that is not the point: I am ASKING people if they know of any new directions in physics that accords time with a more mathematical blueprint that what it is currently offered. I also suggest you not consider a career in law, because your ability to be judgmental, and discerning at that, is lacking.

14. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Could it then be proposed that time obeys a type of circular motion feature in understanding, through our study of Minowski light cones, that light "cones" actually involve equations for circles?
Nope. You're making it far too complicated.

Look here, time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.

This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, of phase, etc)" and is expressed by simple equation: F (t)=F (t+t1). It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.

Because nothing depends on time, there is no absolute time. No time stones, no other marks indicating time whatsoever. The only way of "measuring" this mathematical quantity is to take any periodic process say, a pendulum, or a string, or a light bouncing between mirrors, or an electron oscillating in an atom, etc - then call the device a "clock device" or simply "clock”, then take TWO measurements of numbers of oscillations say, at two different locations, or at 2 different gravity environments, or at 2 different states of motion, etc., then take a RATIO of these two numbers (can't be one number because time is not absolute) and then label this ratio as "relative rate of one time versus another" or "rate of time versus reference clock rate", or "time in conventional units of time" or "accurate time" or simply "time".

Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.

This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood.

15. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by streamSystems
Could it then be proposed that time obeys a type of circular motion feature in understanding, through our study of Minowski light cones, that light "cones" actually involve equations for circles?
Nope. You're making it far too complicated.

Look here, time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.

This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, of phase, etc)" and is expressed by simple equation: F (t)=F (t+t1). It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.

Because nothing depends on time, there is no absolute time. No time stones, no other marks indicating time whatsoever. The only way of "measuring" this mathematical quantity is to take any periodic process say, a pendulum, or a string, or a light bouncing between mirrors, or an electron oscillating in an atom, etc - then call the device a "clock device" or simply "clock”, then take TWO measurements of numbers of oscillations say, at two different locations, or at 2 different gravity environments, or at 2 different states of motion, etc., then take a RATIO of these two numbers (can't be one number because time is not absolute) and then label this ratio as "relative rate of one time versus another" or "rate of time versus reference clock rate", or "time in conventional units of time" or "accurate time" or simply "time".

Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.

This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood.

The common thread to how time is measured is circular motion. You say so yourself.

Still, you are right; I am making the concept of time far too complicated in suggesting it obeys a circular-type construct of motion.

Let's discuss something else.

Nothing to do with the burning of books by Adolf Hitler, right?

No other topics about JFK inspiring a lunar landing, right, doing things that are difficult?

The reason, gentlemen, why we have not stumbled upon the theory of all things, historically speaking, is because it is difficult. Let us face that tyrant of ill-humor, and take upon that challenge that sets us apart from the rest.

Damn.\
\

Is it too late?

Ok, the ONLY WAY gentelman we can make time a "difficult thing" is if we create "two" points of time, and then establish exactly what the train man of time (known as father time) has in mind. What's his course? Is he good with horses?

In creating TWO points of time we ALLOW ourselves the ability to understand what a LINE of time is, and not just say it is a line without beginning or end. Let us DEFINE a beginning and end, by using TWO times, time before, and time AFTER. And then, let us establish an EQAUATION that we KNOW is fact, equations like the equations of a circle, so we can rest assured that if we can NEVER DEFINE the beginning or end of time, it may as well be a circle.

Do I have your ears, gentlemen?

Or is this too "difficult"?

Can you allow yourselves the time of understanding what you are looking for when you study time?

Despair not.......the weekend is nigh: it is a time we can reflect on such things.

Gentlemen, when we measure time, do we allow ourselves the luxury of letting time, if it be a real thing, escape through our checks and measurements, or should we be as difficult and precise as possible in defining time?

What say you all?

Why not make our definition of time that which defines the smallest fine-print of atomic phenomena: so yes, gentlemen, it will be difficult to define time: the most difficult thing that faces us is defining time, more difficult than deciding what to do with our pathetic lives.

If we find this difficult to accept, we may as well give this game of studying a thing called space-time "away".

16. I take it, from your last response to me Stream Systems, that you are still unable to provide a single piece of corroboration from the literature that your concept of ciruclar time is validated/supported by light cone theory.
If it is as obvious as you claim, it should be a simple task. Earlier in this thread you seemed to say you could do it. I am still waiting.

17. You want me to provide you with information on light cones, Ophiolite.

Why, oh why, is it a light "cone"? Why not a light "obelisk"?

What are you assuming about the propagation of energy?

You are "ASSUMING" that energy is instantaneously circular at any point in time. If you can therefore achieve an equation of a circle relevant to the propagation of any such energy, it's like a "cooeee", space-time saying something, care of any such theory.

Now, to understand a circle of time, as light-cone theory "assumes", you need two points on that circle as one, as "1", hence a "harmonic", hence my "need", Ophiolite, to define a "harmonic" of time, a concept you flashed with ridicule to the members of this forum.

Ophiolite, we are here to catch time, not let it escape us: we need to be refined...............we have to be as precise as the bouncing of atomic phenomena in knowing this footprint of time, otherwise we are "wasting" our time (ask your local esteemed philosopher).

Now, if I can get back to the subject matter at hand, we need, gentlemen, to focus on our "best abilities" of reasoning, to allocate our time, our OWN TIME, to understand time, almost like using our entire thought process..../......until it becomes repetitive, the quest...........that we are NOT resolved to give up on finding this footprint of time else it escape us............laught at us, burn us.............."escape" us, "allude" us, DOMINATE us.

This is why we are scientists: to reason with that tyrant who's domain we are born into and die and suffer in.

Science is not such a hollow subject as it seems: if we can be passionate and delicate that with our quest to understand time, and not just being good historians, we can time our passions "better" to suit us, one would think. It would be difficult for reality to say "no" to that, and even then we are assuming what reality can and can't do as a "zip it" agency.

So, lets be scientific, AND be difficult at that.............with time.

Well, genetlemen, when you die, when we all die, whenever that is, are we going to ASK for more of the simple linear crap we did our best to define as simple linear crap?

18. You are prevaricating StreamSytems. You previously stated that "and we know by light-cone theory (some of us know this) that radiation spreads outwards in a before and after fashion in a circular manner, "

I have simply asked that you provide citations that support this contention. (In short, I think you are mistaken in this statement, but am quite ready to be proven wrong if you will provide the evidence to support your contention.)

I am still waiting for a satisfactory response. In the absence of such a response the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot justify your original contention. Anything else you choose to prattle on about is os secondary importance. So, please provide the citations that you claim exist and that you have promised to provide.

19. I haven't understood what you fail to understand (there's probaly a reason for that, like I got over it earlier than later).

Ophiolite, answer me this: "why is it a light "cone""?

Do you know the equation for a cone?

What is the volume of a cone compared to a 4 sided pyramid of simalr height?

Why was a "circle" arbitrarily chosen as the propagation concept of space-time: THEN we will get to the equations (I have the answewr for both, by the way, square AND circle (consequently I have been able to derive in my theory, if you read it properly, that they are the same)).

A "light cone" is a term scientists use mathematically, because it is relevant to the propagation of energy in a circular fashion: ask your teacher this (I clearly cannot be your teacher just yet............I would have thrown you out yonks ago with your insolence..............we are here to share information not preach).

Let me get this right: do you wanrt to know why scientists "decided" in their immaculate wisdom to consider that energy propagates uniformally radially in such a way for the assumption of light-cones to be synonymous with contemporary "ra ra ra" of eventual pre-thought of the theory of all things?

Oh: I never satisfy someone who "wants" to be satisifed, for the record. Why make people "dull": satisfaction is never a motivating ideal for anything.

20. I wish you to provide, from accepted texts dealing with light cones, substantiation of your claim that time is circular. Nothing you have said in your previous post demonstrates this. You are still avoiding dealing with that central point.
You claim time is circular.
You claim light cone theory supports this view.
You have failed, thus far, to demonstrate that light cone theory supports your contention that time is circular.

I am still waiting. The request is simple. Stop prevaricating. Stop arm waving. Deal directly with the simple request.

21. Originally Posted by streamSystems
The common thread to how time is measured is circular motion. You say so yourself.
No, I did not. Did you even read what I wrote?

so we can rest assured that if we can NEVER DEFINE the beginning or end of time, it may as well be a circle.
Wtf are you talking about, I've already given you the explanation for time, and it's NOT a circle.

Do I have your ears, gentlemen?
Why bother, you don't have ours.

Can you allow yourselves the time of understanding what you are looking for when you study time?
It is YOU who are not taking the time to understand. Please do.

Gentlemen, when we measure time, do we allow ourselves the luxury of letting time, if it be a real thing, escape through our checks and measurements, or should we be as difficult and precise as possible in defining time?
That's not possible, and you would know that if you had read and understood what I wrote.

What say you all?
You are wasting everyones time.

Why not make our definition
Why create another definition for time when there already is one?

22. I had left this thread in Physics, wishing to give Stream Systems every opportunity to provide some scientific justification for its inclusion there. So far, SS, you have failed to provide justification for your central point, that time is circular. You hhave instead indulged yourself in a series of irrelevancies that bring nothing of value to the forum. Until and unless you provide some scientific justification for your aberrant claims this thread will remain in pseudoscience.
Be aware that it is only my aversion to censorship that prevents me from consigning your blatant nonsense to oblivion, where it belongs.

23. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
I wish you to provide, from accepted texts dealing with light cones, substantiation of your claim that time is circular. Nothing you have said in your previous post demonstrates this. You are still avoiding dealing with that central point.
You claim time is circular.
You claim light cone theory supports this view.
You have failed, thus far, to demonstrate that light cone theory supports your contention that time is circular.

I am still waiting. The request is simple. Stop prevaricating. Stop arm waving. Deal directly with the simple request.

It would have been nice for someone who has studied light-cone physics to have weighed in on this thread, yet as the case made itself apparent, no one did. Understandably it was moved to psuedoscience, yet again.

24. You said you could provide the citations I am asking for.
You said you would provide the citations I am asking for.
When will you provide the citations I am asking for?
Do you understand that the thread has been moved to pseudoscience because you have failed to provide the citations that would justify keeping it in the physics section.
Do not have the gall to suggest that my moderation is responsible for the move. It is your refusal to deliver what you said you could and would deliver that has led to this thread being moved.

Now you and I both know why you have not provided the citations. It is because they do not exist. Light cone theory does not support your bizarre contention that time is circular. Just as none - absolutely none - of the weird claims you make in your three hundred and fifty six pages of demented, hand waving, self deluded trash is substantiated by any work of science, or can be supported by even an elementary application of logic.

25. SS; Somewhat sympathetic, with your frustrations, you might either specify which version your referencing or a specific result your wanting to accomplish.

NS Mike, recently proposed *expanding light* to explain what he felt was why *red shifts* were being incorrectly analyzed in explaining universal expansion. Others have questions on *gravity cones* which are basic to curvature of light or gravity. Some explain *Theory of Relativity* by use of *Cone Theory* and so on....

Since my meager knowledge or interest in science, leans toward simplicity or the idea science complicates issues with exotic explanations, I would probably disagree with any specific idea you come up with. To me light is a simple entity, just as any energy, which in certain frequencies/wavelengths we see with our eye/brain. Once leaving its source travels in a straight line, does not expand or shrink and can only be altered by absorption or distortion of mass (gas/atmosphere).

26. Originally Posted by jackson33
SS; Somewhat sympathetic, with your frustrations, you might either specify which version your referencing or a specific result your wanting to accomplish.
He has been specific. He said this in his opening post.
"and we know by light-cone theory (some of us know this) that radiation spreads outwards in a before and after fashion in a circular manner."
This is what I have asked him to provide justification for. This is what he has failed to do. Instead he waffles on about unrelated matters and provides nothing of substance.
I am disappointed that a poster of quality would say to SS I am ,'sympathetic with your frustrations'. Frankly, that inclines me to throw in the towel. If you feel the sort of crap that SS is purveying merits serious consideration - and I wasted a weekend reading through his three hundred and fifty six page disjointed nonsense - then I'll just give up and you leave you to him. (or her, or it.)

27. "Somewhat" sympathetic, followed by an opinion refuting complicated explanations (exotic), with a summery indicating total disagreement to complicating energy action is hardly an endorsement.

However I only read the last page, where you and he/she seemed to arguing over why/why not provide a source. If you understood the question or some point he/she is trying to make, why not just answer the question, per your knowledge on the issue. Seems, I gave an opinion w/o
knowing the question.

Since you seem to be trying to keep this forum running, offering your moderating and responding to posters and there are a few in the forum I keep up with its hard to attack you personally. BUT, there does seem to be something personal between you and SS. By definition *Light Cone Theory* is pseudo and should have been posted here to begin with. In reclassifying no other reason "failure to give specific source" should have been threatened or required.

My point in response; Throw the towel in, if you must on this thread but not the forum...

28. Apologies.

I didn't know that light cone theory was/is pseudo science.

I also didn;t know that the idea of a cone, a "cone", needs to be mathematically explained every time that word is used in regard to light cones. You see, light "cones" bear testament to the idea that energy disappates radially, equally, equally, and thus radially, in the form of a circle. It is an "assumption" though that "requires" the equations. That was the point I was trying to make. The use of the term "cone" "assumes" that energy disappates radially from a source. I am uncertain as to if there EXSISTS any equations to back this up from the author of the light-cone theory, yet I was merely suggesting that I have equations to back up light cone theory in being a circular-equation phenomena.

Yet, as most posters would know in this forum, "who has the time to read such a theory, slowly".

I understand though why light-cone theory is psuedo-science: it is based on the assmuption that energy propagates equally and radially in time: in a two dimension space, that results in a circle, in a 3-dimensional space, a sphere.

But, you know, I had no idea it was assumed, that light cone theory assumes such a "circular" trace without the equations to back it up. A pity.

29. SS; W/O going over many threads and post, I seem to remember you oppose Einstein's Theory of Relativity. As indicated above, I have no personal interest in the subject, other than how light energy is perceived to judge the results of Hubble's Red Shift observation. Even here its in the context of my opinion, BBT has become a socially accepted theory, leaving out the potential for young minds to explore (envision) other potentially viable theory of a forming of the Universe or my opinion, in some manner it has always existed.

On the Gravity Cone section, which gravity is a force and unlike energy should be curved to maintain that force, I have no problem. Light and all EM energy IMO, does not depend or rely on a source for its existence. That is energy once released (emitted) it becomes its own entity, as massless (leaving out exotic rest mass etc) and subject to nothing unless makes contact with mass. Having said this, what appears to be light from a source, a star appearing to be from behind an eclipse, could very well have been altered by atmospheric conditions of that sun being eclipsed. Which I think agrees with your hypothesis.

The universe (is) three dimensional, not two and anything configured in a hypothetical two dimensional universe is beyond my comprehension. In my little world of thought (right/wrong) space and time are two separate things. Spacetime sprang from need to explain certain phenomenon, which placed space and time into BBT singularity.

As for explanations of ALL the theory, your concerned with, there are countless articles/explanation, many arguments opposing or questioning each, all found on the WEB. I would think, since you have written a lengthy paper on the subject, you have read much of this already. I might add if Ophi, had trouble digesting your paper, you will find few that will read far into it. Unless your point is to over throw *Relativity* you have not made any point clear to me, but again its something I have little interest in...

30. Thanks for how you seee my situation.

I can explain it simpler: I am dealing with the assumption we make regarding both the 2-dimensional models and 3-dimenasional models of space-time, that in each we "assume" energy propagates radially in the form of a circular energy front (2-dimensional) and radially in a spherical energy front (3-dimensional reality). Like, "why" though "radially? Can we at least prove that with equations. My theory can, but I have yet in all my web browsing been able to find a theory that can, while still explaining relativistic and quantum features of space-time.

That's my situation in a nut-shell.

Maybe you know of theories on the web that explain why in a 2-d reality energy propagates in a circular energy front, or in a 3-d reality a spherical front. Thoeries, basically, that cite the equations of a sphere and circle are what I am looking for, relevant obviously to energy-propagation typically described as a "quanta/um".

31. SS; Think I could answer your question, however am going to suggest you google *Answer to Physic Questions* where there are several sites you can ask specific questions, receiving expert answers (so claimed). If such a mathematical equation exist, that also should be available.

32. Originally Posted by streamSystems

It would have been nice for someone who has studied light-cone physics to have weighed in on this thread, yet as the case made itself apparent, no one did. Understandably it was moved to psuedoscience, yet again.
That would be a complete waste of time as "light-cone physics" DOES not offer a definition for time. I did, above. Have a good read and try to understand, please.

33. Originally Posted by (Q)
Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.

This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood.

Q.

Apologies.

I thought you were making the suggestion with the above statements that as we measure time using circular motion constructs (such as a pendulum, even a H electron oscillation (still circular motion concept)), time can be defined in a circular motion fashion.

My mistake.

May I add though, even though light cone physics (which I have found out is actually psuedo science) does not strictly "define" time, it makse use of the concept of time to have it implicated in a process that highlights how time is more often than not "implicated" in the laws and procedures of space. I think you get my drift.

My entire emphasis, as you would know by now, is not "implicating" time, but grabbing that bull by the horns and actually making clear statements as to it's possible nature in carrying the idea, the thought, as you would know, that time could infact, if we define it so, be the reference of inquiry when studying space...........yet, obviously, only if we define it as so: I guess though we must ask the science God permission before we do that, right?

No, hang on: it's what works best, right?

No, hang on, I forget (silly me): it is the popular opinion, not necessarily what works best.

34. Originally Posted by streamSystems
I thought you were making the suggestion with the above statements that as we measure time using circular motion constructs (such as a pendulum, even a H electron oscillation (still circular motion concept)), time can be defined in a circular motion fashion.
No, I was not. To be absolutely crystal clear, there is NO definition linking time to circular motion. Nada. Ziltch.

My mistake.
No problem, I hope you understand, now.

making clear statements as to it's possible nature in carrying the idea, the thought, as you would know, that time could infact, if we define it so, be the reference of inquiry when studying space...........yet, obviously, only if we define it as so
We are not obliged, in any way, shape, or form to redefine reality as we see fit in order to fulfill our own fantasies of what we want reality to be.

35. So, maybe you can explain to me how we became to use 3 dimensions for space and only one for time.

Aren't we a smarter bunch of grapes in this day and age compared to all those years ago.............???

36. Originally Posted by streamSystems
So, maybe you can explain to me how we became to use 3 dimensions for space and only one for time.
Good question.

Dimensions are "orthogonal" (at right angles) to one another, hence we have the 3 Cartesian dimensions of length, width and breadth (x, y, z axes) providing us with our 3 dimensional universe. The fourth dimension orthogonal to the other three is the direction of motion, governed by time.

And, although clocks tick differently under certain circumstances based on the observers reference frame, we can relate one observers frame to the other by simply transforming time between frames.

Aren't we a smarter bunch of grapes in this day and age compared to all those years ago.............???
Some are, some are evidently not. What's your point?

37. I'm a little puzzled by our definition of time.

Time moving as the fourth dimension of motion through 3 dimensions is a little lame.

What about two 3-d space constructs that go from one state of "before" to the next state of "after"...........to use time as an inherent "change" itself in the 3-d axis system from one aligment (the before) to another (the after).

My theory explains it better (www feature below).

By this method space and time are not seperate: they are a continuum, which seems to be a better shoe-fit for this era, as an axiom (well, potential axiom upgrade).

I remember as a kid I was concerned about my studies, that I wasn't achieveing the results I should have been. I then read about the story of the axe-man who failed to sharpen his axe: the message was namely to improve my study "skills" and not the amount I was studying. I think the same appiles with science, and that one day some will make that axiomatic change to more efficiently accommodate for what we observe of space and time.

Without being pessimistic, I don't think the system is structured to accommodate for any such "change" though. I don't think the scientific community at large will accept any such "revision" of the axioms of space-time. But, as with people who are beginning to moan about the effect of industrialisation on the environment, one elevates their position when they make a small yet notceable noise about a big issue on the horizon that "must be faced". A revision of the axioms of space-time, given the general boredom that the future holds, I think will propose a decent revision on what we understand of time.

38. Originally Posted by streamSystems
I'm a little puzzled by our definition of time.

Time moving as the fourth dimension of motion through 3 dimensions is a little lame.
Again, time and dimensions are not meant to entertain you, hence the fact that you consider them "lame" only serves to demonstrate you have no interest in science whatsoever, but are more interested in the sound of your own voice.

My theory explains it better (www feature below).
No, it does not.

I think the same appiles with science, and that one day some will make that axiomatic change to more efficiently accommodate for what we observe of space and time.
Your inability to understand those concepts does not preclude the fact those concepts are understood by others, who use them most efficiently and accommodating.

I don't think the scientific community at large will accept any such "revision" of the axioms of space-time.
One would need to demonstrate revisions are necessary. You have failed miserably in that venture.

A revision of the axioms of space-time, given the general boredom that the future holds, I think will propose a decent revision on what we understand of time.
Again, the fact that you're not "entertained" with science as you would be fondling your own genitals is as irrelevant to science as the verbal and mental masturbation you have offered.

39. You make judgments about me by scientific deduction in assuming there is either "science" or "psychopathology".

Wow.

Live long and prosper.

As for your high and mighty use of the word "genitals", it seems you have a science on that matter also?

If you be a man, maybe you were born with genitals that said, "thee must leave me ALOOOOOOOONE!".

You do sound suspiciously like another forum member, though, yes?

Are you in league?

(Apparently, Vulcans are in league..........according to what would be your own most high scientific journals, right?)

Q (star trek, right: yet you show no lateral-thought as the real Q showed, YES?), also, please note the following: I have not made any personal attacks against you. Yet you come across like a Moderator (I wonder who) parading as a psuedo-new-poster who is using all type of vulgarity to engage me in an illegitimate debate about ego's. Just drop it.......Moderator (your joining date is a give-away: besides, why be "below the belt in a direct personal attack on someone). If I could compare your style to other Moderators, it would become evident who you are. That's fine, but to do that in the manner of some type of below-the-belt sentinel, get a life.

May I though on a more constructive note re-iterate the main point of my previous plug: Without being pessimistic, I don't think the system is structured to accommodate for any such "change" though. I don't think the scientific community at large will accept any such "revision" of the axioms of space-time. But, as with people who are beginning to moan about the effect of industrialisation on the environment, one elevates their position when they make a small yet notceable noise about a big issue on the horizon that "must be faced". A revision of the axioms of space-time, given the general boredom that the future holds, I think will propose a decent revision on what we understand of time.

Finally (I hope, on this subject that I never tried to present), as for my genital region, if I ever exercised on my own my genital organ complex, it would be so in the context of resussitating myself in a newly scientific manner in an otherwise a-virile and sterile scientific world arena..........YET I would NEVER consider publishing that ability to remain virile in this otherwise avirile scientific arena..........because I do not initiate anything of the sort, that publishing, as it seems you would with your remarks, nor thus follow through with anything of the sort

40. Originally Posted by streamSystems
I don't think the system is structured to accommodate for any such "change" though. I don't think the scientific community at large will accept any such "revision" of the axioms of space-time.
Yes, they will. But, they won't accept that from those who pull theories out of their asses.

41. And this "out of one's ass" is a scientifically studied concept you have experience with?

But, allow me to make a sincere and structured observation regarding HOW scientifical administration authorities operate:

- axioms do not change, theories do.
- there is no hint in changing how "time" is to be defined.
- the amount of theories presented time and time again without proposing the use of new axioms entrenches science in what it only has as a set of axioms.

.................good luck.

If you ask me, an upgraded theory of space-time without changing the axioms of space-time is that stuff you accuse MY theory of.

Also, dare for a moment to suppose that it is not MY theory, because it is NOT. The theory I propose is the theory I propose. It is not MY THEORY. It is a theory of space-time and perception, the space-time logic of our perception. The logic of how we perceive "space-time". It is elementary. When someone discovered the atom did they say, "this is my theory of the atom". The atom just "is". Physics in this day and age has become so ego-hyperinflated, you can't see beyond your own publishing rights.

42. Originally Posted by streamSystems
And this "out of one's ass" is a scientifically studied concept you have experience with?
It is as scientific as the theories being pulled out.

But, allow me to make a sincere and structured observation regarding HOW scientifical administration authorities operate:

- axioms do not change, theories do.
Huh? :?

- there is no hint in changing how "time" is to be defined.
A personal problem of yours, obviously. For scientists, this is a non-issue.

- the amount of theories presented time and time again without proposing the use of new axioms entrenches science in what it only has as a set of axioms.
Again, huh? :?

If you ask me, an upgraded theory of space-time without changing the axioms of space-time is that stuff you accuse MY theory of.
Yours is not a theory, nor even a hypothesis. It is an unfounded assertion.

Also, dare for a moment to suppose that it is not MY theory, because it is NOT. The theory I propose is the theory I propose. It is not MY THEORY. It is a theory of space-time and perception, the space-time logic of our perception. The logic of how we perceive "space-time". It is elementary. When someone discovered the atom did they say, "this is my theory of the atom". The atom just "is". Physics in this day and age has become so ego-hyperinflated, you can't see beyond your own publishing rights.
Third times the charm. Huh? :?

43. Huh?

You say, huh?

Of course: you are not responsible.

44. Originally Posted by streamSystems
You do sound suspiciously like another forum member, though, yes?
...
Are you in league?
......
Yet you come across like a Moderator (I wonder who) parading as a psuedo-new-poster who is using all type of vulgarity to engage me in an illegitimate debate about ego's. Just drop it.......Moderator (your joining date is a give-away: besides, why be "below the belt in a direct personal attack on someone). If I could compare your style to other Moderators, it would become evident who you are. That's fine, but to do that in the manner of some type of below-the-belt sentinel, get a life.
I take it that you are accusing (Q) of being a sock puppet of myself.
(s)He is not. The join dates are similar since we were both refugees from another forum that was having difficulties at that time.

We are both attacking your ideas and ridiculing your exposition because we are both intelligent enough , and sufficiently educated, to recognise pure stupidity when we see it, not because we are the same person.

45. I'm surprised you take anything in pseudoscience seriously, Ophiolite.

I have decided not to depend on english eloquence for my theory. Your presentation, Ophiolite, in regard to my theory, is purely superfluous.

Still, your honesty is refreshing, even though your ability of perception is mired by your tongue and it's associated dialect.

Ophiolite, I don;t think science is your game, because your instinct for awareness is non-existent......you over-compensate with reason. You are more one of the "faithful", and there's nothing wrong that. Your only real problem is making that a mechanism of speech, which has you project to it would seem to one and all a type of "intangible" quality of "ultimate superiority": it's a lonely and dispersive way to be human.

46. If theres one thing I learned streamSystems, its that you should never post your theories online as folks will rip them to shreds and then steal them. Just patent your ideas and then publish them. Then peoples jealousy will have gone for folk will not know you pose a threat to their beliefs anymore.

Personally I think your beliefs are grand and you and I are on a similar page, I'd love to publish my theories and tell you of one of them but for the same reason I have said, I don't want them stealing.

47. The theory is a one of a kind. Anyone who "steals" will know the meaning of the term "open-season". There is enough proof that the theory belongs to a specific author such that any legal system in the world can be presented proof to in order to vouch for that fact. The purpose of putting it on internet has been part of that process. Now, currently, I am looking for a chinese linguist to translate the thyeory into english, becausde I have found the english speaking scientific community "lost" in their own verbosity.

The thing about the theory, the core logic, is that it is more "duality" coded in a ying-yang type fashion than anything else I have come across. I think the chinese language will do it greater justice than the gypsy-speech english, no matter how eloquent it seems, has become. The theory also presents with enough new technology associated to the new science such that any breach of justice regarding the proper handling of that theory will keep me and those who rightfully develop that science entertained and amused for more years than people care countring.

If the younger generation is our future, this forum has demonstrated to me that even the brightest minds of that future are not open to any form of change to the axioms-structure of space-time...........not an english speaking generation, that is certain. I have seen a spectrum of criticisms fired at the theory that account for the simple fact that the scientific community is not open to change in any manner not taught at an official learning institution first.

For entertainment and fun & games, NO LANGUAGE can compete with english. But, I am down to the business end of my theory, and I don't think the english language cuts it.

When people sit back and make jokes about serious issues, that's entertainment. When smart folk do that, they make their language the official carrier of stupidity.

48. Originally Posted by streamSystems
If the younger generation is our future, this forum has demonstrated to me that even the brightest minds of that future are not open to any form of change to the axioms-structure of space-time...
Tell me about it. Like most things especially this, they don't understand spacetime. Most call it time-space wtf?!

But thats probably because they don't understand it :?.

49. SS; Think I am understanding, SOME of where your coming from. This being where science has come from, under what influence and if not checked, where its headed for. If correct you probably have a point...

One thing however, IMO, you need to work on is your debating skills. It is you that is trying to convince others, not them trying to convince you since they already have for the most part the accepted scientific principles behind them. As a VERY poor debater myself, I have no idea what to advise. I can tell you, many folks on this or many other forums (not necessarily science oriented) have good ideas, which die from the inefficiencies of the author.

As for fearing some one will take your idea or for that matter anyones idea, run with it, maybe becoming famous is pure arrogance. One of my reasons for posting is the hope of igniting one or more of my ideas, which generally do run counter to the accepted, into some mind that will carry it on to some finality.

50. Originally Posted by streamSystems
The theory is a one of a kind.
You don't have a theory: you have disjointed speculation.
Originally Posted by streamSystems
Anyone who "steals" will know the meaning of the term "open-season".
This has all the characteristics of a threat. Please ensure you do not level such threats against any specific individuals.
Originally Posted by streamSystems
There is enough proof that the theory belongs to a specific author such that any legal system in the world can be presented proof to in order to vouch for that fact.
How bizarre. You are at pains to point out in posts on this forum and in your website that you are not to be considered the author. For example, from page 344 (Appendix 6), "I say, “whoever wrote it”, because realistically I could be just “tuning in” to spacetime, tuning into an even greater book someone else has written …………. yet to be published. For me then to say I am the author of something I have yet to receive thorough feedback from is quite presumptuous of me."
Now, suddenly, you become all proprietorial. Let me set your mind at rest: no one in their right mind will attempt to steal your theory.
I have found the english speaking scientific community "lost" in their own verbosity.
When I read a line like this one, I have to smile. Fellow posters, please do take a look at Stream Systems website then ask yourself who it is that is lost in verbosity.
If the younger generation is our future, this forum has demonstrated to me that even the brightest minds of that future are not open to any form of change to the axioms-structure of space-time
Do you actually believe the brightest minds are to be found on this forum. You seriously need a reality check.
I have seen a spectrum of criticisms fired at the theory that account for the simple fact that the scientific community is not open to change in any manner not taught at an official learning institution first.
You are quite incapable of listening - aren't you. You have not offered up a theory, merely a string of jargon and undefined terms, accompanied by much arm waving, pseudo-scientific fluff and painfully inept exposition.
There has been no 'spectrum of criticisms'. That implies a range of criticisms. If you look closely you will see but one: you have offered up incoherent nonsense. Converting your 'theory' to another language will only increase the number of world citizens who find your ideas laughable.
My advice, which I am confident you will ignore: quit while you are behind.

51. "open season", according to my understanding, is a metaphor to duck season........hunting "game"..........I usually do that with the legal system, yet you seem to represent some type of sub-level of society in misinterpreting ANYTHING I present.

(by the way, have you actually tried to read the section relevant to the equations of a circle and sphere relevant to new axioms of space-time?????

The whole ISSUE of the theory, if you hadn't noticed, is the ability the THEORY and not myself has in deriving the equations for a circle and sphere PURELY from new axioms of space-time...........think about that, Ophiolite......it;s the stuff of Pythagoras who used a DIFFERENT set of axions for space-time: I don;t have a new theory, I have a new FRONTIER of space-time: think about that)

OK, I will start adding some more.

Ophiolite, if you took your head out of your ass, you would realise that generally, acorss the planet, people who indulge in debates of this kind are usually of a higher magnitude of intellect than the average human.

I have already defined what I meant by open-season, yet I am surprised you take such a term on a barbaric level, given the level of english you "seem" to have mastered, or rather, the level of english presumably I have not. It tells me you have a sense of self-superiority you seem to reserve only for yourself.

I added at the final stage of the theory that "anyone who wrote it" to highlight that the book is devoid of entrails of personality, something someone like yourself would be incapable of achieving in any piece of writing, I would think.

But, Ophiolite, take a look at the process involved with the derivation of the equations of a circle and sphere: Try not to balk the issue.

Every time it seems you make a reply, whatever good-intention you have (which is a little hard to imagine) comes across as a vicious swipe at any form of lengthy debate.

Once again, you surprise me: this is the psuedoscience section. Try not to be too serious, right?

Ophiolite, you are being a troll.

Every time I have a discussion with someone, when I cross a brdige or am about to with someone, you start making foul remarks.

Not only that, first you send this thread to pseudoscience, and now what do you think you are doing!!!!

Ophiolite, you are as wrong in your judgment of me as a human being as you are in your judgment of my theory.

For the past number of years, in having this theory, I thought, "gee, it would be good if I had some equations, for a circle, and sphere, and for pi: that way, this virtual reality would have VALID equationds for a circle and sphere, as proposed". I finally reached that mark of PROVING with equations that a new set of scientific axioms can explain space-time without corrupting known basic equations. Think about that. Take your time. Someone like you, based on your track record, NEEDS TO.

Bear in mind also I derived the equations NEWTON also derived, and the energy equation of Einstein (all though via a different pathway owing to the different axiom structuire for space-time (like, DaaAA).

52. Originally Posted by streamSystems
".....yet you seem to represent some type of sub-level of society in misinterpreting ANYTHING I present..
Alternatively, maybe you are poor at clearly representing what you mean. You might want to think about that.
Originally Posted by streamSystems
by the way, have you actually tried to read the section relevant to the equations of a circle and sphere relevant to new axioms of space-time?????
Let me echo your own remarks - have you actrually read anything I have written. I spent a weekend studying your 350 page work. You might want to think about that too.
Originally Posted by streamSystems
The whole ISSUE of the theory, if you hadn't noticed, is the ability the THEORY and not myself has in deriving the equations for a circle and sphere PURELY from new axioms of space-time...........think about that, Ophiolite......it;s the stuff of Pythagoras who used a DIFFERENT set of axions for space-time: I don;t have a new theory, I have a new FRONTIER of space-time: think about that).
The derivation of the equations is not apparent. The axioms are not apparent. The novelty of your approach is not apparent. You might want to think about that. (You might suspect that the problem lies in my comprehension. You would then need to consider why I should have little difficulty in understanding those theories of modern science I have studied, yet find your own work incomprehensible. You might want to think about that.
Originally Posted by streamSystems
Ophiolite, if you took your head out of your ass, you would realise that generally, acorss the planet, people who indulge in debates of this kind are usually of a higher magnitude of intellect than the average human.
I have yet to see any evidence for much intellectual rigour in yourself. It may be there, but it remarkably well concealed.
Originally Posted by streamSystems
I have already defined what I meant by open-season, yet I am surprised you take such a term on a barbaric level, given the level of english you "seem" to have mastered, or rather, the level of english presumably I have not. It tells me you have a sense of self-superiority you seem to reserve only for yourself.
I am not exactly sure how I could be superior to myself. Amongst the general public (who you appear to despise for lacking your intellectual stature) having an 'open season' is metaphorically akin to killing and literally means causing harm to reputation, position, or status. Perhaps you should get out more..
Originally Posted by streamSystems
But, Ophiolite, take a look at the process involved with the derivation of the equations of a circle and sphere: Try not to balk the issue.
You do not derive these equations. You spin some words, you wave your arms, you use terms you haven't defined, in a grammatical structure of perverse character. You obfuscate at every turn. You provide nothing of substance. These are the cold hard facts. Whatever your intention is you are not delivering, unless your intention is to produce bad prose.
..
Originally Posted by streamSystems
Every time it seems you make a reply, whatever good-intention you have (which is a little hard to imagine) comes across as a vicious swipe at any form of lengthy debate.
..........Ophiolite, you are being a troll.
If I valued your opinion I would be offended.
..
Originally Posted by streamSystems
Every time I have a discussion with someone, when I cross a brdige or am about to with someone, you start making foul remarks.
Not only that, first you send this thread to pseudoscience, and now what do you think you are doing!!!!
Originally Posted by streamSystems
.
I ask you to identify a single foul remark I have made. I have objectively stated that your writing is of abominable quality. It does not communicate what you wish it to communicate. You believe it does. You are mistaken. You are mistaken to such a depth and breadth that I am pained by how out of touch with reality you are. If you consider honest comments like that to be foul then I recommend you purchase a new dictionary.
Presumably you wish people to read, understand and consider your work. They cannot presently do this because it is so obtuse, illdefined, poorly written, lacking in structure and plagued with a host of other deficiencies. Would you prefer I pretend it makes sense? Would you like to me to give you false compliments? Do you want me to pander to your considerablle ego?
If the answer to any of th above is 'yes' then you are out of luck.

As to what I am doing now - I am making sure no one is misled by your nonsense and I am trying to get through to you that until and unless you can restate it in a meaningful way, then anyone with a brain will perceive it as nonsense.

One single point of substance now - perception is not, as you seem to believe reality, but an interpretation of reality. If you wish to take a different view, you need to provide justification for it.

53. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
One single point of substance now - perception is not, as you seem to believe reality, but an interpretation of reality. If you wish to take a different view, you need to provide justification for it.

Ophiolite, believe it or not, you fit a category of person, a "type". Over the past 8 or so years of offering the theory, I have come across a common trait of person you exemplify. It is the person who believes that theories of perception are related only to the observor, and NOT a thing of universal basis.

Your type of person is BIAS. You emphatically believe that there can be NO universal theory for the reference of the observor. It's a pity, because a theory of all things actually STATES that for a general theory of space-time to be universal, it needs to be OBSERVED, which then results in a theory of perception (simple logic suggests this).

Another thing, Ophiolite, I thank you for reading the theory. But, you say you spent a weekend on it. I have people from multi-billion dollar corporations looking at it and it is taking them more than a few weeks. I suggest you read it "slowly", or at least read it to ENSURE you understand one page to the next (starting from page 1), and not use it as a read to powder your own belief system that all theories of perception are simple if not retarded.

The equations of the circle were derived using "absolute" parameters. The folding of space-time using the new axioms for time and space lead to the arrangement of the square (right angle folds) becomming the circle (if you had read it slowly, you would have noticed that).

I don't suggest you read the book. I suggest you try another book. But let anyone who wants to read it READ it. Don't show yourself to be some type of Nazi in a Gestapo outfit hell-bent on ridiculing anyone with theories of space-time and perception. Because that is what you are appearing to be.

Your disgregard for a theory of perception makes you blind to even your own behavior in this forum. Maybe You should think about that. Oh, and this is still the psuedo section: what is a giant like you doing in a place like this.

Ophiolite, say you what of the first 50 or so pages of the book.

What PROBLEM(s) do you find with the propositions in that intial section? Because? If you have problems with that initial section, you are a time-waster for reading the rest. I make it very clear that "mathematically absolute" parameters are used. I create a reference in a mathematically absolute space-time landscape. In doing that, initially, I "assume" the construct of a sphere (which I therefore have to prove, as a mathematical construct, which I do), as the reference. But then I prove that assumption true by deriving the equation of a sphere. I do a series of space-time FOLDS which then point to a length by a length which when multiplied gives rise to the equations of a sphere.

You may need to practice reading more abstract works in order to get a grip with this one.

It's not your fault you don't understand it. I am glad, in fact, certain people "don't" understand it, certain people like yourself, with the manner of people such as yourself. It pleases me that you do not understand it. Because technically the theory is an invitation to a new arena of space research, which it seems you are not invited to.

I have shown absolutely NO bias against you, yet you have screwed up this invitation. Ophilite, without providing you with a short version of all the great ways of "perceiving" in history, the theory, in a thorough research of it, has made me suspect that certain "people's" with a certain BELIEF system (or rather, absence of one), disinclude themselves from ANY debate about a science that backs a universal observor reference,. You, Ophiolite, appear to be a part of that sect of people. Although you do raise concern in me, you do not concern my theory.

I am not here to convert anyone.

If you are not involved with the idea of a universal perception already in your life, don't engage in this debate.

54. Originally Posted by streamSystems
It is the person who believes that theories of perception are related only to the observor, and NOT a thing of universal basis.

Your type of person is BIAS. You emphatically believe that there can be NO universal theory for the reference of the observor.
Anyone with even a modicum of education in physics would understand that.

That is why you fail.

55. Listen, Yoda, have your fun in someone else's time.

56. "the roads we travel on in life" a reflection of our 5-dimensional selves.

57. Originally Posted by streamSystems
[... I have come across a common trait of person you exemplify. It is the person who believes that theories of perception are related only to the observor, and NOT a thing of universal basis.
No, SS, I do not believe that theories of perception are related to the observer, this is how perception is defined in medicine, psychiatry, psychology, ethology, biology, and any other ology related to the topic. If you wish to change the meaning of words - a speciality with you, it seems - then you need to a) justify that change, b) fully explain your new definition. You have not done this.

58. Ophiolite, I was referring to you and your ability of perception, as "all knowing and supreme" it seems. It is as though you can't see your own behavior, how you come across here in this forum (especially), yet your belief in your own perception and view seems to blind you from this. You are the belief of the OBSERVOR, and you are OBSERVOR #1.

My theory though is more logical with perception, with the observor: it is devoid of all personality and life-experience: in short, it is a machine, a mathematical algorithm that reasons for itself a logical reality of space-time, according to it's parameters of definition. Yet, it seems, that is too much for your ego to handle.

For you to perhaps note, the theory will be in the less (or should I say, the "least") informal style by mid-2008. It will be in perhaps the most rigid and painfully mathematical presentation for the likes of yourself to chew over. It will also hopefully be available in the Chinese language. You have made me think "english" as a language is a reason for self-delusion.

59. Sidestep all you wish. No one is fooled.

60. I have seen debates rage about what religion claims to have the more correct theory for God.

I respect Ophiolite that you are NOT open to any change in the current BELIEF SYSTEM of science (aka axiom structure).

Please do not engage then in any of my pseudo posts.

I respect you are a die-hard for the current axiom structure, and here I am proposing a new one. Let's agree to disagree and look for our own fellow posters.

61. Originally Posted by streamSystems
I have seen debates rage about what religion claims to have the more correct theory for God.

I respect Ophiolite that you are NOT open to any change in the current BELIEF SYSTEM of science (aka axiom structure).

Please do not engage then in any of my pseudo posts.

I respect you are a die-hard for the current axiom structure, and here I am proposing a new one. Let's agree to disagree and look for our own fellow posters.
I am utterly disbelieving in the current axiom structure. I give string theory absolutely no credit whatsoever. I thoroughly doubt that life originated on the Earth, but more likely arose within hot GMCs. I strongly suspect there is an as yet unidentified Lamarckian aspect to evolution. I have major issues with the planetary migration hypotheses used to account for hot Jupiters. I think Popper's notions on falsification of theories have distorted a generation or two of researchers. I believe there may well be teleological implications for life, the universe and everything. (And the answer is forty three, not forty two.)
I continue to study the data, sift the evidence, and evaluate the hypotheses on these points. However, repeating myself yet again, I do not find anything you have written to offer anything novel, insightful, useful, relevant, intelligent, imaginative, or remotely scientific. You are not offering a new axiomatic structure, you are merely burping in a public place.

62. You seem very "Red Dwarf" orientated.

You have tangential interests, but no real rock that holds all of what you "like" together.

Could you perhaps write a "theory of all that interests you", make it holistic, relevant to space-time theories?