I posted the ideas that made the quote up, in the theory development forum. Since it can't be "Tested", it doesn't belong there. :rofl:
So it's "Philosophy" then, is it ? :rofl:
Alright. I'll post it in the Philosophy forum.
Peace.
b11ng00
Action = Reaction. Energy is conserved. Action in a line conserves energy.
What ! You's don know my text from what I says to you's ? You's think is true ? My text. Or you's think is false. My text.
Ranting aside.
What don't you understand in my initial post in this thread.
As I said in my new thread. I know not this "lama", this "organic". This thread has run it's course. Any new replies can go on that thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39515
I don't Know lama.
I don't knoe organic.
I don't know Euclid.
What are you saying. About definitions. Please point out your logic here. Where's the flaw. :uhh:
- On a pentagon. Two linear points are:
(A) Equal, and opposite reaction.
or
(B) Planks constant.
- The pentagon is on a plane. A plane can be defined by three points.
- The three points can conserve energy.Three lines.
- (Action = Reaction = 1 Line) + (Geometry = 3 planar...
Test this proof.
1.) Create the absence of Planks constant.
2.) The equal and opposite reaction will be 5 reactions/Lines.
(A) Equal and opposite to the absence of plank's constant action.
(B) Equal and opposite to the action made.
There's (A), (B), or both. I'm not exactly sure...
- (Action + Geometry = Triangle)
A Triangle action equal's what ?
A planes action equals what ?
Answer: The absence of Plank's constant.
- Action Equals, Equal, and Opposite, Reaction.
- The reaction would be equal and opposite to the absence of Plank's constant, or equal to Plank's...
The link "Tweak", above, contents.
In the diagram, points, 1 + 2 = action. Action = Energy X Time. Plank's constant. Since 1 + 2 = a line. I had a start to work with something.
I applied this the Geometry. Geometry is defined in a plane. A plane is a set of 3 non-colinear points(not in a...
These two links are my summary of this thread. I have reformatted my theory to be more readable as well. I hope it's still true to the first post.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/cjsKtU/Tweak.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/cjsKtU/Hey.jpg
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl...
Now this is out of my hands. I don't know anything about light cones, etc...
Please carry this theory's development on amongst yourselves. I'll be watching.
Peace.
This was reffering to the picture I was describing.
This Picture.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/cjsKtU/Hey.jpg
1+ 2 are the points that are consistant with Plank's constant; Energy * Time = Action.
I said to wait for the picture before debunking my theory.
So I have to agree with Newton ? Who agree's with Newton ?
Does Kaku agree with Newton ? Does Plank ? Does Kaku agree with what it's trying to agree with, and can you prove it ?
Why do I have to agree ? Now I'm really confused here. Please explain. My theory is coherant, it has no flaws I...
All these theories. So many theories. Nobody evolves my theory/developes it.
In THEORY DEVELOPMENT You + ME, D e v e l o p e, theories !
I did my part. I honestly did. Your the TROLL !. YOU DID NOT POST ON MY THREAD TO DEVELOPE ANYTHING. Did you ! Nobody does. And then laughs about it...