Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

New thread/Reformated material.

  1. Aug 13, 2004 #1
    In the diagram
    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 line), that are on the same plane.
    Geometry consists of Points, lines, and planes.

    Since action ~ to a line. I theorize that geometry + Action, would be a triangle, and not just a classic plane.

    On geometry, the action is only one side of the triangle, joining two points that help define a plane.
    So, seeing a triangle is easy.

    Since every triangle has the triangle inequality theorem
    A < b + c, b < c + a, c < A + B
    And since Action = Reaction, Action < Reaction + Reaction.

    So. On geometry + action;
    Action = Reaction = Reaction + Reaction.
    The triangle that defines geometry.

    Reaction + Reaction = itself.

    So my theory is
    (Action + geometry = triangle) = Reaction = Reaction + Reaction = Itself.

    It looks like the jpeg.

    I asked the mod to delete the last thread I had on this. So this thread is the only one on topic.

    I can honestly say I really trying here. Before you laugh. Wait to see the picture when it's approved. I'm really trying to make sense in contrast to when this idea was first being structured by myself. Please don't laugh. Wait for the picture.

    :smile: Think happy thoughts !

    :biggrin:
     

    Attached Files:

    • Hey.JPG
      Hey.JPG
      File size:
      2.7 KB
      Views:
      58
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 13, 2004 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Nonsense. What predictions are you making that disagree with whatever 'theory' you are trying to disprove?
     
  4. Aug 13, 2004 #3
    Make your own, and post them here. Please. I gotta get some shuteye. :zzz:

    Nighty night.
     
  5. Aug 13, 2004 #4
    Please leave this thread in theory development ! :mad:
     
  6. Aug 13, 2004 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I am not the one who is proposing a 'theory'. You post trash and retreat to see what happens. Rest assured, you have lost my interest. Go to the philosophy forum and troll.
     
  7. Aug 13, 2004 #6
    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.

    I posted this thread to develope my theory. Anybody who wishes to add to my development/ theory in progress, is welcomed.

    You Chronos, have done nothing that this forum was meant for in this thread. Your the TROLL. !

    Peace.
     
  8. Aug 13, 2004 #7

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Objection noted. Your theory does not agree with observation. The examples are too numerous to mention. Had you researched the subject, you would already know that.
     
  9. Aug 13, 2004 #8
    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 can see. Or I would delete it right now.

    If it's semi-developed as is, why not develope it even more ?
     
  10. Aug 13, 2004 #9

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    1 + 2 = action? Why not 1 + 1, or +3 or +4, = 'action'? Pick a constant, any constant. Your theory is not 'semi-developed', it has no mathematical or logical basis whatsoever.
     
  11. Aug 13, 2004 #10
    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.
     
  12. Aug 13, 2004 #11

    Yes, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; energy is conserved.


    Form a space-time triangle with vertices A,B,C, of three lines - two null and one spacelike line, such that the triangle "spans" the timelike plane.

    Because of the one-to-oneness of the mapping, the image of the triangle with the vertices A,B,C , "spans" the transformed plane as different points are mapped onto different points. Therefore, the three lines forming the transformed triangle must be coplanar. In general, the images of all lines lying in a time-light plane must be coplanar. Thus, timelike planes map into planes.

    Any time light-cone line, is the intersection of two time-light planes. Since timelike planes are mapped onto planes, they intersect into a line. Thus, any timelike line is mapped into a line.

    Basically, all three types of lines - lightlike(null), spacelike, and timelike, are mapped onto lines.


    The uncertainty principle and gravity are related to the same mathematical properties. The proof of the uncertainty relation involves the Cauchy Schwartz inequality. The triangle inequality follows from the Cauchy Schwartz.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2004
  13. Aug 13, 2004 #12

    Gza

    User Avatar



    Wow. How'd you manage to work in light cones and the Cauchy Schwartz inequality, from nothing more than yesicanread's nonesense? :confused:
     
  14. Aug 13, 2004 #13
    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.
     
  15. Aug 13, 2004 #14
    This is dramatically different than your last 3 or 4 threads.
     
  16. Aug 15, 2004 #15
  17. Aug 15, 2004 #16
    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 line), that are on the same plane.
    Geometry consists of Points, lines, and planes. Since action ~ to a line. I theorize that geometry + Action, would be a triangle, and not just a classic plane.

    On geometry, the action is only one side of the triangle, joining two points that help define a plane. So, seeing a triangle is easy. Energy is conserved three times. Every triangle has the triangle inequality theorem, A < B + C, B < C + A, C < A + B. Since, Action = Reaction, Action < Reaction + Reaction.

    So. On geometry + action ;( (Action = Reaction) = Reaction + Reaction) = The triangle that defines geometry.
    One action of conserved energy = a triangle of conserved energy.

    Reaction + Reaction = itself.

    So my theory is: (Action + geometry = triangle) = Reaction = Reaction + Reaction = Itself.
    Since the triangle has action.
    It looks like the jpeg.

    Observers comment on this work.

    Yes, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; energy is conserved.

    Form a space-time triangle with vertices A,B,C, of three lines - two null and one spacelike line, such that the triangle "spans" the timelike plane.

    Because of the one-to-oneness of the mapping, the image of the triangle with the vertices A,B,C , "spans" the transformed plane as different points are mapped onto different points. Therefore, the three lines forming the transformed triangle must be coplanar. In general, the images of all lines lying in a time-light plane must be coplanar. Thus, timelike planes map into planes.

    Any time light-cone line, is the intersection of two time-light planes. Since timelike planes are mapped onto planes, they intersect into a line. Thus, any timelike line is mapped into a line.

    Basically, all three types of lines - lightlike(null), spacelike, and timelike, are mapped onto lines.

    The uncertainty principle and gravity are related to the same mathematical properties. The proof of the uncertainty relation involves the Cauchy Schwartz inequality. The triangle inequality follows from the Cauchy Schwartz.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2004
  18. Aug 15, 2004 #17
    YesIcanread's Theory = NMOTT

    where NMOTT = No measurable observable To Test

    NMOTT = 0

    YesICanRead's Theory = 0

    A true statement.

    Everything you've written has just been shown to be nothing.
     
  19. Aug 15, 2004 #18
    - (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 constant.

    - 2 Actions = 2 Lines.

    - 2 Actions = 2 Reactions = Triangle.

    I'm going to tweak this to represent a pentagon now.

    But the work here will do for now.
     
  20. Aug 15, 2004 #19
    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.

    Please prove or disprove my theory.
     
  21. Aug 15, 2004 #20
    Hi Chronos, I am not agreeing with the fellow; I actually agree with your judgment 100% except for the "Go to the philosophy forum ...". That shows a strong disapproval of philosophy. Now I understand that our "philosophers" have done little to justify their existence but isn't that more due to the difficulty of the issues they have chosen to study than to the importance of those issues?

    It is my opinion that all the fields of science should satisfy the demands of all the others. To assume your intuitive philosophical position the only possible correct answer is as bad as those idiots who, with no training in physics to speak of, assume their intuitive picture of physical reality is correct.

    I am out there on the cutting edge of human knowledge and understanding. I get cuts from everyone (with no attention at all to what I am saying). The physicists say I am arguing philosophy (with which they have no respect) and has nothing to do with physics; the philosophers say everything I am doing is mathematics (with which they have no interest) and has nothing to do with philosophy, and finally, the mathematicians say what I am doing is physics. So round and round we go and where we stop we will never know.

    Just remarking on your post!

    Have fun -- Dick
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: New thread/Reformated material.
  1. Split thread (Replies: 1)

  2. Cavitation Thread (Replies: 18)

Loading...