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

Please scrutinize my symmetric concept.

  1. Jul 21, 2004 #1
    1.) SYMMETRY (think a arm or leg extention) + REACTION (think a cupboard) = proportion

    2.) Question: Water (action) + a Cup's Rim (reaction) = what Proportion ?
    Answer: A plural format.

    3.) Symmetry is a case of action and reaction = proportion.

    4.) Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
    Format: (1 : the shape, size, and general makeup (as of something printed)).

    5.) A format/shape/circle = radius action. One radius act does not = a circle format, you

    need many radius act(ion).

    6.) A circle pre-exists a radius action made by human eyes.

    7.) Therefore. The format/shape/circle/symmetry existed for us to create via radius action

    made by our eyes ! What we see already existed, preformatted and symmetric, to influence

    thought and so in fact thinks I theorize. And therefore already is ! A creature that thinks

    before us, exists before us, and lives before us, letting us exist in a 1/2 point symmetric

    type form.

    This isn't a religious thread if you don't percieve it as such. I think then it may belong on this board.

    If you will. Please do scrutinize and try to understand my humble concept.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 21, 2004 #2
    I'm glad you characterized it as a "humble" concept.

    There's too much presumption around here some times.
     
  4. Jul 22, 2004 #3
    I am in total agreement, perception is pretty amazing, I think our eyes are types of ears.
    We are blind really, its just that we are good at creating a replica of our local vicinity in our brain. The mind is just the sum of your senses.
     
  5. Jul 23, 2004 #4
    Here's a T.O.E. for Mr.Kaku/Math people.

    I'll reference the word definition: Format. A shape, size and general makeup.

    1. ) Gravity + all physics I know of, Einstein/Newton/Plank, in fact use the plane. A plane is defined by three planar points shaped like a triangle.

    2.) A plane when viewed from above is a tripod. Classic definition for plane(three planar points shaped as a triangle) + altitude or hight ~ tripod.

    3.) A plane when viewed from below, is the basis for Einstein gravity I remember.

    4.) A plane when viewed from above and below ~ Cirumference and Plane.

    5.) A altitude from the vertex of the hight and depth on the plane could be seen as a string through classic Newton/Einstein/Plank physics to include Kaku string theory.

    6.) Point theory has three points. The initial point is AB, the center could be AA or BB, and the third point is AB. The triangle made by the three points included in the center and initiator is congruent to the triangle made by the last point and center. Both triangles = the sum of 360 degrees. A circumference or circle. It's known that a circle is a sphere.

    7.) Initiator = initiator, and initiator converts back to initiator, passing through AA or BB.

    8.) The results of symmetry are seen before the action taken.

    Throw a rock twice. This is equivalent to a circle, two arcs. Well when you began that action, the result of the two arcs was equal to when you first tossed the first rock.

    Also. Roll your eyes. This is equivalent to a circle. The result of a full circle was made when you first began to roll your eyes.

    In other words. It seems as though we are formatted.
     
  6. Jul 23, 2004 #5

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    :uhh: I'm rolling my eyes, but not to make a circle. This doesn't make any sense.
     
  7. Jul 23, 2004 #6
    I'm sorry. But I tried not to be absolute in my description, because of my value system which I don't need to justify.

    I'm sorry if you didn't recieve what your looking for in my shabby proof. Really. Oh well. :redface:
     
  8. Jul 23, 2004 #7
    Just a quick question. Where did my proof make no sense ? Which point and a quick description of the flaw. So when I do another proof I'll cover that point better.
     
  9. Jul 23, 2004 #8
    Yes I believe in symmetry. Everything is as close to everything else as everything else is as close to everything. Something is not justified being closer to something than something else is..... Something else is actually something somewhere else.


    If something does not correlate with this framework then it is INVISIBLE.....
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2004
  10. Jul 23, 2004 #9
    "Value system?"
     
  11. Jul 23, 2004 #10

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Where did you get this about the plane? Newton used three dimensional space plus time. Einstein used four dimensional spacetime.

    Okay. Mathematicians say simplex. A three simplex is a triangular base with pyramidal sides meeting at a pint at the top. More or less the same as your tripod.

    You remember wrong. Einstein's gravity is four-dimensional.

    This part is meaningless to me.

    You obviously don't know much string theory. By this token, any line at all could be a string. But the essence of string is not geometrical placement, but vibration.

    Some more stuff I can't make head or tail of. In general relativity triangels don't necessarily sum to 360 degrees. The circle is sometimes called a one-dimensional sphere, but you can't draw conclusions from that.

    Initiator just came out of nowhere. Plus the sentence is meaningless to me.

    Ah, in spacetime the dynamics is geometry, so everything is as you say preformatted. This doesn't lead to any theological conclusions, though.
     
  12. Jul 23, 2004 #11
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/index.html

    1.) Geometry is a intersection. Intersections are made up of points, planes, and lines. So any dimension derived from intersections in fact use a plane.

    2.) A Classic definition for plane(three planar points shaped as a triangle) + altitude or hight = simplex.

    3.) The key idea of General Relativity, called the Equivalence Principle, is that gravity pulling in one direction is completely equivalent to an acceleration in the opposite direction.

    If there is 2.), then 3.) must be the Equivalence principle that there's a simplex on the opposite side of the plane and simplex in 2.).

    I'm thinking equal and opposite reaction here. Plane, simplex, equal and opposite reaction.

    4.) Look at the plane bisecting the two simplex's. You see ~ of a sphere or circular type shape, and a plane.

    5.) If 1.) 2,) 3) 4) is true. Connecting a line between the two vertex's is connecting a sperical shape. In which the altitude may differer causing the line too have different radiuses. It could be that it vibrates. If it does this explains General relativities link to String theory. For me anyway.

    6.) If the two simplexes ~ a spherical shape. As seen in steps 1-5. The idea of the simplexes having point symmetry is possible two.

    If the 1 simplex and plane form a triangle. That simplex also has a circular type edge, since ~ to a sphere. So the vertex is both AB. The plane when it forms a axis/bisector for point symmetry is linear and in no way spherical.

    The sum of the degrees in the two simplex's and the plane is 360 degrees. Equal to that of a circumference. A circle. A spherical shape.

    7.) If the vertex of one simplex initiates the point symmetry. It must pass through the plane and convert back to a vertex/sphere shape.

    8.) Because of the Equivalence Principle. The results of symmetry are seen before the action taken is complete. In other words. It seems as though we are formatted.

    Edit.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2004
  13. Jul 24, 2004 #12
  14. Jul 24, 2004 #13
  15. Jul 24, 2004 #14

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    If the 1 simplex and plane form a triangle. That simplex also has a circular type edge, since ~ to a sphere. So the vertex is both AB. The plane when it forms a axis/bisector for point symmetry is linear and in no way spherical.[/quote]

    Circular type edge because ~ to a sphere? Spheres don't have edges.

    Degrees measures where? And you can't just slide over the significant difference between a circle and a sphere.

    ??

    You haven't introduced any action that I can see. Einstein derives the geometry from the equivalence principle, not the other way around.

    This whole thread is alternative theory. I am moving it to Theory Development.
     
  16. Jul 24, 2004 #15
    1.) I began looking at the plane as if the vertex had two points on the plane.
    I considered that if I used simplexes the conversion from three points to two could be made.
    That way I use a plane and initiate a plane using two or three points.

    Reason: Which is possible since three points define a plane and the scenario would allow be use of geometry or conversion.

    If the simplexes are joined be a altitude between vertexes and the points on the plane equal each other. It may in fact resemble a sphere. Also If I convert back to using just two points on the plane. The degrees used in both triangles equal 360 degree. A circular type shape, a circumference.

    Since I don't know which two points I use. The 360 degrees may use different points on the plane. So all sides of the simplex may be seen as circular. And thus the entire simplex has circular sides that meet equal points on the plane. A sphere.

    So the simplex or two point vertex has a circular/spherical equivilenence, and may be call AB.

    2.) Alright. I'll let the Equivalence Principle go. So I'll use this. What if when two points on the plane are used, point symmetry was made. Then, the vertex started the action. Newton's equal and opposite reaction says this action has a equal and opposite reaction. As well as the reaction caused by reaching the plane. Acceptable with black hoples when they bust. Their pull is a push. Newton.

    If altitude has a action. It can't be infinite hight. But the variation on the plane is inmeasureable one would suppose.

    3.) Because action reconverts to action. The reaction is equal and opposite the action. And so when we create a circular/spherical/planar/geometric movement. That action has been converted back to action/reaction. and passed through reaction to convert to reaction.

    And so my description is complete intersection/geometry. Points/vertexes, Planes, and lines/altitudes from vertexes. And a description of Newton, however general, Which guided Einstein, and guides today's physicists.

    Get that? I havent broken any rules I don't think.

    I've tried to be basic. It helps these type of concept/perception become understood in basic general knowledge. That is my goal, as I don't like fancy dancy theories.
     
  17. Jul 25, 2004 #16
    Check this out.

    1.) I began looking at the plane as if two opposite vertex's had two equal joining points on a plane axis. I considered that if I converted the two points used on the plane I could make a simplex, the axis/plane has three planar points right, and since the plane has three points I could make three sides to the simplex.

    Reason: Which is possible since three points define a plane and the scenario would allow be use of geometry or conversion.

    If the simplex vertex's are joined on the plane and by a perpendicular altitude between them. It may in fact resemble a sphere. Also If I convert back to using just two points on the axis plane and the vertex's. The degrees used in both triangles equal 360 degree. A circular type shape, a circumference. This 360 degrees may use different points from the plane, and still equal 360 degrees. So all sides of the simplex may be seen as circular. And thus the entire simplex has circular sides that meet equal points on the plane, and are equal. A sphere.

    So the simplex or two point vertex has a circular/spherical equivilenence, and may be call AB.

    2.) What if when two points on the plane are used I made point symmetry, and the one vertex starts the perpendicular action to the opposite equal vertex. Newton's equal and opposite reaction says this action has a equal and opposite reaction, the plane, as well as the reaction caused by reaching the opposite vertex.

    If altitude is action from the vertex, it can't be infinite hight.
    But the variation on the plane is inmeasureable one would suppose.(This is disorder I think.)

    3.) Because action reconverts to action. The reaction is equal and opposite the action. And so when we create a circular/spherical/planar/geometric movement. That action has been converted back to action/reaction. and passed through reaction to convert to reaction.

    4.) And so my description is complete intersection/geometry.Points, Planes, and lines.
    and a description of Newton, however general, Which guided Einstein, and guides today's physicists.
     
  18. Jul 26, 2004 #17
    Check this out. It's a variation on my work.

    Applying Newton's third law.

    Goes like this.

    Newton's third law < Newton's third law + Newton's third law
    =
    Triangle inequality theorem.

    This is his spin formula.

    (c)Action < (a) Reaction + (b) Reaction,
    (a)Reaction < (b) Reaction + (a) Action,
    (b) Reaction < (a) Reaction + (c) Action.

    Now the idea present in the Triangle inequality theorem above is that there are plural points(a), (b), (c). Plural, not singular. Less < Greater = Plural.

    My proff is. Can Newton's third law agree with the Triangle inequality theorem ? Of course it does. Right ?

    So there you be. The spin this person is mentioning. Present from none other than action. We equal action. So...where does this conclusion lead too ? God perhaps ?
     
  19. Aug 2, 2004 #18


    [1.] Nothingness is a difficult concept, or rather a difficult "non-concept" since it is nothing.

    [2.] To say that nothingness exists is to create a contradiction, since nothingness is non-existence. Nothingness "non-exists".

    [3.] Nothingness is non-existence; therefore nothingness is non-relational. Nothingness has no distinctiveness in and of itself, hence nothingness cannot be recognizable.

    [4.] Being-ness means basically "to be", and to exist. Being-ness exists.

    [5.] Take two distinct quantities:

    A<------P------>B

    A and B percieve each other to be different with perception P. That is to say A ,is percieved to be different from B and B is percieved to be different from A.

    A and B are different elements of a larger picture, but they also[must] share certain common attributes of the larger reality including them. From that perspective A and B are the same, because aspects of A transorm into B and aspects of B transform into A. At a higher level of generality and symmetry, A cannot be distinguished from B, and B cannot be distinguished from A. For example, dogs and cats are distinctively different, yet dogs and cats are the same from the perspective that both are "mammals".

    [6.] Following this premise, it stands to reason that all attributes & aspects of reality can be transformed into each other, and hence they have no distinctions from each other[at continually higher and higher levels of symmetry].

    [7.] Therefore, it follows, that at a top[infinite?] level of symmetry, everything is nothing.

    QED.


    Some clarification...



    A thing exists if it can be distinguished from another thing. A thing does not exist if it cannot be recognized [distinguished from what it is not] to exist.

    At a top level of symmetry, no distinctions exist. Everything transforms into everything else.


    Nothingness can only be logically inferred, it cannot be recognized.



    One can logically define nothingness to be the end of a series of removing distinctive attributes from existence. The infinite limit of this series is the total removal of every possible distinction. Ergo, pure nothingness is total non-existence.

    Quasi-nothingness is an abstract-mental concept that stands in contrast to an actual existing entity or mental concept.

    True nothingness "non-exists".
     
  20. Aug 2, 2004 #19
    Well let's see.

    Remove distinction by applying nothing/symmetry. But true symmetry does not exist.

    Does this sum up your post ?

    Here's my revised version of my Geometry that I posted in this thread. I'm sorry it took a few tries to get to this version. Please read the Geometric theory.

    Point # 2.) seems to state that perfect symmetry or nothingness does not exist. Since infinite height does not exist. Hence infinite height of symmetry does not exist, and so equal and opposite reaction does exist, and so time does exist.
     
  21. Aug 2, 2004 #20
    Any reaction corresponding to an action, cannot be instantaneous but only occurs at the speed of light in vacuum, or less.

    :wink:

    But then again there is the EPR thought experiment... :cry:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Please scrutinize my symmetric concept.
  1. Check My Work Please (Replies: 1)

Loading...