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

Theory on how we exist.

  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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 22, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    I'm scared.
  4. Jul 22, 2004 #3
    I'm with the stupid, could you simplify?
  5. Jul 22, 2004 #4
    oh i get it.

    "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."

    but as far as i see it it could be vice versa = imagination?
  6. Jul 22, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    Prior to sensation we did not exist?
    Or is it that we did but we could not perceive that we did.
    In our case, is existence perception (or vice versa)?

    A rock exists as far as we are concerned but if we were not here it would still exist, but not as far as we were concerned. Or as far as it was concerned. So it would only not exist as far as we were concerned but would still exist in terms of a physical object in its own right (I'm not suggesting that rocks have rights).

    Forest, trees, falling......
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2004
  7. Jul 23, 2004 #6
    of course rocks have no rights, because rocks do not set values, geeze...
  8. Jul 23, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    That's probably just as well.
  9. Jul 23, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


  10. Jul 23, 2004 #9


    User Avatar

    Now what was the question?
  11. Jul 23, 2004 #10
    Now what was the question?

    Why does a question need to be there, if I give a fact. I probably should have added "Reason" to the end of every poing made.

    I cannot write. So ?
  12. Jul 23, 2004 #11
    So you think we draw existence geometrically with our eyes?
  13. Jul 23, 2004 #12
    What do I mean ?

    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.

  14. Jul 23, 2004 #13
    could YOU PLEASE put your explanation in another format? for those who are not familiar with ka-ka string theory and einstein-planck and other physical/mathematical terminology.

    thank you.
  15. Jul 23, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    He's not familiar with them either. He just decorates his screeds with the names.
  16. Jul 23, 2004 #15
    I took the shortest route I know. If I change my format, if would be harder than it is now.

    Besides. I would have to understand the intricacies to a teachers level to do what you ask, and I have deliberately stayed liberal from that knowledge because I chose to then and now.

    If you need another proof in the given format, just describe the problem in the proofs above and I will try to redescribe my diatribe, in given format.
  17. Jul 23, 2004 #16
    all you have managed to do in this thread, is to hurt the feelings of my pet rock...

    i will now hunt down and slaugther the lot of you... insensitive bastards...
  18. Jul 24, 2004 #17
    bring it on.
  19. Jul 24, 2004 #18
    I just pasted this from my theory development.

    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. Edit:(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.

    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.
    End quote.

    Does thought exist in our reaction ? Feeling. Live. Beauty. Health ?

    These are ideas that make a concept of God real, and our being created seem real.

    Think on this. :yuck:
  20. Jul 24, 2004 #19
    rigth... you shouldn't have said that, cause i know where your adress lives! :mad:
  21. Jul 25, 2004 #20
    you wouldn't try to hurt my address, would you? NO! just not my address!!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook