How many of you can put 2&2 together? This is an all out challenge!

Sharky · 07-27-2003

Will somebody with any real intuition and cognitive way of thinking have a look a my warp mechanics posting and tell me that every other topic discussed on this site cannot be explained and broken down in to simpler expessions of a solid field theory. Seriously, come on now; the mechanics and workings behind its main idea are unorthodox in the least. If no one can tell me, then that shows me that they are just lazy thinkers and my explaination for zero point energy and quantum gravity ( which in turn explain the stucture and funtion of the very nature of space itself ) are too complex of a concept for even the most intelligent people to grasp. My challenge is for any one man or woman to understand the fullness of my expendatures and give me thier version of my own explaination of the phenomenons. Therfore alowing me to see that somebody out their in the world understands why this is so important to me that it be known! Not for the fame and fortune but for the advancement of man kind.

Tormod · 07-27-2003

Just to help Sharky out a bit - read more about his theories here:

Warp Mechanics/ Apathetic Conflux & Universal Structure (the grand scheme)

Tormod

Tormod · 07-29-2003

Sharky,

Okay, you'll probably kick me for this, but I have spent quite some time reading your article and frankly, it doesn't make any sense to me. I might not fall into the category of people you want (those with "any real intuition and cognitive way of thinking"), but I simply can't grasp what your paper is trying to say.

For example:
"The measurement of zero degrees is equal to 360°³. 360º³ is the cubing of a circle. This action makes a sphere. A sphere has the ability to be measured from its surface in any direction and it will always be a forward motion. A sphere also has two sides, an inside and an outside. The inside is the center and the outside is the sphere."

I just don't get this. What does "cubing of a circle" mean? How does it make a sphere?

A sphere may have two sides. It may also have one, if it is a solid. If it is hollow, however, or if the sphere is simply a mathematical construct, the boundary of said sphere must be infinite for it to have two sides. It will only have two sides in 3D space.

You state that electrons are created when protons decay into neutrons ("depletes its warp kinetic energy"). You then claim that "This is why an electron cannot be divided further".

I am not so sure that it is so simple. According to quantum physics, the electron can be perceived as both a particle and a wave. On this web page, The electron and its properties, the author states that the radius of the electron has never been measured. In fact, it claims the electron seems to have no structure at all. How can you be so sure the electron is a sphere? Please explain.

I am probably reading your theory in the wrong way. And that is my point - while you might expect people to understand just what your theory is about, you can hardly expect them to understand how it should be applied to the fundamental understanding of mathematics!

Tormod

deamonstar · 07-31-2003

well... from what I understand, cubing of a circle is the same thing as expansion in 3 spatial dimensions and forward movement through time. and this implies a non-static model. not the thing that most people are familiar with when trying to comprehend a new idea. and several points to this theory requires one to let go of classical notions as to the workings of the atom.

don't worry, sharky. I do understand your theory... I have no problem seeing it in action in my minds eye.

Tormod · 07-31-2003

deamonstar,

do you mind enlightening me a bit? What is Sharky's theory all about? What are it's applications, and why is it interesting?

I'm struggling to get the point of it all.

Tormod

Sharky · 07-31-2003

So finally some intelligent responses on my theorum and all I had to do was insult the intelligence of the science world inhabitants. Let me see if I can enlighten you. Everything has a center. If one were to find the center of any object or entity having confinments and expansion restrictions that cause said object to take its natural form he/she could divide that object into four equal parts. Each one of those equal parts has a center, so on and so forth. A cirlce has a center but it is an expansion restriction as seen by mathmeticians because it is a measurement of zero degrees. Any number beyond this point opposite of the positive ( which we can actually see ) is in reality a non-existant number. You cannot have less than nothing. That is the expansion restriction. If the same cirlce were to be sphered by means of cubicalization ( multiplying it by itself three times ) The expansion restriction disipates; here's how. There are two sides to every equation. In the circle it was three-hundred sixty degrees vs. zero degrees. What you do to one side you must do to the other. By cubing the circle one should presumably cube the center ( even if it is still uniformly zero degrees. ) The center of the sphere being cubed allows for relativity to continue and can now measure from that center infinitly to a fixed point, starting over each time that point is reached until it covers the entire surface of the cubed center and one would have a sphere. Therefore zero degrees ( cubed or not ) is equal to three-hundred sixty degrees cubed. This proves that everything is made of centers and those centers are actually spheres making all particles and all matter spherical. Now, as of forward motion, One can easily see that traveling from one point to another is actually a vortexial movement. I'm getting to the explaination of gravity if you bare with me. If one were to, in thought, stand on the surface of a sphere and some how shrink down small enough to stand on the surface of the center there would be yet another center so on and so forth. Getting down to sub atomic patricles one would get closer and closer to what gravity actually is. Gravity is not a particle duality at all but is in fact, according to the above stated, the absolute center in which no matter can inhabit. This absolute center is the background of space and what holds the gluons together. The gluons are believed to be the gravity particles. The above stated on cubicalization is why everthing is symetrical. With this paragraphical explaination, you guys should be able to go back to my Warp Mechanics posting and understand it this time a lot more than last. Sorry my invention of words to describe the phenomenons that occur in my posting but you should be able to use your imagination!

deamonstar · 08-01-2003

well, tormod. sharky's theory concerns the fundamental structure of the atom and its implications and effects on the very fabric of space, matter, mass, electromagnetic force, strong and weak nuclear forces...the whole gamut of quantum physics etc.. etc... its applications, to bring it out of a mere theoretical framework into real-world scenarios are seemingly endless. heck the implications of it could possibly open new doors to a higher level of thinking concerning the very nature of our universe! this could be the key to a grand unified theory... or at least put us on the right road to that goal.
the only thing lacking is access to research facilities and equipment to actually test this theory. however, the underlying sub-atomic principles could even now be utilized to further explain various phenomenae whose understandings of which, as of yet, remain so elusive using modern-day ways of thinking. as I've stated before, this theory requires a depature from the mindset of classical scientific understandings to be able to understand the universe as we know it in a new light. in other words... this theory can explain in whole the nature of things where modern-day science finds only more questions.

Tormod · 08-05-2003

Sharky, howdoes the theory described at this website compare to yours?

http://www.vasantcorporation.com/

Tormod

wholloway · 08-06-2003

Sorry about that blank.

First of all cubing a circle does not give you a sphere, mathamatically or figurativly. A circle is two dimensional and a sphere is three dimensional. Only one dimension apart. I don't want to make someone mad but, it looks like this therory is written using double talk meant to confuse people. Also 0 deg and 360 deg are not equal. The end result would look the same, but they are different. Using degrees implies rotation. What are you rotating? If this is legitamate, you need to explain in laymens talk and organize your thoughts. It doesn't start anywhere and ends up in the same place.

I can't follow this at all, but maybe I'm ignorant to a much higher intellect.