Astrology

'' Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread

Reiku
Occam's Razor Becomes Blunt (4,115 posts)
12-09-07, 12:34 AM #1

Flat spacetime vs. Curvature

Imagine a triangle which expands outwards from a point we shall call simply ‘’a’’. The Pythagorean Theorem, suggests that the triangular formula: a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is a flat dimensional spacetime vector, given through x, y giving z, which are basically formulas of 3-dimensional coordinates.

Imagine these formulas as a flat, two dimensional images: In other words, you can draw a triangle from (a) – which would be the starting point, or singularity, expanding outwards:

a=b x c

This two dimensional imaginary visual, can also be rotated (x’, y’ and z’), giving a negative or even, a reversed formulization of:

b x c = a

These equations describe a spacetime that is flat, but because Hawking integrates an imaginary vector, through relativistic concepts, given simple as a new variable (t), is turns out to be only a mathematical adequacy.

The reason why, is because you can rotate the Pythagorean Variables, which I can, reprepresent as a single triangle: ∆, then which point is (a), (b) or (c)? In theory, you could rotate the triangles sides x, y and z, to fit this any directionality.

So what does this mean?


1. That the values of the current microwave analysis are a proof that spacetime is only curved in the presence of real matter.
2. This is because the vacuum is mostly void of real distortional matter.
3. Therego, Einstein was wrong, and that the universe is not an actual spherical composition. Its expansion was flat, and only when potential matter is bubbled into real qualities does the spacetime tensor relate to geometrical values.

Summery:

All matter extrapolated from a flat foundation, rather than a spherical expansion.

2ND Summery

Now the mind takes two-dimensional objects, and casts it into the three dimensional phenomena of what we perceive as spacetime: This might be proof as well that the space and time we see are two dimensional, and anything else outside of the mind is but an illusion. This must also mean that Einstein might have a few if not, many mistakes in his geometrical relativistic equations, for he he hated the postulate that the mind is the real reality only ever in existence.

Reiku
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Reiku
Find More Posts by Reiku
Add Reiku to Your Buddy List

draqon
The way I are (15,027 posts)
12-09-07, 12:36 AM #2

Reiku...Einstein wrong or not...will be tested by results of Gravity Probe B will tell us.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/



draqon
View Public Profile
Send a private message to draqon
Find More Posts by draqon
Add draqon to Your Buddy List

Reiku
Occam's Razor Becomes Blunt (4,115 posts)
12-09-07, 12:38 AM #3

You d'tnderstand my rotational values did you>?
Niether did you read it properly.

Read over it again please.

Reiku
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Reiku
Find More Posts by Reiku
Add Reiku to Your Buddy List

superluminal
im an idiot (9,134 posts)
12-09-07, 01:18 AM #4

“ Originally Posted by Reiku
Flat spacetime vs. Curvature

Imagine a triangle which expands outwards from a point we shall call simply ‘’a’’. The Pythagorean Theorem, suggests that the triangular formula: a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is a flat dimensional spacetime vector, given through x, y giving z, which are basically formulas of 3-dimensional coordinates. ”

Umm... ok. So, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 describes a euclidean triangle. Good. I agree.


“ Imagine these formulas as a flat, two dimensional images: ”

Ok. Easy, since they are.


“ In other words, you can draw a triangle from (a) – which would be the starting point, or singularity, expanding outwards: ”

Ok.


“ This two dimensional imaginary visual, can also be rotated (x’, y’ and z’), giving a negative or even, a reversed formulization of: ... ”

Allright.


“ These equations describe a spacetime that is flat, ”

They describe what? They don't describe a spacetime. They work in a flat space.


“ but because Hawking integrates an imaginary vector, through relativistic concepts, given simple as a new variable (t), is turns out to be only a mathematical adequacy. ”

WTF?


“ The reason why, is because you can rotate the Pythagorean Variables, which I can, reprepresent as a single triangle: ∆, then which point is (a), (b) or (c)? In theory, you could rotate the triangles sides x, y and z, to fit this any directionality. ”

Of course.


“ So what does this mean? ”

That I can draw triangles and rotate them?


“ 1. That the values of the current microwave analysis are a proof that spacetime is only curved in the presence of real matter. ”

Where the fuck did that come from?


“ 2. This is because the vacuum is mostly void of real distortional matter. ”

Ok...


“ 3. Therego, Einstein was wrong, ”

WTF?


“ ...and that the universe is not an actual spherical composition. ”

Was AE a cosmologist?


“ Its expansion was flat, and only when potential matter is bubbled into real qualities does the spacetime tensor relate to geometrical values. ”

Bubbled into... WTF?


“ Summery:

All matter extrapolated from a flat foundation, rather than a spherical expansion. ”

WTF?



“ 2ND Summery

Now the mind takes two-dimensional objects, and casts it into the three dimensional phenomena of what we perceive as spacetime: ”

It does? Is this an assertion or a daydream?


“ This might be proof as well that the space and time we see are two dimensional, and anything else outside of the mind is but an illusion. ”

How so?


“ This must also mean that Einstein might have a few if not, many mistakes in his geometrical relativistic equations, for he he hated the postulate that the mind is the real reality only ever in existence. ”

So your mind is real but what your mind percieves is not. Then how does your mind percieve it? Or are we all sharing the same common delusion?

superluminal
View Public Profile
Send a private message to superluminal
Find More Posts by superluminal
Add superluminal to Your Buddy List

superluminal
im an idiot (9,134 posts)
12-09-07, 01:22 AM #5

“ Originally Posted by draqon
Reiku...Einstein wrong or not...will be tested by results of Gravity Probe B will tell us. ”

Apparently the fuzed-quartz gyro spheres are so finely polished that if they were enlarged to the size of the earth, the highest/lowest surface features would be only +/- 8 feet high. Amazing.

superluminal
View Public Profile
Send a private message to superluminal
Find More Posts by superluminal
Add superluminal to Your Buddy List

MetaKron
Here science is destroyed (4,168 posts)
12-09-07, 01:38 AM #6

“ Originally Posted by draqon
Reiku...Einstein wrong or not...will be tested by results of Gravity Probe B will tell us.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/
”

Then there was no need to send the probe because you already knew the results.

MetaKron
View Public Profile
Send a private message to MetaKron
Find More Posts by MetaKron
Add MetaKron to Your Buddy List

draqon
The way I are (15,027 posts)
12-09-07, 01:39 AM #7

“ Originally Posted by MetaKron
Then there was no need to send the probe because you already knew the results. ”

no...the results are yet to come.

draqon
View Public Profile
Send a private message to draqon
Find More Posts by draqon
Add draqon to Your Buddy List

superluminal
im an idiot (9,134 posts)
12-09-07, 01:43 AM #8

“ Originally Posted by MetaKron
Then there was no need to send the probe because you already knew the results. ”

What are you fucking smoking? He sad that the probe would provide a TEST of einstein, no mention of AE being right or wrong. READ FOR CHRIST SAKE! ''

Since this was locked, without any real ''REAL'' good reason, i have now re-opened it. If any mod has a complaint... or should that be the ''one mod''? - please argue your comments first, before locking it again. Either that, or simply reply to my complaints.

Thank you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Astrology?

Incoherent rambling?

That hurt my head.

WTF?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's against site rules to repost moderated material.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

superluminal. I think we all understand what WTF and STFU means. If you wish to insult someone or swear, there is no need to use such means in the hopes that a moderator would not know.

 

duh! He's thinking of the children!

 

Closed.