My Theory

hansda said:
Success basically is moving a particle from A to B. I don't think there is any thing more to it as far as Physics of success is concerned.
Click to expand...
Agree. In fact, I think everyone else here agrees.

Which makes one wonder why anyone would write a paper to say something so self-evident that it can be (and just was) communicated in 28 words.
 
hansda said:
Thanks, you agree with me.
Click to expand...
I do. You said: "I don't think there is any thing more to it"

It is trivial enough that you covered it in 28 words (and that includes 10 of those word pointing out that it only takes 28 words):

"Success basically is moving a particle from A to B. I don't think there is any thing more to it as far as Physics of success is concerned."
 
What your paper is doing is the equivalent of these:

#1
hansda: 1+1=God. That is all you need to know to calculate God. I don't think here is anything more to it.
Reader: But what is this God that you say you can quantify and how does that work?
hansda: Oh that last little bit is left as an exercise for the reader.

#2
hansda: Here is how to paint an original masterpiece. You will need a brush and six paints. With these you can paint a masterpiece.
Reader: Yeah, got that. What is this masterpiece that I can paint with your instructions?
hansda: Oh, that's up to you.
 
DaveC426913 said:
What your paper is doing is the equivalent of these:

#1
hansda: 1+1=God. That is all you need to know to calculate God. I don't think here is anything more to it.
Reader: But what is this God that you say you can quantify and how does that work?
hansda: Oh that last little bit is left as an exercise for the reader.

#2
hansda: Here is how to paint an original masterpiece. You will need a brush and six paints. With these you can paint a masterpiece.
Reader: Yeah, got that. What is this masterpiece that I can paint with your instructions?
hansda: Oh, that's up to you.
Click to expand...

#1 I did that and saw the light

What light you ask?

That's for you to work out

#2 I did this also

Took my work to Paris and swapped it for one in The Louvre

They said mine was so much better

What did I get?

A Mona something or other

:)
 
DaveC426913 said:
Well, don't be kissin' me then. I don't wanna get it too! :D
Click to expand...

Unless you have at least 50 million dollars and look like Jennifer Ann "Jenny" McCarthy (Two and a Half Men)

Not a chance

If you were Jennifer Ann "Jenny" McCarthy though I'd drop the 50 million dollars to 10 cents

Even the 10 cents is negotiable

:)
 
Thanks for your views. I focused more on the math part in my theory.

DaveC426913 said:
What your paper is doing is the equivalent of these:

#1
hansda: 1+1=God. That is all you need to know to calculate God. I don't think here is anything more to it.
Reader: But what is this God that you say you can quantify and how does that work?
hansda: Oh that last little bit is left as an exercise for the reader.

#2
hansda: Here is how to paint an original masterpiece. You will need a brush and six paints. With these you can paint a masterpiece.
Reader: Yeah, got that. What is this masterpiece that I can paint with your instructions?
hansda: Oh, that's up to you.
Click to expand...

To explain my theory with an example, consider a basketball player trying to put the basketball inside the basket/ring. If he is able to do that, we will consider this as success. This is also can be considered the desired result. Here the basketball player is the doer, as he will be applying some force to the basketball in his attempt to put the ball inside the ring. Here the basketball can be considered as the particle. After application of force, the basketball has to travel from the doer's location(A) to the location of the ring(B) for desired result or success. So, the basketball is moving from A to B for success.

Consider another example, a runner is asked to run 100 meter race below 10 seconds. Here the doer is the runner. Desired result or success is that he has to run the 100 meter race within 10 seconds. While running, at every step the runner will apply some force to the ground and the reaction force from the ground will be applied to the runner's body. Here the runner's body can be considered as the particle upon which all the forces are being applied. Here also the runner's body is moving a distance of 100 meter for success.

So, success basically is moving a particle from A to B to achieve the desired result.
 
Last edited:
hansda said:
Thanks for your views. I focused more on the math part in my theory.



To explain my theory with an example, consider a basketball player trying to put the basketball inside the basket/ring. If he is able to do that, we will consider this as success. This is also can be considered the desired result. Here the basketball player is the doer, as he will be applying some force to the basketball in his attempt to put the ball inside the ring. Here the basketball can be considered as the particle. After application of force, the basketball has to travel from the doer's location(A) to the location of the ring(B) for desired result or success. So, the basketball is moving from A to B for success.

Consider another example, a runner is asked to run 100 meter race below 10 seconds. Here the doer is the runner. Desired result or success is that he has to run the 100 meter race within 10 seconds. While running, at every step the runner will apply some force to the ground and the reaction force from the ground will be applied to the runner's body. Here the runner's body can be considered as the particle upon which all the forces are being applied. Here also the runner's body is moving a distance of 100 meter for success.

So, success basically is moving a particle from A to B to achieve the desired result.
Click to expand...
The more you explain it the more absurd it gets...
 
hansda said:
What specifically is your question?
Click to expand...
I have no questions that have not already been answered.

I lie. My one question was: why does such a simple concept warrant a paper?

hansda said:
I thought you are asking for some examples.
Click to expand...
No examples necessary. The concept is too simplistic to require examples.

I listed a couple of examples to show how simplistic it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top