[infinitymike]

Projective geometry is the root of all geometries, and only it can truly encompass the true meaning of space time. All other theory must be reproven here. All M theory did was form more questions. I have a basis of the TOE using this, and a principle that dismisses the big bang, and more. Have atomic models and every force explained!!!

[Guille]

hi, welcome here.

But, I must say, I'm sure you think that you are special, that you are unique, that you are important for you have found the true system to explain nature, that explains nature, and, most importantly, you have philosphical, most surelly mathematical, and maybe empirical proof for it. But you are just one more of the long long long long long long long long....list. Maybe have claimed to have the true TOE by the principle of "bla" and with the proof "bla=bla, so then bla=TOE" and mroe "bla" of that "bla" kind.

Anyway, I'm always interested in new theories, for I'm sure somone, at least someone must have the turth in his mind. Do you have a webpage for your TOE? If not, can you post at least the basics of your TOE? Or could you send me a paper by e-mail?

I'm intersted, I think you are probably smarter than the avarage TOE claimers for they ussually present their TOE in the first psot they do, as if we were going to accept inmideatelly their theory, as if it were obviously correct, and had abundance proof. But you haven't, you've been smart and just posted pits of information about the TOE, but not of the TOE itself.

By the way, what is exactly projective geometry?
Also, does your username have to do with your math? Because if you have amanaged to make geometry concordance with the mathematical concept of infinity, then still, even if your TOE is wrong, you ahve amde a great acheivement!

[dleviwing]

Mike;
Welcome to TOEquest.
A brief description of your thoughts on the topic would be helpful.
Your reference to "Projective Geometry" tends to make me also doubt your claims.
TOEquest also has other forums and threads that you can post on with others with similar views to your own.
Best regards;
Dave

PS: I do however agree that spacetime geometry most conform to the axioms of Projective Geometry

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by infinitymike Projective geometry is the root of all geometries, and only it can truly encompass the true meaning of space time. All other theory must be reproven here. All M theory did was form more questions. I have a basis of the TOE using this, and a principle that dismisses the big bang, and more. Have atomic models and every force explained!!!

I would be very interested in you sharing your unnique understanding of the
true meaning of space time,I am sure that it will be most riviting,and thought
provoking.You seem to be most truly a humble man.

look forward to further posts.

kind regards,michael.

[infinitymike]

I found it interesting that someones text had the words letters folded in the last 2 words. Was this intentional or a typo?
I apologize for throwing the statement out there without having much of anything to follow, yet I'm using the blasted library computer; a result of lacking funds, and the fact that most of what I own is in another state right now. So:::
MK: thoughtlessness or bliss always seems to be hand in hand with destruction of some sort, and this avenue physicists have taken to rely upon numbers, mere branches of logic, statistical imporovications meant to describe what is so simple and right in from of our faces. Here a bee cannot fly. Here the electron was proven to have a mass of 1 yet using the same method it could be disproven. Are we to beleive we are a bunch of strings wiggling around? And the latest in Discover "Is the universe out of tune?"... and worse; the most obvious ; "dark energy" ...!!!! Give me a freakin' break here. I'm not expanding. I'm made of little round particles. The 'big bang' is rediculous, and I can prove it. Once you realize the truth, things begin to fall into place so easily, and you will see the truth for yourself I promise! cmbr/red shift is a result of every galaxies' (all have) dual funnel supermassive black hole sucking up and breaking apart the very particles which carry microwaves via kinetic reactions through boson particles which format space to infinity in great pressure. Imagine; Stephen Hawking once theorized that black holes may infact create particles. The answer is simple; they inhale the bosons, and spit out the parts which are all other known particles . Over time, past the ends of galaxial arms in the deep coldness of space, these may fuse once again. It is an infinite cycle. Leptons especially are responsible for time's passage, as they find their way through bosons opposing their flow. 1 boson creates thousands of electron neutrinos. ie; a boson moves in one boson space, only to be forced against massive amounts of neutrinos and otherwise. Bosons will form numbered groups naturally, dependant upon the pressure in which they oppose. Based upon a 2d plane to describe the basic part of each format, they will arrange in groups of 3 to 9; or 7 densities in other words. Each element on the periodic table will fit into one of these, as also the closer you arrive to the center of any galaxy, the minimum number of format arrangement will increase. Light gasses are 3, since 3 bosons form 1 nucleus in each set of 3 (3 fold for hydrogen for example) the proton sits as a vortexing monopole; not a magical mystical or any number oriented/unexplained force, but quite simply a product of passing neutrinos, causing these to form naturally. A picture is worth a million words, and wish I could give you one at this moment, but try this ; draw a circle, then a dot in center (nucleus strong force) then 3 other circles which are on a sequencial radial intersecting the dot. Now three smaller circles which sit inside the 3 surrounding, and just outside the event horizon of the central circle. Now the central grows in strength, vortexing leptons as a monopole until it's event horizon fails, then the 3 outer take over. Their lines of force enemate like spider legs stemming from the point where the small circles touch the central. The small circles are voids, containing unrelatives to the monopoles. The lines of the weak forces spread to intersect paralells with passing leptons, just as part of the central monopole does. Ofcourse, just like the event horizon of the central vortexing strong monopole vortex, each outer will fail the same way, just using the large particles on the cetral's failed event horizon is it's mediator between even larger particles in it's own lines of force. DeBroglie's work could expain a lot here on how quarks and leptons get along, how quarks create a 'distrubance' in the center of a boson format, which they will format themselves; ofcourse the boson format and the nuclei are dependant upon eachother, kind of a yin yang thing. Anyways; you get up there in formats, like in gold (Au) for instance, and the format of bosons looks like a larger boson surrounded by 4 smaller. A format 4 using 4 boson in square form allow thermal kinetic waves to orbit, unlike in 3. Try spinning coins on a table in these arrangements and you'll understand how a debroglie wave may or may not orbit in such a circumstance.
All for today. Out of time.

[dleviwing]

Mike;
Like many others, you have acquired enough understanding of theoretical physics to detect what you interpret as errors in the system. This seems to have frustrated you and caused you to think scientist are "intellectual morons".

Unfortunately you have yet to acquire sufficient knowledge to truly comprehend the physics that you are commenting about.

Do not base you understanding on so few and insignificant observations. This is not the way to find truth; it is only a way to demonstrate you educational level.

Your observation of the nature of "Black Holes" does however hold some truth in your interpretations.
Best regards;
Dave

[infinitymike]

Ofcourse there are always skeptics. I don't claim to be able to tell you how exactly what the cobalt/ nirtric acid ratio is for making volatile explosives, but I am however satisfied with the truth that I've discovered some very amazing things that only projective geometry could realize to the physicist. I am not much of a mathematician at all, but I can use parametric ratios and known particle weights to corner the forces in diagrams using just a few simple ideas; projective lines, debroglie formulae, some basic mathematical functions used to define the area occupied by particles having weight relative to their own size. It didn't take me long to draw diagrams for the general building blocks of atoms, and realize it's obvious agreements with the forces. You can educate yourself to the end of time in the ways of mathematics, but when you apply this vast knowledge to photons, quanta, gluons, and lately superstrings, you're just wasting your time. One great falicy of interpreting experimental evidence was the positron. Take a close look at what was observed exactly, and compare this to the idea of bosons formatting an infinite universe. Bosons can group in sets of 7 and spin away from an electron. This is what a positron really is, simply put; larger particles spinning at a 90 degree angle, lacking smaller particle(s). If you want to explain it any other way, it would be ludicrous and laughable, but that's just what a physicist of math does. I can't understand how you can spend years learning all that cripe, and never see this, but hey, that's just my point of view. I can respect what math has acheived, but after all these years and all these brains, they still don't see the most simple obvious truth!!! Again, I can't exact things the way math can, but we have not the atom smashing data to describe all known particles in all elements. What I CAN do is design devices capable of producing killowatts of free power, devices capable of silent free particle thrust(antigravity), and more. Dematerialization as witnessed by Einstein in the Philadelphia Experiment. This is simple as making cheese. I've discovered a new method for growing synthetic gemstones which is one project I hope to complete soon. This method can grow large sheets for use in microprocessing, or large stones containing nitrogen paired atoms just like real stones. This is almost all theory, but I have no doubts. In some of my research into this science I found how someone inadvertanly stumbled upon a power generator while they were playing with certain waves and tube arrangements on their ham radio. They had no idea what they'd done until I described it to them; A rotating bolt of lightning as he described it, but had the known the real application, he would not have disassembled it and would be a millionaire by now. \As further study on the physics of the boson formatting idea; you should see how particle pressure and the size and mere spacing presence of massive bosons can easily integrate into the Mtheory. String vibration becomes debroglie waves through a sea of particles, string tension becomes pressure coupled with variable forms of rotational particle formations causing vortexing monopoles inside bosons formats. Rationalizing this reality, it is simple to visualize how supersymmetry works; as a wave travels over a distance through small particles, it will eventually attract and hold within it's waves the particle of perfect size for that wave- making the vortexing monopoles inside a neighboring boson format exist without quarks. Is anyone grasping this?? Hope to get you some diagrams next month when I get back to my own computer. Gravity is a diversion of leptons, the same particles involved in maintaining ionic constants in space/time. The ionosphere is the standing wave of this dent, held true by the flux pressure of such free leptons and bosons 'strained' by micro lines of force just as in relative velocity.

[quanta07]

FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE 'UNINFORMED'....projective geometry is a branch of geometry concerned with those properties of geometric figures that remain invariant under projection. The basic elements are points, lines, and planes, and the following statements are usually taken as assumptions: (1) two points lie in a unique line; (2) three points not on the same line determine a plane; (3) two lines in a plane intersect in a point; (4) two planes intersect in a line; (5) three planes not containing the same line intersect in a point. The basic elements retain their character under projection; e.g., the projection of a line is another line, and the point of intersection of two lines is projected into another point that is the intersection of the projections of the two original lines. However, lengths and ratios of lengths are not invariant under projection, nor are angles or the shapes of figures. The concept of parallelism does not appear at all in projective geometry; any pair of distinct lines intersects in a point, and if these lines are parallel in the sense of Euclidean geometry, then their point of intersection is at infinity. The plane that includes the ideal line, or line at infinity, consisting of all such ideal points, is called the projective plane. Two properties that are invariant under projection are the order of three or more points on a line and the harmonic relationship, or cross ratio, among four points, A, B, C, D, i.e., AC/BC:AD/BD. One important concept in projective geometry is that of duality. In the plane, the terms point and line are dual and can be interchanged in any valid statement to yield another valid statement, e.g., statements (1) and (3) above; in space, the terms plane, line, and point are interchanged with point, line, and plane, respectively, to yield dual statements (sometimes with slight changes in wording) as in statements (2) and (5) and statements (1) and (4) above. The origins of projective geometry are found in the work of Pappus, Gérard Desargues, and others. It first emerged as a discipline in its own right with the work of J. V. Poncelet (1822) and was placed on an axiomatic basis by K. G. C. von Staudt (1847), both these mathematicians adopting the pure, or synthetic, approach, in which algebraic and analytic methods are avoided and the treatment is purely geometric, in contrast to the approach of A. F. Möbius, Julius Plücker, and others. Projective geometry is more general than the familiar Euclidean geometry and includes the metric geometries (both Euclidean and non-Euclidean) as special cases.

'Infintymike'......you have made many claims in this forum

I am a real scientist. I am not here to sell books. I am here to learn from others. My quest is for knowledge.
Unfortunately others quest for fortune and glory, and I am forced to read through a lot of BS.
You have stated....

What I CAN do is design devices capable of producing killowatts of free power, devices capable of silent free particle thrust(antigravity), and more.

I am currently involved in developement of a new propulsion system and am interested in any information you may have about this subject....

A rotating bolt of lightning as he described it,

Is this about 'ball lighting',....created intially by N.Tesla? If it is, you are the first since Tesla to recreate it. Rebuild your device.

As for the rest of your posts, I must agree with Dave.....

Unfortunately you have yet to acquire sufficient knowledge to truly comprehend the physics that you are commenting about

Until you can back your claims with mathematics, or documented experimental results, it is difficult to take most of your statements seriously, sorry, I mean no offense.
Very brilliant minds attend these forums regularly, and BS just doesn't fly here.
We require proof.....

Thank you for your participation.....Happy Thoughts....Q7

[dleviwing]

Mike;
You make extraordinary claims for one who is unwilling to complete a simple profile of himself.
I am quite sure you believe what you are saying. Can you convince the rest of us?

[infinitymike]

dleviwing; I am short on tools to do much convincing at the moment, but can point out a few facts. Thanks to Quanta for your contribution to the string. I'm probably too lazy to go that far these days. I may have a few days at a time where I can't reply. I'm in Ca.now, and will be back in Or.next week. Maybe in a month or less I'll have my computer up again. Anyhow; --
Balled lightning created by NikolaTesla as well as by lightning strikes around the Keys and elsewhere had been replicated. I recall someone selling info on how to do this. It unfortnately is not what my pulse positron engine will do/ otherwise described as the device which creates an orbiting lightning bolt. The device will sustain it's field using hardware- specifically-866 mercury vapor rectifiers. (G.E.?). I hate to drag on this stuff without hard evidence to show you, but, and I hate to say this, by the time I get the thing working like my friend's now disassembled hamset, I will probably not tell anyone about it or continue on this forum for a few months, since I'm in the process of cooking up a number of patents based upon the technology. Giving away the secrets just to show off would be ludicrous on my part. I can only apologize that I can only tell you along what lines to think of the TOE. Afraid I've already said too much. Quanta asked about propulsion systems. I'll be back on tomorrow and sunday with replies. For now if Quanta can have a few months patience until I clear some patents, I will be glad to send you plans for a nifty craft I've designed 2 different ways. One is cheaper to manufacture, and I've actually integrated the design into a 'StarWars' Millenium Falcon model, which unlike the origional, uses no matter based fuels for propulsion, yet can and will move as the origonal seemed to in the movies. If you even see one flying around Arizona or S.Co., you'll probably know who it is. As for now, I'd hate to see this string get any more far out than it deserves to be ; as it was implied; these statements are worth nothing without something to back it up. Just to keep things simple, and save fears of my own paranoia, I suppose when I do come back with something solid, I will not post this on the net, rather invite everyone interested to a location where I will demonstrate this technology first hand. Only then can you grin wide at the realizations of such discoveries. For now, mike out