CD27 Posted June 13, 2004 Report Posted June 13, 2004 okay guys, i was debating with myself wether or not i should even post this theory here, because it is full of mistakes, i know i will get flamed, but i don't care, so long as i can get the info out correctly. (have fun tearing my theory apart FreeT.) The Theory of Flexon EnergyCopyright © Eric Wright 2004, all rights reserved All Energies are connected to all other energies THROUGH Flexon Energy. Space itself is Flexon energy; it acts as though a Medium to ALL matters and energies that may exist in the universe. If one energy is bent, then all others must bend as well. (Including Flexon energy itself in both situations, being pulled on and pulling on another.) Why must space be an energy? Why can it not be a vast vacuum of nothingness? Answers: · For anything to “flow” “through” space, it must first be something to be flowed through. · For space to “bend” it must first be something to be bent. · If this theory is correct, space, Flexon energy, is allowed to bend to an extreme limit. · This allows for all of the laws of physics to still exist. · If space were not an “energy” specifically, then by now it would no longer exist as we know it. For example: Put a cloth sheet through a hole, in say a table, and then pull it through the hole. The sheet will go right through the hole as if it were “sucked” through it. There are only two possible ways to avoid this catastrophic event. First, space would have to “grow” so it would not be sucked out of the hole, which is highly unlikely. The second is for it to stretch, which I believe it already does do. · By being an energy, space can stretch, and because it is connected to all energies, which gives all energies a constant “ground” (not an electrical ground, but meaning they are connected to each other and wont be sucked in) by which they can stretch; that is why space must be an energy and not a vacuum of emptiness. Imagine a series of chains. One chain is vertical, and there are several more that are horizontal and diagonal from the center of the center chain. The center chain will represent Flexon energy and the others will represent any other energy that may be around it. If you were to pull on one chain, all the rest would move on impulse to balance all the rest out. Now, to be more realistic, we have to realize that space is not be concentrated in one spot, but yet is concentrated in multiple spots all over the universe. Instead of having all of the other energies connect to the Flexon energy at the center, let them connect at any place on the chain that represents Flexon. This would allow for more than one source to pull on. Now, to state this in a bit of a clearer manor, I'll describe it to you in a way that you may understand. Instead of the chains, imagine a trampoline. This trampoline you are imagining is covered in little strings and tight fibers in a series, just like the chain. Now, if one person were to jump on the trampoline, what would happen? The trampoline would bend towards the center of motion to balance everything out. If perhaps that person was to begin jumping constantly on the trampoline, the center of motion would change, most likely to never is the same as another. Now if you had four or five persons jump on the trampoline at a constant rate, you would then have five or more (multiple) centers of motion. If perhaps you can imagine space itself in that manor, the people being planets, stars, galaxies, etc, and everything always constantly moving, because space itself is constantly moving, then this could be how Flexon energy moves about in space. Dimension Repulsion: When the Flexon energy of two dimensions collides, also known, in other theories, as wormholes.Dimensional Distributor: The area inside the center of a wormhole, which takes apart and reconstructs any matter passing through it. Because the pull of Flexon is so strong, it tears everything apart, just like a black hole, on the way in, and then, on the way back out, it reverses
CD27 Posted June 13, 2004 Author Report Posted June 13, 2004 Post deleted since it was posted in violation of our faq. The post was a copy of a post from PhysicsForums.com.
CD27 Posted June 13, 2004 Author Report Posted June 13, 2004 Post deleted since it was posted in violation of our faq. The post was a copy of a post from PhysicsForums.com.
Tormod Posted June 13, 2004 Report Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by: CD27Jellotivity II: Return of the Spoon ...snip... in reading this theory you must remember that it is not finnished, it is a very small scetch of what it is to be. i have heard no updates from kama (shintashi), but i really don't know if he has any evidence or not. i just thought i'd give you a basic idea of what i have been talkign about for so long. Eric How come you post the *entire* text of someone else's theory (as posted in another forum) and give them no credit except say that you wait for their updates? In fact you take the entire credit and say they show what YOU have been talking about for so long. CD, this is theft. I have notified the administrator of the forum you took these posts from. The next steps for you are: 1) Post an apology in that forum immediately, explaining why you posted the theories on Hypography without giving credit to Shintashi2) Provide me with the link to the apology so I can see it3) Delete the above stolen posts and post an apology here as well4) Provide us with proof that you actually wrote the Flexon theory and did not steal it from somewhere I give you until the end of the day to do this. If you fail, I have no other choice but to ban you from Hypography. By the way, I am being *extremely* lenient here. I could ban you right away for being in direct violation of our forum faq and our membership rules: "Anyone who wants to post anything at Hypography (articles, press releases, reviews, and forum topics) must make sure that they either own the copyright for what they publish, or that they have obtained the right to publish content prior to publishing it. Read it here: http://www.hypography.com/membership_agreement.cfm CD, I am dead serious here. I am giving you ONE chance. If you ever do this again you will be banned without further notice. Tormod
CD27 Posted June 13, 2004 Author Report Posted June 13, 2004 ...i guess i'll have to lsiten to you, but in my defence, how is that "stealing" anything? i did say that it was HIS theory. i take no credit for anything. if you want to ban me, go right on ahead, i could care less. i gave the guy credit, is not saying that it is not your thjeory and that it is someone else's theory enough? what do i got to do to tell everyone that it's not my theory to begin with? i did that already. what's the difference between posting the exact content and posting a link? it's the same thing. only you don't have to load up a different page to do so. i'm not stopping you from banning me, there is no need to be "lenient" to me. who am i to be treated special? the flexon theory is mine, it has always been mine, i am the one who wrote it, jellotivity is not, i clearly stated that, why would you need proof? if you need proof, i can have the rest of my science team post messages here as well, to declare that it is my theory. i NEVER claimed jellotivity as MINE.
CD27 Posted June 13, 2004 Author Report Posted June 13, 2004 ok tormod, here's your stupid appollegy, and i'll even give you the link to where the orriginal appology is. i hope you enjoy your false claims. http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=233532#post233532 ok kama, i now hav to "appolegize" to you for some stupid crap that the hypography forums is saying. i posted your jellotivity theory on there, and DID give you the credit for it. here,. i will even post here a quote of what i directly said in the post i made there. and nothing there has been edited...to my knowledge. "in reading this theory you must remember that it is not finnished, it is a very small scetch of what it is to be. i have heard no updates from kama (shintashi), but i really don't know if he has any evidence or not. i just thought i'd give you a basic idea of what i have been talkign about for so long. " when i said "i just thought i'd give you a basic idea of what i have been talkign about for so long " i meant that they would understand why i keapt saying jello and jellotivity, so they would understand it. the editor there claimed that i had stolen your theories...i tend to not see how that is possible, because of the above quote. anyways, i appollegize for "stealing" your theories...this is so stupid. this idot could ask ME what is going on before making absurd claims. i will NOT delete the theory from the post, but i will make it, VERY LARGE LETTERS, that you are the one who wrote it. Eric
Tormod Posted June 13, 2004 Report Posted June 13, 2004 DC, you added the bit about the theory not being yours AFTER I asked you to remove it. But calling me an idiot just about does it. Goodbye. Tormod
lindagarrette Posted June 13, 2004 Report Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by: TormodDC, you added the bit about the theory not being yours AFTER I asked you to remove it.Tormod Thanks for explaining.
Tormod Posted June 13, 2004 Report Posted June 13, 2004 If there is one thing I do not tolerate, it is 1) having people post things which are not their own (repeatedly!) and 2) being called an idiot in another forum because of it. This is the third time in the history of these forums that we ban a user. Tormod
geko Posted June 13, 2004 Report Posted June 13, 2004 lol - you can tell that he didnt even re-word it.... not that i read the whole thing, maybe one day.
Tormod Posted June 13, 2004 Report Posted June 13, 2004 I'm closing this thread since CD27 is no longer able to defend himself in our forums. Tormod
Recommended Posts