Could CuttleFish Ink Be Used As A Sourse Of Radium (Radioactive)?

[Pincho Paxton]

If the galaxy is surrounded by a sphere then surely there'd be 12 holes, since 12 spheres can touch the surface of a sphere. 6 circles can touch the edge of a circle but a circle is 1 dimensional (and lies in a 2d plane), which the galaxy's halo, by your own posts, is not.



Define 'Planck material'. Give me its mass and quantum numbers under the Standard Model. Give me interaction cross sections between it and things we can measure. Give me the properties of any bound states it might form and how we can measure it. If you can't do that you have nothing.

The icosahedron is not uniform in its distribution, and the collapse of matter into it does not scale up uniformly. by the time you scale up to a Galaxy it appears to have strayed into 2D. I wish I had a powerful enough computer to test it, or the knowhow, but just by looking at a Galaxy I can see that it has strayed into 2D. You know when you look at a TV image made from a few dots, and you can see a man walking around, and dancing. I can do that with most of the matter in the Universe. I can imagine how the kissing problem becomes weaker in certain directions. Balancing solid sphere, on top of constructed Icosahedron has to pop just the outer edges eventually. Otherwise the Galaxy would have material coming in from 12 directions, and a Galaxy would be spherical. After a Galaxy maybe there are no more holes.

I'm sorry that I have to go by my eyes in this case, but the number of Galaxies sure makes it a clear conclusion.

To get the start size of the smallest matter would be just to run a computer program that starts with the kissing problem, and run it until it creates a genuine atom structure. You would then have all of the sizes of matter that create the universe. You could figure out what they do. Unfortunately, I don't have a powerful enough computer to do it. I would also need a lot of help with the known energy levels, and values available. I would have to guess the braking point of the smallest particle (by breaking I mean collapse to Black Hole), and then rescale the whole system when we reach a known value like the atom.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The icosahedron is not uniform in its distribution, and the collapse of matter into it does not scale up uniformly. by the time you scale up to a Galaxy it appears to have strayed into 2D.

Unless you can provide me with a quantitative model to justify this claim you are simply making up lies to further your BS.

I wish I had a powerful enough computer to test it, or the knowhow

How can you input something into a computer if you don't have a quantitative model? I have asked you a great many times to provide me such a thing and now that you're saying you have you either provide it or shut the fuck up. I have the know how to put a quantitative model into a computer. I have access to considerable amounts of computing power. I have experience with quantitative models written in Fortran, C and Mathematica and I know people who with work other languages like Python or programs like MatLab. Hell, I know people who have access to supercomputers.

If you have nothing to hide you'll provide a quantitative model.

And you again ignored a direct question. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION

Define 'Planck material'. Give me its mass and quantum numbers under the Standard Model. Give me interaction cross sections between it and things we can measure. Give me the properties of any bound states it might form and how we can measure it. If you can't do that you have nothing.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Unless you can provide me with a quantitative model to justify this claim you are simply making up lies to further your BS.

How can you input something into a computer if you don't have a quantitative model? I have asked you a great many times to provide me such a thing and now that you're saying you have you either provide it or shut the fuck up. I have the know how to put a quantitative model into a computer. I have access to considerable amounts of computing power. I have experience with quantitative models written in Fortran, C and Mathematica and I know people who with work other languages like Python or programs like MatLab. Hell, I know people who have access to supercomputers.

If you have nothing to hide you'll provide a quantitative model.

And you again ignored a direct question. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION

Define 'Planck material'. Give me its mass and quantum numbers under the Standard Model. Give me interaction cross sections between it and things we can measure. Give me the properties of any bound states it might form and how we can measure it. If you can't do that you have nothing.

I told you, you have to work first forwards to the atom, and then scale everything from there. I can't give you the maths without running the program. It's like the 6 bags of gold, where one is fake, and weighs 1 gram less than the rest, and the scales have a coin slot in it, and only one coin for only one attempt to get the weight right. You have to weigh 1 coin, 2 coins, 3 coins, 4 coins, 5 coins 6 coins from each bag. I have to run the simulator, and work out the sizes from the result, by using the known size of the atom, and working backwards from there. I have already posted the images of the interactions that are required for the collapse of the materials. The central sphere breaks, a hole appears, the pressure wave of the collapse pushes the touching spheres outwards. They are star shaped, they break more matter in the 12 directions. But leave gaps for matter to fall inwards through. The falling matter meets in the black hole.

At his point there is the chaos developing because of the 13th ball. The 13th ball is the spacing created from the kissing problem. So what happens next is between this random number.

But you can start with any size, and when it works like an atom, you scale backwards. What you are waiting for the computer to achieve is, a nucleus, a proton, some quark, an atom, a photon, electric current, and veins around the atoms to keep them apart. That's the result. You then take that result, and knowing the size of the atom you get a scale for everything else.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I told you, you have to work first forwards to the atom, and then scale everything from there. I can't give you the maths without running the program..

How can you program something into a computer, which is nothing but a number cruncher, if you don't have some kind of quantitative framework. You must have mathematics to put into the computer. You know this, you claim you're a computer programmer. To put something into a computer you must have formalised it into a sequence of logic and mathematics which a computer can understand. You can't just write a program "Compute aether", you have to quantify things.

Give me what you would put into a computer.

I have already posted the images of the interactions that are required for the collapse of the materials.

No, you've posted vague arm waving pictures of what you think the system does qualitatively. You haven't provided any 'interactions'.

The central sphere breaks, a hole appears, the pressure wave of the collapse pushes the touching spheres outwards. They are star shaped, they break more matter in the 12 directions. But leave gaps for matter to fall inwards through. The falling matter meets in the black hole.

If you haven't run a simulation yet how can you be sure anything behaves as you think it does? If you already have all the outcomes why bother with the simulation?

At his point there is the chaos

You have no idea what 'chaos' means to a mathematician or physicist. You once again use words you don't understand in order to deceive people.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You just program it with planck as 1.0, and the pressure to break it as if 12* sphere pressure * outward pressure pi = adsorption level.. (Probably doesn't even make sense. I'm sure that a mathematician can get this closer than me, you must have some rules for pressure breakage with no adsorption, I don't do calculus) and then each time you get a membrane supporting itself that is the next particle, and you just watch it. The wide rivers around atoms should only happen once. A 2D galaxy will definitely only happen once, I doubt you could scale that large however. When you have an atom, you rescale the whole thing again, and find out what planck really is. You will find out how many sizes of Dark Matter there really are, and you will find out which size is gravity. You will have flowing river currents around the nucleus, that is electricity. You will have collapsing black holes, that is the photon wave, and other waves. You have to do it visually. Zoom out, and look for an atom. Find out what's inside it. Colour each membrane a different colour so that you can see where they are. You should be able to eventually recognise something.

Chaos is the 13th ball. I've watched enough snooker to see that. Although, it most likely happens more with the icosahedron's than the first scale.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You just program it with planck as 1.0.

Program what? You haven't provided me (or anyone else) with something I can put into a computer, no matter how many times I ask. You have to provide the thing I program into a computer.

If someone says "Program it into a computer" they have to define what 'it' is first. Or haven't you come across such basic logic during your time as a computer programmer?

And you STILL haven't defined what you're referring to every time you say 'Planck'. You taslk about 'Planck material' but don't define it. Now you're saying 'planck as 1.0', as if 'Planck' is just some number. For someone who claims to work as a computer programmer for a living you sure are ignorant of how to do it.

and the pressure to break it as if 12* sphere pressure * outward pressure pi = adsorption level.. (Probably doesn't even make sense. I'm sure that a mathematician can get this closer than me, you must have some rules for pressure breakage with no adsorption, I don't do calculus)

I'm a mathematician and nothing you have said in that quote or any other post you've made has been anywhere close to something which can be programmed into a computer, never mind actually provide a model of nature.

The fact you can't even state your work in a coherent manner demonstrates you're delusional when you claim to have a theory of everything. How can you claim it works if you can't even write it down or tell someone else about it?

and then each time you get a membrane supporting itself that is the next particle, and you just watch it. The wide rivers around atoms should only happen once.

'Wide rivers'? Do you even notice you just make up random crap? Have you just become so accustomed to lying that you don't even notice you're doing it any more?

A 2D galaxy will definitely only happen onc

Such a shame galaxies are three dimensional objects.

When you have an atom, you rescale the whole thing again, and find out what planck really is. You will find out how many sizes of Dark Matter there really are, and you will find out which size is gravity

So you haven't worked any of this stuff out yet you're certain its all completely accurate? How can you not see the stupidity in that?

Chaos is the 13th ball.

No, chaos is a property of deterministic systems which undergo a particular kind of dynamics. It is an attribute given to certain systems, it is not something you can label a single object with without making reference to what it is doing.

I've watched enough snooker to see that.

Wow, so you learnt about a very complex area of mathematics just by watching snooker? Do you think you can do open heart surgery because you've watched an episode of House (or Grays anatomy or Holby city or Casualty)? Would you want a doctor who gets all his knowledge from watching TV? I certainly wouldn't. Yet you think you can learn something which takes everyone else years to learn simply by watching a fucking snooker game?

I really really hope you don't have children. I think having someone like you as a role model for a child would be bordering on abuse.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Program what? You haven't provided me (or anyone else) with something I can put into a computer, no matter how many times I ask. You have to provide the thing I program into a computer.

If someone says "Program it into a computer" they have to define what 'it' is first. Or haven't you come across such basic logic during your time as a computer programmer?

And you STILL haven't defined what you're referring to every time you say 'Planck'. You taslk about 'Planck material' but don't define it. Now you're saying 'planck as 1.0', as if 'Planck' is just some number. For someone who claims to work as a computer programmer for a living you sure are ignorant of how to do it.

I'm a mathematician and nothing you have said in that quote or any other post you've made has been anywhere close to something which can be programmed into a computer, never mind actually provide a model of nature.

The fact you can't even state your work in a coherent manner demonstrates you're delusional when you claim to have a theory of everything. How can you claim it works if you can't even write it down or tell someone else about it?

'Wide rivers'? Do you even notice you just make up random crap? Have you just become so accustomed to lying that you don't even notice you're doing it any more?

Such a shame galaxies are three dimensional objects.

So you haven't worked any of this stuff out yet you're certain its all completely accurate? How can you not see the stupidity in that?

No, chaos is a property of deterministic systems which undergo a particular kind of dynamics. It is an attribute given to certain systems, it is not something you can label a single object with without making reference to what it is doing.

Wow, so you learnt about a very complex area of mathematics just by watching snooker? Do you think you can do open heart surgery because you've watched an episode of House (or Grays anatomy or Holby city or Casualty)? Would you want a doctor who gets all his knowledge from watching TV? I certainly wouldn't. Yet you think you can learn something which takes everyone else years to learn simply by watching a fucking snooker game?

I really really hope you don't have children. I think having someone like you as a role model for a child would be bordering on abuse.

I think you want the physics? The physics just happen, you don't program them. My theory creates the physics with the model. All you need to program is the kissing problem breaking a material because it has nowhere to move to. That's all. If you want gravity numbers and such there aren't any, the gravity is the flow between matter that just happens. Basically this theory models everything from what was possible from the day 1 of the universe, which is very little. Just a sphere that couldn't move, and was crushed, creating a chain reaction. The black hole that was left behind created the next stage of the movement. All you have is..

scale 1
planck breakage, pressure on 12 sides (this is the hardest part, when does planck break into a Black Hole?)
outward wave after crushing (don't know the force)
Black holes with 0 gravity, but pressure surrounding them.
movement through any available spaces
momentum of pressure
13th ball chaos.. there is a formula for this.

Then watch as the whole thing evolves.

So there are two unknowns, and maybe some speeds to calculate. What else do you need?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Your continued inability to even answer direct questions can either be taken as trolling or delusional stupidity. So which is it? Are you ignoring my direct questions because you're just too thick to understand them or because you're a deceptive troll?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Your continued inability to even answer direct questions can either be taken as trolling or delusional stupidity. So which is it? Are you ignoring my direct questions because you're just too thick to understand them or because you're a deceptive troll?

I don't understand them. I could write the program with that information if I had a powerful enough computer. I would need to figure out the pressure based on the size of a Galaxy I guess, as Galaxies seem to have the right pressure to cause the material to break. So that sphere is the scale. I don't know why you can't do it? Do you write 3D simulators or not? I mean I only write 3D games, and a lot of this is hard, because I don't know how many atoms are in a galaxy, and I can't then times it by planck/atom scale, and I don't know the math's for pressure, so a mathematician in science has a great advantage over me. I also don't know the suspected smallest scale of a particle, but I do know that you have planck mathematics that works. I don't know what pressure it takes to smash an atom either, that might help a bit. I thought that you would tell me the mathematics part.

 

[phlogistician]

Now I'm useless at maths, although I can pass A level,

Can, or have?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Can, or have?

The truth is I did it as part of my CNC training. I got a job as a CNC programmer before I took my Exam, so never went back for the exam, but I was the best in the class, so I count it as a pass.

 

[Stryder]

At his point there is the chaos developing because of the 13th ball. The 13th ball is the spacing created from the kissing problem. So what happens next is between this random number.

I'm suprised nobodies brought this to your attention, but you do realise you are talking a... "load of balls"?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm suprised nobodies brought this to your attention, but you do realise you are talking a... "load of balls"?

Ok, but any day now this will go worldwide.

 

[Read-Only]

Ok, but any day now this will go worldwide.

Yeah - and so will flying pink elephants.

Get a grip, PP, go back to CNC - something you may actually know about - and leave science to the people who actually KNOW science.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Ok, but any day now this will go worldwide.

Wanna put money on your failing completely? I'm already mentioned in one or two 'Theories of Everything' which were going to change the world then went nowhere, might as well make it a hat trick....

 

[phlogistician]

The truth is I did it as part of my CNC training. I got a job as a CNC programmer before I took my Exam, so never went back for the exam, but I was the best in the class, so I count it as a pass.

So you haven't got 'A' level maths. You cannot metriculate yourself.

 

[Acitnoids]

PP,
Just out of curiosity. What type of CNC control did you program for, Fanuc, Mazatrol or Fedal? Do you know what these basic programing codes do, M00 & M01, M08 & M09, G48 & G49 and lastly E01 & E02?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

PP,
Just out of curiosity. What type of CNC control did you program for, Fanuc, Mazatrol or Fedal? Do you know what these basic programing codes do, M00 & M01, M08 & M09, G48 & G49 and lastly E01 & E02?

Most of the machines I worked on were Fanuc.

M00 = Stop
M01 = Stop maybe to change a tool half way through the operation.
M08 = The coolant start
M09 = Coolant off
G48 = Axis offset decrease fast
G49 = Didn't really use it.
E01 = Don't remember
E02 = Don't remember

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The truth is I did it as part of my CNC training. I got a job as a CNC programmer before I took my Exam, so never went back for the exam, but I was the best in the class, so I count it as a pass.

This is obviously a lie.

Firstly it is dishonest to say "Yes" if you haven't actually sat an exam. Hell, if you do such a 'bending of truth' on a CV you can be fired for it, irrespective of how good you actually are.

Secondly its obvious from your complete ignorance of basic science that you vastly over estimate your abilities. Your claim to have a ToE being an example of your exaggerated view of your abilities.

Thirdly you had to ask in another thread if vt actually means v*t, in that you didn't know that when doing algebra the multiplication sign is not used when multiplying variables.

Fourthly when asking for clarification of a particular algebraic expression in said thread you asked if the rearrangement could be something which involves c+d, where c is the speed of light and d is a distance. You were (and are) unaware that you can't add quantities with different units and so c+d is meaningless in such an expression. Units in physics are taught to children around the age of 10 and the algebraic implications about age 14.

You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't understand basic high school algebra and yet you believe you could pass A Level mathematics and were 'top in the class'. You could only have been top in the class if no one else was in it or you were in the 'special needs' class. Which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

How about you evaluate $$4\int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{+\frac{1}{2}} \frac{3+2x}{4x^{2}+4x+5} dx$$. That requires nothing other than techniques covered in A Level mathematics courses.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

This is obviously a lie.

Firstly it is dishonest to say "Yes" if you haven't actually sat an exam. Hell, if you do such a 'bending of truth' on a CV you can be fired for it, irrespective of how good you actually are.

Secondly its obvious from your complete ignorance of basic science that you vastly over estimate your abilities. Your claim to have a ToE being an example of your exaggerated view of your abilities.

Thirdly you had to ask in another thread if vt actually means v*t, in that you didn't know that when doing algebra the multiplication sign is not used when multiplying variables.

Fourthly when asking for clarification of a particular algebraic expression in said thread you asked if the rearrangement could be something which involves c+d, where c is the speed of light and d is a distance. You were (and are) unaware that you can't add quantities with different units and so c+d is meaningless in such an expression. Units in physics are taught to children around the age of 10 and the algebraic implications about age 14.

You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't understand basic high school algebra and yet you believe you could pass A Level mathematics and were 'top in the class'. You could only have been top in the class if no one else was in it or you were in the 'special needs' class. Which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

How about you evaluate $$4\int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{+\frac{1}{2}} \frac{3+2x}{4x^{2}+4x+5} dx$$. That requires nothing other than techniques covered in A Level mathematics courses.

I said I knew the Theory Of Everything, I didn't say I knew the maths for it, I said I didn't know the maths for it. But I can explain it, and I can explain how to work on the Formula by explaining what is happening during almost any physical event in science. Forget Chemistry for now, just common science, and QS.