What does "spooky" mean to you?
I have solved the theory of Everything
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
- Status
Well for a start containing an electron, because the electron is spooky. It's plasma.
You need something like an atom with no electron, and an anti-atom with no electron to be pure. why don't you have an anti-atom? Do you have something like it? Is that what you call anti-matter. I am getting confused by your terminology now. You have pure substances of a very high order. Like 4 atoms, and some electrons. That isn't pure at all.
You need something like an atom with no electron, and an anti-atom with no electron to be pure. why don't you have an anti-atom? Do you have something like it? Is that what you call anti-matter. I am getting confused by your terminology now. You have pure substances of a very high order. Like 4 atoms, and some electrons. That isn't pure at all.
Well the creation of everything has to be from scratch. I didn't start with any high order substances. That was the point I was trying to make. Just blanks.
No, just an accretion disc, but thanks for playing.
So in other words, you have no evidence that "Aether" exists. Nice.
I don't know what classes as evidence though to be honest. NASA is always posting pictures that say that this sun turned a bit because of a Black Hole, bobbled a bit because of another planet. I can see 1000 things that move a bit because of the Aether, and it doesn't count as proof.
Ummm....I'm still waiting for your weed dealer's name...seriously...I want some of that stuff...I think I'll solve gravity if I score.
Accretion disc around what, using what, moving by what force, made from what, created by what, physics from where? You have added about 10 or more things from less than thin air. You have them moving in nothing, using perpetual motion from nowhere, made from something that just appeared, and people ask me to prove Aether?
Then your reply will be mathematics. Mathematics about nothing.
This is why I started from scratch. If you don't you will take everything as granted.
You have to have gravity as part of the model, and where it came from. That's essential. You have to have why object move together, that changes the picture altogether. You can't have pre made materials, because yours ignite, and you do not account for the ignition. Only by including an ignitable material, but there couldn't be one. The pressures around the object don't explain how the object got its mass. It wound around itself to get its mass, but there's gravity thrown in again. Not only that but it reversed direction in an outward explosion in a Vacuum made from nothing.
The only thing that I invent is a bubble. The other things are just a few rules.
Didn't anyone ever want to just build up the universe from as little as possible. I'm sure that it had to start with hardly anything.
Last edited:
I don't have to know where the Hydrogen or Helium comes from (ie what caused the Big Bang) to be able to accurately describe their dynamics in the Sun. Someone studying evolution doesn't need to know how life got started, only that it started somehow.
And you utterly ignored my questions. Why are you somehow the best person to answer these questions? You don't know about experiments, you don't know what constitutes evidence, you have no clue about current ideas and models and some things you've said have already been contradicted by experiments. Your intuition is wrong. Your guesses have been wrong. Just because you know a buzzword doesn't mean you understand it.
So how can you claim to have a theory of everything when you have no clue what criteria there is for an idea to be a 'theory of everything'.
Religion explains the creation of Hydrogen and Helium but its not a theory of everything because it utterly failed to be predictive, you can't use it as a guide to the behaviour of physical systems and in many cases its contradicted by reality. You're simply trying to spin your own BS, just like a religious person would. Just because you want people to think its a theory of everything doesn't make it so.
If I said gravity was invisible fairies pushing things around would you think I had a 'theory of gravity' or is it obvious that such an idea is not going to be true. Your claims are no less BS than that, you just think you're doing science because you use terminology you've read other people using. And by your own admission you don't understand most of it.
You talk about matter and antimatter. Do you even know how Dirac predicted that a year before it was observed? Nope.
So the best thing to do is be ignorant of as much as possible? You're even ignorant of experiments which do nothing but see how Nature behaves. How can you describe systems you know nothing about?
Incoherent crap.
But you aren't trying to describe Nature, you're just describing your assumptions and guesses about things you have no experience of, no knowledge of and no wish to have any knowledge of.
You are deliberately ignorant. That's what winds me up, you have gone out of your way to avoid learning. How in the name of crap can you possibly think that ignorance is the best course of action? That the best way to understand and describe something is to know as little about it as possible and to ignore anyone and everyone who corrects you. I am about 2 months away from a theoretical physics PhD and I've told you that your "It's matter+antimatter" claim about the Sun is experimentally invalidated. Now you can either swallow your extremely deluded ego and say "Oh well, I was making a total guess" and accept the correction and make a step in the right direction or you could just ignore the behaviour of Nature and continue deluding yourself that you're trying to describe Nature. If you really wanted to describe Nature you'd find out about expeirmental results. You haven't so obviously you aren't actually trying to do science, to advance understanding, you just want your ego stroked. And no one is buying it.
Ok so you don't know what evidence is. Evidence is a demonstration that what's in your mind corresponds to actual reality. If you cannot demonstrate that this entity called "Aether" exists outside your own mind then you cannot provide evidence.
Last edited:
Well..just to make this thread not totally worthless...a good kittening
For your viewing pleasure...a really cute kitten:
Awwwww....
For your viewing pleasure...a really cute kitten:
Awwwww....
You need to work out spin speeds, aether size etc. to work out the answer to 2+3-5?
Ok. Get back to me when you've solved the problem.
Good luck!
I think I've done it! I can add the aether to your model of the universe using your model of the universe! I can explain the singularity! And you even have it in your model!
And I can explain why there is no Aether wind.
I'm starting a new thread called "Aether, and the Singularity", and I would like to thank you guys for helping me to figure out what I needed to do.
And I can explain why there is no Aether wind.
I'm starting a new thread called "Aether, and the Singularity", and I would like to thank you guys for helping me to figure out what I needed to do.
Last edited:
Google 'Monte Carlo Simulation'. It's simple, if you create a computer model with as many particles as you can handle, start them in random directions, with random speeds, with gravitational attraction, they attract, interact, and start to swirl together, and form the shapes we see in reality.
So, get this, we observe. We hypothesis. We create an experiment. We perform it. The results broadly agree with our observations and hypothesis: Science done.
You MUST be aware that our Sun is a 2nd generation star, yes? IE, all the matter in it has been in a star before? How does your 'black hole' model (btw, I think you need to google 'event horizon' and see where that might just spoil your theory, and do not try and cop out saying that the energy we see from the Sun is all Hawking radiation!)) account for the matter just happen have fallen onto a black hole TWICE, and that it escaped once? Hmmmmm?
Er, gravity?
Elements formed in another star/supernova, and attracted from the ISM.
Another star, formed from Primordial elements. Where did those come from? Well, that is the question now isn't it. CERN may give us some insight soon.
Sounds like you think physics stands as a separate entity, like some rulebook or framework. Physics isn't a rulebook, it's a journal. It records the behaviour of matter, it doesn't define it. Before there was matter/energy there was no physics as we understand it. So matter coming from nowhere does not violate any understood behaviour.
Explained about. Btw, your theory seems to rely on infinite regression, and that's just a cop out, it answers nothing.
WOAH! Two things wrong with that one. I have particles moving in SPACE, which has measurable properties, not moving in 'nothing', and I never mentioned perpetual motion, stop putting words in my mouth.
If Aether exists, and interacts with matter/energy, yes, you should be able to prove it. If it exists and doesn't interact with matter/energy, we simply don't care.
No, I have to admit, I struggled with the mathematical side of quantum mechanics while studying my degree, and it's been 20 years, and I do not work in science any more, so no, I won't be giving mathematics. I'll leave that
to the very capable resident active scientists we have on this board. But get this, you've had your arguments shot down by me, who hasn't studied this stuff for twenty years. Want to know why that is? Because I studied it in the first place. No go read a book.
I created the original sun.
I didn't put it near the earth because it would have been too hot.
Anyone creating a sun, please put it somewhere else.
Yeah thanks, you wrote that our really well. you did however include perpetual motion as soon as you used the word gravity, and didn't say what it was, and didn't know what it was. But you wrote this out really well anyway.
But I was right about quite a few things, and I know how to prove it. But the only open option I seem to have is to write a book, or paper about it, and then let everyone else do the experiments. You have to realise that I am in no position to move forward as a scientist. Just a writer. It's my only option open to me. Unless anyone has any last ideas.. just presume that I might be on to something, and then finish this sentence....
"If you really are on to something then you should...."
Why should we indulge your delusions when we can demonstrate them false? Why should we feed your denial by being 'Yes men' to your random, unsupported, ignorant guesses?
You have no interest in doing actual science or you're entertain the possibility you're wrong. Instead you simply want others to listen to your 'creative writing' and say "Wow, you're right". Well tough crap, because you aren't.
You're not the only person to try such an approach. People like QWC in this forum simply make up stuff and try to convince people that its worth listening to their ignorant monologues. Once again, you fail to be unique but you obviously wish you were.
How about you finish this sentence for me :
"I will accept I am wrong about something if someone ......."
Possible suggestions include "....provides me experimental evidence my claims are wrong", "....explains flaws in my logic", "...points out contradictions in my ideas".
If you are unable to finish that sentence then what you are preaching is not science, it's religious dogma. Your interpretation of how you want the universe to be, irrespective of how it is.
It's not, because I am already proving it on paper. You will be able to see this time what I meant. My last description was a bit out, but this next description agrees completely with your own understanding of the Universe. You will definitely go "Wow!" when you read this. A picture will form in your head, and you will be scribbling down numbers like mad. If only I knew now what you would be scribbling.
- Status