My theory 1 step at a time

[Pincho Paxton]

Well they are stratified or zonal so it is the same thing. There was shifting from one zone to another. That implies design and laws of physics have been written already, you are proving the existence of the creator.

They obey zonal rules that have no paradox. Nothing doesn't exist so they have to exist. They cannot share the exact same space as one another else that would also be a paradox. So you end up with zonal spheres, else any other shape would be a creative structure.

 

[Robittybob1]

They obey zonal rules that have no paradox. Nothing doesn't exist so they have to exist. They cannot share the exact same space as one another else that would also be a paradox. So you end up with zonal spheres, else any other shape would be a creative structure.

You are the Creator You create a sphere with zonal structure and you allow it to remain. Pincho is God for today.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You are the Creator You create a sphere with zonal structure and you allow it to remain. Pincho is God for today.

Like I said it's a self building Universe. When you avoid paradox you end up with hardly any choice but to make it in 1 way.

 

[Robittybob1]

Like I said it's a self building Universe. When you avoid paradox you end up with hardly any choice but to make it in 1 way.

Go and get some sleep Mate.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Go and get some sleep Mate.

No, a square isn't mathematically symmetrical so it breaks a symmetry rule, and means that there was a creator. A sphere is equal in all directions, therefore no paradox.

 

[Robittybob1]

No, a square isn't mathematically symmetrical so it breaks a symmetry rule, and means that there was a creator. A sphere is equal in all directions, therefore no paradox.

Who set the rules? You talk of rules without a rule maker. Isn't that in itself a paradox?

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, a square isn't mathematically symmetrical

Bullshit.

so it breaks a symmetry rule, and means that there was a creator.

Also bullshit.

A sphere is equal in all directions

Only from one particular point.

 

[prometheus]

Pincho vs. Robittybob = bumfight!

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Bullshit.


Also bullshit.


Only from one particular point.

I'm not going to argue, because you have failed too often for me to bother now. I suppose you see square planets all over the place.

 

[Robittybob1]

Pincho vs. Robittybob = bumfight!

Is that called for?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm not going to argue, because you have failed too often for me to bother now.

That would be incorrect.

I suppose you see square planets all over the place.

As would that.
And it's not even anything to do with what was written...

 

[Robittybob1]

I'm not going to argue, because you have failed too often for me to bother now. I suppose you see square planets all over the place.

But you must look at the microscopic level and you'll find globular is rare and crystalline "square" is more common.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

But you must look at the microscopic level and you'll find globular is rare and crystalline "square" is more common.

Actually I already wrote a computer simulation of crystal structure is my theory, and they obey the kissing problem. This was years ago. I forget how I solved salt now. But I trust whatever solution I found. The amazing part was when I got a perfect snowflake from Gravity, and temperature, and the kissing problem. It was so perfect, it had all of the common details, and to scale. In fact I was so shocked I phoned NASA. But they put the phone down.

 

[Robittybob1]

Actually I already wrote a computer simulation of crystal structure is my theory, and they obey the kissing problem. This was years ago. I forget how I solved salt now. But I trust whatever solution I found. The amazing part was when I got a perfect snowflake from Gravity, and temperature, and the kissing problem. It was so perfect, it had all of the common details, and to scale. In fact I was so shocked I phoned NASA. But they put the phone down.

Have you still got that snow flake one?

 

[river]

How can gravity be forced to overlap? What is gravity?

Pincho Paxton

Gravity is space time as a liquid grain.

liquid grain ? explain


(I've always looked at gravity as ordered space , myself )

 

[James R]

Pincho Paxton:

How is scale measured? What equipment do I use?

You would need my simulator to measure everything against an origin scale of 1.

A simulator is useless. Garbage in, garbage out.

All successful physical theories make numerical predictions that can then be experimentally tested. If the predictions of the theory match the measurements, then there's some chance that the theory is "right", or at least on the right track.

What kinds of real-world measurements can be done to test your theory? What numbers does you theory predict accurately? Can you give a few examples, and also post the mathematics of the relevant calculations?

For example, can your theory correctly predict something like the mass of an electron, or the force between two protons separated by a particular distance? If not, what can it predict that we can test?

How does scale "convert to time"?

1 + -1 = 0 is the first scale in our Universe. It is the only scale that doesn't have a paradox, so it must be used on Virtual particles. You take all other scales from this origin.

You didn't answer the question I asked. Please try again.

A bump of what?
What does the bump do?
How do these bumps affect time?
Please show me the mathematics that predicts the amount by which time slows down.

Must be simulated. I know the rules, but can't do them in my head.

What are the rules? Please list them.

I'm sure you have them all written down, so please post a copy. It's ok. I can cope with maths.

Please give an example of the release of small particles from a larger particle.

Virtual particles in a hole have a scale of -1. When they come out of the hole they have a scale of +1.

Again, you didn't answer the question I asked you.

For example, do protons release electrons? Do baseballs release quarks? Or what? Give me a practical example of what you're talking about.

What is an overlap hole? What does it overlap?

+1 overlaps - 1 to equal zero. The Universe must always equal zero.

Again, you didn't answer my question.

But in what sense must the universe be "equal to zero". What property of the universe is equal to zero?

Gravity is space time as a liquid grain.

What is a liquid grain? Please explain.

When Gravity is forced into an atom hole it can't escape.

Isn't gravity a force? How can a force be forced into a hole?

It must scale down to escape.

Are you saying gravity is a particle? Because as I understand it from you, only particles have scale. Is that right?

When it scales to -1 a virtual particle of +1 can appear.

Why?

Gravity is then a negative number. Negative numbers can escape from a flow of positive numbers.

How can numbers flow?

This prevents the universe from creating energy increase.

Why is energy increase a problem?

Actually, can you explain what you understand "energy" to be for me? I'm worried that my usages of terms like "energy" and "gravity" are very different to yours. So, maybe you ought to give me a list of basic definitions of terms in your theory.

Nothing can move without free energy.

Why not?

What is free energy?

Because scale is relative a fundamental particle can be any scale.

What use is scale if fundamental particles can be any scale?

This gives you inflation, and time.

How. Please set out your reasoning for me from the first principles of your theory. How do you derive this conclusion?

It is free energy without a paradox. The scale UP causes a bump with another particle scaling UP. You get a free push.... TIME.

So these bumps that you can't explain without your simulator somehow cause pushes and those pushes turn somehow into time. Is that right?

Can you please show me the derivation of these conclusions?

How would we test these things?

My simulator will be almost perfect in all physics.

There's no way to confirm that other than by checking against nature - the real world out there.

When I say "test", I mean precisely "check the predictions of the theory against experimental results".

Is there anything in your theory that can be checked against experimental results involving actual numbers, and not just vague "bubbles" and stuff?

There is only one way to start the Universe +1 + -1 = 0. Because of this seed you get a fractal. The fractal should be so accurate that my simulator will look exactly how the Universe looked at time 0.

Please show me how you get a fractal from +1 + -1 = 0.

Show me your derivation.

What kind of fractal is it? What is its dimension?

What causes things to scale UP or DOWN?

+1 + -1 = 0 is an infinite rule.. +2 + -2 = 0, +3 + -3 = 0. Scaling up causes no change in zero state.

You didn't answer my question.

What is the physical cause of scaling up and down?

Does it even mean anything, seeing as fundamental particles can apparently have any scale you like?

Well, on the moon things fall at the same speed. So the outflow is even with Gravity.

Please show me how you derive this conclusion from your theory.

The outflow of what? Even in what way?

It creates a bow shock however in a velocity change.

Explain what it means to create a bow shock in a velocity change.
While you're at it, please explain to me what a "bow shock" is, and what a "velocity change" is. Thanks.

It's magnetism anyway, so use magnetism formulas.

What is magnetism anyway?

This is the first time you have mentioned magnetism in our conversation. How is magnetism explained by your theory? Please show me the derivation?

Science just has a mistake for magnetism calling it attraction. There is no attraction in the universe at all.

I have a fridge magnet which says otherwise. It attracts to my fridge just fine. How does your theory account for that?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You were one of the people who didn't get it before it was on TV, so I don't expect you to get it now.

I haven't watched the TV episode you refer to. Unlike you I get my physics knowledge from books, actual textbooks. I also got lectured general relativity by several of Hawking's colleagues (in fact they had him as their PhD supervisor decades ago).

The stuff you see on TV is so staggeringly cut down and full of half truths that I cannot watch science documentaries because I get annoyed at how much they bend the truth and glitz it up with needless graphics in order to pander to shmucks like you who don't know anything so evaluate things on their visual presentation.

You are an untrustworthy opponent for this thread, as is already proven.

How am I untrustworthy? Because I give lengthy explanations about how your claims of 'only using 1+-1=0' is false? That is dishonest of you.

I don't trust your low intelligence to get this. But now you are a moderator I wouldn't embarrass yourself too much. You should also learn not to trash threads as a moderator.

And by the way..

1 + -1 = 0 is the lowest you can get the maths.. that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

No, it isn't. Speaking as a professional mathematician I can categorically tell you that it isn't. The notion of negative numbers took humans millenia to develop, many ancient civilisations didn't have such concepts.

To give you an example, in the 1910s Russell and Whitehead, two of the greatest mathematicians of their day, decided to write books which would develop from the most basic logical statements (like 'A implies A' and 'A implies not not A') everything in mathematics to that point. The books were known as Principia Mathematica (like Newton's). It took until page 365 for them to prove 1+1=2. And that doesn't even get to negative numbers, a more 'advanced' concept in logic! That is how far you are from the 'lowest' mathematics.

You're showing something many people also make the mistake of doing, you think that the order in which you're taught things in mathematics is somehow correlated with its simplicity in mathematics. The true fundamentals of mathematics aren't covered, even remotely, until later in a degree. For example, why is a*b = b*a if a,b are numbers? It's not universally true for all mathematical systems. And why does (-1)*(-1)=+1? It's amazing how few people, outside of maths students, actually realise it is not a tautology but must be proven from simpler statements. Even fewer know how to prove it.

If somebody writes a more complex version, it means they have cheated by trying to force a result.

You've already had to assume the entirety of arithmetic to construct such a system, which means you're into realms of mathematics sufficiently 'complicated' to have things like Godel's work apply. Not to mention you also make use of distances and vectors. They are even more elaborate mathematical concepts. Some people devote their entire research career to examining 'metric spaces' or 'normed spaces', where you can define distances.

Since you no doubt will not bother to look around and you admit to complete ignorance, here's an example. What is the distance, in a 2 dimensional space, between the point (0,0) and (-1,2) ?

Someone using Pythagoras would say $$d^{2} = (-1)^{2} + 2^{2}$$ so $$d = \sqrt{5}$$. That is known as the 2-norm. Then you could have the 1-norm, $$d = |-1|+|2| = 3$$. Then there's the $$\infty$$-norm, $$d = max(|-1|,|2|) = 2$$. Then there's the 0-norm, $$d = |-1|^0 + |2|^0 = 2$$. All of these are entirely valid and consistent notions of distance because they all satisfy the same axioms. Of course you didn't realise such different concepts can exist and be equally valid, you assumed your 'sphere distances' thing in your supposed simulator weren't assuming anything.

It takes a huge amount of formal logic to build an arithmetic system. You then have to add in more assumptions/properties to make a vector system. You then have to add in even more to get distances. All of these things you've admitted you use in your simulator so to say you only use 1+-1=0 and there's nothing 'lower' is not only incorrect, it's demonstrably false. The fact you don't know there's anything more basic doesn't mean there isn't, it just means you're an ill informed ignorant dishonest hack.

It creates every possible calculation known to physics, and that is why it is so amazing.

Add 'delusional' to the above list of your negative traits.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho Paxton:



A simulator is useless. Garbage in, garbage out.

My theory is that the Universe is made from 1 particle. All I have to do is simulate 1 particle to get everything else. I have no other physics. I don't have gravity, I don't have movement. I evolve everything from 1 particle. For example Gravity evolves from the fact that the particle has to move into a hole. The hole is the 13th ball of the kissing problem. So particles have no choice but to move there. This is a circular movement. It creates a sort of cog wheel effect. This cog wheel then takes on a computer binary code making type system. With particles moving into holes to be +1 and -1 combined.. binary code. So from a few lines of code to simulate 1 particle you get a Universe.

All successful physical theories make numerical predictions that can then be experimentally tested. If the predictions of the theory match the measurements, then there's some chance that the theory is "right", or at least on the right track.

You measure a ball falling off a building. In my simulator you have to do a similar thing. You have to watch, and measure.

What kinds of real-world measurements can be done to test your theory? What numbers does you theory predict accurately? Can you give a few examples, and also post the mathematics of the relevant calculations?

There are no calculations, it's self-building like a Neural Network.

For example, can your theory correctly predict something like the mass of an electron, or the force between two protons separated by a particular distance? If not, what can it predict that we can test?

Hopefully, if it works it can be used to measure anything, even inside a sun at the quantum scale.



You didn't answer the question I asked. Please try again.



What are the rules? Please list them.

The rules are not to program any paradox for a single particle. So it can't think for example.. so no attraction, no waves in a vacuum.. etc.

I'm sure you have them all written down, so please post a copy. It's ok. I can cope with maths.

Maths is a false proof. This has to be done without maths.



Again, you didn't answer the question I asked you.

For example, do protons release electrons? Do baseballs release quarks? Or what? Give me a practical example of what you're talking about.

I only have 1 particle in the Universe. It is so small it makes all of the other particles.



Again, you didn't answer my question.

But in what sense must the universe be "equal to zero". What property of the universe is equal to zero?

Scale, and mass.

What is a liquid grain? Please explain.

A grain that has nowhere to move apart from 1 direction. It is not bonded, but because it can't move it works as a bonded liquid. It has about 15 dimensions. But they are tiny dimensions. So for example X/Y/Z as a vector is almost infinite dimensions, because you have total linearity. My particle has to use the kissing problem just to move. That changes your infinite vector into just 1 choice, the 13th ball.


Isn't gravity a force? How can a force be forced into a hole?

Because its a particle surrounded by infinite particles. the hole is the only escape route.

Are you saying gravity is a particle? Because as I understand it from you, only particles have scale. Is that right?

Yes.. space-time is a grain structure.

Why?



How can numbers flow?

When you have a sphere of +1 with a hole of -1 you are so limited to what they can do that you can use them as numbers. You can write a DIM, and it will match space-time.

Why is energy increase a problem?
You have to program a single particle, you have to be careful not to give it any magic qualities.

Actually, can you explain what you understand "energy" to be for me? I'm worried that my usages of terms like "energy" and "gravity" are very different to yours. So, maybe you ought to give me a list of basic definitions of terms in your theory.

Energy is scale UP, and so is time. Gravity is flow into holes in atoms, and a bump force against the inside wall of the hole. Then rotation, and a cogwheel effect.


Why not?

What is free energy?

Scale is free energy because it doesn't have a paradox. +1 + -1 = 0, +2 + -2 = 0. So you are allowed to use it.

What use is scale if fundamental particles can be any scale?
Scale is relative to 1. So any particle bigger than 1 is bigger than a particle of 1.


How. Please set out your reasoning for me from the first principles of your theory. How do you derive this conclusion?
I can't put 10 years of work in a single post. I just wanted to know everything. I had a plan. To start science from scratch, from a black page on my computer. It took me 3 years just to figure out how to get a stationary particle moving. So I still had a black page. I had no physics, so no gravity, no movement, no propulsion system. It took years.


So these bumps that you can't explain without your simulator somehow cause pushes and those pushes turn somehow into time. Is that right?

Each stage is like a domino effect. There is basically no other way to create a Universe, apart from we don't move at all. Which I am not interested in.

Can you please show me the derivation of these conclusions?
Based on paradox.. zero cannot exist, so that is time.
Two particles cannot share the exact same position in space-time.. so that is bump.

There's no way to confirm that other than by checking against nature - the real world out there.

If I create a Universe from about 20 lines of code, and 1 particle, you can be sure that I have solved something already. I have solved how it began.

When I say "test", I mean precisely "check the predictions of the theory against experimental results".

You forget that I have already predicted about 20 things that have been found by scientists. I am on the right track.

Is there anything in your theory that can be checked against experimental results involving actual numbers, and not just vague "bubbles" and stuff?

Two different weight objects on the moon will not only fall at the same speed, but the heavy object will slow time down more than the light object. I don't think it has been tested.

Please show me how you get a fractal from +1 + -1 = 0.

You use them in the kissing problem. You get 12 sphere, and just 6 in 2D. These are fractals. The 6 in 2D from gravity in the Y created living shapes.

Show me your derivation.

What kind of fractal is it? What is its dimension?

The kissing problem starting with a scale of 1.

You didn't answer my question.

What is the physical cause of scaling up and down?

Scale is free, you don't need a cause. You actually need a cause for it not to happen, and that is bump.

Does it even mean anything, seeing as fundamental particles can apparently have any scale you like?

Yes, they can't overlap, so they stop scaling, and you get a space-time grain.



Please show me how you derive this conclusion from your theory.

The outflow of what? Even in what way?

The outflow of magnetism (dark matter).

Explain what it means to create a bow shock in a velocity change.
While you're at it, please explain to me what a "bow shock" is, and what a "velocity change" is. Thanks.

A bow shock is gravity stacking.

What is magnetism anyway?

A flow into a hole, and holes bumping together. mass flows into negative mass. mass bumps mass. Negative mass bumps negative mass. negative mass can flow into mass.

This is the first time you have mentioned magnetism in our conversation. How is magnetism explained by your theory? Please show me the derivation?

-1

I have a fridge magnet which says otherwise. It attracts to my fridge just fine. How does your theory account for that?


It is full of holes, so gravity flows into it. Man has spun these holes, so Gravity is forced into a spin. This means that Gravity is now spinning instead of flowing towards the Earth. It loses its direction and heads along the magnet instead. Now it is heading towards the fridge. By the time it gets to the fridge it has turned negative in scale. Gravity has now been transformed into Magnetism. The gravity heading along the edge of the fridge has two choices. Into the fridge, or into the magnet. The magnet is less resistant than the fridge because of the escaping negative mass. By sucking gravity away from the fridge, because it is in much straighter lines than human gravity, you have created a Gravity suction cup. It's the same thing.

I'm ignoring Alpha. I am his God.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

There you go. The theory Of Everything in a nutshell. I have solved it. Now I just wait for somebody who can understand it. It means we can simulate a true universe. If we simulate a universe and put people in it in the future, I become my own God. And that's weird.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Let's take a look at some of the history of my idea, and science's attitude towards it. I hope you read this AlphaNumeric, maybe you will become a better person. 2007...

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18578


It works really well with this link. 2011...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WeaYlwU_RQ

And my Bow Shock picture which is older than the Voyager discovery...

If you are clever you will realise how this predicts the two slit experiment results, and that Quantum Physics is just physics.