The Aether, Time, Gravity, Bow Shock

[Pincho Paxton]

My theory is progressed in a kind of Neural Network model. The maths is to just repeat the volume of overlap between particles of Aether. This builds up a physical Data backdrop. The physics of the universe are hidden in a simple loop like that. Don't you ever wonder how complex rules like gravity develop in a universe with no actual rules? It's just the loop to move the Aether apart. When I have finished the simulator, all you will see is this simple loop, a few lines of code. A simple line of maths which calculates the overlap volume, a measurement of radius between particles. What you will see on the screen is a lot of activity that doesn't appear to match the actual code. From the human scale, the simple activity looks complex, but all it is...

Aether using volume to move apart..... creates a Universe.

Finding the mathematical proof in my loop just requires watching the program, because seeing it in your head is the part that requires a knowledge of many combined things, and my life was just right to be able to do that...

1/ Artistic from early age.
2/ Learned snooker at early age (particle physics scaled up)
3/ Beat top pro's at pool.
4/ Learned Basic Programming language in 1980.
5/ Learned 3D modelling 1987
6/ Programmed computer physics in 1990 for computer games
7/ Became interested in science 1990
8/ Read many science books 1990
9/ After many years of learning about science started rewriting it from scratch 2003
10/ Learned Neural Network programming 2008

What does all this actually mean?

It means that I lived a life which allows me to be able to think in spherical angles, produce those angles as 3D models in my head, use a Basic Programming logic in my head, which gives my thoughts a 3d physical edge to them, and then write the program. But even before I write the program I am already thinking in the world of the program.

It actually makes a lot of sense that I can think up these models. But describing the images that I get is hard to do.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Incidentally Christopher Robin must of been the high pooh priest considering his adolescent worshipping of such a bear, due to the nature of his fictional status however it wouldn't bode well for Poohism.

Fictional nature?

Er, Christopher Robin (Milne) wasn't fictional, he was the son of the author of some book or other.
Here's a photo of (the non-fictional) Christopher Robin, and his bear, Pooh.

More: most of the other personalities mentioned in the book are available for interview at the History and Social Science Library at Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street (and have been since 2009 after moving premises from the Donnell Library Center, NY).

 

[OnlyMe]

Fringe is by definition the establishment of proto-science. Thats pre-science with subjects that haven't fully matured, that are in the process of moving from hypothetical to testing. In some respects it's at the boundary of science fact and fiction, where on testing it will eventually be moved by consensus to part of established science or pseudo-science.

Such Fringe subjects are things like Wormhole theories, Time travel, Emulated Universe theories etc. Nanotechnology was one such Fringe subject that has moved into Science through technological development making it possible.

Aether theory is problematic, after all you aren't dealing with the old aether which Schroedinger was known for implying (and Heisenberg denying) or even a referral to Born's observed model. You are dealing with Pincho's person view of how his theory fits, so it can't be argued the same way or even tested with the same evidence. His supposition would require supporting via a whole different group of tests to establish any results and which way it fairs for his theory. (although for the most part people will imply that if his model is too different from the consensus, it will likely be assumed to be wrong)

I don't personally disagree with any of this. It is one reason I argued that Alternative Theories should have been kept under the umbrella of Science rather than associated with parapsychology, ghosts and monsters etc. Had that been the case, while a rigorous mathematical foundation may not have been required, some citation of reference could have been a prerequisite.

The reality of the situation now is that On The Fringe, as it has been set up, has been disassociated from Science. As things stand now, the same standards should not be applied to threads in this section, as they would be subject to, were the folder included under the umbrella of the Science forum.

This does not mean that the administrator(s) could not add some guidance, by defining further some distiction between what qualifies as an Alternative Theory. Should this folder include any idea which cannot meet the tests required within the Science forum or is there some standard of perhaps citation of reference required to separate Alternative Theories from say, Pseudoscience.

 

[Stryder]

Fictional nature?

Er, Christopher Robin (Milne) wasn't fictional, he was the son of the author of some book or other.
Here's a photo of (the non-fictional) Christopher Robin, and his bear, Pooh.

More: most of the other personalities mentioned in the book are available for interview at the History and Social Science Library at Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street (and have been since 2009 after moving premises from the Donnell Library Center, NY).

Ah, but publicists usually add the standard disclaimer that actual character usage is "purely coincidental". So it can be said he isn't one in the same.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

My theory is progressed in a kind of Neural Network model. The maths is to just repeat the volume of overlap between particles of Aether.

Except that the mathematics of neural networks are more than just that. And as I told you before, to even define the notion of overlapping regions like that you need the mathematics of arithmetic, topological spaces, vector spaces and metric spaces. None of which you could respond to.

When I have finished the simulator, all you will see is this simple loop, a few lines of code.

Except that even if we let the neural network past the entire mathematical formalism of logic is presumed by the computer, else how does it work? All programming languages include logic and arithmetic, as well as the ability to understand vectors and algebra. You could (and some places do) fill entirely libraries on just those 'simple' areas of mathematics, people devote entire careers to them.

Simply being able to count might seem 'simple' but it's sufficiently powerful, mathematics wise, to come into the sights of things like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. If a logical construct is sufficiently powerful to do arithmetic then it's actually extremely elaborate already.

A simple line of maths which calculates the overlap volume, a measurement of radius between particles.

So you have assumed arithmetic, vectors, norms, metrics, affine spaces and integration, just to do that.

This is the problem with ignorant hacks, they don't realise how little they know.

Finding the mathematical proof in my loop just requires watching the program, because seeing it in your head is the part that requires a knowledge of many combined things, and my life was just right to be able to do that...

1/ Artistic from early age.
2/ Learned snooker at early age (particle physics scaled up)
3/ Beat top pro's at pool.
4/ Learned Basic Programming language in 1980.
5/ Learned 3D modelling 1987
6/ Programmed computer physics in 1990 for computer games
7/ Became interested in science 1990
8/ Read many science books 1990
9/ After many years of learning about science started rewriting it from scratch 2003
10/ Learned Neural Network programming 2008

What does all this actually mean?

It means you're either a troll or in need of medication. Who seriously thinks being able to play snooker puts them in a position to understand the universe?

It means that I lived a life which allows me to be able to think in spherical angles, produce those angles as 3D models in my head, use a Basic Programming logic in my head, which gives my thoughts a 3d physical edge to them, and then write the program. But even before I write the program I am already thinking in the world of the program.

It actually makes a lot of sense that I can think up these models. But describing the images that I get is hard to do.

This has gone from ignorant to just plain delusional trolling. Even 'alternative theories' deserves better.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Except that the mathematics of neural networks are more than just that. And as I told you before, to even define the notion of overlapping regions like that you need the mathematics of arithmetic, topological spaces, vector spaces and metric spaces. None of which you could respond to.

Except that even if we let the neural network past the entire mathematical formalism of logic is presumed by the computer, else how does it work? All programming languages include logic and arithmetic, as well as the ability to understand vectors and algebra. You could (and some places do) fill entirely libraries on just those 'simple' areas of mathematics, people devote entire careers to them.

Simply being able to count might seem 'simple' but it's sufficiently powerful, mathematics wise, to come into the sights of things like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. If a logical construct is sufficiently powerful to do arithmetic then it's actually extremely elaborate already.

So you have assumed arithmetic, vectors, norms, metrics, affine spaces and integration, just to do that.

This is the problem with ignorant hacks, they don't realise how little they know.



It means you're either a troll or in need of medication. Who seriously thinks being able to play snooker puts them in a position to understand the universe?

This has gone from ignorant to just plain delusional trolling. Even 'alternative theories' deserves better.

A particle with overlap for a human writing a mathematical structure is more complex than the local variables. It's as simple as that. Cause, and effect is local, when writing the computer program you also have to create that local environment, you do more work than is necessary for a particle. A cat eats its dinner until it feels its stomach getting full. The computer version of this would be far over-complicated.. creating a cat, creating a stomach, creating stretching, creating a brain simulation, creating a meal, creating mass.

The answer is to know what is happening with overlap of the Aether. The Aether is spherical, so you need radius. Then two particles, and overlap volume. The particles are built from a dimension that scales down as a fractal. What we call negative mass arises when electrons switch to positrons. At this point we have moved down into a new universe where we have lost focus due to electrons no longer working properly with our own universe. If we could scale a human down to the positron scale, we would then be in a Universe of positrons which would then scale down to electrons, and negative mass would then be the electron. This is the fractal.

So now the overlap as physics is a bleed of two particles, and one particle is bleeding into the other, and vice-versa. But I know what it is, so I can de-res the image, and use maths instead. It is only knowing what is happening that is important. It is wrong to simulate something if you don't know what is happening.. else you are guessing. I'm not guessing, so I'm replacing local physics with maths. Computers aren't powerful enough not to de-res the Universe.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Nope, you're replacing common sense with specious word salad.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Nope, you're replacing common sense with specious word salad.

Are you ever going to post something on topic?

 

[Dywyddyr]

My apologies.
The topic of this thread appears to be "how much specious crap can you fit into one post?", whereas I have a penchant for brevity and rationality.

I'll just point out, once again, that you have not one single shred of evidence (or even support) for your ramblings.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

My apologies.
The topic of this thread appears to be "how much specious crap can you fit into one post?", whereas I have a penchant for brevity and rationality.

I'll just point out, once again, that you have not one single shred of evidence (or even support) for your ramblings.

Yeah, but you say that in everybody's thread, even when I have proved that I was quoting somebody else, so what difference does it make what you say?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yeah, but you say that in everybody's thread

False.

even when I have proved that I was quoting somebody else

What's that got to do with it?

so what difference does it make what you say?

So why ask if I'm ever going to be on topic?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

False.


What's that got to do with it?


So why ask if I'm ever going to be on topic?

About time you worked out some answers yourself.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Action At A Distance
My thought experiment turned out to be useful....

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111057

And some latest science news had to be cleared up...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2860260#post2860260

... and we are back to the Aether acting as an observed field to fill in all of the missing pieces. I have had 90% of Action At A Distance solved for a long time. But 10% eluded me. I proposed that locality was like having a balloon filled with bubbles, and so the interactions between the bubbles inside the balloon, and the balloon membrane made a feedback loop. The feedback loop would make cause=cause, because whatever happened inside the balloon was reflected on the membrane, and whatever was reflected on the membrane fed back to the bubbles inside the balloon. This would be a complete circular motion, because at this scale there would be no friction, and the loop could keep going. This was good for locality, and measuring a bump between particles. But Action At A Distance is a bump over large distances, and the balloon theory was hard to fit into that description. But when I combine it with my observed field theory it works.

This is the 100% complete theory of Action At A Distance...

The entangled photons, or particles have become separated from the Aether field. So they have no surrounding Aether, and they are in their own space. Therefore they have no outside interactions going on. When they are observed the field is filled between the two particles. This then bumps them over a large distance. So if you look at my Two Slit picture in this thread, all you have to do to complete action at a distance is add the observed field to the observed photons. This then closes the field.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Just a bit of an update. I have enough information now for test 2 of my simulator, and it should be a pretty complete simulation of the Quantum Data of the universe. When it is complete you should see something pretty amazing, the beginning of the Universe at the Quantum scale. Keep an eye on my YouTube site...

http://www.youtube.com/user/Pincho333

I will post the link again when I have finished the simulation.