The Pincho Paxton Universe generator

[AlphaNumeric]

That's a simple one, they move into adjacent empty quark holes, next.

You haven't defined what a quark hole is, what 'adjacent' means in regards to your 'space' and I asked for trajectory. Get a dictionary.

I use the same collision as the Universe, my program is an emulation of the Universe. No cheating.

So why can't you answer my question?

Can you provide an accurate working simulation of say.... electron-muon collisions which match experimental observations? QED can. Can you provide an accurate model of the precession of Mercury's orbit? GR can. I wrote a program to do that as part of my coursework years ago.

Being able to program neural networks doesn't mean you have any special ability. I've worked with neural networks and a slew of other related things like SVMs, Bayesian networks, genetic algorithms etc. They are useful if you want a good way to get started on the issue of modelling complex systems but anyone who has actual experience with them knows they have a multitude of short comings, flaws and simple inability to handle certain situations. You seem to think your 'artistic' ability gives you some insight mathematicians or physicists don't have. Part of being a good scientist is being creative, to come up with ideas, concepts and approaches no one else has done before. But imagination untempered by logic, rationality and evidence is worthless in science because if you can't demonstrate your claims you are just making stuff up without reason or evidence.

Right now off the top of my head I could knock out a 2 page arm wavy 'theory of everything' in a similar vein to yours (and plenty of other cranks). I can put in plenty of buzzwords, make it sound superficially viable and all that. So how do we tell whether yours is better? Reason and evidence. But you can't provide reason nor evidence for your claims, hence it is indistinguishable from just the made up shit I might come up with.

I'll take the fact you ignored my comments about the scientific method to mean you didn't have a retort. If you have no interest in science then you cannot, by definition, have a viable 'theory of everything' as 'theory' means an hypothesis which has stood scientific scrutiny, both theoretical and experimental.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You haven't defined what a quark hole is, what 'adjacent' means in regards to your 'space' and I asked for trajectory. Get a dictionary.

So why can't you answer my question?

Can you provide an accurate working simulation of say.... electron-muon collisions which match experimental observations? QED can. Can you provide an accurate model of the precession of Mercury's orbit? GR can. I wrote a program to do that as part of my coursework years ago.

Being able to program neural networks doesn't mean you have any special ability. I've worked with neural networks and a slew of other related things like SVMs, Bayesian networks, genetic algorithms etc. They are useful if you want a good way to get started on the issue of modelling complex systems but anyone who has actual experience with them knows they have a multitude of short comings, flaws and simple inability to handle certain situations. You seem to think your 'artistic' ability gives you some insight mathematicians or physicists don't have. Part of being a good scientist is being creative, to come up with ideas, concepts and approaches no one else has done before. But imagination untempered by logic, rationality and evidence is worthless in science because if you can't demonstrate your claims you are just making stuff up without reason or evidence.

Right now off the top of my head I could knock out a 2 page arm wavy 'theory of everything' in a similar vein to yours (and plenty of other cranks). I can put in plenty of buzzwords, make it sound superficially viable and all that. So how do we tell whether yours is better? Reason and evidence. But you can't provide reason nor evidence for your claims, hence it is indistinguishable from just the made up shit I might come up with.

I'll take the fact you ignored my comments about the scientific method to mean you didn't have a retort. If you have no interest in science then you cannot, by definition, have a viable 'theory of everything' as 'theory' means an hypothesis which has stood scientific scrutiny, both theoretical and experimental.

I can wait for the computer to make a simulation of a Pinchon/Pinchon collision that you would call an electron-muon collision. But you have to wait for it to evolve. I can't just program it because I would then be telling the computer rules. Mercury's orbit is another evolution, as particles force their way into the sun, again it would be cheating to actually program it. You have to wait for a sun to evolve, and a planet to evolve all from many Pinchons. I start with just two Pinchons, they create everything else. My first test was with 1000 but it was just a test, I shall start with 2.

My Neural Network is my own design. It is far simpler. There is no forward, backward propagation, just two bumping particles, and entanglement, which is very similar to forward / backward propagation.

Science has already knocked out a Bible without you doing another 2 page one. Science already have the Gravity, and the photon wave with buzzwords made by cranks.

I don't need to abide by the rules of science, I have the 'Theory Of Everything' science doesn't. Science has to accept that it's theories are wrong, and that they need to understand what I have done.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

How many Pinchons are there in a Paxton?

Re your program. Three rules you say.
Are you sure that none of your original parameters change in time?
The results look interesting.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

How many Pinchons are there in a Paxton?

Re your program. Three rules you say.
Are you sure that none of your original parameters change in time?
The results look interesting.

Nothing changes. It's not very complex. The real complexity comes from Entanglement, and I haven't put it in yet. Entanglement is the most amazing thing in the Universe. It does most of the work. It knocks out new Pinchons, and does all of the collision, and creates sentience, and logic.. it's going to blow people away.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

You say you aren't a scientist. Nor me. Well, maybe, at an amateurish level.
Do you mean the same thing by entanglement as a physicist?


I think that they mean by it that when a particle decays into two particles, that whatever happens to one of the particles will affect what happens to the other, even though they are separated in space.

Would a scientist like to explain it better than I can?

Your program. It must contain algorithms surely.

Slightly Offtopic. What do you think of Dr Quantum?
Not just you PP, anyone.
I've just watched this video by Dr Quantum on Entanglement.
It only lasts a minute, so have a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk

My Bullshit detector is really buzzing at this.
Is it accepted theory that everything before the big bang was entangled?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You say you aren't a scientist. Nor me. Well, maybe, at an amateurish level.
Do you mean the same thing by entanglement as a physicist?


I think that they mean by it that when a particle decays into two particles, that whatever happens to one of the particles will affect what happens to the other, even though they are separated in space.

Would a scientist like to explain it better than I can?

Entanglement works like this...
Two Pinchons overlap slightly. Their shells are crossed. So in nature part of their shells break off, and fall into each other. Those shells are then stored in one of the 6 holes which is like putting a bullet in a colt 45. The bullet chamber indicates the direction that the two particles bumped. The bullet chamber now contains some photon, and some electron shared out to create colour, and heat. They are Pinchon shells really, so lets call them Bullets. The bullets belong to their original owner, so A now contains some of B, and B now contains some of A. This is the similarity to Facebook, and with 6 chambers a particle can contain 6 friends. The original owners have shrunk by the size of the bullet. The original owners need to move away from the collision. Check empty bullet chambers, these indicate a direction where they haven't been bumped previously, and remember that its a 2D choice. Just a rotating circle of bullet chambers. The Pinchon switches to the direction of an empty chamber. But we can travel through a full chamber which will lead us to a Facebook Friend. On Facebook you could say that 1 name will lead you to 6 more names. Well the bullet chambers contain shells connected to their partner by holes, friends. It is likely that this friend is nearby as it is another previous bump, so its a lot like using grid collision. In nature it works that electrons, photons travel through holes. We are travelling through a hole like an electron, photon to get the next collision. And this Entanglement routine has awesome powers. Just think of a thought in a brain.. this Entanglement is sentience itself. So it's not the science version, it's nature's version.

What Big Bang? There wasn't a big bang. Scientists thought that the Universe was like a Video Player, and you can rewind time.. they are a bit nuts. You just get less, and less particles as you go back in time.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Sorry to depart from you on this. I do like your posts, but this is pure rambling.

Your Youtube video was very interesting though.

If you don't wish to reveal how you created this effect with a few simple algorithms, I understand. But if you are willing to, go ahead.
I've not seen anything like it.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Sorry to depart from you on this. I do like your posts, but this is pure rambling.

Your Youtube video was very interesting though.

If you don't wish to reveal how you created this effect with a few simple algorithms, I understand. But if you are willing to, go ahead.
I've not seen anything like it.

Don't worry, nobody gets it. It's very hard to visualise. That's why you need an artist to come up with it.

Can't post the code yet, I'm such a slow programmer that somebody would beat me to the whole solution. I've been working on Entanglement for 2 days, and it's only a few lines of code.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

OK. No problem.
You did seem to confuse metaphor with description, but let that pass by.

I'd like to hear some other ideas on entanglement.
Was everything entangled once, as Dr Quantum is putting it.

As someone is trying to understand the subject, I get very annoyed (splenetic) when I see popularisers of physics peddling their own ideas as fact.

I don't mean you PP. You have put this, quite rightly, in Pseudosience.

I don't agree with the title Pseudoscience.
It denigrates people's ideas.
Speculative Science would be better.

Personally, I have learned far more from people arguing with people who are wildly disagreeing,
than people arguing against people who are in slight disagreement with them.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I can wait for the computer to make a simulation of a Pinchon/Pinchon collision that you would call an electron-muon collision. But you have to wait for it to evolve. I can't just program it because I would then be telling the computer rules. Mercury's orbit is another evolution, as particles force their way into the sun, again it would be cheating to actually program it. You have to wait for a sun to evolve, and a planet to evolve all from many Pinchons. I start with just two Pinchons, they create everything else. My first test was with 1000 but it was just a test, I shall start with 2.

So you have no evidence your 'work' leads to a viable model of the universe, because you haven't run it and obtained a universe. How can you make claims you can model the universe (which includes things like the orbit of Mercury) when you haven't checked?

Why should anyone believe your work has the ability to correctly model the orbit of Mercury? You haven't demonstrated you can even model 2 particles interacting, never mind entire planets and stars developing and interacting.

You simply assert things without any reason what so ever for anyone to believe you.

My Neural Network is my own design. It is far simpler. There is no forward, backward propagation, just two bumping particles, and entanglement, which is very similar to forward / backward propagation.

Lets see it. I don't think you even understand neural networks. Come on, lets see some code.

IScience has already knocked out a Bible without you doing another 2 page one. Science already have the Gravity, and the photon wave with buzzwords made by cranks.

Science has provided working models which have been tested by many people in many different ways to the extent our technology allows. You haven't provided anything which can be tested, thus you have done nothing of any worth.

I don't need to abide by the rules of science

And no one has to think you're anything other than a deluded moron.

I have the 'Theory Of Everything' science doesn't.

A 'theory of everything' which you have applied to nothing at all.

Science has to accept that it's theories are wrong, and that they need to understand what I have done.

What evidence do you have you're right? What models do you have? Provide them.

Do you honestly think anyone is going to listen to you if you can't answer simple direct questions? The only way you're going to knock over science is by using the scientific method, ie evidence, logic, reason. If you have no intention of considering those things then you will never, no matter how long you whine, get anywhere in science.

Do you think anyone should listen to you if you can't provide reason and evidence for your claims?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

OK. No problem.
You did seem to confuse metaphor with description, but let that pass by.

I'd like to hear some other ideas on entanglement.
Was everything entangled once, as Dr Quantum is putting it.

As someone is trying to understand the subject, I get very annoyed (splenetic) when I see popularisers of physics peddling their own ideas as fact.

I don't mean you PP. You have put this, quite rightly, in Pseudosience.

I don't agree with the title Pseudoscience.
It denigrates people's ideas.
Speculative Science would be better.

Personally, I have learned far more from people arguing with people who are wildly disagreeing,
than people arguing against people who are in slight disagreement with them.

Well, everything was entangled to the Galactic Centre. Each Galaxy is a separate unit. So every Galaxy has its own entanglement. This main entanglement is the 7th central entanglement, but it gets knocked out over time, and replaced by a new entanglement. Our 7th entanglement now would be the thing that you touch most in your life.. parts of the Earth maybe.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

So you have no evidence your 'work' leads to a viable model of the universe, because you haven't run it and obtained a universe. How can you make claims you can model the universe (which includes things like the orbit of Mercury) when you haven't checked?

Why should anyone believe your work has the ability to correctly model the orbit of Mercury? You haven't demonstrated you can even model 2 particles interacting, never mind entire planets and stars developing and interacting.

You simply assert things without any reason what so ever for anyone to believe you.

Lets see it. I don't think you even understand neural networks. Come on, lets see some code.

Science has provided working models which have been tested by many people in many different ways to the extent our technology allows. You haven't provided anything which can be tested, thus you have done nothing of any worth.

And no one has to think you're anything other than a deluded moron.

A 'theory of everything' which you have applied to nothing at all.

What evidence do you have you're right? What models do you have? Provide them.

Do you honestly think anyone is going to listen to you if you can't answer simple direct questions? The only way you're going to knock over science is by using the scientific method, ie evidence, logic, reason. If you have no intention of considering those things then you will never, no matter how long you whine, get anywhere in science.

Do you think anyone should listen to you if you can't provide reason and evidence for your claims?

Can you draw a flamingo? Have you ever drawn a flamingo? How then do you know that you can draw a flamingo?

Forget the orbit of Mercury, you will soon see a Galaxy.

Neural Networks aren't the hard part, the rules are the hard part.

Science has looked at the Earth, calculated the Earth, compared it to Mercury, and slapped itself on the back.

I won't get into Deluded Moron, you are still in the room.

A Theory Of Everything which I have not applied, and you have not managed to come up with.

Provide me with a sperm sample to prove you can create a child.

The only way you're going to knock over science is by using the scientific method, ie evidence, logic, reason. If you have no intention of considering those things then you will never, no matter how long you whine, get anywhere in science.

Science controls science else never get anywhere in science. That would make an interesting Neural Network. It would lead to a none evolving structure.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Well, everything was entangled to the Galactic Centre. Each Galaxy is a separate unit. So every Galaxy has its own entanglement. This main entanglement is the 7th central entanglement, but it gets knocked out over time, and replaced by a new entanglement. Our 7th entanglement now would be the thing that you touch most in your life.. parts of the Earth maybe.

Not the same as the entanglement Physics talks about.
In every case it is two particles which were generated when their mother particle decayed.
They are separated in distance, but still act as though they were one.

Your philosophy is more religious than scientific.
Perhaps it would be better if you didn't use scientific terms which have definite scientific definitions, in describing them.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Can't post the code yet, I'm such a slow programmer that somebody would beat me to the whole solution.

Why would anyone want to "beat you to the solution"?
Or are you implying that there's more than just who who's this deluded and ignorant?

If you ever find out who it is, please ask them to NOT post here.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Not the same as the entanglement Physics talks about.
In every case it is two particles which were generated when their mother particle decayed.
They are separated in distance, but still act as though they were one.

Your philosophy is more religious than scientific.
Perhaps it would be better if you didn't use scientific terms which have definite scientific definitions, in describing them.

Science could be right about that, but that's the Galactic Centre. That's where most particles are generated. On the other hand, some are generated out here. The sun is throwing a lot out. It's like picking which sugar grain you are. Look at the Moon, look at the Earth.. one is connected to one thing, the other is connected to something else.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Why would anyone want to "beat you to the solution"?
Or are you implying that there's more than just who who's this deluded and ignorant?

If you ever find out who it is, please ask them to NOT post here.

Sure I will warn them that science doesn't like facts in their forums.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Sure I will warn them that science doesn't like facts in their forums.

Wrong again.
Science loves facts. Unfortunately you have never provided any.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Wrong again.
Science loves facts. Unfortunately you have never provided any.

If science loves facts, and I haven't provided any then..

A/ You are wrong, science blocks facts.
B/ You don't represent science.
C/ Science loves maths, not facts.
D/ Science loves science facts, not factual reality.
E/ I am science, but would hate to admit it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

A/ You are wrong, science blocks facts.

Evidence please.

B/ You don't represent science.

Me personally? It depends what you mean by "represent".

C/ Science loves maths, not facts.

Evidence please.

D/ Science loves science facts, not factual reality.

Some confusion here. What would you call a "factual fact" as opposed to a "science fact"?

E/ I am science, but would hate to admit it.

Blatantly untrue.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

“
Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
A/ You are wrong, science blocks facts.
”
Evidence please.

“
B/ You don't represent science.
”
Me personally? It depends what you mean by "represent".

“
C/ Science loves maths, not facts.
”
Evidence please.

“
D/ Science loves science facts, not factual reality.
”
Some confusion here. What would you call a "factual fact" as opposed to a "science fact"?

“
E/ I am science, but would hate to admit it.
”
Blatantly untrue.

A/ Scientists often have a scientific background, or learning. Learning science to get a theory of science is self promoting. It blocks facts.

C/ All scientists.

D/ A factual fact is something that adheres to the rules of nature. A particle must be a particle. If it's a wave as well, then it is many particles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng&feature=player_embedded

A factual fact is to measure G, and get the maths right which is fine, but not go and say "The Ball is pulled to the Earth." Which came out of a mouth from nowhere. Gravity is a bump down to Earth from space.

A factual fact is to look at the Speed that Earth is travelling around the sun, and not say "This means that time exists, can travel backwards, and space can be warped. We all live in a different time zone." When in fact, the Earth is spinning around the sun, and that's all.

A factual fact is to not add parts to a theory. Like a string which has obvious parts that need to evolve, so without knowing how they evolved you need more information. Same with atoms, you can't use them unless you evolve them. If you have many particles, like Photon, Electron, Quark, Atom, you have to say something that does not paradox itself like "what happened before the Big Bang?" "Why did the Big Bang have a location?" You have to be way more stringent in what you allow. You can't allow physics like G without knowing where they came from, and how they work. You can't call an unknown physic a constant if you don't know what G is. If your theory stops working, like Quantum Physics, you have to correct the physics, not cheat by having two separate physics. And most importantly, you have to mix the visually creative with the mathematically creative. No mathematician can understand visual nature properly, and I can't do maths. I admit that I can't do maths, but science has so much wrong in its representation because it thinks that maths is proof.