The Pincho Paxton Universe generator

[Dywyddyr]

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

This is statement of personal belief, not evidence.

C/ All scientists.

This isn't even that lame.

D/ A factual fact is something that adheres to the rules of nature.

Correct.

A particle must be a particle. If it's a wave as well, then it is many particles...

And a failure of understanding.

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.

This is bullshit. Not evidence.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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

Am I claiming I can? No. You're claiming to have a theory of everything. I'm asking you to show your claims can at least match what current understanding we have. It's an entirely relevant request.

If you think science is wrong and should be overturned you're going to have to demonstrate so. If you think your work deserves to replace it then you're going to have to show your work is worth looking at. If your work can't meet even the simplest requirement then why should anyone give you the time of day?

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

You clearly don't even know what the precession of Mercury pertains to.

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

I've contributed more to science than you ever will.

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

Am I claiming to be capable of procreation? You started a thread with a big claim, I'm asking you to substantiate it. Where I make claims about my work I'm happy to demonstrate my understanding. If you'd like we can go to the physics and maths forum and have a discussion on it, assuming you accept a few ground rules before hand (which I'll go into if you're interested).

If you think my question about Mercury is too specific then please provide any evidence you have a working model of anything. My point is that you haven't provided anything.

Science controls science else never get anywhere in science.

Yes, yes, its a massive conspiracy....

That would make an interesting Neural Network.

Looks like you don't know what a neural network is either. Yet another little delusion you have.

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.

What makes you think you know more about science or represent science more than others in this thread? You admit you don't do it and don't want to do it. You admit you can't do physics or mathematics. You admit you have no experience or qualifications in it or anything related. You've previously asked on this forum how to go about getting paid to do science research. I'm paid to do it, thanks to my experience, understanding and previous achievements. That's how you get places in science or in life in general. Hard work, try it some time.

So please, how is it your opinion about something you have no experience or information on is supposedly more relevant/viable/correct than anyone else's?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Am I claiming I can? No. You're claiming to have a theory of everything. I'm asking you to show your claims can at least match what current understanding we have. It's an entirely relevant request.

If you think science is wrong and should be overturned you're going to have to demonstrate so. If you think your work deserves to replace it then you're going to have to show your work is worth looking at. If your work can't meet even the simplest requirement then why should anyone give you the time of day?

You clearly don't even know what the precession of Mercury pertains to.

I've contributed more to science than you ever will.

Am I claiming to be capable of procreation? You started a thread with a big claim, I'm asking you to substantiate it. Where I make claims about my work I'm happy to demonstrate my understanding. If you'd like we can go to the physics and maths forum and have a discussion on it, assuming you accept a few ground rules before hand (which I'll go into if you're interested).

If you think my question about Mercury is too specific then please provide any evidence you have a working model of anything. My point is that you haven't provided anything.

Yes, yes, its a massive conspiracy....

Looks like you don't know what a neural network is either. Yet another little delusion you have.

What makes you think you know more about science or represent science more than others in this thread? You admit you don't do it and don't want to do it. You admit you can't do physics or mathematics. You admit you have no experience or qualifications in it or anything related. You've previously asked on this forum how to go about getting paid to do science research. I'm paid to do it, thanks to my experience, understanding and previous achievements. That's how you get places in science or in life in general. Hard work, try it some time.

So please, how is it your opinion about something you have no experience or information on is supposedly more relevant/viable/correct than anyone else's?

Because I can create the model to account for your wacky claims. I can show how a photon creates a wave by hitting another particle. I can show how the wave is propagated without creating a wind. I can show why the two slit experiment fails, I can show why the observer alters the result, and I can show why you get two dots with one photon. I can show how Action at a Distance works. I can show how gravity works, and magnetism, and Entanglement. I can show how a Galaxy is created, I can show how the Universe started, I can show why it's expanding. I can show you why a Photon is actually the same as an Electron. I can show you what those huge bubbles are in the Galaxy. I can show you what sentience is, and how entanglement works to entangle parts of our brain structure. I can show you why Mercury has a dip in its orbit. But science has given you a job, and you can't even understand the explanation, let alone come up with it.

Looks like you don't know what a neural network is either. Yet another little delusion you have.

Again you have to compare my Neural Network with one you have seen. I don't know if you are worthy of talking to me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Because I can blah blah blah anation, let alone come up with it.

No you can't.
You have consistently failed to show anything.

how entanglement works to entangle parts of our brain structure

Did you, by any chance, get your brain entangled with a throw cushion at some point in your life?
That would provide a reasonable explanation for your nonsense.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Because I can create the model to account for your wacky claims. I can show how a photon creates a wave by hitting another particle. I can show how the wave is propagated without creating a wind. I can show why the two slit experiment fails, I can show why the observer alters the result, and I can show why you get two dots with one photon. I can show how Action at a Distance works. I can show how gravity works, and magnetism, and Entanglement. I can show how a Galaxy is created, I can show how the Universe started, I can show why it's expanding. I can show you why a Photon is actually the same as an Electron. I can show you what those huge bubbles are in the Galaxy. I can show you what sentience is, and how entanglement works to entangle parts of our brain structure. I can show you why Mercury has a dip in its orbit. But science has given you a job, and you can't even understand the explanation, let alone come up with it.

And I'm the King of Prussia, the inventor of lint and able to travel in time at will. See, its easy to claim things. Putting evidence on the table to support those claims is the hard part. That's what science is about, providing something more than "I made some shit up, listen to me".

You said you can show multiple things, so show them. Until you can you simple waste your time making claims no one will believe without evidence. Other than you that is.

Again you have to compare my Neural Network with one you have seen.

How can I compare your neural network to anything, you haven't provided it.

I don't know if you are worthy of talking to me.

The fact you ignored my questions about why anyone should listen to you when it comes to science shows you are aware you haven't a leg to stand on. Instead you're just trying to troll. I'll ask again :

What makes you think you know more about science or represent science more than others in this thread? You admit you don't do it and don't want to do it. You admit you can't do physics or mathematics. You admit you have no experience or qualifications in it or anything related. You've previously asked on this forum how to go about getting paid to do science research. I'm paid to do it, thanks to my experience, understanding and previous achievements. That's how you get places in science or in life in general. Hard work, try it some time.

So please, how is it your opinion about something you have no experience or information on is supposedly more relevant/viable/correct than anyone else's?

The question shouldn't be whether I'm worthy of talking to you, its whether you're worth giving the time of day to. I've done more science than you ever will and the fact you repeatedly ignore it when I point that out shows you can't face up to is, hence resorting to trolling. Do you think no one notices when you repeatedly ignore direct questions? If you had justification for your claims you'd provide it. If you had justification you'd not be avoiding discussion. Your silence shouts out that you know you're dishonest.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Question.. What makes you think you know more about science or represent science more than others in this thread? Answer...You admit you don't do it and don't want to do it. You admit you can't do physics or mathematics. You admit you have no experience or qualifications in it or anything related. You've previously asked on this forum how to go about getting paid to do science research. I'm paid to do it, thanks to my experience, understanding and previous achievements. That's how you get places in science or in life in general. Hard work, try it some time.

So please, how is it your opinion about something you have no experience or information on is supposedly more relevant/viable/correct than anyone else's?

The question shouldn't be whether I'm worthy of talking to you, its whether you're worth giving the time of day to. I've done more science than you ever will and the fact you repeatedly ignore it when I point that out shows you can't face up to is, hence resorting to trolling. Do you think no one notices when you repeatedly ignore direct questions? If you had justification for your claims you'd provide it. If you had justification you'd not be avoiding discussion. Your silence shouts out that you know you're dishonest.

You seem to think you actually know something.. it's funny.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Reported for trolling.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Reported for trolling.

Latest News.. 'Theory Of Everything Reported For Trolling In a Science community!"

EDIT: I'm just waiting for some maths because I can't do it. I need the angles for the 6 holes in particles at hexagonal locations from a central point. Like this.

Dim HexagonAngles(12,A,B,C)
If angle = 1
Point object current Object X-a,Y-b,Z-c

Endif

I need to rotate it at 6 angles like this, but I accidental drew 8..

So that's funny, I can't do simple maths. It's holding me up all day.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Latest News.. 'Theory Of Everything Reported For Trolling In a Science community!"

Your error here is in thinking that simply because you have chosen to call it a "Theory of Everything" somehow makes it scientifically valid. It doesn't.
An apt simile would be entering a pile of turds into a baking competition on the grounds that you decided to label that pile "sponge cake".

You are trolling because you fail to support your contentions.
Because you persistently make claims that you either cannot back up or do not make an attempt to back up.
Instead of addressing points you make further, inflated (and equally dubious) claims.
This is neither science nor rational.
Nor honest.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You seem to think you actually know something.. it's funny.

As said, you're just trolling. You're making ever longer list of claims, deliberately quoting direct questions only to ignore them and you're just trying to wind people up.

Unlike you other people think I know stuff, that's why I'm paid to do science. That's evidence for the claim I know some science. Yet another thing I can provide evidence for which you can't.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

As said, you're just trolling. You're making ever longer list of claims, deliberately quoting direct questions only to ignore them and you're just trying to wind people up.

Unlike you other people think I know stuff, that's why I'm paid to do science. That's evidence for the claim I know some science. Yet another thing I can provide evidence for which you can't.

Yeah.. other scientists. Self supporting, self promotional, usually wrong.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yeah.. other scientists. Self supporting, self promotional, usually wrong.

A mantra you repeat time and time again. Yet despite requests to support this you have failed to do so.
Reported again.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

A mantra you repeat time and time again. Yet despite requests to support this you have failed to do so.
Reported again.

It's a bit crazy really your responses. I am writing a program that creates the universe. You want mathematical evidence. So for example, I give my idea to a scientist to write my program for me. There is my version with no real maths, and the scientists version full of maths. Compare the two programs, and the scientist has cheated by adding some physics to a program that didn't have any. My evidence is actually not to have any evidence. I do however need to add some locations for the holes in the particles. But not physics.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Look at my image. The Hexagon, Octagon. This is an important part of my theory. It creates the difference between spiders, and flies. It also allows a creature to use grid references when moving around. All particles are locked to strict grid coordinates based on this arrangement. Particles most likely cannot be knocked off this grid arrangement. If a particle travels through space it is still locked to this grid arrangement. I am still struggling to get those exact coordinates.

 

[rpenner]

You know nothing of developmental biology. Spiders and flies don't develop from 8- or 6- way symmetries, but from a embryo with a tube-within-a-tube segmented structure.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/axis_formation_in_spider_embry.php
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-snap-fruit-embryo-scientific-photo.html
http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_lo_res.html?id=670057855

Completely discrediting the concept that there is a physical morphogenic field, all of this is coordinated via gene regulation and expression.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/lifecode_from_egg_to_embryo_by.php

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You know nothing of developmental biology. Spiders and flies don't develop from 8- or 6- way symmetries, but from a embryo with a tube-within-a-tube segmented structure.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/axis_formation_in_spider_embry.php
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-snap-fruit-embryo-scientific-photo.html
http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_lo_res.html?id=670057855

Completely discrediting the concept that there is a physical morphogenic field, all of this is coordinated via gene regulation and expression.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/lifecode_from_egg_to_embryo_by.php

Low energy stages, deflated balloons. I'm talking about locked particles not an energy field. Why would I add some sort of field? I'm attempting to be as minimalistic as possible. Even gene regulation will struggle with fractally locking particles.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Yeah.. other scientists. Self supporting, self promotional, usually wrong.

And you saying you've got a theory of everything isn't self promoting? And Rpenner just demonstrated, again, you're often wrong.

So for example, I give my idea to a scientist to write my program for me. There is my version with no real maths, and the scientists version full of maths.

You speak as if this has already happened or is certain to happen. The whole "I've got the right idea, I just need a scientist to fill in the maths" line of argument is common in cranks, you're not the first to say such a thing.

and the scientist has cheated by adding some physics to a program that didn't have any.

'Physics' is the study of the physical world. If a theory of everything doesn't address the physical world then it isn't addressing anything, never mind everything.

A theory of everything with no physics is a theory of nothing. It is nothing.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

And you saying you've got a theory of everything isn't self promoting? And Rpenner just demonstrated, again, you're often wrong.

You speak as if this has already happened or is certain to happen. The whole "I've got the right idea, I just need a scientist to fill in the maths" line of argument is common in cranks, you're not the first to say such a thing.

'Physics' is the study of the physical world. If a theory of everything doesn't address the physical world then it isn't addressing anything, never mind everything.

A theory of everything with no physics is a theory of nothing. It is nothing.

Lol, you have the science religion deeply embedded to the point where you try to sell it. You're a 'G''E=MC2 witness. Physics is the bumping of particles. That's all they can do.. bump. My program includes a distance routine, that is the 'Theory Of Everything' 'BUMP'. That is my proof, that is my physics. In fact, being as a computer program is considered as maths, I will just create the Universe, and present the program as the calculations.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

That is my proof, that is my physics.

Then you don't know what 'proof' or 'physics' means.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Then you don't know what 'proof' or 'physics' means.

What I have is some particles bumping together, that work the way that real particles work. Pass energy, move away, store energy, feel energy. Take for example rebound angles. I started off with some physics, I needed help with it. I didn't really want to use rebound angles for particles, they aren't intelligent enough to understand the direction that they would rebound at. I felt as though I was cheating a bit. Then I started programming the sharing of energy between atoms. I realised that rebound angles were just part of that. I now didn't need any rebound angles. I made the rebound angles work naturally. That's what I mean. I have taken any evidence of maths out of the program. It makes it proofless.. but at the same time it makes it much better.