The Pincho Paxton Universe generator

[AlphaNumeric]

What I have is some particles bumping together, that work the way that real particles work.

How do you know? You have no information on how 'real particles work', you have no experimental data to compare your 'model' to.

How about a simple example of what you're doing wrong, since you fail to grasp it. Suppose I were to claim I know what you look like. Would you believe me? I doubt it, you and I have never met and I don't know who you are. What if I were to say you have brown hair, brown eyes, you're 170cm tall and weigh 70 kilograms. Should others believe I know what you look like simply because I can throw out a supposed description? Of course not, I don't know who you are, we've never met and likely you don't match that description so someone looking at a photo of you could know I'm wrong.

You're doing the same with particle dynamics. You don't have any information on what the particles do yet you claim your description of them is correct. This is despite the fact people who don't know what the particles do know they don't behave as you claim.

Pass energy, move away, store energy, feel energy. Take for example rebound angles.

Please give an example of 'rebound angles' from real world experiments which you can model. For instance, perhaps you can provide the differential cross section for electron-positron scattering. This is, literally, a homework problem for anyone studying quantum electrodynamics so not particularly difficult for anyone competent at physics. You brought up the phenomenon, now show you can model it.

I started off with some physics,

No, you didn't. You admitted you didn't and given you have no information on experiments you started with nothing other than your own wishful thinking.

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.

'Intelligence' doesn't come into it. Does a ball bouncing off a ball need 'intelligence'? Particles don't think, they aren't like people and need to work out how much to turn the wheel of a car or which way to run to collide with someone.

As it happens the mainstream derivation of the reason why particles bounce off one another in the way they do is exceeding elegant, ie conservation of momentum and energy via Noether's theorem. Your comments about your way of viewing things show you haven't got anything close to an elegant way of thinking about it.

Then I started programming the sharing of energy between atoms.

Let's see the code.

It makes it proofless.. but at the same time it makes it much better.

Proof is not synonymous with mathematics. Proof can be obtained via reason, logic and evidence. You haven't provided anything of the sort. And I'll ask you again the question you've repeatedly quoted but refused to answer :

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]

As it happens the mainstream derivation of the reason why particles bounce off one another in the way they do is exceeding elegant, ie conservation of momentum and energy via Noether's theorem. Your comments about your way of viewing things show you haven't got anything close to an elegant way of thinking about it.

Waste of time answering if you are answering with what I said in the first place. This elegant theory of yours was what I said. I found that the particles exchange plasma with one another. This flow during exchange bumps the objects depending on angle, and direction from positive, and negative plasma flow. This just shows that you haven't got a clue. You read a page, and when I put it another way you don't get it. It has to be those precise words in the book that you get. The best thing is though that I found it in my computer program, and not in a book.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Lock and Cesspool please.

 

[James R]

Pincho Paxton:

****Moderator notice****

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 gravity works, and magnetism, and Entanglement.

I can show you why a Photon is actually the same as an Electron.

I can show you why Mercury has a dip in its orbit.

This is a selection of your claims.

You have 24 hours to do what you say you can do.

You say you "can" show these things. So show us your proof of just one of them. Your choice.

Don't forget to include all the relevant mathematics along with your physical arguments.

Either do this in 24 hours, or retract your claims. If you do neither, you will be temporarily banned from sciforums.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho Paxton:

****Moderator notice****



This is a selection of your claims.

You have 24 hours to do what you say you can do.

You say you "can" show these things. So show us your proof of just one of them. Your choice.

Don't forget to include all the relevant mathematics along with your physical arguments.

Either do this in 24 hours, or retract your claims. If you do neither, you will be temporarily banned from sciforums.

I have the Theory of Everything, I think it's funny to get banned from science sites. It proves my notion that scientists block science. I lose out on an insulting site.. science loses a member with the Theory Of Everything. Very amusing. Science is religion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It proves my notion that scientists block science.

Hardly:

I'm not a scientist, I'm not a mathematician.

I dislike science

If you're not a scientist then you aren't doing science.
Another ridiculous claim shown up for what it is...

 

[James R]

Pincho:

Are you requesting that I ban you immediately?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Science is religion.

You're the one dogmatically sticking to your claims, despite evidence to the contrary. We're asking you for evidence, which is the antithesis of a religion.

For instance, here's something James R quoted you saying which you're wrong about :

"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."

Only one dot is made by each photon in the double slit experiment. The issue is how the dots, when you consider a lot of them, arrange themselves. If your 'theory of everything' led you to conclude 2 dots are produced then its wrong, as reality says otherwise.

Case closed.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You're the one dogmatically sticking to your claims, despite evidence to the contrary. We're asking you for evidence, which is the antithesis of a religion.

For instance, here's something James R quoted you saying which you're wrong about :

"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."

Only one dot is made by each photon in the double slit experiment. The issue is how the dots, when you consider a lot of them, arrange themselves. If your 'theory of everything' led you to conclude 2 dots are produced then its wrong, as reality says otherwise.

Case closed.

I was just saying that I have the tool to tell you whatever you want to know. Anyway it's not finished yet. I am still programming in the Entanglement which I find complicated.

 

[James R]

You have about 15 hours to get it finished, then, Pincho. Or withdraw your claims.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I was just saying that I have the tool

Anyway it's not finished yet

Then you don't have the tool.
Another idiotic claim.


Vapourware is always wonderful.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Then you don't have the tool.
Another idiotic claim.


Vapourware is always wonderful.

I'm an artist, yesterday I found what you call a beautiful theory of shared energy. Can you imagine an artist coming up with that on his own? I know it was already known, but I didn't know it. It predicted it, I predicted it from my computer program. I don't know how long it will take me to put in Entanglement. Last night in bed I got it, but I can't keep it in my head for very long, and now I am struggling with it again.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm an artist

So what?

yesterday I found what you call a beautiful theory of shared energy.

No you didn't. You possibly came up a with a fuzzy non-informed opinion however.

Can you imagine an artist coming up with that on his own? I know it was already known, but I didn't know it. It predicted it, I predicted it from my computer program.

Also nonsense.
And as usual you fail to provide any evidence for your claims.

Please show us this "prediction" and explain how it relates to to a "theory of shred energy".

 

[Pincho Paxton]

So what?


No you didn't. You possibly came up a with a fuzzy non-informed opinion however.


Also nonsense.
And as usual you fail to provide any evidence for your claims.

Please show us this "prediction" and explain how it relates to to a "theory of shred energy".

Yay a prediction! I have a new one that I just found this in my program. This is the same way that I came up with rebound angles, but this new situation is to do with photons. This is definitely unknown...

Photon Entanglement carries the colour information, not the wave. Each Photon can carry 4 - 6 (most likely 4) entangled partners. Their central hole is their origin partner, that's like a back up fuel supply. Their three outer holes store energy from cross collisions with atoms. In other words, the three outer holes are 3 more states of entanglement that pass along, are not fixed. This energy release causes a pop in a hole that is all 3 entanglements combined into 1 larger hole inside an atom. The atom stores the 3 origin. If it's low on energy it will keep the energy, but most bonded atoms have a constant energy flow, so release the energy back out in the other direction by rocking. The atom rocks to point a central hole back in the photon direction. This then passes through dead matter's central hole. The wave is the passing of the entanglement through this Dead Matter body. Dead matter carries information, just like an atom, but its outer holes aren't bonded to anything. It is like a prickly stick of holes. It helps in the creation of snowflakes when it can get more energy. But anyway its central hole doesn't hold on to much information, just enough to slightly expand the Dead Matter, and create the photon wave. The dead matter remains expanded, and so it creates the interference pattern in the two slit experiment. Dead Matter is easily drained of its energy state. So it can't stay expanded easily. An observer in the two slit experiment will easily drain the Dead Matter to become its stable size again. The colour information is 3-6 entangled pieces of information, knocked along a Dead Matter chain.

Pincho Paxton March/ 11/ 2011

 

[Dywyddyr]

Still trolling.
I hope your ban is a long one.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You can prove it's there as well. Because it expands where a single photon passes it by, you could very carefully create a valley through it. You would need to be careful not to entangle it with its neighbours, so the valley needs to be a few photons wide. You can then create a directional Photon field. So the photons will tend to prefer this valley to their surrounding expanded Dead Matter. If you were really creative you could make a bending valley. Make a photon turn to one side, or the other. This carrier of information is so easily Entangled with its neighbours that the Aether wind would be lost in entanglement. Water refracts light in the same way. The water is energetic Dead Matter, it contains more energy, partly bonded with Atoms. So bending light in water is to do with the valley created between the water, and the air. If you turn the sea on its side to create a V shape with the air, you have a valley of Dead Matter.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Something like this, but removing the mirror would be difficult.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

If all of the photons were entangled you could probably do away with the mirror, and just fire up a bunch of photons at a distance to create the valley.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

These are the shapes that I am working with. I think they are accurate, because they have mathematical uniformity, and work in my collision tests...

 

[Pincho Paxton]

The Universe all began when plasma, and matter were separated. They folded through several stages, entangling one another. It was a sort of battle between the two forces. Eventually the Universe was folded into a sort of veneer of layers. The plasma then bubbled up through the veneer to create shells. At first the shells were trapped, but as more shells bubbled out it made spaces to move in. The bubbles were bounced around in these spaces. The battle became even. An even distribution of plasma, and matter (in most places). They were a stable state for the Universe.. call it a zero state as the two forces cancelled each other out. Each bubble had a partner bubble, a left handed version. These partners are able to pass to each other, and share energy together like a relay race. Their movement through the Universe involved sharing energy together, so one acted as a spare tank for the other. At a later stage of their evolution they got their outer shell. Then there was the 2D kissing problem, where 6 shells got forced together by pressure. The next stage was to do with the Kissing problem again. A lot of shells under pressure forced 12 shells together. So now we have the 12 shell stage. It has a central hole to store the combined 12 pieces of information. A colour for example forced through the outer shells into the central shell and fired out as information through dead matter. And finally the outer shell, the Atom.