Oops, wrong again.
I understand your words.
But the way you string them together is what makes them word salad.
And, as stated, your "little picture" proves you're not starting from nothing.
Universe/Cosmology Hypotheses
- Thread starter wlminex
- Start date
I understand your words.
But the way you string them together is what makes them word salad.
And, as stated, your "little picture" proves you're not starting from nothing.
How does my picture prove I am not starting from nothing? I applied light so that you can see the Aether.. it is not visible. It only interacts to create zero. It overlaps, and still tries to create zero. It is always using methods to create zero as best as it can. You are confused by the paradox of creating nothing from something, and something from nothing. All properties have an equal, and opposite.. nothing has an equal and opposite.
Last edited:
Aether? Is that nothing?
Where do the spheres come from?
What governs their interaction?
From where does mass/ negative mass arise?
How does entropy come into it?
In other words your "nothing" pre-supposes (while failing to explain or account for) many other things.
Yeah so ask questions then.
The sphere don't need to come from anywhere because they equal nothing. You don't need to account for zero in a theory. So nothing is just there.
Their interactions are governed by paradox. They start to equal something, the paradox throws them back to nothing, but once you cut off a bit here, and there the paradox grows out of control.
Mass, negative mass, and matter, anti-matter mean just + or -. I haven't added anything there, just names.
Entropy is the paradox that you don't get something from nothing. But you can put Aether inside Aether... +1 +1 + -1 -1. If you enclose them the total is still zero. when they are enclosed like that the outermost membrane will correct the innermost membrane. You can do this from nothing.
A refutation of the claim of starting with no assumptions/nothing.
And that's just the notion of 'checking distances'. In the above quote you mention many other things which you are implicitly assuming. For instance, entropy. What is your definition of entropy? Shannon entropy? Renyi entropy? Topological entropy? Kolmogorov entropy? Compression entropy? What about spin, what kind? Classical spin? Quantum spin? Angular momentum? Spin structure? What about membranes? Orientated? Closed? Quantised? Tension? You've mentioned spheres, so you've assumed basic topology. You mention energy, what is your definition of energy?
That's a classic example cranks don't realise they can't assume in their attempt to make a 'theory of everything'. Energy is not some obvious well defined quantity which is just intrinsic to any formal construction, it has to be precisely defined. The fact mainstream physics does this so well that it becomes almost taken for granted makes hacks assume they can take it for granted. Likewise with momentum and angular momentum. They have to be formally defined and constructed before you can talk about them in a system.
But Pincho won't read this, he has me on ignore because he doesn't want to face up to the long list of fundamental flaws in his work.
That isn't even coherent. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone that Pincho is just throwing buzzwords out which he doesn't understand.
Actually the shapes of bubbles are not defined by entropy, they are defined by minimising the mean curvature. And you can't use 'entropic' as a description of a manifold or surface.
Says the guy who puts on ignore people who point out factual errors in his claims.
The opposite of convex is concave, not converse. Pincho doesn't even seem to have a good grasp of basic language.
I do and I can see you don't.
The concept of a sphere in mathematics is highly non-trivial. A sphere is a manifold and a manifold M is a Haussdorff topological space along with a set of pairs $$\{(U_{a},\phi_{a})\}$$ where the $$U_{a}$$ are open sets in M which are homeomorphic, via $$\phi_{a}$$, to open sets in $$\mathbb{R}^{N}$$ for some fixed N such that certain intersection rules of their images are satisfied. Hardly 'nothing' but you don't realise that because you're ignorant.
Actually the sum 1-1+1-1+1-..... is undefined under standard summation rules because it is not absolutely convergent, ie |1|+|-1|+|-1|+... is not convergent. To illustrate why it isn't well defined note that 1 = 1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+.... = (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+.... = 0.
More basic and important things you are unaware of.
That Pearlman Guy ? Didn't he work out a doughnut thing . Mathematically that is . A doughnut universe . I forget ? He won an award that came with a million dollars he refused . The Pion'ure conjecture I think ? Something like that , Don't know ,don't remember. He was mad about the way he was treated by his peers I think . That was the impression i got . Media hype maybe ?
He did some sort of spherical transformation conjecture. I don't actually know what it is for.. maybe melting materials? I don't understand it... there's an admission.
He proved the Poincare conjecture in 4 dimensions. It is a statement about the topology of particular types of manifolds, it has no application to melting materials. If you don't know don't just make shit up.