What does the Layman do?

[Pincho Paxton]

I have a number of formulas that are sought after by science, but I'm not a mathematician. I was working on a 'Theory Of Everything', as a sort of thought experiment, because I'm an artist who has a good 3D spacial awareness, and can somehow see how the Universe works. I didn't think I was able to come up with any formulas however, but somehow last night I discovered a way to express maths as spacing. So it's not exactly maths, it's more like pi, and I know how to explain that pi like.. it is half of your original sphere, and the next stage is the space between the two sphere. So its very basic, but at least it's explainable. What my description finally ends up with is...

Magnetism
Gravity
The creation of Atoms
The creation of Black holes
The Two slit Experiment
and a bunch of other stuff.

But I don't know the next step. I don't know what to do with the information, but it is very special, and needs the right sort of attention.

Who would listen to an artist with no maths knowledge, but a way to explain a formula, but who doesn't want to post the ingredients for the formula?

 

[Pete]

No one in the sciences. Sorry to be so blunt, Pincho, but you just don't sound credible at all.
Your description of pi, for example, is not close to the mark.
And mathematics seems to be the fundamental language of the Universe. If you can't speak it, there is zero chance that you can "see how the Universe works".

Your best bet is to find a spiritualist forum.

 

[Nasor]

Who would listen to an artist with no maths knowledge, but a way to explain a formula, but who doesn't want to post the ingredients for the formula?

There have been laymen who made substantial contributions to math and science over the years. But if you tell people "I have a great formula, but I won't actually show it to you," no one is going to care or take you seriously. Everyone will expect to actually see the formula. For one thing, if no one can see the formula then no one will be able to tell if it really makes sense or is useful.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

There have been laymen who made substantial contributions to math and science over the years. But if you tell people "I have a great formula, but I won't actually show it to you," no one is going to care or take you seriously. Everyone will expect to actually see the formula. For one thing, if no one can see the formula then no one will be able to tell if it really makes sense or is useful.

Would you post it on here? I've just been questioned for 3 hours, and my replies are still standing up. I've actually done it. I have answers that would amaze you. I'm not going through all of that again on here. I just don't know what to do next?

 

[RJBeery]

Pincho: To what end, exactly? You want to know how to derive the formulas? Maybe you should go to a University campus and speak with someone in the math or physics department. I've done this before while independently studying number theory and the professor was quite gracious. This will necessitate that you reveal your "ingredients" but a professor giving you a bit of his/her time is infinitely more trustworthy than some anonymous dude on a website.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Who would listen to an artist with no maths knowledge, but a way to explain a formula, but who doesn't want to post the ingredients for the formula?

Speaking as someone who spends times on forums, has got the occasional emails due to forums or papers and who knows people who also work in the physics community no one will listen to you. I have heard what you've got to say and I have told you its crap. Its not even crap, its non-existent.

People have spammed the theoretical physics group email of my department and we just delete and it required block them. Having laughed at them.

Would you post it on here?

I have repeatedly challenged you to type up your work and submit it to a journal. You then get your name on it and no one can say otherwise. You have refused because I've challenged you to put money on the table and you know full well you'll fail.

I've just been questioned for 3 hours, and my replies are still standing up

No, your replies haven't stood up. You haven't answered a single question I have asked you and the people who edit journals are much much cleverer and more knowledgeable than I am. If you can't get past a PhD student you don't stand a chance.

You are just plain deluded.

 

[Lawson's Criterion]

Dear Pincho Paxton:

You must satisfy science criteria. That means you need to satisfy Dr. Alphanumeric, Ph.D.
So far, you have not blown his ''skirt.'' (Poor attempt at humor).

LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.

 

[quantum_wave]

Pincho, there are two immediate problems with your approach. One, let's assume it is crap as AN points out. You post it, it turns out to be refuted soundly, and you do what? Go back and try again and come back with another formula? Yes or no?

Second, let's say you have it nailed, you have found the truth, reality, the golden key. No one will recognize you have it. It will get rebutted and dismissed and you will not be sure that the trained minds who should be able to recognize it didn't realize you have nailed it for some reason. Then what do you do? Keep coming back and insisting you have it nailed. Yes or no.

The question is what will satisfy you that you might not have what you think you have?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho, there are two immediate problems with your approach. One, let's assume it is crap as AN points out. You post it, it turns out to be refuted soundly, and you do what? Go back and try again and come back with another formula? Yes or no?

Second, let's say you have it nailed, you have found the truth, reality, the golden key. No one will recognize you have it. It will get rebutted and dismissed and you will not be sure that the trained minds who should be able to recognize it didn't realize you have nailed it for some reason. Then what do you do? Keep coming back and insisting you have it nailed. Yes or no.

The question is what will satisfy you that you might not have what you think you have?

The thing is that I can now explain things a lot better than last week. I have found the explanation that I was looking for, and its to do with the Two Slit Experiment. I have cracked it, and I can explain it, and from that explanation alone I can then explain everything else without altering the original explanation of the Two Slit Experiment. Because the TSE includes all of my theory almost in one sitting. So when I explain magnetism for example, you can look at the TSE, and check if I changed anything. When I explain Gravity you can do the same. When I explain photons.. look at the TSE, Black Holes.. TSE. So with everything relating to one experiment it is much harder to break my theory. Being as it never falls down, at all.. (spooky action at a distance ..TSE), I am not giving up until I get somebody to listen. However I haven't altered my theory from last week, it's just better defined.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Pincho Paxton

So you have confirmed something that has already been confirmed, is that correct? :shrug:

 

[Read-Only]

The thing is that I can now explain things a lot better than last week. I have found the explanation that I was looking for, and its to do with the Two Slit Experiment. I have cracked it, and I can explain it, and from that explanation alone I can then explain everything else without altering the original explanation of the Two Slit Experiment. Because the TSE includes all of my theory almost in one sitting. So when I explain magnetism for example, you can look at the TSE, and check if I changed anything. When I explain Gravity you can do the same. When I explain photons.. look at the TSE, Black Holes.. TSE. So with everything relating to one experiment it is much harder to break my theory. Being as it never falls down, at all.. (spooky action at a distance ..TSE), I am not giving up until I get somebody to listen. However I haven't altered my theory from last week, it's just better defined.

Don't hold your breath, then, because no one is going to spend time "listening" to your nonsense.:shrug:

 

[quantum_wave]

Pincho, you didn't answer my two questions. It is almost like I am asking for your commitment to take the resulting answer to heart and not come back with some similar theory if you don't get the answer you obviously are hoping for.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You must satisfy science criteria. That means you need to satisfy Dr. Alphanumeric, Ph.D.
So far, you have not blown his ''skirt.'' (Poor attempt at humor).

In the interests of honesty I must point out I am not yet a PhD. About another month.

PP, answer this question :

Suppose, hypothetically, you aren't actually right. What would it take to convince you of that? What would you consider 'sufficient evidence' to convince you you're wrong? For instance, special relativity is wrong if someone can measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be anything other than c. The Higgs boson is excluded from the Standard Model if no such particle is produced at energies below 300GeV. No ifs, no buts, they would be wrong due to the evidence.

So what are your criteria? If you don't have any, in that no experiment or observation would convince you, then you are not doing science, you're doing religion as you'd be telling us your view of the universe without evidence or reason.

 

[Nasor]

Would you post it on here?

No, I would send it to a journal. But in any case I'm not telling you to post it here or not, I'm just telling you that no one will care if you want to talk about your formula (or whatever it is) without actually posting it.

So why not just submit it to a journal? What specifically is keeping you from doing that?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

No, I would send it to a journal. But in any case I'm not telling you to post it here or not, I'm just telling you that no one will care if you want to talk about your formula (or whatever it is) without actually posting it.

So why not just submit it to a journal? What specifically is keeping you from doing that?

It's not a mathematical formula. It's more like an encyclopaedia of everything, based on a single experiment to tie everything together. So what you ask is, How come everything works just like in real life, and yet the experiment is so small, and Pincho hasn't changed anything from that single experiment in the details of the following experiment?

Although there is a formula there, I keep repeating the same description, so it's a formula, I just don't know how to write it as maths, but it's trigonometry.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Are you struggling to answer my question? Are you unwilling to admit nothing could change your mind and you're therefore not doing science?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

In the interests of honesty I must point out I am not yet a PhD. About another month.

PP, answer this question :

Suppose, hypothetically, you aren't actually right. What would it take to convince you of that? What would you consider 'sufficient evidence' to convince you you're wrong? For instance, special relativity is wrong if someone can measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be anything other than c. The Higgs boson is excluded from the Standard Model if no such particle is produced at energies below 300GeV. No ifs, no buts, they would be wrong due to the evidence.

So what are your criteria? If you don't have any, in that no experiment or observation would convince you, then you are not doing science, you're doing religion as you'd be telling us your view of the universe without evidence or reason.

Well most of my claims are already proved true, so... hmm

My Magnets have local pulling power. They emit electrons like a torch, but you know that a torch has a local light source, so my magnets have a local pulling force. If you could time the pull of a magnet pulse, a very fast, single pulse, you would get a delay over distance of C, and not the suggested instant pickup.

Ermmm Perform the Two Slit Experiment in extremely cold conditions to get the interference wave back with an observer, being careful not to allow the electrons from the observer to heat up the area near to the slits. Or just perform the experiment under cold conditions to get a wider interference wave pattern with no observer. In fact try hot as well to get a narrower wavelength, you can even lose the interference pattern in hot temperature. And finally the Aether will be discovered.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Again, you completely ignored my question.

Well most of my claims are already proved true, so... hmm

A lie. You haven't shown you can model anything in nature. I keep asking you, you keep avoiding the question.

My Magnets have local pulling power. They emit electrons like a torch

Another incorrect statement, Magnets do not emit electrons.

Thus your theory of everything is proven false because you have been unable to correctly describe magnetism. Along with chemistry, biology, nuclear physics and pretty much anything else you babble about.

so my magnets have a local pulling force. If you could time the pull of a magnet pulse, a very fast, single pulse, you would get a delay over distance of C, and not the suggested instant pickup.

An electron moves through a magnetic field B and electric field E with velocity v. What is the force on it?

If you can't answer this question you have not described magnetism.

Ermmm Perform the Two Slit Experiment in extremely cold conditions to get the interference wave back with an observer, being careful not to allow the electrons from the observer to heat up the area near to the slits. Or just perform the experiment under cold conditions to get a wider interference wave pattern with no observer.

Interference patterns are not temperature dependent, another experimental fact. Besides, the motion of a photon is entirely independent of temperature since it moves at the same speed regardless and even at very low temperatures high energy photons can occur, as is clear from the Boltzmann distribution. You are, yet again, proven wrong.

You have been proven wrong on multiple phenomena. Any rational person would be forced to accept they are incorrect. The fact you haven't proves you aren't interested in science.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Again, you completely ignored my question.

A lie. You haven't shown you can model anything in nature. I keep asking you, you keep avoiding the question.

Another incorrect statement, Magnets do not emit electrons.

Thus your theory of everything is proven false because you have been unable to correctly describe magnetism. Along with chemistry, biology, nuclear physics and pretty much anything else you babble about.

An electron moves through a magnetic field B and electric field E with velocity v. What is the force on it?

If you can't answer this question you have not described magnetism.

Interference patterns are not temperature dependent, another experimental fact. Besides, the motion of a photon is entirely independent of temperature since it moves at the same speed regardless and even at very low temperatures high energy photons can occur, as is clear from the Boltzmann distribution. You are, yet again, proven wrong.

You have been proven wrong on multiple phenomena. Any rational person would be forced to accept they are incorrect. The fact you haven't proves you aren't interested in science.

You haven't proved me wrong you are basing my answers on your science which is back to front. The electrons are local to the magnet. The material that moves towards the electrons is the Aether. The Aether is also touching the magnet. There is no pull at all. Just a flow into the magnet as the Aether touches it, more like a shrinking device. All of the forces are local to the magnet. The escaping flow is the Scaled down Aether, because Electrons shrink it, and then it rushes away out of the other side of the magnet.

The two slit experiment is size dependant. the Aether shrinks from electrons, and grows from lack of electrons. The observer shrinks the Aether so that it passes through the slits. Without the observer the Aether is larger. photons also shrink the Aether, so in sunlight the Aether is smaller. It has to be done in the dark.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You haven't proved me wrong you are basing my answers on your science which is back to front.

No, I'm telling you what every scientist has ever observed. You're getting confused with what our theories say and what experiments say. You can't argue with nature, you can argue with someone's attempt to model nature.

Fire is hot. This is an experimental fact. If you said your work claims fire is cold then you'd be wrong. Doesn't matter about our models of fire, if you say something which is contradicted in nature you're wrong.

The electrons are local to the magnet. The material that moves towards the electrons is the Aether. The Aether is also touching the magnet. There is no pull at all. Just a flow into the magnet as the Aether touches it, more like a shrinking device. All of the forces are local to the magnet. The escaping flow is the Scaled down Aether, because Electrons shrink it, and then it rushes away out of the other side of the magnet.

Magnets do not emit electrons. We can detect electrons, they are easy to spot. Magnets don't give them off. You are wrong.

You ignored my question again.

Hypothetically what would it take to convince you you're wrong? What would you consider 'sufficient evidence'?