# Thread: My theory 1 step at a time

1. Pincho Paxton, can you derive the 4 physical constants, i.e. the spin-half, gravitational constant, speed of light and electric charge of electron from your nothingness?

2. Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
Pincho Paxton, can you derive the 4 physical constants, i.e. the spin-half, gravitational constant, speed of light and electric charge of electron from your nothingness?
You have to scale backwards. For example my particles are 1, they have to create an atom, then you can scale backwards from that. Actually... I don't know what the spin-half is. I know it can create the other things.

3. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Imagine you can program a computer. Then imagine that the Universe is just 1 particle. How hard do you think it is to program 1 particle? It's very easy. It doesn't even contain anything apart from itself.

Our Universe may be ONE , but if we see 'everything' in terms of its existence ; then the whole existence is much more than our Universe ( or atleast the way we know of our universe till now ) .

Mathematically our universe is infinite but ONE is finite . ... or ... should we say , it is one infinity ?

4. Originally Posted by hansda
Our Universe may be ONE , but if we see 'everything' in terms of its existence ; then the whole existence is much more than our Universe ( or atleast the way we know of our universe till now ) .

Mathematically our universe is infinite but ONE is finite . ... or ... should we say , it is one infinity ?
Its 1 particle of zero. You could call it the zero particle. Not a bad name actually, better than space time, and Aether.

5. I just looked up spin-half. I don't think it exists. It is most likely gravity, and magnetism travelling through an atom. It would be the vector forces I suppose.

6. We know that atom consists at least of proton and electron. The protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos are the different particles then what is the physical meanning of your words "my particles are 1". I completely do not understand it. You cannot obtain the four physical constants from the number 1.

7. Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
We know that atom consists at least of proton and electron. The protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos are the different particles then what is the physical meanning of your words "my particles are 1". I completely do not understand it. You cannot obtain the four physical constants from the number 1.
They contain themselves. So they repeat. They are zero particles, they can contain themselves, and the scale factor alters how they travel.

8. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Its 1 particle of zero. You could call it the zero particle. Not a bad name actually, better than space time, and Aether.
Can you explain in simple terrms about , ' how zero becomes one ? '

What i know is that , zero + zero = zero ... and ...

zero + zero + zero + ...infinity number of times = (still) zero .

So, how do you get 'one' from 'zero' ?

9. Can you show some useful calculations? You know, lack of useful calculations mostly leads astray, leads to science fiction.

10. Originally Posted by hansda
Can you explain in simple terrms about , ' how zero becomes one ? '

What i know is that , zero + zero = zero ... and ...

zero + zero + zero + ...infinity number of times = (still) zero .

So, how do you get 'one' from 'zero' ?
Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
Can you show some useful calculations? You know, lack of useful calculations mostly leads astray, leads to science fiction.

1 + -1 = 0

11. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

1 + -1 = 0
Is it any 'natural process' , your discovery ? or simply your assumption .

or

Do you mean to say infinity is zero ?

12. This is not answer to my question.

BTW, do you claim that in truly empty volume can be produced a mountain and anti-mountain i.e. dale? In my opinion, nothingness leads always to nothingness. Can you see that we need an useful calculations to prove your position?

13. Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
This is not answer to my question.

BTW, do you claim that in truly empty volume can be produced a mountain and anti-mountain i.e. dale? In my opinion, nothingness leads always to nothingness. Can you see that we need an useful calculations to prove your position?
Binary code only uses 0,1, all computers have managed to build everything from that. So what I figured out was that you could make a particle do the same thing.

Originally Posted by hansda
Is it any 'natural process' , your discovery ? or simply your assumption .

or

Do you mean to say infinity is zero ?
It's a natural process, I don't have to do a lot to get it to work. I am just taking my time, because the images are flooding into my head, and it is hard to ignore new discoveries. Like for example the paths of photons.

14. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
And I have explained to you numerous times you are already using such things. To have positions you are working in a vector space. To have distances you're working in a normed vector space. Your claims of working only with 1+-1=0 are demonstrated false. Your inability to accept this fact only further highlights your dishonesty.
There is a fine line between dishonesty and misinformed. Especially from individuals like yourself.

15. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Binary code only uses 0,1, all computers have managed to build everything from that. So what I figured out was that you could make a particle do the same thing.

It's a natural process, I don't have to do a lot to get it to work. I am just taking my time, because the images are flooding into my head, and it is hard to ignore new discoveries. Like for example the paths of photons.
So, ' 1 + -1 = 0 ' ; is your equation ( or mathematics ) for everything .

Then , do you mean to say that ; ' infinity - infinity = zero . ' ?

16. Originally Posted by hansda
So, ' 1 + -1 = 0 ' ; is your equation ( or mathematics ) for everything .

Then , do you mean to say that ; ' infinity - infinity = zero . ' ?
well 1 + -1 = infinity and zero. That is the equation, but you can scale it..

2 + -2 = 0
3 + -3 = 0
4 + -4 = 0

So you get infinite size, and infinite quantity.

17. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Binary code only uses 0,1, all computers have managed to build everything from that. So what I figured out was that you could make a particle do the same thing.
There is the difference between the abstract math and physical physics. You need a physical field to claim that nature can realise phenomena based on the mathematical formula +1-1=0. Just you need a physical spacetime. Such spacetime must have some physical properties. This means that the formula +1-1=0 does not act in the truly empty nothingness.

18. Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
There is the difference between the abstract math and physical physics. You need a physical field to claim that nature can realise phenomena based on the mathematical formula +1-1=0. Just you need a physical spacetime. Such spacetime must have some physical properties. This means that the formula +1-1=0 does not act in the truly empty nothingness.
It works so long as you don't allow something to appear from nothing. It is very hard to grasp, but as soon as the particles touch they break that rule.

19. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
It works so long as you don't allow something to appear from nothing. It is very hard to grasp, but as soon as the particles touch they break that rule.
The whole nature shows that it is untrue. Nature does not violate some laws of conservation, especially the law of conservation of energy. Of course, there is the negative (the analog to the -1) and positive (the analog to the +1) energies but to create the negative energy nature needs a physical field i.e. the positive energy. Moreover, in my opinion, there are not in existence the pure energies. Photons cannot be in existence without the Einstein spacetime. The virtual negative masses (the analogs to the -1) and the virtual positive masses (the analogs to the +1) can be created in physical fields only i.e. in fields composed of positive physical volumes. The physical volumes are more fundamental than the pure energies carried by the physical volumes. There are not in existence negative volumes. This means that the formula +1-1=0 does not act in the truly empty nothingness.

We need moving POSITIVE physical volumes (the analogs to the +1) to describe nature. To create the NEGATIVE physical volumes (the analogs to the -1) we need field composed of the POSITIVE physical volumes. Nothingness (the 0) leads to nothingness (the 0) always.

We are not the computer programs.

20. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
No, I am running it in my head. It is so small that I can run that part. It is the later parts that get more difficult. I am ready to get started now. I wanted to make sure that I was lining the particles up correctly, I test it in my head. It is still amazing though. Nothing can be different to what I said, because at that size they are too few paths that the particles can take.
This is as about as delusional as I've ever seen in an uninstitutionalized individual.