My theory 1 step at a time

[Pincho Paxton]

And this has a whole new meaning now. The end sequence of the Aether isn't exact but it's close enough to see where you came from. Notice the shapes that Space-time (The Aether) makes. They are some of the fractals of nature that I have been talking about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESRff...layer_embedded

[Pincho Paxton]

Now that I am 100% sure that I have solved the theory of everything I am not afraid to post facts which go against science logic. In the past I have been banned from sites. I will keep my ideas separate from science threads. Should I however get banned.. feel free to add Pincho Paxton to your Twitter. Then I can post my whole theory without worry.

[hansda]

Now that I am 100% sure that I have solved the theory of everything

What do you mean ? ... Your simulator can simulate everything . ... or... You have a statement for your ' theory of everything ' .

I am not afraid to post facts which go against science logic. In the past I have been banned from sites. I will keep my ideas separate from science threads. Should I however get banned.. feel free to add Pincho Paxton to your Twitter. Then I can post my whole theory without worry.

[Robittybob1]

Now that I am 100% sure that I have solved the theory of everything I am not afraid to post facts which go against science logic. In the past I have been banned from sites. I will keep my ideas separate from science threads. Should I however get banned.. feel free to add Pincho Paxton to your Twitter. Then I can post my whole theory without worry.

So you will follow all those who follow you on Twitter so we can send you a message, is that right?

[Pincho Paxton]

So you will follow all those who follow you on Twitter so we can send you a message, is that right?

Yeah. Realistically I should have about 1 million viewers by now. But in 10 years I have learned that witch-hunts still exist!

[Pincho Paxton]

What do you mean ? ... Your simulator can simulate everything . ... or... You have a statement for your ' theory of everything ' .

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.

[Robittybob1]

Yeah. Realistically I should have about 1 million viewers by now. But in 10 years I have learned that witch-hunts still exist!

Not easy to find someone on twitter. I find it so boring I don't even look in twitter any more.

How did you feel about this?

I have not been able to find it yet but I have discussed the fact that gravity becomes zero at a certain distance, because the gravitational field has to be made by particles with mass and there comes the likely situation that a particle has insufficient mass to extend this field throughout the Universe (on the basis it takes Energy to form the field). Forces are addition ie G force is proportional to mass, but with the inverse square the drop off of strength means it become very minimal far out and there is no study yet that shows the ability to extend gravity field is proportional to Mass. Field intensity is definitely proportional to mass.

Whether the Universe continues to expand will depend on its over all shape (unknown).

[Pincho Paxton]

Not easy to find someone on twitter. I find it so boring I don't even look in twitter any more.

How did you feel about this?

Well, those bubbles in the universe are like gravity filters. They only let some gravity in, and out. Most of it turns around, and comes back. Its a good job as well, because outside the Milky Way there is enough gravity to squish us.

[Robittybob1]

Well, those bubbles in the universe are like gravity filters. They only let some gravity in, and out. Most of it turns around, and comes back. Its a good job as well, because outside the Milky Way there is enough gravity to squish us.

Could you explain what that means in astronomical terminology?

[Pincho Paxton]

Could you explain what that means in astronomical terminology?

Well its the same as our eco-system with clouds and water. You know like magnetism rises, scales up, and comes back as Gravity.

[Pincho Paxton]

Could you explain what that means in astronomical terminology?

Oh by the way, I'm glad you mentioned salt last night. I went back to thinking about salt, and got some interesting ideas. First I thought that I could make the universe a standard DIM if salt is stacked as particle lines. Then I looked at some atoms on Youtube, and some of those were stacked as particle lines. So then I got confused, and when I get confused I have to solve it. So I started thinking about my simulation of a snowflake. It worked fine, so how can particles stack in lines? Then I thought about salt all night. I woke up with some answers, because that's what sometimes happens. My simulator uses gravity because you expect to always have gravity. But of course I have an outflow of magnetism. To fix the salt problem I have to have a magnetic charge trapped in the salt, and block gravity. Then the particles will stack in lines. But I wasn't sure, because I had 3 possibilities...

1/ Gravity is trapped in the salt.
2/ Magnetism is trapped in the salt.
3/ Time is trapped in the salt. (a bit weird)

Well I prefer to ignore the weird, so I discount time. I think about the sea, and it is buoyant. So magnetism escaping in a soluble works best. Salt may even be an important ingredient for life. It allows life to grow more easily against gravity.

[AlphaNumeric]

I'm ignoring Alpha. I am his God.

More like you're unable to accept an error. You claim your work is perfect and yet you've had to ignore numerous errors I've pointed out. Now you're just proving you're dishonest. And your response amounts to trolling. You complained people won't let you present your work but now you're presented with a challenge suddenly you don't want to play.

[Pincho Paxton]

More like you're unable to accept an error. You claim your work is perfect and yet you've had to ignore numerous errors I've pointed out. Now you're just proving you're dishonest. And your response amounts to trolling. You complained people won't let you present your work but now you're presented with a challenge suddenly you don't want to play.

A distance between two points in space is the kissing problem. You don't even need to work it out. You just make a 13 dimensional grid, and put a particles in 12 of them. The 13th doesn't fit, so that is time. It's how a particle has to do it... no maths. Then the particles are allowed to move around the 13th ball.. a cogwheel. Then they are allowed to fill the cogwheel.. the periodic table is built. Self building, no maths.

[Robittybob1]

A distance between two points in space is the kissing problem. You don't even need to work it out. You just make a 13 dimensional grid, and put a particles in 12 of them. The 13th doesn't fit, so that is time. It's how a particle has to do it... no maths. Then the particles are allowed to move around the 13th ball.. a cogwheel. Then they are allowed to fill the cogwheel.. the periodic table is built. Self building, no maths.

The trouble for us Pincho is that your use of words does not compute to us. I have been following you a lot over the last 2 days, but this last paragraph is still difficult.
Could you make a little video demonstrating the principle you are suggesting for time.

[Pincho Paxton]

The trouble for us Pincho is that your use of words does not compute to us. I have been following you a lot over the last 2 days, but this last paragraph is still difficult.
Could you make a little video demonstrating the principle you are suggesting for time.

It's easy to explain in words, and making a video will take longer. Particles scale until they touch. Then they have to stay in the area of least resistance. Newton's Kissing problem shows that you can get 12 particles around 1 particle. there is enough room for a 13th particle, but you cannot put it in because the gaps are averaged out. Being as particles always move into the area of least resistance they try to move into the gaps. Because particles of this scale do not know how to bump properly they can use the 13th ball as an entire separate DIM and overlap a bit. So now they turn into cogwheels. They spin around on their own, and build the Universe. There are of course other things allowed like scaling etc, but I just wanted to give an example of removing maths from particles.

[Dywyddyr]

A distance between two points in space is the kissing problem.

Um, no it's not.

You don't even need to work it out. You just make a 13 dimensional grid, and put a particles in 12 of them. The 13th doesn't fit, so that is time. It's how a particle has to do it... no maths. Then the particles are allowed to move around the 13th ball.. a cogwheel. Then they are allowed to fill the cogwheel.. the periodic table is built. Self building, no maths.

Bullshit word salad...

[AlphaNumeric]

A distance between two points in space is the kissing problem.

No, the Kissing Problem is a particular packing problem. Distances depend on norms or metrics. As I just demonstrated, you can come up with tons (infinitely many) different notion of distances, all of them as consistent as each other. To use one of them is to make another mathematical assumption, which you claim you don't make. That claim is thus wrong.

Self building, no maths.

Demonstrably and demonstrated false.

[Robittybob1]

It's easy to explain in words, and making a video will take longer. Particles scale until they touch. Then they have to stay in the area of least resistance. Newton's Kissing problem shows that you can get 12 particles around 1 particle. there is enough room for a 13th particle, but you cannot put it in because the gaps are averaged out. Being as particles always move into the area of least resistance they try to move into the gaps. Because particles of this scale do not know how to bump properly they can use the 13th ball as an entire separate DIM and overlap a bit. So now they turn into cogwheels. They spin around on their own, and build the Universe. There are of course other things allowed like scaling etc, but I just wanted to give an example of removing maths from particles.

“Pincho God” has plenty of Time, you create the Universe and Time, and so what are you complaining about.
You seem to talk about motions that can only really be imagined on a demonstration.
If you want acceptance, and since you don't have maths, show us the video. Please. We'll wait.

[Pincho Paxton]

No, the Kissing Problem is a particular packing problem. Distances depend on norms or metrics. As I just demonstrated, you can come up with tons (infinitely many) different notion of distances, all of them as consistent as each other. To use one of them is to make another mathematical assumption, which you claim you don't make. That claim is thus wrong.

Demonstrably and demonstrated false.

Yes particle stacking.. space-time grain. they are very small you know. by the time they have built an atom it is quite smooth, and using many particles at once. So you get something that looks like vectors, but naturally occurring. it's like watching TV, it looks smooth until you get really close up. That's why I said that vectors would not work, its cheating. You only have a few directions to move into.

[Robittybob1]

Yes particle stacking.. space-time grain. they are very small you know. by the time they have built an atom it is quite smooth, and using many particles at once. So you get something that looks like vectors, but naturally occurring. it's like watching TV, it looks smooth until you get really close up.

You might have missed this one:
you create the Universe and Time, and so what are you complaining about.
You seem to talk about motions that can only really be imagined on a demonstration.
If you want acceptance, and since you don't have maths, show us the video. Please. We'll wait.