I have solved the theory of Everything

[AlphaNumeric]

It's not, because I am already proving it on paper.

How are you proving your claims? I can write down 1+1=3 but that doesn't prove it. Writing or saying something doesn't automatically make it true. Surely as an artist you're aware of fiction and 'artistic license? The bending of truth for some purpose or the complete fabrication of ideas, unrelated to reality.

You haven't considered a single experiment or observation so you are not testing your ideas by seeing if they line up with reality.

If I said "Gravity makes things fly up into the sky" it wouldn't be true. Writing it down doesn't make it so. I'd have to ignore reality if I were to say my claim is true. You are doing precisely the same.

My last description was a bit out, but this next description agrees completely with your own understanding of the Universe.

My understanding of the universe greatly exceeds yours. I can say that to most people, given I actually do physics research in a university but in your case its especially true. A high school student doing physics has an understanding of the universe which greatly exceeds yours.

You will definitely go "Wow!" when you read this. A picture will form in your head, and you will be scribbling down numbers like mad. If only I knew now what you would be scribbling

I am absolutely certain that will not happen.

The fact you cannot possibly entertain the idea you might be wrong shows that you are not interested in science or truth. You want an ego stroking. I must say you're slightly different from the usual crank. They are either utterly utterly mad and convinced they know everything or they are convinced they'll work out everything but at least can hold coherent discussions. You are utterly convinced you're right yet you seem capable of forming coherent sentences.

How is it you can understand what people are saying but so completely fail to realise what you're doing isn't science. Yes yes, you're an 'artist' but even as artists go you're pretty damn ignorant.

You repeatedly ignore my question too. Why do you think you're the best person to describe a universe you know nothing about?

[Pincho Paxton]

I don't think I'm the best at describing all of it. I don't even know the names of the things that I'm writing about. I have been put in this position, because I have no other option. But I do know enough to get this right using probably the wrong words to describe things.

What I am doing though is amazing, but it is just De Vinci stuff. It needs a scientist to help me get things right. But it's true, I'll swear on my life that this is for real.

[Captain Kremmen]

The fact you cannot possibly entertain the idea you might be wrong shows that you are not interested in science or truth. You want an ego stroking. I must say you're slightly different from the usual crank. They are either utterly utterly mad and convinced they know everything or they are convinced they'll work out everything but at least can hold coherent discussions. You are utterly convinced you're right yet you seem capable of forming coherent sentences.

Hypomania (Wiki)

Hypomania (literally, below mania) is a mood state characterized by persistent and pervasive elevated or irritable mood, and thoughts and behaviors that are consistent with such a mood state. People experiencing hypomanic symptoms typically have a flight of ideas, a decreased need for sleep and/or rest, are extremely outgoing and daring, and have a great deal of energy. However, unlike full-blown mania, those with hypomanic systems are generally fully functioning. Specifically, it is distinguished from mania by the absence of psychotic symptoms and by its lower degree of impact on functioning. Hypomania is a feature of two mood disorders: bipolar II disorder and cyclothymia, but can also occur in schizoaffective disorder. Hypomania can also have a benefit in creativity and productive energy. Many have cited it as a gateway to their success, and an incredibly large number of people with creative talents have experienced hypomania or other symptoms of bipolar disorder. Classic symptoms of hypomania include mild euphoria, a flood of ideas, endless energy, and a desire and drive for success.



Probably a condition of many successful people.
Of limited, or temporary, use in science.
Or perhaps not.

[AlphaNumeric]

I don't think I'm the best at describing all of it. I don't even know the names of the things that I'm writing about.

So you don't know the name of things? What makes you even know about the existence of some things?

For instance, do you have any idea what a flavour changing neutral current is? I doubt it. Even the concept is outside most people's experience. So why on Earth do you think you're able to describe such things?

I have been put in this position, because I have no other option. But I do know enough to get this right using probably the wrong words to describe things.

How do you know enough? What experiments have you done? What observations have you read about? What non-everyday phenomena do you know about? There are people less than 100ft from me doing experiments on things you have no idea about so how can you possibly claim you 'know enough'?

What I am doing though is amazing, but it is just De Vinci stuff. It needs a scientist to help me get things right. But it's true, I'll swear on my life that this is for real.

You're deluded. Plain and simple. You have no justificatn for your claim of what is basically divine knowledge, you have no evidence for your claims, you have no grasp of things outside your experience, you've already said things known to be false, you have absolutely no clue about science.

You might be amazed but its my experience that people always seem to impress themselves more easily than they impress others. Your claims are vague or false, your knowledge laughable and your ignorance pathetic. You aren't doing anything 'amazing' other than being amazingly stupid.

Can you explain why your random guesses are more valid than anyone else's? No, because they aren't.

[Pincho Paxton]

If I make a new thread called "Help Me To Understand" will you help me a bit?

[AlphaNumeric]

Only if its clear you're actually trying to understand and not just paying lip service to get me off your back. You have to realise that there are a huge number of phenomena in the universe which are counter intuitive so you simply guessing how they work based on your 'artistic knowledge' is almost certainly going to lead to the wrong answer and also that your experience of the universe is very very little, there's a huge number of phenomena you simply aren't aware of.

Science is not about writing a few wordy explainations you like the sound of and then saying "All that needs to be done now is someone fill in the maths". If I said "Heat flows from cold objects to hot objects" no amount of mathematics or work by someone is going to suddenly make what is an obviously false statement true. Just because you are not familiar with such things as black holes, quantum mechanics, relativity, electrodynamics etc doesn't mean your vague guess is going to be anywhere near as worthwhile listening to compared to someone with 4 decades of experimental experience and tons of mathematical skills.

Take a look at www.arxiv.org and see how detailed the papers on there are. For example, here someone describes something as 'simple' as a fast moving gas but it is incredibly involved. Their introduction is more detailed then any of your posts, never mind the actual body of the paper. Or this one where the author goes through experimental observations and works out what the means for various theories and ideas. The entire point of that paper is to check how likely it is a theory is falsified or validated, a concept you seem utterly unable to grasp. If you don't compare your ideas with the behaviour of Nature how can you know if you're right? Simply saying "I'm right!" doesn't make it so.

Can you see why its so silly for you to think you're undoubtedly correct? If you know nothing about Nature and have no experience of science why do you believe you are the best person to rewrite the science description of Nature?

[Pincho Paxton]

Only if its clear you're actually trying to understand and not just paying lip service to get me off your back. You have to realise that there are a huge number of phenomena in the universe which are counter intuitive so you simply guessing how they work based on your 'artistic knowledge' is almost certainly going to lead to the wrong answer and also that your experience of the universe is very very little, there's a huge number of phenomena you simply aren't aware of.

Science is not about writing a few wordy explainations you like the sound of and then saying "All that needs to be done now is someone fill in the maths". If I said "Heat flows from cold objects to hot objects" no amount of mathematics or work by someone is going to suddenly make what is an obviously false statement true. Just because you are not familiar with such things as black holes, quantum mechanics, relativity, electrodynamics etc doesn't mean your vague guess is going to be anywhere near as worthwhile listening to compared to someone with 4 decades of experimental experience and tons of mathematical skills.

Take a look at www.arxiv.org and see how detailed the papers on there are. For example, here someone describes something as 'simple' as a fast moving gas but it is incredibly involved. Their introduction is more detailed then any of your posts, never mind the actual body of the paper. Or this one where the author goes through experimental observations and works out what the means for various theories and ideas. The entire point of that paper is to check how likely it is a theory is falsified or validated, a concept you seem utterly unable to grasp. If you don't compare your ideas with the behaviour of Nature how can you know if you're right? Simply saying "I'm right!" doesn't make it so.

Can you see why its so silly for you to think you're undoubtedly correct? If you know nothing about Nature and have no experience of science why do you believe you are the best person to rewrite the science description of Nature?

That's funny, that's what I was just working on, but gravity instead. I just figured that science needs an observer.

[Ophiolite]

That's funny, that's what I was just working on, but gravity instead. I just figured that science needs an observer.

What is funny? Alpha Numeric wrote a detailed reply to your question and your only response it to say 'That's funny'. I tell you what your response is - it is rude and ignorant.

What is it you were 'just working on'? You don't make it at all clear.

So you think science needs an observer? And who picked you for it? Why do you have no option but to do this? Who placed you in this position?

[Pincho Paxton]

I was just taken aback that he picked those two words. Anyway, he did a good response. I've decided just to write a book called..

"Science for the Insane!"
"The Theory Of Everything!"

And then it doesn't have to make too much sense. I'll make a working Universe from my inventions, and make it seem totally possible. Sell it as fiction. that's probably the best thing to do.

Thanks!

Pincho.

[(Q)]

it doesn't have to make too much sense. Sell it as fiction. that's probably the best thing to do.

You haven't got much choice in the matter, it won't sell as non-fiction.

[Ophiolite]

I was just taken aback that he picked those two words.

There are 358 words in his response. Which two are you referring to?

Anyway, he did a good response.

Then don't you think he deserved a good response in return? (For reference, you didn't provide one.)

[AlphaNumeric]

I've decided just to write a book called..

"Science for the Insane!"
"The Theory Of Everything!"

You seem to suffer from the same attention defecate problem common_sense_seeker has, you just jump from idea to idea, each time convinced you're right irrespective of what people say.

And who, pray tell, would want to publish a book about science written by someone who doesn't know any and who makes a mixture of absurd and patently false claims? Of course you could waste your own money getting it self published. I know another crank whose done that. He posted his 'work' on many forums, each time being told its nonsense and then he self published a book. He's not been heard of in months, probably too unwilling to swallow his ego and realise what a waste of time and money he did.

Anyway, he did a good response.

None of which you responded to or even show you comprehend.

but gravity instead.

And if I asked you to show you can correctly predict the exact precession of Mercury you'd either ignore the question or fail to realise that quantitative exact predictions are a requirement in science.

[thinking]

I'm late in this thread but

Aether....

The universe started with 1 matter, and 1 Anti-matter. they couldn't actually move, but could apply forces that would expand, and shrink them. They repel each other through a number of stages, but trapped without a map to move on. So they squash tighter, and tighter. Eventually, an anti-matter is squashed into matter. This creates the first stage. I need a computer program to go through all of these stages.

Aether then is a substance in space

[phlogistician]

you did however include perpetual motion as soon as you used the word gravity,

You seem confused. Gravity is a force. Forces can act on things to make them move, but they are not themselves motion.

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm late in this thread but



Aether then is a substance in space

You seem confused. Gravity is a force. Forces can act on things to make them move, but they are not themselves motion.

Aether used to be part of science, and it was discarded. Aether should never have been discarded, because without it Gravity can't exist. Forces can't exist without a medium to apply force with. But you will only realise how silly Gravity currently is when you just see the difference between the current gravity model, basically none, and the model using the Aether as a form of pressure, or substance that is creating direction. The difference between the two then becomes applicable to many other situations. DNA, Photosynthesis, and Cancer are all more or less another part of the Aether model. The brain, and Conscience are forms of the Aether model. The shape of biological forms that look aerodynamic, or camouflaged are all just that way because the Aether model created their surroundings, and it created them, therefore the biological forms have things in common with their surroundings. The skull on the back of a spider isn't some sort of warning, it there because Aether uses a Hexagon Fractal, and one of them is a skull. Our human egg splits, and splits, and splits, and electrons play the part of the Veins, and any shapes that are pathways through the body. It's Aether, and electrons just basically following simple paths.

You will not understand very much without ever trying to incorporate the Aether. You don't have to make it Hexagon, that will take time to understand. But I can't see how discarding the Aether helped at all, it may have already been part of the gravity model, and somebody forgot when they discarded it.
I don't like physics without substance. A car brakes, you apply the correct physics, you use its surroundings, gravity.. you throw in a magic dust.

The difference with the Aether and creating explosions, and suns becomes more involved. If just by hunch it might be there (I say it is, but just say you say maybe) then you are taking bigger risks than you think you are. And remember it used to be part of science.

[(Q)]

Aether used to be part of science, and it was discarded.

If just by hunch it might be there (I say it is...

Rolled some dice this morning, did you?

[Pincho Paxton]

Rolled some dice this morning, did you?

I'm trying to give you your dice back. You have lost them since you got your lucky calculator. No doubt one day you will be using my science, and still scaring away disbelievers. I'm not going to get scared away, I am just going to be a bit quieter. Like realising that I have the incorrect terminology doesn't help.

[MacGyver1968]

..No doubt one day you will be using my science...

No doubt, one day, I will be starting quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys. About the same odds of your "science" ever being accepted.

[phlogistician]

Forces can't exist without a medium to apply force with.

I think you'll find electromagnetic forces are understood perfectly well, and there is no part of Maxwell's equations that require 'aether'.

Now, space has measurable qualities, permittivity and permeability;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/5...203e3bbbb9.png

Is the concept you are struggling with?

[(Q)]

No doubt one day you will be using my science

Will it get printed on toilet paper?

I have the incorrect terminology

Amongst many other in-corrections, yes.