# Thread: I have solved the theory of Everything

1. Originally Posted by phlogistician
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;

Is the concept you are struggling with?
I am suggesting that you think of this permeability like this...

You put a plug in a sink, and turn the tap on. When the sink is full, you pull the plug out, and then turn the tap on faster until the water is stationary. That is your equation. However, turn down the tap, or make the plug hole bigger, and you equation changes unless you can equal out the pressure again. My suggestion is that space has a pressure valve, and a black hole is the plug hole, and a sun is a tap. The pressures are equal, and gravity is a constant, but doesn't have to be. It can get messed up.

2. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
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.
Gravity remains a mystery. Aether was believed to be a medium for propagation of light not gravity.

3. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
I am suggesting that you think of this permeability like this...

You put a plug in a sink, and turn the tap on. When the sink is full, you pull the plug out, and then turn the tap on faster until the water is stationary. That is your equation. However, turn down the tap, or make the plug hole bigger, and you equation changes unless you can equal out the pressure again. My suggestion is that space has a pressure valve, and a black hole is the plug hole, and a sun is a tap. The pressures are equal, and gravity is a constant, but doesn't have to be. It can get messed up.
What a crap analogy.

Anyway, can your 'black hole at the centre of the Sun' explain the difference in spectra of 1st and 2nd generation stars, and explain supernovae, and how matter escaped from your proposed black hole?

4. Originally Posted by phlogistician
What a crap analogy.

Anyway, can your 'black hole at the centre of the Sun' explain the difference in spectra of 1st and 2nd generation stars, and explain supernovae, and how matter escaped from your proposed black hole?
I have two way black holes, not 1 way. If they are simply a coordinate system, a part of space with a single coordinate, a single Aether which passes substance from 1 place to the next, then that is what I have in my model. So a black hole would just be 1 huge location, made from no other points. Light would just skip across in 1 beat. Your 1st, and 2nd generation stars, and supernovae are just part of a model with varying scales of adjustment. Whirlpools of varying degree, torrents of varying degree. And I have space in a loop wrapped around itself, like any body would have to wrap around its nearest neighbour if its other option was to force outwards in a direction with more weight to it. So materials end up back at the beginning, but this time they are more adapted from their collisions.

5. Originally Posted by anuraganimax
Gravity remains a mystery. Aether was believed to be a medium for propagation of light not gravity.
A propagator of everything, as space is a presumed vacuum only Aether is left to propagate everything.

6. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
A propagator of everything, as space is a presumed vacuum only Aether is left to propagate everything.
Space has no properties whatsoever. To that I will agree...

7. Originally Posted by anuraganimax
Space has no properties whatsoever. To that I will agree...
And what would you use to find the property of properties? It's not easy to find something that all materials use. Like a fish doesn't really want to see water, else that would be detrimental to its ability to see, we don't really want to see the Aether, else our instruments don't work. It's a difficult problem. And forget about the Aether wind, there isn't a wind. It's more like Ice skating, you speed up on the ice, but don't get an ice wind.

8. Oh, come on: who is this really? This is great stuff. Send me a PM; I swear never to say a word.

9. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
we don't really want to see the Aether, else our instruments don't work. It's a difficult problem.
How so?

10. Originally Posted by anuraganimax
How so?
Well the two slit experiment identifies it with the photon exchanges, that's one way, but being as that is old news, the only other methods all require no interference with the Aether, so no observer as the observer's electrons mess up the pattern. I mean, maybe try deliberately messing up the pattern, but in a way that determines which way you can turn the photons. Some sort of Aether path making system.

Yes, simple.. make them go to the left or the right by disrupting the path at the opposite sides.

11. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Well the two slit experiment identifies it with the photon exchanges, that's one way, but being as that is old news, the only other methods all require no interference with the Aether, so no observer as the observer's electrons mess up the pattern. I mean, maybe try deliberately messing up the pattern, but in a way that determines which way you can turn the photons. Some sort of Aether path making system.
But if I remember correctly I read somewhere in your post that photons don't exist....

12. Originally Posted by anuraganimax
But if I remember correctly I read somewhere in your post that photons don't exist....
We will stick with them for this experiment. Even if they are electrons it still means that the test is valid. I mean I have also left out the Hexagon shape of the Aether for now.

simply.. make them go to the left or the right by disrupting the path at the opposite sides with earlier photon emissions.

13. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
We will stick with them for this experiment. Even if they are electrons it still means that the test is valid.

simply.. make them go to the left or the right by disrupting the path at the opposite sides with earlier photon emissions.
There is an old experiment which scientists use to rubbish the theory of aether. It is called Michelson Morley experiment performed in 1887. Why don't you start by disproving it first?

14. Originally Posted by anuraganimax
There is an old experiment which scientists use to rubbish the theory of aether. It is called Michelson Morley experiment performed in 1887. Why don't you start by disproving it first?
Well for example, did it detect the moon overhead? I mean if it can't detect gravity is it any use? The Earth is meant to be in spin from a stable force, not a force that rotates around. Then you have to also be careful of electrons, what was the apparatus that the readings were taken from? Was there an observer? To add to this, I also have the possibility that Photons take the fastest route through the MEMBRANE of the aether, and atoms through the NUCLEUS of the Aether, which might also effect the test. Think of our veins, and our brain pathways. They are through the membrane of our body, and our fat, and skin are the Nucleus. Our spinal chord is the membrane of two hexagons, our arms, and legs complete the hexagon. The zig-zag of lightening, the veins, all outlines of the Aether, not blobs through the centre. The two halves of our brain, left, and right, the two sides of electrons, left, and right.

15. OK Pincho, who are you a sock puppet for? No one is this dumb and still allowed access to a computer.

16. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
OK Pincho, who are you a sock puppet for? No one is this dumb and still allowed access to a computer.
Well I'll tell you what, when I can predict the outcome of new experiments 1 a week, I'll see how many you are predicting. Like what's cancer?

17. “ Originally Posted by thinking
I'm late in this thread but

Aether then is a substance in space ”
“ Originally Posted by phlogistician
You seem confused. Gravity is a force. Forces can act on things to make them move, but they are not themselves motion.

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
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.
agreed

18. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
OK Pincho, who are you a sock puppet for? No one is this dumb and still allowed access to a computer.
Seconded. Come on, fess up. I promise to maintain your privacy.

19. A genius is dumb until proven right, dumb people can't prove a genius right, the genius cannot just say that he is right, so it takes another genius to prove that he is right. How many members does it take to prove a genius right? That number whittles down to the few, and then to the 1. It takes 6 billion dumb people to make a genius.

No that's a bit cruel, you are all better than me in many areas, I am only a genius in my ability to understand nature at a visual level. I wouldn't really say genius either, but I seem to be just singular at the moment.

20. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
I seem to be just singular at the moment.
You are successfully attaining your goal. Keep at it! Don't ever lose sight of your navel.