Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 247

Thread: I have solved the theory of Everything

  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    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.
    pincho

    it would be better and people would be more willing to listen to you , if the insults were , well , less insulting to us

    there are some very bright people here

    genius tends to be , at times , self defeating

  2. #222
    It's slightly poetic, the fun in science is Eureka, the fun in Eureka is told you so, the fun in told you so is the rise of the fallen. The more I fall the better.

    But really, there has to be more to do than sit around. I've never seen the two slit experiment in real life. Just some drawings. I know what happens, but how many of you have seen the Aether wind test? How many of you think that there has to be an Aether wind?

    If the Aether is part of Gravity, and gravity is a constant, why wouldn't the Aether be a constant? It is a bit different though, temperature does something to it. I can't quite grasp what it does. Melts it to less frozen, but still frozen? This is where I struggle. I originally had it shrinking from cold, that works really well, it pulls out the snowflakes down to Bose-Einstein. But then the observer has a different effect surely. Hot air rises... hot observed air rises faster? Tiny fractions are hard to figure.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 11-09-09 at 06:04 PM.

  3. #223
    If you have found the answer to everything, than answer these using your theory,

    Why does my ass itch?

    Why do I get sick?

    How many molecules make up my body?

    What will I be when I grow up?

    You see, your theory of everything doesnt answer squat.

  4. #224
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    It's slightly poetic, the fun in science is Eureka, the fun in Eureka is told you so,
    Been there. Done that.

    So I speak from personal experience. And I strongly disagree.

    You got the first part right. The fun in science IS Eureka.

    You have obviously never done the second part. UH has. The fun in Eureka has absolutely nothing to do with "I " told you so. The fun in Eureka has EVERYTHING to do with "I'LL BE (EXPLETED DELETED)! So THAT"S how the universe really works!

  5. #225
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    383
    So far I have identified Maxwell's 1860s theory of electromagnetic force being identified with circular vortexes in Aether. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But first it was Maxwell's eureka way back when.

    And I have identified, tentatively, a Salvador Dali painting from late '40s or early '50s depicting images derived from Quantum Physics and having strong geometric motif. A knife and a cauliflower in foreground, sea with wave ripples in background. Can't remember name of art. Reminds me of hex geometry.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    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.
    None of which poetry answers the questions I asked of you. Try again.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by phlogistician View Post
    None of which poetry answers the questions I asked of you. Try again.
    As far as I can tell at this stage without experiments, well I have two possibilities. And the possibilities stem from either the Universe was very cold just before the Big Bang which the has the Aether as a super slippery substance, or the Aether has spin, and creates centrifugal forces which combined with diameter slingshot the photons into a wave. I prefer the spin method. So Imagine the Aether as connected cogs, and the slingshot effecting plasma at small scale. The only problem with this image is that colours would change with heat, and I am still confused by that. I know that cold turns things white, and hot turns things black, that is great, but I can't understand the missing spectrum through paint variations. That should be there, but isn't. Maybe because paint is locked in place? It's my lack of knowledge on the subject. Also the spin direction is a bit spooky.. I get cross spins which my mind can't handle. Cross spins work much better with the super slippery substance. Anyway, both come down to heat, and slide.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 11-10-09 at 10:47 AM.

  8. #228
    Jesus, I go for two days and the prat returns.

    Obviously a few days reflection did you no good PP.

    . I know that cold turns things white, and hot turns things black
    Wrong. Cold things are black. Black is the absence of light, an object is black if it isn't radiating any light. An object radiates light dependent upon its temperature. A perfectly black object is one which emits no light and is thus at absolute zero. When you heat metal in a fire have you not seen it get red hot, then white hot? Arc welders have to wear visors not because of heat but because the ultra hot arc which they weld with gives off UV radiation which would make them go blind (welder's blindness, look it up). Ultra hot material gives off X rays and gamma rays.

    This is stuff high school students know. It's not even complicated. Have you never heard of 'white hot'? You probably mistake burnt for hot. Burnt things are black because of their high carbon content. A lot of material which is burnt isn't black. Magnesium ash (MgO) is grey. This is high school chemistry or physics. You don't even grasp enough to pass a GED exam, never mind the complexities of particle physics!

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    Jesus, I go for two days and the prat returns.

    Obviously a few days reflection did you no good PP.



    Wrong. Cold things are black. Black is the absence of light, an object is black if it isn't radiating any light. An object radiates light dependent upon its temperature. A perfectly black object is one which emits no light and is thus at absolute zero. When you heat metal in a fire have you not seen it get red hot, then white hot? Arc welders have to wear visors not because of heat but because the ultra hot arc which they weld with gives off UV radiation which would make them go blind (welder's blindness, look it up). Ultra hot material gives off X rays and gamma rays.

    This is stuff high school students know. It's not even complicated. Have you never heard of 'white hot'? You probably mistake burnt for hot. Burnt things are black because of their high carbon content. A lot of material which is burnt isn't black. Magnesium ash (MgO) is grey. This is high school chemistry or physics. You don't even grasp enough to pass a GED exam, never mind the complexities of particle physics!
    Yeah but you have to combine that plasma colour with matter colour, which I am struggling with. I don't see why eyes would identify two different types of colour, so there can only be one, and that's what I struggle with. White paint is not hot, hot plasma is white, I can't find the one identifying factor. Maybe size? Maybe spin speed, maybe friction? everything has to be correlated with the Aether. In other words I don't want to cheat.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 11-10-09 at 11:58 AM.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    In other words I don't want to cheat.
    All you're doing is cheating. You make things up without having the first clue about physics, you guess as to the results of experiments or the behaviour of systems, you ignore any and all corrections from people who know more than you.

    But more of all you're cheating yourself. You don't seem to accept the fact you're deluded. Do you honestly think you have divine knowledge? Explain how you are the one to 'solve everything' when you know nothing of anything. Go on, justify why your random guesses are better than anyone elses.

  11. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    All you're doing is cheating. You make things up without having the first clue about physics, you guess as to the results of experiments or the behaviour of systems, you ignore any and all corrections from people who know more than you.

    But more of all you're cheating yourself. You don't seem to accept the fact you're deluded. Do you honestly think you have divine knowledge? Explain how you are the one to 'solve everything' when you know nothing of anything. Go on, justify why your random guesses are better than anyone elses.
    I think currently that you have a particle that turns into a wave at will, and you get your colours from that. like I said... I'M not cheating. Obviously the Aether is the wave, and the Photon is the particle, but what swings a particle around in a zig-zag pattern? And that is centrifugal force, and what creates centrifugal force?, and that is spin, or a slippery surface of varying degrees of slide. But then you don't get slippery white paint, you don't get hot white paint. the only other element is the electron. Maybe the electron is the return journey. If the electron has a fixed speed in the Atom, and that creates colour then the electron is not the heat in an atom. It all needs to factor out. Speed... spin..heat...size... force. You see, there isn't much guessing to do, there cannot be many factors, and only one will work with other things combined. Once that is figured out, you know what is happening in the two slit experiment to a new level.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 11-10-09 at 12:49 PM.

  12. #232
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,054
    There's always a simple resolution to these "I've got a theory of everything" type claims. Please provide us with the perihelion advance of Mercury, according to your theory.

    If you can't do this, then it's not a theory of everything.
    If you can't predict a quantitative outcome of any experiment, then it's not a physical theory of anything.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    I think currently that you have a particle that turns into a wave at will, and you get your colours from that.
    No, I get 'my colours' from basic thermodynamics and emission spectra. Don't need any quantum mechanics for that. Put a poker in a hot fire. It'll turn red, then yellow then white.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    like I said... I'M not cheating. Obviously the Aether is the wave,
    You're not cheating, you're just making random guesses about substances which have no experimental evidence for their existence. No, that's not cheating at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    but what swings a particle around in a zig-zag pattern? And that is centrifugal force, and what creates centrifugal force?, and that is spin, or a slippery surface of varying degrees of slide. But then you don't get slippery white paint, you don't get hot white paint. the only other element is the electron. Maybe the electron is the return journey. If the electron has a fixed speed in the Atom, and that creates colour then the electron is not the heat in an atom. It all needs to factor out. Speed... spin..heat...size... force. You see, there isn't much guessing to do, there cannot be many factors, and only one will work with other things combined. Once that is figured out, you know what is happening in the two slit experiment to a new level.
    Seriously, are you high? I can't believe a sober rational person can type such crap and believe it is anything other than incoherent nonsense. I really do hope you're on some kind of substance because the alternative is you're a delusional ignorant fool.

    You claim to have 'the theory of everything' yet you talk in vagueness, avoiding any and all direct questions. Not one thing in nature can you accurately describe. You try to lecture me on how to view wave-particle duality but you know nothing of the experiments which relate to such ideas. You know nothing of the ideas physicists have used to describe such things. 30 seconds spent on Wikipedia doesn't teach you understanding (I wish it did), it only serves to delude you into thinking you understand.

    You still haven't explained why you supposedly have a magical insight into a universe you know nothing about, while you're so sure everyone else got it wrong. Being an artist doesn't make you unique. Why is your ignorance better than knowledge? Why are your guesses (and they are guesses, make no mistake about that), somehow better than the informed ideas made by the people who actually know about physics and do the experiments? You've never done any spectroscopy yet you're lecturing me on it. Why should I listen to you and not professors? What evidence do you have you're worth listening to? All you have is "Because I say so". Physicists have "Because I correctly predicted the outcome of these 50 experiments".

  14. #234
    No, I get 'my colours' from basic thermodynamics and emission spectra. Don't need any quantum mechanics for that. Put a poker in a hot fire. It'll turn red, then yellow then white.
    So you have white hot white paint?

    You claim to have 'the theory of everything' yet you talk in vagueness, avoiding any and all direct questions. Not one thing in nature can you accurately describe. You try to lecture me on how to view wave-particle duality but you know nothing of the experiments which relate to such ideas. You know nothing of the ideas physicists have used to describe such things. 30 seconds spent on Wikipedia doesn't teach you understanding (I wish it did), it only serves to delude you into thinking you understand.
    So you have particles that interfere with themselves?

    Like I said.. avoid science, and start from scratch.

  15. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by Guest254 View Post
    There's always a simple resolution to these "I've got a theory of everything" type claims. Please provide us with the perihelion advance of Mercury, according to your theory.

    If you can't do this, then it's not a theory of everything.
    If you can't predict a quantitative outcome of any experiment, then it's not a physical theory of anything.
    I wouldn't know without guessing, so it would be silly. My guess would be that Mercury is rubbing against a huge Aether membrane near to the sun. Which I did mention earlier in the thread. It ties in with the smooth plains, and the magnetic field, but what's the good of guessing? I would sooner concentrate on things happening on our planet.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    So you have white hot white paint?
    You talked about colours and temperature. Hence I talked about emission spectra. If you're talking about paint, why are you talking about temperature? The colour of paint is nothing to do with thermal properties, its to do with absorption properties. A red object is red because when you shine white light on it is absorbs all colours other than red. Red paint is red because of the chemicals in the paint. Chlorophyll in plants is green because it absorbs all other colours. Then when you get to Autumn that chemical degrades and the remaining chemicals are those which don't absorb red or brown. Hence the changing colours of leaves. It's purely chemical. Temperatures are something else entirely. Red paint is only seen to be red because you illuminate it with light in order to see it. A red hot poker doesn't need to have a light shone on it, it emits red light by its temperature.

    Your complete lack of understanding once again leads to problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    Like I said.. avoid science, and start from scratch.
    So you think it's wiser to have complete ignorance?

    You still haven't explained/justified why you are somehow the font of all knowledge. Why are you worth listening to, rather than any other random stoner?

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    I wouldn't know without guessing, so it would be silly. My guess
    So you know guessing is silly, yet you do it anyway.

    Again, why are your guesses somehow better or more accurate or more correct than the guesses of anyone else? Particularly the educated guesses of people who didn't spent their high school science classes sniffing the gas taps.

  18. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    You talked about colours and temperature. Hence I talked about emission spectra. If you're talking about paint, why are you talking about temperature? The colour of paint is nothing to do with thermal properties, its to do with absorption properties. A red object is red because when you shine white light on it is absorbs all colours other than red. Red paint is red because of the chemicals in the paint. Chlorophyll in plants is green because it absorbs all other colours. Then when you get to Autumn that chemical degrades and the remaining chemicals are those which don't absorb red or brown. Hence the changing colours of leaves. It's purely chemical. Temperatures are something else entirely. Red paint is only seen to be red because you illuminate it with light in order to see it. A red hot poker doesn't need to have a light shone on it, it emits red light by its temperature.

    Your complete lack of understanding once again leads to problems.

    So you think it's wiser to have complete ignorance?

    You still haven't explained/justified why you are somehow the font of all knowledge. Why are you worth listening to, rather than any other random stoner?
    Absorbs means what? Passed to the electron? Are you talking about a particle, or a wave? or are you still happy for a particle to pass some energy somewhere, and then come back as a wave? Why does the Photon's waveform change its shape into that of a colour when it returns? Why do our eyes understand two types of colour, heat transmission, and photon energy absorption? Basically I think you have photons changing speed, but you say that they don't. I need this absorption in more detail, and it has to be with a particle, and no wave. No magic allowed.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    So you know guessing is silly, yet you do it anyway.

    Again, why are your guesses somehow better or more accurate or more correct than the guesses of anyone else? Particularly the educated guesses of people who didn't spent their high school science classes sniffing the gas taps.
    Well I think that some of your theories do come from burned out minds. Once your scientists decided to throw away the Aether, they did sort of start making things up. Now they are looking for Dark Matter. If something else doesn't work they will start looking for the Higgs Boson, if that doesn't work they will alter maths to make it work. Then you will all be happy that your science cannot be argued with. but so far...

    Photons interfere with themselves. Photons are both waves, and particles. Quantum Physics is a mysterious world that doesn't need to make sense. Gravity is an equation. Space is a Vacuum. The Big Bang managed to reverse particles into a spin to create planets. Colours are both heat, and absorption from a particle that is also a wave. Hot air rises because it is hot. Magnets are a mathematical formula. The speed of light is a constant because it is. People travelling in opposite directions are time travellers.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 11-10-09 at 03:01 PM.

  20. #240
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    I wouldn't know without guessing, so it would be silly. My guess would be that Mercury is rubbing against a huge Aether membrane near to the sun. Which I did mention earlier in the thread. It ties in with the smooth plains, and the magnetic field, but what's the good of guessing? I would sooner concentrate on things happening on our planet.
    Ah, so you have no physical theory whatsoever. How disappointing.

Similar Threads

  1. By Kovak in forum Eastern Philosophy
    Last Post: 07-16-13, 05:56 PM
    Replies: 24
  2. By Reiku in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 11-22-07, 03:30 PM
    Replies: 36
  3. By Reiku in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 10-20-07, 03:34 PM
    Replies: 0
  4. By BenTheMan in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 01-25-07, 09:29 AM
    Replies: 25
  5. By HiLe in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 11-11-06, 01:11 PM
    Replies: 29

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •