Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213
Results 241 to 247 of 247

Thread: I have solved the theory of Everything

  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Guest254 View Post
    Ah, so you have no physical theory whatsoever. How disappointing.
    What's a physical theory? Your model uses a Vacuum which is less physical than anything that I could come up with.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    Absorbs means what? Passed to the electron?
    Photons can be absorbed or emitted by any charged particle but in the vast majority of cases its the electron, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    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?
    It's a quantised oscillation in a field. It's localised in space but has well defined Fourier modes. People think of 'particle' as being like a little ball and so quantum objects are 'either' a little ball or a ripple in something. When a physicist says 'particle' he means a quantised oscillation in a field, it's just easier to say 'particle', even though he doesn't literally mean particle (as you would mean for 'a particle of dust'). Such an object is localised in space, just as a tiny ball would be but also has diffraction properties and wavelengths, as you'd expect from a wave. The vast majority of the "OMG, is it a particle or a wave!?!" issues arise from the mismatch in the layman understanding of quantum mechanics and the technical understanding of quantum mechanics. And you fail to have any understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    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.
    The colour our eyes see is determined by the frequency of the photon. Its immaterial how that frequency photon is produced, our eyes are basically frequency measurer, just like our ears are. Except our eyes detect electromagnetic radiation, not sound radiation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    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.
    It's not that 'we say they don't', we see that they don't. This is what I commented about you, you ignore experiments! Red light moves at the same speed as blue light. X rays move at the same speed as radio waves. This isn't assumed or guessed, its a very very carefully measured experimental fact. This is you cheating. You don't know, so you guess. You don't listen, so you ignore. You don't want truth, you want people to listen to you. Unfortunately nothing you say is of worth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    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...
    Well done, you've just shown you have a fundamental ignorance of several areas of physics, including the basic history of it. Aether was thrown away when it was found no theory which involved it could describe nature as well as a theory without it, relativity. Nature said "That isn't how I work". Dark matter came from Nature saying "Look, there's something here you can't see which is having an effect". It wasn't someone randomly guessing in an office with a bit of paper, it was done by experiments. I'm amazing you don't see the hypocrisy. You're someone who knows nothing about experiments yet you're hypothesising the existence of a material which not only isn't suggested by experiment but which has largely been excluded by experiment and yet you try to criticise dark matter?!

    And the Higgs boson and dark matter have nothing to do with one another. They are looking for both for different reasons. You can't even read Wikipedia properly!

    And you utterly failed to answer my question :

    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.

    You claim physicists are burnt out minds but you have given absolutely no reason to think you're any better. No justification, no reasoning, certainly no results or experimental justification. You know the computer you're currently staring at? Built using quantum mechanics. Own a GPS navigation system? Built using general relativity. Quantifiable results. If that's the product of burnt out minds then the inside of your skull must have been nuked.

  3. #243
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    What's a physical theory? Your model uses a Vacuum which is less physical than anything that I could come up with.
    A physical theory would be one which accurately describes the physical universe, but I think you knew that. I'm guessing you're just some chap starved of attention, and this is your way of getting it.

    Good luck.

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    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
    Concepts such as temperature do not apply before the Big Bang. There was no 'Universe' before the Big Bang. Your thought processes are flawed. Please try again.

    Start with a void. imagine that first.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    Photons can be absorbed or emitted by any charged particle but in the vast majority of cases its the electron, yes.

    It's a quantised oscillation in a field. It's localised in space but has well defined Fourier modes. People think of 'particle' as being like a little ball and so quantum objects are 'either' a little ball or a ripple in something. When a physicist says 'particle' he means a quantised oscillation in a field, it's just easier to say 'particle', even though he doesn't literally mean particle (as you would mean for 'a particle of dust'). Such an object is localised in space, just as a tiny ball would be but also has diffraction properties and wavelengths, as you'd expect from a wave. The vast majority of the "OMG, is it a particle or a wave!?!" issues arise from the mismatch in the layman understanding of quantum mechanics and the technical understanding of quantum mechanics. And you fail to have any understanding.

    The colour our eyes see is determined by the frequency of the photon. Its immaterial how that frequency photon is produced, our eyes are basically frequency measurer, just like our ears are. Except our eyes detect electromagnetic radiation, not sound radiation.

    It's not that 'we say they don't', we see that they don't. This is what I commented about you, you ignore experiments! Red light moves at the same speed as blue light. X rays move at the same speed as radio waves. This isn't assumed or guessed, its a very very carefully measured experimental fact. This is you cheating. You don't know, so you guess. You don't listen, so you ignore. You don't want truth, you want people to listen to you. Unfortunately nothing you say is of worth.

    Well done, you've just shown you have a fundamental ignorance of several areas of physics, including the basic history of it. Aether was thrown away when it was found no theory which involved it could describe nature as well as a theory without it, relativity. Nature said "That isn't how I work". Dark matter came from Nature saying "Look, there's something here you can't see which is having an effect". It wasn't someone randomly guessing in an office with a bit of paper, it was done by experiments. I'm amazing you don't see the hypocrisy. You're someone who knows nothing about experiments yet you're hypothesising the existence of a material which not only isn't suggested by experiment but which has largely been excluded by experiment and yet you try to criticise dark matter?!

    And the Higgs boson and dark matter have nothing to do with one another. They are looking for both for different reasons. You can't even read Wikipedia properly!

    And you utterly failed to answer my question :

    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.

    You claim physicists are burnt out minds but you have given absolutely no reason to think you're any better. No justification, no reasoning, certainly no results or experimental justification. You know the computer you're currently staring at? Built using quantum mechanics. Own a GPS navigation system? Built using general relativity. Quantifiable results. If that's the product of burnt out minds then the inside of your skull must have been nuked.
    It's better to apply the Aether because it reduces your model quite a lot. That's why my guesses are better than your educated guesses.

    So now we have the model for the Aether, and the Photon, and the Electron to produce colour. The model that you need is vibration. It's a simple as that. Photon, and electron produce a vibration through the Aether Membrane, and that vibration is colour information. Heat produces electron discharges into the Aether Membrane, and that vibration is colour information. The reason that white paint isn't hot is because the colour vibrations are there, but the Atom vibrations aren't happening. Atoms in the Aether nucleus do not vibrate the Aether membrane, only firing electrons into the membrane produce colour.

    Now that we have that, we know that the two slit experiment is caused by the electrons firing into the Aether membrane, causing a vibration which is knocking the Photons off course when unobserved. We know that the observer is vibrating the Aether Membrane which reduces the vibration in other directions to the photosensitive paper.

    We can use this model to work with electrons in many other areas. So a theory would be that cancer is caused by an electron virating a message into the Aether membrane.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    It's better to apply the Aether because it reduces your model quite a lot. That's why my guesses are better than your educated guesses.
    How does it reduce anything? It doesn't produce any models, any results, any derivations, any predictions which aren't just postulates. It does nothing.

    And besides, you still don't justify why your guesses about aether are better than other people's guesses about aether. You just don't get it, do you? You have nothing to support you so there's no reason to think you are 'the one to provide a theory of everything' compared to anyone else who has ranted about aether. You're not the first person to talk about aether, infact you're obviously not thinking the concept up for yourself. Why are you succeeding where others have failed? People who knew a lot of maths tried fr decades to get an aether model which could model how the uniuverse behaves. They all failed. You're not even managing as well as they did. You can't even provide any details.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    o now we have the model for the Aether, and the Photon, and the Electron to produce colour.
    So you can give me the differential cross section for electron-electron scattering then?

    Oh, of course you can't because you think half a paragraph of waffle is 'a model'. A 'model' is one which allows you TO MODEL something. For instance, Maxwell's electromagnetism lets me model how electromagnetic fields behave. Navier-Stokes equations allow aeroplanes to be designed because people can MODEL (ie accurately predict) how air flows over different shapes. Nothing you have said provides anyone with any ability to model anything. Buy a sodding dictionary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    The model that you need is vibration. It's a simple as that. Photon, and electron produce a vibration through the Aether Membrane, and that vibration is colour information. Heat produces electron discharges into the Aether Membrane, and that vibration is colour information. The reason that white paint isn't hot is because the colour vibrations are there, but the Atom vibrations aren't happening. Atoms in the Aether nucleus do not vibrate the Aether membrane, only firing electrons into the membrane produce colour.
    So if it's 'that simple' you can derive the black body spectrum then?

    Or is that another thing your theory of 'everything' doesn't manage to do. When you buy that dictionary look up what 'everything' means, after you look up 'model'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    Now that we have that, we know that the two slit experiment is caused by the electrons firing into the Aether membrane, causing a vibration which is knocking the Photons off course when unobserved. We know that the observer is vibrating the Aether Membrane which reduces the vibration in other directions to the photosensitive paper.
    How do you 'know' when you haven't done a single experiment to justify anything you just said. We 'know' there's an aether before you say so? I'm sorry but when did you become for Voice of God and he start telling you how he went about making the universe?

    Do you honestly think your random guesses are 'truth'? Are you that delusional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    e can use this model to work with electrons in many other areas
    So you can give me the differential cross section of electron-electron scattering then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    So a theory would be that cancer is caused by an electron virating a message into the Aether membrane.
    Wow, no wonder you call yourself 'an artist', you're obviously so ****ing wacko crazy you couldn't get a real job so you delude yourself into thinking your random guesses are 'art'. Cancer is a cluster of cells growing in a way they shouldn't which grows aggressively, spreads and out competes other cells, till the organism dies. Go ask a medic. You've passed out of the realm of crank nut into the realm of medical quack. Trying to convince people you've got a theory of everything doesn't harm people's health. Telling them you have medical knowledge when you're wacko is dangerous.

    And learn what 'theory' means in science. A theory is a predictive model which have been verified by experimental. You don't have a predictive model, you don't even have a model. You have nothing.

    Before I thought you were a little out of touch. Now I think you need therapy and medication. See a therapist.

  7. #247
    http://sciforums.stryderunknown.co.uk/images/woowoo.png

    As you might notice this new icon/image is going to come in quite handy, although most posters here will learn to dread it, as currently it's getting used on the Closing post of the threads.

    Pincho, you really should consider that what your brain is doing is creating giant leaps of faith based upon your own misinterpretation of reality. Each of those leaps is like a line drawn between dots on a giant dot to dot picture. Obviously you might well see some giant picture before you but to the rest of us it's just pseudo-random blurts of non-logical intangibility.... or Woo-woo crack talk as some might call it.

    I would suggest to not think so hard in the future. thread closed.

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
  •