# Thread: I have solved the theory of Everything

1. I have thousands of thing to add, but first I have to prove that the Aether is there. Then I have to explain how it is built, then post my 3D model, and explain why you can't interact with it very physically. Then we move forward to everything else. Then I will explain how to build things with it. Then we can maybe get some people involved with it. It applies to everything so.. DNA research, cancer research, space, microscopes, television, I never know from day to day what I have time to add my theory to. Today I was looking into DNA, and I knew what was happening, but the words they used were so confusing. So I need people in different fields to work with in the end.

2. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
How about if I were to get lots of photos of woodlands, and add hexagon grids to them, and demonstrate that when perspective is equal to all trees in a row, their branches will all fit in the centre of hexagons?

If I did this, and got a percentage like 100% would that be the right way to prove it.
No. Please show the aether exists.

3. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Like I said I expect this. Till you go... Oh WOW! later.
No, we won't go WOW later. Expect it.

4. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
I have to prove that the Aether is there.
Go with that first. We'll be waiting.

5. Originally Posted by (Q)
No. Please show the aether exists.
What you mean things can grow in regular patterns from a distance without Aether? Like apples on a tree? Or Galaxies.

So what else can I try?

6. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
So what else can I try?
Try showing that the aether exists.

7. Well that initial NASA picture was supposed to be used as proof of Dark Matter, but they couldn't find it. they asked if anyone else could find a pattern in it. If NASA were going to use it as a way to find Dark Matter why can't I?

8. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
If NASA were going to use it as a way to find Dark Matter why can't I?
This is just a guess. Is it because you are an ignorant, deluded, uneducated git? If I am correct what prize do I get?

9. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
This is just a guess. Is it because you are an ignorant, deluded, uneducated git? If I am correct what prize do I get?
Well maybe NASA wanted somebody to find a pattern, and tell them about it. Maybe I should just post them the picture?

10. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
This is just a guess. Is it because you are an ignorant, deluded, uneducated git? If I am correct what prize do I get?
Well...you get the satisfaction of being right...

and he gets one of these:

It's like the woo-of the month award at JREF's forums.

11. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
This is just a guess. Is it because you are an ignorant, deluded, uneducated git?

That might be a little harsh. His/her opening post and general behaviour is a textbook example of bi-polar disorder.

12. I'm not bi-polar I just forgot that it was a simulator. It's not my fault that I forgot. NASA confused me with that question "Can you see a pattern in it?" That would confuse most people. I just don't know where to find proof. I just think that snowflake formation works with Aether, and Gravity. The gaseous form would be very easily moulded by it, and my simulation worked.

13. Hi Pincho,

It's great to hear you have a theory of everything. I have a few questions:

1. Please show me how you can derive the mass of an electron using your theory.
2. Please show me how your theory predicts the emission spectrum of hydrogen (let's do the easiest atom first).
3. Please tell me how your theory explains Compton scattering of light.
4. Please explain to me why, if electrons play the part of photons, photons are not deflected in the presence of a magnetic or electric field.
5. Please show me how to derive the ideal gas law PV=nRT using your ether theory (from first principles).
6. Under what specific conditions (e.g. particle density, de Broglie wavelength) does your aether theory predict that Bose-Einstein condensation will occur?
7. Please explain why the Sun is not sucked into the black hole that it surrounds.
8. What is 2+3-5? Please explain.

14. Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller
That might be a little harsh.
The Trite Response: I was aiming for harsh. It's what I do.
The egocentric response:Am I meant to sacrifice my mental wellbeing to mollycoddle someone elses?
The Insensitive Response:You obviously mistook me for someone who gives a damn.
The Forum-Monkey Response:Heh, no one takes all of this online stuff seriously. We're all alter egos here.
The Considered Response:The OP may be capable of recognising the disjointed and illogical character of their post. This will only occur if they reflect on what they have written. There is a small but finite chance that a brazen insult may shock them into reconsidering their writing and their idea. It's worth a try.

15. Originally Posted by James R
Hi Pincho,

It's great to hear you have a theory of everything. I have a few questions:

1. Please show me how you can derive the mass of an electron using your theory.
2. Please show me how your theory predicts the emission spectrum of hydrogen (let's do the easiest atom first).
3. Please tell me how your theory explains Compton scattering of light.
4. Please explain to me why, if electrons play the part of photons, photons are not deflected in the presence of a magnetic or electric field.
5. Please show me how to derive the ideal gas law PV=nRT using your ether theory (from first principles).
6. Under what specific conditions (e.g. particle density, de Broglie wavelength) does your aether theory predict that Bose-Einstein condensation will occur?
7. Please explain why the Sun is not sucked into the black hole that it surrounds.
8. What is 2+3-5? Please explain.
Yes, I see what you mean, I can't get most of those answers without working out exact spin speeds, and Aether size. And the task is incredibly difficult with Aether as it is a spooky substance. This is unfortunate really, because Aether is applicable to so many things on faith, as an alternate science. I feel that science will be holding itself back for a long time if it doesn't just accept that a computer model works in reality. I'm just an artist, and a bit of a programmer, the best I can do is make computer simulations with speeds based of Snowflake sizes at exact temperatures, and size of Aether at those temperatures. Colour is the spin speed - distance. I guess there needs to be a lot of work done on it. I was just hoping that somebody might want something new to try out.

16. So you haven't solved the theory of everything then? Why the lie in the thread title?

17. Please paxton continue,anything beside theistic bs is worth of being heard.Am really curious but so far ur proofs are not based in anything solid but by all means proceed and continue the explaining.Btw whats ur age?
I'll agree with one thing tho,time doesnt exists or in other words its relative although u dont support the Relativity.

18. Where is the axis of spin (of the aether) located?

19. What I will do is explain the universe, I think I can explain most of it, and where we came from. I find it interesting as I am writing it, because I never put the whole thing together before. So I will post this paper soon.

I'm 46.

20. How do you determine if it's spinning? Something the size of the universe spinning would appear to be linear movement at the local level.