Black Holes are in the theory of everything.

Ah but you see that would be the problem. A Genius as you put it would likely see what you are convinced about or trying to explain as "prattle" (no offense), this is because you and the Genius at hand would require a very basic fundemental, the ability to communicate.

If what you communicate or attempt to communicate seems nonsense and goes against the reasoning of the Genius, I'm pretty sure he'd somewhat become annoyed at having to "Tutor" you. I guess you can say they wouldn't want to waste precious time tutoring a "noob" when they could work with people already trained in an area doing what they know how to do.

Now if you were to suggest this Genius was a Tutor, like how Schrodinger was to Heisenberg, it would be different, however this would require a relationship built up over an academic spell where it's not just about tuition but on-going research that all parties are involved in. Unfortunately for you (And many others like you) without qualifications or the attempt to qualify, such opportunities will not open themselves to you, so you'll forever have a unrealistic pipedream.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I love how you're trying to tell me to stop being egotistical when you claim to have all the answers which science has ever looked for and even possible cures for various illnesses. When I say "I can do a fair bit of differential geometry" I am making a statement of fact which I can back up with evidence. It's not an opinion or a "Trust me" or "I can't explain it but I can draw pictures", its a demonstrable fact. Everything you say about your work is has to be taken on faith. You keep saying I'm viewing science as a faith but this is nonsense. Every result in a textbook can be supported by evidence. Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. Believing something because of evidence is just logical.

You don't jump off tall buildings because you have evidence that such a thing will result in you falling a long way and dying. Hence why its not 'faith' to say "I believe in gravity" because its experimentally observable. On the other hand you have made claims like there's a Bose-Einstein condensate in neurons, an aether everywhere and magnets 'shine out' electrons. None of them are supported by evidence. In fact there's contradictory evidence. You have faith in your work, I have knowledge in mine.

If I said to you "There's a giant rabbit living at the centre of the Sun. His name is Fred" would you believe me? No. Why? Because its contradictory to everything we know about nature, its utterly lacking in experimental justification and there's no possible way I could know anyway. Your views are just as unjustified. Fantastic claims lacking in any rationale or justification.

I am open minded but I'm not gullible. Being open minded is saying "If you can provide some evidence I'll listen". Accepting things just because someone tells you to is not being open minded, its being gullible and naive.

Tell you what, if you send me all your money and sign over all your possessions to me I'll get you published. How's that? And if you say you don't believe me then you need to be more open minded.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Though I doubt you'll get my point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is how Gravity works...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nobody can figure this out even though it is worth billions of pounds...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you know how gravity works give me the force between two masses, of mass 1kg and 4kg at a distance of 2 metres. Assume they are spheres of radius 20cm and 93.2cm respectively.

And you can't complain about a lengthy calculation, it takes about 3 seconds using known physics. If you've got all the answers providing one of them shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

I wish you would stop changing what I said in every post. I said that like the Bose-Einstein Condensate a head freeze is the cooling of the materials surrounding your neurons, which opens up a material surrounding you brains atom nucleus, which creates heat, and burns you.

I also said that Magnets have local electrons meaning inside the magnet. The Aether is shrunk, until it passes through the magnet. The problem with your version is that it confuses the Aether with the electrons, being as they scale to about the same particle.

I swear that you are dyslexic.

 

Why are you interested in things that I haven't changed? You should be more interested in how they produce colour. That is the black hole circumference of the atoms returning a coloured vortex. Our bodies send out a vortex for our colour. A mirror receives our vortex, and the mirrors black holes match the scale of the incoming vortex.

 

Have you looked at any material on the subject of "Quantum Foam" (Blackholes and Quasars)?

 

It is sort of like that yes. But I have quite a few additions to add to it.

 

This is the formula for the Creation Of The Universe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The first thing to put back into science is the Aether. My Aether is a pushing force local to any atomic structure. It is a particle that can change its size to fit any space. So it can be quantum scale, or Super Massive Black Hole scale.
When the scale reaches somewhere near Planck scale the next reduction is a Black Hole, but this has to be forced by pressure. And being as bubbles never try to touch one another, this pressure has a huge amount of freedom. It takes the scale of an entire Galaxy, and then two particles are forced to merge into 1. And now you have a formula which goes like this...

The first particle shrinks to avoid the second particle.
The second particle expands to avoid the first particle. they stop this process when they share the same area.

Repeat until smallest particle scale is reached at edge of centre sphere.

now break particles into Black Hole ring.

Release vortex based Gravity based on diameter of black hole, combined with the number of bubbles in the hole. So for example, a small Black Hole could be a sun with a folding vortex making a sphere. Larger has a larger vortex.

So that's a loop, and it ends with the smallest particle possible, at the centre of a black hole. It creates a spiral, and spin, and then finally the vortex.

But it depends on the surrounding pressures. Now a Galaxy sized pressure is only the first step. Because now you have interacting pressures, from all sorts of merging bubbles. when the first two bubbles joined together they created a chain reaction of touching bubbles. And that chain reaction is all based on the Kissing problem by Newton.

If you can work all of those interactions out, you get my above formula creating everything. Atoms, electrons, photons...etc.

 

And here is the interaction of Black Holes absorbing the Aether in the Two Slit Experiment...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, if my theory is correct, then bashing atoms together will not tell you what is inside an atom. It will create particles that were never in there.

The only way to find out what is inside an atom is to understand my formula. Which can create anything from atoms to black holes.

 

You keep saying 'your formula' but you haven't given one. Are you that desperate to lie so blatantly?

 

A formula can be in words, it doesn't have to be in maths.

Also I have just discovered what a photon is. It's a black hole (negative mass) with particles spinning around it (Positive mass) combined they equal zero mass when stationary. This means that Black Holes have negative mass.

 

I think I know what killed the Dinosaurs!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry, no, a formula requires numbers. Even a recipe requires numbers.

It's _all_ about maths.

 

I need a room full of scientists, and I need to explain what I know, this is getting to close to everything now.

I can now write a sentient computer program, I have just figured it out. I'm starting to get frustrated with sitting here.

 

Bet you can't.

 

Technically it's not "Numbers" that is required but "Values", namely mathematics can be Algebra. However this doesn't undermine that mathematics isn't present in formula's, just that Algebra variables are used to replace mathemathics in cases where a formula can have "variables" alter.

Obviously I'm not agree with Pincho's position and I don't intend to have a super squeeky arse when I walk, but I thought the correction would stop people from flailing about in regards to any inaccuracies.

 

I have a formula for the inside of an atom. I've done it!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... however its in words, but you could follow them.