My theory 1 step at a time

Sylwester Kornowski said:
The whole nature shows that it is untrue. Nature does not violate some laws of conservation, especially the law of conservation of energy. Of course, there is the negative (the analog to the -1) and positive (the analog to the +1) energies but to create the negative energy nature needs a physical field i.e. the positive energy. Moreover, in my opinion, there are not in existence the pure energies. Photons cannot be in existence without the Einstein spacetime. The virtual negative masses (the analogs to the -1) and the virtual positive masses (the analogs to the +1) can be created in physical fields only i.e. in fields composed of positive physical volumes. The physical volumes are more fundamental than the pure energies carried by the physical volumes. There are not in existence negative volumes. This means that the formula +1-1=0 does not act in the truly empty nothingness.

We need moving POSITIVE physical volumes (the analogs to the +1) to describe nature. To create the NEGATIVE physical volumes (the analogs to the -1) we need field composed of the POSITIVE physical volumes. Nothingness (the 0) leads to nothingness (the 0) always.

We are not the computer programs.
Click to expand...

There are certain things that I know happen. I know you get space-time. I know you get photon paths. I know you get gravity, and magnetism. I know you get time. I know you get crystal structures, I know you get a double helix. I know you get the shapes of nature. I know you get colour. I know you get a solution to the two slit experiment. I know you get buoyant water in the sea. I know you get bubbles from gravity, and magnetism. I know you get a bow shock.

So they are most of the things that I know. And based on those things I think I should keep doing the same thing. Stick with the same model that got me all that. Previously, I just made them in 3D modelling packages, and they were all the same model. So it's time to built it for real.
 
AlexG said:
This is as about as delusional as I've ever seen in an uninstitutionalized individual.
Click to expand...
It is like looking at a Picasso painting, your not sure if the artist is mad but they pay top dollar for the work of art.
It is a work of art by Picasso Paxton. :)
 
The actual maths area of my brain is very small, my 3D area has enveloped it. I am trying to do something very simple, an energy conservation rule that creates a fractal. When you look at a complex fractal it is hard to see how it is created from simple maths. A mathematician would know the rules. Because I am sending photons to a small area of my brain it heats up very fast, I get an headache, and I get tired. But I know what I have to create, and I mustn't cheat by just creating it without the energy conservation rules, because the energy conservation rules create cell division. If I skip a stage, I skip physics. I have to conserve +X -X +Y -Y +Z -Z so that they = 0. It looks a bit like a 3D swastika. I am struggling with it.
 
Pincho Paxton:

Pincho Paxton said:
Yeah, wouldn't everyone. :D
But like I said, it's possible of the unsaid rules. You don't post it on the internet.
Click to expand...

I can't understand what you're saying.

Are you saying you can' post your your amazing simulation made from 20 lines of code? If not, why not?

Or are you saying you could but you won't post it?

If you will not post the amazing thing that allows you to make all your predictions so that other people can check your results for themselves, then your work has no further place on sciforums. Science must be reproducible. It is the essence of science that it can be checked and verified by other scientists.

Pincho Paxton said:
Just worked out colour. Colour is a scale up wave of particles through a hexagon grid.
Click to expand...

When I look at a tree I see no hexagonal grid. Why not?

Now I can make my computer program use true colours, although I also have to put some fake ones in for dark matter (negative mass).
Click to expand...

What is a fake colour?

Pincho Paxton said:
I'm quite amazed actually how detailed I am getting now. I am beating the best electron microscopes. To see the animated path of a photon in particle detail through the two slit experiment I think is probably the best achievement of pure intelligence so far. :D
Click to expand...

Please post one of your images so I can take a look for myself.
 
James R said:
Pincho Paxton:



I can't understand what you're saying.

Are you saying you can' post your your amazing simulation made from 20 lines of code? If not, why not?

Or are you saying you could but you won't post it?

If you will not post the amazing thing that allows you to make all your predictions so that other people can check your results for themselves, then your work has no further place on sciforums. Science must be reproducible. It is the essence of science that it can be checked and verified by other scientists.



When I look at a tree I see no hexagonal grid. Why not?



What is a fake colour?



Please post one of your images so I can take a look for myself.
Click to expand...


I am creating a universe from the quantum scale upwards. It includes the perfect atomic model (even including time itself). I don't think about what you could build with it, but whatever was built in the past can now be built even better. And that sort of thing shouldn't get into the wrong hands.

You don't see the hexagons because they are photon scale. But you do see the hexagon outlines in the branches as a scaled up fractal that has become more random. If you take a hexagon grid, and use the outlines instead of the actual hexagons you get a tree shape.

Here's a nice, easy one to look at, I'm an artist I can work with more complex versions....
http://urbanist.typepad.com/creature_of_the_shade/2008/07/confronting-vegetation-petrophile-sessilis.html
Even the DNA double helix is a hexagon fractal, but its hard to see it if you have never created it in my way.

Fake colour is my way to make the invisible visible. I mean you would like to see magnetism for example?
 
Last edited:
The position of time is in the nucleus of space, which is a grid structure made from stacked grain. It's scale is 1. the nucleus scale is negative, it is -1. The reason that time expands from the hole is because virtual particles will appear in a hole that totals smallest scale which is 1 + -1 = 0. This is the scale at which our universe begins. Time is a particle, it is a membrane with a negative hole. When it is released from the hole it scales up to become a photon. The photon then splits 6 ways to produce a hexagon grid. The grid structure expands sending a Newton's Cradle wave formation along the structure of interconnected hexagons, and Icosahedron. These connections are connected to everything around them. The paths are waves, because hexagons stack in waves. The rods in our eyes directly connect to the hexagon wave formations. The lens of our eye is an inverted mass construct, The thickest part of a lens is the most negative. The negative lens construct creates an area of least resistance (This also works with glass lenses). This revolves photon alignment to match the area of least resistance. The rotation of the photon wave construct affects the two-slit experiment, and so does the hexagon scale adjustment. The scaling UP of the hexagon path remains in the experiment as a sort of trail of thick hexagons. The next photon path bounces off the first photon path. Time is a flow like a hose pipe from the scale 1 hole. Gravity slows time down as it presses into the hole the flow is blocked partly like a finger over a hose pipe.

The reason that the Big Bang did not happen is that time is local to the grain structure of space time. This locality is a scale factor, and so the inflation actually happens in all of local space. Because time is local to a central hole in each grid resolution it is the cause of every part of its own space. So space begins at all grid locations, and not a singularity. By moving time to all places at once, you have no expanse from an origin. You have expanse from all origins. The singularity therefore is now infinite, and everywhere. So you divide the singularity into infinity.. you get infinite start locations, and no Big Bang.

See all this now in a snowflake.....

TimeInASnowflake.jpg
 
hansda said:
What do you mean ? ... 1+ -1 = 0 ; this is OK , but 1+ -1 = infinity . How is this possible ?
Click to expand...

Because it is a particle with a hole in it. The shell of the particle is +1, and the hole in the particle is -1. Now this particle = 0, so it can be any size. If it is huge, you can fill it with infinite particles of itself.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Because it is a particle with a hole in it. The shell of the particle is +1, and the hole in the particle is -1. Now this particle = 0, so it can be any size. If it is huge, you can fill it with infinite particles of itself.
Click to expand...

What is the mass of this particle ? ... Finite ... or ... Infinite ?
 
Pincho Paxton said:
It just means that a particle which adds up to zero, can fit inside a particle that adds up to zero forever. The universe is inside a giant particle.
Click to expand...

This giant particle is finite or infinite ? ... or ... Do you mean to say that ... universe + -universe = 0 . ?
 
Pincho Paxton said:
The bubbles are opposing forces between zero particles due to Gravity, and magnetism having opposite directions.
Click to expand...

So paraphrasing, Monkey butt utopian eel grass in resonance with muon waltzing metamorphic chicken. Got it.:rolleyes:
 
Pincho Paxton said:
The universe is inside a giant particle.
Click to expand...

There are two possibilities: in our region, the spacetime has no boundary or an internally continuous space, i.e. the timeless layer, surrounds ‘our’ region of spacetime. You can call the timeless sphere/layer the giant particle. Such sphere/layer could arise during the period of inflation. I described it in my Everlasting Theory. Such sphere/layer separates the inside from the outside of the bulb. But most important are the phenomena inside the bulb (so inside our Universe also). Can you describe such phenomena? I described such phenomena in my theory. They lead from the initial conditions to the experimental data.
 
James R said:
Pincho Paxton:



I can't understand what you're saying.

Are you saying you can' post your your amazing simulation made from 20 lines of code? If not, why not?

Or are you saying you could but you won't post it?
Click to expand...


Pincho has stated that this computer simulation does not yet exist. He has run it in HIS HEAD.

Everything he's talking about with regards to his simulation is in his imagination only. None of it actually exists. It's all just in his head.
 
origin said:
So paraphrasing, Monkey butt utopian eel grass in resonance with muon waltzing metamorphic chicken. Got it.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, that's what your brain hears. It is a sort of symbol of your intelligence. I just said that a particle called the zero particle because its shell, and hole equal zero travels in a direction towards, and away from a body. The meeting of two points creates the bubbles which I predicted in 2004, and were found in 2007.

The clue here is... were found.

Your nonsense however is a parody of your brain.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
There are two possibilities: in our region, the spacetime has no boundary or an internally continuous space, i.e. the timeless layer, surrounds ‘our’ region of spacetime. You can call the timeless sphere/layer the giant particle. Such sphere/layer could arise during the period of inflation. I described it in my Everlasting Theory. Such sphere/layer separates the inside from the outside of the bulb. But most important are the phenomena inside the bulb (so inside our Universe also). Can you describe such phenomena? I described such phenomena in my theory. They lead from the initial conditions to the experimental data.
Click to expand...

The possibility is simple, the universe has a particle that equals zero. It can be everywhere. This fact will create a universe from those particles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top