Bubble Theory Again... Revenge Of The Bubble

Pincho Paxton said:
I meant this program, which is a test of 1+ -1 = 0...
Click to expand...
Except you clearly use more mathematics than that. You admit it in the description, where you say a distance is considered. Distances are something quite non-trivial and not inherent to all mathematical constructs. For instance, while you can argue that just using +/-1 you can construct the integers that doesn't give you a notion of distance, you have to add in a norm to get that.

You admit it in another video of yours, the neural net tank one. Neural networks are a type of graphical model. They aren't enormously complicated on a theoretical level but they are certainly orders of magnitude beyond just the notion of the integers, which is all your +1+(-1)=0 gets you.

You claim you can do everything with 1+(-1)=0 but you can't and you don't even realise you admit you can't!
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Except you clearly use more mathematics than that. You admit it in the description, where you say a distance is considered. Distances are something quite non-trivial and not inherent to all mathematical constructs. For instance, while you can argue that just using +/-1 you can construct the integers that doesn't give you a notion of distance, you have to add in a norm to get that.

You admit it in another video of yours, the neural net tank one. Neural networks are a type of graphical model. They aren't enormously complicated on a theoretical level but they are certainly orders of magnitude beyond just the notion of the integers, which is all your +1+(-1)=0 gets you.

You claim you can do everything with 1+(-1)=0 but you can't and you don't even realise you admit you can't!
Click to expand...

Well, the particles are spherical, I just need a distance to their centre, the radius. And zero is the sphere, so I already have that. So all I am actually doing is making the zero physical. I'm forming a zero from matter. I have never hid the fact that zero was a bubble, I have always made that quite clear. Anyway, the exact moment that I need to measure it, the electron is created, so I have that bit of extra energy to add a new maths check.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't address anything I said. I know you think what you say is coherent and relevant but it isn't. Try again. Or you could just admit your claims were false.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
That doesn't address anything I said. I know you think what you say is coherent and relevant but it isn't. Try again. Or you could just admit your claims were false.
Click to expand...

The electron raises the maths bar anyway, so I am allowed a new maths check at the moment that the electron is created, and that's exactly when the membrane touch, which is my distance routine. They are both the same thing.
 
Oh.. lol.. I just realised, my post above just solved why an observer alters the electron test. :D The test membrane is receiving opposing tests at the same time. I already though that, but I didn't realise that I had it in my formula.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
The electron raises the maths bar anyway, so I am allowed a new maths check at the moment that the electron is created, and that's exactly when the membrane touch, which is my distance routine. They are both the same thing.
Click to expand...
It's amazing you think that is anything other than BS. The fact is your implementation uses more advanced mathematics than 1+(-1)=0, contradicting your claim. Nothing you've said negates that. Besides, it's not like you use the distance function for the first time then, you have to use it before in order to check whether two things have touched.

You are repeatedly self contradicting but you're too ignorant to realise it. It just (further) demonstrates how laughable your claims are.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
It's amazing you think that is anything other than BS. The fact is your implementation uses more advanced mathematics than 1+(-1)=0, contradicting your claim. Nothing you've said negates that. Besides, it's not like you use the distance function for the first time then, you have to use it before in order to check whether two things have touched.

You are repeatedly self contradicting but you're too ignorant to realise it. It just (further) demonstrates how laughable your claims are.
Click to expand...

It's physical maths, not just maths.
You are ignoring the = sign. It is included in the maths. = is a check. So you are allowed to check the result. Anyway the check gives you some answers to quantum physics. It is good to have it there. It's not just maths, its physical maths. The check is performed on the inside of a bubble. When two particles overlap it creates a sort of lens shape. The lens shape sends out a wave, and chains the Aether in a circular fashion call it X. This looks like a spiderweb. The spiderweb hits the bubble membrane, and bumps the original particles apart on the bounce.
 
Last edited:
Dywyddyr said:
What check?
How about getting someone else to look at your work?


Aaand... arse-about-face, again.
Click to expand...

When you work with maths, you are doing certain things that you ignore. You are obviously checking the result with =. All of the Universe has to do a check to compare what is happening to particles. The inside of a bubble is a limited environment, and the bubbles are all around particles. Each event sends out a bump like a newtons cradle. Each bump causes overlap, and each overlap is altering a particle quantity. This hits the outer most bubble inside, and the rebound is entropy. Entropy moves the particles apart, and controls the check. An observer hits the bubble on the outside, and the check being performed on the inside is eliminated. Not only that but the shape of the overlap, matches the orbits of atoms. You have the first overlap which is two sphere with a lens in the middle, and you have the 6 pointed check which is the hexagonal kissing problem radius, it's also possible to have a complete 12 check, but the chances of that happening are very rare because it would require perfect equal pressure on all sides.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
When you work with maths, you are doing certain things that you ignore.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's how you do it. :rolleyes:

You are obviously checking the result with =.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
You SHOW the result with the equals sign. You can't check a result until you've produced one.

All of the Universe has to do a check to compare what is happening to particles. The inside of a bubble is a limited environment, and the bubbles are all around particles. Each event sends out a bump like a newtons cradle. Each bump causes overlap, and each overlap is altering a particle quantity. This hits the outer most bubble inside, and the rebound is entropy. Entropy moves the particles apart, and controls the check. An observer hits the bubble on the outside, and the check being performed on the inside is eliminated.
Click to expand...
And more bullshit.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Maybe that's how you do it. :rolleyes:


Wrong.
You SHOW the result with the equals sign. You can't check a result until you've produced one.


And more bullshit.
Click to expand...

How can you show a particle a result??? :confused: You are allowing all of your brain to take part in the check, and eyes. No you are actually receiving an bump of energy in your brain.. you need to start thinking clearly.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Why does it "need" to "check"?


Typical Pincho, persistently clueless.
Click to expand...

The Universe is a zero state machine. So 1 + -1 = 0 is easy to control the zero state. But you need to work out how maths breaks down in the first place into physics. If you ignore your eyes.. your brain is doing something to control those shapes on the screen.
 
More bullshit.
And still not an ounce of support. (Or rationality).
 
Dywyddyr said:
More bullshit.
And still not an ounce of support. (Or rationality).
Click to expand...

Imagine overlapping 1's as heat, you don't want that heat so you push them apart. Then break that down further. The overlapping 1' are just pressure, so you squeeze the pressure apart. Then break that down further.. the overlapping 1's are inside a bubble, and the membrane expands under the pressure, and the expansion resistance pushes the particles apart. And you keep breaking it down, and you end up with a sort of spider web inside a bubble, created from more bubbles. Entropy, and the observer causing a pressure in the wrong direction. The observer acting as a force that eliminates the electron, shifting the pressure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top