That is the thing about science too. Notice the responses I get, they are from individuals who were told how to think. Einstein may have had a few ideas, but the people who argue are not him. They don't know how to adjust science, only how to follow it.
My theory 1 step at a time
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
That is the thing about science too. Notice the responses I get, they are from individuals who were told how to think. Einstein may have had a few ideas, but the people who argue are not him. They don't know how to adjust science, only how to follow it.
There are people here with PhDs in Science.
Do you know what a PhD is? It means that you have made an original contribution to human knowledge.
In other words, nobody gets a PhD without doing something that is original and which adds to human knowledge.
If you regard original research as "adjusting science", then you might have a point, but I don't think that's what you mean.
PhD doesn't necessarily mean that you have made an original contribution to human knowledge. If the contribution you make is based on a mistake in the first place you have contributed to that mistake. For example, after Newton G has been used in many other circles of science. Those contributions all have the same mistake. People who are genius at science make the most mistakes, because they are the ones who don't see the flaws. People who totally ignore science make the least mistakes, because they start from scratch, and realise that particles cannot attract other particles, even if you curve space time. The only way to get the Universe moving is to bump start it, and bump is the opposite to Gravity. The singularity therefore a hole is useless as a bump start. However, a hole needs a companion, like black, needs white. The companion to the singularity is the opposite force (all forces have an equal, and opposite force). The opposite to the singularity is the infinite expanse outside of the singularity. To surround a singularity creates the singularity.. a hole needs a membrane, and a membrane needs a hole. Opposites create one another. And the singularity is everywhere as infinite points in infinite membranes, all creating one another like igloos.
Last edited:
If it isn't original then it would not be publish-worthy and if you don't publish anything it is very hard to get a PhD accepted in the hard sciences unless you have some reason like commercial secrets.
Part of science is trying many different methods and avenues. Most, if not all, will end up being dead ends in some way but that still helps the overall process.
Given the many demonstrable applications of gravity based models in physics even though we know that Newtonian gravity isn't exact it is still a huge contribution to science. We build on the previous generations' work, sometimes updating it, other times removing it, but without the previous work you can end up just looking at the same problems again and again and even making the same mistakes.
Pretty much all science from pre 1900 is known to be inaccurate in some way but no one can claim to have a well rounded science education without knowing about some things from that era. Quantum electrodynamics lacks context and meaning if you don't understand Maxwell's pre-quantum work in electromagnetism. General relativity's subtleties don't mean as much if you don't know about Newtonian gravity.
Learning about other people's mistakes helps you avoid them, hence why even being wrong can sometimes help science.
No, it's because they produce the most work. I'm absolutely certain I've made more mistakes in doing physics than you but that isn't because I think you're smarter than me (I most definitely do not think you're smarter than me, I don't even think you're lucid most of the time) but rather that I spend 45+ hours a week doing science, as does any one else whose a professional scientist. Of the last 100 ideas I've had 80 don't get past the initial idea stage. Another 10 are developed for the most trivial circumstances before concluding they are flawed. 5~7 then struggle to be generalised past simple examples. But the remaining 3~5 actually amount to something useful, something I could, if I wanted to, spend months or even years further developing. You'll get similar overviews from other professional scientists here.
You illustrate how little you grasp science or research by implying making mistakes is bad, as if it doesn't help in any way. How naive you are.
Simply being unaware of your many mistakes doesn't mean you haven't made them. Look at Reiku, he keeps saying "My posts are good quality" and then they are shredded by those of us who paid attention in school due to their many errors.
Like I said in the AI forum, you speak as someone who has no experience and no understanding and no accomplishments in any of this stuff.
Delusional nonsense. Simply putting buzzwords into sentences doesn't mean you're doing science.
None of your posts ever actually make any sense in the real universe. Only in the mind of years of scientific mistakes are you allowed to even be a moderator on a science site.
Pincho Paxton:
Yes it does. I explained that to you in my previous post.
Quite so.
Another useless, empty claim from you.
One wonders how science manages to progress, what with all these useless geniuses.
Unsupported nonsense.
How can somebody who ignores science make any kind of useful contribution to it? To make a useful and original contribution, you first have to become an expert in the field. Science these days is a very specialised profession.
My fridge magnet says different. So does the fact that my body doesn't spontaneously separate into its component particles.
More meaningless, unsupported nonsense from you. As usual.
Yes it does. I explained that to you in my previous post.
Quite so.
Another useless, empty claim from you.
One wonders how science manages to progress, what with all these useless geniuses.
Unsupported nonsense.
How can somebody who ignores science make any kind of useful contribution to it? To make a useful and original contribution, you first have to become an expert in the field. Science these days is a very specialised profession.
My fridge magnet says different. So does the fact that my body doesn't spontaneously separate into its component particles.
More meaningless, unsupported nonsense from you. As usual.
I can imagine that you find coherent informed posts difficult to follow, seeing as your take on reality is so skewed. Your inability to respond to any of my points, such as your attitude towards 'mistakes', is demonstrated by the fact your reply is nothing but a very lame attempt at an insult.
Unlike yourself I'm more than just talk, I have actually done science which has been implemented in real world scenarios, including areas you like to make grand claims about. You once asked on this forum how one goes about getting paid to do science research. I'm paid to do it because I have proven I'm worth the money. As have other people here who don't think terribly well of your claims. The computer you're sat at is based on principles developed and demonstrated by people like myself. The satellite TV or radio telecommunications you use, the rockets which put the satellite into orbit, the power generation and distribution methods, the automatic data processing, routing and encoding methods, all of them done by people like myself. The science done by actual scientists makes plenty of sense in the real universe. Unfortunately I don't think you're terribly familiar with the real world.
You are paid to hold science back, not on purpose, but because science is self propagating. The paid ones, are the ones who are stupid enough to believe in it. I wouldn't work in science if I had to agree with it no matter how much I was paid. £1 Million to say I believe in the Big Bang.. no way. Would you be a Christian for 1 Million?
Pincho Paxton:
Ok. It's time you showed us how smart you are and how stupid we are.
So, post some of your claims with the experimental and observational evidence that supports them. Clearly explain what is wrong with current theories.
Make sure that you include all relevant mathematics in your response.
If it's too much to post, just post on ONE small topic if you wish.
I'll give you 24 hours to produce something - anything - that backs up any of your claims.
Ok. It's time you showed us how smart you are and how stupid we are.
So, post some of your claims with the experimental and observational evidence that supports them. Clearly explain what is wrong with current theories.
Make sure that you include all relevant mathematics in your response.
If it's too much to post, just post on ONE small topic if you wish.
I'll give you 24 hours to produce something - anything - that backs up any of your claims.
First, I am smart enough to know that if mathematics are all backwards, then proof by mathematics is pointless. My mathematics could be just as bad as science's mathematics. So I use logic instead.
Logic starts with the knowledge of particles. What can a particle do?
Logic also starts with the elimination of waves, waves are lots of particles, so you are back to particles. If at this stage you want waves you are already falling behind. And it is this lack of ability to follow logic that is your downfall.
I now have to explain why waves can't exist without particles because I am talking to the blind. It is extremely annoying at my level to have to go through these simple steps.
What is the shape of a wave? How long is it? What is its structure. What are its physics? Why does it have moving parts? How do the parts evaluate their switch from convex to concave? What is energy?, what is force?, what is force change?, what is angle? What is the conservation of energy? Why do forces have equal, and opposite effects?
All of the above is to do with understanding a particle in the universe.
Why is it spherical?
In nature a perfect circle of stones was found around an ants nest. Studies were made as to how ants could understand a perfect circle. It was solved by distance from the hole. If ants always moved stones the same distance they would create a perfect circle. Maths without maths, and this is how the universe works.
All forces have an equal, and opposite force in the Universe. So without any form of logic the universe can create a spherical particle. All it has to do is have an infinite number of them, and move them the same number apart which happens to be 6. It is time that moves the particles, and time is the infinite regression of scale which creates energy states above, and below holes which are singularities. It is an In/Out flow pushing out particles to create a hole, and moving them to a distance that equals out the energy states. This is observed in the Bose Einstein condensate which shows atoms progressing towards a central point. It is also shown by snowflakes which fractally create a form that is in relation to moving to a central point.
Inside this movement will be a hole.
The hole is created by the movement, and the surrounding particles create a icosahedron at first, because it has to maintain 6 again to have equal force. The scale of the grain must also be 6.
Equal force =
6 grain
6 distance
6 scale
6 energy
-6 hole
-6 singularity inside each grain
-6 opposite direction
-6 negative energy inside singularities
The total energy is zero state. Newton's Law. This is the total of all mathematics in the Universe. This is the creation of all physics in the Universe.
Why 6?
X/Y/Z
-X/-Y/-Z
From our position it is not obvious that there are 3 dimensions. We actually have 3 equal, and opposite dimensions. North, South, East, West, Up, Down. We also have In/Out.
In/Out is time.
To maintain a zero state we have to be specific about direction. 3 dimensions doesn't obey Newtons Law. 3 equal, and opposite dimensions does.
So when the first particles are made, they must be made to eliminate all energies in every possible way. And to do this they maintain 6. Which is exactly like Newtons Kissing Problem. The 6 forces must have 6 opposite forces, and so there are 6 singularities inside the 6 membranes. the 6 membranes are made from smaller particles.
What are the smaller particles?
They are the next scale down in steps of 6, because Newtons Law also has to be maintained infinitely in scale, and infinitely regressive, also infinitely expansive. To maintain the zero state of the universe you require infinite particles eliminating infinite particles. There are many ways to do this, but only one way leads to Earth.. the number 6.
6 is taken from nature, and snowflakes. Because Time is In/Out, the snowflake folds in, and displays the number 6 as the key to the infinite arrangement of space-time.
When do we get to gravity being backwards?
Once you understand the nature of particles, and the way they have to maintain a zero state. They are never going to be attracted to one another. Attraction creates overlap, and deliberate attraction deliberately breaks the zero state. When energy is overlapped it is surrounded by lower energy states, and even gaps. To maintain energy surrounded by gaps is totally counter intuitive. No force would create a hole to overlap more energy. The opposite happens. Energy moves into the area of least resistance from force.
Gravity would not be an attraction, because the attraction would allow energy states to overlap preferable to being neutral. Gravity is therefore a bump from energy towards areas of least resistance. If the Earth is an area of least resistance to an asteroid in space. Then space is the area of higher force. Space is a collection of infinite particles, and the Earth is made from Atoms containing holes.
So why is Space-Time so void-like? (or vacuum-like)
Because the particles in space do not touch one another to maintain a zero state. So long as they don't touch, the energy isn't fired.
How do the particles in space not touch?
They have a fundamental ability to scale away from one another. If they do touch they scale down like slugs covered with salt. Atoms are not able to scale so easily because of the flow into the holes which pumps them up from the inside. If you touch the inside it scales away in reverse, and particles travel inside atoms because of the singularities inside the atoms.
Pinchoism is based on logic. It is based on all logic from the start of time till the end of time.
There is only one way to build a Universe, and end up with nature that has 6 limbs. that is to infinitely produce the number 6 from the beginning. The way that I have described the Universe is the only way that you can build the universe. To conserve energy in all states of that energy.
Attraction does not conserve energy.
Last edited:
Pincho Paxton:
You have posted a bunch more claims, still with no evidence to support any of them.
Are you going to post any experimental or theoretical evidence to support your claims, or not?
In the meantime, let's take a look...
Translation: Pincho Paxton can't post maths because he can't do maths.
Translation: Pincho Paxton doesn't know anything about the physics of waves, and he doesn't know any quantum mechanics either.
Good questions. It's a pity you can't answer any of them.
Translation: Pincho Paxton doesn't understand maths, so he talks about ants instead.
Non sequitur.
The idea of moving things "a number apart" is nonsense. Are you talking about distance or something else? There's no way to tell, and that's why this is nonsense.
Obvious questions arise:
1. How does time move particles?
2. Is time a force?
3. What is scale?
4. In what way is time equal to scale?
5. How can scale regress, and how can it do it infinitely?
6. What kinds of energy states are you talking about?
7. What kinds of holes are you talking about? Holes in what?
8. Are you using the terms "above" and "below" in a spatial sense, or in some other sense?
9. What is a singularity?
10. How does time create singularities?
11. Where is the mathematics in any of this?
12. Where is the experimental or observational evidence for any of this?
13. How can any of this be distinguished from pure crap that you dreamed up on the spur of the moment?
There's nothing in Bose-Einstein condensates that involves atoms progressing towards a central point.
Show me that you know what a Bose-Einstein condensate is, Pincho. Explain to me what a BEC is, both in terms of standard physics and in your own terms. Because I don't think you have a clue. It's just a buzz word to you.
How can a hole be inside a movement? How can anything be inside a movement. Movement is an action, not a thing.
This is meaningless numerology.
Non sequitur. Newton's law(s) say nothing about zero energy states.
You've posted no mathematics. Let's face it: you don't know any mathematics.
Translation: Pincho Paxton doesn't know what the term "dimension" means. You don't understand the concept.
Your "equal and opposite dimensions" are a misuse of the term "dimension". And you're also wrong about Newton. Since you probably don't know or understand Newton's laws, there's little surprise there.
More meaningless numerology. And I don't think you understand what the kissing problem is all about. Knowing no mathematics, you're not equipped to understand it. It's just a buzz word to you.
There's really no need for me to keep commenting on this rubbish. It's pure gibberish.
Experimental evidence proves this to be flat-out wrong.
Translation: Pincho Paxton doesn't understand the concept of energy. Pincho thinks energy is a substance or object that is located at a particular position in space. It is not.
More rubbish.
Translation: Pincho Paxton believes eneryg is a thing that can be "fired". Wrong!
More useless nonsense.
Translation: as well as knowing no mathematics and no physics, Pincho Paxton also knows nothing about logic.
Physics has no trouble with conservation of energy under attractive forces such as gravity and electromagnetism. So this claim is simply flat-out false.
---
To repeat: there's no substance to any of Pincho Paxton's claims. There's no evidence for any of this rubbish. There's no mathematical or logical basis to any of it. It's just bunches of random buzz words strung together on the spur of the moment. It's useless and boring. I could make up a better story about groups of nine pixies pushing particles from place to place.
You have posted a bunch more claims, still with no evidence to support any of them.
Are you going to post any experimental or theoretical evidence to support your claims, or not?
In the meantime, let's take a look...
Translation: Pincho Paxton can't post maths because he can't do maths.
Translation: Pincho Paxton doesn't know anything about the physics of waves, and he doesn't know any quantum mechanics either.
Good questions. It's a pity you can't answer any of them.
Translation: Pincho Paxton doesn't understand maths, so he talks about ants instead.
Non sequitur.
The idea of moving things "a number apart" is nonsense. Are you talking about distance or something else? There's no way to tell, and that's why this is nonsense.
Obvious questions arise:
1. How does time move particles?
2. Is time a force?
3. What is scale?
4. In what way is time equal to scale?
5. How can scale regress, and how can it do it infinitely?
6. What kinds of energy states are you talking about?
7. What kinds of holes are you talking about? Holes in what?
8. Are you using the terms "above" and "below" in a spatial sense, or in some other sense?
9. What is a singularity?
10. How does time create singularities?
11. Where is the mathematics in any of this?
12. Where is the experimental or observational evidence for any of this?
13. How can any of this be distinguished from pure crap that you dreamed up on the spur of the moment?
There's nothing in Bose-Einstein condensates that involves atoms progressing towards a central point.
Show me that you know what a Bose-Einstein condensate is, Pincho. Explain to me what a BEC is, both in terms of standard physics and in your own terms. Because I don't think you have a clue. It's just a buzz word to you.
How can a hole be inside a movement? How can anything be inside a movement. Movement is an action, not a thing.
This is meaningless numerology.
Non sequitur. Newton's law(s) say nothing about zero energy states.
You've posted no mathematics. Let's face it: you don't know any mathematics.
Translation: Pincho Paxton doesn't know what the term "dimension" means. You don't understand the concept.
Your "equal and opposite dimensions" are a misuse of the term "dimension". And you're also wrong about Newton. Since you probably don't know or understand Newton's laws, there's little surprise there.
More meaningless numerology. And I don't think you understand what the kissing problem is all about. Knowing no mathematics, you're not equipped to understand it. It's just a buzz word to you.
There's really no need for me to keep commenting on this rubbish. It's pure gibberish.
Experimental evidence proves this to be flat-out wrong.
Translation: Pincho Paxton doesn't understand the concept of energy. Pincho thinks energy is a substance or object that is located at a particular position in space. It is not.
More rubbish.
Translation: Pincho Paxton believes eneryg is a thing that can be "fired". Wrong!
More useless nonsense.
Translation: as well as knowing no mathematics and no physics, Pincho Paxton also knows nothing about logic.
Physics has no trouble with conservation of energy under attractive forces such as gravity and electromagnetism. So this claim is simply flat-out false.
---
To repeat: there's no substance to any of Pincho Paxton's claims. There's no evidence for any of this rubbish. There's no mathematical or logical basis to any of it. It's just bunches of random buzz words strung together on the spur of the moment. It's useless and boring. I could make up a better story about groups of nine pixies pushing particles from place to place.
Mathematics is logic. It's built up from basic logical statements. In the 1910s Russell and Whitehead went about deriving the fundamental of mathematics from their most basic starting position. It took 365 pages to get to showing 1+1=2.
I think you need to take a philosophy class because that isn't what logic starts with. You're making reference to physical things, but mathematics and logic are not about physical things. Logic starts with tautologies and logical absolutes like A is A and A is not not A.
Waves are something quite 'elaborate' on the scale of basic principles. To even define waves takes considerable work if you start from the logical absolutes.
You're telling others their logic is their downfall but you don't have any clue about it yourself. You're making assumptions and mistakes all over the place while believing you're doing something fundamental.
It's extremely annoying to us that you spout your claims you cannot back up and which are actually refuted in many circumstances. You believe you're doing things which are fundamental, claiming you're being more fundamental than actual mathematicians but you aren't.
The fundamentals of mathematics are covered in courses called 'analysis' in universities. In my 1st year course I learnt about how you go about defining numbers, constructing notions like addition and multiplication. It took more than a dozen lectures to even get to the notion of how far two numbers are from one another. Yet you've taken as fundamental notions of distance and positions in vector spaces. No one who had studied mathematics would be daft enough to think such things are fundamental. Of course if you only did high school mathematics you could labour under the misconception that the material you're taught there is somehow fundamental, that there's no assumptions inherent to it. That's utterly wrong.
It is demonstrable that your claims of being fundamental in your methodology are false.
I'll cut out your delusional ranting...
A demonstrably false claim.
You need to break free of your priesthood. Simple as that. Particles are moved by time, and time is particles. All particles are 6 no matter what scale they are. If ants move stones 6 paces from their hole, and you scale everything down, ants still move stones 6 paces from their hole, nothing has changed. The linear progression of mathematics spoils the physics. The vectors spoil the grain structure, and the fact that all mathematics is backwards proves that maths isn't proof of anything.
I don't mind being banned for being right. It proves that science is a priesthood. I am still banned from sites for saying that the Milky Way has a bubble around it... then this was inferred years later...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8444038.stm
Science will always ban me the same that Christian sites will ban Atheists. I accept it. It's just a shame on mankind.
I don't mind being banned for being right. It proves that science is a priesthood. I am still banned from sites for saying that the Milky Way has a bubble around it... then this was inferred years later...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8444038.stm
Science will always ban me the same that Christian sites will ban Atheists. I accept it. It's just a shame on mankind.
Last edited:
Pincho Paxton:
You need to learn some science. Simple as that.
This is useless nonsense. It's just buzz words strung together at random.
Well, that's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Get over yourself. Your banning wouldn't say anything about science. It would be about your behaviour.
This is just you adopting some buzz words from a popular science news article that you didn't understand.
Sounds like you're gearing up for a magnificent exit from this place. Is that right?
You need to learn some science. Simple as that.
This is useless nonsense. It's just buzz words strung together at random.
Well, that's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Get over yourself. Your banning wouldn't say anything about science. It would be about your behaviour.
This is just you adopting some buzz words from a popular science news article that you didn't understand.
Sounds like you're gearing up for a magnificent exit from this place. Is that right?
I am gearing up to tell you about the Universe, and that will get me banned for being right as it is counter intuitive to all of the maths being backwards that science has produced. Like this...
F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared
Should be...
F = G(-mass1*-mass2)/D squared.
Last edited:
I wasn't going to 'egg you on' but I just have to ask, what does this equation mean in your own words?
F = G(-mass1*-mass2)/D squared
This equation means in my own words:
F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared
The force of gravity between 2 masses changes by the square of the distance between them. The actual force is based on the G, the gravitational constant.
F = G(-mass1*-mass2)/D squared
This equation means in my own words:
F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared
The force of gravity between 2 masses changes by the square of the distance between them. The actual force is based on the G, the gravitational constant.
It means that Gravity is the mass, and -mass is missing gravity. So if you think of an empty bucket as -mass then the bucket is an atom's nucleus, and electrons. They are the holes. When an electron is measure with mass it is the gravity that is being measured not the electron. So mass is a bucket full of water, which is two things. If you then envisage the Earth as a bunch of atoms, it is a bunch of empty buckets filling up with gravity. The asteroid therefore flows with the gravity flow towards the Earth. The atoms fill with gravity, the gravity enters the nucleus, and the electron spaces. The same thing is happening to the asteroid, but in the direction of the Earth it is happening faster. This remains the same...
But the physics are completely different.
The gravity now has to exit the Earth, and being as the Earth is surrounded by gravity the escape is a new set of physics... magnetism. which is negative gravity. The magnetism leaves in the opposite direction cancelling out a lot of the gravity force making it a weak force. The cancellation of gravity by magnetism keeps gravity at a constant. The more gravity in one direction, the more magnetism leaving, and so a constant.
But the constant is not reliable, because there is a delay between the switch from gravity to magnetism. Sometimes this delay causes problems, like going over a hump backed bridge. There can be a throw force.
Last edited:
Not exactly what I was asking. I was asking you to describe the equation, F = G(-mass1*-mass2)/D squared, in your own words.
Like; F=ma The Force of an object is equal to mass of the object times the accleration of that object.
Because I do not understand what your equation is suppose to mean.
You do realize a negative * a negative is a positive, right? Therefore these two equations wind up with exactly the same result... right?
I want the same result, but I just need to change the mass into negative mass. Even though the maths is the same, the physics aren't.