Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Pincho Paxton, Dec 10, 2011.
Start a thread in this folder. That's what it is for... Alternative Theories!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I did . . . . . . even started my own thread (the EEMU Hypothesis), much like Pincho, but was sanctioned by Prometheus and Alphanumeric
But that thread is still around isn't it, or are you saying it is now locked?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The other thing is there are links to your own website so I suppose that could be self promotion. But let's just keep the discussion to the ideas of the OP.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
. . . I was just responding to JamesR and Only Me posts . . . .
. . . yes . . .the thread (EEMU Hypothesis) is still open . . . go there sometime . . . you will find references to topics in the current thread OP that may be helpful
You misunderstand the nature of PP's theories.
They are not science. They are an alternative to science.
To quote him from another thread:
You can't switch between my theory, and science that easily. You have to just use one theory or the other theory.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111295 Post #30
Like I said, I have already predicted many things that have been found by science. The beach ball around the Galaxy, the push of Gravity etc.. many years ago. I can predict that the brain is a pressure control system, because we control energy, and energy moves into the area of least resistance. The easiest way to control pressure is scale. Muscles are a scalar system like balloons. So the brain most likely works on a pressure controlled scalar system, scaling particles down into negative mass, which become holes, which steers energy towards those holes. I can say that the cosmological constant requires a meeting of outward flow to fix it, with valleys between the meeting areas, gaps are filled by virtual particles. I can say that gravity is actually a strong force, hidden by a negative force, and that the weight on each person is ridiculously higher than we think. I can predict that the Milky Way, and other Galaxies are filled by a series of bubbles like bubble wrap, and that the bubbles protect us from this weighty force outside the Galaxy. I can predict that Gravity is a flow from space, and that the Earth acts as the area of least resistance which is the opposite to what we expect, but if you add my cosmological constant fix to atoms, it puts valleys around them, and possible negative mass holes in the middle of them.
I can predict from it. I do. But my predictions sound strange, so I don't bother. I am still banned on some sites for predicting the bubble that was found around the Milky Way. I am banned for saying many things that have now been found. Some of my posts were even deleted. I was banned on here last week for trying to work on the kissing problem in the maths forum. My theory, and science sound backwards because Gravity is backwards. The nucleus of an atom could well be a hole of negative mass for example.
Well, at least you have your own thread now to explain your theories to anyone willing to listen.
You are possibly wasting your time using your theories to explain things.
For example, looking at your first post, I personally have no idea what you are talking about,
and it is the very first step of your theory.
Maybe other people do understand, and are anxiously waiting for your next post
to learn the next steps. I doubt it though.
Well Stephen Hawking came up with a similar idea to my first post (I posted my idea a few years ago, this program was on last week). So maybe if you watch this from 18 mins...
Yes, I've seen that before.
He attacks a Straw God.
Using an eschatological soundtrack,
as though science was some new improved religion,
genuinely rescuing man from sin and ignorance,
where the old religion has failed.
Science is about fact, about measurement.
We have enough problems with religion as it is,
without turning science into one.
I think the important part is just treating 1 + -1 = 0 as an actual worded sentence in English.
Sand dug from a hole combined equal flat land.
A concave wave plus a convex wave equal a flat-line.
When you think of the English worded version you can apply it too all of our human senses that observe our Universe...
We see a wave, we don't see a flat-line.
We hear a wave, we don't hear a flat-line.
We feel a bump, we don't feel a hole.
When we look across a dessert it is easier to see a dune, than a hole.
Something from nothing is....
A flat-line wave becoming a convex, or concave wave.
Convex is the igloo.
Concave is its hole.
Two igloos = a sphere with a hole in the middle.
A sphere with a hole in the middle = a particle.
That part I can agree with.
I have no problem with the Universe being made from nothing,
whether by God or nature.
It is when Hawking dismisses the possibility of God because there was no time for God to exist in before the Big Bang.
A Straw God argument.
No modern theologist has ever said that God exists in time or space.
They would generally say the opposite.
Well the next part of stage 1 is to bump particles of zero. They may total zero, but their edges still equal 1. A bit like magnet repulsion. Particles are OK at a certain distance, but you get too close and suddenly the overall change is maintained locally.
That doesn't make much sense to me.
The thing is.....................
If you can't convey your system in a way that other people can understand it,
even in a thread that takes it simply, stage by stage,
then it is a complete waste of time for you to introduce it in other threads where people have not learned how to comprehend what you are saying.
Do you think that anyone so far in this thread has gained the tiniest understanding of your theory?
If not. Why not?
My suggestion is that your theory could be complete nonsense.
Do you admit the possibility that that might be true?
When you do come up with something new, sometimes there is no words to describe it. It might still be in that stage, where the OP is looking for the right words and the right descriptions. Give him time.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nobody understood +1 + -1 = 0 until Stephen Hawking used it. I can't just sit, and wait for somebody else to put my theory on TV before people understand it. And what about all of the predictions I have made from it? Anyway, it's very simple to understand. There's nothing complicated about it.
Imagine that our senses can only see anything equalling 2.
+2 + -1 = 1
Now when two particles overlap you can see them, otherwise they are none existent.
You can start a thread about whatever nonsense you like here, neither I nor Prom said you couldn't. We have said that if you try to post about it in the main physics forum it'll be removed because until you can provide a working viable construction of your claims and show it has any relevance to the real world it is just pseudoscientific nonsense and thus doesn't belong in the main forum.
Speaking as someone from the theoretical physics community who used to see Hawking 'around the place' during my undergrad days I can firmly say that you're talking nonsense. Hawking is a good theoretical physicist but he isn't the be all and end all. There's plenty of people as capable as him, his fame outside of the theoretical physics community is significantly enhanced by his disability. He did much of his earlier work with Penrose, who has made huge contributions to many areas of physics and mathematics too and while Penrose is well known for a mathematical physicist he's not as famous as Hawking despite similar (if not greater) accomplishments.
As for 'understanding +1+-1=0' you have absolutely no clue what people in the mathematics and physics community understand. You think you do but you don't. I'm certain you wouldn't understand the conversations people have at lunch in the Cambridge maths department, where Hawking works, let alone their actual papers.
Trust me, no one is going to do that.
You have come out with vague arm waving concepts which were already in the community. Anyone can do that. What matters is producing them from rigorous methods from simple assumptions. You haven't done that. You spend your time using photoshop, not doing physics.
Utterly baseless made up, plucked from nowhere, nonsense.
You were one of the people who didn't get it before it was on TV, so I don't expect you to get it now. You are an untrustworthy opponent for this thread, as is already proven. I don't trust your low intelligence to get this. But now you are a moderator I wouldn't embarrass yourself too much. You should also learn not to trash threads as a moderator. And by the way..
1 + -1 = 0 is the lowest you can get the maths.. that's a good thing, not a bad thing. If somebody writes a more complex version, it means they have cheated by trying to force a result. For example that will create G, but look at the current version of G. It creates E = Mc2, but that is also more complex than 1 + -1 = 0. It creates every possible calculation known to physics, and that is why it is so amazing.
Is that right?
Was it Stephen Hawking that came up with the idea that in the BB matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts?
That idea seems so obvious and mainstream now, that I can't remember when it first came to light.
Separate names with a comma.