For many years I have been posting my Bubble Theory or Black Hole Theory On the internet, and on this site too. I started my theory on bubbles in 2004. I also posted that I can't do maths. This starts debates on my theory being a waste of time. But I feel that I have predicted so many things now that I should be taken at least a bit seriously. Afterall, my Bubble Theory is a Theory Of Everything.. with no maths.

I know that I am in for some flak, I am used to flak. This is the real Theory Of Everything...

First.. the Aether exists.

Second.. Gravity is a push from outside the Earth, a bump between Aether particles.. very small.

Third... Atoms are holes in the Aether.

Fourth... Magnetism is the release of pressure from Gravity pushing into those holes. opposed pressure.. a bubble.

Fifth.. The Aether uses negative mass in its construction. It is 50% positive mass, and 50% negative mass. This means that in a relaxed state it equals zero. In a negative mass state it is a hole, and the hole gets filled by more Aether.. this hides it under a false mass attribute which also equals zero. This is also Gravity. The filling of negative Aether is the filling of our atoms with Aether, the atoms are negative mass holes. The holes fill with Aether, the Aether travels to the next holes in the atoms, and finally the Aether travels into the Earth. When combining all of these results with the outflow of Magnetism, the Aether through our body is hidden inside pressure equality. But the extra pressure towards the Earth remains. So on the moon, two weights will fall to the moon at the same speed, because only the moon pressure is part of the result.

Sixth... My theory eliminates the Big Bang, and replaces it with an Aether bump. Aether can bump Aether even if it is zero.. flat lining. The bump is how the Aether is propagated. It's neighbor bumps it, but the Aether does not have its own propulsion. Newtons Cradle style. The Aether is therefore bumped into holes, and the holes are in atoms. This creates the bending space time illusion. A flow into the Earth, is the same as a dip towards the Earth.

Seventh... so a Galaxy can form anywhere that there is enough Aether to cause a big enough bump. The Aether will then be folded into negative mass, and more Aether will fall on top of it. The Black hole at the centre of a galaxy. The Aether will then need a way out of the hole, the opposite force to Gravity... Magnetism. This will create a huge bubble around the Galaxy.. the Flattened Beach Ball. More bubbles will come from the Black hole.. already discovered. finally the new Voyager Bubbles which I predicted in 2004.

Finally, if my theory is true, it makes many new predictions.

That a flow is required into the sun to power it, and the flow causes the Mercury orbit to fluctuate, and moves its magnetic field away from the centre.

That the Big Bang never happened, but was in fact just pressure variations in the Aether.

That the Universe expands because the bubbles around Galaxies are a repellent magnetic force. But should you have the inertia to break through them you can get through them.

Anti-Matter is just pressure holes in the Aether. And matter is the pressure release.

It's a theory of Everything.. I could post for years, but I'm ready to stop for awhile.

Coming later today.. Quantum Physics, as Physics...


http://www.avforums.com/forums/general-chat/1476475-quantum-physics-physics.html

My earlier posts on this site were about 2009...


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97712&highlight=Bubble+Universe+%28Tongue+Cheek%29

I'm working on a computer program that will attempt to show my theory in more detail....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESRffa2Se-g&feature=player_embedded

While special relativity showed that Maxwell's equations do not require the aether, there were some early modern aether theories, however, the early modern aether has little in common with the aether of classical elements from which the name was borrowed and the aether theories are scientifically obsolete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

I know. Doesn't mean it's not there though. Just means that it isn't easily found.

I know. Doesn't mean it's not there though. Just means that it isn't easily found.

:wallbang: :spank:

This starts debates on my theory being a waste of time. Your 'theory' is a waste of time.


But I feel that I have predicted so many things nowNone of which you have any evidence for. Nor a working model of. Nor any ability to make testable predictions. Nor any concrete logic behind it.

No science full stop.


that I should be taken at least a bit seriously.You're just another crank who desperately wants to be taken seriously by people who understand things you don't. Try to validate your existence some other way, because you're bound to fail here.


Afterall, my Bubble Theory is a Theory Of Everything.. with no maths.It's a theory of nothing, since it describes nothing, models nothing, formalises nothing, provides nothing. It is nothing.

Just like your grasp of science.

Some of your concepts are basically valid. It is always possible to describe physics inversely. Heat can be described as lack of cold, pressure can be described as a lack of vacuum, the planets and the sun can be described as circling the Earth in very complex orbits, etc. etc.

In the old days, fire was speculated to consist of Phlogiston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

So things that were combustible contained Phlogiston, which burned away as fire. This worked fine, the math was OK, till it was discovered that if you considered all products, things that burned did not become lighter, they became heavier. So, Phlogiston turned out to have negative weight! Reconsidering, scientists of the time realized that they had it upside down, and instead of loosing Phlogiston, a burning substance attracted Oxygen. Suddenly the whole thing made sense.

Your 'theory' is clearly an attempt to put things on their head. If you could do math, you would soon discover that something was amiss.

Finally, what makes you believe that you, who, by your own admission can't do math, and who consequently has no scientific education, should be able to discover something that has so far eluded the best minds on the planet?

Quite frankly, forget it, and get on with your life.

Hans

For many years I have been posting my Bubble Theory or Black Hole Theory On the internet, and on this site too..The internet has brough us many benefits, in some cases transforming the way we do business and engage socially. We should not be surprised that there are some negative consequences.

Pincho, there is no polite way to say this. You are full of shit and have less idea of the fundamentals of science than an overbleached Amish quilt. Please give it a frigging rest and get an education. There are many knowledgeable people on this forum who would be willing to point you in the right direction for either a formal educaiton, or an informal one. Until you take advantage of that then the purile drivel you serve up in threads like this will be treated with the contempt it deserves. Please grow up.

I started my theory on bubbles in 2004. ....

7 years of wasted effort.:p

Yeah, but I'm right. My theory is the correct theory of everything. You can all play with your maths all day long, but whatever that is supposed to prove is being argued against in all of my threads. So your maths is failing in a gargantuan way. To have the maths, and yet argue against the truth is proof that maths is a mental illusion. I'm not stupid anyway, I can program computer models, I write Neural Networks. I believe that reality is to use physics as actual physical interactions without formulas.. just like Neural Networks. My theory of the Aether is based on the bumping of particles, and they bump into negative mass holes. It is the holes that evade the discovery of the Aether. The holes hide it as a zero result. You add mass, and negative mass together, and you get a flat-line result. You can't detect flat-line results, but you can detect their interactions with the surrounding materials. Electrons are the bumps of the Aether together. All of the maths is based on Aether results, but ignore the actual Aether itself. The Aether is a Turing Machine, and it works as a trinary code type medium.

Simple nonsense.

Pincho, do you have a job? I ask because you seem so utterly naive about reality I wonder how you can function in the real world.

Hurrah. Pincho is back.:bravo:

Oh Dear, he seems to have gone again.

Pincho, do you have a job? I ask because you seem so utterly naive about reality I wonder how you can function in the real world.

I'm not out of touch with reality. I'm very in touch with it. Since 2004 most of the things that I have said have been discovered.

1/ The bubble around the Milky way.
2/ The multiverse bubbles.
3/ The Voyager Bubbles.
4/ Antimatter around the Earth

I know what is happening out there...


I have been the best predictor of Universal phenomena of our time.

1/ The bubble around the Milky way.
2/ The multiverse bubbles.
3/ The Voyager Bubbles.
4/ Antimatter around the Earth



None of these things have been observed.


I have been the best predictor of Universal phenomena of our time.

Classic crank.

I have been the best predictor of Universal phenomena of our time.

Truly a legend I your own mind. I think you should not sell yourself short and say that you are best predictor of ALL TIME. I mean, all things considered, whether you say "our time" or "all time" they are equally as childishly silly.

For many years I have been posting my Bubble Theory or Black Hole Theory On the internet, and on this site too. I started my theory on bubbles in 2004. I also posted that I can't do maths. This starts debates on my theory being a waste of time. But I feel that I have predicted so many things now that I should be taken at least a bit seriously. Afterall, my Bubble Theory is a Theory Of Everything.. with no maths.

I know that I am in for some flak, I am used to flak. This is the real Theory Of Everything...

First.. the Aether exists.

Second.. Gravity is a push from outside the Earth, a bump between Aether particles.. very small.

Third... Atoms are holes in the Aether.

Fourth... Magnetism is the release of pressure from Gravity pushing into those holes. opposed pressure.. a bubble.

Fifth.. The Aether uses negative mass in its construction. It is 50% positive mass, and 50% negative mass. This means that in a relaxed state it equals zero. In a negative mass state it is a hole, and the hole gets filled by more Aether.. this hides it under a false mass attribute which also equals zero. This is also Gravity. The filling of negative Aether is the filling of our atoms with Aether, the atoms are negative mass holes. The holes fill with Aether, the Aether travels to the next holes in the atoms, and finally the Aether travels into the Earth. When combining all of these results with the outflow of Magnetism, the Aether through our body is hidden inside pressure equality. But the extra pressure towards the Earth remains. So on the moon, two weights will fall to the moon at the same speed, because only the moon pressure is part of the result.

Sixth... My theory eliminates the Big Bang, and replaces it with an Aether bump. Aether can bump Aether even if it is zero.. flat lining. The bump is how the Aether is propagated. It's neighbor bumps it, but the Aether does not have its own propulsion. Newtons Cradle style. The Aether is therefore bumped into holes, and the holes are in atoms. This creates the bending space time illusion. A flow into the Earth, is the same as a dip towards the Earth.

Seventh... so a Galaxy can form anywhere that there is enough Aether to cause a big enough bump. The Aether will then be folded into negative mass, and more Aether will fall on top of it. The Black hole at the centre of a galaxy. The Aether will then need a way out of the hole, the opposite force to Gravity... Magnetism. This will create a huge bubble around the Galaxy.. the Flattened Beach Ball. More bubbles will come from the Black hole.. already discovered. finally the new Voyager Bubbles which I predicted in 2004.

Finally, if my theory is true, it makes many new predictions.

That a flow is required into the sun to power it, and the flow causes the Mercury orbit to fluctuate, and moves its magnetic field away from the centre.

That the Big Bang never happened, but was in fact just pressure variations in the Aether.

That the Universe expands because the bubbles around Galaxies are a repellent magnetic force. But should you have the inertia to break through them you can get through them.

Anti-Matter is just pressure holes in the Aether. And matter is the pressure release.

It's a theory of Everything.. I could post for years, but I'm ready to stop for awhile.

Well, what a load of rubbish!

It's amazing how many times the Theory of Everything has been discovered on the internet.

It's equally amazing that none of them are the same.:D

It's amazing how many times the Theory of Everything has been discovered on the internet.

It's equally amazing that none of them are the same.:D

Because most of them are based on maths, and maths is an illusion of reality.

Because most of them are based on maths, and maths is an illusion of reality.

Reality is not based on maths. Math's describes reality, it is not reality itself.

Looking in mirrors is hard to do . The better we will be for it .
I can imagine bubbles with little corners of empty space in between the bubbles . The circle in a square . I don't really know though , wild guesses can be fun . Revenge of the giant tomatos

Looking in mirrors is hard to do . The better we will be for it .
I can imagine bubbles with little corners of empty space in between the bubbles . The circle in a square . I don't really know though , wild guesses can be fun . Revenge of the giant tomatos

I don't guess either. I use deduction like Sherlock Holmes, or Columbo. I started at the beginning of the Universe, how would it actually start up from nothing, and that doesn't give you many alternatives. Once you get this part figured out, you have some basic material to work with, and that material can only bump together. Then once you figure out how it bumps together, again you have only fractal options to work with. I'll tell you that you never end up with attractive forces, only bumps which by nature are invisible, and because they are invisible people tend to call these forces attractive. They are all opposing forces. The Universe is just bumping particles together in such a way that they create results like a computer. Simple bumping can create complex results. In a similar way to a neural network, the Universe creates the highest formation of complexity from nothing. Here is something that I am working on at the moment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBtt-iVqvFE

Because most of them are based on maths, and maths is an illusion of reality.

No, actually it's because cranks are wackos who by and large know nothing about physics.


I use deduction like Sherlock Holmes, or Columbo.

Two fictional characters.

You just made my point.

No, actually it's because cranks are wackos who by and large know nothing about physics.



Two fictional characters.

You just made my point.

You are a fictional character.. AlexG with a drunken avatar.

Pincho Paxton:

. . . . all is O.K with the universe . . . . more-speculative hypotheses have been presented by others (Right, AlexG?) throughout human history . . . . remember the duality of it all . . . without an 'up', there is no 'down', etc. . . . I enjoy reading others' hypotheses, whether I support them, or not. It's called an 'open-mind'!

wlminex

It's amazing how many times the Theory of Everything has been discovered on the internet.

It's equally amazing that none of them are the same.:D

I have every intention of keeping my horizons open....
... I don't think reality can be simplified so easily... That is me being kind to the idea of personalized theories.

Latest news...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110829164649.htm

Posted by me, many years ago.

Posted by me, many years ago.
Link please.

Latest news...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110829164649.htm

Posted by me, many years ago.That is really a crappy picture, isn't it? I might have been a smudge on the lens if Hubble hit a love bug. Could be, they're everywhere else. Maybe you can take a crack at making it more artistic? Interesting link. Thanks.

That is really a crappy picture, isn't it? I might have been a smudge on the lens if Hubble hit a love bug. Could be, they're everywhere else. Maybe you can take a crack at making it more artistic? Interesting link. Thanks.

Like this but more Nebula type dust...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pinchopaxton/BubbleBurst.jpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110829164649.htm

Cool, very good for short notice. Now put under it a link and the caption from the on-line picture if you dare, lol.

I didn't just print this stuff out on a computer screen, I wrote the +1 + -1 = 0 into a computer program, and it worked. It created a dynamic physical interaction of particles that was akin to trinary code. Overlapping 1's create electrons, overlapping -1's create positrons, the change up from -1 to +1 creates photons, the +1 membrane container crossed into creates particles, the +1 half overlap creates chain bonding, and gravity, the loop into +1 then -1, and back to +1 creates mirroring, and reflection, and gold twinning as the direction of flow changes. Cold Temperature is a reduction of +1 to -1, warm is the change from -1 to +1. Reducing the +1 decreases the membrane, and reducing the membrane reduces the overlap resistance, and reducing the overlap resistance increases the bonding, and if the membrane gets too thin you get a Bose Einstein condensate. If the membrane gets very thick you just get electron feedback which has little friction.

Above is just a collection of a few examples of how +1 + -1 = 0 becomes super-dynamic. At each stage, the formulas are created.. G.. C...E... so you eliminate the formulas, and replace them with the trinary version of the physical interactions.

This starts debates on my theory being a waste of time.

Oh for fucksake! If debates about your theory are a waste of time then two things are immediately true.

1. You are not a scientist who's practicing science as science thrives on debate.

and

2. You should stop posting them in a medium that is designed for debate!

SWEET EVIL JESUS! For such a genius you sure are bone-dead stupid sometimes.

That was just a typo, it should have been written like this...


This creates a reaction to my theory being a waste of time.

That was just a typo, it should have been written like this...Rubbish. A typo is a typographical error such as the following:
1) the labm instead of the lamb
2) exponwntial instead of exponential

One might even accept as a typo their for there, but "This starts debates on" is most certainly not a typo for "This creates a reaction to...". That is just a total, garbled misstatement.

I didn't just print this stuff out on a computer screen, I wrote the +1 + -1 = 0 into a computer program, and it worked. It created a dynamic physical interaction of particles that was akin to trinary code. Overlapping 1's create electrons, overlapping -1's create positrons, the change up from -1 to +1 creates photons, the +1 membrane container crossed into creates particles, the +1 half overlap creates chain bonding, and gravity, the loop into +1 then -1, and back to +1 creates mirroring, and reflection, and gold twinning as the direction of flow changes. Cold Temperature is a reduction of +1 to -1, warm is the change from -1 to +1. Reducing the +1 decreases the membrane, and reducing the membrane reduces the overlap resistance, and reducing the overlap resistance increases the bonding, and if the membrane gets too thin you get a Bose Einstein condensate. If the membrane gets very thick you just get electron feedback which has little friction.

I refuse to believe this is serious. The only explanation for such egregious pseudo science word salad is that this is for some sort of comedy routine. This doesn't even rise to the level of horribly written science fiction.:rolleyes:

I refuse to believe this is serious. The only explanation for such egregious pseudo science word salad is that this is for some sort of comedy routine. This doesn't even rise to the level of horribly written science fiction.:rolleyes:

I meant this program, which is a test of 1+ -1 = 0...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggRxyHjimxM&feature=related

I meant this program, which is a test of 1+ -1 = 0...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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28mathematics%29) 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!

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28mathematics%29) 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.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.

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.

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.

= is a check.
No it's not.

No it's not.

Where's the check then? Anyway I'm wasting my time talking to the two dumb guys on the site. Oh wait.. it's closer to 5.

Yes it's a check, because I don't have to take any notice of you.

Where's the check then?
What check?
How about getting someone else to look at your work?


Anyway I'm wasting my time talking to the two dumb guys on the site.
Aaand... arse-about-face, again.

What check?
How about getting someone else to look at your work?


Aaand... arse-about-face, again.

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.

When you work with maths, you are doing certain things that you ignore.
Maybe that's how you do it. :rolleyes:


You are obviously checking the result with =.
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.
And more bullshit.

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.

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.

How can you show a particle a result???
Particles don't "need" to be shown a result.


You are allowing all of your brain to take part in the check, and eyes.
What "check"?

Particles don't "need" to be shown a result.


What "check"?

That they have bumped together.. typical science, you just allow things to happen. = is entropy.

That they have bumped together.
Why does it "need" to "check"?


typical science, you just allow things to happen.
Typical Pincho, persistently clueless.

Why does it "need" to "check"?


Typical Pincho, persistently clueless.

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).

More bullshit.
And still not an ounce of support. (Or rationality).

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.

Oh-oh. He's rambling again.
Time for your meds Pincho.

Pincho, please be sure to tell us when you get your Ph.D. in psychology. I assume you are conducting an experiment to evaluate the reaction of participants on forums when they are faced with infantile, garbled brain farts. I am intrigued to know what results you have seen and how you will interpret them. If they are published in other than your thesis, please let us know the citation.

@Pincho --

Imagining doesn't mean shit. I can imagine what you say, I can also imagine that the universe and all that exists was created by a Giant Space Duck who feeds on the electromagnetic fields of planets, this doesn't make it so.

@Pincho --

Imagining doesn't mean shit. I can imagine what you say, I can also imagine that the universe and all that exists was created by a Giant Space Duck who feeds on the electromagnetic fields of planets, this doesn't make it so.

But then you have added parts, and the idea is to remove all of the parts, and then evolve them. Remove every duck that science has added.. thousands of them, and then start from scratch. No G duck, no singularity duck, no inflation duck, I am removing the ducks. You just want the easy route, I want the hard route. Do you think I added the web in the bubble from imagination? No that is created by spherical stacking. Spherical stacking means that only 12 sphere can touch 1 sphere. If the central sphere is under pressure, there are 12 escape routes. But it is unlikely that the pressure would be exactly equal on all sides, and that creates 6 escape routes in 2D, and that's a hexagon, and 6 hexagon lines to a bubble membrane is web shaped, and also electron orbit shaped, and snowflake shaped, and hand, and feet, and body shaped. You evaluate the shape from the kissing problem, and you don't just add it by imagination.

There is only ONE duck!

It's physical maths, not just maths.Sounds like back peddling.


You are ignoring the = sign. It is included in the maths. = is a check. So you are allowed to check the result. Firstly = is not 'a check', it is an equivalence relation. Secondly what are you comparing? Distances. The definition of distance is something non-trivial. You define distances using metrics or norms (they are different things!), of which you can pick many for some spaces.

For instance, suppose you're considering points in 2 dimensions. How far is the point (x,y) from the origin (0,0)? If you use the Euclidean norm it is ||(x,y)|| = \sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}. If you use the Manhattan norm it is ||(x,y)|| = |x|+|y|. If you use the infinity norm it is ||(x,y)|| = max(|x|,|y|). If you use the Lp norm then it is ||(x,y)|| = (|x|^{p}+|y|^{p})^{\frac{1}{p}} (so the L2 norm is the Euclidean one and the L1 norm is the Manhattan one). And this is just a simple case, never mind issues like curved spaces like in general relativity (which is just applied Riemannian geometry).

Since you no doubt don't understand the general formulas I've just given consider (x,y) = (3,-4). For the L1 norm ||(3,-4)|| = |3|+|-4| = 3+4 = 7. For the Euclidean norm ||(3,-4)|| = \sqrt{3^{2}+(-4)^{2}} = 5. If it's the infinity norm its ||(3,-4)|| = max(|3|,|-4|) = 4.

So before you can even use the = to 'check' distances you have to define distances. And thus also assumes you're already working in some kind of space, with different directions. Vector spaces are non-trivial mathematical concepts either.

Furthermore if you're going to have a theory of everything you never to explain where this space comes from. You can't say "This thing is at that point" because 'points' are places in space so you're presupposing space. Loop quantum gravity doesn't presuppose the existence of space-time at all and tries to construct it. In string theory space-time is an ensemble construct due to lots of closed strings. It is possible to construct valid, consistent string dynamics in spaces which do not have the notion of points. Distances are meaningless in such constructs but string theory can still be done in them.

So while you think you're making no assumptions in terms of mathematics you've actually made a ton of them. The reason why you don't realise it is because you have such a poor mathematical background and you don't realise just how far even basic high school mathematics is from true first principles of logic.

In the 1910s Russell and Whitehead tried to write a single set of books which developed mathematics from true first principles, called Principia Mathematica. It took over 360 pages for them to develop enough logical structure to show 1+1=2. 360 pages. That is how far even 1+(-1)=0 is from true base axioms.


Anyway the check gives you some answers to quantum physics.Prove it. You accused mpc of just spitting out random posts, let's see you do better.

I do love it when someone with genuine expertise systematically takes apart a self deluded moron.

I equally love having exposed my own deep ignorance of things mathematical. It encourages me to work a little harder at removing that ignorance.

Executive summary of the above: great post Alpha.

I do love it when someone with genuine expertise systematically takes apart a self deluded moron.

I equally love having exposed my own deep ignorance of things mathematical. It encourages me to work a little harder at removing that ignorance.

Executive summary of the above: great post Alpha.

I love the ignore list! :D

I love the ignore list! :DSo Pincho is just sticking his head in the sand and avoiding facing up to mistakes. Proof he's not interested in truth or science or reason or evidence, he just wants to stroke his deluded ego.

For many years I have been posting my Bubble Theory or Black Hole Theory On the internet, and on this site too. I started my theory on bubbles in 2004. I also posted that I can't do maths. This starts debates on my theory being a waste of time. But I feel that I have predicted so many things now that I should be taken at least a bit seriously. Afterall, my Bubble Theory is a Theory Of Everything.. with no maths.

I know that I am in for some flak, I am used to flak. This is the real Theory Of Everything...

First.. the Aether exists.

Second.. Gravity is a push from outside the Earth, a bump between Aether particles.. very small.

Third... Atoms are holes in the Aether.

Fourth... Magnetism is the release of pressure from Gravity pushing into those holes. opposed pressure.. a bubble.

Fifth.. The Aether uses negative mass in its construction. It is 50% positive mass, and 50% negative mass. This means that in a relaxed state it equals zero. In a negative mass state it is a hole, and the hole gets filled by more Aether.. this hides it under a false mass attribute which also equals zero. This is also Gravity. The filling of negative Aether is the filling of our atoms with Aether, the atoms are negative mass holes. The holes fill with Aether, the Aether travels to the next holes in the atoms, and finally the Aether travels into the Earth. When combining all of these results with the outflow of Magnetism, the Aether through our body is hidden inside pressure equality. But the extra pressure towards the Earth remains. So on the moon, two weights will fall to the moon at the same speed, because only the moon pressure is part of the result.

Sixth... My theory eliminates the Big Bang, and replaces it with an Aether bump. Aether can bump Aether even if it is zero.. flat lining. The bump is how the Aether is propagated. It's neighbor bumps it, but the Aether does not have its own propulsion. Newtons Cradle style. The Aether is therefore bumped into holes, and the holes are in atoms. This creates the bending space time illusion. A flow into the Earth, is the same as a dip towards the Earth.

Seventh... so a Galaxy can form anywhere that there is enough Aether to cause a big enough bump. The Aether will then be folded into negative mass, and more Aether will fall on top of it. The Black hole at the centre of a galaxy. The Aether will then need a way out of the hole, the opposite force to Gravity... Magnetism. This will create a huge bubble around the Galaxy.. the Flattened Beach Ball. More bubbles will come from the Black hole.. already discovered. finally the new Voyager Bubbles which I predicted in 2004.

Finally, if my theory is true, it makes many new predictions.

That a flow is required into the sun to power it, and the flow causes the Mercury orbit to fluctuate, and moves its magnetic field away from the centre.

That the Big Bang never happened, but was in fact just pressure variations in the Aether.

That the Universe expands because the bubbles around Galaxies are a repellent magnetic force. But should you have the inertia to break through them you can get through them.

Anti-Matter is just pressure holes in the Aether. And matter is the pressure release.

It's a theory of Everything.. I could post for years, but I'm ready to stop for awhile.

The supposed aether has dual characteristics, and I don't quite see the materials like atoms as holes in it, but a reduction of it, like points where it is simmered or calmed down.

The universe has those patterns, light producing objects and material, and dark areas that gobble up light and have little material.