The force of an object is equal to Gravity entering holes between two objects divided by the distance squared.
Last edited:
My theory 1 step at a time
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
The force of an object is equal to Gravity entering holes between two objects divided by the distance squared.
So I assume -m is in the same location as the mass. Since G still is applicable I assume that the -m is identical to the absolute mass of the object. Does this 'hole' have any physical reality? What are the units of the 'hole'? Is there any evidence of these 'holes' that would make them a more viable alternative than the actual mass, which is pretty obvious.
Are these holes also responsible for the other forces that we encounter. That is, when I throw a ball the force is the mass times the acceleration. Do the 'holes' account for these forces, and how does that work? Apparently the holes are where "gravity enters", but how do the holes develope a force when accelerating or don't the 'holes' have an affect and it is just mass?
The holes are inside atoms, so there is a direct correlation to the standard mass version, and -m is identical to mass.
The holes have physical properties. Holes bump holes, but holes don't bump mass.
The main evidence for the holes is shown in the Bose Einstein condensate when all of the atoms group in one place. The second evidence is only proposed by my snowflake simulator which simulates the movement of gravity into holes to create perfect snowflake analogies.
The holes are responsible for other forces like Magnetism, bow shocks, and time displacement.
When you throw a ball gravity into the middle of the ball is increased, but so is the magnetic out-flow to counter it. The two things combined create a bow-shock, which is an out-flow of magnetism that has been moved forward ahead of the ball. The faster gravity flows into the ball, the more magnetism escapes. The extra gravity creates more force.
If you read it carefully, it was adjusted from a sphere to a beach ball due to some consideration. And I still say sphere, because you can account for the odd orbits by putting the magnetic bubbles inside the sphere.
So according to your equation holes have the units of kg. That seems very odd to me.
Oh for crying out loud, I can believe anyone would actually write the previous paragraph with a 'straight face'. I can't do this it is just to silly. I shouldn't have asked anything. Carry on...
Holes have the -kg filled with gravity kg. So identical.
Objects of different weight fall at the same speed on the moon, so the inward flow is matched by the outward flow of magnetism. The North pole has a magnetic force matched by gravity so the reverse is true as well. But you are right, you are not the right person to ask questions, it is silly. It takes a genius to get this until it's accepted by science, and then it takes a 10 year old.
Last edited:
Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance. To the ignore list for you.
I really hope that Pincho is doing some kind of social experiment, to see how ridiculous and delusional his posts can become before he's banned for wasting everyone's time. The alternative is that he's so detached from reality he believes the nonsense he's peddling.
Perhaps I'm just a little naive about the depths of ignorance some people have but I can't see how someone like Pincho, if he really believes the things he says, can function in society. Being that detached from reality would surely get in the way of holding down a job. Who'd want to hang around with someone who make delusional claims all the time and always has to 'one up' anything someone says. It's obnoxious when someone says "Oh I could have been a professional [sport] player if I'd wanted" when they're a fat lazy arse and claims of "I could have been a world leading professor in [subject] if I'd tried" are just as ridiculous, particularly when the person saying them is as uninformed and flat out wrong as much as Pincho is. I'd imagine that only through considerable compartmentalisation could such a person function in society in anything close to a normal way. To be honest it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to learn Pincho doesn't have a job.
Do you Pincho?
I'm a computer games designer. I have worked on some famous games, there are sites about me.
Are you working at the moment? On contract or on hourly rate?
There would be a big gap between the mechanism in a game (uses pure creative genius) and the reality behind the Universe. In fact there maybe no real linkage between the two concepts. Like you can build your Universe however you want to, but that does not mean that is the way it happened. How do you ensure fantasy and reality stay together?
That's why I don't program it. I use the number 6 like the game of life, and it should self build. Hence me saying "I don't use maths in my Universe Generator."
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/
And the rules that I use are also less fashioned. My advantage is that I start with space-time, and then just watch what happens. It is fine enough to create everything like a TV screen is made from small dots. And my space-time = 0 so I am starting from zero. It is hexadecimal so it always stacks in 6's. And if you check out nature, for example Quarks = 6, leptons = series of 6, limbs on animals = 6, I have a good chance of getting everything from nothing without cheating.
Now if you think of the Universe as just a bunch of particles, and my program as just a bunch of Dims, and that particles do not know maths, and my dims have no physics, and particles are just a membrane with a hole, and a computer program is just a number stored in a dim, and you can put something in a hole, you can put something in a dim. My Universe generator should exactly match the universe.
My smaller particles will fit inside my larger particles to create new particles. I don't have to do anything. I just simulate a zero particle, what it can do, and that isn't a lot. And my rules are counter-productive... I just make the universe maintain a zero state. Which intuitively should not create anything, but paradoxically does.
And at the moment I am working on my robot Neural Network. It will become a game, in fact I think it will be the best game of all time. Here's my test robot. I have used parts of production robots so that I know that the parts can be manufactured, because I'm not a electrician/mechanic. I have just improved certain parts like the thumb joint. I have added touch sensors taken from analogue computer mouse buttons. Currently the eyes are not mechanical, I will use vectors to replace light waves, and hope that this can be translated to a real robot. But that's just for realism, this will be a game that could be built for real, but probably will never be built for real. It will be just a computer game that will be realistic. A bit like a Da Vinci drawing of a helicopter, it will remain as a game, and maybe somebody some day will build it.
Last edited:
Sounds very art based, just like all the stuff you've done so far in regards to your neural network AI. You've spent considerable time making a picture of a robot, which anyone can do, rather than doing the actual world. It's like someone who spends all their time carefully labelling their lecture notes rather than actually reading them and then thinking they're doing lots of revising.
It would seem you're procrastinating.
That's a quick robot for me, that's why it doesn't have realistic eyes. You can't build the ai without the limbs. You also have to remember that NASA's trip to the moon was an adventure like climbing mount Everest. NASA's adventures can lead to recreational space travel. It is akin to an extreme sport, it is science, but for achievement. My games are recreational, but scientific at the same time. You can build the real robot, but you can also play the game.
Last edited:
Pioneer Anomaly paper now in print.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i24/e241101
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/07/17/pioneer-anomaly-re-explained/
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i24/e241101
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/07/17/pioneer-anomaly-re-explained/
39,000 views, but how many people actually understand it still? I've been asked to make it simpler. I'm not sure I know how to break it down. Or build it up?
That's a very interesting read.