# My theory 1 step at a time

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Pincho Paxton, Dec 10, 2011.

1. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
They obey zonal rules that have no paradox. Nothing doesn't exist so they have to exist. They cannot share the exact same space as one another else that would also be a paradox. So you end up with zonal spheres, else any other shape would be a creative structure.

3. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
You are the Creator You create a sphere with zonal structure and you allow it to remain. Pincho is God for today.

5. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
Like I said it's a self building Universe. When you avoid paradox you end up with hardly any choice but to make it in 1 way.

7. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Go and get some sleep Mate.

8. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
No, a square isn't mathematically symmetrical so it breaks a symmetry rule, and means that there was a creator. A sphere is equal in all directions, therefore no paradox.

9. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Who set the rules? You talk of rules without a rule maker. Isn't that in itself a paradox?

10. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,244
Bullshit.

Also bullshit.

Only from one particular point.

11. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
Pincho vs. Robittybob = bumfight!

12. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
I'm not going to argue, because you have failed too often for me to bother now. I suppose you see square planets all over the place.

13. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Is that called for?

14. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,244
That would be incorrect.

As would that.
And it's not even anything to do with what was written...

15. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
But you must look at the microscopic level and you'll find globular is rare and crystalline "square" is more common.

16. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
Actually I already wrote a computer simulation of crystal structure is my theory, and they obey the kissing problem. This was years ago. I forget how I solved salt now. But I trust whatever solution I found. The amazing part was when I got a perfect snowflake from Gravity, and temperature, and the kissing problem. It was so perfect, it had all of the common details, and to scale. In fact I was so shocked I phoned NASA. But they put the phone down.

17. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Have you still got that snow flake one?

18. ### river

Messages:
17,307

Pincho Paxton

liquid grain ? explain

(I've always looked at gravity as ordered space , myself )

19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
38,038
Pincho Paxton:

A simulator is useless. Garbage in, garbage out.

All successful physical theories make numerical predictions that can then be experimentally tested. If the predictions of the theory match the measurements, then there's some chance that the theory is "right", or at least on the right track.

What kinds of real-world measurements can be done to test your theory? What numbers does you theory predict accurately? Can you give a few examples, and also post the mathematics of the relevant calculations?

For example, can your theory correctly predict something like the mass of an electron, or the force between two protons separated by a particular distance? If not, what can it predict that we can test?

What are the rules? Please list them.

I'm sure you have them all written down, so please post a copy. It's ok. I can cope with maths.

For example, do protons release electrons? Do baseballs release quarks? Or what? Give me a practical example of what you're talking about.

Again, you didn't answer my question.

But in what sense must the universe be "equal to zero". What property of the universe is equal to zero?

What is a liquid grain? Please explain.

Isn't gravity a force? How can a force be forced into a hole?

Are you saying gravity is a particle? Because as I understand it from you, only particles have scale. Is that right?

Why?

How can numbers flow?

Why is energy increase a problem?

Actually, can you explain what you understand "energy" to be for me? I'm worried that my usages of terms like "energy" and "gravity" are very different to yours. So, maybe you ought to give me a list of basic definitions of terms in your theory.

Why not?

What is free energy?

What use is scale if fundamental particles can be any scale?

How. Please set out your reasoning for me from the first principles of your theory. How do you derive this conclusion?

So these bumps that you can't explain without your simulator somehow cause pushes and those pushes turn somehow into time. Is that right?

Can you please show me the derivation of these conclusions?

There's no way to confirm that other than by checking against nature - the real world out there.

When I say "test", I mean precisely "check the predictions of the theory against experimental results".

Is there anything in your theory that can be checked against experimental results involving actual numbers, and not just vague "bubbles" and stuff?

Please show me how you get a fractal from +1 + -1 = 0.

What kind of fractal is it? What is its dimension?

What is the physical cause of scaling up and down?

Does it even mean anything, seeing as fundamental particles can apparently have any scale you like?

The outflow of what? Even in what way?

Explain what it means to create a bow shock in a velocity change.
While you're at it, please explain to me what a "bow shock" is, and what a "velocity change" is. Thanks.

What is magnetism anyway?

This is the first time you have mentioned magnetism in our conversation. How is magnetism explained by your theory? Please show me the derivation?

I have a fridge magnet which says otherwise. It attracts to my fridge just fine. How does your theory account for that?

20. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
I haven't watched the TV episode you refer to. Unlike you I get my physics knowledge from books, actual textbooks. I also got lectured general relativity by several of Hawking's colleagues (in fact they had him as their PhD supervisor decades ago).

The stuff you see on TV is so staggeringly cut down and full of half truths that I cannot watch science documentaries because I get annoyed at how much they bend the truth and glitz it up with needless graphics in order to pander to shmucks like you who don't know anything so evaluate things on their visual presentation.

How am I untrustworthy? Because I give lengthy explanations about how your claims of 'only using 1+-1=0' is false? That is dishonest of you.

No, it isn't. Speaking as a professional mathematician I can categorically tell you that it isn't. The notion of negative numbers took humans millenia to develop, many ancient civilisations didn't have such concepts.

To give you an example, in the 1910s Russell and Whitehead, two of the greatest mathematicians of their day, decided to write books which would develop from the most basic logical statements (like 'A implies A' and 'A implies not not A') everything in mathematics to that point. The books were known as Principia Mathematica (like Newton's). It took until page 365 for them to prove 1+1=2. And that doesn't even get to negative numbers, a more 'advanced' concept in logic! That is how far you are from the 'lowest' mathematics.

You're showing something many people also make the mistake of doing, you think that the order in which you're taught things in mathematics is somehow correlated with its simplicity in mathematics. The true fundamentals of mathematics aren't covered, even remotely, until later in a degree. For example, why is a*b = b*a if a,b are numbers? It's not universally true for all mathematical systems. And why does (-1)*(-1)=+1? It's amazing how few people, outside of maths students, actually realise it is not a tautology but must be proven from simpler statements. Even fewer know how to prove it.

You've already had to assume the entirety of arithmetic to construct such a system, which means you're into realms of mathematics sufficiently 'complicated' to have things like Godel's work apply. Not to mention you also make use of distances and vectors. They are even more elaborate mathematical concepts. Some people devote their entire research career to examining 'metric spaces' or 'normed spaces', where you can define distances.

Since you no doubt will not bother to look around and you admit to complete ignorance, here's an example. What is the distance, in a 2 dimensional space, between the point (0,0) and (-1,2) ?

Someone using Pythagoras would say $d^{2} = (-1)^{2} + 2^{2}$ so $d = \sqrt{5}$. That is known as the 2-norm. Then you could have the 1-norm, $d = |-1|+|2| = 3$. Then there's the $\infty$-norm, $d = max(|-1|,|2|) = 2$. Then there's the 0-norm, $d = |-1|^0 + |2|^0 = 2$. All of these are entirely valid and consistent notions of distance because they all satisfy the same axioms. Of course you didn't realise such different concepts can exist and be equally valid, you assumed your 'sphere distances' thing in your supposed simulator weren't assuming anything.

It takes a huge amount of formal logic to build an arithmetic system. You then have to add in more assumptions/properties to make a vector system. You then have to add in even more to get distances. All of these things you've admitted you use in your simulator so to say you only use 1+-1=0 and there's nothing 'lower' is not only incorrect, it's demonstrably false. The fact you don't know there's anything more basic doesn't mean there isn't, it just means you're an ill informed ignorant dishonest hack.

Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
21. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
I'm ignoring Alpha. I am his God.

Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
22. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
There you go. The theory Of Everything in a nutshell. I have solved it. Now I just wait for somebody who can understand it. It means we can simulate a true universe. If we simulate a universe and put people in it in the future, I become my own God. And that's weird.

23. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
Let's take a look at some of the history of my idea, and science's attitude towards it. I hope you read this AlphaNumeric, maybe you will become a better person. 2007...

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18578

It works really well with this link. 2011...