# My theory 1 step at a time

You might have missed this one:
you create the Universe and Time, and so what are you complaining about.
You seem to talk about motions that can only really be imagined on a demonstration.
If you want acceptance, and since you don't have maths, show us the video. Please. We'll wait.

I suppose that I am used to imagining these things being as I work on computer games I make physics like this quite often.

Pincho Paxton:

Please post your 20 lines of code that reproduce everything in the universe. I'd like to try it on my own computer.

Thanks.

Pincho Paxton:

Please post your 20 lines of code that reproduce everything in the universe. I'd like to try it on my own computer.

Thanks.

Yeah, wouldn't everyone.
But like I said, it's possible of the unsaid rules. You don't post it on the internet.

I couldn't sleep again. My mind was working on DNA seeds, and crystal seeds. It's a way to store a pattern that can be reconstructed. I only got as far as the seed, and the rest is too complicated to do in my head. But basically a fractal of space time will freeze in magnetism. So then you can unfreeze it to get the shape back again. A bit like salt, which locks gravity, and magnetism in place, and stops time from escaping from its hole.

Just worked out colour. Colour is a scale up wave of particles through a hexagon grid. So the scale of the pulse is the colour. Now I can make my computer program use true colours, although I also have to put some fake ones in for dark matter (negative mass).

EDIT: A lot of my old posts say the same thing, but I have completed a bit more of it now.

Last edited:
The two slit experiment completed!!!

Photons travel by rotating the kissing problem in a 2D direction to match an observer. This gives the observer a more reliable hexagon structure to capture. Without an observer the kissing problem is not rotated, and is now an icosahedron. Because an icosahedron is more random than a hexagon the photons head off in none linear directions. This creates the wave pattern!!!

This is ace... I love it!!!

Consciousness!!! I suppose it takes the fun out of it a bit, so don't read it unless you really want to know!

I know what consciousness is now. First there is a hole, and the hole has a scale. I call it scale 1. We are in a Universe where scale 1 can appear as a virtual particle. This particle will appear in our brain. It will then head in the direction that has the least resistance. We have control of the resistance. We control it by opening a new hole, an OUT hole. I don't know the scale of this hole. But anyway, it offers the least resistance. So a series of virtual cogs rotate to face the OUT hole. The virtual particle acts as a photon, and heads to the out hole. As it travels along it creates a sort of caterpillar propagation. The propagation sends energy out in 6 directions. Those 6 results create the impulse of a thought.

"We have control of the resistance. We control it by opening a new hole, an OUT hole. I don't know the scale of this hole"

You seem to mention control before you have consciousness! Did you mean conscious control or not?

"We have control of the resistance. We control it by opening a new hole, an OUT hole. I don't know the scale of this hole"

You seem to mention control before you have consciousness! Did you mean conscious control or not?

With time in a central hole of a particle, you can juggle it a bit. Forget about linear time in our heads. Think more of your hands juggling 6 balls. The balls in the air have no start point once you get them going.

With time in a central hole of a particle, you can juggle it a bit. Forget about linear time in our heads. Think more of your hands juggling 6 balls. The balls in the air have no start point once you get them going.
Fascinating concept.

I suppose that I am used to imagining these things being as I work on computer games I make physics like this quite often.
That's hardly putting you in a unique position. Physicists code up vector based stuff all the time, going into hundreds of dimensions sometimes. Coming up with 'fake physics' which looks, in a simulation, qualitatively similar to actual physics is easy, coming up with accurate simulations is hard. Take fire for instance. It's a bitch to truly, accurately simulate. Computer games use all kinds of cheats and slights of hand to generate effects which superficially look like fire but they don't actually correctly simulate it. Heat flow, gas dynamics, energy releases, they are all very very difficult to simulate simultaneously. So being able to program a believable visual effect of some phenomenon is not the same as simulating the phenomenon accurately.

I know what consciousness is now. First there is a hole, and the hole has a scale. I call it scale 1. We are in a Universe where scale 1 can appear as a virtual particle. This particle will appear in our brain. It will then head in the direction that has the least resistance. We have control of the resistance. We control it by opening a new hole, an OUT hole. I don't know the scale of this hole. But anyway, it offers the least resistance. So a series of virtual cogs rotate to face the OUT hole. The virtual particle acts as a photon, and heads to the out hole. As it travels along it creates a sort of caterpillar propagation. The propagation sends energy out in 6 directions. Those 6 results create the impulse of a thought.
Personally I'm amazed you've ever been employed. Rationality and any semblance of humility are completely alien to you. Do you tell friends and family you think you've topped all the physicists in the world? Do you set around the breakfast table and say "I'm better at physics than Hawking, Einstein and Newton!"?

Last edited:
That's hardly putting you in a unique position. I code up tons of vector stuff. I even invented a new optimisation method based on sphere intersections! To say nothing of working with systems with hundreds of dimensions.

Coming up with 'fake physics' which looks, in a simulation, qualitatively similar to actual physics is easy, coming up with accurate simulations is hard. Take fire for instance. It's a bitch to truly, accurately simulate. Computer games use all kinds of cheats and slights of hand to generate effects which superficially look like fire but they don't actually correctly simulate it. Heat flow, gas dynamics, energy releases, they are all very very difficult to simulate simultaneously. So being able to program a believable visual effect of some phenomenon is not the same as simulating the phenomenon accurately.

Personally I'm amazed you've ever been employed. Rationality and any semblance of humility are completely alien to you. Do you tell friends and family you think you've topped all the physicists in the world? Do you set around the breakfast table and say "I'm better at physics than Hawking, Einstein and Newton!"?

Like I said vectors are cheating. Programming vectors is taking a grain average. In quantum physics you need the complete grain structure. You will get nowhere ignoring the complete grain structure of the universe. For example DNA is another perfect grain structure, you can't figure it out with vectors. With the kissing problem it auto-builds.

Like I said vectors are cheating.
And I have explained to you numerous times you are already using such things. To have positions you are working in a vector space. To have distances you're working in a normed vector space. Your claims of working only with 1+-1=0 are demonstrated false. Your inability to accept this fact only further highlights your dishonesty.

And I have explained to you numerous times you are already using such things. To have positions you are working in a vector space. To have distances you're working in a normed vector space. Your claims of working only with 1+-1=0 are demonstrated false. Your inability to accept this fact only further highlights your dishonesty.

You are supposed to know maths. Maybe you should take a look why the Aether was used in science. You don't seem to know much about it. Or maybe just study grain stacking. You don't need vectors. I am programming from scratch, not using a vector system. You actually don't seem to know much about anything. Can't you just block yourself from me, I can't block you.

I'd keep AlphaNumeric on your side PP.

Are atoms made of just energy?
Even when atoms go into the Black Holes they don't loose all their mass. So I wouldn't be surprised if there is a non energy component to matter as well as the energy.
I have no proof of this but from my understanding particle numbers are fixed so if they were just energy particles would be coming and going all the time.

We might find there is a framework to a particle. Space behaves like a 3D lattice but we don't see any structure, so it beats me as to what it is.

I'd keep AlphaNumeric on your side PP.

Since AN is an educated physicist, and PP has never taken a science course in his life, that's not going to happen,

I'd keep AlphaNumeric on your side PP.

Are atoms made of just energy?
Even when atoms go into the Black Holes they don't loose all their mass. So I wouldn't be surprised if there is a non energy component to matter as well as the energy.
I have no proof of this but from my understanding particle numbers are fixed so if they were just energy particles would be coming and going all the time.

We might find there is a framework to a particle. Space behaves like a 3D lattice but we don't see any structure, so it beats me as to what it is.

Yes space is a 3D lattice of the Icosahedron Kissing Problem, and that's why vectors are no good. That's why a shape can be maintained in DNA, because the lattice is fractal, and very perfect all through space. It is so perfect that our orbit rebuilds us without any change to our form. The super-sized black hole could be a doorway from one Universe to the next (but I can't be sure yet). Each universe is made from a new scale factor. I use 1 for our universe to make it simple, but the fist scale is the origin scale it can be anything, no matter what scale you start with you just use that as the unit of measurement. So if you start with 100 as your first scale, your second scale is measured in units of 100. Using this process you will always get a perfect universe.

I will put a 5 year bet on with AlphaNumeric for £10 million (which I will be good for) that using his perfect maths ability that I can predict the pull of Jupiter on the Earth more accurately than he can. I am giving 5 years for science to catch up with me. So Alpha, you write your answer first, then I will write mine.

Last edited:
I'm quite amazed actually how detailed I am getting now. I am beating the best electron microscopes. To see the animated path of a photon in particle detail through the two slit experiment I think is probably the best achievement of pure intelligence so far.

I'm quite amazed actually how detailed I am getting now. I am beating the best electron microscopes. To see the animated path of a photon in particle detail through the two slit experiment I think is probably the best achievement of pure intelligence so far.

You simulated " two slit experiment " , through your codings ?

You simulated " two slit experiment " , through your codings ?

No, I am running it in my head. It is so small that I can run that part. It is the later parts that get more difficult. I am ready to get started now. I wanted to make sure that I was lining the particles up correctly, I test it in my head. It is still amazing though. Nothing can be different to what I said, because at that size they are too few paths that the particles can take.