Can you expand on both those points for I have never heard of that explanation before, please?
My theory 1 step at a time
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
Can you expand on both those points for I have never heard of that explanation before, please?
Well, in my theory I have gravity coming in, and negative particles going out. Sphere are created by two opposing, equal pressures. My gravity enters an atom, and tiny negative particles are created, they maintain the pressure inside the atom against incoming flow walls which are changing from positive to negative. It is the actual point of change that maintains the membrane. A sort of flow wall in 3D.
Last edited:
But it is a sphere of energy so it could fold and reform endlessly. You seem to suggest a very rigid sort of phenomena. Strings are wobbly sort material at the best of times. They could be predominantly spherical but not absolutely (Foam rubber sphere as apposed to steel ball bearing).
But it is a sphere of energy so it could fold and reform endlessly. You seem to suggest a very rigid sort of phenomena. Strings are wobbly sort material at the best of times. They could be predominantly spherical but not absolutely (Foam rubber sphere as apposed to steel ball bearing).
I use particles, not a sphere of energy. My particles are made from 1 + -1 = 0, so I can put infinite particles in an atom if I want. That would be fairly solid. They would still equal zero. I don't do that though. I just split them into 12's to fit inside, and 12 inside those 12. I don't have those big gaps like the standard model atoms.
Last edited:
Like a bag (strings) of marbles (particles), could be spherical in zero gravity but reshapes on contact with another bag of marbles.
What would make a collection of particles solid? Especially within an proton, not going as far as an atom (collection of P + N + electrons)
The whole thing starts from elementary subatomic particles (we shouldn't be thinking in terms of atoms.
So what are your particles are they the same as strings? (equivalent only, obviously structurally different)
Like a bag (strings) of marbles (particles), could be spherical in zero gravity but reshapes on contact with another bag of marbles.
What would make a collection of particles solid? Especially within an proton, not going as far as an atom (collection of P + N + electrons)
The whole thing starts from elementary subatomic particles (we shouldn't be thinking in terms of atoms.
So what are your particles are they the same as strings? (equivalent only, obviously structurally different)
A bag of marbles has spaces in it. Don't forget, in my theory holes bump together when you get small enough. So even the holes in the atom are bumping together. Plus from gravity you have rotational vector forces.
Last edited:
Talking about spaces, as I following the the Kissing problem there is space even with 12, nearly 13 fit. So the next layer around that some must fall into those spaces so I am tending to think the next layer of kissing spheres isn't as easy to define.
Talking about spaces, as I following the the Kissing problem there is space even with 12, nearly 13 fit. So the next layer around that some must fall into those spaces so I am tending to think the next layer of kissing spheres isn't as easy to define.
The space is the flow direction, the arrow of time, the spin, the cogwheel.
Sorry for the delay in my simulator. I am a bit stuck at the moment. I need to figure out how virtual particles get their start location without actually programming a Universe search function. I have to program this without cheating and adding X/Y/Z search. There is no way that particles could perform this search, so I need to figure this out. And it's extremely paradoxic. It's similar to why does a singularity have a location? I hate paradox, and I don't allow them. I know why the particles pop into existence, I just don't know how they figure out their location. Maybe they are everywhere at once? But in a computer that is a search function. I'm thinking along the lines of a zero dimension at the moment.. I sometimes need to be a mathematician, and I'm not. A search function would be way too slow anyway.
It is the final piece of the jigsaw, and then I have everything.
I suppose I could put a huge empty dimension everywhere, fill it with zeros. That would work. It would mean that zero actually does exist as an entity on its own. So I would have to add a third particle to my theory. But then you have a new paradox, why did the universe begin if nothing can exist on its own?
I can't use zero.. this is difficult.
It is the final piece of the jigsaw, and then I have everything.
I suppose I could put a huge empty dimension everywhere, fill it with zeros. That would work. It would mean that zero actually does exist as an entity on its own. So I would have to add a third particle to my theory. But then you have a new paradox, why did the universe begin if nothing can exist on its own?
I can't use zero.. this is difficult.
Last edited:
Oh, I've figure it out. I never thought to use negative scale. That means that logically there are other dimensions in our universe. I hate that, but it doesn't have a paradox now.
I'd love to be in the room with you working on those programs.
Do you find your thought patterns go beyond a normal consciousness when you are working on these issues. Have you burnt out at times? Overloaded, ran out of computer power in your head, limitation, found your limit?
I'd love to be in the room with you working on those programs.
Do you find your thought patterns go beyond a normal consciousness when you are working on these issues. Have you burnt out at times? Overloaded, ran out of computer power in your head, limitation, found your limit?
I worked for 2 weeks solid once without sleep.. I burned out badly. I started seeing shapes in Crop Circles... pretty bad. But at the same time, I did get a lot of really good ideas. I can do some things like start at the quantum scale, and work all the way to the end of the Universe in my head. Actually I can start smaller than our own Universe. That might be the future, but I don't want to know, so I quickly pull out of it. What I mean is that if virtual particles are already waiting for the next move, we might not have free will, and I would rather not know that. So I don't want to go there.
Last edited:
Crop Circles are shapes so what do you mean?
No I have never gone without some sleep every day, but I have come to the end of my capacity to take it in, to comprehend the problem, yet after a while I came right and went to another level and burned out again. Never solved the problem in the end either.
So what language are you programming in?
Crop Circles are shapes so what do you mean?
No I have never gone without some sleep every day, but I have come to the end of my capacity to take it in, to comprehend the problem, yet after a while I came right and went to another level and burned out again. Never solved the problem in the end either.
So what language are you programming in?
I program in just a Basic Language, because Basic is so close to the English language that I can think in it. I tried C, and Assembler, but I couldn't think in those languages. But nowadays I can read words, and change them into programming. It is quick to find any faults in the words that I am reading. Paradox show up instantly.
Could you paste in a couple lines of code so I know what you are talking about, please?
Could you paste in a couple lines of code so I know what you are talking about, please?
I don't write them I think them. But like this...
Chicken, and Egg = circular
Time = linear
Egg = time -1
Chicken = time + 1
Egg comes first.
Chicken, and Egg = circular
Time = linear
Egg = time +1
Chicken = time - 1
Chicken comes first.
Chicken, and Egg = circular
Time = linear
Egg = time +1
Chicken = time - 1
Chicken comes first.
You broke a rule, and egg is a young chicken, so you broke a time rule. A baby chick has a name for a reason. So time = linear is broken. You would have to put Time = circular, and then you create a paradox.