Trying To Make My Theory Simple To Understand

[Aqueous Id]

I Have already had this conversation 10 years ago.

Did it involve pulling things out of your rear end? I'm trying not to offend the sensibility of gentler readers.

I told people about the black holes that create the Quantum Gravity.

You didn't even know those words existed until someone told you. Unfortunately, knowledge demands a whole lot more than that.

I said come back in 10 years and this will be on all of the science sites, and now... Google search...

What year did you drop out of school? That would certainly give you a clue as the truth of any of the claims you are making.

I can keep doing this for the next 50 years.

No you can't. Soon there will be bots that filter you out. You will only be able to post on kindergarten sites, and only in small declarative items, like "See Spot. See Spot run. Spot runs after the ball." etc.

Even that would represent a great advance for you, since that kind of speech is at least coherent.

Eventually in your old age you will realise that I was right.

That presumes that I will lose all of my marbles, in which case I won't even recognize the moniker "Pincho".

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

Did it involve pulling things out of your rear end? I'm trying not to offend the sensibility of gentler readers.


You didn't even know those words existed until someone told you. Unfortunately, knowledge demands a whole lot more than that.


What year did you drop out of school? That would certainly give you a clue as the truth of any of the claims you are making.


No you can't. Soon there will be bots that filter you out. You will only be able to post on kindergarten sites, and only in small declarative items, like "See Spot. See Spot run. Spot runs after the ball." etc.

Even that would represent a great advance for you, since that kind of speech is at least coherent.


That presumes that I will lose all of my marbles, in which case I won't even recognize the moniker "Pincho".

Some people remember my old posts. They know what I said. If you read this post you can tell that I said it on this site...
http://www.avforums.com/forums/19139665-post195.html

All you have to do is find my old threads.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Some people remember my old posts.

I was one of the suckers who thought I might be able to snap you out of your delusions of grandeur, but it completely unraveled you.

They know what I said. If you read this post you can tell that I said it on this site...

There is nothing tangible in any of your posts. If you hope to engage even the slightest discourse in science, you need to open at the kindergarten level. You have no recourse since you have none of the requisite skills.

All you have to do is find my old threads.

I would rather take a hammer to my head.

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

I was one of the suckers who thought I might be able to snap you out of your delusions of grandeur, but it completely unraveled you.


There is nothing tangible in any of your posts. If you hope to engage even the slightest discourse in science, you need to open at the kindergarten level. You have no recourse since you have none of the requisite skills.


I would rather take a hammer to my head.

I'll save you some of the effort. here is one from 2011...
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58032-bubble-universe-and-black-holes/

Here's one from 2010...
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5341

2009...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97712-Bubble-Universe-%28Tongue-In-Cheek%29&highlight=Bubble%20Universe%20%28Tongue%20Cheek%29

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

I continue to stay 10 years ahead each time. The physics in this thread will be linked to in 2023. The changes are explaining why we can't pull anything. The propagation through the centre of sphere by flattening the membrane like a caterpillar body. I shall always remain 10 years ahead because nobody understands for 10 years, and then they get it.

 

[Lakon]

PP, listen. The title of your thread, is ..

Trying To Make My Theory Simple To Understand

What I'm saying is you have completely failed to do this. You don't make something simple to understand by;

- Assuming your reader (me) has any knowlegde of who you are or what else you posted over the last 10 years
- linking copious web pages that you think should be perused
- stringing together some buzz words to create some jargon that you think I should be familiar with.

All these are the ANTITHESIS of making something simple to understand.

Go on - make your theory simple to undestand.

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

PP, listen. The title of your thread, is ..

Trying To Make My Theory Simple To Understand

What I'm saying is you have completely failed to do this. You don't make something simple to understand by;

- Assuming your reader (me) has any knowlegde of who you are or what else you posted over the last 10 years
- linking copious web pages that you think should be perused
- stringing together some buzz words to create some jargon that you think I should be familiar with.

All these are the ANTITHESIS of making something simple to understand.

Go on - make your theory simple to undestand.

You can ignore what I have posted over the last 10 years, I am covering it all in here. You can ignore the links to science they are only there to show that you are going to end up with my theory eventually, because science has switched to the same subjects as me.

The buzz words.. I don't think you can write in English without using words that relate to the subject. I checked back, and I can't find any buzz words.

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

As humans we experience physics on the Earth that have evolved, and linked together. An atom is a super particle with interior plumbing, valleys, and many particles bonded together. The Earth is a Gravity dragging ball, and so we live in a gravity flow all of our lives. An external Y flow is not natural in the fundamental Universe. The sphere is fundamental, any other shape is mechanical. A single particle is a membrane, and a hole in the middle that feeds the membrane with a flow force to inflate the sphere. Time is the inflation that creates the internal pressure that creates a fundamental sphere. Time flows out of the hole inside the particle. Time is also fed into the hole to build up the energy for the out-flow. The in-flow is called the sink, and the out-flow is called the squirt. All physics in the Universe are cyclic, never-ending. Time is cyclic... in-flow to out-flow.. cold to hot, and 12 pointed star to sphere.

Time is cyclic...

in-flow = cold = 12 pointed star = bonding

out-flow = heat = sphere = bump force

And time is positioned per point at a theoretical planck length that spaces apart using Newtons Kissing Problem.

 

[AlexG]

Pincho is crazy. It's not any more complicated than that. Thus making his theory simple to understand. There's nothing there to understand.

I suspect the only reason he's still here this time is that there hasn't been a moderator on the board for a month now.

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

Pincho is crazy. It's not any more complicated than that. Thus making his theory simple to understand. There's nothing there to understand.

I suspect the only reason he's still here this time is that there hasn't been a moderator on the board for a month now.

The local nutter's back.

 

[arfa brane]

Pincho is trying to make his theory easy to understand and, well, not succeeding.

Theories about physical reality should really use language which is specific, not vague, and as simple as possible. New or ambiguous terms should be explained, their relevance and meaning should be clear. Pancho appears to be unaware his use of language restricts it to an audience that includes only himself.

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

Pincho is trying to make his theory easy to understand and, well, not succeeding.

Theories about physical reality should really use language which is specific, not vague, and as simple as possible. New or ambiguous terms should be explained, their relevance and meaning should be clear. Pancho appears to be unaware his use of language restricts it to an audience that includes only himself.

I thought I had skipped all new terms. I'm not American so I don't make up new words, I stick with all of the old terms.

 

[Lakon]

Pincho is trying to make his theory easy to understand and, well, not succeeding.

Theories about physical reality should really use language which is specific, not vague, and as simple as possible. New or ambiguous terms should be explained, their relevance and meaning should be clear. Pancho appears to be unaware his use of language restricts it to an audience that includes only himself.

That is EXACTLY my point. He has recieved the derision of scientists here, because (I can obviously assume) his 'theories' do not accord with science.

I am NO scientist and have no scientific background or education. I am very open minded and willing to consider anything - it doesn't matter either way to me.

I can pick up a book on Newtonian physics designed for the general reader and understand it. I can pick up a book on motor mechanics, or aerodynamics, or refrigeration, or ocean currents, or planetary movements, or cellular growth, designed for the general reader, and understand it all.

PP, you still haven't enlightened me one iota. All great theories, ideas, principals, can be reduced to simple understandable statements, which you purported to do in this thread title. But so far you have failed.

I have no commnet on your theory - I simply say I have no idea what you're on about. The onus is on you to make it undestandable to me - a non scientist, but nonetheless, an interested enquirer.

Start with one SIMPLE thing that has it's basis on physical reality that I can see about me and readily observe, and say why your version of it is better that that of current science.

 

[Quantum Quack]

These are the first physics.

It means that two forms of physics are Fundamental. So the Universe always had two forms of physics. It never had less than 2 forms of physics. The two forms of physics cancelled each other out...

1 + -1 = 0

The Universe had zero made from two forms of physics always.

The two forms of physics were curves... convex, and concave. Curves can easily become infinite, and scalable.

PP I have been reading some of your stuff but the above immediately puts me off bothering to struggle later..
You mention with out any support what so ever that the universe has not one physics but two physics....


The basic rule is if it is important enough to claim something then it is important enough to support it, even if you are using "pseudo scientific explanations" at least support what you claim as best you can.

So,
What do you mean by two physics?
What evidence or supplementary text can you provide to support such a strange claim?

If you are referring to an Inner universe and an outer universe [concave, convex geometry, are a normal part of only one universe] then you need to explain it better than you have.

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

You can use the sea, and the bubble in the sea as an example of Convex, and concave. The sea creates the bubble by removing the sea from the area of the bubble. The bubble is concave sea, and the sea is convex. This relates to a Neutrino travelling through matter. The neutrino a bubble through matter would be a concave version of matter, created by the surrounding matter. A black hole would be a concave version of spacetime created by the surrounding spacetime. You can call this concave version negative mass, or negative scale. The bubble in the sea is negative mass of sea, because where there should be sea there isn't any sea. The bubble in the sea however is only an poor example of a hole in spacetime, because the bubble in the sea still has forces from each of its points at planck length that are still convex. A black hole has each point as concave.

In spacetime..
Convex bumps convex
Concave bumps concave

But together convex to concave just create a flat line.

So in spacetime the convex, and concave behave as gravity, and magnetism.. two poles. + and -.

And act as independent physics, frictionless to each other. They usually move in opposite flow directions. They don't have to, but the area of least resistance is usually in the opposite direction. A positive force can scale down to become a negative force, and then it will switch directions without stopping. This allows for perpetual motion, and it gives you time as a circular scalar motion.

When we use the degrees of a circle 0 to 360 we have closed the ends of zero and completed Newton's 3rd law, that zero has an equal opposite which is 180. We don't think of it that way, but you can use 1 to 180 and -1 to -180 and complete Newton's 3rd law that way. We tend to think of scale as always positive, or positive mass. But with Black Holes you need the mathematics of a circle...

Example
Mass = 1 to 180 and -1 to -180

So the Black hole is not infinite mass, it is circular mass that expands backwards after it has flattened out, like a bouncing ball, but folding inside out at the rebound point... frictionless.

After the rebound point of mass a hole is expanding outwards. The incoming mass passes through the out-flowing hole, so there is no friction. Gravity moves towards the Earth, and the magnetic field passes out of the Earth together. The magnetic field is the outflow of gravity to release the pressure of gravity meeting up at the centre of the Earth.

Now all of the forces are bump forces, and pull forces have been eliminated. You can take pull out of the dictionary.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You can use the sea, and the bubble in the sea as an example of Convex, and concave. The sea creates the bubble by removing the sea from the area of the bubble. The bubble is concave sea, and the sea is convex. This relates to a Neutrino travelling through matter. The neutrino a bubble through matter would be a concave version of matter, created by the surrounding matter. A black hole would be a concave version of spacetime created by the surrounding spacetime. You can call this concave version negative mass, or negative scale. The bubble in the sea is negative mass of sea, because where there should be sea there isn't any sea. The bubble in the sea however is only an poor example of a hole in spacetime, because the bubble in the sea still has forces from each of its points at planck length that are still convex. A black hole has each point as concave.

In spacetime..
Convex bumps convex
Concave bumps concave

But together convex to concave just create a flat line.

So in spacetime the convex, and concave behave as gravity, and magnetism.. two poles. + and -.

And act as independent physics, frictionless to each other. They usually move in opposite flow directions. They don't have to, but the area of least resistance is usually in the opposite direction. A positive force can scale down to become a negative force, and then it will switch directions without stopping. This allows for perpetual motion, and it gives you time as a circular scalar motion.

When we use the degrees of a circle 0 to 360 we have closed the ends of zero and completed Newton's 3rd law, that zero has an equal opposite which is 360. We don't think of it that way, but you can use 1 to 180 and -1 to -180 and complete Newton's 3rd law that way. We tend to think of scale as always positive, or positive mass. But with Black Holes you need the mathematics of a circle...

Example
Mass = 1 to 180 and -1 to -180

So the Black hole is not infinite mass, it is circular mass that expands backwards after it has flattened out, like a bouncing ball, but folding inside out at the rebound point... frictionless.

After the rebound point of mass a hole is expanding outwards. The incoming mass passes through the out-flowing hole, so there is no friction. Gravity moves towards the Earth, and the magnetic field passes out of the Earth together. The magnetic field is the outflow of gravity to release the pressure of gravity meeting up at the centre of the Earth.

Now all of the forces are bump forces, and pull forces have been eliminated. You can take pull out of the dictionary.

ok what I feel you are referring to with this concave and convex stuff is similar to what I call an "Inverse sphere":
see:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/1-05-the-inverse-sphere
An inverse sphere in the context of our discussion is a 3 dimensional shell that has absolutely zero volume. [yet paradoxically it must have volume if it is in 3 dimensional space.]
This is one piece of "logical evidence" of the zero point as described in Zero Point Theory. So you have concave substance and convex nothingness. [or is it vica versa [chuckle]
It means you have both a 4 dimensional and zero dimensional universe simultaneously.

What is also described that may be of use to you is that the +a + (-)a that equals zero can only exist if time duration is >0
so +a+(-)a + (t delta >0) = zero.

With out time duration >0, +a+(-)a = 0 is a non-value totally because neither a's are existent. After all they sum to non-existence don't they?
The inverse sphere s described I believe IS the source of dimensional collapse other wise referred to as Gravity. The center of mass is and has to be zero, thus the source of gravity must also be zero.

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

ok what I feel you are referring to with this concave and convex stuff is similar to what I call an "Inverse sphere":
see:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/1-05-the-inverse-sphere
An inverse sphere in the context of our discussion is a 3 dimensional shell that has absolutely zero volume. [yet paradoxically it must have volume if it is in 3 dimensional space.]
This is one piece of "logical evidence" of the zero point as described in Zero Point Theory. So you have concave substance and convex nothingness. [or is it vica versa [chuckle]
It means you have both a 4 dimensional and zero dimensional universe simultaneously.

what is also described that may be of use to you is that the +a + (-)a that equals zero can only exist if time duration is >0
so +a+(-)a + (t delta) >0 = zero.

Yes it's an inverse sphere, you can make one in any 3D modelling package by giving a sphere a negative number for scale.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes it's an inverse sphere, you can make one in any 3D modelling package by giving a sphere a negative number for scale.

well reduce it infinitely and you still have a sphere yes?
what's inside it?
What is at the center of the sphere no matter how small it gets?

So my suggestion is that you clarify what you mean by two universes first then start to get your ideas about inner and outer or convex and concave sorted out... then the rest of it should be easier...

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

well reduce it infinitely and you still have a sphere yes?
what's inside it?

When you reduce it, it gets bigger negatively. So a sphere scale 6 and a sphere scale -6
are the same size.

Inside it is the in-flow of gravity, and the out flow of magnetism holding it open.

So negative scale creates mass, and establishes the area of least resistance for gravity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

When you reduce it, it gets bigger negatively. So a sphere scale 6 and a sphere scale -6
are the same size.

Inside it is the in-flow of gravity, and the out flow of magnetism holding it open.

PP at this level of exploration it is no use at all to use scientific buzz words like "magnetism". You have to define exactly what magnetism is if you are going to use it at this level of inquiry.
Now as far as I know no one has actually ever stated exactly what "magnetism" is ever! Sure they have called it all sorts of things but never have they described what it actually is. Same goes for gravity. Gravity is just a buzz word until it is defined in a way that states exactly what it is.

ZPT defines gravity as dimensional collapse towards the zero point. Dimensional collapse means that the volume of space is collapsing from 3 dimensional to zero dimensional constantly according the inverse square rule etc. being held out [using your words] by the inherent momentum and energy [time] in the universal system.

Magnetism is a bit more of a head spinner so I wont go in to it here...