Pincho Paxton

I want to be banned now. I'm fed up with this site. Sick of this religion. Do what you like, your all just delusional.

Nothing apart from some light aberrations.

The edges which can overlap produce results. So +1 will overlap with another volume of +1 matter to produce a result of that total area which will be like this... So we evolved to see the overlaps, and we design equipment to examine the overlaps.What we call an electron is matter folding into anti-matter under pressure. An observer alters the pressure, alters the result.

I believe that the overlap of these particles create all other physics, and all other particles. The -1 can be exploded to the outside of the particle as well, so you get -1 + 1 particles of anti-matter. Here is a test that I made of overlapping Aether to see what would happen from a few simple rules. What you see is an example of how measuring instruments pick up information through a mesh of overlapping particles.

Because in 3D space the corners equal a higher volume in a specific location, and they are further from a X/Y/Z origin at the centre. So a cube has properties that are not equal. We would see, or be able to analyse the 4 corners, and overlaps would create strange triangles. A snowflake would be a snow cube, Earth would be square, and gravity would have preferences.

Ok.. you don't understand, your brain is salad.. goodbye. And if that's an insult, it's the closest I get get to your own reply.In all of the years that I have been on science forums, I have never met a single, decent science person. Just insults, I should have realised what you were like with two opening posts full of capitals. Just nutcases everywhere.

Science isn't about changing maths to words, and then you post examples of science as words... None of those are attractive forces, and again they are all invisible. Water drops.. bonding chains from overlapping into negative mass. Bugs walking on water, gravity pressing on the surface of the water causing bonding chains. That's what I mean, you use G as attraction, and all of your words go off the rail.

If you believe all that fine. Clocks include spin, and bumping anything that messes with that spin, and bumping will mess with the clock. That's all. No time travel, nothing. But you can mess with the illusion of time.. you can slow down a DVD player, but it's an illusion.

I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that proof is so difficult in science when the maths is changed into words, and that words that get passed along the chain effect the science in a circular fashion. Like G, and M are related. If you get the description of G wrong you search for a Higgs Boson. Another description, and you search for the Aether. Proof is in what you find, but if you don't bother to look for it you are stuck. So when it comes to talking about science it is best to use words based on observation. I observe water, and have never observed an attractive force. All of the attractive forces are invisible, so in observation I go with the visible version of water. Words are best left to visible structures.Water rains down, water rises as clouds. Gravity goes down, gravity rises as magnetism. It works just fine. Proof is in observation.

Yeah.. snowflakes, and gravity. Just the fact that you use the proof of my idea, and don't know it shows how far out science is.

Alright forget my theory. What is science currently based on that hasn't been found yet... Warped space time Gravitons Higgs Boson Dark Matter Singularity Nuclear Fusion (mathematics no longer works) Particle Wave Duality Action at a distance Time travel Infinite black holes The arrow of time waves in a vacuum Most of it is down to pure imagination, or has no explanation at all.

Science isn't fact based. I have explained how flow works just like attraction. Nobody want to hear it, but its a fact. People get angry about it, but its a fact. I'm not allowed to talk about it in a science thread, but its a fact. I got banned from many sites in 2004 for talking about a bubble around our Galaxy. It was a fact. It has been found. In 2005 I talked about our Universe having a flow towards one end, and more bubbles in our galaxy. More arguments. In 2006 I explained how snowflakes are created from gravity, and the kissing problem, and how nature results in a hexagonal transformation so that humans have the snowflake shape etc. Another locked thread. Man makes his first cellular life-form, and calls it the Snowflake. Facts are not allowed in science, unless you religiously obey current science.Yet I am stricter than science, I don't allow sci-fi explanations in my theories.

Exactly! And this is the difference between science, and Pseudo science. Science has become a religion that has to be defended. The big bang is a religion. Neutrinos travelling faster than light create murmurs that are religions. Science is a religion based on the explanations which are incorrect.

No it doesn't as I have explained it can easily prove flow just the same. I deny attraction on the grounds that particles reduce to a spherical structure. Sphere bump, not pull, or attract. You kick a football, not suck it with your feet. You have water as a natural example.. NATURE.. the artist sees nature. he explains in the terms of nature. Mathematicians use numbers. Numbers can make anything happen, you go with observation. The plughole does not attract the iron filings. The stage is a set of bumps. The first particle is bumped into a hole by pressure from behind the hole. The boat is sitting on a flow of particles. The Aether travels into holes in the Earth, the holes are the nucleus of atoms. Mass is a vector of flow towards those holes. The Aether then turns inside out under pressure, and escapes. Gravity, and mass are now a bump force from outside the Earth. Magnetism is the out flow of negative mass. Negative mass is like a hole. Mass flows towards negative mass. Of course it again reads like pseudo-science. I haven't however changed the maths. All of the maths is the same, I have changed the description. My description is backed up by the same maths. Maths doesn't prove attraction.

They don't prove attraction. If I put water in a sink, and a paper boat, and put iron filings in the paper boat, and pull the plug out what happens?

What? Tell me an example where attraction has ever been observed or demonstrated. Is water attracted to a plughole?

The scientific process is flawed quite badly though. Because maths comes with words to describe the maths. Gravity is a good example of flawed experiments, and flawed explanation leading to a completely flawed big bang theory. You measure the speed of a falling object. Fine. You give it parameters of acceleration, velocity, and mass, distance to object. You write all of the maths. Then you describe it... The Earth pulls the object towards it. The object is attracted to the Earth. Spacetime folds under mass creating a curvature that the object follows. The explanation is not bonded to the maths. They are separate. Gravity is invisible, and the explanation has just the same amount of validity as pink flying pixies. The explanation is pseudo-science. Gravity is a bump, and it isn't from the Earth, it's from outside of the Earth. It is Aether. The maths are the same. But people use maths as proof, they aren't proving their explanation, they are only proving what speed an object falls. This mistake then leads to... The Big Bang. With attraction, the Big Bang works, but nobody has proved attraction. They have proved the speed that an object falls. With a bump, the Big Bang fails. Particles bumping outwards will never bump inwards. But gravity is a bump. So based just on G which is a made up explanation for speed, and velocity you have pseudo-science. Science is pseudo-science using maths as an excuse to be right. If G has an incorrect explanation what other calculations use G and its explanation? Nearly all formulas have a reference to G, and they are taking the explanation to go with it. This is a domino effect. Now you end up with worm holes, infinite black holes, time travel, strange Quantum Physics. Science has not been very careful in its approach to nature. It threw G into the big bang, it bent space time, and created a singularity. It also did a lot of other things. It added all sorts of waves, and got magnetism backwards. All because of the explanation for G being backwards. And science threw out the Aether.. because G was backwards. Science didn't realise that it needed a pushing force, so Aether went far too quickly. If G was a push, then science would know that it needed something there. It would try harder to find it. Maths does not prove explanation, and explanation is just as important. That is why mathematicians should work with artists. Artists study nature by sight alone. Artists build up a logical description of nature in words. Once you get the words to match the maths you are doing well. G is an quantum overlap of Aether particles. The overlap creates changes in the state of Entropy. The particles of Aether travel into the Earth where they begin to fold inside out. When the Aether folds inside out it becomes anti-matter. the anti-matter can then leave the Earth as magnetism. Doesn't create a Big Bang, it creates an implosion to create a Galaxy. Each Galaxy forms separately. All of the particles for the Galaxies were already in position. No need for them to be blown out of a hole, they are infinite. My version reads as pseudo-science, because science has gone off the scale wrong.

"Why did something just appear from nowhere?" was supposed to be you asking the question. I know the answer. I am explaining the answer. It is part of the answer. The Aether is a spherical shell, because a sphere has no change in X/Y/Z. The hole is anti-matter, it is also spherical. The Universe is made from equal amounts of matter, and anti-matter. Everything has an opposite. Relativity says that all things are relative. +1 + -1 are relative when they share everything.. position, volume, shape, direction, speed. They equal zero. Zero has no opposite, it doesn't exist on its own, it is not symmetrical. The Universe has symmetry. Symmetry is seen in the Universe. The Aether is infinite, because it equals zero. You can have infinite amounts. You can put Aether inside Aether so long as they don't touch they equal zero. The difference between the igloo, and the Aether is that the igloo is made from parts that are bonded. The Aether has overlapped in a figure 8. Overlapping Aether is not spherical anymore. It is not perfect. We have evolved to be able to see the imperfections in Aether. The more imperfections there are, the more visible matter becomes to us . Water for example is almost invisible. It has few imperfections. Overlapping Aether does not equal zero anymore. Aether inside Aether, not touching is not breaking its spherical form. Each Aether is not making mathematical imperfections. If Aether touches the inside of Aether it breaks mathematical symmetry. The outer shell membrane gains from +1 to 1.001 (imaginary number). because the volume is now greater. We have a Universal membrane, we have a Galactic membrane, we have a sun membrane, we have an Earth membrane, we have our own brain. The Universe is made from interconnected bubbles. Each bubble feeding back information. The Aether in infinitely feeding back information in a downward spiral. A change in one membrane is reflected through a cascade of results. Entropy.

The igloo is billions of things, it's an example. The Aether is 1 thing, a shell, and a hole. Imagine folding the shell into the hole, it would vanish. Nothing has changed, but it has vanished. The igloo is an example of waves really. You have a flat line wave.. the ice plane. A convex wave, the hole, and a converse wave the shell. We look across an ice plane, we see very little. Somebody builds an igloo, we receive information of a dome.. we do not see very easily the hole. It's a good way to think about it, but clearer just to think of the Aether. You don't get this part. If you make the sphere a square, it is mathematically imperfect from the centre of the Aether, and it is now visible, because we can sense any form of change. The membrane would get compression, and yeah it's like water compression. It is a paradoxical change from nothing to something. What caused that change, there were no physics to cause it? Why did something just appear from nowhere? Steven Hawking often uses paradox as an explanation, maybe you could just accept paradox. I prefer the membrane, because it creates feedback, and that feedback can be used later.

What you just wrote, based on about 3 replies, or whatever, that's pseudo-science. You made a few conclusions, where did they come from? The probability of the greatest theory ever known ending up in here is high. Because science makes mistakes, and the Theory Of Everything will need to eliminate those mistakes. But take a look at the fuss over Neutrinos in the press. Science is fully against change. That is just one change, and measured 15000 times. The Theory Of Everything would need to make say... 20 changes at least. No way would anyone be happy about that. It would end up in here, and your last reply would be the thing to expect. The person who comes up with that theory will struggle to make it stick.

The volumes are the same like an igloo, and its shell. Work your way up to gasses, and water, because only the Aether in that tank is calculated. It is very hard to know what number the Aether has reached in that complexity. It takes two things to create nothing +1 + -1 = 0. The only way to create a shape that is nothing is for those two shapes to be spherical, and share the same volume.

It's funny, I can prove it yes. But it's really odd, but 2 = 2 is based on what? Two apples are billions of particles. I mean once you get your head around it, it is really difficult to make 2 out of 2 objects, all you end up doing is making 2 out of the English language. The Earth is an oblate spheroid. Being exact is so difficult.

I meant volume. I made a mistake. The volume , with a hole inside where both have the same volume. I can't use those units, else I am forcing maths on the whole idea of not using maths. Those sizes would need to be re-calculated to the scale of this particle. This particle creates all of the other particles, so the sizes are taken from this particle relatively. Any other value than +1 + -1 isn't so entropic. Like 0.0000000321 has given the Universe some sort of logic. I am giving the universe zero logic. Entropy holds them together. Entropy is a membrane, and any disturbance in that membrane is reflected back. If you fill a balloon with water, and put two more balloons inside full of water, then put a tube to the inside balloons to add even more water, the outer balloon reflects what is happening to the inner balloons. Entropy is to reflect back the message from a distance, and if you squeeze the outer balloon it makes the inner balloons move apart, and the energy state of them touching is removed. The Aether is a labyrinth of membranes, that adjust pressure of inner membranes. Any change from a zero state is a reflected change back. Location is taken from the centre of Aether, and spherically. This is important for quite a few reasons. The Aether is only zero from its centre if everything matches up all around that central point. It doesn't matter if the Aether moves, the central point is all that counts. Don't get confused about what nothing is. They must be centrally located, they must be totally invisible, they must be spherical, they must not have visible charge, or visible energy, anything the we can see isn't nothing. All units must be two things combined to make zero.

1/ Units are relative, this is the very first particle, all units are relative to this particle, so it is just +1, and -1, as origin of all other scales. 2/ Well it has the properties of zero, so it is fundamental. The area of +1 is identical to the area of -1. It can be any scale, because scale is relative, and this particle has no relative scale to anything else. It can be infinite, because infinite zero is still zero. It can have infinite particles inside it's membrane, because zero inside zero is still zero. Basically it is entropy safe in all aspects. It shares the same X/Y/Z as it's opposite, it moves at the same speed as its opposite, and it is spherical which means that in all X/Y/Z directions it makes no imprint that has changed from any other imprint. 3/ The hole and the shell must be together else the particle suddenly becomes something. To be nothing it must remain mathematically identical in all directions. 4/ No, it is harder to be something than to be nothing. This state is easy, any other state is hard. It is zero that doesn't make sense on its own. Zero is always relative, so speed 0 means relative to something else. You need two things.. opposites to make nothing. It's just that we aren't used to thinking like that. Anyway the maths +1 + -1 = 0 is proof, because you want maths to be proof. You can't pick, and choose maths that you want to hear. 5/ It closely matches the Aether, but nobody worked out all of the possibilities of what the Aether should be. 6/ The size is the one thing that can change in this particle for it to remain stable. So it can be any size, and that is how you get things moving. So long as it has an opposite inside itself, it will still be zero at any scale.

Well the big bang is 100% wrong, so basically science may as well be religion, because everyone just makes up their own mind in the end.