Pincho Paxton

!

Moderator Note

A reminder of speculations rule #1

 

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

 

IOW, stop with the hand-waving and answer the questions being put to you. If you cannot, then just admit it.

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.

No causality corruption?

Nothing apart from some light aberrations.

Pincho , correct me if I am understanding your view incorrectly ,

 

Your fundamental is that nothing is made of +1 matter and -1 antimatter . Is there an imbalance to make something , for example + 3 and - 2 gives a +1 matter particle ?

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.

Pincho ,

 

Is there only one type of particle , +1 spherical matter , - 1 spherical antimatter enclosed ?

 

Do you believe everything is made of these particles ?

 

Hal.

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.

Pincho ,

 

I have a modelliing programme and it makes 3d models when I put objects there . I thought , let's make a model of that particle Pincho is talking about . I selected a sphere , I thought , placed it in the 3d volume at 0 , 0 , 0 , 3d origin and pressed enter . A cube appeared by accident , I picked the wrong item to place in the 3d modelling space . So , Pincho , accidentally I have the following question and I hope you can answer and we can all be the wiser of your view .

 

Why can the particle not be a cube of +1 with a volume of antimatter the shape of a cube -1 contained in it ?

 

Would a cube particle conflict with your idea ?

 

If it is consistent with your idea , can you add this cube particle to your collection of ideas ?

 

Hal.

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.

yep, I give up. all that was just word salad. not even a real attempt to answer my questions.

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.

YOU DIDN'T FREAKING ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Just nutcases everywhere.

First of all, real science isn't done with changing math to words — in the world of real science, the math stays. That allows for a much more precise exchange of information. It is best to use equations; that leaves the smallest opportunity for the ambiguity inherent in words.

 

Second of all, if you have never seen the effect of an attractive force with water than you are doing a lousy job of observation. Round water drops, the meniscus when in a container and bugs walking on water are all demonstrations of an attractive force in water, which manifests itself in surface tension. You can't see the force itself, but nobody claimed you could. The force is something in the model that we get from the things we can observe and measure — positions and time, giving us speeds and accelerations, and along with masses it allows us to find a force.

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.

Remember that electrons in a medium absorb protons and then re-emit them. Photons unlike neutrinos, that have no charge, do not actually pass through. It seems to me that you are saying that the barrier should be the speed of light. Clocks are static at LS. Pass BEYOND that barrier with infinite energy, and clocks have no choice but to run backwards screwing up causality. I really don't see anyway around this. And Don't forget the Schwarzschild radius, and inward and outward trajectories. In a non-rotating black hole light can escape a photon sphere barrier. What is your concept of clocks running backwards? What is actually happening?

 

You know at this point one can get real crazy and say that breaking the LS barrier bounces you into another universe and another timeline. After all, Hawking has used the infinite universes concept to explain information loss in black holes! But I won't go there! Wait! I just did!

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.

You can "explain" all you want, but if you don't fulfill the obligations of predictability, falsifiability and evidence, it's simply not science.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Let's discuss specific ideas in their own threads, and the general differences here

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.

In science, you are not the judge of what is fact. Your peers are. It is your job to present your ideas to your peers and in turn they will attempt to poke holes in your idea in the hopes that it will be definitively overturned or confirmed. This is scientific method 101

 

 

You've yet to present any science in any of your numerous speculations. Pretty diagrams of bubbles and igloos don't cut it. You must embrace mathematics if you are to expect anyone in the physical science (namely physics) community to embrace your ideas. Science is hard. That's why so few are successful at it. It requires above average intelligence, obsessive dedication, long hours, tears, and blood.

 

 

 

Seriously!? So are your really positing that you are the only true scientist in the community of millions of scientists? You might want to rethink that. If after a long pondering you still believe this to be true then you are in for a short career. I mean no offense. This is just true and I imagine every PhD here on SFN agrees with me.

 

Snow flakes are not created from gravity. This is below physics/chemistry 101 and is demonstrably false.

 

Wikipedia: snow flake

 

 

 

 

You're lack of ability to balance units or even carry out the most rudimentary of calculations does not lend itself to this statement being taken seriously.

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.

I tend to be very careful when using the word "fact" in science. In part that is why I put the " " in place. Things evolve and ideas change. The key point is that everything is based on evidence. Exactly what that evidence is and how reliable it is is always going to be open to discussion. This is when religion really differers.

 

 

Anyway, I think you have done enough self-promotion in this thread.

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.

The difference with science and religion is that science is a "fact based believe" as where religion is just "dogma".

 

Opinions, ideas and points of view can change quickly in science as they should do as new evidence comes to light.

 

At the risk of going off topic, the recent results that neutrinos can travel faster than light is from one experiment. An experiment that is in all likelihood flawed somehow. It is an interesting result, but it is far too soon to get excited. People need time to examine the work and hopefully conduct their own independent experiments to verify or falsify the idea of superluminal neutrinos. The ideas of Einstein have so far stood the test of time, thus just about everyone thinks that the superluminal neutrinos will not be verified. However, they could be and this would represent a turning point in physics. I will say it again, it is too soon to get excited.

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.

Good point. I have contributed to the derailment by rising to the bait of Pincho's ludicrous ideas. That is easily dealt with.

 

@ Pincho: it is cruel to mock the afflicted, its just that you make such a tempting target. However, for the moment and certainly in this thread, I am done with your self indulgent nonsense.

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.

The Schiehallion experiment demonstrated attraction. Do you deny this? If so, on what grounds?

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.

Nevil Maskelyne, 1774 and Schiehallion.

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?

If we deconstruct your post we seem to arrive at a semantic content of zero. Your version not only reads as pseudo science (because it is), but as very poor pseudoscience at that. It doesn't even carry a hint of authenticity or plausibility.

 

Let us take a single example. You say:

 

Attraction between objects has been observed and demonstrated on countless occassions. The theories of gravity currently in use explain these observations and demonstrations more effectively than any other extant theories. You offer no refutation of these theories other than word salad and emotional remonstrations. If your ideas do have value then you are utterly failing to communicate that value because of your singular inability to express a single coherent thought.

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 -- there has to be a reason why. And how does this explain my question about entropy? Really, Pincho, I am quite tired of asking the same question repeatedly. This will be the last time I'm going to ask you to explain what you mean by "Entropy holds them together"

 

 

 

Picho, I feel like I am a reasonably intelligent person. I have many degrees that would corroborate this. I am certainly not going to claim to know even "a lot" about physics, but I know enough to know what I do know and what I don't know. I do know terms like "mass" and "vector" and "entropy".

 

What I am trying to say here is that just perhaps I am not 'getting this part' because your explanations haven't been terribly good. And your answering my questions with a question like "Why did something just appear from nowhere?" isn't helping. Because YOU are the one to claim to have a theory of everything -- shouldn't this be a question you can answer?

 

------------------------

 

Pincho, I am sorry, but unless there is a clear answer to this post, I'm going to give up. And advise you to try to create much clearer explanations is you should try again. And further advise you not claim to "answer the questions that usually don't get answered" unless you can clearly answer them.

"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.

Pincho, I get that. I can see that. I don't get how there being an igloo around something else means it is "nothing" because there is an igloo -- clearly not "nothing". The sum of the two parts can sum to zero, but there is not no things at all. It is just that their summed contributions go to zero.

 

And I don't get how "Entropy holds them together." because that is using a term in a very unfamiliar way. Once again a direct question unanswered. How many times do I have to re-post the same question to get a direct answer?

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.

Hi. I'm changing your question to "What is the difference between science and pseudoscience?", as it makes more sense.

 

So one of the key bad conceptualizations of science is that it's a body of data. It isn't. Science is actually a way of approaching a question using falsifiable ideas, a preponderance of data (replicated and confirmed independently), and recognition of the limits of current findings. It's systematic and rigorous, and frequently relies upon math/statistical analyses.

 

One of the plot twists in how science proceeds comes in peer-reviewed articles. The ones best equipped to review your findings are actually your competitors...in other words, the ones least motivated to allow your findings to be published. Because your competitors are highly critical of your work, this acts as something of a balance-of-powers check that's in place, to prevent bad findings and sloppy work from getting known. The second inherent limit within science was already mentioned: it needs to be replicable. Given enough trials and that your protocol is followed exactly, anyone, regardless of ethnicity, age, political persuasion etc. should be able to replicate your findings. Should a discovery fail to be replicated, it's noted publicly. Findings are sometimes retracted.

 

On the other hand, pseudoscience relies on emotional persuasion rather than facts to convey its ideas. Intuition and magic, rather than logic, often play a critical role in the "discoveries" of pseudoscience. The central beliefs are not often testable (falsifiable). Among those pseudosciences with testable beliefs, many will continue existing in spite of being shown to be false. In response to findings falsifying pseudoscience claims, practitioners will often argue to followers that grand conspiracies exist to destroy them, and that's the explanation for the findings. Cult mentalities are often established. Ironically, some of the claims within pseudoscience borrow vocabulary from and facets of scientific/medical data to gain credibility among their believers.

 

With a set up like this, the area of pseudoscience is rife with scammers, although not all practitioners are attempting to scam at all. For example, many psychics genuinely believe in "their gift" of psychic powers. Many acupuncturists genuinely believe that chi explains people getting better after treatment.

 

Of interesting side note, science can be (and has been) used to demonstrate efficacy of some practices considered to be pseudoscience, like acupuncture. Piercing the skin with needles, even in mice, releases endorphins, and helps to relieve pain, which in turn can reduce stress, speed wound healing, etc. What was falsified was that chi works as an explanation. If you're extremely interested, I'll be more than happy to pop in Pubmed articles to back anything I say, but if you don't have a strong science background, they'll probably both bore and overwhelm you.

 

This has nothing to do with popularity (i.e., pseudoscientists are simply the uncool among the scientists), although, even within science, popularity of an idea will play a role in how quickly findings will be published.

 

Aside from the show with Hawking being a pulpy t.v. episode, I've no idea why he would use the term "trust me". He certainly doesn't use that term in his publications.

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.

You can't have it both way. You say volumes are equal (length cubed) and then you say no units again -- very SPECIFICALLY, WHICH IS IT?

 

 

 

How? Your balloon example doesn't work because it is the elasticity of the rubber and the fluid nature of the water that transmits disturbances between them. Entropy doesn't work that way. It itself, nor a gradient in entropy is a force. It is a way to know what state is preferred. I.e. you have two states of a system, the one with the lower entropy will be preferred. But, just because there is an entropy difference means that anything will necessarily happen.

 

Consider a gas cylinder filled with hydrogen and oxygen gas. Two water molecules have lower entropy than one molecule of oxygen gas and two molecules of hydrogen gas. But, at room temperature, it will take many, many, many years before that cylinder has any significant amount of water in it. Entropy alone is not enough to make predictions about the rate at which things change, or even that they will change. In this case, there is an activation energy that has to be reached when three molecules simultaneously collide which is incredibly rare at room temperatures.

 

Entropy has never been described as any kind of elasticity -- so again PER MY REPEATED REQUEST -- please define very clearly what you mean by "Entropy holds them together."

 

 

 

If they are nothing, then why are we even discussing them? How can there be a shell and it be nothing. It is either a shell or it is nothing. It cannot be both. It is mutually exclusive.

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.

Can you prove the big bang is 100% wrong though?...answer me if you can:). 10 second pause. That's what i am trying to get at though ... none of them had a 100 on my "trying to explain what's in my head" scale except for the directly provable items such as "2=2". "the earth is a sphere", "We are carbon lifeforms", "atoms exist", "water expands when frozen". Theory's don't get a 100 unless they are changed from theories to facts.... theories can't be 100% fact...so is there anything that separates the definition of theories from the definition of pseudoscience? Is there anything that separates theories from pseudoscience?

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.

you write in 1 that there are no units and then in 2 that their areas have to be equal -- area clearly has a unit of length squared. So which is it? And why is it that the areas have to be equal -- why not the volumes?

 

I am not looking for an answer of "meters" or "feet", but "length" or "time" or "mass" -- these are the fundamental units see http://www.unc.edu/~...s/sifundam.html

 

This is why I think that +1 and -1 have to have some kind of units. Without units, you can't really measure it, and if you can't measure it, how do you know what value it really has? If it isn't measurable, then as above, there is no point in discussing it on a science forum.

 

you write "The hole and the shell must be together else the particle suddenly becomes something." -- but that doesn't answer the question WHY they much be together. There must be some interaction that keeps them together, and then some disturbance that separates them "to become something". There needs to be details about this interaction given.

 

Again, what are these 'properties' you keep talking about? Please be very specific.

 

what the heck is 'entropy safe'??? Again, please define ANY terms explicitly that are not in common scientific use. Heck, I'd rather you just defined every single term as you use them, feel free to assume I have no knowledge of any scientific term.

 

How can "It shares the same X/Y/Z as it's opposite" this be true? At any specific point, it can only be 'hole' or 'shell', right? How can it be both? Do you mean that the center of the 'hole' and the center of the 'shell' are the same point?

 

Finally, please refrain from making snotty-sounding comments like "You can't pick, and choose maths that you want to hear." I am not debating whether +1 -1 = 0. I just don't understand your interpretation of the equation. And I have been very patient asking you questions over and over again, and not just dismissing you out of hand. I've been trying to get you think about your idea more, and about science as a whole. Again, considering how many direct questions in this thread you've ignored, I am actually a little surprised with myself that I still have patience. But, as above, at this time I'm willing to keep giving you chances and the help to think about your idea more. It is just that your explanations have been somewhat incomplete, so I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

 

And, you don't need two opposites to be 'nothing'. I don't need a gold brick and a negative gold brick on my desk to have no gold bricks. I just don't have any gold bricks on my desk. Similarly, two things that sum to 0 can still be something. A sodium ion has a charge of +1 and a chlorine ion has a charge of -1. Put together and they have zero charge, but they are still something -- it forms table salt. As another example, the sum of all the forces on the girders of a building can be zero -- and the building remains standing -- but it certainly isn't nothing.

 

The example of NaCl is especially pertinent, because the compound NaCl has no charge, but is made up of two things with charge. I am asking is the 'hole' and 'shell' similar? And then, back to the very first question, what is the unit that is summed to 0? In the case of NaCl, it is electrical charge. What is it in your case?

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.

OK, so this prompts some questions:

 

1) +1 and -1 what? provide units, please.

 

2) what properties are we talking about? and then what reverse properties?

 

3) how does the 'hole' and shell stay together -- that is, what interaction keeps them together.

 

4) how can something 'equal' nothing? There is clearly something there, so it isn't nothing. The sum of the forces or charge or X can be zero, but I'd avoid saying 'nothing'.

 

5) I guess you are supposing that such compound particles exist, because while I certainly am not familiar with all of physics literature, I haven't heard of such a particle before.

 

6) what size is this particle?

 

that should be enough, and good answers to each and every one of these questions will more than likely prompt more questions, so I think it is a good enough start for now.

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 that friggen great they don't allow spaces IN ORDER TO SHOW WHAT I AM THINKING, WTH!! Just ignore this whole topic, it is completely

lost due to the fact that you can't post spaces after entering.

 

I guess I'll try to explain it though.... It was SUPPOSED to be a scale ....1 2 3..through 100 with exteremely fake pseudoscience being 1 and direct observable provable science being 100.

 

"crazy cults" and "earth is 5,000 years old" were SUPPOSED to be shown at the bottom of the scale

"2=2". "the earth is a sphere", "We are carbon lifeforms", "atoms exist", "water expands when frozen" were all SUPPOSED to be shown at the top of the scale

 

"Galileo in 1639" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of about "1-20"

"Galileo in 2011" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "90-100"

"Einstein in 1945" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "95-100"

"Einstein in 2011" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "94-100"

TTTTHHHHHEEEEEEE BBBBBIGGGGGG BANNNNGGG TTHEORY was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "77-99"

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRYYYYSSS was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

RRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIIIIIIONNN... .creepinn touch... was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLL was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

AAAAAAAAAAAFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTERRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEEEE &

CCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSCCCIOOOOOUUUSSSSSNNESSSSSSSS &

DDEEEEEEMMMMMMMMARRRRRCCCCCCCCATTIIONNN PPPPPRRRROOOOBBBBBLLEEEEMMMMM was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99"

 

BUT SINCE AFTER I POSTED THERE WAS NO SPACES AFTER "ENTER"ing , that didn't happen

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.