Pincho Paxton
-
Posts
139 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pincho Paxton
-
-
A photon is never at rest therefore E=MC^2 does not apply. A neutrino does have mass therefore a rest frame. Negative mass wouldn't be a barrier at all (Lorentz transformation). Wouldn't quite the opposite be true?
It's a particle transformation, to implode more or less to turn inside out. It's a barrier all right.Otherwise there would be visible anti-matter, and black holes all over the place. But luckily they are nicely tucked inside matter.
0 -
Picho, to be frank, this is an awfully warped view of math. Math isn't 'forcing', it is a tool to take knowns and discover unknowns. If I apply a force of 100 N to an object, how fast will it accelerate? Well, you use F = ma, and if you know the mass of that object then you know the answer to your question. The math isn't 'forcing' it -- the mathematical relationship F = ma has been shown to be correct almost countless times so we just accept that it will be true. It isn't perfectly correct. For example, if the mass of the object is changing, then it isn't right, and this comes into play in mathematically describing the flight of rockets, for example.
This is the point of describing things mathematically -- to take known inputs and use the tool (math) to find outputs. And then you compare those outputs to what is actually observed, and hence you determine how good you mathematical description is.
In other words, math is just another way of describing what is happening. It has its own syntax and rules, just like written languages, but in the end it is just a description. But, with the added benefit of making objective precise descriptions. Again, applying a force of 100 N, this time to an object that weighs 100 kg -- the math predicts that the acceleration will be 1 m/s/s. Not "kind-a slow", not "pokey", but 1 m/s/s. And, not 0.95 or 1.05 m/s/s -- exactly 1 m/s/s. This is great because then one can go out and actually apply a force of 100 N to an object of 100 kg mass, and see that it does indeed accelerate at 1 m/s/s. Math is a description that is more exact than the everyday language that is common.
this is incorrect -- in this example the neural network has to be using mathematics to evaluate how good of a solution to the problem it has at each stage. Without an evaluation, and being driven towards better, it wouldn't do anything at all. And, mathematics have to describe what is 'better'.
You do realize that entropy is a defined mathematical quantity, don't you? There is no such thing as an entropy-meter (akin to how a thermometer measures temperature). So, making a statement like 'use entropy to simulate a universe' is completely meaningless without the mathematics behind it.
And how are these interactions described? Again, you don't answer questions directly, how does your 'simulation' work without math? Pincho, I am really growing weary of not getting very clear straightforward answers to the questions I am asking. There are probably more than a dozen questions I've asked in this thread that don't have straightforward answers to them, partly because you redefine your own terms, but largely because you are answering like we all have familiarity with your model and your ideas. We don't.
-----------------------------------
Perhaps rather than make another laundry list of questions that history suggests won't get very clear answers, you should describe your model from the very beginning. Specifically, your simulation. I want to know the origins of your simulations. Who wrote it. How I was written. Etc. I want to get to the very heart of the simulations and know what is in fact being simulated.
I really am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I am also really losing interest because of the incomplete, obfuscated, confusing, and frankly arrogant way in which you answer questions -- especially when you actually DON'T answer the questions asked. You may be doing something fairly interesting, but it is impossible to get to it the way you present it -- and since there is a noticeable lack of objective testable predictions, I think that you'll find that most will share my lack of interest. Again, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but a lot will hinge on your next reply.
Ok start at the beginning. The first particle is the equivalent of zero, it is a shell +1 with a inner negative mass hole -1. The important thing here is that the hole has the properties of the Membrane but reversed.If you want mathematical proof like you keep asking for..
+1 + -1 = 0
They equal nothing, mathematically proven.
0 -
It would take infinite energy to accelerate infinite mass. If that were to occur clocks WOULD RUN BACKWARDS. Are you saying that this is a physical illusion? Because it sure isn't a mathematical illusion. How do you correlate the two?
You squash mass to negative mass. The barrier I was talking about.
0 -
With pair production we have a particle and it's antiparticle (photon or neutral boson), with the antiparticle essentially being the mathematical equivalent of it's particle counterpart traveling back in time. Perhaps we are seeing this now as more than just a mathematical anomaly! If the tachyonic nature of this event is verified and the results stand, the standard model doesn't necessarily take a hit here at all. It simply means that things we thought impossible become possible. However, the very nature of quantum mechanics already lent itself to this principle, and should heretofore be considered self-evident. Every possible outcome does occur...
I think that time travel is made up.. sci-fi. We travel through a substance, and that substance can squash to become thicker, then thinner, and that can affect light, and clocks. It is the change from thicker to thinner that gives an illusion that something odd is happening. But water expands into ice, then ice shrinks, and some substances switch around a few times. Also hot, can be forced to cold with lasers. There are switches in quantum physics, but time is just a switch of pressure, and flow. Being as clocks require energy to work, and electrons will also switch around under pressure, all you are seeing is the result of pressure around materials that create electrons. And you will see similar things happen to photons. Evidently Neutrinos switch from one flavour to another, they must be right on the edge of change, so their barriers are easier to get through. The speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second, so it is the same for us if we were already travelling at 343.1 metres per second.
0 -
This makes no sense at all. How does the computer 'simulator' work without math? (Frankly, how does a computer work without math?) What could it possibly simulate?
And, the mathematics are important because they make objective testable predictions. That way, one can say that model X predicts exactly Y. Not 'a little bit hot' or 'over yonder' or 'deflects somewhat'. But specific values of temperature, distance, or deflection. This is only way to see just how good a model is. To see how closely the mathematical values agree with the experimental values. The better the agreement, the better the model. This is how we have the very successful models we have today.
Without mathematics, again you have a story. That story can be the first step towards developing a theory that makes good predictions, but without prediction and comparison with experimental evidence, it isn't science. It is story telling. And without a tremendous amount of objective verified agreement between prediction and experimental evidence, it is really quite ludicrous to call anything a theory, much less and theory of everything. You have a story.
Well I see maths as story telling. If you look at a Neural Network computer program, the program that is supposed to simulate neurons in the brain it comes to life because you don't tell it to do anything specific. There is maths, but no mathematical forced objective. No physics to tell a person to walk, just let them move their legs around until they can walk. I use entropy to simulate a universe. I don't use G, or M as physics. Gravity comes from natural interactions that I have no control over. It is the fact that I don't use any strict physics that becomes the proof that this is real. No strict maths is my way of creating proof. But then finding results requires an extra evaluation which I haven't added.I mean hard coding and forcing G I'm sure is what most people would do with a Galaxy generator. But where did G come from? I don't hard code it, it actually takes a long time to evolve G from the physics of entropy, and you only have overlap, which is basically a Quantum bump. So gravity is a bump force, and so the big bang is out, because it would bump away forever. When you are strictly not using forced equations you realise that maths is a story, and people who create simulators with maths like G are putting rules in that story, and ending up with a big bang.I don't add rules, I don't even add movement to the beginning of time (I don't add actual time physics either, that evolves as well).. even movement has to evolve, as particles have no means to move by themselves. They have no limbs, they have no waves, there is nothing to make them move. I evolve everything, that is my proof.
0 -
If what you are saying here is that your theory has electrons behaving the same way as current theory -- they why would we want to adopt your theory? Because the current theory is doing just fine. If your theory doesn't do any better, who cares.
So propose a clear prediction that would falsify your theory. Some way to discriminate between current and yours.
AND, ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTION ASKED -- since you claim to have a theory of everything, and that in your theory your interactions make it looks like an electron has a certain mass, this should be easily mathematically described by your so-called theory of everything. You should be able to demonstrate how your interactions are just strong enough to make the electron appear to have a certain mass.
I have to not use maths in my models, because I feel that mathematical algorithms are there to make something happen, and I'm trying to stop anything from happening by playing the part of entropy. All my computer simulator does is make everything equal zero. I am going to add a sphere which I can drag around interesting areas, and then use that sphere to evaluate, and translate this area back to maths, but I am trying so far to do everything the way the Universe does it.. chaotically.
-1 -
You don't just get to say this -- an electron HAS a mass. A very well experimentally verified mass. It is were massless, it wouldn't behave in the ways we know it behaves. How can you just ignore that?
It would behave that way as it resonates the other particles to bump one another, and so it has a tiny propagated area that would look a lot like a single electron at our scale. But in fact are mini results of the first result.
0 -
This is because you define well-established terms willy-nilly. And then when asked, you don't put your definitions in terms understandable by people who know the established definitions.
Define everything CLEARLY, only using established terms in the established ways, please. Call anything with a non-standard definition something knew or otherwise CLEARLY denote when your term is different than the the established one.
This "Gravity is a flow force of Aether, so mass is a vector rotation of that flow force. The electron is bump propagated, it doesn't exist long enough to have a mass established. You are just seeing a strobe effect of movement." does not answer my question how a mass can be a force.
Please define CLEARLY and with units what you mean by mass_PP (The sub PP denotes that this is your and only your definition) and force_PP and how they relate to the established definitions.
I should explain what I believe an electron is based on how I think it occurs. In my theory I have tried to evolve every particle from Aether (which I call Aether as recognition to Einstein, because although different, it still fits in where Einstein left it). I have particles which are mathematically +1 membrane around a -1 hole, and equal areas, equal X/Y/Z, equal speed, equal velocity, and spherical.. so totally entropy safe. I believe that zero is a relative number, and doesn't exist on its own. Entropy therefore doesn't recognise this Aether particle at all, it is therefore nothing.
The +1 membrane is only entropy safe as a sphere. If two particles overlap, their area become entropy unstable. +1 overlapping +1 just a tiny bit covers a small area. To change this area back to a total of zero it must fold inwards to negative mass. To fold mass to negative mass is like a barrier, it's like a sound barrier it causes a bang. An electron is merely the pop to negative mass. So in effect it is a tiny explosion which resonates through other Aether particles. To ask for the mass of an electron is like asking for the mass of a sonic boom. Science has measured something, but I'm not sure what it measured. Maybe a few Aether particles, I'm not sure.
I would say that the Electron has zero mass, because it is happening between +1, and -1 state change.
-1 -
How does this answer the question about the prediction of the mass of an electron?
If you can't answer it, perhaps you should change the title of the thread to "ask me the questions that usually don't get answered and I vow that they will remain unanswered"
It seems that asking me a question when you don't know what mass is will never work, you are still looking for the Higgs Boson remember? So I have answered the question, you keep thinking about a different type of mass.
True, it's real, but it isn't relevant.
The important issue here is that 1+1=2
It's still true if one of them has negative mass
It'll take a lot of evolution to get that large though. 1+1 = 2 is a combination of a lot of overlapping particles to cover something like the scale of + 1's to get 2.
0 -
This uses words that have precise definitions in accepted physics in an incompatible way. A mass cannot be a 'force' in the definitions of physics today. In fact, mass is in the definition of force. F=ma.
Please do not use these same words, as it will only lead to confusion.
Furthermore, please show how and why mass should be considered a vector quantity. Everything I know about it shows that treating it as a scalar quantity seems wot work pretty darn well.
how does adding an invisible and massless particle make things simpler?
if it is a vector, what in what component is the 1 in? a vector cannot be a scalar as you have written here. you'd have to write something like the vector is equal to 1x where x is the unit vector on the x coordinate.
What are all these variables in your equation? you didn't define what any of these mean. Also, how did you get this equation?
Lastly,
YOU DIDN'T FREAKING ANSWER THE QUESTION! Your reply does not show how to calculate the mass of an electron from your model. Please directly answer the question asked (it is the rule of this forum, BTW) or tell us how long you need to do the calculation and thusly when you will be able to directly answer this question.
Just to be clear, this is the question:
Gravity is a flow force of Aether, so mass is a vector rotation of that flow force. The electron is bump propagated, it doesn't exist long enough to have a mass established. You are just seeing a strobe effect of movement.
0 -
Pincho,
I know a little bit about your model, but charge is seemingly unrelate to the existence of something, otherwise a neutron or neutrino with zero charge would be nothing, seemingly they could not exist. It is true that positrons and electrons annihilate each other and cease to exist as particles, but in your model they are still there in some form, right? just in a different form?
It seems to me that the origin of life is generally unrelated to physics and is more related to chemistry and organic chemistry. How could life be related to an aether. Most particulate aether models envision very simple geometric particulates and life is maybe the most complicated thing that we know of. Your quote:
You seem to be stating that life had to somehow evolve sooner of later but this does not seem to answer the question: the question was
(parenthesis added)
your answer:
It seems that you have no chemical or down to earth explanation of this question, and I don't understand anything in your explanation
above that explains the origin of life; am I missing something? Would you prefer the question: "where did we come from?" as in your original posting?
//
Anti-matter, and matter don't annihilate each other in a perfectly spherical form. They are uniform, and Entropic free, and safe, and invisible. We however have evolved to see change, to sense change with instruments. So when we see matter, and anti-matter it is not entropy safe, it is causing a result. Entropy then removes this result, and we will see a flash, and the particles will vanish back to the safe state. They are still there, but we can't monitor them.
If you were after the total chemistry of life, that requires a computer model. I haven't finished the computer model yet. This is a thread for explanations of how that computer model works. So I know how life comes about in the program. Randomly folding material into holes which are particles, and bonding them together, interlocking them using entropy. It's similar to random computer code just playing out forever.
0 -
I think this thread is a fun idea Pincho
Lots of cool questions can be asked. I wish I would have thought it first by stating that I could answer every question including all the "why" questions 
I will give you a few questions as a starter. I consider the answers given to them to be very speculative.
The first one that I've taken from your list is: (Where did we come from?) But specifically what I am asking is where did life come from? or if you prefer, how did the first life originate from non-living chemistry?
The next question from your list is: How do you get something from nothing? I will be very critical of any possible answer that you might give here, as I was of the answer given by Stephen Hawking to the same question.
Well Pincho, what sayeth you?
hmm you start with a question way up the agenda which will appear to pop out of thin air without working up to it.
I'll start with something from nothing as that is the earliest stage. If you check for yourself, you will find that 0 does not work on its own. Speed 0 is relative, take an apple away is energy redistribution. You will never get a case where zero exists as a singular thing. So the first state of zero is +1 + -1 =0...
So that's how you get something from nothing. Nothing is an equal amount of matter, and anti-matter +1 and -1.
Life... As Aether overlaps it is changed back to zero by entropy. Energy rises when particles overlap. This is because a sphere is mathematically equal in all directions, but overlapped particles are no longer spherical, they work together as a new shape. Entropy tries to fix this new shape back to mathematically stable. Entropy is a membrane like the Universal membrane. If you have a balloon full of water with another inflating balloon inside it the outer membrane reflects what is happening to the inner membrane. By squeezing the outer membrane you can push things apart in the inner membrane. That's sort of how entropy works. Under pressure the outer membrane reflects back that pressure. The Galaxy has a membrane, the sun blows out a membrane, a black hole blows out membrane. We are in a sort of bubble wrap, and that bubble wrap is all working together as a directional force to hold back energy. The first particles which bump to create energy were originally chaotic. Cause and effect happened for billions upon billions of years. Entropy ran out of control. It was always possible to squeeze the membranes using logic rather than chaos. Something had to evolve to control energy eventually. We can control those bumping particles, and we have taken over from entropy until we lose the pressure of our membranes. We have free will.
The biological materials came about as particles started to overlap more particles and got trapped inside the outer particle. This creates flow holes, and spin, and bumping patterns of energy, and complex entropy. From the outer particle you get complex inner particle evolution. When science thought of holes to store biological life, it didn't notice that an atom is a basic hole. You can put a lot of information in an atom, and you can put even more complex information in a molecule. The bumping of the Aether will randomly produce billions of results. You will eventually get life.
I don't believe you. Show how your theory predicts the mass of the electron. If it truly answers all questions this should be trivial.
Mass is a vector force. An electron is not a particle it is a result inside another particle. The other particle however is invisible so you measure the outside of this other particle. It's mass is zero, it's vector force is relative to a new model of physics. It is 1. It's energy output is..
E = pi*(R+r-d)²*(d²+2dr-3r²+2dR+6rR-3R²)/(12d)
0 -
not without specific testable predictions, you won't.
I will use tests that have already been made. I have already predicted about 20 things since 2004.They have been discovered.
0 -
this doesn't answer my question. Specifically, "So, again, without predictions, why should anyone on a SCIENCE forum care apart from reading a creative fiction?"
Because I am going to switch science to the creative fiction whilst answering questions, and switch my theory to the leading theory. For example I will fix relativity, and turn relativity to fiction.
0 -
"Two thing make nothing as I explained."
No, you did not explain it; you stated it, but that is not the same thing.
In reality, two things do not make nothing.
In reality +1 + -1 = 0
That's reality.
Being as nobody seems to get the hang of this, here is time...
0 -
Ok, great, pretty picture and all. But if such an 'aether' particle existed with the properties you assume, there are implications about that -- how it interacts with other particles, the energy it needs for those interactions, etc. and this leads to predictions about the type of radiation that should be present from those interactions, etc.
This is why the current model is what it is -- the physicists make some educated guesses about the state of matter and energy very soon after the Big Bang and how it is all interacting with one another -- this results in a certain amount and type of radiation at the time, and for all time going forward. Then they compare the prediction of how much of this radiation is left today with the actual measurements of the cosmic background radiation.
Without any of these predictions -- mathematical in nature -- again, what GOOD is a story? An enjoyable read? Sure. Science? NO. Science is the making of predictions and comparing them to actual evidence. Trying to skip some of these steps results in story telling, nothing more, nothing less. Without exploring and making specific predictions about what values measurements would have if your story was true, it is no different than a John Grissom or Stephen King or Isaac Asimov fiction novel.
And, yep, the math is hard. But, I don't see anywhere a requirement that the Universe has to be easily describable by math. To insist it does is just being willfully naive and ignorant of all the work done to date. There is not a single working scientist today or ever that actually wanted something to be more mathematically complex. And seeking to try to simplify or unify things has proven fruitful in the past, and is work that should continue. But, ultimately, it follows the evidence and predictions made by the simplifications and unifications. Without specific testable predictions, how can one know if a simplification or unification is valid? There have been dozens and dozens proposed that sure looked good -- sure would have helped explain things if they were true -- sure would have made the math easier if they were true -- and a lot of people wanted them to be true: but the evidence wasn't there. The predictions were simply wrong.
So, again, without predictions, why should anyone on a SCIENCE forum care apart from reading a creative fiction?
I have to evolve radiating waves, so at the first stage there are none. They evolve from multiple Aether flows, and I start before that happens. I have no movement at all at time zero.
I don't want to get drawn too far into this for fear of lending it credibility that it plainly lacks but the first assertion in that box simply isn't true.
A positive mass thing surrounded by a negative mass thing is not nothing.
It's two things.
Sure it ends up with no mass but that proves nothing.
A photon has no mass, but if they didn't exist you wouldn't be able to read this.
Before we can address the issue of whether or not this "theory" is of any use, the first thing to check is whether or not it is correct in the sense of being internally consistent.
It isn't so that is the end of it.
(And, for the record, the rest is word salad)
Two thing make nothing as I explained. You cannot use the identifier zero on its own. You have to create it physically with relativity. Nothing is related to something. There is an assertion that you use two comparisons to make nothing +1 + -1. The universe is made symmetrically from an equal amount of matter and anti-matter +1 + -1. zero is not symmetrical, it is singular, and has no opposite. You make it from equations of two things.
This is why the Theory Of Everything is in Pseudo-science. Science has added extra things like a singular zero.I always say.. "If you can de-evolve something it is no good." Just de-evolve it. Remove the zero, get less parts, turn string theory to particle theory.. get less parts. Turn Relativity into Aether theory get the cause instead of the effect. Einstein would much rather of had the cause than the effect.
0 -
So, then, why do you think anyone on a SCIENCE forum would be interested? Without specific testable predictions -- most always involving math -- what is the point? Furthermore, without having checked specific testable predictions, how can you be so confident in your answers to questions like 'what is dark matter'? Most members of a science forum like fiction stories, but they like to keep the stories and the science separate. In many regards, I am not so much interested in the answers to your questions as much as knowing how you validated the answers to your questions -- once I have confidence in the science done to validate your answers, then the answers become interesting...
I started with a Universe made from nothing. I allowed no physics apart from expanding nothing until it overlapped...
It's very simple 0 is always relative to two conditions. +1 + -1. If I had 1 apple, and took 1 apple away.. you are actually transferring energy. You have two conditions, but they are hidden in the question. If something has a speed of zero.. relative to something else. Two conditions. Zero is always made from two conditions. So +1 + -1 = nothing. It is actually nothing once you get your head around zero being relative. But the way I have made the Aether is very special as well. The inner area is identical to the outer area. they are both spherical. the both share the same X/Y/Z. they both move together at the same speed. They have nothing to distinguish them apart until they overlap. I have made +1 and -1 relative to each other.
Once I had sorted out how to create physics from nothing. I allowed that to evolve..
Some of my replies are easier understood by animations. The membrane in the last picture are actually swapping positions in a figure 8 formation. That is also time.
0 -
Why do you feel that you can maintain credibility while both offering to answer the question "Is there a God?" and also saying "don't ask for maths" on a science forum?
Why do individual people convince themselves they have somehow stumbled onto secrets that the global collective scientific community has not?
What kind of hubris is necessary in order to ignore scientific methodology and yet still call it science?
Because science is not close enough to the truth for the Theory Of Everything to be accepted as truth. So it will always end up in pseudoscience, it will have nothing to do with Relativity, the Big Bang, or a singularity. It will break mathematics down to such a simple formula that it is hard to imagine how it works to evolve higher mathematics. But it quickly evolves into higher mathematics, and it quickly evolves into physics, and eventually life. The person who comes up with the idea will need an artistic, 3D visual imagination, and the brain area of an artist takes over the brain area of the mathematics. This person is me.. a sort of new Da Vinci, with no knowledge of mathematics, but an understanding of physics from nature. I am the one who is hard for mathematicians to understand, and maths is hard for me to understand. Yet the Theory Of Everything is a natural phenomenon, and I think that the 3D artist wins in the visualisation area.I started science from scratch, I was very strict on how I moved from one particle to the next. I had to evolve each stage just like biological evolution.
0 -
I have the real theory of everything. I am willing to answer questions like...
What is time?
Where did we come from?
How did the Universe begin?
What happens in certain Quantum Experiments?
How do you get something from nothing?
Is there a God?
What is a Black Hole?
How do Galaxies form?
Is there a multiverse?
What is Dark matter?
What is Dark Flow?
What is Gravity?
What is magnetism?
Why does the Universe expand?
What happened before the Big Bang?
What is a singularity?
What was there before the singularity?
I will give you the answers, but you might not understand them. but do I cheat? No. I base everything on a single formula +1 +-1 =0.Don't ask for maths.
0 -
And, as I said, that building was only to convey the fact that we understand the mathematical concept of multidimensionality. The building was not proof of multiple dimensions. If you read further I actually explained the proof.
the fact is, the behaviour of a particle subject to a force is different than the behaviour of a particle travelling on a geodesic. This is the essential difference between Newtonian Gravity and Einsteinian Gravity.
There is a subtle, yet significant difference. Such as the orbit of Mercury. According to Newton's gravity, it should be in one place, but if space is actually curved in a 4th dimension as per Einstein's Gravity, then it will be in a different place. When they measured the location of Mercury, they found that its position was not what Newton's theory predicted, but it was where Einstein's theory predicted. This is proof that space really is curved into a 4th dimension as a physical force could not account for the position, only the fact that the planet is travelling along a geodesic that has 4 dimensions can account for the motion.
But you have added Aether, shells, negative mass, positive mass, and the fact that you need someone to actually force it to work. Not only does your idea disagree with observation, It also need biology, eyes, mouths, legs, etc of the person deciding if it has done what you want.
In other words, your idea needs you to make it do things. It does nothing by itself, only when a human (or some intelligent agent) actively manipulates it does it produce any results. Your idea does not start with nothing, but requires the entire universe to exist before it can be at its starting state.
If your idea really did work from "nothing", then you would not need any intervention at all for it to produce something meaningful.
As I keep saying, just because something is able to be simulated, does not make it real. I can simulate a 3d universe with all its own rules and even enter it an interact with objects. There is physics with collisions and inertia and friction and gravity.
Does this mean my simulated world means the real world is like this? No, not at all (it is actually a computer game). My simulated world is based on mathematics (and so could be described as coming from 1 + -1 = 0) and does not even need human intervention to work or produce fundamental objects.
What you have to do is even though you can simulate something, you have to show that it matches observations, and can predict what futures observations will be. If it can not do this, then it is useless as a theory. It doesn't describe the real world, just a pretend world.
Think about this: If your "theory" makes no attempt to predict anything about the real world, how can you state that it is an attempt to describe the real world. Saying that it predicts everything, unless you can actually show it does, is just words. I can write 1 sentence that predicts everything too: "Murphy's Law states that if something can go wrong it will, and Murphy's Law applies to itself".
If you actually think about it, it can explain everything (the universe is something going wrong, or going right). It explains everything, but it is also useless because it doesn't allow us to predict anything. It is not science. At best it is philosophy and at worst, it is just words.
So, unless your "theory" can tell us what, and why the electron has a certain mass, or why the speed of light is what it is, or any one of a number of things that science is actually looking for, then it is a worthless theory. It doesn't matter how many years you put into it, if it is not useful, then it is not useful.
I haven't added anything.
It's very simple 0 is always relative to two conditions. +1 + -1. If I had 1 apple, and took 1 apple away.. you are actually transferring energy. You have two conditions, but they are hidden in the question. If something has a speed of zero.. relative to something else. Two conditions. Zero is always made from two conditions. So +1 + -1 = nothing. It is actually nothing once you get your head around zero being relative. But the way I have made the Aether is very special as well. The inner area is identical to the outer area. they are both spherical. the both share the same X/Y/Z. they both move together at the same speed. They have nothing to distinguish them apart until they overlap. I have made +1 and -1 relative to each other.
Get your head around E then...
E = pi*(R+r-d)²*(d²+2dr-3r²+2dR+6rR-3R²)/(12d)
E = the overlap of two Aether particles.
You might be able to improve that. My maths is terrible.
So nothing is made from the membrane, and the hole. I didn't add them they are the fundamental properties of nothing.
The observer isn't human. The outer membrane is the observer. It just resets by equalling pressure. The background noise is the equalling of pressure in the Universe.The equalling of pressure from a distant membrane is action at a distance.
0 -
Well I did the the calculation. Taking the GPS distance as 730km, the Earth's circumference as 40070km, and the Earth's radius as 4378km.
The shortened chord distance I get is 729.677km, which is 323m shorter, not the 20m claimed. Another bright idea bites the dust, probably.
Anyone care to check my calc.
Based on a geode.. oblique spheroid?
0 -
If there is an error, there are 15000 errors. Somebody will get a red face!
0 -
-
There are probably better ways to work out E to be honest. I think you could get it quite exact at the Quantum Level. You are within the mass physics so you do need to account for E without mass. It should be something like...
E = pi*(R+r-d)²*(d²+2dr-3r²+2dR+6rR-3R²)/(12d)
Now remember that I can't do maths, so that's probably terrible. But I can describe it. E is the overlap of two particle areas. So above is the best I can do with my useless maths. And it probably doesn't even make sense.Anyway you couldn't get the particle sizes so its useless at the moment.
0
What is the difference between theories and pseudoscience?
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by Pincho Paxton
Science makes the rules for science forums. You could have a forum where Pseudo-science threw scientists into a separate forum, and told them that they are not allowed to use maths on the site. It all started with Isaac newton who had the idea that maths should always be used as proof. But ironically.. his maths proof does not stand up to his description of attraction. Gravity is a bump. So maths isn't proof. He should have said.. mathematicians should work together with artists. Then he would have made a friend instead of an enemy, and he would have been a better man for it. And we would be way more advanced than we are today.