Ask me the questions that usually don't get answered.

[Pincho Paxton]

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.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[John Cuthber]

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?

[Phi for All]

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?

[Pincho Paxton]

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.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Bignose]

Don't ask for maths.

 

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...

[Pincho Paxton]

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.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Bignose]

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?

[John Cuthber]

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)

[Pincho Paxton]

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.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[John Cuthber]

"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.

[Pincho Paxton]

"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...

 

[Bignose]

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.

 

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?"

[Pincho Paxton]

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.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Bignose]

...and switch my theory to the leading theory...

 

not without specific testable predictions, you won't.

[Pincho Paxton]

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.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Bignose]

I will use tests that have already been made. I have already predicted about 20 things since 2004.They have been discovered.

 

Ok, I'll bite, post your predictions. I'll even look at the ones you 'predicted' in the past (you do realize how silly that can be right -- anyone can claim to have made predictions back in 2004 that has since been discovered today, unless you have dated publications that show your predictions).

 

And, since you've done so well since 2004, there must be other good ones for the future, right? Let's see those, too. Get them posted with a time stamp so that you don't run into the issue in the ()'s above.

[mississippichem]

I will use tests that have already been made. I have already predicted about 20 things since 2004.They have been discovered.

 

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.

[pantheory]

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?

Edited September 25, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

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)

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[pantheory]

Pincho,

 

I know a little bit about your model, but charge is seemingly unrelated 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 can annihilate when contact occurs and they 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:

 

Something had to evolve to control energy eventually

 

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

 

....how did the first life (that we know of here on Earth) originate from non-living chemistry?

(parenthesis added)

 

your answer:

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.

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?

//

//

Edited September 25, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

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.

[Bignose]

Mass is a vector force.

 

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.

 

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...

 

how does adding an invisible and massless particle make things simpler?

 

it's vector force is relative to a new model of physics. It is 1.

 

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.

 

It's energy output is..

 

E = pi*(R+r-d)²*(d²+2dr-3r²+2dR+6rR-3R²)/(12d)

 

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:

 

Show how your theory predicts the mass of the electron. If it truly answers all questions this should be trivial.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Bignose

[Realitycheck]

for the lulz?

Edited September 26, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Pincho Paxton]

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.

[Realitycheck]

How can you prove that gravity is a flow force of the aether, and mass is a vector rotation of that flow force? What is aether? That's what some people said was up in the sky 300 years ago, then we went to the moon and found that there was nothing there. If you want to extend that to the weight of dark matter pressing on galaxies, fine, but it is hardly the same. You don't need to use math as long you can explain it in more extensive, proven terms, not just rattling off stuff with no support whatsoever. Just because you make some unfounded, unsupported statement doesn't make it true. That's what they do at Marvel Comics.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Realitycheck