Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / [LOCKED] The Universe According To Pincho Paxton

Author
Message
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:35
Link
Quote: "Code snippet or I call bull."


Just try the game Of Life, and get the basic principles. The Universe can't think, so it has basic rules.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:35
Link
I'm sure this project will take some time. Sure, the theory and the physics and the means by which to implement it are already there, but to build a nice visual interface or even a functional 3D demo would take some time. How much time, we can't say.
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:36
Link
If all of science maths is backwards, the scientific method is a waste of time.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:37
Link
Quote: "Just try the game Of Life, and get the basic principles. The Universe can't think, so it has basic rules."


No. Post a code snippet, prove it's an actual program. Post an .exe. Post something other than a video or a screenshot.

Otherwise you're a liar.

Back to top
Profile
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:38
Link
Quote: "If all of science maths is backwards, the scientific method is a waste of time."


The scientific method is not a waste of time. It's a way of verifying facts and theories.

Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:40
Link
Quote: "I'm sure this project will take some time. Sure, the theory and the physics and the means by which to implement it are already there, but to build a nice visual interface or even a functional 3D demo would take some time. How much time, we can't say. "


I'm stuck on the loop that creates the 3D grid at the moment. Otherwise it would be up, and running by now. The 3D grid is spacetime, and it is arranged in a hexagon stacking system due to Newton's Kissing Problem. The Universe simply creates it with infinity. I don't have infinity, so I have to set it up.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:40
Link
Quote: "The scientific method is not a waste of time. It's a way of verifying facts and theories."


With backwards maths.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:42
Link
Why can't you post the program from any of your videos? Hmmmmm?

Prove it's not an animation. It's already been pointed out that your supposed program would require a TON of memory (much more than available on an average desktop) but I had my doubts before then.

Post the program.

Back to top
Profile
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:43
Link
And even if the maths are "backwards" as you state, that literally has NO effect on the usefulness of the scientific method.

Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:46 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 00:47
Link
Quote: "And even if the maths are "backwards" as you state, that literally has NO effect on the usefulness of the scientific method."


Yeah it does, you end up with Quantum Physics not working properly, and a Big Bang. And magical attraction.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:47 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 00:49
Link
Here is what I was originally going to post:

Quote: "[quote]If all of science maths is backwards, the scientific method is a waste of time."


It is I who said that the scientific method is a waste of time, but I consider that to be an entirely different animal from certian specific scientific theories. Proven or not, I don't believe in the big bang because it's not rational to me, but that doesn't disprove it. Now, you are someone who has presented a theory nicely and not said that anything is wrong with any of the others, that this is compatible with our current perception of reality. This kind of logic attracts me to the theory, but right now I'd just like to see a demo.[/quote]

----

And here is what I have to say now:

Is a loop to create a grid with a mathematical pattern that hard? Couldn't you use a for-next or do-while loop that adds a floating point number on each axis each iteration, or some kind of floating point work to crank it out in the easiest way possible? If the end pattern is the same (and I've seen it in one of the videos, with all of the green spheres), then what is there to work on?

Quote: "And even if the maths are "backwards" as you state, that literally has NO effect on the usefulness of the scientific method."


Finally, some sound logic. Math!=Science. Maybe that's just the part of me that hates math talking, though.

EDIT:

Quote: "Quote: "And even if the maths are "backwards" as you state, that literally has NO effect on the usefulness of the scientific method."

Yeah it does, you end up with Quantum Physics not working properly, and a Big Bang."


Quantum physics don't fall into the scientific method, the theory is a product of it. Same with the big bang, in all likelihood. It's just a bunch of scientists sitting around in white labcoats testing particle physics with grains of sand.
Back to top
Profile
Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:47 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 00:54
Link
Look i agree with you on the push/pull, but you are still disregarding the effect of what you are initially providing to this simulation. That's still programming, and even that basic rule set amounts to creating an arbitrary system of physics to give you the results you want based on your own unvalidated assumptions. I've said this already in one of your other threads about this. Everything in this simulation grows out of this simple rule set, that's your physics. What proof do you have to support that these simple rules are valid other than they could be logically plausible?

It's kinda like if you were making a maze generator, giving the program a rule to only ever follow the right hand wall and saying hat you have created intelligent ai because it can solve any maze as opposed to putting in an ANN with no rule set and see what happens

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:49
Link
Quote: "Yeah it does, you end up with Quantum Physics not working properly, and a Big Bang. And magical attraction."


Nope. Not really.

Post the program.

Back to top
Profile
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:51 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 00:53
Link
@Ortu-

The proof would be if the generated universe looked a lot like our universe, I guess. Would be cool!

Quote: "Post the program."


Yes. With full source code so we can fix it ourselves. Otherwise, it could just be an animation (although I trust that it isn't).
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:53 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 00:55
Link
Quote: "Is a loop to create a grid with a mathematical pattern that hard? Couldn't you use a for-next or do-while loop that adds a floating point number on each axis each iteration, or some kind of floating point work to crank it out in the easiest way possible? If the end pattern is the same (and I've seen it in one of the videos, with all of the green spheres), then what is there to work on?"


That video was a test. The real grid must be created by the Universe, and so must not have some intelligence behind it. It has to eliminate all maths, and all energy scenarios. It must be logically invisible to all rules. So must equal zero.

Here's a link to the struggle with it...
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=198394&b=1

I build it from the number 6, and try to just use that all of the time. It is an attempt to allow a natural evolution of the grid.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:54
Link
Quote: "If all of science maths is backwards, the scientific method is a waste of time."


You mean creating tests, correcting any errors in your hypothesis, followed by more testing, all peer reviewed, multiple people see the process of your workings and results, then more tests and tests and tests, eventually getting to the point when you can call it a theory and what comes after? More tests. This is just to make sure all your findings are completely accurate and any inaccuracies in the hypothesis or theory are corrected. This is why I said Newton's Laws of physics are outdated, because it has long been tested and corrected.



This scientific process isn't to do with the maths or current theories or models of science, it's about finding answers through testing and acquiring data and refining it and refining it and refining it until it is strong enough to be considered a theory and then you continue to refine it.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:56
Link
...That thread seems to show that you're hard-coding the values into your simulator. Nothing "Self-building" about it, it would seem, since you have to have an exact number of 0.3.

Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:57
Link
Quote: "You mean creating tests, correcting any errors in your hypothesis, followed by more testing, all peer reviewed, multiple people see the process of your workings and results, then more tests and tests and tests, eventually getting to the point when you can call it a theory and what comes after? More tests. This is just to make sure all your findings are completely accurate and any inaccuracies in the hypothesis or theory are corrected. This is why I said Newton's Laws of physics are outdated, because it has long been tested and corrected."


Yeah, by everyone using the word attraction, and everyone having the same flaw.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:58 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 01:00
Link
Quote: "...That thread seems to show that you're hard-coding the values into your simulator. Nothing "Self-building" about it, it would seem, since you have to have an exact number of 0.3. "


That's the grid. You are allowed to code the grid,The particles go inside the grid. It's infinite. there is no way to get round infinity in a computer.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:02
Link
My point was that you are still very definitely programming your own physics, just like in Super Mario Galaxy...

If you try to have an infinite universe generator, that's gonna take a LOT of data, even with 2D...

Back to top
Profile
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:02
Link
Quote: "
That video was a test. The real grid must be created by the Universe, and so must not have some intelligence behind it. It has to eliminate all maths, and all energy scenarios. It must be logically invisible to all rules. So must equal zero.

Here's a link to the struggle with it...
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=198394&b=1
"


Wow, that is a challenge. Welcome to the club. I run into so many problems when I program, most of my projects never see the light of day. Why not just use a cube shape, like how Minecraft/Minetest does for the lighting and fluid simulation? It would be more primitive, but shouldn't it work in a similar way? That way, you just have values on each axis and it is a perfect 3-dimensional grid-based system, much like the game of life. Now I see what makes yours different. This is why scientists and programmers prefer to work with radial and cubic systems. It's just easier.

But then it wouldn't be your theory. Post your source code anyways. One of us will figure it out.
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:03
Link
... however, even though it's coded it obeys natural laws...

http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue23/features/kissing/index

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:03
Link
Quote: "Yeah, by everyone using the word attraction, and everyone having the same flaw."


Does this mean that instead of testing your hypothesis vigorously and thoroughly with multiple experimentations and having them reviewed to ensure their accuracy (for example, you're not making up your results), instead you feel making your own logical arguments and creating a simulation (which would be a great first initial test) is a more reliable method?

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:06 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 01:07
Link
Quote: "Does this mean that instead of testing your hypothesis vigorously and thoroughly with multiple experimentations and having them reviewed to ensure their accuracy (for example, you're not making up your results), instead you feel making your own logical arguments and creating a simulation (which would be a great first initial test) is a more reliable method?"


With all maths backwards, any test of my idea would be performed using backwards maths. So yeah I go with just my simulator. It doesn't use much maths. Mostly addition, subtraction.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:07
Link
Quote: "Quote: "Yeah, by everyone using the word attraction, and everyone having the same flaw."

Does this mean that instead of testing your hypothesis vigorously and thoroughly with multiple experimentations and having them reviewed to ensure their accuracy (for example, you're not making up your results), instead you feel making your own logical arguments and creating a simulation (which would be a great first initial test) is a more reliable method?"


I just don't see how it's possible to test this theory outside of a simulation. That doesn't disprove it, though.
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:10 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 01:13
Link
Quote: "But then it wouldn't be your theory. Post your source code anyways. One of us will figure it out. "


The source code for the grid is in the link. It must only use a loop that keeps the 0.03 in tact. That is the Universe capability to use the number 3 all of the time. It has a system that goes up to 6, and then back to zero. That's about all it can do. This is how the universe counts...


1,2,3,4,5,6,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,1,2,3,4,5,6,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,1,2,3,4,5,6,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:11 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 01:13
Link
Quote: "Quote: "But then it wouldn't be your theory. Post your source code anyways. One of us will figure it out. "

The source code for the grid is in the link. It must only use a loop that keeps the 0.03 in tact. That is the Universe capability to use the number 3 all of the time. It has a system that goes up to 6, and then back to zero. That's about all it can do."


No, I meant the source code for the whole simulation.

EDIT: I'll be back in an hour. I need some food.
Back to top
Profile
Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:15
Link
Quote: "The real grid must be created by the Universe, and so must not have some intelligence behind it"


Quote: "You are allowed to program the grid,"


isnt this contradictory? Why are you allowed to program it, how does this not have intelligence behind it in doing so? If this idea is true wouldn't the particles behave within a grid system on their own without having to program a grid or them to do so? Isn't that the point of a simulation? It seems like this program is not a simulation but rather a visual demonstration

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:15
Link
Quote: "No, I meant the source code for the whole simulation. "


I'm only stuck on the grid. I can do the rest.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:17 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 01:21
Link
Quote: "isnt this contradictory? Why are you allowed to program it, how does this not have intelligence behind it in doing so? If this idea is true wouldn't the particles behave within a grid system on their own without having to program a grid or them to do so? Isn't that the point of a simulation? It seems like this program is not a simulation but rather a visual demonstration"


No, all particles of the same size can only gather 12 around 1. All of my particles are the same size. So I am just programming Newtons Kissing Problem in an infinitely enclosed space. It's the only pattern that the Universe could create. Not only that but it all adds up to zero in every direction so it is invisible. It's only spacetime. It isn't atoms, or anything.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:21
Link
Quote: "I just don't see how it's possible to test this theory outside of a simulation. That doesn't disprove it, though. "


I'm not trying to disprove it. I'm just saying it's a hypothesis, is unproven and we're in no positiion to treat it as fact.

Quote: "With all maths backwards, any test of my idea would be performed using backwards maths. So yeah I go with just my simulator. It doesn't use much maths. Mostly addition, subtraction."


Then create your own tests, use your simulation to try and get support from a scientific community, instead of using your simulation as to the 'end' of your hypothesis, use it as a means, try and get funding to test your hypothesis and not only that, but test your own mathematical methods and demonstrate their validity too.

Explore it, go deeper. If you really have that much faith that this hypothesis could stand on its own as a theory, then go for it, you'd be a fool to not go the distance and to instead sit around telling people they're wrong without the means to substatiate it.

Essentially what you're saying is, "modern science is wrong and there's nothing I can do about it, so I'm not going to bother using the scientific method and instead, stick with a hypothesis and a simulation and tell everybody I'm right".

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:33 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 01:35
Link
Quote: "No, all particles of the same size can only gather 12 around 1. All of my particles are the same size. So I am just programming Newtons Kissing Problem in an infinitely enclosed space. It's the only pattern that the Universe could create. Not only that but it all adds up to zero in every direction so it is invisible. It's only spacetime. It isn't atoms, or anything."


If this grouping of particles and spacing is the only possible solution, they would then take this form on their own as no other form is available or even possible, you wouldn't need to program it. If you have to do it manually then you are just 'fixing' the environment to suit the manner in which you wish it to behave. Youre not just letting it go to see what happens, youre setting it up to give the result you want That is not an experiment or a test to prove an idea, it's a demonstration which merely describes the idea

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:33
Link
I have been told on science sites that the simulator is allowable as a form of proof. The scientific method allows simulators...

http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/2012/07/problems-with-the-scientific-method/

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:36 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 01:41
Link
Quote: "If this grouping of particles and spacing is the only possible solution, they would then take this form on their own as no other form is available or even possible, you wouldn't need to program it. If you have to do it manually then you are just 'fixing' the environment to suit the manner in which you wish it to behave. Youre not just letting it go to see what happens, youre setting it up to give the result you want? That is not an experiment or a test to prove an idea, it's a demonstration which merely describes the idea"


Mainly because we use decimal, and our computer 3D grids are aligned in cubes. I am actually taking away the in built logical cube that man has put in my computer. If I wanted a cube Universe it would be easy, but man made. It wouldn't be invisible either. the corners would glow.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:48
Link
Computers really have nothing to do with it. Are you now disputing three dimensional physical space? Any three dimensional area is cubic in nature. Three axis describes cubic. X y z, length width height, arbitrary space itself can only align along three perpendicular to each other axes no matter the orientations. Even a spherical object is described in cubic terms as far as location, vector etc even if it doesn't fill the entire cubic space it describes

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:49
Link
Simulations usually require outside data based on already understood principles, what you're trying to suggest with your simulation is that understood principles are wrong and is base on no outside data, but only that contained within your program. Not even calculations based on real world information as you suggest the scientific calculations out there are backwards.

But then it shouldn't be more or the Yoda dude or the internet community you should be trying to convince. My point is about completing your simulation and taking it further afield and into the scientific community, have them look at it and have multiple peers assess it. If your simulation really does stands on its own 2 feet, then it'll be accepted as such and no further tests required to prove it as a theory, it might be a hard fight against current evidence as current evidence is strong, but if you don't take that route and it turns out you're right, then what chance is there of it ever being accepted? It might just mean somebody else makes these discoveries later and you miss out.

If it needs more tests, but is perfectly plausible, then no doubt you'll get some support from the scientific community and you'll have the support to explore this hypothesis beyond your simulations and to take it to the next level.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:50
Link
Quote: "Computers really have nothing to do with it. Are you now disputing three dimensional physical space? Any three dimensional area is cubic in nature. Three axis describes cubic. X y z, length width height, arbitrary space itself can only align along three perpendicular to each other axes no matter the orientations. Even a spherical object is described in cubic terms as far as location, vector etc even if it doesn't fill the entire cubic space it describes"


Yep, no vectors allowed. My spacetime is a grain structure, not all angles are possible in quantum Physics. Just 12 angles to choose from.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 01:53 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 01:54
Link
Quote: "Simulations usually require outside data based on already understood principles, what you're trying to suggest with your simulation is that understood principles are wrong and is base on no outside data, but only that contained within your program. Not even calculations based on real world information as you suggest the scientific calculations out there are backwards.

But then it shouldn't be more or the Yoda dude or the internet community you should be trying to convince. My point is about completing your simulation and taking it further afield and into the scientific community, have them look at it and have multiple peers assess it. If your simulation really does stands on its own 2 feet, then it'll be accepted as such and no further tests required to prove it as a theory, it might be a hard fight against current evidence as current evidence is strong, but if you don't take that route and it turns out you're right, then what chance is there of it ever being accepted? It might just mean somebody else makes these discoveries later and you miss out.

If it needs more tests, but is perfectly plausible, then no doubt you'll get some support from the scientific community and you'll have the support to explore this hypothesis beyond your simulations and to take it to the next level."


I'd like to get it looked at by scientists. But they are my Nemesis. I don't like them much. But still, they can have a look if they want. But I prefer to relate myself to Da Vinci, and be an artist who discovered things.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:04
Link
Quote: "I'd like to get it looked at by scientists."

Maybe it would help if you didn't insult their field constantly.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:06 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 02:09
Link
Quote: "Maybe it would help if you didn't insult their field constantly."


Well to me it's like witchcraft in 2012. I want to wake them all up. They have ideas of time travel, and all sorts. Time doesn't even have a past, present, and future. Only in our minds.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:07
Link
I think I've found the solution. The positions of the 12 spheres relative to the center sphere are hard coded. It works in steps.

1) Create the 13-sphere thing
2) For each outer sphere, create the 13-sphere thing again, skipping over any spaces where a sphere has already been placed.
3) Repeat step 2 to build a bigger and bigger sphere

I have tested this two dimensionally, and it works with a 7-sphere system. I assume it also works in 3D.
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:16
Link
So long as every location is divisible by 0.03 then that's what it is. The centre sphere is a hole by the way. It is zero. If a particle gets trapped it is forced into the hole, and changes polarity with a flash, it's a photon.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:16 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 02:20
Link
Then spheres are not possible, particles could not be spherical your space time grains can't be spheres etc, in fact nothing can have substance because nothing could occupy sufficient angles to exist beyond lines.

Besides, even with 12 angles available from any given point, you get three dimensional cubic space unless all 12 are on one plane which would describe two dimensional space, and I don't think that is what you are getting at

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:21
Link
Quote: "But an incline requires gravity to create gravity, and that's a Paradox."

Water flowing down a plughole also requires gravity. They are both metaphors not theories so it doesn't matter what forces they depend on.

Shh... you're pretty.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:28
Link
So glad I avoided this one!

"everyone forgets a semi-colon sometimes." - Phaelax
Back to top
Profile PM Email
the_winch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:29
Link
Quote: "The force that holds atoms together is a link with an electron in the middle... like a chain."


So what is it that determines how strongly two atoms are held together? Why is it some atoms are harder to pull apart than others and how can we use that knowledge to predict which of two chains made from different atoms will be stronger?

By way of demonstration, he emitted a batlike squeak that was indeed bothersome.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:30
Link
Quote: "Then spheres are not possible, particles could not be spherical your space time grains can't be spheres etc, in fact nothing can have substance because nothing could occupy sufficient angles to exist beyond lines.

Besides, even with 12 angles available from any given point, you get three dimensional cubic space unless all 12 are on one plane which would describe two dimensional space, and I don't think that is what you ate getting at"


You can make a circle on a TV screen from 9 angles. So it's just our scale that smooths off the Universe. Photons move in waves because of limited angles.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:31 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 02:32
Link
Quote: "Water flowing down a plughole also requires gravity. They are both metaphors not theories so it doesn't matter what forces they depend on."


I was talking about the boat on the water. that is moving with the water. It is being pushed. The water in front of it is moving out of the way.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:36 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 02:37
Link
Our goal here is not to try and disprove Pincho's theory, it's to help him make his game, right?

@Pincho-

You seem to be missing the point. It's easy to check if a sphere lands at 0,0,0. All you need are the decimal coordinates of an icosahedron and a loop that will add this shape (in spheres) and simply omit a sphere where necessary. I believe it would compress perfectly as dense as is possible. I can give you a rough guestimate of what this would look like in 2D.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile
Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:38
Link
A circle is two dimensional, existing on a single plane. This is not the space you are describing. The direction of a waves overall motion can fire off into any linear direction.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-09-19 18:32:03
Your offset time is: 2024-09-19 18:32:03