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 02:44
Link
Quote: "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?"


In my theory it is negative mass that allows gravity to flow through it. An electron is negative, so it is negative mass. The flow force is the weight, and the bond. Some atoms have 1 electron, and some have two, so you will get changes in this weight, and bond.

In science I think that only 1 electron bond has been seen, because it was difficult to create, and two would be really difficult. But they have sort of filmed a single electron bond.

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 02:46
Link
So what about neutral charge particles, by this reasoning they would have no mass, but that is observably not true

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:47
Link
Quote: "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."


Was that a response to my post? I haven't tested my theory in Blender yet, but I'm sure it's worth a small investment in time to try out my method of grid generation. Try it, Pincho!
Back to top
Profile
Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:54 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 02:56
Link
No sorry to Pincho talking about a circle on a tv. Further, how can you make a circle with only nine angles. With 360 degrees circumference you get far more than nine from the center point

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:58 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 02:59
Link
Quote: "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."


I'm not sure in 2D, but the z I think steps as well.



Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:01
Link
Quote: "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."


How would you know. Your eyes are arranged in hexagons. A glass lens is arranged in hexagons. You would never get the complete vector angles from an atomic structure.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:02
Link
No, Pincho, no! You don't have a for-next loop for each axis. You have one iteration per cluster, and then do some trivial error checking. Grow it like a tree.
Back to top
Profile
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:02
Link
Hey Pincho, have you seen Randomness's physics engine he made based off of your physics? Seems like it would do well to simulate what you have.

On a more serious note, I do indeed respect you for all of your mental labor coming up with this theory.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:12
Link
Quote: "So what about neutral charge particles, by this reasoning they would have no mass, but that is observably not true"


The central part of an atom the nucleus, and the Neutron are where time is situated. That's a scalar force, and stationary. So the charge is also stationary but scalar. This is where spacetime originates. Scaling out of these holes.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:16
Link
Quote: "Hey Pincho, have you seen Randomness's physics engine he made based off of your physics? Seems like it would do well to simulate what you have."


Link?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:16
Link
Am I misunderstanding something here? I provided a method by which a large icosahedron could be generated. Why is there no demo, now? That was the one feature that was missing.
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:27 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 03:29
Link
Quote: "No, Pincho, no! You don't have a for-next loop for each axis. You have one iteration per cluster, and then do some trivial error checking. Grow it like a tree. "


I want it to grow like a tree. But I can't figure it out in 3D. I don't think that your shape is the same as the shape I am after. I can't tell. It's very hard to see if I have flat walls in rows. I don't think that I do. Which makes it hard. I'm not exactly sure what the shape I have is. It's just a code to self eliminate energy in all directions. So the shape is a bit hard to see.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:28 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 03:30
Link
Ok, so I leave for two hours and you mention something that indicates you're disputing the accepted 3 dimensions...?

We're dealing with a troll here guys, there's nothing more any of us can do.

I just read through all the posts again, a lot of this doesn't even make any sense. I think we've been had.

Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:31
Link
3 dimensions are vectors. I have a grain structure, so it can't have vectors. How can hexagon stacking grain have strait line vectors?

However.. spacetime grain has been observed in real life. So I don't have to use vectors.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:32
Link
I like how you still haven't really offered any more evidence.

Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:41
Link
Quote: "I like how you still haven't really offered any more evidence."


Neither has science.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:42
Link
Actually you are very wrong.

Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:43 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 03:45
Link
Quote: "Actually you are very wrong."


Show me any proof of attraction, anywhere, in history. They have had hundreds of years to show it.

Isaac Newton died.... March 31, 1727. So find proof.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:52
Link
Quote: "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."

Some of this stuff is pretty interesting, but surely for this to be then for some reason the water that carries the boat (pushing it), must be moving faster than the water in 'front' of it

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:54
Link
Quote: "I want it to grow like a tree. But I can't figure it out in 3D. I don't think that your shape is the same as the shape I am after. I can't tell. It's very hard to see if I have flat walls in rows. I don't think that I do. Which makes it hard. I'm not exactly sure what the shape I have is. It's just a code to self eliminate energy in all directions. So the shape is a bit hard to see."


I'm not talking about some magical formula here. The picture I posted demonstrates how it would be done if your simulation were 2D, but it's 3D. Basically, it's just a bunch of icosahedral sphere clusters that are centered at each sphere at each loop
Back to top
Profile
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 03:56
Link


^ Take this and put it at each of the outer 12 spheres. Then do it again for all of the new outer spheres, then again, then again, and so on.
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:01 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 04:02
Link
Quote: "Some of this stuff is pretty interesting, but surely for this to be then for some reason the water that carries the boat (pushing it), must be moving faster than the water in 'front' of it"


In my theory particles have no form of locomotion apart from being pushed. Otherwise they can't move at all. there are no physics to move a particle it is like a game of football. So when the particles at the front move out of the way, this does not advance the particles at all until they are bumped from the back. Chain bonding is a very tiny push from the back.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:04
Link
Quote: "Show me any proof of attraction, anywhere, in history. They have had hundreds of years to show it."


How about the fact that you're not floating away at this moment in time (which time is a force like gravity it)?

I'm pretty sure other forumers have posted some legit stuff back on the first two pages.

You're still not providing a leg to stand on. You're talking about values and spheres and have shown one or two pictures of a group of spheres. Not good enough for any evidence.

And I'm pretty sure the science group you referred to earlier meant that a computer simulation using LEGIT theories is considerable as evidence, not made-up fantasy ideas by someone who won't accept using science the way it was meant to be used.

Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:05
Link
Quote: "^ Take this and put it at each of the outer 12 spheres. Then do it again for all of the new outer spheres, then again, then again, and so on. "


That's a good idea, but you see the three particles at the front, they are stepped to the side.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:09 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 04:10
Link
Quote: "How about the fact that you're not floating away at this moment in time (which time is a force like gravity it)?

I'm pretty sure other forumers have posted some legit stuff back on the first two pages.

You're still not providing a leg to stand on. You're talking about values and spheres and have shown one or two pictures of a group of spheres. Not good enough for any evidence.

And I'm pretty sure the science group you referred to earlier meant that a computer simulation using LEGIT theories is considerable as evidence, not made-up fantasy ideas by someone who won't accept using science the way it was meant to be used."


You mean legit theories like photons interfere with themselves. Photons are both a wave, and a particle. Time Displacement. Attraction. The Big Bang.

Those legitimate theories?

Those theories are messed up with backwards rules.

Quote: ""How about the fact that you're not floating away at this moment in time (which time is a force like gravity it)?"


That's not a fact. You are being pushed down, no attraction. Prove that it's attraction.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:12
Link


BOOM!


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
Profile PM
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:16
Link
Quote: "That's a good idea, but you see the three particles at the front, they are stepped to the side."


Does that even matter? I was under the impression everything would line up. If it doesn't, you could always hard-code a cube of correctly aligned particles and then draw from that to make a big sphere.
Back to top
Profile
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:16
Link
Quote: "Those theories are messed up with backwards rules."


You're the only one who seems to think so.

Post your evidence. You can't come on here and say "I know true physics and not the false ones!" without providing any evidence.

The Game of Life, and your program and screenshots of said program are not acceptable as evidence.

Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:21
Link
Quote: "BOOM!"


Is that supposed to be proof of attraction? I've figured magnetism out too, it's a push force as well. Gravity flows into both ends, and creates those curves as it meets in the middle. But some of the gravity that collides scalar transforms into negative mass. This negative mass then flows back out through the gravity mass to escape. Bump forces all of them.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:23
Link
Can't believe I just thought of this simple argument.

How come your "push force" or "flow" isn't crushing us?

Back to top
Profile
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:24
Link
Quote: "How come your "push force" or "flow" isn't crushing us?"


Because It is 4th dimensional. It is what powers other 3-dimensional forces.
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:25 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 04:29
Link
It crushes itself more easily, and any that is crushed turns into magnetism. Although you can speed the flow up to the point where it can't crush itself fast enough.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:27
Link
That seems non plausible.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:28
Link
I agree with Dark basic dude. That seems WAAAAY out there.

Back to top
Profile
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:32
Link
And how does this force know where to push? And why does it only apply to magnets?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:32
Link
Each atom has a nucleus. Any force that cannot escape the atom is sent to the nucleus. The nucleus is a scalar zone. Gravity is scaled to negative mass, and negative Gravity is magnetism. Electrons are also scalar zones.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:34
Link
Quote: "Gravity is scaled to negative mass, and negative Gravity is magnetism."


...Soo, in other words, attraction.

If it became negative, it would become the opposite of push, wouldn't it? Thereby going against your previous statement that pulling something is impossible.

Back to top
Profile
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:35
Link
I'll revisit this thread in the near future, and I hope there is some demo out by then.
Back to top
Profile
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:35
Link
But what makes this only apply to magnets?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:39
Link
Quote: "And how does this force know where to push? And why does it only apply to magnets? "


The magnet is created with a spin flow. The spin flow is like a spin dryer, and sends particles to the outside of the walls of molecules. When particles are spun to the outside it leaves a gap down the middle. Gravity flows even faster into these gaps down the middle. Now to keep the flow travelling in these ring formations you need atomic structures which are quite strait, and the poles in lines. Then the spin is transferred to more iron filings, and the flow accelerated through them. But if it were particles that have flows in the wrong direction, or more randomly distributed, then the spin is not passed along so well.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:40
Link
Quote: "...Soo, in other words, attraction.

If it became negative, it would become the opposite of push, wouldn't it? Thereby going against your previous statement that pulling something is impossible."


Nope. My list of rules. Negative mass bumps negative mass, but doesn't bump positive mass.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:42
Link
Quote: "But what makes this only apply to magnets? "
Most things have a tiny amount of magnetism.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:43 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 04:43
Link
You guys notice that he seems to only reveal tidbits that make hardly any sense? He's not providing any evidence yet, either...

I won't be surprised if I get slapped from this thread, but Pincho, seriously, learn how science works. You're not the smartest man in the world. You're 49 years old and apparently have little to no understanding of science or the scientific method. You can't just program something and say "that's my proof!". Doing that is like trying to pass off a remodeled Porsche as a Ferrari; nobody's gonna buy it.

Quote: "Nope. My list of rules. Negative mass bumps negative mass, but doesn't bump positive mass."


That doesn't make any sense in relation to my statement.

Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:50
Link
Quote: "That doesn't make any sense in relation to my statement."


Yes it does. I only have bump forces. If a particle changes to negative mass it no longer bumps positive mass. If you were leaning on an inflatable cushion it would resist you. If it burst you would fall in the direction of the cushion. You weren't attracted to the sofa, your resistance vanished.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:54
Link
Quote: "Yes it does. I only have bump forces. If a particle changes to negative mass it no longer bumps positive mass. If you were leaning on an inflatable cushion it would resist you. If it burst you would fall in the direction of the cushion. You weren't attracted to the sofa, your resistance vanished."


Ok, now that you've actually explained it it makes a little more sense.

But what was the resistance fighting if it wasn't a pull force? If the push force was there it would have most certainly tried to crush me on the cushion.

The flaw with this idea of a "flow" or "push force" of yours is that it seems to be everywhere, yet when we observe the universe we clearly see that the bigger objects have more mass and more mass equals a greater pull force. If your push force is everywhere, why does it affect other objects more than any other?

If this flow exists, it wouldn't behave in the real world as you're claiming it would. It can only exist in your game you seem to be so adamant about.

Back to top
Profile
Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:55
Link
Although, to be fair, if you don't have vectors, you don't have forces.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 05:00
Link
Quote: "In my theory particles have no form of locomotion apart from being pushed. Otherwise they can't move at all. there are no physics to move a particle it is like a game of football. So when the particles at the front move out of the way, this does not advance the particles at all until they are bumped from the back. Chain bonding is a very tiny push from the back."

Doesn't really answer my question, why is the object moving faster than the water in front? This is perhaps not he best analogy to describe your theory I dont understand it as in this example the water at front is traveling at same rate unless the boat has thrust it wont displace whats in front, if the boat can travel faster than the water would this apply in space too? if so then faster than light is certainly feasible.
I am interested in your idea that all force is 'push' and at first glance it appears to hold water but something tells me your missing something very fundamental in your theory that would surface if presented to the right person. I am just a dude with no clue so not the one to comment either way, so I'll leave you guy's to it

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 05:02
Link
Quote: "The flaw with this idea of a "flow" or "push force" of yours is that it seems to be everywhere, yet when we observe the universe we clearly see that the bigger objects have more mass and more mass equals a greater pull force. If your push force is everywhere, why does it affect other objects more than any other? "


Bigger objects have more electrons, and electrons are holes, and scale particles down, and scaled down particles become more holes. Some big objects like Black Holes are extremely negative mass. I think that the Earth may contain a small black hole in the middle, and also lots of electrons. The moon has no black hole in the middle, but a fair amount of electrons around its edges. Mars has no black hole but quite an even distribution of electrons. The sun has quite a large black hole in it. Saturn has a collision hole in its centre that has flattened out to create the rings.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 05:03 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 05:04
Link
Quote: "Doesn't really answer my question, why is the object moving faster than the water in front?"


It was about a paper boat in a sink, and you pull out the plug, it's not moving faster than the water in front. It's flowing to the plughole.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 05:05
Link
Quote: "Some big objects like Black Holes are extremely negative mass. I think that the Earth may contain a small black hole in the middle, and also lots of electrons. The moon has no black hole in the middle, but a fair amount of electrons around its edges. Mars has no black hole but quite an even distribution of electrons. The sun has quite a large black hole in it. Saturn has a collision hole in its centre that has flattened out to create the rings."


Now you're just talking out of your... well, you know what the saying is.

If there was ANY black hole at the center of the earth, the earth wouldn't be here right now, and there can't be a black hole in the sun because black holes only form when a star dies by collapsing!

Back to top
Profile
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-09-19 18:25:16
Your offset time is: 2024-09-19 18:25:16