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.

Work in Progress / Universe Generator Part 2

Author
Message
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 16:21 Edited at: 11th Jul 2012 16:22
Link
Working on a Universe Generator. My old thread is here...

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=182905&b=8#post

I'll just call it a program similar to 'The Game Of Life' but a bit more ambitious. I'm trying to get it to produce real physics.

You can decide whether it's possible, or impossible, but it should be fun anyway to see what happens.

This video shows the shape of the outside of the Universe that isn't just a guess, it's based on many calculations. I'm not going to say it's factual, but it's not a guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3fTYS99ZeE&feature=youtu.be

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
mr Handy
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 17:23
Link
Quote: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3fTYS99ZeE&feature=youtu.be"

Nice screensaver.

«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
Back to top
Profile PM
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 17:23
Link
Also interesting that someone made a song about my efforts. Listen to me mentioned at the end...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0ZOK8q9bRk&feature=plcp

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
prasoc
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 20:19
Link
Is this meant to be a real Physics demonstration? I can't tell if its just a game or not


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 20:26 Edited at: 11th Jul 2012 20:32
Link
Quote: "Is this meant to be a real Physics demonstration? I can't tell if its just a game or not"


It's best to find 'The Game Of Life' on the internet, and try it out. Then imagine a program that attempts to use a similar process, but with the rules that the Universe might use. So it's a serious attempt to build the universe, but at the same time should be fun to mess around with.

Scribble on the screen, and press start....

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
prasoc
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 21:58
Link
I see, a "3d game of life". What I was wondering about is this image you linked to on your previous thread: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pinchopaxton/Movement.jpg

Honestly, as a first year Physics major, that doesn't make any sense.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 22:36 Edited at: 11th Jul 2012 22:38
Link
Quote: "Honestly, as a first year Physics major, that doesn't make any sense."


My models are not to do with the standard model. In my theory all actions must be accounted for, and that includes all movement. The movement of all particles have to have a force applied else they cannot move. To apply that force requires spacetime to be a complete grain structure that propagates all forces. The dead matter in the example is spacetime without a solid, visible state. I don't call it dead matter now. I just call it the zero particle. All physics accounted for, and evolved, even gravity is evolved in the simulation.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
prasoc
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 22:55
Link
Well the problem with new "theories" (conjectures in Science parlance) is that they have to agree with evidence.

"In my theory all actions must be accounted for, and that includes all movement"

That isn't possible, maybe if you are only taking into account Classical mechanics (and just disregarding 100 years of experimental evidence for Quantum Theory; like the explation for the weird nature of the photon, eg. the double slit experiment, thin film interference, etc. can all be explained with it)

"The movement of all particles have to have a force applied else they cannot move"

That is Newton's First Law of Motion: a body is in a constant state of motion unless acted upon by a force. You are correct that this would only work in a static universe (Euclidean), but the universe *isnt* Euclidean at all, only at very small distances.

Furthermore, this would point towards Einstein's theories being incorrect (as they take place in curved spacetime), and EVERY SINGLE TEST that we have *EVER PERFORMED* in General Relativity has came out to be highly accurate with observed results.

There are a lot of theories you could come up with, but they would have to fit in with the bigger picture of Physics. Sure, you could have an epiphany one night and come up with a simulation, but you need Mathematics to explain how things work - the universe *is* of a mathematical nature.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
prasoc
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 23:05 Edited at: 11th Jul 2012 23:12
Link
Just to clarify that last point - the Universe is mathematical. In geometry (which is wholly explained with Maths), there is something called "parallel shifting", in which you rotate around a planet and if you keep the direction you are pointing constant, then after many many orbits you will be shifted ever so slightly. This has been shown to be correct with the Gravity Probe B experiment, and General Relativity predicted this 90 years before it got shown. *That* is an amazing prediction. This also shows that underlying spacetime is geometrical and therefore can be wholly explained with Maths.

Since you seem motivated to build a Universe Generator, why don't you start with implementing a basic form of Newtonian Mechanics? That would be very impressive to play around with


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 23:23 Edited at: 11th Jul 2012 23:32
Link
I include every single thing you have mentioned, apart from bodies are in motion. I start with a stationary universe, and everything must be moved by a partner. Most of my model is the reverse of your model, but all the results of proofs are still there. And my quantum physics are just physics. Oh I do use Newtonian Mechanics as well. Self building. But not attraction, I have no pull forces. In my theory you can't even pull anything at all. You can't propagate a pull in any way.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
prasoc
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 23:34
Link
With the Game of Life, each cell dies if it's on its own, for example.
Simple rules can make complex interations of course, but what are the defining rules of your universe? Just want to get a bit of clarity on what the video is showing.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Matty H
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 11th Jul 2012 23:55
Link
Quote: "Honestly, as a first year Physics major, that doesn't make any sense."


I have seen theories very similar to what that image describes put forward by professional physicists. Although it is more philosophy at this point with no evidence, but what they knew about quantum mechanics brought them to the conclusion that this is possible.

The basic premise is that information moves around and not actual physical stuff. Pure philosophy and conjecture but pretty interesting

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 00:02 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 01:39
Link
I have two particles positive, and negative. They start off +1 + -1 = 0. Which means that they combine by overlap to become invisible, and cancel each other out. Because they equal zero, and are invisible, I use them as my spacetime. My spacetime is a grain structure.. everywhere. So I have this as my propagating energy.

+1 bumps +1
-1 bumps -1
together = nothing.
Then they have to be arranged to create the grid.

The grid is based on Newton's Kissing Problem. You can get 12 around 1. The shape is a sort of Icosahedron. Then those rules become locked in this Icosahedron grid. Now it is shaped like a cogwheel, and acts a bit like a cogwheel. The particles propagate around the Icosahedron.

The cogwheel is arranged to cancel itself out like this...

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

The centre of the wheel is zero.

This creates a knotted ring of energy which is invisible in all directions.

+1 + -1 = 0
+2 + -2 = 0
+3 + -3 = 0

etc.

So that's the zero particle as a grid structure that is invisible.

Now that the grid is invisible like Spacetime I have a propagator everywhere. And I have a grid like 'The Game Of Life'

I have a grid with the mechanics to move things around. So I put energy in the grid. Positive mass, and negative mass. It's the same particles again. They are Infinite, so they play the part of the energy. They propagate by using scalar energy. If positive mass bumps positive mass they scale down. If Negative mass bumps negative mass they scale up. Scaling up is the push force that I need. Scaling down is the singularity that I need.

So the energy is the + and the -, and always a push force. The negative energy is somewhere to push into. So for example a Black Hole is a huge negative energy, but doesn't pull. It gets energy pushed into it. Gravity is a push into negative holes.

So all of that comes down to the first simple rules. + bumps +, and - bumps -, but neither bump each other. The scaling rules.

The physics end up that energy moves towards lower energy for nearly all cases including Gravity.

All of the other particles that we use today in physics evolve from those rules in my program. I have accounted for all of the physics that I know about including Quantum Physics. I don't have much that shouldn't work. Reading over entanglement etc, all can be found in my cogwheel particles.

There are other rules. When particles get trapped by equal amounts of energy from all sides they are forced into the zero hole. This scales them down until they reverse polarity, then they are free.

Basically anyway I have things figured out, but not completely tested.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
WLGfx
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Nov 2007
Location: NW United Kingdom
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 03:33 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 03:34
Link
@Pincho - I've not yet had a listen to the song dedicated to your good self yet (it's too late, 1:31am) but I think you might be better off cheating anyway if you are planning to create a game using all these ideas... Just look at the old games like Elite and Frontier...

After the last thread, it's best not get tied up into another mega debate and just get some coding done.

EDIT: according to a tv program, if there's no rules then you end up with the basic building blocks like all the dice used when playing D&D...

Mental arithmetic? Me? (That's for computers) I can't subtract a fart from a plate of beans!
Warning! May contain Nuts!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 11:23 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 11:25
Link
I don't need to cheat. Last night I came up with the proof of my theory. An absolute proof that is here on Earth, and doesn't need any setting up. Finally. So where do you send a proof, and what do you actually do. I know that Newton wrote a load of papers on motion, and a load of papers on light. I have something like that, full of new laws, with a proof.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mr Kohlenstoff
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jun 2006
Location: Germany
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 12:42
Link
What the hell is going on here?
You know, I'm only computer scientist. And I have no idea where this is going, but it certainly is interesting.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Neuro Fuzzy
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 13:02
Link
Quote: "I don't need to cheat. Last night I came up with the proof of my theory. An absolute proof that is here on Earth, and doesn't need any setting up. Finally. So where do you send a proof, and what do you actually do. I know that Newton wrote a load of papers on motion, and a load of papers on light. I have something like that, full of new laws, with a proof.
"

Unfortunately for you, people submit so many crack-pot papers to respected journals that the editors are used to them and cut them immediately. I'm afraid you'd have to gain more acceptance in the scientific community before your paper got published anywhere. Maybe you could self-publish a book (hell, I'd buy one if you promised to define terms before you use them), or just post it online. Any way it goes, you're going to need to do a crapton of work ironing out your theory, figuring out how to explain it (because honestly you throw new terms in every other sentence), and trying to convince other people.

Also everyone: can we not turn this thread into a repeat of the other one?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 14:35
Link
It's not just a paper it includes a test that you can perform in real life, and the test works.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 14:56
Link
that is what a paper is.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 15:42 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 15:42
Link
Quote: "that is what a paper is."


Good. I don't know much about the scientific method. I have that test. And it shows us new physics that are in our environment.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
greenlig
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 16:11
Link
Pincho, really interested in seeing what you do with this. I've known you since the early days, but you seem positively obsessed with this. I understand a bit of what you are saying, and the bits I don't understand intrigue me. Like Mr Kohlenstoff said, I have no idea what the hell is happening, but your enthusiasm is spectacular. If you want any feedback, sling me an email!

Greenlig

Your signature has been erased by a mod as it is far too big.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Matty H
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 16:18
Link
Quote: "It's not just a paper it includes a test that you can perform in real life, and the test works."


Could you post it already? Stop keeping us in suspense

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 18:11
Link
I don't know the rules of science. I think it has to be published first.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 18:24
Link
Quote: "Pincho, really interested in seeing what you do with this. I've known you since the early days, but you seem positively obsessed with this. I understand a bit of what you are saying, and the bits I don't understand intrigue me. Like Mr Kohlenstoff said, I have no idea what the hell is happening, but your enthusiasm is spectacular. If you want any feedback, sling me an email!

Greenlig"


Thanks! That's the right attitude to have to an unproven set of ideas.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 02:28
Link
This is in the WIP section, so is there an example of your theory in action aside from the YouTube videos? The game of life provides a simple algorithm with 4 rules:

Quote: "
For a space that is 'populated':
Each cell with one or no neighbors dies, as if by loneliness.
Each cell with four or more neighbors dies, as if by overpopulation.
Each cell with two or three neighbors survives.

For a space that is 'empty' or 'unpopulated':
Each cell with three neighbors becomes populated.
"


What are your rules, and what is the simplest way to build a starting dataset?

Better yet, what code do you have to provide a minimalist example of this in action?
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 03:31 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 03:37
Link
Quote: "What are your rules, and what is the simplest way to build a starting dataset?"


You start with a grid made from a particle stacking system. Each location requires 12 particles around 1, and a shell. The 12 particles can rotate about an axis to create pathways. The pathways are decided by the algorithm that energy must always move towards lower energy. The shape is used for all particles, but scale will alter what the particles do. The scaling algorithm is...
Number the 12 grid spaces 1,2,3,4,5,6,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1
Those are you starting energy states of an empty shell. They all cancel each other out.

Once the grid is made put a lot of particles in it. You can hide the grid if you want to simulate space-time.

positive particles bump positive particles into lower energy.

Negative particle bump negative particles.

If a particle gets bumped scale down if positive.

Negative particles can scale up.

No particle can move on its own accord, it must be bumped to move.

The size of the energy value cannot exceed the scale value which determines if a particle can fit inside a space.

Particles inside particles have energy levels added together.

You can't help the program with formulas that force a result.

You shouldn't create anything apart from the grid setup, and the energy inside the grid. And you can have a surrounding wall around the whole system to reflect the energy back.

Reading the energy to get colours is the final part. You shall have to test which energy levels are which colours.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 16:00 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 16:02
Link
Quote: "Locking on the basis that there is a UG Part 2, which has more posts in it. Please stick to Part 2, a WIP doesn't need multiple threads. "


That thread was already locked, that's why I made this one. There's a time limit on threads you know.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 22:18
Link
@Pincho-

Quote: "You start with a grid made from a particle stacking system. Each location requires 12 particles around 1, and a shell. The 12 particles can rotate about an axis to create pathways. The pathways are decided by the algorithm that energy must always move towards lower energy. The shape is used for all particles, but scale will alter what the particles do. The scaling algorithm is...
Number the 12 grid spaces 1,2,3,4,5,6,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1
Those are you starting energy states of an empty shell. They all cancel each other out.

Once the grid is made put a lot of particles in it. You can hide the grid if you want to simulate space-time.

positive particles bump positive particles into lower energy.

Negative particle bump negative particles.

If a particle gets bumped scale down if positive.

Negative particles can scale up.

No particle can move on its own accord, it must be bumped to move.

The size of the energy value cannot exceed the scale value which determines if a particle can fit inside a space.

Particles inside particles have energy levels added together.

You can't help the program with formulas that force a result.

You shouldn't create anything apart from the grid setup, and the energy inside the grid. And you can have a surrounding wall around the whole system to reflect the energy back.

Reading the energy to get colours is the final part. You shall have to test which energy levels are which colours."


You lost me at "particle stacking system".
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 03:30 Edited at: 15th Jul 2012 03:31
Link
Normally you create a dim, and fill it with numbers, and you could for example make tower Defence, or 'The Game Of Life'

But this time you position the sphere so that the coordinates of each sphere acts as a Dim. It's sort of reversed.

By doing that you have a location that you can fill with another sphere. You treat the sphere as a number in a Dim.

So dim map(x,y,z)

Map(0,0,0) = 1

Is now position sphere 1,X,Y,Z, position sphere 2 using sphere 1.

This way you can use the Universe as a physical computer that stores energy in holes.

Then you use that as your physics. A sort of Binary or Trinary system.

You use scale as the size of your Dim's allotted space.

If scale = 100, then you can fit 100 energy in that sphere. So energy entering that sphere must not be > 100, else new physics occur. The energy is blocked.

You don't need to think what I am thinking, you need to think what the Universe can do with a hole, and a particle system.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
TheComet
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 12:25
Link
Quote: "Normally you create a dim"


It's called an array.

TheComet


TimePlan : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmuAKJolqASndEVYOWMxb3l2OWV0UkV1anRSczZScHc
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 13:31
Link
Quote: "It's called an array."


I will still call it a Dim, because it saves translating one word into another word.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
TheComet
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 13:40 Edited at: 15th Jul 2012 13:40
Link


TheComet


TimePlan : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmuAKJolqASndEVYOWMxb3l2OWV0UkV1anRSczZScHc

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 14:00
Link
You know me I don't go by what I read. I go by the most logical choice. If I say Dim people know to type Dim. If I say array, a beginner will not know what I am talking about. Logic is to call it a Dim.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 14:26
Link
Except if the reader is a Dark GDK or Dark GDK.net user.

public string[] Steve;

Yes, because we're going to have a lot of Steves. In fact, lets have:

Steve = new string[524];

It's a lotta Steve.

Of course, call it what you like. Most here ought to know what a 'dim' is. If they're confused, they can ask.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 14:31 Edited at: 15th Jul 2012 23:46
Link
Quote: "You know me I don't go by what I read. I go by the most logical choice. If I say Dim people know to type Dim. If I say array, a beginner will not know what I am talking about. Logic is to call it a Dim."

Arrays aren't called dims, and other languages don't require an array-specific keyword to declare/define arrays. Calling it a "dim" is not a logical choice as it creates confusion, and may put newcomers in the habit of doing so. By doing that, you are spreading misinformation and are potentially setting back newcomers by starting habits.

An array both makes sense and encourages the newcomer to read documentation (either via forum posts, or the documentation actually included) which is considered a good habit by every established professional of the industry, and more. By calling it a dim, you are effectively neglecting the betterment of the individuals you encounter directly or indirectly.

TL;DR: Do not call it a dim.

Cheers,
Aaron

Check out my website! - Blog
Twitter
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 14:50 Edited at: 15th Jul 2012 14:51
Link
Well somebody should change it's name to Array then. Saves me thinking twice for the same thing. I like to be conservative.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 15:01
Link
Quote: "Well somebody should change it's name to Array then. Saves me thinking twice for the same thing. I like to be conservative."


It's not very conservative getting a company to change one small part of one of their products simply to please you. It's called an array, you define it with 'dim'. You wouldn't call a blueprint a building or vice versa.

"everyone forgets a semi-colon sometimes." - Phaelax
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 15:08
Link
Quote: "It's not very conservative getting a company to change one small part of one of their products simply to please you. It's called an array, you define it with 'dim'. You wouldn't call a blueprint a building or vice versa."


Ok I will call it an array, but if someone in the future asks me what an array is I will not be pleased.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
TheComet
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 17:31
Link
They keyword dim comes from dimension, which in return makes sense when you're defining an array.

Quote: "You know me I don't go by what I read."


Too true. You've established that pretty well I think.

Quote: "Arrays aren't called dims, and other languages don't require an array-specific keyword to declare/define arrays. Calling it a "dim" is not a logical choice as it creates confusion, and my put newcomers in the habit of doing so. By doing that, you are spreading misinformation and are potentially setting back newcomers by starting habits.

An array both makes sense and encourages the newcomer to read documentation (either via forum posts, or the documentation actually included) which is considered a good habit by every established professional of the industry, and more. By calling it a dim, you are effectively neglecting the betterment of the individuals you encounter directly or indirectly.

TL;DR: Do not call it a dim."


Thank you for that nice explanation, couldn't have done it better!


TimePlan : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmuAKJolqASndEVYOWMxb3l2OWV0UkV1anRSczZScHc
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
prasoc
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 22:58 Edited at: 15th Jul 2012 23:41
Link
Quote: "I have seen theories very similar to what that image describes put forward by professional physicists... The basic premise is that information moves around and not actual physical stuff."


Yeah, he isn't saying that. I doubt he even knows what the Physical defintion of "information" is - note: if you are referencing the holographic principle, it has been shown to not be a possibility. Confirming that his theory is "valid" is just confirming his delusions.

Pincho, you are so wrong it's hard to even fathom how you came up with these ideas, even from the basic points you make. Everyone can try disproving one part at a time, but then you create even more around *that* to fit in with your crazy ideas. I hope one day you come to your senses and actually learn how to think logically.

And with that, I am out of this flamewar.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 15th Jul 2012 23:47 Edited at: 16th Jul 2012 00:18
Link
Quote: "Pincho, you are so wrong it's hard to even fathom how you came up with these ideas, even from the basic points you make. Everyone can try disproving one part at a time, but then you create even more around *that* to fit in with your crazy ideas. I hope one day you come to your senses and actually learn how to think logically.
"


I'm not wrong. I just found a link to Loop quantum gravity, and it is almost the same as I have. I doubt that two people could come up with the same thing if its wrong. and I came to the conclusion using a completely different approach.

I mean look how similar it is. Look at the spin network. Very similar. I was quite surprised by this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

Apart from it uses Relativity, which I have corrected.

This too...
Quote: "It replaces the Big Bang spacetime singularity with a Big Bounce"


Which backwards would be an implosion with an explosion, and that's what I have.

It's like my theory with vectors. Which isn't quite as good.

Science did well, and for the age of it without very good computers in those days, it's very clever. Just a few mistakes.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Matty H
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 16th Jul 2012 00:48
Link
Quote: "Confirming that his theory is "valid" is just confirming his delusions."


I don't think his theory is 'valid' in any way. I have serious doubts along with everyone else, I see lots of holes in his theory and the approach to 'proving' it is correct.

Pincho is not happy with our understanding of some major aspects of modern physics, and this is where I appreciate what he is trying to achieve.

We have things like 'inflation', 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' which are 'conveniences' to make some of our current theories 'fit'.

They represent massive holes in our current understanding of the big bang and gravity. I would not be surprised if someone comes along soon with a radical new thinking which turns everything on its head and explains these mysteries. Einstein did it with gravity, just by observing that if you were accelerating in space(and you were blind) it would be equivalent to being under the influence of gravity, such a simple insight which took us to a whole new understanding of space and time.

So, although I don't have high hopes for Pincho right now, it will be radical thinking that advances modern physics in my opinion.

If anyone is very content with our current understanding and thinks it does not need questioning then they are seriously mistaken imo.


Quote: "And with that, I am out of this flamewar"


It has become a flame war and this is a shame. I would only apportion a small amount of the blame to Pincho, there have been lots of rude comments directed his way.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 16th Jul 2012 01:16 Edited at: 16th Jul 2012 01:35
Link
Quote: "We have things like 'inflation', 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' which are 'conveniences' to make some of our current theories 'fit'.

They represent massive holes in our current understanding of the big bang and gravity. I would not be surprised if someone comes along soon with a radical new thinking which turns everything on its head and explains these mysteries. Einstein did it with gravity, just by observing that if you were accelerating in space(and you were blind) it would be equivalent to being under the influence of gravity, such a simple insight which took us to a whole new understanding of space and time."


I came up with Dark Matter, and Dark Energy before I knew about them. I called Dark Matter ..ghost, because I had never heard of it. But my theory has an inflow of Gravity, and an outflow of magnetism, so Dark Matter, and Dark Energy were in my theory in 2003. So were sun bubbles which have only recently been found, and the Bow shock bubbles which were found by Voyager. I said that Voyager would find bubbles there before it got there. I predicted so much that wasn't known about. Yes my theory has always included Dark Matter, but its just Magnetism as a push force. I predicted it when it wasn't in use. Somebody came up with it before me, but it wasn't in use. So I never heard of it, but predicted it.

The theory then though was in its infancy. I have worked hard on it, and have so much more detail in it. Like the shape of time, its a really detailed picture now.

Nature as well, I have worked hard on, and have a lot of the physical shapes figured out. Right down to snowflakes. It's not just evolution, natures shapes are made from space-time grain.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 16th Jul 2012 04:11
Link
Quote: "I doubt that two people could come up with the same thing if its wrong"

Ever hear of common pitfalls? Or common misconceptions?
/rhetorical

Cheers,
Aaron

Check out my website! - Blog
Twitter
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 16th Jul 2012 05:33
Link
Folks. I would like to make a suggestion. Pincho Paxton has had 3 threads locked related to the subject of this and one of them was a flamebait and folks made their arguments and discussed it in detail, pretty much Paxton vs the world . I am sure Pincho would appreciate it if not all of his threads got locked and I am sure the mods don't want to keep locking his threads. I think he's had plenty of feedback on the 'theory' itself and it's up to him whether or not he listens to it or accepts any of the criticisms. But this is the WIP section and he's showing off his project made in DBP. So maybe direct feedback to the progression of the program itself?

Not trying to boss folk about, but it's just a thought.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 16th Jul 2012 06:10
Link
Let's listen to the President, everyone. I don't want to see another locked thread of Pincho's either.

The program looks pretty cool and I can definitely see some kind of game coming from it. I think that'd be pretty cool.

-Yodaman Jer

Not contributing much of anything useful to the forums since September of 2007.
Back to top
Profile
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 16th Jul 2012 10:20 Edited at: 16th Jul 2012 10:24
Link
Thanks! Anyway the discussions have helped me even though they get locked. They make me go over my thoughts aloud, and I get feedback which I have to sometimes re-check. The re-check then becomes even more clear to me. So thanks for feedback, but yeah we need to stop the feedback now. Mind you, if you do want to give feedback not related to the "Game" I am on Twitter. @PinchoPaxton.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 16th Jul 2012 16:35
Link
Finally getting somewhere with the Grid System now. Just got to figure out why the Z doesn't draw the front half...



Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 16th Jul 2012 19:07
Link
Please, not the terminology argument again.

Quote: "Pincho Paxton has had 3 threads locked related to the subject of this and one of them was a flamebait and folks made their arguments and discussed it in detail, pretty much Paxton vs the world . I am sure Pincho would appreciate it if not all of his threads got locked and I am sure the mods don't want to keep locking his threads"


The President has spoken. Any trolling against the thread subject will result in slaps and potentially bans.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Dimis
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Jun 2011
Location: Athens, Hellas
Posted: 17th Jul 2012 00:34
Link
Now this starts to look interesting Pincho. I am expecting to see very cool results here. Best of luck with this one!


Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-04-19 17:08:29
Your offset time is: 2024-04-19 17:08:29