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: 8th Jul 2012 12:33
At the age of 11 I decided that I wanted to fully understand the Universe, and where we all came from. I am now 49, and 38 years of personal study took a route that I wasn't expecting. I came to the conclusion that a lot of science ended up backwards, and it was all due to a single word... attraction.

At 11 years old all I was able to do was examine nature. Take photographs, draw pictures, build model aircraft, bounce balls, examine friction. But in the back of my mind build up an overall picture of the invisible forces that were at work. When I first saw a computer at 17 I walked over to it, and stated programming it almost immediately. All I was doing was fixing some broken code for a friend, but I fixed it in less than 5 minutes. I know it was an easy solution, all he did was mistake an i for a 1, but it was exciting for me to solve something so quickly, and extra exciting to run the fix, and watch an Apollo rocket take off on the screen. I wanted to learn to program right away.

At 18 I had a computer, and also stated buying pop science books, and programming books. I typed in Hello World program, and changed it to Pincho, and then repeated it all over the screen, and then changed it to a rainbow of my name all over the screen. I was having a lot of pleasure from this experience. At that time I was also learning about the Big Bang, and attempting to read the Bible.

For some reason I got to Noah's Ark in the Bible, and could never get past it, it was too unbelievable. But the same thing happened when I got to the Big Bang. It didn't gel with me. I always considered the Big Bang to be a Pot Noodle of ready made physics. So I went to the cupboard, and got myself a Pot Noodle.

Anyway I decided that I wanted to work on computer games, and that was going to teach me how to create fake physics. By fake physics I mean instead of a gravity formula, I would just raise, and lower a jumping sprite by what looked right on the screen. This was where my childhood discoveries would have to be put on screen as close to the images in my head as possible. I was a good artist, I had good recollection of how things look, and move. The fake physics wouldn't be far off the real physics. It would be practice for the future, I wasn't interested in the mathematical versions of physics, I enjoyed trying to replicate them.

I eventually got AMOS. And this allowed my to create more realistic games, and more realistic fake physics. This got me work as a Graphic Artist for computer games. They saw my running animations, and that was all that they needed to see.

The big change in my life was when I first got told about Schrödinger's Cat, and Quantum Physics. I was 33. The guy lent me the book. Then I bought Schrödinger's Kittens, another book. The two slit experiment stuck in my mind. I still had accepted that I couldn't get round The Big Bang, I accepted that Einstein was a genius, I accepted that Newton was a genius. I looked up to all of the Genius that I read about. But if I could solve the two slit experiment, and get it to work with physics I could make myself feel better about this Big Bang Pot Noodle. I soon discovered that I couldn't get the standard model to work with the two slit experiment. I needed to start from scratch. The Big Bang had to go away.

I sat with my Amiga screen, and Deluxe Paint, the screen was black, and I wanted to create the universe from scratch. What would be the first thing in the Universe? I only had to start drawing at first, some sort of mechanics to get particles moving, and what particles could I start with? I must start with the least amount of physics possible, and I mustn't allow the particles to move unless I can figure out how they move. 3 years I sat at that black screen, each day turning the computer on, trying to draw something. How do you create motion from nothing?

3 years later, I had decided on two particles. I called them Black, and white. I wanted to create perpetual motion from a standing start, I couldn't get them to move. I had ideas of pendulum systems at first, but pendulums use a lot of physics, so again I would have a Pot Noodle of ready made physics. I wasn't going to allow that. Then I looked at Black, and White. I thought together they would make grey. They create each other by complimenting each other. Black on black may as well not exist at all, white on white may as well not exist at all. What is it about complementary system that helps them to work so well? Big requires small, + requires -. And then I thought +1 + -1 = 0. That was a major discovery for me.

The whole universe can be made from +1 + -1 = 0. because you have a zero starting point, and yet you have a complimentary system as well. + and -. So I don't need to draw Black, and White, I need to think about +1 and -1 instead. Now when I joined Black and White I got grey, but now with +1 + -1 I got invisible. Invisible is as close to nothing as I can get, and is better than The Big bang. All I need to do now is get this thing moving. How do you create motion from nothing part 2?

I figured that if the two complimentary particles equalled zero, I could have infinite particles, and they would still equal zero. So I allowed infinite particles... it wasn't a Pot Noodle, it was mathematically allowable. But now I had to think about their spread. The universe cannot have a choice in the spread of particles. There cannot be random distribution. Something about the distribution has to be complimentary, and also equal zero. Every Action Has An Equal And Opposite Reaction. This 3rd Law seemed to point to a distribution mechanism. If +1 has an equal and opposite reaction, then it is reacting with -1. This is a very compact spread of particles. In fact at every point in Spacetime the 3rd law must be working. I need to create tightly compact particle spreads which eliminate each other. What is scale? I thought. What is touch? I have infinite particles, they need to have scale. That's how you get the Universe moving from nothing, the scaling energy. As I worked on the spread, I realised that it would self emerge from Newtons Kissing Problem. 12 balls around 1 ball. To comply with Newton's 3rd Law, the Kissing Problem must also eliminate itself mathematically. Each action must have an opposite reaction. There are 12 particles around 1 particle, they must not have any mathematical advantage to one another. You have to space them equally, and I found that you can use a Trinary System to get the spacing.. +1 + -1 = 0. You eliminate them with a spacing of 3. And now Spacetime is invisible from all angles. And you have energy from scale, and you have Chaos from The Kissing Problem. Chaos is an extra ball that can never be fitted in The Kissing Problem. It is a gap. The gap creates a marginal error in a zero system. Where everything is complimentary, there is a gap that is not complimentary. With scaling energy, the gap allows some scaling chaos.

Newton's Kissing Problem eliminates particles to an invisible state. My +1 and my -1 are Mass, and Negative Mass. They are like a liquid with a bubble in it. The bubble moves easily through the liquid, but bumps other bubbles. The liquid moves easily past the bubbles, but bumps other liquid. +1 bumps +1, and -1 bumps -1. The Neutrino would be a -1 moving through mass +1. The actual mass values would be made up from combined particles. If the neutrino is made from 20 + 1 particles, and 30 - 1 particles it has a mass of -10, and it's -10 mass passes through positive mass. But the weight of the particles are taken from particles able to flow through the gaps in other particles. Gravity is mass moving through negative mass, and then bumping into more mass. weight is a flow force that threads through particles, and beads them like a necklace. So gravity flows down towards negative mass, which are like bubbles in a solid, and that pretty much sums up Electrons. But that makes Earth more of a bubble in space. Gravity moves towards the electrons. Earth becomes heavy with the flow force. Earth seems to be more solid due to the force because it's bubbles are full with energy. And so the Earth is not attracting an asteroid towards it. The asteroid is full of bubbles, the Earth is full of bubbles, and so the Gravity which is made from Spacetime bends into the bubbles because that is the area of least resistance. Energy moves towards lower energy, and Earth, and the Asteroid are the least resistant areas to move into. The Asteroid move towards the Earth in the flow of Spacetime energy. That's not attraction from the Earth, that's a local flow force that is everywhere.

And so I eliminated the Big Bang, and got physics all moving from nothing, and particles building up from Newtons Kissing Problem, and Gravity evolving itself, and all of physics, and maths self building. And now all I need to do is to program it.

TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 12:57
Hmm, I'm actually not sure how to respond to that.

You caused me to read a few articles, and what I read was that the big bang was caused by quantum fluctuations, "nothing" was split into "matter" and "anti-matter" (like your -1 and 1 idea). However, if that is the case, there must be an exact copy of our universe, just as anti-matter. Where is it?

Second thing I don't understand is where the energy to split the "nothing" into "something" came from in the first place? If you get some hydrogen and make it collide with anti-hydrogen, they cancel each other out and release energy to the scale of E=mc^2. That same energy must be invested to get them back, but I don't understand where that comes from.

TheComet

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 13:17 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 13:18
Well those examples are the scientific versions which I say are backwards because of the word attraction. When Newton simply said the word 'attraction' he accidentally reversed physics. The apple isn't attracted to the Earth, the flow force is where the apple is. That changes the Big Bang into an implosion, and spacetime starting from an infinite state. Like I said +1 + -1 can be infinite because they equal zero.

TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 14:57 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 14:59
Quote: "the flow force is where the apple is."


You'll have to explain that to me in layman's terms, I have no idea what you mean there.

Quote: "Earth becomes heavy with the flow force. Earth seems to be more solid due to the force because it's bubbles are full with energy. And so the Earth is not attracting an asteroid towards it. The asteroid is full of bubbles, the Earth is full of bubbles, and so the Gravity which is made from Spacetime bends into the bubbles because that is the area of least resistance. Energy moves towards lower energy, and Earth, and the Asteroid are the least resistant areas to move into. The Asteroid move towards the Earth in the flow of Spacetime energy. That's not attraction from the Earth, that's a local flow force that is everywhere."


I lost you there mate. I can't wrap my head around what you're envisioning.

TheComet

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 15:30 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 15:56
It is hard to visualize.

Say the Earth is Negative mass in Gravity which is mass.

Earth = -200
Apple = -2
Gravity = 2000 (spacetime)

Apple Energy = (Gravity + Apple) = 1998

Earth Energy = (Gravity + Earth) = 1800

Energy moves towards lower energy. The Apple moves towards the Earth. So the higher mass is "Around" the apple. The lower mass is "between" the apple, and the Earth.

Two buckets. One is empty, the other has a football jammed in it. You think that the bucket with the football in it is the heaviest. But if we change them into Electrons you now have gravity flowing over them. That's like putting the buckets under a waterfall. Now the empty bucket is the Heaviest, and the football deflects the water away from the bucket.

That is the same for the apple, and the Earth. The Earth is a giant bucket. The apple is a tiny bucket. The water flowing past the apple is heading into the Earth. But because the Earth is a giant bucket it is a giant hole in spacetime, and the apple is a tiny hole in spacetime. Spacetime has the greater mass. So around the apple is the greater mass. Gravity Force isn't

F=gm1m2/r^2

its...

F=g-m1-m2/r^2

But like I said in another post, the maths works backwards, and forwards. Nobody can tell that the maths is wrong. Maths isn't proof of a theory, because maths works backwards.



The Earth is the same as a plughole in a sink.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 16:12 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 16:15
Same with a Galaxy. Black Hole.. Negative mass...



Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 17:20
As cool and fascinating as your ideas are Pincho, there's literally no evidence of it anywhere in science.

You say you started programming it. Well, there's one issue with that.

Take the game Super Mario Galaxy, for example, where gravity is pretty much wherever the game creators wanted it to be. No one had seen anything like it in games before. The programmers literally had to invent it and make physics act as they wanted. We all know that physics do not work that way in real life (a planetoid the size of an asteroid wouldn't have enough mass to produce enough gravity to attract another heavy object like a human body). It works because the programmers were able to modify the values necessary and use several bits of trickery (not just math).

So, you saying that you could essentially wipe the Big Bang out of existence by programming your own birth of the universe really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. You might as well just say that you painted it into existence.

Given enough time, I could program my own universe too.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 17:25 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 17:30
I'm programming a self building Universe, I don't add any physics like Gravity, they evolve themselves in the program like 'The Game Of Life'. I only have to program the grid which is spacetime, a few simple rules. That's the point, it's not a ready made Pot Noodle. It has just the rules of a simple pair of particles.

Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 17:32
What rules?


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 17:33 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 17:34
But to even get any results you would've HAD to have put something in there for the program to churn through and spit out results. You can't just put +1 + -1 = 0 in there.

Even computer programs designed to simulate the evolution of cells needed some information to work with. They just can't start with nothing, they need values to work with and "learn" from to progress.

I'd like to point out, computers aren't even the best simulation tools. Floats can vary (albeit not by much) by a couple of numbers (for example, 3.45558789 on my computer may become 3.45558790 on yours or even 3.455587899 on others') from computer to computer.

Like I said, as fascinating and cool as your ideas are, there's just not any evidence in favor of them and in fact any evidence is quite contrary to your perceived "correct theory". You still haven't provided any evidence to your claims. If you claim to be any sort of scientist you really should learn how the scientific method works...

EVIDENCE! Show us evidence of your ideas (OTHER than a computer program and metaphor or illustration) and we'l take you more seriously.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 17:37 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 17:40
I think that's the main thing. What Pincho has got is a hypothesis, well thought out and imaginative and you've put the effort in, I'll give you that. But I don't think anybody will be convinced by it until the science is there to back it up. These are logical statements, but then all statements are logical. What is necessary is evidence, data to determine whether these statements are true or false, otherwise they will just remain as statements.

Even if you're able to create simulations, it doesn't necessarily mean these simulations are accurate. As Yoda states, in programming you can pretty much define the laws of physics as you choose. In a way you get to play God.

However, if you're determined to explore your hypothesis (because that's what you've presented us, though on your site you refer to it as a theory) then what I would do is attempt to test it, if you're able to get some basic successful tests, get them reviewed by the scientific community and see if you can get support from the scientific community to further test your hypothesis, maybe even get funding. Then keep on testing and testing until you're able put enough evidence behind your hypothesis to turn it into a theory. Essentially, if you want to suggest the current model of physics is wrong then you'll need to show it.

Up until that point, you won't convince those who are generally scientifically minded that what you're saying is fact. Of course, if you get some successful tests, then it'd become more and more plausible. But I for one am not one who'll accept a hypothesis as fact. Until it becomes a theory, I would suggest calling it, "The Bump Hypothesis".

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 17:40 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 17:42
Quote: "for example, 3.45558789 on my computer may become 3.45558790 on yours or even 3.455587899"


It doesn't use maths in that way. It uses rules.

Energy is pushed in the direction of least resistance.
Positive particles bump positive particles, not negative.
Negative bump negative not positive.
If the area of least resistance is equal positive scale down.
If the area of least resistance is equal negative scale up.
If scale = 0 swap polarity.
If energy = scale bump.

And the scales, and energy use some knotted ring mathematics. The counting system is circular not decimal.
That's most of the rules that I can think of at the moment.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 17:44 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 17:45
But you had to create and come up with those rules yourself, and you made it happen. Just like in Super Mario Galaxy.

And how the hell did it not use math...? Physics are math. That's how we define and see them. Programming is 95% math and 5% debugging, so you would have HAD to use math either way. You can't just program a bunch of commands together. Hell, even loading a FILE from disk requires some math if your writing your own loading function!

EDIT: Ok, I see that you edited your post. That makes a bit more sense now.

Still not providing any evidence by the way...

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 17:58 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 18:00
Watching the rules build the Universe is the evidence. I have to find the energy level that humans can see with a slider. Once I slide the slider it will make various physics visible depending on their energy state. We don't see water well, and we don't see spacetime at all, or magnetism. So finding the right energy state will also allow you to see the invisible if you want to.

Then I will make a draggable sphere, and the sphere will tell you what is inside the sphere. The mass, the energy, the scales.

Hopefully I will get some quantum physics, and with a powerful computer you might get a sun, and look inside it.

And in the future there will be computers that can run a galaxy.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:03
It's a simulation of your hypothesis, but it isn't the only testing you should be doing to confirm whether or not it is factual. The simulation can create predictions, it might even suggest that your hypothesis can work. It would give your hypothesis plausability, but it wouldn't stand as evidence, because you next stage would be to get actual real world evidence, because a simulation isn't enough, no matter how successful it is.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:03
Quote: "Watching the rules build the Universe is the evidence."


Uhhhhh......

Nope. Definitely not.

Quote: "I have to find the energy level that humans can see with a slider. Once I slide the slider it will make various physics visible depending on their energy state. We don't see water well, and we don't see spacetime at all, or magnetism. So finding the right energy state will also allow you to see the invisible if you want to.

Then I will make a draggable sphere, and the sphere will tell you what is inside the sphere. The mass, the energy, the scales."


Sounds like a cool game. Cool how you can invent your own physics with programming, isn't it?

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:07
Quote: "Cool how you can invent your own physics with programming, isn't it?"


Well it's not cool if your name is Newton and screw everything up.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:15
You really have no idea how science works, do you?

Because of one computer simulation with your own set of rules you're convinced you are correct and everyone else is wrong. And you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. Not even so much as a code snippet of this supposed program of yours!

Face it Pincho, you have no idea what you're doing. In order for your ideas to even be classified a "theory", you have to back up your claims with scientific evidence, of which you have none.

But what do I know? I'm just a 20 year old arguing with a 49 year old man who claims everyone but he is wrong when it comes to physics. Yepper, everyone else is wrong...

Learn how science works. So far all you've done is create a cool "simulation" of your own rules. But with programming you can pretty much make WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT HAPPEN! PROOF!

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:22
Science works by taking Newton's imagination, and letting it fly for hundreds of years. No evidence of attraction, no knowledge of mass, and no understanding of how Gravity works. But maths that works backwards, and with negative values never used. The science asks.. where is the Anti-Matter...

we can't find it....
F=gm1m2/r^2


...oh there it is
F=g-m1-m2/r^2

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:26
Quote: "no knowledge of mass"


Every heard of the Higgs boson and Higgs Field? They hold the key to the understanding of that.

YOU STILL HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE OF YOUR THEORY.

You claim the maths are backwards. You really think that would go undiscovered for almost half a millenia? You really, honest-to-God believe that?

You are not a scientist. All you've done is create a program (which you haven't even proven you've done that. No screentshots, no code snippets) with YOUR OWN INVENTED RULES. With programming that's fairly easy to do! But you just don't get that, do you?

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:27 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 18:28
Quote: "You claim the maths are backwards. You really think that would go undiscovered for almost half a millenia? "


Until I came along yes. Magical attraction.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:31
Quote: "Until I came along yes. Magical attraction."


All bow down before Pincho! The man who knows everything about physics!

I feel sorry for you. It must be horrible, being the only person who knows how everything truly works, eh?

No evidence means your hypothesis doesn't even have a toe to stand on at this point. Your ideas can't work in the real world because that's not how physics work.

Diggsey
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:31
Pincho, hate to tell you but scientology has already been founded

[b]
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:32
Bet he's still trying to get John Travolta and Tom Cruise, though.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:35
Quote: "Quote: "You claim the maths are backwards. You really think that would go undiscovered for almost half a millenia? "

Until I came along yes."


You've yet to prove this.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:36
He still has yet to provide and evidence, too.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:37 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 18:41
No the maths couldn't be reversed without anyone noticing...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17559286

Quote: ""What we find is everything is very consistent with Einstein's theory of general relativity, coupled with the cosmological constant that he put into his equations. He put it in originally to make the Universe static, and then took it out," said Prof Percival.

"But if we put the constant in with the opposite sign, we can get acceleration."


The thing is that I said that years before it was realised.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:44
Oh I'm sure you did.

That article is still not YOUR EVIDENCE.

If you don't even provide a screenshot of your program, I'm going to lose a lot of respect for you. I already have.

I predict you'll claim you'll have lost your program in some kind of crash, right? Or it's on another computer, or a lost drive or DVD or flash drive. Or you lost your dropbox password. Regardless, you really have no excuse for not providing any evidence of even your program.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:47 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 18:48
I'm working on it. I only have some tests so far...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggRxyHjimxM

That's the test version, and now I'm working on the real version.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 18:49
Like I said, looks like a cool game, shame it isn't real physics. At least now we know you really HAVE programmed something.

CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 19:52
Pincho's statement is false.
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 20:37 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 20:38
Oh jeez. Look at the text in this video.



Basically from what I make of it, he's saying "I didn't personally observe the Big Bang so it must not have happened the way science tells us. Here's my program showcasing what really happened!".

I'm seriously starting to wonder if this is all a huge publicity stunt for a game. If that program of his was at all serious he wouldn't have spent time making it so flashy.

If this is an attempt at publicizing some game, what a waste of everyone's time. Either way, it is a waste of everyone's time.

Jimpo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Apr 2005
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 20:40
I like the universe according to Pincho Paxton. I don't think you deserve so much flack for it. I'm interesting in seeing your simulation.

Quote: "3 years later, I had decided on two particles. I called them Black, and white. I wanted to create perpetual motion from a standing start, I couldn't get them to move. I had ideas of pendulum systems at first, but pendulums use a lot of physics, so again I would have a Pot Noodle of ready made physics. I wasn't going to allow that. Then I looked at Black, and White. I thought together they would make grey. They create each other by complimenting each other. Black on black may as well not exist at all, white on white may as well not exist at all. What is it about complementary system that helps them to work so well? Big requires small, + requires -. And then I thought +1 + -1 = 0. That was a major discovery for me.

The whole universe can be made from +1 + -1 = 0. because you have a zero starting point, and yet you have a complimentary system as well. + and -. So I don't need to draw Black, and White, I need to think about +1 and -1 instead. Now when I joined Black and White I got grey, but now with +1 + -1 I got invisible. Invisible is as close to nothing as I can get, and is better than The Big bang. All I need to do now is get this thing moving. How do you create motion from nothing part 2? "

I don't know if you've taken a quantum physics or a particle physics course at university, or ever came across this in your own studies, but your idea is a lot like Baryon number, which is a standard part of particle physics. Particles are given a number, most commonly +1 or -1, and particles can be created and destroyed as long as the sum stays the same. So if you start with 0, you can create matter as long as you make an equal number of +1 and -1.

nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:08
Wow, ya'll syins folk sure does get up tights about them syinsey thin's.

For what it's worth Pincho, though I may not agree with your theory*, I acknowledge that I cannot disprove it and will therefore respect your right to it. The responsibility to disprove something is equal as it is to prove it. For things that cannot be proved/disproved with absolute certainty with can but rationalize and speculate using the best of our logical abilities to draw conclusions given our limited evidence.

*


Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:34 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 21:35
Quote: "I don't know if you've taken a quantum physics or a particle physics course at university, or ever came across this in your own studies, but your idea is a lot like Baryon number, which is a standard part of particle physics. Particles are given a number, most commonly +1 or -1, and particles can be created and destroyed as long as the sum stays the same. So if you start with 0, you can create matter as long as you make an equal number of +1 and -1."


+ is a filler

- is a hole

The compliment each other like a bubble in water. For example you dig a hole in some dirt, you have a pile of dirt, you have a hole of the exact same negative mass. You put the dirt in the hole and you have a flat line. A flat line does not register on any sensory system, and therefore is invisible. The mound is a convex curve, it would be a convex curve on a scanner, and it is positive. The hole would be a concave curve on a scanner, and it would be negative.

All of this exists in every day life, just like building an igloo. Steven Hawking even made a program about it, and my idea was online 4 years before his video.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:34
@Jimpo:

We're not giving him flack for having a new hypothesis. In fact, it's wonderful that he's thinking about such things and coming up with neat ideas. It's his constant "I'm right, everyone else is wrong including the great minds of the past and present!" attitude that's getting him flack, and the fact that he claims he's right without providing ANY evidence, other than his computer simulation with rules he programmed in himself.

If he expects to get anywhere he needs to realize that over 400 years worth of knowledge in physics isn't wrong; they've stood the test of time and have had plenty of study by people who actually understand what they're doing. Yes, we don't know everything about them, and they could be wrong in some respects, but not to the extent that Pincho is claiming (by saying that science has gotten everything wrong).

@nonZero:

We only get uptight when someone comes on claiming to know the nature of the universe and doesn't provide and proof to his claims.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:36 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 21:38
Quote: "other than his computer simulation with rules he programmed in himself. "


I don't think you understand the simulator. The rules are to do with 2 particles. The rest of the universe that it builds have no programmed rules. For example no gravity formulas, but you get gravity. No periodic table, but you get the periodic table. No planets, but you get planets. No sun code but you get suns. And no Galaxy code, but you get Galaxies.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:38
I don't think you understand that you can make physics act however the heck you want in a computer.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:38 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 21:40
Quote: "I don't think you understand that you can make physics act however the heck you want in a computer."


I don't program any physics into the computer. Find the game of life online it is free.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:43
Quote: "I don't program any physics into the computer."


You have stated many times that you've programmed "rules" into the computer that then turn out a new set of physics, and it's of course possible in a computer because you can program whatever kind of physics you want/need! That's why I keep linking to Super Mario Galaxy; it's proof that any kind of physics can be programmed into a computer!

I really don't see why you're not able to understand this simple concept.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:44
Find the game of life online it is free.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:46
Now that you've edited this post...

Quote: "I don't think you understand the simulator. The rules are to do with 2 particles. The rest of the universe that it builds have no programmed rules. For example no gravity formulas, but you get gravity. No periodic table, but you get the periodic table. No planets, but you get planets. No sun code but you get suns. And no Galaxy code, but you get Galaxies."


How the heck can you program that without putting in ANY values to simulate gravity or suns or the periodic table? How the heck is your program building up those elements unless you're either making this all up or putting in the necessary values?

The Game of Life has no bearing on this right now. All that says is that someone programmed it to behave that way.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:48
Quote: "How the heck can you program that without putting in ANY values to simulate gravity or suns or the periodic table? How the heck is your program building up those elements unless you're either making this all up or putting in the necessary values?"


... and that's why my program is interesting. The physics seem to come from nowhere.

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:49
I have heard gravity described as massive bodies causing divots in space/time, so objects are not really "pulled" towards each other but roll down the "slope" created by the more massive body. Is that what you are describing with the bubbles?

I don't see the problem with mathematics working backwards. You can call the Earth matter or anti-matter, it doesn't change anything.

I would like to see your program, it sounds interesting, but making a 100% realistic simulation of physics would require absolute knowledge. We've only just discovered the Higgs Boson and while it's true that such things are theorised before discovery there's no way you could have accounted for everything. What if your simulation started behaving illogically? You would mark it as an error and "fix" the code. Another reason why it can't be reliable.

If you come up with a theory that can be tested in reality then that would be great but if it remains a simulation it doesn't have much weight behind it.

Shh... you're pretty.
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:51
...Right. "Nowhere" meaning a file with global variables that tell the program what to do you mean?

You can't just tell the computer "Hey, do something with these 2 particles" (which I'm assuming are two variables you have somewhere) and watch the birth of a universe with all of the things we have right now UNLESS you program it that way!

I'm really questioning the authenticity of your "program" now, too. The closer I look at it the closer it looks like some pretty bad 3D animation made with Anim8or.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:52
Quote: "You can't just tell the computer "Hey, do something with these 2 particles" (which I'm assuming are two variables you have somewhere) and watch the birth of a universe with all of the things we have right now UNLESS you program it that way! "


yes you can, that's the whole point of the program. I don't like ready made physics.

KickBack
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Feb 2012
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:53
I'd actually really like to see some of the output from this magical program because to be honest it sounds lie BS
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:53
Quote: "yes you can"


PROVE IT

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:54 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 21:55
@KickBack:

I'm fairly certain the program isn't even real. Watch the videos closely and it looks way too much like poorly done animation.

Also if it was real he wouldn't have made it so flashy. He would've just done a simple window and left it at that. Or at least, that's what he should've done if he wants to be taken seriously.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 21:55
Quote: "I have heard gravity described as massive bodies causing divots in space/time, so objects are not really "pulled" towards each other but roll down the "slope" created by the more massive body. Is that what you are describing with the bubbles?"


No. The bodies move together because of a flow towards the Earth, like a boat in a sink when you pull out the plug.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-04 23:30:46
Your offset time is: 2024-11-04 23:30:46