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] Eureka finally a proof! (No proof provided in this thread, you all just misinterpreted the thread title)

Author
Message
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 23:03 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 23:09
Quote: "from monkey's?"
How in Darwin's name can we possibly believe your theory if you can't plural properly?
David R
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 23:22 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 23:23
Quote: "It's a shame my threads end up as me vs science."


Because a) you frame your points in this way and b) the 'theories' you are posting are not science

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Zotoaster
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 23:29 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 23:30
So... Can we actually see the proof? And when you do it, try put yourself in our shoes and present it in a way that we can actually comprehend. Your aim is not to annoy us into believing you but convincing us.

"everyone forgets a semi-colon sometimes." - Phaelax
Jeku
Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 23:32 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 23:35
I'm going to lock this thread unless there's some kind of proof submitted about this theory. Starting epic threads with lots of filler isn't necessarily against the rules (Raven says hi), but I have a feeling this thread is created as some kind of flame-bait or attempt at trolling. There are many others in this thread that are just posting nonsense, trying to be funny (they're not), and not offering anything remotely constructive. If this doesn't improve, it will be locked much like Pincho's other thread.

EDIT:

I just tagged this thread as 'Flamebait' so the other mods will be aware of it when browsing Geek Culture.


Senior Developer - CBS Interactive Music Group
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 23:39
I agree. Telling us you have proof without actually showing it is like telling us you just teleported, but you have no video to show it.
BatVink
Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 23:44
Quote: "I have my own old theory which I just like and don't want to proof in any way:

Every atom has subatomic particles, and subatomic have sub-subatomic particles, and so goes on downwards infinitely."


That is not a new theory, it already exists. As time moves on, we invent the ability to find smaller things. In the 1600s they thought the smallest thing on the planet was an amoeba, but that's because they couldn't see anything smaller.

Quote: "So each atom is inside a skin that is it's complimentary partner... it's membrane"


But atoms don't have a membrane, this is proven science. Nice pictures of atoms with a round cells are just that - pictures. That pretty circle represents the outer limits of the atom's strongly interacting force.

Quote: "Einstein said that the universe stays the same or contracts. My physics are the reverse so it would have to expand, or stay the same"


No he didn't. He couldn't explain the anomaly in his calculations in his general theory of relativity. So he added the cosmological constant to stop his theoretical universe expanding. He admitted it was the worst piece of science he'd ever written, yet it's his most famous. At one point they took out the cosmological constant, then they put it back in, but for a different reason. He was right, but for the wrong reasons. Hubble's work explained the anomalies in his theory, through the study of red shift in galaxies.

I recommend some background reading, it might help to confirm or deny your theory in light of what we already don't know...maybe your theory explains it! The book is "13 Things that don't make sense", and there's some fascinating stuff about physics, thermodynamics, dark matter, dark energy (your energy?) and a lot of other related stuff.

Just being your critical friend, in the hope you'll use the questions to strengthen your theory, or find any potential flaws.

NIlooc223
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2010
Location: Heaven
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 23:44
Give him 2 days if nothing lock this thread

Your signature has been erased by a mod - Please reduce it to (600x120) maximum size
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 23:52
Nice idea.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 23:59 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 00:02
Quote: "But atoms don't have a membrane, this is proven science. Nice pictures of atoms with a round cells are just that - pictures. That pretty circle represents the outer limits of the atom's strongly interacting force."


That's the standard model, not applicable.

Quote: "No he didn't. He couldn't explain the anomaly in his calculations in his general theory of relativity. So he added the cosmological constant to stop his theoretical universe expanding."


That's wrong. I know science as well as my own theory. You have to reverse the cosmological constant for it to work.

Quote: "but I have a feeling this thread is created as some kind of flame-bait or attempt at trolling. "


Too immature for me to even bother... Lock the thread. I'm not making any more threads like this. You guys don't deserve it.

David R
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:02
Quote: "That's wrong. I know science as well as my own theory. You have to reverse the cosmological constant for it to work.
"


Quote: "He wanted the universe to be eternal and unchanging, but this type of universe is not consistent with relativity. To fix this, Einstein modified the general theory by introducing a new notion, the cosmological constant. With a positive cosmological constant, the universe could be an eternal static sphere."


(Source: Wikipedia, but Einstein's mistake with the CC is a well known story / common knowledge)

If you apparently know science as well as your own theory, this does not bode well for your theory

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:02
Ok... Now can we get you to explain electricity, electrons, how doping semiconductors can change their electrical properties, and then after that please explain some quantum physics to us.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:03 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 00:04
Quote: "If you apparently know science as well as your own theory, this does not bode well for your theory "


Stupid logic.

Quote: ""He wanted the universe to be eternal and unchanging, but this type of universe is not consistent with relativity. To fix this, Einstein modified the general theory by introducing a new notion, the cosmological constant. With a positive cosmological constant, the universe could be an eternal static sphere.""


He thought it would shrink.

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:06
Quote: "Stupid logic."
Nope.

Also, please answer the question in my last post.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:06
Quote: "Ok... Now can we get you to explain electricity, electrons, how doping semiconductors can change their electrical properties, and then after that please explain some quantum physics to us. "


Electrons are negative mass holes, the charge is a spin scalar force as the flow of gravity reduces and switches polarity to magnetism.

David R
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:09 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 00:10
Quote: "He thought it would shrink."


This is hilariously bad misinformation, especially if you consider that the other name for a static universe is an "Einstein universe" (I'm not making this up)

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:10
Ok you explained the electrons part and maybe the electricity part. How about doping semiconductors?
Daniel wright 2311
User Banned
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:11 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 00:14
Quote: "Imagine an igloo, the hole is complimentary to the igloo. You can't have the igloo without the hole, and you get the hole to make the igloo with."


Yes,but then there had to be a man to dig the hole into the igloo,unless the hole mealted from the sun,but then you only get a igloo for a little time.
poor little igloo

my signature keeps being erased by a mod So this is my new signature.
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:13 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 00:13


Oh dear. Well, maybe I can apologize a bit for my actions in the last thread.

Pincho, I'm sorry I attacked you in your other thread. Your ideas are, really, very interesting (I showed them to my brother who loves theoretical physics and he was very intrigued), and I think it would be great if you could shine some new light on the universe.

With that being said however, it is odd you post a thread claiming to have proof and then don't post what it is... You have everyone intrigued. If you're leaving us on a cliffhanger it's super effective.

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:15
I still need my semiconductor explanation :/
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:15 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 00:17
Quote: "Ok you explained the electrons part and maybe the electricity part. How about doping semiconductors? "


An electron with negative mass is a hole. Interactions with holes require solids. Holes bump holes, solids bump solids. But holes, and solids share energy values. The energy values will depend upon the energy of the doping material. Now I haven't looked up every material to figure out if it is mass, or negative mass. In fact this comparison is part of my proof.

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:19
Hmm... Interesting though how they consider an atom in a semiconductor with one or more less electrons than the surrounding material a hole.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:19
Quote: "If you're leaving us on a cliffhanger it's super effective."
I asked for help. I didn't get any advice on whether I am allowed to talk about it, or is this like a patent. You can't talk about it until it is published. But the proof is also going to be about 300 pages, so I don't know how I am going to post that anyway.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:20
Quote: "But the proof is also going to be about 300 pages, so I don't know how I am going to post that anyway."


One giant .PDF file?

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:23
Quote: "Hmm... Interesting though how they consider an atom in a semiconductor with one or more less electrons than the surrounding material a hole. "


Explain this in more detail, and I will give you an answer.

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:26
Explain it in more detail eh? I assume you know how semiconductors work and doping and all that? And how transistors, diodes, etc work? If you need an explanation on that, I really fail to believe that you do indeed know about the workings of these semiconductors, and in that case, what shall make me want to believe your explanations? I'm not trying to sound cruel or mean, but I'm trying to go by my best reasoning here.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:30
I work the physics out as I read them in cases that I haven't worked on yet. There aren't many rules to my theory so you just work out what is happening.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:34
Quote: "There aren't many rules to my theory"


Er, I might be wrong, but doesn't a theory require rather a lot of rules?

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:35 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 00:36
Quote: "Er, I might be wrong, but doesn't a theory require rather a lot of rules?"


Not a theory of everything. It has the least physics to make all of the higher level physics. It means that I am using the smallest particles that exist to make the rest of the particles.

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:36


You're mister theory here. May I please get you to explain it for me? It's kinda hard to work it out in my head, see, because it doesn't make sense to me. There could be two reasons you aren't just directly explaining this to me, either you are too lazy to do so, or you haven't any proof for it. If it's because you are lazy, then please explain it to me. After all, you did post this thread to prove things, right? I'm sorry if I may be coming across as arrogant, but this all just doesn't seem right...
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:39 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 00:42
Quote: "You're mister theory here. May I please get you to explain it for me? It's kinda hard to work it out in my head, see, because it doesn't make sense to me. There could be two reasons you aren't just directly explaining this to me, either you are too lazy to do so, or you haven't any proof for it. If it's because you are lazy, then please explain it to me. After all, you did post this thread to prove things, right? I'm sorry if I may be coming across as arrogant, but this all just doesn't seem right... "


Say I have to cover everything from the tiniest particle to the edge of the Universe. That's a lot. I solved my theory in 2003. I have covered 9 years of stuff. I haven't covered everything. The theory is like an abacus it can solve things with the right person explaining to me what they have examined.

You say an atom becomes a semi-conductor with 1 less electron. The atom is compartmentalised so it has more holes. There should be 6 altogether. The ones that the LHC find do not count.

Zotoaster
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:45
Quote: "There aren't many rules to my theory so you just work out what is happening."


Then why will it take 300 pages?

"everyone forgets a semi-colon sometimes." - Phaelax
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:48 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 00:50
Quote: "You say an atom becomes a semi-conductor with 1 less electron."
When did I ever say that???

Take a closer look:
Quote: "Interesting though how they consider an atom in a semiconductor with one or more less electrons than the surrounding material a hole."
What I was saying is that if you have a semiconductor, if one of the atoms in the semiconductor happens to have one or more less electrons than the other semiconductor atoms, it becomes a hole. Essentially, a place in the semiconductor where there should be an electron but isn't.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:49
Quote: "Then why will it take 300 pages?"
To talk about all the physics that created the Universe to Nature.

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 00:52
Quote: "What I was saying is that if you have a semiconductor, if one of the atoms in the semiconductor happen to have one less electron than the other semiconductor atoms, it becomes a hole. "


Yes well they have it reversed, and reversed it still has the same physics. A hole fits a particle, a particle fits a hole.

swissolo
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jan 2010
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 01:03
300 pages? I hesitated to post this earlier... but really, why not write a book?

swis
Joined: Tue Dec 16th 2008
Interstellar
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 01:08 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 01:10
I read that I have to have a peer reviewed paper. I am going by what I have read on the internet. So I figured I would go with Newton's style of papers. Some of those need additions anyway. Light is way different than people think.

rolfy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 01:11 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 01:12
Columbia and Princeton Universities may be your best bet to present this theory for peer review, if that's all the info you require and don't want debate as your first post suggests then the question is asked and answered.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Zotoaster
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 01:12
Quote: "So I figured I would go with Newton's style of papers."


Latin?

"everyone forgets a semi-colon sometimes." - Phaelax
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 01:15 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 01:17
Quote: "Columbia and Princeton Universities may be your best bet to present this theory for peer review, if that's all the info you require and don't want debate as your first post suggests then the question is asked and answered."


I'm in the UK. I found Nature magazine. That's supposed to be a UK peer review system. Besides, Nature sounds just right for what I am writing. I wanted to know the sort of writing method, and the number of pictures etc.

Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 01:30 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 01:33
You're not going to get in to Nature...

[edit]
I mean really, it's like someone with all C's saying "Yeah, I'm thinking of going to Yale or Harvard. But it's okay, I have Berkely as a back-up school".

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 01:35
Well I'm not sure about the semiconductor stuff or anything else you're saying, but do know, you have my utmost respect for coming up with this. Your theory is pretty darn cool, and if you one day become the one that came up with the most widely accepted theory, than my hat will go off to you.
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 01:36 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 01:39
Quote: "So I figured I would go with Newton's style of papers."


You might want to check the standards the people who'll review your paper will expect. Yes, Newton was awesome, but his style is probably a little archaic. It'd be like me offering a publisher the manuscript for my novel in the style of Shakespeare. Whilst it might be kinda cool, but it doesn't mean it'll necessarily meet their standards. Maybe you could acquire a style sheet (like students writing an essay at University have to work from, seriously, I had to redo a module for misinterpreting the style sheet).

Also, in choosing people to target in terms of getting a review, you should think about the right people. For example, you wouldn't have a biologist review a physics paper, or a computer scientist review a paper on quantum mechanics.

rolfy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 01:39 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 02:46
What I find difficult to understand, fundamentally, is why all science, medical, technical achievements ALL of this based on previous discovery (all theory at one point, and all presented for peer review) works just fine, for the most part.. Everything, except your own theory, seems to be based on understanding whats went before, in fact used to support it, you seem to be saying its all wrong, reversed as you put it.

Even Newtons Law required additions from Einstein to advance the theory but he didn't change it completely.

Quote: "The editors conduct a first-approximation triage on what manuscripts might meet the bar for the journal, but we rely on the far greater expertise of our peer reviewers to tell us whether a particular study really moves the field forward, whether it is technically and statistically sound, and whether it cites preceding work appropriately."


Awesome! Its one of those threads.
KickBack
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Feb 2012
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 04:07
So 2 years of hard graft through my A level physics was completely wasted? Na I think I'll stick to what I've learnt simply because it has come from hundreds of years of study and each part has built upon previously learned knowledge not just one guy saying "it's all wrong my theory is right"

Yawnnnnn your boring now think it's time for a slap..
Kezzla
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2008
Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 04:26
Quote: "I didn't get any advice on whether I am allowed to talk about it, or is this like a patent."


I personally think that these sorts of things should be for the betterment of mankind. share it so that many can study it and help you write out the mechanics. the only reason to keep it secret is to maintain credit which, while you are due it, is a selfish reason to withhold information.

This forum seems like a good place to present your drafts, there are people here who are open minded, scientifically educated(you have to convince the scientific community that your framework is better) and critical(we need to clarify nonsense and explain existing phenomena).

one thing that is important when sharing a new view is the ability to explain it clearly.

Einstein understood his point of view so well that he could explain it to school children and they were satisfied they understood.

you need to be able to defend you idea to any intellectual or educational level.

Your theory begins with a simple formula which generates the universe, correct?

why not write your paper the same way, start with the reasoning that led you to identify the formula. Like an introduction to this monster thesis.

Follow through your logical steps to progress. giving examples.

start with simple papers that introduce your logic and reasoning.
as the reader become familiar with your ideas, then they have grounding to understand your progression of logic. so they don't just get left behind, then get frustrated because you wont explain it in terms the understand.

introduce every term you use in advance and explain it clearly. If the term is complex, write a whole paper on the term and its meaning.

You understand it. We don't yet. you need to help us understand it. Imagine you know nothing of your point of view... how would you explain it.

You dont want to be thrown in the same boat as Tom Bearden

good luck

Sometimes I like to use words out of contents
RedneckRambo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 04:35
Can we all take a time out for a minute... I'm confused.

Is this like a new internet meme or something? I still haven't figured out if this is supposed to be real or a joke.

I'm going to recap my understandings so far... What we have here is a person with a theory to the creation of the universe that not only claims to be absolutely right, but disproves hundreds of years of science by some of the smartest people to ever exist (believes that basically everything we know about physics is backwards?). He also has absolute "proof" that proves his theory is correct, yet refuses entirely to show us said proof and just continues over and over again saying he has absolute proof.

Have I got the gist of it? I am in no way, flaming, arguing, disagreeing, or debating with anyone whatsoever... I'm just genuinely confused.

I>Every single one of you

Have a nice day
Jeku
Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 05:16
Quote: "He also has absolute "proof" that proves his theory is correct, yet refuses entirely to show us said proof and just continues over and over again saying he has absolute proof."


Pretty much, as far as I can see.


Senior Developer - CBS Interactive Music Group
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 06:27
So... Give us a little preview of your proof. This thread is almost like a WIP describing something that hasn't even been started.
RedneckRambo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 08:33 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 08:35
Pincho... Good luck and for your sake, I hope you prove us wrong, otherwise you will look quite silly to be honest. I wish you some luck in your endeavors on further proving this bizarre theory, and yes it is a theory because by no means whatsoever is it truly fact, at least not yet. Be ready to be rejected a million times over, especially when you approach others with the attitude you have here that you are absolutely right with no questions asked... What you need to be doing is looking for ways to disprove your theory.

I'm not sure how you could make this post and honestly expect us to take you seriously. Look at your post from the outside looking in. Unless you show even a shed of this so called "proof" we are obviously going to call you crazy. What you are saying is as believable as me saying, "I have found proof that time travel is possible and it's absolutely 100% correct and whatever anyone's opinion on the matter before is entirely incorrect... however I'm not going to show anyone this proof."

As far as I'm concerned, there obviously is no "proof" at all; this is just a post by a weirdo who thinks that telling us he has absolute proof will help get people to believe him... Or this is an over-thought, horribly unfunny troll attempt. It would be far easier to take you seriously if you came in with an actual open-mind instead of the way you approached us. Also on a somewhat unrelated side note... Although you edited the post, but that cancer comment earlier.... just... seriously dude? The fact that you even THINK like that makes it difficult for me to give you any shred of credit for this theory you've come up with.

But anyways, everyone else has already said what all there is to say--I'm a little late but always have to chip something in--so I'm going to steer my way out of this thread as I will only get it locked down the road most likely and I'm hoping we can see this so called "proof" eventually... Not that I'm holding my breath as I don't expect it to exist in the first place.

I>Every single one of you

Have a nice day
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 08:57 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 08:59
I wasn't allowed to finish my proof in the other thread so it will have to go in here.

An infinite number of particles fill every space in the universe, and they are equal opposites. From a point at their centre they expand until they touch. The scalar force of this expansion we call time. The physics of the scalar force are the infinite confinement of infinite particles which become first virtual particles, and then whole particles.

The force is a 12 point force from a hole. The 12 point force exhibits the qualities of Newton\'s Kissing Problem, because in this infinite confinement there can only be 12 same sized particles around 1 particle.


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

You see what happens if I even start my proof.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2026-07-17 16:31:00
Your offset time is: 2026-07-17 16:31:00