The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Zero Particle Theory  (Read 28768 times)

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #50 on: 24/03/2013 13:50:14 »
In the previous image you can see that Gravity in my image has a higher mass than the Earth, and the Apple. The Earth has the lowest mass, and is therefore the area of least resistance. But Gravity mass is hidden by deflation which means that the particles are not connected, they scale away from each other.

Mass...

Mass is calculated by curvature. The total curvature of all surfaces combined. Gravity may be a single particle, and it resides in a hole, the total of that curvature is zero. However atoms contain many particles like an onion. The total of all of those curvatures can become a high number, but they also eventually scale down negatively, and become concave curvatures. So you add all of the convex to the concave to get the total mass. The electrons have an attractive force so they are holes, and so electrons are concave. Which means that the total mass with the electrons becomes negative mass. So Gravity at zero is higher than the Earth with a negative mass total. And the apple moves towards the Earth in a flow carried by Gravity towards the Earth.

Mass is calculated by all convex surfaces added to all concave surfaces that are connected. But you can just as easily use scale. If we look at the Universe which has a huge surface, we can say that the curved surfaces eventually straighten out... but that is a fallacy. Curved surfaces are relative to scale. If we scale ourselves up to match the Universe, the curves are relatively scaled to us, and now they are very curved again. So if you ignore the curvature, and use scale instead you get the mathematical match that you need for a fractal Universe. Now bumping is a total calculation of connected scaled sphere colliding, and some of the sphere are negatively scaled. Some sphere aren't bonded, but are touching.. that counts as a connection. Scalar particles don't always connect, the Universe should be thought of as a circuit board, and the sphere that touch pass the message of mass as scale.

So what is the Higgs Boson then?

I don't know what it is... Particles as fractals are identified by their fractal stage interacting with another local fractal stage. Because science never uses negative mass, it is very hard to even say what mass the Higgs Boson really is. The electron is Negative mass, but science gives it a positive mass, because it contains Gravity scaling into magnetism. Which bends particles towards it. If I were to guess at the Higgs Boson, I would probably guess that it is Gravity. Then it would be this false calculation of mass that science uses.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #51 on: 24/03/2013 15:15:06 »
Curvature, and Scale to Bump Forces

When you scale up two particles at the same time their bump forces scale up with them. To a human, the lines of space seem to become straight, but that is relative to human scale. The curvature represents the bump forces so long as the curvature is convex. If the curvature is concave it represents flow forces of attraction. You are bumped at an angle where the curvature encases your position. Scale can switch the bend from convex to concave, and back again even though the curvature is not changing in reality, it is relative to you. This means that a photon passes through a lens, and water runs off it. The curvature is reversing for the photon... just about. The photon is at the limit of a straight line, and so it just about bends a curve from convex to concave with the help sometimes of an observer.

Two Universe collide and there is a very distinct curve which to us is a straight line.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #52 on: 26/03/2013 03:20:41 »
Who am I to talk about a Theory Of Everything?

I like to watch videos of Richard Feynman, he is my favourite Genius type theoretical physicist. He Understood the Universe to the level that mathematics allowed him to understand the Universe. But Feynman admitted often that the mathematical proofs would all be replaced. To me, if a proof is replaced, then it was never a proof in the first place, and so a mathematical proof that will be replaced is a paradox. Therefore there are no mathematical proofs, and the mathematical proof is flawed in that it will be replaced some day.

Most people who visit science forums believe somewhat in mathematical proofs, and they believe in Genius like Newton, Einstein, and Feynman. But there is a turning point, that if you are a creative thinker, and you take all of the information available, and technology allows you to put that information into a computer... you can program the Universe to build itself in the computer. And that is what I want to do. But my PC is not up to the task. So what I do instead is test parts of it out individually. Like my snowflake generator.

The thing about my snowflake generator is that I didn't actually need to program it. I already could run the code in my head before I typed it into the computer. I just had a feeling that I would get a snowflake from some simple rules. Of course I was very excited to see that I was right, but my Theory Of Everything uses a similar set of rules. My theory is a fractal theory, and I am good at running fractals in my head. The fractals have physical qualities, like the snowflake code is based on the Bose / Einstein Condensate. I match the physics to the fractals. My PC cannot run the entire thing, but I can run most of it in my head the same that I knew that my Snowflake code would most likely produce a snowflake.

When I think I know something, and I can program it, the program has always worked. Now this is the important part of my computer program.. it self builds. The loop is small, but the loop builds the entire Universe.. everything.. including life... because I am attempting to copy the Universe as a set of rules, and not as a set of physics, and shapes. The rules are scale, and bunching patterns. Take Garrett Lisi's Theory Of Everything...

http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html

He eventually talks of a Hexagon, and he spins it around in something like 8 dimensions. He has an image with rules. Then there is String Theory...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0Kaf7xYMk

Again here are a set of structures, each structure creates its own physics, but the structures have to be built to match the physics, and nobody so far has solved the map that builds all of the first structures.

The answer to all of this is a fractal that creates strings, and something similar to the Garrett Lisi model that turns into physics. My model creates Knots of energy. Each knot can be open ended, or closed. The knots are Newton's Kissing Problem acting as a propagator. The propagator happens because the Universe is Infinite, and particles have to stack in a certain way.

But back to me...

Who am I to talk about a Theory Of Everything?

A person has to have a theory of themselves to test against their reality. I have always been top of any class, my IQ is about 130.. not great I suppose. But I seem to have a creative IQ which has recently been discovered by science, and my creative IQ I think is extremely high...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rbynt

This is where I fit in. I decided in 1980 that I would learn to program, and I used the Basic coding language. Then I learned C. In those days you had to learn from books, there were no colleges teaching computing. I found however that in C I had lost the ability to think of the Code in my head. Basics is like English, and it has a lot of English words, and I can use those words to think of a computer simulation without actually writing it. I just see the images creating themselves as if I pressed RUN. What I see is that 1 + -1 = 0 has a physical attribute that creates the Universe. But to Code it you have to code its rules which are hidden in the simple sum.

But back to me...

Am I deluded?...

It's unlikely that I am deluded, because my life has been a series of achievements that most people thought were impossible, or unlikely to happen. Like I worked on some top computer games, I beat a professional pool player, I passed a MENSA test.. little things really. But those little things all added up together say.. "This guy does what he says he is going to do."

I do what I say I am going to do, I don't talk for the fun of it. But here we have a problem. I want to program this fractal, but my PC can only handle 60,000 particles. It will be hard for me to see any form of proof in 60,000 particles. It will be hard for me to even see if the correct fractal is forming. I run it in my head with infinite particles, it's all a super liquid. I can't get that smooth with 60,000 particles.

So I don't feel very obligated to program something that I can't run properly. I want to see it run properly, and that is inspirational to me.. to see it. But to not see it, and to program 60,000 particles is not inspiring.

Anyway, the problem is with location. The location programming requires multi tasking per particle.. or.. a lot of memory.

Faking Infinity...

It reminds me of Facebook. Each particle needs to store all of its neighbours positions like friends on Facebook. Each friend leads to 12 more friends, and that repeats. For 60,000 particles you have this repeating data 720,000 storage locations. This routine makes a location follow a particle around so that it knows its new neighbours, because X/Y/Z doesn't work in my theory. You can update the position of friends that are next to a particle when you need to create a wave. It's faster than trying to find out which particles are next to each other after a bump occurs.. it's pre-calculated. A friend finds 12 friends, finds 12 friends, finds 12 friends...

What then is the Universe doing?

The Universe is folding inwards to do the same thing, and that is Poise-Time. Trying to add that to a PC would be crazy. It's just too fine to program, so that part is faked.

The true fractal of the Universe is partly faked to fit in a computer, but I do know how all of it works. It would be amazing to program the entire thing.

 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #53 on: 26/03/2013 13:34:46 »
A Proof That Creates Mathematics

Calculus is used to define physics. So in a way the maths creates the shapes that we see. I am attempting to do the reverse. My method is for the shapes of sphere, and Newton's Kissing Problem to create the mathematics. It's the total reverse of Calculus. My program changes the scale of the sphere, spins the sphere, and moves the sphere. The sphere create the locations for virtual particles, and virtual energy. The locations move, the virtual particles move as well, and the calculus is missing. To get the Calculus you would have to take measurements from the moving objects. That is what I call a proof. That the measurements happen from physics, and not the other way around. The physics are not even programmed, but have no choice but to occur from rules...

That Energy moves towards the area of least resistance.
That trapped energy scales out of the way.
That particles have curves that are used for calculations.
That touching particles count as accumulative forces.
That a sphere has an inside, and an outside surface.
That the surfaces can reverse from negative scale.
More rules...

These rules are the Calculus in reverse. These rules create calculus from physics. The program creates its own proof. And this is an attempt to copy the Universe using the Universe's own language. Until you get a game of life....

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

... but using the Universe as its rule book.
« Last Edit: 26/03/2013 13:38:28 by Pincho »
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #54 on: 26/03/2013 14:34:35 »
Sometimes I find articles that have some finds similar to my theory. Today I am posting these....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23317-bigger-isnt-always-better-for-becoming-multicellular.html

The above is part of my fractal theory. That the snowflake is a dominant structure in the Universe, and creates the natural shapes of Earthly Creatures. The inward flow of particles is the Snowflake which changes to an outward flow which is the sphere. The above article includes both flow forces in nature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130325111154.htm

The speed of light might not be a constant has some relevance to my theory. I have particle pairs that create spacetime grain, I just call them 1 and -1, and both together make the zero particle. Their scale determines the energy propagation of C. Which is similar to what is suggested above. However, I include pressure, and I suggest that the Galaxy is like a packet of Rice Crispies, and the pressure is negatively towards the centre. So particles towards the centre scale negatively which can look bigger, which is the bump in the middle. I add Dark Matter as a Negative scale, and I get an image like this...

 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #55 on: 26/03/2013 17:11:22 »
In my theory I use black holes as a hole, an area of least resistance. It works...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23318-gravityless-toy-black-hole-solves-cosmic-puzzles.html

...but I change Gravity into Negative mass, which is a hole. So rather than not use Gravity, I remove it at C.
« Last Edit: 26/03/2013 17:15:15 by Pincho »
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #56 on: 26/03/2013 17:24:40 »
The switch that I use to remove Gravity is like folding a tennis Ball inside out, I fold gravity inside out. In fact any particle can be folded inside out. Take liquid Helium...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI

In my theory that would be an example of helium folding inside out.  It's bump forces vanish (it doesn't bubble), and it propagates in reverse.

Anti-matter is to fold a particle inside out. Science sometimes mislabels anti-matter for spin direction, and other properties. Science has physics that explode, I have physics which reverse, and cancel out. But a hole reversing into a particle will create bump forces which could be explosive as the energy has to escape somewhere.
« Last Edit: 26/03/2013 17:33:23 by Pincho »
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #57 on: 28/03/2013 15:40:37 »
Finally figured it out.... Location is scale

You have 4 sphere (particles as sphere)...

2 the same size (or just 1 planck unit difference)
1 smaller
1 larger

Now you take these positions from points. So they inflate from holes at points. They never have to cross paths so the membrane doesn't mean anything. Only the interaction per point means anything. So basically you have balloons inflating inside balloons.

The smaller one doesn't collide, it just fits inside.
The larger one doesn't collide it just fits outside.

The two equal ones share the exact same space, so collide.

So now you have locality as a physical set of rules that you can program into a computer, and the use of X/Y/Z which doesn't have any physics, now has scalar physics.

The Black Hole in the middle of the Galaxy scales the physics outwards in a spiral, so you basically have the physics happening there, and a rainbow using X/Y/Z instead of R/G/B now has a relationship to scale.

You reach out with your hand, your hand is red shifted, so you can connect with the particles at that position.

You can see your scalar shift happening here...
http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/amazing-tunnel-illusion/

It's all very nice. Now I am free using X/Y/Z as scalar physics with a solution. I don't like using anything with no solution.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #58 on: 28/03/2013 15:44:22 »
So entangled particles at a distance using scalar X/Y/Z...

The particles have been scalar frozen in time, so now they are located as matching scalar X/Y/Z. Which is a local position. In other words they have stopped red shifting, but it is unlikely that you can check them without red shifting them.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #59 on: 28/03/2013 16:12:51 »
The little Bee Dance...

I like to include all sections of science in my theory, including biology, so to add scalar X/Y/Z to the bee dance is a bit of fun really. I think that there are other ways to make this work but anyway...

The optical illusion of the tunnel effect could well be a scalar illusion. Because X/Y/Z is that red shift is a scalar shift, and particles that are the same scale collide.

Bees dance and vibrate against a scalar background. Scalar particles scale by being bumped. Scalar bumps create redshift and a tunnel illusion... so....

The bees could be visually seeing a tunnel illusion to a location. Which is much simpler than an X/Y/Z coordinate system.

Quote
Now.. you could create a telescope with a super fast vibration, and maybe actually see the tunnel effect in real life.

So there you go, an actual experiment. (Maybe you have to include a slight prism in the optics as well?)

« Last Edit: 28/03/2013 16:20:28 by Pincho »
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #60 on: 29/03/2013 14:14:18 »
Quantum Mechanics....

I like Richard Feynman, and I have just started watching the YouTube videos of him. I like his enthusiasm, and he says some things the same as I do, and asks the same questions. I still think however that his limitations were to do with using mathematics. Here he talks about Quantum Physics....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeBkMzSLA8w

Sometimes, I find that his thoughts are what I call pre-computer thoughts. The mathematics wasn't so visual as typing a program into a computer, and watching the physics for real.

This video includes water tension, and jiggling atoms...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI

And again I find that his ideas have strayed slightly away from real images. So maths isn't working to portray images all that well.

At the end of the Quantum Physics talk RF wants a real image of an atom, and he wants to know about the real image of an electron. He says that mother nature will always make us ask new questions, and simple physics will never be revealed.

Quantum Physics is very simple. We tend to surpass it with our ingenious thinking, and evolution. You have to become the person that doesn't agree with X/Y/Z location as a Relative position. Don't take anything for granted, and don't be smarter than the Universe.

The atom, and the electron are quite huge compared to time. Now most people don't imagine time as a set of physics, but it is just a scalar liquid. So physics are simpler that RF thought. The reason that electrons behave in a strange way is because they are holes...

The mysterious Electron...
 A hole in a flow of gravity is dependant on the flow to reveal the hole's nature. So imagine the electron as a hole, and Gravity as a scalar liquid. This scalar liquid turns into magnetism, and magnetism flows out of the hole, and so the hole is empty for C, and then fills with Gravity. The hole also has a whirlpool around it, and any overflow fills the nucleus. The nucleus scales down into time, and time is a storage of energy which can flow back out again to make a sun if it is compressed enough.

So I have created an image there of the atom. How many patterns can you make from these physics? Well the field is a field of points which are the outflow of magnetism scaling down to become areas of least resistance. The wave is a scalar wave, and works like a packet of Rice Crispies with small bits passing big bits. The nucleus is usually full with an outflow which you can call Poise-Time. The electron orbits are just whirlpool holes, and observation of these holes fills them up, so moves them to some other area of least resistance. And the formation of the holes, and their patterns obeys Newton's Kissing Problem.

You can go smaller than that.. there are Quantum, Quantum Physics...

Which is where I started off many years ago. I worked forwards from Quantum, Quantum physics to the atom. It made it easier. The really small physics are just points, and bubbles.
And that is where 1 + -1 = 0 begins. And that is where location, and direction, and speed, and acceleration are stored as scalar physics, inflation, and deflation.

I wish I could talk to RF, I think I have gone way smaller than the atom, and I think that it is thanks to computer programming. I wish I had the computer powerful enough to run it all at the scale of a Galaxy.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #61 on: 29/03/2013 20:51:53 »
Nature have posted a new video of atoms...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/nanoparticle-3d-imaging-atom-dislocation-video_n_2972249.html?utm_hp_ref=science

Could there be the same fractal in there that I am using?...
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #62 on: 30/03/2013 20:20:28 »
The Gravity Tearing of Spacetime

This is a very important post for those that can follow it. It describes the creation of everything.

Spacetime is made from a scalar grain structure. All you have to do is imagine a lot of bubbles that obey particle stacking rules... they do not stick together in other words, they scale down slightly so as not to touch. Without touching they pass no message, so the planck telescope cannot see them. It tries to get an image of spacetime, but they scale out of the way. This scalar property is the main part of the creation of all things.

Get each part in your head. So make sure that the above is consciously available to you.

OK so the next stage is that the scaling away from each other is like Braille, so they scale up to touch, and then scale down to avoid. The scaling is circular like 360 degrees back to zero, which means that the energy never has to stop moving. But it is also negative...

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

Where the negative numbers are actually areas of least resistance for the positive numbers, so act as holes.

So 360 degrees works better as 180 to -180 degrees wraparound scaling.
Most of the time however the scaling is minimal.

The important image that you need in your head is to create the Galactic Black Hole from this scenario. So trap some scalar particles in an energy crossover from scaling patterns. You have all of these scalar particles doing a sort of Braille dance, and eventually some have to scale negatively, and the positive ones are bumped by scalar forces into this hole as though balloons were inflating next to them.

You should have an image of a forming Black Hole.

Make sure that you have some sort of Black Hole forming in your mind.

The next stage...

This part is the spacetime tearing to create the spiral arms.

With a hole appearing there is an inflation force towards the hole. There is a curve to this inflation direction. I can explain it in water tension. So now switch your mind temporarily to water tension, and a bulge.

Gravity on water in the Y is bent to a sphere, because a drop of water also has force in the X, and Z. It's pressure from Gravity as a push force. This is complicated, because there is air to add to the gravity pressure. All that the air is doing is adding weight to the gravity. The Earth was formed this way, and the moon without air, just a lighter force.

Get the image in your head of the water bending from forces in all directions. When you put the Earth below the Water there is a direction removed from any sort of option. Water can now tear diagonally through the structure, and pressure from above and to the sides firms up these directions. The fish evolve, and the shapes of these diagonally weak areas are part of the fishes shape. The fins diagonally through the weak areas, and the fish are flat in directions of pressure. The Octopus is the conical sort of shape, and the suckers show diagonal spherical forces. It's all there.

But now back to the Galaxy. You have a Black Hole forming, and it is the area of least resistance. The tearing that happens to water to create fish is much easier using scalar particles. They will scale themselves out of the way very quickly. The pressure is space itself towards the hole. You get these diagonal sliding scalar particles. You should have an image a bit like a snowflake forming. The particles sliding towards the Black Holes bump together in a grain fractal structure.

Get the image right. the particles are sliding towards the black Hole, the curves are like the curves created by water tension, the bumping is scaling down and tearing in lines, and the lines are twisting towards the hole like a screw from the rotation into the black hole.

The next stage of images...

Where the lines bump create weaknesses. More scaling, more holes. These new holes have new particles moving into them. This is sort of like the octopus tentacles with the suckers. The diagonal lines spin more in space so create whole sphere for suckers. The sphere filling with particles are suns. They are suns where the scalar bumping is creating light, and energy. Filling holes, scaling, bumping, and flashing.

Ok you got that?

If you have this image correct, think of this....

Diagonal tear towards Earth with bright filling light....

Lightening!

I hope some of you understood that. It's the creation of a Galaxy.. almost. The planets are the dust left behind near to the tearing.

That should give you a complete picture. But here's an image to help...
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #63 on: 30/03/2013 21:10:19 »
That image I just gave you is fantastic if you can visualize it in your head. What you can now do is see a tree in reverse...

http://theoutdoorsnation.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/view-of-a-pollarded-hornbeam-tree-with-a-split-trunk-hatfield-forest-c2a9ntpl-paul-wakefield.jpg

Look at the tree, remember the cracks in spacetime, the areas of least resistance are the trunk. The leaves are the scalar particles feeding towards the trunk, and being squashed flat trying to get into this area of least resistance. So the areas of least resistance are in reverse, and the tree grows into these areas. So you wonder how they begin with a seed? The seed must be the reason for spacetime to tear at that point, and the reason for a tear is a hole. So a seed must contain some singularities. A bit strange in the standard Model, but very common in zero particle theory. Electrons are holes, but seeds must contain bigger holes than electrons that warp spacetime enough to crack it.

You may think that this sounds like a strange theory. However it is the standard model that is strange compared to the Universe. The Universe is the way that things happen, anything else is strange.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #64 on: 30/03/2013 21:50:25 »
Oh yeah, I've figured out how the seed tears spacetime to make a crack to grow in. The roots grow like a hand tearing through paper in reverse if you can imagine that. They create spin spin towards a big singularity. The big singularity is at the centre of the Earth. Thus spacetime gets a tear, and the tree can grow in the tear. So lightening hits a tree, because the tree has already started a crack for it to go into.

Ace.. I can't believe how much I am solving today.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #65 on: 30/03/2013 21:58:54 »
So Earth has life because Earth has a singularity, and the spinning magnetic field. It allows energy to split spacetime, and remove the gravity force for enough time to grow into. The other way is for water to shear to make gaps to grow into.
« Last Edit: 30/03/2013 22:02:10 by Pincho »
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #66 on: 31/03/2013 12:06:43 »
A sun is a scaled up Octopus Sucker

That might be the strangest thing you have ever heard, but it's stranger than that...

The Sun is a scaled down octopus sucker.

Scale is often seen as a negative scale. The sun has more energy because it is the area of least resistance for gravity particles, so it has less scale than an octopus sucker, it is negatively scaled.

If you take a rainbow, the red is the largest colour, but is negatively scaled, so red is negative, and blue is probably positive. I haven't quite decided if blue is positive or not. It could be just less negative. So you look at the Earth, and the sky is blue, and the sand is red, and the plants are green it's all reversed.

This is all important for the Inverse Square Law anyway. As you move outwards with scalar particles they can fill a larger area. They still use Braille to touch, and scale down, so they create the Inverse square Law. This scalar touching passes a message which can be photons, and the Michelson and Morley experiment shows this to work that light will travel to the Earth quite nicely. It means that you can use the word Aether again. Here is an example...
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #67 on: 31/03/2013 12:10:19 »
Where is all of the Anti-Matter?

Matter sits in an anti-matter hole all of the time. That is how a seed grows roots to split spacetime to grow a plant. All that the seed is doing is moving matter away from anti-matter. Us, and the plants are located inside spacetime.

We wear spacetime like a suit.

Maybe the sun is an Octopus sucker isn't the strangest thing afterall.
« Last Edit: 31/03/2013 12:13:31 by Pincho »
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #68 on: 31/03/2013 12:32:19 »
Just in case you are reading the thread from the end without reading the beginning...

The sun is an octopus sucker's fractal physics. My theory is fractal based, and the fractal is not only scalar, but also alters the physics at the same time. It can be programmed into a computer to create the entire Universe. I just need a powerful enough computer to create a Galaxy, and that is the Theory Of Everything. A computer program that creates everything in the universe using a simple set of rules that repeat, and scale.

The sun is an octopus sucker shows how scale, and physics mean a lot. The sun is fractally the same, the way the sun begins uses the same physics as the octopus sucker. But water is replaced by Gravity Spacetime. Water and space use the same fractal. But water is scaler limited, and space is a scalar particle. Scalar particles create more energy than water because they have more freedom of movement. If I use capital letters to represent freedom of movement you get X/Y/Z/IN/OUT for space.. X/Z/y/in/out for water. The loss of energy in water reduces the power of the Octopus tentacles from a hot sphere, to a cold half sphere... a sucker. The tentacles are the Galaxy spirals. The energy is all reduced to the Octopus because of the atoms containing a lot of trapped particles. The trapped particles restrict the scalar ability of the atom. Like a bag full of rubbish is harder to squash down than an empty bag.

It isn't that strange in a fractal universe. Anyway I find the standard model strange with Past, Present, and Future, and Wave Particle Duality, and Action At A Distance, and Electrons with mass, and Pull Forces, and a Big Bang.

That's all very strange to me.

Look carefully... a Galaxy...

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/field_notes/assets_c/2011/06/octopus_males_large_suckers-thumb-608x456-23825.jpg
« Last Edit: 31/03/2013 12:37:35 by Pincho »
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #69 on: 31/03/2013 13:51:29 »
Check the sanity of this guy!

If you just type fractal nature into Google Images....

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fractal&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=uzI&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Fy9YUYX4F4eS0QXm_4HQBw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=939&bih=622#hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=YKy&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=fractal+nature&oq=fractal+nature&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l6.27654.29144.0.29545.7.5.0.2.2.0.58.287.5.5.0...0.0...1c.1.7.img.R7kpD3x1NPA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44442042,d.d2k&fp=cd39a805ea130be7&biw=939&bih=622

Of course everyone knows that there are a lot of fractals in nature. But what is a fractal in nature?

A fractal in nature is a repeating set of rules combined with scale, and physics. Which is what Zero particle Theory is as well. The zero particle represents fractal scale zero. So it represents the first fractal that creates the Universe.

When scientists knock particles out of atoms they are nearly always in 6's. That's a fractal as well. So from the zero particle we are going up in 12's actually, because there are the anti-particles. And 12's are Newton's Kissing problem fractal.

So getting the shape right, and the physics right, you have a self building set of rules. Every up-scale needs to fit around, or inside the previous scale. Atoms represent a scale, and a rainbow represents the atomic scale in colour, and position. Change the colour, and change the position in the rainbow through the Rice Crispy effect.

I have tested parts of this in a computer, so it's the Standard Model that makes people crazy enough to think that I am crazy.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #70 on: 31/03/2013 15:47:41 »
Turning Arrows of light....

Richard Feynman came up with some interesting mathematics for light colour, and reflection...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdZMXWmlp9g

He said that nobody understands it. It actually has a very similar principle to the physics that I am using for particle location, and Relativity Physics. Now, I am not sure if I am talking about the same thing, or not. All I know is that my physics use turning arrows, and create colours from scale during spin cycles. So it probably is the same thing. So I can explain in physics what is happening in Richard Feynman's video... I think.

Particles have directional physics, and relativity is physically embedded in spacetime. It's to do with the area of least resistance for a scalar particle that can fold inside out like half a tennis ball. And it is to do with Newton's Kissing Problem. Combined together you can figure out the physics of relativity.

The spinning arrows.
12 scalar particles can surround 1 scalar particle of the same size (Newton's Kissing Problem) there is room for a 13th ball that can never be fitted. the 13th ball can be used as the area of least resistance through newtons 3D structure. This area of least resistance is the spin of the arrows in Feynman's lecture... I think. You see, particles move towards this 13th ball as a direction memory. It's a scalar particle where the 13 ball is a guide. All of theses scalar particles have to sit in a hole in spacetime. The anti-matter is the hole that they sit in, and again you can just use half a tennis ball, and fold it inside out to create the anti-matter of matter. The colour is the scale of the tennis ball. So the rotation through for example red is larger than a rotation through blue. Pressure of a red sun is less than pressure on a blue sun, so the scalar change is a pressure change is a spin change, with a 13th ball of Newton's Kissing Problem creating all of these arrows that Feynman is using.

The arrow of direction moves towards the area of least resistance which is the scale outside of the particle. I call that the bow shock. So you have this internal arrow pointing towards the bow shock. The bow shock is the scalar collisions in spacetime between the space scalar grain. Earth has its own bow shock, and creates a scalar change in the grain structure around it. That is the area of least resistance Einstein called the bending of Spacetime. It is the scaling of spacetime in fact. So the arrow pointing towards a bow shock is where a particle travels, and if the particle moves near the Earth its own bow shock is added to the Earth's bow shock. So the Earth's gravity is added to the particles Gravity negatively. The area of least resistance therefore is towards the Earth now.

Now the rotating arrow, and the bow shock combined are like adding convex curves to concave curves. The total needs to be negative to move into the area of least resistance.

And that seems to match what Feynman was saying in the video.... I think.

So there are the physics which he asks about during his lecture.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #71 on: 31/03/2013 21:25:14 »
Past and Future Doesn't Exist... Time is a constant of the present.

I've found a video, that tells me why science uses the words Past and Future...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kab9dkDZJY

Which tells me something about why scientists are so confused. You use pull forces, so obviously you can easily reverse physics, and I never thought about that before because I have no pull forces in my theory. Plus science uses mass for attraction, and I use holes the opposite.

Time is a constant of the present...not mass...not pull...but holes. If you are moving into holes you get this Rice Crispy scaling effect.. the holes get smaller as you move into them, you have to be smaller to move to the next level down. Big particles are pretty much stuck at the beginning. When the particles get really small they turn negatively into holes. The movement is created by the convex curves pressing against convex curves, a sort of balloon inflation propagation towards holes. Then holes fill up with smaller particles, and they become convex again. It's a sort of weather system like steam to rain to steam. Convex to concave to convex.

So the physics are cyclic, circular, never-ending, and so the physics are a constant. Time eliminates itself to a zero state. The snowflake is In, and the Sun is Out. There is no arrow, there is In, and Out added together = 0. Zero equals the present all of the time. Just the Present, and the present has no direction in particular. But there is always this inflation propagation, and no pull forces to reverse it. Particles are pushed into a hole, the hole fills up, pushes the particles out.. push.. push..push...push..... no pull.

It's strange that people really believe in Past, and Future. I always thought that the words were for science fiction movies like Time Machine. It's only recently that I realised that people actually thought that they were real. I'm 50, so for 50 years I have never believed in past, and Future.

Mind you.. I have never done any science. I wasn't taught science at school, and never had science at college. I taught myself using my own theory from scratch. I decided that I would ignore science, it is a bit kind of crazy.

I was just watching a video on the Feynman Diagrams. I mean he had time correct in those diagrams, so he should have realised what it is. He drew a sort of spring between motions, that is correct. I mean amazing being as he believed in pull forces.

I went somewhere else where the rules are simpler...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kab9dkDZJY

« Last Edit: 31/03/2013 22:04:05 by Pincho »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #72 on: 31/03/2013 22:07:01 »
Past and Future Doesn't Exist... Time is a constant of the present.

I've found a video, that tells me why science uses the words Past and Future...




For once, I find myself agreeing with you Pincho. I also don't see the need for these concepts.
The Present is all that makes any sense to my way of thinking. Nevertheless, I don't quite understand
what you mean by these holes you speak of. A hole in the fabric of space sounds a lot like string theory
to me. With the added dimensions this theory brings to the table, one might be able to add the concept
of holes. But that would need a completely new understanding of space.

What is the physical nature of these holes?
Can you describe them mathematically?
If holes exist in space/time, how do we prove they existence?
Without empirical evidence, this only becomes philosophy and not science.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #73 on: 31/03/2013 22:31:35 »
Past and Future Doesn't Exist... Time is a constant of the present.

I've found a video, that tells me why science uses the words Past and Future...




For once, I find myself agreeing with you Pincho. I also don't see the need for these concepts.
The Present is all that makes any sense to my way of thinking. Nevertheless, I don't quite understand
what you mean by these holes you speak of. A hole in the fabric of space sounds a lot like string theory
to me. With the added dimensions this theory brings to the table, one might be able to add the concept
of holes. But that would need a completely new understanding of space.

What is the physical nature of these holes?
Can you describe them mathematically?
If holes exist in space/time, how do we prove they existence?
Without empirical evidence, this only becomes philosophy and not science.

Well I will start off with Feynman again, because he could have grasped my ideas, he was so close. Yet he would have hated my approach of not using mathematics....

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

A hole in spacetime is just a negatively scaled particle. Imagine with water, and a sponge. We put a heater in the middle of the sponge, so that any water entering the sponge is evaporated away at the same speed that the water enters the sponge. So the sponge is always empty. That is electro magnetism. Gravity goes into an electron hole field in an iron bar, it is spun around by the spinning field that was created by the coils earlier on. The Gravity is evaporated away to keep the Iron Bar constantly empty of Gravity. Now its a bar of spacetime holes.

Why don't I use mathematics?.. because it has never worked for genius like Einstein, and Newton. So what chance have I got?

I intend to write a computer program instead. It's better, because it creates the maths instead of the other way around.

EDIT: Oh yes I forgot to complete the physics for the spacetime holes in this post. Spacetime in my theory is a scalar grain structure. So it isn't a vacuum, or a void. It's almost completely full of material, so you only need to separate the matter to make a hole.
« Last Edit: 31/03/2013 22:52:00 by Pincho »
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #74 on: 31/03/2013 23:37:14 »
The relation of Physics and Fractals

Feynman lectured The Relation Of Mathematics, and Physics...

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SrHzSGn-I8

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IESoWfM3cyc

And in this discussion he has an idea for Gravity, and he quickly dismisses it. Mathematics he says is the answer, and the ideas don't seem to work.

Well, in fact it seems to me that he had the right idea, and blew it by turning to mathematics. He was lacking the complete idea, because he had mathematics to turn to, and the mathematics drew him away from the real answer.

So I use a fractal of physics instead. Total physics, that I can scale up, and down like an Abacus of physics.

The real answer to the gravity problem was that as the Earth moves towards the scalar particles they scale down faster, and that is the bow shock. It is scale that creates the force, so the force is scaled down by the movement towards it. The Net result is zero change. You evaporate the Gravity faster in a sense.

So I believe I am right that with such a huge theory as the Theory Of Everything, it is better to have a solution that you can work with like the Universe works with physics. The Universe doesn't know mathematics, it creates fractals, so I think in physical fractals, and then they can go into a computer.

And a picture of the Bow Shock which explains it a bit better...
« Last Edit: 31/03/2013 23:45:42 by Pincho »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Zero Particle Theory
« Reply #74 on: 31/03/2013 23:37:14 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length