[Pincho (OP)]

The Universe as a local object...

The physics that I use depend upon curves, and the curves need to cancel each other out to get a zero state Universe. If you start with any set of physics they need a location inside something. You have to be careful how you work this out, because to keep the zero state you are putting particles on top of something. So if you have a single particle with a hole, you have a set of curves, and the convex curves are the particles, and the concave curves are the hole. They are inside a huge version of the same thing. In scale curves start to look like straight lines. So at the point where the Universe is large you can maintain the zero state by putting the particles inside a huge object with straight lines. This connects your inner particles to the outer membrane when they are cancelling each other out with...

1 + -1 = 0

1 + -1 = merged with the Universe.

Which sort of allows an action at a distance, because the distance has a dimension that is connected to a much bigger particle. Two photons with zero mass can be connected to the zero line of the whole Universe.

This is maybe convenient. I would prefer just to connect two photons to the Aether. It feels like there is some missing information still. A vacuum is used to move the particles, and there is no such thing as a vacuum, so it's a very cheated experiment anyway.

[Pincho (OP)]

Amazing Evolution...

Zero Particle Theory uses fractals as life shapes. Especially the Hexagon through Newton's Kissing Problem. That in a particle stacking system 12 particles can surround 1 particle, and you get a common Hexagon fractal. So most creatures are already covered before evolution, and DNA are required.

What does that mean?

It means that you can almost build all of our nature from fractals without evolution, but the shapes would be missing some features.

The one thing that I am always drawn to from evolution is that baby's feet are flat. That means that the baby is ready for Gravity, and Cause, and effect are backwards because the baby has never walked on the ground before. When Cause, and effect are backwards it shows that something in DNA is very amazing.

You can say that a person with flat feet survived better to pass on their DNA, and it works in a computer simulation. But how far can that go? How many people today are born with hooves? How long would it take to change feet into hooves?

1/ Nobody today has feet with hooves. The DNA could not be passed on.
2/ DNA Cause and Effect need memory to change the human into a human with hooves.

Something has to be stored during a human lifetime that adds to DNA. And that is Poise Energy of Time. Time as an energy flowing backwards into holes accounts for Cause and effect playing backwards. The baby can be born with flat feet, or even hooves if necessary.

The computer simulations work if humans can be born with hooves to survive better, but that doesn't happen. So instead you need DNA memory. For each person with harder feet you will eventually get hooves, but the harder feet have to be memorised at each stage.

DNA requires a memory system. Feedback into holes. The snowflake.. Bose Einstein Condensate.. time reversal.

[Pincho (OP)]

Today's science match is about evolution. It doesn't match what I said, but it gives an alternative idea that I like...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130412132407.htm

[Pincho (OP)]

Ok so I have been programming for a couple of days now, and the physics are starting to self build. The program is creating physics that I never thought about. Like when two bubbles stick together the centre of mass moves, and the bubbles spin around a new mass point. Although I was not programming sticky bubbles, I accidentally got those physics, because my program isn't finished yet. But the interesting thing is that the sticky bubbles really work properly, and that is because of a bow shock. I use physics for relativity, and the physics for the bow shock automatically switch the mass centre, and create the centre of rotation, and rotate the mass all in one go. No formulas to work out, just natural events occurring from a bow shock. It may even turn out that I need sticky bubbles, because a Galaxy rotates as one object I think.

When I imagined my snowflake program it worked. Now it seems that my imagined physics for the Universe are going to work as well.

[yor_on]

Pincho, it's time for you to check up on the terminology of science, just not loose sentences. You have a good and original mind, but you need to set it into a context. And using too many self defined definitions makes it very hard to read. Sit down and check out how main stream science define it. Then look at what you think, but use the words, and science, that already are there. I think you're young And impatient. Relax, time is enough.

[yor_on]

Yeah, I know. the more your idea differs, the harder it will be to find the right words. Don't give up though, they exist, you just have to search, but I promise you will recognize them when you see them. and they will also give you more ideas. Don't assume you're the only in physics with a good mind. We all stand on shoulders, just by growing up.

[Pmb]

Pincho - Since you complained so much when I explained to you what the scientific method was and corrected your incorrect beliefs about what science is all about I thought I'd come on your turf and see if you'd justify any of your claims.

I saw only this and one other thread that you started. Before I added this post this thread consisted of 145 posts, 143 of which are yours. What are you attempting to accomplish?

When you make claims such as

You may think it is strange to call Dark Matter 'Ghost' but I don't think that anybody had heard of Dark Matter in 2009.

it's hard to take you seriously. You claimed to have never learned science and decided to reinvent it from scratch. If you never learned science then how can you expect anybody to take you seriously? In the other forum you didn't even seem willing to explain what you meant when you use the word "science" because its clear that what you mean yu that word and what others mean by it have little to do with each other. Then you make an erroneous statement like this one where you believe that nobody had ever heard of the term dark matter in 2009. You can't be serious. Only a crackpot would make such a terribly erroneous claim like that. It's unheard of to find an astronomy, cosmology or astrophysics text published within the, say, last 30 years, which doesn't talk about dark matter. Even my GR texts discuss it

So tell me. Are you willing to

(1) Define the term science as you have chosen to use the term.
(2) Explain why you're unwilling to justify any assertion that you've made to me in that other thread.
(3) Justify/clarify/explain your belief that you don't think that anybody had heard of Dark Matter in 2009.

I'd also like to hear why you'd reject science when you yourself have told us that you don't know anything about it. How you you be certain that you're talking about the same methodology that everyone else uses? I.e. how do you know that when you make a statement or attempt to make an argument hat you're doing so with sound logic?

And no. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm sincerely trying to understand you even if it doesn't come across that way to you.

[Ethos_]

And no. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm sincerely trying to understand you even if it doesn't come across that way to you.

Good luck Pmb, I've also tried to communicate intelligently with this fellow. There is only one jerk involved here in this discussion and it isn't you. Nor is it I, we have both given it a fair effort but sadly, to no avail. Like yourself, I was interested in understanding Pincho's ideas, but he resists any and all corrective logic. I'm afraid our efforts have been terribly wasted!!!

[Pmb]

And no. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm sincerely trying to understand you even if it doesn't come across that way to you.

Good luck Pmb, I've also tried to communicate intelligently with this fellow. There is only one jerk involved here in this discussion and it isn't you. Nor is it I, we have both given it a fair effort but sadly, to no avail. Like yourself, I was interested in understanding Pincho's ideas, but he resists any and all corrective logic. I'm afraid our efforts have been terribly wasted!!!

I agree. It was extremely frustrating trying to talk to somoene who is only willing to make unfound claims and refuse to back them up.