[Pincho (OP)]

Just in case you can't see the strange number of hits that the hexagonal grid gets, I have exaggerated the colours to make the distribution of matter clash against the grid. Now it sort of looks like the matter is growing on the grid like a climber plant. That's because the grid, and the matter match up so well.

[Pincho (OP)]

Ok so maybe you see the fractal, maybe you don't. I see a 100% fractal, which is a bit strange to me. I imagine some sort of computer glitch, or telescope glitch.

However, before I came across that fractal I was already working on a spacetime fractal using Newton's Kissing Problem. I was working on Snowflakes, and how they match a lot of animals, and fruits. For example if you cut a tomato in half you see a very similar fractal to a snowflake. It's in a lot of fruits.

So I programmed the 2D version of Newton's kissing Problem, which would be 2D because Gravity uses the Y, which only leaves the Hexagon. I had also read about the Bose / Einstein Condensate, and how the atoms merged together. I figured that a merging of Newton's Kissing Problem would create the Snowflake fractal.

So imagine that a snowflake is cause by first the formation of Hexagons from Newton's Kissing Problem with Gravity in the Y.

Second the atoms start to move together using points created by Newton's Kissing Problem.

Third the Inverse Square Law changes the strength at which the atoms approach one another.

So I wrote the computer simulation, and I got a perfect snowflake. (I stop the program before an even better snowflake is created, but I saw enough not to finish the program)

Download, and press the space bar...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pinchopaxton/Snowflake.rar

And to see how matter propagates to be included with the Luminiferous Aether just hold down the space bar, and move the mouse around.

What you see is the bending of spacetime as a propagator of matter. To be combined with a propagator of light, and therefore to eliminate the failing in the Michelson and Morley experiment.

And the bending is the In/Out flow of time. In for backwards in time, and snowflakes. Out for spherical time, and Suns.

[Pincho (OP)]

One of the great things about my theory is how simple it makes the Universe. It turns complexity into a repeating fractal. Take for example my snowflake code above. It just takes a bunch of points, and moves them towards each other. If however you have ever looked into the maths of snowflake code, the mathematicians do not think like an artist...

This link makes everything sound very complicated...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-snowflakes-form

Behind all of complexity is a simple idea just hidden from view. All the guys above had to do was move points together, but they couldn't see it. The periodic table is the same. It's a set of repeating rules, and throughout the atom is a set of repeating 6 particles.

The theory does away with mathematics, and changes the approach to recreating what you see in a loop of repeating rules. A Fractal.

I see all of these complicated rules as mistakes. Calculus is no match for a Universe with no mind. A fractal is a good match for a Universe with no mind. It is getting the match between the way that you work things out, and the actual Universe right.

I think like the Universe. I have taught myself how to think like the Universe. I change pull into push, I change time into geyser, I change waves into particles, I change maths into a fractal, I change Galaxy into Universe, I change inflation into scale, I change Past, present, and future into just present...

You walk from A to B.. you leave in the present, you arrive in the present. Time is reset.

Speed is the amount of separation between points.

Acceleration is the changing distance between the separation between points, and the dilation of a Geyser between those points.

Mass is created by holes full of Gravity...

Gravity is scalar particles that I call Zero Particles.

Gravity scales down negatively to Magnetism with spin forces.

A negative scale can be bigger than a positive scale, because the holes of the negative scale fill up with other particles.

Spacetime is not a Vacuum it is a grain structure of scalar particles.

Red shift does not necessarily represent time. It represents scale up. Scale up just means that points lead to scale down, and all of spacetime is a fractal of points. The further away you look out from a point the more the particles scale up...

The holes scale down space time, because spacetime spins around the holes like a whirlpool, and a whirlpool has a funnel. The spacetime funnel is a scale down funnel, a bit different to a water funnel. The galaxy has a bar across it, that is a scalar funnel. Level with mass, but scaled down to travel through mass.

Thinking like the Universe is to make yourself think in Quantum Physics even when you are looking at large objects like a Galaxy. Change a Galaxy into Quantum Physics and you will know everything.

[Pincho (OP)]

Why scalar funnels?

The idea of the scalar particles was to create movement from a push from a standing start like inflation. The idea was that scale has no real logic to it in an empty Universe, because scale is relative. The first particles having a scale would be a decision made before the particles existed. The way I imagine the Universe is that no decisions are made pre-existence. So no scale exists for particles. Particles end up with a scale because of infinite stacking rules. Atoms are scale locked because of the Russian Doll effect, they can't scale down, or up. And C is the scalar rebound of hitting negative scale which reverses to scale up when filled with other particles.

Scale allows energy to escape from being trapped in the middle of a whirlpool of scalar particles. We see whirlpool type structures in space.. Galaxies, and the other thing we see are rings.

Saturn has rings.

If you listen to the radio noise translated into sound for Saturn it sounds a lot like a toilet flushing. The rings look like a flattened rebound action. The two ends of Saturn exhibit whirlpool effects, and holes. So you can deduce two inward flowing funnels (like two toilets end to end) The collision in the middle turns out to be a scalar collision. The particles are scaled negatively into a flat disc. The disc escapes the pressure through negative scale coming out of Saturn's middle. So now you have these invisible negative particles. The negative particles act as the area of least resistance, and so act as holes. Bigger particles gather in the holes to form rings. Now you have the positive mass in the negative mass.

Every so often through the rings the funnel winds around to create streaks similar to the Galaxy Bars.

The Galaxy Bars are the funnel swinging around through a similar structure as Saturn's rings.

Outside Pressure on scalar particles scales them down.

Particles trapped in the middle escape when they reach a negative scale.

Negative scale fills with positive mass.

So Negative particles can appear bigger than positive particles.

Negative flow requires propagation from negative particles, and so act like a funnel, because the negative particles are pushing against the negative particles.

But because the funnel is also scaling down its particles it is escaping sideways. Unlike water which has very little scalar ability so escapes the pressure downwards, and across.

This becomes a series of scribbles like Newton's famous scribbles. The ideas are all related to each other. A set of repeating rules. But the bar across the Galaxy, and Saturn's rings can also be created by the positive particles captured in the negative rings. And so in this case it would be hard to establish if the bar is being created from the middle to the outside (negative to positive) or from the outside to the middle (positive to negative).

The moons around Saturn create bars as they move towards Saturn, and Gravity is positive, so that flow force is positive.

Here we have an example of how you can get two similar physics from two different causes. But at the end of the day, you have to create the rings, and to lock the rings in place you need an area of least resistance. The area of least resistance is in the middle of Saturn.

To me, using negative particles around Saturn has a high probability.

[Pincho (OP)]

I was thinking about this image...

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=47070.0;attach=17582;image

It includes a very clear fractal. When you try to map a flat image to a sphere it never fits. The best way to do that is to use a Geosphere poly primitive. Look at the one on the far right...

http://www.creativecrash.com/maya/downloads/scripts-plugins/modeling/poly-tools/c/geospheres--2

So the telescope is up there, and it most likely rotates on the spot. It maybe makes a panoramic image with a curve. Then somebody maps it, and the hexagons maybe appear.

So far that makes sense. But what if it is our human eyes which require the flattening out to be created for our own purposes? So that the hexagon is the reality, and we have eyes built to remove the hexagon fractal?

For example.. map some woods in the same way that the telescope was used to map the matter in the Universe...

http://ivorphotography.co.uk/2013/01/19/more-ice/iced-branches-olympus-e-5-iso-200-35mm-f63-160/

Do we get the fractal back again?

Look at Neanderthal man...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/neanderthals-large-eyes-led-to-their-downfall-says-study-8532539.html

Bigger eyes. So maybe we are removing a fractal from nature because our eyes aren't made to see it. Our lenses are the wrong curvature, and our mapping of reality is slightly out.

If we just play along with that idea like a toy, then we can suggest that bees, and birds, and butterflies see the fractal. Then we can suggest that these creatures can navigate using the fractal. The bee does a dance.. "6 hexagons, 8 hexagons, 20 hexagons" It does the dance to suggest how many hexagons to pass through to get to a destination.

So if the fractal is really there, then it is very large out there in space. It probably scales down in our Galaxy. Most people imagine particles to start off small, and get bigger. What if particles start off huge, and get smaller? Then the fractal gets smoother in our Galaxy. Trees become less fractal.

The image of the trees perhaps cannot be mapped with the same glitch as the image of the Universe.

But these are things to think about. If the glitch is reality, then the Universe is a fractal. If the glitch is a mapping anomaly then it should work on an arrangement of trees. But either way, as humans the anomaly could be the reality, because humans depend on false information. Colours, heat... etc. ... all false, so the fractal could be real even if we do find the glitch.

And whilst you are thinking about that.. take a quick look at my video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3fTYS99ZeE&feature=plcp

[Pincho (OP)]

Fractals, and scales...

Let's go with the Universe being a fractal. Let's treat it as a fact. I will therefore skip words like presume, perhaps, what if? I do live my life using my own physics, and I don't use the Standard Model, so since 2003 I am used to treating my theory as a fact.

So the simple sum.. 1 + -1 = 0 suggests that you can create a Universe from nothing, because nothing is a literary misunderstanding in the English language. Nothing is 'The Whole Of Two Parts' and the two parts come from Newton's 3rd Law 'Every Action Has An Equal, and Opposite Reaction'

When used together the Universe is created from two equal parts that look like space.

But to complete Newton's 3rd Law you cannot have any unequal parts hidden in nothing. Nothing has to be exactly equal in every point. To hide information completely you have to rule out certain shapes. Let's just go to the shape that works best. Newton's kissing Problem.

Firstly the sphere is equal in every direction from a central point, that's what makes it a sphere in the first place. But it needs a position in space. Once you give a sphere a position it breaks equality unless that space is an exact opposite hole. That's what you want for a zero particle. A sphere on its own has no bonding force. It has a bunching set of rules, and the Bunching rules create fractals. To get a bonding force the sphere uses the hole.

The assemble of the fractal obeys Newton's 3rd law in that space hides itself in equality. The zero particles follow a stacking system that also obeys equality, and then the stacking system scales down so that no connections pass any messages along the chain which would break equality. The photon breaks equality as a message along the chain. Humans evolved to examine changes in equality.

Now we get to a Universe which is infinite, and infinity is actually a structure that obeys rules of equality, and hides itself away. But the rules didn't develop before the creation took place. The rules were part of the fractal that happened naturally. This means that the scale of all things is part of the natural fractal. Particles can be huge, and also negatively small. But entropy tries to hide all inequalities, so a large particle next to a small particle breaks equality. The large particle can be touched on every side by billions of tiny particles. This sharing of energy reduces the large particle down to a small particle. All particles in an area have little change, but a wave of change permeates through the Universe. However the Atom is a particle touched on the inside, and the outside. The change in scale is in both directions resulting in the atom being scaler limited... slowed down.

The scale of particles is due to entropy, but entropy is local. C is a propagation through a distance between particles, but the distance changes through entropy. Red shift is a scale shift, and pressure around particles scales them down. Everything is obeying Newton's 3rd law, but there is a delay which is a wave. It seems that everything must be scaling down around us as the wave tries to create a zero state. The wave will never create a complete zero state however because the fractal is never going to be perfect. Sphere can never surround sphere in a perfect zero state. There is an inequality that spins around a single sphere as other sphere try to occupy all spaces. This inequality creates chaos, and spin energy, and the spin energy is the butterfly effect with inequality as the cause. The 13th ball of Newton's Kissing Problem, the ball that never fits. That creates nature from the fractal.

So the scales of the sphere are a wave of entropy that large particles can be touched by many small particles, and so large particles can be said to be chipped away by many particles until all particles reach a state of equality... which will never happen (the 13th ball).

And C propagates over different distances...

Is C then a constant?

If you live in an area of larger particles, your fractal is larger. A human is larger, and so to that human scale everything is still equal to our scale. C is still C in that area, but from our area it is faster.

[Pincho (OP)]

Should Time be renamed?

I think that time should be renamed, because the current use of the word 'TIME' is very inaccurate. There is no Past, Present, and Future. There is a series of physical events due to cause, and Effect, and because we are always local to events that affect our physical interactions we are always in the Present.

Walk from A to B.. start in the present, end in the present, start local, end local.. change of physics very likely.

I actually struggle to understand how humans are using time. It's like voodoo to me... humans use voodoo, and magic, and I feel like I am stuck 2000 years in the past. Humans believe in time travel, and a 4th dimension, and its voodoo, and child-like. Plus Bell's Inequality Theory, that everything that can happen does happen.

All mistakes because of the word 'time' being inaccurate.

It should be renamed to...

Point Scalar Energy... or Poise Time.. like a spring coiled and ready to act... per point.

It has a physical location. When you see X/Y/Z axes marker....

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/311500/why-do-we-draw-the-xyz-coordinate-system-like-this

It is the point where they all touch in the middle, and should be considered as the stationary location, scalar energy, and from that point X/Y/Z can go outwards using that scalar energy as a propagator.

POISE TIME



 

[Pincho (OP)]

Scribblings Of Location...

Above I said that Time is in the middle of XYZ, where the points meet up. That was an example, but XYZ is much more complicated when you try to program it into a computer. It's like braille, you have to feel your way around the Universe. Each point has its own scalar energy, and each time that energy scales it renews the XYZ properties. Plus the Energy creates spin, and XYZ spins around per point. This is a nightmare. I said that I can think through my program, and run it in my head, but location requires you to think of several things at the same time, and so I can't totally get a clear image of location.

Here's an example... In this video I am tracking the rotation of energy propagation. Energy can only propagate through interaction, and interaction in a fractal is fractalized of course, so the transmission of location rotates, scales, and moves...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd8RAQLTb7Q

I try to keep the numbers steady by having a corresponding link to each location. 12 points that can pass a message, each can scale, spin, and move.. a nightmare to track.

The Universe has the advantage of infinity, and trying to replicate infinity in a computer creates complications like the above. The braille type contact of energy is created by the scalar feedback of POISE TIME. The overlap of scalar information that converts distance, and speed to C. It's hard to replicate... well I'm not a mathematician, it's hard for me to replicate.

It's holding up my program.

[Pincho (OP)]

So to clear up what I said above.. I use 13 dimensions instead of XYZ, and they move around, and are not always the same size. Because the Universe is constantly changing, a position has locality, but the location moves, but action is always propagated locally. If you build the fractal, and try to search for a particular particle bumping into another particle, you have to go through a link. The Universe just multi tasks poise-time, location, and scale. XYZ is not smooth, it is lumpy.

Dimensions in my theory are always local, I don't use any overlapping dimensions. Physics at my Quantum Scale obey the rules of regular sized physics, but scaling is much easier (inflation and deflation).

Deflation...

Deflation has an advantage over inflation. It is easier for particles to bump on the outside, than it is for them to bump on the inside. So in my theory deflation is happening rather than inflation. The red shift however is the same because I deflate to infinite points, which is the opposite than inflate to infinite membranes. I have switched the direction, and part of that is to do with removing pull forces. It makes a lot of sense though, because if you use a singularity as an example, then the Galaxy is doing what I am saying...

The galaxy perhaps has a singularity with a flow force towards it, that scales down matter.

Which agrees with my theory as a fractal of my physics. I doesn't agree with Einstein...

"A singularity has flow away from it, and inflates to move matter apart."

I don't see why matter would move away from a singularity, and I don't see how matter would have a starting location in a void, and I don't see how a void would begin, and how does time relocate through the matter? I see many problems, and quite a few paradox.

I have a CMB because I have propagated light through a grainy fractal. I have red shift because I scale down to a point, and I have no Aether wind because I propagate matter with light, and Gravity all in synchronization to local poise-time.

There is inflation as well, but infinite particles squeezing together is the hardest direction to go. Room only for one small child.

[Pincho (OP)]

Gravity

Gravity is a positive scalar particle moving towards atomic holes as the area of least resistance. The atomic holes become quantum whirlpools, and generate energy. Therefore the atomic holes are electrons. To escape the whirlpool the gravity scales down to become electro magnetism, and becomes the next hole in the cycle. The holes then propagate out of the atomic structure to become a magnetic field.

This is a sort of reverse of Newton's Gravity. The mass is now a hole, and the pull force is now a flow force. The Inverse Square Law is a flow into holes through a grain structure from space. The mass is therefore reversed, and the mass is now in space, and is a scalar mass.

So the negative looks like this image...

[Pincho (OP)]

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.

[Pincho (OP)]

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.

[Pincho (OP)]

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.

[Pincho (OP)]

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.

[Pincho (OP)]

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...

[Pincho (OP)]

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.

[Pincho (OP)]

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.

[Pincho (OP)]

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.

[Pincho (OP)]

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.

[Pincho (OP)]

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.

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?)