The Universe was created by a Dummy

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

WARNING.. What you are about to read is my own theory, and therefore not agreed upon by science!!!

Some people think that Understanding the Universe properly can never be achieved. They think that it is beyond comprehension. But the Universe just happened by natural causes, and natural causes have no intelligence behind them. Cause and effect means that 1 thing leads to another, and even a human baby is super advanced compared to the creation of the Universe. A baby putting its Dummy in its mouth is a great leap from the creation of the Universe. People must dumb down to understand the Universe, and Einstein added some mistakes to his model by giving the Universe too much credit for its ability to create things. Einstein was too clever to fully understand the Universe. Mathematicians give the Universe a mathematical mind, and they do it by accident. Mathematicians would be far superior to a God.

In the Bible it says that God created the Heavens, and the Earth, and he made man from dirt, and he took a rib, and made woman from a man's rib. In this instance God is dumbed down from mathematics, but is still superior to the Universe. The universe cannot choose to create man, and cannot choose to create woman, and cannot perform any mathematics. The Universe was created by bumping things into holes. Holes and fillers, followed by holes, and fillers, are cause, and effect.

What can you make with holes, and fillers?

Lego uses holes, and fillers to create all shapes. Shapes are stage 1.
A bubble uses holes and fillers to maintain a balanced state of unification.
An atom uses holes and fillers to create forces of magnetism, and Gravity, you can take these physics from a whirlpool which uses a hole as a pull force, and a spin force, and a boat will circle around it.
Photons use holes, and fillers to travel, and a lens uses holes, and fillers to direct the photons.
A Galaxy uses holes, and fillers to self build. A black hole fills the Galaxy with energy similar to the whirlpool.
A human uses holes and fillers to think. The electrons fill holes, spin, and become new holes.

So dumbed down, the Universe is a bunch of holes, and fillers. And this means that it can just happen, and will always happen in a similar way. Each Galaxy is a repeating pattern of holes, and fillers. A galaxy is a huge fractal of a snowflake, but it bends, and twists. If you have a short piece of string it is like the arm of a snowflake, and is straight. If you have a long piece of string it bends. The whole of the physics in the Universe scale up to become a close match for their scaled down counterpart (A whirlpool, a Galaxy, and a Snowflake a Galaxy). This means that the whole Universe is a fractal.

A fractal is a repeating set of rules, and can be recognised by repeating patterns in nature. The most common shape in nature is the Hexagon. Take a look at yourself. You are made from multiple hexagons. Put your hand out, and spread your fingers.. a hexagon. OK, so it's a bit distorted like the galaxy / snowflake. Your wrist is the 6th arm. Then your feet are a hexagon that is flattened out by gravity. Your head is a hexagon, and your whole body with your arms, and legs spread out are a hexagon.

Science posted some news that the Universe is not a fractal...
But the data that they used taken from here...
http://wigglez.swin.edu.au/site/

...Is actually a hexagonal fractal. I am not allowed to post images so you will have to take my word for it that I put a hexagonal grid over the images, and there was a hexagonal fractal in those images.

So the Universe is extremely simple to make. You position some holes, and fillers in a hexagonal formation, and that formation is called Newton's Kissing Problem. Newtons kissing problem...

http://plus.maths.org/content/newton-an ... ng-problem

...which is hexagonal at most angles even in 3D. The average is hexagonal, and so the space data averages out to hexagonal. We become hexagonal due to Gravity squashing the fractal, and fish become flat hexagons because gravity squashed down, and water squashed sideways, which gives an average of diagonal forces, and buoyancy.

All shapes contain the hidden Hexagon, even an Octopus with 8 legs has a hidden hexagonal structure. The octopus is two hexagons squashed together in the middle, a bit like a Siamese twin. So you have the energy that would create 12 legs squashed into 8 legs. The energy of the other 4 legs is forced upwards to create the bulbous head, and if that wasn't strange enough, the testicles of the octopus end up in its head...

http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/An-Oct ... Head/46365

And so the rules of the Universe are simple once you understand them. Just a bunch of holes, and fillers. The Universe was created by a complete Dummy.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

You are a Dummy. Move on, conceptualizing this kind of thing is giving into false imaginations, little illusions in your mind.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Tomas »

Welcome back, Pincho! (insert happy face)

Give me a couple days on this, I think I know where you're coming from.
The Newton and kissing problem I'll ask my wife about. That one has me kinda stumped.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Jamesh »

The Universe was created by a complete Dummy.
It is far dumber than you think.

Any shape has to be caused in the first place. Any pattern such as a hexagon presupposes that fundamental order and structure already exist in the form of primary particles that are not caused.

Order in the universe is twofold:

1. Time expands everywhere with a constant expansionary power.
2. The law of the path of least resistance or equalisation is the only true law of nature.

The underlying fractal of the universe is a solid sphere where all content of the sphere expands at the same rate. At the centre of the sphere is a sort of reverse Newton kissing arrangement (at this level, an aura one, not a particle based one) where the expansion is pushing against that centre. It cannot expand into that centre, so instead the expansion reflects off the centre outwards – this creates a directional pressure difference from what would normally be omnidirectional pressure. What this means is that overall there always is more outwards expansionary pressure (pressure to grow spatially) than inwards expansion pressure (aka gravity).

Expansion creates the hole and the filler you refer to. Over time (and as expansion is Time, time is not some add on process) the sum of outwards pressure becomes greater than the inwards pressure and the spherical causal flow breaks out from within. The one sphere has divided into many lesser developing spheres, the excess internal pressure has equalised by spreading out and in doing so creating more space (less bounded existence).

Bingo! We have fundamental differentiation, spatially everything is now under a non-spherical paradigm and we have a plurality of centres. Each of these centres is expanding, but now must compete with other centres.

We have our universal soup, which evolve into recognisable forms such as your hole and filler (that I’ve more roughly described in the past as Cunt and Cock).

As this process has always existed, it is always more complex FORMWISE than the above where I am describing it as if it there was nothing already in existence. The growing spheres will be flattened, twisted and will vary where they fracture, by being causally interconnected with all other such pressure systems that already exists.

So why is there is a path of least resistance? (or flow to equalisation).

Sorry no one can explain the how of that. The two paragraphs below don’t explain anything about just why there is equalisation – but I do feel they are very roughly on the right track, which is about all one can do to partially conceptualise something that is impossible to fully conceptualise.

Logically, if something occupies a space, no other thing can occupy the same space. But in truth as all things are in process of merging into new things, meaning they must be occupying the other space at least to some degree, such logic is meaningless. We have to move beyond seeing the process of equalisation, or reality itself for that matter, as a physical spatial process, and instead view it more abstractly as degrees of boundedness. Boundedness involves increased internal intra-connectivity, with decreased external interconnectivity. The degree of “occupation” is the degree of internal boundedness. The more bound a thing is the more physical existence it has.

The degree of internal pressure within an expanding sphere is bound within until such time as it is greater than the expanding shell of boundedness that surrounds it, and the path of least resistance is an effect of the change from existence as a primarily intra-connected thing (balanced) to an inter-connected thing (unbalanced) until such time as it once again via expansion becomes a primarily intra-connected thing, and so on ad infinitum.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Jamesh wrote:
The Universe was created by a complete Dummy.
It is far dumber than you think.

Any shape has to be caused in the first place. Any pattern such as a hexagon presupposes that fundamental order and structure already exist in the form of primary particles that are not caused.

Order in the universe is twofold:

1. Time expands everywhere with a constant expansionary power.
2. The law of the path of least resistance or equalisation is the only true law of nature.

The underlying fractal of the universe is a solid sphere where all content of the sphere expands at the same rate. At the centre of the sphere is a sort of reverse Newton kissing arrangement (at this level, an aura one, not a particle based one) where the expansion is pushing against that centre. It cannot expand into that centre, so instead the expansion reflects off the centre outwards – this creates a directional pressure difference from what would normally be omnidirectional pressure. What this means is that overall there always is more outwards expansionary pressure (pressure to grow spatially) than inwards expansion pressure (aka gravity).

Expansion creates the hole and the filler you refer to. Over time (and as expansion is Time, time is not some add on process) the sum of outwards pressure becomes greater than the inwards pressure and the spherical causal flow breaks out from within. The one sphere has divided into many lesser developing spheres, the excess internal pressure has equalised by spreading out and in doing so creating more space (less bounded existence).

Bingo! We have fundamental differentiation, spatially everything is now under a non-spherical paradigm and we have a plurality of centres. Each of these centres is expanding, but now must compete with other centres.

We have our universal soup, which evolve into recognisable forms such as your hole and filler (that I’ve more roughly described in the past as Cunt and Cock).

As this process has always existed, it is always more complex FORMWISE than the above where I am describing it as if it there was nothing already in existence. The growing spheres will be flattened, twisted and will vary where they fracture, by being causally interconnected with all other such pressure systems that already exists.

So why is there is a path of least resistance? (or flow to equalisation).

Sorry no one can explain the how of that. The two paragraphs below don’t explain anything about just why there is equalisation – but I do feel they are very roughly on the right track, which is about all one can do to partially conceptualise something that is impossible to fully conceptualise.

Logically, if something occupies a space, no other thing can occupy the same space. But in truth as all things are in process of merging into new things, meaning they must be occupying the other space at least to some degree, such logic is meaningless. We have to move beyond seeing the process of equalisation, or reality itself for that matter, as a physical spatial process, and instead view it more abstractly as degrees of boundedness. Boundedness involves increased internal intra-connectivity, with decreased external interconnectivity. The degree of “occupation” is the degree of internal boundedness. The more bound a thing is the more physical existence it has.

The degree of internal pressure within an expanding sphere is bound within until such time as it is greater than the expanding shell of boundedness that surrounds it, and the path of least resistance is an effect of the change from existence as a primarily intra-connected thing (balanced) to an inter-connected thing (unbalanced) until such time as it once again via expansion becomes a primarily intra-connected thing, and so on ad infinitum.
Well done!, you understand a lot of the physics. I skipped over most of the things that you posted, but you will find those things in my older threads. The area of least resistance is to do with the physics always being a bump, and never a pull. There is no such thing as a pull. So to understand the area of least resistance you need to understand what a bump is. It has something to do with infinity filling up all of space, like Russian dolls all fitting into holes. There must be a point C which says that it is easier to go the other way than to split into more holes. In Newton's Kissing Problem the split would be 13 * 13 * 13 * 13 repeating. And so C would be the point at which the split isn't possible anymore. That would look like a wave.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by chikoka »

I'm interested on what you guys take on the problem of symmetry is. If there is no way to tell aprt two things then they must be the same thing. Normaly we would argue that things which would normarily be simmilar are differentiated by space , but we dont have this or a simmilar way out when we are talking about the universe. If there is a line of symmetry for the whole universe or there was at one point then these two halves would cancel out and we would be left with half the original universe , which would in turn collapse along a different line of symmetry and so on till we are left with nothing in which case there would still be symmetry but it would have reached its lowest point, if we are to beleive in the principle of the conservation of nothing that i have talked about in other threads.

This is crazy, thinking while i'm typing, perhaps there is no principle of the conservation of nothing and this symmetry thats present when nothing exists , cancelles itself out which would be the cancellation of nothing or in other words , the creation of something. We still have to deal with the symmetry still though so i donno. So we are left with two choices, either we accept the principle of the identity of indescernables , then nothing can exist , including nothing or rather we cant have any situation wherther something exists or nothing exists because of symmetry , or we drop said principle and (i wasnt originally intending to go there) drop the axiom of identity since the principle and the AOI are equivalent.
Jamesh wrote:Logically, if something occupies a space, no other thing can occupy the same space
Its easy to occupy the same space as you , i just have to do it at different times thats all. There could be a whole different universe occupying the same space and time as ours but just differing in position on a 5th , dimension.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

chikoka wrote:I'm interested on what you guys take on the problem of symmetry is. If there is no way to tell aprt two things then they must be the same thing. Normaly we would argue that things which would normarily be simmilar are differentiated by space , but we dont have this or a simmilar way out when we are talking about the universe. If there is a line of symmetry for the whole universe or there was at one point then these two halves would cancel out and we would be left with half the original universe , which would in turn collapse along a different line of symmetry and so on till we are left with nothing in which case there would still be symmetry but it would have reached its lowest point, if we are to beleive in the principle of the conservation of nothing that i have talked about in other threads.

This is crazy, thinking while i'm typing, perhaps there is no principle of the conservation of nothing and this symmetry thats present when nothing exists , cancelles itself out which would be the cancellation of nothing or in other words , the creation of something. We still have to deal with the symmetry still though so i donno. So we are left with two choices, either we accept the principle of the identity of indescernables , then nothing can exist , including nothing or rather we cant have any situation wherther something exists or nothing exists because of symmetry , or we drop said principle and (i wasnt originally intending to go there) drop the axiom of identity since the principle and the AOI are equivalent.
Jamesh wrote:Logically, if something occupies a space, no other thing can occupy the same space
Its easy to occupy the same space as you , i just have to do it at different times thats all. There could be a whole different universe occupying the same space and time as ours but just differing in position on a 5th , dimension.
If you remember that the Universe is a Dummy, then any symmetry is due to something very simple. The simple act of digging a hole creates a hill. The hill is the exact opposite to the hole. You can say that the hole is antimatter, and the hill is matter, or you can say that the hole is a concave wave, and the hill is a convex wave. If you put the dirt back in the hole you can now say that you have a flat-line wave. A flat-line wave is like saying that 1 + -1 = 0. You can see that flat land has both properties of the hole, and the hill. You can look across a landscape of ice, and see nothing. You can build an Igloo, and see the Igloo, you cannot see the hole very well. Humans interact best with things that they can see. At this point things get a bit strange. We interact best with holes in space time. The material that comes out of the holes is positive energy, yet we live in a world of Electrons which are negative. So if you look in the water, and see a bubble then oddly the bubble is more positive than the water. The Universe is like a negative, so we are the bubbles in a solid. We interact with bubbles. The Earth is a giant bubble in a solid space. But space doesn't act like a solid because it is made from scalar particles. Scalar particles move out of our way, so even though the Universe is a solid, it behaves like a super liquid. This removes friction from space, and slopes a particles motion like a see-saw. So you push an asteroid in space and the particles in front of it scale down, and you have particles scaling up behind it. This see-saw effect is directional memory. The asteroid now has the memory to move forwards due to scaling the point of resistance. In this way you can think of frictionless to mean tilt in that direction.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by chikoka »

Pincho Paxton wrote:
chikoka wrote:I'm interested on what you guys take on the problem of symmetry is. If there is no way to tell aprt two things then they must be the same thing. Normaly we would argue that things which would normarily be simmilar are differentiated by space , but we dont have this or a simmilar way out when we are talking about the universe. If there is a line of symmetry for the whole universe or there was at one point then these two halves would cancel out and we would be left with half the original universe , which would in turn collapse along a different line of symmetry and so on till we are left with nothing in which case there would still be symmetry but it would have reached its lowest point, if we are to beleive in the principle of the conservation of nothing that i have talked about in other threads.

This is crazy, thinking while i'm typing, perhaps there is no principle of the conservation of nothing and this symmetry thats present when nothing exists , cancelles itself out which would be the cancellation of nothing or in other words , the creation of something. We still have to deal with the symmetry still though so i donno. So we are left with two choices, either we accept the principle of the identity of indescernables , then nothing can exist , including nothing or rather we cant have any situation wherther something exists or nothing exists because of symmetry , or we drop said principle and (i wasnt originally intending to go there) drop the axiom of identity since the principle and the AOI are equivalent.
Jamesh wrote:Logically, if something occupies a space, no other thing can occupy the same space
Its easy to occupy the same space as you , i just have to do it at different times thats all. There could be a whole different universe occupying the same space and time as ours but just differing in position on a 5th , dimension.
If you remember that the Universe is a Dummy, then any symmetry is due to something very simple. The simple act of digging a hole creates a hill. The hill is the exact opposite to the hole. You can say that the hole is antimatter, and the hill is matter, or you can say that the hole is a concave wave, and the hill is a convex wave. If you put the dirt back in the hole you can now say that you have a flat-line wave. A flat-line wave is like saying that 1 + -1 = 0. You can see that flat land has both properties of the hole, and the hill. You can look across a landscape of ice, and see nothing. You can build an Igloo, and see the Igloo, you cannot see the hole very well. Humans interact best with things that they can see. At this point things get a bit strange. We interact best with holes in space time. The material that comes out of the holes is positive energy, yet we live in a world of Electrons which are negative. So if you look in the water, and see a bubble then oddly the bubble is more positive than the water. The Universe is like a negative, so we are the bubbles in a solid. We interact with bubbles. The Earth is a giant bubble in a solid space. But space doesn't act like a solid because it is made from scalar particles. Scalar particles move out of our way, so even though the Universe is a solid, it behaves like a super liquid. This removes friction from space, and slopes a particles motion like a see-saw. So you push an asteroid in space and the particles in front of it scale down, and you have particles scaling up behind it. This see-saw effect is directional memory. The asteroid now has the memory to move forwards due to scaling the point of resistance. In this way you can think of frictionless to mean tilt in that direction.
You still havent explained why symmetry doesnt collapse everything.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

chikoka wrote:
You still havent explained why symmetry doesnt collapse everything.
In my theory the Black Hole at the centre of a Galaxy is a collapse in space. There are many collapses at the centre of each Galaxy, and the collapses happen in a sort of natural frequency. It just seems that the holes are smaller than their original scale, like the black hole created by a sun would be smaller than the sun. So because holes are smaller than the original size before they became a hole it means that overall the Universe expands, and every so often it collapses less than it expands.
ROB

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by ROB »

So, how old is X? X-factors out the the Age of the Universe, which makes you the oldest person, Pincho Paxton.
;)
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Here is a more detailed explanation of my theory. Zero particles create everything in a fractal...

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum ... ic=47070.0
Wesson
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:22 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Wesson »

([p>0]
Wesson
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:22 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Wesson »

In adaptation.

Particles/Greater: isn't suppose to fly.

Raise 0\0 and the stability of alkaloids imancipate into A Wonder of AG particles which is the sum of EMT. Or Void.



Lt.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

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 a link with an image to help...

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum ... c=47070.50
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Dan Rowden »

Perhaps you could point us to some peer reviews of your various theories.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dan Rowden wrote:Perhaps you could point us to some peer reviews of your various theories.
I'm always 10 years ahead of science, they have no way to examine work so different to the standard model. I have changed the proof from maths to a computer simulation of the Universe. Scientists do not understand how my computer model works as it doesn't use maths it uses physics. It's too different for anyone to follow. I am basically building a real universe in a computer with life, and everything. But my PC is rubbish, so I can't test it properly. You need a Quantum Computer to test it properly, and nobody has built one yet. So in 10 years there will be a proof, but at the moment I am running the computer program in my head. I have the ability to run programs in my head since I have been programming since 1980, and you learn how to do it. Anyway, the best part is that I can visualize the Universe in my head, and that's pretty amazing.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pincho, letting you post on this forum seems almost cruel. You suffer from really serious delusional thoughts and since you allow nobody to falsify any of them, they will never be challenged that way. Since thinking about reality attracts a lot of struggling brains the moderators have allowed you to post but please do not think that anybody anywhere understands what you're going on about or will ever understand. You have your own universe, your own cosmos playing by your own rules which will die with you. No science, no philosophy there man, just you.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Diebert you know as well as I do confronting the ego in such a way does not achieve any kind of progress, if anything it only strengthens the persons resolve.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Diebert you know as well as I do confronting the ego in such a way does not achieve any kind of progress, if anything it only strengthens the persons resolve.
In general I think posting the same crap over and over again strengthens the resolve in that person, like a mantra. That was perhaps also my stated observation but more targeted to anyone who might actually still be able to think about how it might apply in a broader or personal sense.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Posting the same crap has strengthened your resolve, and science resolve. I can program my crap into a computer, and it works. It proves itself, I don't need any outside proof.

Download, and then run it, and press the space bar....
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pinchopaxton/Snowflake.rar

You see, the snowflake uses my fractal universe code, and it works. I don't need outside proof, because I am a computer games designer, who can program. I have created some of the top games in the world already.

This is a very clever program, it doesn't use maths, it exactly copies the universe. Too hard for science to understand to peer review. But actually as simple as you can get in terms of building a Universe.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

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/f ... -23825.jpg

The whole page of information...

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum ... c=47070.50
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Check the sanity of this guy!

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

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fract ... 39&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.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Pam Seeback »

THE SONG OF WANDERING AENGUS

by: W.B. Yeats

WENT out to the hazel wood,
Because a fire was in my head,
And cut and peeled a hazel wand,
And hooked a berry to a thread;

And when white moths were on the wing,
And moth-like stars were flickering out,
I dropped the berry in a stream
And caught a little silver trout.

When I had laid it on the floor
I went to blow the fire a-flame,
But something rustled on the floor,
And some one called me by my name:
It had become a glimmering girl
With apple blossom in her hair
Who called me by my name and ran
And faded through the brightening air.

Though I am old with wandering
Through hollow lands and hilly lands,
I will find out where she has gone,
And kiss her lips and take her hands;
And walk among long dappled grass,
And pluck till time and times are done
The silver apples of the moon,
The golden apples of the sun.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You are a Dummy. Move on, conceptualizing this kind of thing is giving into false imaginations, little illusions in your mind.
Actually he is right, and it's old news. Scientist's ran a random universe generator and found 9/10 it generates life. Now this random universe generator is not what you think. It just operates a bit like tictactoe or an SOS game, its very VERY simple just randomly chooses to activate pixels directly northwesteastor south of it. And from this life like objects, serpents frogs and such pop up and move about.

At first glance this implies that God is not the Creator in the sense of an active entity, but rather God is just the All. But upon deeper digging the scientists concluded that God is not real, then they dug deeper and found God is real. Then they dug deeper and found the universe is one of many...

Their current conclusion is that the universe we live in, and all the other sister universes are a simulation being run and the programmer is God so to speak. So the Matrix is real after all.
My Documentary: mymovie2 wmv
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Universe was created by a Dummy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Young Pincho confused creating pretty fractal based programs (eg variations on Game of Life) with personal breakthroughs on solving the mystery of the Universe. Somehow he maintained his beliefs by blocking out all the major theoretical work done on Chaos Theory and other more complex simulators. They don't simulate the universe though, just the occurrence of fractal patterns in nature. When I was younger I was mesmerized as well and programmed some of my own. I just left out the claims to have solved anything important although I did wonder if there was a golden formula waiting to be found to create some complex life like pattern inside a simple machine instead of something which just behaves vaguely and abstractly live living blobs. PIncho always claimed he needed a "bigger computer" to get to something more interesting. Yes, you need the universe to run the universe, after all. However self-organizing processes are as amazing and important in science as they are an attractor for certain minds. John Nash is an example of the good as well as the bad.
Locked