Pincho Paxton

I want to be banned now. I'm fed up with this site. Sick of this religion. Do what you like, your all just delusional.

Nothing apart from some light aberrations.

The edges which can overlap produce results. So +1 will overlap with another volume of +1 matter to produce a result of that total area which will be like this... So we evolved to see the overlaps, and we design equipment to examine the overlaps.What we call an electron is matter folding into anti-matter under pressure. An observer alters the pressure, alters the result.

I believe that the overlap of these particles create all other physics, and all other particles. The -1 can be exploded to the outside of the particle as well, so you get -1 + 1 particles of anti-matter. Here is a test that I made of overlapping Aether to see what would happen from a few simple rules. What you see is an example of how measuring instruments pick up information through a mesh of overlapping particles.

Because in 3D space the corners equal a higher volume in a specific location, and they are further from a X/Y/Z origin at the centre. So a cube has properties that are not equal. We would see, or be able to analyse the 4 corners, and overlaps would create strange triangles. A snowflake would be a snow cube, Earth would be square, and gravity would have preferences.

Ok.. you don't understand, your brain is salad.. goodbye. And if that's an insult, it's the closest I get get to your own reply.In all of the years that I have been on science forums, I have never met a single, decent science person. Just insults, I should have realised what you were like with two opening posts full of capitals. Just nutcases everywhere.

Science isn't about changing maths to words, and then you post examples of science as words... None of those are attractive forces, and again they are all invisible. Water drops.. bonding chains from overlapping into negative mass. Bugs walking on water, gravity pressing on the surface of the water causing bonding chains. That's what I mean, you use G as attraction, and all of your words go off the rail.

If you believe all that fine. Clocks include spin, and bumping anything that messes with that spin, and bumping will mess with the clock. That's all. No time travel, nothing. But you can mess with the illusion of time.. you can slow down a DVD player, but it's an illusion.

I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that proof is so difficult in science when the maths is changed into words, and that words that get passed along the chain effect the science in a circular fashion. Like G, and M are related. If you get the description of G wrong you search for a Higgs Boson. Another description, and you search for the Aether. Proof is in what you find, but if you don't bother to look for it you are stuck. So when it comes to talking about science it is best to use words based on observation. I observe water, and have never observed an attractive force. All of the attractive forces are invisible, so in observation I go with the visible version of water. Words are best left to visible structures.Water rains down, water rises as clouds. Gravity goes down, gravity rises as magnetism. It works just fine. Proof is in observation.

Yeah.. snowflakes, and gravity. Just the fact that you use the proof of my idea, and don't know it shows how far out science is.

Alright forget my theory. What is science currently based on that hasn't been found yet... Warped space time Gravitons Higgs Boson Dark Matter Singularity Nuclear Fusion (mathematics no longer works) Particle Wave Duality Action at a distance Time travel Infinite black holes The arrow of time waves in a vacuum Most of it is down to pure imagination, or has no explanation at all.

Science isn't fact based. I have explained how flow works just like attraction. Nobody want to hear it, but its a fact. People get angry about it, but its a fact. I'm not allowed to talk about it in a science thread, but its a fact. I got banned from many sites in 2004 for talking about a bubble around our Galaxy. It was a fact. It has been found. In 2005 I talked about our Universe having a flow towards one end, and more bubbles in our galaxy. More arguments. In 2006 I explained how snowflakes are created from gravity, and the kissing problem, and how nature results in a hexagonal transformation so that humans have the snowflake shape etc. Another locked thread. Man makes his first cellular life-form, and calls it the Snowflake. Facts are not allowed in science, unless you religiously obey current science.Yet I am stricter than science, I don't allow sci-fi explanations in my theories.

Exactly! And this is the difference between science, and Pseudo science. Science has become a religion that has to be defended. The big bang is a religion. Neutrinos travelling faster than light create murmurs that are religions. Science is a religion based on the explanations which are incorrect.

No it doesn't as I have explained it can easily prove flow just the same. I deny attraction on the grounds that particles reduce to a spherical structure. Sphere bump, not pull, or attract. You kick a football, not suck it with your feet. You have water as a natural example.. NATURE.. the artist sees nature. he explains in the terms of nature. Mathematicians use numbers. Numbers can make anything happen, you go with observation. The plughole does not attract the iron filings. The stage is a set of bumps. The first particle is bumped into a hole by pressure from behind the hole. The boat is sitting on a flow of particles. The Aether travels into holes in the Earth, the holes are the nucleus of atoms. Mass is a vector of flow towards those holes. The Aether then turns inside out under pressure, and escapes. Gravity, and mass are now a bump force from outside the Earth. Magnetism is the out flow of negative mass. Negative mass is like a hole. Mass flows towards negative mass. Of course it again reads like pseudo-science. I haven't however changed the maths. All of the maths is the same, I have changed the description. My description is backed up by the same maths. Maths doesn't prove attraction.

They don't prove attraction. If I put water in a sink, and a paper boat, and put iron filings in the paper boat, and pull the plug out what happens?