Ask me the questions that usually don't get answered.

[Bignose]

Gravity is a flow force of Aether, so mass is a vector rotation of that flow force. The electron is bump propagated, it doesn't exist long enough to have a mass established. You are just seeing a strobe effect of movement.

 

How does this answer the question about the prediction of the mass of an electron?

 

If you can't answer it, perhaps you should change the title of the thread to "ask me the questions that usually don't get answered and I vow that they will remain unanswered"

Edited September 26, 2011 by Bignose

[John Cuthber]

In reality +1 + -1 = 0

 

That's reality.

 

 

True, it's real, but it isn't relevant.

The important issue here is that 1+1=2

 

It's still true if one of them has negative mass

[Realitycheck]

Interesting how +1+-1=0, but +1*-1=-1. Kind of raises a discrepancy in your entire scheme. If 1+1=2 and -1*-1=+1, well that just blows everything out of the water. Two negatives make a positive? What will those wacky mathematicians think up next?

[ajb]

Zero works well on its own. We could consider the zero module over the vector space consisting of just zero. It satisfies all the module rules. It is boring though...

[Pincho Paxton]

How does this answer the question about the prediction of the mass of an electron?

 

If you can't answer it, perhaps you should change the title of the thread to "ask me the questions that usually don't get answered and I vow that they will remain unanswered"

 

It seems that asking me a question when you don't know what mass is will never work, you are still looking for the Higgs Boson remember? So I have answered the question, you keep thinking about a different type of mass.

 

True, it's real, but it isn't relevant.

The important issue here is that 1+1=2

 

It's still true if one of them has negative mass

 

It'll take a lot of evolution to get that large though. 1+1 = 2 is a combination of a lot of overlapping particles to cover something like the scale of + 1's to get 2.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Bignose]

It seems that asking me a question when you don't know what mass is will never work, you are still looking for the Higgs Boson remember? So I have answered the question, you keep thinking about a different type of mass.

 

This is because you define well-established terms willy-nilly. And then when asked, you don't put your definitions in terms understandable by people who know the established definitions.

 

Define everything CLEARLY, only using established terms in the established ways, please. Call anything with a non-standard definition something knew or otherwise CLEARLY denote when your term is different than the the established one.

 

This "Gravity is a flow force of Aether, so mass is a vector rotation of that flow force. The electron is bump propagated, it doesn't exist long enough to have a mass established. You are just seeing a strobe effect of movement." does not answer my question how a mass can be a force.

 

Please define CLEARLY and with units what you mean by mass_PP (The sub PP denotes that this is your and only your definition) and force_PP and how they relate to the established definitions.

 

And by the established definitions, I know that the mass of an electron is 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms. I never claimed to know how that is the mass, but we do know with pretty darn good precision that that IS the mass. But, it is YOU that claimed to have a theory that answers everything, so YOU answer why. And, if your theory really does EVERYTHING as you claim, you should also easily be able to translate your use of the word 'mass' (mass_PP) into the everyday ordinary accepted way that the word mass is used.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Bignose

[Pincho Paxton]

This is because you define well-established terms willy-nilly. And then when asked, you don't put your definitions in terms understandable by people who know the established definitions.

 

Define everything CLEARLY, only using established terms in the established ways, please. Call anything with a non-standard definition something knew or otherwise CLEARLY denote when your term is different than the the established one.

 

This "Gravity is a flow force of Aether, so mass is a vector rotation of that flow force. The electron is bump propagated, it doesn't exist long enough to have a mass established. You are just seeing a strobe effect of movement." does not answer my question how a mass can be a force.

 

Please define CLEARLY and with units what you mean by mass_PP (The sub PP denotes that this is your and only your definition) and force_PP and how they relate to the established definitions.

 

I should explain what I believe an electron is based on how I think it occurs. In my theory I have tried to evolve every particle from Aether (which I call Aether as recognition to Einstein, because although different, it still fits in where Einstein left it). I have particles which are mathematically +1 membrane around a -1 hole, and equal areas, equal X/Y/Z, equal speed, equal velocity, and spherical.. so totally entropy safe. I believe that zero is a relative number, and doesn't exist on its own. Entropy therefore doesn't recognise this Aether particle at all, it is therefore nothing.

 

The +1 membrane is only entropy safe as a sphere. If two particles overlap, their area become entropy unstable. +1 overlapping +1 just a tiny bit covers a small area. To change this area back to a total of zero it must fold inwards to negative mass. To fold mass to negative mass is like a barrier, it's like a sound barrier it causes a bang. An electron is merely the pop to negative mass. So in effect it is a tiny explosion which resonates through other Aether particles. To ask for the mass of an electron is like asking for the mass of a sonic boom. Science has measured something, but I'm not sure what it measured. Maybe a few Aether particles, I'm not sure.

 

I would say that the Electron has zero mass, because it is happening between +1, and -1 state change.

[Bignose]

I would say that the Electron has zero mass, because it is happening between +1, and -1 state change.

 

You don't just get to say this -- an electron HAS a mass. A very well experimentally verified mass. It is were massless, it wouldn't behave in the ways we know it behaves. How can you just ignore that?

[Pincho Paxton]

You don't just get to say this -- an electron HAS a mass. A very well experimentally verified mass. It is were massless, it wouldn't behave in the ways we know it behaves. How can you just ignore that?

 

It would behave that way as it resonates the other particles to bump one another, and so it has a tiny propagated area that would look a lot like a single electron at our scale. But in fact are mini results of the first result.

[Bignose]

It would behave that way as it resonates the other particles to bump one another

 

If what you are saying here is that your theory has electrons behaving the same way as current theory -- they why would we want to adopt your theory? Because the current theory is doing just fine. If your theory doesn't do any better, who cares.

 

So propose a clear prediction that would falsify your theory. Some way to discriminate between current and yours.

 

AND, ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTION ASKED -- since you claim to have a theory of everything, and that in your theory your interactions make it looks like an electron has a certain mass, this should be easily mathematically described by your so-called theory of everything. You should be able to demonstrate how your interactions are just strong enough to make the electron appear to have a certain mass.

[Pincho Paxton]

If what you are saying here is that your theory has electrons behaving the same way as current theory -- they why would we want to adopt your theory? Because the current theory is doing just fine. If your theory doesn't do any better, who cares.

 

So propose a clear prediction that would falsify your theory. Some way to discriminate between current and yours.

 

AND, ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTION ASKED -- since you claim to have a theory of everything, and that in your theory your interactions make it looks like an electron has a certain mass, this should be easily mathematically described by your so-called theory of everything. You should be able to demonstrate how your interactions are just strong enough to make the electron appear to have a certain mass.

 

I have to not use maths in my models, because I feel that mathematical algorithms are there to make something happen, and I'm trying to stop anything from happening by playing the part of entropy. All my computer simulator does is make everything equal zero. I am going to add a sphere which I can drag around interesting areas, and then use that sphere to evaluate, and translate this area back to maths, but I am trying so far to do everything the way the Universe does it.. chaotically.

[Bignose]

I have to not use maths in my models, because I feel that mathematical algorithms are there to make something happen, and I'm trying to stop anything from happening by playing the part of entropy. All my computer simulator does is make everything equal zero. I am going to add a sphere which I can drag around interesting areas, and then use that sphere to evaluate, and translate this area back to maths, but I am trying so far to do everything the way the Universe does it.. chaotically.

 

This makes no sense at all. How does the computer 'simulator' work without math? (Frankly, how does a computer work without math?) What could it possibly simulate?

 

And, the mathematics are important because they make objective testable predictions. That way, one can say that model X predicts exactly Y. Not 'a little bit hot' or 'over yonder' or 'deflects somewhat'. But specific values of temperature, distance, or deflection. This is only way to see just how good a model is. To see how closely the mathematical values agree with the experimental values. The better the agreement, the better the model. This is how we have the very successful models we have today.

 

Without mathematics, again you have a story. That story can be the first step towards developing a theory that makes good predictions, but without prediction and comparison with experimental evidence, it isn't science. It is story telling. And without a tremendous amount of objective verified agreement between prediction and experimental evidence, it is really quite ludicrous to call anything a theory, much less and theory of everything. You have a story.

[Pincho Paxton]

This makes no sense at all. How does the computer 'simulator' work without math? (Frankly, how does a computer work without math?) What could it possibly simulate?

 

And, the mathematics are important because they make objective testable predictions. That way, one can say that model X predicts exactly Y. Not 'a little bit hot' or 'over yonder' or 'deflects somewhat'. But specific values of temperature, distance, or deflection. This is only way to see just how good a model is. To see how closely the mathematical values agree with the experimental values. The better the agreement, the better the model. This is how we have the very successful models we have today.

 

Without mathematics, again you have a story. That story can be the first step towards developing a theory that makes good predictions, but without prediction and comparison with experimental evidence, it isn't science. It is story telling. And without a tremendous amount of objective verified agreement between prediction and experimental evidence, it is really quite ludicrous to call anything a theory, much less and theory of everything. You have a story.

 

Well I see maths as story telling. If you look at a Neural Network computer program, the program that is supposed to simulate neurons in the brain it comes to life because you don't tell it to do anything specific. There is maths, but no mathematical forced objective. No physics to tell a person to walk, just let them move their legs around until they can walk. I use entropy to simulate a universe. I don't use G, or M as physics. Gravity comes from natural interactions that I have no control over. It is the fact that I don't use any strict physics that becomes the proof that this is real. No strict maths is my way of creating proof. But then finding results requires an extra evaluation which I haven't added.I mean hard coding and forcing G I'm sure is what most people would do with a Galaxy generator. But where did G come from? I don't hard code it, it actually takes a long time to evolve G from the physics of entropy, and you only have overlap, which is basically a Quantum bump. So gravity is a bump force, and so the big bang is out, because it would bump away forever. When you are strictly not using forced equations you realise that maths is a story, and people who create simulators with maths like G are putting rules in that story, and ending up with a big bang.I don't add rules, I don't even add movement to the beginning of time (I don't add actual time physics either, that evolves as well).. even movement has to evolve, as particles have no means to move by themselves. They have no limbs, they have no waves, there is nothing to make them move. I evolve everything, that is my proof.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Bignose]

Picho, to be frank, this is an awfully warped view of math. Math isn't 'forcing', it is a tool to take knowns and discover unknowns. If I apply a force of 100 N to an object, how fast will it accelerate? Well, you use F = ma, and if you know the mass of that object then you know the answer to your question. The math isn't 'forcing' it -- the mathematical relationship F = ma has been shown to be correct almost countless times so we just accept that it will be true. It isn't perfectly correct. For example, if the mass of the object is changing, then it isn't right, and this comes into play in mathematically describing the flight of rockets, for example.

 

This is the point of describing things mathematically -- to take known inputs and use the tool (math) to find outputs. And then you compare those outputs to what is actually observed, and hence you determine how good you mathematical description is.

 

In other words, math is just another way of describing what is happening. It has its own syntax and rules, just like written languages, but in the end it is just a description. But, with the added benefit of making objective precise descriptions. Again, applying a force of 100 N, this time to an object that weighs 100 kg -- the math predicts that the acceleration will be 1 m/s/s. Not "kind-a slow", not "pokey", but 1 m/s/s. And, not 0.95 or 1.05 m/s/s -- exactly 1 m/s/s. This is great because then one can go out and actually apply a force of 100 N to an object of 100 kg mass, and see that it does indeed accelerate at 1 m/s/s. Math is a description that is more exact than the everyday language that is common.

 

If you look at a Neural Network computer program, the program that is supposed to simulate neurons in the brain it comes to life because you don't tell it to do anything specific. There is maths, but no mathematical forced objective.

 

this is incorrect -- in this example the neural network has to be using mathematics to evaluate how good of a solution to the problem it has at each stage. Without an evaluation, and being driven towards better, it wouldn't do anything at all. And, mathematics have to describe what is 'better'.

 

I use entropy to simulate a universe.

 

You do realize that entropy is a defined mathematical quantity, don't you? There is no such thing as an entropy-meter (akin to how a thermometer measures temperature). So, making a statement like 'use entropy to simulate a universe' is completely meaningless without the mathematics behind it.

 

Gravity comes from natural interactions that I have no control over.

 

And how are these interactions described? Again, you don't answer questions directly, how does your 'simulation' work without math? Pincho, I am really growing weary of not getting very clear straightforward answers to the questions I am asking. There are probably more than a dozen questions I've asked in this thread that don't have straightforward answers to them, partly because you redefine your own terms, but largely because you are answering like we all have familiarity with your model and your ideas. We don't.

 

-----------------------------------

 

Perhaps rather than make another laundry list of questions that history suggests won't get very clear answers, you should describe your model from the very beginning. Specifically, your simulation. I want to know the origins of your simulations. Who wrote it. How I was written. Etc. I want to get to the very heart of the simulations and know what is in fact being simulated.

 

I really am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I am also really losing interest because of the incomplete, obfuscated, confusing, and frankly arrogant way in which you answer questions -- especially when you actually DON'T answer the questions asked. You may be doing something fairly interesting, but it is impossible to get to it the way you present it -- and since there is a noticeable lack of objective testable predictions, I think that you'll find that most will share my lack of interest. Again, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but a lot will hinge on your next reply.

[Pincho Paxton]

Picho, to be frank, this is an awfully warped view of math. Math isn't 'forcing', it is a tool to take knowns and discover unknowns. If I apply a force of 100 N to an object, how fast will it accelerate? Well, you use F = ma, and if you know the mass of that object then you know the answer to your question. The math isn't 'forcing' it -- the mathematical relationship F = ma has been shown to be correct almost countless times so we just accept that it will be true. It isn't perfectly correct. For example, if the mass of the object is changing, then it isn't right, and this comes into play in mathematically describing the flight of rockets, for example.

 

This is the point of describing things mathematically -- to take known inputs and use the tool (math) to find outputs. And then you compare those outputs to what is actually observed, and hence you determine how good you mathematical description is.

 

In other words, math is just another way of describing what is happening. It has its own syntax and rules, just like written languages, but in the end it is just a description. But, with the added benefit of making objective precise descriptions. Again, applying a force of 100 N, this time to an object that weighs 100 kg -- the math predicts that the acceleration will be 1 m/s/s. Not "kind-a slow", not "pokey", but 1 m/s/s. And, not 0.95 or 1.05 m/s/s -- exactly 1 m/s/s. This is great because then one can go out and actually apply a force of 100 N to an object of 100 kg mass, and see that it does indeed accelerate at 1 m/s/s. Math is a description that is more exact than the everyday language that is common.

 

 

 

this is incorrect -- in this example the neural network has to be using mathematics to evaluate how good of a solution to the problem it has at each stage. Without an evaluation, and being driven towards better, it wouldn't do anything at all. And, mathematics have to describe what is 'better'.

 

 

 

You do realize that entropy is a defined mathematical quantity, don't you? There is no such thing as an entropy-meter (akin to how a thermometer measures temperature). So, making a statement like 'use entropy to simulate a universe' is completely meaningless without the mathematics behind it.

 

 

 

And how are these interactions described? Again, you don't answer questions directly, how does your 'simulation' work without math? Pincho, I am really growing weary of not getting very clear straightforward answers to the questions I am asking. There are probably more than a dozen questions I've asked in this thread that don't have straightforward answers to them, partly because you redefine your own terms, but largely because you are answering like we all have familiarity with your model and your ideas. We don't.

 

-----------------------------------

 

Perhaps rather than make another laundry list of questions that history suggests won't get very clear answers, you should describe your model from the very beginning. Specifically, your simulation. I want to know the origins of your simulations. Who wrote it. How I was written. Etc. I want to get to the very heart of the simulations and know what is in fact being simulated.

 

I really am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I am also really losing interest because of the incomplete, obfuscated, confusing, and frankly arrogant way in which you answer questions -- especially when you actually DON'T answer the questions asked. You may be doing something fairly interesting, but it is impossible to get to it the way you present it -- and since there is a noticeable lack of objective testable predictions, I think that you'll find that most will share my lack of interest. Again, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but a lot will hinge on your next reply.

 

Ok start at the beginning. The first particle is the equivalent of zero, it is a shell +1 with a inner negative mass hole -1. The important thing here is that the hole has the properties of the Membrane but reversed.If you want mathematical proof like you keep asking for..

 

+1 + -1 = 0

 

They equal nothing, mathematically proven.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Bignose]

Ok start at the beginning. The first particle is the equivalent of zero, it is a shell +1 with a inner negative mass hole -1. The important thing here is that the hole has the properties of the Membrane but reversed.If you want mathematical proof like you keep asking for..

 

+1 + -1 = 0

 

They equal nothing, mathematically proven.

 

OK, so this prompts some questions:

 

1) +1 and -1 what? provide units, please.

 

2) what properties are we talking about? and then what reverse properties?

 

3) how does the 'hole' and shell stay together -- that is, what interaction keeps them together.

 

4) how can something 'equal' nothing? There is clearly something there, so it isn't nothing. The sum of the forces or charge or X can be zero, but I'd avoid saying 'nothing'.

 

5) I guess you are supposing that such compound particles exist, because while I certainly am not familiar with all of physics literature, I haven't heard of such a particle before.

 

6) what size is this particle?

 

that should be enough, and good answers to each and every one of these questions will more than likely prompt more questions, so I think it is a good enough start for now.

[Pincho Paxton]

OK, so this prompts some questions:

 

1) +1 and -1 what? provide units, please.

 

2) what properties are we talking about? and then what reverse properties?

 

3) how does the 'hole' and shell stay together -- that is, what interaction keeps them together.

 

4) how can something 'equal' nothing? There is clearly something there, so it isn't nothing. The sum of the forces or charge or X can be zero, but I'd avoid saying 'nothing'.

 

5) I guess you are supposing that such compound particles exist, because while I certainly am not familiar with all of physics literature, I haven't heard of such a particle before.

 

6) what size is this particle?

 

that should be enough, and good answers to each and every one of these questions will more than likely prompt more questions, so I think it is a good enough start for now.

 

1/ Units are relative, this is the very first particle, all units are relative to this particle, so it is just +1, and -1, as origin of all other scales.

 

2/ Well it has the properties of zero, so it is fundamental. The area of +1 is identical to the area of -1. It can be any scale, because scale is relative, and this particle has no relative scale to anything else. It can be infinite, because infinite zero is still zero. It can have infinite particles inside it's membrane, because zero inside zero is still zero. Basically it is entropy safe in all aspects. It shares the same X/Y/Z as it's opposite, it moves at the same speed as its opposite, and it is spherical which means that in all X/Y/Z directions it makes no imprint that has changed from any other imprint.

 

3/ The hole and the shell must be together else the particle suddenly becomes something. To be nothing it must remain mathematically identical in all directions.

 

4/ No, it is harder to be something than to be nothing. This state is easy, any other state is hard. It is zero that doesn't make sense on its own. Zero is always relative, so speed 0 means relative to something else. You need two things.. opposites to make nothing. It's just that we aren't used to thinking like that. Anyway the maths +1 + -1 = 0 is proof, because you want maths to be proof. You can't pick, and choose maths that you want to hear.

 

5/ It closely matches the Aether, but nobody worked out all of the possibilities of what the Aether should be.

 

6/ The size is the one thing that can change in this particle for it to remain stable. So it can be any size, and that is how you get things moving. So long as it has an opposite inside itself, it will still be zero at any scale.

[Bignose]

1/ Units are relative, this is the very first particle, all units are relative to this particle, so it is just +1, and -1, as origin of all other scales.

 

2/ Well it has the properties of zero, so it is fundamental. The area of +1 is identical to the area of -1. It can be any scale, because scale is relative, and this particle has no relative scale to anything else. It can be infinite, because infinite zero is still zero. It can have infinite particles inside it's membrane, because zero inside zero is still zero. Basically it is entropy safe in all aspects. It shares the same X/Y/Z as it's opposite, it moves at the same speed as its opposite, and it is spherical which means that in all X/Y/Z directions it makes no imprint that has changed from any other imprint.

 

3/ The hole and the shell must be together else the particle suddenly becomes something. To be nothing it must remain mathematically identical in all directions.

 

4/ No, it is harder to be something than to be nothing. This state is easy, any other state is hard. It is zero that doesn't make sense on its own. Zero is always relative, so speed 0 means relative to something else. You need two things.. opposites to make nothing. It's just that we aren't used to thinking like that. Anyway the maths +1 + -1 = 0 is proof, because you want maths to be proof. You can't pick, and choose maths that you want to hear.

 

5/ It closely matches the Aether, but nobody worked out all of the possibilities of what the Aether should be.

 

6/ The size is the one thing that can change in this particle for it to remain stable. So it can be any size, and that is how you get things moving. So long as it has an opposite inside itself, it will still be zero at any scale.

 

 

you write in 1 that there are no units and then in 2 that their areas have to be equal -- area clearly has a unit of length squared. So which is it? And why is it that the areas have to be equal -- why not the volumes?

 

I am not looking for an answer of "meters" or "feet", but "length" or "time" or "mass" -- these are the fundamental units see http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/sifundam.html

 

This is why I think that +1 and -1 have to have some kind of units. Without units, you can't really measure it, and if you can't measure it, how do you know what value it really has? If it isn't measurable, then as above, there is no point in discussing it on a science forum.

 

you write "The hole and the shell must be together else the particle suddenly becomes something." -- but that doesn't answer the question WHY they much be together. There must be some interaction that keeps them together, and then some disturbance that separates them "to become something". There needs to be details about this interaction given.

 

Again, what are these 'properties' you keep talking about? Please be very specific.

 

what the heck is 'entropy safe'??? Again, please define ANY terms explicitly that are not in common scientific use. Heck, I'd rather you just defined every single term as you use them, feel free to assume I have no knowledge of any scientific term.

 

How can "It shares the same X/Y/Z as it's opposite" this be true? At any specific point, it can only be 'hole' or 'shell', right? How can it be both? Do you mean that the center of the 'hole' and the center of the 'shell' are the same point?

 

Finally, please refrain from making snotty-sounding comments like "You can't pick, and choose maths that you want to hear." I am not debating whether +1 -1 = 0. I just don't understand your interpretation of the equation. And I have been very patient asking you questions over and over again, and not just dismissing you out of hand. I've been trying to get you think about your idea more, and about science as a whole. Again, considering how many direct questions in this thread you've ignored, I am actually a little surprised with myself that I still have patience. But, as above, at this time I'm willing to keep giving you chances and the help to think about your idea more. It is just that your explanations have been somewhat incomplete, so I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

 

And, you don't need two opposites to be 'nothing'. I don't need a gold brick and a negative gold brick on my desk to have no gold bricks. I just don't have any gold bricks on my desk. Similarly, two things that sum to 0 can still be something. A sodium ion has a charge of +1 and a chlorine ion has a charge of -1. Put together and they have zero charge, but they are still something -- it forms table salt. As another example, the sum of all the forces on the girders of a building can be zero -- and the building remains standing -- but it certainly isn't nothing.

 

The example of NaCl is especially pertinent, because the compound NaCl has no charge, but is made up of two things with charge. I am asking is the 'hole' and 'shell' similar? And then, back to the very first question, what is the unit that is summed to 0? In the case of NaCl, it is electrical charge. What is it in your case?

[Pincho Paxton]

you write in 1 that there are no units and then in 2 that their areas have to be equal -- area clearly has a unit of length squared. So which is it? And why is it that the areas have to be equal -- why not the volumes?

 

I am not looking for an answer of "meters" or "feet", but "length" or "time" or "mass" -- these are the fundamental units see http://www.unc.edu/~...s/sifundam.html

 

This is why I think that +1 and -1 have to have some kind of units. Without units, you can't really measure it, and if you can't measure it, how do you know what value it really has? If it isn't measurable, then as above, there is no point in discussing it on a science forum.

 

you write "The hole and the shell must be together else the particle suddenly becomes something." -- but that doesn't answer the question WHY they much be together. There must be some interaction that keeps them together, and then some disturbance that separates them "to become something". There needs to be details about this interaction given.

 

Again, what are these 'properties' you keep talking about? Please be very specific.

 

what the heck is 'entropy safe'??? Again, please define ANY terms explicitly that are not in common scientific use. Heck, I'd rather you just defined every single term as you use them, feel free to assume I have no knowledge of any scientific term.

 

How can "It shares the same X/Y/Z as it's opposite" this be true? At any specific point, it can only be 'hole' or 'shell', right? How can it be both? Do you mean that the center of the 'hole' and the center of the 'shell' are the same point?

 

Finally, please refrain from making snotty-sounding comments like "You can't pick, and choose maths that you want to hear." I am not debating whether +1 -1 = 0. I just don't understand your interpretation of the equation. And I have been very patient asking you questions over and over again, and not just dismissing you out of hand. I've been trying to get you think about your idea more, and about science as a whole. Again, considering how many direct questions in this thread you've ignored, I am actually a little surprised with myself that I still have patience. But, as above, at this time I'm willing to keep giving you chances and the help to think about your idea more. It is just that your explanations have been somewhat incomplete, so I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

 

And, you don't need two opposites to be 'nothing'. I don't need a gold brick and a negative gold brick on my desk to have no gold bricks. I just don't have any gold bricks on my desk. Similarly, two things that sum to 0 can still be something. A sodium ion has a charge of +1 and a chlorine ion has a charge of -1. Put together and they have zero charge, but they are still something -- it forms table salt. As another example, the sum of all the forces on the girders of a building can be zero -- and the building remains standing -- but it certainly isn't nothing.

 

The example of NaCl is especially pertinent, because the compound NaCl has no charge, but is made up of two things with charge. I am asking is the 'hole' and 'shell' similar? And then, back to the very first question, what is the unit that is summed to 0? In the case of NaCl, it is electrical charge. What is it in your case?

 

I meant volume. I made a mistake. The volume , with a hole inside where both have the same volume.

 

I can't use those units, else I am forcing maths on the whole idea of not using maths. Those sizes would need to be re-calculated to the scale of this particle. This particle creates all of the other particles, so the sizes are taken from this particle relatively. Any other value than +1 + -1 isn't so entropic. Like 0.0000000321 has given the Universe some sort of logic. I am giving the universe zero logic.

 

 

Entropy holds them together. Entropy is a membrane, and any disturbance in that membrane is reflected back. If you fill a balloon with water, and put two more balloons inside full of water, then put a tube to the inside balloons to add even more water, the outer balloon reflects what is happening to the inner balloons. Entropy is to reflect back the message from a distance, and if you squeeze the outer balloon it makes the inner balloons move apart, and the energy state of them touching is removed. The Aether is a labyrinth of membranes, that adjust pressure of inner membranes. Any change from a zero state is a reflected change back.

 

Location is taken from the centre of Aether, and spherically. This is important for quite a few reasons. The Aether is only zero from its centre if everything matches up all around that central point. It doesn't matter if the Aether moves, the central point is all that counts.

 

Don't get confused about what nothing is. They must be centrally located, they must be totally invisible, they must be spherical, they must not have visible charge, or visible energy, anything the we can see isn't nothing.

 

All units must be two things combined to make zero.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Bignose]

You can't have it both way. You say volumes are equal (length cubed) and then you say no units again -- very SPECIFICALLY, WHICH IS IT?

 

Entropy holds them together.

 

How? Your balloon example doesn't work because it is the elasticity of the rubber and the fluid nature of the water that transmits disturbances between them. Entropy doesn't work that way. It itself, nor a gradient in entropy is a force. It is a way to know what state is preferred. I.e. you have two states of a system, the one with the lower entropy will be preferred. But, just because there is an entropy difference means that anything will necessarily happen.

 

Consider a gas cylinder filled with hydrogen and oxygen gas. Two water molecules have lower entropy than one molecule of oxygen gas and two molecules of hydrogen gas. But, at room temperature, it will take many, many, many years before that cylinder has any significant amount of water in it. Entropy alone is not enough to make predictions about the rate at which things change, or even that they will change. In this case, there is an activation energy that has to be reached when three molecules simultaneously collide which is incredibly rare at room temperatures.

 

Entropy has never been described as any kind of elasticity -- so again PER MY REPEATED REQUEST -- please define very clearly what you mean by "Entropy holds them together."

 

Don't get confused about what nothing is. They must be centrally located, they must be totally invisible, they must be spherical, they must not have visible charge, or visible energy, anything the we can see isn't nothing.

 

If they are nothing, then why are we even discussing them? How can there be a shell and it be nothing. It is either a shell or it is nothing. It cannot be both. It is mutually exclusive.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Bignose

[Pincho Paxton]

You can't have it both way. You say volumes are equal (length cubed) and then you say no units again -- very SPECIFICALLY, WHICH IS IT?

 

 

 

How? Your balloon example doesn't work because it is the elasticity of the rubber and the fluid nature of the water that transmits disturbances between them. Entropy doesn't work that way. It itself, nor a gradient in entropy is a force. It is a way to know what state is preferred. I.e. you have two states of a system, the one with the lower entropy will be preferred. But, just because there is an entropy difference means that anything will necessarily happen.

 

Consider a gas cylinder filled with hydrogen and oxygen gas. Two water molecules have lower entropy than one molecule of oxygen gas and two molecules of hydrogen gas. But, at room temperature, it will take many, many, many years before that cylinder has any significant amount of water in it. Entropy alone is not enough to make predictions about the rate at which things change, or even that they will change. In this case, there is an activation energy that has to be reached when three molecules simultaneously collide which is incredibly rare at room temperatures.

 

Entropy has never been described as any kind of elasticity -- so again PER MY REPEATED REQUEST -- please define very clearly what you mean by "Entropy holds them together."

 

 

 

If they are nothing, then why are we even discussing them? How can there be a shell and it be nothing. It is either a shell or it is nothing. It cannot be both. It is mutually exclusive.

 

The volumes are the same like an igloo, and its shell.

 

 

Work your way up to gasses, and water, because only the Aether in that tank is calculated. It is very hard to know what number the Aether has reached in that complexity.

 

It takes two things to create nothing +1 + -1 = 0. The only way to create a shape that is nothing is for those two shapes to be spherical, and share the same volume.

[Bignose]

Pincho, I get that. I can see that. I don't get how there being an igloo around something else means it is "nothing" because there is an igloo -- clearly not "nothing". The sum of the two parts can sum to zero, but there is not no things at all. It is just that their summed contributions go to zero.

 

And I don't get how "Entropy holds them together." because that is using a term in a very unfamiliar way. Once again a direct question unanswered. How many times do I have to re-post the same question to get a direct answer?

Edited September 28, 2011 by Bignose

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho, I get that. I can see that. I don't get how there being an igloo around something else means it is "nothing" because there is an igloo -- clearly not "nothing". The sum of the two parts can sum to zero, but there is not no things at all. It is just that their summed contributions go to zero.

 

And I don't get how "Entropy holds them together." because that is using a term in a very unfamiliar way. Once again a direct question unanswered. How many times do I have to re-post the same question to get a direct answer?

 

The igloo is billions of things, it's an example. The Aether is 1 thing, a shell, and a hole. Imagine folding the shell into the hole, it would vanish. Nothing has changed, but it has vanished. The igloo is an example of waves really. You have a flat line wave.. the ice plane. A convex wave, the hole, and a converse wave the shell. We look across an ice plane, we see very little. Somebody builds an igloo, we receive information of a dome.. we do not see very easily the hole. It's a good way to think about it, but clearer just to think of the Aether.

 

You don't get this part. If you make the sphere a square, it is mathematically imperfect from the centre of the Aether, and it is now visible, because we can sense any form of change. The membrane would get compression, and yeah it's like water compression. It is a paradoxical change from nothing to something. What caused that change, there were no physics to cause it? Why did something just appear from nowhere?

 

Steven Hawking often uses paradox as an explanation, maybe you could just accept paradox. I prefer the membrane, because it creates feedback, and that feedback can be used later.

[Bignose]

Imagine folding the shell into the hole, it would vanish. Nothing has changed, but it has vanished.

 

Why -- there has to be a reason why. And how does this explain my question about entropy? Really, Pincho, I am quite tired of asking the same question repeatedly. This will be the last time I'm going to ask you to explain what you mean by "Entropy holds them together"

 

You don't get this part. If you make the sphere a square, it is mathematically imperfect from the centre of the Aether, and it is now visible, because we can sense any form of change. The membrane would get compression, and yeah it's like water compression. It is a paradoxical change from nothing to something. What caused that change, there were no physics to cause it? Why did something just appear from nowhere?

 

Steven Hawking often uses paradox as an explanation, maybe you could just accept paradox. I prefer the membrane, because it creates feedback, and that feedback can be used later.

 

Picho, I feel like I am a reasonably intelligent person. I have many degrees that would corroborate this. I am certainly not going to claim to know even "a lot" about physics, but I know enough to know what I do know and what I don't know. I do know terms like "mass" and "vector" and "entropy".

 

What I am trying to say here is that just perhaps I am not 'getting this part' because your explanations haven't been terribly good. And your answering my questions with a question like "Why did something just appear from nowhere?" isn't helping. Because YOU are the one to claim to have a theory of everything -- shouldn't this be a question you can answer?

 

------------------------

 

Pincho, I am sorry, but unless there is a clear answer to this post, I'm going to give up. And advise you to try to create much clearer explanations is you should try again. And further advise you not claim to "answer the questions that usually don't get answered" unless you can clearly answer them.

[Pincho Paxton]

Why -- there has to be a reason why. And how does this explain my question about entropy? Really, Pincho, I am quite tired of asking the same question repeatedly. This will be the last time I'm going to ask you to explain what you mean by "Entropy holds them together"

 

 

 

Picho, I feel like I am a reasonably intelligent person. I have many degrees that would corroborate this. I am certainly not going to claim to know even "a lot" about physics, but I know enough to know what I do know and what I don't know. I do know terms like "mass" and "vector" and "entropy".

 

What I am trying to say here is that just perhaps I am not 'getting this part' because your explanations haven't been terribly good. And your answering my questions with a question like "Why did something just appear from nowhere?" isn't helping. Because YOU are the one to claim to have a theory of everything -- shouldn't this be a question you can answer?

 

------------------------

 

Pincho, I am sorry, but unless there is a clear answer to this post, I'm going to give up. And advise you to try to create much clearer explanations is you should try again. And further advise you not claim to "answer the questions that usually don't get answered" unless you can clearly answer them.

 

"Why did something just appear from nowhere?" was supposed to be you asking the question. I know the answer. I am explaining the answer. It is part of the answer.

 

The Aether is a spherical shell, because a sphere has no change in X/Y/Z. The hole is anti-matter, it is also spherical. The Universe is made from equal amounts of matter, and anti-matter. Everything has an opposite. Relativity says that all things are relative. +1 + -1 are relative when they share everything.. position, volume, shape, direction, speed. They equal zero. Zero has no opposite, it doesn't exist on its own, it is not symmetrical. The Universe has symmetry. Symmetry is seen in the Universe.

 

The Aether is infinite, because it equals zero. You can have infinite amounts. You can put Aether inside Aether so long as they don't touch they equal zero.

 

The difference between the igloo, and the Aether is that the igloo is made from parts that are bonded. The Aether has overlapped in a figure 8. Overlapping Aether is not spherical anymore. It is not perfect. We have evolved to be able to see the imperfections in Aether. The more imperfections there are, the more visible matter becomes to us . Water for example is almost invisible. It has few imperfections. Overlapping Aether does not equal zero anymore.

 

Aether inside Aether, not touching is not breaking its spherical form. Each Aether is not making mathematical imperfections. If Aether touches the inside of Aether it breaks mathematical symmetry. The outer shell membrane gains from +1 to 1.001 (imaginary number). because the volume is now greater.

 

We have a Universal membrane, we have a Galactic membrane, we have a sun membrane, we have an Earth membrane, we have our own brain. The Universe is made from interconnected bubbles. Each bubble feeding back information. The Aether in infinitely feeding back information in a downward spiral. A change in one membrane is reflected through a cascade of results. Entropy.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Pincho Paxton