GENIUS FORUMS

I think that the universe is very complex, even in its simplest form. To examine a rock down to the level of Atoms is astonishing. To see a simple thing like lightening zig zagging through the sky.. it's like were living in an intelligent machine. I've finally found a way to explain conscious, the thing that I was looking for. I think I know exactly what it is. However, it is so hard to understand, it flips everything we know on its head. Nobody would believe what I have found. I have tried contacting NASA, Quantum scientists, everyone. I can't get anyone to believe me. I've managed to connect Quantum Physics with physics, I've managed to solve the riddles of the two slit experiment, and explain Gravity, and Magnetism. All from a simple shape... and the shape falls from the sky. Nobody has really ever taken much notice of a snowflake. It grows into a certain shape because of the crystal formations.. we believe..but not exactly. The snowflake actually manages to surround something that is so amazing it just blows your mind when you find out. It is actually surrounding the conscious machine. A spooky, invisible substance that surrounds us all of the time. It's like super fine spiderwebs that we can't even iteract with. But they do so much... they do everything. But I do not want to tell you everything, because I get ridiculed so much about it, so I am just going to wait for science to tell you about it instead.

However.. it might be interesting for you just to look at a whole bunch of snowflakes, and just imagine if they really were part of a machine.

Pincho.

There's a reason you might get ridiculed for these ideas. They tend to contain glaring pieces of illogic. Take another look at your very first sentence, for example.

Dan Rowden wrote:There's a reason you might get ridiculed for these ideas. They tend to contain glaring pieces of illogic. Take another look at your very first sentence, for example.

That makes sense to me. This universe has to be examined from the beginning. We are completely looking at everything wrong. Hardly any of science is correct, even our interpretation of events is wrong. A photon is way down the line when it comes to seeing things. It goes more like this....

The photon shoots towards an object through a tunnel powered by intelligent plasma. The white glow is the power required for the plasma to send it at a high speed. The reason that the photon remains a constant speed is because the plasma is spaced evenly apart. The photon then has to choose the electrons that you are looking at. You are sending some information from your eyes along a path. The electrons have energy levels that represent colours which it then sends to the observer along a different route, the other side of the plasma. All of these routes can be seen in a snowflake. So why is the snowflake so large?.........

Babies are sentient, and sentient beings tend to mandelbrot their own image... so the snowflake has frozen around an intelligent plasma and....................................................................................

Figure it out.

By the way... why do you think that intelligent life requires water???

Chill

:)

I think you might be onto something. What do you mean by sentient beings mandelbrot their own image?

We came from water, evolution is also revolution (on the celluar level that is).

;)

Dan Rowden wrote: Take another look at your very first sentence, for example.

He's right, Pincho, illogic in your first sentience.

Steven Coyle wrote:Chill

:)

I think you might be onto something. What do you mean by sentient beings mandelbrot their own image?

We came from water, evolution is also revolution (on the celluar level that is).

;)

Sentient life tries to maintain its form as it grows. We start as a baby, as we grow, we keep our appearance. We are recreating our image, over, and over again. What actually hides this fact quite a lot is that our old skin falls off, otherwise we would look more like a snowflake, with some of our old parts still remaining.

Carl G wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: Take another look at your very first sentence, for example.

He's right, Pincho, illogic in your very first sentience.

I think that the universe is very complex, even in its simplest form.

Simplest, does not mean simple. Simplest means as simple as you can make something. It could still be complex. I mean, a rock looks like nothing, but it has this complex bulding material at its depth.

I've built this thing by the way. I've made a 3D model of it. It's most amazing! If the moderators let me put it on here I will. I've called it a Pinchon.. lol!

Pincho,

Simplest, does not mean simple. Simplest means as simple as you can make something.

I think you mean as simple as we can assume it to be, through the possible scientific detect-ability that we currently posses, whereas it could be further complex enough than beyond that.

However, if, even today we keep finding more and more quantum particles where we once were not able to see beyond a rock, and then an atom, what is to say that there are no levels beyond a “quantum” level?

So it would be no surprise to me that the further deep we go, we shall find things and things, for without detectable “things” and detect-ability being there, (dualistically speaking), even at the very “ultimately” deep level, consciousness cannot be; there is only interactivity of things and experiencing there off, put together sensed as consciousness by us, which has to necessarily exist as awareness at whatever levels that existence comprises of; otherwise existence isn’t, which would be absurd.

That was speaking philosophically because I’m no scientist, but by no means I mean that the scientific search should be abandoned or does not further our understanding. It is curtail in its own right, just as all other fields are. No thing is greater than another, due the utter interdependent nature of things that compliment each other through an ongoing competition.

Existence fills me with fullness rather than emptiness when I look at its complex simplicity; but that’s me… what can I say. Each to his own.

Good luck! Pincho.

Sapius wrote:Pincho,

Simplest, does not mean simple. Simplest means as simple as you can make something.

I think you mean as simple as we can assume it to be, through the possible scientific detect-ability that we currently posses, whereas it could be further complex enough than beyond that.

However, if, even today we keep finding more and more quantum particles where we once were not able to see beyond a rock, and then an atom, what is to say that there are no levels beyond a “quantum” level?

So it would be no surprise to me that the further deep we go, we shall find things and things, for without detectable “things” and detect-ability being there, (dualistically speaking), even at the very “ultimately” deep level, consciousness cannot be; there is only interactivity of things and experiencing there off, put together sensed as consciousness by us, which has to necessarily exist as awareness at whatever levels that existence comprises of; otherwise existence isn’t, which would be absurd.

That was speaking philosophically because I’m no scientist, but by no means I mean that the scientific search should be abandoned or does not further our understanding. It is curtail in its own right, just as all other fields are. No thing is greater than another, due the utter interdependent nature of things that compliment each other through an ongoing competition.

Existence fills me with fullness rather than emptiness when I look at its complex simplicity; but that’s me… what can I say. Each to his own.

Good luck! Pincho.

Because I have found a lot more out than I have posted. Mathematics does not work with quantum physics. I have managed to fix the mathematics myself even though I am not good at maths. First, there is no such thing as zero in particles, everything is in pairs. So once you get near zero, everything splits into a ghost like state that I call 'no state'. By replacing zero with 'no state' you can see that things cannot get smaller or else they will not really exist anymore. Infact the nearest to zero you can get is 1. If you look at the Bose Einstein Condensation experiment you will see that Einstein tried to freeze particles to zero, but something strange happened at 1, and the atoms all turned into a single blob.

Same with time, there is no such thing as time travel or anything. The distance between the gates, and a white plasma is the fastest that you can travel. (Mind you.. I suppose you could try joining two plasmas together.)

There is another strange thing about the Earth. almost everything is Hexagon shaped, but we totally ignore it. If you look at your head, your shoulders, your hands, your feet when they are touching each other, a dogs head, a cats head, an apple, a tomato, everything has this hexagon hidden inside. Ok so the edges are rounded off, but air pressure would cause that. With our arms and legs outstretched we are still an hexagon, well not quite, we look 5 sided, but we have a tail that shrank away.

I have discovered so much in the past two weeks. This pattern hidden in the snowflake has so many properties. You could almost build anything from a plastic model of this. Make it glass, and you can make a 3D solid holographic TV, or make it rubber, and you can make a magnet that grabs rubber balls. It is the most important discovery ever. And it fixes all of Einstein's, and Newton's equations.

...

I do tend not to explain things, because I live a complete set of selfmade science, and it would be a 500 page book to go through it all. Yes, it's a naturally developed turing machine. It's hexagon in shape (Look around you, everything is hexagonal.. it takes time to see it, because the brain has developed a boredom of hexagons, and so squashes them into squares, and other shapes) It has threads from each hexagon to the next, and the threads are like powerlines. In the middle of each hexagon is the sentience which decides how to propogate materials. A photon, for example is propogated with great power, turning the sentience white. We see the glow of the sentience, not the actual photon, which probably does not exist anyway. A snowflake is a gas that has become so fine that it managed to freeze around the hexagonal sections of the machine. The snowflake has then locked sentience inside its centre. Thus the snowflake has enough intelligence to repeat its own shape, over, and over, in the same way that a human baby can grow from baby to adult. So a snowflake actually shows a scaled up version of the machine. However, it was not by looking at a snowflake that I found the machine, it was by coming up with a way to explain quantum physics. I was trying to fix quantum physics to physics. I decided that the only way that an observer could pass information to a particle would be through a powerline from their body to the room. I had to understand this powerline, and I was thinking of a shape that did not have spaces between it, because if a void in space, cannot be a void, then it has to be a shape that joins together. I started with a grid of squares. However, I did not think that squares were a very natural shape to occur at the beginning of the universe. A square seems like a complex shape, with parts, and it took me a year to go through all of the shapes in my head to get to the simplest shape of all.. a bubble. So I imagined the bubbles forming slowly through time, like a bubbling pond, and started to imagine them squashing together. Now you get hexagons, and dodecahedrons. Then I imagined them wobbling in lines, and rows, and a wave pattern started to emerge. I looked at magnets with iron filings around them, and could clearly see invisible bubbles between the iron filings. But like I say, you have to fill all of the gaps in the universe with bubbles, so you have to go with hexagons, or dodecahedrons. I started to notice how all of nature is hexagon, I can even see that perspective is actually a hexagon view of the world. (Very strange!) I noticed that our head is hexagon, our body is hexagon, our feet, our hands. So I dropped the dodecahedron, and went with just hexagon. So now I needed to add the waves to the hexagon shape. Leaning back, and forward they would create waves, and with spiderlike webs between them they could pass information more easily. I had already added quantum physics to this model, and you can get materials that are invisible by taking away the positive/negative energy. This thing creates positive/negative energy so it does not actuallly have to have them as part of its structure. When I added the wires, and the sentience at the centre, and fixed all of quantum physics to physics I was still struggling with the exact shape of this thing with all of the parts added. I noticed that saturn has a hexagon at its centre, I noticed that the ozone hole is hexagon shaped. This hexagon is a mandelbrot, so you get ever repeating hexagons, getting larger, and larger. I wanted to find the smallest hexagons on Earth. Whilst searching google, I saw a snowflake, and it was what I had already drawn. A hexagon with a circle at its centre, and wires. I was amazed, but confused.. it was way too big!!! Then I started to think, how could it be so big? I then looked a lot at nature again, noticed how all life forms can repeat their shape, and are nearly all hexagon. I figured that the snowflake had simply repeated its shape. This was the actual machine, in great detail! I realsied how a fine gas could probably freeze close to the object, and everything made sense. The void of space is a complete row of these things, at their tiniest scale, and thus squashing all waves into fast waves. Now my advice is to just look at nature. I am still seeing hexagons. I was amazed to see that trees are hexagons. The most amazing thing however is that your door is a hexagon!!! The perspective squashes the bottom, and widens the top. You can measure it with a tape, but the tape will scale down at the same speed as the door, so you will get the right measurements for a rectangle. However I can show a diagram that proves that your door has leaning sides. It could only be rectangular if my first guess that the universe was made of squares was correct. But if the universe was made of squares, things would not scale down into the distance. They would remain the same size. For light would travel in a straight line straight to your eyes.

My theory as you can see is hard to accept. It goes beyond belief, and your brain does not like seeing hexagons, and so your own brain will fight my theory. However, I trust my own judgement, it has served me well in the past. It's up to you if you want to believe or not. But ask yourself this...

Why does intelligent life require water???

It's the only thing that can totally surround the snowflake machine.

Pincho Paxton

Do you want to know what the really scary part is about all of this?

If I'm the only person that has worked all of this out, and I'm the only person who currently believes all of this..
then why...........................................................

Are all of my diagrams, and information available in the Crop Circles???

I can hear the twilight zone music right now!!!

Your theory is ridiculous at best.

Let me ask you a question.... Are you blind in one eye?

ChaoticMelody wrote:Your theory is ridiculous at best.

Let me ask you a question.... Are you blind in one eye?

If I close one eye I get the same result. A pyramid downscaling to my eye.

The only way you can turn a Square into a hexagon is by closing one eye and losing depth perception.

ChaoticMelody wrote:The only way you can turn a Square into a hexagon is by closing one eye and losing depth perception.

But you are using the words depth perception like it physically exists. Everything has to be broken down into what they really are. Depth perception is a flow of energy from an electron to your eye. This flow of energy has to take a route or one route for each electron, and it has to lead to your eyes. It has to take a route that is not a void, and therefore not diagonal, else that would be a void. A square route is very zig-zaggy, not economical, and does not happen in nature. A circle has gaps, and therefore you would have little bits of a void around the edges. The only shape that works is a row of hexagon building bricks. It is natural in nature, has no void, two lines never cross the middle, and your eyes are shaped very nicely to accept a hexagon signal.

Pincho Paxton wrote:The most amazing thing however is that your door is a hexagon!!! The perspective squashes the bottom, and widens the top. You can measure it with a tape, but the tape will scale down at the same speed as the door, so you will get the right measurements for a rectangle. However I can show a diagram that proves that your door has leaning sides. It could only be rectangular if my first guess that the universe was made of squares was correct. But if the universe was made of squares, things would not scale down into the distance. They would remain the same size. For light would travel in a straight line straight to your eyes.

Wow. The square is like 2D vision lol

divine focus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:The most amazing thing however is that your door is a hexagon!!! The perspective squashes the bottom, and widens the top. You can measure it with a tape, but the tape will scale down at the same speed as the door, so you will get the right measurements for a rectangle. However I can show a diagram that proves that your door has leaning sides. It could only be rectangular if my first guess that the universe was made of squares was correct. But if the universe was made of squares, things would not scale down into the distance. They would remain the same size. For light would travel in a straight line straight to your eyes.

Wow. The square is like 2D vision lol

And just to add to my point that the universe is made of small hexagons.. atoms are arranged in a hexagon shape, and the receptors in your eyes are hexagon shaped.

I have one question for you... How comes your balls are not hexagonal?

Does that mean they don't exist? According to your theory you have no balls?

ChaoticMelody wrote:I have one question for you... How comes your balls are not hexagonal?

Does that mean they don't exist? According to your theory you have no balls?

According to my theory there is a sphere at the middle of the haxagon. If we outstretch our arms, and legs, and imagine the tail that we used to have, then we have balls, at the middle of our hexagon... which is exactly right.

LOL

Congratulations,

You have discovered yourself.

Now try not to put yourself in a box, or a hexagon.

JLJ

I think we can all learn from Pincho if he will graciously describe to us what its like to be totally insane.

Pincho, please don't take this as a criticism of your views. I respect your opinions about the nature of the universe. I merely conclude that they are very unlikely formed by the thought processes of a mentally healthy person.

That or you're very young, and have not yet been trained in the foundations of knowledge and basic principles of scientific query, in which case you will learn somewhere along the line that accepted ideas are established through vigorous and exhaustive observation and testing, not some interesting idea you had while daydreaming.

I'm sorry but science is very very boring, and by necessity absolutely unimaginative.

RoyCastle wrote:I think we can all learn from Pincho if he will graciously describe to us what its like to be totally insane.

Pincho, please don't take this as a criticism of your views. I respect your opinions about the nature of the universe. I merely conclude that they are very unlikely formed by the thought processes of a mentally healthy person.

That or you're very young, and have not yet been trained in the foundations of knowledge and basic principles of scientific query, in which case you will learn somewhere along the line that accepted ideas are established through vigorous and exhaustive observation and testing, not some interesting idea you had while daydreaming.

I'm sorry but science is very very boring, and by necessity absolutely unimaginative.

Well I'm 44 years old. I have spent 30 years studying Physics, and Quantum Physics. I am probably the only person who has ever got the two to work together properly. I have visual confirmation of my ideas. All of the experiments have been done for me already, as in the two slit experiment. I have always been accepted as a genius by college tutors, who instantly recognise my talents, and often get me to take over their classes half way through a term. My ideas often appear in papers after I discover things, it might take some time, but it often happens. So it is more about acceptance than anything else. Can people accept things that knock down all of their knowledge skittles. No they can't... not until science tells them otherwise.

I just want to say in passing, that whatever the truth of your psychology, Pincho, I admire the equanimity with which you handle accusations made against your mental state.