Imagine Everything

What is an Incident Neutron or Incident Photon, what this Incident description referring to, sorry Mordred I got a little lost trying to understand it. Would Newtons cradle be described as Inelastic? https://juddy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Notes-4.1.3.pdf This made a lot more sense to me after watching the sound wave Khan Academy lectures. Thanks for those Khan links Modred, I seem to be able to understand a lot more and retain the information better from watching them. My head likes to see things in images, though I think I'm good with english, it's much easier for me to see these things in action as images/animations with their definitions & explanations I extracted the below sentence because it sounds quite like what I see in my idea (I don't know for sure yet) but one of my thoughts that I posted not so long ago was the connection between people among other things and how we seem to be able to pick up whether we instantly like them or not. As in we all have our very own personal resonant frequency and like certain types of atoms, we are attracted or repelled by other peoples resonant frequencies. In simple terms, a resonant frequency is “a natural frequency of vibration determined by the physical parameters of the vibrating object” Anyway, I digress a little, just wanted to say thanks again. And ask those 2 questions.

Yep me again lol, This is a thought around spring/summertime this year, I have no idea if it would work, can work or would indeed be useful or more of a hindrance. I'm not looking for validation and I offer this freely to anyone & everyone that might or can make use of it (if it works) as it might help our dear planet Earthy' to repair itself a bit or at least maybe calm down a bit of global warming. That's the thought behind it anyway, nothing else, not new science or particles or anything else. Just hopefully a way to help ourselves and our planet. I'm also not going to concentrate on it as I am currenty extremely busy on my other post. https://news.mit.edu/2022/dirt-cheap-solution-common-clay-materials-may-help-curb-methane-emissions https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-tip/more-methane-from-the-deep-sea-mud-volcanos-as-methane-source/ https://www.sciencing.com/uses-carbon-dioxide-gas-6364016/ https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/do-zeolite-work-in-sea-water.231479/ So could this work to help reduce methane and use the resulting Carbon Dioxide for industrial use? The idea is an underwater structure made of or surrounding an inner Zeolite structure. Perhaps the structure could somehow allow seawater to traverse into the structure surrounding the zeolite structure (like stemming the flow on a hosepipe with your thumb) and cause preesure/energy to power this process. I don't know, just thinking out loud I guess. Maybe placed on the sea bed itself or hung somehow (from a buoy?) above something like a mud volcano If this structure was placed in the sea, could the energy/power from the sea current/s power this process and make it even more environmental friendly.? The zeolite would capture methane from the sea/bed, perhaps even from mud volcanoes if it was placed near enough and process it into Carbon Dioxide. The resulting Carbon Dioxide could then be extracted perhaps to be used industrially. I state that I do not know the impact of creating more Carbon Dioxide, I'm just wondering if by converting the methane into this, perhaps it could be used instead of just heating up the globe as it does inside methane. I did read that Carbon Dioxide is less harmful than Methane in on of the above links. No doubt this is a very rough idea and I dont claim it to be anything other than that, hopefully you'll get the gist of it though. I don't think or claim that if this works, that it would sort the whole globe out, if it does work, it would no doubt just be a tiny cog in a very big wheel that's desperately needed to do that. Thanks for reading this anyway, feel free to move this to trash if you think it should belong there, I'm cool with that and don't mean to upset this forum in anyway. Even if it doesn't work, maybe it will trigger one you very very clever people into finding another way that can help with global wamring solutions. Back to studying now

Thanks Mordred

This was very interesting, I'll leave it there for now but already I'm starting to see or wonder how this fits into my original post. Is a mediator a wave length?

It wasn't so much I was thinking about the hubble tension, more that I stumbled across it and in my head it kind of slightly crossed it into my 'idea' about a 'particle?' in this 3rd state I see/envision and the way it might work if it does. And thanks, I understood the below sentance and wouldn't have done without yours and Studiots help. Its a problem more in terms of fine tuning of luminosity to distance relations I don't mean all the things behind that sentance but more the terms you used. Perhaps one day there will be a telescope powerfull enough to be able to see even further and more definitively. Way way too advanced but sort of interesting. That in itself led me to wanting to ask a few questions but I won't. I've seen images of our sun next to even bigger and bigger stars, red giants and blue giants, totally amazing to think just how small our sun is compared to them and then how small our earth is to our sun and then how small we are as humans to our planet and seemingly no matter how big something is, it all seems to have started at a very tiny point somehow. I there's an asian saying/philosophy I heard once 'Every long journey starts with one small step'. I need to go watch these lectures now so I will head off to Khan academy, thanks Mordred.

Thanks Mordred, appreciate the time it took, very kind of you. I had yet another imaginative thought moment last night but man who knows..maybe I can find out as I move along with more learning, however here it is in all its shameless glory lol https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/james-webb-telescope-confirms-there-is-something-seriously-wrong-with-our-understanding-of-the-universe So I saw a video about different rates of expansion and byt looking around found that the name for this is Hubbles Tension. The imaginative thought was this... Could the rates of expansion be measured by their content? What I mean is, if this 'thingy' I'm talking about is simply created & forced into this 3rd state space before it dies thus creating a small non attractive movement by pushing whatever was in that space before it was created, outwards in all directions, could it be the reason there might be different rates of expansion? And even if it isn't my weird and wonderful thought, doesn't DM have to made of something that keeps being created somehow for expansion to take place at all? So my thought last night was wondering if somehow more DM was being created in certain parts of the universe than it was in others. Could it be that whatever creates this DM, maybe creates more forced pushing and then in turn creates a faster expansion due to more DM being created? And also the slower rate of expansion would follow this if the above is true? The less DM being created means less forced pushing and therefore less expansion or slower expansion? And perhaps this can only happen on a cosmic scale due to the nature of quantum or perhaps sub quantum size. Wouldn't DM itself have to have started life as a seriously seriously tiny minisculey miniscule % of an energy type?' something' (I have no idea what its called or could be called, perhaps its similar to a wimp) Anyway, finally I get to the nitty gritty , sorry had to say that first bit first to get to this... So could it be that maybe certain types of galaxies and all their wonders withing perhaps even BH, quasars and certain types of stella nurseries, Neutron stars, Nebulae in one part of space contribute to a more greater volume of DM being created? Possibly even more or even more of a certain type of things and less of another, whatever it is that creates DM to start with? And also the same for the slower rate, perhaps there aren't enough stella nurseries or galaxies or BH's or whatever to create the same amount of DM and is slower because of it. I'm sure there is a lot more out in the universe but you get the idea hopefully. Even though no one knows what DM is or how it's made yet, could that idea make sense?. Or does DM simply stretch across the universe in which case I guess what I just wrote doesn't apply really. I might also just be talking right out of my huh hmm, Off to learn some more now , thanks again for the links Mordred I'll look at as much as I can this week and try not to post too much inbetween, it always seems to take me further into the ordered chaos/chaotic order that seems to be science I'm reposting these here for my own benefit otherwise I keep having to hop back and forth between pages in this thread. Another khan University lesson I would like you to watch is constructive and destructive interference. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/mechanical-waves-and-sound/standing-waves/v/constructive-and-destructive-interference#:~:text=Constructive interference happens when two,they cancel each other out. This will help to understand Elastic vs inelastic scatterings when two particles meet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_scattering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_scattering the first link will also help understand wave resonance. https://juddy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Notes-4.1.3.pdf HINT the mechanical elastic PE terms above apply ie a crystal resonating with a frequency those resonations of the atoms will follow the same equations of motion (sound waves are mechanical energy) take k for spring constant now replace with binding energy via the coupling constant of a field. In those Feymann integrals "g" for the EM field g is the fine structure constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant An ty Studiot for making the Newtons cradle more defined to me, I always thought it was a perfect line of energy that went back and forth, didn't know it could act differently at each end

Thanks Studiot Thats really ϹΘΘɭ Did not know about this, thank you very much!

Thanks Mordred.

Thanks Mordred I found this https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/displacement-velocity-time/v/introduction-to-reference-frames so off to watch it now but would you know of any other online physics for beginners/dummies courses you could point me in the direction of please?

What is the long sign/symbol that covers the last part of the equasion called? For some reason it seems to have come out backwards....ish

That sounds fascinating. I'll take a look after I get through your previous post. Thanks Looked at that a little, more yikes. Ok not ready for that yet, hopefully with time I'll start to understand it.

mmm I have no doubt. I feel like a fish trying to swim in clay, you could tell me this in Portugese and it wouldn't confuse me any less but like I said, I will try. It's just going to take a while I guess. Thanks Mordred as always, you too Studiot.

Yikes, I'm still trying to understand what Fs is. Sorry I don't have a physics keyboard so I can't write it the way you do. I am struggling a lot with the maths to be honest, or rather the symobls and what they mean. But I'm guessing once I do (if I can) the equasions might then bewilder me a bit. Its going to take a while eh...I will try though. Speaking of bewilderment, how on earth do you fellas remember all this

Is that this, I tried to describe it but not sure if it made sense. Also found out it had a name, Newtons Cradle. Hmm the things I don't know lol... So would this be a predetermined probabilistic probability of +or- leeway or would you know exactly what that pressure is if you could measure every field interaction and particle within? Did I say that right? Can you even do that? Is it possible to unscramble that possible kind of data? (in my head I picture that as a lot of particles) Whats the initial E represent please Mordred? Is is Electron Field? Energy? Or is it E = Energy and the bit after is the type of energy? Em Mechanical energy Eke Kinetic energy EPE Potential energy

This is a really good definition, thanks. I was picturing the metal ball chain where once set in motion, the energy is transfered from the end ball on one side before getting to and making the other end ball swing out and back in and doingthe same endlessly unti it is stopped by someone. Is that the same thing? Yes I do remember the hankerchief/banana drawing. Resonance..very interesting. So oscillation - steady vibration repeated repeatedly. And that is a natural frequence. So I guess that makes sense if I may, as people won't always breathe the same breath into a clarinet. Not so steady. Yes! Thank you. This helps. I must admit, I often wonder how you folks have even been able to understand the things you do when they all must be so tangled up with each other constantly. I'm guessing thats why they have super sized multi story computer sheds at the LHC. Still trying to picture that... That sounds fascinating. I'll take a look after I get through your previous post. Thanks

Hellooo Ok so pfft finally I get some more time to go through this and watch the lectures, thank you. I'll repost after I've read through what you said and watched them a bit later. On another note... I have to get this out of my head, it's been building up all day and perhaps it will better help you to see what I'm trying to describe, whether it's right or wrong, no idea. Still trying to figure it out, I obviously hit on something with the vibration question So this hmmm...I'm going to call it a sub quantum thingy lol. Sorry, bet you guys hate me for that. I really don't know what to call it. It just won't leave my head alone. It nags at me constantly. I see it as being created to die inside the 3rd state between 2 seperate boundary conditions belonging to 2 seperate states. Right smack bang in the middle of the 2. Happening all the time and the more states/boundary conditons there are, the more of this SQ thingy there are. It's not just that either, I envision it as the connection between people, energy, mass..just everything and everywhere (yes the entire universe)(you'll hate me for this Modred but maybe it was there before the BB, maybe it was part of the BB or will or has even cause/ed it to repeat itself?) I see it as being part of if not DM itself (I know, feel free to shout at me writing this, it's so bizarre, yet...) well hopefully you can prove me right or wrong eventually. I really don't mean to sound like I've discovered the answer to DM or the universe, (knowing me, I have probably only discovered my imagination is bigger than I thought) but man that really would be something indeed, and I am very sorry for sounding like I have if I have, I don't think that and I mean no disrespect to you or the science community. I see this 'thingy' as so small it might be a Zero energy 'thingy' Have I got that right? Something that exists but doesn't interact and has no motion or attraction?. If it's created in the manner I've seen, I see it as pushing itself into space (literally?) that is already filled with these 'thing'y's. And because of that it has the knock on effect of moving more of it's type outwards in all directions. Possibly with enough of it, it causes things to expand such as DM. Maybe it even has remnants of information in it too? Not 1's and 0's but something. A tiny tiny tiny eenie weenie small something... Lol how bad am I that I go on a science forum with experts as wise and clever as you all are and I call something a thingy. Feel free to shout at this post, if everything is truly connected this way, I'm sure I'll hear or feel it somehow . Possibly it causes different rates of expansion (when there's enough of it & I'm talking about numbers I couldn't even imagine or perhaps even research) due to amount being created in certain situations or areas. Aaaaggh I don't know but it is bugging the hell out of me lol and I had to write this and get it out. I also have a couple of questions please... Has anyone in science looked at DM as an ocean? And after watching a lecture recently about expansion rates, could the different rates of expansion be seen as currents like here on earth with the sea? Could the currents be analogous to DE and the ocean analogous to DM? Or would DM be more like a Tsunami? I'll leave it there, time to read and watch some lectures and learn some more. Learn some proper science that doesn't define anything as a 'thingy' (well..maybe except for my imagination)

This following joke comes from Gary Delaney, again I wish it was mine but alas... My girlfriends dog died the other day So I bought her a new one, exactly the same. She was livid. She shouted at me "Wtf am I going to do with 2 dead dogs?" And this is from Milton Jones, I only tell the names because I don't deserve the credit for them and they do, they're very funny. My grandad is always moaning about the cost of things... Tea is £1.50 Biscuits are 50p Coffee is £2 I said to him, I didn't invite you round to my house, you don't have to come here. Lastly...I can't remember where I heard this A neutron walks into a bar. He asks the bartender for a beer. Bartender gives him the beer and the neutron asks "How much mate?" Bartender says "For you, no charge" Here's one for the tired then A man walks into a bar and says ouch. Ta da! Ok ok I'll stop. I could post jokes all day long.

I am flattered and humbled by this Thank you. I still have a lot to learn. I must also say that your words are a reflection of both yours and Studiots patience and help. So if I could, I would +1 you both too.

Hey Mordred, Thanks for the link, I got to page 23 I think and yeah didn't understand much of the diagrams or maths as expected lol, no disrespect intended. I'm just not as clever or physics educated as your good self/selves. I asked about vibration for a reason. Thanks for answering it however I was kind of after how it might mean whatever it meant to you, on a deep level maybe, I'm not sure. I'll tell you why. In my idea or whatever it is, the 'thing' I see as being integral to the whole idea is so small so almost nothing (possibly even the remnants of something created & dying/decaying so fast, that thee only thing left was it's..hmm..shadow? echo? vibration? I don't truly know, I still have a lot to learn and think about. But allow me to put forward a later part of this idea please, I won't annoy you with everything inbetween, not just yet anyway So humans...Sometimes in my personal experience and from others also telling me during my life, I, we have met or seen someone who I, we have an instant disliking or liking towards. Whether it's on tv, radio, online or in real life without actually meeting that person. I say in my idea, (though I would say I ponder now) that people have a quantum entanglement, a connection on a very deep and atomic, quantum or maybe even sub quantum level. (don't worry, I'm not going back to using SQEP lol) I ponder if we are indeed connected by this 'something' I can't properly explain right now and our bodies, our atoms, our energies, our whole being including all the various boundary conditions, fields and possible? quantum tunneling? and everything inside it is tuning into this 'wavelength?'/ energy between us and other people and whilst we don't understand it immediately, we simply 'feel' it throughout our body ) before our brains turn that or those feelings into understanding. And on the same thought, if someone is happy, I ponder if our bodies 'energy resonation' is in sink with itself. When someone is unhappy, maybe their 'energy resonation' is out of sink with itself. I call it a resonation because I have no better word for it right now. But it might perhaps have something to do with vibration. It also might not lmao. I wonder if (right now this is where my thoughts are, it might change with more knowledge) there might be a kind of vibration field. I read that the Higgs bosun was more of a vibration than a soup idea due to the soup idea going against certain laws. I also read in another article here the other day, in a reply by Studiot in the thread 'A photon twist in space' something fascinating. My typically creative mind started trying to make sense of& relate it to what I am talking about in this thread. 8.1k Posted October 31 An electronics engineer ? Well have you seen this article ? What is an Electron ? A new model: the phase locked cavity. R C Jennison PH D Bsc FIEE FRAS FInstP FRSA ~~Electronics Laboratories University of Kent at Canterbury. Wireless World June 1979 pages 42 to 47 There has also been mathematical work( By Drazin) by regarding a photon as a solitary wave or soliton. Here are the first and last pages of Jennison's article. In this, it was talked about what creates the electron, what lives below quantum physics (thats how I understood it anyway, perhaps I am wrong) but again it got me thinking... So, I wonder atm if we all and everything else, 'live' withing a vibration field. A field of all fields created by and merged withall other fields. And yes, I know how big heaat sounds, especially from someone with my little knowledge. I really don't mean it to sound that way but I have to ask. From your BB & CMB expertise pov, would it be possible that the universe vibrated into existance? Is it possible that other fields could be part of a larger vibrating field with fluctuations and excitements due to the chaotic nature of order. In my original post in this thread, I'm really really trying to bolt down a single 'thing' that is not only constantly created, dies very fast but also produces. Can vibrational interactions create different energy fields? Or even cause them to simply exist? In my head a vibration is simply a movement rather than a mass, or a speed, or temperature etc. It just is'. I'm going to stop there, I have so many many questions... Perhaps I have made no sense at all and you won't even want to answer this madness lol but I guess I'll never know unless I ask. I'll try not to ask any more questions for now & re read some of the earlier replies you guys have given me, I seem to understand them a bit more each time I do. Thanks for listening, & reading what an ever aging old fart has to say I appreiciate it. I will read through your link too, probably at the weekend whether I understand it or not. It is all useful to me. I eat it up like ketchup and I have always loved ketchup. Mmm apple pie and ketchup hahaha, I joke but some people that know me, wouldn't put that past me. I haven't mentioned it but I did take note of your ionisation description as well, ty for that.

lol that image had me in stitches Thats actually cool tbh, I picked up on the definitions in the graph and questioned it, so that I would learn. And lol I read it and think it just made sense as the Kahn Academy lectures were ringing in my head about H fusing into He & He fusing into (crap can't remember without looking, must watch the lectures again lol, going to take a guess at) Neutrons? I remember he said igniting then changed his mind to fusion, hence the question. Sometimes I really do talk too much.... That is cool and immediately my mind starts wondering if more things can be made this way or even indeed in a much vaster more complex scale, chained/linked configuration. What an interesting brain he had to have had to dream the answer. hmm On a seperate note, I'm curious @studiot What does vibration mean to you? How do you define it yourself? Do you understand it as an entity? A motion? A massless energy wave? @MordredWhat does vibration mean to you? How do you define it yourself? Do you understand it as an entity? A motion? A massless energy wave? It'd be nice to hear both your thoughts on this please. Thanks as always Almost forgot, this is related to the vibration question I asked you both. With all the collisions, fusions, reppelling and so on, does this cause and or create vibrations and possibly different colliding vibrations, vibrations that could also repell so on and on.? Is that a stupid/naive question? Do vibrations have boundary conditions? I must go now now, my head feels a bit Have a good night

I know right lol, I have had so many facepalm moments just reading about the things I thought might have been unique to my intial thoughts, just to find out that t wasn't new information by any stretch. You can't see me obv but yes my face turned a nice bright red. However, as we have and continue to go through things (I hope) and I understand more or am taught/shown more, I have to say I find it a bit strange? that I seem to have 'seen'? some things that you guys and girls have already mastered and become experts in when my knowledge about physics simply didn't exist. At all. (I do know much more now though, tysm ) Wanted to say too that I've mentioned my education or lack of a few times, not because I'm thick, it was just to illustrate where my knowledge is (or was) at really. Another reason why I find my idea a bit strange. Please don't take that the wrong way, I am by no means saying "ooh look at me wow wow", no not all. I hope I haven't come across like this. I just find it strange, kind of supernatural ish?. Eerie perhaps? Hopefully I'll keep learning more as we go along if you are both / all kind enough to help me. Thanks to you and Modreds help, I actuall think I moderately understand this. Immidiately I recognised Hydrogen, Helium, Carbon and Iron and Uranium and also their atomic mass? Is binding energy the same as Nuclear force or is Nuclear force a type of binding energy? And if Nuclear force is a type of binding energy, does that mean that Nuclear, weak, Gravitational & Electromagnetical are binding forces? Or are they just the four fundamental forces and there are even more types of binding forces? Am I also right to understand that left side (not inc Fe) is a graph of our sun nova'ing to it's last state as Iron can't fuse into something as it requires energy and doesn't produce it? And lastly on this on, Uranium can only come from stella? solar mass >9 -> 20 of our solar mass? I hope I said that last one right but please let me know the correct way if not. Ok so I'm struggling a bit with valencey, so if I may, I took the following extract from the following link https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/An_Introduction_to_the_Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms_and_Molecules_(Bader)/06%3A_The_Chemical_Bond/6.04%3A_The_Quantum_Mechanical_Explanation_of_Valency Helium atoms in their ground state do not form a stable diatomic molecule. In fact, helium does not combine with any neutral atom. Its valency, that is, its ability to form chemical bonds with other atoms, is zero. Does C have a valency because its atomic mass is divided by 3? That last part where he linked them in a circle is amazing. Truly. I'm guessing no one had ever thought like that before he saw it? I'm trying to make sense of what I see in this diagram now. I see how the atoms are linked, chained and connected which is extremely interesting (I'll explain if I can after this) and so it poses a question I am obviously still way out of my depth so forgive the naivety please Can all atoms, whatever they are (as long as they are attracted) behave in this seemingly logical but also possibly & maybe endlessly random shaped ways? Oh and I keep forgetting to ask but do all attracted atoms have to be fused together undewr tremendous force such as Novae or hadron colliders? Can some occur just by simply being near or next to each other? lololol sorry one more please, Is fission the merger of atoms into other atomic compostions (are they still atoms? or atomic states when this happens?) And fusion (using your diagram definitions) is the release of energy. Have I been saying fusion incorrectly too up to now?

Should have added 'seem' to the last sentance but couldn't edit.

Hey Studiot, The link I highlighted from your good self, has the following text in the first few lines... The chemical elements beyond lead are radioactive, and they do not have stable isotopes. This means that they will decay into other elements. As their atomic number (the number of protons in their nucleus) increases, the time it takes for them to decay tends to get shorter, going from billions of years to less than one millisecond. The bit I highlighted in green is fascinating to me. I'm not saying it is exactly what I saw when my idea came to me and eventually led me to asking if I could and then posting this thread. The thing I tried to so badly describe is something created to die instantly. The part I highlighted in green seems to say this far better than I could explain. I think it happens in this 3rd state, which I'm still trying to learn more about and explain better and it seems that this island of stability and the elements leading up to it are created through huge and powerful collisions/supernovae. Far, far different than my idea & yours is also mathematically proven of course. Just wanted to say thanks & I'm really wasn't lying when I told you I had no physics education and wasn't borrowing or copying from others before coming here. The idea I had just appeared to me as I said. I don't know what it means, if it even means anything at all. But the one thing I would personally like to know is if it is a 'something' or if it isn't. Time will tell I guess, as it always seems to. That's actually the main reason I approached a couple of forums. The first physics forum rejected my request to post, you and this forum (I think it might have been Phi?) kindly said yes and I'm very grateful to you all for that. It has at least allowed me to make some sense of this idea that came to me early August. Thank you, all of you. I couldn't sleep last night thinking about these elements that to me are created to die. Awesome!

Thanks, that was also interesting.

Yeah as I've written it I suppose it does lol, let me explain if I can. A son and a daughter would be a pair of siblings but they would also be called children, with the description 'children' being the 3rd thing. Does that make more sense? So I guess not just an item or area but description as well and maybe more and maybe my imagination is just running away again. It does tend to do that as you might have seen already - whistles & looks in the air innocently suspiciously That's interesting If each atom is unique to a particular element, and it looks like there are 118 know elements, is science missing 32 elements? And if so, how does that work if you know what the atoms are? Wouldn't you know what the elements are too just by knowing what the atom is?