Imagine Everything

Thanks Mordred, I'll have a look tomorrow. I actually stumbled across Partons the other day, can't recall exactly what I was reading but I remember that name. Have a good night, cya tomorrow.

Sorry, wires crossed, I was referring to the container on the side of a space craft. Lol you must have thought I was a bit crazy thinking I was talking about removing everything from the universe hahaha, my bad, sorry. I should have been more specific, it's so easy to lose track with all this. I get your description & definition though.

Ahh, so as soon as it went into a container, it woud be contaminated with whatever the container was made of or had inside, particles, fields for those particles and so on, so it still wouldn't be able to be defined? Or could it be defined by eliminating the other bits and whatever is left over is the DM? Hmm probably too simple maybe and after watching Sean Carrol and speaking with you folks, it seems nature doesn't do easy.

Could I also think of the universe as a self sustaining entity? Finite or not.

This joke isn't science related but it made me laugh and others when I told them. It also isn't my joke, I wish I could take credit for it but I can't. A saleswoman calls a household and a little boy answers it. He whispers "Hello? Who's that?" The saleswoman replies " I'm calling on behalf of my company, can I speak to your mum please?" The little boy again whispers "No, she's busy" So the saleswoman asks if she can speak to his dad. The little boy again whispers "No, he's busy too" A little confused, the saleswoman asks if there are any other adults in the house she can speak to. Once again the little boy whispers "Yes the firemen but they're busy too" The saleswoman is becoming concerned now and asks if there are any other adults in the house. The little boy yet again whispers "Yes the police but they're busy too" The saleswoman doesn't know what to think or who to ask for to speak to, so asks the little boy what they are all busy doing. The little boy again whispers "They're trying to find me"

Interesting, can I think of this as predertimined probabilistic randomness creation tested with logical scientificaly proven theorised methods? Thanks Modred, it was just a thought and also kind of helps me in a way..I think...maybe..hmm lol

So it would be seemingly quite random then. Anything that can be, will be kind of thing, but homogeneous and isotropic? Perhaps more of a certain field/particle in a more particular area/object? If I remember what I read the other day about chemical atoms bonding with similar chemical atoms. Alike attracts/creates alike? Just a thought, has anyone stuck a container on the outside of a space craft to fill it with dark matter/space for studying?

I thought this was funny when I heard it on a film I watched the other day so... "I started reading a book about zero gravity I couldn't put it down"

Thanks Studiot, It seems that perhaps even my basic maths skills aren't much good with the information you keep kindly giving me, I wonder if I might ask you to explain a bit more of them to me through private messages and then perhaps test me. I say that because otherwise this thread might convoluted with my maths learning lol. As for the fields, yes (I loved it )I think I got on quite well understanding it and I wonder if what I was saying in my very badly termed original post was actually referencing a field that doesn't seem to have been talked about yet, at least, so far I haven't seen it but I guess that might not mean much. I find it fascinating that we and everything else are merely packets of energy tied together via the higgs field (and others) very simply put. If I understand it correctly. I now see particles as various bumps within and part of different fields that exist. It's like a whole new world lol. Very very interesting Also I think my understanding of protons, electrons and neutrons is a little better too. Though I need to learn more about the heavier quarks & electrons etc. Up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom etc I have a burning question that perhaps you, Mordred and or maybe others might be able to answer. Even when I think of the process (which I don't pretend to totally understand) that makes things, if I say, reverse engineered a person back to atoms and then back to nucleas and then back to quarks and even then back to the energy fields that makes us from the get go, where does the information we seem to be created with come from? What I mean is, our brains are constantly doing things in the background that we don't consiously make happen, breathing, heart beating, hearing, turning things the right way up for us to see them etc... My cat seemed to know instantly how to use a litter tray when she was a kitten. How did she know to do this? If everything is chemistry created, what or where does this initial information come from? Like a bios in a computer but obviously we're not computers? When we're born, or at some point in our development, we seem to just know certain things. How do quarks know what to become? How do virtual particles know what to become or how to influence electrons etc to become part of what they then themselves become and so on and on? Does science have an answer for this or is it possible I might have tripped over what I refer to atm as The Information Field? Full of all those lovely quantum hairs Sorry, it's the same question but with different analogies Also, I think it was you who said that see things as pictures when you think about stuff, I'm the same. I have this crazy idea rattling around in my aging brain from the very tiny, all the way through to the universe itself and it's so difficult to put it into words However, I am already leaps ahead of what I know now than when I first tried to explain it here so thank you for that And you Modred

Can you also explain the Y= /X please? Is the squared root of x squared simply 7? x squared is 49? so the root is 7? Told you I'm bad with maths lol

Yes, can you explain fig 2 to me please, I don't quite understand what I'm seeing. Why doesn't fig 2 need numbers or days? Is magnitude the same as Integer? Thanks

Very interesting and very helpful, thx Mordred. Also, wow. Maybe I have seen 'something' after all in my idea. Time will tell I guess

Hey Studiot. Mordred, Hope you're well. Thanks for posting this, I spent the first week studying, re reading and was going to use the 2nd week to look at your math types. That did not go so well tbh. I looked at scalar a couple of times but hmm, I have a very noisy music playing neighbour that prevented this quite a bit. I was also trying to read Newton Gravity vs Einsteins Relativity but loud music..... Anyway, I have made I think (hope) some progress, just not entirely on the maths side. Can I see interger values as whole numbers & half intergers as fractions? Is that a simple way of seeing it? I think I kind of understand what you're saying. I did manage to look at some 'simple' examples of math sums but it got a bit confusing the more I read. It was something like 1 + 1 = 2 -1 + -1 = -2 -8 + -6 = -14 8 + 6 = 14 -8 + +6 = -2 I admit I got a bit lost when they started using brackets. You wrote: Note I have distinguished between equality and identical to for example The value of (3 times four) is equal to the value of (2 times six) but the two expressions are not identical. So... -2 + -9 = -11 & -4 + -7 = -11 equal but not identical. Would it be better to describe my previous post as: an Integer is a count & a half integer is a value? As I thought before I took 2 weeks 'out', I do indeed have some questions. If non gravitational objects are expanded due to expansion, could Dark Matter be the 'blackshift' of Dark Energy? If the electron field has electrons, could there be a dark energy field with dark electrons? (I can't think of a better word for the dark energy equivilent of electron) And if so, these dark electrons can't be affected by the Higgs field, completely massless? Could dark energy be thought of as the mediator between gravity and dark matter? And lastly for now, if (and it seems to be) everything is paired, should there be a pairing for Einsteins E=mc2? I have a lot written down as to why I am thinking the following (relating atm strongly to Virtual particles), but perhaps a pairing for E=mc2 could be DE=mlc3 DE = Dark Energy ml = Massless c3 = Speed of light tripled I say tripled because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light if I remember correctly. I dare say I'm not writing this properly but perhaps enough to help you understand how (badly? or incorrectly?) I'm trying to see it. I have more questions but I'll stop there for now. Thanks

I will thanks Studiot, I don't think I ever called myself a draftsman or 'on the scale', sorry, I'm neither. Maybe I wrote something badly again that sounded like or implied that to you. I apologise if I did. Take care , 'see you' in 2 weeks.

Thank you very much Mordred, Thank you very much Studiot for everything you have posted and anything you both (and maybe others?) might post in the next fortnight. I'll say this the right way this time, I'm going to take 2 weeks to try and learn more and reread everything that has been posted here so far and hopefully a lot more of the links. My desktop is almost full up now lol I don't think I will get it all but some of it will make more sense by then. I will still be looking at this post for any other information, replies you might make. But I won't post anything for these 2 weeks. I will be back on Sunday 20th October. More than likely with more questions 'See you' in a fortnight, take care. May good karma come your way

I feel like the kitten lol

I feel so daft However, I do have more of this badly written 'idea?', maybe at some point as we go along, I might say something that could be something new? To me that sounds so big headed, I don't mean it that way but I have a habit of 'tripping' over and into things no one has considered sometimes. I hope will folks will still entertain me & my (hmm I feel stupid calling it my idea now too) idea? and when I say that now, I don't mean it was MY idea, just one that came from idk where and flew out of my head over the course of 4 weeks. It is now very hard for me to discern between my idea and what you all have already learnt and know about for who knows how long. I'm leaning much more towards it being your idea than mine. But I do find it weird how this came to me in a 'flash' as it were without knowing much if anything about physics, chemistry or maths. I will rewrite my book? once I get this initial part confirmed (hopefully) but I will still have a copy in it's badly termed way so you (if you want to at any time) can see where it came from and how I originally thought & wrote it.

My last question for now if I may, do you have a link to a list of what all these physics/maths symbols represent please? Like Si = Meter per second per second etc etc Nice and simple for mind to remember and understand.

Can a virtual particle be dual particle or trio and more? Can or has a propogator, measure or measured a virtual particle? How short is a short time? What does it mean by space ranges? And is it similar to Isotopes being smaller weaker masses of their parent, hope that makes sense. Copied from the wiki about virtual particles... A virtual particle is a theoretical transient particle that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle, which allows the virtual particles to spontaneously emerge from vacuum at short time and space ranges. I like the Feynman diagrams a lot. Thats exactly what I'm seeing in my head but with a newly created '???' particle which is both part State 1 & also part state 2. At this moment in time anyway. Thank you so much, that helps immensely. Though I don't yet understand all the symbols and their meanings, the diagram itself seems to almost be this State 3 I'm explaining very badly. So feynman diagram + scattering = State 3 virtual particles? Pfft I'm not sure even know what I'm talking about atm, but it feels very close to something in my head. I'm going to stop there or I will have more questions and then more answers which will thencreate more questions with more answers which will... I lied, I feel like I'm a yoyo, on a rollercoaster, in a tsunami during an earthquake on a planet that is being pulled to bits by a BH.

Hellooo Is the heavy weight on a bar balanced over the 2 stools? And he's hitting it with the banana cloth in his hand? I don't know if that matters, just trying to picture it. I think so, the graphs or a sort anyway, my only knowledge really of these, are what I created through the use of MS Excel to create pie & line charts for a business I used to work for but I haven't done it for years so remembering it might be tricky. Othwerise not really, my education was severly disrupted (not stopped) by 'life' at around age 7. I'm not trying to create curiosity, merely explaining my level of education, Hi Mordred Does your sum equate to all the possible 'State 3' combinations, their respective energies, forces and also what type of 'particles' there are or would be at any given time? Is my idea simply repeating what all of you brilliant people have learnt already? It did occur to me during my 'epiphany' that science would more than likely learnt everything I was visualising, I hope I haven't come across as copying or borrowing from others. I really didn't and haven't, for some reason this State 3 idea came into my head and led me on a journey that ended up as 19 chapters. One just led on to another and another and another. Maybe I'm as dense as a neutron after all wow, I don't understand this right now but wow, sounds like a perfect circle, without one, there cannot be the other.

Morning, Thanks Mordred, I haven't read it all yet and I'm trying to get to grips more with Zero Point Motion, this is potentially how I see the State 3 idea, at least from what I've read so far. The small always make the big.... I have already kind of forseen (as much as an uneducated physics person could) just how 'busy' this State 3 idea can or could get to, to a certain point and theorise (in a laymans definition) later on in another chapter that if this State 3 & it's components could be predicted to some extent and manipulated (grid mapped to some ectent), lol I don't think that would even be possible due to the vast (universe wide) amount of interconnecting (entangled?) boundary conditions in the gap could be, that maybe science would need a super duper quantum computer the size of Mars to do this. Probably even bigger depending on what or how much of these State 3's it would be trying to calculate. Analogous perhaps to a golf ball. A golf ball is made up of many entwining (entangled?) elastic bands, going all over the place, sticking to each other, decaying, merging, going through each other and maybe even more homogeneous & isotropic options that I haven't written here (at least thats how it looked to me when I opened one up once). If I expand that 'golf ball analogy' in my head to the Earth, our solar system, our galaxy and even the universe then.... well you can or maybe do already know how that might be. Hhahahaha sorry but this might hurt your head a bit, what kind of Super Duper Quantum Computer would be needed to try and calculate the event horizon of a BH. Yet alone the BH itself and the event horizon (this on it's own would create a State 3 in my head. The event horizon might be more of State of State 3's or even a State of a State of a State of State 3's and so on again in my head / idea. Anyway, thanks for those 2 links, I've read a couple and will now get back to the rest. 'There once was a commuter, With a super duper computer, Who travelled the stars and beyond, He went round and round, up, up and down, Got confused and realised his brain was not fond, Not fond of confusion, Nor fond of the mess, So went back to Earth and got into bed.' Sorry just came to me so I thought I'd share.

'Just when I thought I'd made it out, they pull me back in' grrr lolol, I joke. I'm glad I made some sense I saw and agree on a couple of things from my basic basic basic and lack of physics / maths knowledge but I'll reply tomorrow if you don't mind. Also, urrrgh more maths (bangs head on wall) lmao. Sorry but clearly that ain't my strong point. I will try to understand as best I can though. Have a great night Mordred and everyone else, 'see' you tomorrow

An Illogical Sense Of Order Chapter 1 - The Third State or State 3 (short version) In it's very basic form, I see a boundary condition of one state meeting the boundary condition of another state and inbetween these 2 boundary conditions is a state formed from hadrons, energy & forces. I see this state & it's components as the very smallest (possible superluminal? or relativistic?) anything can be before it tries to become 'nothing'. State 1 & State 2 Converging state 1's hadrons at it's boundary condition and also doing the same to state 2 and it's boundary condition, create a merger between the 2 boundary conditions where both state 1 and state 2 hadrons become entwined in upspins, downspins, strangeness and possibly? 'more' (I don't think I have learnt 'more' yet). Not 50% state boundary condition 1 and not 50% state 2 boundary condition but instead graduating from both states boundary conditions across their respective mediators and going in both forward & backward accelerations and also creating more and all possible homogeneous & Isotropic directions once the mediators merge (a third entity of air? would also be added to the mix with it's own states & boundary conditions) from state 1 to state 2 - State 1 99.9% / State 2 0.01% hadrons all the way through until eventually it becomes State 1 0.01% / State 2 99.9% and vice versa and possible in their millions? billions? trillions? The hadrons & their forces are created directly to die once measured but the energy/force? from their creation carries on with the QH (quantum hair) data from all hadrons as 'nothing' (or so I have read) cannot exist and these hadrons are so small that they are one step away from being 'nothing'. These energies?/forces? created, create a new state - State 3. Albeit very brief and very small througout the EM mediators and also now all over the place both Homogeneous and Isotropic. This merged hadron state contains all energy/force? created by the SQEP's between these 2 items. State 1 / boundary condition 1 - Hadron/Energy/Force State 1`. Item 2 boundary condition - Hadron/Energy/Force State 2. State 1 + State 2 Hadron/Energy/Force States = Homogeneous Isotropic Hadron/Energy/Force State 3. I see State 3 in the same way people shed their skin. Always happening, all the time while different boundary conditions are next to each other. The gap between to 2 boundary conditions is now phased or merged with each others boundary condition hadrons & forces/mediators at all times while these 2 items are next to each other with the added state of air (if on Earth). As soon as one state is moved or removed, State 3. would change to assimilate the new 'pairing' of whatever they then ended up next to boundary condition to boundary condition. So now think about the room you are in and how many boundary condtitions are connected with & to each other & the new States(& boundary conditions?) being created. I see these new States as being everywhere all the time, wherever they are in us and our organs, blood, neurons, vehicles, planets, Dark Matter? as EVERYTHING in the universe appears to have a boundary condtion. So I hope I've made more sense with this now. I'm sure I have made some mistakes or maybe I haven't grasped the proper meanings of things and as I said before, I look forward to your feedback, advice, knowledge (should that be knowlboundary condition?) and tuition. The name An Illogical Sense Of Order is the name of my idea/book that goes across 19 chapters from the above all the way through to the universe itself. I'm probably wrong lol.

I can understand why you would think I was taking a break, again my wording isn't the best. It will take me some time to get through everything, however the more I read, the more questions I have and so I come back to ask and then so on and so on, and hmm, I'm sometimes not great at getting things in the right order, I tend to jump before I can walk a lot while I'm swimming sometimes. So please forgive me and my odd terminology and wording. I also think my brain is searching sub conciously for things that relate to my idea and that also leads me all over the place. The studying will take and is taking time, I don't anticipate understanding things quickly, though some things are sticking more than others such as the term multiscale entanglement. I guess I am as confusing as I am not. I'm sorry. I'm as clever as I am thick. I do try to write things in the right way but hmm..I know I don't always. And I'm not surprised that you and Mordred are speaking about each others fields of expertise, it's a perfect pair/opposite/pair/opposite merger merger Does that even make sense? More confusion lol, sorry. That though, I understand lol, things to me seem to be this way in life. Anyway, thankyou for your reply as always, very helpful. Next time we will consider the difference between force and energy, a distinction so many get confused over. This would be very useful please do, I only hope I can understand it. I must admit I have been wondering if energy creates a force and what force types and energy types there are and also if quantum energy(particles?) can also produce other different merged? types of energy. Am I right in thinking Isotopes are the same as their chemical parent but with smaller masses and come and go at will? I haven't read too much about these but perhaps they are what I am calling the merged energies (sqep's, I know thats a bad term) between 2 boundary conditions and the their respective EM mediators? Do EM mediators create or can they create another different form of EM or new energy mediator? Can all mediators do this if they do? I am also going to try (well I hope) to rewrite my idea in a better more informed scientific way this weekend. I look forward to all your thoughts on that when I do it. I also don't smile much in real life but I use them here so you can see the impact you are all having on me. I know typed text can be misunderstood out of context. You wrote: Chemists distinguish explosions as reactions that accelerate indefinitely. This is either because the rate of energy input is greater than it can be distributed. Or it is because the reaction is of the 'chain' variety where there are several stages and one stage produces more than one output (next stage) for any input. This last part underlined, would this happen because of Si? I hope I've understod that correctly. My apologies if I haven't. I must also admit that the maths part and all the symbols are very confusing to me and I'm not sure if I can or will ever understand them. Is that going to be an issue for me trying to explain this idea? Or can I write it just aswell without knowing the maths? If I write something that makes sense to you folks, would it be something you could prove/disprove with your great understanding of maths? Thank you

woooah, lol that is like just wooooah I err ummm huh? lolol ok, you'd never guess I don't know how to reply to the bit I emblazened would you. But it's cool, I'll learn I hope. And I can reply to the 2 links you posted, my immediate reaction, was wow **** me, you wrote them 😮 Told you I was a nobody lol. Sorry for the swearing, I knew you guys were really clever and a couple of things you have mentioned has led me to believe you are a university professor or Nasa related Astrophysicist or similiar. Now I'm sure you are And I am even more overwhelmed by not just your help, but the time you have taken to help, advise and tutor? someone with my lack of physics & maths knowledge. I can't say thank you enough. I also suspect the other guys who have replied are similar to yourself and I bow to you all. I can't do much on a forum but I can show you my appreciation in the way of compliments and honesty. I think you are not just clever but brilliant brilliant minds. I'm not trying to butter you up, I honestly mean that.