Imparticle

I've been thinking and working up diagrams a lot. There are some more concepts and more particle explanations that are important. Imparticles has become more of a general term now. I think there are actually no-mass no-energy particles called pullons. Pullons are what I said. Relative to us they have infinite velocity, like an endless line. But actually they aren't moving at all. But they are intertwined, intrinsically entangled due to their inseparable and indistinguishable nature. The essential principle I thought of that I need to explain is something like quantum alteration. It's related to superposition, and how--as you know--particles flit into the universe. I know people are searching for the Higgs-Boson. Then there's String Theory. What I think is, as the pullons are spinning in their dimensions of hyperspace, alteration (in regards to superposition) occurs, and they are unable to remain together. They have an infinite potential energy and due to this superposition they are unable to have stasis. This releases the Energy, which you were talking about, a band of energy that begins and ends in the pullon. But, due to the intrinsic singularity of the pullons, the Energy cannot escape. This quantum inertia causes free Energy to vibrate into further particles. These particles are like pullons, for they have no mass. They are called flingons. Pullons fling these particles into being through quantum inertia, through their intrinsic pulling force. However, one must realize that many other strings of vibrating Energy are emerging from the pullons. The myriads of flingons that are flitting into hyperspace naturally differentiate from each other, because of their superposition and quantum alteration. However, the inertial force of the pullons ever holds them in virtual confinement. Thus, a boson is released into the normal space of the universe. It has evolved into a relative informational state of duration, length, width, and depth of its own. This is all consistent with String Theory somewhat. These flingons are confined into bosons and fermions. The force of the pullons confines particles into quarks, which try to escape the relativity of one another, but cannot, because the swinging pull of the flingons that are constructing them causes them to be confined into neutrons, protons, electrons. Furthermore, the inherited inertia of the subatomic particles keeps them together relative to other subatomic particles. Thus, an atom, with its quarks, is built. The building block of matter, out of energy. In short, Energy is fundamental, but it is also particulate. Superstrings is a true theory, in some senses (that there are 10 dimensions and vibrating strings). Elementary particles ARE elementary particles. And, there are alternate universes, in a way, but in their quantum conflict they all occur together. Other universes cannot escape the intrinsic inertia of pullons. Everything is held together by quantum mechanics. I think that even gravity is causes by the immense gathering of so much quantum inertia, that normal space becomes bent. This would all perfectly explain how quantum mechanics and general relativity are coexisting. Harley. I have explained it partially in the previous post. The dimensions which allow pullons and flingons or any manner of imparticle to exist and behave in the universe are 10 in number. The ones in question, however, constitute hyperspace, which is an old concept and is considered commonly by theoretical physicists all over the world. These dimensions in question are Singularity, Simultaneity, Infinity, Potentiality, Possibility, and (Dissemination) (naming this tenth dimension has proven quite difficult). Superposition also occurs because these dimensions are present in the universe. Harley.

You don't have to link, I am aware that they make predictions. Higgs bosons are a completely theory. Please point out my self-contradictions. Atoms, subatomic particles, mass, particles of energy, appearing in a universe and interacting with each other singularly without every disassociating from any other particle under any circumstances. When this does not happen, my hypothesis will be proven wrong. Or, when someone uses logic to suggest that it is wrong, that would be reasonable as well.

and thats why things happen. All evidence for this is beyond our perception, but I am soOOooO clever I worked it out (but not with maths or reasoning because Imparticle's are undetectable to those). So I ask you to prove me wrong if you can and until you do, I will accept this as true" The idea is that it can exist without DISTINCT qualities (that word is there for a reason) and without energy. Yes, this does engender more dimensions to the universe. But that's nothing new as scientists have been suggesting there are more dimensions than 3 or 4 for many decades, and will continue to because there should be. Obviously, if you approach this with the preconceived notion that nothing could hypothetically exist without energy, then you aren't going to see the reasoning. If you can't be hypothetical, don't discuss hypothetical theory. Not true. I defined it thoroughly. Super strings are not remotely detectable, and Higgs Bosons haven't been detected yet. Regardless if they can be detected, as a scientific mind you cannot PRESUME that everything thing in and about the universe is detectable. That is naive. I have given reasons. There are maths and reasoning. Do you think zero or infinity are not numbers? You can say I haven't reasoned anything, but I clearly have been attempting to provide reasons through logic. If you disagree with them or see that they fall short, as a rule of discussion you have to actually argue, and not make claims about what I say without backing them up. Did you read the thread? I may not be as clear or have all the phraseology and background knowledge of professional scientists in the slightest, but at least I can see reason and literal meaning in what people say. I could read all about what the scientists are doing to find the Higgs boson, and then I can turn around and say, "they have no reasons to say that, they worked it out without math or reasoning." But that would be a lie, because obviously I didn't understand what they had said, or I just disagreed with it with preconception. That's neat o. They don't have a prediction for the mass of this particle, until they see how it works exactly.

Years ago, I had an idea for a "genetic" germ, an organism that has some of the characteristics of a virus, but still constitutes a bacteria. Sort of a combination of the two. I used this germ as a means to explain how a species of trees on their own hypothetical planet could synthesize consciousness; that is to say, sentient plants. The germs are hyperactive. They are constantly tampering with and re-coding segments of DNA within certain cells of the tree, so that information can be stored via the relative coding of groups of large organizations of cells as a whole. In short, the germ and the plant cells simulate an electrical-impulsive brain system, in a microscopic chemical process, to give rise to a "cellular consciousness". Does that make sense insofar? I even went so far as to describe how the communicate. They do so through the reproductive process. Reproductive genes are encoded to describe an idea. The material is sent out and intercepted by other trees through the flower organs or what have you. The germs break down the material and reconstruct the idea for that organism's consciousness. Their evolutionary history was noted as well. They were formerly a mobile species, but the presence and complications involving the germ eventually shifted them into sedentary forms. That part is just hugely speculated... But further history was more tangible. After a certain period of interbreeding with the local tree species, eventually a subspecies emerged out of the tree genes instilled in the offspring, and facilitated the germ, giving rise to a more primitive consciousness. Communication between the two species consisted of great intelligences speaking to--almost neanderthalic intelligence. However, interbreeding of the two species in concert eventually produced a third species, one that was not as superior as the eldertrees, but far more intelligent than the mentally limited second species. Naturally, the middle species dominated the lower species, and the eldertrees contended to their own caste according to the intangible vastness of their intelligence. It seems like a very complex relationship, but there it is. The germs eventually become a very interesting idea to me and I've always wanted to figure out their intricacies and details. Alas, I lack the biochemical knowledge. Some of it may seem very off the wall or misguided. Any insight would be helpful to me though. Suggestions on naming and classifications of the germ would be appreciated as well.

I didn't say there was...

It's because of the word "already" in the sentence. They build (create) all possible patterns simultaneously and instantaneously, but there is more to the picture than those two facets. There is also space, there is also "time". There is relativity. And because of this relativity, we observe things, and what we observe is the relativity itself. We see things in different spaces and times, because they are really in different spaces and times. But, in regards to the entire picture, they are also in other facets that make them completely existent as finite beings. Because of relativity, because of those 4 dimensions. Simultaneity, in part--the sixth dimension. That describes how our singular now are instantly singular. But the dimension describing how yours and mine now are singular is Singularity, which Simultaneity is built onto. Perhaps that doesn't fully answer your question... Harley.

I have a different approach. A dimension is a facet of being. Dimension describes one imaginary line among numerous imaginary lines that, in tandem, provide the building of reality in which any given "being" may exist in the universe. Within reason, these dimensions must exist. I find that logically, dimensions are built upon each other; that is to say, dimensions aren't randomly meshed together, they are perfectly built so that each point in each dimension can be congruent, and allow the being represented by said point to be a conclusively congruent being. For example, if there was even one dimension that was not built upon the others, a being's point in that dimension would cause the being in its entirety to be out-phased from the universe. It would be stuck in a crack of hypothesis, between the void of chaotic randomness and the dimensions of the universe. So, each of the real dimensions are built on each other. For common thinkers, this is obvious. Length, width, and depth are plainly built on each other, and if you attempted to build one separately, or to separate one from the others, you would find yourself wedged into something hypothetical--you'd land into the Flatland universe. Moving on, I find that logically one dimension is built upon the previous one. That is to say, a point in one dimension, is a line in the next. For example, a given point in Length, is interchangeably a line in Width. A further point in Width, is a line in Depth. Furthermore, the point in Depth describes a line in Continuity (or, the dimension of time). The issue here is, if dimensions are built this way, then logically they build from innumerable dimensions into further innumerable dimensions. However, we observe that the universe seems to have a beginning and end, in terms of "beings". An apple does begin and end in the universe, we do not observe an apple infinitely unfolding itself into hypothetical dimensions. Again, logically, if anything were to have "innumerable dimensions", it would not be contained within a universe, and would only exist in its own universe of exponential tangents. But since we exist in the universe and can observe beings which do not consist in their own universe of exponential tangents, we must apply this to our dimensional logic. The result: The dimensions do in fact have beginning and ending points. So, logically, the first dimension would have to be self-containing, that is to say, a line in the first dimension must also represent the first dimensional point. Conversely, the final dimension would have to be self-terminating, a point in this dimension must also represent a line in this dimension. In short, a line in the final dimension represents the end of the point in the first dimension. A point in the first dimension expands into further points in lines that are unfolded from those, until the point only further expands into itself, and any line unfolded from this point would lie on the same line. That is the final dimension. This can be demonstrated by unfolding a piece of paper. Once it is completely unfolded, any further attempts to unfold it result in tearing it. And since we observe that the universe is not dimensionally torn, this must logically be the end point. So, we begin with the first dimension, the self-containing one. In this dimension, a point is also a line. That means, mathematically, a line in this dimension always begins and ends at this same point. This is an "abstract" line, it is not a concrete dimension. This dimension is called Singularity. Without this dimension, there would be no singularity to any given being, and the universe would not be able to remain a singular collective. All beings would be out-phased into the void of chaotic randomness. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in the same unified universe, and allows any and all relativity and interaction. The second dimensional point lies on a line, that is unfolded from a point in the first dimension. So, a point in Singularity is a line in Length. We all know what Length is. It is the first spatial dimension. If you try to first unfold the Width or Depth of a being in space, logically you will actually unfold its Length. Again, imagine unfolding a piece of paper. You cannot unfold the third or fourth fold without first unfolding it a second time, no matter how hard you try. Width and Depth unfold from this point and so forth. A point in Depth, is a line in Continuity. It is the dimension of time. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in the universe as it is changed, as it reproduces. It is a reproductive point, on a circular line, figuratively. A point in the fifth dimension is actually represented by two interchangeable points. On a circular line, any given point has a polar opposite. This opposite point describes the polarity of time--past and future. This is the figurative representation of the fifth dimension. If we imagine all the dimensions figuratively unified, it would look like this: Singularity would be a point in the center. Length width and depth are represented by lines expanded into a cube. If you imagine any given point in time, you see an infinite number of circles around the other dimensions, forming a sphere. This sphere is the fifth dimension, and the volume of the sphere represents space, in its three dimensions. Mass is also described in this figure, where it is visualized displacing the volume of the sphere, hence the involution of space and relativity of time. That said, there are still further dimensions yet to unfold. Logically, the fifth dimension does not terminate itself, because a point in Continuity unfolds into a line that does not lie in Continuity--in the fifth dimension. This line is the sixth dimension, Simultaneity. Figuratively, this line lies between the two interchangeable points in the fifth dimension. It is the line between time. Without this dimension, beings would continue through time in their own mutually exclusive passages. To put it simply, in order for you to continue to be reproduced within the universe, there must be a facet of you that is built from Continuity onto Singularity. Figuratively, this line contacts the central point that visualizes the first dimension. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in the universe as it is reproducing and changing in unification, in an interrelated web of cause and effect. A point in the sixth dimension is a line in the seventh. But what could this line unfold as, and where could this line be? It unfolds from the point of Simultaneity, and builds from the point of Singularity. Figuratively, is lies between the first point and the sixth line, thus, it cannot be seen as it is an abstract line. The abstract dimensions are all unable to be represented 3-dimensionally, naturally because they do not pertain to those 3-dimensions. We have no method of drawing them as lines relative to 3-dimensional lines, except as abstract points. The seventh dimension is Infinitude. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in our self-congruency. That is to say, any given object is self-congruent, it is infinitely identical to itself. Without the dimension of Infinitude, any given being would not be self-congruent and would be out-phased due to a lack of agreeing with its own reality. Logically, this means that each being is infinite in its own congruency. The eighth dimensional line is a seventh dimension point. This line unfolds from the seventh dimension, and builds on the fifth. This dimension between Infinitude and Continuity is called Potentiality. Figuratively, if we were to bisect the six-dimensional sphere, so that we could see the seventh dimension as a line between the two halves, the eighth dimension would appear as two interchangeable lines stemming from the seventh line to the two interchangeable points on the circumference of the semi-sphere. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in a mathematically feasible universe. Boggling, the further dimension is abstracted from the initial abstraction. This dimension is highly abstract. It is a line between the two interchangeable points in Potentiality. A point in Potentiality is a line in the ninth dimension, which is built on the interchangeability of that point. The ninth dimension is Possibility. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in a universe of infinitely conclusive feasibility. Figuratively, this line is visualized between the two points of the eighth dimension, intersecting the dimensional line of seventh dimension. In a 3-dimensional representation, the ninth dimension is a disc with the geometric "cone" of the eighth dimension. Now, what happens if we try to unfold a line from this ninth dimensional point? Any line drawn out of Possibility cannot build onto anything else. Beyond the infinitely conclusive feasibility of the universe, logically there can be nothing, no further point of dimension. Any line unfolded from a point in Possibility lies on the same line of said point. Alas, we have come to the end of the universe. If the six-dimensional sphere is bisected, and the first point and sixth point are represented as interchangeable, then the complete figure looks like a sphere and two opposite cones with the circumference of the sphere as their bases, and meeting at the point of Infinitude. This forms a sort of conical "infinity" symbol.

I appreciate that you're actually discussing it now. I have not, and do not deny the presence of those dimensions. Length, width, depth, and time are presentably observable to us. But my argument, and the argument of many hundreds of scientists, and philosophers, and the current String theorists, is that these dimensions do not describe the universe in its entirety. At this point, you are disagreeing with all of those scientists and theorists. I am simply agreeing with them. Not because I'm following them, but because I started from scratch and arrived in the same place of my own accord. I'm just pointing it out, what you're arguing argues against them as well, and what they think is taught in our universities and published as scientific in our magazines and TV channels, and right now they're building particle colliders in Sweden to prove it within ten years. They way I have figured it, with my colleagues alongside me, is that there are nine dimensions. The String theorists haven't come to a consensus on how many dimensions or what they think they are, but the most popular hypothesis suggests 10 dimensions. I completely disagree with them, but I'm just making a note of this. It is part of the scheme of space in time, but to view it in space and time, four dimensions, is to see only a part of it, only to see a part of anything. If you imagine in within all the nine dimensions, you can observe the world and see exactly how reasonably it fits into everything. Just like the String theorists purport. You, me, and any given lamp all have these dimensions, and to say how imparticles represent themselves in space and time is to say how quantum particles emerge. Scientists say that these quantum particles actually appear to be in numerous places at once... String theory hypothetically explains this. I haven't hypothesized yet on the mechanics of the imparticles convulsing into quantum particles, but it may mechanically resemble oscillating strings of energy. At any rate, whatever the mechanics are, regardless if they're superstrings or not, these mechanics are not self-explained and imparticles are the very thing which explain them ultimately.

Well, at any rate, I'm pleased that I was compared to a theory suggested by Mr. Hawking. As to the first paragraph, does that mean the energy is "destroyed". Isn't that inherently impossible? Is that why Stephen Hawking suggested an alternative? Because the conclusion of this idea would be that the photon never escapes the center of the event, unless space is un-convoluted, that is to say, turned right-side in. That would allow the particles to escape backwards entrapment and they would appear out of the straightening space--hypothetically. But it is my understanding that black holes do not collapse... True?

That is very true. And they have no way of exactly proving String Theory is correct in several ways, and likely will not ever be able to prove most of them. They have taken the most minute and the most general of observations, and attempted to describe what is causing them without observing that thing in itself. I'm happy you can appreciate Imparticle Theory to that extent, Millar. That is a slightly different observation than those that I and my associates have made insofar. Thank you very much. If nothing else, you'll have made this thread worth my effort. Harley.

Stop right there guy. Building does require a process. I call it convulsion. But as I clearly described, a process that involves no energy, and has no reference to any quality of MASS, cannot and does not "require time" (theoretically). How would it? Why would it? Furthermore, I've already found and explained all the dimensions that allow them to exist entirely and go through their convulsion process, which freely allows them to be built into massive particles and energy particles. Naturally, these dimensions are consecutive and they do build on each other perfectly.

From a realistic story, nothing. From fiction? Consistent logic and reasonable explanation of observations. That equals a legitimate hypothetical theory. What differentiates String Theory from "fiction"? You know, I don't understand your angle. If you were sincerely interested in this theory, you would actually discuss it. Instead, you have my semantically break down everything little thing I say, just so you can reiterate sarcastically that it is a hypothetical theory. When someone has something discursive to say on the meaning of this hypothetical theory, I'll be very happy to reciprocate that. Then--maybe--that would present the possibility of explaining the theory further, into its entirety. Until then.

I wasn't wrong. I meant literally, the people who I have discussed who have said that to me in scientific discussion, didn't follow up with consistent arguments. They were regurgitating common thought. Something that I frown upon. I like to encourage people to understand common though for themselves and explain it in their understanding, because it gives ideas perspective, and perspective is how we all learn. As opposed to regurgitating what we all read in books, and see on TV. Noted. Thank you, I misread that. I know that's what it means. I think this applies to my "theory". I don't mean to say that my theory is proven or is currently provable, but it is "theory" in the sense that "String Theory" is theory. They actually understood, because they contributed to the consensus understanding of it through discussion. Admittedly, my words are probably a lot less meaningful here, because over the years of delving into the entirety of this theory at more and more depth, the meanings of terms have mutated so much to make sense of things that it would be difficult to find them immediately useful in this environment. For that I'm sorry. But had you been in a room with me and or a couple of my associates, and a surface to draw on, most of these terms would present themselves elegantly. At any rate, I do apologize for that. One of the many reasons I'm taking it to this forum. Imagine yourself, as you are, existing in space. Relative to all the particles around you, you have space. You can be described spatially, with relativity to other things in space. You can move in length, width, and depth. You can mediate energy. Heat. If you explode, your particles can disperse spatially. Now, imagine an imparticle. They have no mass. If you were to "observe" an imparticle, there would be no involution of space, and no way for it to interact with you and you or anything else, spatially. They are not limited by space, because they are as built-up as particles with mass. They are more primitive that the quantum particles you observe with spatial relativity, every day. The more you break down particles, the less limited they become. That's why the most fundamental particle, the quantum of quantum, so to speak, is limitless. Time and space are interchangeable, insofar as their scientific meaning her can be applied. Recall how I describe the property of particles existing without space. This behooves the property of existing between time. They are endlessly convulsing particles, eternally wedged between any imagined points in time, by their property of existing without space. Imagine time as a circle, not a line of time, but continuity as a dimension. A point in this dimension always has a polar opposite. These two opposite points describe the polarity of time, past and future. Without this polarity, continuity wouldn't be continuity, it would be random pathways of time, and general relativity wouldn't happen. So, a circle. Now, imagine a point between these to points. This point isn't a point in time, it is a point that describes simultaneity. Similarly to imagining the imparticle without space, the imparticle as "observed" in between time isn't able to "arrive" at these points. There is no energy, or substance, in and of the imparticle that can reach into what we observe as time. Thus, to "observe" the imparticle is to imagine a unit that is without space, and also between time. "When I said that they convulse and build into massive particles, I was summing up the process that I have ALREADY previously explained, three times in this thread, in some detail. Consisting of their without-space/between-time properties, the way in which they build into massive particles that have energy and relative spacetime is completely alien to our understanding of particles that do have energy and or mass." Let me break it down for you. When I try to come up with quantitative predictions, I end up imagining everything that happens in the universe, between the quantum mechanics and the general relativity of anything and everything. One day, I realized this is what many scientists are working on today, in physics, quantum physics, astrophysics, mathematics, and philosophically as well. You're right. I can say or hypothesize that the reason the particles of your body are able to associate and remain in the same universe together at the same time and also to stay that way, is because the imparticles they're made up of are intrinsically intertwined and can't allow them to be separated in regards to general relativity or quantum mechanics. On the other hand, I can't measure this prediction. That's why it is hypothetical, like String Theory, but nonetheless it has theoretical meaning and is reasonable and logical. What are your thoughts on quantitative prediction, or related methods?

Many, many people of different angles have payed loads of attention to my theory. They've discussed it, turned it inside out and backwards, and gone through logical experiments with it on their own and with third parties. Just because my posts are getting grounded on this forum doesn't mean people do not or even should not have reason to pay attention. This forum is not the end-word on scientific theory. This forum is for discussion. My response to this is a quote: The phrase, "the experimental domain in which such combinations could be tested is unreachable with existing and foreseeable technology," is paramount to your questions on my theory. It explains why the behavior of quantum particles is not random, why the universe does not simply exist in a broken expanse of chaotic randomness. As I said before, these particles are what fundamentally intertwine all things. In theory, they cannot be separated. This explains why any number of observable things in our universe cannot be disassociated from each other. Everything in our observable universe is interconnected, but how and why are mysterious that lie in the reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The scientific community recognizes this to be true. Again, I'm digressing to the source of the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity. There are rules, and we follow them in logic. However, there is a point at which rules must be explained with further rules, and that is being done with String Theory. For god's sake, they are making up dimensions only for the sake of accommodating String Theory. I simply have a different approach. It is not so far fetched, you just have to gain perspective. Just because you can't apply the implied meanings, doesn't mean my words are meaningless. Normal people understand them when I have discussions almost every week. Now, either they are telepathically understanding what I'm saying, or else my words have scientific meaning to them. There's no need to be one-dimensional. Without space, means that the particles do not have spatial relativity. They have no mass, they do not involute space. They cannot move in a sense that implies length, width, or depth. Reflectively, they exist between time as well. Since the process they go through takes no time, and all interactions they have with themselves are timeless and simultaneous, they exist between time. To say that they exist "outside" time would be misleading, because something that exists "outside" of the dimensions of the universe, does not really exist here. This is what is meant by without space and between time. They are interchangeable meanings. Yes, yes, this does suggest some further and--actually--prior dimensions. That is, in answer to your question quoting, "and it is in this facet of the universe that they convulse." Lastly, when I said that they convulse and build into massive particles, I was summing up the process that I have ALREADY previously explained, three times in this thread, in some detail. Consisting of their without-space/between-time properties, the way in which they build into massive particles that have energy and relative spacetime is completely alien to our understanding of particles that do have energy and or mass. This is the reason we do not observe imparticles, because they are there but always without space and between time. But the evidence of their process lies in the quantum particles we can and do see with all our technology today. Tachyons cannot be seen or measured, but many people agree that scientifically they could exist.

Yes, well that's true. I didn't consider that process during my thinking. However, light still is effected by distorted space, as observed when it is bent by a planet's gravity. It was essentially this behavior of photons I was stepping on. Make sense?

It's worth discussing because it explains several things. Also, because it is a logical conclusion. A lot of people say, something that has no mass cannot constitute something of mass. But these people never actually argue there point, they give no reasons. If something has mass, and it is broken down to its most possibly fundamental constituents, those constituents cannot have mass. Are atoms made up of atoms? Nope. Why? Because those massive particles would require further constituents to be there from the first. Therefore, some sort of hyper-quantum particles must be constituting them in their own way. I say their own way, because you cannot imagine particles with no energy or mass to constitute things in the same "way" that we understand massive particles to. They exist without space and between time, and it is in this facet of the universe that they convulse and BUILD into massive particles. They are hyper-quantum for a reason. I'm not just vomiting out words, I am making sense. That's why I used String Theory as a contrast, to point out that obviously this theory is legitimate.

So, back to imparticles... I have reasoned that like photons are the quanta of light, so are imparticles the quanta of quantum, or essentially they are the quanta of itself. To reinforce the case for imparticles, I'd like to say that as you break down all matter, indeed all substance or "stuff" that matter and light are constituted of, you eventually come to a level at which something must be constituting things that somehow constitutes itself. Otherwise, quantum mechanics and general relativity wouldn't logically, communicate or make sense between themselves. Many, many attempts have been made to harmonize quantum mechanics and general relativity, the most recent of which is popularly string theory. A lot of people don't agree with string people, and still more people disagree on the specifics of string theory. I'd just like to say that my theory is not pointless, and does scientifically deserve to be considered. I thought this might be a more reinforcing summary: Imagine a particle with no energy and no mass. This is a hyper-quantum particle. So, it is infinitely valueless, and smaller than space. (Remember, space is the involution of mass--*you might want to lookup involution.) I suggested them as the particles that compose all particles that have mass or energy, in other words, the fundamental constituent of all things. As you break down all matter, indeed all substance or "stuff" that matter and light are constituted of, you eventually come to a level at which something must be constituting things that somehow constitutes itself. Otherwise, quantum mechanics and general relativity wouldn't logically, communicate or make sense between themselves. I found that if particles have mass or even energy, they are transient and cannot be fundamental, so in relentless attempts to break down the subatomic and possible hyper-quantum particles scientists apparently continue to discover, I found invisible particles that exist interchangeably, simultaneously, composing all that exists at the same time. I call it theImparticle. I spent many years trying to prove how they don't exist, but they eventually convinced me logically. They also explain why everything is interconnected. Because everything is fundamentally composed of imparticles, and they can never be separated in any process, they prove that nothing can be disassociated with anything else, everything is fundamentally intertwined. Since we observe intellectually that all things are connected in a web of energy (potential), i.e. the butterfly effect, I have found that the scientific source of this is the Imparticle Singularity Principle. Or Harley's Singularity Principle, as I sometimes think of it. Imparticles naturally exist without time and without space, but in being intrinsically entangled, they are miraculously forced into order. Not random order, but all possible order. And what we observe in the universe is all the order that can occur; that is to say, the convulsion of imparticles. Furthermore, we observe this in accordance with the Imparticle Singularity Principle. And here is an excerpt saying a little about string theory.

What happens to the particles that black holes gobble up?? I realized that since the speed of light is constant, as it travels through space that is distorted by mass (planet's gravity, water) it APPEARS to slow down, but actually it is traveling at the same constant speed, only the funnel of space that is its passage is bent by mass and thus distorts its relative travel. This explains why a photon appears to move slowly through a massive substance, but retains its constant speed once it reenters the vacuum. Applying that logic to black holes was enjoyable. Since a black hole is essentially bending space to the point at which the singularity is space turned inside out, I figured that particles travelling into the singularity of the black hole do not stop. Photons always travel at their constant speed, so in the event that their passage becomes inside out, the only passage I could imagine for them to take would be backwards in time. It is a silly, but frank, word to describe the idea, but, there it is. The point is, from the perspective of the backwards particles, nothing is really happening; on the other hand, from our perspective, the particles are still contained within the singularity of the black hole, because as long as they are being propelled backwards in SPACETIME--the convoluted spacetime of the singularity--it is impossible for them to relatively exit the event. This would explain why no particles observably exit the black hole.

That's because it is metaphysics. If you're not familiar or studious in metaphysics, this will not make scientific sense to you. It is not merely empirical physics, it is metaphysics, which is another branch of science altogether but inextricably linked to empirical physics nonetheless.

All of the arguments and questions posed in these messages are explained at least twice over by myself in the previous posts, quite clearly, and so that common people have generally understood. I mean, through many discussions with--let me guess-about 20 VERY different people of different ages and different backgrounds, some highly scientific, some not so at all, understood those things quite clearly. The lamp still looks like a lamp, but it is not the same lamp as it was the first time you saw it. Do I need to tell you that everything is constantly changing, that reality is in perpetual flux and nothing stays the same from one point in time to another? There is no atom that does not change, relatively, to the rest of the universe, at any given point in time. Nor is there a subatomic particle, or any object, or any thing at all that remains unchanging. The world is made up of change, relativity. When the imparticles bond, they make up the lamp, when they are disbanded, the lamp is not "there"--in a hyper-quantum sense. But as I said very clearly, the bonding process and the disbanding process is instantaneous--why?--because the process takes NO ENERGY and therefore cannot take up any amount of "time". This simply means that by the time the lamp has been convulsed into reality, it has been both bonded and disbanded into reality, and that all the imparticles making up this lamp, have convulsed into every possible ORDER they ever could convulse into, creating an infinite, simultaneous reality made up of endless ideas--ideas like the lamp, and the new lamp you're still staring at now, and also the new lamp that will be their 3 seconds later, and the new photons that are traveling from the lamp to your eye, and your new eye, and your new brain that has gone from being what it was 3 seconds ago, to the brain it is now, made up of atoms that have slightly changed, and furthermore, an infinite number of hyper-quantum particles that have "changed" as well.

OPHIOLITE: I appreciate that. No, I'm not trying to be self-proliferating or condescending, even passively. I would like to be questioned, I would like to have discussion. What I don't want is to be refused without any discussion at all, and I'm simply discouraging that. If I come across any other way, I'm being misleading. But please understand, I can sound very misleading in written discussion. Here, the words properties and qualities do not mean the same thing. In certain cases they can be similar, but not in this case. It's a matter of semantics. When I say an imparticle has no qualities, I mean that nothing concrete could be said about any given imparticle. You cannot say, in a concrete sense, that it is a certain color, taste, size, or describe it with any quality at all that behooves it any tangibility. But that doesn't mean they don't have real properties, in the sense that they have virtue of what they are (property: a characteristic trait or peculiarity, especially one serving to define or describe its possessor; the virtue possessed of a thing) Not ill-defined, rather they are abstractly-defined. Whether I have ill-defined their abstract definition is another question. And at any rate, I'd be happy to best define their abstract definition through discussion on them. I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone, I'm trying to communicate a concept so as to clarify it better for people in general. I've already explained this and discussed it with dozens of my associates. I am looking for an open discussion from people who have thought through what I've said, so I can take things further here, for more depthuous analysis. I don't mean to sound preachy. Tar: Thank you. You do seem to understand what metaphysics is. It is indeed physics, but not empirical physics, and certainly not always concrete, often abstract. Pick up any college textbook on philosophy and metaphysics, or just metaphysics, and you'll find test after test for several theories. I'm used to metaphysical testing. I've simply introduced into this field, a metaphysical particle that is in the PHYSICAL sense, abstract, and as I'm currently describing as hyper-quantum. Perhaps better testing could come out of this thread, but we'd have to actually discuss it on the same level. Any sort of concrete, or empirical value. In mathematical terms, infinitely valueless would be represented as [0] (absolute zero) or perhaps zero to the i (imaginary zero). There are various ways to describe infinitely valueless. You know what? People didn't see a need for the theory that the world was not the center of the universe, nay even the star system. And yet the theory was true. Many theories are not seen to have a need, at first. I never said I saw a gap in current theory and that I'm trying to fill it. Indeed, if there was a gap, everyone would be trying to fill it. I'm not trying to fill anything that's missing. I'm simply describing something that explains what is already there. That's why it is a metaphysical theory, it explains what's already there, it relates to the fundamental nature or being-ness, of reality itself. My justification is not that I "think I need it." My justification is as I've implied. I posited that if imparticles weren't there as the things whose property is to fundamentally intertwine all ideas, then all ideas would be randomly disconnected and even idealistic relativity would not exist, thus rendering reality a void of no ideas. I've said other things along those lines, yet you have ignored them, claiming that I am not providing any justification, yet I have implied it time and again. If you have thoughts on it, or disagree with it, or agree with it, or what have you, please post it and that's how we will all have a discussion. But you have no reason to say I am talking with empty words or "word salad". If you think I came to this thread trying to convince others that these particles NEED to exist, and to follow my concept of reality like sheep, you are mistaken. I am here to discuss, for the sake of discussing and refining representation of this, the basis of my theory, and the further concepts which it composes and constrains. You may not see a need for it, but there has hardly been any argument beyond the semantic presumption. I'm not accusing anyone of being stupid or closed-minded, I'd just rather have discussion on the ideas, and not on how the concept is not empirically provable. It is METAPHYSICAL, indeed it stems into the realm of hyper-quantum physics, but it is understood through metaphysical sense and intellectualism.

Precisely. More or less. Much obliged. OPHIOLITE: Frankly I never said they have no or variable properties, nor have I defined them in a way to be called "ill". Their properties are very clear and specific. They have no energy, they have no mass or value, they cannot be dissociated from each other, they are simultaneously bonded and disbanded from each other, and they are infinitely valueless. I have also designated them as hyper-quantum, a term already used in the scientific community. No, it doesn't seem that way. Or if it does, how about you elaborate on how it is so, please. Metaphysics: a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. This is a metaphysical theory that involves abstract concepts and illustrates how an hyper-quantum particle is abstract. I attempted to demonstrate so. Either you didn't see the demonstration, or you aren't responding to it. If you find the demonstration is false, please explain why, then we could actually discuss it. Or am I to just babble? It would be profitable if we could explore the theory together in order to make it more tangible for you. Or if you'd rather not understand it at all, I don't care--lots of people don't want to understand things they can't immediately grasp. But I'll tell you this: if you expect to grasp the metaphysical basis of the universe in a single, immediate sitting, you are in fact living in a box.

At the risk of being frank, you are assuming a lot and favoring your own conclusions about my complete theory without having first understood even the very basis of it. No need to jump to things like that. Needless to say, the way you learn about a new idea, a different idea, is by opening your mind and trying to understand the reasons for it, not by insisting it isn't true at every vague spot. I'm asking you as a scientific-mind, to be respective of thinking in a different direction. Your first question, stating that you don't understand what "no energy or value," means. Energy is the potential to do work. The imparticle (an abstract hyper-quantum particle) has no such energy, no potential to do in its own accord. Therefore, in an equation, or any scheme of values of any sort, the imparticle can carry no value of its own, nor can it be exclusively subject to value. You then go on to say that there is no test possible to determine if or where they exist. The word quantum can be used in a sense to describe ideas or processes that physically occur, but cannot be observed in the conventional sense. There are all kinds of processes and ideas that occur in our universe, that are not observable, not concrete, but they are still real. Imaginary numbers, for example. These parts of reality are simply abstract. The basis of my theory simply suggests that at the fundamental level of all things in our universe, there lies something that is not only quantum in the physical sense, but abstract as well. Now, is that seriously owed to be compared to "faerie wishes"? Not hardly. After reiterating this logic, I elaborate on the process of imparticles. I call this process convulsion. It is simple reasoning. If something has no energy and is indistinguishable from it's counterparts, it cannot be dissociated from them, they are contained within one another and yet, being infinitely valueless, they disband from each other simultaneously. Having no energy, having no concrete dimension, they do not interact with us in continuity (time), they simply undergo their necessary process. You would like an experiment? Confounding as the concept of imparticle singularity may sound at first, it explains a lot of things about reality. It explains why no thing--concrete or abstract--can ever be utterly dissociated from anything else (a fact which is not plainly observable, but is abstractly understood nonetheless). I have spent years trying to figure out how they are not there, convulsing, instantaneously intertwining all ideas at their most fundamental level. The truth is, what if they weren't there? If nothing was intertwining all ideas at the fundamental level, then all ideas would be dissociated, and nothing further could evolve. Reality would consist a void of no ideas. Here is my experiment: The hypothesis is something intertwines all ideas fundamentally, thus allow further building of reality. You test this hypothesis with a thought-experiment, much like the popular "Schrodinger's Cat" experiment. You think logically, are all ideas in reality fundamentally intertwined, are they unable to be dissociated, do they appear to be connected abstractly through one way or another if they are observed? Then you recognize this concept as an abstract concept that is not comprehended without logical thought. I have simply reached the conclusion, time and again, that these invisible things must be there, fundamentally intertwining all ideas that make up reality. I don't choose to "believe" in them, I scientifically find cause to identify them as being there. One last time, imparticle singularity is an abstract concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. It's reasonable and explains things in a physical way--that is to say, physics in the hyper-quantum sense--that are HARDLY explained at all. The reason they are hardly explained is because most scientists don't want to "go there". To put it simply, I have. Once this much is understood, I can move on to the more complex nature of my theory, which illustrates the dimensions, from the first self-sustaining dimension, to the last self-limiting dimension, at what an idea's point in each dimension means.