1. Sub Quantum Echo Particles...(SQEP's) & Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Resonance Flux

[Imagine Everything]

Hi all,

The above is the title of Chapter 1/20 regarding my very basic but complex idea.

In it's very basic form, I see an edge of one item meeting the edge of another item and inbetween these 2 edges is a resonation flux formed from SQEP kinetic energy.

I see SQEP's as the very very smallest anything can be before it tries to become 'nothing'.

Item 1 & item 2

Breaking down item 1 SQEP's at it's edge and also doing the same to the item 2, this might create a merger between the 2 items where both item 1 and item 2 SQEP's become entwined.

Not 50% item 1 and not 50% item 2 but instead graduating from both items and going in both (and all?) directions between them and creating from item 1 to item 2  -  Item 1 99.9% / Item 2 0.01% SQEP's all the way through until eventually it becomes item 1 0.01 / Item 2 99.9% and vice versa and possible in their millions? billions? trillions?

The SQEP's are created directly to die but the kinetic energy from their creation carries on with the QH (quantum hair) data from all SQEP's as 'nothing' (or so I have read) cannot exist and SQEP's are so small that they are one step away from being 'nothing'.

This kinetic energies created, create a resonance flux. All beit very breif and small

The Phase flux contains all kinetic energy created by the SQEP's between these 2 items.

Item 1 SQEPKRF1 - Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Resonance Flux 1.

Item 2 SQEPKRF2 - Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Resonance Flux 2.

Item 1/Item 2 SQEPKPRF - Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Phase Resonance Flux

I see these SQEPKRF's in the same way people shed their skin. Always happening, all the time items are next to each other.

The space between to 2 edges is now phased or merged with each others SQEP's at all times while these 2 items are next to each other.

As soon as one is moved, the SQEPKPRF would change to fit the new 'double' or 'pairing' of whatever they then ended up next to edge to edge.

So now think about the room you are in and how many edges are meeting each other & the SQEPKRF + SQEPKPRF being created. Quite mind blowing?

I see these fluxes as being everywhere all the time, wherever they are,  as EVERYTHING in the universe has an edge. More mind blowing?

 

I'll stop there as I have maybe already written too much, so I apologise in advance if I have.

Like I said before, I'm not a scientist and this is the easiest way to me, for me to describe it. Please go easy on me if you reply, I won't neccessarily understand your terminolgy for something like this.

I have no idea if it true and I have 20 chapters regarding what this can do , might have done and might continue to do, that I wrote recently that I am dying to have clever people like yourselves read and and tell me if I'm right, a little bit right or just plain imaginative.

Thank you for reading and for any answers you might reply with.

The SQEP's could actually be SQEPEPEPEP....

I don't know how small things can get but perhaps they are Sub QuantumEcho Particle Echo Particle Echo Particles or even more?

 

Edited September 24 by Imagine Everything
deleted a few words/added more detail

[swansont]

The bottom line for physics is being able to predict or explain behavior of some phenomenon, usually with a calculation, as applied to some experiment. What observed phenomenon does this apply to? 

[joigus]

24 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

my very basic but complex idea.

Isn't this an oxymoron?

[Imagine Everything]

Hi swansont

 

If I understand your question correctly, I first thought about this when I started learning more about black holes and their event horizons.

This a giant merger of material being eaten? turned into neutrons?

And it made me wonder if actually it wasn't a hole but a smaller verion of a magntar or pulsar, what I think of as a Minitar (but that's another chapter)

It made me wonder if actually a smaller  even more condensed core exists inside a black hole and has a neutron atmosphere.

The atmosphere must surely at some point merge with dark matter at its edges? However far out these edges might be.

I thought there must be a point at which the 2 become a 'third' item if you will when they merge. This item became a 'flux' to me.

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

Isn't this an oxymoron?

Yes My whole idea is also based on pairs. Something and nothing, simple and complex, night and day, left and right etc

Edited September 24 by Imagine Everything
added a word

[joigus]

33 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Yes My whole idea is also based on pairs. Something and nothing, simple and complex, night and day, left and right etc

Let me then follow suit. If you ask me, "is this a good idea?" I would say,

"Yes and no."

 

[Imagine Everything]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Let me then follow suit. If you ask me, "is this a good idea?" I would say,

"Yes and no."

 

Thanks,  Always 2 ways to look at things, 2 sides to every story

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

I see SQEP's as the very very smallest anything can be before it tries to become 'nothing'.

Welcome back the ghost of Bishop Berkely.

Quote

The Ghosts of Departed Quantities

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

 

We already have something like this called infinitesimals.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

[Imagine Everything]

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Welcome back the ghost of Bishop Berkely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

 

We already have something like this called infinitesimals.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

wow just...I'm in amazement.

I had no idea about the maths thing. So much of what I have written in my 'book' keeps popping up in things I read or see after and now even here. 😮

 

I guess this means I'm onto something

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Isn't this an oxymoron?

I don't think so. An oxymoron is a seeming contradiction made deliberately to convey a particular meaning, e.g. a deafening silence. I don't see much evidence of a particular meaning in this case. 

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

wow just...I'm in amazement.

I had no idea about the maths thing. So much of what I have written in my 'book' keeps popping up in things I read or see after and now even here. 😮

 

I guess this means I'm onto something

 

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Yes My whole idea is also based on pairs. Something and nothing, simple and complex, night and day, left and right etc

Duality appears again and again all over maths and science  -  It is very common.

 

In Science we have positive and negative polarities, north and douth poles, many related to direction like upstream and downstream, forwards and backwards etc....

 

In Maths we have the Dual Space, left hand and right hand (this has been further developed in molecular theory as Chirality)

 

So yes you could fit something in there.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Hi swansont

 

If I understand your question correctly, I first thought about this when I started learning more about black holes and their event horizons.

This a giant merger of material being eaten? turned into neutrons?

And it made me wonder if actually it wasn't a hole but a smaller verion of a magntar or pulsar, what I think of as a Minitar (but that's another chapter)

It’’s called a black hole because no particles that have fallen inside can escape, not even light. So, like a hole, and also black.

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

It made me wonder if actually a smaller  even more condensed core exists inside a black hole and has a neutron atmosphere.

You would have to explain how a neutron structure could exist under such a large attraction.

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

The atmosphere must surely at some point merge with dark matter at its edges? However far out these edges might be.

Black holes have little to with dark matter. Dark matter would fall into it, but the black hole behavior does not rely on dark matter; the theory that predicts black holes predates knowledge of dark matter

 

[Imagine Everything]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Duality appears again and again all over maths and science  -  It is very common.

 

In Science we have positive and negative polarities, north and douth poles, many related to direction like upstream and downstream, forwards and backwards etc....

 

In Maths we have the Dual Space, left hand and right hand (this has been further developed in molecular theory as Chirality)

 

So yes you could fit something in there.

awesome can't wait to tell you all my idea about  about the Big Bang and how my SQEP flux idea might make sense of almost 'nothing' being something' at the same time. 

[Mordred]

Little suggestion you can also do away with the SQEPKR etc. 

 Apply the energy momentum relation and apply either Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations or alternately the Dirac equations.

There exists a category of particles called resonant particles. To understand what determines resonant particles one can study the Breit Wigner distributions which already factor in chirality/helicity and other quantum particle properties in the cross sections.

[Imagine Everything]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’’s called a black hole because no particles that have fallen inside can escape, not even light. So, like a hole, and also black.

You would have to explain how a neutron structure could exist under such a large attraction.

Black holes have little to with dark matter. Dark matter would fall into it, but the black hole behavior does not rely on dark matter; the theory that predicts black holes predates knowledge of dark matter

 

Ok so to me its a really simple anwser but perhaps you guys have  a much more indepth explanation.

Something can't be 'absolute nothing'

So a star goes Super Nova in it's last hurrah and becomes a neutron star, a neutron star goes Killa Nova in it's last hurrahh and creates a black hole (Minitar) but the black hole can't have a last hurrahh (unless it too can go 'something' Nova but I have never heard of that) so surely the black hole (I think of this as a Minitar not a black hole) must be more dense than a neutron star?

But it can't be condensed to 'nothing' so surely there must be a core of some sort inside it?

Perhaps it is extremely  minute but still a core. I see the core being a seriouly condensed SQNEPKRF - Sub Quantum Neutron Echo Particle Kinetic Resonnce Flux or even  a weird SQENPKPRF - Sub Quantum Neutron Echo Particle Kinetic Phase Resoonance Flux.

I say weird because I wonder if the core is pure (beyond comprehensionly) dense neutrons with a neutrino atmosphere or vice versa.

 

Surely no matter how much material that is drawn in by the immense gravity, the core cannot get any smaller than the very last state of BEING before it becomes 'nothing'

So wouldn't that mean it would have to have a core of some size that just cannot become nothing? No matter how hard it tries.

Is that why or partly why quasars are formed?

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Little suggestion you can also do away with the SQEPKR etc. 

 Apply the energy momentum relation and apply either Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations or alternately the Dirac equations.

There exists a category of particles called resonant particles. To understand what determines resonant particles one can study the Breit Wigner distributions which already factor in chirality/helicity and other quantum particle properties in the cross sections.

I'm so sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about, though I have vaguely heard of Schrodingers cat.

Please remember, I'm not a scientist and have had almost no science lessons at all in my life.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Black holes have little to with dark matter. Dark matter would fall into it, but the black hole behavior does not rely on dark matter; the theory that predicts black holes predates knowledge of dark matter

What if Dark matter is a unique state made up of former SQEPKRF QH's?

Dark energy would be the Kinetic energy from the gone before SQEP fluxes .

Maybe black holes HAVE to draw this in so it can go on to create more material for the universe?

An entity that is not only faster than light but also creates new 'things' fluxes' from all the QH stored inside it from 'things' that have been destroyed like planets and everything on those planets.

And if these fluxs do exist, then they would be faster than the universe as they would exist between the edge of our universe and any other universes next to us.

Perhaps black holes draw this information in, create new weird and wonderful fluxes with trillions? quadrillions? gazillions? of new SQEP's and their fluxes before sending it back out into the universe in a quasar to feed the universe and keep it expanding.

I'm jumping ahead to something I have already written in my 'book' but to me it's like the big bang keeps on banging and banging and banging until the universe finally runs out of all material,  quantum or otherwise apart from the kinetic energy that has been produced during it's lifetime?

To me the big bang (God Nova?) is like a stupendiously clever animal. It's like it creates a usb stick full of data needed to create more material/things in the universe but it hasn't created the computer yet for it to go inside.

The computer would be the black hole. The usb stick would be the new material coming out of and being produced by the black hole/quasar.

I hope I said that ok.

My head really hurts

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Little suggestion you can also do away with the SQEPKR etc. 

 Apply the energy momentum relation and apply either Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations or alternately the Dirac equations.

There exists a category of particles called resonant particles. To understand what determines resonant particles one can study the Breit Wigner distributions which already factor in chirality/helicity and other quantum particle properties in the cross sections.

Sorry Mordred, I just don't know another way to describe what I see other than SQEP's and their fluxes.

Edited September 24 by Imagine Everything
defined usb stick a little better.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I don't think so. An oxymoron is a seeming contradiction made deliberately to convey a particular meaning, e.g. a deafening silence. I don't see much evidence of a particular meaning in this case. 

 I see. So oxymoron is just a figure of speech, while this would fall under the category of plain contradiction?

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Something can't be 'absolute nothing'

So a star goes Super Nova in it's last hurrah and becomes a neutron star, a neutron star goes Killa Nova in it's last hurrahh and creates a black hole (Minitar) but the black hole can't have a last hurrahh (unless it too can go 'something' Nova but I have never heard of that) so surely the black hole (I think of this as a Minitar not a black hole) must be more dense than a neutron star?

But it can't be condensed to 'nothing' so surely there must be a core of some sort inside it?

Black holes are not “absolutely nothing” 

And yes, a BH is more dense than a neutron star.

Quote

 

What if Dark matter is a unique state made up of former SQEPKRF QH's?

Dark energy would be the Kinetic energy from the gone before SQEP fluxes .

Maybe black holes HAVE to draw this in so it can go on to create more material for the universe?

An entity that is not only faster than light but also creates new 'things' fluxes' from all the QH stored inside it from 'things' that have been destroyed like planets and everything on those planets.

 

You would need evidence that this is the case. A model, and an observation that fit that model. 

[Phi for All]

54 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Perhaps black holes draw this information in, create new weird and wonderful fluxes with trillions? quadrillions? gazillions? of new SQEP's and their fluxes before sending it back out into the universe in a quasar to feed the universe and keep it expanding.

The spacetime region around matter that has overcome both electron and neutron degeneration is outrageously curved, so gravity seems extremely strong there. So strong that nothing, no matter, not even light can escape once it crosses into the event horizon of the region. Black holes don't send anything back out into the universe. 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

I'm so sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about, though I have vaguely heard of Schrodingers cat.

Please remember, I'm not a scientist and have had almost no science lessons at all in my life.

Unfortunately the role of a physics model is to calculate testable predictions which requires formulas.  The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter how accurate a verbal description or picture etc is.   If there is no way to calculate cause and effect then there isn't any usefulness. That's simply the reality.

 

 

 

Edited September 24 by Mordred

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Something can't be 'absolute nothing'

I don't wish to discuss black holes.

They are too remote and incompletely understood to be of much interest to me.

But your flux idea has a grain of truth in it as did the other ideas I mentioned.

You would do well to spend a period considering some of the things you have been told here and seeing how the impact on your ideas.

That is how Science works.

 

Before discussing you flux idea it would be necessary to teach you about energy.

Then you could apply the Higgs Field to your flux.

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, joigus said:

 I see. So oxymoron is just a figure of speech, while this would fall under the category of plain contradiction?

Exactly. It means literally “sharply stupid”, the “sharp” denoting an acute meaning, intentionally conveyed by what might appear a “stupid” juxtaposition of contradictory terms.

In this case the stupid is apparent but no acuteness is detectable, to me at any rate.😉

[studiot]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Exactly. It means literally “sharply stupid”, the “sharp” denoting an acute meaning, intentionally conveyed by what might appear a “stupid” juxtaposition of contradictory terms.

In this case the stupid is apparent but no acuteness is detectable, to me at any rate.😉

 

13 hours ago, joigus said:

14 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

my very basic but complex idea.

Isn't this an oxymoron?

Well I don't think the proposal is either stupid or an oxymoron.

 

I think it has been borrowed from biology and in particular DNA sequencing, which end up with a very complex structure from a few much simpler basic units.

 

However that does not mean I think it is correct.

 

@Imagine Everything

I think it is time to move on from a diet of popsci to some real stuff.

But that would entail some hard work on your part.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

In this case the stupid is apparent but no acuteness is detectable, to me at any rate.😉

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I don't think the proposal is either stupid or an oxymoron.

Ok. I withdraw the word "oxymoron", which is the one I used.

I can say though that "sub-quantum" doesn't seem to mean anything precise here.

Same goes for "flux", or "echo", or "resonance", etc. I see nothing flowing, echoing, or resonating in this "theory". 

If anything, it reminds me (in that sense "resonates") of other quasi-literary attempts to introduce a suggestive vocabulary. Nothing more.

As Swanson implied, no predictions, no evidence, nothing much to say scientifically speaking.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Ok. I withdraw the word "oxymoron", which is the one I used.

I can say though that "sub-quantum" doesn't seem to mean anything precise here.

Same goes for "flux", or "echo", or "resonance", etc. I see nothing flowing, echoing, or resonating in this "theory". 

If anything, it reminds me (in that sense "resonates") of other quasi-literary attempts to introduce a suggestive vocabulary. Nothing more.

As Swanson implied, no predictions, no evidence, nothing much to say scientifically speaking.

I'll leave you more patient people to tease out whatever meaning there is to be found. 🙂

[studiot]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Ok. I withdraw the word "oxymoron", which is the one I used.

I can say though that "sub-quantum" doesn't seem to mean anything precise here.

Same goes for "flux", or "echo", or "resonance", etc. I see nothing flowing, echoing, or resonating in this "theory". 

If anything, it reminds me (in that sense "resonates") of other quasi-literary attempts to introduce a suggestive vocabulary. Nothing more.

As Swanson implied, no predictions, no evidence, nothing much to say scientifically speaking.

Well the OP seems to me to be more misguided than wrong.

He is certainly a cut above the usual crank we get, wedded to some laughably false notion 'that must be right'

Nor is he fighting tooth and nail to preserve an original fallacy.

 

As a matter of interest flux and flowing does not imply movement the (direction) fields of magnetism and electrostatics do not move of themselves., yet we talk of magnetic and electric flux.

And resonance is also borrowed , this time from Chemistry.

 

But I agree it needs a lot of hard work.

Edited September 25 by studiot

[Imagine Everything]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Black holes are not “absolutely nothing” 

And yes, a BH is more dense than a neutron star.

You would need evidence that this is the case. A model, and an observation that fit that model. 

Thank you for confirming a BH is more dense than a Neutron star. This makes me very happy

Most of my idea is pure guesswork based on an epithany? I seem to have had early august this year & I wrote most of it within 4 weeks.

I literally seemed to just suddenly have a light turned on and as I started writing it, it led on and on to more things.

I can visulaise everything in my idea but I seem to have the wrong words for things, so forgive me I am not saying things correctly.

I haven't had any formal training, science lessons, chemistry physics.

My childhood was crap and didn't allow for a stable tution without going into details.

This is why all of you guys feedback and knowledge, confirmation, disection is so valueable to me.

 

I was expecting this to fail completely at the first post tbh and the fact that it hasn't is really really cool and makes me smile. So thank you all

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Black holes are not “absolutely nothing” 

And yes, a BH is more dense than a neutron star.

You would need evidence that this is the case. A model, and an observation that fit that model. 

Thank you again, however how would a nobody like me with no real  training/studying go about doing something like this?

I have watched many many 'How the universe works' and ancient aliens and even the odd programme by Professor Brian Cox who explained about how elements were created in Super Novas.

 

So with the info I got from those, my wild imagination that is forever seeking patterns, logic and balance (I am awaiting confirmation of autism), I somehow connected and followed the 'dots' as it were that led me to this idea.

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The spacetime region around matter that has overcome both electron and neutron degeneration is outrageously curved, so gravity seems extremely strong there. So strong that nothing, no matter, not even light can escape once it crosses into the event horizon of the region. Black holes don't send anything back out into the universe. 

I thought from what I've seen so far that BH's or rather the Event Horizon eventually produced so much heat from it's gravitational 'meals' that is was released as a quasar, light years long, into the universe?

Is my understanding wrong? I know it could be wrong, thats why I came here to get your professional expert knowledge.

Anything any of you tell me is invaluable.

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

Unfortunately the role of a physics model is to calculate testable predictions which requires formulas.  The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter how accurate a verbal description or picture etc is.   If there is no way to calculate cause and effect then there isn't any usefulness. That's simply the reality.

 

 

 

You're right. I was hoping that by posting my idea, you guys would explain it better, or enhance my understanding or even tell me I'm completely wrong.

I just need to know. I feel and have felt during writing my idea down, that it couldn't possibly be true, it couldn't possibly work and that is is nothing more than a romantic idea.

How could someone like me without any real science knowledge or background come up with something that explains what I see it as explaining?

Especially when you read my other chapters. All the way through it, I felt like I was crazy to even think of this.

Yet it seems, at least very slightly that some parts so far may have a tiny tiny bit of credibility?

Is it possible to somehow calculate something like this? Are you able to do it?

 

 

15 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't wish to discuss black holes.

They are too remote and incompletely understood to be of much interest to me.

But your flux idea has a grain of truth in it as did the other ideas I mentioned.

You would do well to spend a period considering some of the things you have been told here and seeing how the impact on your ideas.

That is how Science works.

 

Before discussing you flux idea it would be necessary to teach you about energy.

Then you could apply the Higgs Field to your flux.

I don't either at least not in Chapter 1. I have written more about it further on in my book/idea which I will post as and when I get to it.

 

Thank you so much for that grain of truth, you wouldn't believe how much that means to me!

Perhaps I will get the chance to learn more about energy as this unfolds and also after I have finished posting all 20 chapters.

It sounds like what you are telling me, might explain my idea works with the rest of it even more if I do. Whether it turns out to right or wrong.

 

The Higgs field..is this the same person that discovered or theorised the Higgs Bosun?

5 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Well I don't think the proposal is either stupid or an oxymoron.

 

I think it has been borrowed from biology and in particular DNA sequencing, which end up with a very complex structure from a few much simpler basic units.

 

However that does not mean I think it is correct.

 

@Imagine Everything

I think it is time to move on from a diet of popsci to some real stuff.

But that would entail some hard work on your part.

I don't know if you will believe me but the only things I think I have 'borrowed' are the things great and clever people have theorised.

And I tried to not borrow their ideas but to relate to them at times to try and explain what I visualise.

For instance, telling you that most of my known? knowledge comes from watching How the universe works and a few episodes.

A relation/connection perhaps not a borrow.

You are so right about the hard work. My head was almost screaming at me while I was writing my idea initially.

I couldn't even begin to think how clever you all are to understand it as well as you all do

5 hours ago, joigus said:

Ok. I withdraw the word "oxymoron", which is the one I used.

I can say though that "sub-quantum" doesn't seem to mean anything precise here.

Same goes for "flux", or "echo", or "resonance", etc. I see nothing flowing, echoing, or resonating in this "theory". 

If anything, it reminds me (in that sense "resonates") of other quasi-literary attempts to introduce a suggestive vocabulary. Nothing more.

As Swanson implied, no predictions, no evidence, nothing much to say scientifically speaking.

The term sub quantum is just a term to try and describe how small I see these SQEP's. Or whatever their proper name might be.

I see atomic level, then quantum is sub atomic? So to me these SQEP live on a even smaller scale than that.

Maybe even sub sub sub sub quantum? I'm sorry I have no idea how to describe it other than that.

I don't know how far down this scale could go.

Please remember this is just an idea, it isn't meant or written as a scientificly researched idea, or proven idea or even based on hard evidence to prove it, it is literally just an idea.

I am probably completely wrong but I had to find out.

I came up with the chip and pin idea back in the 90's, though it wasn't chip n pin, it was chip n go if I remember rightly, I called an invention company, told them about it, couldn't progress it because I couldn't afford to prgress it and a few years later, out it comes as chip n pin. I'm still pissed at that.

Anyway, so I had to know, I have to know if what I have thought of has any merit at all, I need to know if I have gone mad, possibly I have yet again come up with something that may be a 'thing' or just created nothing more than a romantic idea.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Well the OP seems to me to be more misguided than wrong.

He is certainly a cut above the usual crank we get, wedded to some laughably false notion 'that must be right'

Nor is he fighting tooth and nail to preserve an original fallacy.

 

As a matter of interest flux and flowing does not imply movement the (direction) fields of magnetism and electrostatics do not move of themselves., yet we talk of magnetic and electric flux.

And resonance is also borrowed , this time from Chemistry.

 

But I agree it needs a lot of hard work.

Thank you so much for saying that

I have little doubt what I say is perhaps misguided or badly written, explained in the wrong way and not backed up by anything except what I have seen and then gone on to think of? philosophise about?

 

I really haven't borrowed this resonance thing (I don't think anyway) and don't even know much if anything about it, I just see this kinetic energy created by all the SQEP's inside a flux as having some sort of resonation. Resonation is probably even the wrong word but thats how I visualise it without knowing better.

Maybe flux is the wrong term as well.? I just don't know. Its just how I visualise it.

Perhaps with all you guys and gals input/feedback we can all explain this idea better after the whole idea (all 20 chapters) have been discussed/torn apart or confirmed?

Again I can't thank you all enough for your replies. Each one enlightens me.

I'm going to post the other 19 chapters in their own individual posts so that you can see my idea and how I perceive it.

Hopefully this will help you guys enlighten me and prove me wrong, right or slightly on the right track.