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

[Mordred]

So I have to ask are you willing to learn if we provide guidance and material to study to try and develop your ideas in a more formal manner ?

 If so we can certainly provide direction  but the onus of doing the work is up to you.

I also don't want to waste time if your not willing to learn. Yes I know we're talking a considerable amount of time to get up to speed with the basics of physics.

Edited September 25 by Mordred

[TheVat]

19 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

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

Don't forget that some neutron stars are pulsars and go Bossa Nova.

[Imagine Everything]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

So I have to ask are you willing to learn if we provide guidance and material to study to try and develop your ideas in a more formal manner ?

 If so we can certainly provide direction  but the onus of doing the work is up to you.

I also don't want to waste time if your not willing to learn. Yes I know we're talking a considerable amount of time to get up to speed with the basics of physics.

Thank you Mordred, thats very kind of you to offer this and if it's ok with you, I will think about it overnight.

One question though if I may, would I need to have qualifications in anything or an advanced understanding of maths or similiar to learn physics?

I also wouldn't want to waste your time, it wouldn't be fair on you or others.

39 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Don't forget that some neutron stars are pulsars and go Bossa Nova.

This I haven't heard of and interesting to me, does a bossa nova work the same way as super and kilonovas?

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

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?

The radiation doesn't come from the BH, but rather from interactions just outside the event horizon. The math tells us nothing has the energy required to be "released" once past the EH. 

[Mordred]

38 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

One question though if I may, would I need to have qualifications in anything or an advanced understanding of maths or similiar to learn physics?

I also wouldn't want to waste your time, it wouldn't be fair on you or others.

 

We have a lot of members that do not have strong math skills and they were able to learn the basics. Obviously there is no practical way to teach enough on a forum to make you a physicist.

 Essentially I will provide recommended links and mention recommended textbooks to get you started. 

Start here there is a couple of lecture notes.

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219 What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdf Is it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole?

Training (textbook Style Articles)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde
http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein

 

The first section are low level math but at this time don't worry about understanding the math itself they are well explained verbally.

If you can get through those articles you will understand Cosmology far better than the average person. Not an expert but far more well informed.

I will start with Cosmology prior to GR and QM/QFT as most of the formulas are Newtonian approximations.

Any questions on the above can be posted in any relevant main stream forum. Except for the last article on SR the rest can be answered in the Astronomy/Cosmology forum 

Last one under Relativity as its basic SR.

Edited September 25 by Mordred

[studiot]

Gee Mordred that's enough homework for twenty years.

😀

[Imagine Everything]

55 minutes ago, Mordred said:

We have a lot of members that do not have strong math skills and they were able to learn the basics. Obviously there is no practical way to teach enough on a forum to make you a physicist.

 Essentially I will provide recommended links and mention recommended textbooks to get you started. 

Start here there is a couple of lecture notes.

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219 What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdf Is it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole?

Training (textbook Style Articles)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde
http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein

 

The first section are low level math but at this time don't worry about understanding the math itself they are well explained verbally.

If you can get through those articles you will understand Cosmology far better than the average person. Not an expert but far more well informed.

I will start with Cosmology prior to GR and QM/QFT as most of the formulas are Newtonian approximations.

Any questions on the above can be posted in any relevant main stream forum. Except for the last article on SR the rest can be answered in the Astronomy/Cosmology forum 

Last one under Relativity as its basic SR.

Thank you very much for the time and effort you put into this.

I'll start reading tomorrow. I really appreciate this

Edited September 25 by Imagine Everything

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Gee Mordred that's enough homework for twenty years.

😀

Nah last 4 articles above the SR essentially all have the same equations and layout just done by different authors lol. 

The ones above training are all written with a novice audience in mind so has very little in the way of math.

Lmao though this is coming from someone who will study 2000 plus page dissertations and proof read them in a matter of a couple of days.

Edited September 25 by Mordred

[studiot]

16 hours ago, Mordred said:

Nah last 4 articles above the SR essentially all have the same equations and layout just done by different authors lol. 

The ones above training are all written with a novice audience in mind so has very little in the way of math.

Lmao though this is coming from someone who will study 2000 plus page dissertations and proof read them in a matter of a couple of days.

 

16 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

I think I have to understand more so that I can term things better full stop tbh. I'm sorry if I'm confusing you or others with the way I'm trying to explain this.

I didn't know there were so many different variations of flux types or meanings.

I am definately out of my depth here

 

Also, Phi is right and I it didn't sit with me well posting 4 more extracts/chapters here so if it's possible, could the other posts inc this one be deleted please?

Only the ones numbered - 2.   3.    4.    5. not my original post about SQEP's

 

Thanks

 

 

You will have to deal direct with a moderator to tidy up your stuff.
Perhaps they might decide to recombinee your threads.

 

Mordred I rather think that your  list was not even 'in at the deep end' it looks rather like diving off the clifftop at Acapulco.

😀

 

So to start with sime simpler ideas :

1. Thousands of years ago the ancient greek mathematicians had the idea of Axioms.
   These are statements that we accept without question.
   Euclid is famous for his 5 axioms of geometry.
    
2. Over the years philosophers widened the idea to other disciplines, especially logic,  using the term Premises.
    
3. By combining these statements in various ways, perhaps with further information, further statements can be deduced.
   Important small statements that may be subsequently used again and a gain are called Lemmas.
   The most important and larger statements are called Theorems.
    
4. Obviously the worth of such schemes depends upon the wisdom of the original choice of axioms (see 6 below).
    
5. The process of deduction is called Proof.  Proof is really a test that a proposed statement is compatible with all the axioms.
   This works really well for mathematics and logic.
    
6. In the last few hundred years a massive development in Sciences occurred. They tried to use the axioms and proof approach to science.
   But as noted in (4) mistakes occurred. The most famous was probably "That a heavy body will fall to Earth faster than a light one".
    
7. Today Science does not have axioms and proofs.
   Science has Principles. The Principle of Relativity in Physics. Le Chatelier's Principle in Chemistry., Homeostasis in Biology etc
   https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/01%3A_Introduction_to_Biology/1.05%3A_Principles_of_Biology#Homeostasis
   Principles are more like (well constructed) guidelines and subject to change in the light of new (and hopefully better) information.
    
8. Unlike maths and logic where a new theorem must always be compatible with the all the axioms and other theorems of the subject an Hypothesis
   may run counter to some principle or introduce a totally new one.
    
9. This brings us to the subject of what does Science do instead of Proof ?
   Science is the study of Nature, in its widest sense, so Science makes nature the ultimate arbiter of the worth or veracity of the hypothesis by direct testing.
   So direct testing showed conclusively that heavy bodies and light bodies fall at the same rate and Science (eventually) had to revise its original statement.
    
10. A further test is checking that the outcome of a prediction made using the hypothesis conforms to observation.

 

~So that's a 10 point good start.

Next time I will take you on a lightning trip through the principle that controls most events in the universe, from galaxies to gravity to ......

So please ask any questions about my 10 points (twice as many as New York had)  and answer this one question.

What do you understand by 'energy' ?

 

 

[Imagine Everything]

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

This is interesting though I don't understand the maths, I think I get the basics of fixed point distances being seemingly changed as expansion moves further and further.

Does this mean our galaxy and all the things in it are also expanding with the expansion?

Does it mean our galaxy was once tighlty knitted but after some time we now live in a galaxy that seems to be bigger than it was to start with?

If expansion also seems expands the fixed points (planets for instance - so physically impacting but not changing their fixed points) would a telescopes range not also be expanded with & by the expansion allowing us to see further into the galaxy?

Does this mean everything gets stretched the more the universe expands or just space/dark matter?

Does the expansion work with light this way?

It says the inside of the ballon isn't included in the explanation, And here comes my imagination again & also how I see the 'end' of the universe-beginning of a new one,could the inside of a ballon be all the energy in the universe and when the ballon finally starts receding, this energy then draws back into a Singularity which tries to become nothing at the end of recession and then due to it not being able to be 'nothing' then explodes at that point recreating the big bang?

Is receding / recession the right way way to describe what I think I'm trying to say or should it be more like retracts & retraction.? Is retracts and retraction the right way to describe this?

Another part of my idea/thoughts are that the universe has to expand into 'something'

I'm not trying to take credit for anything regarding this and I'm sure you guys and others have already thought of this, it just seems logical that if we live in a universe then our universe must live inside another one?

So, is our universe inside another universe which is in turn inside another universe, a cosmic russian doll? And if mother nature is true everywhere, shouldn't there be pairs of universes? And then pairs of those pairs? And so and so on? A Magnaverse? inside a a Mega Magnaverse? Inside a ????

Or is our universe not a universe but a merely pre made area that expands into another pre made area? And that this area and others like it, are inside one super duper massive universe?

Maybe like a power suply (our area) inside a house (massive universe).

Could inflation have been caused by the final retraction? of all energy/QH trying to become nothing (negative expansion?) and it's very final point can't become nothing and explodes (Big Bang/God Nova?) with both negative and positive expansion at the very same time? Another 'pair'

Can something expand and contract at the very same time? Can something expand and contract but in an overlap as it were? So say a ballon losing it's air inside, just before the very last released air molecule, we blow into it again to expand it?

 

19 hours ago, Mordred said:

We have a lot of members that do not have strong math skills and they were able to learn the basics. Obviously there is no practical way to teach enough on a forum to make you a physicist.

 Essentially I will provide recommended links and mention recommended textbooks to get you started. 

Start here there is a couple of lecture notes.

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

My pc kept warning me about visiting this page so I didn't visit it, kept telling me it was insecure and my pc would open to hacking etc so I'm sorry, I haven't looked

at this one.

 

The first section are low level math but at this time don't worry about understanding the math itself they are well explained verbally.

If you can get through those articles you will understand Cosmology far better than the average person. Not an expert but far more well informed.

I will start with Cosmology prior to GR and QM/QFT as most of the formulas are Newtonian approximations.

Any questions on the above can be posted in any relevant main stream forum. Except for the last article on SR the rest can be answered in the Astronomy/Cosmology forum 

Last one under Relativity as its basic SR.

 

Edited September 26 by Imagine Everything
typo

[Mordred]

As to your first set of questions. Galaxies by themselves are not expanding. That will get covered in the other link " In an expanding Universe what doesn't expand"

Don't worry it's understandable you haven't got to that article yet.

Lol as Studiot politely mentioned I threw a lot of info your way to process.

Expansion  occurs in the regions that are not gravitationally bound.

Recessive velocity is based on the equation from Hubbles law. The greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity.

\[v_{recessive}=H_0D \] 

Where the \(H_0\) is the Hubble value today.

The Balloon analogy mentioned that our universe is not expanding into anything.

The easiest way to think of expansion is a decrease in energy/mass density. Where the decrease has no inherent direction. Homogeneous and isotropic meaning no preferred location or direction.

Inflation itself is well essentially identical to expansion in so far as having identical causation. The equations of state cosmology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

Simple to understand the equations of state is that matter, radiation both have momentum terms that equate to pressure which allows application of the ideal gas laws.

So in essence what drives expansion is thermodynamics.

Little aid on this the calculator in my signature can perform the more common calculations with regards to expansion and cosmological redshift. (Uses the same formulas as the Lineweaver and Davies article )

Edited September 26 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

21 hours ago, Mordred said:

As to your first set of questions. Galaxies by themselves are not expanding. That will get covered in the other link " In an expanding Universe what doesn't expand"

Don't worry it's understandable you haven't got to that article yet.

Lol as Studiot politely mentioned I threw a lot of info your way to process.

Expansion  occurs in the regions that are not gravitationally bound.

Recessive velocity is based on the equation from Hubbles law. The greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity.

 

vrecessive=H0D

 

 

Where the H0 is the Hubble value today.

The Balloon analogy mentioned that our universe is not expanding into anything.

The easiest way to think of expansion is a decrease in energy/mass density. Where the decrease has no inherent direction. Homogeneous and isotropic meaning no preferred location or direction.

Inflation itself is well essentially identical to expansion in so far as having identical causation. The equations of state cosmology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

Simple to understand the equations of state is that matter, radiation both have momentum terms that equate to pressure which allows application of the ideal gas laws.

So in essence what drives expansion is thermodynamics.

Little aid on this the calculator in my signature can perform the more common calculations with regards to expansion and cosmological redshift. (Uses the same formulas as the Lineweaver and Davies article )

Yes you did throw a lot at me lol but thats ok, I'll read them and try to understand as best I can, it will probably mean I have more questions for you all though

I don't know why but I was wondering what a quark was yesterday and searched them a bit.

Only to realise these or their duality(the invisible/unknown? part that makes the quark?) might be what I'm trying to refer to as SQEP's. 

From what I read, quarks can't or haven't been able to be split by the LHC and this means they are made up of 'something' that hasn't been discovered? yet.

Then just to confuse me more, I read that they have discovered TetraQuarks which are made up of 2 quarks and 2 anti quarks.

So I have a question or millions lol

I think I remember reading that quarks exist only for a few seconds before they are bound to or become protons? or become something else.

Tetra quarks only exist for a few fractions of a second according to the website I reads, I can now paste a link if Im allowed to finally show some evidence of what I think I am visualising. I suspect you all already know quite a lot about this but I'm happy to post a link if you want/allow me to.

Tetra quarks seem to be close to the size I see my SQEP's as (sorry to use that term again) however, the things I'm trying to describe, in my head I see them as being created and dying or (knowing a little more now) before they also change into something else.

So if a quark exists for a few seconds and a tetra quark exists for a few fractions of a second, am I describing Tetra quarks or perhaps does this go further and maybe there are quartet quarks? Quintet quarks that exist but die or are recreated at the point of their creation?

Does physics work like this? In a scale?

And I think I remember reading that they get changed by the electron field.

If this is also right then I think from my idea that perhaps the electron field is what I am describing badly as the resonance of the quarks?

Does this make sense? The electron field is the cosmic constant throughout the universe?

If I changed the SQEP definition that I'm using to Quark, tetra quark or ??? quark, would that better make sense of what I am trying to explain at the beginning of this topic?

I was amazed to read about tetra quarks because this is or is close to how tiny I see my SQEP's.

I am confused about the anti quark bit though, where do they come from or is just nature being nature and again producing more pairs?

 

And what is an exotic particle? Is this the same as a quantum particle?

Edited September 27 by Imagine Everything
typo

[Imagine Everything]

One of the web links you gave me above Mordred had a link to quantum entanglement.

One part of it states this:

The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously, before any information about the measurement result could have been communicated to the other particle (assuming that information cannot travel faster than light) and hence assured the "proper" outcome of the measurement of the other part of the entangled pair.

 

Is it possible that a chain of the same quantum particles could move slower than the speed of light but still communicate with each other (no matter how distant) in a chained way so that it would appear they are communicating faster than the speed of light (superluminal if I understood that correctly) and then make them measurable or even manipulatable?

Would it possible to create a chain or can quantum entanglement only happen between a single pair?

[Mordred]

4 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Yes you did throw a lot at me lol but thats ok, I'll read them and try to understand as best I can, it will probably mean I have more questions for you all though

I don't know why but I was wondering what a quark was 

Quarks are elementary particles that make up protons and neutrons. Though they also make up mesons and tetraquarks (a meson and tetraquark are simply put a particular combination  of quarks.

You are correct quarks only exist in pairs they are different in that the strong force between them increases as the distance increases. This is called assymptotic freedom. What quark configurations are allowed involve numerous conservation laws particular to particle physics.

Conservation of color, charge  isospin,flavor , energy momentum, angular momentum, spin  and parity. It will take a bit to learn these but for now just recognize all particle interactions follow these laws.

 

An exotic particle is one that existed in the early universe but no longer exists today as the temperature is too low.

Edited September 27 by Mordred

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You are correct quarks only exist in pairs

Two or more, i.e. not alone. Three quark systems exist, of course.

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

One of the web links you gave me above Mordred had a link to quantum entanglement.

 

Particle entanglement is a whole different ball of wax. The easiest way to understand it is to recognize that entanglement uses probability functions (specifically a correlation function.) They also involve the conservation laws above.

So for example entanglement diode generates two electrons due to conversation of charge one must be spin up the other spin down. However you do not know which is which until you measure (observe) it.

So the state is a superposition state with a probability function in this example 50/50 chance the particle being measured is spin up or spin down.

Once you measure one of the particles you automatically know what the other particle is due to the conservation law I mentioned.

There is no causation or communication needed.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Two or more, i.e. not alone. Three quark systems exist, of course.

Good point thanks for that catch

[studiot]

38 minutes ago, Mordred said:

entanglement diode generates two electrons

entanglement diode.

What will they think of next ?

 

I have never heard of them so thank you for the reference.

One small point however, eleds apparantly  emit entangled photons not electrons.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09078

Edited September 27 by studiot

[Mordred]

Mu

1 hour ago, studiot said:

entanglement diode.

What will they think of next ?

 

I have never heard of them so thank you for the reference.

One small point however, eleds apparantly  emit entangled photons not electrons.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09078

Must be distracted at work lmao. Those diodes have been around over 15 years when I first heard about them. If memory serves correct. Given the silly mistakes above lmao I wouldn't put too much faith in that timeline.

[Imagine Everything]

If a meson is composed of quarks and they are bigger than protons and neutrons, then does an atom work like this...

 

ATOM > MESON > QUARK > ???

Or are there meson atoms and quark atoms?

And if so whats the difference between meson atoms and quark atoms?

Is it the electron field they come from?

Have I misunderstood this?

I'm still currently reading about these, bosuns, fermions etc so please forgive my naivety.

 

What is a valance quark?

Edited September 28 by Imagine Everything
added question

[Imagine Everything]

16 hours ago, Mordred said:

Quarks are elementary particles that make up protons and neutrons. Though they also make up mesons and tetraquarks (a meson and tetraquark are simply put a particular combination  of quarks.

You are correct quarks only exist in pairs they are different in that the strong force between them increases as the distance increases. This is called assymptotic freedom. What quark configurations are allowed involve numerous conservation laws particular to particle physics.

Conservation of color, charge  isospin,flavor , energy momentum, angular momentum, spin  and parity. It will take a bit to learn these but for now just recognize all particle interactions follow these laws.

 

An exotic particle is one that existed in the early universe but no longer exists today as the temperature is too low.

Does this mean quarks are 'sub' meson and 'sub' tetraquarks ?

Edited September 28 by Imagine Everything

[Mordred]

No it doesn't quarks make up all hadrons which includes mesons, tetraquarks, protons and neutrons 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron

[Imagine Everything]

Thanks Modred, off to go read some more

[Imagine Everything]

On 9/26/2024 at 2:27 PM, studiot said:

 

 

 

You will have to deal direct with a moderator to tidy up your stuff.
Perhaps they might decide to recombinee your threads.

 

Mordred I rather think that your  list was not even 'in at the deep end' it looks rather like diving off the clifftop at Acapulco.

😀

 

So to start with sime simpler ideas :

1. Thousands of years ago the ancient greek mathematicians had the idea of Axioms.
   These are statements that we accept without question.
   Euclid is famous for his 5 axioms of geometry.
    
2. Over the years philosophers widened the idea to other disciplines, especially logic,  using the term Premises.
    
3. By combining these statements in various ways, perhaps with further information, further statements can be deduced.
   Important small statements that may be subsequently used again and a gain are called Lemmas.
   The most important and larger statements are called Theorems.
    
4. Obviously the worth of such schemes depends upon the wisdom of the original choice of axioms (see 6 below).
    
5. The process of deduction is called Proof.  Proof is really a test that a proposed statement is compatible with all the axioms.
   This works really well for mathematics and logic.
    
6. In the last few hundred years a massive development in Sciences occurred. They tried to use the axioms and proof approach to science.
   But as noted in (4) mistakes occurred. The most famous was probably "That a heavy body will fall to Earth faster than a light one".
    
7. Today Science does not have axioms and proofs.
   Science has Principles. The Principle of Relativity in Physics. Le Chatelier's Principle in Chemistry., Homeostasis in Biology etc
   https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/01%3A_Introduction_to_Biology/1.05%3A_Principles_of_Biology#Homeostasis
   Principles are more like (well constructed) guidelines and subject to change in the light of new (and hopefully better) information.
    
8. Unlike maths and logic where a new theorem must always be compatible with the all the axioms and other theorems of the subject an Hypothesis
   may run counter to some principle or introduce a totally new one.
    
9. This brings us to the subject of what does Science do instead of Proof ?
   Science is the study of Nature, in its widest sense, so Science makes nature the ultimate arbiter of the worth or veracity of the hypothesis by direct testing.
   So direct testing showed conclusively that heavy bodies and light bodies fall at the same rate and Science (eventually) had to revise its original statement.
    
10. A further test is checking that the outcome of a prediction made using the hypothesis conforms to observation.

 

~So that's a 10 point good start.

Next time I will take you on a lightning trip through the principle that controls most events in the universe, from galaxies to gravity to ......

So please ask any questions about my 10 points (twice as many as New York had)  and answer this one question.

What do you understand by 'energy' ?

 

 

Hi Studiot,

These axioms, principles, hmmm...., I'm not about to say that I have one (I have no proof) but I think if I am understanding this information correctly, that I am trying to explain (albeit badly) an 'axiom' or 'principle' in my idea from which everything else I have written in my idea ( you haven't seen the entire idea yet) leads on from.

I apologise for the bad term (SQEP) I have used to explain what I see but it does seem to be based on one re occuring? situation that in my unskilled eyes goes on to explain (in my imaginative head anyway) the things I mentioned already and more.

Obviously I am learning more and more about this and I feel a bit daft for calling them SQEP's now, I'm starting to think of them as quarks or something smaller? if that's possible? The more I learn, the more I will understand and hopefully explain it much better to you very clever people than I have so far at some point in the future.

I was very surprised to find out about anti quarks, I really should have imagined anti' things too because of the 'double' idea I also had prior to posting.

Just a small thought I am having, should there exist an anti or negative universe?

I have had so many double 'events' in my life, not exclusive to, but also including many many de ja vu moments.

 

Regarding the bold, italic and underlined part I have highlighted, I need to know about this, I really really need to know about this

My epiphany? took me from a very simple (but extremely complex) thought right the way through to how I see the big bang which I refer to personally as the God Nova. It seems similar to me to a Supernova (without knowing more at this present time) but obviously on a far larger and all emcompassing scale.

I'm not ready for this explanation yet but I hope in the future, near or far, I will be.

 

Just want to say a big thank you, not just to you but also the other folks here who have advised and listened to me.

You are and have been very kind and wise to this humble nobody of nobodies. (Me)

Edited September 28 by Imagine Everything
typo

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Just want to say a big thank you, not just to you but also the other folks here who have advised and listened to me.

You are and have been very kind and wise to this humble nobody of nobodies. (Me)

Well I'm  glad if you find something of interest in my 10 points.
I hope you will keep them in mind when you hear what Imself and others have to say.

 

I am , however, sorry  that you chose not to answer my one simple question at the end since I wanted to talk about energy in my lightning tour.

Please remember that whatever you tell me about your knowledge of energy (or anything else ) is very very useful helping me to work out how to put things.

 

So the principle I want to talk about is the Principle of Least Energy.

Very simply it says that any system however big or small tries to configure itself in a condition of 'least or lowest energy'.

The implications of this statement are mind bogglingly enourmous.

It is perhaps the most fundament of all principles because it addresses the system, and system behaviour itself.

Many other principles (for instance the principle of relativity) is about how we view/consider the system,  not the system itself.

So let us work through what it means, from to the smallest to the largest.

I am starting with the smallest because it introduces gravity and a short discussion about the 'four fundamental forces',  three of which become significant when things get larger.

Well the smallest system is completely empty space.  yes?

Well actually no.

It can be shown that the energy state of completely empty space is greater than the energy state if that space if filled with one of Mordred's Fields.
(Remember Mordred was a black magician  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordred  )

 

To be continued

 

 

[Imagine Everything]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Well I'm  glad if you find something of interest in my 10 points.
I hope you will keep them in mind when you hear what Imself and others have to say.

 

1. I am , however, sorry  that you chose not to answer my one simple question at the end since I wanted to talk about energy in my lightning tour.

Please remember that whatever you tell me about your knowledge of energy (or anything else ) is very very useful helping me to work out how to put things.

 

So the principle I want to talk about is the Principle of Least Energy.

2. Very simply it says that any system however big or small tries to configure itself in a condition of 'least or lowest energy'.

The implications of this statement are mind bogglingly enourmous.

It is perhaps the most fundament of all principles because it addresses the system, and system behaviour itself.

Many other principles (for instance the principle of relativity) is about how we view/consider the system,  not the system itself.

3. So let us work through what it means, from to the smallest to the largest.

I am starting with the smallest because it introduces gravity and a short discussion about the 'four fundamental forces',  three of which become significant when things get larger.

4. Well the smallest system is completely empty space.  yes?

Well actually no.

It can be shown that the energy state of completely empty space is greater than the energy state if that space if filled with one of Mordred's Fields.
(Remember Mordred was a black magician  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordred  )

 

To be continued

 

 

Hi Studiot,  I've numbered your answer so that I may answer more directly and you can see what I'm referring to more easily.

I did reply to your question about energy but I think I either posted it somewhere else by mistake or perhaps didn't hit the return key.

I'm having trouble finding it

Energy is very important to me, it was the very first reply I made to your above post, I'm so sorry my reply didn't reach you.

I see energy as the very thing that is fundamental to what I'm trying very very hard and very badly lol to explain.

I'm learning though so please bear with me as I gain more knowledge.

I see a few forms of energy

 

Electricity - Kinetic - Static - Piezoelectricity - Heat - there was one other but my head is a bit gluey atm,

I think without energy nothing would happen AT ALL. No life, no universe, dare I say 'nothing' ?

But my knowledge is not as great as yours so I anticipate there are a lot more energy forms.

I actually need an 'energy' type for my idea to work or it fails miserably. I see it as kinetic but no doubt my 'vision' is incorrect.

 

2. This is EXACTLY how I see my idea working, at it's most tiniest tiniest possible it can be before the state of 'nothing'. I see it everywhere and linking everything all at the same time, all the time. Always has done and always will do.

Quantum entanglment of energy particles?

I couldn't agree with you more about it being mind boggling, my head feels like its been fried, eaten and then fried again

However, my knowledge...hmmm... lol

 

3.  please do

 

4. I don't totally know what you mean by system but if I may, I think I am tring to describe a tiny system that exists between 2 items.

So small that it cannot be detected unless you see the influence? it has on the next level up. I'm going to say quark without knowing more/better because I read that they couldn't split a quark with the LHC. But if there can't be 'nothing' then...

A quark HAS to be made of something, I don't mean to sound like I'm telling you sorry  if it sounds like that, it's how I see this idea I have.

I wonder later on my idea if the only way to detect it is through it's hum or vibration but still only through the things it influences.

I also wondered if it could somehow be maniplulated by what I previously called ( you won't know this because I haven't got to that chapter yet) in my idea an STMD - a Sub Quantum Transfer Manipulation Device. lol thats probably the wrong name for it too.

A device or devices that could aid us in all manner of things such as quantum travel, the abilty to cure ailments, reverse global warming & the abilty to change the mass of large objects so they can be moved more easily and others.

Sorry if that sounds like sci fi, I don't know how to term it better than that right now.

And regarding empty space, in my head it wouldn't or couldn't be empty, not empty at all. I think it would have to have something in it regardless of it's mass or non mass.

As primitive as this might sound without knowing more, I actually think Dark Matter & dark energy as driven and made up of these things I don't have the correct terms for yet.

For what it's worth, I visualise dark matter as a universal sized ocean, pushed? by dark energy (current) and we are the fish.

So I think I actually understand that term about 'empty' space but can't explain it properly atm. It is so very frustrating.

But please don't think I ignored or didn't reply to your question about energy.

My brain seems to work faster than my fingers can type or my body can move a lot of the time.

Can we just do this telepathically please  hahah If only, my life would be so much simpler lmao

 

I would so love to send you or a few of you my entire idea but I'm not sure if it would make complete sense in it's primitive form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28 by Imagine Everything