Eugenio Ullauri

A couple of days ago i decided to make public my philosphy of reality as some of you may know so the topic was closed because i dont have completed my unified field equations but it has a new way of describing reality so a moderator suggested me to keep talking about my theory so i wanted to know if anyone is able to find some inconsistency woth my philosophy of reality because i think this is a very important realization as always im very happy to answer any question you may have

Thank you

I will leave some videos i have made on the topic

I will publish any updates if someone here wants to help me please write me to Discussions need to stay here,

and if you want to talk about some other aspect of my theory im here to keep talking

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Yes use the terminology a multi particle system would be better then you don't need to distinquish between a force field ie electromagnetic or a fermionic matter field.

Bosonic fields represent the vector gauge bosons of the fundamental forces

fermions are the particles that comprise of matter.

energy is simply a property representing the ability to perform work.

Thank you for your help if you want my opinion on some topic just ask me i am willing to help you if i can of course

Have you ever heard a theory like mine? i mean i didn't copied this from anyone and i haven't found this philosophy on the internet

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

and you cannot say I have an energy but you can say this state has an energy.

way too much is involved for your work thus far to become a ToE. You haven't even touched the basics behind a ToE yet.

I think the hardest part of a ToE is to create coherent philosophy and i already have it i just need to work out the equations which are realtively easy when you have a coherent philosophy of reality i will pulish new updates every day in this forum

I will be back tomorrow but i will answer e-mails  in the night thank you all that commented on this topic, i hope more people can join

Just now, Mordred said:

and you cannot say I have an energy but you can say this state has an energy.

that is correct for the clasical definition of energy but my definition of energy is more like saying amount of stuff like matter so maybe is my fault to use energy to refer to matter and energy

I think i will complete it with the math is just about translating what i have explained here into a formal language

And yes i need to create an equation that can predict when a system will reach enough density to become unstable for example

Which i think is not that difficult

Do you think if i work the math this could one day become widely accepted as the main the theory of everything?

Does anyone here believe that my theory could be right i mean of course that there is still a lot of math to be written to be formally accepted as a theory of everything but what do you think about the philosophy of it does the infinite loop density cycle looks promising?

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Ok then by the precise same argument energy as a property much like color isn't real either.

Energy in the clasical definition is a property of matter, a color is a structure or characteristic of an object you cannot say i have a red, you need to say i have a red car

Just now, Mordred said:

Then your not using the terminology for Superposition correctly to begin with. Can you tell me the wifi which uses signal frequencies isn't real ? or that electromagnetic radiation isn't real? they both involve waves.

The electromagnetic radiation is the real thing yes that radiation behaves like waves but that does not make them waves.

Is like saying that painting your car red makes the car to be a color, so the car has a color but it is still car, it is not a color

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Its a measurable quantity, if I have two or more waves overlapping the superposition of those waves will give a sum of the individual vaveforms.

What is not real about that ?

Waves are a behavior i mean waves are not a physical thing are behaviours of physical things like trajectories the problem is to threat behaviours like objects is like saying a movement is an object is like waves being an adjective but not a thing is a property of an object not an object itself

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

here once again the terminology gets in your way.

Superposition is a probability terminology. It actually didn't originate under physics but in statistics. However lets stick to the physics treatments.

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

What i said is that superposition is not real and it does not apply to reality

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

I picked the arch because it is a particularly good example of your comment about a particular arrangement of component pieces.

Arching action shows what is called 'emergent behaviour'.

That is the arch behaviour only appears at a critical point when all the components are assembled. Before that the arch ahs no strength whatsoever and has to rely on something else to support it.

As to taking photographs there are Roman arches that if you could have taken your photograph when they were constructed and come back every 100 years your could have taken another photo showing much the same for the last 2000 years, so you would have some 20 photos

 

Now you say your method involves deducing from these photographs how the arch system works.

That is to deduce the necessary arrangement of component pieces.

So I am asking you to do just that.

I am also challenging you to show where any energy is involved.

Yes this is a great example of challenge i will try to figure out how to apply my theory on this but ok lets start with the basics that is that the photo should have enough quality to distinguish the main level of detail of the energy organization which is being able to see where every block starts and ends, that is a must obviously, and then we need to figure out how that energy organization of blocks at the block arrangement level works, so what my theory says is that of course if you build it from the ground up and you have photos on how the arch was built you will know that the bottom ones were first and then the obvious way of doing it and the most important block you mentioned but for my theory it is different what it does is that it doesnt know the most important block because every block is the most important block because if you remove one block of an arch it will fall apart so for my theory the important thing is the whole structure because i dont want to know how to build an arch i just want to know how an arch behaves, so it distiguishes each block, as an object that wants to fall to the ground in simpler terms but they dont fall because of all other blocks so all other blocks have the same importance here so lets say it starts looking for the bottom left block and says this block is stable on its own and  then it will say the next block is stable because of the previous but also because of the next until it reaches the last block which is the bottom right one in which will say this block is again stable on its own and is connected to the other block that is stable on its own which is the bottom left one kind of like that but of course here i need to apply more maths

What do you mean by where do energy is involved?

So how does my theory looks at the Schrodinger's cat:

The experiment states that there is a cat , and a poison that has 50% change of killing the cat in a box and the box is closed

So as is commonly known the experiment tells that the cat is in a superposition of states, that meaning alive and dead at the same time and when someone opens the box the superposition collapses on one state and you can know the cat state.

What my theory says about this is that if you put a cat and a poison in a box and you close it you have lost the state of the inside of the box, this means that the cat is not dead and is not alive and also the cat is not even cat and the poison is not even poison, this means the contents of the box stopped existing when you were not able to look inside the box, so what i say here is that the cat is state is unknown is not in a superposition.

Another example of how my theory looks at information is:

Does black holes destroy information?

So my theory solves this problem in a very simple and new way, which is figuring out what information is, so  information is the data collected by a focuser.

Information exist only for the focuser it is not a thing on its own, so information is the focusable state of something black holes just change the energy organization is the same that if you throw a car to the sun or to a black hole it just changes its energy organization.

The information depends on the eye who looks at it, so for a certain type of eye a certain event can destroy information but it is just changing its energy organization, but we are confussed with black holes because they are dense enough to absorb photons so info depends on how much details the eye can map

How do my theory explains the double slit experiment?

My theory says that every object is a cloud that has some energy organization.

So a photon an electron and everything else is seen as a cloud.

When a photon is fired to the double slit for an interference pattern to emerge the slit should be small enough to make the photon which is a cloud to at least one very small part of it enters the other slit so lets say 99% of the cloud enters the first slit and 1% of it enters the second slit that 1% pulls or changes the cloud trajectory making the interference pattern emerge  this does not mean that the 1% passed through the other slit this just means that it entered and then went for the slit in which the majority of the cloud passed through is like throwing a cat and the tail of the cat enters for the other slit but then the tail follows the head so that event makes the trajectory of the cloud to change like if it was a wave.

Please tell me what do you think about that

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

There is electrons diffraction experiment..

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davisson–Germer_experiment

 

There is neutrons diffraction experiment..

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

 

Check section "Variations of the experiment"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

That is true but to make a neutron behave like a wave you need more energy than the electron needs for example

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

more wavy makes no sense what is more wavy about a photon compared to an electron ? Also a photon can have a wide range of frequencies but one frequency is not more wavy than another.

 A fermion is not like a rock all particles are field excitations. They all exhibit particle (poinlike) and wavelike characteristics via the wave particle duality. The pointlike properties are defined by the particles Debroglie and Compton wavelength. There is no SOLID corpuscular property of any particle. Solid is an illusion.

Yes in this case agree with you, this means that to make waves it is easier if the less energy it has, for example this is why the double slit experiment works only with "particles" that are weak enough to be affected by the double slit.

Yes instead of saying field excitations i would say energy organizations, they exhibit point like and wave like because of the observer, ok so i agree that particles in that sense does not exist, and yes i agree that solid is an ilusion but i meant is that one is easier to modify or influence than the other

1 minute ago, studiot said:

In which case you should be able to offer a proper case for why the arch stands up.

I agree that it is

But the point is that your #TOE should be able to explain this in a proper scientific manner , and even calculate some facts and figures about the arch.

But all you said was hand waving waffle. What energy is involved in a standing arch?

I seriously recommend you work on some simple examples before you tackle the Universe.

If I want to use a complicated formula I often work out a simple already known example to check it out before applying it to something difficult and important.

 

Thank you for you opinion i really appreciate it, ok what my TOE would say about the arch is as follows:

Take a camera and take a photo of the system and wait until you notice a change in the data and take another photo so you have two photos of the system how my theory approaches to this problem is that the arch and the floor are the same object if the arch is not moving in relation to the floor, what this says is that you cannot know for sure how stable is the arch just by looking at it in rest on the other hand lets say we have a system in which you told me more info about the arch energy organization like saying

The thing is that i need to learn how to apply my theory into the real world, so if you tell me how is traditionally described an arch i can maybe translate it into my TOE.

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Why would photons be less dense than fermions when you can stack an infinite number of photons in the same space but no two fermions of the same state can occupy the same space?

Because photons are more wavy behavior they are like a cloud so that is why they seem to occupy the same place, and fermions are denser and its energy organization in other words a photon is more dynamic more flexible due to its energy organization, a photon is like a cloud and a fermion is like a rock, kind of

8 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Let's make question even simpler: what are annihilation branches of electron-positron.. ? Do you have any idea? What energy is released in this event.. ?

ps. The thing is, you have no idea about quantum physics..

Energy is not released, energy just changes its organization they reorganize into photons because photons are less denser so the system decreases its density, this is saying the system is unstable , but it depends on how it is organized because it can produce a certain type of photon in some conditions, is like making an explosion

Yeah i dont know about quantum physics but i will learn

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are you going to be immediately rude to someone who was following your stated order of deduction?

 

This was that you start with observation.

Then move on to a deduction.

 

Then you made what I thought was a sensible statement of how the deduction might proceed so I quoted it and asked two questions.

Sorry if it was not sarcastic

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

So please explain these two system behaviours, you must have seen before.

1) Why does an arch not fall down?        (So the system is the arch and the bahaviour is that of self support)

2) Muscles can only pull, they cannot push. So how do the bodies of humans and animals create pushes?

 

Well this kind of thing is because of the arrangement of their component pieces.

1)Well first an arch can fall down, a well done arch does not fall down because the interaction between the floor and the arch energy distribution, but mainly because the material if you make it with a good material it will just stay up, i mean is a simple structure is like organizing energy in the correct way to make it stable for a given environment

2)Pulling from the right side with a point of support or something

These questions are kind of sarcastic i think.

Energy can be organized so programmed, like you can do multiplications with additions

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You will never be able to learn the proper math if you don't use the proper physics terminology in the first place. For example the descriptive above won't work with Newtons laws of inertia as energy has a specific meaning. Newtons laws also has a specific meaning for mass.

mass is resistance to inertia change. It is the ability of an object to resist acceleration. this is the literal meaning behind f-ma. This is true regardless of what peer reviewed professional physics theory is involved including GR, QFT, and string theory.

Yes but newton did not say an object is able to change its ability to resist acceleration in all the ways it occurs

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I limited the case to "annihilation of proton-antiproton at rest" not without a reason. Because it considerably limits number of possible answers e.g. higher energy particles can be omitted in answer.. But you completely didn't understand it..

I am expecting precise answers.

After all, you came here with "ToE" and wanted questions from quantum physicists, which will prove or disprove your theory..

So far, no answers.

 

Ok so i should have asked you what do you mean ? what do you want me to explain about the proton-antiproton anihilation? yes i agrre that the problem is that i didnt understand the quesiton

I am here also to ask for help on how to do more precise calculations, i dont know math but i know the behavior of the universe, if someone wants to help me i am not searching enemies im searching friends so in plain english i can answer any problem,

Just think of what i have said i have said that time doesnt exist that the universe does not have a beginning and wont have an end because it is a simple chemical reaction that loops, that solves the problem of what happened before the big bang and how the universe will die i have also said why do charges exist, that black holes are not holes are just regular energy but denser that when they cannot become denser they give its energy away in order for other black hole to become denser for example ,

I just want to get help from someone to translate my theory in a formal language

I will keep answering the questions you made

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

All words are conceptualizations of the natural world. Why do you pick out time as different? Why does time being a word for what we use to denote movement remove any of that meaning? Rock, happiness, and quantum are also words we've given special meaning. I think you're hung up on trying NOT to learn mainstream science. You think you've found something that makes more sense, because you don't know what you don't know.

Yes if you see that time exist that is ok but it is a way of looking it just a way which is not universal, that is why mainstreamers dont know what happened before the bigbang or how th universe will die, because they believe in time

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Quantum annihilation is absolutely correct word. It has been misused in sci-fi movies.. and laymen started to use it to describe state of non-existence..

Even if somebody destroys/burns something in the real world, there are remaining (at least) carbon dioxide and water.

Annihilation happens when particle is interacting with its antiparticle..

I am asking for precise data and calculations how did you get to it. What particles are created during annihilation of proton-antiproton, in what quantity for each branch, with what probabilities of happening for each branch, with what energies for each annihilation branch, what are allowed modes, what are disallowed modes, etc. etc.

So stop avoiding answering question. You asked for it by yourself couple posts ago..

Did not I ask "what are annihilation branches (modes) of proton-antiproton?" already.. ? And got nothing in reply...

So let's make it a bit easier: proton-antiproton prior annihilation are at rest..

If I would ask e.g. Mordred I wouldn't get much either (unless he would be busy searching the net for on-line answers), even though he is expert here. Because it's actually very very tough question. And not many quantum scientists remember details (unlike e.g. annihilation of electron-positron as it's relatively easy question)..

 

Ok im not avoiding anything that is what i said if you need clarification ask for it ,

The particles that are created during that process depends on how those particles collide and in their environment, yeah all of what you sak for is possible to know for a given focuser with a limit precision but it depends on the actual case

proton- antiproton prior annihilation can be at rest if they are far away enough that they dont interact, like a magnet with metal.

Again if you still need clarification ask me, i need to learn more math to apply my theory in those kind of calculations, but the nature of my theory is correct as far as i can tell, someone asked how do i determine when a system becomes unstable and to do that again it depends on the environment so you look at it and create energy organization models until you get one that matches what you see

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No unless you can perform any of the calculations we requested no one will ever use your model. Its useless to do so unless it can make predictions. For example I can predict how our universe evolves in expansion rates over time. I can also calculate the number density of particles from a blackbody temperature using the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics. I can also calculate the range of a force. Every question I posed to you I can answer using mainstream physics.  Can you claim the same with your model?

 

I am asking for specific calculations not contained in your videos answer the questions for the specific calculations I requested . Your videos are useless to calculate the range of a force for example or lepton degeneracy etc or even the Chandreskar limit.

 

Well they are not, i am learning i will do alot and a lot of calculations of all topics in the future.

But you can predict any just any kind of behaviour by using the method of looking at it and creating an completness of how should that system be organized in order to behave in this was

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Also, for discussion, videos are terrible. I'm not about to keep playing it over and over to catch what you said so I can quote it here. 

I really dislike that you spent so many years making up your own terminology for words that are well-known. I agree with everyone here, to call everything energy is worthless. 

I also don't see any reason to treat time as a language. Math as a language is great, but you really have to torture either time or language to make them perform the same. It's too bad you didn't put such effort into understanding spacetime.

Yeah videos are not good this is the first time i publish videos in youtube.

If you come up with a better name i can accept it i mean i don't know

Ok here i disagree with you, a unit of time is the same as saying one second is defined as how fast i can move my finger, or how much distance does light travel, or by x amount of revolutions of a wheel of certain size and speed, so it is language to represent a frame of reference of an event that was focused by a "focuser", so time is language please think about it.

Spacetime is just a concept einstein invented to give sense to the behaviours he observed which are useful for most of the local events, but any constant like einsteins speed of light all is doing is putting a limit into the equation.

The same with newton because newton does not say how to determine the mass of an object, so what im trying to say is that to imagine you create a simulation in a computer or even a perfect simulation and you create to worlds exactly the same and you introduce an object  on the same mass at the same location so that everything is the same at that time but when you run the simulation you start noticing that the simulations are behaving different and the reason is because the two particles were not the same they had the same mass and for newton were the same but what im trying to say here is that two objects that have the same mass and seem to be exactly the same may are not because in order to know if two objects are the same you need to know their energy organization.

To clarify this experiment is only possible in a simulation of two "worlds" because it is impossible to have two particles that are the same in the same simulation

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Universe.

people will understand it has having matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy, time space, fields and the list goes on what im trying to say is that the universes has only one component

15 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Of course you have to be able to observe something in order to measure it, but you also need to make predictive calculations to confirm a theory matches observations. I have yet to see any calculations that relate to making any predictability of any of your claims.

In the video to make a predictive calculation just use a future frame index, like frame #12343212 and that is how you get a predictive calculation but what my theory says is that it is implementation specific

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'll make this a formal question. How will your concept change knowing that energy is not a thing unto itself (Can you hold energy in your hand? Can I borrow a cup of it?), but rather a property of things? 

Also, won't you always fail dimensional analysis when you use time for part of your idea but then claim it doesn't exist in other parts? 

No offense, but this seems like an idea you got because it "made more sense" than what mainstream science offered you. IOW, it's full of imprecision and misunderstandings that would be obvious to you if you'd studied formally. Very common for smart humans to stitch together disparate ideas to make a recognizable pattern they can deal with, which is one reason why we need science.

Ok its my fault but when i say energy i mean to a concept that refers what is traditionally know as all like: matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy

Time is like language or numbers used as a frame of reference like words but it is not something real the only real thing is energy, so i should call it like time = any frame of reference for an observer to do calculations is like the meter or the centimeter or the amount of coins in a video game so it just language.

My langueage is not the best that is why asked you to make questions and i have published a youtube video in which i calculate real world examples so here you can find it

That uses the concept of frames which i have introduced in here:

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Did you forget the request for the precise calculations ? All I read in the above is more misconceptions particularly on DM. I don't care how well you verbally describe things or not. The purpose of physics is to calculate how A affects B not how you describe it.

If you cannot for example calculate the Chandreskar limit of a star to when it collapses to a BH then your model is useless in physics.

Check videos because the main point of the theory is that you need to observe a given system to calculate it so ...

27 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Okay.

Here you go:

- annihilation modes of proton-antiproton.

- decay energy of Uranium-238.

Do you want simpler questions?

- decay energy of Tritium.

- helium-4 spectral lines

 

Try the above four for a start..

ps. Obviously I am not expecting explanations using plain WORDS.. Just equations which will match experimental data..

 

24 minutes ago, Mordred said:

oK try this calculate the range of the four forces and their coupling constants.

this ties into the mean lifetime which depends on energy and the velocity of said particle. (also involves the allowable decays) ie if there is no particle the original can decay to via various conservation laws of the eightfold wayen its mean lifetime will reflect that)

This is what is involved in a GUT which a ToE completes to include gravity which is the missing piece to unify and renormalize.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf

we can already unify the other 3 forces gravity is the problematic one.

lets try this wiki descriptive of a ToE.

"A Theory of Everything would unify all the fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism. Because the weak interaction can transform elementary particles from one kind into another, the ToE should also yield a deep understanding of the various different kinds of possible particles. The usual assumed path of theories is given in the following graph, where each unification step leads one level up"

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

like I stated previously very few speculators even know what a ToE entails.....

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

All righty then you claim to have worked on this for years calculate the expansion rates due to density variations of matter, Lambda and radiation over they history of the universe.

Can you show these calculations and using those calculations define the age of the universe.

You claim to be able to answer every question so lets see the proof.

ook lets Start if i miss a question please tell me:

1.Annihilation modes of proton - antiproton

So first what is dark matter?, so as you know my theory says that all is the same and i call it energy so dark matter is an object that is organized in a way that it causes a suddenly "fast, violent" drop of density of another object, so is like saying rubber is a magnet of human hair, or traditional magnets are magnets of metal, you need two objects to talk about anti matter which is obvious right?

So what does it mean for a proton and an anti proton to be annihilated?

Well as my theory says there is not possible to destroy energy so annihilated is at least a bad term to refering to what happens when particles like a proton and antiproton interact, so annihilation is not possible, what does happen is the change of energy organization of the system changes "a lot" because these objects are "programmed" or have an energy organization that interact a lot like when you arrange magnetic poles of a material to transform it into a magnet.

So you can get a lot of flavors of particles depending on the system's energy organization, but the density cycle of course makes the most stable energy organizations to stay as an object and the unstable ones become less denser.

So what this implies is that imagine that you want to create a black hole here in the earth so to do that you need a minimum size of it in order for it to be stable lets call that size 5 but if you are in another galaxy or even local group in order to have a stable black hole you need a size 6 black hole for example, but why?

Well because the energy organization of the neighborhood is not compatible with a different size black hole which is the same as saying the neighborhood energy organization is not compatible with anti-protons but if you travel to a very far away local group in which its energy organization may allow the antiproton to exist or to decay a lot slower for example.

What i want to say is that this is like any event is just changing energy organization so in this sense you can create any kind of particle like programming energy depending on the enrgy organization of the system, so that is why the standard model has lots and lots of particles is like a byte can be organized in 256 different ways, but energy organized into the ways its environment allows it to do and everything is hardware dependent if you have a 2mpx camera you will describe the event in one way and if you have a 200mpx one you will describe it in a different way so this is algorithm specific.

Again if you need clarification just ask for it

So i will publish these one and then i will continue to answer the next questions to avoid alot of waiting .

Wow im very excited about your questions all of them are great questions please wait i promise i will answer ALL of them

Infinite Loop Density Cycle

2018

by: Eugenio Ullauri

I introduce my theory of everything which i created in 2015 but decided to make it public in 2018

So the Universe is everything that exists i see it as one object which i call the whole, and all is about how it is organized following a behavior i call the infinite loop density cycle, which simply says that the whole changes its density forever.

So the whole density increases until it becomes unstable, which means that it cannot handle its density because does not have enough energy to keep growing at a stable rate, the density increases until it cannot increase more and then is decreases and increases again, in an infinite loop, so the whole (universe) is a never ending chemical reaction of energy, here energy is everything that exists.

So this theory says that the universe is limited but it is impossible to know where it ends because of limits of the observer's "hardware"  so a observer will never be able to know where the universe ends.

In this sense there is not space or time there is just energy and how it is organized like a 2 dimensional array of bits, energy is organized depending on the focuser's "hardware" this means that for something to exist it has to be observed which i call as "focused" so an object exists only for the focuser that is focusing it and when the focuser looks to another direction the previous focused object stops existing.

This theory explains every phenomena (behavior) of the universe in function of the density of the whole (energy), so when electrons were formed their properties were determined by the whole's (universe) energy organization.

So there was a low density particles "cloud" ad the organization of that cloud determines how that cloud follows the density cycle, so lets say there were 9 (nine) of these low density particles in this cloud which is becoming denser and has such energy organization which enables two of there low particles to merge into a denser particle but the other 7 can just move around because the energy organization does not allow for more "merges", that is why electric charges, weak nuclear, strong nuclear force exists, just because when those particles were arranged the energy organization was such to make 95% of stuff to be hydrogen for example only later when the energy organization was such two hydrogen atoms could fuse into a helium one, so i hope you understood this idea if not please make questions so i can clarify them.

So this theory says that describing the universe is an implementation-specific task, because focusers (observers) are limited machines, this means for a focuser A the most detailed energy organization it can focus or the deepest it can go is 10 square centimeters for example and for another focuser B it is 10 square nanometers, and so on.

So that is the same as how the resolution of a camera determines the amount of information that the camera can "collect".

I can describe the universe with a 2d array of bits, or maybe using fields, or anything else which is implementation specific but i need to remember that there is only one thing which is energy and has only one behavior which is the infinite loop density cycle.

Thank you for your questions i will solve them as soon as possible while i do that please read and try to understand what i have written above