Imagine Everything

Yes you are right. I'm sure I'll be ok with it eventually, it's just difficult for me right now because I don't understand enough. Your explanation of the sigma helped immensely, I even shared that with @CosmicDreamer earlier at work. He was fascinated and also learnt something too. So hopefully going along, more will stick in y#my brain. Yes, well 2d anyway. All the lectures I watched on Khan or somewhere else were 2d and all labelled as x being horizontal and y being vertical. Though if I remember from a previous post, you or Mordred said it didn't really matter which way x and y were, so long as they were there. Are these unit vectors the ones where the head and tail meet to create the actual vector? So axi ayj and azk have now become a1i a2j & a3k still with magnitude of 1? Why have you said say a1, a2 and a3? Is that just to show them as different to each other Or has their magnitude changed now? Is this telling me that an has become xn , does it matter that you used a capital x? Could you remind please what a co efficient is? I'm not sure if I'm ready for the Einstein ref yet, I can sort of see what you're saying but I think I need to learn this without it first as I am already finding it a bit tricky. How also, would you know what the sigma represents? Would it be by looking at the IR3 image? (Real 3 Dimension space? was that right?) I managed to follow Khan up to when they started talking about sets, I got very lost at that point, I think because I'm not familiar with all the symbols. And he spoke very fast lol.

Yes you did, whilst the format seems familiar, I didn't realise I was talking about the maths sorry, I think I need to go back and look at some more vector lectures and get to understand components better. 2d seems to be so much easier than 3d. I'm sure I could look it up but I trust your word more than google, could please explain cosine and sine please?

I'm afraid if you're referring to the cosine part, I still don't know much at all about sine cosine. I did look the other day but didn't understand it much. I think my takeaway was that both might relate also to infinite somethings? Looking more at that website now. I noticed also that the sigmas they use don't have integer above or value below. But is that because they initially wrote Fr before the sigma? And I dont actually see an F vector for them to have obtained it in the image for them to have referred to if as they say Addition of vectors: The resultant vector FR obtained from the addition of vectors F1, F2, …, Fn is given by To be honest, I only vaguely recognise a few things. I clearly need to learn more to understand it. I don't think I could tell you, aside from what I've said, what could be wrong or right.

I had to quickly remind myself of the i and j, sorry I guess I slightly cheated on my answer rather than getting it from my head. I can see that the y in this image should be x and the z should be y. Is that right? I'm not sure about where the z should be. Should z be where x is? Is that how 3d vectors are drawn? Another way to put it, j should be where k is and i should be where j is and k should be where i is. So, forgive the simplified way I write this please, it should be x/i horizontal line, j/y vertical line and z/k RHR. And the same in this one? Should z be where x is in the image? And also y should be x and z should be y. Is that how 3d vectors are drawn? I'm afraid I'm very 2d ish still and also still haven't figured the following out The matrix is 4 1 3 0 2 4 3 2 1 I get to the 3 small det and so far so good but I don't understand the sum below. I think I confuse myself and this is probably an easy example too lol. = 4 (-6) -1 (-12) +3 (-6) = 30 I will take a look at the website more in depth but probably tomorrow now if you don't mind. Gotta get things ready for work tomorrow etc now. Have a good night. See you tomorrow.

Well hmm, maybe if I live for anther 300 years and study 25 hours a day, 9 days a week lol What a shame, imagine you would have sold quite a few. I see 'n' being used a lot throughout what I've watched or read so far, is it because it doesn't interfere with other character used to mean something else? I see that a dot for instance is used (1.4 =4) instead of 1x4 =4 for mulitplication and sometimes the 'x' or '.' just seems to be implied. Yes they do end up with a single output, but you will see when I do vectors the formulae are more complicated. Mmmm I can sort of imagine it will be. I've seen a few chalk boards on a few lectures I watched and the formulae/sums seem so bewilderingly complex. Yes that is correct, Gold star point. Thank you so much, I don't know if a gold star means anything other than you giving me praise but the fact that you even said that as someone as studied and clever as you are, means an awful to me I think I understand the pi ref a bit better now too. Whenever & wherever I saw it used/mentioned before, I kept thinking 3.142 etc and I almost pooped myself wondering how you used that to calculate stuff. But if I do indeed understand what you said, it is merely a symbol representing multiplication? ∑n=14r2=16(n)(n+1)(2n+1) Whats the r2 in front of the sigma in this formula and how does the whole formula work please? I understand the 1st sigma part now but after that is confusing to me. +1 to you too btw for teaching and also being patient enough to someone who knows or knew nothing beyond dartboard level maths. Did I just put you off me by saying that lol? I can't physically give you anything in return for your help but there is one thing I can offer. I'm too bad a poet and if you ever want one for whatever reason, anniversary, birthday? please feel free to pm me a few details about what you'd like in it and I'll write you one. The same offer goes to you other guys/gals that have helped me. I don't want anything in return, it's just me trying to balance out the help you have all given me. I really do & can imagine a lot, perhaps too much lmao. Ty too for the website links. hahaha I once again find myself writing for England so I'll stop there for now.

Man this is tricky for me but I think I understand. So the ref above the sigma represents how far the integers go. And the ref under the sigma tells me the value of the random? letter used to give a value. The by placing the n² directly in front of the sigma, this tells me the power? of the sum? So it stops at 4 and it then adds what n is up to that 4? If I understand this, if I changed it to n1 in front of the sigma then this would become 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 ? Though I guess (from vectors I've seen) that I could just simply put n in front of the sigma instead of n1 as they are the same? The ref above the sigma is just how far it goes and the ref underneath states the value of the random? letter used for the sum? Or is n specific to something in this respect, like nth represents infinity in vector equations? Hmm, just a thought just occurred to me. Is the n² in front of the sigma a scalar? If it is a scalar, is that how sigmas' always appear? With the scalar in front? What's the difference between summation and multiplication? Do they not both end up with a total of the accrued maths? I tried using the charmap on windows but it's a bit shit to be honest, unless I'm using it wrong of course. Is there such a thing as a physics keyboard with all the relevant char's I can buy somewhere? Or a website perhaps that I can copy and paste from? I don't know if this is a strange question or not but after n2 for instance is there an n3? And if so is, 3² the same as 3ᴈ? =9? The following I'm not sure I understand much at all This sum may be used in an equation if there is a formula that gives you the answer directly ∑n=14r2=16(n)(n+1)(2n+1) I've noticed too that when I quote (copy n paste) you guys sums, they come out very differently to how you originally wrote them. Lol, literally just found the superscript button. I feel like a bit like...

No sir, you said this and then asked a question at the end Collisions are also interesting. Being scientific about it you can ask what happens when two (or more) something or anothers collide. When matter alone is involved damage, deflection, chemical action, coalescence and many other results occur. On the other hand when two waves collide, the waves can pass right through each other and come out the other side, undeflected, undamaged and apparantly unaffected. So what do you think might happen if a wave collides with some matter ? This was my attempt at an answer Ok so I had a look on google and I think it is telling me that a wave is the vibration of a field. So trying to answer your question, if a wave collides with matter then a few things go through my head. The collision will create vp's and more vibration/Ke/waves? Which returns the vp energy to the colliding wave making it stronger? Slightly perhaps analogous to mixing different colours. And then this is turn can create or decay particles if vibration is key to how everything is created in respect to their respective fields. I'm kind of guestimating this but would that in turn also change the wave and then create a different field in the colison. Is this then also why everything is superpositioned and then relative to the measurement of the wave looked at from different perspectives as they are all seemingly mixed up with each other like the inside of a golf ball. Quick thought, is a wave a scalar and a field a vector? Not quite sure what you mean, but yes I did say that waves could travel through material objects. On this part, I was wondering if a resting position line in a wavelength was similar toto the way space/dm/or another something' might work as particles/wavelengths can pass through space easily? (I dk if I shouldn't say that or not, I'm looking at particles ( as wavelengths, it's easier for me to visualise in my head. Is it wrong for me to think this way? Am I just confusing myself? I went more in depth with it but I'm sure you guys might have had enough of my endless writing today. It's the first post on this page. I was trying to ascertain as to whether a resting position of a wavelength (particle?) could also be a measurement but of something else. The actual line itself as opposed to the peaks and troughs. My wonderful imagination is working overtime to try and possibly find out where or what my proposed 'nameless non particle' might be or how it might look if it could be measured. If you measure a particle or vibration and then take the wavelength away and are left soley with the resting position. One of the tests my idea has to pass is to be able to be created by every single particle wherever it is, whatever is creating it. I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as you guys so maybe that's a really stupid thing for me to say, Idk. I see DM or whatever DM might be as being everywhere, going through everything, maybe a bit similar to a neutrino. I'll admit I really haven't studied or looked at neutrinos much so far but after saying what I did directly above, could neutrino's be DM? I do have a maths question for you too please I'd really like to understand how this character works. ∑ What is the reference that goes on the top of the ∑ when writing an equation/formula? What is the reference that goes underneath the ∑ when writing an equation/formula? What do both top and bottom references represent? I have seen that this symbol itself represents 'sum' and I'd like to learn more so that I can use it or add it to my knowledge and perhaps come up eventually with an equation? formula? for how I see my 'nameless non particle' being created. Thanks btw, good to know.

Thanks @studiot, your answer helps me understand it better. Also didn't know it was a relationship between 2 or more objects. That's quite interesting. Always thought of it as being something that held things down, rather than interacting with other objects. Starting to think a little differently about BH's now. But that is of course a whole other ballgame. I don't know if you saw btw but I answered your question about a wave colliding with particles. I only mention it here as I seem to have buried it with my last few posts. Thanks @swansont, it gives me a better formation of it in my mind now.

ugh sorry, I wrote 'test' to see if the page was ready for me to write another post without adding it to a previous one but it took me so long to write the next bit that I couldn't edit the 'test' bit and post the following LOL. The following is part of a chapter that was induced by the idea originally posted as SQEPKRF. The simple State 1 BC1 next to State 2 BC2 exchange/merger/creation idea progressed into more areas/chapters and this next bit is from one of those areas/chapters. I still don't know if this idea is feasible or not and I'm still obviously trying to learn more so that I can prove or disprove it. BC refers to Boundary Condition The personal aura. I referred to this as a resonance before but perhaps, knowing more now, I should refer to it as aura. So I see this BC exchange as being within all state BC's meeting. From fundamental particles all the way up to the more massive masses in our universe. Regarding people, I don't know the entire physiology of the body but I see this 'nameless non particle' as being created within us as well, and within everything that makes our body that makes us, us and for this bit, I will refer to just 2 people and the 'space' between them. So starting from the quantum level and then all the way through the different items that make our personal bodies, I see this as being produced through State BC exchange and that alone is significantly numerous and also unique and different for all of us or we would all be the same. Thoughts for you to ponder...have you ever looked at your phone or thought about someone 'randomly' only then for that person to ring you a few moments or minutes later? Have you ever met someone or seen someone and been repulsed or attracted to them for a seemingly unknown reason? You just simply 'feel' it. A couple or close friends perhaps that have spent a long time together seem to know what the other is thinking or about to say. Or even said something at the exact same time? I see this 'nameless non particle' as the possible reason this happens. I see us having our own unique aura and this interacts all the time, everywhere with the 'nameless non particles' outside of our bodies and that the 'nameless non particles'? also act as a conduit/medium of sorts that also connect to another persons, personal 'nameless non particle' unique aura. And possibly a lot more. I see this as happening all the time, everywhere and perhaps if I may use it analogously, we only feel or think about the other person when we see or think about them but only then, superpoistioned if you will until we 'measure' it. By measure I mean looking or thinking about the other person. And when that happens, we 'realise' or tune into that connection on a very deep, quantum level. On a quantum level, I see this as information being passed between each persons nameless non particle' aura and being collected and then processed by our brain into thoughts and or feelings. I see it as basic information which is interpreted and made sense of by our brain allowing us to form an opinion (for want of a better word) from it. I see this as potentially covering illness too. I know that there are physical reasons for being ill but even those physical reasons have to start somewhere, on a quantum level whether fast or slow, such having a limb cut off (fast) or getting a virus (slow). That's a very very short version of this area from this nameless non particle' idea. I just wanted to show you I guess that I see this idea working in many many ways. If I zoom out a bit as it were and incorporate more than 2 people, the idea gets even more very complex (if it isn't already lmao) I mentioned quantum travel too I think originally but hmm, perhaps that part really is a wag, having found out more about atoms, fundamental particles and fields since then. I still haven't proved this and without being able to prove it yet one way or the other, I think the idea itself and what I see it as doing could and perhaps will fall down like a house of cards. If the original simple idea is wrong then I suppose so is the rest of it lol. To be honest, I really thought it would fail instantly when I posted it. I was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. And also humbled by not being seen as the 'usual crank' you sometimes get on this forum. I am also still gratefully surprised that I am able to still be talking with you about it and also the things I need to learn. Thank you for that, all of you. I would just add that the word aura is borrowed from my short time in a few spiritualism groups and perhaps better describes the definition than 'personal resonance'. I won't post another chapter, I still have @Phi for All wisdom in my head about keeping it as short as possible. And I have tried to, honestly. @swansont Just a quick question, going back to my hypothetical hanging in space, trying to understand better what you told me, would that mean that the spacesuit I'd be wearing would have gravity and that my mass would be producing it? Even on a very small scale.

It dawned on me during the last half hour, that perhaps my idea or the name of the 'thingy' is paradoxical as it stands. I have called this a 'nameless particle'. But if DM or space or whatever that invisible stuff is can't be measured, then it couldn't be a particle or I'm sure you guys would have measured it?. So I'll think about another term for it, I'm not sure what yet but in my unskilled brain I am wondering if 'nameless non particle' might be more apt for now. Anyway so, I can't help but feel I am very very wrong about this but I keep seeing the resting position line of a wavelength in my head. Maybe I just need to put this to bed or maybe it's a 'something'. Either way I need to know so I can exclude it or not, when a wave length is at rest and it shows as a flat line (I'm guessing that how it's seen, sorry if it's a bad wag) could this resting position be interpreted as actually the possible non measurement, measurement of the 'nameless non particle' dm/space/other? It seemingly isn't doing anything except simply 'being' (to me anyway without knowing more) and isn't that what space/dm seems to do? (again without knowing more) A wavelength can pass through a resting position which is energy? being moved? In one of my many many weird and wonderful creation thoughts, I can visualise 'space/dm/other' as the resting position for everything else to pass through and be created within or even with. And this coupled with the endless thought of 'something' not being able to be 'nothing' Or ultimately I guess, maybe I am just reaching too far without the necessary knowledge to know I'm wrong lol. I don't want to or mean to come across as spamming my own thread (is that possible?) but I'm going to add another part of this idea and how I see this 'nameless non particle' happening/working between people. Which I will do in a while so that it doesn't get added to this post.

Sometimes these posts make me laugh hard Googled this but couldn't open the website as all the webpages were stuck together 😛

Ok so I had a look on google and I think it is telling me that a wave is the vibration of a field. So trying to answer your question, if a wave collides with matter then a few things go through my head. The collision will create vp's and more vibration/Ke/waves? Which returns the vp energy to the colliding wave making it stronger? Slightly perhaps analogous to mixing different colours. And then this is turn can create or decay particles if vibration is key to how everything is created in respect to their respective fields. I'm kind of guestimating this but would that in turn also change the wave and then create a different field in the colison. Is this then also why everything is superpositioned and then relative to the measurement of the wave looked at from different perspectives as they are all seemingly mixed up with each other like the inside of a golf ball. Quick thought, is a wave a scalar and a field a vector?

Thanks Swansont

Thanks again for your feedback, always appreciated. I was seeing it as a field I think rather than matter/substance as I've seen that science hasn't found/measured? the 2 spin graviton yet. I have yet to understand spin more fully but to some extent I do understand that spin isn't something spinning but more angular related. But I will definitely check this out a bit more. It might take me years to get a more fuller and better understanding of all this. May I ask please, what does 1/r^2 mean in words.

Just saw this joke elsewhere on the net and it made me chuckle.... Enjoy A man finds his seat at the Super Bowl, but notices that there’s an empty seat between himself and the next guy. “Who in their right mind would miss the Super Bowl?!” The man next to him smiles and says, “Well, actually this was my wife’s seat. She passed away recently, and we had already purchased the tickets.” The first guy is taken aback and says, “Oh, I’m sorry for your loss,” but then thinks for a second and adds, “Don’t you think it would have been nice to take one of her family members to the game?” The man looks ahead and replies, “I would, but they are all at her funeral right now.”

Today I learned I don't have quite enough patience to deal with an hour long sale with a customer that was choosing/buying lots of furniture with her 3 year old running, jumping and even trying to swim over and through the other furniture in the warehouse whilst trying to encourage the mum politely to stop her child from possibly hurting herself and damaging the furniture without success. I was quite exhausted mentally after they finally left the warehouse. My patience almost ran out when the 3 year old wouldn't take off a jacket she took off a rack whilst holding a toothbrush her mum had also bought, so I told her the toothbrush police would take it back if she didn't take off the jacket. Then she got all shy and clung to her mum. But she did take the jacket off finally. Does that make me mean lol. Or are children really worried about toothbrush police. I was nice about it, I didn't shout or swear. Maybe what I learnt really was that I'm glad I'm not a parent. I remember when my cat was like that. Now 19 years later, she just moans a lot lmao. That's a cute kitten, hope she lives a long time. They're great company.

That's interesting (and hopefully I understand this right) gravity is projected outwards from rather than actually being within the mass? Something 'magical' seems to be happening? That's hard to understand, it seems counter productive to matter. Does that mean that mass creates and expels gravity and if so, how is it that gravity pulls things towards it if gravity isn't 'core' bound? Is gravity actually anti gravity so to speak and the more it is pushed out, the more matter is pulled in? Hmm..I guess that actually might explain the throw a spanner in space question I asked if it does. Is gravity and anti gravity the reverse of themselves in the way it acts? What I mean is, do they both work in the opposite of how they sound, is anti gravity what actually keeps us on the earth instead of flying into the sky? Or have I completely misunderstood what you've kindly told me. Forgive me if I'm repeating what you said in a slightly different way. Sometimes I need to so my head can can absorb what it's trying to comprehend. I haven't read or studied or heard of the shell theorem yet I don't think but now that I have, I'll take a look in the coming days. Hmm...so relativity...I remember reading about Einsteins relativity and the speed of light. I don't recall all of it but it related to 2 people being on a train and a lightning bolt hitting the train. And the relative perspective of both people meant they perceived it in a slightly different time frame thinking it was different when actually it was the same. Sorry, I'm sure you know all about this, I'm not trying to say anything new with that. Can I ask then, if it comes down to relativity, then how do fields seemingly stay where they are but observed differently from relativity? The Earth has a magnetic field but if I was on Jupiter, would I see it differently or perhaps not at all? Even though it is actually there. And have to add wow. You all know I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and understanding but now I'm wondering just how you can understand the things you do when they seem to be so mixed up, entwined, unentwined, entangled, there not there so on and on. I'm beyond mind boggled by you all.Left is right, right is left, up is down, down is up, left is down and up, right is up and down and wooahh lol. Is anything really what it is, or is everything everything until measured? And even when measured, this perspective is also only correct for one relative point of measurement? Hope that makes sense and if it does then my mind has just been blown even more than it already was. Is Schrodingers cat not only alive and dead but also superpositioned everywhere all at once within the box? How do you folks know which is the right way to measure things or is that why you have so many different ways to prove a certain equation to be absolutely sure of it's simplification? Each time I speak to you, I get a zillion questions and also more impressed with what you know. Lol and also more bewildered Thank you and yes you're absolutely right. I'd only been up half an hour when I posted that. I think this is also very testing for me to learn because it feels like I'm trying to learn physics, maths and a bit of chemistry at the same time, none of which I am skilled in. Hopefully I'll get there or somewhere close. Have a good weekend, all of you.

Interesting question. You might be suprised to learn that the answer is even more interesting. This is because it is like in a police drama or a gangster movie, where there is a knock at the door and a vocie says "Are you Mr Smith ?" Because the answer "depends upon who's asking. Who want to know ?" also applies in Physics. This is a direct result of relativity. So does your answer imply that one magnetic fields can also be electron fields or neutron fields so on and on? Depending on how they are measured or interacted with? Or is it more like, it's just one huge field but it changes in different places due to the vibration it interacts with? I'm not even sure I could begin to answer that, I can kind of envision it but only in a simple' kind of form. I mentioned before I think about 2 mirrors opposite each other reproducing each other endlessly seemingly. Would it be wrong of me to think of the answer to that question possibly being something analogous to many mirrors reflecting each others image. Endlessly x nth? Is that even a possibility? In my head it feels like it could be this. Fascinating, I never considered what it would or could be like to be inside the gravity. So the astronauts would actually be adding to the gravity whilst inside it as well I'm guessing.

oh ok. Thx

Sorry but had to ask, if god existed or exists, how do you know it was a male? And as for measuring god in your heart..well you make and decide who you are. If god is in your heart, then why would you exist? Why would a god make things to put themselves inside if god is everywhere anyway. We would be pointless.

Hello, If you're talking about physical pain, well we feel it because we have nerves, but it is paired with strength or well being as we wouldn't feel either without the nerves. If you mean mental pain, well I think if for example, if we lose someone to death and it makes us feel terrible, it's because we find joy in being around them or having them in our life, perhaps this kind of pain is induced by the shock of no longer being able to interact with them anymore, also knowing this and that we are no longer able to bond with them on a physical or emotional level. If you're speaking broadly regarding the way life seems to be, well, to me it's a chain, food chain, power chain, perhaps just a survival chain and quite possibly other chains too. Some people, perhaps animals and creatures too, get greedy and have to get more of whatever it is they think they need. By doing this, it creates suffering to the lives that their greed/selfishness affects. It's not fair but then life rarely seems to be from what I've experienced. Why is one person born healthy and another born with health issues? I don't suppose there is any real defined answer for this but the good news is that as humans (if we all decided to be nice to each other and work together) we are capable of changing this. Can we??? Hmm..will we..? doubtful. Why are we constantly being warned about global warming and asked to be more green when others are insistent on dropping space shuttle debris in the sea, or having a war and polluting the atmosphere, why are some groups of people determined to quash or destroy other groups of people when perhaps we should be looking toward giving humanity longevity and other planets to live on so we don't die out. It's weird but nature seems to adore doubles or pairs, it seems to me like we want to survive but are also persistent on destroying ourselves as a race. So for all the pain and suffering in the world, there is also a lot of joy and wonderment. We just have to look for the good. And there is always something good, even in the bad things that happen, if only we would look for it and then use that knowledge for betterment, then perhaps the pain and suffering would start to demise.

Hellooo, I've been thinking as always lol, and though I don't have the maths knowledge yet, I think I do see a 'loose' pattern the more I consider how we behave as people or perhaps how planets are formed and perhaps how fundamental particles go on to be or create what they do. I don't want to come across as understanding everything and thinking I know it all because I truly don't but I think I do see a pattern. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Perhaps I could say that humans are predetermined probabilities of randomness. We are created, we become the predetermined human but we have differences/randomness. The first child is born but the second may not be the same gender and even if it is the same gender, it would not be the same person created again. Without going even deeper into this aspect, I see this as predetermined probability. The difference between 2 siblings would be the randomness even though the probability of a human being created is true. Rocky Earthlike planets are formed (from what I have read about and seen) from previous matter collisions which are gravitationally pulled together to become what they do, again perhaps the predetermined probability of this is the way rocky planets are formed and the randomness is perhaps how big they become, or the atmosphere they accrue. The differences. Both the above patterns seem to me to be creation from 'collisions' of some kind. When I was about 14, I was hit by a car which put me in hospital with a broken leg. Another collision if you will.The predetermined probability was perhaps that I would suffer from this injury later on in life, 37 years later, I can tell you that I do. So perhaps the randomness is the age at which this injury would affect me later on in life. Just a few examples of many may I could perhaps offer. So @Mordred, we spoke about this a little in the science respect, a few pages back. And whilst I don't understand the physics or maths, I think the pattern I am seeing is that all things seem to work in a similar fashion, except maybe BH's as far as I know. What am I getting at? Well, I seem to keep zooming in and out of how I perceive the universe to work with my very limited understanding and when I do, I can't help but wonder why things seem to follow this path. I know from speaking to you and Studiot and Swansont etc that it all happens on a fundamental particle and field? origin. I imagine you're already thinking, yes it called the BB. In my weird and wonderful, un-mathimatical idea, I also wonder if the BB is a repeatable event though I still couldn't say how it originally started unless of course there is something beyond our universe that created it. But I'll leave that bit there as it is truly very wild to think about. I have previously mentioned a field of fields in this thread but going on from that and also taking DM a little further if I may be so very bold, I see in my head that everything had to have started from this origin but what tells things to become what they are. What tells a magnetic field to be a magnetic field, what tells an electron field to become an electron field so on and so on. Maybe you already know this so please forgive my naivety if you do. I wonder if there is perhaps some kind of field that is quid pro quo with all the other fields and particles, a fundamental field perhaps? Hope that makes sense. And I have already shown how excited I was when I came across the Dark photon. My thought is analogous perhaps to a bag of sweets encased by a packet to keep them together, that DM is this fundamental field that keeps everything in the universe together as it were. And that this field is not a singular item but quid pro quo with everything inside it. Both reliant on it's inner particles/fields to be what it is and also providing the knowledge for it's inner particles to become and be created the way they do. Another pair, albeit a gigantic one universally sized. And that DM? is simply just is (a collection of memories?) until it is required to create or help re/create. I'm not saying that this 'field' sends out a specific set of instructions but that what it creates and allows it's creations to create, is remembered by all and everything, and in doing so, everything that is created remembers what it was when it becomes pure energy again. For instance, a decayed particle leaves behind very very very faint Ke, literally un-measurable but none the less still 'something' and that this something is the 'nameless particle' I have been so very bad at explaining properly so far in this thread. I don't see it as the Dark Photon but that particle possibility, definitely intrigued me. So my thought is this. If my idea's 'nameless particle' and it's 'nameless field' are quid pro quo with all it's inner particles and fields, does it keep reproducing itself through boundary condition exchanges because (if it could be measured) it would have an entangled counterpart that already exists (DM?) and therefore has to be created to balance or create the pair it needs to. Could this nameless particle exist as 'memory' of what it once was and because something can't be nothing, it keeps existing as 'memory', un-measureable , invisible, massless Ke? or maybe Ke becomes a kind of 'nameless' memory? energy type, connected to everything all the time, everywhere through quantum entanglement. An 'echo of an echo'? A 'shadow of a shadow'? I asked if when a particle is measured and is measured within it's expected +/- tolerances, was there the tiniest little bit of expected measurement/wavelength left over but within this expected tolerance. In my head, I see this as possibly being the nameless' particle. So very faint and seemingly unneeded that it is dismissed as being not neccessary for the measurement. If this is true, is it the same for absolutely every single particle that exists. If it is, I wonder if this could be the nameless particle or nameless residue? particle that continues to exist until another field requires/pulls it in to help recreate whatever the particle was before in whatever field it was before. And ultimately, is this what 'DM' could be? Simply the 'memory' of what it once was but has to exist otherwise, nothing else could be further created. Could fundamental particles be the result of DM (nameless 'memory' particles?') colliding/coming together through requirement/quantum entanglement/connection. And the only way to measure this is through the influence it has on the particles it creates further along the chain. As far as the universe being a recreated event, and this question is perhaps better left for you guys due to my lack of knowledge, is it possible or could it be that all the energy (kinetic residue? Idk) left over after everything else in the universe has decayed, is drawn to itself or 'clumps' back together as one kind of big mass? or massless mass? of some sort until it cannot possibly decay anymore due to something not being able to be nothing and then simply bursts back out (BB) everywhere, all at once and restarts the universe. And on from that, the 'memory' of everything that has gone before, could be created, has been created, is available to go on and create it all again and maybe again and again... This idea might come across as complete madness, I don't know how any of you will perceive this with the knowledge you have and you may very well think it's a WAG and maybe you're right, maybe it is. I have no proof as I said and I need to learn an awful lot more still to see or prove (if it's even possible) whether it's wrong or a little bit right, possible or not. In my idea, I see this nameless particle as being created by the decay of other particles that have the memory of what it once was and that this exists and grows as particles collide and decay back into what they once were, be that memory energy? or a fundamental particle. There's an infamous question I'm sure you all have heard, What came first, the chicken or the egg and that seems appropriate somehow to this. I did read somewhere that it has to be the chicken due to evolution. Could this be how our universe is? Has it evolved from something created in some way initially and has simply evolved bit by bit over eons perhaps beyond our current 14b years. If anyone has read this all the way through, thank you very much for at least doing that. I appreciate it immensely. If I am completely wrong and you know this, please tell me and I will stop posting reading this idea I had. I don't want to waste anyones time and @studiot and @Mordred, I thank you both very much for the input, direction and guidance you have given me. I also appologise if I annoyed you in some way with anything I have said, that was not, and is not something I intended to do. I am aware that sometimes, without realising, I can and do say or write the wrong things. Lastly, I want you to know, Cosmic Dreamer is a work colleague of mine, I didn't ask him to post what he has but for some reason, he is impressed with what I have thought about or written. I say 'some reason' because I doubt myself, my knowledge and see myself as a nobody of nobodies when it comes to science, maths and physics. He flatters me tremendously and it humbles me as much as it does knowing that you guys took the time out of your possibly very busy schedules to help someone like me.

Interesting, thanks Swansont, So if the I.S.S. for instance was big enough, it would have gravity? If it's mass related, then it has a little gravity already but not enough to behave the same way as Earth gravity does?.

Police arrested two kids yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one – and let the other one off. I was studying frequency in my physics class. Now my brain Hertz.

Thanks Swansont. So sound/noise is down to mass. This would be why there is no sound in space I'm guessing. Hmm..and if 'DM' or another 'something' indeed does exist then it would have to be massless at the very least? Can you or someone tell me please, if I was to be left in space in a space suit so I wouldn't die from the effects from space, radiation etc, would I simply just 'hang' there until I interacted with mass in some way? For instance, if I threw a spanner forward and was accelerated backward by the momentum of throwing said spanner. What I am wondering is, if indeed I would just hang there, would that mean that my space suit and myself, has gravity regardless of not being acted on by a planetary source of gravity? Would gravity be the force that kept myself and the spacesuit together? Ultimately I think I am wondering if gravity relates to mass size. The moon has less gravity than Earth and is smaller. A Super Earth has more gravity than our own Earth. Not taking something like a neutron star into account.