Imagine Everything

Hello again, Can 2 particles, vp or otherwise colliding or..hmm..an electron being excited, fermion repulse or photon transfer and simliar make a very tiny noise of some sort. I'm not talking about something anyone can hear but possibly something that can be picked upon or measured in some way either directly or by the influence they have on other particles / vibrations. I'm wondering if DM behaves somewhat similar. If it isn't a 'something', could it be thought of as if it was a big 'noise' (probably not the right word) in/during or even created by the BB that is merely echoing / expanding on and on and on. Rather than being stretched, it simply carries on due to the huge, possibly unimaginable amount of Ke created by the BB. Can the BB be thought of as Ke? or as having Ke? Hmm maybe I'm asking if energy can have Ke. It's the way I kind of see my idea working but as yet I don't know the maths. Hopefully I will in the future and be able to prove or disprove it. That is all I really want to do. It's why I came here to start with to get you folks expert opinions. Have a good weekend.

When you die, what part of the body dies last? The pupils… they dilate.

@CosmicDreamer Thanks, that's very kind & you flatter me but I really don't know much to be honest. Bits and pieces are starting to sink in but I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as the very clever people that admin & help with this website and the people that visit or post here. I have an awful lot to learn still and regardless of what I saw in my idea, I truly don't know if it will amount to anything or not. +1 for your kind post. I am a nobody of nobodies and if I may be so bold, if you're really interested, I would encourage you to try and learn. It's extremely fascinating and opens up your eyes to a completely different way of understanding things. Few other things if I may, mainly @Mordred & @studiot I know I might have come across as someone who thinks they've discovered something and knows it. I haven't and I don't. I just had this idea regarding how it may be created and what the thing is that might be created. I don't recall actually stating before that I was thinking of it as DM, I might have but don't think I did. I also don't mean to sound like I'm latching onto something that has already been written about. I'm not. It's so very strange to me that the way I see things in my idea have so many times already been termed and explained by clever people like yourselves. It's seriously uncanny. I still have the original idea in all it's glorious & badly described/worded form which goes onto see this created thing as possible DM. I got maybe too excited about the dark photon but it (to me) almost seemed too god to be true when I read about it. It was like a big piece of the jigsaw fell on my lap. I also said I had forgotten a lot in the 2 weeks or so when my pc decided to go nuts and break down. Like anything, if I don't do it or deal with it, day after day after day..., my brain seems to tuck it away somewhere until I see it or deal with it again. I noticed you haven't responded since my pc went down @Mordred and wonder if this is why. I'm sorry if I came across as possibly wasting your time. Your patience and help has not been shown or given for nothing. I wouldn't still be writing or studying if it had. Just wanted you to know that and also that I still appreciate yours, Studiots and others time. Also @studiot I dare say I might have lost you or your support too, perhaps because of my excitement. That said and done, thank you regardless of however this does or doesn't turn out. I guess right now, the future of this thread is in superposition lol. So moving forward this potentially might be part of a much much bigger equation that goes on somehow to describe this nameless particle and how it happens or doesn't. @studiot Sorry if my drawing was too messy, I didn't know how to draw it properly if I'm honest. And from what I saw yesterday and if I understood it correctly, the Feynman diagrams describe collisions more simply but all of them? have to be considered before finding the appropriate collision diagram/s to try and describe the possible way this happens in my idea. At this moment in time, the thought of this is bewildering, having had a glimpse at how many possible diagrams there are. Maybe thats where vectors and det come into it. I don't know. Anyway, @Mordred again, I'm now back to determinants again. I've been watching lectures about upper triangles matrices, rref. Little bit intimidating but I think I'm sort of following it so far, though I did get stuck with one part on a nxn matrix. The teacher was somehow swapping and i for a j and I couldn't quite understand how or why he was doing that. And then 2 i's appeared in a column and that was my call to stop watching for tonight. Right now and then too, I found the extra i's and newly created/added j to be too much to understand. Hopefully I will with time. Lastly, I have a question as always if I may I'm a bit stuck with understanding how this determinant ends up becoming 30 on khan's website https://www.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/thinking-about-multivariable-function/x786f2022:vectors-and-matrices/a/determinants-mvc Can you explain it to me please? 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 = 4 (-6) -1 (-12) +3 (-6) = 30

A man entered a local paper’s pun contest. He sent in 10 different puns, in the hope that at least one of the puns would win. Unfortunately, no pun in 10 did.

I think I might be close to putting together my first formula/equation? Albeit perhaps very roughly. It very early and I'm not sure I understand everything but perhaps you nice people can help show me where I might have gone wrong. I'll refer to it as the gap instead of quantum gap. The BC's are not very conductive and therefore can have more λ than the casimir effect with conductive plates/BC's would (if I understand this correctly, still have more to learn) The gap exists between State 1 BC and State 2 BC - so S1BC & S2BC. S1BC QT = State 1 Boundary Condition Quantum Tunneling... (Gap) a = ± λ1, λ,2...λn ÷ T + S1BC QT + S2BC QT + QT Ke = Nameless Particle (Dark Quasiparticle?) In my full idea, I see this nameless particle as making up or creating DM/DE or in some way being involved with it. I know how that sounds, but hey ho, never know unless you try eh. What I have tried to say is that within this Gap, I see different particles, fields interacting with each other and also with the Ke coming into and through and also interacting with the fields and particles/quasiparticle fields/quasiparticles and VP's... within this gap (I called it smudge before but with more thinking, perhaps nameless 1 is better. I don't` currently have a great grasp on Quantum Tunneling yet but hopefully I'll be able to replace the 'QT' with more determined maths in the future. There is obviously so very much more to this, not least ,of which is explaining the possible different interactions between all the different particles and fields themselves somehow. No doubt as I learn more, I might see this differently. So far i would say that even though science is pretty head bangingly difficult and fascinating, I haven't come across anything YET that has made me think the idea can't work. I constantly wonder how long it will be before something tells me it's impossible. Perhaps I'm not seeing DM/DEor even anything new at all, probably it's nothing....But maybe.. just maybe Still can't help but wonder, even though my original descriptions were off, I seem to keep finding things that explain them scientifically in the same, similar way. Anyons are very interesting. @Mordred I'll be moving back into determinants some time in the next few days all going well. It'll be interesting to find out more about spin too when we get to it. Hmm 15 months ago, I knew nothing at all really about science. 6 months ago, had a thought nova if you will Today I hope I am in some tiny way getting closer to having an equation to work with and see where it takes me. 15 months from now? Tbh I would be very very happy just to know the idea had lasted that long without being quashed. Is there a physics symbol for particle/particle field collision?

Questions please Is string field considered at all as Sub Quantum? Do Super Nova's inflate and then expand before the material ejected starts cooling down as it spreads out everywhere around the cause of it's ejection.? Similar (though on a much smaller scale) as the universe inflating before expansion. I kind of see the initial big bang as being a Alpha Nova if that makes any sense? Perhaps the BB is the Alpha that creates the Alpha particles and SN are Beta and produce the other particles from the Alpha required to keep the universe going. The BB that keeps on Banging. Like a rechargeable battery that slowly loses energy each time it's recharged maybe, only on a supermassive universal sized battery. If DE exists, are SN candidates for producing it? The BB must be responsible for DE if DE exists. So going on from that, could SN be a candidate to produce it too? I'll stop there. Need to go study some more. Taking a 'wild' jump on from this, would or could that mean that indeed some type of particles can or do indeed get created without the need for a hadron collider? Merely 'kicked' along into, over, under, inside, outside, alongside, decaying and creating by and with each other, against each other and because of each others vibrations/kicks? The simply create due to the 'vibration' they incorporate/absorb/merge?

Thanks Studiot, sorry I'm a bit ill atm, I will have more of a look in a few days hopefully. Hope you and everyone else had a good xmas if you celebrate it.

I think I may have been able to draw it. And hopefully in a more accurate and simple way. Hopefully I'll be better at explaining it as the weeks go by, especially the 'goings on' inside the 'quantum gap'. A wavelength within a wavelength within a wavelength within ... Maybe lots of wavelengths within lots of wavelengths within lots ... Happy Christmas. 🎅

I should add, I know I've been a bit vague regarding spins, excitements, collisions and maybe even more but I'm still learning and no doubt that will come together as time goes by. Also the above is version 4 of n?, it is by no means the finished article and still needs a lot of maths study/input too..

I must admit I'm having trouble with the vectors, I understand them to a certain point now but when they stated talking about sets and constants, it got a little too much, he speaks a little too fast but I think some sank in. Anyway, so I don't know but I'll try, drawings may come after. Still undecided on things, gone through half a note pad so far. An Illogical Sense Of Order V4 Chapter 1 - The 3rd State or System 1? Quantum Gap? Corridor? (Not sure what that place could be called. BC²?) State 1 Boundary Condition meets State 2 Boundary condition and creates System 1 between connecting Boundary Conditions creating a Quantum Gap. With Ke Q Tunneling through and from State 1 and into and through System 1 & then also State 2 and also vice verca. Inside the quantum gap, I see these 'thingy? particles being created to decay instantly with their faint kinetic vibration wave/s being passed on and through and as a part of whatever it comes into contact with. I don't know enough yet about Q Tunneling yet to form a more detailed explanation. The 2 states if indeed, are meeting and connecting through their connected boundary conditions and this was partly being caused by a kinetic quantum tunneling wave/s somehow, then the kinetic quantum tunneling wave/s would also be coming from or connected to another boundary condition and so on. Even if the Ke was coming from state 1, it would also be a part of another state anyway at the same time. Everything linked, everywhere, all the time and at the same time. So state 1 & 2 have turned into state n? A lot of states..I read a bit more and about SM (standard model) too and the further I went, the more I think I saw or it made sense to what I am trying to explain (probably still badly) and as you saw, I was very excited by dark photons. So state after state after state after state after...never ending..but that's actually really good. Terrifically confusing but really good none the less. So, 2 different state boundary conditions meet, merge, create particles that decay immediately but also leave behind a residue, or a shadow, or a 'thingy' (something fuzzy?) in their creation or by their creation. And if have understood correctly, this is hmm, we seem to all live in an entangled environment, where ever we are, whatever we do, doesn't matter, somehow, someway we are all connected by atoms or through the quantum process directly or indirectly, contact or result of contact. Hmm Whether entangled through entanglement itself, or just in a laymans sense of physics. So, zooming back down to the 2 states and what I see at the moment as a system ( a group of particles in the same area?) caused by and a part of these 2 states being next to each other. Electron and Electron? VP's? Gluons, Glueballs? Quarks? and more ?. Maybe a tiny bit too much more? So state 1 has Ke Q.Tuneling somehow into and through it, this also reacts with system 1 and then also effects or continues through to state 2. All ke driven, but vibrationaly driven, like a domino effect almost. Maybe through and combined with or even helping to create or support other fields as well. And also having an effect on all other states, fields? atoms? dark particles? IR 1,2,3,...n ? During this merger in system 1, particles are on top of each other, in each other, around each other, decaying, exciting?, ionising, colliding? but they themselves as well as being what they all are charge wise, would also be creating Ke when they are created, no matter how faint. 2 things? 1. Could this be where I see my 'thingy' particle. Could this be where they are created to decay instantly, no way to detect them at all unless you could measure somehow, the effect it has further up the supply chain in atom production or similar, I don't know, just thoughts or things to learn still I guess. 2. Could this thingy' particle be created every single time anything anywhere is created, on a quantum level and that it is actually a kind of attachment to or part of the particle that was just created?. It's 'extra bit' 'thingy particle'? Or I guess, it would in itself be a tiny wavelength within a wavelength. Or a wavelength in a wavelength within a wavelength..hmm.. If it was a Proton for instance, when measured accurately, at the points of tolerance + or - and within this tolerance but outside end of the measurement, would a proton have just ever so slightly a tiny bit more charge than it should or needs after its measured? I wonder if this is true, and true for everything then is this possible some type of Dark particle or pre build up Dark particle, particle??. Is this 'extra bit' a shadow of the particle created. Is it possible to create particles this way? Again I'm not sure. In system 1, I don't see it as nice and flowing at all, I see it very chaotic, creational & decaying, colliding, exciting everywhere it can be, all at the same time until measured (superpositional?). So many, many vectors if I am thinking about this correctly. Everything on top of, underneath, to the side, merged, decayed Ke? All vibrating in the same and different wavelengths. Except of course for the fermions, they would collide, excite and decay or create perhaps. I don't recall it right now and obviously not as powerful but perhaps there would be a bit of fermionic? degeneracy? (I really hope I remembered & said that right). But I don't see it as going supernova lol, I see it as existing but also not existing, everywhere, all the time, always being created to not exist. Perhaps a quantum hair is merely just a slight slight very faint Ke vibration of what it once was and that's more than enough in that to continually rebuild by passing/influencing other particles, dark or normal just by being what they are. Butterfly effect? A ripple in a ripple in a ripple... Maybe there are different versions of DM, I don't know, just wondered if different dark particles are made differently. They must be being made somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be there (and not there at the same time) would they?. I wonder could they get made at the same time as their atomic twin particle, like a particle wearing a cloak you can't quite see. Whatever particle it is maybe? I see these particles as 'there/not there particles' created so therefore there but decay instantly so also not there but there can't be a state of nothing and this 'thingy' is as close as anything can get to being nothing (whether that's vibrational or not, I don't know) without truly being nothing. The universe is expanding, so does more DM and DE need producing to keep the rate constant due to expansion? If I recall, albeit vaguely, the %'s of DE and DM are constant? So hmm, either way or any other, I don't know, I think of system 1 as a Quantum gap or corridor (I did look, didn't see any but forgive me if someone else has already used the term). If you think of many wavelengths all entwined as a wavelength not the state?, then pull one wavelength out to measure it. I need to learn more about this next bit, so I'm a bit hazy, sorry. On this single wavelength, somewhere along it's wave is the slightest little 'extra' a really really faint 'extra', not needed but still there none the less. If it does, does this happen for all things measured? It would have to for this to make a bit of sense as to how 'it's' created, if it even has a 'single' source. It's a thought right now, one of many I have to study more but if a 1/2 spin is the same particle in mass but different mathematically, could a Dark Particle have a 1/4 spin? and always super positioned because it can't be measured? Maybe because DM is nothing? but a great big ocean of vibrational kinetic information of whatever it's є once were, helping perhaps to create what also will be. Passing that information on and spreading it to create new 'somethings'. I was watching a few lectures about HomoTopic waves and wondered if maybe somehow dark particles, dark gluons? etc could be like this. HomoTopic 2, could the DM wave have a something' holding it together if it did.? Maybe these HomoTopic Dark?' glueballs?' could have a 'something' as it nucleus. Could this be a gravition? A dark particle version maybe? Dark graviton? Could it be a Dark glueball that becomes part of the bigger 'glueball' or 'something' called space? Is it due to the flavour change in gluons or other influences? Do all particles have a dark version of them selves? Does or could that account somehow for the constant % rates of DE, DM and Everything else as the universe expands? Hmm, still loads to consider and I may not have written this as well as I could but hopefully, without going to much more in depth and I think it covers the gist of it now better, there is a lot more to comprehend and understand but I hope it is now closer to explaining what I first wrote. Might be a load of rubbish but hopefully, if not today, at some point you can tell me how wrong I am or...? So I hate the word 'thingy', it's well...hmm so I need a name for this particle, I'm thinking Thingiminium!! Of the Thingiminium field. I'm joking. My name for it is now the smudge particle after my last cat so long as, of course no one else has already used this to term a particle a smudge particle before. Please tell me if someone has and I'll change it. So without delving deeper into the way I see this working (mainly due to my lack of understanding & ) I will leave it there. If I can draw you another image, I will. Thanks for reading, if you did. Open to your wisdom as always

Very very interesting. Thanks Studiot. I shall go look it up. Thanks for the book covers too. Bit different to what I was seeing but then I'm guess & guestimating here lol, anyway thanks. I'll get mine up as soon as I can. Tell me please, if I do a vector space as IR2 that means 2d real space, is that right? and if so, does that mean if place another IR2 vector space of 2d underneath it, is that 4d? or is that simply 2 states & their vectors next to each other in 2d? That's what I am looking at so far but I think this 'dark? shadow thingy might need a bucket load of vectors in possibly 4d if I understand this right.

Hello, I've been thinking a lot about this and learning more. Even tried drawing a 4d vector field? graph? where I overlaid state 1 & state 2 with each other and tried to envision some sort of vector for how they behaved the way I initially saw this thing. I didn't bode well Studiot lol. Would that be 4d? 1 IR2 with another IR2 overlaid on top? If IR2 is real space 2 dimentional? I'm still working on that so I'll come back it hopefully sooner rather than later, I think it would support the image I have more explanatively. I'll be going back to vector equations today or tomorrow I think, just wanted to show you all how I first saw this idea and how I now see & understand it now. And no I'm not about to state I've found something (it's probably already been discovered by someone already), merely that I had this as the idea when I first came here and you were kind enough to listen and help. So coming up is the original posted idea A bit later on I will hopefuly post a drawing of how I think I understand it now. It by far not the finalization, just where I'm thinking or at right now. But 3 months on, well...it now appears in my head in the same ish' kind of fashion but I see it a bit clearer I hope, than I did (not clear enough yet) and I now have a few proper science names and hopefully descriptions, understandings to better explain it this time Like I said, that isn't how I think now. Mordred, Studiot and Swanston you have all helped me in that respect. Thank you, I appreciate it. Question if I may plz. When you guys measure particles, is there ever the residual faintest amount of a wave length that is just slightly misplaced? Is there a certain tolerance of + or - and perhaps if there was ever a slight slight difference it might be inside that tolerance itself? Slightly more 'up' on the top of the peak, or slightly more 'down' of bottom ? I hope I said that right. Sorry, it's quite difficult to imagine these all and how they might make a difference on such a small small scale. So many of them and behaving in so many different ways. Hmm.. So if you measured an proton for instance after it was created, when measured, does it ever seem to have slightly more charge than it should? No matter how faint that wave length might be? Or is it always perfect? I'm trying to understand a bit more, sorry for the weird questions, hope it made sense. Off to draw up what I currently envisage going on now find out how wrong I am or that someones already thought it up pfft Time always tells eh. (sry for the sqep's Mordred)

Needed to add, I'm not suggesting for a second I have found a way for dark photons to be exist & or be created or if indeed I am exactly thinking of these things in this exact same or correct context, just that they seem to be fit so well from what I've read so far. Very, very similar in ways. Time will tell as always I guess. This really does seem to answer, at least in some parts (until I know more) the definition of what I came up in Aug this year. I mean for myself, not the the world, I haven't invented dark photons. Yet... LoL You clever folks probably want to slap me for that, sorry. @studiot I haven't forgotten about the different number meanings, still on my mind, just re learning other bits atm. Vectors and Negative Vector equasions can go on hold for a bit, sorry. That's some heavy stuff. I will get back to it though. Particle I see equated to the the particle I'm trying to describe (very badly and naively) Kinetic - The energy created by this 'thingy' before it died instantly The Resonance is the entwined and joining of all this energy not just limited to local areas (Milky Way) but everywhere, all at once at any time. Living as a universal body. Could this body be the Field of fields? Watching Sean Carol again made me wonder about the many different fields that exist and are yet to be discovered. Shouldn't there be one Field that incorporates all these different fields even if it is created because of all the existing etc fields. Maybe a few different fields interact with each other in certain way which in itself creates a unique field that influences other fields or multi field fields and so on until there is one huge Field of fields made up of and created by all the other possible variations, collisions, VP energy (expulsions?) I'm guessing you folks already know a great deal about this And I'm convinced (for what it's worth) that DM does and must have a creation point (everything does right?), is it the dark photon? Would that go c? Is it lazy in comparison? I don't know but perhaps if a dark photon exists, so does a dark photon particle of some sort no? A ray or maybe burst of 'dark'? If a Dark Photon existed, would it exist in a superposition before it is measured? Have I said that correctly? Would that be (If I understood this right) at a 1/2 spin opposite to a photon's? Is it possible if they exist? Hope I said and understood superposition correctly. What would that be? DM? Maybe I'm being a bit thick, I haven't checked the web for this and maybe someone already thought of this too. I would imagine all you folks have thought of more or less anything in your life times. You'd never guess this Dark Photon has ahem...maybe a little more than slightly grasped my curiosity would ya. Most of what I wrote is based on (I hope) all the things I have learnt about so far on here (tyvm) with a bit of added curiosity from me.

Wow, wished I'd looked at this before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_photon Name of my post is 1. Sub Quantum Echo Particles...(SQEP's) & Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Resonance Flux My description was slightly off but hmm, Did you already know? I see the resonance as a kind of song between 2 or more of these SQEP/Dark Photons? The similarity is well...If only I could show you how I see this working in my (albeit very badly described) idea as it goes along. It's not a plug and I get your possible reasons for not wanting to so it's cool, just frustrating , this thread does that if anything does. Just so very badly want to run it past at least one of you, then you can tell me I'm mad, or very misguided but close or not. That was my hole aim to start with, nothing more nothing less, wouldn't have got this without you Thx. Need to go learn more about dark photons aswell now pfft , so much reading.

Just watching a video about super symmetry and that the partners haven't been discovered yet. Just wondering as I do and maybe a naive/stupid question, could these super partners only live in he heat of the intital universe as it were and then just kind of got stretched out as it cooled? Which might make them supermassive but super stretched? Can heat stretch into cold? As opposed I guess to cooling down, is cooling down stretched heat or could it be seen that way?

Yes, thanks. I'll try to learn what I'm missing. Thanks for putting up with me too, you and Mordred. My knowledge is clearly not as good as it could be. I appreciate your patience. A thought just occurred to me writing this, I recall from a matrices link from Mordred, in the explanation of them, the tutor showed a box with the following + - + - + - + - + I don't recall much more right now, it's a bit early and I haven't re read that part to catch up on yet.

What do you mean by rule Studiot? Is this a maths thing that I've not learnt? Are there rules in maths that I need to learn? Is it advanced maths? Any help is always appreciated.

from what you posted Genady the answer must be 0 ? Thank you

My wife is really mad at the fact that I have no sense of direction. So I packed up my stuff and right!

Hey Studiot, here's the link to the video https://www.khanacademy.org/math/linear-algebra/vectors-and-spaces/vectors/v/linear-algebra-vector-examples It's at 24.44 or so where he adds -4 - -4 (I got the sum wrong, I thought it was addition) but still he says-4 - -4 = -4 +4 = 0 I think my problem is that he adds -4 when it states -4 - -4 Hope that makes sense. I'm a bit confused. If you can shed some light I'd be grateful. I know I'm doing the analogous equivalent of flying in space before I can walk with regards to maths. Oh and if I may ask, are nucleai specific to atoms or can electrons, protons and neutrons also have their own nucleai? Or perhaps more, like quarks?

mmm That is just....what on earth goes through some peoples heads....how many people could he have fed with that money...and all he got was a banana. Emperors new clothes springs to mind... I only seem to get sick on weekdays. I must have a weekend immune system. My friend was showing me his tool shed and pointed to a ladder. “That's my stepladder,” he said. "I never knew my real ladder.”

Still trawling through bits n pieces but this seemed interesting, I guess it's very similar to the vector matrix in IR2 (Khan Academy) but without the south direction. perpendicularity I know it's just explaining perpendicularity but I kind of envisage my 2 states next to each other idea as well with 'north' perhaps being the gap even though it's in a conserved system. Hope I said that right, still amazed at how much I forgot in just a week or so..damn pc...😠 And tbh, I don't know if I will get to grips with Orthogonality or not. It seems really complex. If I don't post much atm it's just because I'm trawling through still, I am here though I had a thought yesterday and I'll ask it as weird as it might sound. Could DM & gravity be the same thing? Maybe if it is trapped in an atmosphere it behaves differently to outside of an atmosphere? Pushing things down instead of pulling them down maybe?

I understand the 4 + -1 being 5. Your diagram helped a lot with that ty, it was the trying to understand the -4 + -4 = 4 I can't get my head around. Do 2 minuses make a plus? In the Khan lecture he made that sum but in my mind both the minus 4's seem to be pointing in the negative. So wouldn't that make 8 and not 4? It was a 2 part sum, the -4 + -4 was the number at each of the tops of the the 2, 2 tupel columns. There was another sum involved for the bottom part of the vectors but I think I understood that.

I'm wading through as I said, the Khan lectures and at one point he is explaining the vectors & tupels and equasions of a + b and adds -4 + -4 together to make 4 which I don't really understand if this is being explained using something you posted Studiot and he is also posting in the lecture. What is it I'm not seeing?

Still have a fair bit of re reading and lectures to go through. Weird how much slipped from my head in just a week or so. If I haven't posted for a little while, it's just because I'm just catching up. Stay safe