GENIUS FORUMS

Pincho,

The box is nothing because I am using the word nothing like the colour black in the dark, you say I can see nothing, but actually you can see black. The box is invisible to any equipment it is possible to build.

Ah! I see, so in effect it is there but we cannot actually detect it as a thing, nor will we ever, although we can and do comprehend it, (you do for example), since it is not nothing whatsoever.

But I have heard people here say exactly the same thing about the Tao; that it is not a thing, but nonetheless, it is not nothing whatsoever. This expression works fine for them. You seem to substitute the Tao with Dark Matter, further to be substituted by the Box, where the box with the jiggling ball may be equated to detectable things, and non-jiggling box to non-detectable things.

However, at least one thing is sure, that the box with the jiggling ball is what causes things, and the box with no jiggling ball is what causes “nothing”; “nothing” as in a black colour in the dark. And further more, 'things' and 'nothing' as defined here, are then both dependant on the state of the Boxes. Would that be correct?

All that represents dark matter is a shape with no spaces.

So these boxes and balls are merely symbolic? Say like an abstract thought?

PS: I might be away for a few days.

Sapius wrote:Pincho,

The box is nothing because I am using the word nothing like the colour black in the dark, you say I can see nothing, but actually you can see black. The box is invisible to any equipment it is possible to build.

Ah! I see, so in effect it is there but we cannot actually detect it as a thing, nor will we ever, although we can and do comprehend it, (you do for example), since it is not nothing whatsoever.

But I have heard people here say exactly the same thing about the Tao; that it is not a thing, but nonetheless, it is not nothing whatsoever. This expression works fine for them. You seem to substitute the Tao with Dark Matter, further to be substituted by the Box, where the box with the jiggling ball may be equated to detectable things, and non-jiggling box to non-detectable things.

However, at least one thing is sure, that the box with the jiggling ball is what causes things, and the box with no jiggling ball is what causes “nothing”; “nothing” as in a black colour in the dark. And further more, 'things' and 'nothing' as defined here, are then both dependant on the state of the Boxes. Would that be correct?

All that represents dark matter is a shape with no spaces.

So these boxes and balls are merely symbolic? Say like an abstract thought?

PS: I might be away for a few days.

An abstract thought with very few alternatives. I have gone through a few alternatives over time. Instead of the ball I have had negative positive energy. Instead of a box, I think that a hexagon works like I posted before. And now I am still thinking about the ball, which has the problem of being in a hollow hole, but you can't have a hole in nothing, so now I have this figured as a ball trapped in the box by a tail that is stuck in the centre of the box. But the box is whole with no hollow centre, however the Sperm like object can pass through it apart from its tail. which is stuck. Now you can have a box with no walls. The sperm is obviously not highly developed, just a ball with a tail, and that creates spin, and the spin creates the wave movement of the box.

Picture

As you can see, the jiggle is passed along as though it were some sort of juggling act. And you can imagine waves made from this formation, because there is an up down type swing. I believe that this is my final formation. I can't see a fault with it. However, I need to figure out how things bounce away from each other in real life. So similar to an atom really.

Pincho,

Please link to images in your posts rather than embedding them. We don't allow that here.

Pincho,

As you can see, the jiggle is passed along as though it were some sort of juggling act. And you can imagine waves made from this formation, because there is an up down type swing. I believe that this is my final formation. I can't see a fault with it.

May be, but what makes the ball jiggle would be my next question.

However, I need to figure out how things bounce away from each other in real life. So similar to an atom really.

What is your opinion of the String Theory ?

As for Atom, we know that it has constituent parts, and each part has further parts, and that they may constitute further parts, which the physicists call Particles, lined up as next generation as we find them. (Look down below on this page) Please note in the beginning of the page they mention “In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not known to be made up of smaller particles.” Note the “not known” part. We have Antiparticle, Virtual particle, etc. Here is a list up until now.

So what makes us think that we have detected the farthest fundamental part that could possibly have no further constituents parts? Say as in your Box, which of course seems to be the fundamental, with no further constituent parts to neither the “box” nor the “ball” or whatever.

Hence the question, what makes the ball jiggle? Could it have further constituent parts or something else that makes it jiggle?

Sapius wrote:Pincho,

As you can see, the jiggle is passed along as though it were some sort of juggling act. And you can imagine waves made from this formation, because there is an up down type swing. I believe that this is my final formation. I can't see a fault with it.

May be, but what makes the ball jiggle would be my next question.

However, I need to figure out how things bounce away from each other in real life. So similar to an atom really.

What is your opinion of the String Theory ?

As for Atom, we know that it has constituent parts, and each part has further parts, and that they may constitute further parts, which the physicists call Particles, lined up as next generation as we find them. (Look down below on this page) Please note in the beginning of the page they mention “In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not known to be made up of smaller particles.” Note the “not known” part. We have Antiparticle, Virtual particle, etc. Here is a list up until now.

So what makes us think that we have detected the farthest fundamental part that could possibly have no further constituents parts? Say as in your Box, which of course seems to be the fundamental, with no further constituent parts to neither the “box” nor the “ball” or whatever.

Hence the question, what makes the ball jiggle? Could it have further constituent parts or something else that makes it jiggle?

I am still working on this. But have simplified the constituent parts to just two ingredients. A particle, and the sentience. The shape of the particle does not really matter too much.
There is a problem with math's because it includes zero. There is no such thing as zero. Zero should really be 'no decided state'. Now twins can overlap one another. That gets rid of things getting infinately smaller, and smaller. It gets rid of the ball in the box, and you just have twin particles overlapping, with 'no decided state'. There need be no other parts, apart from sentience. That's as simple as you can get.
Now, with two boxes sharing the same time, and space, because they have not taken a solid state, sentience makes them both take a state of existence they can no longer share the same space, so they are dramatically forced apart, creating a tiny explosion of energy. Now I have an outward movement. Now the boxes are forced into the boxes above, and below them. There are two rules to the movement. Move other sentient boxes away from you, or stop when you are overlapping the boxes in 'no decided state'. You now have 1 solid box overlapping two boxes in 'no decided state' Which means that the result from sentiency will be different.
This sounds good. I will probably make a computer program of this.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Sapius wrote:Pincho,

As you can see, the jiggle is passed along as though it were some sort of juggling act. And you can imagine waves made from this formation, because there is an up down type swing. I believe that this is my final formation. I can't see a fault with it.

May be, but what makes the ball jiggle would be my next question.

However, I need to figure out how things bounce away from each other in real life. So similar to an atom really.

What is your opinion of the String Theory ?

As for Atom, we know that it has constituent parts, and each part has further parts, and that they may constitute further parts, which the physicists call Particles, lined up as next generation as we find them. (Look down below on this page) Please note in the beginning of the page they mention “In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not known to be made up of smaller particles.” Note the “not known” part. We have Antiparticle, Virtual particle, etc. Here is a list up until now.

So what makes us think that we have detected the farthest fundamental part that could possibly have no further constituents parts? Say as in your Box, which of course seems to be the fundamental, with no further constituent parts to neither the “box” nor the “ball” or whatever.

Hence the question, what makes the ball jiggle? Could it have further constituent parts or something else that makes it jiggle?

I am still working on this. But have simplified the constituent parts to just two ingredients. A particle, and the sentience. The shape of the particle does not really matter too much.
There is a problem with math's because it includes zero. There is no such thing as zero. Zero should really be 'no decided state'. Now twins can overlap one another. That gets rid of things getting infinately smaller, and smaller. It gets rid of the ball in the box, and you just have twin particles overlapping, with 'no decided state'. There need be no other parts, apart from sentience. That's as simple as you can get.
Now, with two boxes sharing the same time, and space, because they have not taken a solid state, sentience makes them both take a state of existence they can no longer share the same space, so they are dramatically forced apart, creating a tiny explosion of energy. Now I have an outward movement. Now the boxes are forced into the boxes above, and below them. There are two rules to the movement. Move other sentient boxes away from you, or stop when you are overlapping the boxes in 'no decided state'. You now have 1 solid box overlapping two boxes in 'no decided state' Which means that the result from sentiency will be different.
This sounds good. I will probably make a computer program of this.

I think I've figured out why particles in no state remain twins at a distance....Twins must share their own universe. I see what string theory is now. An observer looks through a whole bunch of universes in one go. There is the solid universe which is a single universe, but there is also a universe for every no state twin. Sentience must be in yet another universe. Very strange, but its the only way that you can get instant transfer from the observer to the twins. No two solid particles can overlap another universe without giving a result of some sort, but two no state particles can.

But I'm still working on it.