Draft:The origin of the particle

         

                            

     

   

                   

                               

  The origin of the particle

 Alastair Mac Gregor    

                                                          Introduction

          Brought up as a country boy the ways of nature was always part of my life. I was then always interested in the physics of how nature put things together. Peter Higgs was perhaps the one who caused this particular journey to start. Peter gave an explanation as to the weight of a particle, a complicated and hard to understand theory.

  The nature I viewed did not work like that; my nature came as action and reaction in simple understandable steps. So when viewing a simple every day process in nature, I found the Higgs field did not exist, was not because of some desire to do so,  but as a consequence of observing why these simple things are as they are.

     Man has an inherent desire for regimented order, a feudal type system consisting of a solitary head to then branch into lesser and lesser minions. Particles make fields, fields cause this or that in some decreasing system. This is mans comfort zone and how he believes things should be, it is though not necessarily nature’s way. This did not come easy. Ordinary folks are used to allowing boffins in this or that to tell us what we should know. It makes it easy for us to accept these primitive instincts. A belief we are safe because someone else is looking after us.

      From an early age we are taught to document our sources. Little squiggles to tell the reader to look at the foot of the page to find whose idea it was, because it certainly could not be ours. It is then not easy to break the habit of believing you, or your ideas and findings don’t count. There is also the struggle to accept ideas you believed carved in stone are incorrect. Edwin Hubble stated stars were moving apart, from that observation science created the conclusion of an expanding universe.

      It is so very easy to jump to some conclusion and fix that as a pillar to build your notions around. Einstein did that. Einstein modified his theories due to believing conclusions as to Hubble’s findings. This only to find his equations never quite fitted again.

     Albert Einstein gave us the equation know to all, E = MC². I was taught that in my first year of algebra. I ran up stairs to work out energy used in horse power. It’s a simple equation but like many simple things it gets sidelined. When E = MC² is transposed, I found mass was energy at some speed. That started my hunt, the hunt to find what that energy at speed was, and how it could fit in to explain what we as mass are.

    This is my journal of that journey, one not only to understand, but one to break free from the calipers applied to minds and thoughts, to be free and open to whatever is found. To not be shackled by the notions or teachings of others, regardless of their fame. But one to view with a fresh mind what nature allows us to see. One where I understood I was not part of this organized knowledge society. To succeed I knew my path would have to differ from the formality and constraints of the establishment.

      It is so very easy to be intimidated by those who produce these impressive presentations or complex mathematical formulae. But what they miss is the simple clues nature gives to those who take the time and effort to look and understand. To look and question why those ordinary things are, as they are. To then discover the many new paths branching out from these first simple steps. Discoveries that lead to findings beyond question appearing as a surprise; surprising the writer as much as I hope they will surprise the reader. These were the things that kept me going, those unexpected finds that fitted so perfectly, they just had to be correct.

       You may find whilst reading this, in many places my writing does not continue to flow to some conclusion. The reason for this being, quite often to understand one process, you have to understand others. For example, to understand the system of the weather, you need to understand why the earth spins, and what that spin causes. You also have to understand the speed of spin and why that is so. Add to that you have to understand the steps between boiling and freezing and how that ties in to spin. On I can go, adding more as in pressure, ETC. I hope then you understand to produce a simple overview journal of the entirety of the system in some order contradicts the reality of what nature is. Nature is everything now, not yesterday or tomorrow.

     My journal is then one of my findings from my childhood, to that of an old man. Of the countless changes I was forced to make as the beliefs of a lifetime crumbled. You will find no revelation in this, no stroke of genius, no equation instilling awe. What you will find is the simple things, everyday things you see and ignore. This is then a journey through the reality that has always been there to see.

   This then is my journey, one of observation. No year of miracles, but many years of slow methodical plod. A lifetime of viewing what nature displays to those who look and can see. James Clerk Maxwell had a favored phrase, “what’s the go with that”. To find the go is not so easy, each step may be simple, but each step is just one of a series of steps converging or splitting. To find the go was then a journey of multiple failures interspersed with an odd happy success.

                                     The origin of the particle

          Entropy: From the simple, to the complex, from the clear, to the confused. This is how the system was created. We understand the confusion of a scrambled egg because we know the steps needed to create it. My desire with this works was to show day one of creation, and start from there. To find the simple before it became confused. My belief being to understand the physics of the system, you have to understand how the system started. My interest was not in the minute detail, that entropic brew created after the particle formed, my interest was in the why, and how, of its forming.

     As a pastime spanning many years, I studied the physics of the subject. My teachers being those whose lectures one could view on the internet, or from the books and recordings available.  From that as my base, I was never quite satisfied; as such, I tried to find a better way.

   The restrictions imposed by Covid19 only helping me concentrate on completing the subject of how "stuff" formed. My title; yes a bit cheeky, but intended. Charles Darwin set out to prove his Christian beliefs of that time; nature let him see another way. Darwin had to adhere to those truths he had discovered, rather than those taught from the pulpit, however uncomfortable that was for him. Darwin also teaches us more things other than the obvious. Darwin wrote his journal then delayed publishing it. Only due to believing someone else was about to publish a similar volume, did he finally publish.

      What this displays is his reluctance to provide what he found as to evolution, rather than the divine intervention preached to him from the pulpit. Secondly, it shows he wanted the glory and fame for his discoveries. As such, to find out how other such systems have evaded discovery for so long, we have to study, not only the sciences of the system, but the reasoning and foibles of man.

   Man has suffered from the obvious difficulty of coming from the less informed, to the more informed. This, whilst still retaining that desire to cling to the comforts and teachings of the past. He also does not like to accept the fact that he is not special. As such, like all other forms of life, evolved from a progressively simpler creature. Our future then, after our demise, proven by Darwin to be identical to that of all other forms of life. As a means of combating this finality, we have religion, this supplying the assurance and comfort to those who feel that need. This led me to certain conclusions. I had believed religion was the only limiting factor in the progress of science. Now I am less inclined to adhere to that notion.

      In society, we find the wise man without a wise answer loses some of his prestige and power. This is a truth in whatever field of man's endeavors we care to view. As such, in every field, those at the top will always hold to their accepted beliefs. From these he builds his castle’s, to then defend from the parapets. With fame comes ego, not curiosity, or the desire to abandon the old for the new. He holds firm to his own old trusted and accepted truths, and that that gives him his fame and fortune regardless of authenticity. What this can add is other dimensions. If a deeply held belief happens to be incorrect, before considering that that idea may be flawed, the tendency is to try to figure out some way to cobble some notion together to maintain it.

     There are many examples of this, universe expansion etc. The one I show here is the Higgs Boson. A particle found with much acclaim, and most likely, relief. Now the Higgs as a particle is likely correct. But the idea it gives weight to particles by creating some field or other, adds dimensions to it, and all other particles, of such a complexity that it cannot be. As such, I was not surprised to find proof of it being incorrect. How can you determine what a particle can do if you don’t understand the method of its construction, or what the thing actually is?  When science considers other “so called” fields as to their reasons, their effects are well documented. With the explanation of the Higgs field, we get all sorts of complex reasons as to why it does, as it supposedly does, none of which make sense or compare to what other fields supposedly do. Much further on I shall revisit the subject of fields, for now our information is such that there can be no understanding as to their issues. With the Higgs field, science seems to be creating a solution as a means of fixing problems of their own making.

   There are times you may dislike some notion and believe it incorrect, as I did regarding the Higgs field, but that serves for nothing. You have to answer to that child like question, that nagging little voice in the back of your mind asking ‘WHY’. Until your answer satisfies WHY, you have nothing. I think back to my father’s advice in problem solving. His advice being "Look for the simplest answer, it is usually correct"; advice I endeavor to follow.

    My father, a farmer, also had a great distrust in taking advice from those who acquired their farming from books, not by a lifetime of observation, successes, failures, toil and tears. To some extent then, I wished to find out if the proverbial dirt under the fingernails mattered in the understanding of natures systems.

    Another issue I discovered being, ideas you may have and can show to be logical, may not seem logical to others. For example the belief that man evolved naturally from a more elementary species of the ape family has taken many years to be accepted by most. To then radically change ideas and notions is difficult; you are bridging that comfort zone by infringing on the beliefs, notions and fears of a lifetime.

   One word of clarification here, I will use the words "man" and "he". This should not be taken as some sexual preference. My choice of words is how the language is, rather than my particular view. I do not fall into that folly of trying to be politically correct for its own sake. If I had to state a view, it is that I have none. Or perhaps to be more correct, other than the obvious, it is not applicable. As to the obvious, I leave the explanation of that field strictly to Darwin.

  You will also find I use the Chinese idea of Yin and Yang repeatedly in this works. What this represents is the requirement for balance. That balance being between two separate and sometimes opposing parts in the same system. Whether that system be the sexes or whatever, being irrelevant. To function correctly both parts are essential. It then becomes patently obvious, to show preference for one or other is folly.

  The Yin Yang also shows that in every system, conformity to some degree does not hold to strict defined lines.  Good, bad, or indifferent, there must always be small sections of nonconformity, without this, change cannot happen. To then propose that this is incorrect or inferior, defies logic, it demeans the very thing that creates evolution.

    The first building block of this theory comes from Einstein’s E = MC² or the transposed version M=E/C². My first problem was M. This we take as being matter, hard stuff, rocks and the like. Banish that idea from your mind when reading this, M is the result of energy at some speed in some form of order, what that order results in, being determined by its frequency.

     Speed or C² is another issue I had until I understood it was the direction we must travel to reach that of the big bang. This was my first revelation, we are dealing with frequency M was then a specific frequency created by energy at some appropriate speed. To Einstein M had to be faster than our speed so giving C² but I found no reason to suggest speed was limited, and many reasons to suggest speed can be many times faster than the hard stuff we call matter.  I then had to discard so many notions I had previously believed correct. As with Darwin, I had to accept what I found whilst discarding what I had been taught that did not fit.

    What you will find in my writing is that nothing much is new. Most ideas of science I found to be correct, but often interpreted incorrectly. This I found by my method of discovery, this was step by plodding step, using known methods and reactions. It was just viewing and understanding the build of the ladder as each step is created, whilst not being restricted by fixed ideas. My strengths don’t lie in being precise in the mathematics of anything, my strength lies in envisioning how the wheels of things turn. By being able to see it pictured in my mind. Finding what worked by the simple method of trial and error, not by strokes of genius, but by never giving up. When one path ends in failure, I continually try the next, whilst always letting the theory lead.

       A theory cannot be built by belief alone; it must be built by logical steps. Built like a brick wall, from the foundations and bricks laid previously. The new in addition to what has been established before. It should also be able to be understood by any high school student who knows the basic structure of the universe. Not because of some wish to simplify the subject, but because that is just how it is.   To enable all to see exactly why quantum mechanics is, what it is, and understand why. To be able to know what dark energy and dark matter is, and understand that. To be able to view the structure that is the natural system.

     Another important characteristic you need or must acquire is that of the ability to accept your mistakes. Ideas and beliefs you have, and believe carved in stone, can take months or years to resolve when incorrect. As such beware of jumping to conclusions. This I will illustrate by a simple question you may not get correct. What causes the wind to start to blow?

The answer is the wind does not blow; it gets dragged by the earth wishing to spin faster than the atmosphere. Simple things we take for granted, we ignore and miss discovery. Isaac Newton’s apple for example, the apple is not the point, it is the energy in that function, how is it being applied and why? The wind, why is it reluctant to spin at the speed of the earth? There is an answer, but that answer requires understanding more.

       Your beliefs as to how things work is then a question of building from what you find, then understand when your findings contradict what you wrote before, previous work must go. I have lost count of the number of times I restarted this, or sections of this. To then find the mistakes of others and mock their error is not something I could do.

       I also write this in an effort to show students that ideas they may have, have value. Restricting ideas and restricting debate, is restricting progress. Yes, we learn from others, but progress comes by researching your subject well, to then advance beyond that, to question the established view if you have a firm belief and some foundation in your reasoning. In education, free thought is discouraged, think as your peers teach you to think being the method. It is though the method of restriction and stagnation, not the method of advancement. It is the method of creating sheep for the flock.

    Each time I read this I find more avenues to explore, some I comment on, most I do not. My objective for writing this was to find a natural system path that satisfied me. To suggest that this fully satisfies me or is the ultimate answer would be false. But I believe I found what satisfies me enough to stop. I believe I understand the basics. I achieved this, not by creating any complex formula, but by using the clues we get, the clues found in nature, the clues we all take for granted. I then build from those in a realistic manner, whilst accepting when ideas start to fail, they are incorrect. As Richard Feynman suggests, there are times we have to admit to our ignorance and accept it as being something other than stupidity.  

                         

                                     The Issues

       One of the issue's that caused me problems, was a simple notion expressed by Werner Heisenberg, ‘a state of nothing does not exist’. No symbolic brick wall exists where on this side it all happens, and on the other, is this state of nothing. An idea being one that can get you seriously confused if you try to fathom out how far that nothing extends. It then took me some time to understand there is a state of existence, but no state of non-existence.

     To find a likely start took many attempts. This start had to be the foundation on which the theory is supported, though I knew all I could supply was my vision, that vision had to be, not only realistic, but transition smoothly from step to step to what exists now. The concept I finally came to accept is this. The entirety of the system consists of two areas, one I call the void, the other being space. What is known as to the void being it is a place of no change.

      Space is a flaw within the void, a rotation creating change. Energy is then a force we come to find released by that change, a force like electricity in a thunderstorm unhappy with its lot. Space must then have a defined size, it does not expand, or go on forever; it is limited to the quantity of energy it gained from the void.

    What you will find as we progress is that every functioning thing must spin; our view of an arrow of continuation is then not correct.  Our ideas of boxes, lines and roads heading into the far yonder are not the ways of nature. Hers is spin, speed, time and frequency. Creation likely has no beginning or end; it is just some form of twisting rotation we have still to come to some understanding of.

   For one like me whose brain can only function with logic, where trying to spell words backwards creates confusion, the start consisting of a big bang without apparent reason, in absolute nothing, was a place beyond all hope. I then started quantum mechanic. This stated a particle could be two things in multiple places at the same time.  I thought of my father, and of trying to explain all that to him. That being something I know I would never have tried.

   This set the task for me. A task to show a simple logical system made from the stuff we have without magic or mysteries. This I hope comes close to doing just that. It is also something I would not have been reluctant to show my dad. But no! It is not the complete answer; it is just perhaps a rough unsophisticated outline.

    This will not be what one expects to find in physics textbook. In dealing with a system consisting of absolutely everything, science cannot make a theory based on mathematics, then others to cover various other subjects, and then hope to meld that together. That was the problem as I saw it. The system, I believe, should be viewed as a piece of art. Giving excessive concentration on the brush strokes and mechanics of the composition would hide the beauty or the story depicted. It seemed to me that in dealing with the system, science had dug itself deeper into the mathematics to the neglect of all else. My belief is science had lost its way. I will then try to show a different path and ask you to accept that like the artists painting, I have to build from a framework where we build understanding as more layers are applied.

    It is not natural for any system to start in complexity. If you believe you have something that seems to start without any simple reason, the likelihood is you are mistaken. This was my belief in starting my theory. It had to be simple step-by-step moves. What this led to was many dead ends and much frustration.  But not to adhere to my own guidelines or randomly try this or that, I believed would create confusion, it had to flow. As such, this has been built from multiple tries. Often all seemed well until many stages along in the process where it seemed to start to go wrong and not work so well. For example in conventional physics, there seemed no answer to the weight of a particle. Here is where I would start again or try another path. Science though invented a field and gave all sorts of strange reasons as to how that worked. My method then, was to view what I found to be correct in conventional physics and add that to my own theory.

    The first issue physics believes it has is there is no accepted equation of everything. Einstein gives us E= MC². This in the small does not seem to fit man's idea of how the system should function.  Werner Heisenberg stated there was no such thing as absolute nothing. However small, wherever you looked there would always be something. As such, space, which he called the vacuum, had energy.

   Einstein told us space bends, this causing time to be relative to whatever position the person was in who viewed it. Those who traveled fastest would age slower than the stationary viewer. Today man uses what is known as the lens effect seemingly proving Einstein correct. Now before protesting that gravity causes these effects, ask as to what is gravity bending?  If I now ask what space is, there is no definitive answer.

    Edwin Hubble whilst clinging to the idea the universe is the only part of creation discovered it seems to be expanding. Today with all the advanced technology we have, the calculations we make as to the age of the universe due to the radiation from the big bang, does not comply with the other observations we make. We say one or other must be incorrect. Again, we don’t consider our basic beliefs may be incorrect; the flaw may lie in trying to compute from incorrectly assumed parameters.

    It is so very easy to accept what is normal and not ask "Why". Isaac Newton pondered why things fell to the ground, something most would ignore. By doing so Newton figured out the forces of gravity, and the mathematics of the heavens. This showing that to understand you should not overlook the obvious. My revelation came by the view when dropping a marble in a pool of still water, as with Newton’s apple, my marble vision created a theory.

     The big bang... explosions are a reaction in chemistry, the explosion due to the pressure they exert. But how can you create pressure in absolute nothing? What caused it and why? We again blindly accept because we are informed by very smart people, and at a glance, and little thought, it seemed to make sense. We accept what convention tells us to accept, but completely ignore, or are ignorant, of the works of others. We then pass on without any in depth thought, or question. We have proof that some catastrophic event took place when our universe was created. Science calls it the big bang and avoids the real questions "WHY".

      Over sixteen hundred years ago Aristotle told us there must be "stuff" we cannot find. This he called “The Aether". Later it got the name of a plenum, a substance that could not be seen. Einstein dismissed these ideas and as such, science stopped looking. This created the confusion we have today. We still have this confusion of things not fitting, and of unknown forces and action. I chose to show these points as worth viewing is as it demonstrates how easy it is to accept what seems to be correct until you stop and view from other angles.

   As a youth, I spent many happy hours exploring and turning over rocks in a river to find out what lurked below. Before turning over rocks, the river seemed a rather lifeless place. Perhaps this was my advantage, my love of turning things over to see and understand from other, not usual directions. Just a boy alone quietly observing and enjoying nature in the woods and waterways, around that farm of my childhood. I have never lost that desire to look at things from unusual directions. To not be blinkered into believing everything must conform to some narrow path. These many years later, that kid is still exploring nature, still looks under things, and still asks WHY.

     Erwin Schrödinger, Neils Bohr and others gave us quantum mechanics. This works perfectly but can lead to odd situations. The problem being we try to fit quantum mechanics into our flawed notions and we get confusion. We do not see that confusion may be telling us to reconsider. We accept duality, we accept uncertainty, we accept all sorts of other oddities, like a cat in a box who will only be alive, or dead, when we open the lid. Until then, it is in a state of suspended uncertainty. Erwin Schrödinger gave us that cat thing years ago as an exercise to make us think, it seems his efforts had no success.

                                              The Backbone

        I shall log here those that have supplied the major components required to create this journey of discovery, my search to find how matter was created. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the world had an explosion of scientific talent, as such allocating credit is difficult.  I then may credit someone who expanded from the kernel of someone else's theory. As such, I beg forgiveness for those I may miss. My start though is far earlier.

      On reading that passage over, I have to question it. Is it not that at that time there was freedom of thought? Nothing had been ‘cemented into place’, or ‘locked in’. I viewed a presenter on TV saying he had spent his entire career on understanding quantum mechanics. This theory, if accepted, will modify much of what he believed in. He believed in the concepts of the early 20th century. ‘The Copenhagen Interpretation’, and never questioned it. I personally find it rather shocking that a group of eminent scientists could come up with some form of compromise deal. This deal seemingly being their answer to a system they could not quite understand.

    Albert Einstein advanced science by a great deal, but due to his fame and brilliance; he blocked lesser mortals from questioning his ideas. Now we have a gravity theory which does not quite work yet science cannot abandon it. It will take a farmer’s son to state his vision was correct as an effect, his explanation, incorrect. My theory being, as stated, a theory, is then open to question and debate.  No one must ever be regarded as being beyond question. In this theory, you will find creation is due to imbalance and flaws, not perfection. This being so, to expect anything or anybody as being perfect, is unwise.

          To return to my list of those I believe supply the keys to my theory.  First, was a Chinese thinker born about 340 BC named Zou Yan. It is believed he was the first to log the idea of Yin and Yang. It was he who first stated nature requires balance. His idea of natures balance being so very close to being what I find to be correct.  What he shows is a balanced structure with a flaw, a small circle of black in the white and the reverse in the black. He almost produced the perfect cartoon illustration of the system. His balance being within the structure, as part of what the structure contains, he saw an overall harmony created from two opposing or complementary parts, not some external, forever divided thing, such as in matter and anti-matter; he saw the clearer picture.

  Next is Archimedes of Syracuse. He was a Greek mathematician born in Sicily in about 280 BC. He gave us the ratio of diameter to circumference of a circle. It was he who told us it is 22/7 an irresolvable number. Many years later, named π, the 16th letter in the Greek alphabet, by Welsh mathematician William Jones. Why Jones used π is unknown, though thought to be just his form of shorthand. Archimedes unknowingly tells us why the Yin Yang has that flaw. He gives us another major clue.

   Next is Aristotle in the fourth century. He may be mistaken in his elementary table of earth, fire, air and water, but he understood the need for some substance we cannot detect, this he called "The Aether". Man searched for this ether up until the time of Einstein.  Einstein though suggested, as it cannot be detected, it could not exist. This to my mind was his biggest mistake, one that later would come to bite him.

    The ether is the stuff everything exists in, it is space. Science ultimately mathematically found an undetectable substance, but rather than call it ether, named it dark energy, or space-time amongst others, so depriving Aristotle of his rightful place in modern physics.

Next is our first modern great, Isaac Newton. Newton showed us the mathematics of the heavens. He showed a pattern thus removing randomness. Newton showed that there is a reason everything does what it does. No mystery as to why we don’t fall into the sun. He gave us gravity. And yes one can argue as to Newtonian gravity. That argument though fails; it uses the very gravity in Newton's theory to bend space, yet tells us nothing about what it is they think they are bending. As to gravity, being bending the fabric of space or time? I always found that confusing and was happy when nature showed it incorrect.

       Before leaving Newton, a lesser-known fact being Newton found a method of calculating π using Pascal’s triangle. This ancient calculating method works by creating a pattern, an ever-expanding sequence of numbers in an ever-expanding triangular formation. Pascal’s triangle proves that however far you calculate π, mathematically it will not resolve. Its ancient oriental origin is unclear, but for reasons I did not research, was named after Frenchman, Blasé Pascal.

    Next is Albert Einstein. He had his year of miracles (anus mirabilis). Most of this in the muddled brew of our universe, a place I had no desire to explore. My search was in why it was here in the first place. As such, most of Einstein's work falls outside my travels. From Einstein I take his simple equation E = MC². Never fully understood, never fully accepted, not even by Einstein himself. Again, the explanation is further on; let me stick for the moment to the simple. I throw a ball; the energy I use is the weight of the ball times how fast I throw it. Such a simple easy to understand equation and it works perfectly. But equations can be nasty things. If 12 = 4 x 3 then 4=12/3 so far so good. Now we take E=MC² and transpose that to M =E/C². What this states is mass is created from energy at some speed. That is not so easy to accept.

      Other things I take from Einstein being the theory that we can alter the ratio of time to distance by being in motion relative to that of a stationary viewer. In addition I add the conservation of energy rule here, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only be transformed.  This though was not Einstein’s, but the work of Julius Robert Mayer; let me take these ideas as our next clues.

   Nature is not simply about mathematics, it is about pattern. That pattern caused by cause and effect, each step building upon the one previously. Man can demonstrate pattern can be described by mathematics, but we should not confuse what the root is. If we take E=MC², this is mathematics describing pattern and it works in the situation's where intended. If we modify that pattern for matter, it would be shown as M =E/S (speed). This Einstein equation is then my first major key.

       Next name on our list is a group headed by Erwin Schrödinger and Neils Bohr. They possibly get the most credit. This group, though, consisted of Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg and others. For simplification throughout my writing, I will simply credit Bohr with the theory. This being the group who proposed Quantum Mechanics, a system explained by Richard Feynman as "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". This I hope to prove incorrect, and show just how simple and normal the concept is. As to the exact mathematics of the subject, here Feynman is correct.

    What Bohr stated is that energy comes in "Quanta". By this, he states that all that can be found is groups of energy, not individual bits. Perhaps this is easier to understand as not being a ramp slowly rising from zero, but a staircase of steps. Here is another clue. A journey always starts as a single event. When there are multiples. It cannot be the start.  Our position on the steps seems to be several rungs up. This tells us two things. First, we are not able to view where the start was. And second, the more obvious staircase of steps forming some form of increasing or decreasing scale with our position seemingly being somewhere in the middle. We see neither end of this scale, nor do we know individual gradient quantities.

   The analogy of steps as to quantum mechanics is also helpful, but can end up creating wrong conclusions. To build a stairway requires a quantity of steps; let us assume a step is a cube. Cube 1 is 1 step whilst the second step requires a lifter cube and a landing cube. And so the staircase builds where if energy is a cube and it builds stairs, each column must get progressively heavier. This is the type of notion Peter Higgs used for the requirement of the Higgs field. These are the type of mistake we make when we assume the normal applies. When we assume, and then try to provide methods to prove our assumptions.

     This is where I created my first rule of this theory. It is OK to assume, but if things start to get difficult and not work, that assumption is likely incorrect, start again.      Quantum mechanics is then a quantity of energy able to create a function. If we could see this first completed function it would be a sphere. The reason for this being energy is a force always trying to reduce. To understand this concept, consider these parts as a blob of water with no other forces applied other than its own desire to reduce. This must produce a sphere as that is the minimum distance possible to the center for every part of that blob. This also leads to another conclusion; all this must be within some other substance or force.

          Next name on my list is Werner Heisenberg. Perhaps a not so well known name, but one that should be, as his contribution is more than his fame. It was Heisenberg who told us that, within the system, “a state of nothing does not exist”. To explain the ramifications of this idea, I will give you two simple problems to solve. A simple exercise, so simple I even give answers.

     What is the distance between the nearest star and us?

Answer, somewhere over 4.3 light years.

   Next, what width is "nothing"?

Answer, It has no width, it does not exist.

 Conclusion the gap between Alpha Centauri and us, an area we call space, is something. What we now prove to ourselves is it cannot be ‘nothing’. We have proven to ourselves that the gap between earth and the nearest star consists of some form of substance outside our ability to detect. Without some substance holding us apart, there could be no gap between us.

    We also had Einstein stating this could be bent or formed into something he called fabric. In cosmology, you can have a lens effect, again proving space is something, so seemingly confirming Einstein's theory. Aristotle called it the ether; Heisenberg said it was energy. What space will actually turn out to be, we shall come to later.

    Heisenberg also stated that within that energy, particles would be popping in and out of existence. Leonard Susskind (American lecturer) named them Bob and Alice, and Stephen Hawking (British lecturer) stated that one might fall into a black hole causing the black hole to shrink whilst the other escaped as radiation.  That particle falling in, would cancel one within the black hole, matter in the universe would remain constant as the other particle escaped. Though incorrect (in time it will become disgorged) I want my reader to note this particle and that it has polarity or charge. This being the reason one particle became attracted whilst the other repulsed. This will become relevant in later arguments.

     Next is Charles Rugeley Bury and Neils Bohr, they supplied another formula for my theory, Einstein gives us E=MC². This tells us how to construct the system.  Bury and Bohr discovered 2N². This was found to be the maximum number of electrons permitted in each shell orbiting the proton of an atom. Where they failed was in the understanding as to exactly what they had found, and why. If we measure the circumference of the proton, the resultant corresponds to N.  This now gives the circumference of the shells around the proton and their distance from the proton.  If now we draw a line through the shells, and the proton and on that line between points, draw a wave, that wave would be a sine wave.

     What this tells us is these shells are the resonant frequency of the proton, and as such the tune of that system.   Much as Einstein had missed with E=MC², physics missed just how far reaching this simple formula will become. 2N² is the rhythm of each system. From the rings of Saturn or a pebble dropped into a pool, to the point water boils, or the scales of music, 2N² display the reason and simply clears up much of the mystery as to why things work as they do. 2N² is then by far my most important key. How it remained poorly recognized, astonishes me.

     My last name is astronomer Edwin Hubble. Hubble fills in the last piece of information needed in our quest to understand. Hubble told us that stars in the universe was drifting apart. From this observation, he concluded that the universe was expanding. This caused Einstein to modify his equations. Einstein later stated this was his biggest mistake; we will have to figure out why.

     Not only this, but if the universe is expanding, it dictates looking to the past; we should find a contraction to a start, a thing we cannot achieve. Hubble shows space is not static but is in constant change.  I will contend though his findings are correct, his conclusions are flawed. This should not be regarded as some form of criticism of Hubble. Hubble showed what he had discovered so allowing others, including myself, the ability to use his research to form other conclusions.  

    Much later, a team researching the vagaries of the universe during this ‘expansion’ claimed to have found new properties, this they named dark energy and dark matter. What was found these substances remained constant. What this tells us is that the pea soup, or whatever it is we call space, is maintaining an exact constituency, No extra, or less peas for this universal soup. It remains at exactly the same thickness. If science is correct we seemingly must be manufacturing “more”.

   This now leads to the first major problem in sciences explanations. If space is expanding and we create more dark energy and dark matter, the law of the conservation of energy is being broken. I believe science answers that by saying space must become diluted.  For that to be correct everything would have to be in continual dilution.  Personally I could use a bit of shrinkage here and there, but that is something not happening. The conservation of energy is a basic in science, as a law it remains unchallenged, there then has to be some other solution..

                                   The constituents

     To understand a machine, you have to understand the parts in its construction. The best way to do that I find, is to pull it apart. Now we cannot pull the universe apart physically, but we can in our mind. We can remove bits to then see what remains. My first removal is the electron, with that goes the electromagnetic field.

    Next is the proton. For those versed in physics the proton could be dissected into constituent pieces, here that is not required. Let me call it matter and as per Newton, gravity is matter attracting matter. That all goes. And yes! I understand my apparent flaw’s here, but let’s not become pedantic, thought processes require leeway.

   It may seem that I have removed everything, this though is not so. Functions within the atom are said to require two forces, the “Strong atomic force” and the “Weak atomic force”. To build matter science states these forces had to be there.

      From my understanding of the reasoning for these forces, is as the glue to bond stuff together. Is it then not reasonable to suggest these forces were there before the matter formed?  Here is another question that caused me problems. Where did these forces come from, and how and why did they form?  Nature is not like some shopper in a store where, when coming across glue thinks, “Ah! I might need some of that”. I’ll store some in the garden shed, just in case. To build you have to show a logical reason, you cannot just produce forces because of a belief of some future need. Nature is cause and reaction, if you cannot show a reason; the likelihood is it did not happen; you then must try another path.

      One type of particle is called a gluon and it is believed to hold the atom together. That is OK. The gluon might have been created before the atom, but what its eventual properties turned out to be was unplanned. For the moment I have to believe these two forces are just facets of energy and speed.

   Another construction I am going to view multiple times for reference is water. Water starts as a mix of two gasses. It then continues and can be found in three forms, a solid, a liquid or a gas. The determination of what form it will take being governed by pressure, temperature and some system of energy increasing or decreasing to a point of change. I use water as my display medium, being the simplest substance to display these changes, but most substances conform to these rules to some extent or other.

     We now see the equation M = E/C² could work, but not for us. We are the resultant we are M. We are past being E/C². As in water, we are no longer hydrogen and oxygen. Let us consider another factor of water. You cannot just mix hydrogen and oxygen together to get water; it has to be in exact proportions before a reaction occurs. This we can do by burning it.

   Seeing an old repurposed treacle tin with a small hole punched in its base, perched on a stand burning off excess gas to obtain the exact mix, was an annual event in my schools science classroom. The only thing to spoil that experience for the observant was the tins lid imprints on the ceiling from previous demonstrations. This experiment reveals several things, which at first glance are not so obvious. First is to get an explosion we had to restrict the gasses. The second, water may be a solid, ice, or a liquid, water, or a vapor. All due to temperature and pressure, these changes though come in steps, not as smooth transitions. Here we have our first clue as to quantum mechanics. A situation we all are so familiar with, we never noticed the relevance.

      Another point of note here is, what was before each reaction, the previous state has little or no resemblance to that of the resultant. In effect, a new material is created, this having new and different properties.

    The final point on display here, being a classroom full of students, sitting watching and waiting to see a system change from one state, to another; that juncture being heralded by a big bang.  An instantaneous change proving nature does not stray far from a proven path.

   Back to looking at M = E/C². To create a big bang it should not come as a surprise the mix must be correct. My school experiment demonstrating exact numbers are required in these processes. There are though two properties missing in this mix as given by the equation, the first is pressure. Creating a big bang is the result of excess pressure being released so causing rapid inflation. There is also the issue of the blend of gasses must be precise. Too little or too much of one or other does not work.

   Next is the function I will call this resonance, the missing part in why energy comes in quanta; it has to complete a function. From water freezing to boiling is then one complete function of water. Science has light speed as some form of barrier within the system. In this theory we will find there is no unique relationship with light as to speed. This will become clearer later in this works, but for now, I will adhere to the given nomenclature, though slightly modified. That being that the maximum speed matter can travel is the frequency of whatever that matter consists of. To define matter, it is the stuff everything is made from, it is the atom. The atom, created from particles will not be my main focus. My prime focus in this theory will be the creation of the particle.

     Weight is another issue I should address here. Simple weight is a property requiring gravity; without gravity, no object has weight. This though is misleading. This now creates the situation where to understand weight not only requires an understanding of gravity; it also requires an understanding of the basics of the system.  One fact discovered so far is that to create a product requires a minimum of two differing functions, where these functions can trace back to some form of the prime functions of energy and speed. For this to be so states there must be families of functions. IE the time family, speed, dimensions etc., and the energy family, energy, stress, heat etc. To find the constituents of weight, size must be part of that as the container, so relating back to time, energy being the other. The explanation as to weight being, that of energy trying to reduce. This, where to understand, you have to understand energies functions. Functions as to why Newton’s apple fell.

         Next is speed, Einstein's C². We are taught that the maximum speed is the speed of light. This though has no proof, nor does it make sense. Einstein's equation tells us that, whilst my old school science experiment shows in a different medium. That came from excess to correct before a reaction could happen. Matter we see in our universe cannot travel faster than light; that though is not proof of speed being limited by some means. Nor does it prove that matter is not created as in water (for example only), from some other material, as in melted ice or condensed steam.

   This is a flaw in man's reasoning. From day one, man has believed his domain is the center of things; he has difficulty in accepting how insignificant we, or our view of the universe, actually is.  What was found in the outline of quantum mechanics being our position on the ladder was not the first, or the last rung. This suggests the top rung is at a position much faster than we can see. This implies particles are harmonics of the big bang, and as such must exist at some lower frequency.  This also displays simply why mass cannot travel faster than light, it just could not exist in that form. Here we see the reason mass speed is restricted to some particular point. We wish to see things from our perspective, but the maximum speed of mass occurs from a perspective similar to temperature. Action when a specific point is reached. This negates any method we may try to defeat it.

   What we must not assume is there is some finite defined point of speed for M. M can be at a speed able to create mass, or at speeds beyond creating mass. The photon is a particle “vibrating” at a certain frequency, light speed.  Our eye is an organ tuned to that particular bandwidth, the bandwidth of light. If one particle has a frequency, how then can a differing particle have the same frequency?  Each particle must differ in frequency and as such must also differ in size and speed. How could a slower frequency particle travel at a higher rate of speed than that creating it? A particle has, or is, a specific frequency where that frequency determines its rate of travel. All particles are then no exception to that rule. If we say the photon has a frequency, so must every other particle where that frequency and speed must be precise and unique to that specific type of particle.

     Here we find another misconception; we believe the photon is the sole emitter of light. As noted before our eye senses a bandwidth of frequencies, it does not sense a particle, but the particles frequency. Within this grouping of particles of specific frequencies, there must be multiple harmonics. This is then what light is, a cocktail created by the frequency of all the particles creating matter, not so much the particle but the harmonics those particle create. By stating this, states that all particles are harmonics at specific frequencies, but many harmonics do not make particles, or ones that survive.

    I now started to question what I believed a particle could be. In viewing the stages of water, what I found was transitions between stages. Could nature be as simple as matter transitioning through stages? it looked likely.

     Here we should start to get an understanding of how to look at E=MC².  C² can be viewed as a number, but it can also be viewed as a pattern, or as a direction and speed. The increasing speed and direction we must travel towards the frequency of the big bang. Alternatively, we can modify by decreasing speed, to a lower point of change. Now we correctly see E=MC² or a modified version, points to where reactions must occur. We can now view this point as a point of change, not just for one form of matter, but for all matter. For example the point water boils or was created from gasses.  Whatever matter was before the point of becoming solid, at some specific point it slowed enough to turn into matter. Thus performing the same function as we noted when water reaches a certain point and boils or freezes; though the commodities differ, the functions do not.

     Another point of note being the frequency of the big bang did not create matter, the big bang created a change in the size of space; it changed space from what it was, to some lesser energetic version, something I deal with in the next chapter. What created matter was harmonics of the big bang, these created due to the imperfection in the resonance of the big bang’s frequency. It then becomes apparent that E=MC² shows simply the pattern of how things work. We can use it as Einstein did, or we can use it in other forms using similar patterns. For example Ice = water/temperature with temperature in decline. What this demonstrates is the ability to use E=MC² in multiple ways, this to indicate the position where a reaction will occur. The base though relating back to the modification to Einstein’s equation, to M=E/Speed.  I then show M is the resultant, but not necessarily matter or mass as we know it; it is a frequency, but not necessarily one low enough to create a solid.

       Before we consider energy, let us consider three other factors. First is balance... Everything in nature must try to balance; Yin must equal Yang.  But in saying that we have to take care as to what we think balance is. Our ideas may be incorrect because we set our focus on one specific thing, and miss the bigger picture. Second... Perfection cannot be achieved; balance is always slightly incorrect. Third... Is Newton’s physics law-- For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    Now energy is a name given to a multiple of things that differ. For example, a can of beans is rated as having so many calories. It becomes confusing. Here if I simplify, energy is the name given to the ability to enable work to be done before being spent or neutralized. It can come in multiple differing forms as potential energy. We then show this as fuel in a tank or a rock on a hill. This shows energy at our level is ability rather than a defined product.

    These are the type of statement that creates confusion, energy is none of those things, energy displays only one property; that of going from a high energy state to low energy state. This is what energy is, a force trying to reduce, its arrow of direction always towards zero. Its work done as it reduces.  

  The concept as to energy; this belief of storage in containers, or somehow as ingredients in commodities or created by generators. This is not what energy is, energy in nature is a force in the process of trying to reduce. The rock on the hill for example can have no energy. Energy is the action of doing work whilst depleting. We should not confuse the property with the wishes of man to forward plan, so not to have his house some day demolished by a tumbling rock.

    I wished to show this to demonstrate how man uses the term energy to cover multiple aspects of ability, not necessarily correctly. This can hide or confuse the true properties of energy. I did this to show we have to be careful, to understand some of the distortions introduced into science. There are two other factors to consider as to energy. The first being it comes in units, those units consisting of multiples of the original single unit.  It will be found as this journal continues, the system repeats as a resonance, for the moment all that is needed to understand is this repetitive action. In the outline of quantum mechanics we saw that as a ladder of steps. This ladder we will find has seven steps before it ends.

       To carry out a function Einstein gave us the equation E=MC², let me then modify that to F=E/S or as a Function is Energy at some Speed. Now we have the start of a scale, it takes a ratio of 3.14 bytes of energy at the speed of one byte of time, to create the smallest possible function. The quantity within each unit being the minimum we then find there can never be a balance, whatever the product of the function is, it has either an excess or deficiency of energy.

     Here is a point of being easy to go astray. Let us say our product is a particle. Each particle of that type must be made by exactly the same method; we could then believe the reaction between each particle is polarity, it is not.  It is the more basic property of energy trying to balance. The second is the more subtle property; similar energy particles cannot combine with neighbors, they are single units. The property of, “the more we have the larger the area occupied will become”. This property should not be considered as some simplistic addition, it is not. Energy is a substance able to be compressed. If then we reduce pressure, each unit of energy will expand so creating a larger area. A unit of energy must then have a shape that shape being a sphere. The reason energy must conform to a sphere being it is a shape creating the minimum distance possible from a central point.

    What then is energy and how did it come about? Our experiences tell us there is always something. We look into space and can find no end. This leads to the belief of a forever continuation, this belief is likely incorrect. We understand things as line and roads leading onwards, whilst nature’s way is spin and speed. Heisenberg stated, “Nothing does not exist”, and must be correct. How could we have a place of nothing, how would we measure that? We can never know why, nor can we ever truly understand what energy is. All we can understand is, there either is! Or there is not. As we are here, requires that there is. That ‘is’ being energy.

     I now have to find the partner for energy in order to comply with Einstein’s E=MC². What is there to balance this force? What is always going forwards? What never goes back? The simplest answer is time. This though is not the correct answer. How did we create from energy? Here we have to introduce spin and pressure, time is not a force, it is only duration. Here I credit time with some property it does not have. As we delve deeper we will find energy within the system is finite. This being so, to make today, all the materials of yesterday must be used, I then show this as a blockage by time where in reality once something becomes the past, it physically cannot exist.

   The other view to understand what is happening here being this; Mathematicians see one thing, chemists see another, whilst artists see yet another. Nature cannot be quantified by giving it a label. Nature is the total sum of everything. There is nothing deleted in the creation of stuff. Look at a snowflake and see the multitude of patterns that simple substance can create. Then understand why a snowflake could create these differing patterns. Chance, perhaps a dust particle or some such thing created a direction. Cause and reaction built on that change in simple steps. This may seem random, but it is not.

     Every action is determined by some other action. But to discover every action in any process is impractical.  To then try to define or restrict nature to one discipline, or narrow strict definitions, can never be realistic. To expect to categorize nature into neat little boxes or find an equation of everything is a folly Nature comes in so many ways, by so many differing methods. Einstein gave us just other shapes some of those patterns take, just a few of the many.

    Our first pattern was a Yin Yang. The second Pascal’s triangle, Einstein gives us, not only our third, and another important one, but also the gateway to a series of patterns.  Patterns though are things we have the ability to view from different angles.   Newton took Pascal’s triangle and turned it on its side to work out π. He proved that mathematically it could never resolve. Before Newton, it was believed that this triangle formation only worked one way, Newton showed otherwise. I am then not the first to take patterns and show how, by viewing a simple function from multiple differing angles, we may see different things. This situation we shall find more frequently as we continue.

    What we find looking from one angle, can differ when viewed from another. Often we even believe we have found a new thing, this though is seldom correct. This we see by the discovery of dark energy, and so confirming Aristotle’s ether correct, 1700 years or so later. Our next pattern is Einstein’s E=MC² being a direction as to where a reaction will occur. What the basics of the Einstein equation shows, is that two things created a third, "matter".   When the start consists of only two things to create everything else, it becomes apparent there has to be groups or families.

   To simplify this, it is easier to see energy as "stuff", and speed as what can be done with "stuff".  This creates these patterns. For example, what is speed? Is speed not the time it takes to get from A to B? We see speed, frequency, distance etc, as members of the same large family, the "Time" family. Energy being the smaller family; being the family consisting of energy in all its forms, heat, stress etc.

    What we are now able to do is use the variants of the time family to produce the pattern or equations required in specific instances.  I can show that mass = Energy/ Frequency, where frequency is in decline. As an alternate example, one shown before which would cause little thought or concern, I can show Ice = Water/ temperature, with temperature in decline. What this demonstrates is not only pattern, but also direction. That direction being where a reaction will occur; Einstein had it as C² an ever increasing speed. My example with water comes from the opposite side; ever reducing temperature to freezing. What we see is provided we maintain the pattern we find we can fit most things into similar patterns, this by using similarly constructed scales. The roots though still reverting back to speed and energy.

   The deeper point of the equation now becomes clearer; it is a pointer to the position a reaction must happen. This idea creates the first but fatal issue with Einstein's idea of gravity being “the curvature of the fabric of space time”. If we say space (as per dimension) and time are members of a common family, they cannot produce a product.  However much we revere Einstein and/or his work, this theory cannot be correct, it lacks energy. As gravity has energy, his idea fails. We can either accept Einstein’s E=MC² or his theory of gravity, both cannot be correct.  Gravity will now have to be re-examined.

    Einstein's mathematics though creates the correct answers, as do Newton’s. What we draw from these ideas being that Einstein's fabric, is Aristotle's ether, Heisenberg's vacuum of energy, plus the teams that discovered dark energy's energy, along with my little spheres, these we find later.

   It seems we all found the same product. Found from viewing from differing angles, and all except one, believed to be some new discovery. It though requires you to understand gravity, which we have not come to yet.  The other revealing point here is time and energy are on different sides of the fence. Time, as simply seen, can have no energy.

   There is one property that does not fit well into either camp that is pressure. However much I tried to solve this, I did not.    My conclusion in the end being pressure was a flaw in energy. It was perhaps this flaw that caused the system to begin. Man searches to find that elusive equation of everything.  What π, nature and Pascal's triangle tell us, is that Pi is irresolvable.  

    Zou Yan seemingly understood nature is never totally balanced and so he placed spots in his yin yang.  It demonstrates that if the equation of everything had been possible π would have been resolvable. That resulting in we would not be here to debate it. We exist because of imperfection and the ability to change, not perfection.  

                                                 

                                        The Law of Tock     

     I ask you to consider an electric clock, one powered by a small battery.  Electricity supplied to a relay energizes the relay, and causes the plunger to push a cogged gear wheel as far as to lock that gear one tooth forward. The clock makes a tick. This action also cuts power to the relay. A spring now pushes the plunger back to the start; the clock now makes a tock and resets the system.  

      In creating this repetitive motion, the clock is marking time as we know it. Not only is it marking time, it is also marking the age and charge of the battery. We all now must have experienced the effects of a clocks almost exhausted battery. This is when the clock may tick as it starts its cycle, but it does not have enough energy to get over the hill. It does not tock. This is what I call ‘The law of Tock’.

  The lesson learned by this law states though the battery still has some energy, that energy is not enough to carry out a function. The result of this law then shows why energy comes in multiples rather than starting from a single unit. A unit of energy to exist in a meaningful way must be able to complete a function. Whatever the function is, there must be a point reached within every system where, though the system still has energy, that energy is not enough to complete the function. Physics then state’s the system is no longer viable. Mathematics may disagree, but nature, the clock, and the law of Tock, do not.

                                                       The Build            

                In this final edit I believed my theory had become a bit messy and confused due to the many changes it had been subjected to over the years.  I then believe it requires an outline of the workings of the processes as found to date.

   By using E=MC² I reached the conclusion the only thing existing was energy; this where energy to exist in any meaningful way, had to be in motion.  I then found for Einstein’s equation to be correct demanded that both speed and energy came in bits as precise defined segments.

  I also found the product or resultant ' M', could be faster than the speed of creating matter. Matter was then built by a precise amount of energy at a specific speed.  But if this was fully correct change could not happen. As that is not what we find, one of the properties must be able to change, this by steps or units in some other repetitive system. That property was speed.

    This is then a system where a unit of energy is forever constant, whilst a unit of speed can vary in some form of step pattern dependent on other factors. M must then be created at a set speed, where to change what type M was, speed must change. I.E. Different stuffs are created at different speeds.

     Also found was if speed had to continue, but came in bits, the only way this could be was for speed to rotate and form a sphere.  This whilst spheres to continue, would have to continually duplicate due to energy being finite.  Not only this, but for speed to continue smoothly whilst coming in bits, speed must either be accelerating or decelerating it cannot be constant.

       I determined space had to have been constructed in some already existing place, this I called the void.

     There are constrained and conditions set within space, these science calls rules. These rules are the constraints of space, functions unable to be changed or modified due to the natural restrictions of space.   Calling these rules perhaps suggests rules similar to a speed limit; this is not that. For example the conservation of energy states you cannot create energy, why? There is no more to be had, unlike the highway speed limit where that could be exceeded by choice.

    To then suggest those rules must be adhered to in the void, is not correct. We can never know the restraints of the void, to then make assumptions based on space is not correct.

    M in space had to be energy tightly spinning in the shape of a sphere. The reason energy formed this shape, being energies desire to reach the centre or core of the structure, the lowest obtainable point for energy. It also is the point of highest frequency, so somewhat mimicking the void.

   To create a change in frequency required imperfection. By being imperfect if a big bang created a frequency, that frequency had to create harmonics. M was then created from the harmonics of the big bang. A particle being a harmonic, or more correctly, a particle occurs at the frequency of a harmonic. Being a harmonic and being in resonance, it is the point where energy is most at rest.

     Science states speed is restricted to the speed of light. Whatever way I could view this from, I found it just could not be. How can a harmonic be the same speed as the fundamental?  Speed then has no impediments.

   Finding resonances and harmonics could only be created lower than the fundamental, I had my reservations, and so did some research.  In doing so I found Chladni’s Law. Ernst Chladani a German musician and mathematician (1756 to 1827) proved this correct with his mathematics as to the resonance of a bell.

    Reactions to create M happen at specific points due to change. If energy or speed were to be restricted so unable to change, the system would be locked to only one type.   As energy is finite in space, the only change possible must then be speed. This where to create anything that energy at speed must be able to complete a function.

     There are though phases matter can obtain under the frequency of its creation. For example if we added energy to water, it changed from one state to another, its basics as H²0 though still remaining.  This showing there is a system of steps between functions. I call this the resonance of the property. Bury and Borg discovered this resonance as 2N² as the quantity of electrons permissible in a shell of an atom. Where they failed was in not understanding what they had found.

   By considering the conservation of energy law, a law stating energy is finite so cannot be created or destroyed, creates consequences where with deeper thought, I found something unexpected. As the energy in space is finite, if space progresses by a day, every last particle of that energy moved forward one day, nothing can be left of yesterday other than its consequences and memories. There is then no way to take part of today’s stuff and return it to yesterday. Dreams of time travel are then just that, it cannot happen.

       The reason to understand time as a process of continuation being, it is one of the main reasons the system is as it is. It is the reason things must spin. As energy comes in portions where these portions can never turn back, yet must complete one process, that process must then roll along with time.

      In building this theory, I set certain restraints; it has to be by simple easily understandable steps, steps regarded as normal functions. These steps must not start to become confused. If a path is chosen where several stages along that path starts to increase in complexity, that path is likely incorrect, so forcing a return to try a different route.

  To never try to salvage what leads to confusion and complexities, though it may have been the beliefs of a lifetime, or the work of years, the entirety of that line must be regarded as unlikely; some other path must then be selected. Though some beliefs are difficult to doubt or discard, by clinging to them in the hope some cherished notion may be salvaged, is a costly mistake.

   There can be no conclusive correct method of discovering how systems of the long past were constructed. The method I employed was to build and progress to the point of finding if that path progressed to easily fit the systems of today, or did it become confused. By this method and tries too numerous to count, I found a path fitting enough to be acceptable, what I would refer to as a reasonable estimate as to how things started.

     Another mistake I discovered was that of making assumptions. Of seeing a process and believing it is caused by the simple and ordinary, to then later find the simple and ordinary was only the reaction caused by another process.

    The next problem I had was that of incorrect education. We all have these ideas and notions burned in since childhood. In the example of the Higgs field creating the weight of a particle. This idea creates all sorts of complexities simply because it is based on an incorrect idea. The simple idea accepted without any thought or consideration being; big and slow= heavy; small and fast = light. Science and Peter Higgs built on this incorrect assumption to solve a simple problem incorrectly.

   What this taught me was to look for the simple and overlooked obvious, it also showed false notions are beneficial if, when found are used as a beacon to assist in finding the correct path.  But first you must be open to the idea that incorrect beliefs can be made and accepted as a reality, or even a foundation of science.

     It also teaches you to question exactly what you are looking at.  For example in the Higgs, the idea is bulk = heavy; this is incorrect due to this is a process of energy, not size.  It takes more energy to spin at high speed, than it does to spin more slowly. Though this is not part of my proof as to this being incorrect, and is somewhat misleading, I state it as a means to show we have to be careful as to what we believe the prime function of the process is, and what is a reaction to that function.

  The mistake Peter Higgs made was he did not see in his minds eye, a lead ball on a scale try to balance a latex balloon. He did not question, is there another answer, or are my assumptions correct? Am I missing something?

      My first clue was E= MC². But my best clues come from nature, what we all see and ignore as normal. Newton’s, why did the apple fall? My one was. Why, when a marble is dropped into water, why does it display what it does, and what does it prove? What is the simple arithmetic of that, what is the"go"?  

   Every system starts as a simple process. Complexity and confusion comes with time and evolution from the source. The system starts due to speed and energy. From that start, it continues to the complexity of today. This allowing the advantage of when looking at it, understanding complexity will continually build. If then you consider what was before, understanding it must have started as a simpler system. A system creating steps, IE the speed of matter being just a time matter seems to have formed, a stage in the process.          This conforms to the laws of entropy, those originating from the laws of thermodynamics formulated in the 19th century. I displayed these laws previously in the form of a scrambled egg. Due to these laws, understanding a process coming from the past it is highly unlikely to be something new and exotic, something we have no understanding of, most likely it is a simpler version of something already known.

     We can then understand that though we can never view what happens before matter formed; it must comply with the laws of physics as known. Within space walls cannot be built then statements made saying. ‘On this side these are the laws’, whilst on the other side, ‘laws differ’. Nature supplies clues, these have to be found and understood. This law was first introduced by Nicholas Copernicus about 500 years ago. A law is but a function of nature, whether or not the reason is clear at that time, all have simple reasons.              Energy can never change its function, but can have what I describe as facets; stress, heat etc. These able to be controlled or modified by the functions I will call the time family. The time family functions can be simply modified, for example we can alter speed by acceleration or deceleration. What we cannot do is change its basic properties.

    What this does is give the chance of analyzing well known systems within our view, and by understanding the actions and reactions of that system, understand these will likely be repeated multiple times in other such systems, whether seen or beyond being seen.

       By understanding that ingredients and numbers may change, the methods of the processes do not, functions remain constant. I then will use the functions or processes of water to find out how that particular type of system works as it will be repeated. Water seems to contradict entropy, starting at its most chaotic and energetic state as gasses, to end up in its most stable, less energetic, but more organized as ice. Regardless of how cold ice gets, it remains as ice. The energy within the water has reduced to the point of its conclusion.

   In as much as we can understand the system of water, we find when viewing the entirety of the system, it progresses in exactly the same manner. Starting as two properties then proceeding from chaotic to stable in defined organized steps. This process is then repeated multiple times in different substances; add energy as heat and they melt. Cool and they become solid. Though the points of change differ the processes do not.

      This demonstrates rules such as entropy cannot be applied in all situations, nature requires balance.  Isaac Newton’s third law of motion states ‘For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’. When viewing processes such as entropy, it must always be understood when processes involve energy, there must always be an equal and opposite.

   My method then, when continuing in circumstances beyond being seen, was to apply the functions properties as they appear in view, and understanding why issues arise, if they do. Time being the only example I found of this idea of not fitting. Time seems not to fit to the view of being that thing on the wall with hands slowly turning.

       From the thought deconstruction, what remained were the strong force, and the weak force. The conclusion I had reached as to these were they were a modification of energy and speed. Could I then reformulate Einstein's equation to read as M equals the strong force over the weak force, and as was found with making water, there must be an exact mix? Though this had serious issues, at that time I believed these would resolve eventually.

       Here was one of my many mistake’s, this mistake cost years of trying to fit a system together around these two forces. But it was this that taught me to allow the progress of what you find to determine the path, not some notion of man. Painful though it may have been, it was the lesson I required to teach me not to cling to any notion simply because it is a standard belief, or by the stature of the person who proposed it.

      When a measurement is taken in any system, that measurement must be taken from some reference point we state as a base or zero. When viewing the void there is no point of reference, no up, down or whatever. But to construct anything within the void has to be done using points of reference. We then can only reference things as what they would seem to us, whilst accepting just how incorrect and far off reality that may be. For example E= MC² tells us energy comes in units. To understand what a unit of energy is, we need to understand parameters. What area does it cover, what is the pressure it is subjected to etc.? This then implies a unit of energy within the void must be different in size to that of one in space. But what size that is, there is no way to tell.

     Space is then an area within this void an area of energy, energy rotating and energy with direction, energy able to create a function.

   The beginning had to start as a singular event. No great booms or bangs, it has to be a singular thing, reason tells us this. Event's start as singular events then grow.  This start is just the first stage in that number of stages required before the particle can exist. As to its size, this has no meaning. Size is a term, a relationship of one thing to some other thing. As this is the only thing, there is nothing to reference size to.

   What has been found to date is for reasons unknown nature selects prime numbers. A container filled with marbles leaves 29% empty, 71% being marbles, given the container is to capacity, and the marbles are spheres. Then there is π unable to resolve and so on. What this implies being regardless of what the contents of the void consists of, there will always be imbalance, energy missing or left over.

   An area of energy moving at some fantastic speed within the void, what could that produce?  Taking the equation E= MC² for the moment my interest is not in matter, my interest is in E/C².  I explained that speed in all its forms was part of the time family as a function of time. The start, as far back as realistically seems logical, began as a random blob of energy within the void. This perhaps became stretched into a line due to being struck by another blob; a situation as good as any other as a start.

    Here is where I discovered many of the answers. First, what does this stretched combined blob wish to do? When looking at the line of energy created, it has two ends, the extremes of which let me call north and south. North wants to shrink back south, and south wants to shrink north. This now creates phase opposing forces. This is the correct view here. It though is not necessarily the only view.

        Consider a situation with north as water on the top of a hill. The water evaporated from the sea, cools as it rises to the clouds, blows over the land, to condense and fall as rain. My point here being the energy of any function will find the easiest path to reduce. This path though does not need to be the path of origin, but will be the path of least resistance.

   This example also shows that though we may have been considering one simple process, that process becomes mixed into other processes. This showing that when viewing any process it is essential to view how that process fits in to all the other processes. No process can be viewed as divorced from the system, each cause has an effect, all must be considered.

     Returning to the blob of energy, I must now show time. Time started in this area of energy. If shown on paper, we would believe it would start in the center of the blob, this is not so; there is no point of reference. For example, to determine speed or time, that must be determined from a point regarded as zero, or the start point. I could then say it took me one minute to walk through a railway carriage at x speed. This would be correct regardless of whether the train was moving or not, provided there is a fixed start, there can be a conclusion. With this area of energy, this is missing.

   Assume one quantity of energy is flying north and another strikes it going south causing the combined structure to stretch. Only when the structure tries to shrink back to a central point is there a point of reference, a point of lowest energy where time can start. From there, time expands outwards in every direction. It creates in effect a sphere of equidistant time in opposition to the lines of energy shrinking back to the center

    As both lines of energy shrink, they become blocked at the point of meeting time, as time advances. There is a though a lesser position energy can find, that being either east or west. One being selected due to any minute difference in balance; presume energy chooses west. Time cannot reverse, it must continue.   Given this is correct, for time to continue the structure must rotate continuously as this structure takes shape. This shape will be a sphere created by the duration of the speed energy takes to rotate the circumference of the sphere, or roll the sphere one cycle forwards.  The sphere then creates the minimum distance every part of the encased energy can be from the center.

    This is the effect Newton described as why the Earth rotates around the Sun; to fully understand the effect and its mathematics I refer you to the works of Newton.

  There is no mechanism to stop this, as such each sphere created must continue to spin as a frequency where instead of the wave we understand, it creates a clone by sharing energy with its twin.

     This is another point of being able to jump to incorrect conclusions; the ratio of 3.14 to 1 is the ratio of π, in a circle, not the ratio of energy within a sphere, or marbles in a container. There perhaps could be some formula based on π³.  But if this same container could be filled with energy, to compute, that needs more parameters. Energy is a product we find as being able to be compressed. To then find the waste space in the container becomes impractical. To create a formula as to how much energy can fit in a sphere then becomes an equation with so many unknown parameters as rendering it beyond ever being known.

        It was at this point I found a problem, I needed to resolve.  The issues I had was what is time. Time as a property can have no energy. I had based much of my ideas as to matter being some form of energy and time mix, the deeper I delved the less likely that seemed.

    If I boil an egg, I can plan the result by how long the egg boils. The egg though is cooking due to the quantity of energy supplied, not by some force from time. You then come to the realization time is just a term, a convenience man creates to enable him to log events or plan, it can be many things, but it is not a property able to combine with energy.   Einstein used speed and is correct in his instance; I will use frequency, a facet of the same thing.  

    Time proves a point. Time is pure it can have no energy, there is no strong time or weak time, there is just time. If then change has to happen, a member of the family of time must be used, speed or frequency ETC. as this can have kinetic energy, change can occur.

      Being able to understand time as being a description of happenings, not the creator, then solves this issue and allows us to now use time as what it is, a description encompassing a family of effects, not a property.

      There are other important properties, other than energy, one is pressure. Pressure is the increased force within a contained space causing the compressed contents to exert a push to escape that containment. When, for example, we measure tire pressure, we measured that from a point regarded as zero or neutral, the pressure of the air around us. But when dealing with space, or the void, there are no reference points to measure from.         Heisenberg set us a riddle. He stated space is a vacuum, (a lack of stuff). Then he said “The vacuum has energy” (stuff). And wherever you looked you would always find (stuff). Heisenberg displayed the issues of space, a place beyond our ability to have any provable definitive answers.

     Next is the tune.  When dealing with frequency, there must always be a repetitive cycle. It may be expressed as the beat or the rhythm, but as the metronome ticks, it ticks dependent on the mechanics of its construction. The tick is then the rod’s ‘comfortable rhythm’, a balance between the energy applied, and the resistance to change. Though it may be a pleasing beat, it is purely a mechanical function. Only due to our own creation being frequency and harmony, does other, in tune resonances please.

         As each and everything is created from energy at some frequency, everything must then have a natural resonance. The mathematics to this rhythm found and published in 1905 by Bury and Bohr as the formula 2N². They found this as the maximum number of electrons permitted in the shells of an atom and progressed no further, it is though so much more. As we continue 2N² will be the major formula in this theory, I believe exceeding that of Einstein’s E=MC².  

  Now is the time to show the findings from a marble dropped in a pool of water. I use a marble due to its consistency of shape as not to introduce other variations. I will also disregard the reaction as the water rises creating a cone at point of entry that is not my interest here; my interest is the how’s and why’s of the other effects seen.

    Using Bury and Borg’s formula 2N², but not as they used it, I found it fits in so many other differing ways.  First N is the circumference of the marble, in the formula this is given as one circumference of the object creating it.  I.E. If I take the example of Saturn, by this formula Saturn is the first ring and the first external ring is the second ring. By applying the formula then calculating the actual circumference, gives that of each ring, whilst the distance between rings remain constant. If a wave was to be drawn between these rings, it would be a sine wave where only the amplitude of the wave can vary, not its frequency.

      Here I add a disclaimer before others with slide rule in hand tell me I am mistaken. Saturn is a gaseous planet as such it has multiple harmonics and harmonics of those harmonics. To pick what is the fundamental and what is a harmonic is then confused.      What the marble is showing by the rings in the water is the marbles resonant frequency, where that frequency is its circumference. What is also shown is, as this frequency extends outwards, the rings become larger so increasing the gross area between rings. If now the distance between the marble and each successive ring is measured, that distance remains constant as the frequency or the resonance of the marble to the power of 2N².

   This proves, disregarding loss due to other processes, though the area between rings becomes progressively larger; the energy within those areas remains constant.  If then a particle is created by E/C² and is a harmonic of the fundamental 'M' all particles must weight the same.

   I stated somewhat incorrectly previously it takes more energy to spin fast, than to spin more slowly, here you see how careful you have to be to fully understand all aspects of a process.

    Now I put a pot of water on a stove, the water is at room temperature; its molecules are lightly jiggling. By applying heat to the pot, the water jiggles more and continues to get more agitated until the water boils and starts to change from one form to another. Let me take this as a simple musical scale IE Doh Ray Me. Let water be Doh.

    Doh cannot be any other note; the only way Doh can change is by going up or down an octave. Water cannot change from being water, when energy is added or subtracted it will not change until it reaches its next phase and becomes ice or steam. This must be an increase or reduction in steps of an octave of seven steps. (Again prime) Most materials then follow this pattern, heat and they melt cool and they freeze or go solid.

      What we have not considered is the facts. If water rises in temperature in this pot in steps, disregarding how that was accomplished, if we find water at stage Fa, we must know its temperature, I.E. it  is hot in comparison to Doh.

   This may seem self evident, or perhaps laboring a point, but it is in the simple we find the detail. Doh is a resonance the closest point energy comes to being balanced and at rest. As the scale increases it becomes more agitated and unbalanced. Taking this to the energy of the void, it then suggests the void is then likely to be in tune.

      We have now established energy becomes diluted with the distance from the source due to the area covered being larger. This must also show that the pressure in each ring must reduce in steps from the source. As will the speed each ring rotates at. As this is a reduction of energy per area this must cause a reduction of temperature with distance from source.

     Here again we find what can be a confusion, this scale can be active or passive.  The example here is passive, extra energy is not being added. The example I showed heating a kettle to boil water, is active. The system is not just doing its thing, with the kettle a process is being created by external means, with the process of planet resonance, where extra energy is not added, this function is using the energy it has, there is no more.         All this might be somewhat interesting but a bit ho hum. This perhaps is so until we look to what happens as we descend to the core. Let me show this within the earth.

     As we descend to the center of the earth, the circumference we are at must continually reduce. This makes the earth try to spin at differing rates, increasing pressure energy and weight. All this could be calculated by the formula 2N² or divide the resultant by 2 which here is frequency. But where does 2N² stop spinning? Mathematics may plot some point as to some dead ball, this though is not that, 2N² will not resolve. As this calculation contains π there will not be some point at the center stopping this system, but what will, is the energy contained and held within its rings of influence. It is this energy balancing the system.

   This is the resonance of 2N², but this is not the resonance of 2N² minus you or I.  The unattached matter existing on the surface of the earth is part of this balanced system as such the energy within you or I is subject to the same forces. These forces are energy doing what energy always does, try to increase speed by spinning towards the center of the earth.

                     This is the process science calls gravity.

     The heat of the earth is produced by the two differing ways stress is applied. First is simple 2N² gradients added as heat. The second is the desire but inability for gradients of 2N² to spin at differing speeds, so causing stress.  The earth with 2N² in its simple form should melt at the core, but with the stress caused due to the inability to increase  spin, this must happen much sooner.

       There is one more issue here that is pressure. If I take the opposite example, water boils in a vacuum. By adding pressure as we descend into the earth causes an increase in the temperature melt point. The earth will still melt at some point, but there must be a point reached where the pressure exceeds the ability of the core to melt.

    As matter cannot spin faster than its own resonance, a line descending would then pass through several stages. First a point where the earth gets hot to viscous, to then melting, then back to viscous due to pressure. Then finally back to a solid where due to the speed of its spin, it may become an unknown substance.

      Looking up from the earth’s surface we now find the ingredients to create weather. As we ascend higher spin becomes slower and colder due to diluted energy and slowing spin, or that desire. As hot wet air rises it gets cooled and is subjected to the twisting action of the atmosphere. On we could go showing action and reaction, why things melt or freeze and given thought a great deal more. What we have not found is the need for some other force.

       From earth there are seven stages in the atmosphere where the spheres being larger cause time to lengthen. Here is another confusion man creates by sending clocks into space and finding a minute time-shift. This being due to the differing pressure and spin within our atmosphere not some strange warp in space. If a clock was placed at some low point, and another on top of a mountain, after some time the same effect would be observed. It is then not deep space causing these effects it is the variations in the pressure and speeds of the atmosphere. Man is viewing this from his prospective of looking out into space where it should be viewed the other way around to understand just how insignificant this effect is.

      There are other effects here, Space is a sphere and as such is subject to the same octave scale from its core to its extremity.  Next is the small wedge of space we see.  We consider what we see as a picture, some Constable painting, a thing of beauty, order and consistency.  This is not what space is, space consists of an octave of seven areas, each having differing times and pressures. But what we see is only a fraction of what is, a fraction created when energy spins.

     We see our palate, a thing estimated at 3% of what is, where our maximum possible view is only 0.75 of that 3% . This is what we fix our ideas and notions with, less than 1% of what exists.  To then believe we can calculate time by what we see or by counting flickers from far off shows a misunderstanding of the system. What note in the octave is it in, which one are we in? Who knows?

    We can suggest energy as it seeks the center of the earth causes polarity, and yes energy is seeking the But not in some direct line, it is whizzing around in directions we are unsure of at ever increasing speeds. This action must quickly stabilize and create a sphere spinning as we see the earth spinning.  

   Here is a point I have to introduce another new concept, this concept being the force that is magnetism.

             Energy wishing to reach the center of the earth does not create polarity. The earth does not have one pole at its circumference and another at its core. Energy will seek the center but due to spin, as with a whirlpool, spin will increase causing the energy to rotate as a disk in some order rather than pointing as a radius from the circumference to the center. What this does is create a machine, one with a vortex through its center, one that can have a flow of magnetic flux through this vortex so giving an entry and an exit for flux, a North and South Pole.

     These poles are only points on the surface of the earth. They are also points on a vertical disk the size of the earth, through the center of the earth and emerging at the poles.  This disk is not a ring; this is rather like a doughnut around the earth, a doughnut of magnetic flux. This is a system as in the transmission of radio waves; a horizontal ring creates a vertical ring in a continual chain type linkage.

  What we are aware of is a rather thin ring at the edge of that first horizontal sphere, the point the magnetic flux creates its next link in a chain of continuous expansion where horizontal links grow around the circumference of the earth whilst vertical links remain constant at the frequency of the circumference.

      When the system creates the horizontal north and south poles, there is no reason to suggest the top need be north and the bottom south. This then gives the reason polarity flips.  Polarity was created by minute differences in balance, as north can never balance south precisely. Nature will continually try to remedy this until the balance line is crossed and the poles flip. But like some vibrating jelly, this too is a cycle governed by some other factors.   If I were to guess this would be the ability, or lack of, to wobble, or how fluid the entirety of the structure is.  

    When the spheres of space duplicate within space the overall energy must be shared, size must decrease and frequency rise. The pressure within space will increase due to spin increasing causing energy to become more focused and causing the repulsion between spheres to increase.

   An end must come when the pressure within space exceeds that force holding it in.  Similar to a balloon bursting, that first area of space must burst and relieve the pressure.     All spheres can now expand to the point where the pressure of their containment balances that of the void.  This creating a new larger area of space, a less energetic and slower spinning area of spheres.

   There is another interesting step possible and highly likely here. As this larger area of spheres expands into the void, if these spheres have an overall energy deficiency they could attract energy from the void. This resulting in the size of space increasing at each big bang, not in an upwards logarithmic curve as expected, but at some other increased rate.

      Here we find the mistake of Hawking. Spheres of spinning energy are complete systems. There can be no spheres of an opposite energy. This is a system of frequency and phase, it exists due to spin. External spin is in balance and matched to internal spin, Yin equal to Yang.  

    The system is also energy trying to return to the void. If spin were to stop, the system would fail. What stops collapse is the 3% of energy locked into atoms, so removed from energy's ability to reach maximum and stop.

      With a black hole, when nature creates Leonard Susskind’s little fish and one gets swallowed, it is a temporary unstable incomplete item. There is nothing in a black hole to match that, it then cannot cancel. But the black hole being highly active will regularly flip polarity and disgorge this now opposing polarity unit as Hawking radiation. This is why black holes have times of calm then disgorge radiation and start a feeding cycle. Polarity has flipped and matter that could not be absorbed is repelled, before matter, unattractive before becomes attracted.

    The main point here being Bob and Alice were created from the energy within space, regardless of what form that may take, or what particular system they inhabit, it is only energy moving from a place of excess to a place of deficiency.

   I had believed big bangs happened as the octave changed, this I found not correct. Big bangs happen as the note decreases in the scale. Big bangs should happen at a progression of 2N² as spheres multiply. As 1 to 2, 2 to 8, 8 to 18, etc. But if spheres are attracting more energy from the void during a big bang, space growth will accelerate.

    2N² then may not determine the spacing of big bangs, but will determine the curve of time between them.

    More importantly it shows that just after a big bang, as spheres start duplicating, time is logarithmic, its duration dividing by two, or 3DB at each split, only after energy is so diluted as not to be able to create another function, will time be stable, fixed and linear.       I now show another method of a start of the system we are part of, one perhaps more likely.

   In any large area containing energy; given that there must be imperfections, variations in currents may flow and eddies created.  Is it then not likely that some area started to spin? By doing so it compressed and encapsulated a finite quantity of energy, encasing it in a spinning sphere.  This sphere held together by the speed of its spin. Its existence due to its being what it is.

     This is then my interpretation of how the system was created from the void. A system where once started should expand and slow until it reaches the point of starting a new cycle at a lower pressure but a much larger area, or where energy becomes so dispersed it cannot continue and it has to have some resolution.

     That resolution being it expands from a point until a maximum is achieved then it reverses phase’s and collapses back to the void. As this is not what happened in our situation there must be some other answer, some reason the system maintained as we have it.

   To understand why the system did not complete its cycle, one akin to an explosion blowing rocks into the air, to then fall back to earth, we have to understand another facet of the sphere. This time not the sphere constructed from energy in its state as some plasma force type material, but energy frozen. We need to understand the properties of the solid sphere, the particle as far as we can understand it.

     The first thing I found was a big bang did not directly cause the formation of solid matter. Due to rule one of creation, ‘Perfection does not exist’, what the big bang created when space expanded, was a fundamental frequency and harmonics. These harmonics created at the rate descending at 2N².

   If we strike something causing it to ring, it would create a fundamental frequency. From that fundamental lower harmonics are created, there are no higher frequencies beyond the fundamental. Now I did research this and found this correct. (Refer Chladni’s Law). I though found this by the method you see here. This then becomes a point where the picture is correct; an uplifting point, where it all fits.

  This now proving that balance between matter and so called anti-matter never did exist.       We find at the Centre of each galaxy there is a black hole where that black hole dictates the quantity of mass the galaxy may possess. This seems to suggest the energy within the mass of the black hole must balance the energy in capture external to the black hole. This is a repeating system, from the atom, to planetary systems, to galaxies, there seems to be this relationship between the speed of spin, and the size and the quantity of mass that can be contained in that system. A system where at first glance seems to be a simple progression of 2N².

      That seems likely until you factor in the construction of the atom and its countless combinations, and how that fits. We then can see that though it is unlikely a scale can be created, that does not detract from our understanding of how that system works.  

      Returning to the big bang-- This creates a fundamental frequency with harmonics spaced at 2N². It is here we get the answer as to dark matter. The fundamental frequency is dark energy, energy of a frequency beyond matter, the spheres of space. Harmonics can not be classified as dark energy regardless of their frequency, though they may not be solid matter, and are beyond our ability to detect, they must be regarded as dark matter.         This gives us the ability to show what dark matter and dark energy is, and why it is.  Dark energy is the frequency of the spheres creating space, the frequency of the big bang. Here I strongly suspect this consists of 71% of all energy. Harmonics of the big bang create the rest, this being 29%. The reason I suggest those numbers being these are values in electronics as given as the RMS value or DC value of an AC sine wave. 29% is also the quantity of water able to fill the empty spaces within a container filled with marbles. Plus these numbers are prime, a preference of nature.

     Before completing this chapter I should perhaps clear up some peculiarities. The first being the physics of the atom seems to defy what I found and make the Higgs field seem likely as each shell contains differing quantities of electrons. What is missed is the speed and pressure of each shell must differ; as such what can exist in a shell of specific speed or frequency must also change. All electrons within a shell must then be constructed from the energy within that shell, energy rotating at different speeds and pressure. It then becomes apparent that due to inner shells top speed spinning faster and at greater pressure, the ratio of energy at a frequency able to create electrons, to that of energy in some other form must differ.

     If a large body is not a solid but consists of distinct layers, each layer could be regarded as its own separate body, so create its own rings. We then will get a blend or confusion of external rings. This shows why much of Saturn must be gaseous by her confusion of rings. If this is applied to a system formed by attracting matter such as a galaxy, in youth the core will attract matter from all directions. As the galaxy ages, matter will become more regimented into the spirals we see now. These spirals when fully mature will form rings.

    As all things in nature are subjected to change, there is always the chance of collisions and distortions. To then expect absolute conformity defies the laws of nature.

     The centre of a galaxy or the centre of a black hole is not matter at infinite density.  It is energy rotating faster than the speed of solid matter. What form that will take other than spinning compressed energy, being speculation.

   The circumference of a spinning body must dictate the energy that body can contain. From a particle through multiple steps to a galaxy we see repetitive systems having the same maximum size. There are though some problems which at first seem to confuse. For example we may see frequency increase where we would believe it should decrease. Here our confusion is this, frequency was created as an expansion from the big bang, the zero or rest position of frequency is then a return to the big bang, or that frequency. To then understand any process, the entirety of that process must be considered and not just selected parts.

      Our big bang, being the last in a series of big bangs is not as science has it, a start from a singularity. The big bang was similar to a balloon bursting, an area under high pressure, expanding into an area of low pressure. Space spheres do not expand from some defined central point, but expand from the point they occupy, whilst being pushed by expanding neighbors. After the big bang the spheres of organized energy can expand to their natural limit within the void. This creating a new mass from all the spheres and the likely energy attracted from the void. This now becomes the next new larger area of space.

                 What is the big bang, and what does it do?

      First we have to understand however or whatever created the void, its systems and functions are unknown. All we can predict is it being a place of near balance. What the void, was able to give birth to, was space and let it grow from a single cell to the universe of today. This tells us our big bang is a big bang within space and not a function of the void. The big bang of space was space changing, not an octave, but a note. Each note then creating its own big bang.

   These big bangs happen at a regular frequency, where that frequency is beyond the speed of light. If we had been able to observe this, our view would have been from nothing, then a big bang and the early universe somehow appeared from that.

  What should happen now being, as the system starts to cool down, it should shrink and return to the void. The atom prevents this by locking energy into a balanced structure.    

    Heisenberg stated the vacuum has energy I believe he is correct. The void is energy but it is energy at peace, Energy as with the energy of an atom, it is in balance as far as balance can be achieved. It is not energy forever endeavoring to find some method of reaching balance. It is energy in tune.

      From considering the story of a big bang in nothing creating the universe and thinking how silly that is. After years of searching I come to show what looks like a big bang in nothing creating everything. But I have my path and can show a process, I can show what the ‘go’ with it is.

     All these happenings happening in the order or rhythm of 2N², not only applying in space, but it applies in any and every process of energy.  From the scales in music or the point water freezes or boils. 2N² is then probably the most important mathematical formula, followed closely by E=MC².  

   Here is the stage which took time for me to accept and understand. The issue being, what is the frequency of the void?  If the void is at high frequency, it gives the answer to spin and every function fits so nicely to that scenario. Then we have the big bang where pressure is released. This states the void is at low pressure. Within space as pressure increases, so does frequency. If you transfer this idea to the void, it just does not fit.    The void must be a place of high frequency at low pressure for our system to function.

        When you consider what pressure is; it is a place too small to comfortably hold what is within it. The mistake I was making was giving the void restrictions; I was assuming. Not only does this clear up the issue of pressure, it also solves the problem of understanding why a sphere created by this system was a complete thing, from its maximum frequency to zero. It also shows why man cannot duplicate this system.

    We then come to see a system where the earth has rings at different pressures frequencies and times. This whilst being in the influence of the Suns rings. All this contained within the system of space in whatever position we hold there.

   Man has a desire to find an exact timing since the big bang, good luck with that.        Matter exists within space as 3% of all there is. The earth must exist in one quadrant of that so reducing our view to 0.75% .This though must be reduced because the centre is beyond our ability to see. Man then creates his conclusions from his view of approximately one half of one percent of stuff and is perplexed when his mathematics,    “ gang aft agley, an lea’e us nought but grief an’pain for promis’d joy”. (Burns)    

      To then determine any reasonable conclusion is unlikely. Hubble saw movement and stated space was expanding. Einstein altered his equations only to find they didn’t fit correctly anymore. Space cannot expand indefinitely; to do so would take some form of energy creation and so break the first law of thermodynamics.  What space must do is rotate and as the pebble in a puddle shows, it must rotate at differing speeds. A place we only have the ability to view some small fraction of.

    When we look at Saturn’s rings we see no wall between them, they are areas of force invisible to us. We then must see within space the complexities of differing spin dependant on depth gives some understand as to why Hubble’s observations were what they were. Other than that to define anything accurately would require information beyond what we can obtain.

         Do I believe this journey is correct or the only way? No! What I had to find was a method of traveling through creation where specific points are reached.  Finding simple systems fitting together like some jigsaw. Specific points emerging like some views on a train ride coming as unexpected surprises.  The weather for example, seeing such a simple system, or gravity, no distortions of whatever, but the simple force of energy doing its thing. So no, men will pick holes in this, and that is what they should do. I spent almost 40 years in doing this, yet I have never read it over without changing something, I expect no less from others.  

    With my journey observing space being as far as I could travel, I now come to our place in this sphere. My average man, what are his conclusions, what does he see, what does he understand as to nature.  He knows he is in the bottom tier. He is sure of this due to matter being solid, he cools it, but however cold it gets, it just stays as the same solid. If he now adds energy by heating it up, it changes its properties to become a liquid. He now has his proof of his position, the place he plants his flag and takes his measurements.

     His place is within this last cycle. It is though not in the entirety of the cycle. Here is where it is easy to jump to conclusions. This being our place in space is somewhere out near the edge of existence. Space is a sphere which like all others must have a resonance. Each ring of that resonance holds a maximum frequency set by its size to then descend to zero. To then suggest the earth exists in the final ring may or may not be correct. It is likely we are in an outer ring but which one we are unlikely to discover.  

       Matter was created from several specific frequencies, a narrow band somewhere between the big bang and zero.  As with time, man has created a direction for his convenience where our position is positive, I will then adhere to that desire. If I now take the sphere as a clock face and take the maximum amplitude of the big bang as 12 o clock, the frequencies of matter would be covering a few minutes somewhere around 2.  What average man is aware of is within those few minutes. By other methods his senses allow him to be aware of frequencies as they reduce to zero at 3 and above a few more degrees into higher frequencies. The rest of the cycle, to him is a mystery, or does not exist. Man seems unable to view what to me now seems obvious, he clings to the past

      When we build our notions into castles to defend, or create heroes to worship, we forget the point of education and the teachings supplied by nature. My many years were then, as stated, my personal quest to understand, my struggle to answer WHY. I then pass on my findings. These free from any impediment of use, change or modification. My only caveat being if someone modifies my findings, they create impediment to others, and publish freely and openly on the internet. What they do after that in other media does not concern me.

    When we deny the individual the ability to question, change or modify that which we believe in, and what we hold as true, or even sacred, we deny the ability of change. We deny how evolution created, and we deny and restrict education; and by doing so, we do a foolish thing.    

                                                                PROPERTIES

           SPIN AND THE SPHERE

  Spin I showed by a simple vision of energy creating a sphere, a process where the sphere was a progress of one unit of time. What was also on display in that simplistic view was both time and energy in the system had to have fixed minimums, and where the speed of one unit of time determined the size of the sphere or the quantity of energy able to be entrapped.    

      In making a sphere to calculate the quantity of energy required, given we knew the dimensions of energy, would require a calculation based on π. This, though correct, is not quite enough. Energy is a property able to be compressed, its size and shape is then dependent on other factors. What the quantity is within the sphere is then something likely beyond calculation. More relevant is the other factor in this system, pressure; pressure determines how much energy can fit in the sphere.

    Next we found when spheres formed, they duplicated. It could be said this was due to it being a frequency so must continue. Or it could be energy is finite so the two must share that of one. And yes these are valid reasons, but I couldn’t quite wrap it up and tie it off in some nice order. Here is where I get that bit closer.  

    What is evident is this is a cycle where due to energy being finite, to continue, must share energy with a clone. This now creates a sequence of 1 to 2, 2 to 8 ETC. These numbers are the harmonics of the frequency of the first cycle. Not only that, these frequencies are in tune, they are resonances.

    What is a resonance?  A resonance is the point in a cycle where the energy is nearest to being correct; a point with the least energy without a home.  If viewed as the scale Doh, Ray, Me, resonance is Doh. Within the sphere is then this simple scale climbing or decreasing over the span of one octave.  

     A major problem we have when viewing this is we view from our prospective. By this I imply we see things as they seem to us, visioning it like a cinema screen, out in front and over there. We plot it out as yesterday, today, and tomorrow on the same screen and by doing so we miss reality.  

     In the scheme of things, we are very big and very slow. What I am trying to explain here is faster than the speed of light. What I see is a system of multiple big bangs until space reached its final possible big bang. A system if we could have viewed, we would only have witnessed only one big bang, that being the addition of all.

   Let me now try to explain the sphere by simple mathematics. One where there is not one path to follow, it seems there is two.  And here is another mistake, time only goes one way, to go back is to look to yesterday, but yesterday has passed.

        Before it was found if a process involved energy there must always be an equal and opposite; resonance shows this to be true. If we start at low Doh and climb, we state energy is rising. Let us now come down from high Doh, energy by the view of the cinema screen says it is falling, but it is not, it is also rising.

  This is not two things, it is one thing at a different time and, when viewed by us, in a different phase, our answers are incorrect.  

   If sitting on that point pushed along by time, our phase does not change, the phase around us changes. Our direction is onwards, not up or down, east or west. Behind us has gone and is no more, there is only now and forever onwards on a path constructed as we go.

  How then can we stop or turn back. From our view the road comes to us and, where after some time we hit a junction and speed up, half of us go one way, half the other as our transporter splits in two.

  We have built a sphere, but to continue that sphere must increase its frequency, it must start the next octave. It then must become smaller whilst energy remains constant. The only method able to do this is by creating two spheres.

     Here we see the action, from the action of the big bang, to the action of water boiling.  A simple obvious method of change, one governed by systems we are accustomed to. What we never see or consider is the action of time. When sitting on a point pushed by time, we don’t see the road behind us vanish, never to be seen or traveled on again; whilst the one in front is built at the speed we are traveling.

   Wherever we look all we see is what is now. Because we travel with time, it is difficult to understand its movement, or the finality in its passing.

      Our method of view is by inserting ourselves into that situation.  Of drawing yesterday, today and tomorrow on a flat sheet of paper, and believing that is correct. That may work when systems are slow and time is counted in days or years, but not in the ultra small.

  This is then the system I see within the sphere, a system where we are able to catch a glimpse of what is. First we cannot determine its centre, now we find what we believed to be a simple scale turns into a resonance where to determine anything is confused. We see our idea's as to up being up and down being down are only from the prospective of where we are looking from. We believe we can understand the cosmos, yet here is the proof of how little we know.  When we cannot fully understand the sphere, that first building block of the structure, why then does it surprise us when we cannot understand what we find in the heavens.

                                               The two forces

       When viewing the system we find a series of interwoven links where each can clearly be seen as coupling to the other in some simple uncomplicated manner. Spin slowing as size increases, Size increasing as pressure reduces. All understandable, all interlocking back to some form of beginning, all are explainable and all have logical linking’s. Then we come to the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force and hit a blank wall.

     I stated previously these forces must relate back to the start and related them back to time and energy.  I tried so very hard and for quite some time to fit these forces in as something other than energy and speed. I even believed I found a method of balance by having the forces at differing phases with our position fixed at one point of the cycle. But houses of cards eventually collapse and as Robert Burns wrote after plowing up a mouse and   her nest in mid winter. “Leave us naught but grief and pain for promised joy”. Like the mouse, my house of cards eventually failed, but no, it was not grief, it was a valuable lesson.

   Throughout this theory you will only find one force, that force is energy. Energy only has one purpose that purpose being to go from a high state and reduce to a low state. At first this seems to contradict the idea of increasing speed to that of the big bang until we understand to gain speed is a gain in energy and pressure where the only way to achieve that is by sinking into the earth.

   When man does not fully understand he turns to invention, his happy method, a chief branching out into lesser minions.  This displaying the prehistoric nature of man, his herd instincts and his beliefs as to how he believes things should be. The idea that this has worked for us, it must then be the way, is obviously false. It is though not a conscious idea, it is a bias built into our being. This is then the reason I believe man created these forces, he did not understand the system so fell back to what satisfies.

    All the system is, and can ever be, is energy in its rush and crush. The desire to return to the void by whatever form or process that may be. To me the atom is a lucky chance of fate; a chance that the first sphere was of a frequency where after several cycles, harmonics of the last big bang happened to be the exact frequency as to create what it did.

     Nature is governed by chance, this where chance is not random.  If we could factor in every minute detail of any issue, it all happens due to cause and reaction. As with building a snowflake, the resultant consist of a chain of events too numerous and diverse for any reasonable analysis.  Everything happens for a reason; chance being our way to state discovering the path of that reason is beyond what we can logically do.

                                   

                                                   TIME

     Time is the length or duration: a convenience man uses to measure how long it takes to do whatever it is he wishes to measure. In starting this theory I believe I read somewhere Einstein believed time was the invention of man.  Starting this theory I found that confusing. I had viewed time as a property, a fixture within science, the thing to mix with energy to get matter. Einstein believed the property creating matter from energy was speed, I believe the more accurate explanation is frequency. But as both are facets of the same thing, that is preference.

     To understand time we have to understand it as the measure of an action and not a function in its own rite. Frequency for example, has a specific duration for each cycle. We can measure that in meters, microns or seconds, whatever works. It can also contain differing proportions of energy so can be strong or weak. Time cannot combine with energy; there is no strong time or weak time. Time then does not fit into E=MC².

      When time is based on the speed of light, as viewed from a stationary point, movement is then subjected to the Doppler effect, this causing the frequency of the scene to expand or contract dependent on direction, thus creating the belief of time travel. We then can confuse ourselves into thinking we can last forever, or go back to fix yesterdays woes. Time’s tick is the same in every corner of existence, once struck that particular tick will never return. Only our perceptions can alter by movement, distance, pressure, rotation and the speed of light. Time is then a rather bland term and as with energy gets used in multiple ways.

    In the explanation of the sphere I stated there was a minimum time that perhaps leads to confusion. I should have perhaps said minimum frequency. That, though correct is not so neat and easy to see.

                                       

                                        Fields

    Standard physics suggests that all particles create fields, how this works would best be explained by someone other than me. For my part I discovered no fields. I could say magnetism creates a field, but this is only the effect of energy reducing; the dislike energy has for flowing the other way, and the properties displayed by the electron and certain elements.

    As a school student I dusted iron filings on a card above a magnet, this to see “the lines of flux”. What I didn’t understand then was it was not what I could see causing the effect, mostly it was what was beyond what I could see or understand. The other field-like situation is displayed as rings of resonance around a body of matter. This again simply answered as being magnetic disturbances in space due to the resonances of that body radiating out into material of a frequency beyond our ability to detect.

                                        

                                                 Dimensions

        Dimensions, - conventional physics gives us multiple answers, from as high as 20, to string theories 10, or Einstein’s 4. Einstein I believe added space-time. We are told these multiple dimensions curl up and are not used. This to me sounds more like Erwin Schrödinger’s cat than a reality. I then stick to what we all experience, the 3 dimensions required by nature. Also in my many years of travel I never once found nature having some odd unused appendage nor understand why she would.

                                                  Pressure

     Pressure is perhaps one of the most important properties. A property created when stuff continues to fill a container, and where that stuff repels its neighbors. Pressure creates change, where that change can continue within the system to the point matter can form and so create all we know. Pressure is then not just the thing we create in tyres; pressure is a major contributor to the structure of the system. Pressure is the regulator of time, to the creator of the big bang, boiled down to its basics pressure in the system is just another function of repulsion. I had for a time trouble in fitting the atom into this theory, how could differing shells contain more material, obviously they cannot. What then happens, each shell spins at its own resonance which will create differing pressures where this pressure and speed of spin was the energy I was missing. Boiled down to its base the reason for pressure is due to energy being able to be compressed.  

                                               Stress

        Stress is the balance of the system. Energy points one way stress points in opposition. Is it then a force, or is it upside down energy? As with energy, stress is a broad term covering from a mental condition to mechanical failure.  As a bland description it then does not clearly clarify anything specific, but is a word used to describe multiple conditions. Stress is then, as with all broad description terms, a poor description in each and every situation. As to it being as simple as energy at 180 degrees, is not quite correct. We are dealing with a rotating sphere of energy, it has no top or bottom, it only has in and out. It would please me to explain all the properties of the sphere, but I cannot. To do so I would believe gives the final answer to ‘why’, I don’t believe man will ever achieve that.

                                             Gravity

  Isaac Newton stated gravity was the force of matter attracting matter. Newton had the means and ability to escape from cities being decimated by the black plague. This enabled him to sit and ponder over apples falling from the tree in his garden.  This is the story we are told as to Newton, but what my experience tells me is a bit different. Newton may have stated as to an apple falling as I do with a marble where it is not the actual, it is what picture does it paint in your mind.

        You may picture Newton being hit by an apple or me, standing over a puddle dropping marbles. If you do you are missing the point. The point being what is the function, and why is it doing as it does? What does that tell?  

       Newton knew his theory was flawed, though his mathematics worked, he could not explain why the effects over distance were instantaneous. It would not be Einstein who would supply that answer, but James Clerk Maxwell in his mathematics as to the transmission of electricity along a line. Broken down to its simplest states if you push something, that something must push something else, in a repeating chain of push and shove.

     What this shows being the two ways energy can travel in space. The first being as a wave where the speed that wave can travel at is the speed of its oscillation by transferring energy along a chain of horizontal and vertical links. To do this it must have gained enough energy to be above the point of being solid. The second method is by displacement. Displacement is where a particle moves to the position of a neighbor so causing a continuous brute force line. A line where particle one only ever moves to position two, to move particle X. This is the method of energy transfer where a particle is solid.

     Albert Einstein then stated gravity was the bending of the fabric of space-time. We must all have been confronted by graphic displays of the earth on some form of trampoline. My issue with this theory being where or what is the framework holding the fabric to enable it to be bent?  Correct in its own way, the Einstein explanation of how it functions is incorrect, his wording confused and confusing. This theory was then always a chalk scrape on my blackboard.  

   It took me many years to wean myself from the idea of gravity as a force. Newton’s mathematics are impeccable, men landed on the moon using them, how then could his theory be wrong? The idea of attraction didn’t concern me; it is easy to see things the wrong way round. What seems to be the way it should work, rather than the way it actually is.

    It was with gravity I came to the understanding that most of the concepts of science are correct, the failure is in trying to define these visions with words, or fit that vision into systems you believe are correct. In doing so you must be open to accepting that though your vision may work, your explanation may not be correct. Gravity may not be matter attracting matter, what it actually is just being another way energy is trying to return to its creator, the frequency of the big bang.  As the spheres speed of spin increases nearing the centre, this is the path energy will take, so causing the crush with depth.

  In our experience a system such as this should not exist. We are accustomed to reduction and erosion, forces being spent. What we forget is another works of Newton.  ‘For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’.

     Here is where I got my first clue as to what energy is; part if not all of that, is a reaction to change. Newton’s theory is essentially correct, as is Einstein’s. Einstein essentially removed from his theory the idea of a force, stating that an area of matter would cause space to bend or warp.

      Essentially Einstein saw that space was curved and believed the force of gravity was causing this effect. What Einstein describes is a segment of the mass of the spheres of space, what his vision missed, was the overall shape.  Newton saw matter attracting objects, whilst Einstein saw space bending, but missing the continuation of that bend to its completion. Both men’s visions gave correct answers. Both ideas essentially do the same and are correct as a simple vision, but both wrong in their explanations.

        Gravity is not a force or an action, it is a reaction. When we viewed the energy of water in a pot subjected to heat, it was found the water changed one octave from freezing to boiling, an octave of seven steps. The earth from its circumference to its core must also change from solid to liquid in seven steps, this disregarding the further complications of spin and stress.

   I found my explanation of gravity displayed simply in the rings in the water of a puddle. As the rings remained constant whilst the area increased, that showing as gravity reduced; the frequency remained constant.  The reverse being true if viewed in descent from the circumference to the core, a distance of one octave of seven increasing steps.   Gravity is then the energy of an octave, this where the note setting the frequency is the circumference of the object creating it; in our instance, the earth. We then see two octaves, one above the surface of the earth and another below, from molten rock to a few degrees above absolute zero all is one system.

A system balanced between centrifugal force causing expansion, and energy’s desire to increase frequency to that of the big bang, thus causing contraction.

   The advice of my father those many years ago, to look for the simple solution is then the backbone of my theory. Einstein gazed into the heavens, whilst I contemplated rings in a puddle. In that puddle I proved the weight of a particle is constant, what gravity is, the weather, spin and so much more. But where I lack is the wow factor, no vast fortunes spent, just a marble dug up in the garden, its origin unknown, and a puddle freely supplied by nature, But more than this, it is the ability to understand what others see and ignore.

                                                   Magnetism

I wrote as to dusting iron filings on a card above a magnet to view lines of flux. We label a magnet as having a north and south pole. All these ideas though are superficial, easy answers to teach semi- interested students. A magnet is a conduit, a diode that allows resonance to only flow one way. It has no poles, no north or south, it may have physical ends, but these are only an in port, or an out port, or the end of the effect as we can see it. For resonance to flow it must have a destination, where that destination is set by the size of that creating it. That is what we can know, why is a totally different animal.

       What is resonance? Some will try to give an engineering type answer and show this, that and the next. Others may try the spiritual path and tell you it’s the harmony of external forces to the bits inside you, you never knew you had.  I tell you what I find and understand, what resonance is and why? I understand what it does, but as with life, what it is, is a mystery.

    Amundsen was the first to plant a flag on the South Pole. That point though is only notable as being one of the two only points where we can detect where a harmonic resonance enters or exits on its travels creating a ring.   If I then stand on the South Pole and look up, I am looking into a North Pole. When you limit your view to a short piece of metal, cardboard and iron filings, you miss the correct picture. You see poles as some fixed thing where in reality they are only points on a circumference or pieces of broken pipe. In reality poles as places of some conclusion is incorrect. As I researched and understood more, the words of Werner Heisenberg best summed it up, “You have to know a great deal to know just how little you know”

                 

                Quantum mechanics

        Quantum mechanics is the master scale of all other scales, it is the scale of energy required to change a harmonic from one octave to another. A scale of seven gradients where to understand the scale, requires we know the frequency of the note or harmonic at its base. Given that, with 2N² we could calculate the span of the gradients of that scale. Simply put it is the scale of the energy required to be added to water to increase its energy from the point of freezing, to that of boiling. Quantum mechanics though is not confined to just one octave; it is the scale of the addition and subtraction of energy over the entirety of all harmonics created by the big bang. As mans view only consist of only about 3% of the 29% of matter existing, so gets restricted to a small wedge in the sphere that is space. We then see things disappear or see effect where causes are unknown, and believe in some form of magical property. When man doesn’t understand he invents.

    Some of quantum mechanics is then partly invention. Answers to problems where issues are not understood. Answers man wishes to believe in, answers that do not disrupt his pet beliefs. When Einstein gave us E=MC² man seemed to avoid the ability to equate that to frequency, my answer as to why this is so being demonstrated be Darwin, it pains him to do so. I discovered simple answers to questions man has answered in the past by beliefs and notions. For science to understand this has to change; that though is not in man's comfort zone.

      On my travels through this journey of discovery I found no one willing to take E=MC² and transpose that to M=E/ C² to find what can be found when not restricted. What can be found when a mind is free to embrace the marvels and simplicity of nature.

                                               Energy

        When I wrote of the tune of a property, I showed that a substance has a resonance. With water I demonstrated this as a fixed point. To make any change, energy had to be added, this in steps. These steps complied with the simple musical scale Doh Ray Me. What this demonstrates being the void is a resonance; place where energy wishes to be; a place in tune and at rest.

   The only law I found able to be used in this scenario was the oldest law of all, nothing is perfect. With the void as Doh, the rest of the scale now becomes created as harmonics.   I tried to find a way to find in what note our universe existed. First I considered it being near the top of the scale; that seems unlikely. The reason for that is our universe seems too stable. I then believe we probably are at the start as in Ray or Me.

  What this also shows is a repetitive system where the more I understand the fraction of what can be understood, I find how much more there is to understand.

   What then is energy? Energy is an ability that when ripped apart endeavors to return to what it was. Energy is all there is. I may talk of functions as in speed etc. But these are only ways of moving or modifying energy.   Energy only comes in bits! No. The energy in our system able to create a function comes in bits. To then suggest that is the extent of energy is false.

   To believe you can understand all the mysteries of energy, or to create limits for energy shows a misunderstanding as to what energy is. As energy is everything a belief you understand is a belief you understand everything and is the belief of one seldom correct.

                                       

                                      Some solutions

     I can now look at some of the mysteries and show how easily they fit and can be solved. First being the one that has baffled science since 1801, Thomas Young started the confusion by showing light could be a wave rather than the particle it was believed to be. In this, the confusion arises due to not understanding what a particle actually is.

Science considered the particle as some form of solid, a tiny indestructible thing. When confronted by finding it could act as a wave rather than a particle, caused confusion.  

    The general consensus was the big bang was the start, whatever that created was then new and original. What I found was the big bang was not the start, nor was it a change of octave; it was just a change of one note. That is as far as I could travel; the span of one note in a system likely to contain, or have contained three octaves of seven notes.

         In this theory a particle is a quantity of energy spinning at a specific frequency. If then we view how that particle reacts, it can be observed as a vibration, wave, frequency, sphere or lump of stuff. All essentially being the same thing. It can then be seen as a particle, or dependent on added energy, go up an octave and be beyond what we can detect. If we take water as an example, water started as gas, it then became a liquid or a solid, dependent on the conditions it encounters. Energy in the form of particles is exactly the same. A quantity of energy spinning at a specific frequency is a particle. If now we view this frequency or particle as a musical note in a simple scale as Doh. Doh to change in music cannot change to be any other note; to change it must change an octave. The particle must do the same and change up to travel unseen by us to its destination.

     When energy is added to a particle it will heat up. When the particle changes down, it will cool. This it does by heating up or cooling whatever it hits. The Suns rays travel through space without causing any reaction, only when particles have to transform to matter do they do so by adding or subtracting energy to whatever they hit.

    What also becomes more obvious being the particle is a harmonic.  A point where energy is most balanced. It has a specific temperature and is in a phase we would call plasma. By reducing energy the particle drops from that phase to being a gas, maintains as a gas whilst energy is removed until it reaches its next resonance and becomes a liquid.   That is then what a particle is, a resonance of energy. What this shows being this is a new direction for science, one where to me it seems obvious.

     I viewed a lady balance a ball on top of a dome where after a time the ball toppled. To this she stated this seemed to violate Newton’s law of motion. A law stating a body at rest requires some external force to move it. Zou Yan 23000 years ago would not have been surprised. He knew perfection does not exist. She did not factor in those so many avenues for imperfection. Her conclusions then are not valid.

     Heisenberg stated you could tell the speed of a particle, or where that particle was, but not both. True! That particle is energy at its specific frequency, and will travel through space as some other thing, at a higher frequency. It will then travel in straight lines due to that being the path of least resistance. When the particle is stopped by matter, it must then change back to its original form as matter. As this is a reduction of energy, it must loose that energy in the form of heat to do so. If then we can detect the particle we know where it is, but if the particle is supplied with extra energy and changes up an octave, it is beyond our detection. Einstein had a very similar theory as to the photon being a particle or a wave. As per Einstein -- "According to the assumption to be contemplated here, when a light ray is spreading from a point, the energy is not distributed continuously over ever-increasing spaces, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta that are localized in points in space, move without dividing, and can be absorbed or generated only as a whole." It has all been there to see.

     That paper from Einstein being first published in 1905. Did I base my work on that? No. I discovered that gem whilst searching for something else. I am though glad I didn’t find this sooner and had to struggle and fumble for all these years. I believe that struggle gave me a better understanding.

    There are so many more implications of this simple theory. I give you this as a start. How does the electron circle the proton? I introduced you to the theory of the particle as being some mix of pressure and energy where both have several facets or functions. We now understand the electron is not some hard lump of stuff whizzing round the proton. It is a spinning quantity of energy balanced by the speed of its spin, against that of its desire to reduce. It then is unlikely to rotate around in shells as little lumps of stuff. More likely, it is a specific quantity of energy an octave higher, rotating around the proton. As Einstein wrote more eloquently than I, “it is a finite number of energy quanta moving around without dividing.”

    The position of this rotation will be set by 2N² as a place of harmony. Not only will 2N² determine the spacing between shells, it will also determine, as found by Bury and Bohr, the electrons within the shells. I was taught a different theory; one stating the electron will orbit around the proton at differing angles creating these shells. This is not so. Energy will orbit in thin rings around the proton; every system we view shows this to be correct. As with the dome and balanced ball all systems of this nature must end up creating the same form. That ball will always topple. All we have to do is look at other system for the likely answers.

    This though is not the complete answer; we have not factored in speed and pressure. If each shell has the same energy, then each shell must hold energy at different speeds so avoiding detection.  Each shell is then an area of different speed and pressure, an area displaying its captivated energy in whatever frequency that energy is. As man is matter he can only view part of that energy, the part that creates solid matter.

        In this theory I can demonstrate that the harmonics of the original frequency continue to reduce in defined steps from the frequency of the big bang as to that of the electrons orbiting the proton. We see it as the rings of Saturn and the planets around the Sun. We see it in the formation of galaxies. What we miss in galaxies is age. They are but infants in creation; it will take hundreds of billions of years for them to mature to be perfect rings. The marvel of how long it will take being dictated at the very beginning from that first sphere of energy, and the simple formula of 2N².

    Every natural rotation, from that of the particle, to that of a galaxy, conforms to that harmonic set on day one. It is all in tune to the same music of that first beat. In this theory the natural action of most things is to spin, as such space has a central core. What this must create is variations in the rate of spin. This is what Hubble saw, he saw most stars receding. He saw the spin of a galaxy on a larger scale and did not understand the motion.  One not equal, some stars moving faster than others whilst the majority were moving away.  

     Hubble could only see a wedge of a sphere and believing as he did, gave his conclusions. He then did not see the sphere that is space, the variations of the speed of spin, or the issues of trying to understand a system that we see but a fraction of.

       One of the things in physics I have ignored so far, and I almost left out, being the property known as entanglement. Entanglement is where two units of energy are created one being charged positive, the other negative. This nature creates as a temporary balance mechanism.  Science now states these have ‘spin’; one is up, the other down. We separate these incomplete particles and change the spin of one. At that instant of time, the other particles spin reverses; this is regardless of distance of separation.

      In this theory, space consists of spheres of spinning energy where these spheres are clones of one another. If when an area becomes unbalanced, energy can create spheres of differing polarity; Leonard Susskind’s little fish, to fill this need for balance. These are not space spheres; they are nature’s temporary fix. One is plus whilst the other is minus, their addition together being zero. I now take the mathematics and theories of James Clerk Maxwell and John Henry Poynting. My understanding of this being, a system of this nature must be considered as a closed loop, the size of this loop has little to do with the speed of change or distance.  One particle regarded as north, the other south. This creates a closed loop, a loop that is under stress. In such a loop, the time taken to change the polarity of part of that loop is almost the time taken to change the entirety of the loop. Simply put, the loop effectively functions as a solid hoop, this as part of the structure created when the particles were first formed. Regardless of the distance of separation, and however far you extend that hoop, the hoop was created at the manufacture of the particles and remains. If then I move one part of that hoop, it must move the entirety of the hoop. The only constraint here being this loop must not be broken in some way.

    When we channel our focus too sharply in one specific direction, we miss the bigger picture. I showed the theories of Maxwell and Poynting, a theory exclusively used in the transmission of electricity, a side-shoot. It is though with that side-shoot I used to create a theory perhaps solving entanglement. This was not my brilliance; all I had was that ability of being able to look at the bigger picture; to observe from a different angle.

                                  THE WRAP UP

      To understand the basics of the natural system is the acceptance that most things are beyond our ability to know with absolute certainty. Most things we think are correct are only correct from our perspective. We see light and colour and believe they are real, but they are only real by the use of a receptor, the eye, to detect; and are only real in that form as to how these frequencies excites the eye and what our brain creates from those signals. The bat uses a similar method, using frequencies of a different level to excite its brain receptors in order to paint its picture.

      We also found the time and speed of our system is not the same as that of the early universe. Matter was created within a narrow wedge of frequencies, as part of a cycle of frequencies, this, where time and speed is what we see them as being.  In our view, time was always going forward at a consistent rate, and we believed we were correct. We now understand it was not always like that. Time though displays the vagaries of the system.  

     It though is just the conclusion of a system forever stuck and unable to progress.  Our universe being but a warp in that vastness of what we considered as being nothing, just a blemish in its structure. From Zou Yan to Darwin and Heisenberg all finding it was minor change causing advancement, not perfection. We see it with π not quite fitting; we see it in a system never quite being in balance. This though is nature’s way of change. Not only is it as Darwin found, in the species, but it is in all things. Richard Feynman told us to do the best we can. We may fail at times, but if it is our best, that failure is not a mistake if we learn from it. It becomes a beacon to guide us to a better direction. Feynman also tells us to accept there are things we do not know. Trying to find out is not an admission of stupidity. On the contrary, it shows a desire to gain knowledge.

     A mistake of ageing is we believe education is only for the young. We, as we grow older, should know it all. As such, we nod in agreement to arguments not understood, and accept those that seem flawed as not to look ignorant. Feynman taught me something more. I added his piece on education. Though I agree with the sentiments shown, I found his English in some parts, not polished.  What that displayed to me being, these were Feynman’s words, not some English done by editors. He taught me not to hide my flaws, they are who you are. I have then declined offers of editing services to polish my work. As with nature, it is what it is.

    I have though, to find an ending to what is essentially an endless road with countless junctions. I ask that you accept there will be flaws in this, what can only be described as an incomplete theory. Add to it, subtract from it. I came at this like some child loosed in a sweet shop. I tasted everything. I sat on some; I poked some. Some I spat out. Adults told me I would be sick and was being silly. Who cares! I am a child and these are sweets.

     That was my method, no barriers or preconceived notions, no fear of getting details a bit wrong, or ego restricting me.  I chose what was good from that on display, discarding what was not. To me it seems we all get these abilities of the child to enquire dampened and destroyed. Most of us become as sheep, quite happy to follow leaders who tell us that is what we should do. Order may be a good thing, and required for a species of the community, but when order stifles thought, reason or advancement, it exceeds its boundaries.

      In the writing of this theory when I reached a contradiction, I had to accept my path was wrong and try another. Here is the mistake that led to Einstein changing his theory, to then find it never quite fitted again. Here was the Higgs field. Yes! It seems OK, but something says its not. l had to let the theory lead me. Trying to fit square pegs in round holes, never quite works. Sooner or later, it ends in failure.

    Believing you can solve things using one discipline will never work. What I found in this theory is that there seems to be no beginning or end. Just systems that seem to continue on without end. Why has physics not moved forward? The answer must be fear. Fear of being proven incorrect so barring a path to discovery. It is also difficult to accept that your life's work based on accepted ideas might turn to dust. When we look at Einstein and company, they had an open field, today that is not so. No one wishes to question past ideas, as such, physics is in this state of stagnation. There is the fear of looking foolish, getting it a bit wrong or stepping on toes. But not for me, I have no castle to defend, nor do I want one. Science cannot progress if the benchmark of understanding is absolute proof. Most of my theory cannot be shown that way. Man developed the power of his mind to understand just how things fit. In this theory most things become simpler to understand. I don’t have mysteries as to why things can be in two places at the same time. No cat in a box being neither alive nor dead. This theory is rather mundane, just simple boring steps. It is though in a place beyond where we can go.

    This theory is also a theory where I believe my main accomplishment is a new direction to view things from. My clumsy fumblings being but a new angle for others to view, and from there modify and expand. What I found as the most significant fact of this theory, the more I discovered the more I found it tied into conventional physics. The particle being a wave is old. As to its being in multiple places at the same time, then you think of a sound wave, and understand its everyday stuff. My reason for studying Richard Feynman was this. He was a man who understood he was missing something. He was a rebel. He picked locks, He played the bongo drums; he painted. He was not afraid to try.  Perhaps though, what he lacked was nature. No dirt under his nails, or caddis fly larvae under rocks in his river. His directional focus and supreme talent may have restricted his view of the simplicity of nature. If he were alive today, I hope he would have approved of this ordinary farmers sons rendition of nature’s tune.

   What I found each time I read this over I discovered something new. I am alone in this virgin territory. A garden whose flowers demand you see them. It was not where to start, but where to stop, became my issue. I became reluctant to peek around the next corner lest some other sad little daisy demanded to be noticed.  Each time I read this over, other than grammar and punctuation, subjects I don’t regard as subjects where I excel, I always found other points needing addressing. New angles emerge, ones I had missed before.  So yes! You will find flaws, not only in grammar, but also in content. That is how it should be. The quote “Those who believe they are never wrong, are seldom correct” perhaps sum it up. I then believe the bones of my theory are probably correct; the flesh though is sparse, and much more is needed to fill her voids.

     In saying that, I can only give my interpretation, my vista, and my river of rocks and countless diversions of flow. To believe my work is accurate in detail would be folly. My aim was to understand, and I believe I have achieved that.  My journey was a journey of general direction. It is not that sparkling beauty of that river rushing through the hills of my childhood. Not that crystal clear water where all could be seen, but her murky waters in her final meanderings to reach the sea. This, I believe will be the fate of all searchers, paths that seem clear and ends possible, get more and more dark and murky as the end nears.

     But my journey was not in vain. I understand the limitations and am not confused as to a cat’s state of existence. I understand what nature allows me to understand. I understand so much more, and had to alter and correct the beliefs of a lifetime. There is though so much more to find, I then expect readers of this to find their own angles, see new things and understand more than the basics shown here. I had to stop because I understood there is no ending, no ultimate answer or final full stop. I tried for five years for that last dot on the page before I realised I was trying to disprove my own theory.

    There is no end, there perhaps was no beginning, there is only energy where if it spins a system starts, does its thing, fades and is absorbed, or in our instance the atom formed, another modification, another change. The possibilities are endless.

  That I show a new direction is what I hope for. The hope we can move past these corseted minds full of unyielding notions that restrict the chance of change. My work is then open to question and change. That is how I not only wish, but require it to be. This has to be just a rough outline of a new direction. There are so many new avenues to explore, so many new problems to be found. My ideas are free to be argued, free to be adapted. I guard no castle. We build from foundations laid by others. To go forward we must continue building, and if we believe it necessary, demolish unsound sections, to build again. My only caveat as to the use of my work is as I supplied it free, if adaptions are created, those too must be supplied free on the internet. It was never my intent to convince anybody of my theory. What was my intent was to find a theory that satisfied me. To that end, this satisfies.  “It is a fact that when we make decisions in our life, we don’t necessarily know that we are making them correctly; we only think that we are doing the best we can and that is what we should do.” (R.P. Feynman)

                                                Alastair Mac Gregor

As a postscript, I would like to thank all the lecturers who allow their lectures to be freely available on the internet or by other easily accessible means. Other than Richard Feynman the two contributors whose ideas and teachings influenced me most being Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking. There are though so many more. I viewed several series of lectures on quantum mechanics by various presenters. Watching these explanations of the subject, I knew science was mistaken; the nature I knew does not work that way. They taught me why quantum mechanics could not be that.

    I gained no pleasure in finding the work of others incorrect. They at least tried and believed in their findings. They helped advance science, though perhaps not in the way they would have wished. As Feynman states as to what is taught, passing exams as the goal is a poor excuse for education.

     I would also like to thank the late Peter Higgs. Part of the reason I started all this was due to being uncomfortable with the idea of the Higgs field. Mistakes are then not mistakes if used as paths to drive you forwards in other directions.

    My final person who helped by molding my understanding is my father.  He taught me not to have airy fairy ideas, or add complicated notions. He taught nature is not complicated; it is just a tangle of simple things. You will find I use the lines from others, in whatever form that took, or ideas I have found as helpful. I show these, and use these as a means of showing when we restrict our view; we restrict our ability to understand.

     No man is the holder of all understanding, no man ever will be. I then thank those; both named and unnamed who added to my understanding. I would also like to state that the entirety of my theory is my own personal view and findings, these discovered by trial and error.

    I did try for help on the odd occasion, but thankfully had no meaningful response. Other than that, no help sought, or blessings asked for. My theory is what it is. It is for my reader to accept or reject. For me personally, I am satisfied that it is enough to display a new direction. That direction though, not being one revolving around the importance of man, his domain, beliefs and/or superstitions.  

                               Alastair Mac Gregor    

                 Dedicated to the memory of Mary Geddes.        

                        Never forgotten, despite them.