BUILD THE UNIVERSE With "Andrew PEpeS". "APEs"

THIS WAS GOING TO BE  A TEA BREAK BOOK, BUT IT IS TOO LONG TO BE CLASSIFIED AS SUCH

6th January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

BUILD THE UNIVERSE With "Andrew PEpeS". "APEs".

I am going to explain to you how you can see and plot a 7D 'Entity' (that happens to be what the real world 'Reality' is really made of).

Note:- [This 7D 'Entity' is actually lots of 7D units put together of our 'Reality].

I will explain how to do this in one framework, using my framework (chalk board, paper, framework where "Reality" is).

If you want to know how to do this you must follow the concepts I put forward carefully and without violating them. In other words you can not contradict yourself, your thoughts or logic. (To avoid this you should be using what I call 'Simplified Complex Logic' from my previous book, but for now use your own thoughts).

To do this I will define certain things that must not be violated or confused.

Normally if someone wanted you to draw a 1D line, you would use a piece of paper, a chalk board, or some other device where you can represent your 1D line. You would draw the line between 2 points that you have chosen and call it a 1D line.

Concept 1.
Anything in 'Reality', the real world that we live in and experience is never less than 7D.

Note:- [Even though at this stage you do not know what 7D looks like, you have to accept you do not know everything about the Universe you live in, so it is a possibility].

Concept 2.
There is a difference between 'Reality' and Abstract when one tries to construct anything.
'Reality' is and always will be 'Reality' and Abstract is never and will never be 'Reality'.

Note:- [only for those that will not be confused, the only exception, is the 'Reality' of the construction of that Abstract thought in your mind, that creates that Abstraction]. If you didn't understand it, ignore it for now.

Concept 3.
'Reality' can be built from one basic fundamental (Universal) dynamic 'Entity' that can create and represent the whole of the Universe and everything in it.

Note:- [Even though you don't know what the possibilities are, there is at least one "Entity" that will do it].

Concept 4.
Because 'Reality' is complex (and you can construct it in one framework, when you have finished understanding it), you must in the meantime build it up in layers or levels from the bottom up.
In other words every level or layer going up (the scale) will be a simplification of the level or layer (scale) below it.

Note:- [You must always remember that things get more complex as you go up the scales (not down the scales) even though we are simplifying them as we go up).

This is one of the reasons that people find it difficult to understand (everything) because they are taught that the process is the other way around, and believe that things get more complicated as you go down the scales. If you start with something that you think is simple (but in "Reality" it is not) it is bound to end up not fitting "Reality" and seeming complex.

Concept 5.
Your mind is such that it is governed by your rules, it's genetics and it's environment, and as such it will attempt to understand things in such a way that it can put it into context with what it thinks or believes it already knows.

Therefore you should not read beyond any section that you do not understand or accept as a possibility, you can continue reading a section even if you do not believe what I am saying and you will await judgement later.

You can not read any further if your mind contradicts too many things before it has understood the concepts.

The reason for this is that it will throw out every good thought that you have learnt with what it considers bad thoughts.
Therefore, so as not to lose the good thoughts up to the point that you understood them, you must stop and come back to the reading later. This way your mind will only keep the good thoughts and only throw out the bad thoughts, as and when they come up.

Everyone has done this at some point, because it is part of human nature.
Think of something you were trying to learn, I remember trying to learn my times tables as a child and I thought I was doing ok, I learnt a few, then suddenly I came across someone in my class and he knew them up to his 16's times table, backwards, forwards and inside out! suddenly my mind says to me I am useless at maths I can not do that! All of a sudden I stopped learning my times tables and forgot most of what I had already learnt. Your mind doesn't want to do anything that it thinks is too hard, this is mainly because your mind decided it was too hard, not that it actually was.

Note:- [That does not mean you can do, and understand everything, but you can do far more than you give yourself credit for].

Concept 5.
Have you understood everything so far? You don't have to accept it just yet, just understand it.
Continue but don't think like I used to, and I thought "its not worth reading again when I don't understand something, too much effort and a waste of my time". Keep going at your own pace.

Concept 6.
I can't introduce all the concepts at the beginning because you will not fully understand them until later, so I will introduce them as and when I think it may be of benefit to you.
Even if you did understand them it would end up a boring read, and you want to have a bit of fun on the way.

Concept 7.
If we are going to form some framework where we are going to place this "Reality" in, then that framework must distinguish between what we place in it (when we place something in it) to represent something "Real", from when there is 'nothing' there.
This sounds obvious, but the word 'nothing' means too many things to different people, so I distinguish 'nothing' to mean 'null' absolutely nothing.
No "Reality" can come from absolutely nothing.

Note:- [If you believe anything can come from nothing, then you simply don't know what the makeup of your 'nothing' is constructed from].

Concept 8.
I know, I said I wasn't going to put in lots of concepts at the beginning, so it wouldn't be boring, but as I was writing the section below I had to put in this one as well.

You can not have 2 "Entities" of the basic fundamental units of "Reality" overlap the same space in your 7D framework or pass through each other in the same space.

Note:- [Although this sounds simple it is not, as this only applies to the lowest levels, as you will see later when we add the additional missing dimensions, (things will be able to pass through each other at the higher scales)].

Now back to our representation of a 1D line.
It is only a real representation of what we think is a 1D line, we all know it is not an absolute 1D line because we have used a pencil, ink pen or some other form to represent it so we can see what we are doing.
But we are led to believe that it can represent what a mathematician would call a 1D line, an abstract line in 1D (and it does), but we make the mistake that a 1D line can represent some form of "Reality".
It can only represent some form of a "Reality" if, and only if some form of "Reality" lays along that abstract line such that it makes sense of "Reality". (A bit of a mouthful).

Now suppose that in "Reality" only certain bits of "Reality" ever touched that abstract line that we have proposed, and the rest of that line just stayed empty (null) and abstract?

If most of the line had something touching it, then this would be a good simple representation of a real line to represent (let us say for the moment 1 dimension) of that "Reality".
If on the other hand if most of the line was empty and had hardly anything of "Reality" crossing that line, then this would be an extremely poor representation of that "Reality".

This is the point at which I say that the scale of any "Reality" has to be considered.

If we are looking at large scales objects etc. we can simplify the "Reality" and say that something lays on that line or that something travels along that line or crosses that line (as paths, points, intersections or any other mathematical or physical thing we want), but as I said before this is an oversimplification of "Reality" and does not hold true when you go down the scales. It is something far more subtle and nothing "Exists" in "Reality" along any abstract line continuously.
I will explain as I go along and build the framework, but for now just accept that this may be true as a possibility.

Although I said at the beginning that you have to build from the bottom up, I am going to do so by dismantling from the top down, so that you can see how I end up building it back up.

Note:- [I do this because of your mind needs something that it can relate to before it can proceed].

Now let us reconstruct our 1D line again but his time I want you to imagine that we are really constructing something "Real" and not something abstract. To do this we will use a model and create a line from it to represent an abstract line, but we know it is really a multidimensional line that we are actually constructing, that is going to represent our abstract line.

Everyone will probably like a different example so you can pick one of the following.
Imagine you have a ball (sphere) and at each end you are going to pull out a line of substance from it, the two poles, at the same time. Whatever it is made of, you want to pull out of it any even amount of substance that will go in a straight line and be uniform along its whole length. No lumps, no different diameters no bends etc.

Eg. Sucking water along imaginary straws from the poles, or gas along pipes.
Extruding plastic, putty, or playdough from opposite ends (the holes are perfectly round).

The sphere is like a perfect spinneret of a spider that has holes on both poles..
..in this example I can think of the spider producing the perfect thin thread of its web and it is uniform as it comes out and new thread is created inside the spinneret without any new material entering the sphere, the spinneret uses its own internal material to create the thread. No thread is created from nothing. The thread is not solid through and through because it has a structure, even though I don't know the exact fine structure, I know it has null spaces in it.

I like the last one, now whatever is in the ball or sphere of your choice, it will not be depleted before you finish your line. Whatever is in your sphere is all that your "Reality" is created from (once depleted there is no more).

Now as you extrude your line you can call it a 1D line, but you know your substance has other dimensions, even though you don't know at this stage how many are really in it, (you have already been taught simplistically that it has at least 3 space and 1 Time dimensions).

Now I ask you how much of your substance of "Reality" is actually touching that imaginary line of yours at the lowest level (scale) you can think of or imagine?

Remember I have already told you that an abstract 1D line does not hold all of "Reality" along its length, but this does not matter as most of you will say there are lots of holes, spaces in it (between the gas molecules, the water molecules, between the atoms of the plastic etc. or even the thin threads of the spiders webbing that has been extruded. Even the physicists can not deny that there is space between the electrons and the protons in the nucleus of the atoms). (I need not go down any further down the scales at this stage).
The substance can still be uniform along its length, and so we can use this representation as one of our dimensions of space, as long as we remember it is not really representing anything in detail.

What we actually produced was a 7D object.
An 'Extruded 1 D line in 7D not a 1D line, but actually a 7D line in your imaginary 3D world (your chalk board, paper, framework where you think reality is) to represent our 1D.

This line that we have created I call a 'higher dimensional 1D line' in which we ignore the details of "Reality" such that we can simplify our understanding of our "Reality" and our mathematics to represent such a "Reality". This is what everyone normally calls 1D in 3D space.

From this we now need to build a second dimension, but there is a problem, as I have to introduce another concept, it stems from "Simplified Complex Logic" that I mentioned earlier.

Concept 9.
You can not have any apparent paradoxes in your answers or thoughts that contradict each other. If you do, then one or both of them is ultimately wrong at the level that you are considering.

Eg. You can not state that something is round and it is also square at the same time, without clarifying it, such that it makes sense which ever way you explain it, it must be made true and state clearly under which circumstances that it can be made true, or you have to negate one or both of your ideas or concepts. Holding onto two opposing concepts and believing that both or either one is true is incorrect thinking.
You have to know that one or the other is true, and why it is true, and why the other is not true, or that you have to accept that you don't know what is true, therefore you can not make a statement and believe it to be the truth, otherwise your are deluding yourself.
("Simple Complex Logic" states this).

I hope that wasn't too much for you, if it was, go and have a cup of tea and come back later.

Now let us consider the second dimension. We normally say the second dimension is at right angles to the first. Which is fine for our simple 3D model, but I know it is not fine because there is an apparent paradox that has already been created, because I want to create a 7D framework.

Where does the first dimension end?

In the Abstract it goes on forever in both directions. (Normally called infinity).

But I know from our representation of our "Reality" that we have constructed so far, that my thread is only so long, because I only extruded it so far (remember our "Reality" for now is just the sphere and everything in it and the thread that has been extruded).

Note:- [Do not confuse yourselves by trying to include the whole Universe yet, we just want to represent a bit of the Universe first, (to get a better model of "Reality") and I will show you how to include the rest of the Universe and sort out infinity later].

I have made our representation finite at the moment, but what if I decide to extend the thread as much as I want to?
How long can I extend the thread towards infinity at both ends?

Well the answer has to be not to infinity, because eventually my thread will get too long and it will not have the same properties that I gave it in the beginning. It will eventually get thinner and thinner, and the spaces will get more and more and it will not end up representing anything like my "Reality" that I started with. (Different width, different density, different size dimensions along the thread etc. etc.). Not a good representation of anything "Real" any more.

So what can I do to get rid of this problem?

Simply get rid of infinity, that sounds simple, but how do I know that if the "Real" Universe was large enough I could not travel along this line that I have created and never come to the end?

At this stage I do not, but I can fix it in such a way that I can travel along my real world line and never come to the end.

I can do that by simply bending my line such that both infinities join together to form a circle.
I do not know at this stage how long this line really is but it does not matter yet.

I have created an extruded 1D line (really 7D) and bent it into the second dimension.

Note:- [I have not created our normal simple 2D yet, I call a 'higher dimensional 2D plane', all I have created is a 1D world in the second dimension, I call a 'higher dimensional 1D line' (you have to remember it is not really 1D or 2D it is really 7D).

I can only travel at present along my line, I can not travel outside of my line anywhere in the rest of the 2D plane (normal 2D).
To do this I must apply the rule that was first mentioned, and move at right angles to the 1D line to create a 2D plane, (just to remind you, I called my line (thread) a higher dimensional 1D line).

To do this you simply extrude, like you did at the beginning with your thread, but now the shape is in the form of a thread, in the form of a circle (and not in the form of a sphere), so we have a bit of a problem.

How do you extrude it at right angles?

You have to pull every bit of "Reality" of the thread so that it creates 2 opposite directions, and if you so desire, keep pulling in a straight line to infinity in both directions.

Now this should create another apparent paradox in your minds.

This is because you have been led to be believe that you will end up with a flat normal 2D plane, like a piece of paper.
This would only be true in simplistic terms only if your abstract line was representing something real (which it doesn't, except at the higher dimensional level) and it would be a simple task, like drawing a line on your paper and pulling every point above the line upwards at right angles and every point opposite that point in the other direction downwards at right angles.

You will end up with what is considered a 2D piece of paper and all points on that paper are in the 2D plane. This is fine for your simplified 2D, where you are ignoring the details of "Reality".

But I have told you that "Reality" does not "Exist" on this abstract 1D line (only parts of it), and it is also true that "Reality" does not lay "Exist" in this simplified and incorrectly created 2D plane either.

Note:- [Not enough of "Reality" lays on this plane at the lower levels, this is why things end up apparently appearing from nowhere in and out of these simple dimensions, because they don't represent the other missing dimensions].

What has to be done is really extrude the 1D line that we represented as a circle (really 7D) into a (truer) 2D plane (still 7D). This is not a flat piece of paper.

What?

Don't panic yet.

I have a very good visual spatial IQ so I will explain it a bit more for those that are having difficulty. The end result will be the same. Just follow step by step as it gets simplified.

Firstly we started with a sphere of our "Reality" and we pulled it in opposite directions. Simple.
One line plus the little sphere in the middle.
We tried to pull it to infinity and ended up creating a circle by joining the infinities. OK.
1D infinities disappear when traveling along it in any direction around the circle. Simple.
But to get a better picture in your head I said that there was only so much substance in the sphere to start with and when it runs out that is it (as far as our little bit of our "Reality" universe was concerned). So to simplify, image that we pulled it all out, into the thread, and only the thread was left, no sphere any more, just a uniform loop or hoop, that now represents our 1D line.

Now we want to do the pulling again at right angles, but this time we still need to pull in 2 opposite directions.

Imagine that your thread is in the shape of a hoop made from pastry, so your abstract 1D bent line (circle) is laying on the table, and runs down (is in) the middle of the pastry.

Now if you want to be simple, just get your roller and flatten the whole thing, and make what you thought was 2D. You will realise that you have not extruded the pastry correctly, because you pulled, extruded the line (pastry) outwards in all directions outside the circle and inwards in all directions towards the centre of the circle. You may have been clever and joined the centre bits and created your normal simplified 2D plane, one giant disc of pastry on the table at the centre.

This is not pulling, or extruding in opposite directions (to infinities in opposite directions). The pastry is uneven and all over the place. A mathematician would have done it more sophisticatedly, but would have still come up with the same incorrect extrusion. The simplified 2D plane that hasn't been made correctly to represent anything better.

How should you pull, and extrude a 1D line into a 2D plane?

Firstly you have to use the same rules you used in the first place to create the first dimension, don't change the rules and expect it to work.
If the loop, hoop or pastry has been bent into the 2D plane (on our table), I have already said that this was not 2D but an extruded 1D line (bent, curved) in the 2D plane.

Note:- [The circle is in the 2D plane, but not in the way you are thinking of].

You must not destroy the 1D line (which is really 7D), but you must use this as your base line, the beginning again if you like.
So your "Reality" was first constructed from the original ball or sphere of material. Which was then transformed into your loop of material. (Circle).

You must now consider this to be your source of "Reality" and extrude this into another plane.
But instead of one thread, 1D coming out of each end, you now need to pull it out like a sheet 2D from each end, such that it conforms to your original rules, all the material that comes out of your loop (circle) must be uniform, the same thickness, the same density, the same size as you pull it out, to your desired length.
And that nothing is created from nothing, when all the material is extruded from your loop then you are left with a uniform 2D plane, with directions that will go in opposite directions to infinity, if the Universe went there.

The only true way to extrude this circle to conform to these rules is upwards off the paper and downwards below the paper (pulling, stacking circles one on top of the other).
You will end up with a tube of material, that is uniform throughout. This is the beginning of a "Real" 2D world. You can now travel along any 1D direction (any circle) that lies anywhere in this 2D plane (tube) that you have created in both directions to infinity if you like, and if you so desire you can travel at right angles to these 1D lines (circles) in opposite directions that would travel to infinities if they existed, and there was sufficient material to make them exist.
But yet again I must remind you that this abstract circular tube is not a good representation of the real "Reality" because our real ""Reality" is still 7D. It is still just an over simplification.

Some of you must be thinking what a mess. But don't despair it gets simple from now on.
We want to get rid of these annoying infinities, that keep cropping up and making a mess of our model. To do this all we have to do is go up a scale and not look too deeply at the fine details yet, and we can come back to them later when everything makes simple sense.

What does our 2D (7D tube) look like from a higher scale, i.e. shrink everything so you do not see much detail?

Note :- [The original tube went up above the table and down below the table, when you go up the scales you have to turn it (90⁰) and place it back on the table for convenience].

It just looks like our original straight 1D simple line (thread) that we created in the first place from the sphere. It is an extruded 2D plane in one dimension going in opposite directions to infinity.

How do we get rid of the infinities?

The same as before, we use the same rules, we bend the line such that the 2 infinities join together to form a new loop (circle) in the now 3D plane, but remember as before this is not a 3D plane, it is an extruded 2D plane bent in the third dimension. Same rules remember.

Now we have the true 2D plane, we can travel in any direction to infinity in all four directions and never come to the end.
We will always be in the 2D plane tube (surface if you prefer) (7D again, must be boring repeating this all the time).

I would like to change the subject here to give people a rest, but I will go on to say the same old thing, this again is an over simplification of "Reality" as again our "Reality" does not lay mainly in this abstract plane either. There are no models that I know of that use this 2D plane for any simplification to help the readers, except mathematics and I don't want to go there.

So let us proceed to the stage of creating a simple 3D model of our "Reality" that will make more sense than what has passed so far. (Go and make another cup of tea if you prefer).

So what we have so far is a doughnut shape (empty inside) of our "Reality". But I must remind you that this is not true 3D, it is an extruded 2D world bent into the simplified 3D plane, (like we extruded the 1D line (circle) into 2D plane, we just extruded the 2D (circle, tube) into the 3D simplified plane.

We normally think of this as a 3D volume that extends in all three directions to infinity, but our extruded 2D volume (doughnut, torus) does not extend into this abstract 3D world (yet). Our "Reality" still only "exists" within the doughnut, (torus).

The simplified abstract 3D does not represent anything in detail that exists in this simplified 3D volume. I call this a 'higher dimensional 3D volume' in which we ignore the details of "Reality", such that we can simplify our understanding of our "Reality", and our mathematics to represent such a "Reality". This is what everyone normally calls a 3D volume of space.

I haven't created a (truer) 3D volume yet, everyone is thinking a sphere is a 3D volume, and it is, in the simplified model that everyone normally uses. This is not a good representation of our "Reality".

I know I have said it before.
So now for the first finale to create a truer 3D object in what will eventually become a 7D object in our simplified 3D framework.

Let us now do the final extrusion, extrude the 2D and then curve that extrusion in the 3D plane to eliminate the infinities again.

This is done simply as before using the same rules, (no messing about and rolling the doughnut into a sphere and thinking it is true 3D).

Go to a larger scale as before so you don't confuse your self with the details, the doughnut torus is just a ring a circle again, put it on the table and extruded upwards off the table at right angles and downwards below the table at right angles to the table.

Note :- [That this is now an extruded 2D plane extruded into a higher dimension 3D volume, it, as before, is not a true 3D volume yet, until we bend it, and get rid of the infinities].

You now have the same conditions as before, you can move in both directions to infinity.
To get rid of the infinities you just bend it one more time and join the opposite infinities, just the same way as you did before. you get the truer 3D object.

What on earth have we created?

What does it look like?

Unless you have a very high visual IQ you may not have noticed that it is still a doughnut shape at the large scale, where you would normally place your 3D sphere and call it 3D.

So what have we achieved after all that, it doesn't sound simple at first, just one big complication.

But this shape will explain everything in simpler terms as we start to use it correctly, and it will represent our "Reality" better.

If you want you can now squeeze the doughnut and turn it into a spherical object, that you normally consider your "Reality" that "exists" in this simple 3D object, but just remember that it is not solid like a sphere, it is full of threads, it was made from all the material that created all the threads at the beginning, (bent in all those ways we bent them).
Only the threads actually "Exist" as part of "Reality" the rest is null, empty null space.

*[Having re-read this, the above it is not exactly true, but it will be, when we look at the second model later, so I am not going to confuse you further to then get back to the above again later]. 25th August 2014.*

Apart from a few of you that now have a headache, you may think this has not really helped you.
Some of you may see that things at a low level scale, like atoms can not react with nothing (null space) but must react with the rest of "Reality", which is the threads only. The space down there is not our normal simple 3D volume. This kind of simplicity does not work down there because that is not a good representation of "Reality". You have to include the detailed structure of the "Real" space at these levels.

The other reason that you may think that it has not helped is because we have not talked about Time yet!

Concept 10.
Time is not a separate independent dimension. You are all shouting yes we know. SpaceTime.

How is space time created?

6th January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

BUILD THE UNIVERSE With "Andrew PEpeS". "APEs".

I am going to explain to you how you can see and plot a 7D 'Entity' (that happens to be what the real world 'Reality' is really made of).

Note:- [This 7D 'Entity' is actually lots of 7D units put together of our 'Reality].

I will explain how to do this in one framework, using my framework (chalk board, paper, framework where "Reality" is).

If you want to know how to do this you must follow the concepts I put forward carefully and without violating them. In other words you can not contradict yourself, your thoughts or logic. (To avoid this you should be using what I call 'Simplified Complex Logic' from my previous book, but for now use your own thoughts).

To do this I will define certain things that must not be violated or confused.

Normally if someone wanted you to draw a 1D line, you would use a piece of paper, a chalk board, or some other device where you can represent your 1D line. You would draw the line between 2 points that you have chosen and call it a 1D line.

Concept 1.
Anything in 'Reality', the real world that we live in and experience is never less than 7D.

Note:- [Even though at this stage you do not know what 7D looks like, you have to accept you do not know everything about the Universe you live in, so it is a possibility].

Concept 2.
There is a difference between 'Reality' and Abstract when one tries to construct anything.
'Reality' is and always will be 'Reality' and Abstract is never and will never be 'Reality'.

Note:- [only for those that will not be confused, the only exception, is the 'Reality' of the construction of that Abstract thought in your mind, that creates that Abstraction]. If you didn't understand it, ignore it for now.

Concept 3.
'Reality' can be built from one basic fundamental (Universal) dynamic 'Entity' that can create and represent the whole of the Universe and everything in it.

Note:- [Even though you don't know what the possibilities are, there is at least one "Entity" that will do it].

Concept 4.
Because 'Reality' is complex (and you can construct it in one framework, when you have finished understanding it), you must in the meantime build it up in layers or levels from the bottom up.
In other words every level or layer going up (the scale) will be a simplification of the level or layer (scale) below it.

Note:- [You must always remember that things get more complex as you go up the scales (not down the scales) even though we are simplifying them as we go up).

This is one of the reasons that people find it difficult to understand (everything) because they are taught that the process is the other way around, and believe that things get more complicated as you go down the scales. If you start with something that you think is simple (but in "Reality" it is not) it is bound to end up not fitting "Reality" and seeming complex.

Concept 5.
Your mind is such that it is governed by your rules, it's genetics and it's environment, and as such it will attempt to understand things in such a way that it can put it into context with what it thinks or believes it already knows.

Therefore you should not read beyond any section that you do not understand or accept as a possibility, you can continue reading a section even if you do not believe what I am saying and you will await judgement later.

You can not read any further if your mind contradicts too many things before it has understood the concepts.

The reason for this is that it will throw out every good thought that you have learnt with what it considers bad thoughts.
Therefore, so as not to lose the good thoughts up to the point that you understood them, you must stop and come back to the reading later. This way your mind will only keep the good thoughts and only throw out the bad thoughts, as and when they come up.

Everyone has done this at some point, because it is part of human nature.
Think of something you were trying to learn, I remember trying to learn my times tables as a child and I thought I was doing ok, I learnt a few, then suddenly I came across someone in my class and he knew them up to his 16's times table, backwards, forwards and inside out! suddenly my mind says to me I am useless at maths I can not do that! All of a sudden I stopped learning my times tables and forgot most of what I had already learnt. Your mind doesn't want to do anything that it thinks is too hard, this is mainly because your mind decided it was too hard, not that it actually was.

Note:- [That does not mean you can do, and understand everything, but you can do far more than you give yourself credit for].

Concept 5.
Have you understood everything so far? You don't have to accept it just yet, just understand it.
Continue but don't think like I used to, and I thought "its not worth reading again when I don't understand something, too much effort and a waste of my time". Keep going at your own pace.

Concept 6.
I can't introduce all the concepts at the beginning because you will not fully understand them until later, so I will introduce them as and when I think it may be of benefit to you.
Even if you did understand them it would end up a boring read, and you want to have a bit of fun on the way.

Concept 7.
If we are going to form some framework where we are going to place this "Reality" in, then that framework must distinguish between what we place in it (when we place something in it) to represent something "Real", from when there is 'nothing' there.
This sounds obvious, but the word 'nothing' means too many things to different people, so I distinguish 'nothing' to mean 'null' absolutely nothing.
No "Reality" can come from absolutely nothing.

Note:- [If you believe anything can come from nothing, then you simply don't know what the makeup of your 'nothing' is constructed from].

Concept 8.
I know, I said I wasn't going to put in lots of concepts at the beginning, so it wouldn't be boring, but as I was writing the section below I had to put in this one as well.

You can not have 2 "Entities" of the basic fundamental units of "Reality" overlap the same space in your 7D framework or pass through each other in the same space.

Note:- [Although this sounds simple it is not, as this only applies to the lowest levels, as you will see later when we add the additional missing dimensions, (things will be able to pass through each other at the higher scales)].

Now back to our representation of a 1D line.
It is only a real representation of what we think is a 1D line, we all know it is not an absolute 1D line because we have used a pencil, ink pen or some other form to represent it so we can see what we are doing.
But we are led to believe that it can represent what a mathematician would call a 1D line, an abstract line in 1D (and it does), but we make the mistake that a 1D line can represent some form of "Reality".
It can only represent some form of a "Reality" if, and only if some form of "Reality" lays along that abstract line such that it makes sense of "Reality". (A bit of a mouthful).

Now suppose that in "Reality" only certain bits of "Reality" ever touched that abstract line that we have proposed, and the rest of that line just stayed empty (null) and abstract?

If most of the line had something touching it, then this would be a good simple representation of a real line to represent (let us say for the moment 1 dimension) of that "Reality".
If on the other hand if most of the line was empty and had hardly anything of "Reality" crossing that line, then this would be an extremely poor representation of that "Reality".

This is the point at which I say that the scale of any "Reality" has to be considered.

If we are looking at large scales objects etc. we can simplify the "Reality" and say that something lays on that line or that something travels along that line or crosses that line (as paths, points, intersections or any other mathematical or physical thing we want), but as I said before this is an oversimplification of "Reality" and does not hold true when you go down the scales. It is something far more subtle and nothing "Exists" in "Reality" along any abstract line continuously.
I will explain as I go along and build the framework, but for now just accept that this may be true as a possibility.

Although I said at the beginning that you have to build from the bottom up, I am going to do so by dismantling from the top down, so that you can see how I end up building it back up.

Note:- [I do this because of your mind needs something that it can relate to before it can proceed].

Now let us reconstruct our 1D line again but his time I want you to imagine that we are really constructing something "Real" and not something abstract. To do this we will use a model and create a line from it to represent an abstract line, but we know it is really a multidimensional line that we are actually constructing, that is going to represent our abstract line.

Everyone will probably like a different example so you can pick one of the following.
Imagine you have a ball (sphere) and at each end you are going to pull out a line of substance from it, the two poles, at the same time. Whatever it is made of, you want to pull out of it any even amount of substance that will go in a straight line and be uniform along its whole length. No lumps, no different diameters no bends etc.

Eg. Sucking water along imaginary straws from the poles, or gas along pipes.
Extruding plastic, putty, or playdough from opposite ends (the holes are perfectly round).

The sphere is like a perfect spinneret of a spider that has holes on both poles..
..in this example I can think of the spider producing the perfect thin thread of its web and it is uniform as it comes out and new thread is created inside the spinneret without any new material entering the sphere, the spinneret uses its own internal material to create the thread. No thread is created from nothing. The thread is not solid through and through because it has a structure, even though I don't know the exact fine structure, I know it has null spaces in it.

I like the last one, now whatever is in the ball or sphere of your choice, it will not be depleted before you finish your line. Whatever is in your sphere is all that your "Reality" is created from (once depleted there is no more).

Now as you extrude your line you can call it a 1D line, but you know your substance has other dimensions, even though you don't know at this stage how many are really in it, (you have already been taught simplistically that it has at least 3 space and 1 Time dimensions).

Now I ask you how much of your substance of "Reality" is actually touching that imaginary line of yours at the lowest level (scale) you can think of or imagine?

Remember I have already told you that an abstract 1D line does not hold all of "Reality" along its length, but this does not matter as most of you will say there are lots of holes, spaces in it (between the gas molecules, the water molecules, between the atoms of the plastic etc. or even the thin threads of the spiders webbing that has been extruded. Even the physicists can not deny that there is space between the electrons and the protons in the nucleus of the atoms). (I need not go down any further down the scales at this stage).
The substance can still be uniform along its length, and so we can use this representation as one of our dimensions of space, as long as we remember it is not really representing anything in detail.

What we actually produced was a 7D object.
An 'Extruded 1 D line in 7D not a 1D line, but actually a 7D line in your imaginary 3D world (your chalk board, paper, framework where you think reality is) to represent our 1D.

This line that we have created I call a 'higher dimensional 1D line' in which we ignore the details of "Reality" such that we can simplify our understanding of our "Reality" and our mathematics to represent such a "Reality". This is what everyone normally calls 1D in 3D space.

From this we now need to build a second dimension, but there is a problem, as I have to introduce another concept, it stems from "Simplified Complex Logic" that I mentioned earlier.

Concept 9.
You can not have any apparent paradoxes in your answers or thoughts that contradict each other. If you do, then one or both of them is ultimately wrong at the level that you are considering.

Eg. You can not state that something is round and it is also square at the same time, without clarifying it, such that it makes sense which ever way you explain it, it must be made true and state clearly under which circumstances that it can be made true, or you have to negate one or both of your ideas or concepts. Holding onto two opposing concepts and believing that both or either one is true is incorrect thinking.
You have to know that one or the other is true, and why it is true, and why the other is not true, or that you have to accept that you don't know what is true, therefore you can not make a statement and believe it to be the truth, otherwise your are deluding yourself.
("Simple Complex Logic" states this).

I hope that wasn't too much for you, if it was, go and have a cup of tea and come back later.

Now let us consider the second dimension. We normally say the second dimension is at right angles to the first. Which is fine for our simple 3D model, but I know it is not fine because there is an apparent paradox that has already been created, because I want to create a 7D framework.

Where does the first dimension end?

In the Abstract it goes on forever in both directions. (Normally called infinity).

But I know from our representation of our "Reality" that we have constructed so far, that my thread is only so long, because I only extruded it so far (remember our "Reality" for now is just the sphere and everything in it and the thread that has been extruded).

Note:- [Do not confuse yourselves by trying to include the whole Universe yet, we just want to represent a bit of the Universe first, (to get a better model of "Reality") and I will show you how to include the rest of the Universe and sort out infinity later].

I have made our representation finite at the moment, but what if I decide to extend the thread as much as I want to?
How long can I extend the thread towards infinity at both ends?

Well the answer has to be not to infinity, because eventually my thread will get too long and it will not have the same properties that I gave it in the beginning. It will eventually get thinner and thinner, and the spaces will get more and more and it will not end up representing anything like my "Reality" that I started with. (Different width, different density, different size dimensions along the thread etc. etc.). Not a good representation of anything "Real" any more.

So what can I do to get rid of this problem?

Simply get rid of infinity, that sounds simple, but how do I know that if the "Real" Universe was large enough I could not travel along this line that I have created and never come to the end?

At this stage I do not, but I can fix it in such a way that I can travel along my real world line and never come to the end.

I can do that by simply bending my line such that both infinities join together to form a circle.
I do not know at this stage how long this line really is but it does not matter yet.

I have created an extruded 1D line (really 7D) and bent it into the second dimension.

Note:- [I have not created our normal simple 2D yet, I call a 'higher dimensional 2D plane', all I have created is a 1D world in the second dimension, I call a 'higher dimensional 1D line' (you have to remember it is not really 1D or 2D it is really 7D).

I can only travel at present along my line, I can not travel outside of my line anywhere in the rest of the 2D plane (normal 2D).
To do this I must apply the rule that was first mentioned, and move at right angles to the 1D line to create a 2D plane, (just to remind you, I called my line (thread) a higher dimensional 1D line).

To do this you simply extrude, like you did at the beginning with your thread, but now the shape is in the form of a thread, in the form of a circle (and not in the form of a sphere), so we have a bit of a problem.

How do you extrude it at right angles?

You have to pull every bit of "Reality" of the thread so that it creates 2 opposite directions, and if you so desire, keep pulling in a straight line to infinity in both directions.

Now this should create another apparent paradox in your minds.

This is because you have been led to be believe that you will end up with a flat normal 2D plane, like a piece of paper.
This would only be true in simplistic terms only if your abstract line was representing something real (which it doesn't, except at the higher dimensional level) and it would be a simple task, like drawing a line on your paper and pulling every point above the line upwards at right angles and every point opposite that point in the other direction downwards at right angles.

You will end up with what is considered a 2D piece of paper and all points on that paper are in the 2D plane. This is fine for your simplified 2D, where you are ignoring the details of "Reality".

But I have told you that "Reality" does not "Exist" on this abstract 1D line (only parts of it), and it is also true that "Reality" does not lay "Exist" in this simplified and incorrectly created 2D plane either.

Note:- [Not enough of "Reality" lays on this plane at the lower levels, this is why things end up apparently appearing from nowhere in and out of these simple dimensions, because they don't represent the other missing dimensions].

What has to be done is really extrude the 1D line that we represented as a circle (really 7D) into a (truer) 2D plane (still 7D). This is not a flat piece of paper.

What?

Don't panic yet.

I have a very good visual spatial IQ so I will explain it a bit more for those that are having difficulty. The end result will be the same. Just follow step by step as it gets simplified.

Firstly we started with a sphere of our "Reality" and we pulled it in opposite directions. Simple.
One line plus the little sphere in the middle.
We tried to pull it to infinity and ended up creating a circle by joining the infinities. OK.
1D infinities disappear when traveling along it in any direction around the circle. Simple.
But to get a better picture in your head I said that there was only so much substance in the sphere to start with and when it runs out that is it (as far as our little bit of our "Reality" universe was concerned). So to simplify, image that we pulled it all out, into the thread, and only the thread was left, no sphere any more, just a uniform loop or hoop, that now represents our 1D line.

Now we want to do the pulling again at right angles, but this time we still need to pull in 2 opposite directions.

Imagine that your thread is in the shape of a hoop made from pastry, so your abstract 1D bent line (circle) is laying on the table, and runs down (is in) the middle of the pastry.

Now if you want to be simple, just get your roller and flatten the whole thing, and make what you thought was 2D. You will realise that you have not extruded the pastry correctly, because you pulled, extruded the line (pastry) outwards in all directions outside the circle and inwards in all directions towards the centre of the circle. You may have been clever and joined the centre bits and created your normal simplified 2D plane, one giant disc of pastry on the table at the centre.

This is not pulling, or extruding in opposite directions (to infinities in opposite directions). The pastry is uneven and all over the place. A mathematician would have done it more sophisticatedly, but would have still come up with the same incorrect extrusion. The simplified 2D plane that hasn't been made correctly to represent anything better.

How should you pull, and extrude a 1D line into a 2D plane?

Firstly you have to use the same rules you used in the first place to create the first dimension, don't change the rules and expect it to work.
If the loop, hoop or pastry has been bent into the 2D plane (on our table), I have already said that this was not 2D but an extruded 1D line (bent, curved) in the 2D plane.

Note:- [The circle is in the 2D plane, but not in the way you are thinking of].

You must not destroy the 1D line (which is really 7D), but you must use this as your base line, the beginning again if you like.
So your "Reality" was first constructed from the original ball or sphere of material. Which was then transformed into your loop of material. (Circle).

You must now consider this to be your source of "Reality" and extrude this into another plane.
But instead of one thread, 1D coming out of each end, you now need to pull it out like a sheet 2D from each end, such that it conforms to your original rules, all the material that comes out of your loop (circle) must be uniform, the same thickness, the same density, the same size as you pull it out, to your desired length.
And that nothing is created from nothing, when all the material is extruded from your loop then you are left with a uniform 2D plane, with directions that will go in opposite directions to infinity, if the Universe went there.

The only true way to extrude this circle to conform to these rules is upwards off the paper and downwards below the paper (pulling, stacking circles one on top of the other).
You will end up with a tube of material, that is uniform throughout. This is the beginning of a "Real" 2D world. You can now travel along any 1D direction (any circle) that lies anywhere in this 2D plane (tube) that you have created in both directions to infinity if you like, and if you so desire you can travel at right angles to these 1D lines (circles) in opposite directions that would travel to infinities if they existed, and there was sufficient material to make them exist.
But yet again I must remind you that this abstract circular tube is not a good representation of the real "Reality" because our real ""Reality" is still 7D. It is still just an over simplification.

Some of you must be thinking what a mess. But don't despair it gets simple from now on.
We want to get rid of these annoying infinities, that keep cropping up and making a mess of our model. To do this all we have to do is go up a scale and not look too deeply at the fine details yet, and we can come back to them later when everything makes simple sense.

What does our 2D (7D tube) look like from a higher scale, i.e. shrink everything so you do not see much detail?

Note :- [The original tube went up above the table and down below the table, when you go up the scales you have to turn it (90⁰) and place it back on the table for convenience].

It just looks like our original straight 1D simple line (thread) that we created in the first place from the sphere. It is an extruded 2D plane in one dimension going in opposite directions to infinity.

How do we get rid of the infinities?

The same as before, we use the same rules, we bend the line such that the 2 infinities join together to form a new loop (circle) in the now 3D plane, but remember as before this is not a 3D plane, it is an extruded 2D plane bent in the third dimension. Same rules remember.

Now we have the true 2D plane, we can travel in any direction to infinity in all four directions and never come to the end.
We will always be in the 2D plane tube (surface if you prefer) (7D again, must be boring repeating this all the time).

I would like to change the subject here to give people a rest, but I will go on to say the same old thing, this again is an over simplification of "Reality" as again our "Reality" does not lay mainly in this abstract plane either. There are no models that I know of that use this 2D plane for any simplification to help the readers, except mathematics and I don't want to go there.

So let us proceed to the stage of creating a simple 3D model of our "Reality" that will make more sense than what has passed so far. (Go and make another cup of tea if you prefer).

So what we have so far is a doughnut shape (empty inside) of our "Reality". But I must remind you that this is not true 3D, it is an extruded 2D world bent into the simplified 3D plane, (like we extruded the 1D line (circle) into 2D plane, we just extruded the 2D (circle, tube) into the 3D simplified plane.

We normally think of this as a 3D volume that extends in all three directions to infinity, but our extruded 2D volume (doughnut, torus) does not extend into this abstract 3D world (yet). Our "Reality" still only "exists" within the doughnut, (torus).

The simplified abstract 3D does not represent anything in detail that exists in this simplified 3D volume. I call this a 'higher dimensional 3D volume' in which we ignore the details of "Reality", such that we can simplify our understanding of our "Reality", and our mathematics to represent such a "Reality". This is what everyone normally calls a 3D volume of space.

I haven't created a (truer) 3D volume yet, everyone is thinking a sphere is a 3D volume, and it is, in the simplified model that everyone normally uses. This is not a good representation of our "Reality".

I know I have said it before.
So now for the first finale to create a truer 3D object in what will eventually become a 7D object in our simplified 3D framework.

Let us now do the final extrusion, extrude the 2D and then curve that extrusion in the 3D plane to eliminate the infinities again.

This is done simply as before using the same rules, (no messing about and rolling the doughnut into a sphere and thinking it is true 3D).

Go to a larger scale as before so you don't confuse your self with the details, the doughnut torus is just a ring a circle again, put it on the table and extruded upwards off the table at right angles and downwards below the table at right angles to the table.

Note :- [That this is now an extruded 2D plane extruded into a higher dimension 3D volume, it, as before, is not a true 3D volume yet, until we bend it, and get rid of the infinities].

You now have the same conditions as before, you can move in both directions to infinity.
To get rid of the infinities you just bend it one more time and join the opposite infinities, just the same way as you did before. you get the truer 3D object.

What on earth have we created?

What does it look like?

Unless you have a very high visual IQ you may not have noticed that it is still a doughnut shape at the large scale, where you would normally place your 3D sphere and call it 3D.

So what have we achieved after all that, it doesn't sound simple at first, just one big complication.

But this shape will explain everything in simpler terms as we start to use it correctly, and it will represent our "Reality" better.

If you want you can now squeeze the doughnut and turn it into a spherical object, that you normally consider your "Reality" that "exists" in this simple 3D object, but just remember that it is not solid like a sphere, it is full of threads, it was made from all the material that created all the threads at the beginning, (bent in all those ways we bent them).
Only the threads actually "Exist" as part of "Reality" the rest is null, empty null space.

*[Having re-read this, the above it is not exactly true, but it will be, when we look at the second model later, so I am not going to confuse you further to then get back to the above again later]. 25th August 2014.*

Apart from a few of you that now have a headache, you may think this has not really helped you.
Some of you may see that things at a low level scale, like atoms can not react with nothing (null space) but must react with the rest of "Reality", which is the threads only. The space down there is not our normal simple 3D volume. This kind of simplicity does not work down there because that is not a good representation of "Reality". You have to include the detailed structure of the "Real" space at these levels.

The other reason that you may think that it has not helped is because we have not talked about Time yet!

Concept 10.
Time is not a separate independent dimension. You are all shouting yes we know. SpaceTime.

How is space time created?
For the mathematicians and the physicists don't spout mathematics. I want the Mechanisms and the reasons why and how space bends like it does.
Just remember no apparent paradoxes allowed.

There is more than one Time dimension, I know most of you can't envisage more than one Time dimension correctly, so what are the chances you are going to accept 3 or more time dimensions?

Do not give up, it is straight forward when it is explained one step at a time.
Go and make another cup of tea.

Concept 11.
There is another dimension that we have not mentioned at all yet. I know 2 cups of tea. Maybe something even stronger (a stronger cup of tea).

What is this missing (I call it the missing 5th Dimension) dimension?

It is the dimension of "Reality" itself.

What on earth does that mean?

Well before I tell you what it is, I said that all of our representation of our little Universe of "Reality" was contained in the original sphere as we built our little bit of "Reality", and that once the material in the sphere was all consumed, then there was nothing else left.
So what ever this thing that this "Reality" is created from, it is made from the contents of this original sphere. The contents of the sphere is different from the outside abstract 3D world that we have created it in.
So we now have to define something so that we will be able to distinguish this "Reality" from the Abstract nothingness (null space).
We can do this by not even knowing at this stage what the material is really made of, but know that it must not violate any of our previous rules, remember don't change the rules.

Note :- [You can always add rules later, if it improves your model of "Reality", but any rules you add must apply from the bottom up with no exceptions, they can not be selective].

We said that the material (lets call them the threads for the moment) all came out uniform, same dimensions, no lumps, same density. We must keep these rules.
The material already had all the dimensions required to create our "Reality" inside the sphere before we started to create our model of "Reality" from it.
We slowly teased out the first 3 dimensions from it, so what is left is to tease out the rest of the other dimensions that are required to create a realistic representation of the rest of our model.

We will tease out the dimensions of time later, so I don't want to include them here now.

What is left?

Obviously the rest of the dimensions that are required to complete the realistic model of our "Reality".

Do we know any of them?

Yes I do know at least one. And it is the density of "Reality" itself. I.e. The density of the threads that are uniform and never changing, at the thread level.

One of the missing dimensions is the Density of Space itself (the Real space). I call the missing 5th Dimension.

All this means at the moment is that anything that lays on our original abstract 1D line, our abstract 2D plane or abstract 3D volume has a uniform density at any point that this "Real" thread touches at any points along of our abstract lines in our simplistic 'higher dimension 3D volume'.
Remember only the threads represent our "Reality" so we must know where they are, so we can eventually track what they are doing to the rest of our "Reality".
(Cause and effect if you want, if there is nothing there then there will be no cause and no effect).

Creating a slightly better model than we have so far, for our little bit of "Reality".

Now I think we need to back track to the beginning again and refine our model so we can create objects that are more realistic, than we have done so far.

This is now a simple process, no headaches, keep the same rules. Do everything the same again, but this time we will mark each abstract space with a bit of our 5th Dimension that "Exists" at that point in space in that abstract space.

Unless you have all gained a very high visual spatial IQ with all the tea you have been drinking, you may find it difficult to do, all in one go.

So, this will help me explain it to the rest, and it will also help when we add the additional time dimensions later. (Don't think about any time dimensions yet).

Let us start again with our abstract 1D line that we started at the very beginning.
I said that "Reality" does not lay on this line continuously, and only parts of the line will overlap with part of our "Reality" (the 7D threads). Simple concept.

All we have to do is mark some points on it and say they have "Real" dimensions at those points that relate to our "Reality" in some way.

At this point we don't really know how these points are really distributed and how they are going to interact, but you have to remember another concept that I have not mentioned yet and that is concept 12.

Concept 12.
States "A solution should be as complex as required but not more so". (This is a variation on what I believe something Einstein once said, he said something to the effect that a solution should not be more complex than it needs to be). My statement goes one further and says effectively that what appears to be the simplest solution is not necessarily the simplest solution and needs to be apparently more complex to explain everything more accurately.

So let us not complicate anything further than we need to do at this stage.
Let us make it as simple as we can by just saying that "Reality" is distributed evenly along this abstract line at regular intervals.
In this way we can give this line some substance so that we can create a 'higher dimensional 5th Dimension' of density. We are using the same rules, we created the 3 higher dimensional space dimensions from the lower dimensional threads (although the threads were 7D to begin with we teased out some form of higher dimensional space from them).

Now the thread itself is extruded and bent in all the dimensions as before, so when we finish extruding and bending as before we will still end up with our new 3D volume structure that you eventually rolled up into a sphere like structure in our simplistic 'higher dimensional abstract 3D volume'.
This time though we have added the missing 5th dimension of density at the low level, which was constant and uniform at that level.

What have we now got?

Well it is an improvement on our previous attempt because before we only teased out the 3 space dimensions and our final sphere had no substance to it, (well it did all the time we were building it, because I said it was 7D) but remember we were looking at the abstract building first that did not contain any density. It was a mass of threads, that we did not specify what they were made of at that time, we still do not know yet, but that does not matter yet, because now we can represent something in our new model that has substance, even at our abstract level.
Our original abstract model had no substance, it was imagined inside the framework of our imaginary threads.
Since we have now given our threads density, all the lines and points that our imaginary simplistic 3D volume crosses, now also, can have an abstract density to correlate to our "Real" model world of "Reality".

So now our new model can have 3 dimensions of space and a dimension of Density which at present is uniform. This is still very short of a decent model of "Reality" but you will see it is easy to fix, to make it more realistic.

If you wanted to, you can pretend to weigh it, you could even squash it into different shapes, if it didn't buckle at the fine structure level it would still be a uniform density, but if you managed to squash some of it more in one place, and the threads at that part of the structure came closer together, then you would have varying higher dimensional densities.

Well although this sounds brilliant, because it now looks and feels like something real, you have forgotten our rules, you can not add any rules that do not apply at the bottom levels. The rules at the bottom must make the object by themselves.
Not like the simplistic abstract 3D volumes that we have at present, where we just add arbitrarily matter here and there and energy here and there, from nowhere, at our convenience, which we pick out of thin air (meaning from nothing).

The model must be the model, and it must be complete, we can ignore bits of it to make it easier to follow if we wish, but nothing is going to be created from nothing, ever.
Just follow the rules up and down the scales when the model is finished.

How can we change the model from within, so we do not have to manhandle it from the outside, so that it can do by itself what we where attempting to do at the higher level?

Well unfortunately we have to go back to the beginning again and explain "Time" and add some more dimensions of time as I will explain. It is simple, so do not fret. If you have got this far then the rest should become a lot easier.
Maybe another cup of tea. I hope no one really hates tea, if you do, substitute tea for some other drink.

First question on time is "What is time"?

Simply put it is a measure of change, hopefully not too many people are going to argue at that.
The problem is going to come when you try and measure it, and everyone is going to disagree with what we are trying to measure, and how we are going to measure it.

This will cause many apparent paradoxes with time. You must remember: - make it as complex as required but not more so. So eliminate all paradoxes.

How on earth do you do that?

Simple, just state that time is just a change of something, and make it as simple as possible.

What have we got so far with our model?

Well we started changing it by pulling it about in the first place (the original sphere), we didn't change any rules at that time, but I said we don't want to interfere with the model once it is finished, we want the model to create our reality for us without us interfering with it.

So the logical thing is that we must make time from the sphere, as one of our original rules was that the whole of our "Reality" is contained in the sphere and we must tease out all the dimensions necessary to represent a realistic "Reality" from our little model (which obviously has to include time).

So let us start again with our original sphere and tease some time out of it. Remember we are still going to repeat everything as we did before, when we teased the other dimensions out, so the end result will be as before, but with time added in some way. Remember don't change the rules, and keep it simple, until you need to make it more complex.

Note :- [Also remember in case some of you are in a hurry to build the whole Universe, we are still working on a small piece of it, at the moment].

Firstly where is all the time, before we tease it out. It is obviously in the sphere, it is not going anywhere, it is not going to disappear, it will not be depleted (just like the other dimensions), until we have teased all the material out. When we do tease it out, that will be all the time there is in the sphere.

Brilliant we have got nowhere fast! This is because I deliberately did not tease any time out of the sphere. The reason I did this is to bring to your attention that there is more than one definition of time. Time can measure different things.
One definition of time is that it is eternal, it is there forever and it will never run out or disappear. It doesn't matter if you believe this or not at the present moment in time (your definition of time).
What is important is that I stated that all time was in the sphere, and for our immediate model this is true, so I define something I call Primary Time (¹Time) it is eternal, fixed forever (for now inside the sphere).

If this ¹Time actually "Exists" as such, it is not changing, so should we really call it time?

Well considering no one knows what I am going to say next, I am going to say yes, because I am going to make it change using the other dimensions of time that I am going to introduce.

What is the conclusion of all my past comments on time and space so far using my model?

Well if you used "Simple Complex Logic" or common sense, then you would have concluded that all time, and space "Exists" all the time in my model, and as no more can be created from 'nothing', and nothing disappears. It all comes from the sphere.

This does not seem to help, as how can we now create anything that changes?

Well back to simplicity, all we need to do, is to just add a dimension called time, that is different to the dimension of time we just defined previously. I will define as Secondary time (²Time).

What has this time got to do?

It must change things in our model according to all the rules set out already.

As we do not know yet how to measure this change, we have to make it simple and say whatever this change is, it is going to be uniform, unchanging along its axis along the threads, as before, like all our other dimensions.
For the time being it is going to be the driving force that is going to extrude our threads for us. Remember we don't want to interfere, we want the model to follow our rules and create the time that we will eventually understand, that represents our realistic model of our "Reality".

What speed is the model extruding our other dimensions for us?

Well yet again we don't really know (well I have some good ideas, but then I created the model).
At this point it is not necessary to know the actual speed because we want to keep it simple, and have already said it is going to be constant, and uniform like all the other dimensions.

We can chop this speed of extrusion (only at the moment) to any interval we wish and call it a unit of Time (²Time), that measures the change of things in our model of "Reality".

Note :- [We will not keep this arbitrary unit of ²Time, as the model progresses it will create its own time slices].

Now a lot of you will be getting anxious and annoyed that I can't simplify it more, and I keep repeating this, but as I explained before, your mind will chuck it all out, if you rush it, and as no one in the last few thousand years has explained everything succinctly yet, with reference to the understanding of time, so that everyone can simply understand it, so (you should be patient) and you should give me a bit more time.

So this ²Time is simply measuring and controlling the rate at which the 1D original abstract straight line is coming out of our sphere and creating our mini bit of "Reality" bit by bit.

What is it actually measuring?

Well it can only be measuring what it is actually creating in this time, which at present is a 1D line, it is not measuring anything in any other dimension, because it is not creating or moving in any other dimension yet.

Therefore the 1D line has its own time dimension, the rate at which it is changing or moving.
I know I said let it work on it's own, but just image for now that you are traveling along this line on one of these bits of "Reality", part of the thread if you like, we said bits of it had a density and you can pretend you are a unit point density moving in time and space along this imaginary 1D line, with the line, you would be traveling at the speed that the line was moving along. You are not going to interfere, you are just there for the ride, and to measure the time against the background of your simplistic arbitrary higher dimensional 3D volume, wherever the line takes you.

Now as before, we want to do with this new dimension of time, that we have just defined, the same thing we did with all the other dimensions, that were teased out before. Namely, after extrusion we want to eliminate the infinities at the opposite ends, by bending this dimension on itself to create the normal circle, like all the other dimensions so far.

Bending time! Yes, depending which end of the sphere you decided to ride out of, as it was extruded, you would have been traveling forwards along that 1D line or in the opposite direction backwards in time. Now as the 1D line was bent, the time line went with it, it is still part of the original material and does not separate from the rest of space and density.

You can if you wish to temporarily think in the old fashioned way (you normally would think), and say to yourself "if there is no time then, there is no space". But why bother when you are supposed to be following the same rules of the model.

Time and space are intrinsically linked together, and I am going to show you a way that you will never forget, once you piece it together.

Note :- [This ²Time that I mentioned going forwards or backwards, is not the normal time travel, yet, it is both positive, just going in opposite directions, I will explain time travel, when you understand normal time better].

Once we have joined the 1D line into a circle, you will notice you can now travel at a constant speed around your newly created 1D world forever in both directions, and never come to the end of time, no infinities, remember the same rules for all dimensions.

Now let me summarise for those who like a little summary on the way. We have a 1D abstract line with constant density at regular intervals of "Reality" and we are moving at a constant speed around our 1D line, but what is the time?

Well we have defined two times, one ¹Time is eternal and never changing, meaning what is is. The mini Universe that "Exists" in our model the whole thing, just "Exists" forever, but it is being changed constantly by the second ²Time at a constant rate.

Obviously at this moment not much is happening as you are just whizzing around and around getting dizzy and not doing much else.
Well this is not surprising because you are still moving in only 1D.

Now let us extrude the 1D as before into the second dimension. Simple, we did it before nothing has changed.
You will notice that if you keep to the same rules, which you must. You have created part of the second dimension, but you are still traveling along the original 1D circle, not within the new extruded bit.
But we said we must use the same rules and not interfere with the model so...

How did we get the circle to extrude into the second dimension?

The only way that it can extrude is to do what we have done before, we must give it the same properties we gave the first dimension, a rate of extrusion above and below the circle, again for simplicity at this stage at a constant uniform speed. This will now become a new time once more. It will still have the properties of density etc. but this time you can imagine you are traveling on a point of "Reality" along the second dimension, again, I know boring, in opposite directions to infinity.

Now you can't just jump from your original traveling on the 1D line (circle) and go traveling on your newly created 2D plane. You don't actually "exist" yet in this model, that will come much later.
You are just there for the ride to see how this model, on its' own, is going to create your "Reality" without interference from you. The model must do it by it's own rules without interference.

Well maybe you need some help?
You need a friend to help you track where all these bits of "Reality" are going.
You have created this original abstract 1D circle that you are traveling on around and around, but you have also created lots and lots of circles above and below this circle in the second plane, all parallel to your 1D line. The extrusion which is an imaginary tube at present is just lots of circles one on top of each other, that make up the tube, the number of circles is irrelevant at the moment (it will not be when the model progresses) again for simplicity, each circle is identical by design, and following the same rules.

Now you have some help from your friend, they can imaginarily travel along another bit of "Reality" of constant density on any one of these other circles. It does matter at the moment which one he picks, they are all the same traveling at the same time as yours and in the same direction as you.

Now what have you concluded from this?

You should conclude, because you are neither allowed to interfere, you are just observers. That you can not measure any change between you, you are both traveling in the same direction at the same speed, and at the same distance apart. Therefore by our original definition, that 'time is a measure of some kind of change', even if we do not know what kind of change we are measuring, therefore there is no change to measure, therefore there is no time for you and your friend.
Oh no, that's boring!, but you forgot something if you were not concentrating. We also defined ¹Time which is never changing, it "Exists" therefore you can still "Exist" in "Reality" in our model, but you only have ¹Time, and no other change in time (²Time).

Note :- [We are still at the beginning, and only considering 1D time still, you and your friend will be able to have some fun later as we add more time for you to move about in, be patient].

Now let your friend have some fun first, and now let him ride along the second dimension at right angles to you. Better still get a third friend, I know if you are reading this you may not have many friends left, but just imagine again.
Now your other friend can ride any similar circle to you that is parallel to you. It does not matter how far away they are from you, if you are traveling in the same direction, remember keep it simple, there will still be no ²Time for either of you. The distance will always be the same. You just both "Exist" in ¹Time in limbo forever. Don't worry I will save you later.

Your other friend on the other hand is moving at right angles to you, towards what he believes to be infinity, because we still have not bent the second dimensional ring (circle) yet to join the infinities.

Now what is his time?

Well it has to have all the same properties as you and your friends, the same rules.
Therefore he must have a ¹Time in which he "Exists" forever like you, even if he has no ²Time.
But he is moving in a different direction to you both. Therefore by definition we can measure a change, even if we don't know the full details of that change.
This was the definition of our original time. Therefore he must have a time that we can measure, from your position to his, he is moving away from you. He has a time (²Time).
But you must recall (if you can't I am going to remind you), your other friend had no ²Time with you, unchanging.

How can that be?

There can be only one conclusion, and that is that there are different time coordinates that you can measure, depending on where and between what you are measuring, so you could be moving in time with one friend or moving in time with the other, you all have the same ¹Time but differing ²Time.

At first this does not help much, again it is because it is still at the beginning stages of the model.
But now you know you can have at least two types of time, one is never changing and the other is dependent on your movement and position in the "Real" space, again in this simplified abstract higher dimensional 3D volume.

It's still boring, but when you bend the second dimension and eliminate the 2D infinities, you just get back to the same principles and rules you had before, and you start the process again for the third dimension and bending again.

You should discover that with the same rules there is an another dimension of time, for the third dimension and movement. You may need a few more friends if you have any left by now.

So time has at least four variables (one for each dimension and one for 'existance'). If we leave it like this, then it will be the same sphere (torus) that we ended up with, after all the extruding and bending, that you where not allowed to mess with.

In summary it would "Exist" for eternity and change constantly at a constant rate ²Time for everyone at the same rate of change. Remember we deliberately made things as simple as they could be.

Dependent on your original imagination and scale, you should have ended up with a model that resembled a gossamer thin threaded web of a 'sphere looking object' that had uniform threads moving through it with "Real" density points along these threads at constant intervals all moving with their own times, these points were the imaginary "Real" points you and your friends were pretending to travel on in our model of "Reality".

What have we achieved so far?

It may not seem much to some people, but this model is in some ways already far superior to the old imaginary 3D abstract model, because although this is still at the beginning stages, and it is still imaginary, it has it's own shape and structure built in, it has all the same number of 3D dimensions (although at present, they look slightly different, be patient I will add some more space dimensions later to make it more realistic still, but for now I don't want to scare anyone away). It has it's own inbuilt density, and it has it's own built in time as well. It lasts forever, and for now in this simplistic state ²Time never runs out either.

In the old model you have to add matter, energy, space and time indiscriminately.

Some of you may say that this model is nowhere near the "Reality" you know.

But I have just started to show you the beginnings of the model, and I have introduced a lot of inbuilt variables into this small bit of our little model already, that will not need to be adjusted by external forces when I add dark energy, matter, light, gravity, all the other forces, without adding anything else or removing anything, the little model will run on its own (power) rules and will create a Big Bang and Big Crunch Universe all on its own, without creating or requiring any new material that was not the same as what was in our original little sphere we started from.

The next stage.
Back to the beginning again.

Concept 13.
All of space, time, and density is quantised. This is just an extension of concept 3.
But this means that this "Entity" of "Reality" has to have everything that is required, within it.
At this stage I am going to name the smallest "Entity" of "Reality" that can achieve all these things in the Universe. I call it the "APE" because it can mimic anything in the Universe, and can create anything in the Universe that needs to be created within the model to represent the "Real" Universe.

7th January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

What is it made of?

It does not matter at this stage, (not that it does not really matter), but because I do not want your mind to argue with conflicting things in your own head before I have defined it sufficiently, and shown what it can really do.

Note :- [It will explain things like the structure of Dark Energy and the 'Mechanism' of Gravity, and as no one else on the planet has done this yet in one model, you can only compare what I say with the concepts and thoughts that everyone else is using at present, and they have not sorted out the problems with their own models, which have not worked out sufficiently to solve the many problems and paradoxes that they already have].

I am not side tracking. I just want to define it bit by bit, so you can understand it sufficiently to think that this may be a possibility that is worth thinking about. Once you accept its possibility, then you can argue its merit, or any paradox that may cross your mind.

We must of course define it, so that it is not confused with any thing else, otherwise many apparent paradoxes will ensue as I explain it.
To do this I must define it bit by bit.

Because I have claimed that it is this "Entity" that can eventually explain everything in our Universe, then this is its first definition the "APE" or "APEs" are the fundamental basic units that can construct all of the Universe past, present and future for all of Time and Space and everything else in the Universe.

Simple.
You can not complain about that.

All you really need to know now is : - can there be such an "APE", an "Entity" that can actually do this?

Well there are only 2 logical answers.

The first is :- there is such an "Entity", but at present no one knows what it is, but whatever it is, it is called an "APE", by our definition.
So at least now we know that it does exist, at least in abstraction.

The second option is :- there is no such thing, and there will never be such a thing that can do all this.
If this is the case, then the "APE" still exists as an abstraction, but it will never be anything "Real" or ever be found.

Simple so far.
The question you must ask yourself is :- "if there is such a "Real" "APE", is it worth thinking about or pursuing?

Only you can answer that, but I am claiming it, [what a big head, I am not actually, I have quite a small head, but remember don't always judge things by apparent size, this will make more sense when you understand some of the properties of the "APEs"].

What if these "APEs" that I claim can only answer 99.8% of all the Universe, are they not worth looking at?

Enough questions let's get back to the "Real" problem and build on these "APEs".
Well, to start with we don't know exactly what they are made of at present (only because I am building them up for you).
But from our first little experiment we know that it is in our original little sphere and that it has all the properties to extract everything we need to create our Universe. All the dimensions and everything else.
So it must have everything we have extracted up to now and more.

But before I list some of it's properties, I must tell you what it is not, and can not be, and the reasons why it can not be these things.

Again I am going to side track, not to annoy you, but to put it into context.

When we built our first little model to represent a bit of the "Real" Universe we ended up with something that looked like a doughnut type spherical thing full of little threads with bits of "Reality" spread inside it, all moving about in unison.

This was the basic rough shape of what I called the true bending of space into a 3D volume.
When I started building it up for you I deliberately did not give it any real values, such as it's actual size, it's actual density or even the time at which everything was moving about.
The only thing that I did define was that it had ¹Time that was eternal.
Therefore that is it's first property.

I asked everyone to use their own example to help them visualise the shape.
This shape, hopefully you noticed, had a repeating pattern every time we went up a scale to extrude or bend another dimension, and get rid of the infinities that kept on cropping up.

Now if we all had very high visual IQs, we could have carried on extruding and bending into higher dimensions, the patterns and shapes were repeating. Don't panic no one is going to ask you to do this, just know that there is a repeating pattern somewhere.

Note :- [Just for the few, this repeating pattern can be undone, to lower and lower dimensions, if you do not know at what scale you are at when you start].

I want you to think a little bit more about this first simple little model, we claimed that it was threads of unknown material with bits of "Reality" moving inside these threads (the point density bits) and the whole ball was just one overall size. The size that you imagined.

Now I want you to imagine that you can not see the threads at all.

What is left?

You should still see the little bits of density still moving in the paths of where the threads were.
I know I am asking too much of most of you, but you know that there are little bits running around, because you and your friends traveled with them around the boring circles.

Can you think of anything "Real" with this kind of a rough pattern in our "Reality"?

Well depending on your original little sphere you originally started from you may see something like a ball of silk of a silk worm with all the threads going around inside the cocoon.
You may see a warblers reed and grass nest, with all the reeds and grass intertwined (you are obviously a bird watcher).
If you where a cosmologist and your original sphere was a black hole you may see Energy coming out of the two poles, you may have got stuck after that (because I did not give you enough information to build your Universe, yet) but you may have seen a pattern in the Galaxies, there are many that are doughnut shaped spirals with their stars following the rough thread pattern.
If you where looking at something smaller like our solar system it is a similar pattern, the planets mainly travel in the same spiral direction along these imaginary threads. The orbits don't go around evenly like a sphere. I can explain the Sun in the middle, but just think of something smaller for now, you pull out the plug, and the water swirls around one way in this flattened doughnut type shape (please refrain from finding other explanations for the moment, I am not saying what the explanation is, or how it comes about, that comes later and has nothing to do with the point I am trying to get across). I will give a couple more examples. A magnetic field, a magnet and iron fillings, this same rough pattern appears, you can either imagine that the doughnut is on top and the field lines travel over the doughnut rough shape, or two or more doughnut shapes are side to side and the field lines travel around the doughnut from pole to pole. Even air convection currents follow this type of rough pattern, rise in the middle as hot air goes up, and travels back down the sides and back up again, following the doughnut type shape.
I can go on, whirlwinds, tornados or hurricanes are not spherical, they are extended or flattened doughnut shape patterns, mainly swirling in one direction. Even the spherical looking Earth with the moon going around it, is actually a slightly flattened fat doughnut shape (obviously you can not see the squashed in hole in the middle, for the same reason that the cosmologist could not complete his Universe, I did not give you all the information you need to complete the model). The centre of the Earth also has internal molten lavas spiralling in these types of rough patterns, and even the earths magnetic field lines from the poles into space, the Van Allen belts toroidal, what about Sun flares, rough doughnut shape again. The last two examples I am going down to molecular levels (it does not matter if you are not a chemist) but molecules like Benzine which are a little ring of molecules has little doughnut shaped electron shells one above and one below the ring. The electrons are not going around in spherical orbits, but are following this doughnut rough pattern. (Remember I am not saying at this stage exactly what the electrons are doing, I am just showing how this rough shape seems to appear everywhere we look. The last example was going to be how an electron maybe shared between 2 atoms, just let me say that it is not spherical.

Enough said.
What was the point of all that?

It does not matter at what scale we looked at, I found something that looked similar in a rough pattern or shape, and it so coincidently looked like the rough little model that we created at the beginning.

It was not an exact replica, just a rough pattern.
Is this a coincidence?
You know, or science knows that macroscopic structures are built from microscopic crystalline lattice structures that mimic the underlying pattern of the atoms or molecules in that structure. E.g. Diamonds, graphite, mica, all gems in fact.
I'll mention polarisation of light and optical rotation of light here as well. Why is light rotated one way or the other? (No one needs to answer or even think about this) just to say I see a rough swirling doughnut type field turning the light in one direction. This is not meant to be an explanation.

Conclusion.
Let us guess without knowing at the moment, that something at the lower layers, levels, or scales is influencing things such that these rough patterns appear at the higher scales, even though they are distorted more and more as the scales increase.

Now back to building the model.

I defined earlier that the Universe was created by these "APEs" and they were quantised.
If they are quantised, then they must have a size.
If they have a size (we are not specifying their size, yet), they therefore will automatically contain within them the dimensions of their space.

Note :- [I have not defined or specified what 'size' actually means, yet, but the normal sense of the word will suffice for now].

We now know that they "Exist" (property ¹Time), and they have spacial dimensions, we have not specified which ones yet, but it stands to reason that they must have at least 3D.

And as we want them to replicate our Time latter, and I want to keep the truer 3D volume that I proposed earlier for the first model, I will give them the 3 time variables of ²Time, (one for each of the 3D space dimensions). I will still call this ²Time one dimension, (although technically it could be considered 3). The reason I do this is for ease of understanding. We want to eventually replace these abstract bits of "Real" density points that you and your friends were traveling on in the circles, with the "APEs" that will eventually have their own density built in. This way they will be able to travel in space carrying their ²Time with them.

While we are here and I mentioned density points, let us replace these abstract density points with "Real" "APEs" that have that density inside of them.

Note :- [We are not specifying what the density is yet, just that they have that property].

Another summary may be in order before another cup of tea.

The properties of the "APEs" so far are that they "Exist" have ¹Time, ²Time, at least 3D space dimensions, and also have a Density dimension.

Before we get carried away, and don't worry, I will clarify before I start adding more space and time dimension properties, later of course. I will show you what I call our second little experiment where we now build a new little model of our "Real" bit of the Universe. So you can see how easy it is to build in our now abstract 3D volume.

This is the point that I must now conclude what the "APEs" are not, and why.

They are not particles! Why, because particles haven't been able to adequately explain our Universe, and will never explain our Universe, because they do not conform to the properties that are required to explain it, or the properties that are required for "APEs".

Simple. Remember that.

They are not waves! Why, because waves haven't been able to adequately explain our Universe, and will never explain our Universe, because they do not conform to the properties that are required to explain it, or the properties that are required for "APEs".

Simple. Remember that as well.

They are not wavicles! What are wavicles, you may ask. They are something in between a particle and a wave, basically a wavy particle, think of it like a bit of wobbly jelly. This is not the correct definition, but that does not matter, because they have not been able to adequately explain our Universe either, and will never explain our Universe, because they do not conform to the properties that are required to explain it, or the properties that are required for "APEs".

Before I start losing my readers, I am not claiming that there are no particles, waves, and or everything else that we already believe in.
All I am saying is the "APEs" are not these things, but that the "APEs" will recreate all the relevant properties of each and everything that is required to create our Universe.

Go have a cup of tea. Otherwise your mind may chuck it all out. I hope you have been having your breaks of tea, otherwise you may have already chucked it all out and not retained the good bits.

Let us now make a second simplified model of a bit of our "Real" Universe that represents something more realistic. Remember we are still building the model, and we are still in the abstract. Eg. I will initially replace particles with "APEs" in our second model, they are not particles, but they will be there just to start to make it seem better than the first attempt, and used to build and add additional properties that the "APEs" require.

Let us do that then. Use our original model, get rid of all the threads and replace all the abstract point densities with "APEs" at all the positions that were in our original model.

Now what have we got?

Well, by specifying that we have replaced our abstract point densities with "APEs" that have space dimensions and a density (plus the other properties).
That automatically means we have added the property of some kind of a mass to these "APEs".

Note :- [I have not specified what I mean by mass, (which is density x volume). We said that it had some kind of space dimensions, so we should end up with some kind of a volume of the space that it occupies, hence we will end up with a form of some sort of mass, I am deliberately being vague here, so that I can explain it better later without backtracking. For those that don't want to think about calculations, I don't like them either, just forget about calculations for now and concentrate on the model itself, and the maths will be simple in the end, [to whom I don't really know]. I need a cup of tea after that comment.

We did not specify a scale at this point, but just look at what we have created.
A space (quantum spaces) we can embed in our simplistic abstract higher dimensional 3D volume (normal 3D space). That now can have automatically in it, either particles, planets, stars, galaxies, all spinning inside of space with their own volumes and masses and their own times and as it happens, just by coincidence because we have not specified it yet, all the energy that propels these particles through this space. Because the "APEs" have the property of ²Time it also follows that there is conservation of energy built it, and you noticed it, a form of conservation of mass.

Not bad for a second attempt considering that it runs on its own without interference from us, and the same basic rules will apply, at whatever scale you wish to use.

But we have to now fix it, so everything starts to fit into place, although I just chucked in Energy, I did not really explain it, and I have used this general model at all the different scales to show you how you can visualise it and plot it in the normal 3D volume, at any scale you wish to portray, from the sub atomic to the cosmic scales, but we don't want different models for different scales, we want just one model that does the lot.

You should have noticed that our little model (Universe) is just one size and static, it is bound in space and does not go to any infinities in any direction in our 3D abstract volume.

I want to first fix it so that we can use the same model to whatever scale we want to magnify to, and the rules won't change at the bottom level.

We already know that the size and density of the "APEs" has not been fixed yet, and their shape has not quite been specified either, but I did say that this pattern keeps cropping up, all up the scales, so for starters I am going to say that the quantum "APEs" are in a rough shape of our little model we originally made. I.e. They are doughnut (toroid) in nature.

Summary.
Newly defined property: - their shape is toroid in nature, but we are not at present going to define it precisely. You know the normal reason I give.

Note : - [I will modify it's dimensions further later to further refine it, but for now let us make things simple as can be again for better visualization].

Simple not complex means something we can think of without too much effort.
Let's make the shape like a little round sphere. We also said we replaced point densities with "APEs" and have created some form of mass, now enclosed within our little spheres.

We can make a guess and make this little sphere the smallest thing that we can think of, that is comprehensible to most people.

Well that would be the atom I would guess, most people think of the atom as a small spherical item that the rest of the Universe is made of. By choosing this item we are also restricting what the mass of these "APEs" are going to be in this little experiment.

Fine. Great, lets temporarily name the mass equal to about a Hydrogen atom and the size of the sphere equal to the size of a Hydrogen atom.

How many do we need to create our Universe?

It doesn't really mater at this stage either, because you all know the mathematicians can work that out in minutes, and put in the sizes and work out the volumes of all the atoms in our Universe, and use the current estimates of the total Size of the Universe, and then work out all the space that is left.

Now what do we have?

We have a model of the current Known Universe, with the correct number of atoms, the correct total mass of the Universe, the total amount of empty null space between the atoms that now makes the entire Universe, and don't forget the total volume of the atoms on their own as well, which temporarily equates to the material of "Reality" in our very first model when we started extruding from a sphere. And to top it all everything is moving constantly and will never stop.
Remember no interference from us.

But we have a few more problems to make it more realistic.

The first problem is the expansion and contraction of the Universe, this can easily be controlled from the outside, just squeeze it back to a small volume, say just after the Big Bang, none of the "Real" original material disappears, as this is the only thing that is "Real", the material is uniformly distributed, with all the energy to expand back to it's original size.
But as you all well know by now, we can't change the rules, and no interference from the outside, it has to work on it's own and it must also retract on it's own. I will fix this when I explain Energy, but this will have to wait until we look at the structure further, and corrected the second problem.

The second problem is that all this matter we have added, even if we manage to contract and expand the Universe, is just following the same old imaginary paths that we envisaged right at the beginning, and everything is uniform through out all time.

So let us fix this second problem first.
We do this by going back and looking at the fine structure of the "APEs" more closely.
We said they were actually more toroidal (doughnut shape).
So let us guess and temporarily say they are toroidal.
Let us start simple again.

What is a sensible size for this toroid?

Well like everything else before, we don't really know, and we don't want to put in any rules that we have to undo later.
What we do want though is to keep all the other properties that we have extruded so far.
We also want to be able to add things that are a lot smaller than atoms into this model, that also have a mass.
E.g. Protons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles, anti matter etc, we will stick to ordinary matter for now, and I will add how to get antimatter later.

So if these things are a lot smaller and less massive, all we have to do, is, reduce the individual mass component of each of the "APEs" we started with, which we did not specify, and because we want everything else to stay in balance. Eg. The total mass of the Universe must stay the same for now, we just need to increase the total number of the "APEs" in our model Universe, to balance the difference.

Simple.

But this has posed another problem, namely, "how big is our toroid going to be now"?

Now we still want to keep the basic shape of the toroid, we have two options, (we do in fact have many, but I will come to the more appropriate one when we start on the next stage).

One, we keep it the same size, then refine all its dimensions.
Two, we keep everything the same, but just shrink the whole lot, and keep the same proportions.

Unfortunately, I could pursue each option, but I know you are getting bored!
So I will just tell you, none of these options will end up working.

We now have to go back a stage, and introduce something, again temporarily, for ease of understanding the next stage, so the things don't get too complicated, you know, I will fix it.

Our initial last aim, was to add some kind of disorder, so that when the Universe went into an expansion phase the large scale order of things would more resemble the current Universe.

Simple you say. We mentioned quantum earlier, so just add in some form of 'quantum vacuum fluctuation energy'! At the beginning.

Yes this would do, but NO. This just gets messy.
What we need is something that the "APEs" themselves can generate on their own, that will mimic a similar effect.

Now you really need a strong cup of tea, as I need to add a few things simultaneously.

I hope you enjoyed the tea, I don't want you to chuck out the good with the bad thoughts, just when things are getting really good.

Summary of what we need.
1. Clarify Energy a bit more.
2. Make the Universe expand and contract.
3. Add more randomness.
4. Specify the size and shape of the "APEs" more accurately.

I can do this all in one go, but I won't, because you won't be able to follow all the steps simultaneously. The reason being, I can not explain it simultaneously.

So I will just say why I am adding the properties to the "APEs", and explain later, how these properties are going to be performed internally by the model, by itself without our help afterwards.

Ready, deep breath.
Simple.
Make all the "APEs" shrink and expand individually.

That was easy, when I eventually explain how this is done, the model will have been improved vastly. It will run on it's own internal Energy, expand and contract on it's own, add randomness in it's expansion (of the Universe), it will also create all the smaller sub atomic particles simply by shrinking the "APEs" and all the atom size particles by expanding their size, the more the random "APEs" clump together (in a linked way, to be explained elsewhere) the greater the particles, the greater the mass, up and up until you create all the Universe.

Note :- [You should still have noted that no new material has been added from our first little sphere model, not a single new "APE has been created nor destroyed ever, through the whole of our Time, which yet, again I have not explained or defined, this will come later still].

Now how can we achieve this shrinking and expanding of the individual "APEs"?

Well, back to options again.
There are a few options, so let us start with just two, and see if we can find a temporary solution that will work for now.

Keep it simple remember.

We could just make it stay the same shape and just make it shrink so that it is a miniature version of itself.
This will not work, because this would increase the internal density of the material that the "APEs" have been made of. It has to stay the same uniform density, at the lowest level. Remember the rules, things are supposed to get more complex the higher the scales, not the other way around. Let us stick to uniform.

We could keep the density the same, and just make it occupy a smaller size!

This will actually do the job, but there is an apparent paradox, (not really a paradox, because I deliberately did not specify what I meant by size, (remember my head).

Now is the time to explain, sizes, shapes, and volumes.

Then define which ones apply to which ones and which parts of the model, such that we can follow and track all the shapes, sizes, and volumes in the same abstract higher dimensional 3D volume.

Rather than just tell you, I will ask a series of questions then answer them, because I want you to understand them, if you don't think of it properly as you go along, it will be hard to remember them.

Note :- [When you put emotional effort into something and you understand it, you will remember it, I won't explain why here, but if you are not stressed yet (which is an emotion) I think you are great and hope you have been having your tea breaks, keeping the good thoughts].

But before I do that, I will define a normal abstract higher dimensional 3D volume.
This is just the normal 3D that everyone commonly uses.

But to distinguish all the concepts of shapes, volumes and sizes to come, we have to get very specific, so that none of us are going to get lost, or confused, before we finally finish the second simple model. When you don't get lost, and don't end up chucking the good thoughts, from the second model, you will be in a great position to understanding the next stage when we add those extra variables of space and time. Don't panic like always, and you will understand].

To distinguish the normal 3D volume that is commonly used I will use the following notation.
Similar to the prefixed superscript I have used for Time eg. ¹Time, ²Time.

Therefore a normal 3D volume is now going to be notated as 3D ³Volume, for the mathematicians later, they can abbreviate as 3³V.
I know they are going to start computing when they get the model in their heads.
This 3D ³Volume is going to be called a Tertiary volume. ³V, I will define clearly later.

The other prefixed superscripts are ⁰Null meaning empty and abstract, ¹Primary, ²Secondary, ³Tertiary, etc.

Note :- [This 3D ³Volume is also our background higher dimensional abstract 3D ³Volume, which if we place nothing "Real" in it, it is actually null, and absolutely empty, real nothingness.
Therefore we then need to clarify it thus ⁰3D ³Volume, meaning it has nothing "Real" in "Reality" in that 3D space, obviously you can still put abstract things in it where you are maybe designing something that does not exist yet, like a technical drawing].

The designer.
You may think why do something like this when technical drawings are so advanced that they don't need improving and messing about with, what advantage could there be? I am not proposing that anyone do the following but just imagine you are building some structure, it will start abstract. Then say half way through the build, a problem arises because of some new information. You now have to amend your design to compensate for the new information. Normally the architect, designers, etc, etc. will have to get together, find out what has been built, what hasn't yet, etc. what can be changed, what can't, do we have to tear it down!?
If they were just following the design as they went on, what was built would automatically be put in the drawing (as 'Real'), therefore all the designer has to do, is just look at the design without getting off his chair, and know instantly what is "Real" and has been built, and what is not "Real", and yet to be built. He can then maybe find a new solution to the problem without demolishing anything, and reducing his costs and time.

Back to where we were.

Now what is size?

Have a cup of tea and think about it, I am not being patronizing, I am just trying to get you to remember my definitions later, and obviously absorb the good thoughts so far.

Well, normal people, use words like big, small, more, less, larger, and the various other similar words, and mathematicians will compute the various volumes and start stating cubic meters, cm³, and various other similar and varied symbols that eventually will confuse you, but they will prove for you that this has a greater or lesser overall volume, one size or the other is definitely the size.

You all know what size is.
Good.

Now what is larger, a carpet or a beach ball?

You can use all the normal words, but you will all ask for dimensions, so you can compare one item to the next.
What are you all measuring and comparing?
The volumes of the items?
The surface areas of the items?
What is the beach ball, and the carpet made of?
Are you measuring the overall space that each is occupying?
Are you being clever and saying the carpet is made of fibres, therefore I only need to compute the overall minimum volume that all the fibres would occupy if they could squash (them) into the smallest theoretical space?
And I suppose you may say the beach ball is basically empty inside, (so to be fare), therefore if I have removed all the space between the fibres, I suppose I should remove the air in the beach ball as well?

What is the final answer?

I can bet that you are not all going to come up with the same answers.

The conclusion I can come to is that it all depends on the variables you are all using.
Not surprising.

Now I will define each of the various volumes that there are in the model, and we can ask the same questions more specifically and see if we can all agree the answers.

The definition of ¹Volume, Primary ¹Volume, or ¹V is the volume that can be calculated, that measures the initial volume of the "APE" or "APEs" in the original sphere we started from in the very first experiment.
Although we did not specify specifically how or what this was, it was the essence of all the "Reality" that all the "Real" Universe is made from.
From this and the previous properties of the "APEs" we can say that the total ¹Volume of the whole of the "Real" Universe is constant and eternal and is only divisible by only such numbers, (these numbers will automatically be restricted by the model later), such that each "APE" has the same equal ¹Volume. Remember the rules, everything needs to be equal, uniform, nothing left in the sphere when all is extruded.

²Volume or Secondary ²Volume and it's variants is a bit more complex and I will come to that later, but it will be a function of the ¹Volume of an "APE" and the final ³Volume that the "APE" occupies after we have sorted out ²Time a bit more specifically, again later, but together.

Don't worry, it just sounds complicated now, but when I start to simplify everything, most of these complications just seem to melt away.

Onwards, towards the final structure and shape of an "APE".
Remember, as simple and uniform as possible, don't change the rules.

We know it is toroidal, a ring, the ring has to be a uniform diameter along it's whole length, because it has a fixed density (¹Density, anything related to the lowest level is primary), and a fixed ¹Volume, it must have by default, or calculation a fixed length.

Note :- [I have not defined or clarified length, yet. So I won't superscript it, yet, until you have understood it. Yes you have guessed it, there are different types of length, obviously related to all the spacial and all the time dimensions, but that has to wait].

Now is the time to add another property that all the "APEs" must posses to proceed to the final understanding and Mechanism of energy.

Can you recall that these toroidal rings are all spinning?
Probably not, because it was not stated, it was inferred.
If you recall you and you friends getting bored, going around and around on those first bent circles stacked parallel to each other above and below you.
Anyway this is what they are all doing, they all have the same uniform inbuilt energy if you like that is equal to the total equivalent energy that would have been in the original ¹Volume, divided equally among all the "APEs" so there is none left after extrusion.
Now, although I still have to explain many more aspects of Energy, because it has not been fully done, yet. What ever it is, it is, for now, and it is equally divided.
From this you should see that all energy is not only quantised, but it is automatically fixed at a constant amount.
That's good because that is what we want (all the same rules).

Now we know the first basic shape, but not the lengths, breaths, and heights, yet of each "APE".
You may or may not have also noticed, that this ring is only moving in 1D, the ring itself is spinning in relation to it's original extrusion pattern.

I haven't yet clarified what I mean by spinning, I will do later, but the property that I wish to introduce is the property that will make the "APE" finally shrink and expand forever, totally on it's own, without our interference.

I think we need more than cups of tea now, but the property is the property of the curvature of space itself, but another apparent paradox is looming.
I know it is very laborious, but we need to eliminate all paradoxes forever, however apparent.

I again, for ease of explanation and understanding, I will explain the details of the Mechanism of it's curvature later, but first I will just tell you where the "APE" is going to curve, and why.
Obviously for the same rules of uniformity and constancy.

Things now will be more complicated, but just follow the arguments for now, and not try and visualise it yet, it will look very pretty and familiar when it's finished.


Let us just say it is spinning for now, just like a wheel tyre.

What is it's speed?

Well we haven't specified a speed, so let us say it is a fixed speed of rotation, it is not going anywhere yet, but what is it spinning around?
We got rid of all those messy threads.
So let us say it is just spinning on the spot, what spot?
If it is on it's own, and we are just looking at one "APE", for the moment, it must be placed in our ⁰3D ³Volume, so we can see what it can do.

We just use ordinary coordinates, and because there is nothing else in our universe yet, we might as well just say the centre point around at which it spins is (0,0,0).
This is the point we can measure everything from.

Note :- (I was not going to put in the following, but some mathematician is going to comment on it anyway. Technically to be consistent with what I have said up to now, even with all the simplifications, the centre point we can call the origin for now, should be at least something like (0,0,0,0) either the first or last coordinate is going to specify the dimension of "Reality"].

For everybody else who now wants to give up, don't, because these numbers don't mean much anyway, and you can easily follow the arguments, just by using common sense.
The numbers are just for the mathematicians, that like to prove things, to reassure themselves that their common sense is sound.
Some one has got to have a little laugh, it is about time.

8th January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

So let us get going.

Because we want everything at the lowest primary level, layer to be as constant and uniform as conceivably possible we have to look very closely where every point on this toroidal "APE" is going, or going to go, and what the effects of this is.
Obviously, if we want to recreate the Universe from scratch, we have to get the lowest details right as the model builds itself with it's own internal simple rules, any errors at the lowest primary level will be magnified as the Universe expands.

So let us put some little reference points on our toroid, or shrink your friends and take another ride as observers on the surface of the toroid. One of you can sit on the outside rim, one can sit on the inside rim and one can sit on the side rim, if you have a forth friend then they can sit on the other side of the rim (I know I am pushing my luck, if you are still reading this you may not have that many friends).

So what do we observe with all your speeds?

Remember you personally are not actually moving yet, you are just riding on the surface, therefore your distances to your friends is constant, therefore by one of our definitions of time you have no time between you, therefore you are not moving! But I said earlier the toroid was spinning. So you have to measure your speeds in relation to that spot in the middle of the wheel, (the point (0,0,0), just ignore these silly bits).

* Note : - this (0,0,0,0) point is in fact null and outside the toroid, and conventionally would be considered the centre of mass of the 'APE', or the pivot point of rotation. Although you are all traveling with the same Angular velocity you are not traveling the same distances as explained below. 25th August 2014.*

You will notice that the distance you are traveling is greater than your friend on the inner rim, for every rotation (the inner circle is smaller than the outer circle), also your friends either side are going at a different speed as well.
We can not have that, apart from that not being equal, to keep with our simple rules, imagine all the mathematics we would have to do, to follow all those points and calculate varying lengths, speeds, etc. etc. we can't do that, at this early stage, we will end up with a load of quantum probabilities of infinite proportions, and we are still at the bottom.

Simple solution.
Make everyone go at the same speed, so it does not matter which point we take, only one final speed. If we could do that, that sounds a lot better, everyone is happy now, the "APE" rotates at a constant speed around this imaginary centre where we can measure it's speed of rotation.

Can we do that? Yes of course I can do that, that is why I have got you here to tell you how, so that we can get onto the really cleaver bits that will follow.

In simple terms you could just change places with your friends at set time intervals so that by the time you have all gone around once, you have all traveled the same distance in the same amount of time. Therefore your average speed and distance is the same.
But as you well know you can't interfere, and we don't want averages anyway, we want constant.
The other solution is that all of you can move constantly to new positions always keeping the same distance apart like all holding hands like a train.
So let me make it simpler and put in a simple train track that spirals around the wheel.
The track now does not move in relation to other parts of the track so every point along it is at an equal distance, if now the track moves constantly and you are all just sitting on the track, then you are all moving at a constant speed uniformly.

We did it.

But what are the consequences of what we have done?

Well this all depends on what we want to do next. If we leave it like this (which we are not going to) then this "APE" on it's own will spin on it's axis in one direction.

Which direction?

Well it doesn't matter at this stage because there is nothing there to compare it with. Apart from us, and we are not really there yet.

If a normal tyre wheel was on its own rolling past you, which way would it be turning, clockwise or anticlockwise?

Well it could be turning either way depending on which side of the wheel you were looking at, if the wheel past you rolling to your left it would be going anticlockwise, if it rolled past you rolling to the right it would be going clockwise.
Does that mean it has two different ways to rotate? And that therefore it could change it's mind and change direction and start turning in the opposite direction? (clockwise to anticlockwise).

The answer is NO. The reason it is no in this context is that its only your observation that tells you what the wheel is doing, with reference to you. The wheel is actually only rotating in one way continuously, it does not stop just because you are looking at it (observing it). If it had a mind of it's own and decided to just go wherever it wanted to. It could trick you by turning slowly in different directions around you, and you would get the impression that it was going clockwise, anticlockwise, clockwise, etc etc. but it was just having fun. All it was doing was just rolling, and nothing else.
If you really want to confuse yourself, just leave the wheel turning on the spot in the same direction and you go walking about around it, you will see it turning one way then the other, etc. etc. The wheel is not doing anything different, it is just rotating, it is not even trying to confuse you, by staying in one position.

So any uniform toroid or wheel with no outside reference has ONLY ONE type of rotation.

I know most of you got it, the first time around, but I have to labour that point as I will eventually give this toroid 4 different types of rotation by the time we finish, but that is still further down the road (part of the really cleaver bit).

As we left it, with the rail tracks, it can have actually two directions of rotation irrespective of you. I will explain, don't worry.

Have a tea break.

Anybody there?

Earlier I stated the fact that any uniform toroid or wheel with no outside reference has ONLY ONE type of rotation.

But now I am stating, because although we are not there (not observing it), there is a difference in rotation, there are at present still 2 different types of rotation that the toroid can actually rotate. I know, a little while back I did say there is no difference between clockwise and anticlockwise with respect of the continuous rotation of a wheel or toroid as far as the toroid is concerned, and it is only your observation of it that changes, and this is still true. In effect it did not matter from your point of view if you started rotating the toroid clockwise or anticlockwise (your two options) once the toroid was on its own there is no distinction between the two, and no two toroids would look or behave differently. So why do I now claim there are options or ways the toroid can rotate, the reason is that we put a spiral railway line on it, all around the wheel in our example. (We are not going to leave the rail, it was there just for visualisation purposes, but the positions and movements of the points below the rail follow the paths of the rail above it).

Now it is still true that the toroid could rotate forever on its own without stopping and also still true that all the points are moving at a constant speed, and there is no one there to observe it, but now there are two options in which it can rotate. Everything is still uniform. Another apparent paradox to explain.

For those that had their tea breaks, and are in the mood of thinking, may have already worked it out, I think we should add some biscuits with our future tea breaks.

Anyway although everything is still uniform (because we made it so) it still has two options of rotation. The answer is that depending on the way I turned the track around the wheel in the first place, determines which type of rotation the wheel will follow for the rest of time.

If you could observe it, in this new state of rotation you would be able to see a difference in a clockwise and anticlockwise rotation. I.e. It now looks different from one side to the other, whereas a uniform no points moving on the surface of a toroid is the same on both sides, when we move the points as we did, then each side will look and react differently.

The best way to describe this for those that are not good visually, is just to say if you place the rail on the tyre you can either curve it to the left as you roll it forwards around the tyre or you can curve it to the right as you roll it forwards. These are the first two options of the curvature that I will introduce to the "APE", one we can call an α helix curve! and the other a ß helix curve!

Maybe I am starting to get too technical, left and right screw, both screws, but both different.

There is only one slight problem, (big problem for most) if we want every "APE" to be uniform i.e. indistinguishable and have the same properties, then we would have to pick one type of rotation from the start and make all the "APEs" look the same.

All this does, is give the theoretical physicists two different "APEs" to create two different Universes to pick from! , and then get carried away, when things get complicated and start talking about other abstract parallel Universes and multiverses, and ......

We could of course try and curb their options by saying that both are present in the one Universe.
Half of one and half of the other.

But no that won't do for them, because they then would say how are you going to explain the difference between matter and antimatter, there is an imbalance, (they can find lots of imbalances, I just picked one for an example).
So because they find this imbalance that they can't fully explain, then they conclude there must be more of one thing and less of another, either go philosophical on us (nothing wrong with philosophical, but that is at a higher level that the model will create, it is the wrong place here), or start quantum fluctuating etc... And making things appear and disappear into other (take your pick) multiverses, parallel Universes, other dimensions they can't explain, or string a load of mathematics and formulas to compensate.

Now don't get me wrong, I can talk about all these possible things and they are all great, but is there a simpler solution to most of our problems?

Well, you all must know by now that I am going to say yes.

Simple. (At least in theory at present for most).

Most of, if not all the previous problems can be resolved by making the "APEs" all exactly the same, uniform i.e. not different from each other, all with the same properties in the same one Universe. Then the physicists won't have two options to choose from, you can't get confused if there is only one option (I know they can, but I was trying to be nice).

Everything will be then constructed from just "APEs".
A left and a right option (chirality, just means you can have a left hand version and a right hand version, like your hands, opposites, mirror images) they will all be created by the "APEs" themselves, positive and negative, clockwise and anticlockwise, up and down, matter and antimatter or any opposite can be constructed (I will show you the basic mechanism later).

They will then be able to sort all the imbalances further down the line.

Simple. Except for one thing, I will have to give them one more bit of information, (I will also leave that bit to later, because I have too many loose ends already, and I need to explain them before any more tea and biscuits).

I have to tell you quickly how to make all the "APEs" all the same in the same Universe.
It all has to do with the ²Time I said I would explain later and the curvature of space itself.
Now is the time, but I will explain the curvature bit later, I will for now just tell you what is going to happen.

Note :- [I have not defined the properties or types of curvature of space, which I will clarify later.
For now all I am talking about is the ¹Volume curvature of space].

The quick simple answer is that the "APE" conceptually looks like a slinky with it's ends joined together to make one big coiled loop (hopefully with a picture nearby here).

You can have a quick cup of tea now if you are happy.

Otherwise let us proceed.
This is the sequence the "APE" (slinky) is going to follow in one rotation around the imaginary centre axis.

Let us start at it's maximum possible expansion i.e. if you stretched it to its maximum, so that it just looked like one big ring (circle, the original uncurled).
Now as it rotates it bends to the left or right (at the moment it does not matter which, just pick one, it will sort itself out by itself as expected later).

For those that want to follow it in detail.
This was the original path that we left it in before things started digressing.
Now you have to add a second curvature so that it starts to bend into what looks like a loose slinky one coil at a time still rotating.
What you will notice as you continue to curve the ring is that more and more coils will appear, and the slinky
will get tighter and tighter, the coils will get smaller, and the whole thing will get smaller and smaller (now small in relation to what? the original circle size diameter).

You will eventually reach a situation where all the coils are touching each other and can not get any tighter, this situation will not stop the ring from rotating and it will carry on rotating in the same manner as the original tyre.

What will happen next is that the coils will start to unwind uncurl and get looser and looser until you end up reaching the max ring size at what looked like the beginning, this occurs because each point needs to keep on moving at a constant speed, which was one of our requirements.

This again will not stop the ring from carrying on rotating in the same manner as the original tyre.

This was your beginning, not it's beginning, it is only half way, because it will carry on rotating, and unless you are one of those fortunate people that has a brilliant visual spacial mind, you will not have noticed that it is now curving curling bending in the opposite direction than that you originally chose to curve it.

So if you chose to curve it to the left as it moved forwards, it is now curving by itself to the right while it is moving forwards.
If you chose right first moving forwards, then it is now curling itself left moving forwards.
It is now starting the opposite option of the two options we had for the different "APEs".

It will continue to coil tighter and tighter, as before, but this time it is not an α helix getting tighter but a ß helix getting tighter, or the other way around.
When all coils touch again it will as before carry on rotating in the same direction and uncoil back to the beginning but in the opposite way as before.

Done.
Not quite.
As far as the "APE" is concerned it has made one complete revolution such that it has come back to where if it continues rotating (which it will, because of it's .. I call it it's intrinsic energy for now, as we still have not sorted this loose end either, yet).
*Conservation of it's complex momentum. 25th August 2014.*
It will now start it's next revolution.

For those that want their tea break now just remember the following (and its one of the very clever bits, obviously I would say that because I designed it) very important note before you go.

Note :- [The "APE" itself is it's own opposite half of it's life, the Universe can balance itself, without interference, obviously I am going to expand on this later, but you can have your tea break now, clarification of ²Time carries on after tea].

We have to do at least two things now, namely clarify what we mean by revolution.

Did it revolve once or twice?

Well as far as it is concerned it only calls a revolution a revolution when it does one cycle, and I know I haven't defined cycle properly either, but it means in this context like your washing machine cycle, a series of processes from a beginning point back to the beginning point where everything will be repeated exactly the same as the first time.

To avoid any further confusion with words in the future, because this is a very important and intricate part of ²Time, which will eventually create our normal time we experience (³Time).

I will give the "APE" the property I call "TwistingSpiralationQkwist", "Qkwist" for short, that is created by the process of "TwistingSpiralation".
One Qkwist is one TwistingSpiralation of any Point on the APE creating one cycle (not circular) back to it’s original Point with reference to an imaginary center Point.
²Time is measured in "Qkwist"s.

Note :- [If you still remember ²Time has at present at least 3 dimensions along which to move in, and this will be expanded on further, later].

Now from our point of view it may be considered to have made two revolutions, because we saw it shrink and expand, looking like it came back to the beginning, then shrink and expand again.
Two contractions and two expansions. I think we can still call this 2 revolutions with respect to expansion and contraction.

So I will define the property that the "APE" has as 2 revolutions equals 1 "Qkwist" which means it contracts and expands on every revolution.

Now it would be nice just to tell you a bit more about Energy at this point, so you can go away thinking it is starting to make more sense if I can show you how to make Energy and Matter from these "APEs", but unfortunately there is more I have to explain about what has also been happening to all the previous dimensions, volumes and densities and .... I don't want to make the list too big).

But just for a taster, and I am sorry I will have to change or clarify it further.
As we are trying to clarify energy a bit more, and we are talking about ²Time, which by the way will be linked to the construction and speed of light!, you guessed it, not yet, I don't know if giving you these tit bits or teasers as we go along is really helping any one stay on track or just making them go for the drink, and I don't mean the tea this time, I am hoping it doesn't).

Since I have just mentioned light and speed, and we spoke about speed before (the speed of the "APE" rotating on the spot so to speak, we said at the time that the "APE" had the property that it moves at a fixed constant speed, but we did not want to specify what it was at that time.

Well, as I have also mentioned that I will show you, to start with anyway, the basic concept that is required to create Energy and Matter, let us now fix a temporary speed for the "APE"'s speed around this imaginary centre (the axis), you know I am going to clarify it, and change it a bit, because of a lot of what is going to happen, but it will be interesting to see anyway.

Let us fix it at c². (c is just short hand for the speed of light).

Where did that come from?

Everyone has been telling us you can't go faster than light!

It is absolutely true, you can not go faster than light.

Have I just created another apparent paradox?

Apparent is the operative word, you may have noticed I apply with all paradoxes, when you can explain them, then they are no longer paradoxes, except of course to those that can not follow simple complex logic, and most people once they realise what "Simple Complex Logic" means they have no problems understanding.

So what does :- you can not go faster than light really mean?

What it really means in simple terms is :- no thing can overtake light.

You can not overtake light, no object can overtake light, to overtake something in this context is to pass in front of it while traveling in the same direction as it. Ie. go faster in the normal context you think of speed.

But my statement did not say this, by my own definition the "APE" travels faster than light, I am claiming it is a completely different "Entity" of "Reality" that which will end up explaining not only the speed of light but why the speed of light is what it is, the model will fix it for us, later, yes.

In the meantime and I don't like name dropping, Einstein's E = Mc² should not be forgotten.
I only mentioned that here as I will be discussing the intricate relationship of energy and matter as I show you how each is interrelated and constructed. After a bit more explanation with the loose ends I have still to do.

Note :- [The real formula that will have to be explained eventually is E² = Mc² + ρc², I have to check my notes if I got it right, my memory is not what it used to be, anyway at this point, it is irrelevant]. Hopefully I will have amended it by the time you read it. I am of course assuming someone is going to read it at some point.

So do we need more tea? I think I am loosing the plot as well.

Never mind.
Let us tackle the basic principles of Energy and Matter first.
Well at least at first what is said.

9th January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

The scientific community basically says that Matter has Mass.
They also say that Energy has no Mass.
But they also say that it can have some form of Mass.
They can equate some form of Mass using a form of E=Mc² or equivalent.
Brilliant, especially if you are good at mathematics.
This is OK so far, I am not really happy with that, too abstract for me!
So what?, no one has thought of anything more "Real", to make things easier to understand or see.

Why am I not happy?

Well, there are enough problems in the world, so I should be happy with it.
But my mind does not like apparent paradoxes, and it keeps thinking to itself, if I can think of something that is more "Realistic", and it makes more sense to people, why not try that?

Obviously, it might make sense, so people can understand it better, but in the end it might be all wrong anyway, so what is the point of that?

Well, my answer is this "Why can I find solutions to lots of apparent paradoxes, that seem difficult to others, and I have done this in my mind, and within 10 years, I start to read bits and pieces of info. Saying similar things to my solutions". No big deal, I am not going anywhere.
But after 10 years I start to get agitated, because some problems are still being discussed, as if the education system does not know the definitive answer! then I get medically ill again (not mentally) and I start to think what a waste, can I do something to help things along before I won't be able to.
On one of these occasions back in May 1998, when I thought this time it is the end, and incidentally the Internet was just about to get going.
So I thought, if I may be gone in a few days, I can just put it all on the Internet, someone might like it.
My task was set. All I had to do is find some apparent paradoxes, and solve them.
But, it had to be interesting or something worth while.
Oh, enough of my history, even I am getting bored.

Anyway I tried to get something from the Internet on something I didn't know about, so I could solve that apparent paradox, now I thought I didn't have much time, so I couldn't waste too much time trying to learn complex mathematics, but maybe I could give them some ideas. I tried string theory! Well, you would not have guessed it, hardly anybody knew enough about it, and everybody else was a bit baffled.

That did not bode well for me, so I decided to just do simple paradoxes "What came first the chicken or the egg"? Simple. "What would happen if an immovable object met an unstoppable force"? Simple. Let me try something more challenging, "Is light a wave or a particle"? Not so simple to solve, but conceptually I had the clues and variations in my head, and eventually overnight I found the solution to my problem.

By the way I do not generally consider myself better than the average person, and I know there are millions of people worse off than me, but I still generally lack confidence. I put this last bit in for the context of what was to follow.
So up I get, get on the Internet, try to find some physics forums, never been to anything on the Internet like that before, then I can tell them my solution to the Mechanism.

After most, a waste of time, I came across a physics student, who at the time I thought understood what I was saying. His eventual answer was "why did you waste your time on all that, that problem has already been solved, don't you know 'wave particle duality'? Have you seen the maths"?

My elation was totally gone, (I wasn't trying to challenge Einstein's mathematics), I thought my idea was brilliant, well never mind, I hadn't done physics since my A level physics back in late 60's about 1968-69? (coincidentally I was chronically ill then as well, but I tried to hide it). I couldn't recall the phrase 'wave particle duality' when I did it at A level, even if we didn't call it that, we must have mentioned it I assumed, (the education system mucked us about at that time, we were the first guinea pigs for the Nuffield to come), I recall some quantum physics and probabilities mentioned back then, and it was at that time I started to get puzzled that something didn't sound right, that the "aether" was not there, and that maybe one day I would look into it further.
I didn't carry on with my physics study, and more illness at University.
Why do I keep mentioning all this illness? There is a point, I do want to make, and it has nothing to do with building a Universe, other than to apologise to those who are being distracted by all this verbal.
My point is this, again using my 'simple complex logic', I really wanted to be a genius, but I was no good at reading, I was useless at spelling, my writing was not very neat, I thought I was bad at mathematics (at school I did try to squeeze in A level mathematics) and I didn't have any confidence... I was always getting ill... I even got worse when I got to University, ended up in hospital.
What made me want to be a genius?
Maybe I can just be clever! Never got there, never mind.

This is a message for all you unfortunates that are not feeling well, I hope you all get better soon and have a wonderful life, but if you ever wanted to be a genius, statistically, this is the best time to prove yourself, because it is at the point of greatest emotional stress that you can excel at things, it really concentrates the mind, and if you have one, and by the way we all do, but don't often use it correctly, then this is a good time to use it for good measure.

This also reassures me that you have to be somewhat emotional about what you want, call it passionate, but any emotion will concentrate the mind, not always for the good mind you, so you have to be careful. Lay down your thought patterns, carefully.

Most genius's of the past died early or had chronic illness, this is not a coincidence in my book.
Having said that, don't be silly and go and get ill, this is not how it works!

Now for my apology to everyone for that long session, that had nothing to do with what I should have been talking about today.
But everyone has some days better than others.
I decided to verbal a bit today, because I was hoping to finish this book quite quickly, and if I didn't do any writing today, I might end up not writing the day after, and after ..... year later...
Maybe never get it done.
If that ended up being the case, then you won't be reading this now either. So it doesn't make that much difference, but maybe someone may not mind the temporary distraction.
So I can waffle to my hearts content today.

Have some tea, biscuits, relax, forget all about it today.

I just had another thought before you go.
I do use my subconscious mind to help me sometimes, normally my mind goes super conscious about every 1o years, which is when I start to use my mind, to solve problems, (you may have noticed this is about the time my mind gets agitated). It's been about 15 years this time, I haven't been well (maybe I have been too well, so it didn't bother, a joke I hope).
I must have programmed this time period in my subconscious, when I was first ill, thinking something like 'I will be ok in 10 years time and I can get on with my life after that'.
I am getting too old for that to work now, so I will remove that (from my subconscious) after I have finished this book.

Anyway I know! and my subconscious knows even better! That most of you can not read this whole book in one go and make sufficient sense of it to think it was an ok read, if all it was, was complex geometrical shapes, complex volumes, complex mathematics, and it just seemed (the operative word here) to contradict everything the scientific community was saying.

In which case you would not carry on reading to the end, and my task of explaining the complex, yet so simple mechanism, of how you can create everything from the "APE"s would have failed.

So it (my subconscious) came up with a temporary diversion to save you from this, in the meantime, it did not tell me what it was going to do, because it knew that I would waste time debating it in my head (my conscious mind), and I may have come to a premature conclusion that this is not what my readers want to read, and I would have wasted another day anyway. It doesn't matter really what the diversion is, it is just a break.

You all know you can't concentrate continuously,
so I hope no harm done, and you are ready to go once more.

Don't go yet.
Just let me tell you what happened next, I carried on thinking for a few months and thought to myself I should have worked out the Mechanism for Gravity instead, no one has done that yet surely! I know Einstein worked out space time, but he was explaining the phenomenon and the mathematics that follows Gravity, I.e. What Gravity does, but he did not say why and how it bends space time and it had to bend it like that because of a detailed Mechanism.
Then it dawned on me that the student may have not clearly seen what I had done.
Maybe he thought that I was explaining the phenomenon of 'wave particle duality', well I already knew that light can appear to be a wave in one experiment, and appear to be a particle in another, and that it has already been explained mathematically.
But that was not what I was trying to explain, I was explaining and eliminating the apparent paradox (obviously as I saw it) and coming up with a solution, such that I was explaining a Mechanism (and in so doing, I will say now, in case of any further confusion as to my answer, light is not a particle, and it is not a wave). I have to now immediately clarify what I mean by 'not a particle' (it has to be defined), and what I mean by 'it is not a wave' (to be defined).

OK, I hope I have your attention now.
Oh sugar, more verbal, I might as well finish the story during the next stage of thinking, so people can just jump the whole lot and not have to read it if they don't want to.

You don't want more of this, on another day, get it over and done with quick.
My confidence was bashed by then, I thought maybe he did understand! maybe they have worked it out! Maybe they have worked out a Mechanism for Gravity as well, I am not good with mathematics, maybe it's just too complicated for the general public to understand and you have to go and study for years to understand it, that's probably why they don't mention it on TV.
I will just console myself that I did what I did and carry on and solve some of the things that I have assumed they have already solved, just for my own self interest, and maybe like normal in 10 years time I might have thought of something along the right lines.
So wanting to be at least clever, and using my apparent paradox ability, over those months I solved a Mechanism for Gravity, a Mechanism for uniting all the forces to the one force, eliminated the need for a mathematical singularity (in it's current form, needs to be clarified, (same old story, later), eliminated the need for opposites (I know, I still have to finish on that one), how black holes can work without other universes, and the list goes on, and eliminated the need for all but one infinity (more clarification).


Note :- (I did some simple mathematics (at the time) just to make sure it was not a whole lot of rubbish, and I was not totally and utterly delusional).

So I thought, I will just wait and see how much I get nearly right.
Obviously at the time, the Internet was not up and running like now where you can go to wiki and find more data, and you would not have had access to particle accelerators and their data analysed for you.

What I prided myself in was that I was not using different models to emulate different things.
Eg. Cosmic model for the universe Big Bang Big Crunch, classical gravity models verses, quantum models for Gravity subatomic physics, etc.
I was just using one model for the whole lot of them.
My conclusion was that there must be something wrong with my model.
I am good at solving apparent paradoxes, so I would have to find something wrong with it to disprove it.
My problem was that I could only find a few things wrong with it, but all the rest just seemed to fit.
At first you may think, well there you go, you wasted your time.
But wait a moment, things can be easily fixed, the only things that were wrong with it, was that I could not fully test it without real data, all it needed was finding the correct variables to enter at the beginning. When I started looking at different models each one had their own apparent paradoxes inside their own models and they had not sorted them out either, so how are they going to reconcile paradoxes between models?
So I wrote a book, put it on the Internet and that was it, my Mother passed away 1999, and I didn't think about it for a long time.
Gosh I am depressing, any one know any good jokes?
Let me not make this a joke book.
The contents are actually very serious and there are many good concepts in it.

So before, at least I go to bed, I will tell you how I resolved the Energy/Matter dilemma.

So you can follow simple common sense (don't take too much notice of people that say you have to throw common sense out of the window) common sense should tell you that they don't really know the answer either. That does not mean that you will find the answer, nor that they are right, just because they seem to know more about it than you. All it really means is that they have come up with a clever solution that they think may be right, and it just happens to fit in with every bodies ignorance, or they are just brilliant with maths and can manipulate formulas to best fit the data they have.

I am not having a go at anyone, because this is what science is all about and it is brilliant.

But my motto is (and this is where I have to admit I have a slow mind, relatively speaking, I didn't deliberately define all those words).
Which is based on a question.

Which is better, to get the same answer quickly many times wrong, or to get the correct answer slowly once?

Well, I would like to debate that one, but too many definitions need clarifying to do it justice right now.
I will just summarise the conclusion, without explaining it, again because of too many definitions need clarifying.
The answer is surprisingly Yes, but as always, not always. (By the way I must state here that I am not copying these answers from a text book on logic, or the Internet, or someone has given me these answers. It is something that is obvious to me using my 'simple complex logic' that results in knowing the answer without any paradoxes at all in this answer or sentence.
I created the question, then, I answered correctly.
The only confusion that arises (not in my mind) but in the mind of the reader that places the apparent paradoxes in it themselves.
In essence when explained correctly it just boils down to what should be common sense, that everyone seems to want to get rid of.

So if you see a magic trick, a good one you can't work out, why don't you just chuck out common sense and say it is real magic? (I won't debate the words) just use common sense.

But physicists says an electron and a positron annihilate into quantum fluctuations into a possible different dimension, disappear, then come back from nothing, and hay presto that isn't magic?

I am not even saying they should not even be doing that either, because they don't have a better answer yet, but I do say it is actually wrong, and not because it is far fetched.
A lot of things are far fetched, and they are right, but some things are too abstract to be the real answer.
I know, I know, they can work it out, the mathematics works, but I also know you can work out anything in mathematics if you are really good.
I can work out and say that I am exactly the equivalent of x number of 'ants' to seven significant figures., and I would be right, but if you were gullible, and then I said I am actually made of x number of 'ants' plus or minus a few to be on the safe side, it's just that you can not see them inside me, you could end up believing in not the real truth.
I know no one is going to believe that, and that is why I picked that example.
The example was used deliberately to demonstrate that I could easily place an apparent paradox for someone, if they are not aware of the paradox that is there.

Everyone sees very silly logic, like the example above, but most people don't see a lot of apparent paradoxes.
If you don't see them, then that's fine, because you can't be expected to solve your problems when you cannot see what is wrong in the first place. Everybody in this category is good.
But then there are two more categories.
The first is the ones that see the apparent paradox, but can't resolve it, they don't know how yet, you just have to live with it, most people are in this category, which means your normal.
Everybody in this one is good.
The last category is the ones that see the paradox, can't resolve it, then proceed without .... Well I am not sure which word to use without constant clarification in case I offend some of them.
Then they do one of 8 options lets say 3 things, so I don't carry on too long, I won't go into all of them but summarise, 5 of the options will come back normal, fine, e.g. they just believe one option and not the other, again fine, they can't help it, normal again.

There is only one group that I find unbelievable, (in fact I don't even find this group unbelievable, because I can resolve that paradox). But you will get my drift when I say, 'they see the paradox, they then believe both options are possible without resolving the paradox, they then try and convince others that both are true, then proceed on this basis as if fact, and create a fantasy world that they then try and promote as "Real" to everyone.

I am not sure if I am going to regret that last section, but hopefully you will see more clearly that apparent paradoxes must be removed completely before you take anything at face value.

Final end of verbal, back to common sense.

My answer.
Short version. Same answer.
By one of the scientific definitions Matter has Mass. Has to be Yes, no choice.
By one of the scientific definitions Energy has some form of a Mass. Has to be Yes, no choice.
By one of the scientific definitions equivalence E=Mc² Has to be Yes, no choice.
Last one, by one of the scientific definitions Energy has no rest Mass. Has to be Yes.
This last sentence would normally be of the same category as the one I did not explain in the answer to my motto question. Namely it is correct, but not always.

Why not always?
The reason is, and there is nothing actually defined incorrectly, but at the same time, they are ill defined. Not scientifically of course. It can all be made to add up.
So just remember, I am not criticizing science here, I am trying to find a modified form of a model that will basically say the same thing, so the answer to the problems mathematically will still be roughly the same, so that it does two things, removes some of the abstraction, and hopefully prove a better model, so that it can explain further discovery.

So the logic goes like this, you construct a question so the question will contain all the paradoxes together in one question (similar to chicken egg type paradox).

You do this because you know people are confused, because in different circumstances the same or similar words are used for two or more concepts, attempting to define the same or different things, normally in different circumstances.

How is anyone going to understand if you are not comparing like for like.

The first thing you have to realise is that you can not dispute the definitions, because that is the definitions.

But you can still resolve the problem if you can find a common solution that can put the lot in their rightful place.

So here we go. (Remember the words in the question are 'loosely meaning', all the solutions together (and we know they are ill defined for our purpose).

Question. "Why has Energy no Mass"?

The simple answer is to confuse yourself, and go back to all those previous definitions.

We don't want that, what we want is to answer the question such that when we have finished, it can have no other answers, but the ones to the solution, our definitive solution.

Now you have two options.
You can force one solution where you will prove that Energy can not have a Mass ever.

We are not going to do this (I will explain in a bit).

Or your other choice is to force Energy to have a Mass.
Again, under your new definitive solution, then all the previous definitions of Mass and Energy, must be subcategories of your definition, this time your definitions are different to the previous.

This is the option we are going to try and force to become true.
I chose this one because 'simple complex logic' would have ended up with this, had I gone through it all.
But in summary. We already know that Einstein has E = Mc², so what is the point of trying to make things worse. All we have to do is make this always true. Then it just becomes a simple conversion.

(I hope some of you are not saying it is a simple conversion, I want you to eventually construct it, not just compute it).

Now you know your mission, you abandon the question, and make a statement.

Energy has a Mass.
Now although this is part of a definition, it does not make it true.

The real clever bit is, can you make this true?, and if you can, does it make sense?, so that you do not overturn any of the previous physics definitions that proceeds this.

At this point I am going to change track and use common sense, because it is easier.
If Matter has a Mass, and the more Matter there is, then it must have more Mass in it.
I hope no one is going to dispute that.
Conversely the less Matter the less the Mass.
We eventually will come to zero Matter with no Mass.
But we now go to Energy, and go to the other extreme, and if we were talking about zero Energy then this would also be no Mass. Common sense.
Now as you increase the Energy you get more Energy, obviously, but do you get any Mass?
Well according to the formula, yes, (now at this point, you don't go scientific on me), you do not try and disprove this, as this is what you want as part of the end result.
So you know it has a bit of a Mass.
Now what happens when you add more energy, it stands to reason that you get a bit more mass, just like you did before.
If you keep on adding energy to energy to energy then eventually you will get a lot of Mass.
Is there a point at which all this energy will just become the same mass of Matter?
Mathematically it has to. Just simple sums. (Again don't go scientific on me yet).
But is there a physical equivalent?
At present no there is not.
But the next question is why not?
Just as a side line, to help you think, when you have an atom bomb, they break the atom and release all that energy. (Again don't go scientific yet).
Another question, what if instead of the energy being released from inside the atom, Energy was not held by the atom, but was part of the atom itself as a form of Matter? (No science yet, we get to that in a bit).
We don't know at this stage, still taking it cautiously.
But if it was, what could be going on?
What is the evidence so far, if anything so far can make sense?
Well if you just look at what happened to the atom when it exploded, a lot of Energy came from a very small bit of atom?
Is there any thing in nature were you can compare this with, in any way?
I will give you a clue, another explosion in which a gas cylinder explodes.
What happens? (No science yet, we are looking for possible patterns).
OK, you know it is a gas, you are going to say they are particles with matter and it is the energy that expands (and not the gas particles with Mass). The rest is just empty space.
It doesn't matter, I'll work around it.
What is important is that the Energy expands (word expands, is important), it still does not matter what expands at present either, because there are layers of apparent paradoxes all over the place still.
The reverse of expands is it contracts (word contracts, is important).
Now I could keep on finding different ways to give some more hints, but basically something could be happening that the more energy you compact into a small space (I.e. Increase the energy density, the greater the expansion when you release it, a small link with density, if you were to chop this energy into bits, you would have bits of density that had differing bits of equivalent Mass.

Now look at Mass, normally one density, but you can also chop this up into bits, and differing bits will match the small bit equivalents. What is this difference?
Can it not just be the differing density equivalence of how each is packed into the space they are in?
One more step then you can go scientific on me.
The process goes on like this, until you see something that eventually stands out like a sore thumb.
I know you do not know the answer yet, but to me it is obvious that Energy and Matter come from a common denominator, because the pattern eventually shows. It is just one continuous range of Energy from zero to however high you want your matter to be. (The Universe is where we are going).
Now this argument has not solved the riddle yet, we now know that it could be a continuous pattern, but something strange must happen to it at a critical point in which, Energy is converted to Matter in one direction and Matter is converted to Energy in the other direction.
So although they are measured as 2 different things, they may be just a variation of just one thing.
What is this thing, and how can this come about, if ever?
Well the clues are all there, go scientific on me now, except the group that believes in all paradoxes simultaneously, they will be here for a few more years.
I won't labour the point any more, the answer is just that, there is something, that packs differently in space to create what we call energy, and that same thing packs differently to create what we call matter.
In summary there are 2 ways to pack it.
So those who are still with me, you can pack them in 2 different ways in the same space, which also means, removing a few more apparent paradoxes, that you can also have the same space and pack different quantised bits of each in this same space.
Extend that notion, and that any space can hold any amount of Energy, or any amount of Matter, or a mixture of the 2.
Do you see that pattern anywhere?
Of course you do it's everywhere. Energy and Matter is mixed in different proportions everywhere you look (and don't look).
But there are more paradoxes to remove.
Let us just say to make it easy, that if this thing exists we will just call it "APE"s.
Now all we have to do is find something that fits the properties we have extracted so far, and construct the thing.
Mentally first of course like extracting dimensions.

What happens next, well simple is best, let us simulate something real that may give us some clues. (Don't go scientific, I said simple to start, just to get the wrinkles out, then you move onto the details later).
Ask your young child, he will probably give you a clue.

Let me suggest he says you can use some of my scrap paper and we can chop it up into small bits, (he or she would love the mess).
So one small chopped up scrap bit of paper, is now representing 1 "APE".
Remember we are just getting a rough guide to a possibility at this stage.
The child says what do we have to do? Well you reply, can you squash some of those bits into a really small space so that it can look like a tiny little stone, or something to that effect.
Yes he says and does it, he has represented a mass of "APE"s contracted into a small space and can create matter. Can you release it again? Yes, that's fun, he sheds it all to pieces expanding it all over the place (like energy).
OK that is not how I did it, I was just having a bit of fun, I did it in my mind visually when I first worked out the Mechanism of wave particle duality.

The process though is exactly the same.
Is light a wave or a particle? The answer is neither, and this is why you can not solve the paradox in "real" terms, and have to revert to abstract mathematics and ....

It is equivalent to trying to get a round peg (particle), or a square peg (wave), into a triangular hole.
You will eventually do it by some convoluted method, but why not realise that the hole is triangular in the first place, and just find a triangular peg ('APE'), and be done with it?

I know the answer is no one thought it was a triangular hole, and on top of that they did not know that there was a triangular peg that would fit either.

So back to how I really solved it, short version.
The photo electric effect.
Photon considered a wave, not enough energy, should not knock off electron from metal surface.
Fact it still does, however low the energy. Yes we all know the quantum.
Therefore it must be a particle. First mistake.
The electron is considered to have a very small mass. Yes we all know that.
The photon now assumed to be a particle, must be hitting another particle, to knock it off, of course. Second mistake.

Now when I say mistake, I should be clarifying my definitions, because this can be right, even though I say mistake. By this I mean it has to stay a particle if there is no other option.
But the mistake I am referring to is in the final end logic.
There is nothing wrong with waves or particles, but if at subatomic levels there is something else, then one should consider that something else is happening.
I know they have considered, what I find wrong is they perpetually abstract so far that it makes it harder to find a simpler explanation.

(In some experiments light acts like waves in others it acts like particles).

What I actually said as my question was "if it can be either in different experiments, can it be both at the same time in both experiments, and still give the same results? And it is the experiment that determines the consequence"?
Now something similar is what wave particle duality is.
But this was not what my paradoxes showed me as a possible paradox.
My paradox was if it was both at the same time, how could it be both?
A few options, I didn't like, or put another way I went with 2 options.
Then on grounds of simplicity I went for the easy option.
The answer was in the clue of time, not in the clues of wave or particle.
It's getting late here, so I will wrap it up tonight, they were not in 2 different states sharing the same space and time. They were in one state all the time, not a wave by definition, and not a particle by definition, they did not act differently, they just did what they did, as this other thing, and they always reacted the way they should, and not by random possibility. Just because you don't know what is happening you can randomise it and calculate the probability, and get a probabilistic answer which is accurate according to your calculation, but that does not mean it happened like that.

I'll give a simple example, I walk home most nights, but not all nights, you don't know what nights I decide not to walk home. But you can work out statically when I am and when I am not going to walk home and your answer will be correct mathematically, and accurate.
On a specific day you would work out I (randomly and statistically) would walk that night.
You won't know either way whether I walked or not, unless you finally observe me.
So basically it could be random, and you would be 100 % correct (using your probabilities).
But if I always without exception never walk home in the circumstances when I don't.
I don't have to give an actual reason, why, but just say the truth of the matter was that I was always 100% certain not to walk home in those circumstances, when I didn't.
Then on that day you would be 100% wrong.

I also know statistically this would even out over time, but you will never know 100% of the time (which days I walked and which I didn't).
This is just a mathematical averaging type of scenario.
On the other if I told your colleague the real reason I don't walk home some nights.
He will be able to predict 100% correct every single night from day 1, and he could leave it a month, come back and he would be 100% correct again.
You on the other hand if left after 1 month would have to start all over again before you got evening out (of your probabilities).
The two realities are completely based on completely different premises.

Maybe I will make more sense in the morning, 2.30 am.

10th January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I didn't write anything today, as I had a distracting day, but in my new found confidence, partly due to me writing this Tea Time Break little book, and re-thinking about what I had achieved way back then. I thought if I am supposedly good at eliminating paradoxes, I thought I would solve and write another little Tea Time Break book on something else that has puzzled me for many years, but I decided when I was about 12 years old not to interfere with. My decision then (whether right or wrong) was not to get involved in Politics and attempt to change the world the way I thought it would be better off. Obviously I was only 12, so I forgive myself. I will go into the reasons as to why I came to this conclusion in the book. But as I am now starting in my 60's, I should not be deemed now to be doing so on individual personal gains. Enough said, see you tomorrow.
P.S. In case I do write the little book, I will outline a solution for the good of all mankind henceforth, or something to that effect, bearing in mind all variables possible, such that everyone on the planet will only be accountable for future events and not past ones, and that everyone will be treated fairly. Nothing to do with this book, except it is just the next step as part of and in the evolution of the universe, so technically I am just jumping forwards somewhat.

11th January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Another day gone, I ended up doing the draft outline of the other little Tea Book. Sorry.
I hope I finish this one.

12th January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Concept 14.
For those that are still here. I am back trying to help you see some of the concepts that are required simultaneously, for you to really appreciate what I am really trying to put across to you.

Unfortunately everything I say or will say will be misinterpreted by someone and everyone (at some point), even if I use the same words every time, on different occasions. They or you will find multiple meanings individually on each occasion, and on each interpretation your own mind will create its own apparent paradoxes, and attempt to solve them.

This concept I called the "meaning of words, and how everybody interprets them" back in 1998.
At the same time, these same people will say that's obviously true, every time I make some simple or complex statement that they seem to think I have said, and I laboriously say what they already knew.

Note :- [The previous concept is very, very subtle, and is so important, at the very, very subtle level, that I have to try and explain it better].

At first.

"How do you KNOW exactly what some one has said, and you have ABSOLUTELY KNOWN what they REALLY have MEANT and felt"?

I don't normally put in the word "felt", but it may help in my explanation a bit, because people don't normally think they have to add that variable into their interpretation.

Well the answer in simple terms is, like a lot of general answers, it doesn't really matter.
The reason it doesn't really matter is that you can get by, by just getting the gist of what the other person is saying or doing, and life goes on. Until ....... You need to get more specific.
No problem, still sounds sensible, more words etc. etc. life goes on. Until, you guessed it, another situation occurs, we need to be specific again!? Yes you know the answer.

Note :- [The above situation will occur at different degrees, on many levels, and the following will pursue when you reach the bottom line, and will be different for each and everyone of us].

But then all of a sudden you are in a full blown argument..... What happened, accusations left right and centre and .......

The follow on to this is multi leveled, but we only need two outcomes to explain my subtle variation.
The end result of the first group is that there was some form of miss understanding, and life goes on.
The subtle variation, which is the important one, here, is that you never really understood what the other person was meaning all along! (As they said it, and meant it, even though you heard the same words that they have been saying for ..... Maybe even years..... And at the same time, they have not even understood what you have been "repeating" to them so many times with your own words in so many words ..... Maybe for years).

Serious point. Note :-[I am not a therapist, psychiatrist, psychologist, and or any other recognised profession, so stay on track for the next very subtle point].

How did that happen? Have they been doing that on purpose? What on earth made them do that, or how on earth did I get into this situation?

Well, as I stated, I am not officially qualified to answer these types of problems, but they are obvious to me.
Again it is obviously more than one answer, but there are again just two groups.

The first is what I call the bad group, in which the others have actually been doing it on purpose in some subtle way. We must ignore all those groups because they are not what the subtle, and even subtler thing I am trying to convey is about.

The other groups, the ones that did not do this on purpose, are not to blame, and it is these groups I wish to pursue.

Simple answer. They just used the same words that you used to say things, in the same manner that you did, but you both interpreted them as you thought the other person meant them, and thought that they interpreted what you said in the same way. This continues because neither of you "sees" all the apparent paradoxes in what you have been saying all along, they both matched your own interpretations of all your words in your separate interpretations.

Note :-[Because I gave the simple answer, means I have idealised the situation, in which case you should be very very happy, living a separate interpretation in the same environment. In reality you get a spectrum, but I hope you get the point].

Unfortunately this happens all the time, and at various degrees, and different levels, and is a part of normal communication.
Again, this is normal life to one degree or another.

What is equally important, and part of the subtle point, is similar, but the complete opposite.

Short simple answer, following the same rules as above.
Idealised of course, you never use the same words as the other person to mean the same thing, and they never use the same words you use, to mean what they say.

I will give only one scenario here, so you can pick up my subtle point. I hope.

Eg. It could mean, in a subtle way, that you can be arguing all the time, thinking you don't agree on anything, but in fact 'everything' you say is exactly the same thing that you are saying to each other.

But what has all this got to do with building a universe?

If you understood my concept fully, or even at most levels you will start to see what I mean when I start to explain.

The problem of the solving of the Universe is actually hierarchical, and as such you obviously need to look at the hierarchy and then delve into the details.

But because of my concept 14 you cannot do this.

Why?

You initially would say just define and use the same words, and the problem is sorted.

No. This does not work. The reason it does not work, is because of two (three) things and not just pure definitions. The subtly is that the make up of the reader is imprinted differently, and most of what is going on is not at the conscious level, but at the subconscious level.

I know, I know, this Tea Break Book is not about the mind, but it is very, very important that you understand the significance of the few words that I use and are required to explain the subtleties of my model.

So hence forth I will only strip down just one word and explain it. As I explain it I will use many words (and each of those words should then be vigorously stripped if they need be, in the future), but I will not point out apparent paradoxes with the other words unless I feel they are relevant to my model.

But before we go into this word, and need more than just tea and biscuits, you must think I am just in overkill mode or something.


To solve such a puzzle (any complex puzzle) in the first place you have to be at least clever, (not defining or stripping my words anymore).
So someone clever is required to start the job.
But you will need, someone whom, you would not necessarily call clever. (Work out your own paradoxes). After tea break soon.

I will give another example. You look out the window with someone, you see the buildings.
From inside you happened to see an odd one that was green. You mention it to the other, and they say 'Which one? The one with the Man walking his dogs, or the one with the news stand to the side or ...' What? I wasn't looking at the people, just that building over there. What are you talking about?
He then proceeds to draw an outline of the whole scene outside, putting in all the details, like picture perfect to scale with all the people in place that where there at the time, without looking again outside! Wow, he is obviously got some kind of autism (or whatever you want him to have).
He is not normal, he is not even labeled clever, can't communicate properly anyway, ..... Any number of reasons you want to give. He just has that one special talent.
Someone else will be able to recall just facts, infinitem .... Just a talent, not clever .......

Everyones mind, processes things in similar ways, and processes them in subtle ways to interpret their environment however that individuals capabilities can be honed for their survival.

This, with my previous concept 14 puts people in different states of thinking, and everybody sees and hears the same things, but they process this information in the same way, but with a different emphasis.

So if you get a mathematics genius, he thinks (or can think) in mathematical terms.
He is not just good at mathematics, anyone can be good at mathematics, you will do all the complex mathematics he does, but you are not thinking in the mathematical sense that I mean.
He will see a calculation, formula or anything mathematical, and he will see in them, all the variables and apparent paradoxes that you can not see. Eg. Such and such is the fifth prime of the root of that number, if you square it and divide by two (I know that is laughable, for the mathematicians, but they have to chuckle occasionally). For the rest of us it doesn't mater.

My point is you listen to music, you can sing, but the acoustic type genius 'sees' all the various combinations with his listening, that you can not see (hear).

So if you want to, you can think of me as not being of the normal run of the mill, but I am going to say I am still clever (just to boost my ego for today, I'll probably lose it later).

Go and have a tea break, and I will strip the one word that will give you the power to work everything else out yourself, if you are also clever. Otherwise I will give you more clues.

Note :- [Every body has this information, but they don't see it simultaneously, so they can see all the mistakes at once, they don't add up when you use "Simple Complex Logic", simply put what should be common sense].

Go now. But please come back for the one important word with all the clues in it.

Are you back already, I hope you had sufficient time to really digest concept 14.

The word is "solid", sounds very boring, but everyone thinks they KNOW what it means.

What does it mean?

What does someone else think it means?

What do you think it means?

Do you know all the definitions of solid?

Do people interpret things that are solid, but they are not?

Do people interpret things that are not solid, but they are?

Does the scientific community use the word consistently?

Can things be solid, if they have abstract concepts, attached to them?

Can they be solid, and be totally abstract?

Have all the definitions of the word solid been defined?

Are those definitions, complimentary?

Are those definitions, contradictory?

I can go on, but I think you should get the gist from concept 14 that the answers will be yes and no for everyone differently, at different times. Not necessarily because of the word "solid" but also all those other words I used.

What you really need to KNOW is what I interpret as the word "solid", then you will 'see' the answer seems to make sense, when you look at subatomic scales, and all the other levels above that.

I think I need a cup of tea now. Be back soon, probably not, but you won't notice the difference.
(For those that are having a bit of fun, ³T is proceeding, and they are not 3 cups of tea, although you can have it that way, if you still got your 3 friends).

14th January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

You may have noticed no 13th. This is another story, but it does not mean I am superstitious.

How do I interpret 'solid', and how did it help me solve some of the puzzle.

15 - 20th, 21st January 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I got distracted, hopefully back Tomorrow.
I decided to write a few "Tea Break Books" to supplement this book, so I could give bits of information in smaller bites for those who want to read and think at their real Tea Break.
I also started some other work, and had .... You don't need any medical information here.

22nd January - 22nd May 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Oops. I should not have got side tracked. I lost momentum.

What you think about affects what you think about. I.e. Influences what you think about. So your immediate environment and your general environment directly effects this thinking that you are doing. This also applies to your subconscious (the main part of the processing machine), which feeds your conscious mind with thoughts. Even when you consider that you are not thinking of anything in particular, this is happening all the time.

How you then think affects what you do, and what you do, makes you who you are, and how you react, and then further think.

This is a cycle of events that makes you, and unless you can mentally see this on your own and add things to your thinking from within that will change your environment, you will always be the same as you are.
This is fine if you are happy with how you are in your environment, but if you want to change something, then you must be influenced by someone or something different from what you think you know!

The above was just a side note.
But what I am TRULY saying, is that if you want to know how I am thinking and understanding something, then you too must start to think how I am thinking before you can make a judgement.

Back to the word 'solid'.
I am going to make this shorter than I originally intended. (Hurray!).
I have always thought of 'solid' as something completely full, a hard substance, something I can not truly penetrate into, but that I might be able to bend or distort around or change the shape of. [The 'solid' part would always stay the same].

Therefore I could think of things that are degrees of solidity, which would make things have different properties dependent on their density and distribution in the space that this 'solid' occupies. Eg. Something could be hard (like a normal object) but I would know that this object is solid in the general sense, but not truly 'solid' through and through. In this way a liquid could still be considered solid, but in the general sense liquid is considered something different, it has different properties, but if you look at it at a smaller scale, it can have little solid bits inside that it is made of (what we might consider atoms). A gas can then also be considered solid with lots of space between the solid little bits (the atoms again). The density and distribution of the atoms is what gives the macroscopic things their properties. Physics normally describes things as particles to represent these little 'solid' things.

But we now know that the atoms themselves are not solid in the normal sense (they have a hard bit in the middle, the nucleus, and an electron or electrons outside) with plenty of space in between them. But I can still consider them solid with yet still smaller parts that are 'solid' in them (just as I can consider a liquid to be solid, it just is not through and through). Be patient.

This is the scale at which physics starts to think of things as particles or waves. Particles are 'solid' and waves are not. But to me, we are just going to a smaller scale and what they consider a particle (what they define as 'solid') to me is just like an object at the larger scale, it is not 'solid' through and through. So the nucleus that is made of protons and neutrons (that are considered the 'solid' parts) are just smaller objects that themselves have 'solid' smaller parts and empty space between them. I also consider the electrons in a similar manner, but at yet a smaller scale.

Going down the scales even further, I see smaller 'solid' bits with space in between. The photons, the quarks ..... The names do not matter at this juncture, but you should get the gist of my thinking.

What is the problem with this thinking?

Well at some stage (still thinking of particles and waves) it does not explain energy, because energy is not 'solid' 'particles' (which I agree with). But in my way of thinking 'particles' the things that are associated with 'particles' are not truly 'solid' anyway. So I can still consider energy as not 'particles' but still made of the same 'solid' bits with plenty of space in between them.
Again at this point in the thinking process, you have to ask what is a wave?

In my way of thinking it is just a pattern, like the sea waves, you can calculate how these patterns interact, but the waves themselves are made of something (In the case of the sea it is made of water molecules). In the case of energy it is made of the same stuff as these subatomic structures are made of, with plenty of space in between. (Like molecules of water make waves at a larger scale).

The waves at the smaller scale do not react like water waves because they are not made of molecules and so have different properties (just like different objects do at larger scales).

It is at this juncture in your thinking that you have to think differently. Up to this scale physicists continue to think of things as particles and waves as two distinct things and they can not figure things out, because they are thinking on the same lines as before. So they go into the abstract world of mathematics and calculate the answers that fit their way of thinking.
If you think of particles as 'solid' and waves as not, then you will not find the correct answer.

If you think of things you consider as 'particles' as not truly 'solid', and that what you think of as waves are solid in the lose sense of the word (like sea waves), then you can proceed in your thinking.
What you have to work out is what is the different structures of your now considered 'waves', and your now considered 'particles'.

Up until now we have been going down the scales and making smaller and smaller bits of 'solid' and have been putting space in between them to create all the properties of the things we have been describing. This fails to suffice at the subatomic level, so we have to do something different.

Before I describe the different way of thinking, I will mention Einstein that said that energy and matter have an equivalence in simple terms E = mc².

What does this mean?

Everybody stop thinking, what is important here is how do I interpret this.

When I read, I am told that energy has no mass! Yet clearly Einstein's equation says that energy has an equivalent mass. Mass is related to the 'solid' part of matter, so does it not make sense that Energy is related to the 'solid' part of Energy? At this juncture we do not know yet the 'solid' part of energy, but that it clearly is related to c².

Do not get alarmed, but what is c²?

Well as mathematician or physicist will tell you it is the speed of light c, squared. But what does that actually mean? Well I think of the speed of light as just a distance that is traveled in some time period (just think of it as just a distance, and ignore the time for the moment) so c² is just a distance times a distance.

What does this give us?

Well if I said 10 meters times 10 meters you might say 100 meters which is another distance, but really it is 100 square meters which is an area and not a distance. So I see c² as an area in some form of time. So energy must have these 'solid' bits spread in some area of space and time.

I originally did not work things out in this fashion. The way I originally worked things out was understanding the Mechanism of 'wave particle duality', In which I asked the question "if energy and matter are made of the same thing, how could that be?"

My conclusion was that they must be made of different amounts or combinations of the same thing. So whatever matter was made of, if you had more matter you must have more of what it is made of, and less matter would be less of what it is made of. If you convert matter to energy the more matter would convert to more energy and less matter would convert to less energy. If you keep reducing matter, eventually you would get to what we normally consider no matter, but just before that you could have just one unit of matter and that would be equivalent to some units of energy. If they were made of the same thing, what had more mass in it? Well it has to be matter because they say energy has no mass, so if you reduce matter to zero, you can still have some energy. And if this was made of the same stuff then it could not be zero, it had to have some of the same stuff in it to convert to energy. My conclusion was that energy is just less dense matter and matter is just more dense energy. Just by changing the density distribution of whatever they are both made of in space you could convert energy to matter and matter to energy.
In this way I eventually explained the Mechanism of the photo electric effect. Unfortunately Einstein already explained it, but did not give the detailed mechanism as to how this was done, so people did not see the significance of what I was saying. I should in hindsight have explained the detailed Mechanism of gravity, which although Einstein again explained as a deformity of a SpaceTime sheet, he could not explain the 4 dimensional equivalent in 3D space (actually at least 5 dimensional, but I don't want to get into that here).

The real shift in thinking you have to get around is that these 'solid' little bits are actually connected together to create a unit of energy (such) that other units of energy can travel through them, without disconnecting any of the 'solid' bits of either. When you create matter with these units, energy can travel through the matter, and matter through energy, again without disconnecting the 'solid' bits of each. But matter and matter can not travel through each other, because you cannot disconnect the 'solid' bits in each. In effect they are too dense.

So the question is how is this done?

In short it has to have a hole in it. Why?

So things can pass through it, without breaking it. In addition when I was solving the original puzzle I wanted a structure that would replace or construct all of the standard model with just one building piece. Which meant fermions, leptons, quarks, and gauge bosons etc. which means all energy and matter.
So the only way that things could be inside other things, inside other things, is if they all had holes in themselves so they could nest one inside the other, or millions inside one another.

22nd May - 24th June 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I seem to have lost too much momentum.
So that I do not leave everyone in limbo. I have written most of the following elsewhere, but will summarise things here so people can get an overall picture.
By using these quantum 'APE's that are dynamically expanding and contracting in space and time, and have a fixed ¹Volumes. They create in ²Time ²Volumes which has wave functions of all it's dimensions, that have inbuilt minimum and maximums. So all dimensions at our level ³Vs are constructed from these lower levels eg. A ³length is made of the ²lengths of all it's parts that make that length (these are 'Real' lengths and not abstract lengths).
By nesting ²V of "APEs" you get energy density (they are all separate in the same space, not knotted).
By knotting "APEs" in the same space you get matter (same "APEs" in ²V but different structure).
By putting matter ²Vs together you get matter density.
By putting energy ²Vs and matter ²Vs into the same ³V you get matter and energy in the same space.
By creating matter (because of the structure), you increase the force per unit area that is applied to the surrounding volumes, these pull and push other free (energy) "APEs" through them to create fields of force. Gravity, EM, Strong and Weak forces are all proportional to the amount of knotting and hence the force per unit area.
Sorry for the abrupt ending, but something is better than nothing. I may expand on this later.

To build a realistic model of the Universe you must remember that at the quantum level a quantum "APE" level it is constructed by clusters of points that are not independent.
There is no such thing as an independent point. Or a singularity point, or infinity of any dimension, they are all bent in a higher dimension to eliminate infinities (another Tea Break Book, Bending Dimensions to eliminate infinities, 1st March 2014).
The sum of the quantum "APEs" creates our Universe ³V. Where the sum of all the "APEs" ¹V is constant past present and future.
The expansion and contraction of the Universe is due to the ratio of energy to mass per unit volume in time. So at the Big Bang, energy density is greater than the mass therefore expansion. At the Big Crunch matter is greater than the energy, therefore contraction (remember greater force in matter than energy per unit area).

25th June - 13th August 2014

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

In essence energy and matter are just different densities of quantised space in Euclidean null space. (Another Tea Break Book, Real Space 24th July 2014).

Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com