I support your general views on this issue.
I leave Agent Smith to fight his own internal battle between antinatalism and masochism instead of his attempt to subject his own internal psychology to the scrutiny of others here.

I will look out for your sandwich board....

You have to decide if you favour the philosophy of the well known American philosopher, Harry Callahan (a.k.a Dirty Harry a.k.a Clint East wood) or not.

Hee Hee American, I already answered your 'how do you know they don't exist' question, in a previous comment. I can copy it and repost it for you if you need me to but I'm sure you can find it for yourself, it won't be too far amongst the previous comments.

"A child dying of starvation"
If you were there perhaps you could have fed the child. I take that you do a lot of charity work and contribute to food banks and such, regularly.

"an infant succumbing to a painful infection"
Perhaps you could have provided the medication to save this infant or you could have phoned a medical professional or held them and whispered beautiful words into their ear or sang them a beautiful, peaceful song as they died. Had you been able to, would you have done so?

"A person being (slowly) tortured to death."
Maybe you could have killed the torturer or maybe the victim had slaughtered the person's family earlier and this was an act of vengeance. waddyafink?

"A person who's unemployed and homeless because he didn't have it in him to make the cut"
Maybe you could give this person a job or help him find one.
Maybe this person was a fraudster, caught, jailed, released, now rejected by friends, family, now on the street homeless, Do you feel still feel empathy or pity for this fraudster or would you 'offer another chance?'

"Basically people enduring the most horrrific of circumstances aren't looking for perfection! They're simply asking/begging for the bare necessities that make life enjoyable tolerable!"
Then why don't you do what you can to help them?
Instead, you sit inside your misanthropic bubble wearing your badge with 'I also suffer, boo hoo for me' on the label. But you wear it with pride. You like your christ crucified stance.
Your internal watcher is trying to tell you, you are too obsessed with the concept of suffering.
DA671 has gone to great lengths to do the same.
If you won't listen and learn then let us optimists get on with trying to 'intervene' on the behalf of the sufferers while you continue to bleat about suffering whilst doing nothing to help.
Why don't you think about becoming part of the solution instead of remaining part of the problem?

"Your distorted view of reality is showing with every word that you write. I don't blame you though. Our opinions are shaped by our circumstances. You'll come around in time; it isn't a question of if, only when!

I find predictors of doom boring and somewhat amusing.
A sandwich board with 'The end is nigh' on it is their usual fate or they join something like the 'rapture' crowd.

"Well, the charge is "stuff" inside matter. It doesn't resemble matter, so it's non-material "stuff"."

Charge is simply an attribute of some subatomic particles. A source or sink for electric fields.
I don't think there is much traction between the concept of an attribute of a particle and the concept that the human mind is fully contained in the human brain.
You would require evidence which was telekinetic or telepathic etc to demonstrate that any aspect of the human mind can permeate outside of the human brain or body, not simplistic comparisons with subatomic particle attributes.

"Same holds for the people they created! In their own image"

This just implies you have a low opinion of yourself as you are included in the group you describe, which I hope is not true

"Its clearly a concept and not an actual thing or at least in my eyes this is the case. The way I see it people have experienced and viewed change and decided to categorize it as time or at least partly as time but it's an untangible non-real thing I mean hell we can't even naturally keep it we have to make clocks to keep it for us because it's unnatural to know what time it is now you can know that the sun setting or the sun's coming up but that's different than knowing the exact time to the second"

Well love, thought, consciousness, etc they are all concepts and not really 'things' or demonstrate the attribute of physical substance but they are all very important to the human experience.
Time has no physical substance, except in the representational physicality of the moving clock hands but I disagree that 'it's not an actual.....thing.'
The fact that a concept causes difficult comprehension in the human mind in no way diminishes the validity or importance of the concept.
To me and with a little tongue in cheek, you are trivialising or disrespecting the 'wonder' of time.

Strength or a lack of it, physically, morally, economically, etc These are also 'concepts', but perhaps they can be more easily and substantively understood and demonstrated in our everyday experiences compared to time. But the concept of time is no less important than the concepts of love, thought, consciousness or strength
Time is the arena within which events occur. It's not exclusively change-driven.
The coordinates of a point in 3D space for example (x,y,z) does not change but that coordinate still has a substantive reference. In the sense of the actual physical point of the fabric of space, it refers to.
You can state that this 'point in space' can be described as having 'no spatial dimensions' and that's fine but does that mean there is 'NOTHING' at that point. Well, it depends on your definition of nothing.
The best Laurence Krauss can say and most other cosmologists say the same or similar. They use a counterfactual such as 'well it's an absence of something.'
I think words like 'it's an untangible non-real thing' are just defeatist.
Try to enjoy the 'wonder'.
Individual humans can be very impatient and think 'arrrrrrghhhhh my f###### head, this makes no sense!!!!.' I sympathise and feel the exact same way sometimes but then I remind myself, it is very arrogant to assume that as humans, we DESERVE, we have EARNED full disclosure.
WHERE DO WE COME FROM? WHY ARE WE? WHAT IS OUR FATE IN THE ETERNAL SENSE?

It's fun to anthropomorphise the Universe into a small recalcitrant child (always female in my head, might be just a male thing) laughing whilst saying 'am no tellin ye, am no tellin ye' (oh, I forgot to say, she is always Scottish as well).

Btw, the Sun does not rise or set, it is the Earth that turns.

"The consequence to making this stupid concept is it change the way we viewed situations that we experience or hear about and so now we have the wrong understanding in the wrong idea on what history is and what the future is we think of the past as something that we could eventually one day travel to in some stupid machine and or the future as if these are both places that are physically somewhere just not here right now and that we could somehow go there when that's ridiculous and not the case there's only now"

I think referring to time as a 'stupid concept' is just mawkish. You might be right, time travel maybe just a 'flight of fantasy' but it is not ridiculous to conceptualise it and use the scientific method to find out if it's possible and doing both of these things does not stop me enjoying the 'now.' On the contrary it's part of my enjoyment of 'now.' If you think I have the wrong idea of what history is and what the future is then please enlighten me. I joined this forum for that exact purpose, to enhance my level of enlightenment.

Sounds like you have a good life and you are enjoying life. All power to that.
I like to think I am having a similar experience. I wish it were so for all people.
I had an early interest in drawing/painting.
Since taking early retirement I have taken up oil painting and I am really enjoying it.
I am also writing a book and intend to self-publish when it's finished.
It's the illustrations that take so long to create.
It's just a novel but you might like the fact that it's about life after death (for some) but has nothing to do with heaven's or hell's of any kind.

"Mind is contained in the brain, but it is no thing. Like charge is contained in matter, mind in contained in brain. How does it feel to be a charged particle? Fabulous!"

Sorry Raymond cant make much sense of this maybe due to typing on your wee phone.

"Sleeping is waking up from the harsh game of reality. It's nothing to fear, nor is death. Worse than reality it can't get. Some dreams entered are mares in the night, like their daytime counterparts in the physical, and some of them I don't wish to come true..."

I can understand some of this but its perhaps a bit too cryptic for me. I don't know what point you are making

"I want my old back in life. Every day I tell myself to contact the firm, Medion, and then I don't. I studied physics but just don't wanna use it to make money with. The book can change that. Damned, I'm gonna contact them now. All my information is on that computer, and I can't log in on a lot of my original accounts with my phone. I forgot the password of my original email account, and had to look at my computer to log in again. Which couldn't be done. I've written quite some stuff already. Thanks man! You are the drop!"

Such a familiar story to me. I was regularly red in the face for 26 years telling my pupils/students to
backup their work, passwords, software etc, etc on a secure, regular manner using more than one device and store the copies away from the originals.
But most of them only complied periodically and I had to deal with "Oh no sir, my computer broke and ive lost all my stuff," more times that I can recall.
I have a good regimen for backing up. Good luck with your old faithful Laptop.
Use cloud computing or at least an external SSD to regularly back up.

"You deny the existence of god on the basis of not existing physical - yet many religious systems do make no claims of any such entity existing. Many of the eastern doctrines view god more akin to a concept - a mysterious force that pervades all beings that makes no claim to an identity of it's own. It's only due to the talking god of the abrahamic tradition that we're so used to "god as an entity".

I have many reasons for not believing in god. Apparent inability to physically appear in front of all of the humans they created is only one failing for an omnipotent creature. I have no problem with panpsychism or cosmopsychism or even Diest's or most of the Theosophists, eastern or otherwise. My problem lies with is with Christianity, Islam etc all the way to the even more ridiculous ones like scientology.


"Who ever said that god cares about humans?"
Not me! My problem is that humans seem to care about non-existent gods.

"The problem with anti-theists is that almost none of them ever read the source material they are trying to refute. They take the most mainstream understanding that can be found among the common populace - who to the largest degree have no idea about the material as well."

I have not read every religious text. I have read the bible cover to cover twice and an English version of the Koran or Quran. I certainly can't quote chapter and verse. I leave that to more subject specialist Atheists like Matt Dillahunty etc. They normally contain and diminish theist's very well on their internet based encounters.

"In the Bible it's not humanity as a whole that is favoured by god but the sons of Israel.
Everyone who wasn't a child of israel, when the occassion allowed it, was brutally annihilated by that very same god. Reading and understanding the Torah let's us ponder whether any cruelty in the name of religion was much more inspired by tribalism and kinship, rather than divinity itself."

Sounds to me like you are trying to find ways to excuse the ethnic cleansing directive issued to old testament prophets. Would it not be more honest to state that such reported directives could only come from an evil god. What does it matter which group of humans it favoured and why. You personally either have a consistent sense of justice or you don't, which is it?

Specifically in response to: "Reading and understanding the Torah let's us ponder whether any cruelty in the name of religion was much more inspired by tribalism and kinship, rather than divinity itself"

So where the prophets of the Torah lying when the said 'In the name of god' or something like it.
If so, what else did they lie about?

"The wrath of god(s) appears to be a more common topic than their mercy.
But here's the thing: In most if not all of these occassions, the blame is put on the humans.
It's one of the central themes in religion; if humans act in a harmful and moraly question way, they get punished by god. And if a society acts in a harmful and moraly questionable way for an extened time, their whole civilization gets wiped out.

This alone should be reason to question the idea that religion itself is at fault here. If the scriptures that are the basis for the belief do not condone such behaviour, how can the scriptures be the basis of that very behaviour?"

So, first you state that bad, immoral humans get punished or their whole group destroyed for not stopping such behaviour, due to god being 'wrathful' or 'very angry' with them for their behavior.
Then you say but that not religions fault its down to humans not interpreting the scripture adequately.
So it their own fault this fate happened to them.
How is that different from any dictatorial power like the Nazi's justifying their actions by saying
'well if they just did what we wanted we would not have destroyed them'
Would you accept such a justification?

"It's only ever the rotten individual that searches for a disguise to his abuse of power."
Yeah, I agree and often their disguise is sackcloth or bishops robe or priestly garb or imam garb etc.

"Religion is an easy excuse - but we need not look beyond men to find "something greater than men". A group identity suffices to justify any kind of cruelty, which is perfectly evident in nationalism. A common religion then is merely used as an additional element to cement the idea of "us" versus "them" - but it's by no means a requirement."

I take it you mean people, as you intended to include women when you seek something greater.
On the contrary, study the lessons of history. Religion is used very deliberately, almost every time,
by both sides to add divine permission to help justify their case for killing the other sides. Catholic Vs Protestant, Moslem Vs Hindu. KILL KILL KILL, god demands it.
Don't you think its time to insist humans stop using non-existent gods as a scapegoat to excuse their evil behaviour. If you want to maintain religion and the posit of god then that situation will never stop.

"Religion then is merely a tool that the tyrant may misuse to his advantage."
I agree, so lets take it away from such, safer to take it away altogether but never by directive or force, only by consent without threat of punishment for non-compliance. This only works if we become capable of exposing tyrannical behaviour and are not fooled by characters like Donald Trump. Unfortunately, currently, we have nowhere near the required checks and balances in place.

"But if we are to say that this makes religion a bad thing, then we must curse science as well - as it gave the tyrant a much greater set of tools than religion ever did"

Nonsense, it's not about cursing, it's about education and justice. Technologies can be as deadly as any religion if used to harm rather than help. Ultimately religion or technology or some combination is quite capable of destroying our species. Does it matter which one succeeds? Let's employ better control. Let's not focus on nonsense like which is better at destruction, religion or technologies produced via scientific effort.

Buy a new Laptop ya cheapskate! Physicists are all minted are they not?

Born in Glesga(well done) and lived most of my life there but moved away 15 years ago.
Didn't like Trainspotting, too depressing. Drugs have destroyed a lot of lives all over the world, I just can't let go of the seriousness of the topic, enough to laugh at portrayals of messed-up junkies.
Edinburgh people call us 'weegies' and we call them 'burgers.'

The gods you describe sound like incompetent fools, jokers. Just as well they don't exist.
Your general sentiment is rather pessimistic. Put the blame where it belongs.
Don't use fictitious gods as scapegoats for the actions of humans.
Force our species to take responsibility for their own actions.
If you want to insist and push the 'hell on Earth' idea then lay the blame correctly, where it belongs and then insist that all effort is made to do better in the future. Be another motivated voice for progressive politics. Speak out against vile ideologies like those of Trump or the clown the UK people elected (Boris Johnstone).
All that is required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.
I for one, am willing to accept and even welcome our extinction if we let such happen for whatever reason.
I welcome death(when my natural time comes) as a harbinger of change.
I don't seek it because I enjoy life, the happy times and I accept the sad times and the mix of the two.
I will maintain my optimistic view for my species and do what I can to help improve things.

Yeah but you are just playing with words, in the same way as David Bowie (I'm a big fan by the way)
used to put some songs together by moving clever words and phrases around on a table and deciding which combinations sounded good.

A similar idea would be 'A wine barrel contains wine or air, maybe even wood but you can't say it contains drinking.'
It's just nonsense. You then try to conflate towards your hidden intention, which is to suggest that based on such skewed logic, the human mind is not, or at least not fully, contained in the human brain..... therefore..... consciousness outside of the human brain..... leading to what....god perhaps?
Come on....give us all a break!

"Keepopthesail Scotsman!"

Ha ha nice try Raymond, you are close but it would be 'keepuprasailman' or 'keepupyersailman'
in proper 'Glaswegian'

Thanks for taking the time to read the DIMP hypothesis. I upset him I think, when I said I thought his idea was a bit pedestrian, based on my own limited analysis. I did tell him about my limited Physics.
But I do genuinely try to respect all knowledge seekers. I don't always succeed but I get my fair share of insults or camouflaged putdowns fired right back at me.
Thanks also for your 'good questions' comments.
All power to your impressive Physics knowledge.
I count such scientific depth of subject knowledge, amongst the best hopes for the progression of our species in a hopefully positive and honorable direction.

Didn't expect to be conversing again so soon Raymond but its a different thread so....

"Yeah... words as small doses of poison. Little by little the "truth" is established. Like the scientific view.."

Don't you recognise how you keep trying to conflate Science with Politics and/or religion?

"I don't think he means to discover Zeus in the lightning... How are you so sure the gods don't exist?"

With Sophistry, you have to interpret intention carefully. It turns out that those who seek power, position, control over others and great wealth etc Never had to fool all of the people all of the time. Some of the time or some of the people all of the time, proved perfectly adequate for their goals.
I am not accusing Agent Smith of any such motives but I will call out sophistry if I sense it, especially the theist variety.
The existence of gods is probably the earliest and most successful method used to achieve such goals as I have mentioned.
From the divine right of Kings to rule to the opiate of the masses. Even in the current book I am reading, Ulysses Grant is writing about the attitude of the Southern states close to the outbreak of the civil war. He writes "For there were people who believed in the 'divinity' of human slavery, as there are now people who believe Mormonism and Polygamy to be ordained by the Most High. We forgive them for entertaining such notions, but forbid their practice.'
This is no game, not funny, not funny at all. More people have died or been killed as a direct cause of religion than for any other reason. The only thing that has a higher death rate is old age.

I know there are no gods because if they ever existed they would be in our midst, physically.
Guiding us. There are more planets in the Universe than there are grains of sand on Earth.
Earth is overcrowded and currently, very badly managed. If there were gods why are they not helping that which they created and therefore would be responsible for.
They would be the vilest of creature(s)/parent(s) if they existed.
REMEMBER one of the biggest con tricks religion will attempt to sell you. It goes something like this:

You are too inferior to know god or even contemplate god. But lucky you, he has sent me and other prophets (in the early times, these were probably my pals) to tell you what his directives are. The directives normally involve you behaving the way dictated to you by gods messengers and first involve you accepting that gods messengers or those you have been told god has declared 'divine' must be given respect, they must be feared, given power, position, wealth etc.
Your reward as a mere compliant follower will be given to you, AFTER YOU ARE DEAD! and if you don't agree to this then you will BURN IN HELL, FOREVER.
I think you must be blind to not see the human mind all over this. The need to deceive others to gain advantage was learned from our 'survival of the fittest' inheritance. A lion will sneak up on its prey. Predators come up with all manner of deception to get what they want. Why would humans start any differently? It's only our developing morality and our ability to question the justifications behind the actions of others that allow us to try to create systems and checks that allow us to experience better lives and insist on fair and just treatment for all.
No god will ever ever ever! deliver such for us, we have to do it for ourselves or we will perish as a species and I would then say with my last breath, 'Good Riddance! our species deserved to perish.'

"Gonna read the dimp! I'm typing on a phone, with one thumb and a fucking small screen. My laptop is still dead.
Nice talking with you!"

Yeah, cheers Raymond. Thanks for your comments. I hope there are others around this Forum who have the physics depth, to be able to bounce ideas around more fruitfully than you are able to achieve with me and my current physics level.
I'm afraid that any new learning in the area of cosmology is only going to be unidirectional at present from you to me. I will attempt to leave you alone for a while but I'm sure we will converse again.
araverybestfurnoo!!! ('all the very best for now!!!', in case you don't do scots dialect)

Yeah, a beginning for an average fable/fairy story. Keep going, you might be able to bring back Zeus in a new religion Zeustology. I can see the new places of worship being built all over the world.

What was it Joeseph Goebbels said:
"The bigger the lie the more people will believe it, especially if repeated again and again, as truth from authority backed by force"

You do like sophistry....

"With or without e, whisky feels good for me! I can't drink it with a straight face though. Can you taste the difference between Scotch and Irish whisky? To me they all taste the same, be it Johnny or Jack. Tastes awfully, but great! Must be the promise they hide"

If you want to talk whisky then this is probably the wrong site. So with humility towards the indulgence and patience of any other readers, I will keep this short.

Johnny Walker has some respectable creations and there are some 'ok' Irish whiskeys but there are few (in my opinion) same with Japanese and Canadian whiskys but sample the range of 10 year up to 30 year single malts from Ardbegs to Caol ILa's to Lagavullins to all the whiskys that start with the word Glen. Go through The Islays, the highlands and lowlands, the Strathspeys Then we can talk.
You are unlikely to get a really good single Malt for under £80. Maybe if your lucky, you might pick up a bargain. I was given a £400, 27-year-old, Bowmore by family when I retired. Delicious, I have a dram from it, every birthday and Hogmanay. I love the peaty's, the peatier the better. The likes (or Yikes!) of Jack Daniels is just burnie fire water that deserves to be drowned in flavoured, fizzy anything.

Here at last, the DIMP guy between quotes:

"Dimp stands for DIMensionless Point.
This is a new idea with a funny name that challenges all physics.
We know that photons are outside of time and distance.
My suggestion is that Dimp contains all photons.
That means Dimp contains all electromagnetic energy in a single dimensionless point.
Dimp is eternal and outside time, space, distance.
Dimp was here before the Big Bang and will be here after the Big Bang, and long after this space-time universe has ended.

Here is an analogy. The energy was in Dimp. The Big bang was an explosion that broke away from Dimp and began space – time; but space – time is not part of Dimp.
This can be seen as the fire analogy:
a fire = Dimp, and an ember = space – time, that broke away from the fire and is no longer part of that fire.
Dimp is outside space and distance. That means that there is no distance between any two photons, they share the same, no distance, point. This is hard to fathom. The idea that all energy is gathered in a single point outside of space-time and is eternal may be one of the hardest things in physics to comprehend or even imagine. Yet all that we know about photons and the speed of light say it IS so.
Next comes the idea that this energy was there before the big bang, is much much more energy than all the universe after the big bang, and that the Big Bang was a small subset of Dimp, just as an ember is a small subset of a massive fire. That means that DIMP is not part of Spacetime, Gravity, Mass. That means the forces of gravity and the electromagnetic force are not connected. They are separate and any attempt to unify them will fail. The goal of physics to unify forces into one, during the early Big Bang is wrong for the reasons listed above.

Background: Why are positive and negative exactly the same?
They have to be because the waves of each are exactly the reverse in destructive interference.
That is what I suggest charge is – exact destructive interference of waves.
Fact: The total charge of the universe is zero. Number of surviving electrons matches the number of surviving protons.
QUARKS MAY BE 3 CRESTS AND TROUGHS OF WAVES.
Quarks are crests and troughs of waves that make a proton or neutron.
Proton as two crests and one trough wave =3 quarks = +2/3 -1/3 +2/3
Neutron as two troughs and one crest wave = 3 quarks = -1/3 +2/3 -1/3
This suggest that if quarks are parts of a single wave, we may not need the idea of quarks
This suggests that, like electrons; protons and neutrons are in orbitals.
This suggests that the neutron orbital is SLIGHTLY smaller than the proton.
THE OLD IDEA THAT PROTONS AND NEUTRONS ARE STATIONARY PARTICLES MAY BE WRONG.
My Diagram suggests that protons and neutrons are NOT stationary particles, but active wave/particles in orbitals that are MUCH smaller than the electron orbitals around the nucleus.
Then too, these waves/particles that make up the proton and neutron, must have incredible superposition, and destructive interference – not to mention momentum. – that would be a massive STRONG force between them. Could that be a clue to the strong force?
Fact: Atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons do behave like particles. … Atoms, electrons, protons, and neutrons also behave like waves! In other words, matter is just like light in that it has both wave-like and particle-like properties.
Fact: Superposition does not mean that an electron may have one momentum or another – it means that the electron literally has all the momenta at once.
PIONS AND KAONS MAY BE WAVES TOO.
We now think pions and kaons are two quarks.
What if they are extremely small waves such that the wave has one crest and one trough – each representing one quark.
ELECTRON AND PROTON MAY BE THE SAME SIZE
Both the quark and the electron are virtually the same size at (10)-16 cm.
But I suggest that the 3 quarks (up and down quarks) are really just the crests and troughs of extremely small orbitals.
THEN, that suggests the electron and proton may be virtually the same size.
But how can that be?
Fact: The 3 quarks of a Proton = 1% of the mass of the proton.
The binding energy of a proton = 99% of the mass of the proton.
Summary: So instead of a zoo of strange particles, we are looking at different waves that combine or ‘decay’

Here are ideas on waves and existence.
On the quantum level an electron wave represents existence . When the wave is at the anti nodes or crests, it is most likely to be in existence. When the wave is at the nodes, it is not likely to exist at all!!!!
So if Dr. Hoang is correct, then on the quantum level, the electron wave/particle comes in and out of existence during parts of the wave!
What if I took this idea further.
Would that mean that a proton wave acts the same way as the electron wave?
Would that mean that the existence of not only fundamental wave/particles come into and out of existence, but all quantum particles do as well?
Would that mean that when any two waves experience constructive interference such that each wave is then enhanced in it’s crests, then does that mean their existence is stronger.
Would that mean that when any two waves experience destructive interference where the waves reduce the crests to a more ===== form, then does that mean their existence is much weaker or that they are non existent?
Further is this a clue to how mass comes into existence?
https://youtu.be/e-xsKfZ7BOA

So why does a free neutron take 11 minutes to decay, and protons are virtually immortal? They are both made of 3 quarks.
QUARKS DO NOT MAKE SENSE – or the 3rd quark is REALLY weird.
Proton = 2 up , 1 down quarks. Neutron = 2 down, 1 up quarks.
So the difference between the two is the 3rd quark.
Both have one up and one down.
That leaves the difference between the proton and neutron as the 3rd quark.
So difference between a proton and neutron is due to whether the 3rd quark is up as in a proton, or down as in a neutron.
So, if that’s true then:
The third quark determines two things:
If it has an up quark – proton, then the particle is immortal.
If it has a down quark – neutron, then the particle decays in 10 minutes.
If it has an up quark – a proton, then the particle has less mass then the neutron.
If it has a down quark – a neutron, then the particle has .1% more mass than the proton.
So the down quark weighs .1% more than the up quark.

Quarks have no measurable physical extension, and seem to exist at points. Yet that single point does all this and more.
The proton has an up quark, and that magic third quark also determines half of the electromagnetic force in the universe and it in no way is like the electron, the other half, except in being an opposite charge.
When three quarks team up only a small part of the proton’s mass comes from the masses of the quarks. Most is binding energy. So that third quark has virtually no mass but can do all these magic things.
Quarks interact strongly and link in twos or threes to make particles such as pions, protons, and neutrons. Yet the other half of the charge world, electrons, does none of these things.
Physics is a science of pairs. For every particle there is an anti-particle. Virtual particles come in pairs. Spin, waves destructive and constructive interference, etc. In these cases the pairs are virtually identical and or mirror images of each other. So why would electromagnetic charge have electrons and protons so different from each other, and in no way seem built on exact opposites, or mirror image opposites. "

"You are sent from heaven.."

Then when I return I'm going to try and destroy it because its description sounds like hell to me.
Nasty, nasty place with a maniacal dictator in charge of pointless automatons forced to 'worship' it for ever.

Now for the more important ones for me:

"You are missing that space for an accelerated guy is curved. That's the weird thing about space. It's relative stuff. It depends on your state of motion how it looks. If you fall freely in curved space it is flat. If you accelerate in flat space, it looks curved."

Ok, I understand that but are such effects not localised? As an observer, I would just see a receding red blob, wouldn't I? An observer would not see or detect spatial curvature. I can understand the motion curving or warping the space being traversed but to me, that suggests that the fabric of space is flexible not curved.

"Space around mass is not inherently curved though, just like space in intergalactic space is not inherently flat. It looks so, but it depends on your state of motion, your relative velocity wrt other bodies, how it appears. If you accelerate towards the speed of light, you will observe that clocks that are stationary in your frame have different ticking rates, like in a gravity field, the difference being that the field you see in that frame is uniform). Relative to the frame from where you leave all clocks in the accelerated frame tick slower and slower. In a gravity field, artificial or not, time at points where the clock stays stationary, tick at a different rate than clocks in rest in empty space."

This sounds like you agree with the posit that 'Space is not rigid, it's flexible.' Similar perhaps to a person swimming under water, you displace your volume of water. Move through space and you displace/flex your volume of space.

I understand your reference frame points and its repeated in Brian Greene's book 'The Elegant Universe' A person travelling at light speed may switch on a torch. The light from that torch would travel at light speed in all directions. In his own reference frame he would also age at the same rate he aged in the frame of reference he was in before he accelerated to light speed.

"This is an actual difference because acceleration is absolute. It's an actual feature of objects."
I understand that you never add a velocity to the speed of light, so the speed of light is a constant.
I also understand that traveling at a constant speed in dark space and in absence of any other sensory info, you would feel no different to being completely at rest. But you would feel accelaration. I think that is what you are describing by your words in the quotes above.

"If a force acts on them then they accelerate. The clock doesn't go faster for you (if you accelerate) though. Only wrt to non-acelerating ones. Seen from two frames with constant relative velocity, the time in the other frame seems to run slower. This doesn't mean that both clocks run slower than the other. It depends on how they started out and meet again (for which acceleration is needed), how their clocks compare. If your clock that accelerates to lightspeed returns, it runs behind the clock that stays behind (twin paradox). If you will go behind it and meet (after it stopped), the clocks will show the same time."

Yep, all good. I am familiar with the twin paradox. So my only open points so far are 'localised effect' and 'spatial flex'.

"That's my theory, yes. But in GR space is curved inherently."

What does GR stand for?


"Like a circle can be described without reference to the 2d space it's in."
Do you mean Mathematically(pure numbers or pixel values) or by its attributes, such as (name,radius, coordinates of centre point, line thickness, fill colour/pattern etc). This is a system used in computing called object orientated graphics.

"Without reference to an outside 4th dimension. If you place 3d space, the whole structure, on a 4d space, the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth."
This has some commonality with the Klein bottle guy but I could be recalling incorrectly.
I just have great difficulty trying to contemplate anything outside 3D. I can visualise the idea of other dimensions of the very small using the common 'Look at a 3D pipe from above and it looks 2D, you dont see the wrapped dimension. I can also easily visualise a doughnut shape but that's about it. I dont understand " the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth." I will have to research that one.


"If matter, contained on the 3d structures (a matter filled one and an antimatter filled one, although both contain the same amounts of the 2 basic massless matter/antimatter fields, but differently combined) accelerates again later on, as observations on supernovae have shown, the 4d structure has to be negatively curved again. This negatively 4d substrate represents dark energy. It gave rise to inflation near the mouth, then inflation stopped and turned the negative curvature to positive, and then, when accelerated far enough from the mouth, the negative returns, as is now happening."

Nope. I'm lost now. Would need to research and study. How can you get massless matter/antimatter fields??? Surely all matter has mass or else it's not matter its energy??

"It is precisely this dogmatic attitude towards intrinsic curvature of space that blinds most physicists. Einstein said the curvature is intrinsic, so... The problem with an extra dimension is how to keep matter in 3d. But if this can be done in string theory (gravity leaking in a fourth dimension while matter stays on three, it's no problem. Particles themselves can be a kind of torus too. The product space of three circles, SxSxS"

Only a layman style response but I have always taken it that the spherical shape presented in physics books, were never meant to be true representations of particles/atoms etc. I understand them as irregular shaped cloud-style concentrations of waveforms. A torus? Product of 3 circles S^3? visualises in my head as 'too pretty' doesn't fit with the chaotic quantum imagery.

"Does he mean dimention? Or dimension?"

Probably just my typo. His own words will be posted below:

"There are no point particles. This is an abstraction made in quantum field theory. The only true fundamental particles are two massless basic fields. All particle interactions, like proton decay, are easily explainable in this model. How can a basic particle like a quark change into another quark if it's fundamental? What is space? Maybe the hidden variables of quantum mechanics. Space is a means for charge to interact"

Maybe once I have posted what I have on the DIMP idea you will have more to go on.
He talks a lot about quarks.

"I'm curious! Seems you are sent from heaven! If you want to. But from what you've written they seem wrong. Which I say naturally. All these theories, from the ones I've mentioned to the three you have mentioned, are just pots of crack.."

In response to: "Seems you are sent from heaven!"
There's no need to insult me Raymond (Ha Ha).

In response to: "the three you have mentioned, are just pots of crack..."
Careful, You are person 3!

I found the exchanges between myself and the DIMP guy. I also have his name and noted again that he also wrote Sci-Fi books. I copied all our exchanges into a word file and condensed it (only took 10 mins) into my best attempt at his main Jist. It's two A4 pages. I will post it below, once I have finished responding to recent comments. It will be a little disjointed as it's an amalgam of posts. I've removed any repetition I could find. You might, as I did, find the level of passion which comes from his 'slightly manic' style (only my opinion), interesting in a positive or negative way. I won't include his name but I'm sure he will be happy that I am disseminating his hypothesis.

Sorry my replies took a while. I switched to my current book. 'Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant and then went to sleep.
An absolutely fascinating read so far.

"Klein bottles in relation to the universe? I'm not sure, was he a Scotsman? That whiskey...There are hundreds of theories about the origin of the universe. Each cosmologist claims a theory. Eternal inflation, the pyrotechnic universe (to which mine actually is very close, but it claims two infinite braines, eeehh, branes, and as I said, the universe only appears flat). All of them have not a clue what dark energy is. I give an explanation"

To specifically respond to "was he a Scotsman?"
I would say humor is such a subjective form, isn't it! But yeah.........ha ha.
A true Scot never puts an 'e' in his whisky, only the cheaper Irish and American grain whiskey's do that.
The Klein bottle guy was in fact American and came across as a very nice person.
James Clerk Maxwell, Alexander Graham Bell, James Watt, John Logie Baird and many other highly contributive scientists were Scots. I think I've made my point. I don't want to get too much into Braveheart mode.

I remembered a little more about the Klien bottles guy. It was all about Klein Bottles and Mobius Strips and he got very insistent about two base variables which he was convinced had to be the digital values 1 and 0 from computing. Even though I told him that in Computing a 1 is received as any voltage > 0 and < 5, which is in fact, analogue data.

I find the brane theory stuff fascinating. I am not familiar with 'Eternal inflation' or 'the pyrotechnic universe' but they sound like two I should read about.

:halo:

Another point that might interest you is, In my wish to take part in online discussion sites. I have joined one of two of them, including this one. Its been a part of 'what I do,' since retiring.
You are now the third person, who I have discussed cosmology with, who has stated, with serious conviction that they know the structure and origin of the Universe.
Each as convinced as the other that they are right and the current popular hypotheses are wrong.
I can recall some basics but i'm sure if I went back to sites such as Askamathematician/askaphysicist
I could bring up the discussions we had.

One was about Klein bottles and.......that's all I can recall
The other was more recent so I can recall a little more. He posited something he called DIMP
DIMentionless Particle or Point, I can't remember which.
DIMP was outside of spacetime, so outside of this Universe but what started our Universe came from DIMP and I remember he typed a lot about pair production and virtual particles and zero point energy.
It would be good if I could try to find their main jist's again and post them here for you to look at. I am sure there are many other such out there, if I alone have encountered 3 in the past two years.
I am not suggesting in anyway that your proposal is unlikely.
I cant because, like the other two examples, I don't have the knowledge to be able to. I also don't intend or wish to discourage.
On the contrary, I want to celebrate all true seekers. Surely it's the participation that matters not who gets the plaudits

"What's your aim in this experiment? I'm not sure I understand. The clocks in intergalactic space show the same rate but the rate by itself is not constant. There are no perfectly periodic clocks"

I don't want any massive objects around to affect the path of the clock in motion or attract the clock which is stationary. For this reason, I place them beside each other in intergalactic space.
One clock is accelerated away from the other, maintaining its straight-line path. At near to the speed of light, time dilation will cause the moving clock to tick much slower than the stationary one.

In your scenario, you said that if the two clocks you described, show different rates of time (meaning one ticks faster than the other) then this shows that space is curved.

Why?

In my scenario there are no curves! and my clocks will show the same as the ones in your scenario. It is the velocity/motion of the accelerated clock that is causing the different time rates, not the curvature of the space they are traversing. What am I missing?

"Okay Scotsman! Let's set the boat assail."

Good, strong words, I like them. I would guess you are American, but no matter, good strong words in any nationality. We are all Earther's

"A small flurry of depression hit me. I simply roar back."
Carl Sagan's books, I think it was 'The Dragons of Eden' or 'Broca's Brain'. He discusses the brain as a triune system (the R-complex, the Limbic system and the cortex). Three brains really or three interconnected systems. He also discusses the left and right hemispheres of the cortex, the corpus callosum between them as the com channels etc. He describes a good level of detail about how it all works together. Such books gave me a better understanding of states like depression, small and long lasting. But yes, you are spot on. The choice is to fight back and chase such away or suffer. The more times you win the more resistance you build. I look to the Neuroscientists like Sam Harris to help me further with such issues. I don't need god or faith in anything supernatural to deal with the pressures of being me and being human and just BEING. I am convinced no-one else needs the god crutch either, if rationalise their life.

" I don't believe in gods which doesn't mean they are not there."
Good, I am perhaps just more convinced than you, that they, or just IT, is not there, but I also cannot prove gods do not exist, no-one can and it's unlikely that anyone ever will be able to. But no-one needs to, I am happy to let the idea fade away. It's others who keep it alive. I used to like the phrase
'Hell is other people', I probably still do but it is certainly misanthropic and too harsh.

"But I can't answer the very last question. Where it all came from. Even if the universe is infinite spatiotemporally, which I think it is, and even if there is an all-explaining theory (well, not all obviously, but the cosmological story), which I think I have, then still, where does it all come from? You can ask the same about gods, but at least then it comes from something alive. I think though they don't want me to bow at them."

Again, no-one can, so you are in the company of the population of the entire planet and all who have gone before and probably all who are yet to arrive, so why take the stress/burden personally.
These issues niggle at people all through their lives no matter how many times you try to 'close' them, as an individual. The niggles will always return and in countless variety.
I personally think that its because, deep somewhere in the triune brain is the niggle that WE MUST and everything MUST be connected IN SOME WAY!. We should celebrate that. I love it. It's fun searching, frustrating, probably involves mental instability at times but you can always stop for a while and do something simpler for a time, The Vulcans of Star Trek fame, celebrate infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Exciting, much better than god and heaven (in my opinion). Each person secretly wants to be a god themselves and be recognised by all others as such, but I think that its just an instinct (probably from the Rcomplex), developed from our time in the wild, where the rule was survival of the fittest. Most of us can suppress and reason away the god complex, quickly.

"About the closed universe. Indirect measurements of gravitational waves (by means of CMBR polarization) showed that certain wavelengths (long ones). This means the universe was and is closed"

I know about cosmic microwave background radiation from the big bang. I know gravitational waves as disturbances in spacetime due to big explosions such as hypernovae. I know gravitational waves have been detected due to 'tiny fluctuations in a particular set up involving laser beams'. I get polarization as light waves being changed so they focus? concentrate? to one direction? The words you typed seem incomplete. "showed that certain wavelengths (long ones)....... incomplete?
and then "This means the Universe was and is closed". So I don't understand what you have typed so far, apart from the understanding I explained above.

One final point.

I would place the two clocks, in my thought experiment scenario in intergalactic space, between galaxies, no gravitational effects, hopefully.

You offered no response to two points I think are important :
I gave you a 'thought experiment' scenario and then asked
Why would the clocks ticking at different rates indicate curved space?

I typed about the Friedmann equations and copied a section from a wikipedia page about the shape of the universe. I then asked you which measurements you were referring to with:

"Measurements show that global space is closed."

I think it's important to respond to these points but of course, you are not compelled to do so.


I think I was a bit slow on the uptake with your :

"depends on who you mean with me. I know though..."

and my response of 'Me Myself and I'

I now get what you were saying. I now think you were asking me, who was I talking about when I said
'Yeah, we just don't know enough yet.' You were asking me who are the 'we' I was referring to?
Sorry I was a bit 'doh!' there.

Well yes, I would certainly fit into that category but only as a representative of the majority of people.

When you type 'I know though....', I now think that you are suggesting that you know the structure, origin and shape of the universe. If that's the case, then the more important 'we' I was referring to, would have been better as a 'they' and they are the current representatives of the cosmology world. The ones we see regularly on our TV screens and on the internet, who all say 'we just don't know yet', on so many astrophysical issues, including the shape and quantum structure of the Universe. Individuals such as Laurence Krauss, Ed Witten, Brian Green, Roger Penrose, Neil De-Grasse Tyson and many others. You have offered nothing so far which suggests you know better than they do (only in my humble opinion of course.)

"What on Earth are you talking about? You think I have fear of the gods? Absolutely not. I just care about their creation"

Ok I accept that, so why mention Hell? The intention of this word is to conjure an image of a place of disgusting and vile punishment of individuals who have rejected gods as non-existent. People like me. To try to play down that true intention of that word is just sophistry and it is sinister. I am not accusing you of having that purpose but many theists do. If you need the source of our existence, God then thats fine. If your god image is a non-intervening god then fine. I don't have a deep problem with the diest position. I have even more patience for some of the theosophists, the panpsychists, the cosmopsychists, etc (I was a cosmopsychist for years, especially after watching Babylon 5 and listening to the musings of Delenn of the Minbari) but now I think such is pointless, as I would ask why the need for such? but maybe you feel, you do need such and its not my business why. Perhaps you take the view of the likes of Jordan Peterson who says it would take him at least 10 hours to start to explain why he believes in God.

The idea of people experiencing hell on Earth, I completely appreciate but I am with the late, great Christopher Hitchens who commented that (not a direct quote, a paraphrase from memory)
'You can die on Earth and the suffering stops, in hell, the suffering is eternal, there is no escape.'
This is one of the nastiest inventions the human mind has spewed forth and it is totally false. Not a scrap of evidence.

"Without the aids of science this couldn't be done! Science is just a modern day story of creation. And just as in the old days of God, it's obligatory to learn globally and forbids other means of living because it has joined with the state.

"Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds"

Oppenheimer about his toy. Russia is mad enough to use it. As America and NATO generals. Ain't that hell on Earth? I prefer hell below"

Here your mixing politics and science and conflating religion with science.
Bombs and bullets don't kill people, people kill people.
As I said, no, there is no hell on Earth because suffering ends at death.

"You appear to be young and wild! The internet can deceive! It's a compliment!"

Aw, Thanks Raymond, maybe young and wild at heart but no, an auld 57-year-old, Scotsman!


"Ah, yes. I misunderstood linear. A future and past indeed. I meant that the very concept of clock is imaginary. No real periodic reversible motion exists. All periods vary. Only at the big bang such a motion existed. But there were no irreversible processes to measure with this clock! Time as an irreversible process is real. The clock is imaginary."

Ok, I note what you have texted here but will you not admit that what you say here is opinion, not fact, you can back it up with some evidence but current evidence in this area, is not conclusive (in my opinion) and your impressive knowledge of physics surely compels you to clearly declare and separate opinion from that which you are willing to present as scientific fact or as close as you can get to it using rigor and empirical evidence. I appreciate this forum is not scientific and welcomes opinion, but I just mean it's important to separate your opinions from your convictions and even more importantly, from that which YOU consider TRUTH and are willing to apply maximum effort to defend, in some cases, with your life!

"I don't believe in them. And if there I give them the finger!"

Hallelujah Brother, and that's from an Athiest.
I have no problem with a person who has a religious faith that gives them great comfort and is important to their life. I will tell such people I am an atheist but I would be an ass if I tried to tear down something which was the basis of their morality and their sense of security and well-being.
If I ever do that with malicious intent, then I hope I pay a price because that would be fair justice. All I ask is that they dont preach to me. Dialogue, debate, conversation on the topic, even heated or emotionally driven is ok but as soon as any form of real, personal anger raises itself from my side or the other, I will stop! back away etc. Unless it has already went beyond such opportunities and you are under physical attack, then I have no choice but try my best to defend.

"Don't forget the actual occurrence of hell on Earth for people who don't and didn't comply with the invented directives of science. Actual hell seems a lot scarier than an imaginary."

Nonsense! and hell is not scary as it does not exist. Don't try to pass on the fear you obviously feel yourself in the dark places. These are just indoctrinations forced upon. you in your more vulnerable years. I have defeated such irrational fears. I have personally challenged any god, to visit me anytime and demonstrate its power. The best you will get is humans who delude themselves that they will act against you in their gods name and then claim their god is working through them.

"Most people living in indigenous communities. The communities were simply wiped off from the face of the Earth. Children taken away from them to teach them the western way"

Yeah, in almost every case this was done 'in the name of god'. It has been ever thus!

"Curved space by definition is not Euclidean. The straight line in curved space is geodetic."

My command of Astrophysics and physics is way below yours. My qualifications are mainly in computer science. Since retirement, I have toe-in-the-water qualifications, based on online internet courses on cosmology and my own reading. I am not expecting too many teaching points from you as I recognise the frustrations, that can be involved in having to repeat academic points to each new individual encountered or many times to the same individual before understanding is achieved. I was a secondary school teacher for 26 years, so I am familiar with such frustration. I am of course, willing to do my own work but I always appreciate time and effort savers.
I understand a geodesic is a straight line between two points on a curved surface but my question remains, if time is curved then do you posit that time travel is possible?


"The line is curved because the clocks on it tick at different rates. The metric on the axis varies. There are no perfect clocks, so the timeline is an imaginary."

I understand that your scenario here is imaginary (a thought experiment) but another thought experiment:
if a clock was placed in free space (not orbiting anything) and not in motion, relative to a second clock which passes the first one at a speed close to light (or a significant portion of light speed) in a parallel straight line path, perpendicular to the first clock, then they would tick at different rates but there are no curves involved. If I place both clocks, next to each other, on the same straight line in space and accelerate the second one away from the first, maintaining a straight line path, the clocks would tick at different rates as clock 2 is accelerated more and more. Why would the clocks ticking at different rates indicate curved space?

"Flat spacers claim global space is flat and thus infinite."

Well If 'flat spacers' claim that detectable (I dont like the use of the term global here and I'm not mad about 'observable universe/space') space is flat, then I dont see how they make the jump to 'infinite.'

"Measurements show that global space is closed."

I understand k= 1,0 or -1 from the Friedmann equations. Below is a quote from wikipedia:

The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) confirm that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. On the other hand, any non-zero curvature is possible for a sufficiently large curved universe (analogously to how a small portion of a sphere can look flat). Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the four-dimensional spacetime of the universe. The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat, but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space and the Sokolov–Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by a 2-dimensional lattice).

I assume this is the area of your work you are referring to and that you disagree with the current evidence but then the obvious question becomes which measurements are you referring to?


"Reading the data means reading clocks at different positions. If they show different rates, time is curved as well as space."

Still dont see why this follows based on what I typed earlier.

"The time curvature is imaginary though."

Why is it imaginary? Time is either linear (past, present, future) or its not, it's curved (time travel then would be possible if you can access/traverse the 'inner sphere/hyperbolic' of time), or its multidimensional and the wormhole aliens of Deep Space Nine become more plausible.

"I'm working on it. Up till now, there is only resistance, because I attack the orthodoxy. Only proposing that there are only two basic fields of matter is looked at in frown, let alone assuming a spatially 7d substrate with 3 curled up dimensions on which two 3d universes appear at recurring big bangs.
I'm writing my story in a book. Sells better. "The Dark Solution". I have a whole list of titles.
Up till now, nobody offered any good criticism. Apart from the remark that I basically repeat KK theory, which is nonsense."

Fair enough!

"That's his asshole talking..."

I wouldn't mess with big Clint, he is liable to give you a new opportunity for espousing multiple opinions at the same time by 'tearing you a new one.'

So why the stupid comment, that you believe in Thanatos and Hypnos. I like humour but I have enough hassle dealing with the irrational theists and other fantasists, without having to waste my time answering, windup comments from those who seem completely rational. Unless you really do have some disfunctional cogs in your head.

"It depends on who you mean with me. I know though..."

I mean me, myself and I.

Nonsense, The human mind is contained in the human brain. The same applies to monkeys. Do you think you would still have a mind, if your brain is removed and destroyed, but your brainless body is still maintained?(probably not medically possible yet)

Walking is a coordinated action of the objects called legs, people without legs cant walk. Even one-legged humans cant walk without a prosthetic. Legs are capable of many other actions, kicking, skipping, jumping etc

"The straight line of time becomes a curved one too. If space is curved, so does time."

So if time is curved, then based on Euclidean geometry, you can create a straight line, which connects two adequately distanced points on the curvature. Do you therefore posit that time travel may be possible?

"Curvature can be defined only for the space between two different points. A point has no curvature."

Traditionally, a single point only has coordinates, it has no spatial dimensions, so it's obvious that it cannot have curvature.

" If you imagine two different points on the timeline (an imaginary line) and put a clock on each point, then the curvature of time is the difference in timerate of the two clocks. If the two clocks show no difference, time is flat, "

A 'timeline' by definition of 'line' would be linear, 1 dimension. So a line of past, future and present time. Such a line would therefore BE time. It makes no sense to put clocks on it. You can simply read the time from the line. It cannot be a timeline if it does not already contain that information.

"flat, like space is"

This is not fully established yet, as you yourself confirm with "If space is straight, flat,"

"there is no difference between subsequent intervals mdx (corresponding to the rates of the clock on different mdt on the timeline). The m is called the metric on the spacetime".If the metric is constant there is no curvature."

Should be able to obtain this metric by just reading the data from your imaginary timeline at regular intervals or perhaps we can call them 'past intervals' and/or 'future intervals' depending where 'the present' is established on your timeline......perhaps time is not linear.


"Mass curves spacetime,"

Is 'curves' the same as 'warps?'

"induces a metric (which are the m's arranged in a symmetric 4x4 matrix, which is usually a diagonal matrix with elements on the diagonal only but sometimes contains off diagonal elements giving rise to a torsion of space, like frame dragging),"

Is this still valid if string theories extra spatial dimensions exist?

" and instead of moving through flat spacetime around mass and under the influence of a force, as happens according to Newton (and even with an instantaneous action...), a mass just follows the curvature, just as in flat spacetime it travels straight."

Still so much to do. If space is curved. how does it curve? Is it a great big sphere? Is it a big Calabi-Yau manifold, within which, every co-ordinate triple(which I prefer to 'point') is a Calabi-Yau manifold?

"Yeah, so we just don't know enough yet
— universeness"

Still seems pretty accurate to me.

"The problem, at the same the true kicker, is knowing it. Once you see it, it all seems so obvious."

If it's obvious to you then please publish your paper containing your equations and proofs, so that it can be peer-reviewed, before Thanatos and Hypnos do you any mischief from their faraway hiding place.

To quote the American philosopher Harry Callahan (aka dirty Harry)
"opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one"