Q & A

Not just Questions & Answers

but also a dumping area for random stuff

Please read the introduction page first if you haven't already

*** Take what you read here with a grain of salt, it's all just pure speculation & creative exploration, with a dash of dellusional opinon. But I hope it sparks ideas for you ***

Q: How can I visualise Dark matter?

A: A really simple method is get 2 oranges & put one a few meters in front of you & one a few meters behind you. You know that there is 2 "real" oranges but you can't see the one behind you, it's "Dark". If you turn around & change your direction of observation you can now see the one that was "Dark" but it has magically flipped to being the visible one & the other that was visible is now "Dark". 

Ok it wasn't magic, but you would be amazed at how often people confuse 2 states of an object as being 2 different things or 2 things in the same state as being 1

Dark is just a way to say unseen or unobserved

Q: How can I visualise Dark Energy?

A: ok so above you saw that regular matter like oranges can have dark unseen states. But there is one state we didn't mention - "No orange" meaning you looked but it wasn't there. This is a simplistic way to say all stuff like oranges has 3 states - (there, not there & dark). But it's not exactly accurate as the "not there" orange has to be imagined as still having energy but not there, like it's potentially an orange in wait, probably in someones lunchbox. 

Now we know that 100% of the universe must have 100% of it's energy or 100% of oranges must have 100% of their energy, so all we have to do is minus all the visible oranges & all of the Dark oranges (Not there & dark). 

We can only see 1 orange state at a time - the "there state" or one in front of you. So we know that 2 states or 2/3rds or 66.66% is the rest of the energy, the Dark Energy. 

You'll find this calculation is remarkable close to calculations of dark matter made by more clever & harder working people than me with very expensive machines because they haven't yet seen the PBT state of Phenomena

Q: Rotational & Ternary Confusion?

A: Depending on the rotation of the Phenomenon in the Phenomena, structures & functions may present themselves in many ways. But the Phenomenon doesn't need to physically rotate as the Phenom are in ternary states that can effectively flip or rotate the Phenomenon just by changing their ternary polarity. 

Most combinations of structures or functions in the Phenomenon are only be described from the rotation of the image in the Phenomenon section of the site. But keep in mind that depending on the rotation of the Phenomenon or the Phenoms ternary states, there may be many more combinations or appearances than listed here & also the reason why SP sometimes sees multiple things as the same thing or vice versa they see one thing as many. The whole purpose of PT is to eventually reduce this confusion

Q: I heard there is actually 17-ish particles with 5 of them bosons in RP? 

A: Nup, Bosons are the bodies of Projection Phibres not particles or phenom. Looking from the outside in, there are 5 Phibres for each phenom. 1 scalar (a Phield Phibre) & 4 non-scalar (Philter Phibres), they are the vectors & axes of the Phenomenon. The intersection of the Phibres (Bosons in SP) are what create the Phenom or illusion of matter through accumulated compression of light and energy. 

This is very easy to visualise if you look at the phenomenon Square Bipyramid model you will see 1 scalar Phield Phibre that extends toward the center Phen position, & 4 non-scalar Philter Phibres that radiate in 4 directions - reaching towards a square base pyramid shape 

But in PT only the 3 internal axes (Phenomenal generations / Phield Phibres) are real "bosons" the Phield Phibres which align with RP's W⁻, W⁺ & Z⁰ bosons. The outside Philter Phibres are infact more closely aligned with sets of 3 in a Phace being akin to Gluons in SP. 

All this confusion comes about because SP sees each thing as being multiple different things for 2 reasons, firstly they are unaware of the PTM structure & secondly they havent yet seen the Phlogic Balanced Ternary that forms it

Q: Are there particles in PT?

A: No. PT shows us that Particles are just illusions. What are seen as particles are infact the intersection of Phibres. No freely moving independent objects but vector points on the Phenomena's matrix

Q: How does the Phield differs from the Higgs Field

A: This is just pure speculation at this stage but basically PT sees that it's not the Phield but the end of it, where it collides with the Philter as where mass occurs, whereas I think that SP proposes it's the Higgs field itself that is responsible for mass generation, thus confusing & combining 2 seperate components of the Weak force (Phield Phorce) with the strong force (Philter Phorce)

Q: Why do you dislike the terminology of Particle Decay?

A: Particle decay is yet another term that I feel SP uses wrong. Firstly as noted above particles are not really a thing in PT, but even if we were to refer to Phenom etc, it is still  the completely the wrong image or description of the process. When we imagine decay we imagine a process where we start with something & eventually end up with nothing. Death & destruction. This is the complete opposite of what is happening. We start with nothing, then we have some more stuff! Call it whatever you want (a photon, a phenom etc) it then divides & makes 2, they then divide & make 4 & on & on until the universe is full of “stuff”. This is a process of generation not decay. It’s a process of birth not death. To confuse generation with destruction is a fundamental error. How can we describe the processes of the universe if we confuse its birth & building with its destruction & death

If we need to use the term decay it should be when particles merge. After all if they keep doing it long enough you’ll end up with only 1

When a woman comes out of a hospital with a set of twins, that hopefully have a smaller mass than her & we see them all at the next BBQ get together. We don’t say “wow I see you’ve just started decaying!”. 

When we see cells divide we call this life. When they stop its decay. 

So PT definitely shows that SP needs to stop using decay to describe the process of birth, generation & creation. Particles are not decaying, they are giving birth to future generations

Q: Is the Loop of Causality a paradox? 

A: Yep & Phen Theory accepts it.... Kind of...

If the Phenomena gives rise to consciousness… & consciousness gives rise to observation… & observation is what creates the Phenomena… Then we are dealing with a closed causal loop. A self-reflecting cycle. A paradox — but one rooted in structure.