ajwps,
I agree we don't "know". That is the point to "theories". And I agree the theology part of what I'm saying is a bit of a reach - the point is that the answer to "does God exist" depends a lot on your definition of God. I just like to think that there is an intelligent God and have fit that into the theory, though it is by no means essential - it just satisfies the intuative feeling that their must be such a power.
====
As for all of your dissagreements, well, a lot of them really do agree with my theory if you think about it.
You say the universe is 1 dimentional. I say that it is 1 dimentional plus an oscilation across many dimentions. That oscilation and those dimentions are, in a way, illusionary.
You say there are no boundaries to the universe - well that's what I said but you didn't understand.
awjps said:
There was no original particle and there was no Big Bang and there is nothing solid in our ONE dimension. Only that can be seen in our cognitive minds-eye. There are only several real things but none are in our ability to see or feel or understand fully.
You say there are "several real things but none are in our ability to see or feel or understand fully". I say there is only 1 real thing, the "God particle", and explain why this explains the universe we do percieve (which is not to say there is not also a lot we don't percieve). The fact that one after another as science's perceptions improve the observations being made fit with what is predicted by my theory gives some credance to the theory - you have not made such a link between your postulation and anything observed. You have to say "here is my theory, and if it is true we would expect thus and such to be the case" and then see whether or not it is the case. If it is, then that supports the theory, if it isn't, time for a new theory!
ajwps said:
Sorry but I do not believe in our universe for it to be expanding or contracting or standing still would require a border and something on the other side.
Why? If you can never go there and it cannot ever be percieved (even by "God") does it exist? I say no. You are thinking in linear terms, and one thing is clear, the universe is not a linear system. I'm saying within my theory, nothing outside the bounds (if you can really call them that as they have no real limis) of the oscillation of the single particle has any meaning because it can never be percieved in any way and by definition it is impossible to "go there" because to do so requires the oscillation to go there, and thus it would now be part of the universe.
ajwps said:
Did you know that if you took a simple atom of hydrogen, something that cannot be seen by any current method, has one nuclueus and one electron rotating in orbit around this hydrogen atom.
If you could increase the nucleus of that atom to say 4" in diameter, do you know the distance from that 4" nucleus the electron would be from it? It would be 8 miles away from that 4" nucleus. Ergo this 'universe' is like I said before 99.99999999% space and the rest some form of matter particles which sometimes become energy and sometimes back to matter.
Again, a very Euclidion view of the universe. How does this explain the true observations of the electron "orbiting" the proton of the hydrogen atom? The position of that electron can be statistically predicted with 100% accuracy - it will spend exactly the amount of time expected in each statistical zone, no matter how fine the scale of measurement. Yet no matter how accurately we can statistically predict its position, we can never pin down and predict where it actually will be at any given instance. Why? How are you explaining this? How do you explain where the energy for running that atom of hydrogen is comming from?
My theory explains these things. (first, let me say I'm using the proton and electron as my example items, but in fact the core particle is probably smaller than either of these and it takes many mainfestations to create these items - but for discussion it's easier to use these simpler terms).
The electron is in fact going backwards in time, while the proton is going forward. The nature of the nexus (what we call "now") of forward and backward moving particles in the complex multi-dimentional universe is such that the path of least resistance (lowest energy requirement) for the proton is through an electron going the other direction (and visa-versa), and this is the binding force that holds atoms together. But because time-space is a complex curve, the electron and proton do not usually actually meet, they miss by a small amount, which is influenced by the heat energy present at that junction in the nexus.
Visualizing this (an abstration and simplification of course), the electron looks like a long string of wire comming out of the future, and the proton is like a marble trying to ride along that wire, but because the universe is complex, the wire is not strait and the various forces on the marble (which define the curved nature of the universe) make it so that as the marble is shifting to contact the wire, the wire is moving out of its way.
Thus the exact position of the electron can never be predicted, because cause and effect are backwards for this manifestation of the particle. Because the influences on the particle before (in the future) are unknown, its actual position can never be predicted, only observed. The energy to run the system (in this example a hydrogen atom) comes from the "big bang", which under my theory is defined as the initiation of the oscillation (assuming that it was not always oscillating - another topic).
awjps said:
So if one were to presume that we actually exist in a universe, nothing is more than space held together by the strong and weak forces theorized by scientists. But I do not believe that even that much exists.
I agree. Those theories are unnecessarily complex. My theory is very simple by comparison, and explains the same phenomna.
Finally, what useful comes out of your propositions, assuming they are true?
If my theory is correct, it implies (amoung other things) that gravity has only the one negative force, that this force is uneffected by distance, and that it will "push" on every other particle manifestation in the universe except those blocked by an intervening particle. If this is so, that force can be tapped to provide energy for our use. All it requires is a super dense material (either ordinary or supported by an energy field). This energy would be totally clean, and without meaningful limit. To find out all we need is a small plate made out of neutronium (or some other super dense material or fabricated super dense structure), or a deep space lab with a large plate made out of iron. Spin that plate and, if my theory of the universe is true, an object will be attracted to the plate when the plate is perpendicular to the object, and will not be attracted when it is lined up in the same plane. And no, it's not "perpetual motion", somewhere a particle manifestation will be reacting to the plate for every unit of energy produced, balancing the equation. If this is in fact true, space craft could also be constructed to use this energy to "fall" in the desired direction, allowing tremendous acceleration, and the occupants of the ship would not feel the acceleration at all (though they would feel the energy used to reposition the plate when aligned in the same plane as the ship).
Finally, my theory makes predictions about future scientific observations. As I've said, it predicts that it will be found that "dark matter" is no different than normal matter, it is simply in a region of space which does not have sufficient heavy metals to kick of solar fusion in the hydrogen giants, and this can be somewhat verfied by looking at the regions and seeing if there is evidence they are indeed heavy-metal poor.
It also predicts that it will be found that a free (or realtively free) nuetron will decay into a proton and an electron (or partial electron) over time, because the neutron is in fact just an instance where the electron (moving backwards through time) and the proton (moving forwards in time) have actually intersected along the nexus ("now") for some distance of the space-time curvature. This is caused when energy is applied causing the proton path to deviate into the electron path against the curvature of space-time, but that energy is normally limited and such a union must decay (an exception might be a nuetron star, where gravitational pressure would hold the neutrons together).
Wade.
