I’ve been working on this fundamental universe problem for decades, but it’s important to note that I really haven’t done it alone. It’s been a collaborative effort whether any of those taking the time to answer questions, or participate in my reasoning process, or debate my reasoning knew it or not. Anything I suggest is where the logic forced it to go. I simply directed the chaos and abandoned the faulty reasoning as I went. What remained was the unknown answers laid out in neat piles. They just needed assembly.
When I began I literally knew nothing about physics. All I had was an insatiable curiosity for understanding how the universe works coupled with a vivid imagination. I’m a fairly mechanical person as well. Show me a machine and I’ll figure out how it works. Might take me a few million questions, but there’s always a fundamental answer that is surprisingly simple to understand on a rudimentary level. A nuclear power plant for example, isn’t all that hard to understand. To actually build one, sure, that’s out of my wheel house. I’m also a pragmatist. I don’t believe anything until I understand the answer personally. I believe in nothing, literally.
One of the greatest puzzles in my early days was energy. When I imagined the blackness of space and where all this could have possibly came from, I could see no reason for anything but that empty void to exist. Anything more or less felt like a random ad-hoc addition injected by a lack of human understanding. There is absolutely no logical reason for anything but space to exist, period. My conclusion here is simple. Space is the only thing that physically exists. That’s my answer and I’m sticking to it. It’s a fact of the universe.
For no other reason than that simple fact nagging at my sense of reason and logic over the years, I concluded the Big Bang had to be a mythical creation of mankind. The idea that a random condensed point of energy could somehow exist and then explode from nothing, had to be a fabrication. There were so many inconsistencies in logic and reason. Like where would this point exist in a void? How could we call something infinitesimal or condensed when it’s the only thing that was theorized to exist? Scale has no meaning without human beings to observe it.
Anyway, I’m preaching to the choir around here.
No Big Bang. Impossible.
The point is, I’ve asked a lot of stupid questions over the decades. It’s not an easy path to take. I questioned everything. I needed to sort out what we knew, and what we didn’t know. To my astonishment, I found we don’t much about anything. We literally do not know a damn thing fundamentally. Sure, we understand physical properties well enough through experimental results, and can manipulate some of those properties to build things and make a few highly questionable predictions, but underneath that facade of scientific understanding is complete and total ignorance. What mainstream science is not in short supply of is arrogance. Mainstream science knows everything about the universe. And they have trillions of dollars in grants over the past century to prove it. But, I’d like to point out…
What is motion?
What is energy?
What is gravity?
What is matter?
What is mass?
What is light?
What is magnetism?
The list of questions goes on and on and on and on, and that’s not even getting into the “how’s” and “why’s”!
Without a fundamental knowledge of the universe, I would say the odds of any theory being even partially correct in explaining anything about the universe is a 50/50 guess, at best!
There is ‘right’ in just about every theory ever written, but there must also be equal parts of wrong and/or unknown by default. Seriously. We can’t know what we don’t know. Anything more based on the information at hand is a guess by default. To elevate anything beyond a guess in science is venturing into the realm of beliefs. We do not know anything fundamentally about the universe. And that’s a fact or truth in science. Sciences dirty little secret.
So here I am, adding more theory to the trash pile of science.
The difference is, my theory is based on deductive reasoning and logic, not mathematical consensus. Consensus is a bitch, because it allows beliefs to blossom, which creates conflicts of interest. This is an entirely new approach built on mostly reluctant collaboration over nearly four decades of investigation. I learn something new every time I roll it out for further scrutiny and debate. Although, I have found that I’m at a point where scrutiny and debate is few and far between. I think the reason is simple. There is very little left to weed out, so what remains in many respects is undebatable. It’s a curiously logical paradigm built on the things we don’t know. It explains everything from the top down.
It may be an unconventional and unscientific approach, but it got irrefutable results. Is it right? I can’t prove it, but it’s definitely not wrong.
Sorry, there were no replies found.