0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My intention was to make a testable theory.
So where are the testable parts of this theory? You have written claims, but I see that you have proposed no way to experimentally test those claims in a scientific manner.
It's not physical. The answer lies within the reasoning.
Sounds like your intention to make a testable theory did not work then.Without the ability to experimentally investigate your claims, what you have is philosophy instead of science.
Give it a little bit more respect. It is not that simple. It's more about me. You don't know me so you don't take a lot of energy to think about it detailed. On the other forums and youtube I also get a 50/50. Some like and some don't. But I know it works.
It doesn't have anything to do with respect nor does it have anything to do with whether I like it or not. It's the simple fact of the matter that a non-falsifiable claim is unscientific by definition.
Imagine not even Cern (LHC) was able to solve it. Think about all the projects out there that tried to solve this. This is how much respect this topic deserves.
It's up to you to decide if you want to put some more energy into a topic that claims to have the answer, and study it.
If I were in your position I'd be tired.
At least this is how I felt before I solved it.
The official science was not able to answer my question.
I may get to some of your more specific points in time. At the moment, I just want clarification: do you realize that what you have is philosophy and not science?
If it's testable it's science.
Testable by exact reasoning.
Please provide a source from a scientific organization where this is considered to be a legitimate form of scientific testing. Moreover, how do you test that your "exact reasoning" is correct?
Logic like 1+1=2.
Except that your original post contains nothing like a mathematical proof. Heck, mathematical proofs like 1+1=2 are actually physically testable by experiment. Add one cup of flour to one cup of flour and you can measure two cups of flower. You can't do that with your ideas.
I don't need to. The cup of flour to one cup of flour already proves that logic works.
You can use it to explain other things. Logic is a tool.
I'm sorry but I don't think that the exact opposite of nothingness could be maybe a cup of tea!
It's clearly everything existing or all existing things.