MegaMax Studios

I grow weary of theoretical science. Is it science in fact, or merely in theory? There are huge black holes in the 'Big Bang Theory'. Who can really say? Is there an actual witness who has been there? Is there any photographic evidence? All I ever see are number crunchers vying for a slice of fame. Current theories seem inadequate. They say that it all began with the appearances of super-hot, super-heavy atomic matter, but they fail to suggest how this matter came into existence from non-existence. They cannot show where it came from or how it developed. Moreover, they have no theory whatsoever about the empty space it suddenly appeared in. Did the empty vacuum exist before the bang? Does space expand with the universe? Just how big is the emptiness? And really,can we even think of such things? To think of theories makes our thoughts theoretical. To think of non-existence makes our thoughts non-existent. To have thoughts about empty space makes our thoughts empty space. Ahh! - but the 'Big Bang' - theorists love their noisy theories. Only - sound is not supposed to exist in this grand vacuum which our universe is supposed to have exploded into. Or, do you suppose that the bang was both a matter and emptiness generating engine? If nothing existed (but suddenly there was a solidity) the explosion of it should have been like popcorn: the expansion of solid material only. If it did not explode into a preexisting space, then was the nothing outside this first material a vacuum or a pressure? Seems to me, if there was only matter, and no preexisting space, that very fact would have altered the shape of everything, in terms of homogeneously expanding matter. Anyone can spout theory, and I will do just that for an example, but do you think someone will pay me? Well, anything is possible - in theory. I will propose a theory of the universe. Let there be no banging or static states; I propose the Serially Looped Organic And Mechanically Cumulative Universe Theory. SLOAMCUT for short. My theory proceeds thus: There is no beginning and no end, however, each pass through (or, serial loop) culminates in an end that is merely a new beginning. The loop drags with it all the gains of all its various processes. Whereas there was something with which to begin (in a non-beginning sort of way), it was small and had to be built upon. The gains of the first pass added to the substance of the second pass, mechanically and methodically building toward the cumulative end (in the fashion of all which does not end.) Where the so-called experts have both an expanding and contracting universe, my theory will shed new light on their collaboration of mutually exclusive constants. Say there first atom did not bang into a box of empty space, merely because the whole thing about non-existence suddenly existing in a medium that had totally ignored the non-existence clause by existing so that something else could occur in it is a bit too much to swallow. What my theory proposes is that all those things we can't possibly know, we can at least guess at by means of comparison to things we actually do know. Let us suppose that our universe is a small part of something very large, and organic. Let us further surmise that our universe exists inside the lung of our large living something. First, our universe expands, then our universe contracts. It expands again; it contracts again. It is in an infinite (theoretically speaking) and serial loop. As with a lung, substance is drawn in and included into the current state. thus adding to every substance and process. By the same token, other substance, in its own time and place and by its own process, is expelled. The experience by which we make our comparisons dictates that life comes at us in pairs, in poles, with each pole having its own clearly defined opposite. What do you think, can North exist with South? Can up exist without down, in without out? Yet, so-called experts (theoretical big-bangists) would have us believe that our universe runs on gravity alone (the attraction of mass) and that there is no opposite to gravity. They are keen to hand us a load of anti-matter, but you never hear them speak of anti-gravity as a universal, naturally occurring force. My theory offers both push and pull, both vacuum and pressure, both attraction and rejection. I offer a biological theory of a serial loop, in which each and every self-opposing pole along its expanding/contracting path is both beginning and end. And there you have it. What's your theory?