ComponentTheory

Component Theory:

The Physical Fundamentals of the Universe

Daniel McCreary

Have you ever thought about what everything, in the very final analysis is made from? Could it all, somehow, be made out of nothing? While the Nobel Prize Committee is unlikely to deem this paper worthy of their consideration, true scientists, those who are determined to pursue the truth wherever it may lead them, will at least read it.

Until now, while much has been written concerning creation science, except for the theory of intelligent design, not much has been propounded concerning scientific theories based on creation.

Consider your bones. Have you ever wondered what they are made from? What, on the most basic level is there that makes up the protons, electrons, neutrons, calcium, and marrow that compose them? What are the components of the components?

Component theory says, first of all, that there are ultimate physical components to the universe. Ancient Greeks thought that they existed, and could not be broken down any further. In a way though, human thinking keeps telling us that everything is made out of something else. On the other hand, what if the ultimate physical components of the universe were somehow made out of nothing? ?Nothing? here means non-existence, the empty set. Then they would have no smaller components. They would truly be indivisible.

Here, we are looking for facts concerning the ultimate physical components of this universe. It is unlikely that we can gather any direct evidence or evidence through any instrument we can build. On the other hand, we should be able to use logic and reason to go from those components to the kind of universe we experience, including our bones. Also, at some point, our qualitative analysis should be subject to quantitative analysis, and most, if not all, of the theory should be expressible in mathematical, physical equation and function, form.

On the other hand, we can use instruments that we have and can build to gather indirect evidence of component theory, once we have some idea of the kind of thing we are looking for.

Going back for a moment, the ultimate physical components would be more elemental than anything else, because every other physical thing is built up from them. Physics works with particles and fields as its basic components. Perhaps we are looking for one kind of basic particle and one kind of basic field. That would give us three things of a fundamental nature. The other thing being the relationships between the particles, the relationships between different parts of the field, and the relationships between particles and field. We also need some kind of dynamic. Something is needed to start things.

Where can we get some facts concerning these components? One set of sources might be stories of creation, from ancient to modern. Most creation stories, including the big bang theory and all its variants, including inflation, assume the pre-existence of physical objects. There is one that does not, yet it results in our present physical universe.

First, though, let's have a close look at creation itself.

For this universe to exist, something had to start it. Either it sprang, somehow, out of nothing at all, or something eternal caused it. If the universe sprang out of nothing at all, we cannot explain its origin. If we so much as invoke a principle of abhorrence such as, "nothing abhors emptiness," "nothing" becomes a something, something that abhors emptiness. Reason, therefore, demands that some entity, of whatever nature, must have always existed. If that entity was material, a Higgs field, e.g., where did it come from? There you have the ultimate question. Something can come out of something else, that came out of something else, that came out of something else... It leads us to God, because He, alone, could self-originate (I'm not saying that He did). Nothing else can. Whatever field you go back to, its forming anything like a Planck mass within a Planck-sized volume is so extremely unlikely as to approach the impossible as a limit.

The conditions pictured for inflaton demand a universe (not ours) something on the scale of our own, filled with nothing but fluctuating fields. This would be true chaos, true maximum entropy. These quantum fluctuations would be the driving force behind chaotic inflation (yes, that's the way it is spelled). There is a way to calculate the probabilities involved concerning the formation of an appropriate inflaton field. Since 10^16 or more Higgs particles are required for a Planck mass and Planck-length sized inflaton field, the probabilities can be calculated. Keep in mind that the required quantum fluctuations are taking place in a universe full of non-required fluctuations, all of which are acting upon each other.

What if you were trying to perform, on purpose, a relatively simple task, such as stacking ten marbles on top of each other on a table in a roomful of normal people, some of whom were bumping the table? That will give you some idea of the difficulties of forming the inflaton field under the above-named conditions. Given a velocity (c, perhaps) for the movement of the Higgs particles, the length of time required for the small required number of particles to form an inflaton field within the given-sized container can be calculated. This is under conditions of true chaos, true maximum entropy. This is within some finite length of time.

If Higgs particles are truly 1,000 times the mass of a proton, it would take 10^16 of them, in a Planck-sized volume of space, all at once, to form the inflaton field. Since all of them would be part of the field's quantum fluctuations, all of them at once would have to assume the proper state for the inflaton field to be formed. In finite time, it would take a God of miracles to do it, like stacking those marbles. If you think random fluctuations can produce the necessary order (which would be extremely low entropy), I demand you recheck thermodynamics and entropy again and look into chaos theory. You are not going to get that kind of perfect order in such a high mass over a sufficient duration of time (say, a nanosecond) for the accident to occur. Thermodynamics says that our universe is running down; what wound it up? What kind of dynamic started it?

Of course, you say that we have no time limit, but strange attractors, etc. in chaos theory say that no finite amount of time will ever be sufficient. That kind of pattern of extremely high order and extremely low entropy just will not occur. If you want a figure, I believe that you will find that in four dimensional spacetime, it would be something like 1/ x (n^n^n^n), where n=10^16 and x= the possible number of states of a Higgs particle. That is, 10^16, to the power 10^16, to the power 10^16 to the power, 10^16, multiplied by x, divided into one. That is my estimate of the odds of the accident ever occurring, in any finite amount of time, for a long enough duration for the inflaton field to form. This number is based upon my estimate of the number of other particles and fields that could influence or disturb the target Higgs particles (like people bumping the table), and which would have to be in such a state that the accident could occur. Entropy says that something has to have caused the extremely low entropy, high order universe we have today.

On the other hand, if, for the sake of argument, you grant me the existence of God in the time stream, being God, He was not confined to it. He then could go somewhere that nothing existed, not even time, and there see to His own existence. God's name, Jehovah (or Yahweh), means that He is self-existent. God, therefore, solves the problem of existence. Nothing else can.

Other than creation stories, we have surmise, theory, and guess work. We are looking for facts, close enough to the ultimate physical components so that we can build a theory. There is a creation story that does not assume the pre-existence of physical objects yet results in a universe of physical reality. (There are also creation stories that assume that the physical universe is not real, but this is a physics paper.) To establish whether or not this creation story is factual may not be entirely possible, but it has been established, wherever it has been possible to investigate, that The Holy Bible is rooted and grounded in fact. We have plenty of archeological evidence, and the evidence of fulfilled prophecy, plus more evidence, concerning the truth of the Bible. The preponderance of the evidence favors the Bible.

Have you ever thought that the Bible might be true? Did you realize that would have consequences in the realms of physics and astronomy? Those consequences, it is likely, can be confirmed by modern scientific tools.

Therefore, here is a hypothesis: The Holy Bible is true. A theory of physics can be developed, based upon the Bible, that can be confirmed, scientifically, just like any other scientific theory. Also, a theory concerning astronomy, based upon the Bible, can be developed and confirmed, just like any other scientific theory.

It may seem contradictory to try to mix scientific rigor with a God of miracles, but most generations of scientists have not thought so. If one is careful concerning miracles, never invoking them where there is no written record, and applies scientific rigor to the results of those miracles, a true, scientific, testable theory can be developed.

Of course some things can appear to be miracles which are not, especially where our understanding is limited.

Hypothesis #2: The Bible is true, all of it, and should be taken as literally as possible. It should not be taken literally where it uses parables, symbols, and other literary devices, but where it gives us straight reporting of events, those reports should be taken as factual. Where this has been done in the past, archeology has verified the truth of the Bible.

Here I am presenting a theory based on this hypothesis that can be tested scientifically:

1. Genesis gives us an outline of the construction of the universe as well as indications concerning its basic substance.

2. Other parts of the Bible add to our understanding based on Genesis.

3. From these a theory can be built that has testable consequences.

By the way, scientific logic has never recognized the value of ridicule, mockery, unbelief, incredulity, misinformation, prejudice, or an unwillingness to be accountable (to God, for example). It cannot afford them. As a scientist, can you? Einstein's relativity, by the way, was subjected to all of these.

On the other hand, scientific logic has always found a healthy skepticism invaluable, even though it often gets confused with some of those things mentioned above. Einstein's theory, when investigated, came through with flying colors. The Bible, when investigated, has come through with flying colors, but people simply are not willing to believe it. The Bible has actually met higher standards than Einstein's theory has. All this background has been necessary because there are many in the scientific community who have no wish to be accountable; especially they have no wish to be accountable to God.

Here is a challenge for you: I challenge all of you atheists and evolutionists to put aside your preconceived prejudices and go wherever the evidence may lead you.

For those among you who think this challenge is unnecessary, I present a few quotations.

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God?there is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that leaves us with only one other possibility?that life came as a supernatural act of creation of God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." -George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, Vol. 190 pp. 46-50

"We don't need evidence. We know it (evolution) to be true." -Richard Dawkins, Quoted by World, Mar. 22, 1997

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." -Dr. Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature 410 (6752): 423, September 30, 1999

So much for scientific objectivity-

Be that as it may, rather than continuing to weary the reader who already has an open mind, we shall go on.

At this point, I wish to acknowledge, with thanksgiving, where the following ideas and theory came from. A number of years ago, I felt that God was moving upon me to ask Him something. Therefore, I asked Him to tell me the secrets of the universe. Before that, for more than forty years, I had been studying physics, trying to understand what a truly fundamental particle would be like, and how a number of them could make up the universe. I acknowledge here a debt to a large number of physicists, astronomers, and scientists from Asimov and Gamow to Brian Greene. God then proceeded to lead me into composite theory. Because I am a bit dense, it took some time for me to get it.

To reiterate: Theory: the Bible is accurately true, is not scientifically stupid, and is actually scientifically sound. Also, scientific theories can be formed that are in harmony with the Bible that can be scientifically confirmed, just like any other theory of science.

Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This tells us that He created two kinds of things to start with. They were both out of nothing. Heaven, or what we call spacetime was what He created first. I believe (partly because of other parts of the Bible) that spacetime generated the spacetime field, not by way of particles, etc., but as a set of conditions. This field, I believe, is continuous; it has no smaller components. This lets us exist in a four dimensional field that is embedded in higher-level dimensions. The spacetime field has specific characteristics, permeability, permittivity, elasticity, flexibility, etc. I believe (and this is important to the theory) that this flexibility, although enormous, is limited to some significant portion of a Planck length that would be the smallest sized sphere that it could form. Keep in mind that this spacetime field is continuous, and that it is a set of conditions embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime.

Considering spacetime itself, or the fabric of the universe, if we live in a four dimensional spacetime field that arises from a five dimensional spacetime, not only are a lot of things explained, a set of possibilities becomes available for our investigation.

Suppose you have a shell that is thin, like the skin of a bubble, or is even without thickness, but is a shell of five dimensions. There is no special reason, in four dimensional terms to suppose this five dimensional shell to have any given configuration. That configuration should be thought of as one that has changed and will change. Also, you cannot say that any of its four dimensions are like ours. On the other hand, studies of black hole entropy, etc., bring us to believe that our universe is like a holographic projection from a flatter (thus the thin shell idea above) sort of place than the universe we see. The five dimensional spacetime could have two space dimensions and three time, for example. Speculation here can run wild. On the other hand, elliptical coordinates can yield four spatial dimensions on a flat (or two dimensional) surface.

Here we have a baseline (X) through the two foci (f1 and f2), a point (p), a distance (Y), from the origin at f1, an angle A , and a distance (Z) from f2 to p. If we allow f1-f2 (X) (that is, the distance between f1 and f2) to vary, while keeping f1 fixed at the origin, then we have three independent variables, which can be made up from X, Y, Z, and A . Either A , Z, or Y can be a dependent variable. If Y+Z=a, X=b, and A is allowed to go through a full 360 degrees; (where a and b are constants), an ellipse is described by p. Therefore, these are elliptical coordinates. This actually gives us four, and possibly more, dimensions on a surface.

Because of this, you can have a five dimensional surface (including the dimension of time) projecting a four dimensional spacetime. Therefore, this gives us a reasonable starting point for investigations. With a fifth (spatial) dimension outside our spacetime field, a number of things become explainable.

Difficulties arise, however, in explaining the linkage between five dimensional spacetime and the four dimensional spacetime field. In order to avoid action at a distance, something has to be continuous, not made up of smaller parts. In this theory, I have supposed that something to be the spacetime field. In regular holograms, the linkage between the hologram and the image is supplied by light. In the Bible, however, light did not exist until after heaven and earth were created. Given that the five dimensional spacetime is configured as a surface and that it gives rise to the spacetime field, there is a way for it to happen without bringing in another physical object.

If you have nothing at all and insert into it a common object like a rock, whether or not you leave the rock there, you no longer have nothing at all. You at least have a space that will contain a rock. In a similar way, when God had nothing at all and moved the spacetime surface through it, it became the spacetime field. That is, by moving the spacetime surface through nothing, it left behind a set of conditions that are our spacetime field. Because God stretched forth the heavens and is still stretching them (according to the Bible), the movement is continuous. Therefore, the spacetime field is also continuous.

Because of its arising from a surface, our spacetime field has a point-to-point correspondence with a surface, as has been shown by others.

The "earth" spoken of in the first part of Genesis is not our present day planet. It is something else again. In the first two verses of Genesis, it is called the earth, the deep, and the waters, like the writer (Moses) was writing about something he had no name for.

Picture please for me a truly fundamental particle. It occupies a mathematical point in space. It has no mass, spin, charge, charm, color, wavelength, inertia, or diameter. It is a particle. These fundamental particles (fumps for short, singular: fump) were the second thing God created. When He created them, they were scattered across part of the universe (see Genesis). A fump can be fully described by saying that it is a particle called a fump and giving its coordinates.

The spacetime field, at this time (the beginning), was probably stretched to somewhere on the order of a millimeter across. While I believe that it was limited in its flexibility; it also had a limit on its ductility and malleability (it could only be made so thin), or the conditions that formed it would disappear. The fumps were like grit in the field. They gave texture to the continuum. A single fump, embedded in the spacetime field would cause the field to form an envelope around it. Because the medium of the field had a limit on its flexibility, each envelope was only so small and no smaller, something on the order of a Planck length across. This means that each envelope could contain more fumps than the one it formed around, with plenty of room to spare. At this point, however, we are most interested in those fumps around which the envelopes formed, not the incidental inclusions.

Each of these fump-envelope combinations was an embedded particle. These embedded particles and their tensors are very likely most of the dark matter that astronomers and physicists have been puzzling over. Also, because embedded particles were only scattered throughout part of the universe, it is likely that there are regions of space where the permeability and permittivity of space are different than around here, so astronomers should look for regions where the speed of light actually changes. That would be likely to have some kind of lensing effect. An embedded particle can be described with coordinates for its core fump plus the tensors to describe its envelope and the envelope?s effect on the spacetime field.

This lack of embedded particles could also effect Maxwell's equations because the permeability, etc. of free space could be quite different in those regions.

This does not change the symmetry of physical laws; it simply kicks them to another level. If the applications of physics are changed in different regions of the spacetime field, that is because they are operating under different conditions.

Associated with each embedded particle, there will be a number of tensors.

T1 is a stress tensor between the envelope and the core fump.

T2 is a tensor embedded in the envelope that shapes the envelope.

T3 is a tensor between the embedded particle and the rest of the spacetime field.

The envelope has thickness, so it has other tensors as well.

These tensors are surface-to-surface, inner surface tensors, and outer surface tensors.

While I do not believe in string theory, component theory does not rule it out. In a millimeter-sized universe, some of the envelopes (or wrappers) are likely to be in contact, and some of these are possibly linked up.

My objections to string theory have to do with strings not being truly fundamental. Linked envelopes, or linked embedded particles, could easily form strings, and all the other branes of M-theory, without requiring the tensions, enormous masses, and the enormous energies of string theory. Linked envelopes could easily occur when two or more fumps were created far enough apart that a single envelope would not enclose both of them, but they were close enough together that their envelopes were not entirely separate. If Mr = the minimum radius for an envelope and d = distance between fumps, when d = Mr, linked envelopes could have formed, or perhaps that equation is only a close approximation. In any case, two or more linked envelopes could be a string, or some other basis for an M-theory brane. My problem here is: what would keep linked envelopes from breaking apart? Could there be tensors that would prevent it, or would the tensors be better balanced without linked envelopes?

To go on, God looked things over and did some prep work.

"And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Here, God was turning some of the embedded particles into oscillating particles. An embedded particle just sits there. It adds stress (tensors) and texture to the universe, shaping it just a bit. An oscillating particle adds some kind of oscillation. That oscillation can be periodic or aperiodic, but it will be very low in amplitude. These particles are probably the rest of the dark matter and their oscillations are probably the dark energy that astronomers and physicists are looking for. These oscillations did not make the oscillating particles into quantum particles; each is more like the ghost of a neutrino. These added rhythms can be anywhere from an insignificant portion of a nanosecond to gigayears long. Because they are so feeble, we can probably only detect them collectively, and only where they are concentrated enough to produce a noticeable effect, and where they are rapid enough for us to find them. That said, astronomers should look for regions where oscillating effects are occurring, like with spectral oscillations, a star or star group?s apparent oscillating movement, etc. An oscillating particle can be described like an embedded particle above, plus functions describing its oscillations. It is likely that these oscillations are the origin of time's arrow. Of course, these oscillations mean that all parts of the universe are in constant relative motion, so the coordinates for the central fump can never be independent of the time function, let alone the considerations of the uncertainty principle.

"And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light."

Here we have God interacting with His creation. The embedded particles were gathered in some kind of body that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of. (The Hebrew can mean "moved," "hovered," or "fluttered.") He was preparing a portion of the embedded particles to become something else. He was creating oscillating particles.

When God said, "Let there be light," that's when quantum particles were born. We'll get back to them.

I believe that about this time is when God began stretching forth the heavens, as the Bible indicates (Isaiah 51:13). By the way, the Bible says that He is still stretching them out (Psalms 104:2).

I do not believe in the big bang, I believe in the great stretch. This great stretch is the stretching of the spacetime surface, which, in turn causes our universe to expand. This stretching suggests to me that the structure of the spacetime surface is fractal. If it is fractal, no more special acts of creation are necessary to maintain its fine structure through all of its expansion, to many trillions of times its original size. Fractal structure allows for enormously detailed branching on smaller and smaller scales, without losing structural integrity. Your blood vessels have a fractal structure, as do the branches of a tree. It has been suggested that fractal structures enable the genetic code to be more compact. Because of the fractal structure, the spacetime surface, as it moves and expands through nothing (changing it into something), leaves more and more of itself behind, like an enormous number of trails. Because it seems to be expanding in a spherical or ellipsoidal fashion, the trails remain intertwined and the surface remains coherent, and it all works with a fractal structure.

Getting back to quantum particles, a quantum particle is just like an oscillating particle with amplitude, that amplitude having a noticeable effect, like relative motion, spin, charge, etc. that we can measure. Motion tends to shape quantum particles into ellipsoids because of the tensors, but this does not mean that they have an ellipsoidal shape. T3 tensors, possibly, become the wave function of quantum particles. The spin, charge, etc. of quantum particles is theirs due to added tensors, tensors that embedded particles don't have, plus sufficient amplitude to take them from oscillating particles to our more familiar electrons, photons, etc. For example, a quantum particle does not actually have to spin to have spin. A tensor moving around the particle in just the right way would give it spin. The advantage of lines and areas of tension over actual movements of vibration and oscillation is that this does not require any distortion of the wrapper, merely changes in how it is stressed. The quantum particle can be described as the oscillating particle is, plus amplitude functions

My belief is that photons, by the way, are actually vibrating particles. That is, each photon is a coherent package, like an embedded particle, with its own set of internal motions. These vibrations, or oscillations, cause it to act like a wave as well as a particle, like wiggling gelatin. Again, these vibrations or oscillations might just be changes in how the photon is stressed. When God said, "Let there be light," photons were created.

While I do not really hold to string theory, there are some real problems either with the standard model or with relativity. My objections have to do with standard model particle diameters. Particles with no diameters (a particle that occupies a mathematical point has no diameter) that have mutually repellent charges cannot be forced together unless they are moving faster than light, relative to each other, so that their charges do not have time to repel each other, since the speed limit of their reactivity is the speed of light. Because mutually repellent quantum particles are rammed together all the time at Fermilab and other locations, either the standard model is wrong, or relativity is wrong.

Because embedded particles have a real diameter, because the wrapper has a point-particle fump at its core, if they are the basis of quantum particles, this tends to favor the standard model, with modifications, without throwing out relativity.

Keep in mind that embedded particles and quantum particles have an actual size, however small (it could be on the order of a googolplex smaller than the Planck length). This size has a lot to do with the properties of quantum particles. Tensors will act in certain ways upon and within certain size manifolds, just as strings of a set length will vibrate only in certain ways. Because of this, indirectly, the actual size of quantum particles can be worked out, and from that, the size of embedded particles and oscillating particles can be inferred.

We cannot directly detect the presence or absence of embedded particles, except, possibly through their effect on c, but our galaxy is probably saturated with them.

On the other hand, remember those extra fumps that each envelope likely contains? They probably explain particle fragmenting and generation in places like Fermilab, while embedded particles could well explain electron-positron generation by gamma rays, if the electrons and positrons are not simply converted photons.

To continue, by the end of the first day, there was God, a loosely organized body (called "the waters"), light, day, night, and heaven.

How day and night existed without the sun, I do not know. All I can do is speculate. Because the universe was still rather small at the time (I'd guess around a light-day across), it is possible that the way the original light traveled around it (today's microwave background radiation) gave periods of day and night. It was whatever shape God wanted. If it was in the shape of a torus (like a doughnut) at that time, that would fully explain the day and night cycle, as well as God separating the light from the darkness. All He would have to do is to make the light go in one direction around the torus (separating the light from the darkness), then form our rotating earth inside the torus, so the light shone on one side of it, to have day and night.

On day two, God divided the waters into at least two bodies. He did this by making a firmament. This firmament's nature is worth studying. Brane theory could give us some hints concerning it.

On the third day, God worked on one body (our present earth, one division of the waters) under the heaven, and formed dry land and the seas, then He got plant life going "after its kind." Evolutionists have so messed up interpretation of the evidence that I won't even address the issue here (it would take too long) except to say in the fossil record, all the links are missing, and evolutionists find the Cambrian explosion embarrassing. (Also, I'd like to see granite formed from any kind of molten rock.)

Getting back to physics, on the fourth day, God made the sun, moon, and stars. The thickness of moondust, by the way, indicates that the moon is less than 10,000 years old.

"And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth,"

In other words, God made them, then put them in place.

Because He did this on the fourth day and Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day, it must have been within two light-days of earth, give or take. The stars were already there when Adam and Eve were created; there is no record of them suddenly appearing.

Allowing for the proper motion of the Solar System, the location of the place where God made the sun, moon, and stars should be something that astronomers can locate, because the Solar System is, at the most around 38,000 years old. Its age is much more likely to be six to ten thousand years old. That means that astronomers should be able to locate that region fairly easily.

They should look for a place where space itself seems to be stretched, strained, or a bit distorted. This would have some kind of lensing effect on light coming through it towards us. One possibility is distorted spectral lines from familiar, standard candles. We might also see images of one star, or star grouping, in more than one location.

Another point here, because the wave function and the time function of all these particles permeate the spacetime field, it is not completely free of uncertainty anywhere. It is everywhere at least wrinkled by the presence of the wave functions and time functions, like the air above pavement can be wrinkled on a hot day, so that you sometimes see distortion waves as you drive down the road.

Because the rest of creation was concerned with the biosphere, I shall leave Genesis and go over to Isaiah 34:4. "And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll; and all their host shall fall down as the leaf falls from the vine and as a falling fig from the fig tree."

To me, this means that the region where they were all created should be findable, because that is very likely to be where they shall all be returned.

Fields other than the spacetime field use it as a medium. A magnetic field, for example, produces distortions in the spacetime field (changes in its conditions) that the photons of the magnetic field follow, giving us magnets. By the way, I believe that distortions in the spacetime field alone explain gravitation. Gravity's lack of a carrier particle could well explain its weakness as a force.

I believe that interactions between the spacetime surface and the spacetime field offer us explanations for a number of things and open up some new possibilities for our investigation. I believe that the spacetime field can be folded (or bent) through the fifth dimension of the spacetime surface, so that regions that are remote from one another in four dimensions, come in contact with each other. I believe that this happens through quantum fluctuations on rare occasions, because of some concatenation of events. Charles Fort collected reports of a number of events, like frogs falling from the sky, and said that someday science would come up with an explanation for these phenomena. Also, the Bible reports such things as Jesus appearing in a locked room that already had people in it.

I believe that this means that the folding of spacetime is a real possibility on a deliberate basis. This might also explain why neutrinos are so evasive and how other particles appear when we stress spacetime as much as we can, like at Fermilab. I think the conventional explanations are almost always better than exotic ones, but has an exotic one ever been needed? Also, I understand that there are some things that seem to get lost sometimes, like some of the energy disappearing with no known way to account for its loss. The fifth dimension, through approaching the conditions required for the folding of spacetime, could account for energy losses in certain experiments.

I do not think we need a Fermilab to investigate the folding of spacetime, but we should not ignore the data such accelerators produce. I think another sort of device, using energy that is properly tuned and directed, can at least give us faster than light signal communication.

Here, I wish to apologize to those who already had open minds for taking so long to get to my theory.

To God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit be the glory, forever, amen.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws