[Joseph]

To: 1. humanbydefault
2. Lloyd
3. Pagan 3142

First of all, thank you very much for your response to my article. I truly appreciated your taking the time to respond.

Rather than respond to each question you raised, let me take this moment to make three points about this article more clearly. First, if you look at that list of questions again, if you placed all the physicists in the world in one place, neither could they answer any of these questions in a way which would satisfy everyone, nor could whatever answers they came up possibly be connected together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to produce a clear picture or complete theory of the universe. Now if it sounds like I'm slamming the world community of theoretical physicists or something like that, well, I'm not. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Indeed, I doubt there's anyone more amazed, more proud, even, as a fellow human being of what these scholars have managed to accomplish over the past centuries than I. I'm only pointing out that with all they've accomplished, they still don't understand the universe. Not at all. Not one bit. It's even reached the point where physics students are taught they never will.

Which brings me to my second point. In the article I proposed two new ideas about the nature of EM fields. That they propagate helically instead of sinusoidally, and that they propagate at all because their inherently elastic. The elasticity coming from the interaction of the electric and magnetic components of the wave.

Are these assumptions correct? Shoot, I don't know. I only know--and this brings me to my third point--that by adding these two new ideas about the movement of EM waves to what we already know about them, we can quickly, clearly, and simply come up with a different way to define the big three--EM waves, energy, and matter--which leads directly to a new scenario for the big bang. A scenario which allows us to come up with answers to all the questions on that list. Well, not all of them. I'm still trying to explain gravity. Actually, I'm hoping some one of you could use this theory to maybe help me with that. Anyway, except for that, I, or rather, this theory, gives you the answers to all these questions. For instance, in the article I explain what time is and where it comes from. Is this explanation correct? I'm not sure. All I know is that with it I can explain two other questions on that list. The physical processes underlying special relativity and the electron cloud. Lloyd raised the question of how animate energy could derive from inanimate energy. Heck, Lloyd, if you want me to, I'll explain it for you. With this theory it's easy. For another example, physicists love to theorize possible answers to the horizon, boundary, and smoothness problems. Remember Einstein's "we cannot hope to solve important problems with the same thinking we used to create them"?, well, these three are a perfect example of what he meant. With this theory, this new way of thinking about the big three and the big bang, these three problems don't exist any more. They never did. They only showed up at all because, like Einstein said, we weren't thinking about the universe properly.

Let me say one more thing on this and then I'll let you go. For 2000 years western scholars could not figure out why the stars and planets revolved around the earth the way they did. Then, in 1543, an obscure Polish astronomer/cleric, Nicolaus Copernicus, said, wait a minute, what if it's not the heavens that are moving. What if it's the earth instead? And then he came up with two new ideas about the movement of the earth. That it revolves on its own axis once every day, and that it orbits the sun once every year. At the time there was no way he could prove he was right. But suddenly the paths of the heavenly bodies made very good sense. It was decades before Galileo and his telescope could prove him right.

All I'm saying is, let's propose two new ideas about the movement of EM waves. With these we redefine the big three, the big bang, and suddenly the universe makes very good sense. Is this new world view correct? It's going to take some work to find out. But if it isn't the one we're looking for, or should be looking for, it's got to be the biggest coincidence in the history of science.

Take care, Joseph