[Dewd]

Grand master M Kirkpatrick, 9th degree Black Belt Harmony Girl, 6th degree Black belt Lloyd Gillispie, the quite obviously and marvelously accomplished DLeviwing, 2nd degree Black Belt Nobody, 1st degree Black Belt Telsa, and everyone on the forum. Hello! I’m called "Dewd."

I might’ve avoided this forum, except for the objectivity so apparent in the many interesting and thought provoking postings I’ve read here. Said another way, I’ve seen a remarkable minimum in the number of usual (and very human) attempts to impress. So, then, onward and upward, ever toward the "Grand Unification Theory."

First off, I think it’s important that I declare my allegiance to the minority group of thinkers, who might be called "absolutist" --those of us who see the universe as a composite of absolutes. The other broad group, of course, are those who see the universe as a perspective, and might be called "relativists."

By the way, I posted (elsewhere in this forum) the groundwork for what I think should be a major revolution in the way we see the universe. The Moderator decided to move my previous posting, which is entirely okay, but I think it’s rather obscure now.

In the previous posting, I mentioned one of the many problems associated with building a theory of everything based upon the foundation established by Einstein’s "Special Relativity Theory," which suggests that the medium of the universe, devoid of matter, is a "space/time continuum."

I’d like to discuss the possibility that this single-most-obvious truth should be questioned. Please be interested.

Visualizing the universe as a space/time continuum is unsatisfactory, simply because it doesn’t work. The "thinker" hits an impenetrable wall, every which way he turns.

Moreover, because it doesn’t work, we are left with a jumbled-up concoction of buzz words and cheat factors (constants) to explain the universe, simply because we can find nothing wrong with the observation that there is "something" between objects in space, and an elapse of "something" between events.

That’s it folks! It’s difficult to believe that these two simple observations represent the basis for seeing the medium of space (devoid of matter, of course) as a "space/time continuum."

Boy howdy! It does seem overly simplified, but it isn’t. You may call it a wave, a perspective, an absolute, call it what you will, but it should be called a trap, an almost foolproof trap that catches any and all who come near it.

But, without tangible displacement and time, what theory might explain the universe?

May I submit the "Nobody-Here-But-Us-Chickens" theory of the universe? I.e., if it isn’t matter, it doesn’t exist.

In such a universe, all phenomena must be explained within the confines of the nature of matter and its properties.

But, then, when you think about it, the fact that any fixed force can accelerate any given mass to any given velocity, yet cannot do it instantaneously, should be problematic to the rational mind. And, really, this example is only the tip of a mighty iceberg.

Gotta go for now, but I’ll be back, depending on subject matter interest. Thanks for listening.