[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
The problem I see with this oneness approach is the same that I see with “WSM” forum approach, no functional mechanism for what constitutes a particle structure. Also this does not provide satisfactory explanations for the conservation laws and especially the concept of inertial mass. This approach is one I tried over 30 years ago and it did not pan out then so I evolved my concept to the current 4 axioms. Though motion can vary within a system, the total will always be an absolute and thus the conservation of mass and energy are preserved even though they should be called conservation of matter and motion. There is no doubt that the thermodynamic interpretations of thermal behavior is a must in any real concept.

I don’t think you realize that I have thought these scenarios out over the past 40 years or so. I have not seen any new concepts that I have not tried in the past. If you apply these ideas to all the known facts of science and compare them to the functional mathematics, you will find that the oneness concept will indeed fail.

If you like, we can go into detail discussion of your concept and save mine for latter, or we can present both concepts side by side for comparison. What path would you like to take?

Robert is initiating a user group forum format that the creator of the group can make his thread “invitation only”. That way we can keep the riffraff creationism out of the pure science discussion. When this occurs, I can move this thread to that format.