A TOE that is not based on absolute unification.

[Fredrick]

Since this particular TOE involves giving specific importance to the phenomenon of separation it may be prudent to describe the suspected actions at the beginning of our universe first and show what place separation may have taken in. Not many people will challenge the idea that everything in our universe is moving outwardly. Data collected over the years have delivered overwhelming evidence for this phenomenon. There is, however, less agreement about the very first seconds of our universe’s existence. Lets make that minutes, hours, or days.

In this TOE a distinction is made between the spot from which our universe started to move outwardly, and the moment on which materialization started to occur. From our spot in space/time it is not possible to distinguish if everything came out of a single spot in our universe or if materialization only started to occur about halfway between that spot and the place we are at right now. No evidence is currently known to us that can help make a distinction either way. Our universe may have come into being days, weeks or years after the initiation of the outward movement we witness today. In effect, the materializing process would then show initially an empty spot at its center.

Our current universe is moving outwardly much faster than at the time of materialization. This theory explains that the initial outward movement was followed by the Big Bang. Again, materialization first, Big Bang second. It was the materialized matter that 'exploded,' the reason being that matter was in conflict right after materialization. Two movements therefore follow each other. Outward movement in which materialization starts to occur, then speeded up outward movement by actions during Big Bang.

What existed before the Big Bang is unknown — we have absolutely no data until materialization started. In this TOE, materialization started in a large outwardly moving area. It could have encompassed an area the size of the earth, or the size of our solar system; a smaller or a larger area. Yet this theory states that materialization did not start in a single spot. The transition of materialization occurred later, and this moment signifies separation. Singularity is therefore not required to create this theory.

Separation seems fundamental. And there is evidence. Evidence of the fundamental nature of separation is delivered in In Search of a Cyclops in chapter 5, where mathematical structures of prime numbers give significance to the number zero. The number zero is required to explain a step in a structure that is otherwise completely inhabited by positive integers. As soon as a person mentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the number zero is part and parcel of it as well — whether mentioned by name or concealed completely — simply does not matter. What appears to be most obvious to most of us can now be said to be true. Zero exists when the positive integers exist.

The fundamental nature of separation tells us something about our universe. Our universe came into being thanks to separation — not unification. If our universe was somehow unified it could have ceased to exist already — or it would not even have come into being. Though the source may be one and the same, when the reason our universe came into being is separation then we should only be able to find many links between what has been materialized, but we should not be able to find ultimate unification. You can take a look at the mathematical evidence as described in In Search of a Cyclops at http://www.pentapublishing.com
[BREAK]
What is the use of adding an extra stage of explanation in front of our current knowledge? It can help explain the basics of our universe. With a clearly theorized center from which our universe derived, we can create constructions (that can contain our information fully) that may otherwise not be constructed. With the actual beginning of our universe placed in the previous non-materialized stage, we may stop looking for an all-connection, a unified field of forces, because then that connection belongs to the not yet materialized stage — not to our materialized universe.

In the current theory about the beginning of our universe everything comes blowing out of one central spot, and spatially it becomes impossible to have anything precede this spot. In the theory I describe materialization does not start until later — after the outward movement has been set in motion already. Materialization is then a phase that takes place in a very large spatial area. In this theory it is possible to have a spatial segment before materialization started, because the center of the materializing area is empty.

The movement right before and right after materialization is then identical: outwardly. After materialization has taken place, the stage is then set for the Big Bang, because the matter is not in concordance with itself. Explosions and fireballs, in laymen terms. The stage before materialization — though invisible and non-factual was also moving outwardly — had to be set up in such a way that this outwardly motion was possible. I therefore also need an inwardly motion first that leads to incompatibility in as far as infinity is concerned before I can get to the outwardly movement. Inward movement cannot be sustained infinitely. Relaxation of the action can reverse the action, but would not lead to materialization nor the Big Bang. So, this theory requires an inward motion in a non-materialized setting. There are no facts that this happened, but it does fit the theory. The inward motion cannot go inward forever and something must go wrong. A single rift, the creation of the most minimal of nothings, is enough to have this whole complex of tension catapult outwardly. This energy now also includes a 'nothing' which helps matter to materialize. Incongruency of matter leads to explosive situation.

It is important to understand that the subject matter of this theory is our universe - not the previous state. Though the previous state is the precursor, it is not part of the universe as we know it. In our universe result is based on previous situations, in the previous state that is not necessarily the case. Therefore a theory can only be created that deals with the information we know of our universe. This theory does therefore not deal with the previous state, but uses the space to deliver a theoretical basis for evidence we have found in our materialized universe.

[dleviwing]

The term "COSMOS" has come to mean all that exists. The term universe has come to infer a physical existence located in the cosmos. The universe is therefore the result of a collision of at least two fundamental physical entities that have always existed in the cosmos.

Many human minds seem to have difficulty accepting the possibility that something has always existed. This tends to lead to religious concepts for answers.

The "Big Bang" concept is confusing only due to the nonsense of bogus terminology created by abstract mathematical gauge theory theorist.

[Chaim]

You state: "Our current universe is moving outwardly", and seem to take this as given, without question or further explanation.

To be a little more precise, the "large(r)-scale", say, extra-galactic remainder of our observable universe (ou) appears, at least from our current vantage point, to be moving away/"outward" from our instruments; thus intergalactic space appears to be relatively and isotropically, "expanding".
But, "expanding" with respect to what?
What is the observable universe supposed to be moving away or "outward" from? From itself?
And, if so, what background ({4+}-dimensional?) "meta-space" is it expanding "into"? And why only on a large(r)-scale?
I'm not sure if the ideas/notions of "outward" and expansion have been well-formed yet.

If we don't state very clearly what our observations do and do not tell us, the our theorizing is likely to go awry.

Perhaps we could have a subsection of this site allocated for TOOU's
(theories of the observable universe) or TOU's for short?

[mkirkpatrick]

In the very first micro-second of the birth of this cosmos,or universe,a process
that I would call focussed consciousness,was wrought into being,an awesome
intention of mind,brought about a expansion and a bringing of energy,from the
unknowable nomunen,to the partially knowable phenomenen,which we investigate today.
This great thought that has brought about that has brought us to see this
universe around us,is still in process,and will not cease till we once again
enter into obscuration,and return to the unmanifested nomunen from whence
we came.It seems that the more we begin to understand realality and life
in general,it all seems finally to be a product of thought.

thoughts are indeed things?

kindest regards,michael.