the iam conjecture
It's not a tautology if: we accept QED as a fact, we accept there's no other way to deterministically explain the explosion of a singularity in 5D (other than the prime Cause), and we're not in a cyclic universe.
We don't have to develop Iam space to prove the conjecture. All we simply have to do is develop a realistic version of Feynman's virtual particle scheme - something like charged anti-photons in 5D. So let's state the conjecture formally:
0.a. we live in a 5D universe which is somewhat trivial to prove:
take a ruler - it's one dimensional, bend it - that requires two dimensions
take a piece of paper - it's two dimensional, bend it - that requires three dimensions
and so on..
0.b. the Standard Model will soon be proved incorrect due to non-detection of Higgs
there's two options here: total overhaul or incorrect.. only time will tell but..
my gut says "incorrect" (based on the incorrect primary assumption that
elementary particles are probability waves interacting via virtual bosons)
0.c. time is elastic just like space
we assume this but don't acknowledge it
i've developed temporal relativity theory which is equivalent to
general relativity minus Lense-Thirring (twisting of space)
1. Feynman's QED is accepted fact, based on his virtual particle scheme
2. a singularity cannot explode in any deterministic way in 5D (x,y,z,t,C)
where C represents spacetime curvature at x,y,z,t as described in other documents
3. our universe is not cyclic (successive explosions/implosions)
4. we can develop a realistic particle scheme in 5D that mimics Feynman's virtual particles
such as the proposed charged anti-particle scheme recently described elsewhere
If all 4 statements above are correct, then God must exist as the Prime Cause.
1 is true, 2 needs proving, 3 appears true, and 4 is trivial.
i'm most certainly not a genius but it doesn't take one to accomplish 4. It just takes a certain perspective or amount of insight. If any physicist worth his/her salts pursued a similar path as i have, they most certainly would have developed this theory in 10 times less time (3 years vs 30 years). So again, i'm not criticizing physicists or blaming them for anything.. The above realization was the simple result of holding to a way of looking at things for long enough (and did not include the conjecture itself!) .. Put another way, i always believed in God, but i never believed we could prove God exists!
i promised to 'shoot myself in the foot' if i ever wrote Stephen Hawking again (because i wrote to him too many times about these ideas). (i asked him to allow me to use a toy gun in case i was right.) ;) So please don't make me use a real gun on my own foot! Write to Hawking for me! It should be trivial for him to prove 2 .. Can you imagine that? A guy who continually avoids God proves She exists! How ironic! (In all defense of Stephen, he probably believes in God; just does not want to develop science based on Her.)
sam iam / salvatore gerard micheal, 2011/JAN/20, Maeaeb, Thailand