Cosmic Particle Set part 2 (QEDv2); QEDv2 = QED => God exists

(The math statement above says: if quantum electrodynamics version two is equivalent to quantum electrodynamics, then God exists. We can prove mathematically God exists.)

The more i contemplate the 'balanced curvature scheme', the more it appeals to me .. If i were God, i might create something like that.. ;) But i question the 'simplicity' of so many particles.. Perhaps we're missing the 'big picture' yet.. Perhaps neutrinos are actually 'in real life' neutral photons, anti-neutrinos are neutral anti-photons, spin-left and right photons correspond to normal 'charged' (we perceive them as uncharged) photons, spin-left and right anti-photons correspond to positive and negative (or reverse) anti-photons, neutrons are neutral versions of protons, anti-neutrons are neutral versions of anti-protons, but .. the only thing that violates this view is the electron: electrons don't have any neutral counterpart.. So perhaps this view is wrong or perhaps we simply haven't detected neutral electron-massed particles yet.. Regardless, the view above is compelling because of its simplicity. Let's go with it for a while and assume we haven't detected an electron-massed neutral particle yet. This might be a test of the theory.. My guess is it's unstable like the free neutron. The half-life? Similar to neutron? Let's list out the hypothesized scheme:
+ curvature particles                   - curvature particles
neutrinos = neutral photons            anti-neutrinos = neutral anti-photons
spin-left/right photons = photons    spin-left/right = charged anti-photons
electrons = + charged 'little mass'   positrons = - charged 'little mass'
neutrenos = neutral 'little mass'       anti-neutrenos = neutral 'little mass'   (both proposed)
protons = - charged 'big mass'       anti-protons = + charged 'big mass'
neutrons = neutral 'big mass'          anti-neutrons = neutral 'big mass'
Neutrons are unstable unless 'hiding' in a nucleus. Perhaps free neutrinos and neutrenos are too. Jeepers, i just called them neutrinos while above we renamed them neutral photons. [sigh] For those who didn't read the previous essay on balanced curvature (you should read it to catch up to the current discussion), we're trying to simplify the particle scheme. Why? Because too many particles makes the model look sloppy and basically thrown together (disjointed parts - like trying to make a puzzle piece fit where it doesn't belong). If indeed God created our universe, i don't believe it'd be a hodgepodge of various parts that don't seem to jive.. i believe it would be quite elegant, balanced, and simple (if we could just get the correct vantage) .. The reason i was so quick to propose anti-photons mediating electromagnetism is because if i don't, there must be some material make-up of electric flux - it must be made of something. And at present, i haven't the slightest idea. If we relabel it 'charge', that solves nothing. If we call it 'virtual photons', we've just signed up to be Standard Model sheep. [ba-a-a-a-a-a] This scenario is the simplest way to explain flux and field: mediated by charged anti-photons .. The reason you don't see WIMPs above is because if i propose a neutral WIMP, i must also propose a charged stable version of the thing (following the pattern above). So WIMPs just don't fit the picture above (unless we can detect a charged WIMP - which is a contradiction in terms).. If the picture above is correct, likely WIMPs don't exist .. Btw, the reason electrons and protons seem to have reversed charge is because they must attract their anti-particle counterpart. As with 'virtual shielding', the cloud of anti-particles effectively hides the true bare charge. This picture, if correct, also supplants the previous spacelet theory (that's why i'm not pushing this scheme so much - it's just a possibility to me) because charge becomes a surface charge on the Planck/other sized object (charged because of friction with space itself). Some time ago, i had come up with an actual surface shape because i was working on the relationship between impedance and elasticity. If my hypothesis was correct, the shape of the surface is prolate sphereoid. If i propose some very small particle that makes up flux (out of the blue), i feel that's too much like virtual particles. Even if i propose they're real photons, they must attract to (or generate from) the core somehow. And then we must deal with our speed limit etc.. So i think it's best we propose flux/field is mediated by charged anti-photons. It simplifies things immensely. One other reason, if the particle scheme has any resemblance to reality, if Feynman had any valid perspective at all, it mimics his virtual particle scheme nicely. His view of virtual photons is basically equivalent to mine of anti-photons. You could call this: QEDv2.

(Not that i believe i'm anything like Feynman.) My greatest strength is two things: my imagination and my visualization skills. Hehe .. my brain is like a simulator (look inside;). i've trained my mind to be one. It takes time but can be done.. If you can strategically train your visualization skills to mimic reality or some proposed reality, you can see how things might or might not work out.. You actually only need a computer to verify the model in your mind.. The analysis i'm not trained for (to prove things theoretically). So that's one reason why many dismiss me .. But check it out; i'm confident this perspective is not only consistent, it's likely the simplest scenario to explain things.

Part of the reason i write so much about God is because many of us believe in Her already. So She's a 'given' to many - perhaps even many scientists/physicists. i appeal to those who already believe to seriously consider this theory. It may be a way for us to 'prove' She exists.. i know, i know, i already stated that even if we prove this theory is consistent and equivalent to QED, it requires a first Cause because there's nothing to break/explode the singularity but God. And if that's the case, then you must believe in God to accept this theory .. But (drum roll please), if we can prove it's consistent and equivalent to QED, we've basically proven that God exists. (The only other explanation is a cyclic universe but indications are - it's not.)

i truly never thought we could arrive at the point of being able to mathematically prove God exists, but there it is.. Hey btw, where's my 'Vatican paycheck'? ;) jk..