Ego, testosterone and vanity, or complete lack of ego, testosterone and vanity, it does not matter, Richard.

Ultimately, the universe will be explained by it having a very specific structure. I hope we agree on that.

I happened to get a view of it in 1981 and it has been pretty clear for me ever since. It was a disappointment because I could see that everything about the big picture was not only already known but had been told in so many ways by many others, too.

I fell off my chair in amazement when scientists asked the question if there was a theory of everything in the mid 1980s. That question told me they didn't know that they knew everything about the big picture already. They did not have everything in order, including their thinking.

Your question, make testable predictions, fits the bill, too. I'll explain.

Scientists say:

* A/ Energy does not get lost

* B/ Provide evidence that energy did not already exist prior to the appearance of matter (or shut up).

The only reason they aren't aware of this conflict in terms is that these scientists do not say them at the same time in the same sentence or reply.

One must say A or one must say B, and I will be pleased. But any person saying A and B (anytime while alive) and leave them both stand is not structurally aware of the conflict in terms.

So, when I propose an inward motion in energy that already existed (because energy does not get lost) prior to the appearance of matter, then so many people just like you are demanding I provide evidence for my statement that energy already existed. Of course inward motion predicts the outbound motion we see among the result, but many are by then stuck on the question how to accept that energy was there already.

Sorry if my replies to these folks come across as ego, testosterone and vanity, but in reality it is disrespect for those using statement B while conveniently forgetting statement A, until they need it in another discussion of course.

In the case of Tim and his article, I see one big assumption that I really dislike (because it is not being questioned loudly enough) in his writing. He embraces an ultimate unity among all, of whatever kind. He does not discuss the question if our material universe happened to have come into existence because a force of separation occurred at the end of the prior state of the universe.

In your case, I am actually happy that you ask the question because that means there is a conversation of some kind. For the others? It is often the end of the conversation because they either think I am a moron or I made them aware of a big question mark hiding in plain sight in Science and they cannot discuss this any further -- not with me, not with anyone.

One reply I get is that all these smart scientists cannot overlook something this simple, and therefore (!) I must be mistaken.

But I have a better argument on my side still, Richard, because the oldest fact we have of the material universe is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation at 380,000 years from its mathematical center.

Anyone saying that what happened prior within those 380,000 years was then indeed a straight line coming from some kind of center (whether this being a singular point, area, or even a larger area in which the center remained materially speaking empty), that person makes then a structural assumption.

And at that point you remain silent, Richard. You are not saying, “Hey, wait a minute, how do you know for sure that what happened prior to that 380,000 year location was indeed moving outwardly in a straight line for at least 375,000 years of those 380,000 years (or even all of those years)?”

So, if you speak up about generally accepted ideas that have indeed some aspects that are totally not in the clear but that are assumed by most respected physicists, then I am okay if you speak up like you did to a moron like me proposing other structural ideas how there wasn’t a straight line for matter coming all the way from that mathematical center; who is saying that matter occurring was rather the moment of transformation of energy, and not the beginning of the entire universe; who is saying that we must (and can) question and answer why and how matter occurred, and not question how the universe came into existence (because that is the wrong question).

There is nothing obvious about having matter appear (which we know for a fact) and then concluding that all appeared at that moment. That assumption is too big to remain unnoticed. It must be questioned loud and clear.

I really don't mind your reply about ego and the likes. I appreciate a critical mind. But I want you to then be as critical toward everyone else, too, and not just to the person who happens to be a minority of one and who thinks differently than you, and who is not impressed by people demanding 'testable predictions' when they support incorrect assumptions in their realm of thinking and whose demand for testable predictions do nothing but keep false gods in place.

Ask and I will explain the Structure of Everything. I don’t think you will.