his site is not supposed to be the last word on this subject. [Though it might be the first word.]
What I am trying to accomplish is to present a model derived from nothing which bears some resemblance to the known universe. The extent to which I succeed is the extent to which I have proved that a modeling process along these lines is a viable alternative to the present formal theories of professional scientists.

I cannot hope to compete with the standard model in terms of prediction making or explaining known phenomena (especially the most esoteric types). Although I have invested thirty or forty thousand hours in this simple theory, it pales to insignificance against the uncounted millions of man hours of thought and effort which have gone into the creation of the Standard Model. My effort is to the standard model as an embryo is to a developing teenager. It represents possibility rather than actuality.

There is a spectrum involved in such inquiries. On the one hand there are the empiricists who do the actual experiments and the rationalists (theorists) who try to use the obtained data to create a reasonable model ... a map of existence. As with any spectrum none of its members is all one or the other. I am mostly a rationalist and as such run the risk of floating off into fantasy realms. Which is why I refuse to use anything but the simplest forms and actions, i.e. those which are immediately comprehended by all or those strongly inferred by common observation.

Empiricists on the other hand run the risk of over-collecting data while making no theory about the nature of that data as though the data itself were sufficient and constituted an end in itself. I sometimes think that empiricists believe that the data will somehow "self-integrate" if enough is collected.

I have focused my attention on the simplest of arguments. Which is ... as a practical matter, how does one get something out of nothing? No one else seems to be working this area so I have staked a claim. But there are thousands working the other side of the tunnel (the standard modelers). At some point ... if I am correct in my fundamental assumptions ... I must necessarily meet up with the others. If I do not, the fault must be entirely mine because they are fundamentally empiricists and cannot in principle stray too far from the truth. They are simply taking too long to get the job done to suit my needs. I want a full understanding of existence ... NOW!

If you are impatient as well read on but do not expect that more than 10-20 percent of what you see will ever turn out to be true. I am presenting reasoned conjecture based on common observations. I believe that the universe is at base a simple integer count. If it is not ... everything here is dead wrong.