Originally Posted By: Orac
Look at Essential criteria there are two rules:

1.) It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.

2.) It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.


You defy critera 1 therefore your theory is not science and can never become science.

The Wikipedia article gives very good description about scientific theory. Please go through the first criterion. It says that a new theory need be consistent with the existing one '(only) to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified'. A very nice and logical requirement. It means that the new theory should agree with all the existing observations (but need not agree with the existing explanations of those observations).

For example, consider the case of atomic fusion. Here, the observation is as follows: Hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium. There is a small loss in mass, and electromagnetic radiations are released.

The phenomenon is at present explained as follows: Matter/mass changes into energy during fusion; radiations are just electromagnetic waves which carry energy. The explanation is thus logical and we regard it as a proof of Einsteins theory.

Based on my theory I would explain it like this: Radiations are streams of fundamental particles (having a negligible mass and volume) moving at the speed 'c' (it is their helical motion that creates electromagnetic fields). Their energy is kinetic energy. So what happens during fusion is some matter is radiated as streams of particles. So matter energy conversion is impossible.

Here my theory does not violate the most essential criterion that you have pointed out. This is just one example. Similarly, my theory agrees with all the existing observations (to the extent verified by me). However, in this thread I have not given all the essential parts of my theory; this thread was started to discuss an important aspect of my theory, the concept of reality.

The subject of my theory is 'how the fundamental particles of matter (having kinetic energy as quality) integrate into e-m radiations, neutrinos, and step by step into heavier particles and finally a pulsating universe. Thus it explains all basic things. The theory can explain why electron and neutron have the respective masses (which none of the existing theories can). The value of G and the Earth-moon distance can be theoretically deduced from my theory (it is impossible to do so with the existing theories). Thus my theory is supported by many strands of evidence, and thus is a very good approximation of the physical world (if not accurate), and so is the ultimate theory in physics (just my claim).