# the theory of everything.

Space and time are subject to matter. The only variable that manipulates space and time is matter. So matter is not subject to space and time, but vise versa. In cause and effect we see that an effect is dirrectly relative to what divided the original cause (witch we no longer see). So it’s obvious that a simple math equasion can show us.

IE electromagnetics… When the flow of electrons was divided by the resistance of it’s flow, we see two equal and opposite side effects. So protons cause one and neutrons cause the other??? Yet, the magnetic field is something that sugests it’s an contained energy that is resisted from expanding, so it seeps out the only way the resister doesn’t resist. The magnetic field is the origional energy divided by the medium that resists it.

Going back to space and time. Space is the void of matter. Time is the passing of physical events. Both can not exsist without matter. The fact that reaching the speed of energy slows down the effects of energy, shows that energy is subject to space. So space is relativly a side effect of something greater then space,… the only thing I see is matter. So it makes perfect sence that the creation of matter had the side effect of space and time,… thus space and time are subject to the properties of matter.

Quantum fluctuation… The random disappearance and appearance of atoms. This could be true if anti-matter(anti-electrons being the mathmatical opposite of electrons) were to combine with electrons,… and cancel eachother out. Thus it makes sence that everything physical comes from nothing physical. It’s nothing split into two equal opposites. What if you divided nothing three ways. And since opposites attract, gravity is created. What would these opposites be??? I guess they’d have to be attract (proton) repell (neutron) and spread evenly (electron). Now if this atom would have more of one, then it would act more like the one. Thus gasses repell, and liquids attract.

Could itt be this simple??? Couldn’t it be something this simple with complex applications??? But then it sounds too much like creationism.

My concept (somewhat similar)

Dark Energy Theory
What scientists call â€œDark Energyâ€, I sense, is what for many years I have called â€œInfinite Energy (IE)â€ - a force that is infinitely powerful, infinitely creative and eternal. Although we try, I donâ€™t think IE can be defined or measured in physical terms, but can only be defined by describing its effects. We do sense the presence, however, and give IE names like dark energy, soul, life force, The Creator, etc.
I think that the â€œBig Bangâ€ was the creation by IE of physical consciousness - consciousness of the physical - the five senses. The effects are the awareness of gravity, heat, light, space, time, mass, and expansion.
I think that what we call â€œspaceâ€ is not an empty distance, (like between a nucleus and an electron) but is actually made up of an invisible force(IE)(dark energy) controlling both entities. (Scientists say that more than 70% of the universe appears to be made up of â€œDark Energyâ€).
I think the creation, expansion and evolution of the universe from the Big Bang forward, as described by scientists and â€œprovenâ€ mathematically, is actually the creation, expansion and evolution of the consciousness of the physical and that â€œdeathâ€ - either ours or death of the universe - is only the loss of consciousness of the physical, not the loss of our essence - our being - IE.
The â€œTime Space Fabricâ€ that scientists have discovered then becomes Time IE Fabric - not a passive entity to be deformed by mass, but a force that deforms itself to produce the consciousness of mass. Gravity, rather than a force within mass, is a space force (IE) creating the consciousness of movement and attraction.
The expansion and eventual destruction of the Universe (in billions of years), that astronomers predict, is actually the expansion of our consciousness of the universe - as are all our â€œdiscoveriesâ€ and â€œknowledgeâ€. The end of the universe is the end of the existence of all consciousness of the physical and a return to only the eternity of IE.
If what I sense is true, then there is no conflict between the theories of Creation and Evolution. We are the consciousness of the Creator(IE) and our consciousness is perfect.

Is that why scientists have said â€œThe universe seems to operate more like a thought than like a machineâ€?

What’s with the repitition, delbolt? It’s really annoying.

Anyways, Phil, I don’t see how creationatism is connected to the above article. Explain how it connects.