The iam conjecture
A Scientific Proof that God Exists
(The proof below is done by contradiction [which is an acceptable method in mathematics]. However, I recognize some math purists will not accept it based on that fact.)
It's not a tautology if we accept Q.E.D. as a fact. If we accept Q.E.D. as a fact, we accept that there is no other way to deterministically explain the explosion of a singularity in 5D (other than the Prime Cause), and we are not in a cyclic universe.
We do not have to develop Iam space to prove the conjecture. All we have to do is simply develop a realistic version of Feynman's virtual particle scheme -- something like charged anti-photons in 5D.
To state the conjecture formally:
- 0.a. We live in a 5D universe which is somewhat trivial to prove:
*For example, take a ruler -- it's one dimensional. However, if one were to bend it, it would require two dimensions *For another example, take a piece of paper -- it's two dimensional. However if one were to bend it, it would require three dimensions
*There's two options here: total overhaul or incorrect.. only time will tell but.. *One would assume "incorrect" (based on the incorrect primary assumption that *Elementary particles are probability waves interacting via virtual bosons)
- 0.c. Time is elastic just like space
*We assume this but don't acknowledge it *I've developed temporal relativity theory which is equivalent to *General relativity minus Lense-Thirring (twisting of space)
1. Feynman's QED is accepted fact, based on his virtual particle scheme 2. A singularity cannot explode in any deterministic way in 5D (x,y,z,t,C)[Where C represents spacetime curvature at x,y,z,t as described in other documents] 3. Our universe is not cyclic (successive explosions/implosions) 4. We can develop a realistic particle scheme in 5D that mimics Feynman's virtual particles [Such as the proposed charged anti-particle scheme recently described elsewhere]
Conclusion: If all 4 statements above are correct, then God must exist as the Prime Cause.
1 is true, 2 needs proving, 3 appears true, and 4 is trivial.
I'm most certainly not a genius but it doesn't take one to accomplish 4. It just takes a certain perspective or amount of insight. If any physicist worth his/her salts pursued a similar path as i have, they most certainly would have developed this theory in much less time (3 years vs. 30 years). So again, i'm not criticizing physicists or blaming them for anything.. The above realization was the simple result of holding to a way of looking at things for long enough (and did not include the conjecture itself!) .. Put another way, I have always believed in God, but i never believed we could prove God exists!
I promised to 'shoot myself in the foot' if i ever wrote Stephen Hawking again (because I wrote to him too many times about these ideas). (I asked him to allow me to use a toy gun in case I was right.) ;) So please don't make me use a real gun on my own foot! Write to Hawking for me! It should be trivial for him to prove 2 .. Can you imagine that? A guy who continually avoids God proves He exists! How ironic! (In all defense of Stephen, he probably believes in God; he just does not want to develop science based on Him.)
sam iam / salvatore gerard micheal, 2011/JAN/20, Maeaeb, Thailand Micheals 18:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)