In my blog I am posting a series on "How to Make a Universe" and so far have done parts 1 and 2.
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/07/24/p158 Step 1
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/07/27/p159 Step 2

These discuss the background of physics and some repercussions of that. The ideas are not mainstream, but agree with everything except the big bang bung theory. My background is in cycles study and cycles are found in everything. Cycles are a natural part of the universe resulting from standing wave oscillations which have existed for a time far longer than the wee blink considered in big bang bung.

The series is leading to a description of why the universe has the structure that it does by which I mean galaxies, stars, planets through to atoms and nuclei and all their relative scales. All this is predicted from a single axiom that follows logically from standard physics.

Ray

Rule 6 forbids promoting your own website. You will in all probability attract a moderator's unfavorable attention. See the rules section of the forum.

Try redoing your thread as an ATM proposal, and I and others will be glad to review your ideas.

Regards, John M.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise that. Excuse my further ignorance, but what is an ATM proposal?

I have posted a substantial article as a new thread on "Harmonics Theory" in the ATM section. Therefore this thread can be deleted if you wish.

Not very convincing, Ray. It sounds like you "make a universe" by starting with a "blob" of universe with particular qualities. Well, that's the problem, isn't it?

I think your time would be much better spent in reading up about actual current cosmology and astrophysics rather than making up such naive flights of fancy that are apparently very poorly founded in known physics - indeed, you rather smear all known physics. Such a tactic is not likely to find many supporters. You might attend the words of

Richard Morris.... "If a theory is crazy, or unorthodox, or seemingly bizarre, that does not make it pseudoscientific. Crackpot and pseudoscientific theories are bizarre in a particular way. They tend to ignore long-established scientific ideas. They operate in a world of their own, not in the world of scientific discourse."

or Gerard 't Hooft... "If history has taught us one thing it is that, with hindsight, newly discovered laws always turn out to be quite logical extensions of what we have already known for a long time."

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I assume that you have read the steps 1 and 2 only. This is unfinished, I will be adding more parts. I suggest going to the Harmonics Theory thread, and you will see the successes.

Folks, check out the 'Harmonics Theory' thread, intended to replace this one, by the same poster, Ray Tomes.

As ATM ideas go, it's better than most.