Thread: Universe, alternative model

OK, I'll give it a go even though few people seem to be reading or answering in this "Link Forum."

I posted this website below about 6 years ago now for those interested in alternative theories in physics and cosmology. It is not a listing of the many alternative models out there, just my own theory published on different occasions in jounals and for enthusiats of other possibilities to view and criticize. Thanks

Here is the link: pantheory.org

Funny I can't copy any information from that site to discuss what it says. I will use one thing that interests me which is that only one particle makes everything up. Well we know that isn't the case so how can this "theory" have any credibility?

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Funny I can't copy any information from that site to discuss what it says. I will use one thing that interests me which is that only one particle makes everything up. Well we know that isn't the case so how can this "theory" have any credibility?

Thanks for your reply cosmic traveler. There are many that have had this idea of just one particle. Today they believe in the quark model, based upon the standard model of particle physics. But quarks too could be made of just one more elementary particle.

Instead this model is a type of string theory (no extra dimensions) that proposes that string-like entities make up the "particle world" of the entire universe. Many "alternative present-day models" do propose that there is just one fundamental "particle" that makes up the universe, the all of reality.

Beyond the Standard Model

Although all experimental evidence confirms the predictions of the Standard Model, many physicists find this model to be unsatisfactory due to its many undetermined parameters, many fundamental particles, and other more theoretical considerations such as the hierarchy problem. There are many speculative theories beyond the Standard Model that attempt to rectify these deficiencies.

Elementary particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Above is one such problem. There are many other perceived problems and related theories proposed to solve them.

NOVA | The Elegant Universe | Elementary Particles (non-Flash) | PBS

New Physics Theory ... Mr. Pamfiloff states that there is only one fundamental "thing," with a limited ... (that makes up the entire universe).

Physics, Order of the Forces, Fundamental Particle, Grand Unifying Theory Scientific Comments Page

Of course just one particle is the simplest answer. Is it the correct answer? The OP, however, does not require that there is just one particle/ string structure of matter to be valid. It is a stand-alone theory concerning the matter formation of the universe.

The website file is a PDF file. You should be able to copy any part of it that you wish. I give you permission to do so. Sometimes it takes a little bit of fenegaling to figure out how to do so, depending upon your software. What happens when you try to copy parts of it? If for whatever reason you cannot do so, tell me what part you wish copied, page number and starting words of the paragraph, and I will copy it here for you to comment on

Is it a theory or a hypothesis? Because it sounds a lot like the latter.

Originally Posted by pyoko

Is it a theory or a hypothesis? Because it sounds a lot like the latter.

The subject proposal can be considered a theory because there is substantial math/ theoretical physics to it. It has its own theory of gravity and many other theoretical aspects.

The Pan Theory proposes that there is just one fundamental particle which makes up the entire universe, which the theory calls a Pan. Pan in different combinations accordingly make up all other matter.

The Pan Theory is first of all a Diminution of Matter model. The rate of change that matter is accordingly getting smaller is calculated to be about 1/1000 part every 5 million year.


It is a theory of materialism whereby there are no forces of nature. All of the so-called forces i.e. The Strong Force, the Weak Force, the electro-magnetic Force, Gravity, can accordingly all be explained mechanically.

It is a type of string theory. It proposes no extra dimensions, but that the fundamental building block of all matter are spring-like filimental strands.

It proposes the beginning of the universe involved just one single Pan, exactly like those that exist today, and by slow division it became the entire universe. There accordingly is nothing else that exists.

It proposes that Galactic Black holes create all fundamental matter from field material: protons, electrons, positrons, and to a lesser extent anti-protons.

It proposes that space does not expand, bend, or do anything else. Space is accordingly only the distance between matter.

It proposes that time is simply a concept derived to explain an interval of change, and nothing more.

It is theory of a background physical field something like dark matter, or maybe better described as a kind of aether model.

It is theory of gravity as a pushing force (Pushing Gravity) concerning movement and vectors of a background field.

It is a theory of determinism whereby there are no random events.

The Pan Theory proposes that the entire universe is a relatively simple place.

The Pan Theory in its present form is 369 pages long including diagrams, illustrations, theoretical physics (mathematics), and many predictions. About 300 pages are entirely theoretical and/or hypothetical. pantheory.org

the Week Force

Is there a Day Force too ?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

the Week Force

Is there a Day Force too ?

Only once every four years. That is the 'leap force.'

I thought this was supposed to be a place to post useful links.

Originally Posted by Strange

I thought this was supposed to be a place to post useful links.

Oh, sorry...

Here, you go: A listing of ten useful links.

More links... 12 of them even...

Originally Posted by Strange

I thought this was supposed to be a place to post useful links.

I thought this OP was originally posted in the "Links" section . Maybe moderation transferred it to the "Pseudo" section, although I see no indication of the transfer. Maybe one is not supposed to comment to any extent concerning the contents of the websites in the link section, or maybe something like that.

They are links to websites that "may be interesting" to some, but certainly not to everyone. Maybe my mistake of putting it here even though it would be OK if there were good related comments, other than just good humor . I'll put the posting in the "LINKS" section to find out if it was just my "flub" of putting the posting here


Note: changed typo "week" posting #5