S tandard Model vs Other Model

God is not part of religion

concepts in physics can affect society
God becomes a testable concept

SM/convention OM
mass virtual Higgs temporal curvature
gravity graviton/ GR temporal curvature
e-m v irtual photons charged anti- photons
strong virtual gluons temporal cur vature
weak virtual W-bosons geometry/ vibration
self-int random-nature spacelet -nature
multi-states random-nature spacelet-nature
grav-time-dil GR temporal curvature
rel-time-dil p ath-length temporal curvature
big-bang i nflation God

The Standard M odel is a product of convention. So is G eneral Relativity. i do not take iss ue w ith
GR; i take issue with the SM . With each model, we have (at least) 10 things to explain: mass,
gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, self- interference, multi-s tate behavior,
gravitational time-dilation, relat ivis tic time-dilation, and the Big Bang.

Occam's Razor should be called Occam's Test because we need to compare the number of
assumptions associated with each model. If we're generous and allow all virtual Higgs, virt ual
photons, virtual gluons, and virtual W's to be called virt ual bos ons (one thing / assumpt ion), then
there are five on t he left and five on the right . Tie.

From a purely objective perspective, the weakness of the SM is over dependency on virtual
particles (4 items); the weakness of the OM is over dependency on temporal curvature (5 items).
But this is NOT the reason convention rejects the Other M odel. The obvious reason is item 10.
Convention cannot embrace God because it rejected religion's influences on politics and science
years ago. "God is part of religion" (science has declared) and so any model that includes God is
seen as antiquated, silly, stupid, passe, and just plain wrong.

i did not arrive at the OM st arting wit h the ass umption of God "in the pict ure". began
i wit h
spacelet-nature and temporal curvature t hen arrived at G od as a r ealistic alter nativ e to inflation.
If we see temporal curvat ure as a s trengt h (in terms of explaining power) rat her than a weaknes s,
the right side is preferable until point 10.

It should be clear why i've done the utmost to exclude religions in all of my writings. Religion is
an autonomy sucking device intended to strip human beings of all: self-reliance, independence,
judgment, crit ical and objective thinking, .. and replace them wit h: idolization, mindlessness,
superficial placidity, and s heepishness among the general public.

i've successfully been able to conceptually divorce God from all religions and so, as a result, the
concept of God is allowed back into science; because i intellectually explicitly sever ties between
God and all religions (as in Better Way), God is no longer part of religion. Science is free to
consider God again (without attachment to religion).
From a minimalist perspective (last essay), G od only has one requirement: acknowledgement. Is
it such a leap to go from that to point 10? ^^ Convent ion has labored for decades to erase God
from 'the big pict ure' .. But in the process, random-nature, virt ual part icles, and inflation have
dominated science and concurrently - philosophy. Please realize the impact of these concepts on
society:
1. random-nature
2. virtual exchange
3. inflation (s omething from nothing)
1. People are no longer accountable t o anyone/anything becaus e everything is inherently random
starting from the atoms in your body to the thoughts inyour mind.
2. M oney is essentially virtual exchange; we don't trade anything substantially real; it's just lit tle
pieces of paper/cloth with ink on them.
3. Inflation has been a part of the world since money has.
i know t he las t item means different things in phys ics and economy, but the concept means the
same thing: something from nothing. (Perhaps i should rephrase that to be: inflat ion is less of
nothing over t ime caus ed by deliberate devaluing of virt ual-currency.) Inflat ion is essentially the
intentional devaluing of virtual- currency over t ime.

They say theoretical physics has nothing to do with social systems but we see above that physics
and society have some frightening parallels. Science's rejection of God as part of religion is now
invalid: G od is no longer part of religion; G od does not belong t o any one part icular religion (or
even to all of them); t he concept of God is separate from religion. The rejection of God, as a
concept, is no longer a 'given' in science. At this point, w e can cons ider t he Other M odel more
objectively (without focusing on item 10), consider temporal curvature with an open mind, and
charged anti-photons as a realistic alternative to virtual photons. There are explicit tests outlined
in WfM .

.. When we allow the pos sibility of God, w hen w e divorce the concept of God from religions,
when we allow the possibility of a deterministic quantum mechanics, we allow t he concept of
God back into science. This is not the reversal of historical scientific progres s; this is allowing a
more accurate view of reality.

Historically, science rejected all religious influence - including the concept of G od.
This was a good/beneficial thing since religions had a stranglehold over politics/science.
But rejecting the concept of God w as overkill and virtually eliminated any G od-based physics.
Contrary to common notions and prevailing opinion, determinism is not dead in physics.
Determinism is still shown to be a valid alternative to conventional probabilistic QM .
In any case, convention has contorted rationality to the point of absurdity with inflation.

M arkus Lazar has independently shown elementary particles can be viewed as distortions in
space-time. His inclusion of Higgs (due to conventional pressures/expectat ions) does not
invalidate his research direction/thrust.

The rejection of religions by science is understood but goes too far excluding God.
In the context of probability, rejection of determinism is understood but unreasonably exclusive.
Lazar has independently shown spacelet theory is a valid approach toward elementary particles.
The holism of temporal curvature appeals to our rationality more than randomness/virtualness.
Determinism is revived and allows for a fully r ealistic view of elementary particles and
interactions.
The clause of including a minimal concept of G od is not a detriment but actually a coherent /
holistic advantage.
The concept of God becomes testable in conjunction with determinism, temporal curvat ure, and
charged anti-phot ons mediat ing electromagnet ism.

God is part of science not religion.