The universe is made of one particle

"You are taking a logical assumption and a clear analogy and turning it into a joke or nonsense analogy. My assumptions are all logical and reasonable assumptions whereas your assumption is total lunacy. Nature divides things into 3 parts because that's what happens when you use fundamental particles that have 3 states. Nature is highly efficient and doesn't waste and is never excessive. Thus, Matter has 3 states which are solid, Liquid and gas. Why? Because the 3 states of matter are shadowing the 3 states of the fundamental particles (ethons). "No, I'm not. You're the one who said that the subatomic world reflects the macrocosm, And social systems are natural to humans, Who are part of the macrocosm. Your assumptions have no scientific backing whatsoever. This is a debate about science, And science doesn't give weight to arguments by analogy. Evidence of the specific phenomena you claim to exist is the only scientific proof. Once again, You're making statements without scientific evidence. And to be pedantic, Matter has 4 states we see every day: gas in the air, Liquid in the water we drink, Solid in many things, And plasma in the Sun. There are also other states of matter, Such as Bose-Einstein condensates. So the example you've used falls flat. ""you have seen individual atoms" Good, Then you can draw a picture of an atom for me then? Answer - No. Why? - Because the image are just blurry looking blobs. Oh, So an atom is a blurry blob then. Thanks for that information Mr genius scientist who spent 50 years studying atoms. "In 1989, Scientists at IBM used a scanning tunneling microscope to precisely position 35 xenon atoms on a layer of chilled nickel crystal to spell 'IBM'. While the atoms look blurry, They couldn't have been positioned in such a way if we didn't know their behaviour and structure. That's why we could do this in 1989 and not 1889. Can you draw a picture of air? No. Does that mean air doesn't exist? No. Furthermore, Your sarcastic retort adds nothing to your argument, And could be considered disrespectful by some. "Sorry, I used to work in a university. Scientists will do what ever it takes to get their next research grant. They will tell lies, Fudge results and do what ever it takes to stay employed in a nice university environment with lots of income. Most scientists would rather die than admit that they had ever made an error or mistake. "That's a hasty generalisation. Some universities have a different culture to others. I'm an Australian. If I spent a year in Silicon Valley, I might conclude that all Americans are young, Liberal, Tech-savvy people. The plural of anecdote is not data. "Any person who enters a debate and thinks that they don't have to provide any evidence or proof is a fool. It is just a matter of common sense that you can't prove somebody wrong without proving that you are right. Thus, Any person who doesn't have a burden also doesn't have a conscience or a sense of morality either. So. . . . . Do you fit that bill? "In a court of law, We have innocent until proven guilty. In science, The topic on which this debate is on, We only accept things with evidence. In a court of law, The defence tries to cast enough doubt on the claims of the prosecution for the judge or jury to not accept their position. That's what I'm doing. For you to imply that I'm being immoral for trying to uphold scientific integrity is unfounded. "Also you are creating a diversion while ignoring the fact that your example extremist and not fitting of the situations at hand. "It's just like any other claim. The fact that my example is almost definitely false doesn't affect its usefulness as an example in philosophical discussions. "Reply - So, When have you seen an electric plug which has 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or10 points? Answer - NeverReason - Because electricity is aether flow and aether has 3 states and not 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or10 Its commonsense. Positive, Negative and neutral (earth). "This has no evidence. You're making an assertion, Not an argument here. "Sorry, The human eye has dozens of parts. What I am talking about is the eyes perception of reality. The law of thirds in other words. The human eye breaks up the visual field into 3 parts. "We perceive three dimensions because there are 3 spatial dimensions, At least on our scale of existence. The eye doesn't add the third dimension though; each sees two dimensions, And our brain adds the third dimension from the parallax of our two eyes being in different places. That's why it's harder to navigate with one eye closed. Furthermore, There is no such thing as the law of thirds. Perhaps you mean the rule of thirds? In that case, It's a rule of thumb for photographic aesthetics, Which isn't particularly relevant to your argument. "Reply - The universe is a binary system. Left spin - right spin - space or enter. "That's literally what I just refuted. "You don't understand colour theory. Ultra violet and infra red are not primary colours. Note - All colours can be made from red, Blue and yellow. "First of all, Red, Blue and yellow are the primary colours of paint, And though you claim that the universe is fractal, I'm sure you can agree that it is not, In fact, An easel. Perhaps you mean red, Blue and green, The primary colours of light. I do understand colour theory, Having done an art course in school, But I know that aesthetics aren't usually the key to understanding how the universe works. Colours are only parts of visible light, A small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Ultraviolet and infrared aren't primary colours because they aren't colours. But they're still light. One you realise how large the electromagnetic spectrum is compared to visible light, You'll realise that the primary colours really aren't all that fundamental. "Electricity is aether flow and aether has left spin, Right spin and no spin characteristics. Note - Without the 'no spin' state the electricity or aether would not be able to travel or move. Electricty and aether need a sink hole to fall into which is supplied by the 'no spin' particles. "The evidence you gave for this was refuted last round, So this claim has no legs to stand on. "The result was called a 'null result' which means that they didn't get what they were expecting. They assumed that the Earth moved through the aether at the speed that the Earth goes around the sun. This was a false assumption. Note - The aether pushes the planets around the solar system. The speed of the aether is the same as what the gravity is. Note - Gravity is aether flow. Thus, They discounted the slow rate as a "null result". "You haven't supported your claims with reliable sources. YouTube is generally not regarded as a reliable source of scientific information. "There is no evidence to support plate tectonic theory. The biggest lie - India travelled 7 thousand kilometres from the Antarctic and bumped into Europe which created the Himalayan Mountains. It must have been on ice skates! Lol"First of all, It was Asia, Not Europe. Secondly, It's supposed to have taken millions of years, So it's not too incredible. Thirdly, Your argument here is one from incredulity, Rather than evidence. Lastly, There is plenty of evidence for plate tectonics, Which I have put in my sources below. "What a joke! And you actually believe this stuff? Lol. Talk about creative thinking to fill in a logic anomaly. Lol" This is both rude and unnecessary. It could also be an example of projection. Sources: (add the https to use)en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Faulty_generalizationen. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrumen. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Plate_tectonics