The universe is made of one particle

"My theory has far less assumptions than the standard model. You have made a fundamental and misleading statement here. "Claiming that all phenomena are caused by the same thing contains many assumptions, Which you have put forward in your argument. What if I claimed that all world leaders were the same person? You may claim that my example is a strawman, But it fits your argument due to your insistence that the macroscopic mirrors the subatomic. "The standard model is really just guess work at best. Nobody has seen an atom and nobody really knows how and atom functions. Thus, It is all conjecture, Guess work and hypothesis. In other words it is just a game of smoke and mirrors played by stage magicians called scientists. "This is completely false. The Standard Model is based on decades of humanity's observations and mathematics. We have seen individual atoms, And we have a good idea of how they work, Based on observations and mathematics. Your slur against scientists is unfounded. Scientists are the ones who will try to prove themselves wrong as a career. They are the opposite of what you say they are. Furthermore, You've previously attempted to use the Standard Model to support your hypothesis, But you claim here that it's 'just guess work at best'. So is your hypothesis based on guesswork? "Your example of an invisible tea cup orbiting Alpha Centuri is extremism gone berserk. "On a fundamental level, My example is identical to others. They involve a positive claim, On which the burden of proof lies. In a court of law, The prosecution has the burden of proof. You, Like the prosecution, Are making a claim. Under all recognised customs of science, Law and debating, You are the sole person on who the burden of proof lies in this case. "The things that I am talking about are just everyday objects which are clues to how the universe works. For example - An electric plug has 3 points; the human eye sees things in 3 parts; computer language and binary code has zeros; ones and spaces, There are 3 primary colours; Chemicals have acid, Alkaline and neutral; and electrity can be positive, Negative or neutral. "Why do you think they have 3 parts? Might it not be that we defined those parts in such a way as to have 3 of them, For clarity and understanding? There is nothing fundamental about this. An electric plug has 3 points because we created it in such a way, Not because of a mysterious universal order. The human eye has 3 parts because there are billions of cells being arranged in such a way that humans identified 3 major parts. Computer language isn't all in binary, And there is nothing fundamentally different about it. Binary exists because a switch on a computer can either be on (1) or off (0). Spaces are merely added for clarity of reading. In saying that binary is fundamentally special, You are claiming that the fact that 2 + 1 = 3 reveals something fundamental about the structure of the universe. The primary colours are in visible light only. You're mistakenly thinking that visible light makes up a far greater portion of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum than it actually does. If one takes humans out of the equation, The colours red, Blue and green are no more fundamental than radio waves. Chemicals can be acid, Basic or neutral, Because of the type and concentration of ions within them. It's a spectrum, Not a 3-way switch. There's nothing fundamental about this, And to focus on acidity is to ignore the other chemical properties with more or less than 3 options. Electricity can't be neutral; it can only be associated with positive or negative charge. Electricity is the set of physical phenomena associated with the presence and motion of matter that has a property of electric charge. Neutral objects don't have electric charge, So electricity is associated with 2 rather than 3 types. "Sorry, There is no mistake in seeing a parallel between fractal related objects. The universe is full of fractal relationships. You just have to be observant to see it. "The universe does have similarities between some objects of different scales, But it's not a law. You're making the assumption that subatomic particles follow this trend. "Note - An atom is a smaller fractal of a galaxy. Note - Spin rate of a galaxy and an atom vary considerably. Thus, The larger the fractal the slower the spin or rotation rate and the smaller the fractal the faster the spin rate. A solar system is in the middle between an atom and a galaxy. A solar system is growing and will turn into a galaxy. A planet and its moons will turn into an independent solar system with time. Thus, The universe is both expanding and contracting at the same time. The black hole in the centre of a galaxy will return matter to aether and shoot it out as jets at 90 degrees to the galactic rotation. "Just because both things contain orbits, Doesn't mean they're the same. Is the heart proof that the universe expands and contracts? Is a table proof that the Earth is flat? Aether was debunked by the Michelson-Morley experiment. With all due respect, This and the source you provide are pseudoscientifc technobabble. "It has been found that galaxies form into crystalline structures due to this process. "It has not, And you are misusing the word 'crystal', Which applies only to solids. Galaxies are mostly plasma and vacuum, Which are not solids. "The sphere is the basic shape of the universe. This is because the no spin particle creates a hole in space which the spin particles rotate around in a descending spiral. This is the basic shape of a galaxy and of an atom. The no spin particle or state is the key to understanding how gravity works. The aether particles are falling into the dimensional gateway or hole in space. (don't ask me where they go to after they fall in) This falling action creates gravity. The Earth is expanding and growing because of this growing accumulation of aether particles and matter. "This is also technobabble. You also haven't provided evidence of any of the claims in this paragraph. The Expanding Earth hypothesis also has been replaced by the theory of plate tectonics, Which, Following Occam's razor, Contains fewer assumptions. "There may be a sixth tensor boson spin = -2. Thus, My theory still stands. Note - In case you didn't know, 6 is divisible by 3. Lol"So the possible existence of the graviton is definite proof of your theory? The fact that some number is divisible by 3 isn't a fundamental truth about the universe's structure. Sources:https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Electricityhttps://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/PHhttps://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experimenthttps://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Technobabblehttps://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Crystalhttps://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Expanding_Earthhttps://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Boson