The universe is made of one particle

When I last posted this argument, My opponent's argument was deleted, And they posted a different argument, In response to mine. For the sake of clarity, I will repost the same argument, Even though what it was responding to no longer exists. I apologise for any inconvenience. While Nikola Tesla was a brilliant engineer and inventor, He held numerous views which have been soundly debunked. He denied the existence of the electron, Which had been proven through cathode ray experimentation in the late 19th century; and believed that atoms were immutable, Which was refuted in dramatic fashion by the atomic bomb. Particle physics was not his area of expertise. Your quoting of him is an argument from irrelevant authority, Similar to how climate change deniers will cite chemical engineers instead of climate scientists, Because "they're both scientists". "This was demonstrated with the Michelson Morley experiment. They assumed that the Earth moved through the aether at the speed that the Earth moves around the sun. This is a false assumption. The aether pushes the planets around the sun. That is why all the planets move around the sun in the same direction and travel at the same relative rate according to their size and position. (The product of the square roots of the relative raddii and the orbit velocities is close to unity. )" This is false on several levels. First of all, The Michelson-Morley experiment debunked aether as it was conceived at the time. Your claim that aether pushes the planets appears to be an ad hoc explanation, And is at odds with established science. Furthermore, You claim that all planets travel at "the same relative rate according to their size and position". If what you said was remotely true, Wouldn't mass be a factor rather than size? It's well known that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. As for your claim that "the product of the square roots of the relative raddii and the orbit velocities is close to unity", I did the maths and found you incorrect. Let's compare Jupiter to Earth. Jupiter's radius is 69911 km, Making its square root about 264. 4. Its orbital velocity is 13. 1 km/s, And 264. 4 multiplied by 13. 1 is about 3463. 6. Earth's radius is 6371 km, Making its square root about 79. 8. Its orbital velocity is 30 km/s, And 79. 8 multiplied by 30 is 2394. This is a huge difference, Not 'close to unity'. Your statement is henceforth debunked. Your next paragraph is supported by the one I just debunked, So it is also debunked. Your next paragraph seems to be a diatribe about society, So I will ignore it, As it is irrelevant to the discussion. Next, You claim that it is a good thing that your claims have no evidence, Which makes no sense. "The human brain and eye have evolved a binary based system of interpreting the outside world. The eye and brain see the world in 3 basic colours. This is clear evidence of sub-atomic structure because light is a product of the sub-atomic world. The fact that the brain uses a 3 colour system reflects sub-atomic structure of the universe. The eye contains 3 cone shaped colour receptors. Thus, Each colour represents left spin, Right spin and no spin dominance of surface structures. Thus, The true nature of the material will be known and can be identified by the brain. Thus, Survival in a hostile environment is assured because of this accurate representation of nature. " First of all, Binary refers to 2 of something, Not 3, So you've misused the word. You claim that the existence of 3 primary colours of visible light is fundamental to the structure of the universe, Rather than to the structure of our eyes. Radio waves are light, But aren't made from the primary colours. Your next sentences can be ignored, As they have been left unsupported, And so are assertions rather than arguments. "Note - India was the only land mass to undertake such a long journey across the Atlantic ocean. This is called a logic anomally. According to the rules of aquistion - It only takes one anomally to disprove a theory. " The Rules of Acquisition do not exist, Except as a group of sacred business proverbs of the Ferengi race in Star Trek. Perhaps you meant something else. An anomaly only disproves a theory if it contradicts it. The movement of India doesn't contradict plate tectonics, And it wasn't the only movement of land, So your entire statement is false. I'll also address your comment, In which you claim the following: "All your references are from Wikipedia which is just a community website run by communists from Russia. Therefore, It is not recognized as a scientific authority on anything. " First of all, Wikipedia was founded by Jimmy Wales, Who is an American libertarian, Not a Russian communist. Wikipedia is also reliable on science, As a study in Nature, A respected science journal, Found. It's roughly as reliable as Encyclopædia Brittanica. I'd just like to mention that throughout this debate, Pro made several logical fallacies, Repeatedly made assertions and passed them as facts, Made statements which were demonstrably false, And expressed several anti-science conspiracy theories. I'd like to thank my opponent for a lively and enlightening debate, And wish him luck. Sources (in non-link form to prevent bugs):(Wikipedia article on Nikola Tesla)(Wikipedia article on Earth) (Wikipedia article on Jupiter)(first result of search term 'nature wikipedia encyclopedia britannica')