AuT-An argument for publication in loose academic arguments

How am I going to explain the crazy rants and the poetry?  Quite a conundrum.  Oh you cruel muse to whom all of this is written, from whom all of this comes.  How indeed?

However, today I submitted the first 39 pages to a periodical for review.  It was under the heading of "hypothesis" the most rare of publication subjects, but you know as well as I do that I have described not just the broad framework behind the universe, but most of the specifics.  There are some things they have not been sent yet as all of the 120 pages of new material have not been edited, but they have more than you do and for that I apologize, but you had most of it first, enough to test my theory and you were unable to find fault.

I have reduced all of mankind's undertakings, evolution, the act of creation itself to the solving of a converging and diverging infinite series which I have defined with specificity which you do not have yet, but you will, be patient.  I am trying to get my source materials back from my typist who is holding approximately 20 pages of notes hostage, it doesn't matter so much.  Those pages are mostly deleted, the few insights are largely covered in the edits that you have seen.  The idea is to delete 120 pages and insert the new pages to take its place, to increase the consistency since the theory is now whole and consistent, each answer now falling into place.  It is a jigsaw puzzle where only a few pieces have been left out.   They fall into place almost without effort, the rubic's cube with one turn left to be solved.

Ahhh, moron that I am.  I hold the universe in my hand like a bauble.  I cannot control my own life.  I am the smartest man in the world at this moment, and yet I am not intelligent at all if you know me.  I am not the richest man in the world.  I have held myself open to the whole world with a cardboard sign, "Will work for food" and despite seeing the universe naked which no one before me has ever done, no one will buy me a sandwitch.  It is a puzzle.

So why now you ask?

While incomplete, the theory dates from an initial publication between 3 and 4 years old (closer to 3, but who's counting?).  What is left is a children's math problem, a very smart child with some experience with matrix theory and a refresher course in differential equations; but a child's problem nonetheless.

Here is the cover letter, it looks, I dare say, familiar to you, but I thought it got the point across.  Perhaps the one thing that is missing is the line at the end, "will work for food."

I cannot recommend the study of Algorithm Universe Theory even though I fear it is too predictive and reflective not to be correct.  You are not the first person to see this because this theory was built on line and is read all over the world by a select group of people who came upon it one way or another.  GMFBOOKS.BLOGSPOT.COM.  There are 4 books published on this topic (available from Amazon) and this submission is being made in advance of the 5^th.  It took Einstein 10 years to complete the theory of relativity and this work is only 4 years old.  If I am right, and I have no reason to assure you I am right other than my own opinion of this work, then what you are going to read is the equivalent of the theory of relativity after only 4 years of work. It is, however, complete in general terms.

This “hypothesis” to use your term, defines the origin of quantum phenomena and relativity in simple mathematical terms, perhaps too simple to be easily accepted.  The fact that the origin of the universe and quantum phenomena is simple is not pleasant, but as you read this you will understand what black holes are, what the big bang was (and why it’s not that important), and what fundamental particles are.  You will not like the result even if you accept the math.  The theory proves itself out by giving consistent predictable results.  Relativity, and space time, arise from the interaction of higher information states to the base, dimensionless information state called ct1 and the universe results from a single variable algorithm. 

The “horror” of this theory is that it eliminates entropy.  Don’t believe me?

There is no writing anywhere where the admonition, "woe to everyone who goes beyond this point" is more applicable.  

Here are six other features often found in academic arguments:
A case for a particular position - 
A clear central idea - 
A logic to the way ideas are expressed and developed - 
A sense of direction - where he or she is going with the argument a step by step construction of the argument.
Clear linking of ideas - builds on previous points and leads clearly to new points.
Evidence used to support the central idea - observations, statistics, data or support from other arguments.

I have all of that.  It is time.