The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The universe is made of only one particle

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,056 times Debate No: 104005
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I contend that the universe is made entirely from one particle in 3 states. Positive, negative and neutral. That there are not thousands of different sub-atomic particles.


I accept the debate. As the Pro on this matter, namely "the universe is made of only one particle", you are to argue for and provide proof of your claim. I, as the Con, will argue against your statements. Remember that I have no obligation to prove the existence of numerous particles.
I would like you to explain your hypothesis and elaborate on the evidence you - probably - have to support it.
In other words, I wish that you rationally answer the following questions. (Note that, since this is considered a scientific debate, no religious or pseudoscientific arguments will be accepted)
1. Could you describe the particle you are talking about?
2. What are the particle's positive, negative and neutral state?
3. How do you explain the scientific society's statements which you are now opposing?
4. Is there any experiment that can be interpreted as a confirmation to your claim?
5. Can you prove your claim?
Debate Round No. 1


1. I can only describe the properties of this particle. Those properties are positive, negative and neutral.

2. Positive, negative and neutral can be described under my theory in a more simplified manner. That's left spin, right spin and no spin.

3. Other theories and explanations are illogical and don't make sense.

4. Airy's telescope experiments and Sagnac's experiment where he spins the interferometer at a rate of 2 revolutions per second creates the expected fringes.
The expectations of the Michelson/Morley experiment were that the Earth moves through the aether at 30 meters per second. They never considered that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun. The Michelson/Morley experiment found an aether speed of 10 meters per second. This experiment was called a null result because they didn't get what they were expecting. This is the speed that the aether enters the Earth. Its called gravity. 9.8m/sec. If the aether is travelling at the same speed as the Earth then of course, there wont be much wind.

Note - Ignore the religious content and references of this video.


1, 2. So your particle has three properties, because of its spin. But I find that inadequate, as a fundamental and sole existent particle would have to explain positive, negative and neutrally charged objects, matter, antimatter, dark matter, light, energy and dark energy. That gives us nine properties required for the particle to have.

3. Really? Which quantum physics theory exactly does not make sense or is illogical to you and why? And why does it have to be wrong just because you do not understand it? In the same way I could turn your hypothesis down simply by claiming it is illogical. You have to either disprove the accepted theories or prove your hypothesis.

4. The three experiments you mentioned have nothing to do with proving the existence of a sole particle. All of them were attempts to prove the existence of the ether. Even if the ether exists, it does not imply that the universe consists of only one particle. But I will elaborate on these experiments a little more:
a. The idea that light would slow down and that the direction of its course would be distorted by adding water to the moving telescope is false. First of all, electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed if 300.000klm/sec in all inertial frames of reference (while the earth is not one of these, as it orbits the sun in circular motion), thus it is an exaggeration to say that light would slow down that much by simply passing through water. Then again, even if that was so, the light beam's course would not change, for the water in the telescope would too be moving at some speed, which it would "give" to the beam of light as it entered the telescope, due to inertia. So, either the light would be too fast for its direction to change, or, if it got slowed down, it would not change its direction anyway. It depends on how much effect one claims the encounter with the water molecules has on light.
To test my claim that the direction would not change even if the light beam got slowed down, you can do the following "experiment"; take a small object (I used a hazelnut, because it floats on water) and a glass filled with water - I suggest you use a big one. Hold the object in a height greater than that of the glass and move the latter in a high speed below it. Drop the object so that it falls in the water, as the glass still moves. You should notice that the angle of the fall did not change (compared to the 5" angle change that was shown in the video, of course), even as it got in the water. Not to mention that when a light beam enters a glass of water it is not affected by the fluctuations, contrary to the hazelnut. Now compare that to the initial experiment, where the earth's speed relative to the light beam was way greater than that of the glass relative to the hazelnut, while the light beam's speed was too incredibly greater than that of the fall of the hazelnut. The analogy is still the same, on a different scale.
The Michelson and Morley experiment does not prove the existence of ether, for they found that the two light beams' speed was exactly the same. This observation was later explained by Einstein's theory of relativity.
Constancy of the speed of light experiments:
Constancy of the speed of light articles:
Relativity experiments:
c. To begin with, the Sagnac experiment was conducted in a rotating, and thus a non-inertial frame of reference. But either way, since that can be justified because of the Wang re-experiment on the Sagnac effect, the following will probably clarify to you why it does not account as proof, but as an indication, for the ether hypothesis.
Sagnac effect:

Again, do you have any proof that the universe consists of only one particle, or hypotheses are all you have to support it? If you do, please show me.
Debate Round No. 2


1 & 2. The science community uses many different terminologies to describe the aether. This is because they like the idea of an aether but conventions and fashion don't allow them to say it so they use other terms such as - space time continuum, dark energy, dark matter, virtual particles, anti-matter and bosons etc.
Empty space contains alternate left and right spin particles.
Matter contains left, right and a no spin particle in the middle.
Light is just an energy movement through the aether matrix.

3. Most scientists say they don't understand quantum mechanics. They just accept it. The problem is that the universe is divided into fractals. Atoms and galaxies are one and the same thing, only they exist in different fractal realities. We are stuck in the middle somewhere. To us a galaxy moves painfully slow and atoms move blindingly fast. This fast movement makes scientists think that atoms possess mysterious powers which they call quantum powers. Time is relative to the fractal dimension. Smaller fractal dimension move faster than bigger ones.

4. In order to prove the existence of a single particle in 3 states - first, you must prove the existence of an aether. Without an aether, my theory has no legs. The aether is the starting point of everything in the universe. Thus, if you avoid discussing the aether, you will miss the key binding element which is holding the universe together. Aether holds matter together. Without aetheric pressure a galaxy would just explode into nothingness.

(a) Light only travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. Once it enters a medium, then it slows down.
(b) The michelson/Morley experiment found an aether speed of 10m/s so it wasn't a null result. That's gravity and gravity is aether flow.
(c) Sagnac found the missing fringes because the Earth moves with the aether and not through it as Michelson and Morley thought. Thus, spinning the interferometer moved the device through the aether which created the fringes. Thus, there is an aether.

Get yourself a gyroscope. Spin it and try to turn it against the aether flow. Its hard to do. That's because there is a downward falling aether (wind) which keeps pushing the wheel in the same direction. Try riding a bicycle and see how the spinning wheel stabilizes the bike. Think sailing boat and how the wind pushes the boat against the wind direction. etc.


1,2. All the the scientific terms you mentioned - as the ones I too mentioned before - have completely different properties in comparison to each other. Dark matter, matter, dark energy, electromagnetic waves are completely different things which have nothing to do with the ether. The ether is supposed to be a medium through which electromagnetic waves travel. How exactly is it the same with matter, antimatter, or even electromagnetic waves such as light? That does not even make sense.
As for light, as I said above, it is an electromagnetic wave with a wave and particle nature duality. The wave nature of light was proven by Maxwell's equations and by the famous double slit experiment. The particle nature was initially proven by Einstein (although I do not remember any more details, so do not take it for granted), and has been confirmed by quanta experiments in which scientists successfully formed beams of light with breadth of one photon.

3. Indeed, even Feynman admitted that he was sure that no one understood quantum mechanics. And that is due to our lack of knowledge. It is just like some centuries ago, when people saw a lightning and could not understand it, so they said "God must have done it". The reason scientists accept quantum mechanics is because of experiment and observation, confirmed by mathematics. This is the basis of science. Quantum physics is not something to be doubted, for it is a description of how the subatomic world works in the first place, and not a scenario we came up with and struggle to confirm (just like the ether).
Furthermore, I do not see what fractals have to do with this, since I am not really into universe geometry and so on, so I would like you to explain yourself a bit more.

4. Aether holds matter together. Without aetheric pressure a galaxy would just explode into nothingness.
No, that is actually called gravity.
a. Never did I say that light does not slow down when not in a vacuum. But the change of speed when entering the water from the air would be so small, that it would hardly be detectable.
Anyway, I showed you that the conclusions you drew out of the experiment were false through my Hazelnut experiment. Therefore, Airy's experiment proves nothing.
b. The Michelson and Morley experiment found no difference in the speed of the two light beams. Please show me your sources.
c. I already stated that the Sagnac experiment was conducted in a non inertial frame of reference. I also linked you to an article that elaborates on it.

I doubt that all these happen so because of the ether flow. It could be too explained via gravity, inertia and other Newtonian forces. Mainly the former two.
Debate Round No. 3


1 & 2. Nobody knows what dark matter or dark energy is, so I don't know why you have exhibited this as evidence. The problem with currently accepted theories is that nothing fits together. Matter, light and gravity are all unrelated and are foreign to one another under the Einstein and Newtonian theories. This is definitely not how the universe works. The universe is a unified oneness which is very simple and uncomplicated. It is only humans who are complicated, ambitious, greedy, egocentric, difficult and psychotic. They can't accept a simple universe because they want to be respected as professors of the physics of a 'difficult to understand universe' of which only they 'understand'. Thus, they must maintain a 200 year old lie to preserve their integrity, high prestige, high income, high status position at all costs. This is the main problem. The world we live in is corrupt and evil. You may say that I am a conspiracy theorist. But I have been around a long time and have been into the university system and seen corruption with my own eyes.

The concept that 2 twins can age differently if one twin travels at the speed of light for several years is a total nonsense. Clocks that travel on fast aeroplanes and rockets are slowed down due to aetheric pressure increases. Time never changes regardless of speed. Relativity is a total nonsense and Einstein was the worlds biggest fraud who ever lived.

The double slit experiment is a fraud. The slit acts like a radio antenna and is just relaying the original signal through the medium of the slit material itself.

Miller found an aether speed of 10m/s which is exactly gravity's speed.

With the one particle in 3 states theory all the forces and elements of the universe can be easily explained and unified. Aether is the true source of all energy that the universe has. Its called spin energy. Spin energy is the only logical way that the universe can store energy for billions of years and then suddenly release that energy through the medium of a large celestial body like a sun. The universe is total logic and there really is no magic or uncoordinated parts.


1,2. We do not know what dark matter or dark energy is, but we know it to exist and to have different properties than normal matter and energy do. But, even if you exclude these from my arguments, you still have to explain matter, antimatter, energy, electromagnetic waves and positive, negative and neutrally charged objects, as mentioned above.

" This is definitely not how the universe works."
And that is so because you say so, right? All scientists are lying to us and telling us that the universe is far more complicated than how we perceive it? That is your argument?

An explanation of the twin and clock paradox can be found here:

I also linked you to experiments and articles that prove relativity and the constancy of the speed of light, but I received no answer, apart from "relativity is a total nonsense and Einstein was the biggest fraud who ever lived". Don't expect to win the debate like that.

The double slit experiment is not a fraud. A slit does not act like a radio antenna that is able to produce interference fringes in the signals (or electromagnetic waves, to be exact) it is relaying. The signal, when reached the detector, produced interference fringes exactly same to those two waves produce when colliding. Moreover, this experiment has not only been conducted with light waves, but has been repeated using atoms and buckyballs, proving that electromagnetic waves and particles propagate in the same way, namely, wavelike, confirming quantum physics.

Concerning the Michelson and Morley experiment, I recognise my mistake on the results, but I also have to correct you on the fact that the results were 8.0 - 8.8 m/s, while the gravitational acceleration is between 9.764 m/s^2 and 9.834 m/s^2 depending on altitude and latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s^2 (approximately 32.174 ft/s^2). This does not take into account other effects, such as buoyancy or drag. Thus, I do not think it has anything to do with gravity, as, if it did, the results would have the same values as these of the gravitational acceleration.

I found the article about the fractal universe intriguing, but I do not understand what does it have to do with the debate. The fact that matter concentrates in a fractal-like way implies neither the existence of an ether nor the existence of a sole particle in the universe.

The video to which you linked me as a source too has, too, one issue; despite the claims that it constantly makes, it provides no sources. The channel's website states that the source of the
videos is a book, which is not available to access through the website (not to mention that the book is written by the same person anyway). I also noticed that, although he intended to disprove relativity, he resorted to personally attacking Einstein and presenting as evidence mere hypotheses or partial truth. All he succeeded in was to provide more explanations to some of the facts that are considered to be in favor of relativity, although some of the former were already proven wrong or were mere assumptions and hypotheses.

To say that your hypothesis is the only rational explanation for the universe just because it seemingly simplifies it is most naive. The theories of the scientific community are, as I showed you, plausible and indisputable. On the other hand, you have failed (or rather, have not even attempted) to prove your initial claim. Hence, in this last round, I want you to present and prove your hypothesis of the one particle.
Debate Round No. 4


1 & 2. To answer this question I will give you a summary of my full theory.
The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle. This particle has 3 states - left spin, right spin and no spin. Empty space contains only left and right spinning particles which are unattached. These particles spin at the speed of light. Matter forms when a spinning particle stops spinning and creates a hole in space which the left and right spinning particles rotate around. The sun gets its energy from these spinning particles which are pushed together as they approach the sun. The spinning particles give off their spin energy - 2 particles pushed together create 'matter' which has a neutron in the centre - thus -E=MC squared. Light travels through these alternately left and right spinning particles like the cogs in a watch as a spin/wave. Thus, spin energy is the common denominator which unifies all the elements and forces of the universe.

Its not that they are lying. Its more a matter of respecting their forefathers too much and accepting previous theories without question. The education system doesn't allow for too much dissension. If you disagree with too many professor you won't pass your exams.

Twin clock paradox - Time is not something which can be distorted or changed. Time is not a thing in itself (refer to Kant), it is only a counting system. Thus, relativity is illogical. Einstein and other nit wits try to turn time into a physical object which it is not. Thus, there is no fourth dimension or time vector.

Double slit experiment -

Note - Quantum mechanics is not required.

Michelson/Morley - Results of Morley experiment or less than gravity which only proves that aether drag is real. To expect the Morley experiment results to be exactly the same as gravity is illogical at best. Thus, are you trying to say that if you spin a ball in still water that the water won't move at all? This is against logic and practical experimentation.

Fractal universe - Fractals are a dimensional quality of the universe which creates complexity. Its what separates matter from space and atoms from galaxies. The only difference between matter and space is spin and rotation. Space spins only while mater both spins and rotates. Space contains no black hole attractors while matter does.

The universe will construct itself in the simplest and most efficient manner. KISS principle. My theory is the simplest manner and most efficient manner that the universe can be built. I have used reverse engineering to construct a universe that is the most efficient. All the parts of my theory fit together perfectly and there is no waste or disjointed parts which don't lock in together. I have used the basic mathematical principle of the common denominator. In order to unify two separate numbers or things you must find a common denominator. I have found the common denominator of one particle in 3 states of which can and does explain every phenomenon from gravity, matter, electricity and 'empty space.' The current theories can't do this, therefore, they must all be incorrect and faulty.


I will begin with the double slit experiment.
The suggested interpretation of the experiment sounds plausible at the beginning, but if you examine it a bit more, you would find out that it is mistaken.
First of all, I understand that the article's author states that when a photon is shot in a sea of a photon ether, it creates a pulse, or rather a wave of photons, by "pushing" them, just like a water molecule would do in a normal sea. The problem is, the photon detector records the spots on which photons land, meaning it counts them. Therefore, I think that shooting one particle and recording a pulse of thousands instead would have drawn the scientists' attention a little bit. Am I not right?

Michelson and Morley: Indeed, there could have been a little error of +2/-2, the former confirming your claim. On the other hand, the latter, by taking into account the fact that the rotating disc on which the experiment was conducted is, as I mentioned again on the Sagnac experiment, a non-inertial frame of reference, confirms my claim too.

I noticed that while elaborating on your theory, apart from your particle, you also mentioned the existence of neutrons. That gives us two particles, with photons -from your explanation of the double slit experiment- making it three. Were you not to argue for the existence of a sole particle?

Concerning the videos that you linked me to (I watched EM 01 00 and EM 01 01, as they were the only ones on etherial mechanics), I found them really interesting, on the aspect that it described really well how the ether would work if it existed. The videos' creator did a good job, although he took the existence of the ether for granted and did not elaborate on why did he believe that the ether exists.

Twins and clock paradox: Time is not a counting system, but rather the measured, via counting systems such as seconds, quantity. This quantity is, according to relativity, able to be distorted by the existence of matter, acceleration and more factors. Until you disprove it, you have no right to call Einstein and other scientists nitwits. And I believe that disproving it will be quite difficult, considering that you have not even bothered to mention the experiments and articles I linked you to concerning relativity.

Fractals can be seen anywhere in the macroscopic universe because they are the more efficient way for matter to "flow" through the vacuum of space, under the pull of a high concentration of mass. I do agree that matter tends to spin, from microscopic to macroscopic level. Never did I deny that. But that does not in any way prove the existence of a single particle in the universe. Furthermore, you ascribed various properties to the spin of particles, without even trying to provide the slightest piece of evidence about your claims, but only tried to persuade me that your hypothesis may be able to explain the universe as well as quantum mechanics does (yes, it does, for it can explain matter, electricity, gravity and so on; as for empty space, the topic is still under research). Hence, it is absurd to say that the current theories must be incorrect, while yours is right.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
@Akhenaten You are really ignorant, its not just one particle, but one whole life format or planet.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Whatever. I have no problem with being a little boy. Not being a big baby like you is more than enough for me.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Sorry, little boy, for calling you a little boy.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Now present arguments, instead of insulting everyone and calling me a little boy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JimShady 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and Spelling/Grammer are tied. Sources points go to Con because Pro's are only videos that reference themselves. Con's were actual articles that referenced experiments and theories that have been tested repeatedly. Con also wins arguments, because pro never proves his theory of one particle only. Most of his arguments such as the Michelson/Morley experiment and the aether have little to do with his point (or are poorly demonstrated), or refuted by Con who gives explanations to these experiments. Pro also ignores and does not address arguments made by Con for relativity.. Pro just restates his points. Pro also does not respond well to how dark matter, matter, dark energy, electromagnetic waves are different things. As for Pro's arguments of just stating Einstein and many scientists are mistaken, this proves nothing, as pointed out by Con. Pro also brings up fractal universes and how they support his claim, but Con blatantly says it does not support evidence for one particle. By

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.