In 6.7bn people, who is closest to the answer?

I think its fair to say that most natural science discoveries have been made by scientists and mathematicians. They seem to be struggling with progress on the big questions, but this is an area where our imagination could also play a part. If the imaginations of untrained as well as trained people could have a value, there could be a lot of people on the right lines, and someone quite unexpected who is close to the answer. They would not be sure, and would be reluctant to try and explain.

The challenge is to find a way to tease out constructive ideas from a large number of people who have them.

To summarise mine so far:
- we can't get away from the concept of an 'origination', though it is not necesarily the "beginning of time" (which may well be continuous), more a convenient point to add up the sum total of the universe
- the sum total must be zero. This is a (too) simple arithmetical value, we need a geometric and probably multi-dimensional statement equivalent to the same thing - the universe is a function of nothing
- a logical model for gravity shows that this force which apparently attracts masses to each other is external to them. The mutual attraction is a symptom of them being nearby each other in a field comprising an elastic medium in which they are being accelerated (ie forced upon)
- the energy of this constant acceleration is very much larger than the energy apparent from adjacent masses' mutual attraction, and represents an enormous amount of "dark energy"
- this can possibly be explained by a toroidal shape to the universe, in which spin through the direction of the hole allows the "dark energy" force to be centrifugal/centripital, but may total zero (simple maths once I get down to it)
- the universe is now known to contain huge amounts of dark matter of a non-hadron ("non-atomic") nature. Is this matter to be considered separate from dark energy? It seems unnecessary to shackle ourselves when we know energy and matter are different forms of the same thing.

8-month review Jan 2010

I've not been active on here for eight months, notice the hit counter shows nearly 12,000 hits, but with no comments or followers conclude that there is an error with the hit counter. I am slightly relieved at the lack of input, I have had neither time nor expertise to engage in full discussion.

In the meantime I have taken a short observation course, a highlight of which was a lecture from a distinguished cosmologist who declared at the start his experience and expertise at distant object observation, but "all that dimension stuff" left him cold (I guess about 4K) . I have enrolled on a basic astonomy course to run through this year, leading hopefully to further study in cosmology.

During the last eight months I have made no progress on my model of the universe characterised in two dimensions as a toroid (surface of a torus) spinning in the direction through its "hole", the main barrier being the reinsertion of the third dimension. It obviously needs the application of maths and some observed data, with which I hope my studies will help. My model has addressed the issue of the huge amount of energy (dark energy?) accelerating masses, of which the energy of their mutual gravitational attraction is just a symptom, a trace sample. I can put this alongside recent discussions about dark matter, which I had not realised till recently is of a non-atomic nature. Mysterious energy and mysterious matter - maybe there is a connection here !

Another event of note was a Horizon TV programme in which a senior cosmologist expressed despair at the failure of his profession to make any headway on reconciling gravity with the other three major forces.

However obscure or odd you find my musings, any constructive or empathetic comments would be interesting to see whether I have shed any light, and how others make progress in your own minds in this "impossible" subject. And is there a fundamental reason why it has to be impossible?