Don,

Since you asked a direct question, I'm back for one more comment--probably my last one this topic.

I don't care about what category you put my imagination in. All I ask is that you address my questions. If you can't provide evidence for your conjectures, that doesn't make you a crackpot or the theory a crackpot theory. That just makes this discussion unproductive.

As for whether they find the Higgs particle, it doesn't matter whether we place a bet. All that counts is what Nature tells us. If they find the particle, I just hope it is soon enough that Peter Higgs and some of his colleagues will still be alive. [If you are not living, you can't be considered for the Nobel Prize (much to the chagrin of those who think Rosalind Franklin has been cheated out of her full recognition for her work on DNA).]

Speaking of what Nature tells us, Newton's third law and its most important consequence, conservation of momentum, seem to be valid descriptions of Nature, but your theory tosses them out without comment.

According to Relativity, there is no privileged inertial frame of reference, but you theory asserts there is (with its origin at the center of the fixed finite universe) while providing no way to locate that frame's origin or our position with respect to it.

Your theory also postulates a Newton's-third-law-violating Super Force without laying out its properties. No observations seem to require it. Even the accelerating expansion of the Universe has explanations in Relativity. Why leap to such an assertion without any basis?

You also dismiss the Big Bang theory without considering its considerable successes, such as a very accurate prediction of the mix of elements in the Universe, without proposing an alternate explanation. (See my book or its sources, such as The Magic Furnace by Marcus Chown or Stardust by John and Mary Gribbin.) The Big Bang is on a much firmer theoretical footing than the proposed incredibly short but important interval of faster-than-light inflation, which is probably what you are referring to in your questions. My book discusses that, too.

In short, yours is not a crackpot theory but a useless one (and in my view incorrect) without the support I've been asking for.

Make your case by responding to your challengers, and don't concern yourself with whether anyone else thinks you are a crackpot. You seem to be reveling in that designation, but I suggest a different one.

Have you considered whether Renaisauce's "Galileo Complex" post applies to you? My judgment is that it does.

Perhaps you'd rather be called a crackpot than a paradigm of that condition.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)