A

ny attempt at understanding requires that basic known concepts be used as tools with which to construct an explanation. I have found the presently available logical tools to be inadequate. Therefore, new tools have been constructed by trial and error. And that is the primary difficulty you will encounter here: unfamiliar logical concepts.

Also, any explanation is necessarily non-linear (you cannot go from one concept... to another... directly to conclusion... because the universe can only to be explained in the context of a hierarchical structure). Hence, one explains down to an arbitrary level then returns and explains down another branch of the structure. On the way, there are many sidetracks which require the exercise of judgement in regard to which path to follow, when to follow it and for what distance.

A theory without numbers is as worthless as numbers without a theory. Wherever possible then, a calculation is made to show that theory is reasonably in line with quantitive observations (which I accept as the only proper falsifiers).
So some mathematics is required of the reader.

This analysis is based entirely on reductionist philosophy (understanding by dismantling into component parts). I regard any other form of understanding as non-rational.

The words quantitative and qualitative are rendered as quantitive and qualitive as a matter of personal preference.
"I apologize to no one for the form and content of this work nor for any errors herein contained." - Ebtx 1995