The (diagramatic) model Chris proposes is induced by applying known scientific principles in the context of a "static" scaled universe.

For example it's "known" the universe appears to expand, yet there's also no coherent definition of just what "expansion" entails beyond fitting a certain description which accords to certain observations. From a certain point of view, it also may appear the Sun orbits the Earth, or that the Earth is flat.

The concept of Conspansion from the CTMU doesn't refute the idea of an expanding universe, rather it extracts meaning therefrom. The inverted, "endomorphic" model of a static universe with "contracting" content amounting to "internalized substitution of content" (reincarnation) is logically identical to the standard "ectomorphic" model of expansion and objects moving in space, with the added benefit that the inverted Conspansion model is compatible with concepts like unification, origin, and meaning.

An expanding universe doesn't make sense at the global scale. For example, if light radiates from a source at rate "C" in all directions, while the entire universe is expanding at the same rate "C" in all directions, how is the light actually radiating outwards whatsoever? Relative to the "edge" of the universe, the light isn't moving at all, and we may as well suppose the source to be "contracting" internally to the "image" represented by the light.

Because state-transitions are quantum and discrete, and because these can be modeled as nested "rings" as per a Venn diagram, the conspansion model is categorically primitive, meaning no model can be reduced any further and still be sufficient to "describe" reality.

"Because the shrinkage of an object within its prior image amounts to a form of logical substitution in which the object is Venn-diagrammatically “described” or determined by its former state, there is no way to distinguish between outward systemic expansion and inward substitution of content, or between the associated dynamical and logical “grammars”. This is merely a restatement of attributive duality; topological containment relations among point-sets are equivalent to descriptively predicating truth of statements asserting containment, and on distribution relationships among state-descriptors." CTMU

We don't require new experiments to prove the CTMU, the existing backlog of scientific facts is sufficient, yet this doesn't preclude the likely hood of entirely new experiments and technologies related to CTMU modeling. The only requirements of the CTMU are the extensions of Mathematical Logic, particularly regarding Model Theory, required to even allow for a Theory of Everything/Reality Model to be derived.

"Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality. This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical to its universe on the syntactic level." CTMU

At the global scale and by formal definition, "Identification" of mental & physical reality FORMALLY yields the reality we inhabit.

Do you think your reply is a good way to change my mind?

Yes but a skilled orator tries to speak in such a way that most people can understand even those with a smaller vocabulary.

He might be so autistic that he cant figure that out or might not give a fuck. But he should.