The Big Bang never happened

Harry, Larry asked me for what I thought. I do not think like others. If you find what I write interesting, great, I am glad to share it with you. If you do not agree, fine, you have your model, I have mine.

But can you really tell me how to think? Do you know how to think? The principle you alude to is the Whorfian principle of linguistic relativity. What we see depends on what we look with. I like to keep it simple too. Hard to lie and get away with it.

I don't know what you mean by "knowledge" I have my own thoughts on that. The knowledge that I work with does not come from reading a book. I have found that all conceptual knowledge, and by that I mean that kind of knowledge one can give to another, is, first of all, "not the thing itself". Korzybski said that. All conceptual knowledge are but metaphors, for meanings are found in the contextual relationships, Wittgentstein said that.

So I do not take what I read as a kind of absolute knowledge, not all of it. Actually I don't think there really is something we call "knowledge" I think that what we think is knowledge is just that, what we think. Book knowledge in parrticular is conceptual knowledge and the concept is not the thing. Because in my model knowledge is knowing, a doing.

The models which have mislead you and me over the decades do so because they are about "things" but things only exist in our thinking. Lots of people have said that. So I think that knowledge is what is happening, what things are doing to each other. Reality is not a noun, reality is a verbing. Several lhave said that. Have you read Bohm rheomodes?

So when I read, I can easily see if they are writing about things or if they are writing about relationships. The Big Bang is a theory about things, and how things got together and became us. They have many problems with that model. In order to make it work they have invented a whole lot of invisible things. But what they are seeing as invisible is actually a reality of the different kind, the interactions that are actually taking place. The problems the big bang theory is confronted with is really problems having to do with how their "things" are interacting which their models do not show.

I too have found modern science to be extremely misleading in the weak sense and possibly in some cases outright false. Have you read Kuhn's book? I think it is because the powers to be are materialists. Reality to the materialist is matter only. But that doesn't work out for them so they have come up with invisible matter. That doesn't impress me. We are talking about the evolution of the Universe, but this evolutionary process was/is determined at the moment energy becomes matter.

I believe, and you never read this elsewhere, that the principle of evolution of the Universe and life itself was determined when the whole differentiated into matter. Here is where the operating principle of the Universe is to be found. It is this process from the very beginning that is followed by the Universe from that point on. That process itself has not escaped notice, it was first laid out as long as five thousand years ago by the Chinese. Pictures of this cyclic process have been found in caves dating back 30,000 years. So "stone age" can be knowing too. This process is happening right now.

I am not taking about the Fifth dimension per se. My word for this, and the way I choose to impart my kind of knowledge, for this "meta-dimension" is the INSIDE of empty space. This is not something I read in a book, although I have found many references in the literature. This is something that I concluded on my own based on synchronistic experiences I had/have.

I live in the Universe and I have found out how to interact with the Universe. Ironically, I learned that when I learned for the first time that I didn't know anything. The first thing that I came to really know was that I didn't know. To know is to do. To know the Universe is to be the universe. If you don't know what I mean by that, then no words will suffice

tommy mandel

Tommy,

As you rely less on cut and paste and more on your own thinking you do indeed become more interesting. Thank you. Sorry about the hard-ass attitude earlier, but I'm still experimenting with various ways to improve the "interest quotent" of this board.

===

I would still like to hear you expound on any problems you might have found in our pet theories (Meta Model, pushing gravity, exploded planet hypothesis). Hmmm. I was about to caution you " ... without a large amount of cut and paste", but then I realized that there isn't much out there critical of MM etc to be cut and pasted. There is some, but it mostly relies on a significant lack of understanding of our stuff.

Regards,
LB

PS

This is not a request for something immediate. I realize that it takes time and effort to become familiar enough with new theories to be able to critique them in an intellegent way. I suspect that you are up to it.

Expending that time and effort is the most obvious way for a frequent poster to "earn their keep" at this forum, so to speak.

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I would still like to hear you expound on any problems you might have found in our pet theories (Meta Model, pushing gravity, exploded planet hypothesis). Hmmm. I was about to caution you " ... without a large amount of cut and paste", but then I realized that there isn't much out there critical of MM etc to be cut and pasted. There is some, but it mostly relies on a significant lack of understanding of our stuff.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<center><b>THE META MODEL</b></center>

Larry, I still do not have any idea whatsoever what the Meta Model is. This may be an advantage. You may wonder why I haven't taken the effort to find out, I have. I haven't found that much to speak of. I especially haven't found the alternative meta model model of cosmology. I have a hunch that it is all in the book. Well...

I have found something about planets. About how a planet may have "exploded" I am still wondering how a planet could have formed. How come we have ALL the elements here in one place when half of them, acccording to their theory, were produced in massive galactic explosions. Why is there an Iron Mountain in Michigan? Did this iron come from space, the remnants of a supernovae? Or did the iron come from the Sun? What I wonder about is why are these elements clumped together into veins, deposits, ores and mountains? Perhaps they came in with meterorites? Why then are they clumped together in meterorites? Are the elements by whatever means produced together?

This one is from NASA. They are talking about how "reconnection" of the magnetic fields of the Sun's atmosphere creates antimatter. Well, let's try a little of that switch and turnaround tactic, so, if the magnetic shaps can create antimatter, then the fields should also be able to create anti-anti-matter. Ordinary matter.

As was mentioned elsewhere, the key question is how is matter created? THe cooling of the radiation separates out the fource, how does the baryonic matter separate out?

(Note) this is to remind myself. I said "there is no gravity between one atom. Two atoms at least are needed for gravity to occur. Gravity didn't exist until matter was matter. It did not play a role in the first transition of energy. Marmet also make this point EM fields came before Gravity, not with it.)



Magnetic reconnection is not difficult to visualize. Picture the spark plugs used by your automobile's engine. The spark is a result of a collapsing magnetic field cutting through a current. The magnetic field is briven by a current flow. When the current flow is stopped by the distributer's points or a breakage of a solar flare, the magnetic field collapses. Here's the interesting part, by collapsing, the magnetic field induces a new current flow, breakage or not. The spark jumps the gap. This is basic electricity.

Here is NASA telling us that anti-matter (and by implication matter too) has been found being created by solar magnetic reconnection events. This is that same anomalous higher temperature of the coronosphere above a cooler temperature photosphere unexplained problem.


From www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0903rhessi.html

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Antimatter annihilates normal matter in a burst of energy, inspiring science fiction writers to use it as a supremely powerful source to propel starships. Current technology only creates minute quantities, usually in miles-long machines employed to smash atoms together, but scientists discovered the July 2002 flare created a half-kilo (about one pound) of antimatter, enough to power the entire United States for two days. According to the RHESSI images and data, this antimatter was not destroyed where expected.

Antimatter is often called the "mirror image" of ordinary matter, because for every type of ordinary matter particle, an antimatter particle can be created that is identical except for an opposite electric charge or other fundamental properties.


Antimatter is rare in the present-day universe. However, it can be created in high-speed collisions between particles of ordinary matter, when some of the energy from the collision goes into the production of antimatter. Antimatter is created in flares when the fast-moving particles accelerated during the flare collide with slower particles in the Sun's atmosphere. (Click on Item 1 for a computer animation illustrating how flares accelerate particles to high speeds. Click on Item 2 for a close-up of the collision region.)

According to flare theory, these collisions happen in relatively dense regions of the solar atmosphere, because many collisions are required to produce significant amounts of antimatter. Scientists expected that the antimatter would be annihilated near the same places, since there are so many particles of ordinary matter to run into. "Antimatter shouldn't get far," said Dr. Gerald Share of the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., lead author of a paper on RHESSI's observations of the antimatter destruction in the July 23 flare.

However, in a cosmic version of the shell game, it appears that this flare might have shuffled antimatter around, producing it in one location and destroying it in another. RHESSI allowed the most detailed analysis to date of the gamma rays emitted when antimatter annihilates ordinary matter in the solar atmosphere. The analysis indicates that the flare's antimatter might have been destroyed in regions where high temperatures made the particle density 1,000 times lower than where the antimatter should have been created.


Alternatively, perhaps there is no "shell game" at all, and flares are able to create significant amounts of antimatter in less dense regions, or flares somehow may be able to maintain dense regions despite high temperatures, or the antimatter was created "on the run" at high speeds, and the high-speed creation gave the appearance of a high-temperature region, according to the team.

Solar flares are also capable of blasting electrically charged particles in the Sun's atmosphere (electrons and ions) to almost the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second or 300,000 km/sec.). The new RHESSI observation revealed that solar flares somehow sort particles, either by their masses or their electric charge, as they propel them to ultra-high speeds.

The solar atmosphere is a gas of electrically charged particles (electrons and ions). Since these particles feel magnetic forces, they are constrained to flow along magnetic fields that permeate the Sun's atmosphere. It is believed that solar flares happen when magnetic fields in the Sun's atmosphere become twisted and suddenly snap to a new configuration, like a rubber band breaking when overstretched. This is called magnetic reconnection
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Personally, based on my formal electronic technician training, I think this nomenclature is misleading. Because magnetic reconnection explains a return to the previous state, the field is reconnected. But the action happens before reconnection, while the magnetic field is collapsing. It is at that time that all the energy in that field is pushed out into space.

It should be called magnetic snapping, or even better, magnetic sparking.

No, I didn't think of that because we see stars twinkle...but a physicist could poetically say that starlight is a star's twinkling.

Sure, because the actual surface of the Sun is a boiling bubbling cauldren of plasma soup appearing much like the skin of an orange. The surface is actually covered by miniature solar flares, tiny magnetic fields fueled by a currrent flow of electrons and ions (plasma), and the light we see is from these magnetic sparklings

Harry wrote:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You're right in that the total universe will not collapse.
But! you do have the collapse of matter as part of the recycling process. We see this in the formation of new stars and Black Holes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Perhaps my own interpretation of the big bang theory is not correct. I thought that they are saying that the Universe collasped from pure radiation, and that gravity took over and further collected ALL the matter into quantum fluctuative clumps we call a galaxy. In a sense matter collapsed into the stars.

I think that if gravity were such a powerful force, it would simply attract all matter into one big blob. I look at a globular galaxy, and I don't see that happening. Remember, all I need is one exception...

I do not see this cosmic gravitation happening.

The Black Hole is a conjecture. It has not been directly observed. What has been observed is a anomalous outflowing of matter/energy, and in order to explain this outflow, a black hole has been hypothesized as the source of this outflow on the basis that no other source could be imagined *by them).

The BB theory is grounded in matter suspended in a space. Therefore, they are constrained to create a matter explanation for the outflow, and ingeniously devised the black hole along with its accretion disk as capable of getting the job done. And since ALL matter is assumed to have been created at the time of the Big Bang, the matter must be coming from outside. But the matter coming from inside to the outside, the outflow, well, that is, they say, redirected matter. Matter that wasn't allowed into the black hole.

But if the assumption is changed so that there is an energy INSIDE,
that this energy comes all the way outside as a AGN outflow would be of no surprise. We would expect the Universe to look the way it does look.


Here is my reasoning. I acknowledge that in the BB theory, a universal expansion of space occurs, and after the espansion occured, radiation filled all of space. And from this radiation matter formed. Therefore all matter was formed at this beginning time.

What this is saying, at least to me, is that "matter" was not subject to the laws of physics during the time of Inflation, thus the impossibility of matter expanding instantaneously is avoided by removing the imopossibility constraint.

Contrarily, I say that the principle of equivalence applies in the sense that when matter is moving in relation to other matter, it does not matter if it is the matter that is moving or the space the matter is in that is moving. Thus the laws of matter apply to matter regardless of how it is being moved. It doesn't wash with me that matter can be measurabley accelerating to the speed of light because it is space that is accelerating (expanding)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Matter is consistently being formed from active galactic centres ejecting and from exploding stars and during the life of a star.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well let's be a bit more specific about what you and I mean by matter.
To me matter is an electron and an proton (I don't know what the neutrino does) (which by the way are the constituents of the state of matter called "plasma"), and it is these ingredients which are then mixed in various ways to make up the atomic elements. The simplest form is atomic hydrogen made of one electron and one proton interacting as a whole "atom.". This is matter. All other forms of matter are but different arrangements of these elementary parts. Plasma is matter too. A star is a ball of plasma, electrons and protons.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is no 5th dimension and there is no santa clause.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Harry, the Fifth dimension is not a speculation (theory) someone had, it is something that has been found through experimentation. Casimir found this anomalous energy when he placed two polished plates together, They stuck together. This is now well known and is called the Casimir Effect. But even more famous is Bell's Theorem and the subsequently experiments by Alan Aspect. In short, the two photons remain stuck together even when we separate them. Furthermore they act as if stuck togehter instantaneously. This is where "non-locality" comes from. Non-locality is accepted by physicists as fact. But not so well known is synchronicity, which is something that has to happen to you. And then there is the Phantom DNA. Gariaev of the Russian Acedemy of Science was able to measure and record the magnetic fields of a DNA molecule. They used laser light and mirror effects. As astounding as that may seem, what is extraordinary is that when they remove the DNA from the chamvber and recalibrate it, they found that the magnetic fields remained in place. And then there is the matter of electron and magnetic moments and does the electron get its energy from? And how does the mag wave excite the elect wave which excites the mag wave which excites and so on forever? Maxwell called it the Fourth dimension after Riemann's conception of it.

Like you said, there is no Santa Clause.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The pure energy that you are speaking of is high density plasma
which forms part of the recycling process.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not in my mind. What you are talking about is matter. Plasma is a form of matter. Squish it together and it still is matter. What I am talking about is that this matter is actually an atomic process, and thus by definition is an open system. Matter is not a speck of some sort of inert stuff, it is interacting movement of potentials. Matter is energy doing something. For matter to exist as it does as a closed system in classical theory is essentially acting as a perpetual motion machine. The classical view of matter is impossible. What I am saying is that matter is being supplied by an energy through the INSIDE of space, and if we think in terms of dimensions, it would be regarded as the Fifth dimension.

However, as has been pointed out, visualizing the Fifth dimension is impossible, and while many many names have been given to this impossible to see concept, I have come to see it as the INSIDE of empty space. Nick Herbert puts it this way -- "Beneath phenomena, the world is a seamless whole."

As far a recycling, again, you are talking about the integrative system one aspect of which is recursive feedback which can be called recyclic. Don't forget that this process forms new wholes and has emergent properties which cannot be gleaned from the cyclic parts and that the mode of inquiry is of the interconnections. Especially don't forget that because it is the relationships that are primary, ALL the members of the cast have a part in the play.

The thing about crop circles and the plasma balls of light, is that they are intelligent. And the UFO's which have been sighted over the years always seems to be described as balls of light. Plasma balls of light.

So it may very well be that these inexplicable balls of light most probably balls of plasma current flows (Plasma current is both magnetic and electrostatic) are but micro stars. Miniature versions of what a plasma ball looks like. Expand it to something the size of our Sun, and that is what a cosmic ball of plasma looks like.

I am not going to fall into the trap of naming the INSIDE for the simple reason is that whatever name I choose, limits are imposed by definition. And when these limits are exposed then the whole idea is brought into question.

But I can talk about what it does. When Bell formulated his famous Bell's Theorem, it wasn't until Alan Aspect conducted the experiment that "non-locality" was observed. Aspect's experiment involved two photons, ejected from a single crystal, the spin of which could be accurately measured. They found that the photons, although separated in space, remained as if still a single entity. The technical term is phase entanglement. Experiments have shown that there is a deeper level than just matter in space. The experiment shows that the photons act as if they are interconnected by a single entity.

INSIDE