4. God Almighty and the Big Bang

How to recognize an incorrect structure; revealing the structural details of what happened just before the Big Bang/Big Whisper.

Photo by Jason Leung on Unsplash

Money and words point to artificial structures that, despite their artificial nature, are highly beneficial to us. They are also correct structure-wise. Sometimes an artificial structure is widely used, but not constructed correctly. These structures can be called cyclopic, because they contain an unnatural unification.

A mathematical example of an impossible unification would be 1 + 1 = 1. This setup can be harder to recognize than one would expect. One house + one family = one home is, for instance, often regarded as a normal construction. Most likely, anyone can follow the story line without encountering a single problem. But the cyclopic setup is mathematically incorrect.

Contrast this with monopoly money, something that cannot be used to pay groceries in a store. However, for the duration of the game it is ‘real’ money. Monopoly money is structurally correct.

This blog starts with taking a closer look at incorrectly structured words. In particular, the word Almighty is looked into further. For the second part, a creation story is presented about what happened right before and during the essential moments of the Big Bang, a story line that differs in structural details from the prevailing scientific theory.

— — -

How people view religion provides excellent opportunities to peer into the way people structure their thinking. Important to avoid, however, are the inherent controversies that can upset large groups of people. The great benefit of discussing the word God is that most people are very familiar with the concept. The downside of the word is that most people would struggle when asked to describe God. Many would be finished in just a few phrases — if that.

Naturally, a lot has been written and said about God’s creations and messengers — one can easily say volumes! Yet it is difficult to declare something detailed about God. Depending on time, place and culture, God is envisioned, for instance, as female, male, angry, merciful, a noun applicable to more than one god, or an abstract, such as found with the word balance. For some, God is nature. Once people have set their eyes on one clear meaning, the specific word use does not get questioned further.

In this blog, I want to be respectful to all who use the word God, be it in the singular or when used with the plural of gods. Yet one aspect, that of God Almighty, needs to be pointed out; discussing the structure of that particular word about God helps in understanding how people can take an incorrect artificial step. Where possible, I will use a different example to bring the message home.

— — —

Within the human realm, when a dictator decides to give his subjects the freedom to do whatever they like, the dictator ceases to be a dictator. Naturally, he (dictators tend to be guys) may still be powerful, yet all-empowered he is no longer. The conceptual framework of a dictatorship does not include the option for others to do whatever they like.

Believers in God declare that God has given us human beings free will. In such a framework, God can be mighty indeed — mightiest can also be used — but the word Almighty cannot be used to describe God. By establishing free will in people, they have become mighty themselves, albeit just about their own subject matter.

Both mighty and almighty sound plausible, but the small distinction is structurally important. In the previous blog the common use of ‘mother and child’ was declared structurally incorrect, because mother goes with son or daughter, and parent goes with child. No one would lose any sleep over this distinction, and I hope that my declaring the word almighty as an incorrect construction keeps no one up at night either.

— — -

Let’s work out the artificial position of almighty, using it with a different word. We can declare, for instance, that the dollar is almighty. It has been said many times and even songs have been written about it. While the top position of the dollar is not in question, the dollar is simply not almighty in an absolute sense.

The word in question consists of two positions: all and mighty. With all, we can think currencies, and then declare the dollar the mightiest one of them. When reviewing this restriction more closely, however, it can be said that the dollar does not dictate the value of other currencies. Rather, currencies fluctuate among themselves, not just around the dollar, and one of them (the dollar) is positioned in top.

The euro, the yen, and the yuan (renminbi) all contain an empire of their own, a geographical area in which each of them is mighty. This undermines the absolute idea that the dollar is almighty.

— — -

Some currencies are so weak, another currency such as the dollar may have become the desired currency. For instance, people in Venezuela view the dollar as the stable currency, because their Bolivar is under enormous pressures. A person in Venezuela may know ‘for a fact’ that the dollar is almighty. Yet even for this person, using the word almighty is cyclopic.

The word all in almighty indicates not just currencies, but everything there is. At the moment of this writing, food is actually mightier in Venezuela than money. And so would be the love for their country, or getting a good education. To declare the dollar almighty is giving greater importance to something admittedly very important, greater than what is actually possible; it is an exaggeration beyond the actual value.

— — -

Words can get created at will, though the first requirement for success— it becoming used and popularized — is not based on a word’s structural correctness, but on its perceived declaration, including its specific oomph. It should not be a surprise then that two different constructs would be combined into one word about a single admired entity not only being the mightiest among all, but being an essential aspect within all as well.

For the Structure of Everything, it is important to bring home that one can combine two different structures and artificially make them singular. Consider stating, for instance, that white is the brightest color, but then also stating how it fundamentally exists within all colors as well. As is known, white is the combination of all colors, and it is not found in green or orange. As a side step, one can suggest that light is found in all. However, we would not say that light is the brightest color, or that it shines everywhere.

Light and white are structurally distinct from one another, and this can be easily understood. There is no single platform that makes both fit as one. Unless the word almighty is given a lesser meaning, which sometimes is done in dictionaries, its platform simply does not exist. Allow me to say that when folks use almighty, they actually mean mightiest. The word is like an Escher drawing: finished, beautiful, and simply not possible.

All words are artificial, but it cannot be said enough that some of them are also incorrect. Originally from the Netherlands, I know many people who use the word (in Dutch) of onliest. “She is the onliest with a perfect score.” When confronted with the incorrectness of the word, many stand firm that the word is correct, and even double-down saying she was the all-onliest. In English, we do not make this mistake, and just use only or only one. My own parents could not believe onliest was not a correct word, and at some point this was also true for the three people known best as me, myself and I.

— — -

With one eye, we can hold a vision about All (as in: 1) and with the other we can hold a view of Mighty or Mightiest (as in: being 1st). Yet when combining these two fundamentally distinct perspectives into a single structure, one becomes a Cyclops. And that is incorrect, no matter the perceived benefit. Please note that 1 + 0 = 1 is mathematically correct; 1 + 1 = 1 simply is not.

Scientists never use the words God or Almighty in any scientific discourse. Yet scientists make use of cyclopic structures nevertheless. A singularity is envisioned, for instance, as an essential aspect of the prevailing Big Bang theory.

The creation story presented next in this blog about what preceded the Big Bang consists of an initial activity that is followed by an inaction, with this combination leading to materialization. This Big Whisper version is of course in compliance with the 0–1 setup and follows the structure of 1 + 0 = 1.

— — -

While it is not possible to find data from the time and place before the Big Bang/Big Whisper, there is a window through which we can peer into the previous state of our universe. Naturally, any proposed perspective cannot conflict with the known outcome. At the same time, the proffered view should answer the question how materialization was even possible.

Consider a vase as metaphor for the previous state of our universe. Our current universe would be a vase shattered in an almost infinite number of pieces. We are confronted with the question of how that vase could have shattered itself. In our current universe, all we need is a solid floor and enough space for gravity to do its work. But there was no material floor available in the previous state. How can we establish a floor in the former state of our universe?

First off, we need to understand that for this specific explanation the previous state is an energized state. The energy in this pre-materialized state can be called dark energy. Theoretically, dark matter and dark energy are considered to exist within our current universe, for us non-material in essence. If scientists play with these terms, then dark energy can be used in this blog as the energetic state of the previous version of the universe.

— — —

To begin with, let’s address the floor on which our vase shatters. Today, we consider the three dimensions as three directional pairs. The pairs are up and down, front and back, left and right. However, there is one additional pair in our three-dimensional reality that is often overlooked because it occurs at the collective level. The in-and-out pair exists without a doubt, because our universe is doing just that: all matter is moving outwardly from a collective perspective.

There is something special about the in-and-out directional pair. Though the outward movement can continue on forever, truly ad infinitum, the inward movement has an automatic stop. At some point, it becomes impossible to automatically move inward further as a collective. Believe it or not, we have found our solid floor with this inward movement being finite. Yet a collective direction is then also discovered as norm for dark energy before the process of materialization started.

Consider an energized reality. All that is needed is an inward movement occurring within the former energized state of the universe. The inward movement is an activity, and if desired we can place God here. With God, the inward activity can be seen as a conscious activity. Naturally, the story can be told without using the word God, and the outcome would not be any different. Based on the outcome, we can state not only that it occurred, but that it had collective qualities. The activity would persist until no further inward movements were possible for its central area, forcing an outcome.

— — -

Based on the material outcome after the Big Bang/Big Whisper, imagine the enormous amount of energy before the Big Whisper, moving inwardly onto its collective self. We know that this finite movement did not continue to function as a collective. Therefore, right where push comes to shove, distinct and specific environments come into being.

First, at one point in time and at the center of the inward movement, no further movement is possible anymore. As mentioned, this area may have been the size of 380,000 light years, so it is by no means a bulwark the size of a pinhead. Let’s declare this area to consist of dark matter and that it is locked in place by outside pressures.

Second, surrounding the central immobile area, movement is still occurring, but it is not occurring in a uniform manner anymore. Where friction is possible near the immobile area, a substrata of side-way movements are found. Envision this energized area the basis for materialization.

Third, and farther out, the overall movement is still inward, as if nothing had changed. The pressure for the area of friction occurs due to the continued inward movement from the outer areas. Lastly, therefore, this continuing not-stopping energy is exactly like the original dark energy.

What started out as collective behavior before the Big Whisper is no longer collective in nature in the first steps toward materialization. The center is immobile (0), the frontier area surrounding this large ball of solid dark energy is moving sideways (A), and the exterior parts are continuing to move inwards on a collective path (1).

— — -

Based on the fact that we ended up with our vase shattering all over the place, something must have gone terribly wrong, and this must have been where the friction is occurring. The sideways movement in the area of friction is simply not sustainable, and the dark energy is locally warped, broken up into pieces. This energy (A) becomes self-based. Not only does this transform the area of friction into matter, it also unleashes enormous outward pressures, because the collective movement is no longer collective and therefore no longer contained.

The story is already complete if the immobile inner area, at first locked in place, became mobile again with one direction to go only: outbound. Tremendous outward pressures are unleashed, and anything that materialized in the area of friction would have been catapulted outwardly. Though the story is told with simple details only, it does fit the detailed outcomes as discovered by scientists. A significant distinction is that the entire setup delivers the push to the materializing energy, whereas most energy remained immaterialized.

— — -

Let’s recapture this astronomical image in different words, making light of it a bit. Imagine a million eggs moving towards one another. Yes, the results will be a scramble. There is not necessarily much speed involved, so let’s make this event go extremely slow as to not break anything. At some point, eggs are meeting up shoulder to shoulder at the center, and yet more eggs are moving inwardly.

It is not the center egg that will ultimately give way; the center egg is shielded from the mounting pressures by the strength of the shells of all surrounding eggs, diverting tensions away. Rather, in the areas located right outside the equilibrium where strength of shells meets inward pressures, the conditions for breakage are just right; an entire substrata of eggs are beaten.

It does not matter how we envision the energy of the previous state, because there will automatically be a perfect-storm momentum between localized strengths and inward pressures. Where the tiniest amount of friction is possible next to the highest possible level of tension, those eggs are toast, simultaneously obliterating the architectural structure held in place with their demise.

— — -

Where the conscious movement occurred, an outcome of unintended consequences followed. Where a collective dark-energy movement was started up, individual packages of dark energy ended up being squeezed out by the collective setup. Where the start up of the process was collective in nature, parts of the dark energy ended up being self-based, materialized.

The packages of dark energy materialized under specific conditions, and it shows. The process of inward movement contained an automatic stop, and this limit is subsequently expressed in matter. Consider the fact that no matter in our universe is infinite; all matter is limited. It can be suggested that there is still a limited collective quality attached to matter.

Our planet Earth is the largest unit of matter we live on. While it is enormous compared to our own physical sizes, it is a limited place. The largest material entity in our universe is a limited place. Matter shows us the experienced original limit; packages of dark energy found themselves subjected to a collective force whose limitation got expressed in specific local spots.

— — -

In this blog all are encouraged to continue believing in God, though the Almighty position is an incorrectly constructed position. It is not that God cannot be mighty or mightiest, but Almighty is simply not available without making serfs out of ourselves. Structurally, two eyes are combined into one, and while we can do this using words, we are in reality not created in the image of a Cyclops.

Our Universe 2.0 is moving outwardly, and the prior condition therefore would have been an inward condition that automatically contained an intense final moment, ending the Universe 1.0 setup with an outward push we will never see again. The center does not materialize in the Big Whisper theory, only a substrata far removed from the center.

In the next blog the secret content of the pyramid is revealed.

— — -

This blog is part of the series The Big Picture — It’s Surprisingly Simple.
Introduction:

  1. Bicycles and the Big Bang
  2. As Above, Not So Below
  3. Cyclopes and Pyramids

Blog Chips

5. Gravity and the Secret Inside the Pyramid

— — -

Delivery based on The Proof of Nothing, published by Penta Publishing (2000) and In Search of a Cyclops (2003), internet publication.

— — -

Structural Philosopher

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store