A real good question, with a variety of answers, Bob.
- First the Yes, better reply:
The Big Whisper peers deeper into the materialization process than the latest prevailing Big Bang version (called Lambda-CDM) because it not only declares the previous state as a certainty but then actively works with that.
The entire material universe makes the previous state a fact (very few people nowadays declare the material universe came from nothing), but we cannot know the previous state in detail.
In the Lambda-CDM model this prior state is also acknowledged, but it is pronounced as a singularity for which there is no further data known. This is important, because they make themselves one-eye blind (plus they will not allow anything but a singularity in this spot).
In the Big Whisper model, singularities are considered things the human brain produces, like Santa and Cyclops, but that are not actually real and it therefore avoided.
The Big Whisper also removes other parts that are not needed, but that are true by themselves. A quick example is the fact that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, but when talking about the thawing of permafrost then we need not include that fact.
The point made in the article is that the super-hot condition, now a solid aspect of the Lambda-CDM model, need not be true, and a regular temperature can be put in the materialization model instead. This change has far-reaching consequences for the entire considered process because a number of currently accepted steps are then unnecessary.
This is therefore very much like taking an immediate left turn, where others (in the Lambda-CDM model) take three right turns to end up on the same route in the same direction.
Another idea that is solid in the Lambda-CDM model is cosmic inflation at the beginning of the materialization process. When a car travels 40 mph and comes from 45 miles away, one hour ago, then it is likely that at some point the car drove faster than the average. But in the Big Whisper model, the car does not come from downtown, but from suburbia, which is 5 miles out from downtown. So the car never drove faster than 40 mph. The cosmic inflation scenario can then be removed from the beginning of the materialization process.
The Big Whisper model is simpler and does not demand certain things in place. A contrast with the Lambda-CDM model that follows a route that is correct by itself, but includes unnecessary actions and demands, and reaches therefore incorrect conclusions.
- Then the Depends on who you ask reply:
For me it is obvious that scientists are working with repeatable results only, and that they populated their prevailing model with those facts. It is exactly how they desire to work. Yet this builds a model based on results only, while the materialization process itself cannot be repeated. The gold standard of science is not available therefore, yet in this silver-standard scenario scientists are still holding on to the gold standard. They are therefore throwing baby after baby out with the bathwater. They make themselves one-eye blind because they do not allow anyone a wider view.
I hope this was obvious from the article. Scientists start at Washington, D.C. and see the first factual results we can still see today at New York City with energy cooling down to 2.7K for that CMBR position.
This is therefore a linear approach, even when they now say that the actual beginning of the materialization process did not yet involve anything matter. The linear approach was put in place without any good scientific reasons. They picked the first thing that came to mind and stuck with it. Worse, anything else gets thrown out as baby with the bathwater.
The inward and side-way motion that is fundamental in the Big Whisper model is simply not considered by scientists. They hang on to the linear model and cannot envision a non-linear approach (while the results are obviously showing that spinning matter (planets, galaxies) is quite ordinary in our material universe).
For many scientists it is very difficult to let go of the gold standard (and therefore their linear thinking). On the one hand they demand falsification of anything new, while on the other hand they do not demand falsification of the linear proposal they put in place first themselves. They want their cake and eat it two times.
- Then there is also the No reply.
Some will just call this out as hogwash. And if they do it correctly, then they will call out the Lambda-CDM and the details of the Big Bang as hogwash as well. Prior to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation we simply do not have any older facts. Anything prior is a contemplation, a speculation, which is the etymological root for the word theory.
That is why it is called the Big Bang theory and not the Big Bang fact. That is also why my proposal is called the Big Whisper theory. In general, there are no new facts to consider. Rather, there are too many facts considered in the Big Bang model and they need to be removed.
- Lastly, my personal reply.
The Big Whisper makes it possible to view matter as coming from an original source via two different routes.
The churned original energy of Zone 2 is the quark soup, and the quarks are the parts that built the neutrons and the protons. Think Picasso and not Miss Universe contestants; the parts got plopped onto each other, the quarks cannot exist by themselves, so they immediately combined as soon as the chance to combine arrived (which in the Big Whisper model occurred at the CMBR when the tightness of the experienced tension finally subsided). The neutrons and protons are not necessarily pretty and do not resemble the original energy. Rather, they are forms of original energy repackaged.
There are only three parts to all atoms: neutrons, protons and electrons. The neutrons are neutral (hence their name), while the protons have a positive charge.
The number of protons in the universe is identical to the number of electrons in the universe. The negative electrons are the exact response to the positive charge of the protons. The electrons are therefore not from the quark soup, and they must have been pulled in from the original energy that was not involved in Zone 2.
That means we have two very interesting pathways to matter:
* Repackaged original energy after it got torn to pieces (establishing neutrons and protons).
* pulled-in original energy from the non-damaged outcome (establishing electrons).
Particularly the electrons need a tiny bit more explanations because they are the footprints and not the feet. Electrons are almost like faces held behind tight t-shirts. The energy is truly there, but the electrons cannot make it to the center of the atom, while neutron and proton sit tightly in that center. As such, electrons are general or generic contributions and not specific contributions.
Matter does therefore two distinct things at the same time: be matter truly, and establish compensation for the undesired outcomes (i.e. the positive byproduct of the protons).
Note that the electrons are not representative of what did not materialize; electrons are ‘just’ the mirroring charge for what the protons established. I hope you don’t have a problem accepting that there can indeed be something like dark energy and that the amount of dark energy can be much larger than the material outcomes. But the idea is that from this vast reservoir that we cannot directly see otherwise, that from this enormous pool the negative charge is pulled in.
If we take this one step further toward Life, then we can declare that Life can be seen as the expression of true matter combined with the spirit of the other side, but then as footprint and not as foot.
All Big Bang models will not give us these details. They see neutrons, protons and electrons as a given, and do not declare any further relationship among them, other than what can be measured. In the Big Whisper model, their relationships are easier to see.
— -
Scientists also do not recognize synergy very easily. When stating red, blue, yellow and gray, then gray can be recognized by all as the synergistic outcome when mixing the three other colors.
Same for fathers, mothers, children and families. Families is the synergistic outcome that exist among the first three groups. Everyone can see that.
There are also four forces: weak nuclear forces, strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic forces and the gravitational force. Yet when the gravitational force is proposed to be the synergistic outcome of the others, scientists call that explanation out as too simple (or ignore that option altogether).
That is the major flaw of scientists. They demand repeatable results, but they can subsequently not recognize anymore what they have in front of them because they do not recognize overall outcomes; they accept details and details only.
—
Thank you, Bob, for reading the article and asking about it. I hope you see that there is a problem explaining this to scientists. They demand the gold standard while they do not have the gold standard themselves (and worse, they do not admit that). It is like having kings sitting on a seat that is not inside their kingdom, but they are not letting anyone else sit in that seat either.
