An excellent reply, Rich, and thank you for the support in very carefully chosen words.
It was indeed late in the game that I realized that the Big Whisper model can be declared a Big Bang model since the evidence is the same. It is the model that is not the same.
Know that I do not mind denying the Big Bang model, as long as you recognize that the Big Whisper is then its twin; similar but not identical. Like Rubin's vase, when the Vase is the actual outcome, then the Two Faces are denied (and vice versa). When the Big Whisper is correct, then the Lambda-CDM is automatically incorrect.
--
Empirical evidence is difficult to find when one has to prove that Santa does not exist. But it is around.
The Lambda-CDM Big Bang model is basically supported with empirical evidence, for instance, with data discovered in the Large Hadron Collider.
However, it is a flaw to think that what is discovered about the sub-sub-material level in the LHC has anything to do with the materialization process.
If I set up a greenhouse in Alaska, import rubber plants from Brazil, did I then really discover evidence that rubber trees grow in Alaska? Of course I did not.
Anything discovered in the LHC is real, but all can be discarded because the LHC is not the materialization process itself. There was just one event, and prior to it there was no matter. The LHC does not recreate the materialization process.
--
An important point within science is that it makes demands as if science is the basis of reality. It is not. Science is a system, and as such one can say that the Scientific Realm (i.e. everything) is larger than the Scientific Reach. Yet exposing science as limited is complicated because we also depend on science for nearly all we know today. Nearly all.
The hardest part to overcome is the demand made to show with empirical evidence that something is really what it is. And yet a gap is then produced, and I have the example to show this gap that cannot be overcome in science.
An accident occurred on the freeway, six cars all crashed into one another. All drivers and passengers died. There are no witnesses.
The police officers arriving at the scene end up declaring that they cannot know what happened because all the individuals involved perished. The confirmation they say they need will not be forthcoming.
That is the spot where scientists sometimes stand. Undermining the other positions because the story cannot be verified. Yet there is so much evidence in the results (for one, the individuals involved all died, so the speed at which all were traveling must have been enormous, perhaps in combination with not wearing seat belts).
The point here is to show how in science, too, there are different realities. There is not just one scientific playing field on which all the rules are the same. It is more intricate than that.
Another example about the freeway:
"I drove 70 on the freeway"
"The car reached a speed of 70 mph"
One of these sentences cannot be pronounced as scientific.
In science, there is no "I". Instead, the scientist rides shotgun, observes, notates, keeping an eye on the driver, the machine, the environment. The scientist is not the subject matter him/herself. That is therefore another limitation. As you know we can all say "I am the center of the universe" but scientists do not care about that truth.
--
Having matter come about is itself already the evidence that something enormous happened.
There will be a storyline there, and it should be a completed story about how matter came about. The Lambda-CDM model does not deliver.
Epimetheus is the more foolish brother with hindsight, whereas Prometheus is the smarter brother with foresight. To start a story to figure out how it ends is the better way to understand the results then to have the results and then try looking back.
It is with the approach to understanding that we can realize how the results came to be, and we have a choice how we go about. Interestingly, the best way is to take both routes, accept the Vase and the Two Faces as possible and then compare them to one another.
Epimetheus and Prometheus are both ways to figure things out. Together, through comparison, the most correct answer will be found.
The Big Whisper model points out how weak the Lambda-CDM model is prior to the CMBR event. A complete mechanical story compared to a story that starts mid-sentence. The verdict should be smooth to make.
--
In science, we accept certain things as a given. The forces are a given. Energy is a given. Physicists do not explain where Energy comes from or why matter has these forces associated with it.
So the model is more important than the empirical evidence because there is a basic level that simply is accepted for what it is. Empirical evidence is gathered in the additional reality of everything, not in the original everything. We cannot recreate the materialization process, so we do not have any empirical evidence about it. Simply not possible. The materialization process is a given.
Science is limited.
--
As I see the materialization process, it is exactly what the CMBR tells us. At 380,000 years, the conditions were such that matter appeared at that location and moment in time. We do have an outbound event. A force got expressed onto Energy, and from that moment on that specific force is simply gone, spent in the event, yet matter and energy are set up then to continue what was started.
An object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by an external force. The original force is gone/spent, and the subsequent forces play their games on the objects in motion.
The setup is completely different between Lambda-CDM model and Big Whisper model.
Yet after the CMBR, they are identical or near identical.
With the Big Whisper model, galaxy formation could have started very quickly after the CMBR. I don't know if you remember, but physicists were surprised to see galaxies had formed when the James Webb telescope showed them at greater distances, i.e. earlier in the material universe, than previously thought possible.
--
Star formation is also not understood well by physicists. They think gravity and gravity alone caused matter to bind together.
They are not looking at the rotational reality of matter at all. I hope you like we are back at rotational realities.
: - )
The materialization process was not just straight-out outwardly. We see a lot of rotation with spinning planets and their also revolving around stars, and then the galaxy circling itself, too. That spinning outcome was there from the start, too.
When matter rotates collectively, there is a net-zero spot in the center. The light-weighted stuff ends up there first. Through happenstance (and light-weighted material moves about the most), the center becomes the spot where this matter gets stuck. It’s on the move of course, but in the rotational reality they are stuck in the center.
Indeed, the Sun is 98% light-weighted materials, hydrogen and helium, by volume. Only after these materials had started making the beginning of stars (and planets) only then did gravity come into play, attracting heavier materials.
Okay, here a fun article (I had fun with it) about the interior buildup of Earth and Venus. The title was perhaps not well chosen because it is censored on Google, not for the contents but for the name. I chuckle. It’s called: 'Hot Venus Surprise'
https://medium.com/@fred-rick/hot-venus-surprise-2b12f9d8d555
Know that the surprise is not a certainty; I am just using a model and taking it as far as I can. But it does describe the buildup of matter during planet formation that is distinct from 'just gravity'.
--
I don't know if you have seen that there are big questions in science now about planet and star formation because they discovered outcomes that are not possible using the old gravity-only model. Their model is not right. There is the First Motion, and then there is gravity. Both are required to explain what we see.
It's a mess out there, Rich. Scientists want to understand, but those trying to explain are swatted out of the way as unwanted wasps. There is no democracy in science, otherwise different ideas would have made it to the fore many moons ago.
Thank you for the good communications we’ve had so far.
