Andrew, you are asking me what others are saying. That means you have a hierarchy in mind, and you are trying to place the information I provided underneath that of others. I had hoped you would think for yourself.
By itself, this is not a problem. I can show you how the larger structures are not considered by physicists, and how they do not want to hear about the larger structures. They want things their way. But to show you, you need to realize that physicists can be engaged in populists views (based on the real data of course). So, the truth can remain oppressed for a real long time, rejected by many.
Note how it is not the scientific data itself. It is the structural setup about that data in which physicists are making a mistake. Ask them, and they will call this claim out as nonsense.
So, I hope to have a one-on-one communication with you. I am hoping that you will use your brain for yourself and not look at kings, presidents or other top figures. I want you to see it (you are already seeing it) and make up your own mind.
-
The structural flaw is easiest to see and discuss in the Big Bang model. The point is that physicists are missing a very important scientific step and they have not discovered that yet.
Let's set this up first and remember that it is not about the data. The data is all the same either way. It is about connecting the data dots, and about their connecting the dots in one particular, incorrect manner. Here we go:
The oldest data is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, everyone agrees on that.
Prior to that (spooling the movie backward further), we have the Big Bang theory and in it there contains one specific structural fallacy.
What physicists are doing is melding all into one in the situation prior to the oldest data we have. They are fine theorizing in that prior state, but they should not make a structural mistake.
They are melding all scientific data we do have together with non-scientific data we do not have; they meld that into one.
Facts (or commonly agreed on as facts):
* Matter first appeared 13.8 billion years ago
* Energy does not get lost
We do NOT have any scientific evidence for the following:
* Time beginning then and there
* Space beginning then and there
* Energy beginning then and there
There is no scientific data that supports these three positions. So, melding all into one is something for which there is no scientific foundation.
They create a single step in front of the CMBR (which is allowed, in theory), but they turn it into something that cannot be. They create a Cyclops, with two ears, two nostrils, a forehead, mouth, and chin, so all these accurate and correct things, but then they put just a single Eye in that face.
--
Let me show you in a simple analogy what physicists are doing.
We have the cake (the result) and we want to understand how the cake came into being.
By skipping a step, physicists desire the process to somehow be singular in essence.
What they are then saying is that the cake got created from cake particles, baked, et voila, we have the cake.
A --> B
In reality, however, the cake process contains an additional step that they did not consider. First, we have to mix the ingredients together.
A --> A' --> B
I hope you see it already. Physicists are not structuring the materialization process properly; they are missing a step and melded all into something that is based on a singular foundation, a Cyclops is found.
In reality, we only have matter first appearing 13.8 billion years ago.
Using physicists's information that matter is just 4% of all energy in the universe, we can see how the materialization process involved a relatively small part of all energy, and how that energy transformed into matter.
Spooling back the movie, prior to the CMBR, we should find a situation in which the prior state A got itself into the specific setup of A'. Only then can we get to B.
--
Will you allow me to be honest, Andrew?
I have little hope that individuals such as yourself can accept what I show as structurally inaccurate without outside confirmation. It's like everyone and their mother are worshipping the scientists beyond their actual sizes, making them god-like. I do not understand why people do that.
I have known the Structure of Everything since 1981, discovered evidence for it in 1992 (published in 2000, just a single scientific footnote as acknowledgment it was scientifically satisfying). Later on, I understood that Gödel also showed the same (in a different manner).
Physicists reject Gödel's work as applicable to them, so there is not much hope to open up their eyes to their structural mistake; I have tried many times; they won't recognize it as such. They say there is something wrong with my position, while they refuse to take an honest look at their own positions.
With you, and with other ordinary people, I do have the hope that the natural view of the universe we inhabit can be made clear and understood. The problem? It is far simpler than physicists want us to believe. I can elaborate on this with the Black Hole theory, if you are interested in more. That theory contains the same structural mistake.
I have very little hope folks wake up. I have been at this for years and years and years and years. Somehow, it is really difficult for people to see that Rubin's Vase can be seen as a Vase, but also as Two Faces. As long as no one says, yes I see the Two Faces, we can also not discuss which one is the most accurate one (spoiler alert: it is the Two Faces).
Andrew, no one opens the book for me, so I cannot write in the book. I have to work my way through the internet to communicate directly with other brains.
Thanks to your first reply, I can tell you have the smarts. I will find out if you have the brawn.
Thank you for your reply.
