Christine,
I come to this from structure and declare myself a structural philosopher. That means I am mainly floating at the larger perspective of the big picture. While aware that the scientific details are very important, that is also where Alice lost her ways in many a rabbit hole.
The Big Whisper model proposes (as fact) that the material universe came from a prior state (itself not declared in all too many details) and that it was capable of producing the result. It is the results that declare the prior state a fact. But the prior state itself cannot be declared other than with a hypothesis because there are no scientific results from the prior state itself, other than the results that arrived later.
To jump right in, the most important conclusion from a structural perspective is that an inward motion is collective. The word collective is already a very precise word, so I want to mention that the collective quality does not mean that the prior state was indeed fully collective in its very own nature. Rather, just the inward action had a collective quality and it led to the diverse and self-based outcomes in our (outwardly-moving) material universe.
When we look at matter in our universe, we can see that it desires to gather. We see that in the mass of a planet or the mass of a star. But also in the solar system and Milky Way where all these celestial bodies are hanging out together. Yet when moving one level further up and that collective nature dissipates. For me, that is the clearest indication that there is an ideal expressed in the inward motion (of uniting), while the not-succeeding to unite at the end of the prior state is confirmed by the lack of a collective reality at the largest level of our (outbound) universe.
---
I leave it to scientists to work out the details. My goal is to show scientists that there are other models available next to the Big Bang theory or the Cyclic Universe theory. Instead of investigating matter to understand where it came from, the goal should be to understand how the prior state ended, and produced matter in the aftermath.
Matter is then not the result of a nuclear process, but rather the result of (some) original energy being damaged due to the inward motion causing havoc among parts. The idea is that a quark soup was produced during the inward motion, and that during the outbound motion the quarks aligned themselves in neutrons and protons. Since the protons have a positive charge, the electrons were pulled in from the non-damaged parts of original energy to neutralize the positive charges.
---
Structurally, this can all be declared differently as well. The mathematical evidence shows that the binary system is the universal system. All we find are 1s and 0s. But... there is no ultimate 1 and there is no ultimate 0.
Contrast this with the decimal system that we can declare the human system, and there is then a tendency visible to bring everything back to an ultimate 1. We want the one leader in top; we want to all speak the same language; we want to agree on the money that we use, we believe in a single God, etcetera. The ultimate answer we are looking for cannot be, because the ultimate desire is based on the human system of uniting and not on the universal system that is just a tad more diverse.
If you recognize that we follow the decimal system because we have ten fingers on our two hands, then it becomes easy to see that the universe is not a single place, but only a single concept we can hold in our brains.
Thank you for your reply. I love feedback, especially from people interested in science, but not bogged down by the rabbit-hole details that may or may not be vital.
--
To answer your questions, my way: the collective motion is like compressing the center of our earth; it's coming from all directions. But with the outward motion, the collective nature cannot play first fiddle all the way till the bitter end. So, at one point (sooner rather than later), the collective gives way to different group behaviors and then we may be able to see many distinctive behaviors among these many groups.
—
In the Big Whisper model, gravity is the synergistic outcome, the combination of the other forces. As such, gravity is and is not a force.
Add blue, red, green and yellow paint together, and we end up with a gray outcome. Gray is and is not a color.
Motion is matter based. As far as I know, all matter in the universe is on the move. We are on the move.
Forces are matter based.
String theory in my view is adding all the ingredients we like for a cake, and ending up with something that is very nutritious, but not something that grows in nature. String theory does not lead to ultimate understanding, but to deeper understanding and deeper confusion.
In as far as dimensional systems go, 13D (Rubik's Cube) is the only one I can recognize in the proposed 26 dimensions of one particular string theory. The 10D or 11D of the more familiar string theories go against good use of terminology so I will reject them out of hand. One cannot add dimensions willy-nilly, even when it leads to yummy outcomes like cake that does not exist in nature.
The spatial dimensional system needs to be declare by itself; the temporal dimensional system needs to be declared by itself; the conditions that produced matter need to be declared by themselves.
Only then do we have the actual ingredients.
In the Big Whisper model, separation is the first condition. It is proposed to have occurred at the end of the prior state, enabling energy to have self-based qualities when it became matter.
Thank you again, Christine. Any thoughts you want to propose or add yourself?
