In your replies I can read that you are following the prevailing ideas very carefully. I should remind you that scientists should indeed give explanations to what is experienced, but that there is a difference between giving explanations and trying to give explanations.

Any person pronouncing that trying to give explanations as if explanations are given instead does not walk the right walk. So you cannot point to a truth when in reality it is the perception of a truth you are pointing to.

Photon-photon interaction does exist, which means that an army of photons can indeed push a single photon not in line with that army. We may not have the final nail in the coffin, but we have enough to sketch this out.

If we take a side-view, it may be simpler to describe for me.

So, on the left we have a star, in the middle we have a star and to the right we have the observations.

The single photon that reaches the observation spot missed the star in the middle of course, but there was an interaction due to the army of photons in the middle vs. the single photon. Let's make the photon fly over the middle star.

While moving toward the middle star, the single photon is faced with an army of on-coming photons. That heads-on interaction does not do anything to the single photon. Yet when approaching the middle star, the army of photons shifts direction, first extremely slowly, but this change becoming more steep the closer to the middle star. This interaction by the army is from heads-on to sideways, from 0 degree angle to 90 degree angle.

Right when above the star, the push is the strongest, but the duration is also the shortest.

I would say that the single photon is likely tilted a little bit as well due to this changing heads-on barrage by the army of photons.

Then, when the single photon has passed the middle star, the army starts to change direction and this time the push is with the single photon's direction. That straightens the tilt out, so the direction is again toward the observation point.

That is the model.

• A secondary question to view this is through asking if an alien photon ever makes it to the surface of another star. Not many scientists wanted to answer this question when I asked them, naturally because the data is not there.

I hope you see how dependent we are on data. Yet with the lack of excluding evidence, we must embrace two options, never just one. A good scientist has two brain hemispheres, two eyes, two ears, so there is nothing wrong with having two explanatory descriptions, each possible by themselves. Occam's Razor can be used, but when lacking the final evidence it is good to accept two models instead of one, just to keep everyone on their toes and not have them lull themselves asleep with embracing a half-truth.

—

I do not see where there is a conflict between the fourth direction of matter being not-based on gravity and the red-shifting of star light. But I do see a conflict with stating that every location can be seen as the center of the universe. I see no logic in that position. Words are used here, obviously, but there is no intelligent information provided. We're hanging in the air.

Do recognize that scientists have a limited field. We have data about the beginning of matter; we do not have data about the beginning of time, space, or energy.

Scientists are not afraid to overstep their actual foundation. I am going to spent some time on this because this appears important.

While Einstein provided his excellent GR, others took his theory — to the objection of Einstein himself — and started to use it as the foundation of science. I hope you see that. The foundation of science (not by me but by many scientists) is spacetime. That is wagging the dog. Matter is the foundation of science. This is just the starting position to show something very important.

Einstein set out to explain the final parts about the behavior of matter. He was able to hang his hat on spacetime, and I admire the guy for it greatly. But his hanging matter's foundation on spacetime is of course a bit strange.

Let me try find an example to express this. When we have a large group of people, something called groupthink or group behavior can occur that cannot be traced back to a single person. It is the group that ends up going in a certain direction, behavior-wise.

Taking each individual's information by themselves, we cannot explain the outcome in all its details. I hope you see the communality between the material behaviors first explained by Newton and then by Einstein.

Because we cannot explain the decision by the group via any specific individual, we can hang that group decision in the air and formulate how that decision got made.

There is nothing wrong with this. Einstein basically did nothing wrong.

But to next take that airy position and explain all human behaviors by something hanging in the air, that is wagging the dog.

Even the group's behavior is not hanging in the air; it is ultimately based on individuals that influence each other while in a group that cannot be pinpointed back to any one individual. But if we so desire, we can hang it in the air. But we cannot make the air position essential to human behavior.

The fourth motion for matter can be declared the specific circumstances the group finds itself in. So, next to the individuals-in-a-group, we also have external realities that influence what the group ends up doing. That is where I point to matter’s behavior also based on non-gravitational realities.

--

The super-hot position of the Big Bang's start is based on the adiabatic cooling process. So if (and this if is very important) we have a CMBR of 2.7 Kelvin plus we start from (more or less) the mathematical center, then we have an enormous distance of adiabatic cooling.

That starting point in this model then better be super-hot otherwise we cannot end up with 2.7 K.

However, there is another model. Allow me to use an analogy to make that other model obvious.

If we wind up a toy until the winding mechanism breaks, then we do not see the toy disintegrate into dust in front of our eyes.

We also do not see, on close examination, that the winding mechanism broke in its exact center.

I hope you see that these two observations are already in conflict with the Big Bang model, but I will explain further.

The toy can still be played with, but it won't do its special trick anymore. Something broke, something went kaput.

If we view the materialization process as something having been broken prior, then we can eliminate the center position of the materialization process. We can actually eliminate the entire length of the adiabatic cooling process and have matter occur at the CMBR while the breaking point occurred rather close by.

I know I am asking a lot of you here.

The process I am describing is based on matter being the result of some specific energy while a lot of other energy did not end up materializing.

• The center of the toy did not break; the breakage was a bit removed from the center. The center was under a lot of pressure while the toy was being wound up too much, but the breakage occurred right where push came to shove. Push did not come to shove right in the center.

So, the entire energized area within the CMBR reality is envisioned as tightly-wound-up but ultimately not becoming damaged. Meanwhile, the areas close to the resulting CMBR were being damaged.

Okay, once you see this model, then we can actually play a little with the location where the damage took place. It could have been halfway, it could have been at three quarters. The point being: it did not have to be super-hot when matter’s origin started to appear because the length of the adiabatic cooling did not necessarily have to be all that long.

So, yes, we have a bit spooky behavior in this model because it says that matter is a secondary reality, while the first reality produced it. That first reality is, however, not intact anymore either. The toy broke, so we have broken pieces both in the visible and invisible outcomes.

And I will repeat here that the positive charge of the protons was caused by the damaged energy, while the negative charge of the electrons arrived from the undamaged energy. Every positive charge int he universe is counter by a negative charge. We can say that at the QM level we find these charges, while we can also say that at the GR level the universe is neutrally charged.

--

I must point out that you are using the term universe as if it were something real by itself. The word universe is a collective term. One cannot say that the universe expands and cools and not provide anything else. It’s hanging in the air.

* The spatial universe is infinite; it has no borders. Space is a phenomenon; it is not something that can be on the move. It is space. One cannot create a spatial hammer and smash space with it.

* The material universe is finite; matter always has borders. We can create a material hammer and smash it on a table and have a result.

Combining both as if they make a single universe of self-based qualities is not possible. There is no universal hammer that can slam the universe.

Bkuehlhorn, I hope you see we are speaking two languages. I claim your language is incorrect in rather peculiar manners, and it appears you are trying to say the same about me and my language.

I have to point to your foundation. Your feet are not on solid grounds. They are based on spacetime. I know I do not make myself popular saying that, but this is not a popularity contest. It is a battle of ideas and I hope we each don’t mind expressing ourselves to make that battle visible for the both of us.

Thank you, sir (if indeed you are a sir).