Oh, thank you for responding once more, Belkis. I appreciate that because it means we are communicating at a meaningful level, right?
Merci. J'aime beaucoup ça!
Let me reiterate that my Big Bang model is not the Lambda-CDM model.
My Big Bang model is the 'slighty' different Big Whisper model, honoring Penzias and Wilson discovering the 'whisper' of the materialization process.
The difference pronounced here in specifics (pay attention : - )
1. Pre-Big Bang:
Conditions that are normal but then, for whatever reasons, moving to conditions abnormal.
This fits the known scientific data. We do know about matter coming about; yet we do not know the origin of energy coming about (we have nothing at all; scientists are completely empty handed about the beginning of energy, space or time; simply nothing at all).
2. During abnormal conditions, parts of that energy ended up being in trouble, ending up being deformed. One can state that this is where the conditions of the quarks got established.
'Quarks explain our universe best'
https://medium.com/@fred-rick/quarks-explain-our-universe-best-e03b7ccf72c3
3. Then back to normal conditions (after the fact)
Due to the ensuing mishap of things going awry, conditions end up moving back toward normal conditions.
But... normal conditions only happen while moving outwardly. The pressure subsides toward normal conditions.
Meanwhile, the mishap of specific parts cannot get undone. They cannot revert to fit the mold as it was before.
--
So we end up back at normal condition only when the CMBR locations are reached. And this is normal conditions only for all energy that was not damaged.
The deformed energy can still NOT return to ITS original shape.
--
At first opportunity, the deformed energy aligns to form neutrons and protons.
Immediately after, the remainder of energy that did not get deformed, provided the negative electrons to keep everything in neutral balance.
But the electrons did not annihilate the protons; they could only undo the charge.
--
I do not dislike the Big Crunch, Belkis, but it appears a brainy solution. It declares a possible how, but it does not declare a possible why. It does not put everything into their right places.
Yes, I much like your good reply to this.
Thanks, Belkis. : - )
