5 min readMar 10, 2023


Okay, you are growing on me, Geo.

You seem to take away obstacle after obstacle that I put in front of you. I also like how you place the fancy experiments and paradoxes to the side. Still, we are not on the same page (yet).

In my model, there is simply just the quarks and the electrons that provide the material essence of our universe. Nothing more, nothing less. (Yes, I like to keep things simple, though a window can always remain open for extreme circumstances and outcomes of course.)

Energy today exists therefore in three formats:

1/ quarks -> neutrons and protons, linear, center of nuclei

2/ electrons, non-linear matter, non-center

3/ non-linear energy, the large remainder, non-material

Here, #1 is the linear essence of matter and self-based, and #3 is the same energy as it existed in the original state of the universe. It is diminished by #1 and to some extent still including #2, but these are conditions under duress. #1 takes the lead, so to speak, while in reality it is the damaged outcome.

There is no greater reality than a galaxy (seen and unseen); all other combinations at any larger level are circumstantial and not connected in any fundamental kind of way.

I work with the standard model because I have no beef with it being incorrect. Alternate explanations are available, but they do not differ in essence about how original energy experienced certain conditions that made a subset of that energy then becoming matter.


In the spinning celestial bodies, the drag is experienced throughout the circular motion. Yet it is in the center that a dead zone appears. Call it a zero spot. Matter collects here, incorporating the spin of course.

The unseen energy (let's say of planet Earth) is still out there, spinning. We are in the zero spot, spinning ourselves. We can't detect the additional reality, but the model requires the invisible spin to be there.


I do not agree to universal expansion because it is a lousy combination of words, but I do agree to matter moving apart from one another (at the larger than galaxy levels unless certain conditions are met). Again, there may be other ways to explain this, yet to arrive at matter, there needs to be motion expressed at what is the Fourth Motion level. This is due to the required setup at first of having an extreme concentration (single or many) because the quarks cannot be produced unless there is an extreme concentration. Temporary extreme concentrations deliver a resulting outbound motion. Again, I call it the Fourth Motion (in essence similar to Spacetime).

In the Big Whisper model, a collective inward motion establishes a zero spot of motion at the end of the prior state of the universe. In plain English, all in the center (Zone 1) is stuck in place, nothing is moving. This can be used to explain Dark Matter, but I am fine calling all invisible energy out as dark energy or original energy. This Zone 1 is enormous, Zone 2 (the source for the quarks) of a limited reality, and Zone 3 of proportions that cannot be expressed even, but not of any intense concentration. The source for the inward motion is placed with Zone 3; Zones 1 and 2 subjected to the inward motion. The outer areas of Zone 3 barely have any inward motion at all.

Same model for the Eye of the Hurricane. The Eye Zone 1, the Wall of the Eye Zone 2, and the remainder Zone 3.

The fun part is that there is no wind in the center of the windiest spot on the planet.

Same model for the interior of planet Earth. Extreme pressure on the inside, but establishing a solid inner core because all is stuck (Zone 1). Right next to it we find a fluid inner core (Zone 2) in which a lot of churning is occurring, keeping the planet warm. Remainder of planet is Zone 3.

The fun part is that in the center of the planet there is zero gravity, none at all.

There is no drag in the center.

All forces of planet Earth are in balance in the center, enormous pressures notwithstanding.


The Webb Space telescope confirmed that the Big Whisper is more in sync with the outcome than the Big Bang model, because galaxies can start to form truly early on. Energy is the source, deformation the process, and catapulting outwardly the motion we see. There is no high physics process from 'singularity' to some inflationary state. It is complex right from the start with the CMBR the spot where quarks formed neutrons and protons.

Energy likes to connect to energy; it's its natural state. Outbound motion means a disconnect will be established. So, we should see a glob of unseen energy among galaxies, yet nothing of the kind between different galaxies.

Okay, this is part of what I am exploring right now. Galactic lensing is used to explain the 'highlighting' of the CMBR near other galaxies. I am not certain if I can make this stand but galaxies, showing an increase in CMBR static right around them, can indicate that we in the Milky Way are not looking at the CMBR of that proposed 380,000 years distance we consider correct, but then rather at 'the pair of glasses' that the Milky Way is wearing itself.

If we wear pink glasses, then the world looks like everything everywhere is pink. When looking at other people wearing pink glasses, these glasses show us a starker pink, indicating to us that we may be wearing pink glasses ourselves and had not realized that.

As such, that would be an indication that there is 'invisible' original energy still with us that we did not identify correctly, hanging out with us, showing us the edges around our Milky Way.

Geo, this is just speculation on my part, other than seeing how galactic lensing is considered an actual occurrence of something. Because the input is apparently occurring at the radiation level, this can be the existing moment of us seeing 'invisible' energy nearby of the outer areas of the Milky Way. But it can also be a brain fart on my part.

Again, such a long reply.

Keep your replies coming. I still haven't seen how we are in agreement. But I do think we are dabbling in similar waters.