Sorry that you didn't get the big picture yet. I actually expected that.
When I understood the theory of everything in 1981, it was disappointing. I had expected to discover something exciting when I realized a window was available to all of us to take a look at the whole set of reality. Those were two exciting months of discovery until the last panels fell into place.
The truth had already been told. I was too late at the game by several decades. All I had discovered was the pathway not commonly understood in general but already told by some of our physicists. Looking back, the 1960s were interesting, but the 1920s and 1930s were the real age of discovery.
It's all fact based, and the problem is not that the facts aren't there, but that it is easy to not pay attention and follow a rabbit hole involving all these other facts. It is hard to value things correctly when we have to value them inside our brains and the reference points are not immediately clear.
Taking three rights is the same as taking one left, correct?
Many scientists are trained to take three rights, got it drilled into them that they cannot take a left.
It is true, in physics one cannot take a left, one has to take three rights. But when discussing the materialization process we are not talking ordinary physics; we are talking one-time physics.
One-time physics, an establishment never repeated again. Once established, it is established.
One can take a left turn without a problem, all fact-based. But one can do that only in one-time physics.
---
I am reminded of a party a long time ago. There was this guy who played a game for all of us party-goers to discover. Five dice played on the table top, time and time again, and a story about Inuits, polar bears, and whether to go fish or not.
Long story short; all people at the party discovered the setup. I did not. I had to be told what the game was. I was the only one at the party who could not distinguish what the outcomes of the die had to do with the storyline the guy was telling us.
I learned then and there that the smart people wrap their brains around problems any which way they can. The dumb people try to do it the smartest way and the smartest way only. That got me stuck in place, showing my brain was dumb, or better stuck in believing something that was not true. The smartest part of my brain was not the smartest part of my brain always because it got me stuck that night.
CEOs tend to have an IQ of about 110. So, just above average. Their success is not based on outsmarting all. It's based on being just a bit smarter than the rest, but not too smart so people walk away from you, disliking you and your smartness. I been there.
---
I can tell you the whole story, but if you expect three turns to the right, then my one-turn to the left is not going to cut it for you. You want my game to outsmart you. The truth is you need to see it. If you don't see it, then you will not see it. Once you see it, however, you cannot unsee it.
---
Want an example? You want evidence that photons can push photons.
That means you believe a theory is the truth, otherwise you would not want to have evidence. You accepted a theory as the truth ! ! !
You don't know half how funny that is. You are all buffed up demanding factual evidence, so you can push away a theory.
I told you you didn't get it, Bkuehlhorn. You thought I was belittling you. I was just trying to tell you the way it is. Your brain is frozen in place because you placed something that is a theory in the higher position of a fact.
Don't feel embarrassed because that is how we learn things. Everyone is doing it. We place something in top position and it stays there until it got pushed out of the way by something better. We all do it, until we get to that last point where both sides have nukes and we have to give it a rest. That’s the true learning point. Not just one has to back down; we all have to back down. That last and highest position is a fallacy.
The truth is not in the highest position. The truth simply is the truth.
In the Big Bang and in the Big Whisper the same facts are the same facts.
It is just that among the facts different theories can be proposed.
You like the Big Bang theory best? No problem. It is indeed the best three-right-turn theory there is, Lambda-CDM my favorite.
But the one-left-turn theory is better. Shorter.
It starts with an inbound motion, which is the start of a falsifiable theory because the inbound motion predicts the ensuing outbound motion we see among matter.
I'd say, that is pretty good for looking into the dark where facts do not roam.
It would almost end up the same way as the Big Bang theory, except that inbound motions do not wreak havoc in their centers. So the center aspect of the Big Bang theory -- or if you wish the central aspect of the overall outbound motion (without discussing an actual energized center in the exact middle, the most popular topic right now) -- that is not what the Big Whisper theory offers.
The Big Whisper theory has a Yellowstone "Old Faithful" moment. And if you know "Old Faithful" then you know it is a combination of things that have to all fall in line to establish the right conditions, and that is therefore not a single thing that develops from one stage into another stage into another, empty center or not.
Matter came into being because of a complexity, a conflict, and not because of a linear development from A to B to C to D. That conflict got set up, and it was not set up on the material side of the universe.
