Structural thinking is the better approach, and we can apply that to the information that Science was able to gather, so we can get the answers we want, Figs.
I’ll start with the theory of everything, because it is actually quite simple if you recognize the structure:
- Strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force.
I hope you recognize the same structural setup with the following:
- Mothers, fathers, children, families
- Red, blue, yellow, gray
Out of three components or groups, we automatically get a fourth one due to the synergistic effect. Scientists are not thinking structurally about the various forces. They do not recognize the various forces and place them all on a single 2D platform, so to speak, where there should be a 3D platform.
My favorite area is how matter came into being, so that is where I like to show you how scientists are structurally occupying a chair they should leave empty and subsequently can then incorporate that empty spot into their model. Get ready for a long reply.
In this image, I am first portraying (simplistically) the setup. Scientists have the unknown prior to materialization, shown in white, and in green they have their facts and theories involving facts.
In orange, there is a scientific position that scientists somehow deny is a scientific position. The entire material outcome of today in the universe is seen by all scientists as a result. No one says that matter is the original of the universe. Conclusion: the prior state is a scientific state because we know for a fact that it was capable of producing matter.
That is unfortunately where the scientific horse is brought to water and refuses to drink. They, and I am sorry to declare this entire collective of scientists into one group, but they love to work at the detailed level where they excel, but they cannot see that there is an overall scientific spot in which their hands are empty, without material facts, and that they should accept this being okay.
To give a quick preview, scientists are saying:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etcetera, and they are not saying
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etcetera.
In fact, when push comes to shove, they say:
1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etcetera, with the very first 1 taken in by the infallibility of Science itself (occupying the actual 0 spot), and next they work with the 1, 2, 3 of materialization.
This is very important structural work, Figs, and scientists are not trained in this. Their brains somehow cannot do this structural work.
If we are indeed saying that matter is a result, then we should not focus on matter to answer the question how it got here. Any such quest is automatically incorrect. One can investigate the baby to see if it is healthy, but one cannot investigate the baby to understand how it came into being. Scientists refuse to talk about the parents as the reason the baby came to be. In this case, the parents are indeed immaterial, and we can declare them with that 0 spot. But we know that this 0 spot is a cloaked spot from which matter derived, so it is not an empty spot. It is 0 in light of matter only.
Gödel already showed us the truth with his Incompleteness theorems. One cannot start up with any specific setup and come to an overall completeness. Scientists put that right to the side of their work as somehow not unimportant for them. Where all systems contain a 0 spot in which the system is empty, scientists put their own egg of 1 instead.
That was the introduction.
--
Here is the story as told per the Big Whisper theory. Note that this will always be a scientific theory because one cannot declare the ultimate evidence without the parents admitting they produced the baby. But at least the storyline includes a real beginning and we end up seeing the true structure of everything (just as Gödel showed us).
- One cannot have matter come forth from 100% of what existed prior.
I hope you can understand that this is absolutely true. It is impossible to have an original state (of whatever it was that existed prior to matter) and then have 100% of it become matter, and this then lasting longer than -say- 15 minutes before it returned to its former self.
If you cannot see this as absolutely true, then there is no need to read further. Your brain needs to be able to recognize this, Figs.
From this fact (1/ all scientists agree that matter is a result, 2/ matter cannot be sustained unless it established a locally self-based reality from and next to whatever existed prior, 3/ matter cannot be undone), we can declare that we live in two realities.
Matter is the secondary reality, and the remnant of the primary reality is no longer intact either.
--
I am going to do a short cut here. Space is the largest entity in our material universe; it is infinite, it has no borders. On the other hand, matter is finite, even when we can declare it of humongous proportions overall.
Space tells us therefore that it was present already at first moment of materialization.
In plain English: the prior state of the universe ended because a fundamental separation was able to take place.
This is all structural thinking that one cannot discuss with a scientist. They ran away already, Figs, before we got to the interesting parts.
--
The prior state of the universe is where we need to find the reason why matter occurred. Again, that is not where scientists are looking; they are examining matter instead.
Using the information that all matter is moving outwardly away from one another at the collective level, we can conclude with great satisfaction that the prior state ended due to an inward motion occurring in that state. There had to be a built-up of tension first in the prior state before we could have gotten the outbound motion of the materialization process in our current state.
Interestingly, scientists embracing the Lambda-CDM Big bang model do agree. But they have more in that model than what is needed. They have too much in that model.
It is almost like knowing for a fact that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius and then feeling compelled to put that fact in the process that explains the thawing of permafrost. After all, every process has to be brought back to 1 and contain everything, right? Needless to say, the Big Whisper theory and the Big Bang theory conflict with one another in details while there is some good overlap as well.
Inward motions have a peculiar property: If there is no stopping, then there will be damage, and that damage is not occurring everywhere but in particular spots only.
Wind up a toy too much, and two things will break: the mechanism will break in one spot, and the mechanism's innards will end up damaging part of the toy on its spinning way out. The rest of the toy remains intact.
Same for the prior state of the universe that ended with an inward motion: parts of the inward motion ended up being damaged, while most of it remained as it was before.
But... both damaged and undamaged original energy ended up catapulting outwardly. As such we can declare that galaxies are the largest settings of both states/realities. There is then no linkage between galaxies other than their (very limited) gravitational fields and their bumping into each other once in a while.
I am going to leave it at this right here, Figs. There is a whole lot more and I hope you want to follow me with these structural thoughts. I will answer any and all questions you have.
But if you want to hang on to the gold standard of science, then there cannot be a satisfying answer and I am not sure if you have seen enough or if you are interested in learning more. I’ll find out if you reply or not.
The truth is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etcetera, and if you cannot accept the 0 in first place then we don't see eye to eye. The first step of our material universe occurred in the 0 spot, with the ending of the prior state, matter not yet around. Scientists put their butts right on that spot, preventing others to tell the story.
--
Yes, there is a religious version of the Big Whisper as well and no religion has ever pronounced this particular structural thought. Not God is 0, but 0 is the only circumstance that God created and everything else flowed from that point on. Curious if this is an easier way to show you the larger set up well.
