We cannot create a second materialization process. As such, we have a boundary within science beyond which scientists cannot go. Still, scientists go further back than the oldest facts we have, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. It sounds like you are not objecting to their going there? They have nothing that is older than the CMBR. But their model is going there anyway.

What they are doing (me, too) is accepting that matter is a result. Had they not accepted that, then they would have said, sorry, the CMBR is all we have, we can't look any further back than that.

What they are doing is that they are theorizing about a model. They do not have facts to fit in the model other than the CMBR and the red-shifting of star light. They also do not know if the model is correct.

They also investigate matter in the Large Hadron Collider, but that information is as useful as investigating babies to figure out how babies are made. The result simply does not tell how the result was produced initially.

* I can prove that rubber trees grow in Alaska. All I need to do is built greenhouses in Alaska and important rubber plants from Brazil. That is what scientists are doing in the Big Bang model. They investigate matter in a laboratory and then they place the 'evidence' in their model.

When communicating about the big picture, they point to their model. They seem unable to look beyond their model.

--

Next to experiments, we can theorize. It is especially interesting to theorize where scientists cannot obtain further data. We cannot have an experiment in which the materialization process occurs once more and then observe what happens. We are limited, right there.

But matter being created spontaneously is also not a good (enough) answer. Let's quickly investigate.

Big Bang theorists do not have a good storyline. Their story starts mid-sentence. You seem to not object.

They have a super-hot starting point (says their model), and that is it. They don't say how it got to be super-hot. They are truly in the dark, which is amazing. Instead of investigating their model, they hold on to the light of their data, and they cannot look for the dark spots they do not have data about.

A quick jump to WW II therefore. The Allies in England investigated all planes that came back from bombing mainland Europe. They carefully looked at all the spots that these planes had been shot at.

Then they inverted the data. They looked at all the spot the planes had not been shot at.

By inverting the data, they recognized the weak spots of the planes. Those planes that did not make it back had been shot in the areas where the other planes had not been shot at.

So, they fortified those areas on all planes. More planes made it back safely without being shot down.

I hope you see how important it is to see what is not known in the larger set of what is known because the unknown spots deliver vital information.

---

Important in theorizing is whether a theory can be falsified or not. Basically, it asks if there is a relationship to the actual findings of reality or not.

The Big Whisper contains a falsifiable proposal, which means it is scientifically satisfying.

The proposal is that an inbound motion occurred at the end of the prior state and this predicts the outbound motion we see among matter. That makes it a serious competitor for the Big Bang model because it is scientifically falsifiable.

Plus, it tells a longer storyline than the Big Bang. Yes, end result is the same, but the Big Whisper storyline is better.

The differences between both models are important, but there is a lot of overlap as well.

I don't mind repeating myself. But many people walk away when 500 others have not first said that something is important and viable. I have received a few peer reviews, and the positive ones state that it is possible.

One of the problems with the Big Bang model that keeps people stuck on it is that the inverse is very hard to imagine for people. Many cannot do it.

They have no problem seeing an explosion, but most cannot see the inverse, a catapulting action.

I have the feeling you cannot see it either, Bkuehlhorn. Is that correct?