Scientists are using a religious model!
Rubber trees growing in Alaska? You gotta be kidding me. That’s not possible. But true it is — just as soon as we built greenhouses in Alaska and brought some rubber plants in from Brazil. It’s called planted evidence.
The Big Bang theory contains planted evidence, too. The super-hot conditions proposed in the Lambda-CDM, the most popular version of the Big Bang, are planted evidence. The super-hot conditions were imported from the laboratory and the Hadron Collider, used to examine matter to its finest details. Subsequently, the super-hot conditions got transplanted to the theory.
Is it horrible to import evidence? Not really. But one needs to be careful to use a scientific model when importing evidence. Religious aspects may follow unnoticed. Using a belief in a scientific model (for instance, stating that all goes back to some kind of divine singularity) and things can get placed rather quickly in the wrong scientific spots.
The easiest way to see what’s wrong with the Big Bang theory is by comparing it to another theory about the same subject matter. In this case, the Big Whisper theory (containing a hypothesis as a center feature); it is an excellent way to find the discrepancy, though in many ways the Big Whisper is similar to the Big Bang theory. They are almost like twin theories, but distinct.
The Big Whisper declares the following distinctions:
- No cosmic inflation
- No super-hot conditions requiring cooling
- Energy that became matter derived from areas around the center
First off in this table, and shown in white to the left, both theories appoint the unknown origin of whatever it was that made matter possible. We know it was capable of producing matter, but that is all we (need to) know.
Then, to the right of the table, green is used to appoint all facts and theories based on these facts. Note how the Big Bang theory tries to pull that green toward the center of the table, even though the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is truly the oldest scientific data we have. Any facts or theories placed prior to the CMBR is like the already mentioned planted evidence.
In the Big Whisper theory, the orange section shows the reason why green came about. Any four-year old would understand that we cannot find a green reason why green came about. It would be like saying how the green chicken came about because of the green chicken and skip the orange egg altogether.
Orange cannot present us a fact because we do not have any data about it other than what would occur in the future, and first appearing with the CMBR, in green. Orange can also not be a strong theory because strong theories contain at least one strong fact, or a larger number of facts of various quality. The strongest fact for orange is its ultimate result. Orange is therefore either a hypothesis or a weak theory, your pick. Beware that nothing else is allowed in orange.
We cannot use anything solidly green and place it with orange. That would turn the theory into a religion.
Naturally, it helps present an encompassing theory about the future facts, and with the help of Occam’s Razor the best proposal can be declared the simplest of all theories that try to explain the origin of matter (Kepler was in the know about this, too).
Note, this theory does not explain where the original energy, time or space came from; they are a given both for the situation prior and for the situation after materialization. In science, we do not touch religion.
Let’s describe the comparison in a different manner. The materialization steps of the Big Bang theory can be proposed to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…. Among these steps, the CMBR would take in position 2, for instance, or 3. With 1, the singularity is appointed of an otherwise unknown mathematical quality.
Compare this to the materialization steps of the Big Whisper theory. They are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…. Among these steps, the CMBR takes in position 1. With 0, a position is declared of unknown mathematical quality. With 0, there is a non-materialized position that belongs to the materialization process nevertheless. It acknowledges the fact that matter is the result of something prior that is itself not materialized yet.
Note how the 0 is often used and pronounced by scientists, but that they are not using the model that incorporates the actual 0 itself.
In religion, one can make use of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… model without a problem. It is easy to present a single being or principle in position number 1 and start the storyline. Monotheistic religions are well-known of course, but human goodness, for instance, can also be the center principle in a religion. All is declared on a single platform of a single deity or a single principle. That approach can be useful sometimes (we should all speak the same language to communicate well), but it cannot represent the universe we live in by itself.
Science is not a religion. It declares all languages as true languages and not just one; it declares all facts as factual and does not place one above the other. Science should use the natural system of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… in which zero indicates that aspect that belongs to a realm but is not expressible in that realm. There is no singularity in science. Singularities are already specific and cannot be used to describe the source for all future outcomes.
Only 0 represents the singularity. But… any all-encompassing word would fit here because 0 inherently does not commit itself to being just one single definition. It can be anything all-encompassing.
Take an empty wallet, and one must declare this as part and parcel of the financial reality of our world. Entire nations rise in the dark just to ensure the wallet is not empty. Enormous forces are associated with the empty wallet. Of all financial realities, the empty wallet is the most serious of them all for most people. As soon as money was invented, the empty wallet came right along with it. So there are two zeros in this quick analogy. Before there was money, there was no money (0), and when money got invented the empty wallet (0) automatically came along with it.
The empty spot can be a highly functional spot in an overall system.
Simply through proposing an inward motion first, occurring among the original form of energy, indicating a motion that did not stop, an automatic and fundamentally-damaging occurrence took place at the end of the prior state.
Inward motion means here that pressure built and built, particularly in and near the center of the inward pressure. Ultimate disorderly behavior in that center will have followed with adding more pressure, and energy in the wrong spots near that center were then warped due to extreme high pressures. The very center itself will likely have been stuck in place due to the pressure keeping it there. Yet where first friction was possible, torque would have made sure that the original energy got damaged in these center-surrounding spots.
The occurrence of that damage would have sent a shock wave throughout the entire inward motion, and the outer areas (where the inward motion was actually weakest) would have stopped, allowing pressure to veer back outwardly.
That ensuing outward motion did not stop either, and all energy involved catapulted outwardly. By the time all reached the CMBR Boundary the pent-up pressure had finally subsided.
At that CMBR point, the damaged original energy was finally exposed. Prior, the damage had been encapsulated in the pressurized state among original energy that was not damaged. While all ended up catapulting outwardly, only the damaged energy got expressed at the CMBR. We know that damaged or warped original energy as the quarks.
The center of the inward pressure did not get damaged. The center catapulted outwardly just like the rest. The center did not materialize on its way out.
The point of this Big Whisper storyline is to show what is contained in the Big Bang storyline that does not need to be there: The cosmic inflation and the super-hot conditions with its subsequent cooling.
Asking wide and far, no one has any good storyline why the super-hot conditions of the Big Bang are a requirement. General Relativity does not require it (unless relative overall positions are considered to be absolute positions, which they are not). In fact, the Big Bang theory does not really have any good explanation why anything started up the way it did. Scientists believe their hands are tied by facts and GR and cannot tell us more. But… that is not true.
The scientific realm is larger than the scientific reach.
Ask any scientist with a good knowledge about all scientific cosmic data, and they’ll agree. We cannot take scientific instruments all the way to the prior situation, and at best we can establish a storyline that fits the resulting outcomes we were able to record. Yet that prior position is a scientific position belonging to the larger scientific realm. That what established matter is itself not material.
General Relativity is like the forest, while anything we know in specific about matter is like the trees. We therefore have two levels that are both true. Neither can dictate the other level. The forest has synergistic aspects that cannot be appointed to a single tree; a tree has specific aspects that are not expressible within the general terms describing the forest.
Again, the scientific model is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5….
- The Big Bang theory is like a car driving into the wrong direction of a one-way street. There isn’t anything wrong with the car, just the direction it is driving in. It wants to get to the end of the next block, and it can’t. It wants to understand the 1, reach the 1, thinking it exists at the end of the block.
- The Big Whisper theory is like an imagined car driving in the correct direction of the one-way street. It becomes a real car at the end of the block where indeed we find 1. Note that this is the other end of the block, not the same impossible Big Bang end of the block.
- Big Bang theorists planted evidence in their theory from other locations that had given them valuable information about matter. But it does not matter how true it is; it is not a good fit. Correct information is placed in the wrong location, turning the model into a religious model.
In the Big Whisper theory, original energy is compressed to the max. That will under ordinary circumstances produce heat, and this is not denied in this theory. However, the expression of that heat does not occur until reaching the CMBR. As such, there is no cooling of a prior super-hot state. Rather, there is straightforward expression of the endured temperature.
The same occurs for cosmic inflation proposed in the Big Bang theory, of matter first speeding up and then slowing down. Cosmic inflation does not exist in the Big Whisper model. The catapulting action put original energy and fundamentally-damaged energy on an outbound trajectory, from 0 to 1. After reaching the CMBR Boundary, the outbound trajectory simply continued. There is no speeding up beyond the current speed and then slowing down. There is only speeding up toward the current speed.
The Big Bang theory starts with 1 and has to make it to 2 or 3 in unreasonable fast manners.
Matter did not derive from the center of the inward motion. This center catapulted outwardly as well, but nothing of it materialized. For matter, there never was a center. The center truly was 0. Only the damaged energy became matter and this did not and could not have come from the very center.
The eye of the storm does not have much wind in it. The wall of the eye contains the strongest winds measures on the entire planet. 0 in dead-center, 1 representing the max right next to it. That is where the most damage will occur for anything on its path. Not the eye, but the wall of the eye is the true hurricane.
Big Bang theorists have their correct data, but they have been very stubborn in their willingness to talk to others about the used model. Their arguments to avoid discussing the matter led me to see why they did not understand the big-picture perspective. Scientists should never incorporate a belief in their models. They are forgiven because it is very easy to misinterpret 0 and fill it in. As soon as we fill it in with anything specific, no matter how tiny, it becomes a belief.
The scientific position prior to data is always there, even when we have nothing to show for it other than future results.
I am not a scientist, but a structural philosopher. I picked the term Big Whisper because there was no bang. The first expression for matter occurred at the CMBR and this is electromagnetic in essence. Sounds appearing like static may have occurred, like a crackle. A word similar to crackle is whisper, and this word captures both a conscious action by someone trying to say something not too loudly or the resulting action of circumstances such as the wind whispering through the trees. But… it is not like wind blowing through rubber trees in Alaska, because the greenhouses will block that wind.