Question Anyone here discuss alternatives to the “big bang” theory regarding origin of the universe?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
"Obviously you haven’t read the latest on JWST. In one tiny speck in the sky a deep field study has shown many massive, old metal rich galaxies. None of which are allowed to exist in the BBT version of the universe." - Think twice

Not true. The early existence of metal rich galaxies and super massive black holes does not invalidate BBT, it simply means that our current models of how clouds of low metalicity hydrogen shed heat needs revision, as do our models of lifetimes of metal poor stars.
Not true. The BBT very specifically predicted that there would be no old
Large metal rich galaxies in these deep field images.
And incidentally, blaming galaxy formation theory isnt good
enough. Considering BBT supporters already blamed Galaxy formation
theory decades ago when Hubble back then showed us galaxies too old for
BB theory to account for. Bill...How long are you going keep on
saying it’s your dogs fault?
 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
Yes, they aren't that perfect, but they are fairly close.
The problem you were addressing included the claim that stars are responsible for the microwave background, which it's not, of course.
The CMBR is a remarkably close blackbody emitter, which is a prediction of BBT, as well as several other key elements, as you noted. This discovery was enormous.
This statement is a good example of how erroneous claims are made
by BB supports to disparage any competing model. Fact is stars at z=1023 in a non expanding universe can model about as perfect a blackbody spectrum as that observed in the CMBR.
The fallacious argument presented by big bangers pretends that in the non
expanding model only *one star*(!!!!)... is responsible for producing all
the radiation observed at z=1023.!
This claim beggars belief. Did you not think about the possibility that
at z=1023 in a non expanding universe there is more than 1 star?
Did you not even TRY to consider the fact that there will be trillions
of stars in the very smallest field of view? And that a combined average
blackbody spectrum of trillions of stellar sources in a non expanding
model would in fact give you just about the best perfect blackbody spectrum ever possible?
Obviously not.
 
This statement is a good example of how erroneous claims are made
by BB supports to disparage any competing model. Fact is stars at z=1023 in a non expanding universe can model about as perfect a blackbody spectrum as that observed in the CMBR.
The fallacious argument presented by big bangers pretends that in the non
expanding model only *one star*(!!!!)... is responsible for producing all
the radiation observed at z=1023.!
This claim beggars belief. Did you not think about the possibility that
at z=1023 in a non expanding universe there is more than 1 star?
Did you not even TRY to consider the fact that there will be trillions
of stars in the very smallest field of view? And that a combined average
blackbody spectrum of trillions of stellar sources in a non expanding
model would in fact give you just about the best perfect blackbody spectrum ever possible?
Obviously not.
Your ATM hypothesis fails on a several levels:

There are no stars that can produce the BB profile found in the CMBR. You must have more than a hunch that stars can do this. The BBT, on the other hand, predicts this since the expansion would eventually allow atoms to form, which releases light to travel indefinetly. And, importantly, it predicts a near perfect BB profile.

There is no evidence, AFAIK,that light will redshift in a non-expanding universe. The “Tired Light” model has been debunked.

Olber’s Paradox argues that there aren’t enough stars to fill the sky, but your model not only does this but places an absurd number at a fixed distance (your z=1023).

It‘s a safe bet that those who try to cancel the views of others using ad hominems are the ones least likely to be correct. ATM ideas should not come with such insults toward those who respect mainstream theories.

FWIW, I don’t ”believe in” any theory, but I do respect their relative scientific value. Engineers must trust certain laws, after all. But theories can never be proven, only falsified. BBT has incredible evidence favso far, in its favor. Feel free to falsify any of the many claims in the Big Bang Bullets II thread.
 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
Your ATM hypothesis fails on a several levels:

There are no stars that can produce the BB profile found in the CMBR. You must have more than a hunch that stars can do this. The BBT, on the other hand, predicts this since the expansion would eventually allow atoms to form, which releases light to travel indefinetly. And, importantly, it predicts a near perfect BB profile.

Your response is illogical and unscientific. You and other BBT supporters claim that “no star in a non expanding model can reproduce the observed near perfect blackbody spectra of CMBR”.
I responded by saying this is a fallacious and disingenuous argument as in a non expanding model the aggregate of galaxies at even the smallest resolution of z=1023 CAN reproduce the near perfect blackbody spectrum observed Because even a single pixel in the COBE image will contain trillions upon trillions of stars in a non expanding model. And any one with ANY mathematical and statistical nous will realise that trillions upon trillions of different stellar blackbody spectra will when averaged out ...give as near a perfect blackbody spectra as that seen in COBE.
And then your response is, I’m wrong because a single stellar spectra does not give a near perfect blackbody spectra!!!
Did you not bother reading the bit in my previous comment where I said “trillions upon trillions” of stars?
Do you not know the difference between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000?

There is no evidence, AFAIK,that light will redshift in a non-expanding universe. The “Tired Light” model has been debunked.

Olber’s Paradox argues that there aren’t enough stars to fill the sky, but your model not only does this but places an absurd number at a fixed distance (your z=1023).
There is “no evidence” only if you are a supporter of the BBT who like the Vatican with Galileo, refused to accept indisputable evidence.
But as usual, you are wrong. There is overwhelming evidence that light redshifts over distance. It’s called the Hubble redshift. And Hubble himself, who preferred science to Lemaitres religion, thought that this redshift was not due to expansion. Personally, like Hubble, Ritz and Planck who all disagreed with LeMaitre,...I prefer empirical physics, not religious dogma.

Olbers paradox is also a good example of someone who isn’t very smart, pretending they are. Olber forgot. The reason why his sky looked dark was...because he didn’t have infrared or microwave vision.

It‘s a safe bet that those who try to cancel the views of others using ad hominems are the ones least likely to be correct. ATM ideas should not come with such insults toward those who respect mainstream theories.
Ad hominems. ?! Me? That’s an insult and breaks space.com rules. Please
cite my fallacious comments and the empirical evidence to support your erroneous claims that I have said something that contradicts empirical observations.
Notice that the BBT has repeately been found guilty of fallacious predictions. Hubble showed galaxies where the prevailing BBT model predicted none. The BBT, true to its dogmatic form, then revised its predictions to accomadate the damning Hubble evidence. Now JWST just proved those BBT predictions to be false and unscientific.
What’s your response? You claim that predictions of mature galaxies at great cosmological distances by a non expanding model are fallacious.
Despite the fact that JWST has just confirmed these predictions by the non expanding model as being correct.
 
Your response is illogical and unscientific. You and other BBT supporters claim that “no star in a non expanding model can reproduce the observed near perfect blackbody spectra of CMBR”.
I responded by saying this is a fallacious and disingenuous argument as in a non expanding model the aggregate of galaxies at even the smallest resolution of z=1023 CAN reproduce the near perfect blackbody spectrum observed Because even a single pixel in the COBE image will contain trillions upon trillions of stars in a non expanding model. And any one with ANY mathematical and statistical nous will realise that trillions upon trillions of different stellar blackbody spectra will when averaged out ...give as near a perfect blackbody spectra as that seen in COBE.
Ask yourself if a trillion red apples, when combined into one group, will appear white? Stars non-blackbody profile won't turn to a blackbody just because you have many of them. This is true even if you combine the cooler stars with the hotter ones, just as the pile might be a combination of red, green and blue ones. To get a perfect white (ie BB), it would take an exact distribution of those "apples", which doesn't exist in any galaxy, and why galaxies don't show BB profiles.

And, don't forget, BBT predicted a near perfect BB before it was discovered.

The early stars would, per BBT, are expected to have far fewer metals. The very first stars would have no metals, per BBT. Evidence so far seems to fit this population modeling from BBT, though the first Pop III stars are beyond the JWST's ability.

Did you not bother reading the bit in my previous comment where I said “trillions upon trillions” of stars?
Do you not know the difference between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000?
Hopefully you'll understand this mistake from above. The odds your'e right that the stars emissions, when combined, produce a perfect BB profile is perhaps about 1 in a trillion. So even if you argue it's possible, what can you offer to make the odds more likely?

There is “no evidence” only if you are a supporter of the BBT who like the Vatican with Galileo, refused to accept indisputable evidence.
As I stated, Galileo was warned and required to present "necessary demonstration", which you've not done. What such evidence did Galileo present? His Dialogue book used tides to "prove" the Copernican model. It was very clever and, no doubt, sincere, but his science, though usually never wrong, was incorrect.

I'm not suggesting the Church was correct in their treatment of him, but I will argue what I think really happened, based on a number of books I've read.

But as usual, you are wrong. There is overwhelming evidence that light redshifts over distance. It’s called the Hubble redshift.
Lemaitre has been added to the terms associated with the rate constant, so it's the Hubble-Lemaitre constant that expresses the expansion rate based on redshift data.

And Hubble himself, who preferred science to Lemaitres religion, thought that this redshift was not due to expansion.
Good luck finding credible evidence for this. Hubble stayed out of this debate because he didn't want to tarnish his reputation as a great astronomer. He stated that he would leave this to the theorists. I think the early work of deSitter, who had an early solution to GR showing redshift in an empty, but non-expanding universe, may have influenced Hubble enough to keep him skeptical.

Personally, like Hubble, Ritz and Planck who all disagreed with LeMaitre,...I prefer empirical physics, not religious dogma.
No one has ever found "religious dogma" in the scientific work of Georges Lemaitres 1927 paper. But you left out Einstein, who called Lemaitre's work "abominable". That is until Eddington, deSitter, and likely others, showed Einstein how powerful Lemaitre's work really was. Einstein reportedly quickly stood and applauded Lemaitre when Lemaitre did a presentation on his work. It took years before his model became mainstream. Now, after decades of the theory being tested, it is mainstream.

Olbers paradox is also a good example of someone who isn’t very smart, pretending they are. Olber forgot. The reason why his sky looked dark was...because he didn’t have infrared or microwave vision.
This is only true if you completely ignore the homogeneity principle. Placing your trillions of stars for every COBE pixel and all at some fixed distance, but leaving the universe almost empty between here and there is beyond strange.

Ad hominems. ?! Me? That’s an insult and breaks space.com rules.
Attacking others intellect by calling them not "very smart" was in your preceeding paragraph, for starters.

Now JWST just proved those BBT predictions to be false and unscientific.
False. It is expected that JWST will help tweak, probably only slightly, the BBT, especially from the data from the more distant regions.

What’s your response? You claim that predictions of mature galaxies at great cosmological distances by a non expanding model are fallacious.
Despite the fact that JWST has just confirmed these predictions by the non expanding model as being correct.
That early galaxies are found to be a little more mature than expected is not that surprising. There is no evidence that falsifies the BBT. But those that try to do so are encouraged knowing they could win a Noble Prize. Science is always self-correcting because it's not dogma, which also can change with time.
 
Last edited:
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
Ask yourself if a trillion red apples, when combined into one group, will appear white? Stars non-blackbody profile won't turn to a blackbody just because you have many of them. This is true even if you combine the cooler stars with the hotter ones, just as the pile might be a combination of red, green and blue ones. To get a perfect white (ie BB), it would take an exact distribution of those "apples", which doesn't exist in any galaxy, and why galaxies don't show BB profiles.
I would like to see a citation to back up your claim that galaxies do not exhibit BB profiles.
And secondly we are not talking about a trillion apples. Each star is different Are you trying to suggest a red giant has the same spectra as a blue white dwarf?
Prove it.


And Hubble himself, who preferred science to Lemaitres religion, thought that this redshift was not due to expansion.
Attacking others intellect by calling them not "very smart" was in your preceeding paragraph, for starters.

Did I say YOU weren’t very smart No.
I think if you looked up libel, there is a big difference between saying a large group of people aren’t smart and one seperate individual in particular isn’t.
And Anyways by that rule, you have attacked, without evidence , anyone who supports a non expending model.
Not only did you not have the evidence,..you ignored the evidence which proves them correct
In a court of law...you would be guilty of libel.



Ask yourself if a trillion red apples, when combined into one group, will

Good luck finding credible evidence for this. Hubble stayed out of this debate because he didn't want to tarnish his reputation as a great astronomer. He stated that he would leave this to the theorists. I think the early work of deSitter, who had an early solution to GR showing redshift in an empty, but non-expanding universe, may have influenced Hubble enough to keep him skeptical.

Hubble didn’t object to big bang?
You should stop making up your evidence. In fact even Wiki, a bastion of relativity theology admits he did in their Edwin Hubble page
"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings, he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[38]


This is only true if you completely ignore the homogeneity principle. Placing your trillions of stars for every COBE pixel and all at some fixed distance, but leaving the universe almost empty between here and there is beyond strange.

Your argument is only true if:
1)you pretend that the CMBR is at one wavelength only. It isn’t, It is a wide range only peaking at that wavelength and only observed at that range.
2)you pretend a non expanding model only has galaxies at z=1023.
Wrong again. It has galaxies at 1022, 1024 1050 5000, 1000, 900,800 700,
etc. At all distances. In other words there are galaxies at all microwave ranges. And the microwave range measured by penzias etc is narrow. Measure farther into longer wavelengths and I’m sure you will find a much wider “hiss”
Problem is...they dont measure at longer or shorter wavelengths.


False. It is expected that JWST will help tweak, probably only slightly, the BBT, especially from the data from the more distant regions.

Thats ridiculous. The BBT predicted NO mature metal rich massive galaxies were possible in the early era BBT and none would be found in the JWST deep field.
And yet the JWST deep field found many of these “impossible” to exist galaxies,...in just a tiny fraction of the sky.
Tweak!
Very funny.


That early galaxies are found to be a little more mature than expected is not that surprising. There is no evidence that falsifies the BBT. But those that try to do so are encouraged knowing they could win a Noble Prize. Science is always self-correcting because it's not dogma, which also can change with time.

A little more than expected.,
Thats very funny. Your failed prediction didnt fail. It’s just that the existence of something that was not supposed to exist was found in abundance. Only a slight excess were found in your opinion
So tell me Helio. Does that mean that you think that 0=1,000,000+?
 
I would like to see a citation to back up your claim that galaxies do not exhibit BB profiles.
Your claim is the ATM one, so the burden is on you to give examples of galaxies with near-perfect BB. If you find one, you can use Wien's law to calculate the exact temperature for the whole galaxy. Have you ever seen a single claim for a specific temperature for any given galaxy?

And secondly we are not talking about a trillion apples. Each star is different Are you trying to suggest a red giant has the same spectra as a blue white dwarf?
That's why I used red, green and blue apples, though there are no green stars, but the color differences is a reference to star temperature/color differences.

Did I say YOU weren’t very smart No.
You inferred it. You implied anyone who held to Olber's paradox wasn't smart. You did not say Olber wasn't smart. Perhaps that was your intent. But Olber was brilliant, and many scientists respect his important contributions, especially his simple paradox.

In a court of law...you would be guilty of libel.
Congrats, you just used an ad hominem to claim you don't use them. Implying I am acting in a libelous way is hardly good behavior in this forum. Giving your evidence you can find on-line to support the BBT that refutes your non-expanding claims is not a case for libel.

Hubble didn’t object to big bang?
You should stop making up your evidence. In fact even Wiki, a bastion of relativity theology admits he did in their Edwin Hubble page
"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings, he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[38]
The quote shows he was agnostic on expansion. Thus, we seem to agree that he was, as you say, "keeping open" the idea of no expansion, or a model with expansion. The very reason we have the Hubble Constant (now Hubble-Lemaitre Constant) is based on his contribution for expansion, not against it. His famous graphs show expansion velocities, not non-expansion velocities. But people miss the fact that his graphs were not favoring one model over another. He was using the standard terms for redshift, which is velocities. It's pretty ironic, actually.

Your argument is only true if:
1)you pretend that the CMBR is at one wavelength only. It isn’t, It is a wide range only peaking at that wavelength and only observed at that range.
No. A black body profile includes all the wavelengths that are significant, usually between about 300nm to over 1000nm or more.

But, Wien showed that the peak wavelength for any BB can be used to easily calculate the BB temperature. Thus, if one knows the BB temperature, then the entire profile can be reproduced.

2)you pretend a non expanding model only has galaxies at z=1023.
I was using your model. I could go back and explain why, but we are wasting each other's time, IMO.

Wrong again. It has galaxies at 1022, 1024 1050 5000, 1000, 900,800 700,
etc. At all distances. In other words there are galaxies at all microwave ranges. And the microwave range measured by penzias etc is narrow. Measure farther into longer wavelengths and I’m sure you will find a much wider “hiss”
Ok, I get what your'e trying to argue, but adding all these up won't reproduce the CMBR.

The BBT predicted NO mature metal rich massive galaxies were possible in the early era BBT and none would be found in the JWST deep field.
Correct, and I said the same. My point, however, is that we are likely to see some variatins in the metal contents that could differ from one interpretation of the BBT over another. No one knows just when the first stars formed. Only recently have stellar physics been able to explain how any star comprised of only h and he can form. There is quite a range in sizes for these predictions, and these size differences will produce metallicity differences over time. None of this is counter to BBT. If the JWST discovers evidence falsifying the BBT, it will be news that goes viral. Don't be confused by simple hyperbole over this or that minor difference for discoveres within regions never before studied.

So tell me Helio. Does that mean that you think that 0=1,000,000+?
Thanks, I think you likely helped get this thread closed. Either way, I'm out.
 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
Your claim is the ATM one, so the burden is on you to give examples of galaxies with near-perfect BB. If you find one, you can use Wien's law to calculate the exact temperature for the whole galaxy. Have you ever seen a single claim for a specific temperature for any given galaxy?

That's why I used red, green and blue apples, though there are no green stars, but the color differences is a reference to star temperature/color differences.

You inferred it. You implied anyone who held to Olber's paradox wasn't smart. You did not say Olber wasn't smart. Perhaps that was your intent. But Olber was brilliant, and many scientists respect his important contributions, especially his simple paradox.
How was Olber brilliant?
He either wasn’t smart enough or he was dishonest.
He pretended the reason why the sky was black was proof that
a non expansion model was invalid. (False)
Yet he arrived at this conclusion by ignoring the fact that in a
non expanding model more distant light was redshifted to
longer wavelengths than visible light which he could not have seen
Not too smart,..or dishonest.?
Either choice isn’t very attractive.


That's why I used red, green and blue apples, though there are no green stars, but the color differences is a reference to star temperature/color differences.

So are you saying that a red giant has the same spectra as a white dwarf?
Or are you trying to get out of admitting they dont?

The quote shows he was agnostic on expansion. Thus, we seem to agree that he was, as you say, "keeping open" the idea of no expansion, or a model with expansion. The very reason we have the Hubble Constant (now Hubble-Lemaitre Constant) is based on his contribution for expansion, not against it. His famous graphs show expansion velocities, not non-expansion velocities. But people miss the fact that his graphs were not favoring one model over another. He was using the standard terms for redshift, which is velocities. It's pretty ironic, actually.

Lets face it Helio...the wiki quote-clearly shows he did not believe in
expansion. And just because religious followers of LeMaitre twisted
his observations to pretend there was expansion does not negate the fact
that Hubble did not agree with xpansion. ( like Planck and Ritz and even Einstein at first did until Albert realised if he didn’t, his Photon model would be scrapped)


No. A black body profile includes all the wavelengths that are significant, usually between about 300nm to over 1000nm or more.

But, Wien showed that the peak wavelength for any BB can be used to easily calculate the BB temperature. Thus, if one knows the BB temperature, then the entire profile can be reproduced.

You misunderstood completely my point.
I was referring to the observed wavelengths in microwave
Not the rest frame blackbody emission nm wavelengths of 300-1000nm!

Ok, I get what your'e trying to argue, but adding all these up won't reproduce the CMBR.

Really? Any evidence?
Citation please


Thanks, I think you likely helped get this thread closed. Either way, I'm out.

I helped get this thread closed because you were unable to refute
a single point I made supporting a non expanding model?
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2023
1
1
15
Visit site
I believe time and space are infinite. No beginning, no end. Just continuous action. Anyone else?

April 24th, 2023, it has been 6 years 99 days since The Transition Project fully engaged January 15th, 2017 .

.

Strings of Creation Big Bang Event

Requirements

Trillions of light years in volume are an area lacking any discernable structure, especially Spacetime Foam.

An energy field lacking Particle Wave Duality, which undergoes 18 phase transitions to generate Spacetime Foam, the 1st of 18 phase transitions .

Next are the 17 phase transitions, which create the 17 elements particles of the standard model.

Arrange the Elementary Particles of the Standard Model in descending order with Top Quark at energy level 173 GeV/C² the first followed by the Higgs Boson then in descending order the remaining 15 elementary particles of the standard model.

A separation in energy levels is a separation in Time. This refers to the time required for the Big Bang Energy Field to cool down as it expands at FTL speeds .

Let's begin with the Big Bang Energy Field which starts as a lattice crystal type structure where the vertices are Singularities where compression rate achieves Planck Scale Singularities. Inside those Singularities one would find enormous number of Open Ended Planck Unit String Energy in each Singularity. Open ended Planck Unit Strings lack Wave Particle Duality as they only behave like Wave Energy with attributes similar to Springs. Flexible Open Ended Strings which stretch and then return to original state like springs in a mattress .

Strings of Creation Big Bang Event

Finite volume Field of Planck Scale Singularities begins to shed expel Open Ended Planck Unit String Energies at FTL speeds . As the energy field expanded it reached a certain energy level triggering the first Phase Transition . The creation of Spacetime String Energies which are at ~ 200 to ~ 250 Gev/C²

Open ended Spacetime Strings negative and positive versions non-explosive with only Wave like properties . Since there is no Spacetime Foam the Spacetime strings form interlocking cubes of Spacetime Strings. That is the structure of Spacetime Foam , String Energy. Basically Spacetime String Energy is created by having Open Ended Planck Unit String Energy link up like railroad cars to form the length required for each Energy level.

Big Bang Energy Field expands at FTL speeds, String Energy has no speed limit. As the open ended Planck Unit Strings escape from the Singularities the energy field cools and triggers 18 phase transitions.

1st phase transition

Generates Spacetime Strings at ~200 to ~250 GeV/C² negative and positive versions non-explosive. Then they automatically form interlocking cubes of spacetime strings. Spacetime Foam is now available.



2nd phase transition

Top Quark Stings at 173.07 GeV/C² negative positive versions non-explosive. Since we already have interlocking cubes of spacetime strings the open ended Top Quark String Energies negative and positive versions roll up fold up into their native 3 dimensional state becoming particles. Matter and Antimatter Top Quark versions huge bundles equally distributed throughout entirety of Spacetime Foam. The matter and antimatter Top Quark Elementary Particles collide generating an antimatter explosion . A nearly 100% mass to energy conversion process. No mass no particles no Particle Wave Duality. Back to a positive version of Openended Top Quark String Energies. Now we have many bubble like spheres of Antimatter explosive Energy. On the surface of the bubble like spheres of explosive Energy are the openended Top Quark Strring Energies Positive version. Not annihilation a conversion process which takes 13 Elementary Particles of the Standard Model and converts them all to Positive Open Ended Strings . From negative and positive to matter and antimatter then mass to energy conversion yielding one type of open ended string energy positive version which later becomes Elementary Particles as you climb up the energy scale from. Photons to Top Quarks in ascending order. This is accomplished as you cook or reach energy scale which allows each open ended string to phase transition into their native dimensional state as a Particle. Energy required is generated in the core of Gravity Wells created by Dark Matter Strings permanent and stationary energy related distortions upon Spacetime Foam. Also Dark Halo Strings form Gravity Wells mobile and temporary energy related distortions upon Spacetime Foam generating gravitational effects. Dark Matter Strings permanent and stationary Gravitational Effects upon Spacetime Foam. A laser can reach out and link up and guide a lightning bolt. The lightning bolt wraps around the laser like a string spiraling around a metal rod. Dark Matter Strings are released when 2 or more bubble like spheres of explosive antimatter energy burst when they collide releasing the strings which slam into other strings . The intial contact point between 2 curves or spheres is highest energy scale direct impact. Imagine 2 spheres slowly touching at point of first contact highest energy scale of Strings smashing into Strings and Spacetime Foam as bubble like spheres burst . Those direct high energy impacts like head on collisions becone Dark Matter Strings and also Black Holes center of Galaxies . One sphere is surrounded by many spheres ao more than 1 intial impact high energy state head on collision type . Each direct impact highest energy related distortions upon Spacetime Foam which generates gravitational effects and become Black Holes later . As you flow away from intial head on impact type further away on the sphere which burst you are also going down an energy phase transitioning into lesser energy scale Dark Halo Strings energy related distortions upon Spacetime Foam generating gravitational effects mobile and temporary free to fly. Both Dark Halo Strings and Dark Matter Strings are damaged twisted upon other strings and or Spacetime Foam unable to ever become particles of standard model yet capable of creating gravity Wells. Dark Matter Strings form Sheets , Filaments , and Distorted Bubble Like Voids perimeter. Most likely 13 different sized Sheets, Filaments , and Distorted Bubble Like Void Perimeters . Take 2 balloons press together flat plane Sheets. As they are pressed together forming a plane pop them with a needle. The plane remains as above and below the plane tatters or Filaments. Multiple surriunding bursting spheres releasing Strings forms Dark Matter Strings at Perimeter of Distorted Bubble like Voids. Sheets , Filaments, and Distorted Bubble Like Voids are permanent and stationary energy related distortions upon Spacetime Foam generating gravitational effects, Dark Matter Strings. Since the Big Bang Energy Field is expanding at FTL speeds and Spacetime foam also expanding at FTL speeds. Dark Matter Strings slammed on the brakes and United Spacetime Foam and String Energy tightly bound where Dark Matter Strings were . Universe has been slowing down ever since . Looking back to the beginning everything appears to be at FTL speeds . The closer galaxies are to Earth the slower they appear because the brakes were slammed with Dark Matter Strings. Leaving a few things out. Also Higgs Boson, Z Boson, Gluon , and Photon havd zero charge so neutral no matter no antimatter versions . As you go down the energy scale of the elementary particles as the Big Bang Energy Field cools the Dark Halo Strings and 5% Survivor Strings are like shrapnel flying off explosive spheres when they burst. This results in Dark Halo Strings alone in a void or Survivor Strings alone in a void forming a galaxy. Should also have variations of that theme as one looks at more and more Voids. Take 10 marbles various sizes. No matter what you do small areas on the marbles never touch . That represents the 5% Survivor Strings which become everything we see today. As the spheres burst the Survivor Strings fly off not impacting against other Strings not being damaged free to fly free to become Elementary Particles as we cook or reach energy states required in the gravity wells in large scale structure.

So you go down the energy scale of the elementary particles creating Spacetime Foam, Dark Matter Strings, Dark Halo Strings, Survivor Strings , Sheets Filaments , and Perimeter of Distorted Bubble like Voids. Basically 13 versions of Sheets , Filaments, and Perimeters of Distorted Bubble like Voids. Also as you go down the energy scale and then back up the scale of energy levels of elementary particles the entire sequence of events has meaning and defines everything.

Up the energy scale. As you go down the energy scale creating Dark Halo Strings and the Survivor Strings they begin the gravity dance. As you climb up the energy scale Survivor Strings begin falling into Dark Halo Gravity Wells and Dark Matter Gravity Wells. As more and more Strings pile on they basically cook from ground up all your elementary particles. The first Stars are Hybrid String Stellar Objects which first begin cooking photons then up the scale to Top Quarks. As Energies climb at the center of the gravity Wells they create building blocks of the atoms. Protons neutrons and electrons Then finally Hydrogen Atoms As more Survivor Strings begin piling on there appears to be enough finally to light the fusion fires. Yet sustainability has not been reached so multiple times the fusion fires flicker out. The outer layers of the Hybrid String Stellar Objects are semi transparent with a soft bluish white glow and at the core of the gravity Wells it is Dark where the Atoms form in the core . Finally sustainability is achieved the fusion fires light and stay lit. The first Star Light from Hybrid String Stellar Objects . I guess we are all now Tourists at the Strings of Creation. Take care. Thank you ,Professor Leonard Susskind for String Energy Wave like with attributes similar to Springs. Perfect for Spacetime Foam. Knowledge of that yields FTL Timeline Drives, Variable Speed Time Ladders, artificial gravity , and communications technologies with no time lag Star to Star if my theory is correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
May 16, 2023
4
0
10
Visit site
나는 Stephen Hawking이 우리에게 모든 진실을 말하고 떠났다는 것을 알고 있습니다. 우리는 그의 언어를 이해하지 못합니다. 나는 그가 어떻게 느꼈는지 압니다.

Mod Edit
Translation:
I know Stephen Hawking told us the whole truth and left. We don't understand his language. I know how he felt.


Please post in English
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts