Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.

To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

--

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).

--

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

"Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum."

Richard Feynman's idea is perfect, and there is no reason to reject it. The existence of vacuum energy, or better dark energy is consistent with Einstein's field equations with a positive cosmological constant.

The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.

The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?

As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:

This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.

On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.

But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.

But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.

"How do we understand special relativity?"

- the answer to this question, which is really fundamental one, since is about what is some physical theory as a whole; what really means – why and how the postulates of a theory, in this case of the SR, really are formulated, and why and how the postulates

- which in any theory fundamentally – as that happens in mathematics, where axioms fundamentally cannot be proven – aren’t proven; while are formulated only basing on some experimental data, which fundamentally prove nothing, though one experiment that is outside a theory prediction proves that this theory is either wrong, or at least its application is limited.

Returning to the SR, which is based on really first of all four postulates – the SR-1905/1908 versions relativity principle, SR-1905 also on the postulate that light propagates in 3D XYZ space with constant speed of light independently on light source/ an observer’s speeds; and, additionally,

- in both theories it is postulated (i) that fundamentally there exist no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and (ii) - [so] that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.

In the standard now in mainstream physics SR-1908 additionally to the SR-1905 it is postulated also that observed contraction of moving bodies’ lengths, and slowing down of moving clocks tick rates, comparing with the length and tick rates when bodies and clocks are at rest in “stationary” frames, is caused by the “fundamental relativistic properties and effects”, i.e. “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc..

Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;

- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that

- Matter’s spacetime is absolute, that so some “absolute” frames that are at rest in the absolute 3DXYZ space can exist, while applications, i.e. measurements of distances and time intervals, of moving in the space inertial frames aren’t completely adequate to the objective reality; and

- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.

Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.

That is another thing that

- according to SR-1905 relativity principle there is some extremely potent entity “light”, the constancy of which for/by some mystic reasons/ways forces moving bodies to contract and moving clocks to slow down tick rates; and

- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.

All that above in the SR really is/are only postulated illusions of the authors, nonetheless, again, the Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle is really . extremely mighty, and the SR indeed in most cases at everyday physical practice is applied in completely accordance with the objective reality. The fundamental flaws of the SR reveal themselves only on fundamental level.

The post is rather long now, so here

Cheers

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”

In the SS post above it is pointed that Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, however to say more it is necessary to clarify - what are “space” and “time”, just because of the authors of the SR – and whole mainstream physics till now - fundamentally didn’t/don/t understand what these fundamental phenomena/notions are, the really mystic and simply fundamentally wrong things in the SR were/are introduced in this theory.

What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

- and “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., which is/are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics,

- can be, and is, clarified only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, and more concretely in physics in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

More see the link above, here now only note, that, as that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the model, Matter absolutely for sure is some informational system of informational patterns/systems – particles, fields, stars, etc., which, as that is shown in the model, is based on a simple binary reversible logics.

So everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

The disturbances are created in the lattice after some the lattice FLE is impacted, with transmission to it, by some non-zero at least 4D space, momentum P[boldmeans 4D vector] in utmost universal Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z). The impact causes in the lattice sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, which, since the flipping cannot propagate in the lattice with 4D speed more than the flipping speed c=lP/tP [really at particles creation and motion c√2, more see the link, but that isn’t essential here].

Some FLE flipping above along a direct 4D line can be caused by a practically infinitesimal P impact; but if P isn’t infinitesimal, that causes flipping FLE precession and corresponding propagation of the “FLE-flipping point” in the 4D space above along some 4D helix,

- i.e. causes creation of some close-loop algorithm that cyclically runs on FLE “hardware ” with the helix’s frequency ω, having momentum P=mc above, mis inertial mass, the helix radius is λ=λ/P;

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

In the SS posts above it is pointed that everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of FLEs, which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, spacetime,

- and that happens always in utmost universal “kinematical” Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), and corresponding spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z ct), where ct is the real time dimension.

At that particles, most of which compose real bodies, at every time moment exist as “FLE –flipping point” that move along some4D helixes that have frequencies ω, having 4D momentums P=mc, m are inertial masses, a helix radius is λ=λ/P;

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

So in Matter there exist two main types of particles – “T-particles”, which are created by momentums that are directed along the cτ-axis [more generally – by 4D momentums cτ-components, but here that isn’t too essential], and so, if are at rest in the 3DXYZ space, move only along cτ-axis with the speed of light, and at that a T- particle’s algorithm ticks with maximal “own frequency”, the particle’s momentum is P0=m0c, where, correspondingly, m0 is the “rest mass”.

If a such T-particle, after some 3D space impact with a 3D space momentum p, moves also in 3D space with a velocity V, having 4D momentum P=P0+p, its speed along the cτ-axis decreases by the Pythagoras theorem in (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. in reverse Lorentz factor,

- and, at that, despite that the helix’s frequency increases, the algorithm is “diluted by “blank” 3D space FLEs flips. So the “own frequency above” decreases in Lorentz factor, so the algorithm ticks slower; and so, say, moving clocks that are some algorithms as well, tick slower in Lorentz factor as well; if a particle algorithm has some defect, and so at every its tick it can break with some probability, so the particle is unstable and decay, such moving in 3D space particles live longer.

Nothing, of course, happens with time, there is no any the SR’s “time dilation”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

In the SS post above it is explained why and how internal “own” processes rates in moving having rest mass [and it is explained what is “rest mass”] particles, bodies, etc., are slowed down comparing with the case when the bodies are at rest; and to derive that it is enough to know Pythagoras theorem; Matter is rather simple logical system,

- but that isn’t a unique physical effect that differ “rest and motion”. As that is pointed in 2-nd SS post, particles are some “4D gyroscopes”, the 4D “rotation axis” of which is always directed along particles 4D momentums P.

So if a T-particle is at rest in 3D space, the axis is directed along the cτ-axis, if the particle moves in the space, say, along X-axis, it rotates in the (X, cτ) plane so that the Cosine of the angle between P and X-axis is, again by Pythagoras theorem, equal to (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. reverse Lorentz factor, while Cosine of the angle between P and cτ –axis is V/c.

If particles constitute some moving rigid body that has, if is at rest in 3D space, length L, they rotate the body as a whole in the (X, cτ) plane on the angle above, and so:

(i) - the body’s length 3D space observable projection is contracted comparing with when it is at rest in inverse Lorentz factor, what is observed experimentally, say, that was yet at M&M experiments, at that, of course , nothing happens with the 3D space; any postulated in the SR “space contraction” fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t exist; and

(ii) - the body’s front end has lesser coordinate value on the cτ –axis than the back end, the difference is correspondingly –VL/c.

Since the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is indeed extremely mighty, motion of everything in real time ct-dimension in mainstream physics, and, of course, in everyday humans practice, till now isn’t observed, so in the mainstream the rather specific really space cτ- dimension is used as the time dimension in both – classical 4D Euclidian with [usual, when t-coordinate isn’t multiplied by the c constant ] metrics (t,X,Y,Z) , and the SR Minkowski with metrics (it,X,Y,Z) [“i” is imaginary unit], spacetimes.

So in this metrics a moving body’s front end is “younger” than the back end on –VL/c2,

- what is the Voigt-Lorentz decrement in the Lorentz transformations.

Correspondingly, if we remember that moving body’s [including moving reference frames] clocks showings are slowed comparing with the rest case, and that

Lorentz transformations – quite equally as that Galileo transformations are also, really are equation of motion of points of the moving body’s [including systems of the bodies that are inertial reference frames systems of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks] in a stationary “K” frame with using data of measurements that are made in the moving “K’ ” frame,

- we above, by using Pythagoras theorem, derived these transformations.

At that, again – these equations/transformations relate only to points of rigid bodies /rigid systems of bodies that they occupy in the 4D space /mainstream spacetime at a current time moment. If in a system the bodies are free, that above, including the Lorentz transformations, is applicable only limitedly, so, say, the Bell paradox exists,

- but what is much more important in this case, by using a system of free bodies it is possible to observe motion of the bodies in the absolute 3D space and to measure the absolute velocity of a system, while, say, Poincaré stated that that is impossible. Corresponding experiments were proposed yet in 2013-16 , more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

Cheers

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

In the SS post above some introductive clarification of what is the SR, and what happens in Matter really, relates mostly to physics and physical practice when the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle really practically completely acts; and so the SR is well applicable [and the case when doesn’t act completely, so it is possible to observe the 3D absolute motion], is given,

- here below a few comments that relate to cases where the SR isn’t applicable, and so its application resulted/results in some really strange/mystic things in mainstream physics.

First of all that happens because on the SR Matter’s spacetime is 4D , and, while the strange fact that in the SR time coordinate is imaginary, really isn’t too essential – as that Poincaré showed in 1905, Lorentz transformations can be derived by condition that the quadratic form s2= x2+y2+z2-(ct)2 is invariant in a 4D “spacetime”, where the time coordinate is imaginary. That is another thing, that while for Poincaré that was interesting mathematical result, Matter’s spacetime is, of course Euclidian one, but Minkowski postulated that this spacetime is real Matter’s spacetime.

But, again, really all what humans, as they think, observe in 4D Euclidian/Minkowski spacetime, they really observe only in 4D space, while the utmost universal “kinematical” real Matter’s spacetime has [5]4D metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, ct) [in the mainstream the space cτ-dimension is the time t/ct-dimension].

Correspondingly in the SR [and in classical mechanics] energy of a particle/body is [as √from] E2= (m0c2)2+p2c2– what is “Hamiltonian” , while really that is equation for absolute value of 4D momentum P [more see the SS posts above], by Pythagoras theorem P2=(m0c)2+p2,

- where m0 and m0care particle/body rest mass, and Pmomentum’s cτ-component; pis 3DXYZ space momentum/3D Pspatial component.

So in mainstream QM Hamiltonian is energy operator Ĥ, which was used in indeed nice 1928 Dirac’s derivation of relativistic electron Ψ-function time dependent equation, iћ∂Ψ/∂t= ĤΨ.

In this case really the non-adequacy of SR spacetime metrics above revealed itself in that this equation [though that relates also to Schrödinger equation] the evidently derivative by time dimension variable – while in QM derivatives by space dimensions variables are momentums operators is, as that is postulated in QM the energy operator;

- and, at that, the equation really was valid for ± Ĥ. So to interpret the negative Hamiltonian Dirac assumed existence of some really evidently mystic “sea of negative energies” and states of some particles in this sea.

Nonetheless particles “positrons”, which, of course, have quite positive energy, were really detected.

In the late 1940 to fit quantum electrodynamics with experiments it was necessary to introduce in QED “Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation”, where antiparticles for/by some mystic reason and way move back in time, while really in time only motion in the positive direction is possible.

All these mystic points in QED [including in Dirac’s equation] become to be quite natural in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case more see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

- really the operator ∂/∂t is quite naturally momentum P operator, which relates not to the scalar always positive E, but to vector, which can have ±directions, as that in QED assumed, etc.

The post is long already, so now

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Thank you, Sergey, for lots and lots of information. I am just picking one aspect to focus the discussion.

"Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute."

I fully agree here but only if I understand you correctly. It is matter that is the source for spacetime; space and time are actually not part of the discussion. Rather, all words apply to the behavior of matter and nothing of these words applies to space or time. though the words are implying they are.

Einstein did not yet know about the Big Bang when he wrote his relativity theories. That means he completely missed out on the most important behavior for matter.

With the Big Bang, we have matter moving at its fastest speed in a singular direction.

In plain English: a straight line for matter will not be based on gravity.

So, there are four motions for matter, and Einstein's spacetime is based on just three of the four.

First Motion: matter moving through space in a straight line.

Second Motion: matter moving collectively in galaxies, circular motion.

Third Motion: matter revolving as planets around stars, circular motion.

Fourth Motion: Planets spinning (moons in tow), circular motion.

Einstein worked with Second, Third, and Fourth Motion. He did not know about the First Motion.

Since his motions are all gravity-based and the First Motion is not gravity-based, Einstein did not have to recalibrate spacetime to end up with correct answers. Because... spacetime is not about all motions of matter but only about matter's behaviors in light of gravity.

That is the point I'd like to discuss, Sergey. Do you agree that spacetime was taken out of its limited (and correct) context of matter in their gravitational settings, and that this got applied by others incorrectly to the universe as a whole?

Fred-Rick Schermer "point to reiterate is how the model is complex and yet the various parts need to beunderstood as one model.First Motion: Straight line of action (involving all matter). Not based on gravity. (16) (PDF) On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter, Replacing Albert Einstein's General Relativity Theory. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378462414_On_a_Fully_Mechanical_Explanation_of_All_Behaviors_of_Matter_Replacing_Albert_Einstein's_General_Relativity_Theory [accessed Apr 16 2024].

Einstein worked with Second, Third, and Fourth Motion. He did not know about the First Motion."

Einstein did not at all differentiate between different kinds of motion. From a physics point of view such a differentiation is blatant nonsense.

Possible relations and transitions between those ways of motion are irrelevant. The only relevant description of the motion of matter, emitted by the big bang event, is given by the distribution in phase space, which includes the description of gases and plasma. This description is given as a density function f(x,v). x and v are three dimensional vectors. f describes the density of particles at position x, which have velocity v, for each velocity v and at any position x.

I am really sorry that your statements are so fundamentally wrong that it hurts to follow them mentally.

Assuming that Einstein had those ideas about a collective motion classification is absurd, because Einstein(born 1879) surely knowed the concepts of Ludwig Boltzmann (born 1844).

Those ideas about a collective motion classification are a brutal slap across the face of thermodynamics.

Again sorry but your statements do not show any knowledge about general concepts in physics. They only show the ideas of a dreamer without fundamental knowledge in physics.

Wolfgang Konle

Sorry, Wolfgang, but we really are not understanding each other.

Einstein produced a framework that is based on the gravitational properties of matter.

He used the term Spacetime to help declare aspects about the gravitational effects of matter, in specifics the anomalies as for instance seen with the perihelion of Mercury.

He did not know about the Big Bang when he wrote his relativity theories.

--> His subject matter was not the universe, but rather matter in the universe.

He did not include all behaviors of matter in his relativity theories, simply because he had not heard about the behavior of matter associated with the Big Bang.

--

Here is the real kicker, Wolfgang.

Once a person accepts that matter came about in the Big Bang model, then one cannot declare at the same time that unification is real as well.

In another model perhaps, but not in the Big Bang model.

One cannot have an omelet and then also declare that the egg did not break.

The logic is missing. The scientific footing is incorrect.

--

What scientific support do you have that the universe contains a unified reality (of whichever kind)? And are you stating that the Big Bang model can be accepted at the same time?

Fred-Rick Schermer "He (Einstein) used the term Spacetime to help declare aspects about the gravitational effects of matter, in specifics the anomalies as for instance seen with the perihelion of Mercury."

Spacetime is a term in relativity theory which only indicates that the structure of space and time is related.

"Once a person accepts that matter came about in the Big Bang model, then one cannot declare at the same time that unification is real as well."

The big bang model is bullshit.

The only relevant model is about an eternal universe. Instead of a big bang only cyclic bangs happen, which affect about 10% of the mass of the universe. The restricted cyclic bangs release astronomic signs, which we misinterprete as traces of a big bang.

The cyclic bangs resolve all black holes, once every 20 billion years, and retransform their matter to new star fuel.

All arguments against that model of the eternal cyclic universe can be disproven in a factual way.

The thread question rather in detail is scientifically answered in SS 5 posts series on page 1.

Dear Fred-Rick

- in that

“…Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute."

I fully agree here but only if I understand you correctly. It is matter that is the source for spacetime; space and time are actually not part of the discussion. Rather, all words apply to the behavior of matter and nothing of these words applies to space or time. though the words are implying they are...”

- you understand what is in the SS posts above correctly, however only in certain sense, though.

To understand more it is necessary to read at least first few pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, where it is explained what are absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”; and their concrete actualizations in every concrete informational pattern/system - concrete spaces and time

[ while in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; including Matter is nothing else that some the Set’s element.

At that the utmost general definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception” .]

I.e. the “Logos” set elements “make something to be an information”, and any/every concrete pattern/system, including Matter, is made absolutely obligatorily by some concrete “composition of the “Logos” elements actualizations”.

“Space” and “Time” are just the “Logos” set [besides any informational pattern/system “is made” also, first of all, by “Logos” elements “Energy”, “Change”, “Logical Rules”] and their actualizations in concrete cases are concrete space, that can have any number of concrete “space dimensions” [the number is equal to number of degreases of freedom at change of state of a pattern/system], and the unique in the Set “time dimension”.

Any concrete pattern/system can exist and change, in a system its elements interact, etc., only in its concrete space and time.

So, including any “behavior of matter” is possible only in some space, Matter is rather simple logical system that is based on binary reversible logics, and so Matter’s utmost universal space has 4 dimensions – X,Y,Z are necessary – “allow” to make binary operations, cτ- dimension allows reverse binary operation.

Correspodingly the space and time intervals between elements, motion of elements in space and time dimensions, etc., are absolutely necessary for existence of everything in Matter –

- and at description and analysis of what exists and happens in Matter. If you don’t know these data, you by no means can describe and analyze “behavior of matter”.

Besides, really it is fundamentally senseless to ask “what appeared earlier – Matter or its spacetime”, Matter could appeared only in its spacetime, which – as logical possibility to create, and to exist of, Matter – existed as a part of the Set’s spacetime, which contains all spaces of all Its elements – and one time dimension;

- while the Set exists absolutely “eternally”, having no Beginning and no End, since absolutely fundamentally - logically - cannot be non-existent.

Cheers

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you, Wolfgang, I understand better now where you are coming from.

The model you embrace is not the model I embrace, and this helps us understand what each of us is saying.

I do not support the cyclic universe; it was a one-time event in which the prior state broke at a fundamental level. Hence my saying that, once we have an omelet, we know that the egg was broken. There is no return to the original state available.

An eternal universe requires that we have evidence for that eternal aspect. We do not have that evidence. I will not stand in non-scientific grounds. I will only stand with my feet on the ground (even when that is on a planet floating through space) and I will not stand with my feet on space.

It is illogical to have matter be eternal. There is no indication that matter is eternal, rather we have a clear understanding that matter did begin with hydrogen (and helium), and how all other elements arrived in various subsequent fashions.

Matter returning to an immaterial state is not supported by scientific evidence. At best, it can be read in models, but then we need to discuss the value of these models. I am not convinced that black holes are actually real, but that is a different discussion.

I am standing with the scientific evidence, Wolfgang. I do not extrapolate it into additional dimensions. I may not be the best scientist, but I will not stand outside the scientific realm.

Thank you again for explaining where you are standing.

Fred-Rick Schermer "It is illogical to have matter be eternal. There is no indication that matter is eternal, rather we have a clear understanding that matter did begin with hydrogen (and helium), and how all other elements arrived in various subsequent fashions."

We do not have the faintest valid explanation about a possible creation of electrons and protons without the simultaneous creation of positrons and antiprotons.

This fact and the unlimited lifetime of electrons and most atomic nuclei leaves us with the only possible conclusion that matter must be and must have been eternal.

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you for that answer, Wolfgang. We are not thinking fully along the same lines. That is very clarifying; after all, communication is difficult enough.

Let me find out if this is about language or if we really say something else.

I can say that the unlimited lifetime of electrons points to a potentially eternal nature of Energy. This is what you may want to say, but you placed eternal with Matter, which is in my model not possible.

If the transformation of Energy into Matter occurred some 13.8 billion years ago, then the term eternal cannot be applied to Matter. A (fundamental) transformation undermines being able to use the word eternal.

It is not known how old Energy is, so I cannot make the claim that Energy is, or is not eternal. We just don't know. Yet Matter is a result. We know therefore that it cannot be eternal; it was produced at one point in time, something new got produced from something old(er).

--

In my model, I do not need to start with the same amount of matter as antimatter because the starting point for matter begins under extreme circumstances. It is not an ordinary circumstance. Antimatter will occur, but it is a circumstantial byproduct.

We can discuss this further if you want, but the special circumstance is more interesting now.

There was a special circumstance in which the prior normal conditions of whatever or however energy existed before caused itself to move toward that special circumstance. This could have been done in a happenstance manner, or in a directed manner. But it was a step that led to a fundamental undermining, with either option we pick.

As a consequence, (some) original energy got deformed during these special conditions, and a quark soup got created (to keep the storyline simple). Then, the special conditions were reversed, everything back to normal, yet the deformed quarks were not able to return to their original state. They were and are deformed packages of original energy.

The reversal of the special conditions occurred at the CMBR, when conditions were normal again. Here the quarks aligned themselves immediately into neutrons and protons.

That is the point Zeus overthrew Cronus, if you allow me to throw in some Greek mythology as support that I am not thinking up something structurally never considered before. Where immaterial Energy was first the only circumstance for energy, with the transformation of some energy into quarks, they actually took the lead.

Matter became the center of energy (quarks in nuclei of atoms). Everything else remaining in the original energized state then falling in place, aligning themselves with the quarks in the center.

Yes, electrons then also part of the original immaterial energy, but then pulled into the deformed reality of the energized quarks, causing the tip of that iceberg to become material.

Preprint On Quarks Explaining Our Universe

Fred-Rick Schermer "Here the quarks aligned themselves immediately into neutrons and protons."

According to everything we currently know, this would be a miracle, which drastically violates charge neutrality.

Wolfgang Konle

That is incorrect, Wolfgang. You are not paying attention.

When there is an omelet, then we know that there was an egg. That is NOT a miracle. Is the egg still around? No, that is the entire point of what the omelet shows us.

The results tell us something about the origin. It is NOT a miracle that there was an origin. It is too bad that we cannot know more about the origin other than it producing the results, but the results do present us a clear storyline how the results came about.

I'd like you to go back to the basics of science and rethink the conclusion you came to.

The following question is truly the first step:

Is the material universe somehow based on a unifying principle, or is the material universe somehow based on the lack of a unifying principle?

Both positions are good scientific positions to start out from. We have the omelet, and we want to understand how the omelet came about. We are not investigating where the egg came from or what the egg tells us. Only the omelet is doing the talking.

Know that I do not mind if you do not agree with the proposal. I have no problem there. Yet your declaring it is a miracle is not based in good science. I must urge you to find your scientific footing.

Fred-Rick Schermer "Here the quarks aligned themselves immediately into neutrons and protons."

According to everything we currently know, this would be a miracle, which drastically violates charge neutrality.

"That is incorrect, Wolfgang. You are not paying attention. When there is an omelet, then we know that there was an egg. That is NOT a miracle. Is the egg still around? No, that is the entire point of what the omelet shows us."

No, you are not paying attention. A process which just generates neutrons and protons violates charge parity. According to the number of generated protons an equal amount of electrons also must be generated.

Wolfgang Konle

We do have the exact same amount of positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons.

There is no miracle. Yet the protons are indeed part of the energy that got changed during the Big Bang process, from being immaterial energy at first to becoming damaged energy: the quarks. The quarks are self-based energy, incapable of returning to their original format.

Meanwhile, the electrons are pulled from the very large remainder of (unchanged) energy; the large remainder was not damaged. The electrons are not self-based in outcome; they are proton-focused, neutralizing the positive charge of the protons. In effect, the protons manifest the electrons from the energized field. The electrons do not annihilate the charge because they cannot undo the damage of the quarks. They are there only to neutralize the charge and yet they cannot undo the charge at the subatomic level.

There are therefore two realities for matter:

Original (undamaged) energy, some say this could be as much as 96% of all energy there is in the universe.

Damaged energy, the quarks.

Matter is said by some to be about 4% of all energy there is. This includes then the electrons since they got pulled into the material realm, yet do not contribute anything close to what the quarks contribute in material energy.

--

There is no miracle here, Wolfgang. It is all about the mechanics of what went wrong during the materialization process.

Fred-Rick Schermer "Yet the protons are part of the energy that got changed during the Big Bang process, from being immaterial energy at first to becoming damaged energy: the quarks. The quarks are self-based energy, incapable of returning to their original format.

...

There are therefore two realities for matter:

Original (undamaged) energy, some say this could be as much as 96% of all energy there is in the universe. Damaged energy, the quarks."

You are telling absurd stories without any foundation. This is unacceptable.

Wolfgang Konle

I am actually staying fully within the scientific realm, Wolfgang.

Let's start at the beginning once more.

A/ The material universe is either based on a single foundation, or

B/ The material universe is based on the lack of a single foundation.

That is a real good scientific question, and the data that we have can therefore be organized in two different manners, either via A or via B.

The Lambda-CDM model follows A.

The Big Whisper model, named for Penzias and Wilson who discovered the whisper of the materialization process, follows B.

The Lambda-CDM model is mechanically incomplete, question marks abound.

The Big Whisper model is mechanically complete. The question how matter could have come about is answered fully. It does require to accept that Energy is already a given.

Both A and B represent scientific approaches, both fully within the scientific realm.

Fred-Rick Schermer

"A/ The material universe is either based on a single foundation, or

B/ The material universe is based on the lack of a single foundation.

Both A and B represent scientific approaches, both fully within the scientific realm."

You seem to be conviced that either A or B are the only possibilities for a cosmological model.

But both models assume something like a sudden event which leads to the creation of something, which then develops to the universe as we know it today.

A real alternative is a universe, which ever has been like our universe. This universe regularly recycles the matter trapped in black holes to new star fuel. We only misunderstand those events, which imply less than 10% of all matter as a big bang, supposed to imply 100% of all matter.

Wolfgang Konle

Wolfgang, you are not saying enough here. What is the underlying principle of your alternative for the universe?

Is this reality eternal just by itself? How did the (re)cycling get started up? Which method do you present for matter trapped in black holes to become new star fuel? It appears you are working with two realities already?

--

--

The number of protons and the number of electrons are identical.

Obviously, we have a single underlying principle here. Indeed, the charge of the proton and the charge of the electron are identical as well, the same strength.

The charges exist in opposite direction, one positive, the other negative.

Obviously, we have a single principle here though expressed in two formats.

The charges do not annihilate one another. The end result is a neutral outcome in charge, yet no resolve.

Obviously, both do not exist in the same state; they cannot become one. Indeed, we see that the behavior of one is nothing like the behavior of the other. One is found in the center of nuclei; the other is found all over the place, so to speak, but not in the center (except as part of the neutron).

--

Wolfgang, the reality of the proton-electron charges tell us a very clear story. They do not exist in the same state. They are solidly a team, yet each distinct from the other. They are one, and yet they are not one.

What storyline do you have to tell to come to this well-known result?

Fred-Rick Schermer "How did the (re)cycling get started up? "

The recycling starts as soon as the density of the dark energy is high enough to penetrate the black hole matter.

"Which method do you present for matter trapped in black holes to become new star fuel?"

A strong gravity has caused the phase transition from neutron star matter to black hole matter. If due to energy absorption the density of the dark energy growths everywhere in the universe, this energy finally is strong enough to revert the phase transition. The black hole matter is then converted to a neutron gas cloud.

The conversion process leads to an intense streaming of dark energy. This lowers the density gradient of the dark energy, which determines the gravity. In this low gravity situation the neutron gas can easily escape from the black hole. The neutron gas decays to hydrogen, which is new star fuel.

Generally the existence of the high density of dark energy is justified because dark energy must compensate for the negative energy density of the gravitational field at the surface of neutron stars.

Wolfgang Konle

Okay, that is indeed a full circle, Wolfgang. It does not explain how all got started up, but then again I also have Energy as a given. I recognize your model as complete on its own, leaving some aspects unexplained.

--

Just to complicate matters, Wolfgang, I do not accept the common understanding of a Black Hole. I accept it as a model, but I think in reality that this is a Black Eye. That means that the resulting gap is caused by the collective of matter swirling it, and not by a mass on the inside.

All Milky Way masses are pulling on one another, and that means that in the center a gravitational depression of enormous proportions exists. So, it is more an Eye inside a galactic gravitational storm. Of course, more details than this, but this is just a quick mentioning.

Again, I see folks embrace Model 1, but I embrace Model 2. In some ways, it is the reverse, the inverse of what folks think.

--

Thank you for explaining your model so I can understand it.

Fred-Rick Schermer "It does not explain how all got started up, but then again I also have Energy as a given. I recognize your model as complete on its own, leaving some aspects unexplained."

Good question, an answer and some additional explanations can be given in short words.

There was no startup. The model is eternal.

The background of dark energy distorts space into an S³ structure with a space curvature of 1/R² and a volume of 2π²R³. The volume of space oscillates. It shrinks as the dark energy is charged and expands during a recycling event.

The transfer of the upload energy takes place via a gravitational interaction. With its gravitational field, each particle, including photons, creates a tiny dent in the dark energy density. If this dent moves, the dark energy has to bypass the dent. The bypass motion requires some energy, which must be provided by the moving gravitating object.

A recycling event lasts a few million years. The energy charging phase lasts about twenty to thirty billion years. We are currently in this phase.

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you, Wolfgang, I understand better now what you are working with.

It looks as that rather strange series of posts in the thread is too long already, and to point here that the thread question rather in detail is scientifically answered in SS 5 posts series on page 1, and on page 2..

Cheers

Wolfgang Konle

Wolfgang, will you please read this article in which I propose the inverse for explaining a Black Hole.

All data is the same, but the perspective is distinct.

It's like Rubin's Vase, where one can see a Vase, but another can see the Two Faces. All data is the same, but the view is distinct nevertheless.

Same for the Black Hole. I can see the Black Eye instead, with all data exactly the same, yet the perspective is what makes the view different.

There is truly no invisible mass required to explain everything we observe.

Preprint On The Scientific Black Eye

This may be my most important work. It puts me in opposition to the majority (nearly everyone) of the scientific community.

Thank you for your review.

Fred-Rick Schermer

I have scanned your article about a "black eye".

But I could not identify the differences between your black eye model and the black hole model described in standard physics.

I have looked for differences in energy, mass, momentum, momentum of inertia, and external impact on the galaxy. But I could not find any substantial information about that kind of differences.

Wolfgang Konle

Excellent, Wolfgang. You make me happy with that response, though I need to mention just a little more.

The Black Hole model contains an event horizon, whereas the Black Eye does not contain an event horizon.

There are two important positions which I describe as follows:

1. A Black Eye is a phenomenon like the Eye of the Storm is a phenomenon. The Eye of the Storm is really there, but it is not based on itself. The Eye is based on the wind force of the Storm. Inside the Eye, there is no wind force. Hence, it is a phenomenon, a byproduct of larger circumstances. It should be considered a major observation that physical realities can produce phenomena that then 'exist' in their larger context.

2. When a person closes an eye, then one can see what a Cyclops sees. Yet the eye that is open did not move toward the center of the face, so the reality of a Cyclops will not be achieved. That means that when an ordinary physical property among others is declared to be zero, then the remaining physical properties do not realign themselves around a center. There is no realigning. The physical reality remains intact, and the zero reality of a physical property cannot be used to declare how the standard reality is then something that it cannot be (i.e. singularities are outcomes on paper only; no scientific grounds were produced to declare singularities scientifically correct).

I do not undermine the Black Hole model other than proposing a better model in which there is no event horizon to consider. All is scientifically present in the Black Eye model. There is nothing to believe in the Black Eye model, while there is something to believe in the Black Hole model, and believing is of course a non-scientific activity.

Thank you, Wolfgang, for your reply.

Will you respond further based on what I wrote here above?

Fred-Rick Schermer "I do not undermine the Black Hole model other than proposing a better model in which there is no event horizon to consider ....Will you respond further based on what I wrote here above?"

Your black eye concept has something in common with my concept about a dark energy density, which compensates for the negative energy density of gravitational fields.

According to the dark energy concept, the dark energy has been squeezed out completely from dark hole matter. This also does not allow the existence of an event horizon. It further means that the inner structure of black holes does not depend on the amount of mass trapped in the black hole. Within black hole mass there is no gravity, because gravity only causes a depression in the dark matter density.

Without dark matter, there is no gravity.

The thread question rather in detail is scientifically answered in SS 5 posts series on page 1, and on page 2.

Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_wrong_when_I_correct_Einsteins_Relativity_by_addressing_Einsteins_error_in_the_Twin_Paradox/5pages 3,5,6, are relevant to this question as well.

Cheers

Wolfgang Konle

An interesting perspective, Wolfgang. I am glad you see some similarities.

To be honest, though, the Black Eye model declares that the entire material setting of a galaxy causes a collective outcome in the center that does not contain any mass. It is comprised of a net-zero condition in the center, and right around it one finds the worst possible gravitational hurricane imaginable in the galaxy. The photons that are swapped aside by the gravitational hurricane right around the eye is the ring of light we see in the images, that some have called the donut. Those photons we see were swapped off course and thrown into our direction.

On planet Earth, the normal highs and lows of air pressure are each other's counter equals, as the plusses and minuses around standard air pressure. Yet the Eye of the Storm is a negative that is far, far beyond the normal, and does not have a positive counterpart at all. That enormous depression is unique and does not have a positive high as counter at all.

In short, it is not just the wind force that counts. It is also the circumstances that count. We are always dealing with a multitude of factors. A single factor alone doing everything to cause the outcome we witness, that does not exist, not even with gravity. Even at the largest level, we have a plural reality, not a single-based reality. There is an interplay among the various aspects and none of them is god.

Thank you for digging in a little deeper. Know that I appreciate that much.

It looks as that rather strange series of posts in the thread is too long already, and so to point at least for new readers here that the thread question rather in detail is rigorously scientifically answered in SS 5 posts series on page 1, and on page 2..

Cheers