"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. 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. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

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.

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

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.

Cosmin Visan added a reply

Santa Claus.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

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.

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

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.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

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.