YES, being a researcher in new physics, I completely agree that these are extremely simple and I would even say banal means of calculation which were the basis of the various calculations which led to the creation of the universe of which there are infinitely small objects and infinitely large objects.

Check out Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model, where all the empirical observations add up using basic physics and math, without the (Dark Matter and Dark Energy) fudge factors.

Panning out or a decade and now starting to gain traction at researchgate.

Dear Preston Guynn,

Thanks so much for you reply!

I thought you might be interested in my paper

Electromagnetism, Relativity and The Basic Unit System concept

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2180448_Electromagnetism_Relativity_and_The_Basic_Unit_System_concept

in which the SR is presented in a new framework of reference based on the Basic Systemic Unit concept, based on complex numbers, that in fact had permitted me to deduce all the fundamental equations of physics such as that of GR, presented not with Tensor Analysis but a more accessible tool that electrical engineers has used successfully for many years.

Please se my paper

A Quantum-Physical Theory of Gravitation?

Research Proposal A Quantum-Physical Theory of Gravitation?

I hope you can take a look at them, and I would appreciate any comment or criticism as this is the only we can contribute to the advance of science

My Best Regards

Edgar Paternina

retired electrical engineer

Dear Mr. Edgar Paternina,

Thank you for sharing your thoughtful insights on the current state of physics and cosmology. Your reflections on the challenges facing modern theories like the Big Bang and general relativity are indeed thought-provoking. I appreciate your call to shift from a rigid mindset to one that embraces new ways of seeing reality, fostering openness and exploration in scientific inquiry.

Regarding your concerns about the Big Bang theory, I agree that scientific theories must be rooted in empirical observation and not solely in mathematical abstraction. It's crucial to acknowledge that while the Big Bang theory is based on mathematical models, it is also supported by a wealth of observational data—from cosmic microwave background radiation to the abundance of light elements in the universe.

Your critique of the modern universe being likened to a medieval cosmos is intriguing. It highlights the tension between mathematical elegance and empirical grounding in contemporary cosmology. Indeed, the interpretation of mathematical models as physical reality requires caution, as these models often represent our best attempts to describe complex phenomena.

I share your skepticism about the limitations of four-dimensional abstractions and the challenges in directly studying entities like black holes and cosmic strings on Earth. The gap between theoretical predictions and experimental verification remains a significant hurdle in physics today.

In addressing these issues, I believe that a balanced approach is necessary, one that respects both theoretical elegance and empirical verification. Science thrives on skepticism and rigorous testing, ensuring that our understanding of the universe evolves with new discoveries and insights.

Thank you once again for sparking this important dialogue.

Best wishes,

Soumendra

Dear Edgar Paternina ,

I have reasons to accept that Mr. Preston Guynn did not fully appreciate the limitations of Special Relativity, particularly in its conceptualization of time.

Special Relativity fundamentally altered the understanding of time by removing its independence and treating it as a natural entity rather than an abstract concept.

This perspective is unique to relativity and is not found in other disciplines of physical science. There is no valid reason that Special Relativity should be an exception to other disciplines of physical science in regard to time.

I have and have come across several research papers that strongly question or disregard this perspective.

Best wishes, Soumendra

This discussion topic, i.e. why and how mainstream physics is as it is, is scientifically clarified in Sergey Shevchenko posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_all_the_mysteries_of_the_Universe_be_solved_with_one_single_paradigm_shift#view=667d0d06ba45f5d2760a17d9/2/3/2/3/3

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_physics_lost_in_mathematics#view=6684026eb9cfa4f3c7090bc1/37/37/38/37/38/38/37, pages 37, 38

Cheers

Dear Soumendra Thakur,

You wrote:

"Special Relativity fundamentally altered the understanding of time by removing its independence and treating it as a natural entity rather than an abstract concept."

Yes, Time is absolutely, a concept, that as a matter of fact is quite different from a spatial dimension as it was reduced in GR.

Time is a flow from the past, to the present to the future, we cannot stop it, when we try to measure it, once we have done it, is not the same time. It is sort of totally that is not symmetrical as space, as I have shown in my papers.

Thanks so much for your valuable comments

Best Regards

Edgar

In the “Big Bang Never Happened”, the Nobel prize winner, Alfven wrote:

“The observed cosmic density, with omega equaling .02, was already a major headache for Big Bang theorists. If DeVaucouleur's relation applied up to the scale of the observable universe, the true density-the one relevant to the Hubble expansion-would be far less: omega could drop to .0002, a value that would turn their headaches into migraines.

As Alfven gleefully pointed out, in a universe with that little matter, gravitation will be so weak that the difference between Newtonian gravity and general relativity will be of little account. For all practical purposes general relativity, the foundation of conventional cosmology, can be ignored! In essence, the DeVaucouleur relationship places an upper limit on the escape velocity of any gravitating body. Newton's laws dictate that the square of the escape velocity is proportional to the density of an object times the square of its size or radius (or proportional to its mass divided by its radius-the equivalent thing, since density is mass divided by volume or radius cubed). But DeVaucouleur had shown that, over a range from stars to superclusters, density times radius squared remains constant. As a result, there is only a narrow range of escape velocities, with an upper limit of at most one or two thousand kilometers per second.”

So why we still think in a theory that really has so many drawbacks?

Edgar Paternina

The issue is with the physics theoreticians community who has stopped for decades studying the experimentally confirmed progress of the 300 years about physical reality preceding some bad decisions taken at the beginning of the 20th century, and have never studied the further experimentally confirmed progress about the confirmed quantized nature of electromagnetic energy accomplished over the past century.

Fortunately, the engineering community has kept on preserving and using to our benefit all of what was confirmed up to the Lorentz force equation, which is what caused them to develop all of the successful technology that we benefit from.

The upcoming generation of theoreticians are quite likely to reconnect with physical reality.

Dear André Michaud,

Thanks for excellent reply, in fact, it is the reason of the Great Crisis of physics, that can overcome only, if physicists stop making such metaphysical assumptions, as have insisted both authors of these two books.

My Best Regards

Edgar Paternina

retired electrical engineer

As electrical engineer who worked for many years with complex numbers in a Real Time Control Center, with State Estimator included, that solved the state of a power system with hundreds of nodes interconnected, based on complex numbers... in 1991, I came across with the problem of the duality of wave-particle of Quantum Mechanics that I knew was solved with complex numbers... in June 3 of that year during a profound meditation I found what I called now the Basic Systemic Unit, based on Euler's relation and with it, that year I wrote a sort of book, Física y Realidad(Physics and Reality), where all the fundamental equations of physics were deduced in a unified framework of reference. At that moment I knew that being and electrical engineer of a third world country, I knew I was not going to receive any recognition, but today thanks to institutions as Researchgate I have had the opportunity to make my work known, by many people.

In this discussion I started, that has received many good answer, I just want to present at this moment a paper I have prepared about a new way to "see", in this case Special Relativity:

Special Relativity Another Approach

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382357270_Special_Relativity_Another_Approach

that I hope will receive some readings because in it, that metric that was presented by Minkowski in 1905, SPACE AND TIME, is solved with the Basic Systemic Unit concept. And furthermore with this same concept the equation of Mercury is deduced in the following paper, not using Tensor Analysis, that made GR incomprehensible for normal people, at the point that according to the same Einstein just 12 people understood it; this is. that paper

A Quantum-Physical Theory of Gravitation?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381577590_A_Quantum-Physical_Theory_of_Gravitation

that uses the same framework, not only for these two cases, but for the Schrödinger's wave equation too, so I just wonder if this solve the Great Crisis of Physics.

Thanks so much for your attention

My Best Regards

Edgar Paternina

This is my deeper understanding of quantum mechanics after years of intensive study of the subject. I am sure that it will help you to understand what was previously incomprehensible. ;-)

Preprint A Deeper Understanding of Quantum Mechanics

But I find a Deeper understanding just as in the attachment, where you can find the equation used to determine the probability to find the electron anywhere with the same probability.