© 2008 by Yirmeyahu Ben-David
All rights reserved. No reproduction by any means without crediting the author and a link to www.netzarim.co.il
 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
In logic, perfect reasoning, if derived from a flawed premise, produces a false conclusion; merely magnifying the flawed premise. In the mathematical world, however, as long as the math is right, mathematicians are satisfied and it's rare that the mathematician or physicist really understands the basic premises upon which the great chain of mathematical reasoning attempts to balance.
The public is nearly 50 years behind the science regarding how the 1948 'Big Bang' Theory is precluded by scientific observations subsequent to the initial formulation of the theory.
The 'Big Bang' Theory derived from Edwin Hubble's observation, in 1929, that the universe was expanding. It was an assumed belief that the expansion was occurring at a decelerating rate. This belief was based on the knowledge that any explosion, including a 'Big Bang,' generates its greatest speeds at the initial explosion. Matter blown out from the explosion always subsides; never accelerates. Scientists argued that a 'Big Bang' explosion caused a constant or decelerating expansion, because that's how explosions work. That's the logical fallacy known as petitio principii.
This was also the basis for dating the universe at roughly 13 billion years old. The mathematics indicated that reversing the assumed explosion, at the velocities of the galaxies farthest away would take roughly 13 billion years to "retract" back to the assumed explosion point. Hence, the universe "must be" about 13 billion years old since the initial—assumed—'Big Bang.'
Unaware of their logical error, scientists employed mathematics to "rewind" the assumed explosion, seeing it progress in reverse to the initial explosion—which, of course, makes sense with an explosion. By keeping it within the mathematical world, the public remained unaware of the elementary logic—and error—employed by the elitist scientists.
The 'Big Bang' theory died when, in 1998, observations of Type Ia supernovae indicated the unexpected result that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate—"accel-expanding," No explosion results in the continued acceleration of matter blown out from the explosion.
Scientists also realized that the galaxies are not all traveling from any single center point. Everything is accelerating away from everything else. Reverse that and you do not arrive at any point of initial explosion. Again, science corroborates that there was no 'Big Bang.'
The 'Big Bang' never did account for dark matter or dark energy. Nor did the 'Big Bang' theory ever resolve the mutual exclusivity conundrum of quantum versus relative physics. Nor did the 'Big Bang' theory ever explain the existence of anything at all ex nihilo.
One cannot relate to the dark matter and dark energy of the cosmologists' world without first recognizing that some of the things we take for granted are, when considered closely, illusory. Everything our brain tells us that we can touch is the result of the atoms of our nerve endings colliding with, and reacting to, atoms from whatever matter we "touch." All of our other physical senses are reactions of atoms in our nervous system to atoms (or particles) in the universe outside of our bodies.
At the nanolevel, however, all atoms, particles and energy are composed of a combination of more elementary forces—quarks and such. This is true of all matter: your body and nerve endings as well as the physical world around you. Ultimately, matter is an illusion concealing the underlying combination of more elementary forces. Forces in the world around us are translated by the forces in our nerve endings, optical nerve endings, etc. as tables, buildings, vehicles, earth and galaxies. To begin to grasp a theory of everything, however, requires that we examine the universe as it is, a maze of forces, rather than the superficial illusion of what we take for granted everyday.
When we consider the universe as a maze of interacting forces, we are better equipped to ask how forces could act to generate, explain, the present arrangement and behavior of forces that project onto our optic and other nerve endings to give us the illusion of a physical universe.
Here is an illustration to relate to how the universe began. Think of your two hands as composed of a magnetic, super-sticky chewing gum… surrounded by absolutely nothing, and your hands perfectly together so that there is also nothing between them. Then, in an instant, you pull your hands wide apart. Instantly, magnetic chewing-gum strands stretch-apart between your hands, forming a framework with surrounding force fields where, an instant ago, there was nothing. It shouldn't be hard to make the transition to "no hands," exerting forces to accomplish the same event, complementing magnetism with the full array of forces, the strands of chewing gum replaced by dark matter and dark energy. Thus, the existence of the universe ex nihilo is explainable—given an external attractive Singularity. Rather than being a 'Big Bang,' however, this is the 'Big ðÈèÈä.'
Considering the great brunt of attractive force residing in the "hands" completely surrounding the universe in our illustration, one may then understand all particles between the "hands" not only being attracted to the nodes of the dark matter and energy strands of the nanogrid fabric forming the framework of the universe, but simultaneously literally falling toward the greatest attractive force (the "hands"). The closer matter approaches the "hands," the faster it accelerates—outward from everything else in the universe. (And nothing states that the "hands" must be stationary.) The accelerating expansion of the universe is explainable by an exterior attractive force stretching the universe apart.
The malleable chewing-gum strands with their force fields (dark matter and dark energy) form a nanogrid fabric framework upon which all forces in the universe move, quantumly at the nanoscale, from one nanonode to the next, distorting the strands, generating the resulting illusion of matter produced at the relativistic scale that seems to operate according to its own, different laws. However, the difference between quantum behavior on the nanogrid fabric and relative behavior is somewhat similar to the difference between seeing marine life at the behavior level of a fish contrasted to the behavior level of its school. Thus, the apparent contradiction of the quantum and relative domains are explainable by this theory.
The beauties of the 'Big ðÈèÈä' Theory Of Everything include explaining, for the first time ever, existence ex nihilo, the accel-expanding universe and the merging of quantum and relative physics.
The theory also raises some interesting questions. Separate a magnet far enough from an iron filing and, at the nanogrid level, the force strand eventually snaps, trailing its source through the fabric. But do strands of dark matter or energy ever break? Does anything ever cut them? Is there a butterfly effect at the nanolevel? Does the entire fabric consequently rip in places? What might be the manifestations and consequences of such a break in a strand or larger rip in the nanogrid fabric? Does all force necessarily express itself as a particle? (Gravity implies a graviton that is pure force entirely lacking mass; which contradicts the term "particle." Therefore, a graviton would be a unit of pure force.)
What I find startling about it, though, is the Biblical description: "ðÈèÈä the heavens" in
 |
|
 |