<<A. Primordial Matter- that material which is conceived to expand in the big bang- requires an origin. Therefore the big bang could not have originated the universe, but the universe was already in existence before the 'big bang'.

Why?

Why does primordial matter require and origin? Why could it not have always been, perhaps in another state such as energy, and why can it not always be? And why could it not have been created from nothing?

Merely because we cannot perform some thing does not mean the thing cannot occur in nature. This is akin to the lame peanut butter argument against evolution, which states that the fact there is no life in a jar of peanut butter proves without question that life does not just happen. I can imagine any number of things that could happen to a hermetically sealed jar of peanut butter -- given enough time (i.e., a billion or so years).



Well nothing just doesn't exist. There is no such thing as nothing. It is by nature really undefineable. Empty space is not nothing. Energy is not nothing. What big bang cosmology unfortunately does is contrary to all things around us. Babies, planets, stars and galaxies do not come from nothing but they form from specific components.

Assuming requirements for a Universe assumes limits. At the moment, there are no defined limits to the Universe, but we continue to search for them. We have narrowed the Big Bang event to approx. 14 billion years -- but what was the Universe before this time?



I think we’re in for more surprises myself.



Well here again you get into a tricky area. Because of the problems with 'primordial matter' even most big bang cosmologists agree there might have been something prior to this.

Of course then, primordial matter isn't really primordial matter than is it?

I say that the universe is infinite, timeless and without beginning or end.

This to my way of thinking seems to have much more evidence to back it up. Nothing we can observe in the world around us 'popped' into existence from 'nothing'. No plant or animal can claim its existence due to a 'big bang approach'.

This is why it seems preposterous to assume the whole universe can pop into existence - when nothing in the universe can do the same thing.

B. An outside force is required to cause pre-bang primordial matter to expand and change its condition. Every reaction has a causal action. Such an outside force would immediately require the existence of the universe.


Outside? Outside the Universe?



Universe, by definition, is everything. There is no “outside”.



Precisely - which is why primordial matter can never have existed in the first place. There would be no outside stimuli or interaction to cause any change in its 'blob' condition.

C. If internal changes to the primordial matter were required for the expansion to occur, then time & space would be required for these changes. Time & space would already have to exist prior to the big bang.


Unless one of them was never required.



How long would it take for a discrepancy to the supposed perfection of the cosmic egg to propagate itself to the required power that would initiate the Bang event? Well, without time, per se, we cannot even assume it was instantaneous. It merely took no time at all -- because there was no time to take.

Time, btw, is an invention by the Swiss to toss me out of bed every morning and back into that freeway toolin’ rat-race we all love to hate.

We are all living in the here and now, and the past is nothing more than a recollection of what has occurred, while the future is represented by that which is merely planned, or expected, to occur. Bearing these two notions in mind, we end up with a hypothetical time-line -- but no line.

Problem:
Person A meets person B. Together, A and B walk a designated distance, perhaps from a conference room to an office:

Argument:
A little while ago, A and B were walking through the exec corridor, and are now sitting comfortably in an office. How could this be without time?

Solution:
The concept of time was merely an invention by some ancient simian genius to explain away the rhythmic periods of light and dark--day and night. These were further broken down into increments called hours, minutes, and seconds. Attempting to deal with the problem in a space/time sense is an assumed necessity, where the only binding attribute would be space. Ergo, A and B managed to travel from the conference room to the office simply by walking the distance required. Time, per se, was never an issue -- and the Earth simply continued to rotate its day/night scenario beneath the walkers.

Another Argument:
But time must be an essential attribute. A’s grandfather has been dead many years, and his grandfather far more. This is an issue of time, not space.

Another Solution:
Only in the concept that a quantity of imagined moments have passed since the occurrence of some happening, perhaps, as was stated, the death of a family member. This is relative to the aging of space, which is not a temporal effect. What we’re then dealing with is erosion on the subatomic scale. Electron migration, photon emission, even ion regeneration. All these refer, in theory, to that circadian phenomenon commonly referred to as time.

So, how much time did that interoffice stroll take?

Check your watch. And while you’re checking, tell me exactly what it is your watch is showing you. It’s a very simple counter-device. It counts ticks and/or vibrations. It does not, however, count time.



Yes. But if primordial matter did exist prior to the big bang as a sequential event of change, regardless of time, then we are really in a quandary.

For how can the primordial matter change if it is the only thing in the universe at this moment?

Primordial matter can't expand without reason.

If we do not require a reason....

Is not the big bang really a theistical theory?

Is it based no longer upon science and evidence but upon faith and belief?

John Q. Public is unaware of these numerous glaring inconsistencies of the big bang, much less the somewhat improper, way those funded to prove the big bang keep patching/modifying the theory so that no one can define a static big bang theory or explain the physics behind it. (The physics of make-believe;-)


So, should science be correct the first time a paper is published? Are revisions no longer allowed? Are scientists required now to be godlike in their observations and reports? Will you be godlike as well?

I will definitely try to be godlike... ;-)

No seriously...my site exists to help offset the glaring inequitable proposition of a big bang 'origins to the universe'.

I have nothing personal against big bang cosmologists at all. However science constantly critiques itself to get to greater and greater truths. My critique of the big bang is part of the process.

With as many flaws as the bang has - this is pretty easy pickins'. But the big bang's success is due the small town analogy - much like the hundred guys in a two-girl town - they aren't apt to be too picky and have very little selection.

I see nothing wrong with rewrites that correct errors in previous works, and neither, apparently, do you, otherwise you would not be trying to rewrite the Big Bang into a non-theory. Stating scientific revisions to be evidence of failure is a gross misjudgment.

Well revisions as drastic as the 'expansion theory' are no longer really revisions because they really invalidate other portions of the theory. They are more like 'flexible excuses' generated by folks who are feeding at the big bang trough - folks like Ned Wright - who is equally vociferous in his shouting down anyone who dares to question the bang or, in my opinion, 'the emperors new clothes'.

Corrections to account for additional data are refining techniques, used by such notables as ants, tigers, iguanas, sea lions, squids, otters, ocelots, and humans. Without this technique, life would quickly perish, and could never have begun to evolve to begin with -- for is not evolution nothing more than a revision of a previous model?

Yes, I agree to a point. But to say that things can go faster than light in the formation process - means that lightspeed IS variable - and under certain conditions has no limit. This then makes all calculations regarding red shift, distances of stars, etc...worthless. Because we can say that light is really traveling faster than the assigned speed.

Revisions this drastic - really require a whole new theory to accomodate them.

Here are two explanations (none supporting big bang cosmology) for the primary observations used to support the big bang:



EXPANSION OF SPACE AND MOVING GALAXIES
The expansion of space is not due to some primordial explosion of matter but is due to the nature of energy itself. Energy regenerates and compounds new signals and wave forms with every passing moment. When these signals contain more intelligence, the energy grows more complex and expands - as it contains more data. Simply put, this 'observed expansion' is the natural growth of space! No fiery origins and no mystery here. The universe is expanding because it is comprised of energy - and energy interacts and grows more complex.

Af + Bf = Cf

Where A and B are energy waves with a frequency f. C is the newly formed subharmonic. Big bang cosmologists ignore the basic wave forms existing in all energy and how they function, instead using their Newton-style conceptualizing of thrust and forces being applied on space - and have failed to observe that space ITSELF is doing the expansion!




That space expands is a given:
If we have two objects without relative weight (no gravity), without relative charge, and so forth, and if we should leave them as they are, when we measure the space between the two, we will see that space increase. It is important to note that the space between the objects has increased, and that the objects are not accelerating away from each other.



So, what’s the difference?

* If they accelerate away from each other, the distance between them will increase.
* If the space between them increases, the distance between them will increase.

Well, for a constant growth model there really is no difference, and it is very possible that this is the case. However, scientists are working on an assumption that our rate of expansion differs, albeit currently too slowly to detect with any real accuracy. If this is true, then a very sound difference between the two is found:

* If the objects are indeed accelerating away from each other at differing speeds, then the objects involved would ‘feel’ this acceleration/deceleration and respond accordingly.

They do not.

* If the space between the objects was increasing, then there would be no acceleration/deceleration to react to, simply because the objects involved are in local states of rest.

They do.

Which raises and interesting question:
If the space in the Universe is expanding, would it seem reasonable to assume space between atoms is increasing as well? What about atomic particles? Is the overall atomic structure of the Universe expanding to the point of virtual collapse?

Well, according to Nobelist Leon Lederman:
“The expansion of the Universe doesn't actually affect the spaces between particles. The Universe's expansion is not a force that will rip particles, molecules, or even objects, apart. The 'fabric of space' is not stretching -- just the distances between really large things like galaxies. So while the distance between the Milky Way and its nearest neighbor may increase over the next billion years, the distance between the proton and neutron in a hydrogen atom's nucleus will not.”

I do, however, take exception with the idea you seem to tout that matter cannot create itself, whereas energy can? How does this happen, Tech1? How do you get an increase of data with no input?



Matter nor energy creates itself - it has always been. In my theory energy is the fundamental material which manifests in an infinite number of manners.

Energy is inifinite. The conservation of energy principle pretty much is sufficient evidence to make that assumption. When we do assume this - and when we know that mass and energy are interchangeable - we must assume that mass is formed by movements of energy.

See how this logic works?

Mass is just a temporal manifestation - but energy is the core stuff which can pass from dimension to dimension.

As for the expansion of space - I believe that the atoms are evolving - regenerating and storing new data in their structures as small wave forms. This is evolution.

However, depending upon how it STORES this data will determine the expansion process. The less dense 'space' between worlds and galaxies may be subject to more rapid expansion than a single atom because it has less 'material' to store any new data. The atom on the other hand is comparably dense with its nucleus and various particles and has more storage space for data.

These are questions I readily admit need much further study and inquiry.

And if energy and matter are interchangeable, would not increased energy result in increased matter anyway?

Yes. My point precisely - AVT states that all atoms and mass are residing in our spectra because of an influx from other spectra. Like I state above - energy of some sort clearly forms mass.


Well, I don’t think locating the Big Bang and cataloguing it will damage us all that much. Whether it occurred or not, whether God did it all in 6 days, whether everything we can see is just a particle of an atom in another dimension of the Universe, whether everything disappears when I wake up in the morning, we are, for the time being, still here, and the Universe is still all around us, a forever-puzzle with which to contend.



As for your Evidence page, I found it to be cleverly worded.



Cleverly worded as in deceptive? Or cleverly worded as in insightful? ;-)

BTW, it has been determined that a single electron of a single atom has the capacity for unlimited data storage -- just another ad infinitum issue for you to play around with, I guess.

Yes, inifinity lurks within and without. The 'powers of ten' film helps give a sense of scale to just how infinitely small or large an atom is. We, as human beings, are simply unable to fathom just a small 'fraction' of the concept of infinity. But because infinity resides within us as well - we sure try like hell!
;-)

Cheers,
Dan
--ps--
How long will it take to get a firm measurement of the ‘Atomic Vortex Theory’, and what equipment are you using to detect it?

Our greatest hopes in validating AVT follow around atomic and solar observations. By providing evidence for the 1.619 ratio in energy transfer between the nucleus and the protons or the sun's core and the chromosphere and photosphere, we will be well on our way to demonstrating the validity of the 'infinite energy transfer' theory to atomic formation and the formation of stars or even galaxies.

If indeed, a 'galaxy arm' (where galaxies cluster much like stars do on a galaxy arm) can be isolated and measured (one has been located - but not measured yet) and if it arcs like a spiral - along this same 1:1.619 infinite logarithmic spiral ratio - I think it will provide huge evidence against a big bang - and huge evidence for these 'steady' infinite flows between spectra, manifesting here as infinite vortical patterns.

The SOHO spacecraft is the primary mechanical 'tool' I am using to gather data right now. Since solar energy motions are much easier observable and recorded than are sub-atomic or quantum interchanges. However, all observations and data compiled can be useful. I would love to get my hands on some of the new high energy observatories going up.

Happy Holidays, Dan...

And thanks for taking the time to peruse the links.

Best wishes,

SDAI-Tech1