The Atomic Match

[graybear13]

My problem with big bang is the beginning, all matter appearing in an instant from nothing.

You completely miss the point. If it is as you say then it would seem that science threw the church a biscuit by accepting big bang just so they could get on with building the model. That may be true; don't have to worry about that creation shit anymore, we can figure that out later...Well now it's later.

You want me to understand the model as well as you do and join the quest for the last big piece of the puzzle , the T.O.E., deeper and deeper inside of the atom; atomic, sub-atomic, nuclear, sub-nuclear at last we have arrived at the elemental particle. The LHC has exerted so much heat and pressure on protons that they are completely boiled away, and leaving what? A super heated cloud of elemental particles (ether). Science was looking for a real proof of the big bang and they found the ether. They found the quantum packet of energy that cannot be boiled away.

We have come full circle. Now that we have seen the atom completely boiled away and we have seen the ether, we have seen the stuff that everything is made of. The question now is how does this stuff get organized into matter in the first place? How does a cloud of ether traveling through space slow down and whirl into the creation of matter? The CBR shows the ether slowing down and condensing into galaxies and all forms of matter. The newly discovered gravity waves are a result of this gravitational collapse.

This thread is not about the waterfall, it's about the river.

regards gray

[Savonarola]

My problem with big bang is the beginning, all matter appearing in an instant from nothing.

You completely miss the point.

You don't have a point. Or evidence. Or even a coherent thought. As I've already showed, you just make shit up as you go along.

[graybear13]

http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=at19-lv4Cpw

"If we want to understand the universe we must understand how quantum mechanics and gravity can live together."

"The failure of the two great theories, QM and GR, to understand black holes means they are at best an approximation of the laws governing the universe."

The evidence for ether slowing down, gravitationally collapsing and condensing into mass.:

1. The Strong Nuclear Force.
2. CMBR.
3. Atomic dis-intergration.
4 .CMB.
5. Swirling patterns in the CMB; gravity waves.
6. LHC discovery of the ether.
7. Black holes.

The black hole mathematics describes one feature of the genesis particle. It takes two of these black holes to create and maintain an atom, likewise it takes two super-massive black holes to create and maintain a galaxy.

The Strong Atomic Force as a particle: This particle is strong enough to carry energy to the nucleus and create and contain electrons, protons, and neutrons. It is the containment vessel. It creates the resonance we know as electromagnetism. The structure of this genesis particle is two "black holes" of elemental particles connecting at their tips and pushing against each others impetus toward a singularity. This will create collapsing spheres of energy moving energy to the nucleus. Electrons are clusters of elemental particles created by the joining together of the two "black holes". They ride these spheres and jump between different radius spheres enhancing the condensation and storage of energy in the nucleus.

regards gray

[graybear13]

hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/pr2008037a/npp/all/

Perhaps the weaker galaxy on the right is being robbed of etheric energy by the intake structure (black holes) of the more powerful galaxy on the left, thus weakening its gravitational pull.

regards gray

[graybear13]

The plus and minus charge of magnetism is controlled by the direction of spin of the black holes created by the magnet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7c4iXum-A (check out the submerged magnet @4:45)

The plus and minus charge of atomic particles is controlled by contraction and expansion.

The negative atomic charge is the genesis particle contracting, condensing and moving ether into the nucleus. The positive atomic charge is the explosive expansion of etheric energy caused by the reciprocating action of the protons and neutrons. In essence the negative atomic charge creates and maintains the positive atomic charge, that is the attraction.

A black hole is a negative charge. A negative charge is linear gravity. The stronger the gravity is, the stronger the negative charge is. If the black holes are strong enough to complete the genesis particle structure, the ignition of the plus charge will happen, at which point the pull of linear gravity will be locked in...the same amount of etheric energy being pulled in as is going out.

gray

[Savonarola]

Oh. Well I totally get it now. Yep. Convinced.

[Dardedar]

Needs more polish.

[graybear13]

The fact is that science keeps polishing their Cadillac (The Standard Model) but what good is Cadillac without an engine (the Strong Force)? It looks good sitting there but it is not going anywhere.

The science of creation is dead in the water until the Strong Force is understood and big bang is laid to rest.

If humans are to survive on this planet we have to stop burning fossil fuel and learn how to tap into the infinite potential of zero point energy/ether.

I will keep polishing my construct. Maybe someday I'll take that Cadillac for a spin.

Shit is in the eye of the beholder Dardedar.

gray

[Dardedar]

Shit is in the eye of the beholder Dardedar.

Indeed. And I behold "infinite potential of zero point energy/ether" to be precisely shit, until given reason to believe otherwise, by someone with a demonstrable understanding of physics (not just stringing words together in different configurations), somewhat equivalent to the science discovered around the time of Newton. You were given the opportunity to show you had such competence (reference again upon request), and you failed.

[graybear13]

[quote="Dardedar] And I behold "infinite potential of zero point energy/ether" to be precisely shit, until given reason to believe otherwise, by someone with a demonstrable understanding of physics.[/quote]

Your skepticism should be aimed at mainstream physics as well as at me.

It is obvious that skipping over an understanding of what the strong force is and just beginning to describe the affects of the strong force has robbed science of the ability to move forward to unlimited clean energy and energy freedom.

I am very skeptical that the politics controlling mainstream physics will all of a sudden admit that their focus is misguided. Anyone with a "demonstrable understand of physics" will not likely go against this politic for fear of being shunned by their peers.

Here's to shit in your eye Dardedar.

gray

[David Franks]

I'm impressed by the way graybear13 lets emoticons carry the weight of his arguments.

[graybear13]

I think that it is important to keep what we can hope to know from measurement (ether) distinct from what we are free to imagine (big bang).

It is perfectly logical and should be a given that ether has the physical power to describe the physical world; The ether is traveling and vibrating faster than the speed of light when it is in its purest form...space. Time begins when linear gravity pulls in and slows down space. Because of the increased pressure caused when the ether slows down to the speed of light this emergent energy bursts out into masses. The ether that is being pulled in becomes the fuel for the atomic fire, and behind it all is pure space (ether) holding it up. Creation is Fibonacci spirals of ether slowing down and condensing into mass. If I was God that's how I would do it.

For what it's worth, my approach to the Quest for the unified theory is by way of 4D geometric visualizations of a process of creation. Experimental proof is just as valid as mathematical proof and starts with what might seem to be senseless and empty assertions and moves to thought experiments and eventually may manifest itself as a physical experiment that proves the original concept. Before we had the piano someone had to visualize little soft hammers striking the strings instead of plucking them.

I get why I have failed to enable anyone to understand my vision, science speaks the language of mathematics but I do not. It's like Mozart not being able to write music. He would have all of this beautiful music in his head but no one would be able to learn to play it. He did, however, have the piano which was his machine to make his music real, and I think he could have gotten somewhere with that. I'm still working on my machine. Maybe I'll get there, maybe I won't. I try to be in tune with harmony of the universe as much as possible, but every time I hear the words big bang it's like a sour note. Mankind has almost finished the first page of our understanding of the cosmos. The only thing left...the last piece of the puzzle is the beginning. Upper left hand corner. Start at the beginning and move forward in harmony.

The energy of the cosmos comes from the ether.

regards gray

[graybear13]

The energy of the cosmos comes from the ether.

It is indeed unfortunate that science has played the supernatural agent wild card by declaring that a supernatural big bang created the universe of universes in an instant.

The ether is completely natural and naturally decaying into the CMB and consciousness.

Ether is the limit of our ability to understand the absence of time. Ether is the "one". It exists outside of time. Consciousness and the CMB are examples of the decay or breaking down of the "one" into time sequences. When the ether slows to the speed of light it lights up creation.

regards, jag

[Savonarola]

Experimental proof is just as valid as mathematical proof ...

Experimental evidence is more convincing than are mathematical models. Stop wasting our time until you have either.

[graybear13]

Experimental evidence is more convincing than are mathematical models. Stop wasting our time until you have either.

The pseudoscientists that believe in a supernatural God of creation (big bang) are the ones that are wasting everyone's time.

The existence of ether has been experimentally proven. The first experiment that proved the existence of ether was Bell Labs' Horne Antenna in Crawford Hill N.J. in 1964..."When Penzias and Wilson reduced their data they found a low, steady, mysterious noise that persisted in their receiver. This residual noise was 100 times more intense than they had expected, was evenly spread over the sky and was present day and night." Unfortunately science attributed this discovery to the supernatural big bang when in fact they where hearing the ether. The most recent experiment that proved the existence of ether was the LHC. When these giant colliders smash particles together, the intense heat and pressure disintegrates all atomic structure, even gravity, and what is left is a neutral, superheated plasma of concentrated ether without form. So don't blame me because the pseudoscientists at CERN are unable to correctly interpret the results of their own experiment. They are blinded by their belief in something supernatural.

My experiment assumes the existence of ether and is designed to demonstrate how gravity pulls ether into masses.

Where ether came from is beyond scientific validation and better left to religion.

regards, gray

[Dardedar]

don't blame me because the pseudoscientists at CERN are unable to correctly interpret the results of their own experiment.

It's too bad Graybear can't get those guys fired and assume his proper and well earned role as head scientist at CERN. Course, to obtain that he'd have to have an understanding of physics a little more updated than the time of Sir Isaac Newton.
Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.

D.
---
Remember, we still have the W. Harter challenge our Deepak Chopra clone and Urantia book plagiarizer has been consistently ducking on this forum since May of 2009:

Mr. graybear asks, "Where does the mass come from?"

First, is he aware that several definitions of mass exist? There are established formulas for these that involve the speed of light (c) and (for most of them) the speed (u) or energy (E) of the object in question, be it a "particle" or a light wave or (in plasma or condensed matter physics) combination of both.

In order to conduct an intelligent dialog with Mr. g, it will be necessary for him to know of and understand these definitions and concepts.
Could he begin by giving these formulas (or equivalent verbal description) for the ones listed below (in order of their discovery)?
1. (circa 1550) Galileo's mass: (Ratio of momentum to velocity)
2. (circa 1650) Newton's mass: (Ratio of change in momentum to change in velocity)
3. (circa 1905) Einstein's mass: (Constant)

These definitions continue to be useful in modern quantum theory, the currently fundamental physics. Indeed, their exact definitions are key to QT.
If Mr. g is interested in refreshing his memory about this, a website listed by fayfreethinkers provides same. Detailed URL will be supplied on request.

At least Graybear did note:

Dr. Harter knows well that I am not trained in these things.
That does not mean I don't understand their bottom line.

So you aren't trained in these things, and you don't grasp even the foundational concepts of the topic or the language used, but people are suppose to take your mutterings seriously? I don't think so.

[graybear13]

I think it is telling that you attempt to humiliate me instead of trying to understand what I am saying. You "freethinkers" like to attack churches for believing in God because you need proof. They always say "look at the perfection of nature, that is proof of the existence of God the creator." Then they proceed to tell everyone how they should think.

Where is your scrutiny of science regarding their God of creation? They always say "listen to that echo of the big bang (MBR), look at how the mathematics points to a singularity, look at the CMB and we're going to prove it with the LHC. Then they proceed to tell everyone how they should think.

The problem is science requires proof or it is not science anymore. Not so with religion. The fact that science has spent billions of dollars on a machine whose purpose was to provide proof of a big bang and it failed tells me that there is no proof of a supernatural creation event, the God of pseudoscience.

If it was up to me I would pull the plug on the LHC and fire everyone at CERN for practicing pseudoscience. Then I would take the money and find some scientists that would work on proving how ether transitions into masses.

Where the ether came from is better left to religion.

regards, gray

[Dardedar]

I think it is telling that you attempt to humiliate me instead of trying to understand what I am saying.

It's not my fault that you find it humiliating (and quite rightfully) when it is shown you can't demonstrate you understand the very fundamentals and foundations of this entire field of science.

... instead of trying to understand what I am saying."

I took the time to read your post so clearly I did try to understand what you said. I don't have the training to understand this topic properly when a person who does know WTF they are talking about is writing. And I have no interest in relying upon the blathering of a person who has demonstrated they definitely do not understand this topic.
These are interesting mysteries regarding the nature of space, time and the universe. If you wish to rise to the top of the pile in getting your ideas considered, especially by those who have devoted their lives to figuring out these questions, there are steps to follow.
You learn the trade.
Then you learn it to a high degree of expertise.
Then you publish and withstand peer scrutiny.
You haven't done any of this.

You "freethinkers" like to attack churches for believing in God because you need proof.

The bar is set far below "proof." I would be impressed if the god peddlers could come up with something that wasn't ridiculous (and perhaps some of them do).

Where is your scrutiny of science regarding their God of creation? They always say "listen to that echo of the big bang (MBR),

Well, they say that because we have good reasons supporting the BB.

...look at the CMB and we're going to prove it with the LHC.

I've posted for you, more than once, 13 lines of evidence supporting the BB theory, and none of them relied upon the LHC.

The problem is science requires proof or it is not science anymore.

No, I think a whole lot of the science is done well below the threshold of proof. Black holes were an area of science built entirely upon hypothesis and mathematical models well before we found experimental evidence showing that they exist (at least to an exceedingly high level of probability).

...science has spent billions of dollars on a machine whose purpose was to provide proof of a big bang and it failed..."

I don't have any confidence that you are correctly interpreting the information in this regard.

...tells me that there is no proof of a supernatural creation event, the God of pseudoscience."

The use of the word "supernatural" here has no utility here.

If it was up to me I would pull the plug on the LHC...

Right, and it's not up to you and it never will be up to you because you can't demonstrate that you have the competence to understand the foundations of this field, to a degree that would pass the scrutiny of (literally), a student of Newton.

[graybear13]

I think it is telling that you attempt to humiliate me instead of trying to understand what I am saying.

It's not my fault that you find it humiliating (and quite rightfully) when it is shown you can't demonstrate you understand the very fundamentals and foundations of this entire field of science.

... instead of trying to understand what I am saying."

I took the time to read your post so clearly I did try to understand what you said. I don't have the training to understand this topic properly....These are interesting mysteries regarding the nature of space, time and the universe. If you wish to rise to the top of the pile in getting your ideas considered, especially by those who have devoted their lives to figuring out these questions, there are steps to follow.
You learn the trade.
Then you learn it to a high degree of expertise.
Then you publish and withstand peer scrutiny.
You haven't done any of this.

...tells me that there is no proof of a supernatural creation event, the God of pseudoscience."

The use of the word "supernatural" here has no utility here..

I didn't say I felt any humiliation because of your diatribe. I said your "attempt to humiliate me..." It is only your ego that says you succeeded. Frankly I don't attach any significance to what you say because clearly you "don't have the training to understand this topic..." It's not just your lack of training, it is more your lack of interest in pondering the mystery of creation. You are satisfied with BB. That's a pretty low bar.

The suggestion that I should have gone to school and come up through the ranks because only then would I be smart enough to define the "Unified Field Theory", is absurd. I have kept up with advances in physics over the years as a hobby while my wife and I raised 3 children. Now I have more time to deeply ponder the process of creation.

Time is a succession of instants while space is a system of associated points. Space is an ultimate condition where time takes place. Time cannot exist without space.

The beginning of time is when the emergent energy that exists within the content of space (aether) organizes itself and condenses into gravity, electromagnetism and all matter. In my opinion this process is the "Unified Field Theory". We must embrace the oneness with aether, inside of time. That is a pretty high bar.

Space is measured by time, not time by space. The confusion of science comes from the failure to recognize the reality space.

As long as men measure only by the yard stick of things of a physical nature, they can never hope to find unity in time and space. How can you measure something against something that is moving and expect to get a true picture of that thing? It will be out of focus at best, and completely wrong at worst.

By the way I think supernatural is a good word to describe BB, or maybe you would like bogus better.

regards, gray

[Dardedar]

I said your "attempt to humiliate me..." It is only your ego that says you succeeded.

I have zero interest in humiliating you. All of your humiliation is entirely self-inflicted.
If someone pretends to have the skill of say a piano technician, but they haven't made the effort to inform themselves enough to know how to find middle C on the instrument, or to understand the intervals of a major third, fifth or octave, no one should pay any attention to what they say on such matters. And this is where you are are on cosmology. You are a quack.

Frankly I don't attach any significance to what you say..."

I'm not the one pretending to have advanced knowledge of physics and know more about such things than those running the LHC.
I'm not the one who thinks the Urantia book is a source for accurate knowledge.
You're a quack.
And it gives me no pleasure to say that. I wish you were an expert. You're not.
---
"5. The “brilliant heretic” flag: The quack often has no training in the relevant discipline, be it obstetrics, immunology or cancer care? No problem. A pervasive theme in quackery is the notion of the brilliant heretic. Believers argue that science is transformed by brilliant heretics whose fabulous theories are initially rejected, but ultimately accepted as the new orthodoxy. The conceit rests on the notion that revolutionary scientific ideas are dreamed up by mavericks, but nothing could be further from the truth. Revolutionary scientific ideas are not dreamed up; they are the inevitable result of massive data collection. Galileo did not dream up the idea of a sun-centered solar system. He collected data with his new telescope, data never before available, and the sun-centered solar system was the only theory consistent with the data he had collected.

6. The “quantum” flag: Quacks love to baffle followers with bullshit, hence the invocation of esoteric scientific theories that they don’t understand. Quantum mechanics and chaos theory are two incredibly abstruse scientific disciplines, heavy on advanced math. If you don’t have a degree in either one, you aren’t qualified to pontificate on them. The same thing applies to new, imperfectly understood areas of science like epigenetics or the microbiome."
http://www.skepticalob.com/2014/05/six- ... rself.html