graybear13

I have been playing the role of Cassandra for over 40 years watching you people floundering around acting like you know. You are trying to understand something I saw in 1982. I'm sure you will finally get there, but you better hurry up every chance you get. Here is one last turd from the sandbox. When I see tornado forming in the clouds and growing bigger and bigger, reaching down toward earth I see something coming into existence that wasn't there before. The air molecules are being organized in such a way that allows and actually forces more and more air to be pulled into the new matrix (the pull of gravity). The first time I saw an EF5 tornado touch down, before it became obscured by debris, I saw the warp in space time that is gravity. Nature is giving us an example of how gravity pulls in a cloud of gas and becomes the destructive force of creation. Creation has to destroy and replace an existing matrix in order to exist. Correct me if I am wrong but the only thing in nature that does this is a tornado, a vortex. Is there something else in nature that forces gas particles to cluster and whirl closer and closer together becoming something that takes on a life of it's own? How else could a cloud of hydrogen gas collapse into a star? Is it magic, like you suggest, or is there a certain framework that makes this happen? You say in your rules don't expect us to do your work for you. I say why should I do your work for you. I'm not a scientist, I'm not getting payed by anyone. Putting you on the right path should be enough. You have so much engineering potential to be able to build the LHC and a Webb telescope you could build an anti gravity machine practically over night and we could move onto retooling or transportation vehicles world wide with clean energy this time, but alas all you want to do is play with colliders and act like you know. It' very nice to provide great jobs on an engineering project, but I'm afraid that colliders are useless in revealing how all of this was created and is held together. Your colliders fail mainly because you strip away the energy carrier before you collide protons or other pieces of the atom. That is ironic because the energy carrier is what you are looking for. I'm curious, do you think that if throw a glass jar onto a concrete floor that all of the little pieces of glass on the floor actually existed individually in the jar before it was shattered?

Your mathematics of big bang runs into a singularity before it can get there, so you result to collider boondoggles to prove first cause and all you can come up with is some mysterious Higgs boson. Pretty weak! There is the presence of something that explains an atomic riddle. It seems that certain radioactive atoms emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of a yet to be discovered energy carrier that moves basic units of materialized energy into atomic mass (hydrogen atoms) creating an active nucleus and giving rise to the electronic organization of matter and electric charge. This is first cause. You say that this creation process happened everywhere in a fraction of a second in a tremendous burst of energy. On the other hand my hypothesis says it happened over a long long period of time in a massive collapse of emergent energy that produced atomic energy. Occam's razor: Your theory is so complicated that you don't understand it yourself. My hypothesis is so simple it can be expressed with words and couple of simple drawings. Just because you can not understand it doesn't mean that it is not timeless truth (truth that doesn't change when conditioned by time). It is basic. One more turd from the sand box. I can only hope it knocks someone off their high horse.

I suggest that you think again. Atoms most certainly are made of basic units of materialized energy. It's the only thing that makes sense. When you just blew by the atomic strong force is when you dropped the ball. You still don't have a clear understanding of it. It's mesotron! The view from down here in the sand box tells me that it looks like you are stuck, grasping at straws for something to justify your LHC for one thing. I remember before you turned it on for the first time you said that "God Particle" was going to be some great breakthrough. Now you say that you have discovered the Higgs boson. You gave out a Nobel Prize and congratulated yourselves, but down here I don't get it. Hasn't helped me. So I wouldn't be to proud of yourselves. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" Einstein

Thank you Eise, Sorry for the confusion. I should not have used alpha particle not knowing it's true definition. What I mean to say is, an ocean of the basic units of materialized energy (neutrinos) systematizing into the atomic universe.

Thank you Mordred, Another possibility is an ocean of alpha particles (neutrinos) reorganizing into the atomic universe. I think it is important to understand the first cause of our atomic cosmos.

How do we get from Big Bang to everything is made of neutrinos? The reason I asked if there was a force, perhaps the Higgs boson, comparable to mesotron in the Big Bang theory is I am trying to find a way to agree with Big Bang. Maybe the amount of time from first cause to the creation of enough hydrogen gas to light it up, is the biggest problem.

Understood, but respectfully the question is 'how is matter produced from nothing or next to nothing?' Is there something in big bang math that accounts for this? Maybe it happened in a split second as exotic particles, but there has to be a framework or process for the first cause, what ever that might be, to produce protons and neutrons. What does that framework look like? Does the Higgs boson explain this process? Does this same framework produce the fusion reaction that is star ignition?

Can you have weight without mass? Somehow it has to go from no thing to something with weight. If it's not gravity that makes that happen, what is?

Could it be that when electrons jump to a different orbit a quanta of energy is given off? Perhaps a photon is created. Does gravity create mass? And does mass create gravity? It seems to me that, at first cause, gravity must create mass. Then at some point the mass creates it's own gravity. What does that transition look like?

Are there clusters of neutrinos: maybe 100 neutrinos clustered together to create an electron?

We know that every time atomic nuclei come together(like in the sun) or break apart(like in a fission reactor or particle accelerator), they produce neutrinos. So we know that as radioactive decay happens neutrinos are released. Doesn't this suggest that the entire atom is made of neutrinos arranged and held together in different ways? Can neutrinos be degraded by any heat we know of?

Thank you MigL, Is it possible that dark matter, dark energy and zero point energy are all the same thing, just neutrinos arranged in different ways and moving in different ways?

Stephen Hawking. I misspelled his first name in previous post. I understand why math is a better way to communicate. I guess my words are so ambiguous no one can understand or see what my projection looks like.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to break any rules. Just trying to help. Stephen said you have a measure of control over the higher levels if you secure the foundation. I know you live and work in the higher levels and don't want to hear from someone in the sandbox, but from down here it looks like the hole thing is about to fall. I implore you to at least consider a reboot: a paradigm shift that will secure the foundation and answer many questions.

"...I feel there is a fundamental point here. I feel helpless if I'm taken around a strange town of which I can't form a picture. We all need a mental map of the world showing where we are. Of course our picture will have many layers of which the physical description is only one. Nevertheless it is the bed rock on which all other structures are based. If we have secured the foundation, we have a measure of control over the higher levels. The physical laws that govern the universe are usually expressed in the form of mathematical equations. For most people , this has created a great barrier to understanding. But equations in physics are like the financial appendices to a budget: important if you are an accountant concerned with the details but unnecessary for general understanding of what is going on. The basic ideas in physics can be explained in words and pictures. I personally don't like equations: it is hard to keep track of all the term's in one's head and I find it cumbersome to to write them down(though I can do so on my computer using a language called TeX). I'm therefore always looking for ways to treat problems geometrically so I can see the answer in pictures, though that to has its difficulties: it is difficult enough to imagine objects in the three dimensions of space and one dimension time that we are used to, let alone the seven or more extra hidden dimensions that may be there, according to our unified theories of everything. Still, one can generally ignore most of these dimensions and and just picture things in the two or three dimensions that our brains are capable of visualizing. So I believe it is possible for everyone to understand the basic laws and forces that govern and shape the universe". STEVEN HAWKING Cambridge, July 28, 1997 It would be arrogant, if not absurd, to pretend that I singlehanded, could have put together a complete picture of the nature of the universe. That's your job. I'm merely here to point you in he right direction. You are barking up the wrong tree! Your big bang foundation is weak. My concepts are very simple and easy to understand if you would open your mind to them. No need for a complex specialist language yet. We can and I hope we will soon learn how to control earth's gravity and save ourselves. If not now when?