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?

To say that I have no testable predictions is not true. I have predicted that now, with dark energy, dark matter and neutrinos coming into focus. The corner stone of the big bang theory of creation, the CBR, can now be taken away from big bang and reassigned. Fred Hoyle's and Herman Bond's "steady state" theory deserves another look. At the time big bang was born, it won the day because there could not be an argument made for a collapsing cloud of alpha particles raining down on earth. Now there can be. I'm not saying that Hoyle and Bondi were dead on correct but they were closer than big bang to answering the question, how did matter come to be? As far as something falsifiable, that would be big bang. I intend to do everything I possibly can to kick out big bang's cornerstone. Looking back at the time Einstein joined with the church and primeval atom, since his equations allowed for expansion and contraction, maybe he just chose between religion and an atheist view and got it wrong. I have been waiting for over 40 years for you to wake up and reject singularity and embrace infinity collapsing into matter. Oh by the way, I proved back then,42 years ago, that a spinning pyramid could create the air foil affect. As I have stated, before the Horn Antenna detected the Alpha particles raining down on earth. There was no ability for science to explain how nothing became something. Now there are two choices. I choose an infinite, for all practical purposes, alpha particle field collapsing into and becoming the atomic cosmos. The only missing piece is the yet to be discovered atomic force, mesotron. The Horn Antenna heard earth's gravity.

I have given a prediction that can be tested by the experiment that I have designed. Once again, I predict that when I create a true vortex it will cancel earth's gravity in a halo around itself. The intensity of the vortex or mesotron will determine the size of the halo. And there was no big bang, just a fairly smooth transition from pre-atomic energy to atomic energy.

Thank you Phi for All, Mesotron gave birth to the stars. I apologize for my imprecise "sand box" language. Sorry but it's all I have to work with. Big bang creation theory from the beginning of star ignition has been mostly proven correct in my view, except for the misunderstanding of how gravity actually works. What I have been trying to say is, before the time when the stars began to light up the heavens; before big bang expansion, the electronic organization and formation of vast clouds of hydrogen gas from dark energy and dark matter that would eventually collapse into star ignition by the force, mass and power of mesotron, may have taken 100 million years. Exactly how long is not important, but a lot longer than big bang expansion is the point. The part in star ignition explanation where science says "and then gravity takes over" seems to suggest that gravity alone, some how, has the power to create star ignition by collapsing a cloud of hydrogen gas. I don't think so. I predict that one fine day science will say "and then mesotrons take control and collapse the clouds of hydrogen gas into stars...and then gravity takes over." No more magic gravity, only gravity left over from a mesotron that was mostly destroyed by star ignition. As long as you go on trying to cram 100 billion years of evolution into 400 million years, your big bang math cult will live on, but just because your math is alive doesn't mean that it can lead you out of the big ban dead end; that is unless you embrace mesotron and the fact that, in the beginning, dark energy and dark matter became the source of energy for the atomic cosmos to explode into existence. Quasars are the model for mesotron. You are not seeing a black hole. You are seeing mesotron. Galaxies are mesotron winding down. I may be the lone voice calling B.S. to the big bang nonsense, but at least my suggestion of the creation of matter can lead to overcoming a Masotron gave birth to the stars

I understand your need for mathematical proof. With all due respect, I believe you already have the math you need to understand the initial vortexes of my hypothesis. It is Einstein's math that, by the way, is the same math you reversed in time to come up with the big bang concept. Instead of an explosion creating atomic matter, Einstein's direction in time would have created collapsing and condensing of clouds of energy particles being forced toward atomic, star, spiral galaxy, and quasar ignitions. (mesotron solves the unified field theory puzzle). Sadly, I cannot mathematically prove mesotron ,but I can visualize it because I see it everywhere in NASA and other images of the universe i.e. spiral galaxies and quasars. You can see the hour glass structure everywhere you look. All that being said, The vortexes that feed the core of mesotron are mathematically provable by Einstein's math. Also I have performed an experiment that clearly demonstrates the airfoil affect created by a spinning pyramid. I have attempted to create the affect, thermodynamically, with air, but I could not generate nearly enough heat up through and out of the pyramid or near enough cold projected toward the airfoils to collapse the hot air into vortexes. Mesotron's force, mass and power is what creates and holds everything together. The Higgs field math you have created is a glimpse of masotron. When we harness the power of mesotron, guess what, no more need for fossil fuel. I realize I am in the land of giants, but I am not here to steal the goose that lays the golden eggs. I am here to give you Fort Knox. I am an old man not moving as fast as I used to. My wife and I had doctors appointments yesterday that took all day. Got home and saw that you all had responded and I gave pzgfw a quick lighthearted response to say that I do understand and completely agree with big bang beginning @ star ignition and moving forward in time. Got something to eat, took care of my home dialysis, came back to my computer and....locked out . That was a pretty quick reaction. Seems extremely defensive. Maybe my hypothesis is a threat to your way of thinking. After all, I am going with Einstein's original instinct. Before he was swayed by politics. I am sorry that I cannot give you mesotron mathematically. All I can do is point you in the right direction and hope someone with power and influence will eventually see the truth in what Einstein was trying to say. "We cannot solve our problems using the same thinking we used when we created them." Einstein regards gray

I agree with the big bang theory except for the big bang part. And the magic gravity that some how collapses a cloud of gas into star ignition. I know B.S. when I see it.

Is anyone ready to give up on the nonsensical big bang B.S, yet (bad science , that is) ???? If not now, when? It's obvious, or it should be, that this theory's notion of some primeval atom from which everything (billions of galaxies) sprang forth in a split second is completely illogical and most of us on the outside of science looking in are getting a little tired of this big bang B.S. It's time to move on, salvage what you can and move on. Find something to replace primeval atom as the beginning. I entered my hypothesis here and was told in no uncertain terms no one here wants to hear it; that your theory might be wrong at it's core. We will never know until the big bang B.S. fever breaks. Come on people. We need results that can save the planet. Stop spinning your wheels building bigger and bigger colliders spending billions and billions of dollars trying to create temperatures that can break down atomic matter. You have done that and there is nothing left to see. At least consider the possibility that the beginning was not an instant flash of heat but rather an accumulation of heat over billions of years that led to the stars lighting up the heavens, and galaxy formation.

I am an old retired land surveyor in middle America. I am not a scientist or an engineer. I cannot provide any scientific evidence or proof that this machine will be able to produce a vortex with over 1,000 mph wind speed. That is what the experiment is for. I have presented a logical speculation of a unified theory. Logic and a little common sense is all that is needed to understand the concept. I don't hear anyone disputing the logic. All that is left to do is gather up some money and perform the experiment. Yes I have been raked over the coals through the years for daring to challenge the 'hairbrained theory" big bang. I don't disagree with big bang from the time the stars lit up until now, it is just the question of what caused those clouds of hydrogen cloud to collapse and condense into star ignition. I think it is important to understand how that happened; what was the process. I am sorry that pyramids and vortexes are key to understanding this last puzzle piece. It does make it harder for folks to take me seriously because of myths and legends about pyramid power, and tornados destructive power; how can a destructive power lead to a creative power?

I am not insane, mad or foolish if that is what you mean to say. I am clear eyed about what I know the reaction will be as I try to reveal this unknow force. I have been insulted and chastised for years, but I keep trying. I think you should give this idea a deep ponder before you just blow it off. You are right. I just should have left your question for another time.

There is plenty of independent evidence of collapsing clouds of gas, true vortexes. There is no evidence of this whole structure that I know of. There are hints or it in the cosmos. The problem is that we cannot see the vortexes because they are composed of dark matter. All we can see are the accretion disks and the nuclei. This is a yet to be discovered atomic force. I have played around with this machine over the years and the only thing I know for sure is that the air foils will create the small vortexes. Have not been able to put it all together to create the large vortex; beyond my ability as an engineer, not to mention way beyond my funding for a hobby. I am not a mathematician, but the prediction of Einstein's mathematics, which was that gravity would make huge amounts of matter collapse inward into an increasingly smaller and denser point, which he called a singularity, would be a good place to start. Sorry. I just meant to brush the question aside because I was hoping to discuss the gravity machine.

The wheel makes it easier to move heavy objects around on the surface of the earth because it has an affect on earth's gravity. Perhaps it's like surfing a wave.