The Big Bang never happened

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If "M"atter comes FROM "E"nergy and the BANG was a radiation of "E"nergy then wouldn't that basically mean; ALL the "M"atter that does, can, or will ever exist - EXISTS? As long as the "E"nergy exists then any and all forms of "M"atter are simple waiting to be assembled, reassembled, and disassembled<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Are you a Big Bang theorist? Are you saying that since all energy exists, so does all matter? Are you saying that the big bang created all energy?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the above statement you are making the assumption that "M"atter stays constant when actually "M"atter is constantly deteriorating, converting back to or releasing stored "E"nergy. You are correct that "M"atter would require a constant inflow of "E"nergy if it were to be maintained at its original form however, that is not the properties of "M"atter.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My definition of matter is the atom. Science has found that the proton does not decay for 10X10<u>33</u>years. You probably are referring to collections of matter such as rocks. I am referring to the atomic particle which is radiating forever because it has an energy source Inside itself called variously the ZPE

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">EVERY physical "THING"("M"atter) that exists REQUIRES "E"nergy in order to exist. Once the "E"nergy supply is gone then so too is "THE THING". "The THING" is now back to its original origins.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So, according to the big bang theory, energy created matter, but, since matter needs energy in order to exist, and since the big bang is now over, that must mean matter doesn't exist anymore either.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Take Einstein's equivalence theory, if we are enclosed in a capsule of "E"nergy(The Universe or as the bible would say - "God") then when things suddenly apprear wouldn't they seem to appear out of "NOTHING"? Long ago, when rain fell from the sky what do you think the people on earth thought? Now, how about the fish in the water?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Actually the Bible says that "when one is with the Lord they are the same spirit" but that's another story.

The problem is not that everything comes from nothing in the big bang theory, they circumvent the question by proclaiming that we cannot know before T=0, The problem is that by using old terminology the big bangers have confused the issue for those like you and me.

Magicians do that, they point that way to distract us, and with slight of hand produce the bunny out of the hat.

Hello all.

All Models have their problems.

The Big Bang Theory has too many problems to speak of.

The theory that will dominate in the next few years is The Process of Recycling.

Matter broken down to the basic particals compacted into a high density pasma.

This plasma eventually ejected into space as either matter and high density plasma cores.

Happy New Year

Harry

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Meanwhile, in 1987 Hal Puthof published the paper which shows that the ground state of the electron derives its radiative energy from the ZPF, the Inside of space.

Think about it, an atom is not an inert bit of stuff, it is a fast moving process, and in the process creates fields which have entropy
and that means electrons would stop unless they were supplied with an energy to replace what it needs to move around for billions and bilions of years.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A lot of absurd things are written about the zero point field. Here is the right concept:
The old theory of the modes, set for acoustics applies to electromagnetic waves: In the vacuum, Maxwell's equations are linear, so that any linear combination of solutions (with constant real coefficients) is a solution, therefore all solutions are represented as vectors of a vector space. A mode is a ray of this space, that is a somplete set of proportional solutions. Thus, the fields in a given mode depend only on a parameter, the amplitude.

In his theory, Planck found a relation between the temperature and the energy in a mode, within an additive constant for the energy. Nernst corrected his wrong value for this constant: the amplitude in a monochromatic mode at 0K corresponds to a mean energy h(nu)/2, the zero point energy. It is an ordinary energy although it cannot be extracted from the field. If the temperature is not 0K, there is no zero point energy, but an absorption cannot extract the zero point energy, it cannot decrease the amplitude in the mode down to zero.

The electron turning around a proton radiates a field, <b>but it does not radiate any energy</b> because the interference between the zero point field and the emitted field does not increase the energy of the external field, provided that Lamb's correction be done.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>

(1)Are you a Big Bang theorist? (2)Are you saying that since all energy exists, so does all matter? (3)Are you saying that the big bang created all energy? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
(1) No, I am not a big bang theorist.

(2) Yes, I am saying that since ALL "E"nergy exists ALL "M"atter that does, can, or will ever exists, EXISTS! Think about it, ALL the "M"atter that exists, EXISTS. There is no "M"atter that does not exist. "M"atter is simply a concentration of "E"nergy. "M"atter appears, disappears, and reappears all the time. "M"atter is the EFFECTS of "E"nergy, "E"nergy is the CAUSE. You cannot observe a CAUSE, you can only observe EFFECTS.

(3) No, the big bang did not create energy. The "E"nergy created the BANG! The bang was an effect, a conversion of "E"nergy into "M"atter. "E"nergy is ETERNAL, "M"atter is not. The BANG is what created "M"atter and space.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So, according to the big bang theory, energy created matter, but, since matter needs energy in order to exist, and <b><u>since the big bang is now over,</u></b> that must mean matter doesn't exist anymore either. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Why in the world would you beleive that the Big Bang is over? Also, even if it were over does not mean that "M"atter would longer exist.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Actually the Bible says that "when one is with the Lord they are the same spirit" but that's another story. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Okay, what you said seems to solidify what I said. Think of God as "E"nergy and You as "M"atter.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The problem is not that everything comes from nothing in the big bang theory, they circumvent the question by proclaiming that we cannot know before T=0. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
"E"nergy IS the "0", "T" was the BANG. The smallest possible answer for "T" is either (+) or (-) such as T+ or T-. "T" cannot equal "0" because "0" exists outside of "T"ime. However, +&- union each other so the solution is actually {T(-)}U{T(+)} = 0





Patrick[]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is assumed by the Big Bang theory that all matter was created at that first time. This assumption ironically logically leads to another assumption, that there is/was no other way matter could be created.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Take a look at the underlined above. What is "M"atter? Where does "M"atter come from? If "M"atter comes FROM "E"nergy and the BANG was a radiation of "E"nergy then wouldn't that basically mean; ALL the "M"atter that does, can, or will ever exist - EXISTS? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You are assuming that the Bang happened, and from that bang all matter came, and based on that assumption stating that your conclusions are valid. I am assuming that everything that has happened is happening now, that matter/energy is indeed created now
through what I prefer to call the Inside of space.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Posted - 30 Dec 2005 : 10:33:01

---

quote:

---

Meanwhile, in 1987 Hal Puthof published the paper which shows that the ground state of the electron derives its radiative energy from the ZPF, the Inside of space.

Think about it, an atom is not an inert bit of stuff, it is a fast moving process, and in the process creates fields which have entropy
and that means electrons would stop unless they were supplied with an energy to replace what it needs to move around for billions and bilions of years.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(JMB) A lot of absurd things are written about the zero point field. Here is the right concept:
The old theory of the modes, set for acoustics applies to electromagnetic waves: In the vacuum, Maxwell's equations are linear, so that any linear combination of solutions (with constant real coefficients) is a solution, therefore all solutions are represented as vectors of a vector space. A mode is a ray of this space, that is a somplete set of proportional solutions. Thus, the fields in a given mode depend only on a parameter, the amplitude.

In his theory, Planck found a relation between the temperature and the energy in a mode, within an additive constant for the energy. Nernst corrected his wrong value for this constant: the amplitude in a monochromatic mode at 0K corresponds to a mean energy h(nu)/2, the zero point energy. It is an ordinary energy although it cannot be extracted from the field. If the temperature is not 0K, there is no zero point energy, but an absorption cannot extract the zero point energy, it cannot decrease the amplitude in the mode down to zero.

The electron turning around a proton radiates a field, but it does not radiate any energy because the interference between the zero point field and the emitted field does not increase the energy of the external field, provided that Lamb's correction be done.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I wrote Hal and sent him a copy of the above, here is what he sent back --

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The electron turning around a proton radiates a field, but it does not radiate any energy because the interference between the zero point field and the emitted field does not increase the energy of the external field, provided that Lamb''s correction be done.

Indeed, there is no NET radiation, because ZPE radiation and ZPE absorption are balanced. See attached.

Cheers,
Hal<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The attached was his 1987 paper the abstract of which I typed in here --

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If this were a big bang list, and I made some comment about dark energy, I would hear yeas and oohs to no end. But this is not a big bang list and what I hear is a lot of quibbling. The point to be grasped is that there is an INSIDE of space in which there is an energy, albeit of the pure kind, which sustains all matter/energy on an ongoing basis. Whatever you want to call it, experimental evidence has confirmed its existence.

Therefore, the tremendous outflows seen from quasars and the center of some if not all galaxies are just that. They are not inflows that didn't get to be sucked into an assumed black hole and thereby got kicked back out into space by the accretion disk.

That an energy could be measured at 0*K is significant because there shouldn't be any temperature to be measured. It is the fact that there is something Inside space fueling all matter/energy constantly.
I regret limiting that Inside to something "ordinary" as the ZPE. So i will join the ranks and make up my own name so that it means what I want it to mean. I will call it White Energy.

Black holes are not at the center of galaxies sucking in matter, White holes are at the center spewing out matter.

No advanced degree is needed to see that...

Now, as far as Maxwell is concerned. His equations are incomplete. They are simplifications from which have been excluded twenty quaternions which describe the displacement currents Maxwell thought to be necessary for EM waves to propagate. The simplified version, the famous four found in every physics text, states that an EM wave propagates merely because the magnetic leads to the electrostatic which leads to the magnetic which leads to the magnetic and so on forever.

That is about as satifying as Bohr's explanation that the electron doesn't stop because it can't.