So. working back from what we observe now, the big bang says that mass energy and space all gets denser as we look further back in time.
This means that everything we observe today, was, at one time compacted into the most massive and densest black hole possible, just before the expansion started.
The theory then goes on to say that the expansion occurred. Yet, by the laws they agree on, that black hole could not expand at all. Nothing escapes a black hole.
They must at that point agree that they have no clue what mechanism began or allowed that expansion to begin, or to continue once it did begin.
However that entire line of reasoning is based on an unspecified, untested and unproven assumption.
That the conservation laws apply to our universe.
That is the only way they can justify the reverse time compaction to the singularity.
Everything that exists today existed within that singularity just before the expansion, because of the conservation laws.
However what most laymen fail to consider is that the conservation laws ONLY apply to a closed, or isolated system.
So, let’s not start with that unproven assumption, because we have no evidence at this time that says the universe is a closed system, that was an assumption.
If we then look back at time, and allow for the possibility that the universe is not closed at all, then we don’t need to attempt to account for conservation at all.
In that case, it is possible that as we look back in time, the density of the universe did not increase, it’s instead possible that there was simply less “stuff” and the further back we look, the less stuff there was.
If we look back far enough we would find that the stuff was at zero, no mass, no energy, no information, no space. zero.
Now, a zero state is rather unique. Because at zero, there is ONLY one other possibility.
Non-zero.
That is a 50/50 probability.
Have you ever heard of quantum particles?
Physicists claim that these little buggers wink into existence and back out of existence all the time.
They have experiments that demonstrate this is true.
They even have postulated “quantum foam”, which is a very probabilistic state of existence.
Let’s accept that as true, and then hypothesize that the non zero state is in fact that quantum particle.
However lets also consider what some characteristics of that might be, in context of zero vs non-zero.
I am willing to bet that what we consider a quantum particle is not at all a particle, but is instead, a location of space. That has zero mass, zero energy and is simply a single piece of information, that single, unmoving location. It is absolutely unchanging for as long as it exists. The location exists, then it does not.
The interval of existence is time.
As the density of spatial locations increases, the probability of further increase of density increases.
Up to unity, where that probability becomes so great that it wraps back to zero, and within that volume, we observe a black hole. That hole has no mass, because it is a zero density volume surrounded by non-zero space.
So, beginning at zero, we can say that with a 50/50 probability, of non-zero, a spatial location pops up, then goes away, back to zero state. This may have occurred zillions of times, and it never mattered.
UNTIL, at some a location popped up, and before it went away, ANOTHER popped into existence.
This might have happened billions of times and it never mattered, if both went away and back to zero.
It was when more than one location existed, and then another existed that things began to happen that we can call the beginning of our universe.
The density rose when three or more locations existed simultaneously, and established a plane, such that it was entirely likely that the probability increased of further density increase.
Now, remember, we gave up on the assumption of a closed universe, and we are no longer assuming that the conservation laws apply, and we are actually using observed experimental phenomenon. Nothing weird, nothing magic, no extra dimensions and no silly strings.
Any 3 locations describes a plane, however any additional non planar location then describes a volume.
And every additional location existing simultaneously increases the density of the universe, and increases the probability of further increase.
We can now imagine a simple universe with a volume of increasing density, that is also increasing in size, as not every additional location will necessarily come into existence within the previously established volume.
However the space is just space, and it’s a foamy existence as the individual locations expire, and new ones come into existence.
Now, let’s imagine for a moment, what are the physical characteristics of a “location”?
They have no mass, no energy and only a single bit of information. That information is static as long as it exists.
It never moves. It exists as a location of space, static.
However that existence is in relation to other locations, which also never move. That is the information it comprises in a single bit. This sets up a static tension in the universe, and that tension is broken and remade in changing fields as individual locations pop in and out of existence.
It is this static tension, along with the increasing probability of increasing density that is in fact what we observe as gravity.
Now, imagine an existing location that experiences a new location that pops into existence at exactly the same location. A coexistent structure of locations.
Imagine a structure of MANY coexistent locations.
Imagine that structure existing in such an event stack that the older locations pop out slightly before a new location pops in.
Consider the effect of the tension lines on nearby locations as that structure stabilizes in that manner, and seems to constantly be lacking the tension it “should have”. Does that seem similar to a negative charge of an electron?
What of a structure of structures that have an event stack where the new locations pop in, just before the old locations pop out?
If that stabilized, would those tension lines be constantly slightly greater than it “should have”?
When we take an atomic particle and smash it into another particle, we see a dizzying number of unstable chunks flying off and then degrading into nothing.
We measure the mass and energy, before and after the collision and we see that in that “closed” system conservation occurs. However we fail to account that the entire experiment is being conducted in a spatially dense environment. Yes, they suck out as many particles as they can, but they never suck out any of the space itself.
Recall that I indicated that time is the interval of existence of a location. Which means that as density decreases the “measure” of time that we accept, is less accurate.
The other measure that we use that is not constant is distance.
The measure of energy in relation to mass is intrinsically related to both time and distance
E=mc^2
And C is distance over time.
Which indicates that we cannot accurately account for mass or energy, unless we account for spatial density, and because that spatial density is not constant throughout the universe, neither is the relations that we accept as velocity, mass, energy and time.
We can get close, but we have to account for spatial density for accuracy, and the smashers are not doing that accounting.