The Nature of Gravitational Singularities and a Heuristic Introduction to HBCS Cosmology by Dan T. Benedict

Peter,

Thanks, for your kind words. I do think that we are on the verge of being able to supplant the Standard Model of Cosmology with a cyclical model that envelopes many of the current open questions and gives us a better fundamental understanding. The ideas that went into my essay have been stewing for several years. Little did I know that none other than the likes of Anthony Aguirre here, Sean Carroll with his Heraclitian Cosmology (see his essay in the Nature of Time Contest), and Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclical Cosmology have set a precedence for serious consideration of such an alternative cosmology. I believe that in my simple way (conceptual and graphical), I've given the mechanism for such a cosmology through the primacy of BHs in the overall scheme. The best case scenario is that my ideas would provide the tipping point, but I'm not naive enough to believe that totally. But that's what makes these contests great!

While I agree that all physics is local and while my FPC may have been worded a little too broadly, some of us need to be reminded that all local spacetimes are a subset of a cosmological spacetime, and all cosmological spacetimes are a superposition of many local spacetimes.

I've have read your essay, twice now, and will leave on comment there soon.

Thanks again,

Dan

Dear Dan,

You write in your post at Emmanuel Moulay's thread:

---"In this essay we maintain that certain physical properties, originate from the fundamental nature of the universe as a whole and are not independent of it."---

The 'nature of the universe as a whole' is a meaningless concept as there's nothing outside of with respect to which it can express its 'nature' to: it has no physical reality as a whole. If with 'inside nature' we mean a consistent entirety of rules of behavior (laws of physics) and in a self-creating universe particles create each, then they at the same time create their rules of behavior, so you cannot say that one is the 'origin' of the other. If you agree that it doesn't make sense to ask what is cause of what, the particles or the laws they (force each other to) obey, then this is a tautology.

---"As I've shown in my essay, the energy from the Big Bang comes from a previous cycle of the universe"---

This doesn't solve the problem where all energy came from (if we may use the past tense here, which I don't believe), but only shifts that question to the encompassing whole in which this succession of bangs is supposed to occur.

---"Elsewhere, Emmanuel has stated that he believes that the contents rather than the container must be fundamental. I believe they are both fundamental, that's why gravity and the other three forces are so different."---

I agree: one defines, creates the other as I argue in my essay.

As to your own essay, you write

---"For any event or physical property to be defined as completely as possible within the limits of physical certainty, such an event or property must be defined with respect to the universe as a whole and is never independent of it."---

Indeed: if in a self-creating universe, particles have to create themselves, each other, then (the properties of) particles are as much the product as the source of their interactions. As they only have reality, exist to each other as far as they interact, they express and preserve their properties by exchanging energy, at the same time creating, preserving spacetime between them, the thing we call 'universe'.

---"Is there an ultimate meaning of time in nature?"---

A universe which manages to create itself out of nothing, can hardly stop creating, so if there's no time before/after/outside the universe, then it must produce time itself if it is to keep creating itself, and contains all time within. The universe doesn't then evolve as a whole, in time, with respect to some independent outside clock, but creates time as it keeps creating itself. So concepts like 'the universe as a whole' and 'cosmic time' ultimately don't mean anything. In a universe which creates itself out of nothing, the sum of everything inside of it, including spacetime and time, has to remain nil, so the universe doesn't exist, evolve as a whole: there is no time outside of it. Statements like "The mass of the Universe is 1.8x10^54 kg. The radius of the Universe is 0.95x10^26 meter." make no sense at all if there's nothing outside of it with respect to which these quantities can be expressed in interactions.

---"However, the incompleteness of GR, as currently formulated, has been extremely problematic and resolving this most intractable of primary issues is one of the fundamental goals of an acceptable theory of QG."---

If in a self-creating universe (the properties of) particles are as much the product as the source of their interactions, then the same holds for the force between them, so a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive. Since they need some kind of backbone to prevent their properties to vary continuously as the circumstances vary, to have properties and a fixed energy, to be stable within a certain energy interval, their properties and rest energy must be quantified. If particles are as much the source as the product of their interactions, then so is the force between them, so a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive. This means that though particles, within the conditions they can exist, are stable, may act as if they either attract or repulse, as their rest energy also is the product of their interactions, they have no 'bare' mass or charge which can give rise to infinite interaction energies at infinitesimal distances, and hence there's no need for string theory. Since the mass of particles similarly is the cause as well as the effect of their interactions, of their energy exchange, we need no Higgs particles either. It is our assumption that particle properties only are the source their fields and interactions which leads to these infinities. If we accept that particles, their properties also are the product of their interactions, of an evolution, then it is easy to see that the unification problem is an artificial, unnecessary problem of our own making. The weak gravity which causes so much problems in present physics is just the effect (or cause) of the continuous creation process of a self-creating universe. The chief culprit of today's mess in physics is the Big Bang fairy tale: the assumption that particles only are the source of their interactions, that they passively have been created by some outside intervention. For details see my essay.

Regards, Anton.

congratulations,a very creative idea in all case.

Good luck

Steve

you are welcome, sincerely.

Steve

Dear Dan,

Thank you very much for reading and even comprehending (at least partly) what I'm trying to do! What I do not, however, is saying that the universe doesn't evolve. Though things inside of it certainly evolve with respect to each other, the universe as a whole does not evolve as a whole with respect to some imaginary Outside Observer. My point is that to obey conservation laws, in a universe which creates itself out of noting the sum of everything inside the universe, including spacetime and time must remain nil. If it then cannot have any particular property as a whole, then it doesn't make sense to say that it evolves as a whole. Only a universe which is created by some Outside Intervention can evolve as a whole, with respect to Him/Her/It: only on His/Her/Its watch did He/She/It create our universe 14 billion years ago. A self-creating universe, however, doesn't evolve IN time, but produces and contains all time itself. A statement like "The mass of the Universe is 1.8x10^54 kg and its radius is 0.95x10^26 meter" doesn't mean anything. That we nevertheless cannot get rid of our habit to make just such statements shows that we regard all inside objects as pieces of furniture floating in spacetime, as completely autonomous objects the existence of which is too self-evident to even bother much about their origin, their properties independent from anything, as if they would keep existing if they wouldn't interact, exchange energy at all. However, if particles create each other, if they preserve and express their properties by continuously exchanging energy, then they would vanish if we could cut off this exchange like the image on a TV screen when we pull its plug: particles power each other's existence by this continuous exchange, at the same time forcing each other to obey the same kind of behavior, the same laws of physics. The idea that the universe can have any particular property as a whole ignores or denies this exchange because it is unobservable, because, despite quantum field theory, we dare not let go of the (classical) belief that particles only are the source of their fields and interactions, and hence keep existing even if they wouldn't interact at all, so we regard their properties to have a physical reality even outside their interactions, as if they would be observable, have a physical reality even outside the universe. However, a property like the rest energy of a particle only exist in this exchange, in its expression, and is not something which has a physical reality outside these interactions. If we consider its mass as a property which depends on nothing, then we implicitly say that the particle passively has been created by some Outside Intervention. Similarly, we cannot speak about the mass or energy content of the universe as it has no autonomous, physical existence, as all mass is tied up in the continuous energy exchange between its particles. There's nothing left of their mass to engage an imaginary outside observer in an observation interaction (and which would incorporate the observer into the universe). This is why I insist that the universe as a whole is an intellectual concept, which has no physical reality whatsoever. Without their continuous energy exchange, particles wouldn't even belong to the same universe: particles are wave phenomena because of this exchange. That macroscopic objects have lots of superfluous properties which don't affect their function at all (like the color and shine of a bullet), properties which seem to depend on nothing, does not mean that we may treat quantum particles in the same manner.

As to the anisotropy in time, I can but speculate. If new galaxies keep being created everywhere, at all distances, but we see on average more young galaxies at larger distances, and (if and when) quasars and GRB's mainly occur in an early phase of the evolution of galaxies, then this might explain why they are more numerous at higher redshifts. Another possibility may be that if the black-hole like objects at the centers of galaxies are more massive in heavier and/or more compact clusters of galaxies, then these hole-like objects may power more violent phenomena. So perhaps the clusters in our near neighborhood as yet aren't massive enough? I don't know. I only know that the big bang scenario doesn't make any sense at all as it treats the universe as an ordinary object which evolves as a whole, at a pace determined by the watch of its creator.

In your previous reaction you wrote about a cyclical universe: I assume you mean a universe which alternates between big bangs and crunches, so we live 14 billion years after the bang, and x billion years before the next crunch. However, if there's no overarching 'Über Universe' in which a hypothetic observer may witness an alternation of big bangs and crunches, the energy liberated at the crunch being the stuff the universe starts with at the next bang, then this still doesn't answer the question as to its origin, how it was created without violating conservation laws. In my essay I sketch how a universe can create itself out of nothing without violating any conservation law, without needing any kind of bang (see for an alternative explanation for the 2.8 K background radiation my UPDATE 2 post at my thread).

As to the 2nd law of thermodynamics: if we could isolate the particles within a system completely from any interaction with the outside world, from the energy exchange by means of which they preserve and express their properties, then we would annihilate them, in which case it wouldn't make any sense to speak about the inside entropy. The same holds for the universe as a whole: as it doesn't exist, has no physical reality as a whole, it cannot have any particular entropy as a whole. The 2nd law only holds for systems which are closed to any net energy in- or outflow, but allows the energy exchange between the particles within the system and the outside world to continue. Only of a big bang universe which necessarily, implicitly must have been created by some outside intervention, which exists, has particular properties with respect to that creator, we might ask how much energy it contains, how large or how old it is and what its entropy is. The price we pay for believing in this naïve, religious view on the universe is very high: it affirms our classical, false notion that particles only are the source of their interactions. By clinging to the bigbang tale, to the idea that particle properties are independent from their interactions, we make them incomprehensible. The result is that we condemn ourselves to invent unnecessary, nonsensical hypotheses and theories like cosmic inflation, string theory and fictitious (Higgs) particles. Being the product of fundamental misconceptions, intended to solve or (weep under the carpet) the many problems and inconsistencies of the bang tale, such theories and particles are part of the problem, not of its solution. The result of these misconceptions is that one contradictory theory breeds the next inconsistent theory to appear consistent itself. As the bigbang scenario cannot explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe (unlike a self-creating universe which automatically, unavoidably produces this homogeneity and isotropy), it needed an inflation theory to repair this fundamental shortcoming. This theory, in turn, cannot answer fundamental questions as to its mechanism, who/what determined the time to start the inflation, its rate, and when to stop. I'm sure someone will come up with a theory to 'explain' this, a theory which in turn will prove to evoke more questions than it solves, and thus needs another theory to explain its inconsistencies away, etcetera. I like to think that my essay offers a way out of the present stalemate. As to the magnificent Maxwell laws, they certainly remain valid: it is only our present, outdated interpretation of what charge is which needs revision.

Regards, Anton

Dan

I meant to post a link to a recent preprint of mine underpinning a paper recently accepted for peer review, which I think has some close parallels to your own theories; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

Thanks for your support on the blog, I've just posted a 2nd debagging of poor and complacent science with a number of Einstein quotes in what seems to be becoming a well supported and (eventually) irresistible assault on the 'tipping point' you refer to. I'm hope you've by now, as well as Johns' James etc, also read the essays of Edwin, Georgina, Constantinos, Robert Spoljaric, Rafeal Castel and others, all with the consistent "new level of awareness" Einstein knew would be needed to solve the problems created by the old level.

I would like to see all working together, as the power of the whole would certainly still be needed. I see your essay is languishing just below mine a little off the pace, which I shall help with the top score it deserves, and hope you may consider mine (and perhaps the others) worth the same.

Do also give me your views on the preprint. I'd like to be able to also cite your own work in future.

Best wishes.

Peter

Thanks Dan

You may like the one from Jarmo I just helped boost to No.1 with a 10 as well - Anothe deja vu. I had to confess about his lost papers! I'll read Irvin Shirazriz's.

Peter

Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 03:36 GMT

Dear Dan,

I admit that I haven't understood you essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited. I do see that your FPC in some respects is equivalent to a Self-Creating Universe. However, as in a SCU the grand total of everything in it, including space and time itself, remains nil, it cannot have a beginning as a whole, so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang,...

view entire post

Dear Dan,

I admit that I haven't understood you essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited. I do see that your FPC in some respects is equivalent to a Self-Creating Universe. However, as in a SCU the grand total of everything in it, including space and time itself, remains nil, it cannot have a beginning as a whole, so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang, then you've lost me. A universe which as a whole has a beginning must have been created by some outside intervention, is a caused universe. The flaw of causality, however, is that if we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and we can understand this cause only as the effect of a preceding cause etcetera, to end at some primordial cause which cannot be reduced to a previous cause, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. For short: a universe which as a whole has a beginning cannot by definition be understood rationally, so any bigbang scenario must be wrong, however much observations seem to be in favor of it. You propose that

"mass-energy doesn't actually "fall into" a BH, as orthodox BH theory indicates, because it ceases to have any distinguishable meaning at the event horizons. [..] as it expands the mass-energy that was lost to BH's is eventually recovered in the new cycle"-

I don't believe that there's mass/energy lost to BH's. As it eats a star, the mass of the BH increases, its energy exchange with all other objects within its interaction horizon, so there's no mass lost, taken out of circulation, whereas the energy which is radiated away as the star is consumed likewise isn't lost. To explain what I mean, I'm afraid I have to sketch the mechanism of self-creation (see also the UPDATE 1 post at my thread).

If in a cloud of gas particles behave in such a manner that they always feel an equally strong force from all directions, then the force on a particle from its own cloud can only increase if it increases as much from the opposite direction, from neighboring clouds, so stars in statu nascendi only can contract in concert. The force between the particles within the stars then increases as much as it does between the stars. The result is that the energy of the particles increases, the frequency they exchange energy at, so the mass of the stars should increase as well. Though this agrees with the uncertainty principle, this is contrary to official lore according to which the mass of the cloud decreases as it contracts to a star, which agrees with the (false) assumption that the mass of particles doesn't depend on their interactions but only is their source. Whereas before contracting, the position of the mass centers of the clouds was ill-defined so the force between the clouds is weak, as they contract to stars the distance between the (mass centers of the) stars becomes less indefinite. As the force between them increases (and is as attractive as it is repulsive), their mass increases. However, if the gravitational field also increases as a cloud contracts to a stare and the field is an area of contracted spacetime, then as measured within their field, the distance between the stars in statu nascendi increases, expanding as they contract, so there's spacetime created as well as energy. So any increase, any creation of mass/energy IS a creation of a proportional quantity of spacetime: one cannot increase, be created without the other, so the contraction of matter, the creation of mass/energy powers the creation, the expansion of the universe and vice versa. However, since we calculate their distance from their positions with respect to surrounding stars, we find a smaller value than if we could measure their distance within their field, so we underestimate their mass. Though the effect of this expansion is small at the scale of stars and even galaxies, it is observable in the motion of clusters of galaxies with respect to each other, in the continuous creation of spacetime between them. This expansion then isn't a remnant of the velocity particles got at the hypothetic bigbang, but is powered by the contraction, the creation of mass/energy inside the clusters, in galaxies and stars, by the increase of the mass of more or less virtual particles to real ones as they contract to stars. This also explains why the expansion of the universe doesn't decelerate under the influence of gravity as the bigbang scenario predicts, but keeps accelerating. So in a SCU there's no need for dark energy. It is because we assume the mass of particles to be only the source of their interactions that we've come to believe that stars burn their mass, loose mass even if we ignore things like solar flares. It is the energy exchange between the particles, combined with the fact that an energy increase tends to conserve itself in time (unlike a decrease), which powers this combined contraction and expansion. Since in a SCU particles (stars, galaxies ...) move, contract in such a manner that the force they feel is equal from all directions, this automatically produces the homogeneity and isotropy we see, so here there's no need for the far-fetched cosmic inflation hypothesis the bigbang tale needs to appear to make sense itself.

Though a galaxy contracts in the sense that its stars slowly spiral towards its central BH, it is not that it starts out with a definite, finite quantity of matter as the bigbang tale has it. As stars go down the galaxy's 'drain', new particles 'crystallize' (UPDATE 1) where the gravitational field is strong enough to separate real particles from their more virtual siblings, restricting their behavior, forcing them to assume more discreet properties, energies. Whereas virtual particles have much freedom to act as they like, making their position and behavior less definite so they only interact weakly, keeping their mass small, to become real particles, to increase their rest energy to the required level, they must coordinate their behavior, limit their energy exchange to certain discrete values. By radiating the associated, disorderly frequencies, they loose much of the freedom they had as virtual particles. The same happens in as their star implodes to a neutron star or BH, though as their freedom of behavior then becomes much more limited, they'll radiate away much more energy at the supernova, in much higher frequencies.

So it is not that a part of the mass which disappears into a hole is converted to energy: this radiation actually destroys order elsewhere, while the mass of the hole increases, its energy exchange with all other masses. In the water-drain picture of a galaxy, real particles (water) then are created, separated from virtual particles (vapor) where the field is strong enough, contracting to stars, forming a 'head of foam' circling around the drain, new ones appearing as old ones go down the drain.

Whereas the rest energy of particles increases as they subsequently are part of a star, neutron star, BH, IMBH and SMBH, there's an equal energy flow in the opposite direction as in every subsequent step they radiate more disorder away. This radiation keeps empty space empty, restoring its potencies. So we have a spectrum with SMBH's at one end, where the rest energy of particles increases towards its center, the energy difference between neighboring particles smaller as their density is greater, without ever becoming zero as the hole keeps absorbing mass, at the same time by radiating disorder away, keeping empty spacetime empty. As the oscillation of the particles in a BH is more stringently coordinated as its mass is greater, it may behave in many respect as a Bose Einstein condensate. Anyhow, as far as I can see, there's no need for a cycle in this perpetuum-mobile like self-creation process. A cycle suggests (bigbang) that there's a finite quantity to go around, which it is not in a SCU which cannot stop creating itself.

The problem of black holes is that they are the product of our belief that particles have been created, that they only are the cause, the source of their interactions, which they would be in a bigbang universe: only then the force between them can become infinite. As in a SCU the force between them also is the product of their interactions, it never can become infinite, so there's no singularity at the center of what for this reason I've called Black-Hole Like Objects (BHLO's) in my essay. So there also is no infinite curvature of spacetime: though there's no limit to the curvature, to the mass and mass density of a BHLO, it always is finite: there are no singularities in a SCU. Black holes then are the product of our naïve belief that the mass of particles depends on nothing, that it only is the source of the force between them, and hence becomes infinite at infinitesimal distances.

If (as I argued in the UPDATE 2 post at my thread), the speed of light isn't a velocity but rather a property of spacetime, then we cannot say that photons cannot escape from behind the 'event horizon' of the BH, so it cannot have such a horizon either. If it would have a horizon, then gravitons similarly wouldn't be able to escape the hole and express the mass inside of it as gravity outside of it, implying a zero horizon radius. Another objection is that if the hole's field contains mass (as I argue in my essay), then the Schwarzschild equation for the horizon radius should contain a term for the distance the hole is observed from, which it doesn't. Perhaps this field mass of objects, consisting of the more or less virtual (that is: non-baryonic) particles discussed above causes the effects we summarize as dark matter?

So to me terms like 'black/white hole', 'dark energy/matter' and 'singularities' belong to the language of fairy tales, not physics. A problem with calling a quantity infinite(simal) is that this requires the speaker to omit to state with respect to what that quantity is infinite(simal). As any measurement is a comparison to some arbitrarily chosen unit, we should abstain from using these terms in physics. If they pop up in a text, then you know for sure that you've entered wonderland.

Our present confusion comes from the assumption that the mass of an object is an objective, interaction-independent property, that we treat it like a mathematical quantity, a number the size of which is undisputed, that is, doesn't depend on the 'calculation' it is used in. Though we can use the mass 'number' of an object in our equations, we too easily forget that the physical quantity mass only exists in its expression, in the interactions between objects and not as something which has a reality on its own. This is why I insist that the universe as a whole has no physical reality, why a statement like "The mass of the Universe is 1.8x10^54 kg" doesn't mean anything. As to your question

-"is the universe in a continual mode of creation? I came to the conclusion that it had to be cyclical due to 1) constancy of a finite velocity of light for all observers in the universe, 2) the simplest explanation for redshift is cosmic expansion, 3) the isotropic distribution of unusual astronomical objects only at high red-shift"-

As indicated above, the speed of light is not a velocity (see UPDATE 2). As to the redshift argument, I have argued above that this doesn't necessarily prove any expansion (other arguments can be found in the (short) chapter 1.2 'Mass: a quantum mechanical definition' at my Quantumgravity.nl site). As to 3) and "the two separate sets of empirical correlations between SMBHs and their galaxies", I have no idea as yet. As a universe in which particles have to create each other paints a totally different picture of the universe, many phenomena (CMB, BH's, quasars, GRB's, dark energy and matter) need to be rethought before we may accept observations as proof for one hypothesis or the other.

-"The SMC views the CMB as the signature remnant of the expansion at the beginning of time, but has not adequately been able to explain the events leading to this expansion, especially the singularity. Our model incorporates the singularity as a limit in cosmic time of the previous cycle. " -

As to the CMB, this indeed is no fossil, remnant radiation but is produced at present (see UPDATE 2) As to the origin of the CMB, it obviously cannot explain any singularity if there are none. As to "not adequately been able to explain the events leading to this expansion", this seems an understatement as the bigbang model doesn't explain anything at all: it only tries to infer the state we get if we extrapolate back in time. That is, if we assume that the particles have been created at the bang with all their properties they have today, if they only are the source of their interactions.

However, if we extrapolate back in time assuming that particles create each other and don't causally precede stars and galaxies, then we get a completely different scenario, along the lines sketched above. As far as it makes sense to speak of a beginning in a SCU, this would be an indefinite state where particle masses are extremely small, their position ill defined, as would be spacetime itself.

-"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using GR yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity."- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang 28-2-2011 In a SCU there's no break down of spacetime nor of the laws of physics: they always apply. Spacetime only is ill-defined until the energy of particles begins to increase as they contract to form more massive objects, as their mass increases, objects which in their field make positions physically different, defining, creating, expanding spacetime.

Regards, Anton

Dear Dan,

Your ideas sounds like a variation of other credible ideas I've heard before.

You said: "Thus, the direct application of the FPC w.r.t. the extreme future of a BH allows us to infer that the light and matter that "falls into" a BH will be recycled into the extreme future of expanding cosmic spacetime, rather than entering into a state of nonexistence at the BH's singularity, as orthodox BH theory presently indicates."

So you're saying that black holes collect all of the energy and eventually recycle the energy by creating a new universe.

You said: "Nothing ever crosses the event horizon, although as the null surface approaches to within one Planck length of it, the horizon and the null surface become indistinguishable. All forms of matter and energy are transformed into gravitational potential energy and then retransformed into matter and energy in a reverse process after sufficient cosmic expansion."

I agree with you that gravity acts like an energy sink or an energy bank. What you're suggesting is progressive within the accepted physics paradigm. I tried to follow your explanation of dark matter as being caused by black holes at the galactic center; also the frame dragging of the entire galaxy (which produces a miscalculation that looks like dark matter).

From the point of view of the scientific community, it's a very good paper.

Unfortunately, I think the paradigm of the physics community is an ideological dead end. Nobody is thinking about how to build FTL spaceships so that we can fly out to a black hole, drop in a probe, and test our hypothesis close up. More accurately, physicists are too squeamish to acknowledge the mounting evidence of alien spacecraft sightings. Admittedly, it's neither proof nor experimental evidence.

It's more like a hint that the laws of physics allow this kind of technology.

What I do know is that you have quite a bit subject matter knowledge. We have much to discuss about gravity.

Dear Dan,

If I understand your term 'cosmic time' correctly, then black holes are much older than the 14 billion years of light-emitting objects: the heavier, the older they are.

"Gravity is not the major influence on the universe on the large scale, expansion is."

As to fairy tales, in my essay (and posts to your forum) I try to show that gravity is responsible for both the contraction of masses, the creation of energy at one scale and the simultaneous creation, the expansion of spacetime between the mass concentrations: they are the two sides of the same coin. In my view (weak) gravity powers or is powered by this expansion so we need no dark energy to explain why that expansion doesn't slow down. It is only the bigbang tale which needs inflation and dark energy to keep standing.

As to paradigm's, I think that a lot of theories have been built upon some fundamental misconceptions, theories on which have been built more theories, the latter theories granting the former ones a false respectability nobody dares to doubt anymore. So I find it hard to learn and use the lingo of the present paradigm without succumbing to the same errors. If to dispute the present paradigm requires me to learn it, to believe in assumptions which to me are misconceptions, then I cannot from within that paradigm attack it: I can only ignore it or point to the many contradictions it contains. As I've become suspicious about many statements of present physics, I had no other choice but to try to re-invent physics, starting from the assumption that QM and relativity theory describe the engineering principles of a self-creating universe. I find it easier to start afresh, to try a different approach since following the beaten path apparently hasn't led to any useful idea. As far as I'm concerned, string theory and the Higgs boson are useless as the problems they are supposed to solve are based on some fundamental misconceptions. To study, to learn all the intricacies of these theories knowing that they won't solve anything but are part of the problem, to me seems a waste of time.

Regards, Anton

Dan,

You describe your part "V. The Cosmic Singularity - Transition and Scale" with much more detail but my take on the nature of a recycling of the cosmos does have some resemblance.

Jim Hoover