Monday, October 2, 2017

1. Bicycles and the Big Bang

                = Work in Progress =
Yes, you can help improve my writing. Though not interested in perfecting this writing to a t, what is desired is a delivery that is as plain and logical as possible. I need your help wherever my words got in the way. Contact me at Penta Publishing for feedback.


Before the Big Bang, there was no matter. Then, there was matter. In this blog, an alternative model for the Big Bang is described that makes use of the exact same information we have today. To make sure the setup for the model is clear, some structural thoughts need to be discussed first.

Imagine two identical bicycles. One of them stands outside the door of the garage, while the other is being disassembled, its parts placed on the garage floor. The components for both bikes are identical, yet they are no longer the same. One can be used to bike around, and the other basically no longer exists as a functional bike.

In ordinary circumstances, all the parts on the garage floor would not be called a bike. Rather, the many parts are discussed by their own names and the subject matter can be considered plural and diverse. The idea of the bike may float around in conversation.

Next, consider the Big Bang in light of the bicycle parts strewn on the floor of the garage. Where the bike parts are identical to the parts of the bike standing intact outside the garage door, for the diverse matter of our universe there is no second model available. Should there be a singular reality, when considering all matter? Is there a 'bike' in all of this? Or should we let the parts be the parts without conjuring a single whole?

The benefit of 'uniting' all bicycle parts into a single bike should be obvious. As Steve Jobs mentioned, human beings are the most efficient locomotive animals on the planet, because we invented the bike and can ride on it for hours. Yet the benefit of 'uniting' all matter in the universe into a single entity is not that obvious. For understanding the alternative perspective on how the Big Bang information fits together, all matter in our universe can better be viewed at face value, and thus better be left unassembled for now.


Since Hubble's Law, the theory is that before there was matter (1) there was no matter (0). Yet the zero in this scenario is not identical to nothing. One important aspect in this simple scenario is not yet declared, and without it there is no accuracy to the numbers.

To discuss the alternative model of the Big Bang, walk up this hill with me. We are taking steps up the hill, going all the way to the top, walking around the top to enjoy the views, and then walking back down the hill again. In as far as height gains and losses are concerned, this trip can be described as follows: +10, +30, +60, +20, 00, 00, 00, -10, -40, -50, -20, in yards or meters. Naturally, the interesting parts here are the zeroes. While the 00s show there was no gain or loss in height, they collectively show a walking around at the top of the hill.

Only in its specific context does a zero get its meaning. In the described reality, the zeroes are found at the highest point possible on our little walk. They do not declare there is nothing there. Rather, they declare that there is no height gain or loss. In similar fashion, the zero in zero materialization declares only that there is nothing there based on the used context. In this case, the context is materialization. Prior to the Big Bang there is no materialization.

A popular scientific theory is that there was nothing before there was matter, that even time and space were born at the moment of the Big Bang. Yet it is only within the used context that a zero position is stated. Therefore, absolute information about what was before and outside of this context is not available. Declaring the previous state as non-existent is a stretch, not very informative, and we are missing out on some wonderful insights, too.

Scientists proclaiming that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang do show us how these good men and women were thinking. They united all information they had, declared that everything, and placed nothing in opposition to it. While today they are trying to construct a 'bike' from the parts strewn on the garage floor, many scientists do not question the structure in which the story is told.


Imagine the 1 - 2 option and the 0 - 1 option from the previous blog, and let's use them to view the universe in two distinct models. Place close attention to see the distinction. One perspective holds the outwardly moving material universe that is based on unified principles, and the other perspective holds the outwardly moving material universe that is based on unifying principles. The distinction between these descriptions is minor but important: one states unified principles, while in the other idea there is talk of unifying principles. In one, there is little space for zero. In the other, zero plays a major role.

Let's talk this through, using the Big Bang as the example. As discussed in the previous blog, there are two ways to fill in an overall framework. If we start with the first bowl containing a piece of fruit, then we have the universe starting with matter. The Big Bang is then a material expression occurring from a single moment and a single location that existed, as calculations show, some 13.82 billion years ago. This is the current scientific theory.

But if we start with leaving the first bowl empty, we have time and space at the center with no materialization occurring yet. Only more outwardly, and only in the bowl next to the empty bowl, does materialization start to take shape. We can still call it the Big Bang, yet where scientists see the starting point for the creation of matter, the alternative model has materialization starting both further out and later. As a result, the material universe would then be younger than 13.82 billion years old, because it came into being later.  

How much younger the universe would be is not the most interesting question for this blog, and it would probably not be by much, astronomically speaking. Yet subtracting 380,000 years and making the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation the first step for materialization could indeed be a nice placeholder. 

When going back in time in the alternative model, we can then view an origin of the universe in which the center did not experience materialization, and only further out, at a distance of 380,000 light years in this example, does matter first occur. If it makes it easier to consider the delivered image, envision dark energy in the center area where materialization simply did not take place. Only outside this large ball of dark energy did matter start to appear.


Before we end the first chapter on the Structure of Everything, let's take a closer look at Unity and review this special circumstance we hold in our minds once more.

Unity is related to the words unit, unite and united. They all point to number one, and the pure English word oneness can therefore be added to the list. Where Unity and oneness declare a state, unite points to the action of becoming one, and united points to the accomplished condition. It is not hard to recognize that united is something that is an established singular outcome of something, either as a natural outcome or as a man-made condition. 

Though Unity is based on the word for 1, it does not exist until there are at least 2 components in any overall framework. Using the 0 - 1 option and the 1 - 2 option again to bring the perspective home, in the 0 - 1 option, there is simply no partner to unite with. Unity belongs therefore to the 1 - 2 framework in which we ignore the zero, ignore the option of the empty bowl.

The 13 States united themselves to secede from Britain and form the United States. In our minds we hold this as a singular action in time and place. Yet the men and women that disagreed and ended up moving to British-held territories are often not mentioned. Where we claim there is Unity, we actually have a situation of factual separation. We most often find Unity in a position opposing some other form of Unity.

Let's examine Unity a little more. Though it declares a singular aspect, Unity contains many parts. At first the bicycle components ARE strewn on the floor of the garage. Yet after assembling the parts we have a bike that IS beautiful. The larger overall entity became singular in nature, even when the building blocks will never be singular.  

Finally, consider the following, using the largest of frameworks possible: we can declare that everything IS perfect, that the universe IS beautiful, and that God IS great. Note that none of these words says 'bike', as in fully assembled. With these words, we are able to conjure an overall reality, declare it singular, and provide it a name that has meaning. But these nouns remain artificial in nature, because each of these words points to a diverse reality in which many of the components can either not be identified or remain simply unassembled.

Unity can sometimes hang in the air, with not all of its parts based on solid ground. How this would work for the ancient maxim As Above, So Below will be investigated in the next blog.


Did the universe and its materialization come into being because there was Unity prior, or because there was a lack of Unity? We know that creation of matter occurred. Without a doubt, there must have been a reason causing materialization. The chance it happened because all was peachy can be declared as rather slim.

At the overall level, we have the choice starting with an empty bowl or with a bowl that already contains something. There are no overall structures that do not contain this choice, as delivered in this blog with the 0 - 1 option. To clarify: the overall level is never an empty bowl by itself, and neither is the overall level a bowl with a single piece of fruit in it. Just like matter did not come from nothing, it did also not arrive from perfect bliss.  

What we are able to find at the top of a hill is, for instance, 00. Or we can find 1 as the result, such as with an assembled bike. Yet starting out from nothing, or beginning with a Unity from which all arrived? Not a chance. Neither 0 nor 1 exists all by itself as the framework for the Structure of Everything. Yet together, they miraculously form the basis.

In the next blog the maxim As Above, So Below is examined.

Feel this draft can use some improvement? Send feedback at:


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home