Why The Big Bang Never Happened!

Big Bang Theory artwork by prince13d
Big Bang Theory artwork by prince13d

 
Space is a sea of particles that adheres to the laws of physics. Space has weight and as such, must be broken up into sections which contain varying weights, pressures and size of particles. It is these variances which cause an imbalance in space, which results in particle motion.

Everything that exists in infinite space moves from the largest to the smallest particles. As a practical matter, all moving particles follow a pattern, the path of least resistance.

Particles are always moving toward or away from a center, from low pressure to high pressure and then back again. This motion constitutes particle orbit. As a particle makes its way towards a center, moving down and around in a corkscrew motion, it contracts… becoming denser as it comes under more pressure. When it reaches a center, it is a small dense particle, but it is always in motion and so is pushed from the center by larger heavier particles, and so it begins its orbit back from the center to the periphery, expanding as it goes.

Larger particles are filled with a myriad of smaller particles; all of these particles contain the very smallest particles… electrons! As a particle moves toward a center, becoming denser, it is unable to contain as many electrons as it did at the periphery. In other words, a particle becomes smaller but it contains fewer electrons as it comes under the greatest pressure.

The “Big Bang Theory”, contends that there must have been a place in space that became so dense at a single point, that it exploded and expanded into what we now see as the universe. This theory is supported by data that says that the universe is expanding and therefore, can be traced back to its beginning point or primeval atom.

The universe is expanding in some places but is contracting in others. However, there are many reasons why the big bang didn’t happen. The first reason: Space is in a constant state of motion, always following the path of least resistance and in this way maintains homeostasis. If something becomes denser in one place, something else becomes less dense in another and because of natural particle motion, pressure in space can only be so great.

Here’s another reason: Space must adhere to the law of physics; space has weight, so space is broken up into sectors which are joined to one to another in infinite chains. If theoretically, there were a place where the weight of space would result in a particle or particles becoming so dense that they would explode into our universe, this process would be happening all over space all of the time. The force pushing out from one sector would be preventing the next sector from expanding. This would cause an inequality in space, which is impossible; but what you wind up with, once again, is homeostasis… one sector regulating the pressure of the next.

Logic tells us that particles in space follow the path of least resistance. Therefore, a particle could never become this dense because it would simply be pushed out of the center by larger heavier more electron laden particles. Pressure in space is in a constant state of homeostasis because of particle orbit.

Many of the problems associated with determining how the universe was created, relates to the measurement of light which is used to measure our distance from other star systems. Current theory regarding the motion of light supports the speed of light at 186,000 mps. This is highly theoretical! I would like to propose to you that light doesn’t move at all like contemporary science tells us. Light as opposed to particles (photons) moving through space, is a chain reaction associated with the motion of electrons and moves at the speed of frequency, which is almost instantaneous! Light is a chemical reaction which would occur at a slightly slower speed but nevertheless, almost instantaneous. In other words, the light which is used to measure whether a star is moving away from a center is inaccurate as we are seeing this light in almost “real time”!

For purposes of practical application, science needs to move beyond the big bang theory. The technology that will open the door of the next age will not be found by observing outer space but by understanding how particles are constructed. The geometry of outer space vectors down into quantum space (q. space) and so, one defines the other. Current technology can avail science to quantum studies more readily than cosmological pursuits. Contemporary science can’t produce a signal strong enough or fast enough to get the information we need about outer space. However, we can produce a signal capable of charting the inside of a neutron. This can be done by theorizing the geometry of space and then producing a computer program capable of finding the frequency necessary to get us inside of an “electron conduit”.

Electrons flow from the sun in quantum conduits of varying sizes but one geometrical configuration. Within these conduits, electron flow is directional. Logically, relative opposing pressure is what we’re looking for. In other words, we need to match the frequency of the conduit to the direction we want to send a signal. Most importantly, the frequency signature needs to contour to the geometry of space or in this scenario q. space! This is why advanced craft are configured in a certain way.

What we are ultimately talking about is “other dimensional science”. I don’t like to use the phrase “other dimensional” because it is misleading. I prefer to use the term “other pressure spectrums” but for the sake of definition, I use the term “other dimensional”. Therefore, when we think “other dimensional” we are talking about relative pressure that exists within varying geometrical patterns in both macro, q. space and a multitude of sub quantum space to include E. space or electron space.

The universe works like a machine, one particle pushes on another and this is how the machine moves. Other dimensional particles are the particles between the particles we can see or rather the particles that exist within our pressure spectrum (the solar spectrum).

Practical application is the goal! When we can move a signal through E. Space, the signal will move at the speed of frequency unabated, almost instantaneously, any distance and without interference.

This technology is right around the corner! The implications are without end and basically anything that uses electricity will be improved. Utilizing the natural flow of electrons in this manner, compared to contemporary science, would be the difference between a water pipe and a flood.

This technology will lead to advances in medicine, which will result in the cure of literally all diseases. Understanding how this machine we call the universe works is the key to these advances. I’m writing a series of articles defining these practical applications in hope of speeding up the inevitable so that these technologies can be made available as soon as possible.

 

15 thoughts on “Why The Big Bang Never Happened!”

  1. This is complete tosh! If your grasp on reality is equal to your grasp of physics, you are in deep trouble my friend.

  2. Valisk, thank you for your comment and feedback! Had to look up what tosh meant since I’m not British (lol) and understand, it basically means: foolish nonsense, crap, etc… In your feedback, a note of fear is detected (as this is when we all, tend to strike out, attack and attempt to hurt others) which generally stems from our own insecurities of our own individual belief systems in place and not actually knowing truth!

    It’s seems you don’t agree with the universal law of physics and the logic presented in the article. Your comment is very general and does not make reference of a specific point or your reasoning for the conflict you are experiencing in relationship to the article. If you have any truth that follows a logical path (please, no theories), we would love for you to respond back by contacting us on the contact page, with the particular truths known to you so that you may teach us… this, that you know. We look forward to it and if we know truth, God wants us to teach and share it with others (of course, hopefully in a sincere and respectful way)! Thank you again Valisk and look forward to hearing back from you soon!

  3. Thanks Matthew… look forward and hope you come back many, many times to question truth and read articles and answers to questions posted herein!

  4. Hey there! Very helpful post! I am very thrilled that I was able to stumble upon your weblog whilst looking on Google. Thank you for this great post!

  5. I love your website. I’ve added it to my favorite bookmarks and subscribed in a reader. Looking forward to reading more posts by you. Thanks.

  6. Thanks Vanessa for your comment and feedback. It’s great and seems you understand the value of knowledge in the article… what better compliment is there (lol), hope you visit often. Thanks again and best wishes on your journey!

  7. I would like to say thanks for the efforts you have made in writing this post. You’ve an inspiration for me. I’ve forwarded this to one of my friends.

  8. Thanks for your interest and comment.

    The speed of light is theoretical, so is the theory of relativity; that’s why it is still a theory. There have been many theories which have been widely accepted by the scientific community which later, turned out to be wrong. A contemporary scientist can cook a hotdog but they still can’t explain what heat is. Heat is a theory! Scientists are mastering something but they are not completely sure what they are measuring or if their measurements have any validity. This is why we build Atom smashers, to hopefully find out the answer to these questions.

    When you talk about the speed of light, we are talking about the possibility of a particle, which may or may not have mass. That’s pretty thin! We know there is something and we can use it like the scientist uses the fire to cook a hot dog but it can’t be defined completely…. and if you can’t define something completely, then the theory could be completely wrong.

    Granted, the information we now have does serve some engineering purposes. We can build space craft that can go to the moon, microwave ovens and primitive computers. However, we as a society need to be careful so as… to not stop thinking and in its place, allow the scientific status quo to fill the void.

    Our science still has a long way to go.

    I would love to debate all of the issues which I pointed out in…”Why the Big Bang Never Happened and Why We Need to Know”; as well as several other articles I have written on the subject. However, to do that, you will have to give me a counter point to my point. If you don’t agree, then tell me what it is specifically that you don’t agree with and give me a counter point. However, please use logic to do it to make your counter point rather than stating to me that someone else said. Everything is on the table and therefore; still up for debate!

    Here is my question to you and Valisk: If the weight of space is both constant and infinite, then what could oppose it. If Space could crush itself into an atom sized particle which possesses enough energy to form the universe, why did it stop at a certain point and push back (from a magnetic field capable of enduring the infinite weight of space)! Even if this were possible… where something comes under more pressure, therefore denser; then, somewhere else in space becomes less dense (because space is a constant). Considering this, instead of an immense magnetic field exploding into the universe… it would have more likely reached a point of equalization.

    There are several other points about the “Big Bang Theory” that do not follow a path of logic, this is just one!

    If we consider this point of “logic”, then the only other rationale for the universe is the natural motion of space!

    I appreciate your comment and look forward to hopefully hearing back from you….

    Good luck on your journey!
    J.S. Thompson

  9. I completely agree with Valisk’s comment.
    There are sooo many inaccurate “facts”, and no convincing arguments against Big Bang theory. Also, the measurement of light is not “highly theoretical”. We have extremely accurate ways of measuring how fast light travels. You are in the vast minority of believing it is explained in other ways than what contemporary science tells us about light.

  10. Thanks for your interest and comment.

    The speed of light is theoretical, so is the theory of relativity; that’s why it is still a theory. There have been many theories which have been widely accepted by the scientific community which later, turned out to be wrong. A contemporary scientist can cook a hotdog but they still can’t explain what heat is. Heat is a theory! Scientists are measuring something but they are not completely sure what they are measuring or if their measurements have any validity. This is why we build Atom smashers, to hopefully find out the answer to these questions.

    When you talk about the speed of light, we are talking about the possibility of a particle, which may or may not have mass. That’s pretty thin! We know there is something and we can use it like the scientist uses the fire to cook a hot dog but it can’t be defined completely…. and if you can’t define something completely, then the theory could be completely wrong.

    Granted, the information we now have does serve some engineering purposes. We can build space craft that can go to the moon, microwave ovens and primitive computers. However, we as a society need to be careful so as… to not stop thinking and in its place, allow the scientific status quo to fill the void.

    Our science still has a long way to go.

    I would love to debate all of the issues which I pointed out in…”Why the Big Bang Never Happened and Why We Need to Know It”; as well as several other articles I have written on the subject. However, to do that, you will have to give me a counter point to my point. If you don’t agree, then tell me what it is specifically that you don’t agree with and give me a counter point. However, please use logic to make your counter point rather than stating to me that someone else said. Everything is on the table and therefore; still up for debate!

    Here is my question to you and Valisk: If the weight of space is both constant and infinite, then what could oppose it. If Space could crush itself into an atom sized particle which possesses enough energy to form the universe, why did it stop at a certain point and push back (form a magnetic field capable of enduring the infinite weight of space)! Even if this were possible… where something comes under more pressure, therefore denser; then, somewhere else in space becomes less dense (because space is a constant). Considering this, instead of an immense magnetic field exploding into the universe… it would have more likely reached a point of equalization or homeostasis before an explosion actually took place.

    There are several other points about the “Big Bang Theory” that do not follow a path of logic, this is just one!

    If we consider this point of “logic”, then the only other rationale for the universe is the natural motion of space which is always seeking homeostasis not “Big Bangs”! The universe doesn’t need a big bang to exist. I would prefer to say that it just is! We, the sun, planets, moons, matter and all of us, are a natural product of space. However, I am always open to new ideas.

    I appreciate your comment and look forward to hopefully hearing back from you….

    Good luck on your journey!
    J.S. Thompson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*