Personal Status Board,status board,PSB Pro Version,PSB,PHP empowered communication,parenting,social evolution,social connectedness,social connections,social connection,the social connection,social connectedness,social evolution,social network,social network software,online social networks,social networking tools,online social networking,social network site,online social network,the social network,networks social,business social network,business social networking,business social networks,social business network
email others
link to us
Home     MCs     Novel     Articles     MC Matching     Magic Carpet     Products & Services     Contact Us     Links


Authoritative and Democratic Parenting Programs
(Comparison Chart)

_____________________

Send us your questions and comments.
_____________________

site search by freefind

_____________________

Free Personal Status Boards (PSB™)

Free Standard Free PSB

Free PSB Pro Version

Free Social PSB

Free Social PSB Plus (with Email)

Free Business PSB

Free Business PSB Plus (with Email)

PSB demo

Social PSB demo

Business PSB demo

So what's all this PSB stuff about?

Chart comparing business status boards

PSB hosting diagram

PSB Licence Agreement



Copyright © 2002 -
MCS Investments, Inc. sitemap


The Big Answer


To link to this article from your blog or webpage, copy and paste the url below into your blog or homepage.

Wrinkles In Time

a book by George Smoot and Keay Davidson

(our site's book review)

Smoot’s experimental astrophysical work has shown (to him and many scientists) that the Big Bang theory is not only probably true*, but the part of the theory that made no sense has now been cleared up. What made no sense was how the cosmic background radiation was so smooth—uniformly distributed—and yet somehow matter later condensed into stars and galaxies. But how? What were the seeds that precipitated such condensations without which there’d be no stars, no planets and no people to think about it all. Smoot discovered the wrinkles in the radiation, which were enough to encourage the condensations of matter, in April of 1992. His discovery was highly acclaimed.

So the wrinkles in the radiation that encouraged stars and galaxies and life to form gave people a chance, 14 billion years later, if his theory* is right, which it may or may not be. It makes one appreciate metaphorically and analogously that, like stars and galaxies, through our diversity—our non-uniformity—we are separate, individual, interesting, and worth knowing. Mass man, conformity man, Communist man, State Socialist man—none of these could have ultimately led to anything worth knowing or being—only those that rebelled against these anonymous masses could have a chance at meaningful being. The wrinkles and gravitational forces (in Smoot's mind) empowered matter-actualization into countless fascinating individual stars, galaxies, comets, planets, asteroids, nebulas and black holes—it’s a wonderful physical universe indeed! Similarly, democracy, freedom, science, nurturance and education have all empowered individuation and sometimes self-actualization of millions of diverse, interesting individuals with an amazing array of talents, knowledge and skills. It’s a wonderful universe of humanity, indeed!

Humanity: millions of diverse, interesting individuals with an amazing array of talents, knowledge and skills
Humanity: millions of diverse, interesting individuals with an amazing array of talents, knowledge and skills

*Keep in mind that theories are just that: theories. Smoot wasn't there when these seeds were seeding, and telescopes revealing info about the universe are very limited compared to what would be needed to positively and absolutely prove theories. It must be frustrating to try to interpret from our tiny window on the universe just exactly what did happen, what is happening, and what will happen. But they're stuck with what they're stuck with—period. They're doing an admirable job of coming up with creative ideas and theories to fit this severely limited picture of our universe full of the unknown, the unproven, the unknowable, the apparantly silly, the vast, and the totally mysterious. They are to be commended.

But a theory is just that, and when one uses ideas from one theory to say they proved another theory true, that's a bit much. The theories and data and evidence can all be best understood, to scientist minds currently, by stating that the radiation wrinkles support the Big Bang theory. But neither one proves the other. They are simply limited theoretical support for an idea.

Conclusive proof that the Big Bang was really the Big Boom—Congressional investigations into this fraud will follow, and the press and President have been notified. Film at 11.
The above picture is conclusive proof that the Big Bang was really the Big Boom—Congressional investigations into this fraud will follow, and the press and President have been notified. Film at 11.

But let's suppose that the Big Bang theory is hogwash and what has been missing is the utilization of Occam's razor, which would tell the scientists that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power, and the simplest available theory need not be most accurate but it often is. So if a Bang can start from a point smaller than an atom and space is full of dark energy and dark matter and vacuums contain huge amounts of energy, then why not forget Bangs, Pops, Slams, Thunks, Thuds, Poofs, and Booms, and have the matter and energy of the universe originate everywhere, all the time? It explains the "accelerating universe expansion" since the matter and energy so produced might be encouraged to speed up due to the particle "fartknocker." (If they can invent particles, so can we.)

Fartknocker particles probably stink, therefore the matter in the universe knocks into each other trying to get away from other matter. Hence: "fartknocker." This, then, is the repulsive force responsible for the "accelerating universe expansion"—not dark energy and dark matter. Matter is truly repulsed by other matter due to fartknocker stench. Say—acting like a scientist is fun! No wonder they are always smiling, theorizing, and inventing particles they have no real evidence for. And all those cynical about scientists taking all this creative license with the structure of the universe are considered "fartknockers" by scientists, which makes us fartknockers inventing fartknockers!

Hey—these guys probably discovered the fartknocker particles long ago and it made the whole shebang all make perfect sense, but they've kept it under wraps because it would mean an end to their smiling, theorizing, and inventing particles they have no real or direct evidence for, since now the key to the whole thing had been discovered and it showed their Bangs, Crunches, and dark energy and matter were all poppycock. Fartknocker particles, which probably stink, would spell a nasty but merciful end to the scientists' constant annoying smiling.

Our particles would spell a nasty end to the scientists' constant smiling
Our particles would spell a nasty end to the scientists' constant smiling

Note about vacuum energy: Wikipedia tells us that "Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. One contribution to the vacuum energy may be from virtual particles which are thought to be particle pairs that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short to observe. They are expected to do this everywhere, throughout the Universe. Their behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy–time uncertainty principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify." This seems like a better candidate for universe explaining than the Big Bang theory to us, although, admittedly relying on vacuums this way kind of sucks.

The Unified field theory that evaded Einstein would have allowed fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a single field. But the "theory of everything" and Grand Unified Theory also evade scientists, as does any proof that their String Theories are anything but pipe dreams. A big problem is they'll never make a particle collider big enough to discover the particles that all the above theories need. So they are in the same position with inflatons, strings, and fartknocker particles and lots of other unfound particles: they can't find them and probably never will. The vacuum's virtual particles, which have not been proven or found, may be fartknockers, or even virtual fartknockers.

There is not any proof that their String Theories are anything but pipe dreams
There is not any proof that their String Theories are anything but pipe dreams

Think of the fact that energy and matter can be converted into one another as E=mc˛ tells us. Energy and matter are interchangeable. Vacuums have loads of energy. This can be converted into matter. We believe that sometimes vacuums get kind of uppity, emit a fartknocker particle, and then manifest their essence utilizing the old "I stink, therefore I am" axiom. At such times they emit fartknocker energy concomitantly with emitting an equivalent amount of matter which got converted from some of the energy, as in E=mc˛. So you get matter, propelled by the fartknocker particle's energy, scurrying away into the universe. Since space is mostly vacuum, this explains all the matter and expansion and acceleration. (After all, fellow scientists, one person farting clears a room slowly, ten people farting clears a room quickly—try it, you'll lose many friends but the sacrifice is worth it in pursuit of the true "essence" of reality.) Our theory, the Big Stink, has no need for stupid nonsense like Big Bangs, dark energy, or dark matter.

Vacuums are full of energy and seem like good candidates for matter producers by unknown means
Vacuums are full of energy and seem like good candidates for matter producers by unknown means

The exact nature of the particles (or fields) that generate vacuum energy, with a density such as that required by inflation theory, remains a mystery—like the inflation mechanism itself, which is likely to never be understood since the hypothesized particles needed to pull it off are not around to see or study. The particle's name? Inflaton! Whenever scientists have no idea what happened or is happening they invent a particle, however unlikely, impossible, or silly, and they then claim they have a handle on the whole complex mess even though obviously they have no such thing. Point to ponder: Which is doing the most inflating, universes or scientist egos?

This scientist's ego has made him big-headed
This scientist's ego has made him big-headed

We're very proud of OUR particle invention as well, and we feel our egos inflating rapidly as well (write us for an address to send our Nobel Prize to). We can identify with how they feel. When scientists found out the universe's expansion is accelerating, even though they had figured the expansion would eventually give way to contraction due to gravity (ending in the Big Crunch), they invented dark energy and dark matter and then stated that MOST of the universe is this new stuff. But they haven't actually found anything of a kind. Is it us, or has the theoretical basis for matter, energy, reality, and the universe in general been getting shakier and shakier, based on unproven theories, unproven forces, undemonstrated ideas, and—especially—unproven particles invented mostly as a palliative to soothe their embarrassment when discoveries are made that show their assumptions have been wrong all along? Dark energy and dark matter be damned—why not just call all these countless unknowable forces and entities God and all join the priesthood?

We've reconsidered our rush to invent a name for our invented particle. It was a rush to judgment. We deeply reget the precipitous—nay, rash—nature of our ill-considered action. Please bear with us as we rename our fartknocker particle. We'd like to call it the "flatulenton." So now it's inflatons, protons, neutrons, electrons and flatulentons. Fair enough? And rather than the Big Bang starting up the universe, our theory is that the Big Stink has always been there and always will be there. The flatulentons will be doing their work for all of infinity. And WE named them! Hawking eat your heart out! Neener-neener nyah nyah neener! Okay, that was not very kind. But we'll make up for it: Dr. Hawking, when they open up a Department of Farticle Physics at your University, you can be Department Chair. (We do not see why they're not called Chairmen. A Chair sounds like something you sit on. We cannot see Dr. Hawking wanting to be sat on!)

Our flatulentons will be doing their work for all of infinity—neener-neener nyah nyah neener!
Our flatulentons will be doing their work for all of infinity—neener-neener nyah nyah neener!

Okay, let's deal with a couple of loose ends: proton decay and cosmic microwave background radiation.

After 25 years of proton decay experiments, there has been no evidence of proton decay. (They had thought that the proton may have a half-life of about 1035 years but this result squashes that.) Nor is there evidence that either heat death or entropy is the universe's fate. (Therefore the mechanism of decay avoidance will be known as the Crest Effect, and it's an integral part of the Big Stink. It simply states that there is no decay of the universe. And the evidence is on our side, not scientists' side.) Mathematical tinkering showing a decay possibility is not real evidence. Ask any statistician—one can make numbers say anything you want them to and only experimental evidence (like with the speed of light experiments mentioned below) leads to real confidence in theories. So scientists saying we're all screwed after so many billion or trillion years because of proton decay, heat death or entropy is a bit disingenuous. They know nothing of a kind. They were just craving attention: "Wow—look! We're all screwed in 1032 (or 33 or 34 or 35 or 100 or 1000) years!" (Stick to science, people! Or write science fiction, but mixing them is rather desperate, don't you think?) So, the bottom line is that since they found there was no proton decay, this supports the Big Stink model.

All evidence supports the Big Stink model
All evidence supports the Big Stink model

Cosmic microwave background radiation seems to support the Big Bang theory and the accelarating expansion of the universe, according to scientists. However, the accelarating expansion of the universe has been described as speculation, and it's supported by very little evidence. Since the nature of the dark energy that is postulated to drive the acceleration is unknown, then once again they're trying to use ghosts/magic/guesses to make up for having no idea what's happening. "Because of these spooks, the accelarating expansion of the universe is shown to be on the right track." Maybe. Or maybe not. Our opinion: not.

An actual photograph of God setting the universe in motion with the launch of the Big Stink, an infinitely long time ago
An actual photograph of God setting the universe in motion with the launch of the Big Stink, an infinitely long time ago

Occam's razor, which would tell the scientists that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power, says that the whole Big Bang idea, once followed through on, led to incredibly wild and complex theories, ideas, and particle creation hysteria. Note that our theory requires only one particle "discovery" at the moment. It's simpler and has greater explanatory power, it is easier to understand, it leads to no illogical and counterintuitive ideas like "the universe will die forever someday after which there will be nothing forever." We ask: does THAT seem like a smart way to design a universe, or does it seem like the stupidest, most deterministically fatalistic way possible, so it must be the design of a maniac? If God designed it, he is a horrible psychotic, and if nature designed it, nature is a horrible psychotic. Do you honestly buy either of these? As mentioned, all through nature is lifewish, renewal, rebirth, nurturance, and cooperation. Even the Bible is about universe creation, not universe destruction. We may not be ready to buy the God version, but absolutely buy the nature version.

If God created a universe that will die forever someday after which there will be nothing forever, He is a crazy psycho
If God created a universe that will die forever someday after which there will be nothing forever, He is a crazy psycho

Think of the huge amount of evidence for the Earth being flat before it was shown it was round. The experience of all people, everyday, was that of walking around on a flat earth—how much more evidence was needed? Sailing around the world. The same can be said for Newton's Laws until Einstein came along and . . . oops! Newton's law of gravitation has been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity. In both cases where evidence seemed to prove the first although the second was the truth, infinitely more evidence pointed to these conclusions than has ever been available for Big Bangs, inflation, proton decay, heat death or entropy. But the evidence turned out not to mean quite what they thought it did. If people are seeking Big Bang support, tiny indications of its correctness will be jumped on with hysterical glee—and they were. As is admitted in many circles, this only means it is the theory with the most mathematical and experimental support at this moment (or that its inventors had the most clout), not that the theory is true. Until something better comes along, it will be the accepted one.

But it is time to investigate support for the Big Stink. After 25 years of proton decay experiments, there has been no evidence of proton decay. Nor is there evidence that either heat death or entropy is the universe's fate. All of this supports our theory. If we were physicists, we'd search for more evidence, beyond what was just mentioned, that the Big Stink is how the universe works. But we are not. So you scientists—we are throwing the ball to you guys and gals. Please don't fumble it. Hopefully, instead of towing the party line and being "loyal," you'll explore both mathematically and experimentally what would be the ramifications if the Big Stink was indeed an accurate portrayal of how things really work. If nothing else, do it for the emotional reason that it will tend to show that the universe is here for infinity and our descendants aren't going to entropy hell, the crunch, the bang, the freeze, or the decay. Think about it: How does nature work? The old get replaced by the new. As matter scurries out of the observable universe, more gets created. This has always been and it always will be. No bang. Do trees bang into existence or do tree spores or seeds take root in the soil and grow new trees and replace dead or dying trees? For millions of years it's been like this.

Back to theories, guesses, and wild ideas. If one theorizes the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, then tests it experimentally in a number of foolproof ways, which happened, and the theorized number turns out to be true, it's accepted as fact/reality/truth/true science. But the Big Bang either did or didn't happen billions of years ago. Their theory is simply the best one they can think up that fits the evidence, but it may or may not be true. Smoot seems to think it's true. Many prefer alternate theories—like us. Or these. Or this. Tons of scientists doubt the Big Bang, and bemoan the lack of funding to investigate alternative ideas and others do too. Like us. We prefer the Big Stink!

If one finds fossilized dung and fossilized dinosaur bones that both date back 100 million years ago, and they're 2 feet apart, one can hypothesize that the same dino dropped a dukey 100 million years ago, since no other dinos were found in the area. But no amount of theorizing or dating tests or further evidence collection can prove these are indeed his/her droppings. No one was there to see him going number two—possibly inventing the fartknocker particle in the process. So the scientists have to be content with their best guess: the dino dropped a hunk of butt candy. No one will be inventing a time machine so someone can go back and watch Donnie the Dino do his business.

One cannot prove the dino dropped the dukey
One cannot prove the dino dropped the dukey

And the Big Bang theory can never be proven—no one was there to watch it. And if there was someone (Methuselah) there and he lived 14 billion years and told us what he had seen, he'd get locked in a drunk tank. "Everything came from a point smaller than an atom and it all went faster than light and the laws of the universe changed right before my eyes." (This is called inflation theory—and yet they have no idea how or why such a thing as such an impossible inflation could happen; it's just another theory liked for its convenience.) "Yeah, and it exploded outward but gravity's trying to pull it back together, but it's not slowing down—it's speeding up. Because of the dark matter and dark energy stuff." [Okay, so here's what you're telling me, Methuselah: Everything came from a point smaller than an atom and it all went faster than light and the laws of the universe changed right before your eyes. Is that about right? You been smokin' wacky tobacky? Where'd all this Everything come from? Don't know? Where's it all going? Don't know? Why did it appear? Don't know? You say it exploded outward but gravity's trying to pull it back together, but it's not slowing down—it's speeding up. Because of the dark matter and dark energy stuff? What is that? Don't know? Where is that? Don't know? How's it work? Don't know? Can you show me some? No? You realize how stupid this all sounds, right? Let's try a breathalizer on you, Bub . . .]

Some of the wild theories coming out of scientists' mouthes would be enough to get them thrown in the drunk tank if they told a cop
Some of the wild theories coming out of scientists' mouthes would be enough to get them thrown in the drunk tank if they told a cop

You may realize by now that we're "from Missouri" (figuratively only) and do not accept things as proven, true or reality just because someone says so, even if they have Doctorates. We confess to enjoying Discovery Channel specials about all the theories like String Theory, Bangs, Crunches, quasars, black holes, and now: God (a.k.a. dark energy and dark matter). The sociological and psychological ideas, reviews, and breakthroughs on this website are on much more solid ground than the Big Bang theory, and, holistically and inductively and using systems theory, they all points in one direction: MCs.