The Creation of the Universe

Hello Alienx,

Is this part of a school project? Yours is the second post today that invites CR4ers to visit angmalta.net? What is the nature of this web site?

Moose

Hi there,

There is nothing schoolish about Divs, Curls and complex numbers, at least, not in the school I went to where simultaneous equations were barely understood by all but the brightest in the class. That did not include me. I didn't understand them at all.

In fact, angmalta.net is my host here in Malta and the two posts today deal with two separate topics that I have recently finished. One on the Creation and the other on Metamaterials in which I got stuck through lack of knowledge on how to make a window. Perhaps electronic materials specialists can help out on that score.

Thanks for replying and you are the first.

Regards,

alienx

Thank you for answering my question, alienx. I meant no disrespect by asking if your work was for a school project, so I hope you won't take offense. As a site moderator, however, it's my job to notice when someone arrives on CR4 and posts threads that encourage users to visit another site. Often, those types of posts are advertisements. That's not the case here.

Best,

Moose

Thanks Moose,

I'm too old and too decrepit to take offence. But, if you embed a very large hammer into the top of my head, I might just get annoyed, but not offended.

Regards,

alienx

I've only had a few moments to read your first paper. It has so many pages and odd that you published to a website rather than any journal. You also mention Einstein and Hawking a lot, that's never a good sign.

However, from the little bit I've read of that introductory paper, I can't find anything to point to and say "this guy is crazy". So help me out here. Why are these papers so long. And why have you not tried to publish to peer reviewed journal? Help me understand so I can at least feel like I'm not wasting time if I spend hours reading your papers. I'm looking for a little reassurance here. I'm willing to give your ideas a chance if I can have some reasonable reassurance from you.

Hello,

That's a fair message you have sent me, and I'll give you a fair answer.

Einstein and Hawking are no, nos for me even though Einstein's relativities are seductive. In fact, in the first paper there is a section (Albert and Oppy) showing that v is not related to c as Albert states in Special Relativity.

Now, why are they so long?

Reason is that the basic idea that has not been explored by others opens new vistas. So, I thought long and hard, short or long papers. Because short papers would lead the establishment to read half and then discard as the work of a crank, there are five papers that build the scenario quoting a heck of a lot of work by others. Those others are some big names in physics and I use them to substantiate all propositions made.

That means a lot within each paper tries to win over the reader using other papers by those big names and incidentally show that I don't spend my days in an institution dribbling from the side of my mouth. Also, each paper deals with a different aspect of the theory but each still includes the build up.

Why not in journals? I'd love to publish them on arXiv but I don't know anyone relevant who would put my name forward as I don't move in the appropriate circles.

Having taken 66 years to get out of the UK, I can now relax here in Malta and enjoy myself and have done so for the last 3 years and hope to do so for the next 50years, give or take a few.

Best Wishes,

alienx

A fair response and I hope you don't mind my prying, but I want to give you a fair shake here. What's your background? Are you a retired scientist or is phyiscs a hobby for you (I don't mean that in any condescending way, I just want to understand where your knowledge comes from).

Also, could you summarize your main idea (is it that the speed of light is variable based on the vacuum energy, or is it something different?). I'm struggling to understand and want to resist the urge of just saying your crazy when I simply don't understand what you're trying to say.

Thanks,

Roger

Hi and fair comment,

I'm curious and I'd like to know. A pure question with no hidden traps or oblique meanings, completely neutral and zero criticism.

If I tell you that I have three PhD's, 40 years post-doctoral research and a DSc plus an FRS, would you read the papers? If I tell you that I'm an unemployed and homeless vagrant and flunked out of school at the age of 12, would you give me the time of day? After all, even penniless vagrants can have original ideas.

To answer your question, I do have a scientific background as well as a background in English law (real, not honarary)

Best Wishes,

alienx

Your background makes no difference to me, honestly. I'm not trying to figure out if you're qualified, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. If I know the story behind what led to writing these papers it helps. Please don't get defensive and start making assumptions about me and how I judge people.

English Law and Science, you weren't a patent clerk were you? Because that would be too much.

Hi,

Science starting with Pharmacy and ending up in an odd place, then law and qualified as a solicitor at the age of 40, just for the hell of it. Two years articles finished at age 42 also just for the hell of it. Then, teaching maths and then law at university as well as a bit of dealing with the public.

Definitely not a patent clerk and never have been. But then if ever I was, that would be keeping good company with the old boy.

Why not judge me? Everyone does judge those who put themselves up for judgement like publishing papers and being in Parliament although I insist, and will be hugely offended if anyone says, that my papers were the direct cause of the credit crunch. Big Crunch, yes. Credit Crunch, no.

All the best,

alienx

Sorry, didn't answer your question fully.

The idea is simple. Things go Bang and the universe is created.

With all that exotic matter and quark-gluon soup, a closed timelike curve or better, a Krasnikov tube opens and transports some of the soup back to the state of Nothing.

Briefly and a simply as I can put it without you having read all five papers, that stuff evolves and it does not matter whether the place where it arrives had tachyons or not because in the simplest sense, the universe may owe its existence to a Chern-Simmons term.

The evolving is of branes and eventuall one elastic brane passes through another producing a Big Brane Bang with a huge release of energy.

The question what there was before the Bang takes on meaning and the question what is 'outside' the universe as well.

Each Bang sends soup backwards and the outside is no more than dead zero degrees K) matter from a previous one.

The universe is cyclic not from a Big Crunch but from fresh bangs. In fact, Crunches only work if there is no 'before'.

The before is supported by established workers in M-theory and Brane Bangs appeared in the Randall-Sundrum and Ekpyrotic theories.

Hope that is OK.

Regards,

alienx

Tough subject!

"The idea is simple. Things go Bang and the Universe is created."

An opinion to consider:

When you speak of "Things" I think of something that exists that goes bang and produces something among all the other things present in the Universe that we may not be able to sense and relate to. The Universe is made up of "things" visible and invisible and they exist even when they are not sensable. The Universe has no center and no edge and has no beginning and no end. If it did not always exist then there would have been nothing to go bang.

The Universe is not subject to the whims of Genies or magicians. It operates according to natural laws and is captive of them.

Man has been able to interfere with nature and produce many amazing things using his perception and deduction, the operation of which admits of no doubt whatever; for inasmuch as the universe is subject to our sensing, the proof is self-evident that our knowledge of it must be gained through the avenues of the senses.

Man alone stands apart and says to the elements, I will make you my servants! I can govern you! He takes electricity, and through his ingenuity imprisons it and makes of it a wonderful power for lighting, and a means of communication to a distance of thousands of miles. But man himself may become a captive to the things he has invented. His true second birth occurs when he is freed from all material things: for he only is free who is not a captive to his desires.

In a couple of days I will be off line and out of country for a couple of weeks.

That was an impressive explanation, but certainly not one I could understand. Could you offer me a simpler explanation that I can understand?

Or instead could you maybe offer some ideas on what measurable effects your theory would cause in our universe.

In other words, I don't need you to explain your entire theory. Just a more detailed (yet understandable) explanation of a particular aspect and it's interesting (and measurable) consequences so that I can start to get a feel for this.

Unless of course your purpose here isn't to actually explain your idea but rather promote it. If that is the case, I'll stop pestering you with questions.

Roger

Hi Roger,

The reason why I registered with CR4 is because from my teaching days, engineers are practical and down to earth people and not theoretical head in the cloud types who spend their time wondering if their navals might form a black hole one day. With engineers, you get a smack between the eyes rather than "that is a very interesting problem".

In fact, this morning I had a thread from an exceedingly helpful guy who told me how a paper should be set out and its length. My first one was in 2007 caused by pent up frustration over nearly 40 years. Accordingly, today I have written a 9 page paper on the entire theory and emailed it to my internet host and it cuts to the chase.

From your reading of creation theories, I think you will find that all of them answer the 'can it' question and none can answer the 'was it' question.

Can it be that there was a banging singularity? Yes. Can it be there will be a big crunch? Yes. Can it be that branes collided? Yes, etc. etc. Was there a big bang of a singularity? Who knows for certain? No-one.

So all you have is a load of could it be theories, so take a ticket, stand in line and pick one from the shelf. My one is exactly the same but expansion of the universe doesn't need dark matter/energy.

My universe is cyclic from the point of view of that there will always be a bang when matter is displaced back in time to further evolve and then cause another bang. Each bang produces a massive spherical shock wave. That propagates radially outwards and much diminished, eventually reaches the material formed after the previous bang and accelerates it. It's generally considered even for the conventional Big Bang that the energy release was beyond belief (and supernovas are bad enough but the Bang was quite a few orders of magnitude greater). That is an alternative explanation for Hubble expansion of our universe without using Einstein's cosmological constant with different alternative values to fit observations.

Some stars are older than the age of the universe as given by the reciprocal of the Hubble constant and no-one has an answer for that. In my universe, these old stars are from the previous bang to ours.

Why is the arrangement of superclusters of galaxies so irregular (large-scale structure text-books). Surely, a single creating event would produce something spherically symmetric and even allowing for gravitational perturbations over at least 10 billion years it should retain some semblance of a spherical shape, considering the spatial separations involved, but it doesn't. The observable universe shouldn't look like a dogs dinner.

According to common believed theory, the Big Bang had no preferred coordinates. My series of bangs likewise. Therefore, everything that is older than our observable universe has been subjected to shock waves and our universe likewise from previous bangs at random coordinates relative to us.

If there is expansion without dark matter/energy, why do galactic distance/velocity curves plateau? Paper 4 dealt with space as a solitonic lattice at Planck scale (the zero-point level of quantum fluctuations) that has high energy, in fact so high, it is usually normalised out of the maths. Observations in the last few years show that galaxies observed are connected by hydrogen (at some ridiculously low quantities and pressure), but that would not even get off to a start to affect the rotation curves. So, dark energy is needed and according to Paper 4, that is the zero-point forming 96% of the free energy in the universe.

As to promoting - not interested. I just had my 69th birthday and am quite content to play my violin, drive my sports car, use the excellent seeing with the 10 inch telescope I have, sweat in Malta's Augusts and keep mentally active without playing Solitaire.

Alan.

Ok, I think I'm starting to understand your theory at least a little better. I was just getting lost in all the jargon you were using in the first explanation.

I guess my question right now is, in the original big bang (as I understand it), space, as well as matter and energy expanded outward (into what I have no idea). If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting no such spatial expansion? I just ask because if there were a series of big bangs, wouldn't the second, third, fourth, etc. be expanding into existing space, and if that were the case, how does space expand into space? What happens to the old space?

If I'm misunderstanding your explanation, please just correct me rather than answering the above question.

Roger

Hello Roger.

Sorry for the jargon. The jargon of all the top boys also gets to me and I hate it.

Quite correct. In the conventional Big Bang theory, space could and did expand at faster than light speeds. What did it expand into? Shhhh. It's a secret. Some say it expanded into nothing and some pat your head and put a cube of sugar in your mouth.

To be honest, I never highlighted the aspect you raise (which is a good one) because I was more concerned with things like tachyon condensation, M-theory and not getting inconsistencies in the theory.

Paper 4 constructs a lattice very rich in properties that has entropy and all the physics to produce a universe. That lattice supports solitons and dilatons (but I never went overboard with the dilaton aspect and used them when needed). Briefly, the lower the energy compared to Planck scale energy, the more familiar are the solitons and combinations of them until we get solitons called electrons, protons and the rest of the zoo at the lowest of energy levels. Meanwhile, the soliton lattice at Planck scale energies has the property of self-replication and therefore spherical expansion from any point of origin in however many dimensions you want to use as long as the dimensionality is 3 (Euclidean), 4 (spacetime) or 5 (Kaluza-Klein).

That lattice of solitons, for me, is space which is a zero-point field that pervades everything and is responsible for the Casimir Effect. Just to be accurate on the terms, the two Voyager probes went into space and are now in space outside the solar system (if there are no as yet undiscovered planets orbiting the Sun). The space they are in contains atom and molecules of gas as well as big stuff like comets, meteoroids, dust and all the rest. That is not the space I'm referring to. OK, you still rapidly turn purple before exploding if you take off your helmet in it, but that's because the partial pressures of what we need are not there. But that space is not empty. For me, the only empty entity was the Genesis void in the infinite past.

If we stick to the conventional Big Bang, for me, the zero-point field self-replicated and created space into which exotic matter, quarks and gluons could expand into before the effects of cooling took hold. The lattice kept on replicating and still is replicating through the eras of baryosynthesis, early star formation, galaxy formation, and beyond to infinity, maybe at superluminal speeds, but probably only at c.

To answer your question, the second of my bangs expanded into space pre-existing as did the subsequent bangs. That is, the second bang happened in an already existing lattice formed from the first bang. The third and subsequent bangs likewise.

What about the first ever bang? Following Fred Hoyle that the universe has always existed and will always exist from infinite time past to infinite time future, my scenario takes the view that there was never a first bang in the accepted sense because the original void (the Genesis void) has always existed from infinite time past and has always been causally connected with its future via a time displacement mechanism. That's a hard one to swallow and I still have difficulty visulaising that in mental pictures, but I'm getting better at it the more I try.

The point is, to refer to first, second, third, etc orders them in time. Once time is regarded as a continuum, those labels degrade in value.

Nice one.

Regards,

Alan.

Hi Alan,

I don't want to mislead you here. I would be lying if I said I believe your theory because I obviously haven't read any of it. But I also want you to know that I don't not believe it and don't think your crazy. I'm just saying that so we can have a conversation on this where you don't have to wonder if I have ulterior motives because whether I believe your theory or not, I think there is absolutely no doubt that Physics has some big problems (in terms of cosmology) right now and discussion like this is needed.

My next question regarding your theory is, how is your lattice effected in a black hole? Is a singularity still possible in the traditional GR way (whatever that is) or is it fundamentally different?

Roger

Hi Roger,

I don't believe the theory either, but I do believe that it is some form of alternative and can add another perspective to all the other theories I don't believe. As I said, it is the difference between the 'can it' and the 'is it'. A belief does not require evidence and I do, and so do you. That is why neither of us believe it and the rest.

I won't argue with you on problems in cosmology. M.J. Disney is one of the biggest critics of cosmologists and he is one of them. There is a paper of his on arXiv and I couldn't stop laughing at his cutting humour.

I don't know what a black hole is. Yes, yes, gravitational singularity, event horizons, spaghettification and all that plus the quantum physics to go with it. Also, the elastic sheet model where the suspender belt doesn't break when it reaches the orbit of Pluto and beyond. And I still don't know what a black hole is even if it results from a 7 and upwards solar mass supernova.

I want to know where the funnel of it ends up. Once I know that for sure but without playing with one, a lot of questions will be answered.

For now, I'd say that the Paper 4 lattice is swallowed hook line and sinker. Conventionally, a black hole destroys space and creates its own. I'd go with that regarding the lattice structure.

Regards,

Alan.

Alan,

Ok, I understand what you're saying regarding singularities though I would have thought there might be some insight from your theory regarding them due to their similarity with the singularity at the big bang. How does dark energy factor into your theory, at least the observation that things are expanding faster than expected which we all vaguely call dark energy. Also dark matter, does your theory offer an alternative to dark matter to explain the inconsistencies in gravitation on the large scale?

Roger

The conventional Big Bang looks like a white hole (errupting matter) and at any Big Crunch there is a black hole. Mine envisages two elastic branes passing through each other (colliding) with a large emission of energy. That doesn't involve the inevitable singularity of conventional theory often presented as a matter of history.

Dark energy and a variable cosmological constant don't exist for me because acceleration of matter is the result of an expanding shock wave from the previous brane collision.

Large scale inconsistencies are a likely result of brane collisions in our past.

The universe was at its simplest when created but the passage of time makes it look complicated. But it only seems that way.

Regards,

Alan.

Hi Alan,

You said two branes colliding. But there are many different kinds of branes as you know. What kind are you talking about. How many dimensions, etc.

The acceleration attributed to dark energy can be found throughout space. A shockwave to me implies not all of space, especially because you told me that these shockwaves were expanding into prexisting space. Can you reconcile the homogenity of dark enegy with your theory for me so I can understand better. It may simply be I'm not understanding what you mean by shockwave.

Roger

Hi Roger,

A D5-brane and a D5-antibrane.

For me, dark energy is just another name for the energy of the zero-point field that accounts for around 96% of the energy of the universe. Because that field is homogeneous and the lattice structure is isotropic (Paper 4), it fulfills the criteria for keeping galactic rotation curves at a plateau.

The acceleration is conventionally attributed to the cosmological constant. With a self-replicating lattice spherically expanding by self-replication, matter embedded in it is carried with it. Add to that the shockwave from the last bang (and maybe its predecessors), that provides an additional acceleration to that of the expanding geometry.

Regards,

Alan

Hi Alan,

Yes I agree that the shockwave would add additional acceleration to that of the expanding geometry, but why would it scale with distance? Why is the unexpected acceleration (that you attribute to this shockwave) found in all space homogeneously?

Hi Roger,

It would scale with distance from the source just like any other wave. Take a spherically symmetric wave propagating to a distance r from the origin. The surface area will be 4 pi r squared. When r goes from 1 to 2, the area scales from 4 pi to 16 pi. Any surface element will be 'stretched' accordingly. If a bang took place inside or near to any galaxy, that would be good-bye galaxy. Nearby galaxies would probably also be subject to disruption or destruction depending on r. Those a few million light years away would get off more lightly regarding their structure but would nevertheless be accelerated.

Regarding the second part of your question, to say that space is expanding homogeneously is, I think, very accurate. Thinking of space as a nothing boggles the brain when you try to imagine nothing expanding. The fact that space creates paired particles from quantum fluctuations of the zero-point field shows it is not a nothing. Some may attribute that production to a vacuum, but that is mere semantics. Even if that were the case, why can the Casimir Effect be laboratory demonstrated? The last time I used a rotary vacuum pump was years ago and that went down to 10 to the minus 5 Atmospheres, certainly no vacuum.

Paper 4 shows it is the self-replicating lattice structure that causes expansion, and the lattice there has a regular equilateral triangular structure of solitons/dilatons.

Compared to the zero-point field (often stated to have energy per cubic centimetre as 10 to the power of 96 (and upwards) SI units), a supernova is a 'candle' and the bang a million watt light bulb. Thing is, space is homogeneous in structure, distributed everywhere and its expansion follows suit - homogeneity from homogeneity. Also isotropism from an isotropic structure.

As to expansion from bangs, that is a physical shock wave acting on physical objects and Newton's laws of motion are as good as anything to play with in that regard, although I haven't done it.

Regards,

Alan.

Alan,

You mentioned in another post that you have written a shorter paper now (12 pages or something like that). Can you respond to this post with a link to it and I will read it. I just feel like you've been patient with my questions and I really can't ask any further worthwhile questions without reading your stuff and developing a better understanding of your approach (I'm intrigued).

Thanks,

Roger

Sure I can, but it will be next week until Noel at ANGmalta can get it on the net. If you want it emailed to you, I'm at alienx (at) maltanet.net. Drop me a hello and I'll email it to you.

I'm also in the process of revamping all 5 papers and have almost completed the first along the lines suggested by Guest.

That one comes down to less than 20 pages.

Regards,

Alan.

What if your second founding proposition is false? "nothing unreal can exist"

Then anything without any sort of reality can exist. If we talk of physical reality, that becomes a problem. X has no physical reality. Can X exist in a physical universe? If instead it is hypothetical reality, that's something else. There are things that are postulated to exist such as tachyons and the Higgs boson, even if they have never been detected. Do they really exist or are they merely extrapolations from theory. These sort of things exist in the mind and in text books but are they real because predicted?

One then has to ask if all the effort put into investing millions of dollars and pounds as well as spending one's working days in a mineshaft year after year in search of something beginning with 'neutro....' is really the search for something that arises from extrapolation or to plug an erroneous gap in the particle 'periodic table'.

alienx

I have to start by saying that I'm not a Jesus freak or religious at all, I just think the idea of a creator of the universe is as good an explanation as the whole thing popping up from nothing, even tho it still leaves the question of where did God come from.

Many years ago, I came up with this:

God is dreaming, so here we are.

The implication of this is that the material universe is the illusion & our consiousness is the only real thing.

Some sort of being would be imagining our universe from start to finish, everything, including time, is part of this 'dream'. Since it knows everything, the only way to appreciate this creation is to put tiny little pieces of itself in this universe. These little pieces of consiousness, having very little knowledge and not knowing whats going to happen next, would experience reality as new and exciting (relatively anyway! Hard to call a 3 hour insurance seminar exciting.).

The question raised by this for your ideas, or any theory of everything, is how fine the detail of reality is; how deep can you go before you find nothing to support the 'floor'. how far back can you go before there's nothing. How complete are the actual laws that govern reality.

Obviously, even if the universe was created by a supreme being, there's going to be a bunch of physical rules that make it all work, so discovering what they are is of great practical value. The notion that a creator theory makes any further scientific work impossible or useless is false.

I'm looking forward to reading your stuff this weekend.

Congratulations on publishing 5 papers. I know I couldn't write that much without looking very foolish.

Now that is appreciated because the first paper in 2007 was really the first paper ever written by me - solitons, gravity etc. and at the age of 67.

Even when I was a practising lawyer for a few years, frustrations were building up from the previous years and have continued to build..

I made my first crude telescope for astronomical use at the age of 7 and took an interest thereon. By 25, I somehow instinctically suspected that Special Relativity was not correct but could not get a 'handle' on it. Also, I just couldn't come to terms with the over-engineered and overcomplicated tensors and Christoffels of the General Theory leading to an inevitable singularity. But I kept on reading.

By the age of 55, I wrote and had bound two copies of 'Fed Up With Physics', a humerous but also serious 456 page book as a birthday present for my eldest twin boy who had just gor a double first in physics at Oxford. Now, he is a PhD is Games Theory as Applied to Risk Management and works in Bahrain.

I suppose that when I started serious reading on the net (arXiv) for 10 years, I could not contain the frustrations any longer and at age 67 to now, a lifetime of frustration just burst out leading to the series of papers typed. In fact, I look back over the last few months and am amazed that four of the papers could be produced so quickly.

As you say, they need reordering and I am grateful for your suggestions. Perhaps I need a ghost writer but will do my best.

Kindest Regards,

Alan.

Now that is what I call helpful to the nth degree. Thanks and then more thanks.

Taking your advice this morning, I immediately wrote a 9 pages paper with 3400 words that encapsulates the 5 papers and emailed it to my internet host.

Looks like I'm going to have to reorder and vet the 5.

As well, there is a review of the current work on Invisibility Cloaks using Metamaterials with a suggestion for cloaking a ship. I think I'll leave that one because it is a review.

Kindest Regards,

Alan

I hope spend my retirement in exactly the same way you are doing when i get there.Now i hope take a look at your work before that happens,so i downloaded just in case..Best luck in your purposes!.-

Thank you. It looks as though the 5 papers will need some revision in their form along the lines indicated by Guest.

Regards,

Alan

Hi alienx,

I am interested in your papers, and have barely started reading the first. I am an amateur in this subject, and not very mathematical, so didn't even understand your first equation. One comment thus far: you speak of GR as a theory of creation which it is not, though some may be based on it. Can you give us some titles of "creation" theories and tell us which you think are based on GR, and what the others are based on?

regards,

S

Hi,

GR Was Einstein's theory of gravity that was modified by Friedmann, but I believe it was Gamow who proposed the Big Bang theory from it. Two others are those of Randall and Sundrum as well as the one called the Ekpyrotic theory. Both of these are based on colliding branes predicted by M-Theory.

I think you will find that a theory of gravity can usually lead to a creation theory, but although there are many theories concerning gravity, they are not all matched by a corresponding creation theory.

Regards,

alan.

Hello Everyone,

The Creation of the Universe five papers were re-jigged along the lines suggested by Guest and now are about 16 pages and 5000 words each.

All five can be found at http://www.angmalta.net/clients/alan/creationfivepapers/

Regards to all,

Alan.

Hi,

Having read the first paper I found much of it interesting, but I must agree with guest 16 on most points. It would take a physicist to truly understand it. You present some terms that I haven't heard and are undefined like "bulk", "solitonic radiation", "Couchy horizons", "solitonic/dilatonic lattice". It was difficult to separate your theory from theories of others. When you used "the author", were you always speaking of yourself or sometimes referring to the last paper you mentioned?

Let's see if I captured your theory:

Time always existed but nothing else did. Suddenly radiation appeared out of nowhere. Time started to run forward and (three?) physical dimensions and gravity appeared somehow. Gravity caused a self replicating lattice to form which caused expansion. The bubble began to rotate. Matter and anti-matter separated. Two or more dimension lattice (brane) was formed from the bubbles and collided with another two or more dimension lattice. The point of collision was called the Big Bang, and produced a bulk (of matter/space) that has ever been expanding (but not according to General Relativity). Some matter/spacetime was sent into the past which caused the initial radiation. Conclusion: The universe is it's own mother.

How did I do?

S

p.s. I do not intend to read the other 4 papers.

Hi,

You did good.

Guest is perfectly correct. My eplanations are too long and too intricate in quoting works of other authors. In fact, I'm now re-vamping all the papers and the one you read comes down to 9 pages a physicist may appreciate when all the work mentioned is familiar. For those not so familiar, it all sounds like a foreign language. Try Maltese. That's really foreign.

The subsequent papers develop the initially simplified ideas in that paper you read and whilst antimatter may have been displaced, a quantity of quark-gluon soup is the most likely displaced material. Then you have tachyon condensation within branes, Chern-Simmons terms and all the rest of the 'heavy' stuff in M-Theory with branes colliding causing a Big Brane Bang followed by time displacement. The universe is therefore cyclic from t = minus infinity to t = plus infinity.

As to the other papers, taking Guest's comments seriously, I would not wish to read them in their present form either.

Regards,

Alan.

What was is, and what isn't was.

All possible has not been, but will be.

There for all is a beginning and an ending.

The circle is a broken line, a figure eight.

The Void is more than a vacuum.

Hot and Cold change into each other.

Between Two and One, and one and two, All bets are off.

P.S. Check with Jorrie, is my suggestion, in this arena, on this subject. Europrium have some hard based insights as well. The Guest certainly demonstrated great knowledge about a certain type of writing, and you, Alienx are recommended by recognizing that.

Thank you for the advice re Guest, but I already have.

All five papers have been totally reorganised and cut to the chase.

For the five, the total is around 22000 words in 78 papges including references.

Not required material has been removed and required material of others receives a mention with a reference and there is no meandering off the point to follow something interesting.

I finished them on 31st March and have vetted them twice. One more run through and they will go to angmalta for publication.

The originals will remain as a first page and direct reders to a link. The promised summary paper was published on Monday but that will be deleted.

Guest, thanks again and I think you will smile if you look at them again.

Kindest Regards to all and I will be here again soon.

Alan.