Chapter 1: Understanding Materialization

The materialization process can be perceived in a manner that diverges from the conventional views held by physicists regarding matter and its origins. This alternative perspective opens up new avenues for comprehending the beginnings of the universe more thoroughly.

To initiate this exploration, let's distill some fundamental concepts from Physics: The total energy present in the universe today is represented as 1. This figure serves merely as a placeholder, not specifying the exact quantity but allowing us to conceptualize the total energy without complicating matters. Essentially, the universe contains exactly one unit of energy, neither more nor less.

Energy, intriguingly, is never lost. This fact implies that there is no need to search for it; we can commence the materialization process with energy already at hand. We might say that this energy's potential was pre-existing.

Furthermore, the potential energy in the prior state of the universe also equated to 1. It's crucial to understand that we do not need to delve into the specifics of how this energy existed before the materialization process. The results we observe affirm its presence, despite our inability to comprehend its exact nature. Thus, we can confidently assert that the total energy was and continues to be 1.

Video Title: 1^x = -1 - YouTube

This video delves into complex mathematical concepts, exploring how certain equations can yield unexpected results and interpretations, which can be analogous to the shifts in understanding energy and materialization.

1 + x = 1

It should be clear now that this equation centers around x rather than energy itself. The elegance of this equation lies in declaring the total energy as 1, regardless of its state. This allows us to investigate the variable x, which truly captures our interest. The equation’s solution, x, is simply 0.

In this context, the 0 represents a fundamental zero, which is distinct from the more commonly accepted notion of nothingness. This 0 carries significant meaning, indicating that a fundamental transformation took place, represented by x. A fitting analogy here is a divorce: while the number of individuals remains constant, the relationship dynamic shifts.

The next inquiry revolves around whether this fundamental change pertains to the prior or the current state of the universe. The present state, filled with matter, could not have emerged without the initial conditions that facilitated its existence. A crucial division occurred at the conclusion of the prior state among its (potential) energy.

This observation highlights a critical oversight in the traditional Big Bang model. What was once unseen has come into focus: the actions necessary for materialization transpired at the end of the universe's prior state, a detail overlooked in the Big Bang theory. The prior reality set the stage for a subsequent reality; the absence of matter actively contributed to the emergence of matter.

Where there was once a singular entity, we now recognize two distinct outcomes. Thus, we must integrate a fundamental change into our models, occurring before energy transitioned into matter.

The most captivating narrative, if there ever was one, unfolded not within our current universe but rather at the terminus of its previous state. Notably, the prevailing Big Bang model includes an undefined singularity at its core from which matter emerged, essentially admitting a lack of comprehensive mathematical understanding of the pivotal event that gave rise to matter.

Physicists have historically neglected to account for this fundamental change, often following a gradual path that fails to acknowledge its significance.

It is possible that physicists are perplexed at this moment, as they have never been taught to grapple with a concept that is essentially "nothing." They accept that a vacuum represents the ultimate state, suggesting a location devoid of any matter. However, this limits their understanding.

Physicists might mistakenly regard 0 as a singular number, akin to 1. However, this is a misconception; only 1 can truly denote singularity, and even it can represent various contexts. For instance, while "1" can signify both a unit and a group, a unit is singular, whereas a group is singular only in context. No other number aside from 1 accurately conveys singularity in nature.

The number 0, however, manifests in at least two forms. For example, in "010," the first 0 can be omitted without altering its meaning, while removing the second 0 leads to a significant change. One 0 is inconsequential, while the other is foundational. Physicists have yet to address the intricate nature of 0; they often regard it as an anomaly.

For many physicists, these ideas may seem nonsensical. They focus intently on tangible entities and frequently overlook the broader contexts that hold fundamental significance. There is a strong resistance against exploring the concept of fundamental 0s in larger frameworks, and those who dare to highlight such ideas often face ridicule.

What is crucial for physicists is that hypotheses can be disproven. This presents an opportunity to identify a significant aspect that is currently disregarded in the traditional Big Bang model.

By suggesting an inward motion at the conclusion of the prior state of the universe, we have indeed proposed a testable hypothesis. It is vital to grasp the nature of this proposal, as it is based on behavior rather than matter.

With (the potential of) energy existing at the universal level before matter arose, we can hypothesize a scientific inward motion during that state that ultimately went awry. This prediction aligns with the outward motion we observe in the results. As such, we have a falsifiable proposition. Newton would have concurred:

"What goes in, must come out."

However, during this inward motion, damage occurred among certain elements, establishing a context that led to the release of built-up tension.

Can physicists ultimately accept this? Certainly, as the evidence is present (i.e., the material universe we observe). Nonetheless, they may remain trapped within a scientific paradigm that blinds them to the broader context where 0 plays a vital role. It’s akin to explaining depth to someone with only one eye; such a conversation is bound to be challenging.

Chapter 2: The Big Whisper Theory

The advantage of having an alternative model alongside the Big Bang theory is that it allows for meaningful comparisons. Interestingly, this alternate model does not require an extremely hot starting point, as the origins of matter are not situated near a singularity.

The inward motion likely resulted in disruptions among prior energy relatively close to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). While such disruptions may generate heat, they wouldn't fall into the super-hot category. Likewise, given the proximity to the CMBR, extended adiabatic cooling is unnecessary, challenging the lengthy timeline currently accepted by physicists, who believe the initial process extended nearly 380,000 years.

In the Big Whisper theory, this timeline could potentially be shortened by about 379,999 years.

Despite the lack of extensive peer review, the Big Whisper theory has faced decades of rejection from prominent publications. However, it has garnered informal peer reviews from physicists and those trained in the field through platforms like Medium and Quora. Surprisingly, these reviews have indicated that the Big Whisper theory does not contradict any established laws, suggesting its plausibility in the eyes of some scholars.

The Big Whisper Theory… For Dummies

Everyone is familiar with the Big Bang theory, and when queried, only a few key aspects are likely to be clearly articulated...