These are my ATM answers to Carole’s questions.

Since answers to questions in the Q&A forum are supposed to be mainstream answers, and because some questions can’t be answered in mainstream science, I offer this “against the mainstream” thread with ATM answers to Carole’s questions:

Space is infinite and has always existed.

Space is just a place that can be empty but isn’t.

Space is not empty because matter and energy have always existed too.

Energy has the characteristic that it equalizes its density in space so all space contains energy.

Matter forms when the amount of energy in space exceeds a certain density.

It turns out that the amount of energy when fully equalized exceeds the energy density needed to form matter and matter forms until the energy density is lowered to the threshold energy density.

Infinity is a hard concept. It takes practice to grasp it. I started by imagining it, and then equating what I imagined to the space occupied by a grain of sand, and then I imagined an infinite beach, and then equating that to a grain of sand on a still greater infinite beach, and then imagining an infinite number of such steps, lol. Eventually your mind gets the idea and all of a sudden you realize that you can grasp the concept.

To confuse the issue, matter forms at one energy density and is negated back to extremely high energy density at another much higher energy density; so matter forms at one energy density and cannot exist above a certain energy density and is negated back energy. Matter only exists within that narrow range of energy density.

Energy from negated matter is very compressed and therefore has great potential expansion energy and so it expands.

During expansion which lowers the energy density the density re-enters the matter formation range and allows matted to form again. This is happening at all times across infinite space in arenas, one of which is like what we recognize as "our expanding universe".

The high energy density that negates matter occurs in a big crunch.

A big crunch forms due to gravity but is not the collapse of an expanding arena. The big crunch forms from the mixing and merging of matter that formed in numerous expanding arenas across space; crunches are rendezvous of matter that are fed by numerous expanding arenas in the surrounding space.

Anti-matter is a temporary condition that arises in high energy collisions of accelerated matter. As the accelerated particles destroy each other there is a cloud of energy released that forms into exotic particles including anti-particles. When anti-particles and normal particles meet after the collision they recombine and create new particles formed from the energy of the collided particles.

Just positing for a moment that what you say is true:

• How do you know it to be so?
• What evidence is there to support your ATM theory?
• What does your ATM theory tell us that the mainstream theories do not?

• That is a fair question. The reason I don't give these answers in a mainstream forum is because they are not proved.
  Quote:

  What evidence is there to support your ATM theory?

  Another fair question. There is only the same evidence that the mainstreams uses to arrive at their answers. The thing is that mainstream cannot answer all of the questions. Some questions go beyond what science can support with the evidence that is available. There are non-mainstream answers but they are speculative.
  Quote:

  What does your ATM theory tell us that the mainstream theories do not?

Mainstream science has difficulty with speculation that can't be proved or falsified. My speculations are what I call reasonable and responsible, but they cannot be proved or falsified. That is why they are against the mainstream.

This is actually an interesting question because if you seek an opinion about things that mainstream theories do not explain there is quite a list:

Does Big Bang Theory explain how expansion of our observable universe began?

No. It starts an instant after the “big bang”.

Does Big Bang Theory explain what caused the big bang?

No. It doesn’t even say there was a Bang as such. The term “Big Bang” came from an early detractor of the General Theory of Relativity as an effort to discredit GTR. Obviously the name stuck but the theory never mentions a starting point, a Big Bang, or what might have caused the expansion.

So some of the things my ATM theory tells us that mainstream theory does not are:

• What preceded our Big Bang universe.
• What caused the expansion of our early primordial universe.
• What was the primordial soup composed of.
• What causes matter to form.
• What happens to matter that forms within the expanding universe.
• Why can’t we detect the greater universe.
• Why does it seem like there is no center of expansion, i.e. how can it be that all galaxies are moving away from each other at the same rate.

Do you have any evidence or maths? if not this is a 'just so' story isn't it?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Captain, there are things that we want of know but that we can't. Speculation about the questions that science cannot prove or theorize about has no evidence or maths.

There are many people who wonder about the imponderables. Those people make up many differing groups. There are young people who look up into the sky and wonder and seek answers. There are teachers who know that science doesn’t have all of the answers and who want their students to appreciate what science does know or is willing suggest about the unknown. There are laymen who think about what science does know or is willing to suggest and still wonder about things that science is not comfortable with. There are scientists who have their peers to consider and who must operate within the system to maintain credibility. There is the unbounded and unregulated internet where any question can be typed in and speculation, idle or responsible can be brought up. That is where reasonable and responsible speculation comes in.

Not knowing something, not being able to find a science approved answer, and being told we don’t know or we can’t know is often as far as we can go. For some that is the starting point for speculation. Speculation is not condoned because science has a method and the method requires hypothesis and testing. Hypotheses can be falsified while speculation often cannot. That does not mean that there is no correct answer, it means that science may never be able to confirm that a speculation is correct or false. That should not stop us from speculating, it should only reinforce our insistence that speculations be reasonable and responsible.

I sometimes suggest as yet unknown physics to suggest a cause when we observe things that we cannot explain. I don't make any speculations that I can't explain in a step by step reasonable and responsible fashion that goes beyond where science is willing to venture or beyond known physics. Not all speculation comes with such a warranty and if it doesn't then maybe you should look at mine instead of those off brands .

That's all very well but by the rules of the ATM forum you are expected to support your assertions.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

"Defend" I think the rule says. Captain, it sounds to me like you have a particular quesion.

What are your definitions of "reasonable and responsible"? How are we supposed to separate the "reasonable and responsible" sheep from the "unreasonable and irresponsible" goats?

Reasonable speculation starts at a point where science will not go, i.e. like the question of what started the expansion of our observable universe.

Reasonable speculation starts with a step by step description of what might have been the circumstances at the point that expansion began and builds step by step to the point that we observe, i.e. the galaxies moving away from each other.

Many of the steps might agree with existing theory but since the existing theory doesn't address the start point, speculation is needed and new physics has to be predicted if any explanation is to be offered.

Reasonable speculation is subject to peer review just like scientific theory, but the peers are only those who care to make their opinions known in public which often excludes qualified professionals .

Reasonable speculation can be objected to by peers, but those peers must offer an alternative speculation. Reasonable speculation then changes as better explanations for unfalsifiable events are developed.

Advancement in science can also affect reasonable speculation. If a unifying particle were to be discovered in particle physics then speculations that didn't include such unification would have to be updated. If evidence of the existence of a greater universe beyond our expanding universe were to become evident then speculation would have to change to include that, etc.

When answering a persons questions, it is best to start with what is known.

We can outline what observation tells us and how Einsteins equations describe them as matched by observations.
We can demonstrate how this is told by BBT.

Speculation after that fact is just that- speculation. It must be noted in full and in bold that it is speculation and not 'alternate thinking' or 'scientific theory grounded with evidence' that is rejected by meanie poopoo head mainstreamers.

It is reasonable and responsible to answer questions from a mainstream perspective first. Some questions that can't be answered by mainstream science still linger. Suggesting speculative answers to those questions should be properly identified as speculation that cannot be proved or falsified from the available evidence.

This thread about the cause of the expansion of the universe is an example of how I have handled that issue.

The failure of that thread was that it quickly got into too much detail and required new physics. I suspect that any questions that are beyond the ability of science to answer will be just as complicated and will require new physics as well. That is the nature of reasonable and responsible speculation. It is not very interesting, it is usually complicated, it requires made up new physics so that what we observe can be explained, and it can't be proved.

If I can sell my speculations to anyone who is not saavy enough to know that they are just speculations and nothing more, then I have a used car for sale if your interested. This is not dangerous stuff and no one is likely to be misled. It is for the benefit of those who have given the subject much thought on their own, have found maintream answers lacking, and are interested in discussing speculative alternatives (bold per Neverfly's suggestion).

It may be that easy to sell that car

Bogie, there is nothing wrong with YOU, but a lotta folks read only what they want to see. Therein lies the problem- they will take speculation as fact- and three weeks later claim, "Scientists say that the big bang was a giant space fart."

I'm not sure why it is people are this way- but that is what they do..

A big space fart??? That needs to be said in bold.

Yes, the Big Bang is about the rapid flatulation of space.

One could argue that the assertion is required when science stops trying to falsify theories it 'feels' comfortable with.

One should argue that the assertion is necessary when science starts 'correcting reality' to fit their theories.

One must try to assert a unified theory if one has one especially as there are now a sufficient number of smaller conflicting theories.

Logic dictates speculation on a replacement should commence well before the total atrophy of an existing system. It is called planned preventative stagnation.

Mathematics assisted the development of the Early Egyptian Empire and then became the cause of 3000 years of stagnation. History has quite a number of repetitive cycles ... this could be one of them.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Which theories are science so comfortable with that all efforts to falsify them have stopped?

If a theory has been verified to 10 decimal places is it OK to stop attempting falsification? At 15? At 20? What if we have gone as far as the available technology will let us go? Is that enough to satisfy you?
Please give an example of scientists "correcting reality".
It is not exempt from falsification. It must give back in some limit the various theories that it supercedes. This is where most ATM theories fail; while making predictions about the things the author cares about they often fail spectacularly at the simplest things.
Stagnation to prevent what?
Mathematics caused stagnation? And kept Egyptian culture stagnated for 3,000 years?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

When you work out the EFEs you use the mass and relative motion of massive objects in space. The formulas have proved out because they have been developed in the laboratory of astronomical measurements meaning that we have a wealth of historic data and we have proved that the same formulas that have accounted for the historical data (back testing) also work to predict. The successful predictions to the 10th decimal and better can be repeated forever and it won’t prove that mass curves space; it will prove that humans are very good at determining all of the factors that account for the movement of objects in space and at performing complex mathematical calculations to apply that knowledge. Humans have shown imagination in attributing the cause of the understood effect to warped spacetime. We don't know how mass curves space ... yet.