[rstormview (OP)]

I keep getting post Big Bang science, quantum faux science even, in response to pre-Big Bang hypotheses.

[Kryptid]

I keep getting post Big Bang science, quantum faux science even, in response to pre-Big Bang hypotheses.

You asked why the electron doesn't collide with the proton. That's not a "pre-Big Bang" question, so you didn't get a "pre-Big Bang" answer.

How could you get a decent measurement if you had a platform traveling at 0.999C?

Very easily. A laboratory on a spaceship moving at 0.999c will see itself as being at rest while the rest of the Universe around it is moving at 0.999c instead. If there wasn't any way of looking outside, you wouldn't even know that you were moving. Any experiments done aboard the ship would work exactly the same way as if the ship was not moving. That's how relativity works.

Or a star with a gravitational field 1 million times more than ours?

A laboratory in that field would have all of its instruments at the exact same gravitational potential as whatever else that its measuring (assuming that what it's measuring is in the lab itself), so there would ultimately be no difference in the measurements.

GG: The equations give me the total charge in any system given the total kilograms in that system.  A neutron with a mass of 1.67493E-27 Kg contains 8.50793 dot-waves each with a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs for my electrical model. As you know when you break apart the neutron you measure things which have relatively high mass and high charge as compared to the dot-waves.

That didn't answer the question. I can make up any equation I want to at all and get an answer, but that doesn't mean that the answer makes physical sense. So again I ask, in what sense is a coulomb a kilogram-second/meter? It can be readily explained how a watt is a joule/second. I want a similar explanation.

[rstormview (OP)]

Wrong 'Forum King' that electrons don't collide and become absorbed with protons IS a pre-Big Bang question because, in the hypothesis, the character of electrons is to seek stability by attaching. Electrons attach to protons and create hydrogen. The hypothesis proposes this continuous production of hydrogen throughout infinity suffused infinity with hydrogen growing ever bigger and hotter in the process, until it exploded in a Big Bang that spewed an infinity of atoms sufficient to evolve the Universe in which, after billions of more years, life evolved. The hypothesis is a Quantum free theory of creation and a return to the pure mathematical physics of Newton and Galileo. This is an interesting hypothesis and worthy of better debate than it currently attracts.

[puppypower]

One of the main conceptual problems in physics is connected to the particle accelerator data used to explain the origins of our universe. In all physical systems, tested on the earth, the properties of materials show both a pressure and temperature dependency. Water, for example, at ambient conditions; STP, is a liquid in equilibrium with a gas. Water at the high temperature and pressures assumed for the earth's core, becomes a metallic solid.

The particle accelerator data is generated at high energy=temperature, but at very low pressure compared to say a neutron star. Our tools would phase change at those pressures. The current accelerator experiments would be like testing water at the very high temperature; core of the earth, but using earth surface pressure. The result would be a superheated ionized gas and not a metallic solid phase. We cannot just assume the earth's core sees the same thing or the BB sees low pressure phases like in the lab.

The current particle accelerator data represents an isobar on a larger T,P diagram. In the diagram below, the particle accelerator isobar would be parallel to the x-axis and somewhat close to pressure=0. This data is useful of itself, but it does not tell us anything about extreme pressure phases. Extreme pressure data would be needed to model the BB, not low pressure data. This tradition creates a conceptual problem.

In a neutron star, the assumed quark configurations for electrons and protons; seem at low earth surface pressure; accelerator data, may not be valid phases at the pressures of neutron density. The electron and proton phases only exist at lower pressure. This suggests even charge may not be a valid phase at extreme pressures,



Say a photon split into an electron and positron, at a high enough pressure where the election or positron are not valid phases. It would quickly phase separate into the phase that can exist at the extreme ambient pressure. This phase appears to have been some form of matter, based on the observed matter universe.

[Kryptid]

Wrong 'Forum King' that electrons don't collide and become absorbed with protons IS a pre-Big Bang question because, in the hypothesis, the character of electrons is to seek stability by attaching.

Non-sequitur. Electrons don't hit protons in our post-Big Bang world either.

until it exploded in a Big Bang

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion.

The hypothesis is a Quantum free theory

So how does your model explain phenomena such as quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, the probability distribution of the electron cloud in the atom, the uncertainty principle, the Casimir effect, the double slit experiment and all of the other masses of evidence in quantum mechanics' favor?

This is an interesting hypothesis and worthy of better debate than it currently attracts.

No it isn't, because it predicts that hydrogen burns at its flashpoint without an oxidizing agent. That's chemically impossible. Even if you tried to circumvent the problem by invoking proton-proton fusion, there is still another issue: putting all of the visible universe's mass into a giant cloud of hydrogen with enough heat and pressure at its center to cause fusion would result in the cloud collapsing into a black hole. So there wouldn't even be an explosion at all.

Yet another problem with your model is that it predicts that the electromagnetic force should become repulsive at very small distances. In order to explain the radius of the hydrogen atom, that realm should be at about the Bohr radius (5.29 x 10^-11 meters). One of the consequences of this prediction is that any bound, two-particle system where each member has a charge equal in magnitude to the electron or proton should have exactly this same radius, since the electromagnetic force would behave identically for any particle with that same charge.

This, however, does not match experimental findings. Positronium, which is the bound state of an electron and a positron, has the exact same magnitude of electromagnetic forces at work as exist in a hydrogen atom. Despite this, the radius of a positronium atom is about twice as large as that of the hydrogen atom (which we know from examining its ionization energy/electronic spectra). Muonic hydrogen, on the other hand, is much smaller than a hydrogen atom. Again, the muon has a charge identical to the electron. So both of these pieces of observational data demonstrate that the electromagnetic force does not suddenly reverse into a repulsion around the Bohr radius.

The repulsion model also has the problem of not explaining electron capture. In certain isotopes, one of the innermost electrons in an atom can be captured by the nucleus. If there was some kind of repulsive force at work keeping the electron away from the nucleus (and no such thing as quantum mechanics to explain how it could tunnel through such a barrier), then how does your model account for the phenomenon of electron capture?

Also, when are you going to explain what a "homer" is?

The particle accelerator data is generated at high energy=temperature, but at very low pressure compared to say a neutron star.

The collisions in particle accelerators result in the equivalent of localized, very high pressure.

[jerrygg38]

Naked 2.15.20 8 am
GG: How could you get a decent measurement if you had a platform traveling at 0.999C?
Kryptoid: Very easily. A laboratory on a spaceship moving at 0.999c will see itself as being at rest while the rest of the Universe around it is moving at 0.999c instead. If there wasn't any way of looking outside, you wouldn't even know that you were moving. Any experiments done aboard the ship would work exactly the same way as if the ship was not moving. That's how relativity works.
GG: A proton traveling near the speed of light has almost zero forward dimension but perpendicular the size is almost the same as when standing still. So now you live with the proton and build strange instruments to measure the speed of light. You use relativity as if it is absolute truth rather than a very good mathematical approximation to reality. It is not believable to me what you say.
Quote
GG: Or a star with a gravitational field 1 million times more than ours?
Kryptoid: A laboratory in that field would have all of its instruments at the exact same gravitational potential as whatever else that its measuring (assuming that what it's measuring is in the lab itself), so there would ultimately be no difference in the measurements.
GG: This is not believable to me either. We are in a non-linear situation and Einstein’s equations would require a Fourier series correction.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 19:39:26
GG: The equations give me the total charge in any system given the total kilograms in that system.  A neutron with a mass of 1.67493E-27 Kg contains 8.50793 dot-waves each with a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs for my electrical model. As you know when you break apart the neutron you measure things which have relatively high mass and high charge as compared to the dot-waves.
Kryptoid: That didn't answer the question. I can make up any equation I want to at all and get an answer, but that doesn't mean that the answer makes physical sense. So again I ask, in what sense is a coulomb a kilogram-second/meter? It can be readily explained how a watt is a joule/second. I want a similar explanation.
GG: The inverse equation is
Mass = Coulomb meters/ second
Coulomb per second is a current flow
When we multiply by meters we get a current flow around a plane. When we add huge numbers of these current flows, we fill a sphere of a particular radius.  This produces a lot of current gyroscopes within an electron or the sub-particles within the proton. So a mass at rest will tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by a force.
   The coulombs = kilograms seconds per meter is the inverted function for the mechanical world. It is not as easy to explain from a mechanical perspective. In any event my dot-waves have charge and equivalent mass. The mass is caused by the motion of the charges. In addition the dot-waves when spherical form oscillated between light speed dimensions.
  Anyway the conversion is either an electrical model of the universe or the actual universe. Within a hundred years we should advance to the point where we know for sure. Then we can build some interesting things for power generation, space travel, and unfortunately advanced weapons.
   Today I will post the details of the conversion of mass to charge using standard physics equations. I never did this before in this manner. So with your very good questions, I have learned more about my conversion work.

[Bored chemist]

Many people have told me that I was the smartest person they ever met. Yet you think I am dim. That says a lot about you.

No, it just says that those people never met me.

As I see it, the differences in light speed upon the Earth in satellites will be rather small. You have to move to a very non-linear area of space to find measurable differences. And we cannot get there.

For GPS satellites it's equivalent to about 38µseconds per day.
We did get there.
How can you be smart if you don't know that?

[Kryptid]

GG: A proton traveling near the speed of light has almost zero forward dimension but perpendicular the size is almost the same as when standing still. So now you live
with the proton and build strange instruments to measure the speed of light.

And that is precisely why measurements are not affected by velocity: length contraction affects everything in the laboratory equally.

You use relativity as if it is absolute truth rather than a very good mathematical approximation to reality.

I never said that relativity is an absolute truth, but the existing experimental evidence all points to what I say being true.

It is not believable to me what you say.

Then you are denying experimental evidence. Length contraction is an inevitable consequence of an invariant speed of light, and light speed is known to be invariant to a level of at least 10^-17.

This is not believable to me either. We are in a non-linear situation and Einstein’s equations would require a Fourier series correction.

What is a "non-linear situation"? On what basis would Einstein's equations require correction?

GG: The inverse equation is
Mass = Coulomb meters/ second
Coulomb per second is a current flow

And yet if you double the current flow through a wire, you don't double the mass of the wire. So this relation must be false.

When we multiply by meters we get a current flow around a plane.

Meters are one-dimensional. A plane is two dimensional.

[puppypower]

Quote from: puppypower on Yesterday at 11:47:48
The particle accelerator data is generated at high energy=temperature, but at very low pressure compared to say a neutron star.

The collisions in particle accelerators result in the equivalent of localized, very high pressure.

These experiments will create an impulse of pressure. However, it does not last long enough to sustain an extreme pressure phase. Instead we will get a pressure impulse, and then a rapid pressure drop, at which time we measure the low pressure and high energy phases. You would need to run the experiments, within an extreme pressure field, so the pressure will remain high for the entire experiment.

Say we could set up an experiment, on a neutron star, so we have extreme pressure over the entire experiment. Many of the particles we normally accelerate, would not qualify as a valid phase to accelerate, since the pressure begins too high. It is also very likely the neutrons will not break into sub-particles, since space is more restricted due to the pressure. High pressure, by making the system smaller, is reducing the space requirement of the new phases. This could means a phase with more quarks per particle; merger, instead of neutrons breaking into quarks.






 

[Kryptid]

These experiments will create an impulse of pressure. However, it does not last long enough to sustain an extreme pressure phase. Instead we will get a pressure impulse, and then a rapid pressure drop, at which time we measure the low pressure and high energy phases. You would need to run the experiments, within an extreme pressure field, so the pressure will remain high for the entire experiment.

We can tell what happened during that moment of high pressure by analyzing the particles that result from the collision. Constant pressure might lead to interesting results, but it isn't completely necessary to figure out what is going on.

[jerrygg38]

Kryptid responds to GG:
GG: A proton traveling near the speed of light has almost zero forward dimension but perpendicular the size is almost the same as when standing still.
Kryptoid: So now you live with the proton and build strange instruments to measure the speed of light.
GG: And who will be alive to build these strange instruments. No one can survive distortions greater than20- 50 percent of light speed. A rocket ship would break apart if we exceed 0.2C.
Kryptid: And that is precisely why measurements are not affected by velocity: length contraction affects everything in the laboratory equally.
For the galaxy as a whole it can move at light speed C and slightly above because the gravitational field equalizes the pressures. Yet if we try to move a rocket ship at 0.8C there is nothing that can equalize it.  An electron and proton has the ability to survive but chemical bonds are no match for the destructive forces caused by distortions in three dimensions.
Quote
GG:You use relativity as if it is absolute truth rather than a very good mathematical approximation to reality.
Kryptid: I never said that relativity is an absolute truth, but the existing experimental evidence all points to what I say being true.
GG: Einstein’s work has been verified for linear areas of space time and in the lab.
At Polytechnic we had various courses which were devoted to non-linear aspects of electrical engineering.  A describing function was used to solve problems and that is what Einstein’s work is in my opinion.
Quote
GG: It is not believable to me what you say.
Kryptoid: Then you are denying experimental evidence. Length contraction is an inevitable consequence of an invariant speed of light, and light speed is known to be invariant to a level of at least 10-17.
GG: I agree with length contraction in the plane of motion but not in the perpendicular plane without very strong internal forces such as within a proton or electron. A space ship or a measuring instrument has only weak chemical bonds to hold it together. And it will not survive when we go beyond 0.2C to 0.5C.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 12:22:33
GG:This is not believable to me either. We are in a non-linear situation and Einstein’s equations would require a Fourier series correction.
Kryptoid: What is a "non-linear situation"? On what basis would Einstein's equations require correction?
GG: The Doppler Radar studies by several universities corrected his equations.  In general no matter how hard you try to find perfect answers in anything, all you can get is an approximation to the true answer. Einstein’s work is a great approximation. It is a great describing function but it is not the whole truth.


Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 12:22:33
GG: The inverse equation is
Mass = Coulomb meters/ second
Coulomb per second is a current flow
Kryptid: And yet if you double the current flow through a wire, you don't double the mass of the wire. So this relation must be false.
GG: For your example, there is no wire. If you have a circular flow of dot-waves at a particular radius and you double the flow, the mass of the electrons in the circular flow will double. The entire universe is constructed of dot-waves which have calculable mass and charge. If you have more charge you will have more mass and vice versa.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Today at 12:22:33
When we multiply by meters we get a current flow around a plane.
Meters are one-dimensional. A plane is two dimensional.
I am just looking for simple words. Perhaps a current torque would be better words. Please read my new topic “What is the relationship between mass and charge. This should make it clearer.

[Kryptid]

GG: And who will be alive to build these strange instruments. No one can survive distortions greater than20- 50 percent of light speed. A rocket ship would break apart if we exceed 0.2C.

You clearly don't understand how length contraction works. It is not like squeezing something in a vice. Neither the ship nor any one aboard the ship will experience any kind of stress or strain from the contraction. Relativity states that all inertial frames are equally valid. So for a proton moving at 99.999% the speed of light moving past the Earth, the Earth itself and everything on it will look extremely length contracted. This is exactly equivalent to the Earth itself moving at 99.999% the speed of light past a stationary proton. In neither case does anyone on Earth experience any problems from the contraction (nor would they even be aware of it, since all measuring devices shrink by the same amount).

GG: Einstein’s work has been verified for linear areas of space time and in the lab.

It has also been verified in extreme environments by observing the behavior of black holes and neutron stars. All of their behavior has lined up with the predictions of relativity so far.

The Doppler Radar studies by several universities corrected his equations.

Can you provide a citation for this?

GG: For your example, there is no wire. If you have a circular flow of dot-waves at a particular radius and you double the flow, the mass of the electrons in the circular flow will double. The entire universe is constructed of dot-waves which have calculable mass and charge. If you have more charge you will have more mass and vice versa.

It doesn't matter whether there is a wire or not. All that matters is if there is a current. Your equation predicts that a doubling of the current should double the mass. It doesn't.

I am just looking for simple words.

I would prefer accurate words.

[jerrygg38]

Naked 2.17.20 10am
Kryptid: You clearly don't understand how length contraction works. It is not like squeezing something in a vice. Neither the ship nor any one aboard the ship will experience any kind of stress or strain from the contraction. Relativity states that all inertial frames are equally valid. So for a proton moving at 99.999% the speed of light moving past the Earth, the Earth itself and everything on it will look extremely length contracted. This is exactly equivalent to the Earth itself moving at 99.999% the speed of light past a stationary proton. In neither case does anyone on Earth experience any problems from the contraction (nor would they even be aware of it, since all measuring devices shrink by the same amount).
GG: In the first sentence you seem to indicate that each object sees the other like a Doppler effect. Neither suffers any physical shrinkage. It is just a visual effect.  In the last sentence you indicate that all measuring devices shrink by the same amount.
  I agree that we are moving outward at slightly above the speed of light C. Yet we do not feel that. It seems that the gravitational field of the galaxy obeys relativity. It equalizes everything in the galaxy with respect to the outward velocity C.  Otherwise we would be flattened.
  Now if a high speed proton is heading toward the Earth.  It is entering our gravitational field which equalizes everything upon the Earth. The proton has a lot of photonic energy. It seems to me that the proton would be flattened. The earth would be nice and round but the proton would be crushed flat.
  Stationary protons are round. Photons are flat. If we add flat photons to a round proton, the net result would be a flattened proton. Relativity of platforms requires independent gravitational fields. A spaceship has basically a zero gravitational field as compared to a planet. Therefore a spaceship will be flattened as we raise its speed toward light speed. Relativity works some of the time but not all the time.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:57:18
GG: Einstein’s work has been verified for linear areas of space time and in the lab.
Kryptoid: It has also been verified in extreme environments by observing the behavior of black holes and neutron stars. All of their behavior has lined up with the predictions of relativity so far.
GG: Ok. You seem to know quite a lot about such things.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:57:18
The Doppler radar studies by several universities corrected his equations.
Kryptid: Can you provide a citation for this?
GG: I read the reports by MIT and other universities as I studied in the Sperry library which was listed as Secret and Top Secret. They just added Doppler forward and rearward masses to Einstein’s equations. Anyway that was 50 years ago and they must have gotten better data by today.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on Yesterday at 22:57:18
GG: For your example, there is no wire. If you have a circular flow of dot-waves at a particular radius and you double the flow, the mass of the electrons in the circular flow will double. The entire universe is constructed of dot-waves which have calculable mass and charge. If you have more charge you will have more mass and vice versa.
Kryptid: It doesn't matter whether there is a wire or not. All that matters is if there is a current. Your equation predicts that a doubling of the current should double the mass. It doesn't.
GG: You are turning the equation into an electric flow problem.
Mass = Coulombs Meters/Seconds = Current x Meters
  So you say that if you doubled the current flow, the mass would increase twice as much. It doesn’t work that way.
Equation 1: Kilograms =  Coulombs x Constant x Speed of Light C.
Kilograms and Coulombs are related by the speed of light C.
If you double the coulombs you double the kilograms.
   Every particle or photon is made up of dot-waves. Each dot-wave comes as positive or negative. A bipolar dot-wave consists of one positive and one negative dot wave with a total charge of zero.
   Equation 1 just relates kilograms and coulombs.
   All it states is that the mechanical world and the electrical world always appear together as sister units. The are tied to each other by force equations such as for the Bohr Orbit.
   
   

[Origin]

Every particle or photon is made up of dot-waves.

First, your posts are hard to read since you do not use the the quote feature.  To use the quote feature click reply, scroll down to the text you want to quote, highlight the part of the post you wish to quote and then click on the 'quote (selected)' button.

Secondly, the constant for the speed of light in a vacuum is a small 'c', not a capital 'C'.  A capital 'C' is capacitance. 

Finally, you made up the idea of 'dot waves', making up things is science fiction, not science.  If there was ANY evidence of dot waves then it could be science.  Your subconscious thoughts are not evidence.

[Bored chemist]

A space ship or a measuring instrument has only weak chemical bonds to hold it together. And it will not survive when we go beyond 0.2C to 0.5C.

It is routine laboratory work to accelerate molecules (held together by chemical bonds) to reasonably large fractions of c
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-of-flight_mass_spectrometry

So you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

[Kryptid]

I agree that we are moving outward at slightly above the speed of light C.

Agreeing with whom? I never indicated such a thing.

It equalizes everything in the galaxy with respect to the outward velocity C.

I can't make sense of this sentence.

Stationary protons are round. Photons are flat. If we add flat photons to a round proton, the net result would be a flattened proton.

Citation needed.

Relativity of platforms requires independent gravitational fields.

No, no it does not.

A spaceship has basically a zero gravitational field as compared to a planet. Therefore a spaceship will be flattened as we raise its speed toward light speed.

No it wouldn't. You still don't understand relativity.

Relativity works some of the time but not all the time.

Please provide a link to a verified observation of relativity being wrong.

GG: I read the reports by MIT and other universities as I studied in the Sperry library which was listed as Secret and Top Secret.

So no, you cannot supply a citation.

Equation 1: Kilograms =  Coulombs x Constant x Speed of Light C.

What is the value of that constant?

[Bored chemist]

they must have gotten better data by today.

That might be why they no longer use the weird stuff you are posting about.

[Bored chemist]

The are tied to each other by force equations such as for the Bohr Orbit.

... which never existed.

[rstormview (OP)]

Thanks for your numerous replies. I seem to be still getting post Big Bang rebuttals to a pre Big Bang hypothesis. In answer, I again summarise my position.
 In the SCIENCE BASED THEORY OF CREATION post, if the polarity inversion hypothesis  ‘carries’, we get a seductive and long awaited definition of Gravity which, in turn, suggests an ongoing creation of Hydrogen throughout infinity.
Ongoing H creation throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.
This suffusion was infinite so it spewed out enough material to furnish the Universe we evolved into via 160,000,000 years of dinosaur evolution.
The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo, but there are acres of Quantum disciples who vociferously disagree.
To ensure we are on the same page, my only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions begin with your own pre Big Bang theories
Rstormview

[Kryptid]

I seem to be still getting post Big Bang rebuttals to a pre Big Bang hypothesis.

You seem to have missed this:

Electrons don't hit protons in our post-Big Bang world either.

if the polarity inversion hypothesis  ‘carries’

It doesn't. Here's why:

Yet another problem with your model is that it predicts that the electromagnetic force should become repulsive at very small distances. In order to explain the radius of the hydrogen atom, that realm should be at about the Bohr radius (5.29 x 10-11 meters). One of the consequences of this prediction is that any bound, two-particle system where each member has a charge equal in magnitude to the electron or proton should have exactly this same radius, since the electromagnetic force would behave identically for any particle with that same charge.

This, however, does not match experimental findings. Positronium, which is the bound state of an electron and a positron, has the exact same magnitude of electromagnetic forces at work as exist in a hydrogen atom. Despite this, the radius of a positronium atom is about twice as large as that of the hydrogen atom (which we know from examining its ionization energy/electronic spectra). Muonic hydrogen, on the other hand, is much smaller than a hydrogen atom. Again, the muon has a charge identical to the electron. So both of these pieces of observational data demonstrate that the electromagnetic force does not suddenly reverse into a repulsion around the Bohr radius.

The repulsion model also has the problem of not explaining electron capture. In certain isotopes, one of the innermost electrons in an atom can be captured by the nucleus. If there was some kind of repulsive force at work keeping the electron away from the nucleus (and no such thing as quantum mechanics to explain how it could tunnel through such a barrier), then how does your model account for the phenomenon of electron capture?

Ongoing H creation throughout infinity suggests an electromagnetic field (aka infinity) suffused with H growing ever bigger and hotter until an inevitable Big Bang.

You seem to have missed these as well:

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion.

No it isn't, because it predicts that hydrogen burns at its flashpoint without an oxidizing agent. That's chemically impossible. Even if you tried to circumvent the problem by invoking proton-proton fusion, there is still another issue: putting all of the visible universe's mass into a giant cloud of hydrogen with enough heat and pressure at its center to cause fusion would result in the cloud collapsing into a black hole. So there wouldn't even be an explosion at all.

Sometimes I wonder if you even bother reading our replies.

The post proposes this returns science to the logical physics of Newton and Galileo

And here is why that won't work:

So how does your model explain phenomena such as quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, the probability distribution of the electron cloud in the atom, the uncertainty principle, the Casimir effect, the double slit experiment and all of the other masses of evidence in quantum mechanics' favor?

To ensure we are on the same page, my only request to the ‘vociferous’ is that your opinions...

It's best to avoid opinions altogether. Evidence and data are preferred.

...begin with your own pre Big Bang theories

There is no need for our own "theories" to refute your model (they wouldn't even be theories, because they haven't been tested), because the existing evidence already stands against your model. If you had actually read my posts, you should understand that.