June 27, 2020

All active galaxies have the same physics due to the mini-bangs.

SMBH can develop a Planck sphere core – this is where GR gets crazy with pure math and singularities. But it’s just the density limit of immutable point charges. Under some set of conditions those Planck cores can breach the poles and a mini-bang occurs via the jets. Same physics everywhere. Ideal Planck cores have zero entropy and zero information.

Besides all the standard particles produced in the big bang, these galaxy local mini-bangs also produce more spacetime aether, which inflates and expands as it dissipates energy.

Physics has developed very complicated math in the quest to understand the fundamentals. It‘s very hard to make progress in physics the way the field is doing it. It is much easier with NPQG. The GR-QM era approach locks physicists into complicated mathematics, yet they don’t see the errors that have been made that make their efforts so much more complicated than they are in nature.

Physicists observations are fine. even if the instruments were not optimally designed for that which they are searching.

Mini-bangs occur today. We see them in AGNs that have jetting SMBH. That hot plasma they jet then follows the normal big bang funnel diagram timeline.

My hypothesis is that for a number of reasons scientists did not recognize that galaxy center jetting supermassive black holes ARE the physical implementation of their theoretical big bang. It appears to me to be a series of cognitive errors. I wrote about it here.

Missed Opportunities to Discover Nature

A cascade of mis-interpretations has derailed physics and cosmology onto extremely difficult lines of attack where complexity and confusion reign and progress is slowed.

From Peebles’ new book, Cosmology’s Century. Can you spot the logic flaws if the big bangs are galaxy-local?

I wholeheartedly agree that people should remain skeptical, but how skeptical? With how much skepticism do you hold the Big Bang for example? Of course everyone knows scientists do not mean a single point in time event — everyone knows that right?

“the name, “big bang,” is inappropriate, because a bang connotes an event in spacetime. Unlike a familiar bang, this cosmology has nothing to do with a special position or time.

Peebles, P. J. E.. Cosmology’s Century: An Inside History of Our Modern Understanding of the Universe (p. 7). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

So this is a Nobel Prize winner saying the Big Bang has nothing to do with a position or time or event. Think about that. No constraint on position. No constraint on time. No constraint on a single event. Look around. Do you imagine we haven’t seen it in all observations with photons that we age back to 13.8 B years?

Skepticism is fine, but there comes a point where you realize that your theory is a far better descriptor of nature than what we have now, especially since the aim of my theory is to start at Planck scale and work my way to larger scales and reproduce the math and observations of modern science. So far so good. I haven’t found anything that contradicts facts. I have found a LOT that contradicts narratives and leads to more logical narratives. And that is a good thing. A world where I am confident and you are skeptical makes perfect sense and both can be good and proper behaviours.

Let’s go back to our hunt for the “epoch of light element formation, when the temperature of the universe was some nine orders of magnitude larger“. We now know that it is is not constrained on position, time, or event per the highly respected Peebles. Yet the goal statement is still over constrained? Should we be saying “epoch” and talking about “the universe when” if the thing we are searching for is time independent? Of course not!

What are the highest energy events we’ve observed? That should be a good place to start looking. The energy ingested by galaxy center supermassive black holes is huge, and we’ve also observed enormously powerful jets from a number of SMBH. Those are the largest energy sinks and sources in the universe.

Let’s ensure we are on the same page with regards to NPQG. The immutable Planck spheres, electrino and positrino, are charged and therefore emitting fields at local c. So when electrinos and positrinos are moving, they are emitting fields that are changing because as a result of the movement (or relative movement). And that the field will propagate outward spherically at local c from each continuous point in 3D Euclidean space. Those fields and waves are what you are familiar with from 10^-20. When electrinos and positrinos form composite particles of standard matter or spacetime aether, those field and wave patterns can get very complicated.

Peebles is writing about tidal fields now. Wow, so is that another one of the magical QM fields that just happen with no root cause? Or do other fields cause the tidal field? Serious question. I don’t know QM math. But take a look at the tidal tensor below. I can tell you that if it works, it is because it is approximate. The real world description is a finite element analysis of a huge number of moving electrinos and positrinos, each with their own wave equation, in a variety of composite structures and local energy and of course transduction happening via spacetime aether.

Do you consider a charged point particle to require energy? Oh my gosh, just found another huge error. A Planck sphere is impenetrable beyond a Planck length. Therefore this logic in the wikipedia entry about infinite energy and infinite mass of a point charge is totally wrong.

‘Pure Mathematics and Physics are becoming even more closely connected, though their methods remain different. One may describe the situation by saying that the mathematician plays a game in which He himself invents the rules whilst the physicist plays a game in which the rules are provided by Nature, but as time goes on, it becomes increasingly evident that the rules in which the mathematicians finds the rules interesting are the same as those which Nature has Chosen. It is difficult to predict what the results of all this will be. Possibly, the two subject will unify, every branch of mathematics will have its physical application, its importance in physics proportional to its interest in mathematics.’

Paul Dirac

That is a tremendous quote. So, if NPQG is nature, then I will be diplomatic and say it is a new type of mathematics and a new type of physics that describe nature. It’s not pure smooth mathematics except at the Planck sphere scale with Maxwell’s equations and classical mechanics. Anywhere above that, trying to model structured composite particles and spacetime aether gets very complicated. It’s truly optimized for simulation of Planck spheres but how far can that scale? Beyond that, structure can be defined mathematically in the approximate. New constrained formulas can apply for various situations. This is a huge area of opportunity for lucrative practical science and applications.

A Planck sphere core is the ultimate battery. Planck radius spheres, oppositely charged in equal numbers, packed as tight as possible. The ultimate battery. I think it is probably a FCC or HCP lattice with some degree of faults or irregularity. Each Planck sphere has the Planck energy. Calculate that out. It’s a huge amount of energy, but it’s natural, and it’s just science and math. Also it’s a number that comes out of QED that they don’t know what to do with. 10^113. See my article here:

Planck Core Energy

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate: