Physical sciences study the world of microcosms and macrocosms, composed of atoms.
Of all those organisms, physics studies atoms, and forces, chemistry, organisms, of atoms, molecules, Astronomy, the biggest of all Organisms, the Universe itself.
Because indeed, the oldest, more complex, bigger organism known to man, is the Universe itself, born long ago, from a first cell, a first atom, during the big bang.
Where all begun?
The Organic nature of the Universe means that the Universe was born as any Organism from a first atom, that multiplied into billions of atomic cells, that became organized into a organic system, the Universe. An organism of Hydrogen and Helium...
In other pages we saw how atoms process energy and information. The organicism of those atoms implies that they can also reproduce when they have enough energy to do it, a condition that happened in the past. Let us see a biological vision of the reproductive 'big-bang':
What is the Universe? A vacuum, occupied by a form of energy, called 4-dimensional 'space-time', able to be "formed", "knotted", into atomic forms, top predator complex organisms, if we compare them with that vacuum. This is what we call the Universe.
Yet those atoms were not there some 17.000 million years ago. So the question is:
How they were born? The obvious form is 'reproduction' from an initial cell-atom. No, say abstract scientists: "It was born from a first singularity, a first particle in which all the atoms exist."
Ubiquity? God? The weirdest of all substances?
What was the nature of that particle? Physicists do not know of course. It is an impossible particle...
Here we will give a organic interpretation of that particle.
In such biological vision that first particle was the first Nucleon, (a proton+electron species). Those two atomic elements reproduced ad infinitum till saturating the Universe... They gave birth to infinite other nucleons till creating the World in which we live.
Of course this concept is not accepted by abstract scientists, who never interpret numbers in a organic way.
It is indeed all a question of interpretation...
Since the speed of reproduction of an atom would fill the Universe with atoms, at the same speed that 'a big-bang, abstract explosion'.
Yet there will be always abstract scientists that would say: "there was no reproduction of atoms, the first 'particle', which had the size of an atom, had already all the mass of the Universe within it." Since the concept of reproduction disgusts physicists.
Who is right? Obviously since both interpretations fit the data, the most logical concept should prevail... And that concept is the concept of reproduction... Let us see why:
- Logic theories are more true than illogic theories
- A hyper-mass of the size of an atom is as absurd as to think that the first cell of your body, had all the cells within it, and did not reproduce. Cells created more cells absorbing energy from the outside Universe. So did the first atom, absorbing vacuum=space.
For those who think such abstract particle cannot exist. For those who will do anything to prevent the Universe from being 'alive', to keep themselves as the only 'living and intelligent being of the Universe', we give a few logic proves.
- If the Universe was a single particle there was nothing beyond it. Yet nothing cannot be created from nothing. It was obvious that outside there was vacuum, extension, dimensions, and that vacuum is a form of energy=space. Einstein for once was right when proving that the nature of space-time, is gravitational energy.
It is then logic to think that the first atoms absorbed vacuum energy to reproduce, as they probably do from time to time, in black holes and other energy-rich zones of the Universe (the core of celestial bodies?). Atoms knot gravitation into light and form, into in-form-ation, which is the very nature of feeding: to process energy into information.
The big bang was a massive reproduction of atoms, over 'space-time', the 'extension', the 'dimensions of reality'
Till space-time was saturated like agar. The Universe became then a steady-state Universe... though in the borders of the Universe atoms might still reproduce.
The Universe is a living being, because what we call atoms, made of space
and time, have organic properties. And the most
organic of all properties is reproduction.
The simple explanation of the big bang is that the first atom knotted, formed, reproduced its form in other zones of vacuum, extending itself as a 'biological radiation', a reproductive wave of particles that saturated an ecosystem, the ecosystem of space-time quanta. How fast is such a process of reproduction?
Have you seen growing bacteria, how fast they feed and reproduce on agar?
Then the bacterium reproduces itself, into billions.
Then when the agar is filled with atoms, reproduction slows down.
I did myself a calculus. If you multiply an atom for two, and then again, as reproduction goes, the time needed to fill up the Universe is similar to the ratio of growth of the Universe in the big-bang.
There is an old European legend about that. The king of Leon wanted a falcon from a noble, the count of Castille. The count of Castille who loved his falcon asked him to put a seed of wheat in a square of a chessboard, then 'reproduce' that seed and put 2 in the second square. And so on.
That was the price. The king agreed, but could not fill the chessboard, even with the entire wheat production of the entire Earth. So he had to pay the count with a legal title: king of Castille, that latter became the title of king of Spain...
64 squares for an infinite quantity of wheat. If we consider the enormous period of a second (for micro-particles) as the time for an atomic reproduction, 60 seconds is a minute, for an infinite number of atomic reproductions.
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024. As we saw earlier every '10' reproductions, there will be 1000 atoms from the initial one. In 20 seconds there will be a million. A billion in half a minute. A trillion in 40 seconds.
Even providing for a slower rate, as the spherical expansion of the Universe saturates the reproductive capacity of the central atoms, at such speed of reproduction, a biological 'radiation' of atoms will saturate the space as fast as an abstract big-bang.
So the big-bang proves logically, bio-logically that the atoms of the Universe reproduced till saturating the 'organic energy' the space-time continuum.
Today we still can see some further knotting of atomic forms going on: Inside stars hydrogen atoms become Helium atoms that become carbon, and then oxygen, even iron.
It is known also that 'space-time' warps, knots, close to black holes, re=producing the first bricks of atomic life, electrons and pions...
We can even imitate in our simplified 'atomic reproducers', (the synchrotrons of scientists), the reproduction of electrons, making two 'seminal light-beams' come together in an environment of high energy. Light is like the 'semen' of atoms, a primitive simplified form, that mixes with other light-ray and evolves very fast into an electron, as you mix with an ovule and evolve very fast into a child.
You might still be sceptic. However reproduction is not only natural to the processes of the Universe, but the only 'possible explanation' of the big-bang, without the 'logical problems' of an infinitely heavy, infinitely hot, and infinitely small particle, which is 'physically speaking' an absurd.
Indeed, the abstract big-bang implies that we are in an absurd Universe. Yet absurdity is according to logic, (the science that studies trueness) always false.
Why the abstract big-bang is absurd? Since it breaks the fundamental law of logic truth: the principle of contradiction. Something that is positive cannot be negative. If you are blue, you cannot be 'not blue'. This of course includes synonymous. If you are pretty and beautiful you cannot be ugly and deformed...
Logic theories are more true than illogic theories
Yet when we apply the principle of contradiction to the abstract big-bang, as defined by abstract scientists, the principle breaks. Since they define that first particle, as a particle with quasi-infinite temperature (a property of speed and movement), that was completely still since it occupied almost no-space. Those two qualities are therefore contradictory: You cannot move fast and go slow (a property of coldness). This is an absurd.
That is why the first abstract big-bang particle is false. It cannot be very hot, and yet, occupy no space as physicists pretend. P excludes no P. Because temperature, movement and space are synonymous, if you are hot, you are moving fast, you have a lot of speed, and you occupy a lot of space. So you cannot be still.
Conclusion: only the reproductive model of the big bang is logic.
For those who are expert on physics, and think on the 'fundamental prove' of the big-bang, the existence of a background radiation of 2.7 K degrees, that is supposed to be the remaining radiation of that hyper heated particle, we might consider a little bit of history of science...
The initial calculus of
that background radiation were around 20 K degrees.
Yet, in any model of 'truth', effects that take place in present, have to be acknowledge if possible, by processes that are taking place in present. Only as a last resource we can logically postulate that a present effect has a remote past cause, since we cannot experience how dynamically the past effect has derived into the present. So such deductions are considered by philosophers of knowledge of very dubious trueness.
Yet abstract scientists that will do anything to deny organicism to the Universe, use such dubious methods to prove their abstract big-bang.
Conclusion: it is much more logic and truthful to accept that such background radiation has a present cause. In fact there are two possible causes for that radiation. So why to find a cause 17.000 million years ago? It is plainly ridiculous.
The Universe originated as all organisms do: through a reproductive radiation of a first individual cell, called very appropriately, the big-"bang".
You have to understand the Universe as an organic system of atoms, which constantly creates partial atomic micro-organisms. So does your organism which stores also billions of micro-organic cells and molecules.
What is the best temperature for any atomic organism to breed? A liquid state in which also gas=energy, and solid=information can dissolve allows the maximum organicism of any organism; so all the communicative, social, and feeding-informing processes of life can take place. We shall call that temperature point, the 'organic alpha-point' of any atomic species, in which a certain group of social atoms or molecules around the main atom or molecule of the organism acquire its maximum degree of organicism.
For example, you are an organism in which the dominant molecule is water (over ¾ of your weight). So your body has a temperature within the limits of liquid water (0-100 degrees). In such liquid, solid carbon, the informative, structural atom of your body dissolves. So does Oxygen-gas, the energetic element of your body.
Yet there are potentially all kind of organisms constructed with different dominant atoms, or basic molecules, when the 'organic alpha point', the point of maximum communication between the 3 states of that atom is reached.
In fact physics uses that term for a specific temperature, which maximizes that goal: In the physical alpha point an atom is liquid, solid and gas. It can transfer energy and information between its 3 states, in an homogeneous manner, and it can become organic, as you are because in your organic water alpha point, you exist in 3 phases: as liquid water, as oxygen gas, and as a mixture of solid carbohydrates.
So we can trace the hypothesis of a possible alpha point for the Universal Organism, and see if it fits the experimental data.
To start with though, we have to limit the possible atoms that constitute the energetic basis of that organism to the more abundant atoms of the Universe, which are basically 2, Hydrogen and Helium.
What are the different alpha points of those atoms? Long ago, in 1993, I studied
the alpha point of Helium, around 1.77 K degrees, close to the value
of the 'background radiation' of the Universe. Since helium is extremely
abundant in that Universe, and its density seems to exceed that of the
normal helium production in stars, it came to me the simple idea that
Helium activity around its 'organic point', made Helium the perfect
element to be the active body of the Universe, as oxygen is the active
element of your body. Indeed, Helium is liquid in a very small interval
between 1.1 K, in which it becomes solid, and 4.2 K in which it becomes
gas. The mean point of that interval is exactly the mean temperature
of the Universe, 2.7 k.
Yet not only the activity of helium, but even if we consider the initial explanation of abstract big-bang radiation, also the activity of black Bodies, of dark matter, are a candidate to cause the background radiation. Indeed, abstract big bang is based in the radiation emitted by that initial singularity, which is supposed to be a black body. A black body emits very often radiation on the 2.7 K temperature. Yet why we need to find that black body in the past? There is about 90% of dark matter in the Universe. Enough to create the homogeneous black body radiation. So even if you are not prepared yet to understand a living Universe, the big question about the mathematical methods of science remains:
Why scientists have invented the baroque theory of a non-reproductive Universe, based in a hyper-hot singularity, and applied so many ad hoc corrections to fit that theory into the perceived data when we have now, in the real Universe, not in some hypothetical 17.000 million years old universe, clear phenomena that can explain the background radiation?
Dogmas. The same dogmas that made the Vatican deny the movement of the sun. Dogmas against the organic Universe, the organic Universe, and the Thoughts of God. Scientists love to consider themselves the only intelligent species of the Universe, apart from God himself - as Kepler, one of the fathers of science, put it: 'I am writing a book to be read either now or by posterity, it matters not. It can wait a century for a reader, as God Himself has waited 6.000 years for a witness.' Of course Kepler considered the biblical age of creation, showing how much of that religious arrogance has subconsciously entered science. Thus, since mechanical things do not think, scientists prefer them. We could say that from the age of anthropomorphic religions to the age of mechanical beliefs, all has changed in western culture, to remain the same: Man on top, nothing else matters.
Yet only within a theory of an organic Universe, background radiation data fits nicely. Such background radiation is caused by black body radiation and organic processes that involve helium atoms in their liquid state. There is indeed an excessive quantity of helium in the Universe, respect what abstract scientists consider normal...
There is also an excess of Oxygen and iron... Why? It turns out that those 2 atoms, Helium, and Iron are among the most perfect energy atoms of the Universe, very difficult to split, very strong, extremely able, handling energy systems. The only way to break such irregularities on the Universal quantities of certain material forms, is to postulate a organic game in the world of atoms: an ecosystem in which certain top predator atoms, such as iron an Helium survive better than other atomic species. Yet, a mechanical model will never be able to explain that hyper-abundance of the 2 most perfect energy species of this atomic Universe.
In that sense we consider the Universe, a Hydrogen-Helium body, in which a series of highly evolved, highly ordered, informative knots of mass, probably black holes, the main components of dark matter, might be emitting black body radiation and causing that metabolic 2.7 K temperature, on the Universal body. While a series of Galactic cells with cold, O K, neuronal black holes, of perfectly ordered information, shape in those clusters and filaments, the most complex organic tissue of the Universe. And surely in one of the densest cluster, we would find the brain of that Universe. How developed is that brain, is a theme that goes beyond the introductory scope of this book. My opinion however is that we are in a relatively simple macro-organism, rather young, still growing, in his first age of life, a fact deduced from the probable, planar or simple spherical form of that Universe, and its relative young age when we decrease) the relative speed of organic time of that Universe, by its body-size factor (the bigger a species, the slower its organic, metabolic rhythms are: see chapter VIII)
In any case an organic Universe is obviously a better explanation of the background radiation that the mechanical analysis of an abstract big-bang... It does as we shall see briefly explain many other mysteries of that Universe.
A decade has gone since I constructed such model, which required some amazing proves - the existence of black hole brains in every galaxy, the existence of "gravitational animals", neutron stars and black holes able to perceive the Universe, and move freely at will to shape organic tissues, and hunt for food, the existence of cannibal galaxies, cannibal stars, and stars that feed on planets, the existence of reproductive galaxies, mainly mature spirals due to its balanced form, able to mate and reproduce more stars, the existence of seminal rays of information coming from black holes able to reproduce a smaller galaxy in other section of the Universe, the existence of clusters, filaments and complex social groups caused by those galaxies, more common in rich space-time fields of interstellar dust (energy for galaxies to feed on in herds), etc. etc. Are you now laughing at me? Well, my friend, all those phenomena which were a decade ago, when I copyrighted the Codes of the Universe, a fantasy, have been discovered and have amazed scientists in the past few years thanks to the advance of telescopes. And yet whenever I explain this to physicists, they deny all those arguments and affirm again the abstract big bang. They even affirm that the absurdity of the big-bang 'singularity' means only that the Universe is not logic.
To them, I will say that physics are, as Popper has shown, just a mathematical
analysis of reality. So their trueness depends on its mathematical trueness.
Yet it turns out that the great German mathematician, Frege, proved
long ago that mathematics are a derivative of logic. That means the
language of logic rules mathematics.
The first particle was not an absurd particle. It was a reproductive particle.
Forms that explode and reproduce in expanding herds, called in biology, due to its speed, a "radiation".
Imagine an atom reproducing so fast that it seems a big bang of matter out of space-time energy.
The out of nothing theory is absurd.The reproductive theory of the big bang is more logic. It is obvious.The big bang occurred when an atom reproduced infinite Organisms in a sheet of energy-space.
The first big orgasm, of the Will of God. Newton though died virgin, and Einstein, a misogynist, scorned women, saying they were only apt for reproduction. Despite looking all their life for those thoughts, they just missed the bigger of all of them. If they knew better (-: