the greatest story ever told!

The 5 SALIENT Features of the Mighty CMB

Getting to the Bottom Line: The Big Bang is not SCIENCE

Actual infinities are another dead end for the Big Bang, as we continue to falsify the whole theory, tenet by tenet! We now return to Steinhardt, and his exposition on the contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and the salient features of the Mighty CMB.

That all makes sense. Everything scientists know about the universe, they have learned from light. Steinhardt uses two thing: the information embedded in the light signature of the Mighty CMB, what he calls the "salient features of the universe," and the fact that the Big Bang cannot explain them, to establish that according to empirical evidence, the Big Bang is disqualified as the proper explanation of the beginning, development and history of the universe. That makes sense, and agrees with Einstein's statement that if your "conceptions" about reality are not in line with "experience," they are "void." That is the definition of how the scientific method - when applied correctly - leads to truth. That is what, the now, cliched expression "follow the science" is supposed to mean! Steinhardt, in debunking the Big Bang is "following the science," in the purest sense of that statement. He is not proposing the overturning of the Big Bang, as the explanation of the development of the universe because he has an alternate theory that he prefers, though he has subsequently been forced to come up with an alternate theory - what with the demise of the Big Bang and Inflation Theory. But, as he says his reasons are not philosophical. He is not discarding it because it is not mathematically appealing - which is a surprisingly, important motivation for physicists. No, he is rejecting it, based only on "purely practical, pragmatic reasons." In other words, it fails the test of critical thought.

We pause here to emphasize a critical point: the Mighty CMB came into existence "before there were galaxies and stars." That most important point will become relevant a little later. Also to keep at the back of your mind is the fact that Paul Steinhardt is an evolutionary cosmologist, that is, one who does not believe that God created the universe, but rather that the universe evolved over many billions of years, due to natural forces and materials. This underscores that Steinhardt, while he has correctly identified the irrational nature of belief in a Big Bang, is at heart a believer in the rest of the standard model of cosmology, itself. What he calls "idea one." He firmly believes the rest of the story! Everything, except that, the mechanism for the creation of the universe and all the matter we see inside it, was an imaginary Big Bang. As such, you might appreciate that in publishing this exposition, I am threading a fine line as many different sources are quoted, and often, each of them is right in only one or two areas, with the rest of their beliefs being unsupported by the evidence. They thus make many claims with which I, and the evidence do not agree. But, as you will not fail to appreciate, I cannot stop to correct every little detail, just as soon as it presents itself in the narrative - otherwise we would never get to the bottom of our investigation, and analysis. So, in Steinhardt's case, as in all others, I am glossing over some obvious inaccuracies, in the knowledge that we can only tackle the misconceptions one by one, starting with the most fundamental and moving therefrom methodically, systematically, unflinchingly and - without mercy. This is all done with the knowledge that, by the end, all falsehoods would have been resolved to absolute satisfaction. Otherwise, this exposition would truly be onerous.

For your ease of understanding and scientific edification, I include many quotes from great scientists and some otherwise. Nevertheless, if they are included, they do contribute something meaningful to our discussion. Kudos. In this way, such references and authorities play an invaluable role. So, do not be disturbed if I do not immediately address a glaring detail you may take note of. Rather, take comfort in knowing that, by the end of our discussion, all loose ends will have been tied up. For, now, we must be very disciplined in our approach, and focus diligently on disproving one fundamental falsehood at a time. The minor ones will show themselves to be clearly wrong as we proceed. This, in turn, will allow us to establish the truth in a logical, coherent, and easy to follow manner.

The other important point to highlight from Steinhardt's quote above, is that the "apparent salient features of the universe" are data about the cosmic microwave background and all the other light in the universe, that has been collected over the last century. That is why: "a lot of this [data] gets summarized in the image that we can create by collecting together the cosmic microwave background radiation." Remember: everything scientists know about the universe, they have learnt through light. And there is much the Mighty CMB has to teach us about the true nature of the universe, and how it developed! The Mighty CMB is a perfect blackbody, which means it can absorb and emit all frequencies of light. Do you really understand what that means? Let me speak as plainly as I can: since everything we know empirically about the universe is from light - different frequencies of light - the fact that the Cosmic Microwave Background contains all frequencies of light means there is no question we can ask it that it cannot answer! That, in turn means, that in a very real sense, the Mighty CMB is PERFECT LIGHT. If that doesn't scare you - you're not paying attention! To frame that another way - it is a perfect source of information. That statement is so important, I will restate it again, in yet another form: The Mighty CMB is a light source that absorbs all frequencies of light and emits a perfect spectrum, thus it gives us perfect technical information about the early universe and its subsequent development. That warrants a conclusion:

SINCE THE MIGHTY CMB ABSORBS ALL FREQUENCIES OF LIGHT & PRODUCES A PERFECT SPECTRUM, AND SINCE IT WAS PRESENT FROM "INITIAL CONDITION" ONWARD, THERE IS NO FACET OF THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE WHICH IS HIDDEN FROM ITS DATABASE!

Lastly, we point out before moving on, something that may confuse you. In referring to the Mighty CMB, you'll often hear physicists calling it the "universe." That is one of the many mistakes they commit regarding its true nature. They do not know its true identity. They view it as the relic radiation produced by the surface of "last scattering." The surface of last scattering is the supposed moment in time when the universe became transparent, and scientists regard it as a snapshot of where all matter was in the universe at that precise moment. Their theories then state that matter then gravitated inwards at those same locations and formed galaxies - in those relative positions. As such, they think the Mighty CMB is both the last imprint of the atoms that later turned into the galaxies and everything we see around us, and a map of the relative positions where those future galaxies would later form. Hence, to them the Mighty CMB and the universe, are two expressions of the same event - the moment of last scattering. In the same way that an ultrasound is a precursor to the child that will be born.

We now continue with Steinhardt's analysis. He starts by listing each of the 5 "apparent salient features" individually, and gives a short explanation of their significance, as he moves from one feature to the next. Those five features in the order he lists them are: temperature homogeneity in the radiation, that is, the temperature is the same in all directions you look; Flat spatial geometry; thermal equilibrium (between matter and radiation); partitioned entropy (between matter and radiation and the geometry of Space); and the fifth salient feature: the classical non-quantum nature of the earliest empirically known point in the history of the universe. I say "earliest empirically known point" because that is the earliest point for which we have actual data! We will study each "salient feature" in turn. But for the sake of a coherent and flowing discussion. We will present them in the way that will build naturally from one to the other. We will present them so that each following "feature" builds on the knowledge we gained from studying the one previous. We will go from the most fundamental to the least. Thus our order will be: thermal equilibrium; classical nature; partitioned entropy; flat geometry; and lastly, the Mighty CMB's homogeneous temperature signal.

1 - Salient Features of the Mighty CMB - THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM

Plasma Cannot Produce a Non-Fluctuating UNIFORM Spectrum

We want to use all the information we have thus far gathered - from the beginning of our blog until now - to reach firm conclusions through the power of reason. How, for instance, can we know that a hot quantum soup cannot produce blackbody radiation of uniform temperature? We know that because of the evidence from this particular "salient feature": that blackbody radiation - the Mighty CMB - was at instant thermal equilibrium with matter from the moment it came into existence. Being at instant thermal equilibrium with matter tells us it did not contain fluctuations at the moment of its appearance. The cosmic microwave background did not need or take time to come to a common temperature with matter. All of its photons were already at the correct temperature - from the outset! There is no natural process by which a fluctuating quantum state can display uniform characteristics - or non-quantum behaviour - except through the time-consuming process of coming to thermal equilibrium. And, that's the point! With the Mighty CMB: there was no process. From the very first instance it appeared the cosmic microwave background was at thermal equilibrium, not moving towards it. Thus we can conclude that the cosmic microwave background was not produced by a fluctuating hot plasma soup!

TWO Scientists Explain what Thermal Radiation REALLY Means

Of all the dynamics associated with the science of thermodynamics, the easiest to grasp is how the energy contained in photons is related to the resulting lower energy content, of the body that emitted them, through thermal radiation. Below I have compiled three takes on the same subject by notable scientists. We start with the pioneer, the first to truly start to understand the nature of light - Newton.

Newton's Thoughts on the Possible Relationship Between Light & Matter

Newton had those thoughts in 1717. Obviously ahead of his time, but he was beginning to see a relationship between light and the energy contained in matter. He never got the opportunity to draw conclusions on his ponderings. But the thoughts were there. It would take another highly esteemed mind to build on his curious interest to define the relationship between light and matter?

Einstein's Thoughts on the Possible Relationship Between Light & Matter

Of course, it is Einstein who is famous for using Newton's insight to generate the equation E=mc2. In a video entitled "Why Haven't you Read Einstein's E=mc2 Proof?" Toby Hendy, the host of the YouTube channel Tibees goes through his original manuscript that introduced that formula to the world, and shows us his thinking. At 8:38 into the video, she shows a page from his thesis, with the following quote on it.

In this excerpt from Einstein's work, you will be familiar with everything except two expressions: L was the original symbol he used for energy, it later became E in the final form of the equation; and 9 x 1020 is the speed of light squared. But this still does not fully answer the question we want to know: can light be the source of all the matter in the universe? Let us first re-affirm our earlier understanding about the dynamics of nuclear reactions, as restated by the host,

So far, so good. Here we see that light seems to have limits in its range of effectiveness. Yes, it is part of the energy content of the bodies it is emitted from, but that seems not to be the full story. In all such cases, the energy associated with radiation is the "difference" between the "mass of all the constituents and the mass of all the products" multiplied by c2. It is never the equivalent of the mass on one side of the equation. In other words: we never see a situation where one side of the chemical reaction just has light, and the other side has matter. The evidence tells only that light is a portion of the energy budget of bodies, and not the total amount. The only thing we can conclude from such evidence, is that the energy in the electrons of atoms and the energy associated with the bonds in the nuclei of atoms can be converted into light. That is the what chemistry tells us. That is all chemistry tells. Anything beyond that is unjustified extrapolations that don't match the evidence. However Hendy next suggests a firm conclusion that would seem to indicate that Big Bang cosmologists are right, and that all the matter in the universe originated from radiation:

"A universal formula applicable to all forms of matter and energy." You will agree with me that that is a bold claim. But is it true? What Einstein's formula tells us is the equivalence between matter and energy, not the equivalence between matter and radiation! Perhaps people are confused by the fact that one of the variables in the formula, is the speed of "light" squared. And also the fact that light - together with heat - is one of the products or reactants. But it is easy to wade through all the variables to get to the heart of the issue. All we have to do is isolate light and remove it as a factor, and then see if there is a form of matter that exists without the input, or influence of light. If such an entity exists, it would mean E=mc2 is not a universal formula, as it would not apply to all forms of matter and energy. What's more, it would mean such a form of matter also had a corresponding form of energy, from which it was made. The objection to the Big Bang Theorists' claims that matter originated from radiation, is not that matter is a form of energy. That is true. The objection is that the energy, which is the source of all matter in the universe is light! This cannot be true, as we shall now see.

Cooling Radiation cannot be the SOURCE of Matter

Understanding the true nature of thermal equilibrium and how it is normally reached, informs us that the matter and radiation that were present in the early universe, were never coupled, or put another way, they were never two forms of the same thing - divided by a temperature threshold! Think of it like the dual personalities of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, with the mood swings being the temperature threshold. This is the narrative of the hot Big Bang. That all the matter we see in the universe today was once all squashed together into a very small region of Space. So small it was a billionth of the size of a proton. So that starting from today and rewinding to the beginning will give us the radiation of "pure energy." And starting from "pure energy" and fast forwarding a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second gives us all basic subatomic particles like electrons and protons that were the seeds of all the structure we now see all around us. Fast forwarding a claimed further 400 000 years, supposedly results in the appearance of the Mighty CMB and stable atoms, and fast forwarding a further 400 million years gives us the first stars, and later galaxies. Then lastly, fast forwarding a further 13.4 billion years or so, gives us the current universe.

The standard model of cosmology proposes ... no, proposes is too gentle a term, brazenly insists that through Einstein's famous equation - E=mc2 - we can go back and forth on this radiation/matter continuum, changing all matter into "pure energy," or pure energy into all the matter we see! With the dividing line being a temperature threshold of 3000 kelvin. The phrase "pure energy" is supposed to communicate the highest form of energy. In between these extremes there is supposedly a period of time, where matter and radiation are on some sort of middle ground. Where the temperature fluctuations are in the range that radiation keeps turning into matter - in the form of basic subatomic particles, like electrons, protons and neutrons - when it cools sufficiently, but then matter turns back into radiation when it is heated past the threshold temperature in the hot plasma soup! This is what is meant by the concept of matter and radiation being "coupled." It is supposed to represent the range of temperatures when both states were simultaneously possible in the same hot plasma soup. That is, above a certain temperature, matter turns exclusively into radiation, and below another, lower temperature; radiation turns into matter. But between these two temperatures both states are continuously converting into each other due to fluctuations. The middle ground represents the range were radiation and matter are coupled - that is, easily convertible into each other - due to the high, but not infinite temperatures. This is what cosmologists mean when they say matter kept coming into and going out of existence in the hot Big Bang quantum soup. In other words, radiation would cool and an electron, for example, would come into existence, but then because the hot soup is in a fluctuating quantum state, if the temperature of that electron rose again past a certain point, it would return to being radiation.

As the story goes: as the temperatures kept cooling, more and more matter in the form of subatomic particles was created and, passing the second threshold temperature, came together to form actual atoms. Atoms are said to have appeared in stable form when the average temperature had cooled to 3000 kelvin. We say "average" of course, because all the while fluctuations are the order of the day. They dominate in this quantum environment! This magical temperature is called the point of "recombination" by Big Bang cosmologists, because in chemistry "recombination" is the point when plasmas - ionized gases - can attach electrons to their nuclei and become stable regular atomic gases. A plasma is just an ionized gas. A gas that is stripped or one or more of its electrons. You will note a classic mind trick there, equivalent to naming special radiation "normal." By calling the calling 3000 kelvin the temperature of "recombination," a chemistry term that refers to already existing elements of an already existing chemical periodic table, they are lending credibility to their non-existent hot plasma soup. The term "recombination" makes sense in the context of chemistry a pre-existing periodic table of elements. It makes no sense to call the process of forming atoms that have never existed before "recombination." I am certain you can see the difference.

All this, it is further claimed, happened due to the expansion of the universe through two bouts of Inflation. First, when the universe expanded from being smaller than a billionth of the size of a proton to being the size of a whale. This Inflationary epoch took, 10 to the minus 36 seconds to occur. That translates into a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Thereafter, there was a second epoch of Inflation, where the universe went from being the size of a whale to being its current size, and this phase of expansion took 13.8 billion years. The explicit claim of these assertions is that "pure energy" is the source of all the matter in the universe! There's only one problem ... and you know it well ...

The Dark Matter Paradigm

This wonderful continuum, that ranges from the "pure energy" of "photon energy" to the three states of matter in the form of the trillions of galaxies we see around us today cannot account for dark matter! One thing is true about their premise. Whatever qualifies as "pure energy" must account for all matter - both baryonic visible matter, and dark, invisible matter. Now, we know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change from one form to another - according to the first law of thermodynamics. In the pecking order of different types of energy, we know what sits at the bottom, the most unusable form of energy, IS THE ONE THAT THE OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY TURN INTO, eventually - waste heat, what we would call entropy. It is the least useful for doing work. But what they have not considered is that the opposite must also be true: the highest form of energy MUST BE THE ONE FROM WHICH CAN TURN INTO ALL THE OTHER FORMS. In saying the high temperatures at the singularity turned matter into "pure energy," Big Bang cosmologists would like to have you believe that this pure energy occupies the top echelon in the pecking order of all existing types of energy, that can be converted from one form to another. Pure radiation energy being at the top of the heap, means that this is the original and highest grade of energy, and waste heat is at the bottom of the heap, due to the second law of thermodynamics - entropy! But that is demonstrably false!

Why can we say this is clearly wrong! Because we already know that there is more than one kind of matter that exists in the universe. In addition to entropy affiliated, electromagnetic based baryonic matter, we know dark matter, a type of matter that does not have electromagnetic characteristics or dynamics, also exists. In addition to gravitational lensing, at galactic and galactic cluster scales, among many other proofs, we also have the undeniable Tully-Fisher Relation, which gives us definitive proof, not only to the fact that dark matter exists, but of how it interacts with baryonic matter in very exact ways! Thus dark matter tells us that light - photons, that is, electromagnetic radiation cannot be the source of baryonic matter, since, it is not the source of dark matter! Since light cannot turn into dark matter, it cannot hold the top spot in the hierarchy of energies! Moreover, both categories of matter must come from the same ultimate source, because whatever created the universe, the Tully-Fisher Relation shows definitively that it is one source. And radiation is not it! Without even the need to delve deeply into the subject, it is immediately apparent that electromagnetic waves - the pure energy of "photon energy," cannot be the source of the second form of matter, as dark matter does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, hence the lazy name "dark matter." Dark matter is completely unaffected by all forms of radiation! Thus high energy photons, such as gamma rays have no effect on dark matter, and can thus obviously not be its source. Put another way E=mc2 does not apply when E is radiation, and m represents dark matter! That means high energy radiation is not the "pure energy," that sits at the top of the energy pecking order! Some other form of energy holds that position and honour. It also means radiation is not the source of all matter. But for the full weight of that statement to sink in, we must phrase it in the negative: radiation is not the source of ANY matter: dark or baryonic! That was quick. From hero to zero, at the speed of ... light!

Perhaps that second point needs clarity: how do we know that light is not the source of all the baryonic matter in the universe? We understand about the dark matter, but why also include the baryonic matter? Dark matter is superior to baryonic matter in a few key ways. It lasts forever as Frank Wilzcek attested to. It doesn't decay into other forms of matter, because again, as Wilzcek rightly pointed out, "we would've seen what it decays into." And it has a wider range of dynamics than baryonic matter. Due to the fact that it has a non-baryonic nature, it does not create, nor is it affected by heat, and is thus free of entropy! In other words, dark matter is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics. As the entity that guides and controls the large scale movements of all the galaxies in the universe, as Anton Petrov pointed out, it obviously has dynamics, but they are not regulated by any "heat" laws. This should be clear to us if we understood Clausius and Professor Goodstein's earlier statements about entropy and how it relates to heat. For these - among other reasons - dark matter is far, far superior in formation, substance, dynamics, and utility than baryonic matter! In understanding why and how it is superior to normal matter, we come to appreciate why a lower form of matter can logically, not produce a superior form of it. For instance, a form of matter that decays cannot produce a form of matter that does not decay! That much is clear.

But that still leaves us with the puzzle of fully understanding the second point. We understand why radiation cannot be the source of dark matter. And, circumstantially, we can say we understand why radiation cannot be the source of baryonic matter, as both forms of matter must logically have the same source. But why - empirically - can radiation not be the source of baryonic matter? Because of the evidence! Simply put, the scenario in which matter is created from radiation, requires quantum effects - the fluctuations of a hot plasma soup! The reality of how the first light in the universe came into existence prohibits all quantum effects - the uniformity of thermal equilibrium! Which are you going to believe? I know that many people reading this blog, have bought into the slogan "follow the science." The science is clear. The evidence is in. Are you going to believe the evidence of the cosmic microwave background and its "apparent salient feature" of thermal equilibrium. Or, are you - due to bias, and personal preference - going to forego the evidence and believe in the empty extrapolations of unemployable Intellectuals who've never had a real job in their lives? The evidence is clear and it tells us the exact opposite story from what Big Bang Theory insists happened. And, this is the point. When light first appeared, matter was already present, and they were at instant thermal equilibrium. Anyone who understands the basics of the very basic science of thermodynamics does not need to guess about this. This is a very simple puzzle to solve. Since in thermal radiation, the emitted quantum of energy is never equal to the energy content of the body that emitted it, it means they are also never at the same temperature! Thus the radiation that was in thermal equilibrium with matter could not have come from that matter. Meaning, not only was matter never coupled to radiation; but they originated INDEPENDENTLY of each other! With matter preceding radiation!

Matter was NEVER at High Temperatures

So, the radiation didn't come from the matter. But the opposite is also true: matter could not have come from the radiation, for in such a case the radiation would have had fluctuations in its thermal spectrum! But the blackbody spectrum of the Mighty CMB shows perfect uniformity! Thermal equilibrium shows us in uncontested fashion that matter was never at the temperatures advertised by Big Bang Theorists. Had it been, then matter would have been producing its own radiation as the Mighty CMB shows us that at the temperature of thermal equilibrium, both matter and radiation coexisted. Thus according to the Big Bang, at this average temperature of 3000 kelvin, baryonic matter is able to emit photons and photons are able to become baryonic matter. Remember - although the Mighty CMB shows us an evidence profile of perfect thermal equilibrium, cosmological evolutionists insist that its speckled pattern of temperature variations was created at its advent - not after - meaning the universe was not in thermal equilibrium but in flux the moment the Mighty CMB appeared. In contrast to the evidence of the "apparent salient feature" we are now studying. If baryonic matter was emitting radiation, it would have to drop in temperature, and thus break thermal equilibrium. Similarly, if radiation were producing baryonic matter it would be due to cooling fluctuations, as per the claim of the Big Bang Theorists - again, breaking thermal equilibrium. The cosmic microwave background shows nothing of the sort. All the evidence is fluctuation free! The evidence shows perfect and uniform thermal equilibrium. Thus we again, conclude that baryonic matter didn't come from radiation; and radiation didn't come from baryonic matter! Moreover, matter and radiation were never coupled. They came into existence independently of each other. In fact, they came into existence at different points in time - with matter, importantly, coming before radiation! As is borne out by the fact that, by the time radiation made an appearance, matter was already in Critical Density with Space. Time for some more conclusions:

RADIATION AND MATTER FORMED INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER. MATTER EXISTED BEFORE RADIATION

SINCE RADIATION IN THE FORM OF "PHOTON ENERGY," CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF DARK MATTER & THE TULLY-FISHER RELATION SHOWS THAT DARK MATTER AND BARYONIC MATTER MUST HAVE THE SAME SOURCE - THAT SOURCE CANNOT BE "PHOTONS!"

SINCE RADIATION CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE SUPERIOR FORM OF MATTER CALLED DARK MATTER, IT IS NOT THE HIGHEST FORM OF ENERGY - THE "PURE ENERGY" FROM WHICH ALL MATTER IS MADE.

THE LOGICAL ORDER OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE 3 ENTITIES THAT EXISTED AT THE ADVENT OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND ARE: 1) SPACE; 2) MATTER &; 3) RADIATION

We move on. I give Steinhardt credit, when it is due to him. But, the opposite is also true: when he has under-thought a point, it must similarly, be pointed out. As it relates to thermal equilibrium, he has gotten the dynamics wrong. The problem is always the same: when scientists work, and put their trust in the wrong model, one that doesn't agree with reality, it warps their reasoning powers, arresting logic. Instead, they find themselves promoting the unfounded assumptions of the flawed theory - mere extrapolations. That was Joseph Priestley's downfall, and many others besides - all through the history of Science. That is the pity of being the poor soul who discovers "dephlogisticated air!"

Scientists Face a Problem with Only ONE Solution: The One they HATE Most

What has Steinhardt gotten wrong? The fact that in the case of the very special initial conditions of the universe, thermal equilibrium between matter and radiation meant maximum entropy. It did not. Here's why. Let us start our analysis by admitting to ourselves a simple truth: we - you and I - already know, how thermal equilibrium works. So, what is your analysis? What would you say is wrong with Steinhardt's assertion? Is there any mechanism that you can think of that could render thermal equilibrium without generating entropy?

Let's lay out the problem as clearly as possible. The Mighty CMB constituted the radiation part of the the radiation/matter mix, at this early point in the history of the universe. And the distinctive feature of this relationship is that the radiation was at the right temperature from the moment the Mighty CMB appeared! Today, the Mighty CMB has a core temperature, and it has slight variations, tiny fluctuations of equal magnitude on either side of that core, mean temperature. "First approximation" means disregard the slight fluctuations and consider only the original core temperature. What we can call the Mighty CMB's baseline temperature. Both this temperature and the microkelvin variations either side of the baseline temperature are uniform throughout the Mighty CMB. That means the Mighty CMB has the same core temperature in every direction we look, and the variations, are of the same slight microkelvins - either side of the core temperature, in every direction the Mighty CMB streams to us from. The question, then is, when did these very slight fluctuations first appear as features of the Mighty CMB? Was it before, at, or after its inception? The answer to that question, will tell us a lot. But, let us first pick all the low hanging fruit. Let us first use the knowledge we have already gained to see if there are any immediate answers we can draw. There is one: since, radiation was not coupled to matter, but originated after matter and independently of matter, we immediately know that the slight temperature variations did not originate before the appearance of the cosmic microwave background, as there was no radiation before its advent. It is the original form of radiation. Low hanging fruit! The other two variables we are going to have to work to figure out. And, our biggest clue to finding the right answer is, once again, a simple, but complete understanding of the nature of thermal equilibrium. For instance, we ask ourselves the question: is the Mighty CMB at thermal equilibrium today? The answer is: no! It is not. There reason is that, while it has a stable temperature of 2.725 kelvin, it also has, the already mentioned, very slight variations of equal amplitude on either side of that baseline temperature - the fluctuations up and down around that core temperature. When substances are in thermal equilibrium, there is no variation in their temperature profile. There are no fluctuations.

Having understood that, we then ask: what does the fact that the Mighty CMB was originally at thermal equilibrium mean? Logically, it means, when it first appeared there were no fluctuations, no variations - just the core temperature! It also means the Mighty CMB is, itself, not a product of fluctuations - as any entity that was produced through billions of photons in quantum fluctuation would not have been at thermal equilibrium when it first appeared. So, we now have two answers: 1) there were no fluctuations BEFORE the advent of the cosmic microwave background since radiation and matter were never coupled and radiation didn't exist before the appearance of the Mighty CMB; 2) there were no fluctuations AT the appearance of the Mighty CMB as supported by three reasons: one, the origin of matter was independent and prior to radiation, two, because there was no radiation to fluctuate, and three, the evidence says there were no fluctuations when it first appeared! That leaves only option three: the fluctuations started to appear AFTER the appearance of the Mighty CMB! Thus, what the evidence is telling us is that the cosmic microwave background did not gradually equilibriate with the temperature of matter, over time. Instead, right from when it first appeared, it was at the same temperature as matter, and thus at thermal equilibrium with it. Is this situation unique in the history of the universe? Indeed it is! Recall the words of Paul Davies when he said:

"We don't know how?" Really? That's curious! Because Keating knew the answer. In fact, he said it was the only obvious answer, but then pointed out that scientists rejected it based on its implications. His answer for the existence of the "initial condition" was fiat. But scientists reject that because they insist on finding a non-existent naturalistic or material explanation. The evidence found in the information rich blackbody light signature of the Mighty CMB tells mankind in the starkest terms possible that the initial conditions are an act of fiat. There is no natural or materialistic mechanism that can produce zero entropy across all three then existing entities: Space, material body(ies), and radiation! The "rather special state" of which Davies spoke is a masterstroke of engineering. Constituting a system in such a way that even without a patent, all the evidence will point to you as its sole innovator, designer and creator. But how, how does zero entropy prove that scientists know exactly how this "rather special state" points to God? Before we answer that, read Keating's words once more to feel the depth of frustration among evolutionary cosmologists, about the only logical conclusion the evidence points to:

The clue is in the text I have highlighted. How could a universe have "external conditions?" It cannot! However, we do know that it has two realms: the dark matter realm of invisible matter, and the visible realm of baryonic matter - what we call the Cosmos! If the "initial conditions of the [Cosmos]," by a slight correction, were "set up" in the invisible dark matter realm, that would indeed meet the definition of "external conditions that then determine the initial conditions of our universe." Why did I object to the usage of the term universe in the phrase: "external conditions that then determine the initial conditions of our universe" in its first instance, but approve of it in the second case? Because, in the first instance it presupposes that there is something external to our universe, which there is not, as the word universe means "everything that exists" as per George Ellis' correct analysis. Thus speaking of things which are external to our universe in that sense is nonsensical. We might as well start speaking of the multiverse! Whereas, in the second case, where we are considering how the insertion of conditions that were "external" to the Cosmos, could determine the "initial conditions of the universe," the word universe is completely appropriate, for those initials conditions are about three entities: Space, matter and radiation. Those three entities do indeed define the universe as a whole, not just the cosmos. For Space is obviously invisible.

But, it is not enough for us to just identify the dark matter realm as a possibility for how a zero entropy environment could have been "set up," we must identify the reason why the dark matter realm is the only logical conclusion for such setting up. Davies, like most other scientists is wont to admit that all the evidence points to acts of creative works by God. Indeed he wants to believe - and persuade others to believe - that the only reasonable conclusion is that the universe evolved, yet he uses the phrase "was set up." "Ay, there's the rub." That phrase: "was set up" explains everything. To set up means to "cause to happen." While evolution means "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." And that's the point! When something is at zero entropy upon its advent, it has been "set up!" and not changed over time "into a different and usually more complex or better form." That's the problem with all evolutionary descriptions of the universe - they are contradicted by all the facts and observational data. Things need time to change from one form to a more complex form. But the "initial conditions" were "set up ... in a rather special state." Do you see the contradiction? For instance, the supposed "pure energy" of photons needed time - hundreds of thousands of years - to complete the change from pure radiation into more complex subatomic particles and then into atoms, and finally into objects. The only problem is, that is at odds with what the evidence is telling us! The Mighty CMB is telling us unambiguously that from inception, each of the 3 principle entities of the universe: Space; material object(s); and radiation were all both complete and at zero entropy! By definition, there are no "materialistic" or "naturalistic" mechanisms - the hoped for explanations of Keating and all the God hating scientists - that could account for zero entropy entities, as all baryonic processes require numerous steps. And it is through those steps that entropy creeps in, for no step can be taken without generating it! Let me repeat that: Evolution, through its supposed use of 1) "naturalistic" and "materialistic" - i.e. baryonic means and 2) a multi-step processes over time, is THE ULTIMATE ENTROPY GENERATING MACHINE. For,

In the initial conditions, not only is there an absence of entropy in one of the three existing variables: Space, matter and radiation, but all three have zero entropy as proven by the perfect light signature of the Mighty CMB! Additionally, all three entities appear without the changes that are a telltale sign of development over time - of Evolution! Thus matter and Space appear whole and without incremental steps - as does radiation, the Mighty CMB, itself. We know this, because thermal equilibrium shows there were no fluctuations in either radiation or matter, as we have already covered. As for Space, its density with matter, was at Critical Density from the moment the cosmic microwave background first appeared up to the present. Thus it too was complete. In other words, incredibly, the only thing that has changed about Space, from the beginning of the universe until now, are its dimensions, and its now, stretched-out-layout. Thus when the "rather special state" was "set up," the entities it contained appeared in completed development-free form - i.e., without the need for any "changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." Put another way, they did not evolve. Secondly, they were "set up" in an entropy free way, and the only substance in the universe that is free of the electromagnetic based entropy belong to the non-electromagnetic realm of dark energy - the realm of invisible matter. Meaning the initial conditions are not the result of evolution through natural, or materialistic baryonic matter. Explaining how the universe came about without fiat, that is, without generating entropy, is the biggest problems facing Big Bang cosmologists. This state is "special" precisely, because it cannot be explained by natural entropic processes.

That leads to only one conclusion, for there are only two possibilities. Having falsified the one we are left with the other - the opposite of natural processes are supernatural processes. "Hold ON!" you might say, "are you who rails against metaphysics now advocating for it?" That would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the word. Supernatural is often associated with ghosts and misunderstood to mean and thus is usually used synonymously with metaphysical. That is not what the word means. The dictionary definition from Wordnik is: 1) "Of or relating to existence outside the natural world" and 2) Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Merriam-Webster defines it as: 1) "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe" and 2) "departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature." Firstly, can we agree that those definitions are exact mirrors of each other? In other words, in both dictionaries, definitions one and two are saying the same thing just using different wording. Where Wordnik says: "outside the natural world," Merriam-Webster says: "beyond the visible observable universe." That equates the "natural world" with the "visible observable universe." Is that correct? Empirically - does that agree with the facts? The answer is "Yes - it does!" It should be obvious to you that what is meant when people speak of "nature" is the visible baryonic realm of the universe. By that definition, invisible entities like dark matter, which we know exists, are defined as what ... "unnatural," ... "anti-natural?" No. They are "supernatural" because their dynamics and constitution go beyond normal baryonic matter and thus "seem" or "appear" to go beyond natural forces. The mere fact that dark matter lasts forever and doesn't "self-interfere" (meaning if your hands were made of dark matter and you clapped them together, they would pass each other instead of colliding with each other and producing the 'clap' sound) meets the definition of supernatural. This distinction, between self-interfering and non self-interfering, leads us to a clear scientific definition you may not yet appreciate: the definitions of "physical" and "non-physical." Recall Nick Lucid's explanation for why our in the baryonic realm, things don't go through other things:

Since, dark matter does not interact with electromagentism at all, it doesn't have electric repulsion. Electrons are the force carriers of electromagnetism that defines baryons. Hence dark matter is "non-physical." To put that all together then:

THE BARYONIC BASED ELECTROMAGNETIC COSMOS ARE "PHYSICAL" IN NATURE, WHILE THE NON-BARYONIC BASED, NON-ELECTROMAGNETIC DARK MATTER REALM IS "NON-PHYSICAL"

What about the second part of the definition? That equates "attributed to a power that seems to violate ... natural forces" with "departing from ... laws of nature." Again dark matter fits the bill. We have already established that because dark matter does not interact with, and is not based on electromagnetic radiation is not subject to thermodynamic laws which rule the visible part of the universe - the Cosmos. So here again dark matter fits the definition of "supernatural." Now, let us test those definitions against the known laws of Space - which we also, all agree exists, and see if they fit the descriptions. We will consider just one aspect of Space: the fact that it is not bound to the speed of light. Remember that Space can bend, stretch, and contract faster than the speed of light! Does that fit the definitions of going "beyond natural forces" and "attributed to a power that seems to violate ... natural forces?" Does invisible Space relate "to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe?" Does it depart "from what is usual" thus appearing "to transcend the laws of nature?" Of course it does! On all counts. Thus Space too is a "supernatural." If only there was a substance known to man, that was not electromagnetic and, was proven to be a volume, it would have the perfect EVIDENCE PROFILE, to fulfill all the functions of - Space! Tingle. Tingle. We will forgive Merriam-Webster for equating the visible realm of the universe, with the universe itself (they have not read this blog yet). What all this tells us is that "supernatural" is not a word to be spoken in hushed tones, as if you are embarrassed about what it relates to. NO! "SUPERNATURAL" IS A SCIENTIFIC TERM THAT RELATES TO EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED, OBSERVATIONALLY RECORDED NON-ELECTROMAGNETIC FEATURES OF THE INVISIBLE REALM OF THE UNIVERSE. Since supernatural entities clearly exist, our earlier conclusion that ruled out natural means as the cause for the entropy-free "initial conditions" of the universe, and instead landed on the only other possibility: that a supernatural agency "set up" the initial conditions, wasn't empty speculation, but valid scientific reasoning. Supernatural non-electromagnetic agencies do indeed exist and they are the only option that fits the facts! Let put down some preliminary conclusions:

THE SCIENTIFIC TERM "NATURE" RELATES TO ALL ELECTROMAGNETIC BARYONIC-BASED PHENOMENA IN THE UNIVERSE. SUCH NATURAL PHENOMENA BELONG TO THE VISIBLE REALM OF THE UNIVERSE, ALSO KNOWN AS THE "COSMOS"

NON-BARYONIC, NON-ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENON ALSO EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE AND ARE DEFINED BY THE SCIENTIFIC TERM "SUPERNATURAL." SUCH SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA BELONG TO THE INVISIBLE REALM OF THE UNIVERSE - CURRENTLY REFERRED TO ONLY AS THE DARK MATTER REALM

Since we have come to appreciate the actual demarcation line between the definitions of baryonic and dark matter, what actually one different to the other, we can now simplify our last three basic law by grouping the properties of electromagnetic matter into its own law; and doing similarly for non-electromagnetic matter. We will group the definitions under the umbrella terms of natural and supernatural:

NATURE: IS THE UNIVERSE'S ELECTROMAGNETIC REALM OR "ORDER OF EXISTENCE" & IS DEFINED BY THE PROPERTIES OF BEING PHYSICAL AND VISIBLE (THAT IS INTERACTING WITH LIGHT)

SUPERNATURE: IS THE UNIVERSE'S NON-ELECTROMAGNETIC REALM OR "ORDER OF EXISTENCE" & IS DEFINED BY THE PROPERTIES OF BEING NON-PHYSICAL AND INVISIBLE (THAT IS NOT INTERACTING WITH LIGHT). TOGETHER THESE TWO "ORDERS OF EXISTENCE" MAKE UP THE 2 REALMS OF THE UNIVERSE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY OTHER REALMS IN THE UNIVERSE

A point that might have struck you is the terminology we are forced to employ above. We have seen that the "pure energy" is a form of dark matter, meaning dark matter comes before electromagnetic matter. That, in turn means we are mis-labeling their relationship to each other, when we say the visible realm is electromagnetic and the dark matter realm is non-electromagnetic. Or when we say the visible realm is physical, but the invisible realm is non-physical. Certainly, what comes first must hold precedence. We cannot refer to what comes first by reference to what comes second. For now, we are stuck with such labels, but we put it at the back of our minds that if the opportunity arises with must remove the labels: non-electromagnetic and non-physical, and replace them with appropriate terms! For reasons, I cannot yet divulge, this mislabeling does not apply to the terms visible and invisible, for reasons you will only understand a bit later. We have covered a lot of material. A short review is in order before we state any additional conclusions we have from our deep dive into the nature of thermal equilibrium. There are six key lessons we can learn about the early universe, from the "apparent salient feature" of thermal equilibrium. We have covered five thus far. We will cover the sixth when we deal with the laws of thermodynamics. For now, a short summary of each of the five follows.

Thermal Equilibrium: The Mighty CMB is NOT a Product of the Matter Side of Things

It could not have been the matter that produced the Mighty CMB because the light produced as thermal radiation would have been the difference, not the equal of the temperature of the matter that emitted it.

Thermal Equilibrium: The Mighty CMB is NOT a Product of a Singularity

It could not have been the singularity that produced the Mighty CMB, as we have already debunked the notion of "actual infinities." And, in the hot Big Bang model, actual infinities are the required preconditions for the hot plasma soup to both exist and to work its Big Bang magic.

Thermal Equilibrium: The Mighty CMB is NOT a Product of a Hot Plasma Soup

It could not have been the hot plasma soup itself, that produced the Mighty CMB, for reason number two, above; plus the fact that the Mighty CMB's light signature is a perfect blackbody! That means whatever produced it needed a lattice, as only elements with lattices can produce - or approximate - perfect blackbody radiation. A lesson mankind has learnt experimentally through graphite, as the excellent Professor PM Robitaille repeatedly points out. Now, Keating described the generation of the Mighty CMB as having been produced by protons and electrons at extreme temperatures, in the hot plasma gas. Clearly, that is factually incorrect! As Steinhardt points out, the thermal environment at the production of the Mighty CMB is a classical mechanical phenomenon - not a fluctuating quantum one!

Thermal Equilibrium: The Mighty CMB is NOT a Product of Quantum Fluctuations

Furthermore, the fact that the Mighty CMB appears with a uniform thermal signature throughout its entirety, proves that it was not produced in a quantum fluctuating hot plasma - by definition.

Thermal Equilibrium: The Mighty CMB CANNOT Violate the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics

Lastly, Keating tells us two contradictory facts! First, he tells us that both before and after Inflation, the universe was expanding. Thereafter he tells us that universe was completely uniform, or smooth. In other words, it had the same temperature throughout. But we know from the second law of thermodynamics that for work to be done, i.e., the expanding of the universe, you need a temperature gradient. Simply put, no work can be done when everything is at thermal equilibrium. That's what the dreaded "heat death" of the universe is all about. (The fact that people believe, since the universe is always tending towards a state of maximum entropy, eventually, all forms of energy will be converted into entropy, or wasted heat energy.) And, that at that point, all natural processes will cease. Now, according to the cosmologists, the "heat death of the universe" was how the universe began! Begging the question: "how did the expansion start under conditions of thermal equilibrium?"

We are now ready to state some more conclusions:

THE RADIATION CONTENT OF THE UNIVERSE ONLY STARTED WITH THE ADVENT OF THE MIGHTY COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND. THIS RADIATION WAS NOT PRODUCED BY EITHER THE IMPOSSIBLE COOLING OF INFINITE TEMPERATURES, NOR BY THE EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE & SELF CONTRADICTORY RECOMBINATION IN A FLUCTUATING THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM

SINCE THE STARS & GALAXIES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOWNSTREAM PRODUCTS OF THE SAME PROCESS THAT PRODUCED THE MIGHTY CMB, THIS MEANS STARS ARE ALSO NOT THE PRODUCTS OF A COOLING HOT BARYONIC "PHOTON" SOUP

SINCE EVERYTHING WE KNOW EMPIRICALLY ABOUT THE UNIVERSE WE HAVE LEARNED THROUGH LIGHT, THE EARLIEST EMPIRICALLY KNOWABLE POINT IN THE UNIVERSE IS DICTATED BY THE FIRST INSTANCE OF LIGHT - FROM THE APPEARANCE OF THE MIGHTY CMB ONWARDS

AT THE FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE MIGHTY CMB - THE UNIVERSE CONTAINED 3 ENTITIES: SPACE, MATTER, AND RADIATION IN A "SPECIAL STATE" OF BOTH PERFECT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM AND ZERO ENTROPY

THIS RATHER "SPECIAL STATE" INFORMS US THAT ALL THREE ENTITIES: SPACE, MATTER, AND RADIATION PRESENT AT THAT POINT DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM EITHER BARYONIC MEANS OR EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES

SINCE, MATTER IS A FORM OF ENERGY, & THE ENERGY SOURCE FOR DARK & THEREFORE BARYONIC MATTER IS NOT BARYONIC - THE "PURE ENERGY" THAT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL MATTER MUST BELONG TO THE DARK MATTER REALM

THE FLUCTUATIONS IN THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND OCCURRED AFTER & NOT BEFORE, OR DURING ITS APPEARANCE

As per our tradition, we now list a consolidated update of all the conclusions from this page:

SINCE THE MIGHTY CMB ABSORBS ALL FREQUENCIES OF LIGHT & PRODUCES A PERFECT SPECTRUM, AND SINCE IT WAS PRESENT FROM "INITIAL CONDITION" ONWARD, THERE IS NO FACET OF THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE WHICH IS HIDDEN FROM ITS DATABASE!

RADIATION AND MATTER FORMED INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER. MATTER EXISTED BEFORE RADIATION

SINCE RADIATION IN THE FORM OF "PHOTON ENERGY," CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF DARK MATTER & THE TULLY-FISHER RELATION SHOWS THAT DARK MATTER AND BARYONIC MATTER MUST HAVE THE SAME SOURCE - THAT SOURCE CANNOT BE "PHOTONS!"

SINCE RADIATION CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE SUPERIOR FORM OF MATTER CALLED DARK MATTER, IT IS NOT THE HIGHEST FORM OF ENERGY - THE "PURE ENERGY" FROM WHICH ALL MATTER IS MADE.

THE LOGICAL ORDER OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE 3 ENTITIES THAT EXISTED AT THE ADVENT OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND ARE: 1) SPACE; 2) MATTER &; 3) RADIATION

THE BARYONIC BASED ELECTROMAGNETIC COSMOS ARE "PHYSICAL" IN NATURE, WHILE THE NON-BARYONIC BASED, NON-ELECTROMAGNETIC DARK MATTER REALM IS "NON-PHYSICAL"

NATURE: IS THE UNIVERSE'S ELECTROMAGNETIC REALM OR "ORDER OF EXISTENCE" & IS DEFINED BY THE PROPERTIES OF BEING PHYSICAL AND VISIBLE (THAT IS INTERACTING WITH LIGHT)

SUPERNATURE: IS THE UNIVERSE'S NON-ELECTROMAGNETIC REALM OR "ORDER OF EXISTENCE" & IS DEFINED BY THE PROPERTIES OF BEING NON-PHYSICAL AND INVISIBLE (THAT IS NOT INTERACTING WITH LIGHT) TOGETHER THESE TWO "ORDERS OF EXISTENCE" MAKE UP THE 2 REALMS OF THE UNIVERSE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY OTHER REALMS IN THE UNIVERSE

THE RADIATION CONTENT OF THE UNIVERSE ONLY STARTED WITH THE ADVENT OF THE MIGHTY COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND. THIS RADIATION WAS NOT PRODUCED BY EITHER THE IMPOSSIBLE COOLING OF INFINITE TEMPERATURES, NOR BY THE EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE & SELF CONTRADICTORY RECOMBINATION IN A FLUCTUATING THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM

SINCE THE STARS & GALAXIES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOWNSTREAM PRODUCTS OF THE SAME PROCESS THAT PRODUCED THE MIGHTY CMB, THIS MEANS STARS ARE ALSO NOT THE PRODUCTS OF A COOLING HOT BARYONIC "PHOTON" SOUP

SINCE EVERYTHING WE KNOW EMPIRICALLY ABOUT THE UNIVERSE WE HAVE LEARNED THROUGH LIGHT, THE EARLIEST EMPIRICALLY KNOWABLE POINT IN THE UNIVERSE IS DICTATED BY THE FIRST INSTANCE OF LIGHT - FROM THE APPEARANCE OF THE MIGHTY CMB ONWARDS

AT THE FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE MIGHTY CMB - THE UNIVERSE CONTAINED 3 ENTITIES: SPACE, MATTER, AND RADIATION IN A "SPECIAL STATE" OF BOTH PERFECT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM AND ZERO ENTROPY

THIS RATHER "SPECIAL STATE" INFORMS US THAT ALL THREE ENTITIES: SPACE, MATTER, AND RADIATION PRESENT AT THAT POINT DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM EITHER BARYONIC MEANS OR EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES

SINCE, MATTER IS A FORM OF ENERGY, & THE ENERGY SOURCE FOR DARK & THEREFORE BARYONIC MATTER IS NOT BARYONIC - THE "PURE ENERGY" THAT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL MATTER MUST BELONG TO THE DARK MATTER REALM

THE FLUCTUATIONS IN THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND OCCURRED AFTER & NOT BEFORE, OR DURING ITS APPEARANCE