Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

Native said: ↑
"Electromagnetic forces are responsible for the chemical bonds between atoms which create molecules, and intermolecular forces. The electromagnetic force governs all chemical processes, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms".

The first part is a chemical reaction. When two or more molecules bond, in chemical reaction, the original will change, but it doesn’t affect the atomic nuclei in any way. The paragraph is completely wrong.

So, when I quote consensus definitions, you define the paragraph to be completely wrong? Of course an atomic nucleus don´t change naturally, and more added atoms only changes forms, sizes, mass and E&M charges, the more they bond electromagnetically together.

This is really the basic description and explanation of the Newtonian *occult agency "force of gravity"* in where masses by *occult agencies* are hypothesized to be formed by *contracting collisions, explosions and accreations* all over in cosmos.

There are no Newtonian *occult agency force* in my cosmological conception, hence also no kind of *occult dark agencies" of matter, energy or dark holes.

(It´s really also the Theory of Everything, but I don´t like to brag about it too much )

Biology and biochemistry still work on the molecular levels, not at the nuclear levels, there are no nuclear reactions.

You need to extend your definition of *atomic nucelous*, quote:

"The atomic nucleus is the small, dense region consisting of protons and neutrons at the center of an atom, . . ."

This is the basic definition of an *atomic nucleus* where ever it works.

Remember, in chemical, biological, celestial and galactic nucleosynthesis, we´re not talking of *atom bombs* here but of atomic nucleous which electromagnetically binds other atoms into molecules to cells and so on, thus creatiing every formed objects you can think of in the Universe, included your good self.

About Nuclear reaction, quote:
"In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, a nuclear reaction is semantically considered to be the process in which two nuclei, or a nucleus and an external subatomic particle, collide (#1) to produce one or more new nuclides. Thus, a nuclear reaction must cause a transformation of at least one nuclide to another.(#2) If a nucleus interacts with another nucleus or particle and they then separate without changing the nature of any nuclide, the process is simply referred to as a type of nuclear scattering (#3), rather than a nuclear reaction".
--------------
#1 Atoms anywhere don´t *collide*, but bond together (or repels from another) via E&M forces which is working on in levels of charges. *Collision* is a reminicens from the *Newtonian occult agency* term *gravitational collision*.

# 2 Nuclei don´t transform from one to another, but one bonds and adds to another, thus forming everything.

# 3 *Nuclear scattering* .This *scattering* i.e. 'divisional formation* also take place in the formational process in divisions of cells - and even all up to the level of the formational process of forming stars in galaxies.

In short: it´s all a question of understanding how the E&M force works in nature and space: When an electric current is at stage, it induces magnetic fields which works in *dynamical spheres* of Attraction; Assemblance; Sortation; Divison and Repulsion.

Again

Biology and biochemistry still work on the molecular levels, not at the nuclear levels, there are no nuclear reactions.

This in not consistent. Molecules are made by atoms = nuclei, so as said before, you need to extend your nucleous definiton to ALL levels where atoms are at the scenario everywhere in chemistry, biology and cosmology.

What you don’t seem to understand, for nucleosynthesis to occur in the sun’s core, we talking about temperature at around 15 million K (K as in kelvin). Such extreme heat would kill all cells of any organisms.

Nucleosynthesis does´nt take place in the Sun as it doesn´t produce anyting else but reminicent issues from it´s initial formation. The observed solar atomic elements and the elementary radiations are all weaker reminiscent results from the formation of the Sun when it was formed by a much stronger nuclear E&M force in the galactic center.

So you still don’t understand what nucleosynthesis is, because you are confusing nuclear reactions with normal chemical reactions.
Not only you don’t understand nucleosynthesis, you also don’t understand clearly need to work on biology.

Who of us two is it that don´t understand the principles of nucleosynthesis?

Why is it that you´re taking *consensus atomic nuclei nucleosynthetic principles* to work differently in two different defined scientific areas? Are you too a victim of the consensus divisions of scientific branches?

Do you really think the E&M governed atomic nucleus knows how to work differently in different scientific branches all over from chemistry to biology and cosmology?

Who of us two is it that don´t understand the universal principles of nucleosynthesis?

Before and everytime you state me not to know and understand anything, you should ask yourself whether you and your frequently quoted convensus science really understand a scientific subject properly, consistently, logically, hence subsequently also universally.

 

[gnostic]

Native said: ↑
"Electromagnetic forces are responsible for the chemical bonds between atoms which create molecules, and intermolecular forces. The electromagnetic force governs all chemical processes, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms".

So, when I quote consensus definitions, you define the paragraph to be completely wrong?

You need to extend your definition of *atomic nucelous*, quote:

"The atomic nucleus is the small, dense region consisting of protons and neutrons at the center of an atom, . . ."

This is the basic definition of an *atomic nucleus* where ever it works.

Remember, in chemical, biological, celestial and galactic nucleosynthesis, we´re not talking of *atom bombs* here but of atomic nucleous which electromagnetically binds other atoms into molecules to cells and so on, thus creatiing every formed objects you can think of in the Universe, included your good self.

About Nuclear reaction, quote:
"In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, a nuclear reaction is semantically considered to be the process in which two nuclei, or a nucleus and an external subatomic particle, collide (#1) to produce one or more new nuclides. Thus, a nuclear reaction must cause a transformation of at least one nuclide to another.(#2) If a nucleus interacts with another nucleus or particle and they then separate without changing the nature of any nuclide, the process is simply referred to as a type of nuclear scattering (#3), rather than a nuclear reaction".
--------------
#1 Atoms anywhere don´t *collide*, but bond together (and repels from another) via E&M forces which is working on in levels of charges. *Collision* is a reminicens from the *Newtonian occult agency* term *gravitational collision*.

# 2 Nuclei don´t transform from one to another, but one bonds and adds to another, thus forming everything.

# 3 *Nuclear scattering* .This *scattering* i.e. 'divisional formation* also take place in the formational process in divisions of cells - and even all up to the level of the formational process of forming stars in galaxies.

In short: it´s all a question of understanding how the E&M force works in nature and space: When an electric current is at stage, it induces magnetic fields which works in *dynamical spheres* of Attraction; Sorting; Devision and Repulsion.

Again

This in not consistent. Molecules are made by atoms = nuclei, so as said before, you need to extend your nucleous definiton to ALL levels where atoms are at the scenario everywhere in chemistry, biology and cosmology.

Nucleosynthesis don´t take place in the Sun. The observed atomic elements and the radiation are all reminiscences from the formation of the Sun when it was formed in the galaxy.

Who of us is it that don´t understand the principles of nucleosynthesis?

Why is it that you´re taking consensus atomic nuclei nucleosynthetic principles to work differently in two different defined scientific areas? Are you a victim of the consensus divisions of scientific branches?

Do you really think the E&M governed atomic nucleus knows how to work diffently in different scientific branches all over from chemistry to cosmology?

Who of us is it that don´t understand the principles of nucleosynthesis?

Before and everytime you state me not to know and understand anything, you should ask yourself whether you understand a scientific subject properly, consistently and universally.

One.

You complaining to me about copying and pasting on from the web, when I am not, but you are, doing exactly that, copying and pasting various definitions, eg on nucleus and nucleosynthesis.

And I wouldn’t complain about you doing exactly what you accuse me of, except that one thing for quoting external sources:

You didn’t CITE your sources.​

Whenever you quote or copy-and-paste from books, journals, webpages, you should have decency of at least citing where you got them from. Whether it be from textbooks, Wikipedia or elsewhere.

Two.

Good. You have quote definition, but I already understand what nucleosynthesis mean, and I understand the process already.

You, on the other hand, you still don’t understand the definition to nucleosynthesis, because if you did, there is no such thing as “biological nucleosynthesis”.

Biology works molecularly in chemical (more precisely, “biochemical”) reaction, where enzymes served as catalyst for biochemical reaction.

Biology don’t do nuclear fusion in nuclear reaction.

Nuclear reaction does not equal to biochemical reaction. There is no such thing as biological nucleosynthesis.

If you going to argue with me about nucleosynthesis, then at the very least, do a proper research. You didn’t even understand the definition you have given me. There are no mention of biology capable of doing nucleosynthesis, which only demonstrated that you don’t what you are using.

 

[Native]

You complaining to me about copying and pasting on from the web, when I am not, but you are, doing exactly that, copying and pasting various definitions, eg on nucleus and nucleosynthesis.

You´re constantly posting consensus matters to which I don´t agree, thats all. And you don´t grasp that I´ve read and pondered over all consensus ideas, but you keep on posting the same over and over again.

And I wouldn’t complain about you doing exactly what you accuse me of, except that one thing for quoting external sources:

You didn’t CITE your sources.​

I can´t help if you fail to reckognize a blue highlighted word or sentense and miss to click on the link if you want so.

Two.

Good. You have quote definition, but I already understand what nucleosynthesis mean, and I understand the process already.

Yes I did, and I´m sure you know to where the consensus term of *nucleosynthesis* belongs.

I earlier wrote this - and WITH links:

About Nuclear reaction, quote:
"In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, a nuclear reaction is semantically considered to be the process in which two nuclei, or a nucleus and an external subatomic particle, collide (#1) to produce one or more new nuclides.

Note the underlined sentens: Even in consensus science, they make the correct conclusion between two seperated brances, right from chemistry to cosmology! In BOTH areas they´re speaking of *nuclear reactions*!

Why then, are you having intellectual troubles making the similar conclusion - even when quoted and linked in clear text to you?

You, on the other hand, you still don’t understand the definition to nucleosynthesis, because if you did, there is no such thing as “biological nucleosynthesis”.

Apparently you STILL don´t grasp that your own body biology consists of atoms.

If you´ve have made the effort to understand what I earlier wrote in this matter, regarding the nucleous definition connections in biology, chemistry and cosmology, you would have understood that I´m correct,

Biological nuclei are made of charged atoms which makes molecules which again makes cells and forms of all kinds and you can read of this if you can see this blue highlighted sentense here and do the physical effort to click on it and do the intellectual effort to understand it and connect it´s content to the chemical and cosmological descriptions and definitions of nucleosynthesis.

Then maybe I can avoid more of your scientifical disconnected quotations and disconnected definitions of the subject.

Biology works molecularly in chemical (more precisely, “biochemical”) reaction, where enzymes served as catalyst for biochemical reaction.
Biology don’t do nuclear fusion in nuclear reaction.
Nuclear reaction does not equal to biochemical reaction. There is no such thing as biological nucleosynthesis.

Just read and try to understand what I´m posting.

If you going to argue with me about nucleosynthesis, then at the very least, do a proper research. You didn’t even understand the definition you have given me. There are no mention of biology capable of doing nucleosynthesis, which only demonstrated that you don’t what you are using.

If you are going to argue with me, please try to make the necessary effort of understanding what I´m writing. I´ve earlier linked to the biological nucleous subject and argued for it´s logical connection to other scientific brances and now I´ve done it once again here.

If you can´t understand that basic charged atoms does the same Electro-Magnetic work in biology, chemistry and cosmology, you don´t have the overall and universal definition of *nucleosynthesis*. Then you are intellectually disconnected, hence you make insufficient definitions and conclusions.

Edit:
It´s the very same case regarding your "understanding" of the *Electric Universe* and *Plasma Cosmology* topics. If you don´t understand the electromagnetic charges and motions in basic atoms and the E&M forces and motions and formation in plasma, you have no idea at all what EU and PC is all about - hence you cannot deem it away.

The only excuse to refuse this matter is your unexcusable refusials to make the needed intellectual efforts to grasp the subject.

 

[gnostic]

You´re constantly posting consensus matters to which I don´t agree, thats all. And you don´t grasp that I´ve read and pondered over all consensus ideas, but you keep on posting the same over and over again.


I can´t help if you fail to reckognize a blue highlighted word or sentense and miss to click on the link if you want so.

Yes I did, and I´m sure you know to where the consensus term of *nucleosynthesis* belongs.

I earlier wrote this - and WITH links:



Note the underlined sentens: Even in consensus science, they make the correct conclusion between two seperated brances, right from chemistry to cosmology! In BOTH areas they´re speaking of *nuclear reactions*!

Why then, are you having intellectual troubles making the similar conclusion - even when quoted and linked in clear text to you?


Apparently you STILL don´t grasp that your own body biology consists of atoms.

If you´ve have made the effort to understand what I earlier wrote in this matter, regarding the nucleous definition connections in biology, chemistry and cosmology, you would have understood that I´m correct,

Biological nuclei are made of charged atoms which makes molecules which again makes cells and forms of all kinds and you can read of this if you can see this blue highlighted sentense here and do the physical effort to click on it and do the intellectual effort to understand it and connect it´s content to the chemical and cosmological descriptions and definitions of nucleosynthesis.

Then maybe I can avoid more of your scientifical disconnected quotations and disconnected definitions of the subject.

Just read and try to understand what I´m posting.

If you are going to argue with me, please try to make the necessary effort of understanding what I´m writing. I´ve earlier linked to the biological nucleous subject and argued for it´s logical connection to other scientific brances and now I´ve done it once again here.

If you can´t understand that basic charged atoms does the same Electro-Magnetic work in biology, chemistry and cosmology, you don´t have the overall and universal definition of *nucleosynthesis*. Then you are intellectually disconnected, hence you make insufficient definitions and conclusions.

Edit:
It´s the very same case regarding your "understanding" of the *Electric Universe* and *Plasma Cosmology* topics. If you don´t understand the electromagnetic charges and motions in basic atoms and the E&M forces and motions and formation in plasma, you have no idea at all what EU and PC is all about - hence you cannot deem it away.

The only excuse to refuse this matter is your unexcusable refusials to make the needed intellectual efforts to grasp the subject.

This is pointless.

Polymath257 have correctly pointed out that you are utterly incapable of education in science. Your knowledge is worse than high school physics.

You don’t understand nucleosynthesis isn’t simply a chemical reaction, but a nuclear reaction.

You don’t understand physics, you don’t understand chemistry and you don’t understand understand biology. You are confusing a lot of things, jumping all over the laces and making ignorant claims that you think are facts, and you are incapable of recognizing your own errors, let alone you being able to learn from them.

You are beyond help, i don’t have any more patience with your arrogant ignorance.

Good luck on presenting your insane ideas to the scientific community and science journal.

 

[Native]

This is pointless.

Polymath257 have correctly pointed out that you are utterly incapable of education in science. Your knowledge is worse than high school physics.

You don’t understand nucleosynthesis isn’t simply a chemical reaction, but a nuclear reaction.

You don’t understand physics, you don’t understand chemistry and you don’t understand understand biology. You are confusing a lot of things, jumping all over the laces and making ignorant claims that you think are facts, and you are incapable of recognizing your own errors, let alone you being able to learn from them.

You are beyond help, i don’t have any more patience with your arrogant ignorance.

Good luck on presenting your insane ideas to the scientific community and science journal.

Gnostic, *The Lost One*, I was only trying to help you out of the claws of the
*Occult Agency Society*.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, *The Lost One*, I was only trying to help you out of the *occult agency society*.

* yawn *

Look in mirror, Native.

From the one who actually believe in occult, spirits, magic, myth, fairytale and a whole load of superstitions.

Isn’t that what shamanism is?

You are already into occultism. Is that what Electric Universe and Plasma all about? Occultism?

They are certainly aren’t science.

I find your constant strawman and hypocrisy - tedious.

 

[Native]

* yawn *

Look in mirror, Native.

From the one who actually believe in occult, spirits, magic, myth, fairytale and a whole load of superstitions.

Isn’t that what shamanism is?

You are already into occultism. Is that what Electric Universe and Plasma all about? Occultism?

They are certainly aren’t science.

I find your constant strawman and hypocrisy - tedious.

I find it outright pathetic that all you can do when your are logically questioned, is to post emotional colered comments in your replies because you´re running out of factual and logical arguments.

 

[gnostic]

I find it outright pathetic that all you can do when your are factually questioned, is to post emotional colered comments in your replies because you´re running out of factual and logical arguments.

You bored me...

You were the one who brought up “The Lost One”.

And you were the one who constantly berated me for not believing in the supernatural (occultism) of myths, eg the mythical origin of Milky Way.

Aren’t you the who constantly preach about the Egyptian myth contained more facts about the Milky Way than modern science?

And now, now you want me believe in the unscientific occultism of Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe.

And btw, why do you want to comment more about the Big Bang theory or astrophysics or anything related to modern sciences?

I tried to give you the facts, but you admitted yourself that you don’t accept or believe in any evidence in “consensus science”.

If you are not interested in modern science, their is very obvious that anything more I have to say about it, would be wasted efforts, because you already have head buried in the sand, refusing to see reality, refusing to see your errors.

I have already explained to you about nucleosynthesis, but you preferred your own twisted and unscientific version of nucleosynthesis that you have made up that have nothing to do with nucleosynthesis.

That’s example of your tiresome ignorance and dishonesty.

 

[Native]

You bored me…

Maybe it would be more interesting for you if you tried seriously to learn something new.

You were the one who brought up “The Lost One”.

You hardly cannot blame me for chosing your own profile name and determine your own existential condition.

Earlier I announced to take a temporary pause in this thread, but you ignorantly addressed me anyway. As a responsive person, I descided to answer you and try again to explain my perceptions and arguments.

In post #1288 I took off answering you with this sentense:
"All the following is probably wasted on you, but as a polite person, I´ll try anyway".

And you were the one who constantly berated me for not believing in the supernatural (occultism) of myths, eg the mythical origin of Milky Way.
Aren’t you the who constantly preach about the Egyptian myth contained more facts about the Milky Way than modern science?
And now, now you want me believe in the unscientific occultism of Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe.
And btw, why do you want to comment more about the Big Bang theory or astrophysics or anything related to modern sciences?
I tried to give you the facts, but you admitted yourself that you don’t accept or believe in any evidence in “consensus science”.
If you are not interested in modern science, their is very obvious that anything more I have to say about it, would be wasted efforts, because you already have head buried in the sand, refusing to see reality, refusing to see your errors.
I have already explained to you about nucleosynthesis, but you preferred your own twisted and unscientific version of nucleosynthesis that you have made up that have nothing to do with nucleosynthesis.
That’s example of your tiresome ignorance and dishonesty.

Sure enough! My efforts are simply wasted on you. All I get out of my attempts are personal and emotional mudd throwings.

This is now the end for me trying to reply anything to you as it really is wasted. So just get off my back and hold your own hands in your research.

 

[SilverAngel]

I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding.

Not only is there no proof that the big bang happened, there is no cosmic void where this expansion would have happened 14 billion years ago, and in fact with dark matter remeining elusive many are now saying that the universe is a computer program.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not only is there no proof that the big bang happened, there is no cosmic void where this expansion would have happened 14 billion years ago, and in fact with dark matter remeining elusive many are now saying that the universe is a computer program.

Big bang theory is a working model for how the universe came into existence, obviously at every stage of the evolution of the theory, the proponents will conclude they are correct. When it comes to the huge disparity of calculated energy density between dark energy and ZPE which are both said to be omnipresent, one side or the other have it wrong. So see it as a working model for now and watch it evolve. For most religious folk, the source of the universe is THAT represented by the concept of God, but that, at least for now is not a subject for mainstream science.

 

[Native]

For most religious folk, the source of the universe is THAT represented by the concept of God, but that, at least for now is not a subject for mainstream science

And then again the religious concept of God is connected to the concept of Light which can be taken as the scientific perception of Light in generally, i.e. Electromagnetic Frequensies.
Besides this, our ancestors did not spoke of a creation of the entire Universe as they only could see the Milky Way galaxy which is embedded in the cultural Stories of Creation.
But some cultural religions also had/have written perception of eternal basic elements and which forces could start the motions of creation. They also had/have the perception of an eternal cyclical formation with cycles of creation, dissolution and re-creation.
As such. they most certainly would´nt accept the modern idea of a Big Bang at all, hence they also would´nt need "dark energy" in their perception.
Personally I take the modern calculation of distances in space to be falsely interpreted mostly because light-sources far out in space is dispersed and *slown down* on its way to telescopes on and over the Earth.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And then again the religious concept of God is connected to the concept of Light which can be taken as the scientific perception of Light in generally, i.e. Electromagnetic Frequensies.
Besides this, our ancestors did not spoke of a creation of the entire Universe as they only could see the Milky Way galaxy which is embedded in the cultural Stories of Creation.
But some cultural religions also had/have written perception of eternal basic elements and which forces could start the motions of creation. They also had/have the perception of an eternal cyclical formation with cycles of creation, dissolution and re-creation.
As such. they most certainly would´nt accept the modern idea of a Big Bang at all, hence they also would´nt need "dark energy" in their perception.
Personally I take the modern calculation of distances in space to be falsely interpreted mostly because light-sources far out in space is dispersed and *slown down* on its way to telescopes on and over the Earth.

I agree that the em spectrum, particularly as it relates to ZPE, is connected to the concept of Universal Spirit, but that is for mystical types to try and apprehend rather than orthodox science.

I understand what you are saying about the religious creation stories, the irony is that one needs to actually understand the reality represented by concepts such as God, Spirit, etc., before one can know what the scripture is trying to convey.

You may be right about the light distance issue, but in so far as religious understanding goes, one does not have to wait for science to catch up, perhaps it is not their dharma to do so, they serve their purpose in the way they do, mainly the practical application of scientific understanding to further human evolutionary development. (We can't blame science for the misuse of some of its fruits by the forces of darkness). The self evident fact to a mystic wrt the existence of one universal consciousness is seen as a nonsensical by the myriad of seemingly very intelligent atheists, but so what, they are happy doing their own dharma.

 

[Native]

The self evident fact to a mystic wrt the existence of one universal consciousness is seen as a nonsensical by the myriad of seemingly very intelligent atheists,

And up against this, it was our ancestors belief that "everything was and is connected".

Take that for a "fantastic development in modern cosmology and astrophysics" in where one scientific department fights against other scientific departments.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have been trying to get a response from someone who does orthodox science on the energy disparity between dark energy and ZPE, but no one seems to want to provide answers.

There are other questions I have and this one in particular, what is between the photons of ZPE? Are there smaller particles or energy wavelengths, or is there nothing as in a vacuum, or a 'nothing' as in the same nothing that does not exist 'before' or 'outside' the bb universe? This question arises due to the bolded sentence from this abstract that seems to describe ZPE as containing or comprising of a cloud of photons?

Dark energy and dark matter as due to zero point energy

An attempt is made to explain dark energy and dark matter of the expanding universe in terms of the zero point vacuum energy. This analysis is mainly limited to later stages of an observable nearly flat universe. It is based on a revised formulation of the spectral distribution of the zero point energy, for an ensemble in a defined statistical equilibrium having finite total energy density. The steady and dynamic states are studied for a spherical cloud of zero point energy photons.[/quote]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...point-energy/DFAC4A98338A39DDFD72DA85A6B09F06

 

[gnostic]

I have been trying to get a response from someone who does orthodox science on the energy disparity between dark energy and ZPE, but no one seems to want to provide answers.

Didn’t Polymath257 already explain ZPE to you?

 

[Native]

I have been trying to get a response from someone who does orthodox science on the energy disparity between dark energy and ZPE, but no one seems to want to provide answers.

You quoted:
Dark energy and dark matter as due to zero point energy

*Dark matter* is a simple invention term which derives from Newton´s contradicted *laws of celestial motion*.

*Dark energy* is yet another invention caused by two different distance measuring methods in space.

Real dark matter could be gas and dust is space which isn´t ionized enough to radiate visible E&M frequensies, which can be measured by ordinary telescopes - and this explanation fits nicely to the considerings and definition of ZPE. In this case *dark matter* is just *invisible clouds gas and dust*. They can´t measure it for sure, hence they state it to be a *ZPE*.

From - Zero-point energy - Wikipedia
"Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The uncertainties only deal with pure definition of ionizating of gas and dust in space and nothing else.

Furthermore, this link contains this theroretical non sense:
"As well as atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum has these properties".

There´s no such thing as "empty space", not even in a vacuum chamber.

 

[gnostic]

There are other questions I have and this one in particular, what is between the photons of ZPE? Are there smaller particles or energy wavelengths, or is there nothing as in a vacuum, or a 'nothing' as in the same nothing that does not exist 'before' or 'outside' the bb universe? This question arises due to the bolded sentence from this abstract that seems to describe ZPE as containing or comprising of a cloud of photons?

You sounds confused.

There is no such thing as “energy wavelength”.

Energy are properties of different things, such as -

• anything that have mass such as matters, molecules, atoms, and some particles smaller than hadron particles (eg quarks, electrons, neutrinos, z bosons, w bosons, etc;
• there are all antimatters and antiparticles of quarks and leptons, that have reversed charged;
• other particles that no masses, like photons and gluons; and any form of EM radiations in EM spectrum; it is these radiations or waves that have measurable wavelengths and frequencies;
• and any physical fields and EM fields that fluctuate.

Energy come in all forms, depending on what above that I have listed. But energy don’t exist on their own, and they don’t have wavelengths.

If you going to talk about wavelengths, then are referring to EM radiations or waves, such as visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, microwaves, gamma radiations, and X-ray.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You sounds confused.

There is no such thing as “energy wavelength”.

Energy are properties of different things, such as -

• anything that have mass such as matters, molecules, atoms, and some particles smaller than hadron particles (eg quarks, electrons, neutrinos, z bosons, w bosons, etc;
• there are all antimatters and antiparticles of quarks and leptons, that have reversed charged;
• other particles that no masses, like photons and gluons; and any form of EM radiations in EM spectrum; it is these radiations or waves that have measurable wavelengths and frequencies;
• and any physical fields and EM fields that fluctuate.

Energy come in all forms, depending on what above that I have listed. But energy don’t exist on their own, and they don’t have wavelengths.

If you going to talk about wavelengths, then are referring to EM radiations or waves, such as visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, microwaves, gamma radiations, and X-ray.

I am talking em energy and have always understood that electromagnetic energy such as that transmitted by, say a TV station, was radiated at a discrete frequency at the relevant wavelength at which the em energy is resonating. Are you telling me that em energy does not have a frequency of 'vibration'.?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Didn’t Polymath257 already explain ZPE to you?

As I understood him, he explained about the existence of the disparity and the fact that at this time, not one side or the other can reconcile it. Can you explain it?