Chapter 3 - Paper Discussion

   The young men and women were assembled in the auditorium. It was hardly filled to capacity, but those there crowded densely around the stage, radiating out in a loose dense mass. Lighting went out in concentric rings from the stage, considered efficiency. The rings of light closest to the stage were on, the rest off. A few "Pluto" attendees were scattered about. That was what they nicknamed the outlying students that preferred to sit out and in the back, away from it all. Men outnumbered women at this presentation meeting. No one knew why but that was the makeup of the mathematics and physics department and no one really knew why.

   Of course, why did some people like to sit in the back of the bus, and these Pluto attendees did much the same. Some things just are.

   The oldest man attending, approached the little podium. He tapped the microphone with a time honored "is this thing on?" and he got the usual light scattered chuckles the old joke brought.

   "All right. Its time. This is our last white paper being presented this week. As I do with every presentation? I will remind you of the time honored rules. The student or candidate presenting the paper? Has the initial floor. Questions or thoughts? Come after, not during. I will also remind you further? That time honored rules such as these, are not without good reason. Each and every one of us? Is allowed to hold any belief whatsoever, and propose and attempt to defend it. As well, every single one of you, is allowed to agree or disagree. There was once a time when religious leaders? Used to imprison and even kill early scientists, for ides proven to be facts later on down the line."

   A voice catcalled from out of the ether it seemed. A Pluto attendee, no doubt, to judge from the substantial echo.

   "Can't wait to hear how the Earth is flat. Yet again."

   The man on stage at the little podium, thwack-ed the microphone making the annoying loud thump and little squeal, to a light chuckling of good nature.

   "Comments, of any nature both for and against? Come after the speaker has yielded the floor presenting his paper. You will show the proper decorum required, when doing initial peer review."

   It quieted down, like children lightly admonished by an adult.

   "Doctoral Candidate, Joseph Hall Carpenter? I yield you the floor."

   "Thank you, Doctor Miller. Well. Here we are again. With the slightest changed or additional presentation points? I am permitted to re-launch my position. May I have the first image, please... all right, thank you."

   "This, my esteemed colleagues? Is an Ancient Greek philosopher. If you study your scientific history? You will not be doomed to repeat it. Did these ancient philosophers have many strange and what we later came to understand were completely false ideas? Yes. Science is imperfect. We make mistakes. We go down blind alleys, sometimes for hundreds of years. Before we suddenly come unstuck, and leap forward again."

   "These ancient philosophers? Also, did a lot of great work. Much of what some of them decided upon? Was later proved to be completely true. And that was with no measuring equipment, no modern apparatus. With nothing more than the humble thought experiment, some of the ideas."

   "One of them? Decided that he could take a handful of simply anything. And cut it in half. And continue to cut it in half. When he ran out of a knife fine enough to cut it again in half? He reasoned that if he could, he could do it again and again. Yet, he reasoned logically. He could not continue to cut the matter in half forever. There was some limit. You would eventually, hit some fundamental component of matter. He called this? The atoms that made up the matter. When later proved correct, on his thought experiment thousands of years later? We named them atoms, in honor of him being posthumously proven right."

   "Another? Reasoned that water in any container, always goes flat. Surely then, the sea was flat when calm. On the calmest day he could find, he stood on the shore at the water's edge. He estimated how far out a low ship was visible. With a quite novel approach to distance estimation. Over a well known short distance? So many oar strokes attained a certain distance. When a fire was lit, bringing the ship back? Oar strokes were carefully counted. This, yielded a fairly accurate distance estimation. This, he reasoned? Was the curvature of the earth. The height of the ship. Again a known thing... allowed him to use simple circle geometry. To calculate the size of the earth, viewing it as a giant ball."

   "One had mathematical proof, the other had just his thought experiment that seemed logical to him. Both, were proven entirely correct. The estimation of the size of the earth? Surprisingly accurate, given the crudity of the measurements. The existence of atoms, so small they could never be seen by the naked eye? Nothing beyond reasoning. Still, completely correct."

   "This man on the screen? While he did many things, some incorrect and some hailed as genius even today... he chose to drink hemlock poison and die, rather than recant his beliefs of what he felt were correct. I risk only ridicule and argumentation. This man? Had the courage to die, to make a statement how important scientific advancement was. When I sit and think about such... courage and intestinal fortitude? I feel ashamed and humbled."

   "Next image, please... yes."

   "Now. This man needs no introduction. Albert Einstein. If you read his history? You know he was considered... quaint in his ways. And that? Is putting it mildly. The man had a well deserved reputation? Of being annoying. Because he was proven right, more often than not. Even? On many of his strangest ideas. He had a famous quote that lives for me to read and marvel at. His definition of insanity? Everyone trying the same things over and over, and expecting different results. He fiddled with a geometrical view of the universe, and worked out equations to arrive at conclusions. Yet? He also famously re-introduced the humble thought experiment."

   "Light? Was held to be a mass-less phenomenon. Was it a wave of energy? Or a particle. Over a great distance, light stays flat, and does not follow the curvature of the earth. However. He held, that light would yield to gravity. Like a shot from a gun appears to be flat at first and over great distance only? Can be observed to fall."

   "When you look at the well known Newtonian physics equations of it... a smaller mass, traveling at greater speed? Falls less. He predicted. That if his calculations were correct? Light could be bent if only under huge gravity. After several failed attempts during solar eclipses, due to cloud cover... a photographic plate was finally made. It proved? That the position of known visible stars very close to the surface of the sun, visible only during an eclipse... moved. They appeared to move, the exact amount he predicted."

   "Not only did he prove that light can bend when there is enough gravity? He also proved that light had some kind of small mass. Because gravity is a result of a larger denser mass acting upon a smaller one. His speed of light, allowed for calculating the weight as well as verifying the speed of light itself."

   "This was not the first time he was, quite annoyingly, proven right. Long after his death? Early GPS satellites, had an error. Accurate only to within a couple hundred feet. Great for highway traveling, but street navigation of a crowded city? The dot on the map bounced around like an electron being viewed up close."

   "Someone, got the bright idea. Why not trot out Einstein's equations. The satellites in geosynchronous orbit above the earth? Were not moving at the speed of light, but they were moving at high speed. Velocity, was squared in the equations. Aggravating the situation. In fact, when you worked it out... just fast enough? That it introduced a very slight slowing of time. Taken in conjunction with the long, thin triangulation required to provide GPS locations... they accounted for this velocity and time slowing. And? Overnight... GPS was suddenly accurate."

   "None of this? Was accomplished without first proposing and reasoning out, some thought experiment."

   "Now then. Much like in Einstein's early days? We are all at a standstill again. I would propose to you, that if you do not study history? You are doomed to repeat it. When everyone is stuck? When everything is agreeing on the same and similar things? But... the cart is not moving forwards. Why not be even remotely open to the idea, that maybe. Just... maybe. We are all? Doing the same things over and over, and expecting novel results."

   "How long have we been stuck here? The original CERN accelerator. Great advancements. We all know Newtonian physics breaks down the closer you go back to the singularity, the big bang. Mother CERN, got us to within one tenth of one second, after the big bang. A monumental achievement."

   "Now? We have CERN two. An order of magnitude bigger. The detection equipment is more sensitive than ever. Theoretical particles in the particle zoo? Detected and proven to exist. Even anti-matter? Particles moving fast enough released the proper amounts of well measured quantities of energy at detected collisions. Its astounding. Yet..."

   "How long has it been. Since we moved the clock back in time. Understanding any further back, than that precious one tenth of a second after the big bang. How long has it been, since another particle was added to the known particle zoo. I ask you. Are we not stuck? You know we are. That much, isn't really open for debate, I don't think. Yet, all we do now? Is get better and better and more and more proof, of what is already known. Not completely useless, to be sure. We're stuck."

   "Einstein? I believe that if he were here, right now, today? He would say we're all doing the same things, over and over, expecting novel results. And I remind you? That's his definition of insanity."

   "Now. Before I make my usual proposal? I do have novel information that is I admit, a mere proposal. But before even that? I would ask you, no... I would beg you. On my hands and knees... to at least consider the remotest possibility of something extraordinary. But first? I give you. What led to the belief, correct I might add... that the atom existed. I give you? The humble thought experiment. A simple one."

   "No one counters the idea that the big bang happened. All galaxies, and indeed all matter? Is expanding away from a central point in three dimensional space. I want you for the moment? To ignore space-time. Its just a concept. Consider space? As nothing. The perfect vacuum. Keep it with only traditional geometrical coordinates. X, Y, Z. The basic geometrical length, width, and height. Take Einstein's original geometrical view of the universe. I want you to, just for a moment? Suspend the fact that matter had no mass yet, and technically time didn't exist. Because the Higgs-Boson, the god particle? Hadn't formed yet and granted mass. Which allows gravity to exist. Which allows our concept of time? To exist."

   "But... keep the coordinates. X, Y... and Z. Space? Empty? Is... just there! We all agree. All matter was condensed into the singularity. All the matter in the universe was squished down to about the size of a chicken's egg. Then? Boom. Big bang. I? Do not argue that. I don't think anyone does."

   "Now. One tenth of a second later? Expanding... you can't even call it matter, because it has no mass. Much like we once argued, was light a particle or a wave? Treat it like either one. The light? Still exists. You can say there's no mass, because there's simply energy. So? I'll call it... expanding... stuff. About one tenth of a second, we pick up on the plot line. And from there out? We understand fairly well, what goes on."

   "Problem. The universe is still expanding. One team says, its slowing down slowly. Another team? Says its speeding up. Yet another? Says its steady. It depends on what you're looking at. How far away it is. And? How you calculate that velocity and direction. Do I have answers? No. But at least I can give ideas. Shortly."

   "Problem. Depending on which expansion measurement team you personally cheer for, like a football fan and wave their flag? You have roughly three choices for the fate of the expanding universe. One. It continues to speed up the expansion. Until everything is one day far enough away from everything else? And... the stars burn out. The exploding supernovae? Release gas that is too far away from other mass, to be attracted. The universe grows cold, and stays like that forever. The cold death of the universe."

   "Two. The expansion runs out of big bang energy and velocity, and slowly comes to a stand still. Black holes form, and dissipate Hawking radiation, and basically we get a static universe."

   "Three. The big bang energy runs out, the expansion slows and stops. Then? Matter attracts matter. Super massive black holes? Combine with super massive black holes. They attract one another, until... you end up with the last two black holes, which orbit and spin for billions of years... and... form that last big black hole. And what's at the center of such a proposed single black hole. All the matter in the universe, all condensed down... to... what?"

   "All the matter in the universe, confined to an area about the size of a baseball. The particles break back down into energy. The resulting ball of energy? Compresses down to the chicken's egg size, and..."

   "What do you get. Nearly the exact conditions? Of the original big bang."

   "Here's my thought experiment, and a simple one. if this isn't the correct view of the universe? Then how do you explain the big bang came about in the first place. Seriously. Now, I will grant you. The expansion speeding up? Is most popular. Why? Because the proposed equations that relate to it? Work the best. I caution you... its not complete. Its just... more conditions satisfied, by equations that work... better."

   "We are all, curiously, trying to prove that the universe? Simply doesn't exist. Clearly? We have a damn universe. We live in it. We can see and measure, and yes, argue about it. To me? I let this guide me, as a foundational principle. That the conditions of and for the big bang? Are possible. Why? Because we had one."

   "Did the energy and what would later become particles and mass and traditional energy, simply come up from some spring or fountain? No. It would have come... from matter compacting in. The condition for which to happen? Only exists in a black hole. Its rational. A black hole has no theoretical upper limit to its size of growth. But... if we all continue, to take a view of the universe, and accept the mathematical equations that support it? A view, that does not lead to another big bang? I propose, you have no rational explanation for the big bang existing in the first place."

   "Problem. The amount of matter in any large galaxy? Does not account for its size and spin rate. Conclusion? We invent magical fairy dust. Dark fairy dust. Dark matter! I challenge you. Show me one measurement of it. Show me one observation of its existence, beyond its merely a theoretical construct, that allows your choice of equation sets, to work a little better."

   "Problem. Once you accept and treat dark matter as real... stuff? You go on to explain some energy that seems to exist. Dark energy. Again? Show me one measurement of it. Show me one single collision in the bigger CERN accelerator that so much as hints at it. You can't. All you can do, is point to your favorite set of equations, that works better than some other set."

   "No. To me? We all work at some... big company. Someone, decided to blame someone for something when the boardroom demanded an explanation, for who was responsible, for... whatever. Aha! Invent an employee! There's tens of thousands of employees. No one will know. Blame him. And? Every time you need someone to blame, so the board room has an explanation? Its that employee's fault."

   "Over time? Everyone simply knows this employee exists. Why, he's been referenced in lots of critical reports. People claim to have had dinner with him, and worked with him. Why? Human nature, pure and simple. But... as much of an explanation as this invented employee provides? It does not make him... real. He was an invented explanation. To make things... seem like they work better. And that? Is dark matter! Who hired that mythical, imaginary employee? Another made up employee, to explain his supposed existence! Dark energy, because once dark matter exists? Well. Why not."

   "Now. Before I begin my conclusion? I have one more history lesson for you all. May we have the next image, please? Goodbye Albert. I miss you more, every time I go through this... okay."

   "Now. This man? Was a middle ages astronomer and great mathematician. The earth? Was still the center of the universe. And it was the truth! Why, simply look up, and see that things revolve around the earth. Everyone was in agreement. The church, the astronomers and mathematicians. All of them. And the truth? Sociology teaches us. That the truth? Is simply that which is decided upon, by a plurality of qualified observers. Here, the church leaders, and all the scientists of the day."

   "One fly in the ointment. Planets. Stars rotated around the earth, the sun did too. The moon as well. But those bright stars that moved funny? Named after the word for wanderers. They were funny. They went across, then made a little loop, then continued on their arc. No mathematician could explain this. Until this man? One of if not the greatest mathematician in his day... came up with equations that explained it. It was long, it was complicated... and it was completely... correct. These long equations? Satisfied, perfectly, all observations of the planets weird looping arc paths."

   "Finally. The math? Was complete. They now understood everything. And for a long time? He was hailed as the visionary genius for explaining it all, again with equations that proofed out perfectly. You see, if you put a point, on the side of a cylinder. View it from the side, and trace that point out as the cylinder rolls... then replace the cylinder with a slight oval... its called the movement of the cycloid. You can define, geometrically and mathematically... among other things? Certain arches, and... yes... the arcing but looping motions of the planets."

   "Problem? It was completely incorrect! No one, would today rationally propose the earth as the center of the universe. In fact? Those complicated equations, got less complicated? When someone... finally, over a hundred and fifty years later? For no real reason other than wondering what a comet path could be explained with... they idly put the sun at the center, and the planets revolving around it... and..."

   "The equations were simpler. Everything still accounted for, mathematically, except now even the path of comets made sense and their large elliptical orbits could be correctly explained and calculated and predicted. So? We've been here before. Large complicated sets of equations, that are seeming like they work fairly well? Yet, all based on a completely incorrect assumption at the bottom of the problem."

   "To me? The bottom of the problem. Choose the view of the universe expansion? That allows for the next big bang to be possible. Because without that? You don't get the one we had! I honestly don't understand why I can't get any support, for this fundamental thought experiment. You are all seriously, quite content? To have proven our universe doesn't exist. Its madness!"

   "I don't blame you all. Equations? Work more completely and better, and seem to explain things better. When you believe in those two invented employees. Dark matter and dark energy. I propose? Treat dark matter and dark energy? With great skepticism! Pretend they don't exist. Because? They well might not."

   "Now. For conclusion. Do I have mathematical proof? No. I do have, however... an anonymously donated paper. Someone, must have decided to play devil's advocate to me... and had a few beers and made a rough charcoal sketch of what I believe. May I have the next image... there."

   "A randomly chosen set of equations, from the larger set. What this person did? You can see, they removed dark matter and dark energy. They tried to work this admittedly small subset of the equations. Just as a test. They got, quite predictably... nowhere. But? They scribbled a note. Quite a long note, but still notes."

   "Next image? Thank you... now. They next tried? Why not remove gravity. Why? Because they were going to remove mass from the calculations. And why remove mass? Because the note said. If we're trying to go back another step, before the Higgs-Boson particle forms, and the god particle grants mass to energy producing the first particles to populate the early zoo? There is no mass. Not yet. Hence? No mass, no gravity. What would that result be. Next image..."

   "This. The equation is falling away at the seams. Its much smaller, with mass and gravity removed. After first pretending dark matter and dark energy don't exist. This, ladies and gentleman? Is the first person, to ever entertain my premise. Did it work? Did the equation balance? No. But... they ignored that, and kept working. The equation is breaking down, and getting smaller. And... next image? Thank you."

   "What you see here? Is that failure. Two of them. There's no equality. And, depending on which way you work it. From the left side? They decided on an inequality. The left side of the equal sign? Is replaced with a greater than. They worked it from that angle. It doesn't solve, but... it's clearly a lot... neater. Now. After this, they worked it from the other side, the right side. Another inequality, but this time a less than made more sense. You can see a completely different, but equally almost solved inequality."

   "A completely... undefined result. Its impossible for either side to be bigger, at the same time. The very definition of an undefined result. So? Just as a purely academic exercise, they decided they had to replace the equality, the equals sign? With inequality. Since greater than, and less than. Worked better... depending on which side of the inequality you started from? They decided. What the hell. At different times? One side could be bigger or smaller. So? Inequality.

   Now, they went back and worked the thing out yet again. No longer handicapped by deciding which direction the greater than, less than inequality pointed at any one point in the calculations? The humble not equal to, the simple inequality... leads to this. Next image..."

   "And? As you can now see. The complex equation. Given my strange propositions and conditions. Carried through, in this admittedly tiny randomly chosen page of an equation, as a test. Energy? Is not equal to the velocity of light squared. Now, this is obviously not a place you want to find yourself. The notes? Said they were prepared to sort of laugh and taunt me, with this result. This... proof, that my assumptions were completely wrong. So? They hung them up on their little bulletin board, and looked at them. Quite pleased with themselves, that they could finally... shut me up."

   "And? After a couple days... enjoying their win, gloating, as it were... they said. They were suddenly struck by a weird notion. I'm talking about the time before that first tenth of a second after the big bang. Mass? Does not exist yet. Because the Higgs-Boson hasn't formed to grant mass to particles to form. No mass? No gravity. Here? The notes said... this was... scary. Next image... there."

   "Energy. No particles yet. No mass. No gravity. With no mass and no gravity? Light has a tiny mass. Its calculable. We know this to be true, because as dear old Albert so smugly predicted and was proven true time and again... light has mass, because it bends under extreme gravity. If there's no particles, and no mass yet? Remember, pre Higgs-Boson granting mass. Then... light doesn't exist yet. It can't. Light, as we know it? Needs its tiny mass. So, they came to the strange conclusion. If particles are still energy, waiting on the Higgs-Boson to grant mass and strings to form and turn into the first particles... light? Is at this point, anyways... still in... whatever state of energy everything is in."

   "Which comes down to a very strange implication. The speed of light, as a constant? As a cosmological... speed limit? That velocity is only with light's tiny mass, that gravity can bend. That? Is only once particle physics come into existence. Quickly followed? By our well known and documented Newtonian physics. But... back then? Light, with no mass? No speed limit."

   "They said, scary and weird as this was, they decided to keep on it. The inequality almost solution? Implies that total energy need not be equal to the velocity of light squared. And, that if you simply... give up, so to speak. And allow either greater than or less than to flip flop as works better at the moment? You can solve, and I use that term very loosely here, but... next image..."

   "I give you? Calculus I. The limit! We all know this one. You have an undefined result. Like, dividing by zero. And, if you approach from greater than side... you get closer and closer to? The undefined result. And, you work from the lesser than side? You again, get closer and closer to the undefined result."

   "Well. What high school kid bound for college doesn't know how to follow this plot line, right? They solved for case after case, starting at zero and working up. Now. We're all familiar with this number, I think. 34,596,000,000. Thirty four billion, five hundred and ninety-six million. Which is as we all know, the velocity of light squared. Now... they were trying, by going with other randomly chosen equations, which they took dark matter and dark energy out of, and then took again... gravity and mass out... and put these now reduced equations into a list... and proceeded to do simple algebra. Solve a set of simultaneous equations. Next image? We go matrix solution... and..."

   "They were expecting, quite naturally? The undefined solution, to naturally be... the velocity of light squared. No. They kept getting, no matter WHICH equations they boiled down with this method into the matrix for simultaneous solution? No matter how many... you get a small number of variables, and a fairly long list of equations. And remember... they're also working out the limit, of the undefined answer. You approach from either side, smaller and bigger, coming in... to home in on the undefined result, what it would be, if it were defined. I mean, simple intro to Calculus, folks. Simple algebra, to solve sets of simultaneous equations..."

   "The velocity of light squared? Not even close. No. They kept upping and upping the guess, trying to get closer. So they had some idea, how big to go on the other side, coming down? To close in on the limit. To prove it, both algebraically by simultaneous solution set, and... by inspection of the limit on the graph. On the graph. Which is? A geometrical view. And Albert Einstein never once had success, with algebraic and geometrical solutions, did he? No. Only all the time. The result of all this. Next image..."

   "This number. 1.196883216×10²¹... the closer you get to that number? The closer you get on the graph, to the graphical solution to the undefined answer. Interestingly? With the several equations they boiled down removing everything, solves out of the matrix, time and again with the ones they randomly chose... to be... this same number."

   "At this point? The unknown writer of this paper, that they shoved under my door and ran away... was highly intrigued with coming to the same answer, albeit with a limited number of randomly chosen equations across the field. I sat, for quite a while. Trying to imagine, what in the hell this number could even possibly represent. Where it... comes from. On a hunch? 186 thousand, squared... the velocity of light? Is... 34 billion, 596 million. As a sort of mathematical joke? I squared that. And I get..."

   "1.196883216×10²¹"

   "So. What could all this possibly mean? If anything. One? We get somewhere, when we remove dark matter, and dark energy, from all the equations. They don't exist. What they are? Is simply... the amount by which your answer, differs from the correct answer. Which is what I'm proposing. Maybe."

   "What I am proposing? Is that maybe... in the pre Higgs-Boson state... where there is no mass, and hence therefore no gravity... yet... during that energy only state, which is the singularity... light? Isn't yet light. It has no particle yet, it has no mass yet. Hence? No 186,000 mile per hour cosmic speed limit. No. For the first tenth of a second, of the big bang? Mass-less energy, what I'll call tentatively... pre-light? Has THIS number, for its speed limit. Until, it expands enough, that the Higgs-Boson god particle composes, which grants mass and allows particles to exist. And from then on? Well... the plot line from there, we already more or less have covered."

   "Possible implication of... all this supposition? For one. We invented dark matter, to try to explain where all the extra energy came from. In this state? Total energy was not at that mass-less point in time... the velocity of light squared. For whatever reason, the total energy available, from available mass? And I use that term mass very loosely, because mass was not... invented yet. But? It came from... all the available mass before it contracted. So, in that sense? We do know the mass. Total energy was the velocity of light squared, and the result squared. We invented dark energy, to explain the extra mass required. Because once you invent an imaginary employee at the company to blame? Who hired him. You have to then invent the other employee responsible for hiring him."

   "This? Is now, to me? A complete logical fallacy. Its called... begging the question. Why must dark matter exist? To explain all that extra energy. And why does dark energy exist? Well, because dark matter exists. So. I took a rough, and mind you? An extremely rough stab at this... next image? Thank you..."

   "Instead of not enough matter and not enough energy? Under this whole... supposition, taken as a whole. I now have... way too much energy. Which, is an interesting position to now be in. Instead of inventing dark matter, to therefore create more energy available? Too much. What can I subtract... well? I want to stay... grounded, we'll say. Algebra, and geometrical or graphical solutions only. Thank you, Albert... wherever you are now."

   "As you can see, I have quite a bit of excess energy to account for. I now? Have to start finding legitimate ways of paring it down. Now. Density. Greater density? Greater heat. Greater energy. Sounds suspiciously? Like... Boyle's gas laws, to me. I know, I know... we don't have matter yet, but... when do we have matter? Well. The Higgs-Boson god particle forms spontaneously our of the energy state of the singularity... oh... about one tenth of a second after the big bang."

   "We do have cosmic inflation going on. Which as we all know? Is that the singularity, the egg sized compressed... everything. Goes with no time from that, to instantaneously... a much greater diameter. Going by mass estimations, mass estimations which now, produce way more energy if we accept the new constant. Now? I simply enlarge the singularity, slowly along the increasing diameter... until? I get the estimation of energy which works. Works, mind you? Without dark matter and dark energy. They? Don't exist."

   "And? That would be the diameter the singularity, the chicken egg sized compression... instantaneously expanded to. That? Would be the magical one tenth of a second later, and you... already know what goes on from there on out. Now. Is this perfect? No. I have several problems. For one? This is all done, with randomly selected segments of all the equations, across particle physics. I need people to each grab one? And see if this constant holds, across all of them. And if it holds as a constant, across all of them? That, means something. Next image? Thanks..."

   "Which would bring me? To this. The expansion rate of the universe calculations. We have three to pick from, depending on which team you root for. Expanding faster and faster and faster? Forever increasing? That's silly, to me. Staying steady, forever? Again, silly. No. Slowing down, is the only possible conclusion, for me. Which, is the biggest hole in my plot line, and I admit it. When you make everything else fit, along these lines? Its slowing down faster than the slowing-down team I personally cheer for? Measured. I honestly need some reason, why the different expansion velocity teams? Come to such widely differing conclusions."

   "But? It would give us... that last thing to... concentrate all our efforts on. Now? Instead of everything doesn't square up? You have a chance to move forward. One prong of attack? Is to slowly get all the existing equations gone through, in the manner I outlined here... to see if that constant or close to it? Keeps coming out as the undefined solution. That's one side of the problem. The other? Is simply to nail down the expansion rate of slowing. I honestly come up with, it drops off quickly. Just like the more you follow out a rifle fires a bullet? It drops more and more, near the end, quite quickly. Asymptotically, actually. Simple physics. But? Armed with what would be more correct mass and velocity estimations? I think it might be possible to get a handle on it."

   "There you have it. I now yield for questions, which I'll try to take. Then? I naturally yield the floor, to allow for argument."

   There was a short period, where all the doctoral candidates in physics and mathematics and related fields interested, took it all in.

   "Right here."

   "Yes."

   "One thing, assuming I agree to take all this for granted. You talk about the... one tenth of a second. You also, talk about the instantaneous expansion. Which is it?"

   "Good question. I thought about that one, and I admit... its a puzzle. I have two ways of going about it. One? The way we all are taught to... ignore space, and ignore time... and think in terms of... space-time? And we're taught to... I mean, remember. Its really? Just a way of seeing, or imagining it. But... in this pre-mass state of energy? You have no mass... yet. So, you have no gravity. In that way of looking at it? You really have no... time. So? Going back and using relativity and special relativity. From the point of view of that singularity? No time elapsed, from singularity, and expansion to the one-tenth of a second size, where normal takes over. Also... I try to imagine myself... outside this compressed ball of energy. For me? Time is my own time reference. From the outside, as the observer outside it? I experience the elapsed time of... one tenth of a second."

   "So. You would eliminate time, as well."

   "Yes and no. From the reference point of the expanding... stuff? Time is instantaneous. As an observer, looking in at it? You get your one tenth of a second."

   Another voice popped in.

   "You scrapped the speed limit of light?"

   "Only for that first tenth of a second. Because without mass, the same amount of energy can move the... stuff... faster."

   "That's one hell of new cosmic speed limit."

   Chuckling and mild laughter erupted.

   "Yes. No more 55 miles per hour. More like... the Autobahn. Only temporarily."

   More noise. Another voice.

   "Question. If I may."

   "Sure."

   "All right. You have... pre-particle, pre-mass... hell, pre-gravity... coming out, at this new huge increase in energy, but with the same amount of... normal mass. Which is what went into it, assuming accretion that led to the big bang. Yes?"

   "Yes."

   "Thinking in terms of a loaded rifle round? I'm seeing... the projectile, if you will? Is the same mass. It expands, mass is granted for particles... but, all that much energy? I'm trying to imagine the velocity of those first particles, and the early things in the particle zoo, just granted... mass, by the Biggs-Hoson formation. You got a hell of a lot more powder, pushing the same projectile now."

   "I do. Its what it looks like. Under this supposition."

   "Once these... particles form and take on mass... do they instantaneously drop to the speed of light? Because Newtonian physics and relativity take over. E equals MC squared again, at that point in time. I mean, mass exists. So gravity exists. Which means... time is... available? You know what I mean, I think."

   Joe sighed. Rubbed his chin.

   "I thought about that. I have trouble with it. Honestly? I think, and maybe. Okay, I like the rifle shot analogy. There's a huge amount of powder going off. The projectile? Has no mass, so it goes way faster then the speed of light... but... once it gets granted particle status and mass? The... projectile... suddenly increases in mass. In weight. It... begins to slow down suddenly. Time... for lack of a better word, mind you... now exists at this point. But... yes. The particles and mass? Are for a brief indeterminate period of time? Traveling at tachyon speeds. They quickly slow to the speed of light, to fall into Newtonian physics."

   The voice wondered back.

   "All right. I'll play along. We now have mass, gravity... time as well. Newtonian physics is about to begin, but relativity and special relativity have already appeared? Once we have mass. If... you have things temporarily traveling at much higher than the speed of light. And I mean, ridiculously over it. When mass arrives? The hell happens to... time. As a variable."

   "Well. The particle? Experiences time, going... in the negative direction. Whatever in the hell that means, in practicality. But, the outside observer? Just sees something zipping by at way over the speed of light. I won't lie to you, any of you. That part? Makes my head, quite frankly? Hurt. I do wonder, though. Could this account for some of the discrepancies in universe expansion velocity calculations? Its above my pay grade, at that point."

   There was a lot of laughter, chuckling, general noise and commotion. Cat-calls, among other things. Someone yelled out "flat earth!" and laughter took over.