ההבדל בין התאוריה שלי להצעה של פנרוז הוא שבתאוריה שלי אין מחזוריות ולכן גם אין סתירות. הפיצוץ הוא מפץ שרבים כמוהו מתרחשים בקוסמוס היום, והתרחשו גם בעבר, בעוצמות כאלו או אחרות. הוכח כבר במעבדת LHC שהתנגשות פרוטונים יכולה לגרום לשחרור חלקיקים יסודיים בדיוק כמו שהתאוריה הקלאסית מתארת במפץ הגדול. אין לייחס לכך 'בריאת עולם' בה נוצרים דברים יש מאין ובוודאי לא נוצרת ישות יקום יד מאין, מתנפחת חדשה. לכן הקוסמוס (כי אין ישות יקום) קיים, יציב, ואין סופי. אין אנו רואים כוכבים שהדלק שלהם נגמר ולכן אינם מתגלים בטלסקופים הרגישים לאור אך עדיין משפיעים מבחינת הכבידה, בדיוק כמו החומר האפל. ככל שהם עתיקים ומרוחקים יותר כך גם השפעתם חלשה יותר. יתכן וגלי כבידה יוכיחו תאוריה זו כמו שפנרוז טוען.
אשמח אם יהיו מי שיבדקו תאוריה זו.

הנה הדעה שלי לאיך הכל התחיל שהיא חלק מהתאוריה שלי על מהות המציאות הפיזיקלית: https://www.academia.edu/113576554/How_the_world_functions_and_how_we_function_in_it_new

When the Greek philosophers looked at the sky, they imagined a dome surrounding them. Naturally, they
deduced that the dome is the boundary of the universe. The concept of a universe entity is still part of
current physical theories.
There is no proof supporting the existence of universe entity. There are many unanswered questions arising
due to this idea, concerning the emergent of such entity from nothing, its rapid expansion (exceeding the
speed of light), and where it expand to. All of which are avoided by adopting Leibniz's insight that there is
no such entity. If this insight contradicts the relativity, we should find another theory to explain gravity.
When Hubble, a talented astronomer, discovered that there are other galaxies besides our Milky Way galaxy
and was able to measure their distance and speed from our galaxy, he found that the farther a galaxy is
from us, the faster it moves away.
But he could only measure and calculate distances and velocities of celestial objects visible to his
instruments, not to a theoretical point of the Big Bang he could not see.
Calculating the velocities and distances of the galaxies from the point of the explosion would produce similar
results if we consider that the farther away galaxies are from us, we see them as they were in the past
because of the time it takes for light to reach us. Galaxies closer to the explosion get a stronger momentum
push, driving them faster. Therefore their speed is not due to the universe's expansion but to their proximity
to the explosion.
Scientists like LeMaitre, who were still captive to the concept of a universe entity that surrounds us like a
dome, thought (by mistake) that if the galaxies are moving away from us with acceleration, it is a proof that
the universe's envelope is expanding. From this point, the way to calculate backward to discover the source
of the universe's birth – the 'Big Bang' – is short. Einstein even added a constant to his formulas to adjust
for the universe's expansion.
One of the most perplexing issues is the scientists` suggestion that the universe was born in the Big Bang
(out of nothing) and expands (at speed faster than the speed of light), forcing the galaxies onto the mantle
of the universe (and not in the limits of the universe where they should be,) to move farther from each
other, in their effort to explain the Hubble constant.
These are questions that in the past caused Leibniz and David Hum to doubt the existence of a universe
entity and caused many scientists today to oppose the Big Bang theory. If there is no universe entity and
therefore no universe inflation what does it say about the relativity theory? Einstein himself proposed
alternative explanation for the existence of gravity fields (and hence gravity waves,) caused by mass.
The theory of universe's inflation arises the necessity to invent a new strange force – the dark energy, that
gets more energy (from nothing) as the universe expands and repel in an anti-gravitational way the galaxies.
This can be avoided if there is no universe inflation (or no universe entity at all.)
Nothing meeting the description of dark energy appears in physicists' Standard Model of fundamental
particles and forces. It has yet to be measured directly, has properties unlike anything we have ever seen,
and has an energy density some 10
120
times less than we may have naively expected. That is why even
scientists believing in the universe's expansion are skeptical about the existence of dark energy.
Now there is doubt as to the universe expansion theory. Scientists found that standard candles and standard
rulers which are two different techniques astronomers used to measure the expansion of space at various
times/distances in the past. Based on how quantities like luminosity or angular size change with distance,
we can infer the expansion history of the Universe. Using the candle method is part of the distance ladder,
yielding 73 km/s/Mpc. Using the ruler is part of the early signal method, yielding 67 km/s/Mpc. With new
JWST data, the mystery over the Universe's expansion rate has deepened further.
The Universe doesn't just expand uniformly, but has tiny density imperfections within it, which enable to
form stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies as time goes on.
The theory based on Interactions (IbT) suggests that there is nothing unique in the `Big Bang` explosion.
Any big enough explosion in the cosmos, due to supernovae, the collision of black holes, or any other
reason, can provide the gluon/quarks soup, as proved by colliding protons in the LHC facility. Therefore
such explosions could have been in the past, could occur in the future, and even can occur in the present,
even if we cannot detect them due to the screening of background radiation.
In such an explosion, matter turns into energy, returning to matter objects when it cools down, according to
Einstein's proven equation E=mc
2
.
Measurements with improved technologies do not agree with the predictions of the current theories, which
drove some scientists not to accept these theories. (see – An Open Letter to the Scientific Community . )
It is true that if the explosion was not unique and such explosions were in the past, there is still the
problem of an infinite array of matter and time. One may also wonder where the initial objects came from,
but these problems seem less acute than those that arise following the Big Bang theory.
We may understand these problems if we prove that the world has higher dimensions (at least four spatial
dimensions) than the three dimensions we know. In this case of higher dimensions, we can also explain
many other puzzles in physics, (see – Five-dimensional universe .)
The IbT suggestion answers another problem bothering physicists like Roger Penrose, that was bothered by
the state of entropy at the time of the Big Bang.
Roger Penrose claim that Entropy should be in a maximal order rather than minimal, as it seems by
watching the background radiation.
Interaction base Theory suggests that the Big Bang is not the only explosion in the cosmos. Therefore, the
disorder can be local, keeping the overall entropy small. That will answer Penrose's entropy question.
In the case of the existence of higher dimensions, dark matter could be the product of previous explosions.
Most of the matter/energy created is attracted to the fourth dimension because of its vast mass of matter
producing strong gravity. This assumption is valid in the case of a three-dimensional brane, as one theory
suggests, or if all the objects are in a four-dimensional array, even if we human have no perception
regarding four dimensional cosmos.