The double-slit experiment is quite old now. I was referring more to the creation of things like hydrinos, which quantum mechanics claims is impossible.
- The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of matter.
- Modern cosmogony usually starts with the idea that the universe at this initial stage had all of its energy crunched into a single extremely dense point. What gases are we talking about here?
- Mathematical frameworks are a tool used by science. Alone, they do not have the final say but they are an important part of the evidence and understanding. Going back to the example of Einstein, the results of his work on general relativity led him to conclude that the Universe is static. Einstein had some pre-conceived expectations and added his work in an attempt to save his model with no real malice intended. However, actual observational evidence showed that the universe doesn't conform to our expectations -- in this case a static universe -- and showed that there is actually some expansion going on.
It's cool that you have your own ideas about how the universe is, but do you have any evidence or rebuttals that directly apply to the current understanding?
Cosmology is the study of the structure and natural state of the Universe as it exists today. Cosmonogy seeks to describe the origin. It's unlikely that it's going to contribute explanations at every level, especially when we're talking about the human condition. Cosmology or Cosmonogy aren't going to offer advice on how to improve public health policy or fight poverty. It's just going to fit everything that happens into a bigger context. There are other fields of natural science that will always have some overlap with one another, but I just don't get why people expect cosmology to sum up everything. It's not. I guess this sort of explains why human beings invent gods, assert agency, or claim divine purpose to things.
I doubt any ancient culture knew anything about the topics highlighted above and I don't think any less of them because of this. Their beliefs weren't all science. Ancient cultures were full of creation myths and religious beliefs most of the time. Some of them did also produce some early fruits born out of human progress, but to call these ideas scientific or actual cosmological models just seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Modern physics does seem to try to create a "fractal" explanation of the natural universe--but it is only the natural universe. It's not going to conclude whether Zeus prefers Pepsi or Coke.
Physicists have known about free electrons for a while. I'm pretty sure quantum mechanics doesn't say this either. In fact, quantum mechanics has some interesting things to say about the path particles take with the double-slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment). It's a bit of a mind bender that was performed originally with light and then with electrons in the 60s.
The only thing I can recommend, since our views are so entirely at odds in many ways, is to have a look at the video I posted earlier regarding the Dogon. The mythologies of the ancients were also trying to explain the fractals of the universe. It wasn't about Coke or Pepsi, although some interpret them in this fashion, relying on their classical education.
As to the big bang...where did this initial "energy" come from? The big bang does not explain the existence or origin of this energy.
My own evidence and results couldn't be summarized on a simple forum thread, it's a different sort of laboratory altogether.
Thanks for clearing up my confusion regarding cosmology and cosmogony. In my book they have always been mutually synonymous, and will likely remain that way.