[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
This detection indicates that the universe is like multi- cellular foam; so multiverse instead of universe.
...

Interesting conclusions, xersanozgen. I don't have any reason to question the multiverse concept based on your multi-cellular foam idea, but can you consider this ... a cellular foam that gives us the multiverse would still occupy space, and in my thinking, space is infinite and eternal. Therefore, multiverse or not, every finite 'member' of the multiverse is part of the infinite whole. [posted at 49713 views]

[xersanozgen]

...
This detection indicates that the universe is like multi- cellular foam; so multiverse instead of universe.
...

Interesting conclusions, xersanozgen. I don't have any reason to question the multiverse concept based on your multi-cellular foam idea, but can you consider this ... a cellular foam that gives us the multiverse would still occupy space, and in my thinking, space is infinite and eternal. Therefore, multiverse or not, every finite 'member' of the multiverse is part of the infinite whole. [posted at 49713 views]

We can think possible processes for big bang cosmology. For example, if there is a single universe and after explosion if there are rotating and rolling motions; again, we will see the present status.

After getting lumpy  and emitting lights; visible universe may be mentioned.

If we consider that the emitting points are marked on space (or light coordinate system) we can simultaneously see a same celestial object at two or more positions and in its different ages.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
This detection indicates that the universe is like multi- cellular foam; so multiverse instead of universe.
...


We can think possible processes for big bang cosmology. For example, if there is a single universe and after explosion if there are rotating and rolling motions; again, we will see the present status.

After getting lumpy  and emitting lights; visible universe may be mentioned.

If we consider that the emitting points are marked on space (or light coordinate system) we can simultaneously see a same celestial object at two or more positions and in its different ages.

No reason to doubt that.

Are you OK with the thinking that the universe has always existed, and is infinite?

If not, mention some alternatives; if so, I vote for multiple big bangs whose expanding arenas overlap, and new big crunches form in the overlap spaces as a result of gravity. Gravity would be the force that causes the accumulation of matter and energy from the previous big bangs. [50540]52266(54295)
 

[puppypower]

If you consider the big bang, if the singularity that was to become the universe via first expanding into umpteen particles, the entropy increase will be huge. We would go from a simply state to an extremely complex state in a very short time. An increase in entropy is endothermic. In the above case, this means a very rapid entropy based cooling of the universe. It also implies that the original energy needed for the expansion, had to be huge and maybe even overkill, to account for entropy as well as continued expansion.

There is another way to expand the BB, that is much less entropy intensive and therefore much less endothermic. This scenario would require less energy up front to get the expansing going, making it more likely to happen. If the primordial atom split, like a mother cell, into two daughter cells, this implies less complexity and less energy needed for entropy. All else being equal, this is more likely to happen than the current atomization theory, based on energy needs.

If this type of expansion continued, with daughter cells splitting into smaller and smaller daughter cells, we still get an expansion, but the energy does needs to be all at once. At the limit, which appears to be the galaxy level, the final daughter cell singularities, undergo a more traditional BB expansion. This model could leave a black hole in the middle of galaxies.

In this respect, relative to the standard theory,  this final BB daughter cell stage would be like multiple universes, but the size of galaxies. These have been shown to expand relative to each other, as but as separate "universes". They are connected by powerful energy wave fronts from each other; turbulence and compression.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If you consider the big bang, if the singularity that was to become the universe via first expanding into umpteen particles, the entropy increase will be huge. We would go from a simply state to an extremely complex state in a very short time. An increase in entropy is endothermic. In the above case, this means a very rapid entropy based cooling of the universe. It also implies that the original energy needed for the expansion, had to be huge and maybe even overkill, to account for entropy as well as continued expansion.

There is another way to expand the BB, that is much less entropy intensive and therefore much less endothermic. This scenario would require less energy up front to get the expansing going, making it more likely to happen. If the primordial atom split, like a mother cell, into two daughter cells, this implies less complexity and less energy needed for entropy. All else being equal, this is more likely to happen than the current atomization theory, based on energy needs.

If this type of expansion continued, with daughter cells splitting into smaller and smaller daughter cells, we still get an expansion, but the energy does need to be all at once. At the limit, which appears to be the galaxy level, the final daughter cell singularities, undergo a more traditional BB expansion. This model could leave a black hole in the middle of galaxies.

In this respect, relative to the standard theory,  this final BB daughter cell stage would be like multiple universes, but the size of galaxies. These have been shown to expand relative to each other, as but as separate "universes". They are connected by powerful energy wave fronts from each other; turbulence and compression.

In accord with my personal ideas, I don't subscribe to any atomization theory aside from the obvious existence of matter that naturally takes different shapes and plays out in different ways under differing conditions of energy density. I consider the observed expansion as a  phenomenon taking place in one of a potentially infinite number of similar arenas of space, and each expanding ball of matter and energy is caused by its own big bang event out of matter and energy that has always existed.


Each expanding arena has limits as to the energy involved, and the entropy that takes place as an individual arena expands is conserved, meaning the energy always adds up to the potential energy contained in the matter and energy that was accumulated by natural forces and mechanisms as big crunches form, bang, and intersect throughout the greater universe. This thinking assumes that there are a potentially infinite number of active crunches and bangs going on all the time across infinite space.


This is just my way of acknowledging that energy is conserved on a grand scale in an infinite and eternal universe.






54769,55027,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I see no reason not to add replies and encourage discussion to this existing thread as I contemplate the “imponderables” of the universe:

According to my ISU model (The Infinite Spongy Universe), wave energy is the quintessential building block of everything that exists, from the tiniest to the largest energy quantum, i.e., from individual photons of the lowest order, to what I imagine to be Nature’s highest order of quantized energy, the big bang arenas filling the landscape of the greater universe.

“Sameness” means that new big bang arenas all form in the same way, through an interplay of existing matter and energy and natural forces that have played out forever over infinite space and time.

“Quantization” refers to the energy increment. The amount of energy that can be contained in a local “quantum of energy” is variable. Photons are typical quanta at the micro level of order, and can individually contain vastly different amounts of energy, and big crunches are quanta at the macro level of order, and they too can contain vastly different amounts of energy.


Big crunches grow through accretion as the force of gravity attracts matter and energy to fall toward them, where they can go into elliptical orbits, or fall directly into the main mass.








55065 views, 55090,55281,55301,55327,55398,55466,55550,55570,55633,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Big crunches grow through accretion as the force of gravity attracts matter and energy to fall toward them, where added material can go into elliptical orbits, or fall directly into the main mass.

As the crunch grows, and as its mass increases, it will eventually approach "critical mass".

Critical mass is the limit of energy density that an energy environment can sustain without collapsing on itself due to the gravitational compression.







55682,

[Professor Mega-Mind]

Ummm...
That sounds like an ever-growing black-hole to me !
.🤔

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Ummm...
That sounds like an ever-growing black-hole to me !
.🤔

Do you believe that a black hole can grow forever, or will its growth have consequences?

[Professor Mega-Mind]

Well... I wanna believe !
😶

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Well... I wanna believe !
😶

I'll support you on your right to believe

but I myself would be inclined to put a limit on the amount of mass that can accumulate before it "bangs".

[Professor Mega-Mind]

That's a pretty radical viewpoint ...
As a non-physicist , I cannot refute such a possibility , but am unaware of it being propounded by world-class ones .
🤔?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

That's a pretty radical viewpoint ...
...

Well, I wanna believe!











55842

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

That's a pretty radical viewpoint ...
As a non-physicist , I cannot refute such a possibility , but am unaware of it being propounded by world-class ones .
🤔?

I think it is: Big Bang Theory, and I refer you to the title of my thread. Multiple big bangs over infinite space and time satisfies my quest for logic in my philosophy of the universe; The Infinite Spongy Universe cosmology.

I have a premise that humans are capable of encountering a satisfying truth using the science, investigations, deep thoughts, and logic that people have pieced together throughout history, combined with their own contemplation, meditation, and concentration. I see no way for there to be a finite universe or a beginning of time, and so my philosophy is based on an infinite and eternal universe where crunches accumulate here and there across endless space, and growing crunches eventually bang. We are in the expanding arena of one such "big bang"; expanding arenas intersect and overlap, to form new crunches that in turn eventually reach critical capacity and Bang too .




55851,56034,56075,

[Professor Mega-Mind]

Alright ... sounds like Roger Penrose's lava lamp to me though !
Ya still gotta wonder what the prime-mover is !
🤓

[puppypower]

One limitation for multiple universes is connected to the second law. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. While an increase in entropy requires the absorption of energy.

If you look at this logically, the absorption of energy by entropy, in light of the second law, implies that energy will be conserved, but some energy will be rendered net unusable, since entropy has to increase and is therefore this energy in entropy cannot be net reversible.

The net affect is a second big bang will have to smaller, or it may not have enough useable energy to bang at all, if a critical amount of energy is required for a Big Bang.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

To Mr. Puppy ,
This would be true in a closed system , but... the Multiverse may not be a closed system , or may operate by different laws of physics .
P.M.   .🤔

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

In my model I keep it simple: there is one universe, it is infinite, and has always existed.














56138,56295,56316,56380,56417,

[Professor Mega-Mind]

*You sound like the Fusion-Chief !
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner   
》Indirect evidence ?
www.universetoday.com/143140/astronomers-uncover-dozens-of-previously-unknown--ancient-and-massive-galaxies/amp/ 
P.M.  .

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

In this infinite and eternal universe many of us are going to find ourselves speculating about the nature of the universe beyond known and/or generally accepted views. I have posted about my pet ideas here in the Alternative Theories sub forum. If you have been thinking about such things, don't hesitate to try your ideas out on me or comment on my posts for purposes of discussion between enthusiasts on the topic.

In response to your links in the last post, #498 above, comparing my ideas with  Eric Lerner's work runs into the problem that he believes that the universe as we know it had a beginning. I think he favors a plasma universe out of which our current universe evolved. I'm not sure if he says the plasma state always existed, or what caused it to evolve. Maybe someone can fill me in.


Nevertheless, I don't think there was a beginning because I have trouble getting my arms around the idea of "something from nothing", which is the only alternative I can think of that would explain where the universe we live in came from if it had a beginning.




56961,57025,57057,