1

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 26/06/2022 00:53:10 »

But if the watches are not synchronized, and can tick at different rates depending on their velocity relative to some imaginary fixed point in space, (which might not be a realistic possibility at all), can we just drop a flare there to mark the spot ?


I don't think so!


149929,

 It can work if universe exist and doesn't at the same time, divided by the plank scale, like a predictable future which erases and recreates that which it just erased constantly, that tic tac rate would be C.
 As for frame of reference, the frame of reference of matter it's always it's past, as it would be not a real static frame of reference, only the geometry of spacetime reajusting itself constantly at C.
 My frame of reference would always be the fields to which I'm submitted, always reference to zero when I'm my own frame of reference.

 It's an understanding about the cosmological limit, it's too much of a convince that quasars for example jets out matter at 99.999% of the cosmological constant.
 One of the feasible possibilities it's that: C it's not a moving speed, rather a quantification rate limit.
 A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2.... Towards infinity which would be... A1-A2-A1-A2-A1-A2 on a straight line distance following and seting the arrow of time.
 Each time A1 meets A2 the particle it's recreated there, but in between A1-A2 the existence of anything but spacetime was (0) for it didn't existed as a thing since nothing can't move trough nothing.
 What I mean by nothing can't move trough nothing (faster than C) it's the suggestion itself, that in between A1 and A2 (one Planck volume) "the thing" wold not be a thing at all, the update "speed" it's set and nothing cannot surpass it as "a thing".
 Matter seems to bypass this by offering a center for mass, still such reference it's only reference for itself while for space it is still zero.
 If the information was erased as a thing and recreated on the destination, with a C speed as the frame rate it would be virtually undistinguished from a moving object.

 Matter travel is to spacetime using the same means of the photon, if the photon requirements are to produce virtual photons In order to work, one can say that it's also true that nothing it's relative to nothing but spacetime.

Hmmm, I'll have to take a closer look at this, later.



142050,144594,

2

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 04/10/2021 17:06:02 »

What I find more entertaining than the ants are the squirrels that don't abide by the rule that the seed I put in the bird feeders is for the birds. From dawn to dusk, as long as I keep seed in the feeders, there is a steady stream of birds and squirrels at the feeders hanging outside my windows. And there is constant competition among the four or five squirrels that are almost always hanging around there. They love to cling to the feeders by their hind legs and eat until they get knocked off their perch by other squirrels or incoming birds.


My bet is that this activity is universal, meaning that in a universe full of hospitable planets, of which some percentage are teaming with life, there are squirrels, or their living equivalents, jostling for the available food, all of the time in our multiple Big Bang universe.




99912,100028,100042,100113,

3

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 03/10/2021 18:05:11 »

... I figure they would run into trouble fitting it in when they get it home, lol.

I guess they will feed off of it, and cut it into pieces and store it below, yum.
imgres
(click "imgres" for images from the web)

99596,99758,99826,

4

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 01/10/2021 17:07:45 »

I am quite interested in the micro world to I am looking for what is called a water bear to view and sperm is quite good to see if you have a male donor at hand a dog will do or even one's self. You do need a microscope of course with at least 200x magnification.

There is no end to the amazing things in the micro world. But even in the macro world I am always discovering new and interesting things as I observe Nature on my walks. Recently I saw a team of ants dragging a dead grasshopper across the drive. I figure they would run into trouble fitting it in when they get it home, lol.




99246,99284,99375,99548,

5

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 23/09/2021 15:52:00 »

One thing that I noticed when watching the paramecium swimming around in the water under the glass was that when they bumped into something, they would back off and change direction. You could see the little cilia along the cell wall fluttering and propelling them along. They showed some instinct, which might be the early signs of intelligence, but clearly there was some rudimentary consciousness going on there.




99130,99238

6

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 23/09/2021 14:59:04 »

I will say that the tiniest one cell protozoa seem to be able to spring from almost nowhere, nothing. As a kid, I put some weeds and grass from a nearby roadside ditch that floods when it rains, in a jar of water and hid it in my closet. My Mom (Edith Smiles)   found it when it began smelling, lol. I examined a few drops of water from the jar and it was teaming with life, so even tiny protozoa have a cycle from parent to child that almost seems spontaneous, but that has a microscopic heritage.




98214,

7

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 23/09/2021 00:46:34 »

If we consider the known universe is swamped by radiation and gravitational waves this would allow for an open circuit if this is the case then the energy from all the stars can be interconnected. You may have heard of the spooky particle in quantum physics where one particle can instantly have a reaction with another. I have a feeling that this strange phenomena or something like it that has not been discovered as yet is the key to understanding the conscious universe.

I'm on board with you on wondering about the source of consciousness. I would say that even starting from a lifeless environment, given hospitable conditions, life can spring from lifeless surroundings, and the natural biology of life can support evolution to the heights that we can see for ourselves, and presumably beyond. If that isn't spooky, I don't know what is, lol.




98095,98111,98205,

8

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 20/09/2021 14:49:35 »

Consider a speck of detritus in deep space, and since it is a tiny bit of matter, it emits gravitational waves. But to maintain its mass, it must also absorb incoming gravitational waves. In deep space those waves are weaker and far between, so does the bit of matter eventually "evaporate" due to the dearth of incoming?




97627,97769,97906,97956,98014,98053,98089,

9

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 17/09/2021 02:40:07 »

I believe it is very possible that our brain waves are received by the universe and recorded. There is a book that tells how someone is all knowing and knows more about us than we know about ourselves. I have a post that suggests that the universe is a brain.

The sum of what we know is dwarfed by what we don't know, but that doesn't stop me/us from expounding on the possibilities.


Does the universe act like a brain? An argument can be made for that, but if true, it would be a pretty big entity (infinite and eternal) that would have to be connected and coordinated at a foundational level everywhere throughout the universe. The only physical "connecting tissue" I can think of that is everywhere throughout the universe is gravitational wave energy.


It would be my belief that the concept only works if matter is composed of gravitational wave energy and absorbs and emits gravitational waves continually. That would make "motion" the result of an imbalance in the gravitational wave energy density between separated objects, according to my model.




97282,97416,97480,97500,97558,97590,97626,

10

Just Chat! / Re: Have a nice day!

« on: 15/09/2021 21:49:50 »

The specialist knows everything about a little and nothing about everything else.

Hmm, that is a bit of a generalization, wouldn't you say. It seems likely that no specialist knows everything about a chosen field, and probably knows something about various other fields. Can you defend or expand on your opening post?

11

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 28/10/2020 18:35:52 »

...
When the hydrogen and helium condensed together under the influence of Gravity, the mixture under intense pressure, ignites to form a star. These stars in the earliest period of the universe ...

In a universe that has always existed, as it has according to my ISU model, any reference to "stars in the earliest period of the universe" should use the words "in an earlier period of the universe", not "the earliest period". I'm proposing that in an eternal and infinite universe, time simply passes moment by moment in an orderly fashion.


68140,

12

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 07/06/2020 01:05:31 »

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

Well, I wanna believe!











55842

13

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 18/01/2019 00:30:13 »

My own model of the universe is one that is infinite, eternal, and on a large scale, the same every where (homogeneous and isotropic). The “sameness doctrine” that I invoke describes the universe as a multiple big bang landscape, and says that no matter where you are in this infinite expanse of space and time we call the universe, the  process of big bang arena action will be playing out around you. You will be in an active big bang arena like we observe in our Hubble view, or somewhere that is involved in the early stages that we would call the preconditions to a big bang.

That is why I picked up on the “What happened before the Big Bang” thread over in the Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology sub-forum, started by “guest48150” who seems to have left TNS all together (leaving his thread with the classic title adrift). I saw it as an opportunity to discuss preconditions in a hard science sub-forum, and so I brought up the cold spot.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75868.msg565389#msg565389

14

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 09/01/2019 14:46:14 »

I have to finish watching this, so I’m putting this in the Dogma thread for future reference:

15

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 08/01/2019 23:00:42 »

The real absolute time could be many magnitudes faster than that. Our entire universe could be within some outer "universe" such that the whole of our universe is running at snail pace. This would make sense too when you think about "instantaneous" action at a distance with quantum stuff.

Those are interesting thoughts, but instantaneous action at a distance is not possible in the ISU, just like a perfect vacuum is not possible. I do like to go on about my quantum thinking, and my version of quantum gravity, and yes, there are energy density levels where actions occur more rapidly than in others, clocks run faster, gravitational waves go faster, but never instantly; not even at the quantum level in the ISU. There is always a time delay as long as there is energy density, and there is always some level of energy density because there can be no perfect vacuum.

If you don't have that faster time, you can't have a time slowed by energy density because it isn't running slower than the faster time that the model doesn't have.

I tried several different responses to that, but none of them seemed to make sense, lol.

If you make sure you have removed absolute time from the simulation, the simulation will cease to function correctly. Indeed, it will fail to function altogether. You cannot have coordination of different "times" without one of them governing the other(s).

I can believe that, but I’m not certain …


A Group of Blind Men and an Elephant

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, "elephant is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

________________

Ok, I know I’ve gone philosophical again, but the challenge for each of us is to try understand another man’s “elephant” without being able to see it. Until we communicate, we are just the blind leading the blind. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that we are all in the Group of Blind Men from time to time. After all, we are talking about the strangest “elephant” of all, the as yet unknown nature of the universe, and only being able to know it from what someone else says their piece of it feels like.

16

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 15/12/2018 15:21:52 »

Our measurements show us that light consistently travels at the same speed through space (for a given depth in a gravity well, and that it varies in a predictable way at different heights in a gravity well). In that, we already see that space and time must be extremely consistent things - they give us the same results for experiments over and over again. We run experiments which show us the functionality of clocks being slowed by movement through space (and by depth in a gravity well).

That is well said, and I agree. One point of consistency between us is the speed of light through space is invariant, relative to the position in a gravity well (or as I phrase it, relative to the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space at that location).

When I speak of clocks measuring the rate that time passes, the variable aspect is caused by their positions in the gravity well (i.e., by the relative frequency of the sum of all of the gravitational waves arriving there that have been emitted and traveled there from all of the distant surrounding sources. Those sources are all of the particles and objects out there that have mass, and that are in relative motion to each other). The way I suggest that the invariant natural laws of the universe pull that off is by the precise way that the gravitational wave energy density varies as you change position in a gravity well. After all, any change in position, in any direction, is subject to the gravity well analogy.

...
As we send two lots of light round different paths to get from A to B, we get predictable results - time isn't speeding up and slowing down in random ways in different places, and space maintains separations predictably rather than having distances between two things continually vary in random ways. There's a very precise mechanism in play behind everything we see.

I strongly agree. We are referring to the invariant laws of nature after all, lol. (let me know if you disagree with me about the concept of the “invariant laws of nature”).

If time was behaving in unpredictable ways, we'd see distortions in space between ourselves and distant stars and galaxies.

No one is saying that time is behaving in unpredictable ways, but you seem to be predicting that if time wasn’t absolute, we’d see distortions. That supposition can't be your only basis for invoking absolute time, can it? If so, what is the evidence that there would be your predicted distortions?

Can time run slow for some clocks if those clocks run slow?

We agree that if there was such a thing as absolute time, and that if a given clock itself was running slower than an identical clock in the same position in a gravity well (i.e., where the gravitational wave energy density was the same for both clocks), then if one of the two identical clocks runs slower in the same position in the "well", it is because of some sluggishness or manufacturing imperfection in that peculiar individual clock, and not due to a physical difference in the position in the gravity well (i.e., not due to a difference in the local gravitational wave energy density).

Not if it's a moving clock - we can see the mechanism by which the clock runs slow and we know that the light in a moving light clock is still moving at the same rate through space as it would if the clock was stationary, so we are not fooled by the clock running slow. If we put a clock down a gravity well, we are not fooled by it running slow either because the speed of light is slower down there - we know that time is not running slow there, but that the clock is. We also know that the clock isn't taking a shortcut into the future by being in a gravity well - it is simply ticking more slowly while passing through the same amount of time as a clock right at the top of the well, and we can check this by moving them apart and then moving them back together - ...

We are in agreement in regard to the variable rate that identical clocks would display the difference in the rate of time passing at different “depths” in a gravity well. My view is to say that time simply passes every where, but that the difference shown by clocks measuring it is a function of their relative positions in the gravity well, and therefore due to a difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of their local space. That thinking doesn't convert to being a suggestion that there is an absolute rate of time passing, as measured by a clock, somewhere out in the deepest possible space; there isn't any place in the universe, as I know it, that time could be measured to pass at some absolute rate, so there is no rate that can be used as a "standard" or absolute rate that all clocks can be measured against, or converted to. This is a strong logical argument, and you should feel obligated to refute it convincingly.


I do want to point out another area where your absolutes seem to break down, and that comes to light when you refer to “moving them (the clocks) apart and then moving them back together”.

I remember asking you about a coordinate system that could allow you to detect exact physical locations in space. If you move the clocks apart and then back together, assuming you intend to move them back to the exact location where they started, over the same paths, how do you determine the exact coordinates of the starting location, and how do you determine that you have returned the clocks, over the same paths, to their exact starting locations?


That is a logical question/argument that comes up in regard to absolute space. As far as I know you have no way of marking the start position, plotting the exact paths, and returning to the exact starting positions (barring @jimbobghost ’s interesting suggestion of leaving bread crumbs; just not sure yet how to make them say put?).

... if one of them had taken a shortcut into the future, we would see an event-meshing failure and the laws of physics would break because we see them meeting up and can knock them against each other, but a shortcut into the future would mean that the one that took the shortcut would fail to collide with the other clock because that other clock wouldn't be there yet when the shortcut taker arrives at the reunion point.

The fact that you acknowledge the difficulty of pulling off the act of separating the clocks, and then getting them back to their original places, your demonstration is not a convincing argument. You can certainly adjust the act of returning the clocks together by cheating, to use your argument, meaning by adjusting the act of returning the clocks to their start positions using visual assistance in regard to the relative positions of the clocks as you move them, and adjusting the return path visually until they are back together. Still, there is no evidence that when they are brought back together even using visual assistance, that they are back to their original positions in absolute space, is there?

It's really simple to demonstrate this with a simulation, but all the people who simulate theories without absolute time have to sneak it into the simulation to coordinate the action while pretending they haven't done so. Their models simply cannot work the way they claim, and it's extraordinary that they're able to get away with cheating like that even after they've been found out, but so few people can get their head round this stuff that they simply aren't capable of checking the facts. Those who are so sure they're right though have an obligation to show a working simulation of their model that doesn't cheat by smuggling in absolute time. They refuse to do so.

The simple demonstrations you suggest will not work, in my world view. They won’t work, not only because there is no absolute time or space in any practical situation, but if there were, you are facing the fact that without bread crumbs and visual “assistance” (which you would call cheating, lol), you cannot pull off the simple demonstrations.

17

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 15/12/2018 12:21:27 »

To be honest this should be a strict policy. Only people with a positive attitude allowed to join ISU 

I wish . 


But in the ISU everything is relative to something else. I guess we have to face the fact that the ISU rules are the invariant natural laws of the universe, and they're already set. On the other hand, our personal philosophy of life allows us to set our own rules to live by. That is good because we can decide to require a positive attitude, and we can decide when to change our philosophy, lol.

18

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 15/12/2018 01:29:00 »

That would be wonderful 

If I didn’t mention it, part of the philosophy of the ISU includes maintaining a positive attitude, lol.

19

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 15/12/2018 00:44:09 »

Given that life has already existed for an infinite amount of time, certain life forms would be so advanced and developed that any possible method of transportation has been learned and mastered, any knowledge about this universe has been acquired, they must be so high tech that they consider us modern humans as how we consider bacteria.

They would also probably be laughing at our feeble technology 

Maybe, but possibly high evolution involves a process of cleaning up the human genome, and the human flaws that we all know about might be filtered out of the mix in the genome of those highly advanced and developed life forms.

I’m sure there would still be some humor seen in the slow struggling progress of man, but I think from such a perspective, there comes an appreciation for the struggle. There are odds that any single intelligent life form like ours faces, and maybe the posture of the super-advanced is to cautiously lend a hand.

20

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 14/12/2018 18:28:03 »

"Thank you, I always appreciate creative writing, it is a powerful way to send a message"


I concur.


I encourage Bogie to find a musician with whom to collaborate; and release the next great religious/pop hit!

Not going to happen, not even an inkling in my eye, lol.


My interest is in evolving the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, as a layman science enthusiasts cosmology of the universe. In its current version, having evolved since its earliest inklings which I would place in 2001, it has always been both a quantum mechanical wave-energy scenario (Quantum Wave Mechanics), and a philosophy (Eternal Intent) derived from the mechanical scenarios.




An old poem about the ISU
Meteorites, the poem


The Universe, a quiet place, is home to our existence,
But surely the perspective skews when viewed from such  a  distance.
Big Bangs blast out the building blocks of life's regeneration,
In places far, imponder'ble, beyond imagination.


No start of time, no end of space; a wave energy domain,
A place where God and Universe seem essentially the same.
What guides your acts; your own freewill, to be cast responsibly,
Take caution then, false words and deeds, affect life predictably.


Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there,
Created or evolved it seems to spring form almost nowhere.
From galaxies,  to holes of black, dark matter and neutrinos,
Where endlessly life's dice are tossed in cosmic class casinos.


Explosions then, great cataclysms, booms, its an inferno,
Our beings shoot like meteors, traversing space eternal.
The roles that we have just disposed are not the final curtain,
We'll  star as sparkling meteorites, leading roles  for certain.