[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I think it is the latter; gravitational wave energy never stops moving, it just slows down as the gravitational wave energy density increases, and speeds up as the gravitational wave energy density decreases.


102609,102648,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

And how does the gravitational wave energy density cause gravitational waves to slow down or speed up as the density of those waves in the local space changes? It is a matter of the nature of space and wave energy.

Understanding space is easy.  Space has either always existed, or there was some initial event bringing space into existence out of nothingness. I have previously explained that I don't think there ever was "nothingness", i.e., it seems obvious that space and matter have always existed. The creation myth has no standing in science.

Since matter occupies space, and from all we can tell, matter in space has been an eternal and infinite condition, then it stands to reason that there has been no past universal event that has created space. There is no generally accepted science that says there was  such a past event, nor that there can be a future event that eliminates the infinity of space. The existence of infinite space and the eternal presence of matter in space are simply givens in my commentary.


102664,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Note that in the observable universe, everything points to an initial event; a Big Bang. That is because as far as our eyes and interments can detect, there is one finite expanding universe. Presumably expansion of that finite universe is creating space as it goes. (I can barely get myself to say that with a straight face, and so consider it "tongue in cheek"). There is no universal expansion because "infinite" does not expand.

102732,102771,102839,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I mean, the infinite and eternal universe is not expanding, but we are in (and part of) an expanding Big Bang arena that is expanding within the infinite greater universe. Natural conditions have caused the universe in our vicinity to display separation of the galaxies, as galaxies and galaxy clusters move away from each other, but in infinite space, such arenas must be common occurrences as a result of natural mechanics.


102841,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

That would lead one to believe the observable universe is much like the infinite expanses that are beyond our view, based on the idea that our local arena has had a finite existence due to natural recurring forces that effectively recycle huge arenas like ours through the process of gravitational collapse and bang.


I don't mean to suggest that the space occupied by the arena somehow collapses; space is space and maintains it presence. I'm saying that the matter collapses into a Big Crunch, vacating much of the space that it was occupying before the gravitational effect overcame the expansion momentum that was generated by the Big Bang.


103061,103447,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Much of this thread has been about the multiple Big Bang thought experiment which describes some of the mechanics of big crunches and big bangs. One of the conclusions I draw is that infinite space is filled with expanding and contracting Big Bang arenas and the corresponding arena action. That action leaves galaxies and galactic material coursing around out there, to and from all directions; a circumstance that enables the gravitational pull of a central growing Big Crunch to capture matter from a greater and greater patch of space.


Such an arena grows, and its center becomes a Great Attractor. The amount of matter and energy that can accumulate in a Great Attractor is limited by a concept I call the critical capacity of a Big Crunch. When the critical capacity is reached, a Big Bang is initiated. On a grand scale across the greater universe, big crunches and big bangs are probably common occurrences, perhaps accounting for gamma ray blasts and the biggest cosmic explosions (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/27/biggest-cosmic-explosion-ever-detected-makes-huge-dent-in-space).


103121,103484,103559,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

As we look at the world around us we can see the power and beauty of nature, but nature can be cruel and unpredictable. What do we face as Humans in the future, with viruses mutating, crop failures, and cosmic dangers like astroids and solar blasts. Relative to the time frames of these changes, human lives are short, but Humanity will have to be very creative and industrious to outlive the habitable life of Earth. Imagine the difficulties of finding and colonizing other hospitable planets.

Intelligent life will have to make some kind of a getaway for the continuance of Humanity before that unknown deadline. I wonder how long we have and if we can adapt? A cosmic Noah's ark seems pretty out of reach, and the list of necessary preparations and a meaningful fleet of space vehicles to do it impose severe limits.


103563,103587,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

But here's how I will leave that uncomfortable topic: In my view, Human life on Earth is one example of an intelligent life form that has the potential to carry on beyond Earth. If it fails, given an infinite universe, and a potentially infinite number of planets with intelligent life, or the potential to develop and evolve intelligent life, it seems a safe bet that intelligent life is "forever", somewhere, here and there.


103588,103656,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I wanted to state the conclusion, that life, like the infinite and eternal universe itself, has always existed, and will exist forever. It emerges here and there, now and then, over infinite space and eternal time, as a generative product of the atomic nature of matter and energy in its many forms. Life is as natural as matter and energy, and is the real "spice" of the universe, I'd say.



103765,104189,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The definition of life from Oxford Languages: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.


104190,104275,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Interestingly, the existence of life rests on the existence of atoms and molecules, which logically have always existed as the building blocks of life. Without these building blocks that make up inorganic matter, the generation of life would not happen. However, though living things die, the potential for the generation of life from inorganic matter is what perpetuates the existence of life in the universe. I call that the Generative force of nature.


There is also an "evolvative" force. Life is subjected to natural radiation, entropy of environment and substance, mutation and change, and it either parishes or adapts and emerges stronger.


104915,104965,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Modern, intelligent, human life has opened up our world to study of the past, invention and innovation in the present, and dreams of future possibilities. And humans work to make those dreams and possibilities come true. History tells of the progress we have made so far, and science builds on those accomplishments and pushes us forward as the future unfolds. Science books and magazines fill the book store shelves and one should never be at a loss for some interesting personal investigation.



105561,105653,105730,105889,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

However, Planet Earth, and any of the potentially infinite number of other inhabited planets in the universe, which I postulate are out there, don't seem to have had any permanent impact on the infinite and eternal universe. As it stands now, for all we know, if Earth gets wiped out by an asteroid, or becomes uninhabitable by some other means, though it would be the greatest disaster that could happen to life on Earth, it would not reach the level of some universal disaster.

I don't think there is anything that can derail the ability of the universe to be much like it already is and has always been. More important to known life is the availability of hospitable habitats, and I think that mankind should count ourselves lucky we have that.

The question is, can we keep this little oasis of life going in what otherwise looks like a vast life defying expanse of matter and energy that we have no power to control or to keep it from doing what ever it wants to do, lol?


105894,105945,105978,

[puppypower]

In the standard model of the formation of the universe, the BB singularity exists before space-time. The standard model could lead to a problem for multi-universes. Our universe has expanded space-time. This would alter the space-time starting conditions, such that other universes cannot  begin the exact same way. They would now have to begin with finite space-time, which may cause them to be smaller, faster, or not at all.

If alternate universes could form with space-time already spread out, that that would bring to question the assumptions of the standard theory, since formation with space-time already spread out would be the preponderance of the data, for universe creation, plenty of alternate, and would make the BB, unique; creation? In the beginning was the human universe.

One question one might ask is what would happen if a primordial atom was forced to begin a universe that had a boundary condition of finite space-time, instead of zero? This would add what would appear to be negative gravity at the boundary, since the space-time boundary would already be expanded as though its gravity is lower than implied of a singularity which begins at zero. This could pull a vacuum that catalyzes and accelerates the expansion. Such a universe would evolve and age faster.

An alternate explanation is the the singularity would be stay in place and try to reverse local space-time toward the singularity it needs to begin the process defined by standard theory. It may look like a Black hole.  All this would be easier to figure out if we knew more about the events before the primordial atom and space-time when space and time were uncoupled and mass did not exist; speed of light reference.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

An infinite universe that has always existed (like in The Infinite Spongy Universe Model ISU), is characterized by big crunches and big bangs here and there, now and then, as gravitational compression thresholds are reached that cause crunch/bangs. The model is consistent with observations of accelerating expansion within our "observable" arena because there are gravitational attractions beyond our observable universe in all directions. The farther that chunks of matter get propelled away from the point of a Big Bang event, the more they are attracted by the matter that lies beyond, hence accelerating expansion in all directions.


In that scenario you don't have the burden of an unprovable singularity or an unknown origin of a primordial atom "in the beginning".


106020,106108,

[puppypower]

One of the limitations for all universe scale theory is the second law, which states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. While an increase in entropy absorbs energy.

The implication is the material universe is bleeding energy into entropy. This energy is not net reusable since entropy has to increase. This entropic energy is conserved; energy conservation,  but not in a way that makes it net reusable by the universe. The universe is aging and evolving and cannot go back to the same beginning, since entropy makes the useable energy balance different as time lapses. Even an infinite spongy universe would need to evolve and age. It may well would bigger sponge holes and/or become finite over time as it ages, due to net irreversible loss of energy into ever increasing entropy.

The goal of any universe scenario appears to be for it to end up with just energy, in the form of entropy, without the matter and forces implicit of the physical universe. This end point would be like memories of past states; entropic ghosts states being conserved.

An expanding universe increases the rate at which entropy increases. An expanding universe implies space-time is expanding and that time is speeding up. In the twin paradox, the moving twin ages slower since he is in a reference where time is slower. The stationary twin is in a reference where time lapses faster; ages faster.  An expanding universe is aging faster than a stationary one, with the accelerated expansion making this even faster. The universe is learning from the past; entropic state energy, and this is causing the universe to quicken via expansion.

The second law appears to stem from the limiting conditions of space-time that occur at the speed of light. If you plug c into the three equations of special relativity, discontinuities appear in time, distance and mass. We know mass cannot exist at the speed of light since this will require infinite energy. It appears space-time also does not exist. Instead space-time decouples into separated time and space. This allows one to move in time without the constraint of space; omnipresent, and allow one to move in space without the constraint of time; omniscience. This lack of space-time constraint creates a state of infinite entropy since all states are possible; simultaneously, including those once limited by space-time. This matrix appears to be the potential that is driving the second law for all physical universe(s); The potential is to return all material universe(s) back to the speed of light reference. They age in the process.

Gravity is consistent with this since mass and gravity causes space-time to contract toward a reference similar to the speed of light in special relativity. The black hole approximates this limit but is restricted due to lingering mass. Fusion, which can result from gravity, causes mass burn which is also consistent with a movement back to the speed of light reference; mass to energy. While all the forces give off energy; photons from matter, with this energy moving at the speed of light. All roads lead back to where universes originate; omnipresent and omniscience.

Forming a new universe from a reference where space and time are decoupled requires placing limits on the infinite entropy of omnipresence and omniscience. Our universe has limitations compares to a state of infinite entropy. Not all states are possible due to the laws of the physics in our universe. The decrease from infinite entropy to a limited subset;  releases energy from infinite entropy and allows a new universe to appear. Space-time requires mass to sustain since mass cannot go the speed of light and is therefore outside the non limits of the decoupled state of origin. It creates limitations, so a universe appears finite in both energy and entropy.

[Bored chemist]

The second law appears to stem from the limiting conditions of space-time that occur at the speed of light.

No it doesn't.

It appears space-time also does not exist. Instead space-time decouples into separated time and space.

Not really.

And from then on you degenerate into word salad.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Bogie note:


Dictionary

word sal·ad
/wərd ˈsaləd/
 Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: word salad
A confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases, specifically (in psychiatry) as a form of speech 

Definitions from Oxford Languages





106231,106274,106323,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

... chunks of matter get propelled away from the point of a Big Bang event, ...

Some thoughts behind that statement about the ISU model:

Because of the immensity of a Big Bang event, if such an event can be understood in enough detail, I speculate that there might be various "zones" in the affected space that would display differing impacts of the event.

1) At "space point zero (lol)" the impact might be annihilation of the atomic bonds of the matter making up the protons and the neutrons in that zone, resulting in the release of the wave energy that had been contained by the annihilated particles. From a layman's perspective, the released wave energy should be representative of the proportions specified by Einstein's equation, e=mc2.

2) Immediately surrounding "space point zero", there would be the initial "push" zone. The release of the contained energy held by matter in the Big Crunch and released by the Big Bang event, has annihilated the matter in the space point zero zone which would "push" matter away from the annihilation point and into the surrounding space.

3) This push would impart energy (momentum) to any chunks of matter surrounding the Big Bang, i.e. any matter in the Big Crunch that wasn't completely annihilated by the Big Bang, and any matter that occupied the zone including incoming matter attracted by the Big Crunch or in close orbit to the crunch.


106339,

[puppypower]

I have problem with the standard model of cosmology. To me it is easy to prove, in the lab, a BB or big bomb explosion, where the lowering of mass density, due to the explosion, causes local space-time to expand. It is easy to show mass leading space-time. Compare this to trying to have expanding space-leading the mass. How would you even prove the latter in the lab?

If I took a ball of mass and split it into two and then separate the halves, the local space-time distribution will change. How would you make space-time expand first, so the halves end up in the same place? Yet this is what is believed. It is like dark energy and dark matter have never been seen in the lab, yet by faith, these have become reality. Lab proof is not important.

In my opinion dark energy and dark matter are needed adjustments due to bad assumptions in the standard model. One such bad assumption is there is no center of the universe due to space-time leading. This assumption makes it impossible to do a universal energy balance, since relative reference will not allow one to know the true energy balance. Relative reference will cause you to estimate low. You will need fudge.

Say we have two space ships that are launched from earth and meet out in space. Both travel near the speed of light. They both display relativistic mass due to the propulsion energy that was supplied. They maintain speed and meet at location B for a side-by-side meeting. To each other, they will have very low relative velocity at the meeting. Their relative reference does not tell us their total energy;  lingering relativistic mass that cannot be seen. There will be energy missing which then may show up in other observations. These inconsistent observation may challenge the standard model assumptions, unless you add can unicorns and rainbows to make up the difference. 

Without a center of gravity for the universe, for example, one cannot determine mass based gravitational potential energy. All mass would have potential energy relative to the center of gravity. Relative reference will leave this out and will need imaginary fudge factors to compensate, since this potential energy will have an impact on matter, no what version of relative reference fantasy is being used. Data will show up and a fudge factor will be needed so nothing has to change.