[Just thinking]

I'm just speculating, and most people come here for the hard science.

I am very interested in your topic and have had much pleasure reading your threads. This is real science and it is the fact that you have an open mind that makes it possible for science to advance by evolving with new theories. Thanks Bogie smiles for your contribution with this and other very good topics in science. PS. some people have closed minds and will never learn.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I think this is very possible let's say the first BB was rather small it collapsed and due to its momentum it made the next BB larger and this may have kept taking place over and over getting larger each time as the BB expanded it may have collected matter from other neighbouring BB events. One BB feeding another finally the BB that can hold its self in a steady state ore even escape its own gravity and go on to feed other BB events.

So far, I have been of the opinion that big bangs are the collapse/bang of a Big Crunch, and the BANG occurs only when the crunch reaches a "critical capacity", a threshold of matter and energy which reaches a certain limit of compression that causes the molecules and atoms to collapse under the pressure, and the resulting collapse/bang is the release the atomic energy that bonded the atoms together before critical capacity was reached.


I agree that the surrounding environment can represent differing levels of pressure and therefore the collapse/bang could occur at different local pressures. That would mean that the limit I call the "critical capacity" could occur at different pressures depending on the local environment.




93841,93865,93945,

[Just thinking]

I agree that the surrounding environment can represent differing levels of pressure and therefore the collapse/bang could occur at different local pressures. That would mean that the limit I call the "critical copacity" could occur at different pressures depending on the local environment.

So the lower the local environment pressure is the longer it will take and more mase will be needed to reach the critical moment of a big bang.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I agree that the surrounding environment can represent differing levels of pressure and therefore the collapse/bang could occur at different local pressures. That would mean that the limit I call the "critical capacity" could occur at different pressures depending on the local environment.

So the lower the local environment pressure is the longer it will take and more mass will be needed to reach the critical moment of a big bang.

You seem to get what my thinking is in regard to the local pressure of space. I'm referring to the gravitational wave energy coursing through the space, on the assumption mass emits and absorbs gravitational waves. The closer the proximity of the space to massive sources of gravitational wave energy, the higher the gravitational pressure. I sometimes refer to it as the gravitational wave energy density of space.




94014,94189,

[Just thinking]

gravitational wave energy density of space.

You have made a great effort and quite likely come to the correct conclusion regarding the energy of gravity and its source. Gravity is one of the least understood components of nature some say that gravity has an electrical component and others say a magnetic property is at play. Whatever gravity is and whatever it is that creates gravity it remains one of the most important and fundamental parts of all there is. I hope you will stay on this investigation and perhaps uncover more possibilities and come to a point that the layman can understand.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I think that mass is composed of gravitational wave energy. My gravity premise is based on the law of conservation of mass, which is why I posit that objects both absorb and emit gravitational waves.They emit wave energy spherically, and absorb it directionally. The idea is that in order to conserve mass, objects replace the wave energy that they emit by moving in the direction of the highest net gravitational wave energy density source in the surrounding space.




94200, 94881,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Let's consider a special case of gravitational wave energy absorption by an object at rest in space.  My supposition is that such an object will only remain at that rest point/location if there is exactly the same amount of gravitational wave energy coming to it from all directions around its position, i.e., from all directions around the sphere of space it occupies. But that special case is most unlikely to ever occur for any object at any point in space because there is always an imbalance in the amount of directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy coming toward such an object due to the constantly changing positions. Therefore, objects cannot establish a rest position in space relative to their surroundings.


As a result, an object is always in motion relative to the net energy coming toward it from all directions in the surrounding spherical space, and therefore an object will be in constant motion relative to its former point in space, and relative to any point in space that you might want to consider.


My speculation is that an object cannot remain at rest, but instead, the object must be in motion in the direction of the net highest source amount of incoming gravitational wave energy currently reaching that object. Everything is in motion under the influence of gravity.


95038,95952,95066,95097,95181,95193,95221,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

My speculation is that an object cannot remain at rest, but instead, the object must be in motion in the direction of the net highest source amount of incoming gravitational wave energy currently reaching that object. Everything is in motion under the influence of gravity.

I don't mean to imply that there is anything special about that speculation; it is just physics and the laws of motion, with a flavor of the influence of gravitational wave energy density of space in which the motion of all objects takes place. It invokes my views about the cause of gravity, i.e., natural motion is in the direction of the net highest incoming gravitational wave energy density.



95565,95601,95626,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

So why hasn't the entire universe collapsed into one final Big Crunch?






95629,95644,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Because in an infinite universe with an infinite amount of matter and energy, every Big Crunch has enough "gravitational gravitas" to sit around and accumulate matter and energy until the crunch reaches a physical limit of gravitational compression (Critical Capacity), and then Bingo, it Bangs.




95647,95680,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

That is why I speculate that there are Big Bangs here and there, now and then, across the entire universe, and it is gravity and gravitational collapse that drives the eternal perpetual motion machine called the Universe.




65691,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

OK, let's say that I'm right about the eternal perpetual motion machine called the Universe. A crunch/bang would be one cycle, so to speak, and at any given time there would be a potentially infinite number of those cycles going on across the Universe. And if life is generated instead of created, life would spontaneously appear, given the right conditions. You have to imagine that it would take eons to go from a Big Bang to some genome coming to life.

But then given matter and energy, time is really an abundant commodity.





95700,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

"Has there ever been a past time when no life existed in the universe?"


My answer: No





95725,95770,95854,95870,95894,95903,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

"Has there ever been a past time when no life existed in the universe?"


My answer: No

Does anyone dispute that the universe is infinite, and has always existed? I don't know of any evidence to the contrary that will stand up in court. It seems probable that throughout the eternal existence of the universe, there has never been a past time when no life existed.




95905,95987,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Meaning that the universe has always existed, life has always existed, and what we call "the expanding universe" is only a tiny view made up of that part that is visible from Earth. And that visible part shows accelerating separation (expansion), while as a whole, ... well, "infinite" doesn't expand .





95992,96025,96067,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I pretty much reconcile the expansion of the observable universe with the fact that we are within an expanding Big Bang arena, dating back billions of years to our very own Big Bang. Since extremely diverse life exists, at least on Earth, it seems pretty clear that life was generated and evolved here on Earth. And if so, why not assume that life exists throughout the universe, being generated and evolved in the same way?




96074,96104,96169,96206,96222,96230,96260,96281,96300,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The process of building up to big bangs must take billions of years, but that doesn't mean that across the infinite universe they aren't happening all the time. Maybe they are the source cause of gamma ray bursts that we occasionally detect? Gravity is the cause of the accumulation/crunch of matter and energy, and gravitationally induced collapse is the cause of the bangs.

If you could monitor the Big Bang action on a large enough segment of the greater universe, and speed up the action so that in that segment there would be bang after bang, closely separated in time, (bang... bang... bang...), time would be flying bye. But since in my view time is infinite, feel free to speed it up as fast as you want, and to use as much of it as you want in your thought experiments.




96302,96326,96359,96382,96421,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

One such thought experiment that probably gets a lot of attention is the future of Planet Earth. How long can it sustain life. How long can the planet itself survive the inevitable forces of the universe? Can intelligent life forms escape to colonize other places; moons or planets, and how can we hope to reach them, cultivate them, make them hospitable?

These problems will take care of themselves in the course of natural events, and humanity may not survive, but it is a good sign that it has reached the point it has, and it is possible to be hopeful based on the ingenuity of man and the perserverence of life itself when conditions are hospitable.




96426,96477,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

We can be hopeful that humanity will continue to survive, but I wonder, because my speculation is that the reason we are here is because life is generated when conditions are right, and evolves over billions of years if conditions permit. But we can say that is in accord with the natural laws of the universe, i.e., no natural laws were violated in the process of the development of Humanity .




96486,96497,96517,96569,96588,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

We can be hopeful that humanity will continue to survive, but I wonder, because my speculation is that the reason we are here is because life is generated when conditions are right, and evolves over billions of years if conditions permit. But we can say that is in accord with the natural laws of the universe, i.e., no natural laws were violated in the process of the development of Humanity .

That tells us a lot about natural law. Look what nature can do. Everything we see and know must represent just the tip of the iceberg of potential knowledge and learning, past, present, and future. Given infinite space, time, energy, lifeforms, and civilizations, we have a lot to explore in our quest for knowledge. The trick is to make knowledge cumulative over time and space, and accessible to future civilizations that will arise throughout the universe under the auspices of natural law.

It is unimaginable how much knowledge must have been gained and lost over time because of the lack of universal continuity of learning. What we need is a level of recorded knowledge that somehow spans the vast distances, timeframes and civilizations that separate those natural occurrences of great discovery and intelligent understanding.


Do brainwaves that are emitted as we think, contemplate and converse, get broadcast out into space and expand forever, perhaps to be intercepted, recorded, archived, and understood by some aspect of nature whereby they are accumulated in some way we don't know about? I'm not serious and that is not a question I am throwing out to the community; it is just personal brainstorming, looking for a thought path that could lead to hope that the unimaginable is true, that knowledge is accumulated by nature.


Sorry for pressing the "post button" on this one, lol.




96592,96600,96613,96622,