Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Bogie_smiles on 10/05/2017 21:54:22

Title: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/05/2017 21:54:22
Edit 7/29/2018: Reply #390 consists of a list of the most current ISU content posts (to be updated from time to time) from which you can get the latest summary version of the ISU model: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg548324#msg548324 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg548324#msg548324)

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Opening Post
The Infinite Spongy Universe Model
Introducing myself and my layman science enthusiast model of the universe

On Twitter, as Bogie_smiles, I tweet layman alternative ideas, Cosmology, multiple Big Bang landscape, wave energy density model for particles, QuantumGravity, as well as about an evolving layman science enthusiast's views of the universe that I call, "The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)". Generally the tweets are bitly links to posts on various science forums where I have discussed one topic or another. Not sure if The Naked Scientist Forum would object to that kind of activity, so I won't link to here from Twitter until I know if it is OK.

One of the things I like about Twitter is the "lists" feature, and I take advantage of it by listing "Science Sources on Twitter". The list has thousands of members, and a few followers, and it is a pleasure to click on the list and view hundreds of new science related tweets, photos, and links, every day. Though it is impossible to filter out all of the politics, special interests, religion, and daily chatting, all of the members on that list tweet about science related topics, including all areas of interest; news, views, history and perspective.

I have a question about the New Theories sub-forum. Do I have to have developed an idea to the level of a theory, with predictions and proposed tests? For example, I like the idea that "if there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs"? It is an idea for discussion, and any evidence that I think supports the idea has more generally accepted explanations, of course. Would it be appropriate for me to post on that topic?


Edit as of 10/2/2017:
I have received no objections to my posts to date, or to the Twitter links to my posts. My observation of the activity here in the New Theories sub-forum indicates that my thread is within the guidelines, and I appreciate the use of the forum to present my views on cosmology, and to update the ISU model. Also, it is worth noting that I have made use of the Science Image Gallery to host images that I have used in my various posts, and that is a convenient feature of the NakedScientists Forums.


Edit 9/16/2018
If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

On this thread we are looking at a simple layman level cosmological model based on science, logic, and speculation. Everything about it is open for discussion, comments, and opposing arguments. It is a work in progress since 2001 or so on the Internet, and has evolved over the years. There were early discussions on the Yahoo discussion boards, and then on to various science forums that permitted discussion of layman  alternative ideas, including Bad Astronomy and the Universe Today (BAUT)/CosmoQuest, TOEQuest, ATS (Above Top Secret), The Science Forum, SciForums, as well establishing a presence on Twitter under the Bogie_smiles handle, where I tweet about cosmology and quantum gravity.

The Naked Scientists Forum, http://nakedscientists.com (http://nakedscientists.com/), is the present home site for the continuing development of the model, where I am the originating poster [OP], Bogie_smiles, and where I have been a member since May 2017. During that period I have been updating the layman level model by utilizing the forum’s software feature that permits modifying previous posts on the thread.

Together, the above paragraphs, and the following content in this post, is an example of how I am utilizing that feature. The content of this post will be moved to, and included in the opening post and early posts, in due course, assuming there are no objections from management to me using that technique to keep this thread updated as an evolving version of the ISU model.   


Introducing The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)

The model is called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model of the cosmology of the universe. That name will begin to make sense as you become familiar with the particulars of the model, and tackling the meaning of “sponginess” is a good place to start.

Why Spongy?

Spongy, or sponginess has to do with quantized energy density changes that take place on both a grand scale across the landscape of the greater universe, and on the tiny scale of the quantum action that takes place at the micro level of order. Each level has its respective action process, with the Big Bang Arena Action process governing action at the macro level, and the Quantum Action process governing the action at the micro level of order.

To state that in other words, we have changes in wave energy density that are occurring continually at both the micro and macro levels, and at each level, the action is governed by a similar action process that causes the changes in the local wave energy density to occur. The difference between levels is that at the macro level, the wave action involves multiple big bangs and big bang arena waves that play out over billions and perhaps trillions of years, as they expand and converge freely across the landscape of the greater universe, while at the micro level, the wave action involves the formation of tiny high energy density “spots” and tiny sub-quantum waves that expand and converge momentarily in the oscillating wave energy background of space.

The mention of quantization of the action processes refers to the concept that big crunches and the resulting arena waves they produce are macro level quanta, while high energy density spots and the tiny quantum waves that they produce are micro level quanta.

The discussion of the mechanics of the action taking place at both levels involves the details of quantization at each level, and how the two major quantum increments, the big crunches at the macro level and the high energy density spots at the micro level, are orchestrated by their respective action processes, into a perpetual, steady state, multiple big bang arena universe.

That points to a key feature of the model; the sameness of the action taking place at both ends of the size scale. The process of Quantum Action is the micro level counterpart to Arena Action at the macro level of order, and so there is a theme of “sameness” throughout the model.

Highlighting that theme, there is an infinite Big Bang arena landscape at the macro level that fills all space, and an infinitesimal oscillating wave energy background at the micro level that also fills all space; a duality of action at occurring at opposite ends of a spatial size scale as time passes.

Looking deeper into the mechanics at the macro level, the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe is composed of multiple big bang arenas that expand, converge, and overlap, with convergences resulting in big crunches. Big crunches in turn collapse/bang into new expanding big bang arena waves, continually appearing here and there across the landscape. Big crunches themselves are referred to as dense-state wave energy cores that accumulate at the center of gravity of the overlap spaces, that then collapse/bang into the expanding big bang arena waves. Arena waves are nature's quantized macro level equivalent to the quantum increments of wave energy that are the internal components of wave-particles and objects at the micro level.

To continue the description of the mechanics, the collapse/bangs produce arena waves that expand, mature, fill with wave-particles, that clump, forming stars, and stars internally produce heavy nuclei, as well as form into galactic structure, only to then be caught up in a new arena wave convergence with one or more adjacent expanding big bang arena waves in the local surrounding landscape.

The convergence of two or more expanding Big Bang arena waves will continue the process by producing a big crunch in the overlap space of each convergence, and those crunches will accrete galactic matter and energy from the parent arenas, growing in matter/energy content until they reach nature's “critical capacity” and collapse/bang, and on goes the sameness, perpetuating the Arena Action process.

Looking deeper into the mechanics at the micro level, the infinitesimal oscillating wave energy background is composed of multiple microwave level energy increments that expand, converge, and overlap, with the convergences resulting in high energy density spots. High energy density spots in turn generate new energy waves that expand out of the points convergence to perpetuate the oscillations across the background. High energy density spots themselves are referred to as dense-state wave energy peaks that form at the points of convergence of two or more oscillating waves, that then emerge into the surrounding space as a new waves in the oscillating background.

Oscillating waves assist the advance of more meaningful gravitational and light energy waves that are natures quantized micro level equivalent to the quantum increments of wave energy that are the big crunches and big bang arena waves that are the components of the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

So the “sponginess” of the model refers to the expansion and collapse of energy density environments at both the macro and micro levels. Arena action perpetually defeats entropy across the landscape of the greater universe, and quantum action is the causative factor in the micro level decay of arena particles from which the low entropy, hot, dense-state balls of energy emerge from big crunches as they collapse/bang.


Edit 9/18/2018

The ISU is a “From-the-Bottom-Up”, step-by-step Model

The model can be said to start with a specifying definition of nothingness:
Nothingness is no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy.

Using that definition as the “bottom”, the first step is to derive a conclusion from the definition of nothingness, and that conclusion is that it is impossible for something to come from nothing.


If the universe did not come from nothing, then how could it have had a beginning?


The answer to the question of the beginning in the ISU model is that there was no beginning, i.e., we derive the concept that there was no beginning by referring to the definition of nothingness, bringing us to the main premise of the model:

The universe as always existed.


Going step by step, the next step is to present the precising definition of universe: Universe is everything, all there is, all space, time, energy, and all of the potentials that can exist from the presence of space, time, and energy. Universe can be thought of as the opposite of nothingness.


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 11/05/2017 17:02:49
I think the big bang was just for our universe and that including other universe's in the picture would make multiple big bangs. maybe at the wall of the universe if you stuck your hand out all the weight of the matter in your hand would expand because of the super less dense quality of space-time in an outside universe. Then the matter of your hand would become blocks of space.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/05/2017 00:30:09
Reply #2
Reply to trevorjohnson32


I did want to clarify the rules about posting ideas that are not developed into theories, i.e., that don't have mathematical quantification, predictions, and proposed tests. Having reviewed other threads, it looks like I'm on safe ground to discuss this topic with you.

So my thanks to trevorjohnson32 for the interesting response. I took notice of your other threads and am confident that there are many topics that we share an interest in.
I think the big bang was just for our universe and that including other universe's in the picture would make multiple big bangs.
Yes; then I would say we would agree on that point, if you are saying that our observable universe is the product of one of those multiple Big Bang events.
Quote
maybe at the wall of the universe if you stuck your hand out all the weight of the matter in your hand would expand because of the super less dense quality of space-time in an outside universe. Then the matter of your hand would become blocks of space.
Maybe, but there is an assumption implied in what you say that I don't think necessarily follows directly from the multiple Big Bang landscape idea that I imagine. It has to do with the concept of space itself.

To me, a multiple Big Bang universe would imply a much greater volume of pre-existing space than would be required by a single finite Big Bang event. I would expand on that point by saying that if the multiple big bangs might occur from time to time, here and there, across the greater space, that has me thinking that the "greater space" might logically be a potentially infinite space.


Your thoughts?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: mrsmith2211 on 12/05/2017 00:40:53
Over simplfied, my theory big bang universe expands, eventually starts to contract, end result another big bang, big problem is it a perpetual motion machine?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/05/2017 12:53:36
Reply #4


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Reply to mrsmith2211
Cyclic models

Over simplfied, my theory big bang universe expands, eventually starts to contract, end result another big bang, big problem is it a perpetual motion machine?
Your post touches on a couple of cosmological models that I have come across over the years:

Quotes from Google: The Oscillating Universe Theory is a cosmological model that combines both the Big Bang and the Big Crunch as part of a cyclical event. That is, if this theory holds true, then the Universe in which we live in exists between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch.Aug 24, 2009

The cyclic universe theory is a model of cosmic evolution according to which the universe undergoes endless cycles of expansion and cooling, each beginning with a “big bang” and ending in a “big crunch”.

Both of them might be examples of your theory. If so, you seem to also be aware of a problem with the cyclical type of models, which you refer to as the perpetual motion machine problem. That problem says that as each cycle plays out, it is logical to conclude that the next cycle will begin before 100% of the energy expended in the expansion of the previous cycle is recaptured by the new big crunch. If that is true, each subsequent Big Bang will have to be produced by less accumulated energy in the Big Crunch. Eventually, there won't be enough energy to produce the next Big Bang, or at least, each subsequent crunch/bang will require longer and longer intervals between them until the next bang never happens.

There is a significant difference between those models, and a model that features potentially infinite space, with multiple big bangs occurring here and there, from time to time, across the greater landscape. The difference is that one finite cyclical bang/crunch model can take place in a finite amount of space, while in the "infinite space"/multiple Big Bang" model, the universe could look the same in all directions on a grand scale, with Big Bang arenas here and there.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 12/05/2017 14:16:19
Maybe, but there is an assumption implied in what you say that I don't think necessarily follows directly from the multiple Big Bang landscape idea that I imagine. It has to do with the concept of space itself.

To me, a multiple Big Bang universe would imply a much greater volume of pre-existing space than would be required by a single finite Big Bang event. I would expand on that point by saying that if the multiple big bangs might occur from time to time, here and there, across the greater space, that has me thinking that the "greater space" might logically be a potentially infinite space.

[/quote]

Yes! I believe that the space outside our universe comprises another universe running on the same clock as us because the space is so far less dense and the speed of light in ratio with ours for the huge distances it travels. I believe that there are infinite number of universes with an infinite number  of density's, and that the smallest building blocks of matter are super dense particles of space time themselves and there density puts a squeezing in the surrounding universal space time giving it a gravity field. It also seems to me that the hypothetical quark is up in question since a black hole takes out all the space in matter and its cousin the neutron star or a pulsar creates the same gravity field and is visibly made of neutrons. I guess you would have to make an estimate to the gravity field caused by a black hole to that of the number of protons and neutrons in our planet. if there was excessive space in the the proton or neutron in which quarks exist there accumulative area wouldn't match up with the built in resistance of the speed of light in space. Those three also spin at near light speeds on there own. its probably as the spin of the tightest neutrons on the inside is stifled, and everything is connected so tightly the whole thing begins spinning as fast as a neutron.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/05/2017 00:08:45
Reply #6
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Reply to trevorjohnson32
1) Reasonable and Responsible Step by Step Speculation Methodology
2) The Perfect Cosmological Principle


Yes! I believe that the space outside our universe comprises another universe running on the same clock as us because the space is so far less dense and the speed of light in ratio with ours for the huge distances it travels. I believe that there are infinite number of universes with an infinite number  of density's, and that the smallest building blocks of matter are super dense particles of space time themselves and there density puts a squeezing in the surrounding universal space time giving it a gravity field. It also seems to me that the hypothetical quark is up in question since a black hole takes out all the space in matter and its cousin the neutron star or a pulsar creates the same gravity field and is visibly made of neutrons. I guess you would have to make an estimate to the gravity field caused by a black hole to that of the number of protons and neutrons in our planet. if there was excessive space in the the proton or neutron in which quarks exist there accumulative area wouldn't match up with the built in resistance of the speed of light in space. Those three also spin at near light speeds on there own. its probably as the spin of the tightest neutrons on the inside is stifled, and everything is connected so tightly the whole thing begins spinning as fast as a neutron.
I read that post from the perspective that you and I have both given a lot of thought to the nature of the Universe, and you are touching on many aspects of physics and cosmology that come into play as the views develop. Nothing wrong with that, but in the development of this thread, I am back on the first few steps, and hopefully a reasonable model will unfold from those steps.

Edit: 9/18/2018

… The ISU is a “From-the-Bottom-Up”, step-by-step Model
continued

Reasonable and Responsible Methodology

The ISU model employs the methodology referred to as a step by step, reasonable and responsible methodology. The model, as stated in the OP,  starts from a definition of “nothingness”, and by going at it step by step, we strive to make sure that every new step is consistent with the rest of the model. Everything included in the ISU must be internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. Going slowly is one way to assure that internal consistency from the bottom up, and another way is to always be open to comments, corrections, and opposing arguments. We listen to all comments, and incorporate them into the model if and when appropriate, so comment freely.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 13/05/2017 15:26:11

Your are probably aware of the cosmological principle, but the step of invoking the infinity of space and time brings another aspect to that principle, giving us what they refer to as the "perfect cosmological principle". Are you familiar with it?

Wiki says: The perfect cosmological principle is an extension of the cosmological principle, and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will.
Cosmological principle - Wikipedia


 I would agree with the cosmological principle to the point of the wall's of the universe, where I believe space-time does change in density however stays consistent and has a general density that constrains the four forces.  If you take it the other way into the infinitely small, then do you believe protons and neutrons being the smallest building blocks of matter or do you believe its quarks?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: PmbPhy on 13/05/2017 16:15:33
The idea you mentioned here is nothing new in cosmology. Its referred to as an oscillating universe. But let's give credit where credit is due. This theory was originally proposed by Albert Einstein in 1930.

You can read more about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/05/2017 18:15:53
Reply #9
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Reply to trevorjohnson32
Wave energy, wave-particles, the Perfect Cosmological Principle


I would agree with the cosmological principle to the point of the wall's of the universe, where I believe space-time does change in density however stays consistent and has a general density that constrains the four forces.  If you take it the other way into the infinitely small, then do you believe protons and neutrons being the smallest building blocks of matter or do you believe its quarks?
I'll respond to the second sentence first. I regard to your question to me about the smallest building blocks of matter, I don't believe that protons and neutrons are the smallest, nor do I believe that quarks are the smallest building block. I believe that everything is composed of wave energy. In my view, which I loosely call a model, all particles are called wave-particles.

Each particle, regardless of type, has an internal composition composed of huge numbers of intersecting waves that establish a complex standing wave pattern that represents the presence of the particle, but I'll get to all of that in due course. Suffice it to say at this point, wave-particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

More importantly, let me ask if you missed my point about the Perfect Cosmological Principle, because your reply addressed the Cosmological Principle, not the Perfect Cosmological Principle. The point I was making was that I don't accept the Cosmological Principle alone, but instead, I accept, and invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle. Let me know if your see the difference because the CC doesn't accommodate infinite space and time, while the whole point of the PCP is to invoke the infinities of space and time. That is the crucial point of this thread, so far, meaning that in my model it is axiomatic that space and time are infinite. Further, I add the third infinity, energy, so my model invokes the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/05/2017 18:34:49
Reply #10
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Reply to PmbPhy
Oscillating universe models, distinguishing the ISU from existing models, and link from PmbPhy


The idea you mentioned here is nothing new in cosmology. Its referred to as an oscillating universe. But let's give credit where credit is due. This theory was originally proposed by Albert Einstein in 1930.

You can read more about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model)
I mentioned both the cyclic model, and the oscillating universe model in post #4, in response to mrsmith2211, but I didn't include a link, so thank you for doing that.

The idea I mentioned in the OP is not the oscillating universe model. I am trying to distinguish the ISU idea of a multiple Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe, from other existing models like the generally accepted Big Bang model, cyclical or oscillaing models, and multiple universe models. In the model/idea I am explaining, there is only one universe, a multiple Big Bang universe. That one universe is composed of infinite space, time, and energy in accord with the Perfect Cosmological Principle ( as opposed to just the cosmological principle), and in it, all particles are wave-particles with internal wave energy composition (mentioned in my last post).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: PmbPhy on 13/05/2017 18:36:00
I would agree with the cosmological principle to the point of the wall's of the universe, ..
There's nothing in nature which would even suggest that the universe has walls to it.

... where I believe space-time does change in density however stays consistent and has a general density that constrains the four forces.
That's not very scientific. Science does not work by what people believe unless there's consistent observations of nature which lead to such a belief consistently with no other possible viable hypotheses.

I believe that everything is composed of wave energy.
That's a meaningless concept since there's no physical reality to energy. Energy is merely a bookkeeping system, i.e. its a number which is constant throughout a closed system. It's not something which could ever be considered a wave or to have wave properties.


... I accept, and invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle.
That's not a major difference since the cosmological principle is time dependent. If it were then it wouldn't be a very good physical law.

Let me know if your see the difference because the CC doesn't accommodate infinite space and time, while the whole point of the PCP is to invoke the infinities of space and time.
There's nothing in the PCP which invokes infinities since it holds for all possible models of the universe which include finite models having a universe with finite space and models which have a finite life.

That is the crucial point of this thread, so far, meaning that in my model it is axiomatic that space and time are infinite.
You might have changed your belief during the course of this thread but there's nothing inherent in a cyclic universe which requires it to be spatially finite.

Further, I add the third infinity, energy, so my model invokes the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy.
What justification do you have that the energy of the universe is infinite? Not just another unjustified guess, is it?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: PmbPhy on 13/05/2017 18:40:22
The idea I mentioned in the OP is not the oscillating universe model.
That is incorrect.

I am trying to distinguish the idea of a multiple Big Bang arena universe model from other existing models like the generally accepted Big Bang model, cyclical or oscillaing models, and multiple universe models.
You don't appear to understand the cyclic universe model. Did you actually read the page I posted a URL to or just click on the URL and skim through ti? It is, by definition, the multiple Big Bang universe. Why do you think there's a difference and if you think there is a difference then what is that difference(s).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 13/05/2017 20:09:15
Quote
There's nothing in nature which would even suggest that the universe has walls to it.
Quote


I think there are walls to the universe and the big bang is simply the univrse moving through us and are smallest particles are the composite makings of the outside universe we are moving through. The movement of our universe through that outside universe maybe 100 times our speed of light and the universe in total millions of times the width of the visible zone. Science could test this hypothesis by performing a parallax view in two opposing directions and seeing if the energy from the big bang is in fact closer in one direction then another. You could also maybe use focus of a telescope on a digital timer to determine if the visible zone is in fact closer on the edge that it traveled through last.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 13/05/2017 20:12:17
I would agree with the cosmological principle to the point of the wall's of the universe, ..
There's nothing in nature which would even suggest that the universe has walls to it.

I think there are walls to the universe and the big bang is simply the univrse moving through us and are smallest particles are the composite makings of the outside universe we are moving through being smashed into protons and neutrons. The movement of our universe through that outside universe maybe 100 times our speed of light and the universe in total millions of times the width of the visible zone. Science could test this hypothesis by performing a parallax view in two opposing directions and seeing if the energy from the big bang is in fact closer in one direction then another. You could also maybe use focus of a telescope on a digital timer to determine if the visible zone is in fact closer on the edge that it traveled through last.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/05/2017 20:13:11
Reply #15
Reply to PmbPhy
The difficult task of responding to PmbPhy's post



... where I believe space-time does change in density however stays consistent and has a general density that constrains the four forces.
Quote

That's not very scientific. Science does not work by what people believe unless there's consistent observations of nature which lead to such a belief consistently with no other possible viable hypotheses.
You attributed one of Trevor's statements to me; that was not a quote from my post.



I believe that everything is composed of wave energy.
Quote

That's a meaningless concept since there's no physical reality to energy. Energy is merely a bookkeeping system, i.e. its a number which is constant throughout a closed system. It's not something which could ever be considered a wave or to have wave properties.
In post #9 it suggested that everything is composed of wave energy. You might be taking the position that if I have ideas that differ from the generally accepted ideas of physics and cosmology, then I should define my terms as I go. Waves carry energy across space, and so when I say everything is composed of wave energy it is not meaningless; it means that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and all space is filled with wave energy in the form of gravitational wave energy and light wave energy. I'm sure you will want me to elaborate on that but instead of posting reams of word salad, I'll address your questions as they come.


... I accept, and invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle.
Quote

That's not a major difference since the cosmological principle is time dependent. If it were then it wouldn't be a very good physical law.
The primary difference between the CC and the PCP that I am referring to is that very time dependence. The PCP invokes homogeneity and isotropy on a grand scale, and declares that the universe looks the same in all direction and always has; it is steady state on the grand scale, though dynamic on a smaller scale. That certainly seems different from a universe consistent with the CC, that has an implied beginning, and has changed its appearance from a single, expanding, hot dense ball of energy in the first second after an implied big bang, and on through stages of cooling, particle formation, and epochs like the surface of last scattering, clustering, star formation, nucleosynthesis, galactic structure formation, and accelerating expansion.


Let me know if your see the difference because the CC doesn't accommodate infinite space and time, while the whole point of the PCP is to invoke the infinities of space and time.
Quote

There's nothing in the PCP which invokes infinities since it holds for all possible models of the universe which include finite models having a universe with finite space and models which have a finite life.
Ok. Maybe I am miss reading it. At this point I'm going by this little quote from Wiki: Wiki says: The perfect cosmological principle is an extension of the cosmological principle, and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will.

I interpret "always has and always will" to be a reference to infinite time, at least.



 That is the crucial point of this thread, so far, meaning that in my model it is axiomatic that space and time are infinite.
Quote

You might have changed your belief during the course of this thread but there's nothing inherent in a cyclic universe which requires it to be spatially finite.
This time your post attributes my statement to Trevor for some reason. But no, I didn't change in mid stream. Consider the fact that in only a couple of posts, the totality of the concepts cannot be conveyed. However, your reference to a cyclic universe deserves a closer look, which I see you suggest in your next post. I'll look closer at your link and then respond to that.


 Further, I add the third infinity, energy, so my model invokes the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy.

What justification do you have that the energy of the universe is infinite? Not just another unjustified guess, is it?
Again your post attributes my statement to Trevor for some reason. But here is what I said, from which you picked only the second sentence to quote:

"That is the crucial point of this thread, so far, meaning that in my model it is axiomatic that space and time are infinite. Further, I add the third infinity, energy, so my model invokes the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy."

I am making the three infinities axiomatic as the initial precepts of the model.

To conclude, in the OP I asked: "I have a question about the New Theories sub-forum. Do I have to have developed an idea to the level of a theory, with predictions and proposed tests? For example, I like the idea that "if there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs"? It is an idea for discussion, and any evidence that I think supports the idea has more generally accepted explanations, of course. Would it be appropriate for me to post on that topic?"

I assume your participation is so far is in the mode of discussion, but the reason I asked that question in the OP was to clarify if my very alternative ideas are out of line with the guidelines for the sub-forum. I will cease and desist if that is the case. Otherwise, as I have been, I'll go step by step, and I'll try to define my terms and distinguish my ideas for the generally accepted ideas; they are quite different.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/05/2017 15:08:04
Reply #16
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
1) Reply to PmbPhy

2) ISU is not a cyclic universe model, differentiating ISU from the cyclic models
3) A few points of overview of the ISU
4) Known science and "as yet" unknown science
5) Science is "tentative"
6) List of 18 basic ideas of the ISU model edited into post on 10/2/2017

There are many aspects of the cyclic model that are common to or similar to the multiple big bang landscape of my model, and there are many aspects of my multiple big bang model that are not included in any of the versions of the cyclic model that are mentioned in the Wiki Cyclic link.

My layman science enthusiast model, called the Infinite Spongy Universe, was evolved from a review of all of the versions of cosmology, including all of the models mentioned in the Wiki Cyclic Model link, which I have visited many times. Since you were so adamant that my model was covered in the Wiki, I thought it prudent to not just go by memory, but to take a more careful look to see if my memory was correct, and to be sure that there weren't some revisions to the Wiki that would make me incorrect. I reviewed the Wiki and in spite of the many similarities, there are many differences, and this post will, I hope, mention enough differences between the ISU and the Cyclic models to differentiate between the two:


A) In line with my methodology, I have evolved a multiple big bang model that invokes infinite space, time, and wave energy, and included limits and thresholds of wave energy density to define when various events will occur. That includes a scenario of the preconditions of each big bang that is not evident in the Wiki cyclic models as far as I can tell. Preconditions include the idea that each big bang arena expands until its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent expanding arena; similar to branes but quite difference when we get down to the details. When two or more "parent" arenas intersect and overlap, there is a gravitational accumulation of wave energy and galactic material in the overlap space. That accumulation results in the formation of a big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space. The crunch reaches a critical capacity and collapses/bounces off of nature's limit of maximum wave energy density. The bounce, fueled by the "force" of wave energy density equalization, rapidly causes the hot dense wave energy that emerges from the collapse/bang to expand, cool, and decay into a series of exotic particles until the stable particles form within the new expanding big bang arena.

B) That process is called "arena action" at the macro level, and on a grand scale accounts for the defeat of entropy. There is a similar process at the micro level called quantum action which is described in detail, step by step, as the model unfolds. The quantum action process, not to be confused with the quantum of action in quantum mechanics, orchestrates the formation and interaction of wave-particles and quantum gravity. All particles in the model are composed of wave energy, and wave energy is energy carried by light and gravitational waves.

C) In my opinion, none of the cyclic models address the process of quantum action and arena action to describe a potentially infinite landscape of big bang arenas that naturally form from the described preconditions, here and there, now and then, across a homogenous and isotropic greater universe that incorporates infinite space, time, and wave energy. I'm open to opposing arguments on that point.

I'll stop there for now, because this whole thread is intended to describe the ISU in detail, using my preferred methodology of "reasonable and responsible speculation", starting with the axioms that are necessary for two main processes to exist and play out.

Let me elaborate on that methodology by pointing out that there is known science and "as yet" unknown science. I incorporate all known science into the ISU if it is based on observations and generally accepted explanations that are consistent from theory to theory, which, I think, includes most of known physics in general, and much of the theoretical physics that is generally accepted.

There are incomplete theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community as far as they go, and various theories that are inconsistent from one theory to another. I hope by saying that I'm not required to list them all. Either you agree with me or you don't on that point, but I'm pretty sure I could find a lot of agreement on that within the scientific community.

Science is also "tentative", meaning that as progress is made by members of the scientific community, there is a "publish and peer review" process, and sometimes previously accepted theory is superseded by the new theory. Science is tentative in that respect, and I find almost no objection to that concept. I simply address the "as yet" unknowns in my own way, as I wait for the scientific community to grow their improving consensus.


However, the "as yet" unknown portion of physics and cosmology is what makes all of the models incomplete. My approach is to apply the "reasonable and responsible" methodology to the gaps, and speculate about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved for many years, through several major false starts that have taken me back to the drawing board. I anxiously and readily seek falsification so I can revise and evolve a better personal view of cosmology. I encourage counter arguments, and I listen to them, and incorporate those that I consider reasonable and responsible. I am the arbiter of what is reasonable and responsible, because the ISU is my personal view of cosmology. It is not a scientific paper for peer review, it is a personal view for discussion with the intention of continual improvement.

That attitude, along with the very alternative views in my model are sometimes not acceptable to forums, or some sub-forums within them. I asked for clarification in the OP and in my last post, and if this material is in violation of the forum or sub-forum rules and guidelines, I will cease and desist, and would appreciated knowing that as soon as my posts become inappropriate.


Edit 10/2/2017:
This post was where the thread became more serious about explaining the ISU, and differentiating it from the cyclic models. It is were I refer to it as a “layman science enthusiasts” model to assure the members that the speculations here are my own, and not science presented by members of the professional scientific community.
I state basic ideas of the model like:
1) the three infinities, space, time, and energy
2) there are limits and thresholds of wave energy density that govern when various events will occur
3) the model is a multiple Big Bang arena model, with potentially an infinite number of active Big Bang arenas across the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe; there is only one grand universe
4) the physics are the same across the entire universe, and within each Big Bang arena
5) the preconditions of each individual Big Bang event, and the subsequent expanding arenas are essentially the same
6) expanding arenas intersect and overlap
7) there is a gravitational accumulation of wave energy and galactic material in the overlap space
8 ) there is a limit to the matter and energy that accumulate in a single Big Crunch, the limit is referred to as the “critical capacity”
9) when a crunch reaches critical capacity, it collapses and “bounces” off of nature’s maximum limit of wave energy density at the core of the crunch
10) the bounce is fueled by the “force” of wave energy density equalization; the two main forces of the model are quantum gravity and energy density equalization
11) the hot, dense, ball of wave energy that emerges from the collapse/bang expands, cools, and decays into a series of exotic particles until the stable particles form within the new expanding Big Bang arena
12) that process is called Arena Action at the macro level, and on a grand scale accounts for the defeat of entropy
13) there is a micro level counterpart to arena action called Quantum Action, not to be confused with the “quantum of action” in quantum mechanics
14) quantum action orchestrates the formation and interaction of wave-particles, and all particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments
15) wave energy is carried by light waves and gravitational waves
16) I elaborate on the “reasonable and responsible” methodology, saying that the ISU includes known science, and that there as “as yet” unknowns
17) in line with the methodology, it is the “as yet” unknowns of physics and cosmology that make all models incomplete, leaving gaps that are being worked on by the scientific community
18) “reasonable and responsible” speculations are used to fill the gaps while we wait for the scientific community to continue to evolve the scientific consensus
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/05/2017 14:53:29
Reply #17
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
1) Recap to date
2) Energy
3) Two action processes
4) Perfect Cosmological Principle
5) Arena Landscape
6) Homogeneous and Isotropic Steady State


To recap, I have posted that the existence of the universe can be characterized by invoking, as axiomatic, what I call the three infinities of space, time, and (gravitational) wave energy. That means that the universe had no beginning, is spatially infinite, has always existed, and all space is filled with (gravitational) wave energy; everything in the universe is composed of (gravitational) wave energy, and wave-particles are composed of (gravitational) wave energy in quantum increments. The two action processes, arena action and quantum action, function based on various invariant natural limits and thresholds of wave energy density. Wave energy takes the form of light waves and gravitational waves (and in the model, light is the gravitational wave energy emitted by photons, which have mass in the ISU).

Edit 10/2/2017: Energy in the ISU includes the traditional definitions, as well as model-specific ideas. Energy is conceived as a commodity, and each expanding spherical wave encloses within its wave front the combined wave energy from the parent waves that have converged to form the new expanding wave. The new wave is referred to as a “third wave” that emerges out of the convergence.(End edit)


Those conditions are necessary in the ISU model for the two action processes to work together and play out to defeat entropy on a grand scale, and to establish and maintain the presence of particles, particle interactions, and quantum gravity at the micro level. Those are basic features of the layman science enthusiast model that I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model.

Our observable universe is part of a big bang arena, one of a potentially infinite number of big bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe, meaning our universe is a multiple big bang universe, and our own Big Bang event is calculated to have occurred about 14 billion years ago.

I invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle that says that on a grand scale, the universe looks the same as it always has and always will over an infinity of time, making it a steady state model. The ISU model invokes the characteristic of a potentially infinite number of active expanding big bang arenas playing out at all times across the spatially infinite landscape of the greater universe, making the ISU a steady state, multiple Big Bang universe, and our own observable arena is one of the multitude.

No matter where you are in the infinity of space, if you could see far enough, you will see a similar active big bang arena landscape, which makes the steady state universe homogeneous and isotropic. http://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/expand-balance.htm (http://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/expand-balance.htm)

That link addresses "homogeneous and isotropic" views based on the ongoing expansion of the observable universe which is characterized by the observed separation of the galaxies. In the ISU model, homogeneity and isotropy are based on the distribution of the multiple big bang arenas across the greater universe; therefore instead of the operative feature being observable galaxies separating as our arena expands, the comparison is to big bang arenas that are out of sight beyond our arena's event horizon. The model predicts that "out there", there is a big bang arena dynamic taking place called "arena action". Some of the details of arena action were mentioned in my last post in response to PmbPhy's comments and questions.

To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 13:17:11
Reply #18

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Recap continued:
1) Infinity
2) Wave Energy
3) Gravitational waves
4) Wave-particles
5) Light
6) ISU is not a spacetime model, but invokes the EFEs

Infinity: I would like to comment on the concept of infinity by mentioning that people have told me that they cannot "get their arms around it" as it applies to space or to time, i.e., in a model where the universe is ageless and boundless, and had no beginning, like the ISU. My model can be problematic if you believe there was a beginning. To me, being comfortable with infinity goes to the logic that looking out into space, and looking back in time, will never reveal a beginning or a boundary (there are no walls enclosing the universe). Logically, the past goes back forever and space extends forever.

Wave Energy: Unless otherwise noted, when I refer to energy waves in the ISU model, they are light waves and gravitational waves; they carry energy through space via a mechanism that is based on the lowest order of wave energy; a foundational background of tiny, indistinguishable intersecting/oscillating wave energy that serves to advance the more meaningful waves across space. There is some similarity to the ideas of Christian Huygens (1629 - 1695) in regard to the advance of light waves through space.

In the ISU model, all particles, including photon wave-particles, emit spherical gravitational waves unless otherwise noted, and all particles are referred to as wave-particles. (Gravitational waves are also referred to as gravity waves, and those terms mean the same thing in the ISU.)

Light is the gravitational wave energy emitted by the photon wave-partiucle.

Note that gravitational waves associated with General Relativity, as described mathematically to be consistent with the effect being caused by the curvature of spacetime, are not precisely consistent with the ISU model because the ISU is not a spacetime model. However, Einstein's GR and the EFEs are the best quantification of the effect of gravity as yet, and will be until if/when the curvature of space time is superseded, or at least supplemented, by a quantum solution to gravity.

To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2017 13:28:41
On Twitter, as Bogie_smiles, I tweet layman alternative ideas, Cosmology, multiple Big Bang landscape, wave energy density model for particles, QuantumGravity, as well as about an evolving layman science enthusiast's views of the universe that I call, "The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)". Generally the tweets are bitly links to posts on various science forums where I have discussed one topic or another. Not sure if The Naked Scientist Forum would object to that kind of activity, so I won't link to here from Twitter until I know if it is OK.

One of the things I like about Twitter is the "lists" feature, and I take advantage of it by listing "Science Sources on Twitter". The list has thousands of members, and a few followers, and it is a pleasure to click on the list and view hundreds of new science related tweets, photos, and links, every day. Though it is impossible to filter out all of the politics, special interests, religion, and daily chatting, all of the members on that list tweet about science related topics, including all areas of interest; news, views, history and perspective.

I have a question about the New Theories sub-forum. Do I have to have developed an idea to the level of a theory, with predictions and proposed tests? For example, I like the idea that "if there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs"? It is an idea for discussion, and any evidence that I think supports the idea has more generally accepted explanations, of course. Would it be appropriate for me to post on that topic?

It sort of defeats the objective to be honest, defining the beginning can only have one first action, although multiple BB's could of followed.
Unless you can describe a simultaneous multiple BB theory.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 13:36:19
Reply #20

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
There is no "first action" in the ISU model





It sort of defeats the objective to be honest, defining the beginning can only have one first action, although multiple BB's could of followed.
Unless you can describe a simultaneous multiple BB theory.
There is no first action in my model, no beginning. The idea is that the universe has always existed, as described throughout the posts. See posts 17, 18, & 19 for a better recap.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2017 13:37:25

To recap, I have posted that the existence of the universe can be characterize by invoking, as axiomatic, what I call the three infinities of space, time, and wave energy. ...
Infinity: I would like to comment on the concept of infinity by mentioning that people have told me that they cannot "get their arms around it" as it applies to space or to time, i.e., in a model where the universe is ageless and boundless, and had no beginning, like the ISU. My model can be problematic if you believe there was a beginning. To me, being comfortable with infinity goes to the logic that looking out into space, and looking back in time, will never reveal a beginning or a boundary (there are no walls enclosing the universe). Logically, the past goes back forever and space extends forever.[/font]

Wave Energy: Unless otherwise noted, when I refer to energy waves in the ISU model, they are light waves and gravitational waves; they carry energy through space via a mechanism that is based on the lowest order of wave energy; a foundational background of tiny, indistinguishable intersecting/oscillating wave energy that serves to advance the more meaningful waves across space. There is some similarity to the ideas of Christian Huygens (1629 - 1695) in regard to the advance of light waves through space.

In the ISU model, all particles emit spherical gravitational waves unless otherwise noted, and all particles are referred to as wave-particles. (Gravitational waves are also referred to as gravity waves, and those terms mean the same thing in the ISU.)

Note that gravitational waves associated with General Relativity, as described mathematically to be consistent with the effect being caused by the curvature of spacetime, are not precisely consistent with the ISU model because the ISU is not a spacetime model. However, Einstein's GR and the EFEs are the best quantification of the effect of gravity as yet, and will be until if/when the curvature of space time is superseded, or at least supplemented, by a quantum solution to gravity.

To be continued ...


The problem is that with infinite space or finite space , we just do not know the answer. We know there is space beyond what we can visually observe, but there after we can only guess. It would take more than a lifetime to travel so far to find out.

The problem is the ''snail''. Imagine a ''snail'' at the center of a vast cave, the ''snail'' can not travel as far in a lifetime to observe  the cave walls.
The ''snail'' does not know if they are in an infinite cave or a finite cave.   

However ''Mr Rabbit'' was fast, he could travel to the edge of the cave in a relative short time.    The ''Rabbit'' left the cave to observe outside, but then the ''Rabbit'' realised he was in a ''bubble'' (firmament).

However man was faster than the Rabbit with their machines.  Man assured Rabbit there is no bubble but there still might be walls of the ''cave''.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2017 13:40:36

It sort of defeats the objective to be honest, defining the beginning can only have one first action, although multiple BB's could of followed.
Unless you can describe a simultaneous multiple BB theory.
There is no first action in my model, no beginning. The idea is that the universe has always existed, as described throughout the posts. See posts 17, 18, & 19 for a better recap.

I also believe space always existed and always will, however that does not give us any information of how the first  matter was formed. Matter has time but space is timeless. The BB explains matter , so in reality your notion is explaining nothing new at this time.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 13:48:04
Reply #23

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
As yet unknowns



The problem is that with infinite space or finite space , we just do not know the answer. We know there is space beyond what we can visually observe, but there after we can only guess. It would take more than a lifetime to travel so far to find out.

The problem is the ''snail''. Imagine a ''snail'' at the center of a vast cave, the ''snail'' can not travel as far in a lifetime to observe  the cave walls.
The ''snail'' does not know if they are in an infinite cave or a finite cave.   

However ''Mr Rabbit'' was fast, he could travel to the edge of the cave in a relative short time.    The ''Rabbit'' left the cave to observe outside, but then the ''Rabbit'' realised he was in a ''bubble'' (firmament).

However man was faster than the Rabbit with their machines.  Man assured Rabbit there is no bubble but there still might be walls of the ''cave''.
It is true, when it comes to invoking the three infinities, space, time, and energy in the ISU, there is no new or extraordinary evidence; as you say, "We just do not know the answer". I have addressed that issue by distinguishing between known science, and the "as yet" unknown. See post reply #16 for example.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 13:53:56
Reply #24
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Filling the gaps in the "as yet" unknowns
Artists depiction of a patch of the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe





I also believe space always existed and always will, however that does not give us any information of how the first  matter was formed. Matter has time but space is timeless. The BB explains matter , so in reality your notion is explaining nothing new at this time.

This may not explain anything new, but the idea is that we don't have all the explanations, and the ISU model is my ideas about what might fill the gaps.

The idea is that the Perfect Cosmological Principle is in effect as stated earlier:
Wiki says: The perfect cosmological principle is an extension of the cosmological principle, and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will.


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2017 13:57:02
[/font][/size]


I also believe space always existed and always will, however that does not give us any information of how the first  matter was formed. Matter has time but space is timeless. The BB explains matter , so in reality your notion is explaining nothing new at this time.[/font]
[/font][/size]
This may not explain anything new, but the idea is that we don't have all the explanations, and the ISU model is my ideas about what might fill the gaps

The problem is how could you or we ever hope to prove the ''prequel'' before ourselves?

We could discuss it 24/7 but that would still prove nothing. We could only ever have subjective ideas about it.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 14:03:27
Reply #26

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
The Big Wait
The Evolving Consensus



I also believe space always existed and always will, however that does not give us any information of how the first  matter was formed. Matter has time but space is timeless. The BB explains matter , so in reality your notion is explaining nothing new at this time.
This may not explain anything new, but the idea is that we don't have all the explanations, and the ISU model is my ideas about what might fill the gaps

The problem is how could you or we ever hope to prove the ''prequel'' before ourselves?

We could discuss it 24/7 but that would still prove nothing. We could only ever have subjective ideas about it.
That is true, but I am willing to discuss it 24/7 while the professionals in the scientific community work on the progress of known science and evolve the consensus. I call it the "big wait", and occupy my time with contemplating the "as yet" unknown.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2017 14:08:32

I also believe space always existed and always will, however that does not give us any information of how the first  matter was formed. Matter has time but space is timeless. The BB explains matter , so in reality your notion is explaining nothing new at this time.
This may not explain anything new, but the idea is that we don't have all the explanations, and the ISU model is my ideas about what might fill the gaps

The problem is how could you or we ever hope to prove the ''prequel'' before ourselves?

We could discuss it 24/7 but that would still prove nothing. We could only ever have subjective ideas about it.
That is true, but I am willing to discuss it 24/7 while the professionals in the scientific community work on the progress of known science and evolve the consensus. I call it the "big wait", and occupy my time with contemplating the "as yet" unknown.

That is great , I am also willing to discuss anything to pass the time away , it's better than computer games.

So lets I and you presume an infinite space that always existed and always will exist.  We can define this space as the big nothing, empty of all 4 states of matter. 
Ok, what do we presume after this in your notion?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 14:15:34
Reply #28
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
1) No empty space
2) Link to Perfect Cosmological Principle




I also believe space always existed and always will, however that does not give us any information of how the first  matter was formed. Matter has time but space is timeless. The BB explains matter , so in reality your notion is explaining nothing new at this time.

This may not explain anything new, but the idea is that we don't have all the explanations, and the ISU model is my ideas about what might fill the gaps

The problem is how could you or we ever hope to prove the ''prequel'' before ourselves?

We could discuss it 24/7 but that would still prove nothing. We could only ever have subjective ideas about it.
That is true, but I am willing to discuss it 24/7 while the professionals in the scientific community work on the progress of known science and evolve the consensus. I call it the "big wait", and occupy my time with contemplating the "as yet" unknown.

That is great , I am also willing to discuss anything to pass the time away , it's better than computer games.

So lets I and you presume an infinite space that always existed and always will exist.  We can define this space as the big nothing, empty of all 4 states of matter. 
Ok, what do we presume after this in your notion?
In the ISU model, there is no empty space, and never has been. I invoke The Perfect Cosmological Principle, as stated earlier, which states that:
Wiki says: The perfect cosmological principle is an extension of the cosmological principle, and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will. Cosmological principle - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2017 14:24:08
Quote
There is no empty space, and never has been. I presume The Perfect Cosmological Principle, as stated earlier, which states that:
Quote
Wiki says: The [/size]perfect cosmological principle[/font][/color][/size] is an extension of the [/color][/size]cosmological principle[/font][/color][/size], and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will.[/color] [/size]Cosmological principle - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle)[/color][/font][/color][/size][/color]Sorry about the fonts. I haven't figured that out yet on this forum.[/size]

The fonts are at the top on full editor. To quote , put at the beginning of quote :  quote in them []  then at the end of quote put   a / before the q.  I could not put the / in or it would have quoted and not shown you.

Back to topic, so you think that all 4 states of matter or some of the states of matter always existed as well? 

Evidence does not show this, things age and deteriorate back to ''nothing''.

Stars are ''born''.

I do not ''see'' how matter can have always existed when there is apparent evidence to the contrary, I believe matter manifests from the big nothing by means which is rather technical in explanation and hard to understand.

What if I suggested the big nothing was also a ''nothing'' field?  Could you imagine a field made of nothing?

Quote
A uniform electric field (which has the same strength and the same direction at each point) would be compatible with homogeneity (all points experience the same physics)

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 14:40:56
Reply #30
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Preconditions


Quote from: Thebox

Back to topic, so you think that all 4 states of matter or some of the states of matter always existed as well? 


Evidence does not show this, things age and deteriorate back to ''nothing''.

Stars are ''born''.

I do not ''see'' how matter can have always existed when there is apparent evidence to the contrary, I believe matter manifests from the big nothing by means which is rather technical in explanation and hard to understand.

What if I suggested the big nothing was also a ''nothing'' field?  Could you imagine a field made of nothing?
No, I couldn't, lol.

You would get some feel for my answers by reading from the beginning of the thread.

But yes, all states of matter, all forces, and a complete and potentially infinite landscape of big bang arena action has always existed, in my view. Therefore, our Big Bang had preconditions which I addressed in post #17. Our Big Bang arena started as a hot dense ball of energy that emerged from a Big Crunch. The Big Crunch was the result of the intersection and overlap to two or more preceding "parent" arenas, and each parent had the same preconditions back before that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2017 14:50:23
[/font][/size]
Quote
The fonts are at the top on full editor. To quote , put at the beginning of quote :  quote in them []  then at the end of quote put   a / before the q.  I could not put the / in or it would have quoted and not shown you.

Back to topic, so you think that all 4 states of matter or some of the states of matter always existed as well?  [/font]

Evidence does not show this, things age and deteriorate back to ''nothing''. [/font]

Stars are ''born''. [/font]

I do not ''see'' how matter can have always existed when there is apparent evidence to the contrary, I believe matter manifests from the big nothing by means which is rather technical in explanation and hard to understand. [/font]

What if I suggested the big nothing was also a ''nothing'' field?  Could you imagine a field made of nothing?[/font]
[/font][/size]
I'm trying to get the quotes and fonts right, so let's see how that goes.

You would get some of the answers by reading from the beginning to the end, lol, but that is asking a lot.[/font]

But yes, all states of matter, all forces, and a complete and potentially infinite landscape of big bang arena action has always exited, in my view. Therefore, our Big Bang had preconditions which I addressed in post #17. Our Big Bang arena started as a hot dense ball of energy that emerged from a Big Crunch. The Big Crunch was the result of the intersection and overlap to two or more preceding "parent" arenas, and each parent had the same preconditions back before that.[/font]

Ok, ty I am getting upto speed on the thread.

I believe there is one infinite parent arena, regardless whether or not our visual universe has boundaries (the cave wall).  Beyond the boundary in my opinion would exist more space .
(There is a possibility we are inside a nuclear generator because size is relative that is why I mention boundaries)

I believe that at any 0 point of the infinite parent space can manifest matter by quantum field density function of 0 point increasing in negative magnitude that then in turn manifests 0 point energy in the form of a static charge. Then the whole of the parent space being attracted to this +q 0 point energy. 
A sort of simultaneous process that creates gravity and expansion at the same time.

I do not feel matter has always existed, there is no reason I could think of that suggest that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 15:09:11
Reply #32
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Everything is field comment



Ok, ty I am getting upto speed on the thread.
Ok, good.
Quote

I believe there is one infinite parent arena,
There is just one universe in my view. It is a steady state on a grand scale, but there is a big bang arena action process, as I have begun to describe.

Quote
... regardless whether or not our visual universe has boundaries (the cave wall).  Beyond the boundary in my opinion would exist more space .
(There is a possibility we are inside a nuclear generator because size is relative that is why I mention boundaries)
Ok, but I don't imagine any boundaries. It is all a landscape of expanding, intersecting, overlapping "parent" arenas. When they intersect and overlap, a Big Crunch forms gravitationally out of the galactic materials of the parent arenas. The crunch collapses when a certain capacity of matter and energy is reached, and the collapse is the start of a new Big Bang arena. The big bang arena landscape is perpetuated by that arena action process, and entropy is defeated. At any point in time, the landscape is composed of multiple Big Bang arenas across all space.
Quote

I believe that at any 0 point of the infinite parent space can manifest matter by quantum field density function of 0 point increasing in negative magnitude that then in turn manifests 0 point energy in the form of a static charge. Then the whole of the parent space being attracted to this +q 0 point energy. 
A sort of simultaneous process that creates gravity and expansion at the same time.

I do not feel matter has always existed, there is no reason I could think of that suggest that.
To me, everything is "field". But that is a long discussion, and there are many details to discuss before we get to fields, wave-particles, and wave energy density. They are orchestrated by a process I call quantum action, which is very similar to the process of arena action, but at the quantum level instead of at the macro level.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 19:40:13
Reply #33
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
What is your scenario for the existence of the universe?


I do not feel matter has always existed, there is no reason I could think of that suggest that.
What is your scenario for the existence of the universe, the observable part and the unobservable part? Evidence points to a big bang type of event that initiated the observed expansion of our observable universe, and my model invokes the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. I like the scenario of preconditions to our Big Bang that I have described, and I predict that every big bang in the multiple big bang arena landscape shares very similar preconditions.

But if not, what explanation do you prefer for the existence of the universe? In my view there are three choices: Something from nothing, always existed, or God did it.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2017 20:45:40
Reply #34
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
The Cold Spot

The cold spot is old news, but for years I have been suggesting it could be evidence of a multiple big bang universe:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2017/may/17/multiverse-have-astronomers-found-evidence-of-parallel-universes (https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2017/may/17/multiverse-have-astronomers-found-evidence-of-parallel-universes)

I did a YouTube video about the Infinite Spongy Universe two years ago, in which I suggested the cold spot could be an indication of our big bang arena intersecting with another, just as would occur in the process that I describe as Arena Action:
https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI (https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/05/2017 23:58:26
Reply #35
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Wave Energy Density



Wave Energy Density: Having described wave energy as consisting of light wave energy and gravitational wave energy emitted by particles and objects, that brings us to the concept of wave energy density. Wave energy density is governed by the presence of particles and objects that are all emitting out flowing gravitational wave energy into the surrounding space; the local space, as it is often referred to in my model.

If particles only emitted wave energy, then they would eventually be diminished to nothing, but that can't happen in the ISU. Particles in the ISU are described as wave-particles, and their presence is maintained by the process of quantum action. That local presence takes the form of a complex standing wave pattern that has two components; directionally inflowing wave energy arriving to the standing wave pattern from distant particles and objects, and the previously mentioned spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy that is emitted at the local speed of light, into the surrounding local space.

One component of the local wave energy density is the sum of the wave energy density in any given location, or local volume of space. Every point in that local space has gravitational wave energy traversing it from all directions, and the energy density of each point is the sum of the wave energy traversing that point in space. The wave energy density of the local space, regardless of its volume, is the sum of the wave energy traversing that space, divided by the volume of that space. It is a useful concept that defies quantification, but easily accommodates comparisons. For example, the space surrounding a massive object like the earth or the moon has very high local wave energy density relative to the wave energy density in deep space, because of the proximity of the spherically out flowing wave energy component from the planet or the moon, or any massive objects in space. The inverse square rule applies when quantifying gravitational wave energy.


Wave energy density has limits and thresholds that determine when various events will occur. For example, a Big Crunch as mentioned in association with the process of big bang arena action, must reach a certain wave energy density before the crunch will collapse/bang. The collapse will produce nature's maximum wave energy density at the core of the collapsing ball of energy. It is that maximum allowable wave energy density at the core of the collapsing ball of wave energy that causes the "bounce". The in-falling wave energy that begins when the crunch reaches critical capacity, is characterized as the particles in the big crunch giving up their individual space under natures maximum gravitational compression.

The in-falling wave energy reaches nature's maximum limit of wave energy density, and the collapse "bounces" off of that invariant limit, into expansion away from the compressed center of gravity. The resulting hot, dense, expanding ball of wave energy becomes a new big bang arena, claiming its space in the local landscape of the greater universe, with expansion fueled the force of energy density equalization.

To be continued ...


Edit 10/3/2017:
Putting this post into a list of bullet points, and updating:


Wave energy density
1) Governed by the presence of particles and objects that are all emitting out flowing gravitational wave energy (positive energy) into their local space
2) Particles and objects aren’t diminished by the out flowing wave energy because the wave-particle is maintained by the process of quantum action
3) Out flowing “positive” energy is replaced by inflowing “negative” energy from the wave energy density profile of space
4) The wave energy density profile of space acts as a sort of “storage battery” of wave energy emitted by particles and objects as it traverses space between particles and objects
5) The local presence of wave-particles takes the form of a complex standing wave pattern
6) Standing waves have two components; directionally inflowing and spherically outflowing gravitational wave energy
7) The inflowing component arrives through space from distant particles and objects and is referred to as negative energy in that it is absorbed from the wave energy density profile of space
8.) The outflowing component is emitted at the local speed of light into the surround local space and is referred to as positive energy added to the local wave energy density profile of space
9) Every point in the local profile of space has positive gravitational wave energy traversing it from all directions
10) Local wave energy density is the net sum of the wave energy density at a point in time, point by point, in any given volume of space, divided by the volume (energy units per volume unit)
11) Example: space surrounding a massive object like the earth has very high wave energy density relative to the wave energy density in deep space
12) Wave energy density has limits and thresholds that determine when various events will occur
13) Example: big crunches must reach the wave energy density limit called “critical capacity” before the crunch will collapse/bang
14) Example: The collapse/bang or collapse/bounce produces nature’s maximum wave energy density at the core of the collapsing ball of energy, and that maximum limit is what the in-falling collapse bounces off of
15) Upon collapse, the particles in the crunch give up their local space and collapse in to a hot dense ball of wave energy
16) The resulting hot, dense expanding ball of wave energy becomes a new Big Bang arena that claims its local space through expansion fueled by the force of energy density equalization
(End of edit)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/05/2017 14:47:44
Wave Energy Density: Having described wave energy as consisting of light wave energy and gravitational wave energy emitted by particles and objects, that brings us to the concept of wave energy density. Wave energy density is governed by the presence of particles and objects that are all emitting out flowing gravitational wave energy into the surrounding space; the local space, as it is often referred to in my model.

If particles only emitted wave energy, then they would eventually be diminished to nothing, but that can't happen in the ISU. Particles in the ISU are described as wave-particles, and their presence is maintained by the process of quantum action. That local presence takes the form of a complex standing wave pattern that has two components; directionally inflowing wave energy arriving to the standing wave pattern from distant particles and objects, and the previously mentioned spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy that is emitted at the local speed of light, into the surrounding local space.

One component of the local wave energy density is the sum of the wave energy density in any given location, or local volume of space. Every point in that local space has gravitational wave energy traversing it from all directions, and the energy density of each point is the sum of the wave energy traversing that point in space. The wave energy density of the local space, regardless of its volume, is the sum of the wave energy traversing that space, divided by the volume of that space. It is a useful concept that defies quantification, but easily accommodates comparisons. For example, the space surrounding a massive object like the earth or the moon has very high local wave energy density relative to the wave energy density in deep space, because of the proximity of the spherically out flowing wave energy component from the planet or the moon, or any massive objects in space.

Wave energy density has limits and thresholds that determine when various events will occur. For example, a Big Crunch as mentioned in association with the process of big bang arena action, must reach a certain wave energy density before the crunch will collapse/bang. The collapse will produce nature's maximum wave energy density at the core of the collapsing ball of energy. It is that maximum allowable wave energy density at the core of the collapsing ball of wave energy that causes the "bounce". The in-falling wave energy that begins when the crunch reaches critical capacity, is characterized as the particle's in the big crunch giving up their individual space under natures maximum gravitational compression.

The in-falling wave energy reaches nature's maximum limit of wave energy density, and the collapse "bounces" off of that invariant limit, into expansion away from the compressed center of gravity. The resulting hot, dense, expanding ball of wave energy becomes a new big bang arena, claiming its space in the local landscape of the greater universe.

To be continued ...

Ok, I understand what you are saying , it is not far off some of my own ideas but explained differently. I would rather explain as Quantum field distortions or Quantum field manifestations.  At the moment I believe atoms (particles) are nothing more than time and space (Energy and dense space).  I consider these ''particles'' exist in the spacial field as an energy density field surrounding a dense space. A sort of ''virtual simulation'' that manifests solidity.
However what does not fit into the ''picture'' is animal life, I do not believe we are of this visual universe we observe but I do believe the Universe is real and not a holographic program.
I actually think on the bigger ''picture'' and evidence of cavemen representing spaceships in their drawings on the cave walls that maybe cavemen were actually cave children and were brought here by spaceships , hence their remembrance of a space craft giving them the ability to draw complex design and advanced thoughts of technology on the cave wall.
How otherwise if they had not seen a spaceship, could they of drawn a spaceship?

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/472750/nasa-investigate-Charama-cave-paintings-india-aliens-ufo-visited-earth

There is seemingly way deeper thoughts to consider.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/05/2017 19:44:12
Reply #37
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
ISU Perspective


Ok, I understand what you are saying , it is not far off some of my own ideas but explained differently. I would rather explain as Quantum field distortions or Quantum field manifestations.  At the moment I believe atoms (particles) are nothing more than time and space (Energy and dense space).  I consider these ''particles'' exist in the spacial field as an energy density field surrounding a dense space. A sort of ''virtual simulation'' that manifests solidity.

However what does not fit into the ''picture'' is animal life, I do not believe we are of this visual universe we observe but I do believe the Universe is real and not a holographic program.

I actually think on the bigger ''picture'' and evidence of cavemen representing spaceships in their drawings on the cave walls that maybe cavemen were actually cave children and were brought here by spaceships , hence their remembrance of a space craft giving them the ability to draw complex design and advanced thoughts of technology on the cave wall.

How otherwise if they had not seen a spaceship, could they of drawn a spaceship?

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/472750/nasa-investigate-Charama-cave-paintings-india-aliens-ufo-visited-earth (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/472750/nasa-investigate-Charama-cave-paintings-india-aliens-ufo-visited-earth)

There is seemingly way deeper thoughts to consider.
One thing is for sure, we are talking about the same observations and data. My view goes further than the observations and data because my methodology is to fill the gaps in the known and theoretical science with my own speculations and hypotheses. Therefore, I go into the "as yet" unknowns, where there has always been multiple big bang arenas, filled with galaxies that produce solar systems, and habitable planets that are capable of generating life through an iterative process, as well as able to host life that migrates across solar systems and spreads throughout galaxies, and can even potentially spread from old big bang arenas to new ones, give the proper sequence of events. Life abounds.


In a universe that has always existed, and has always looked the same on a grand arena-landscape scale, life has always existed too. If you could jump back in time as far as you like, and look at the universe around you on a grand scale, it would look as it looks here and now, and would be filled with arenas, arenas would be filled with galaxies, galaxies would have solar systems with planets and moons, and many would host life. There is no reason to believe that there was ever a time when life did not exist abundantly across every mature Big Bang arena, and therefore across the entire infinite universe.

We may even be talking about the same processes if you have ideas about a multiple big bang arena landscape across the infinite and eternal greater universe that perpetuates itself and defeats entropy.

Everything else in my model stems from that basic picture, and is internally consistent, meaning the action process at the macro level and the micro level work together to perpetuate the big bang arena landscape on a grand scale, and to orchestrate the presence and interactions of wave-particles, and quantum gravity at the quantum level.

To be continued ...

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/05/2017 23:04:19
[/font][/size]

Ok, I understand what you are saying , it is not far off some of my own ideas but explained differently. I would rather explain as Quantum field distortions or Quantum field manifestations.  At the moment I believe atoms (particles) are nothing more than time and space (Energy and dense space).  I consider these ''particles'' exist in the spacial field as an energy density field surrounding a dense space. A sort of ''virtual simulation'' that manifests solidity.[/font]

However what does not fit into the ''picture'' is animal life, I do not believe we are of this visual universe we observe but I do believe the Universe is real and not a holographic program.[/font]

I actually think on the bigger ''picture'' and evidence of cavemen representing spaceships in their drawings on the cave walls that maybe cavemen were actually cave children and were brought here by spaceships , hence their remembrance of a space craft giving them the ability to draw complex design and advanced thoughts of technology on the cave wall.[/font]

How otherwise if they had not seen a spaceship, could they of drawn a spaceship?[/font]

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/472750/nasa-investigate-Charama-cave-paintings-india-aliens-ufo-visited-earth (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/472750/nasa-investigate-Charama-cave-paintings-india-aliens-ufo-visited-earth)[/font]

There is seemingly way deeper thoughts to consider.[/font]
[/font][/size]
One thing is for sure, we are talking about the same observations and data. My view goes further than the observations and data because my methodology is to fill the gaps in the known and theoretical science with my own speculations and hypotheses. Therefore, I go into the "as yet" unknowns, where there has always been multiple big bang arenas, filled with galaxies that produce solar systems, and habitable planets that are capable of generating life through an iterative process, as well as able to host life that migrates across solar systems and spreads throughout galaxies, and can even potentially spread from old big bang arenas to new ones, give the proper sequence of events. Life abounds.


In a universe that has always existed, and has always looked the same on a grand arena-landscape scale, life has always existed too. If you could jump back in time as far as you like, and look at the universe around you on a grand scale, it would look as it looks here and now, and would be filled with arenas, arenas would be filled with galaxies, galaxies would have solar systems with planets and moons, and many would host life. There is no reason to believe that there was ever a time when life did not exist abundantly across every mature Big Bang arena, and therefore across the entire infinite universe.[/font]

We may even be talking about the same processes if you have ideas about a multiple big bang arena landscape across the infinite and eternal greater universe that perpetuates itself and defeats entropy.[/font]

Everything else in my model stems from that basic picture, and is internally consistent, meaning the action process at the macro level and the micro level work together to perpetuate the big bang arena landscape on a grand scale, and to orchestrate the presence and interactions of wave-particles, and quantum gravity at the quantum level.[/font]

To be continued ...[/font]


The problem is I try to only do real science and try to avoid speculation of the before ''time'' or after the ''boundary''. We could speculate all day long and it would be without any real purposeful meaning and at this time could never be more than speculation.  So when you talk about multiple big bangs in an ''arena'' , to me it is no more than speculation without any sort of proof. The big bang itself is not proof of a beginning, it is a theoretical notion that makes lots of sense to some people , so logically it is acceptable although I believe it has errors, this does not make it incorrect or correct, it just makes a good idea.
You and I differ , what I have done is took the whole of science and looked in depth of what we actually have in terms of real evidence , compared to imaginary evidence. I have took the ''big book'' of science (Wiki) and ripped several pages from the book to throw away or re-write. The interpretation is awful of their own notions, when we look closely and inspect the elements of the notions things start to fall apart.
A single notion and sentence of mine ''destroys'' the entire science construct thus far, however it is not hard to re-build a better foundation based on relative correctness.  This involves truly objective thinking with no ''corners'' cut.

''They'' know my notions are a problem to ''them'', however they also know that what they have is a beautiful well addressed coordinate system and timing mechanism that works for the purpose it was designed to do.  However ''they'' also know that all the speculate ''mind games'' and ''parlour tricks'' are pretty meaningless in reality, such a great man Einstein was, even he had faults in his logic although his logic was what science precisely needed in science to advance science.
It is a shame he was not here today so I could show him relative correctness, I am sure he would of respected me no matter what my cultural background.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/05/2017 00:22:08
Reply #39
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
ISU Perspective




The problem is I try to only do real science and try to avoid speculation of the before ''time'' or after the ''boundary''. We could speculate all day long and it would be without any real purposeful meaning and at this time could never be more than speculation.  So when you talk about multiple big bangs in an ''arena'' , to me it is no more than speculation without any sort of proof. The big bang itself is not proof of a beginning, it is a theoretical notion that makes lots of sense to some people , so logically it is acceptable although I believe it has errors, this does not make it incorrect or correct, it just makes a good idea.
You and I differ , what I have done is took the whole of science and looked in depth of what we actually have in terms of real evidence , compared to imaginary evidence. I have took the ''big book'' of science (Wiki) and ripped several pages from the book to throw away or re-write. The interpretation is awful of their own notions, when we look closely and inspect the elements of the notions things start to fall apart.
A single notion and sentence of mine ''destroys'' the entire science construct thus far, however it is not hard to re-build a better foundation based on relative correctness.  This involves truly objective thinking with no ''corners'' cut.

''They'' know my notions are a problem to ''them'', however they also know that what they have is a beautiful well addressed coordinate system and timing mechanism that works for the purpose it was designed to do.  However ''they'' also know that all the speculate ''mind games'' and ''parlour tricks'' are pretty meaningless in reality, such a great man Einstein was, even he had faults in his logic although his logic was what science precisely needed in science to advance science.
It is a shame he was not here today so I could show him relative correctness, I am sure he would of respected me no matter what my cultural background.

I start with known science and fill in the gaps that are "as yet" unknown, with speculations and hypotheses, to evolve a "complete" view of the universe that suits me, but that I don't pass off as science. The way I put it is that I occupy my time contemplating, and speculating about the universe, while the scientific community works on evolving known science and cosmology, and advancing the consensus view.

You do something similar, as far as I can tell. What I interpret from your last post is that you have the intention of doing science. Maybe the main difference between our methods is in our "intentions". Your method would seem to require new evidence, while my method says I don't have new evidence, but that I can interpret existing evidence from a different perspective; case in point, the origin of the cold spot (see the link in post #35/reply #34).

Never the less, when it comes to Einstein, there is something about my model that he might like. My model supports the concept that there is an objective reality. Anything that seems to be "spooky action at a distance" has natural causes that we don't yet understand. My model fills in those "as yet" not understood areas with my ideas and explanations that are internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, as far as I know. For example, in my model, not only are particles both waves and particles at the same time (wave-particle duality), but an individual particle can display both it's wave nature and it's particle nature in the same experiment. I will certainly be posting about that in this thread, given the chance.

To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 12:13:51
[/font][/size]

The problem is I try to only do real science and try to avoid speculation of the before ''time'' or after the ''boundary''. We could speculate all day long and it would be without any real purposeful meaning and at this time could never be more than speculation.  So when you talk about multiple big bangs in an ''arena'' , to me it is no more than speculation without any sort of proof. The big bang itself is not proof of a beginning, it is a theoretical notion that makes lots of sense to some people , so logically it is acceptable although I believe it has errors, this does not make it incorrect or correct, it just makes a good idea. [/font]
You and I differ , what I have done is took the whole of science and looked in depth of what we actually have in terms of real evidence , compared to imaginary evidence. I have took the ''big book'' of science (Wiki) and ripped several pages from the book to throw away or re-write. The interpretation is awful of their own notions, when we look closely and inspect the elements of the notions things start to fall apart. [/font]
A single notion and sentence of mine ''destroys'' the entire science construct thus far, however it is not hard to re-build a better foundation based on relative correctness.  This involves truly objective thinking with no ''corners'' cut. [/font]

''They'' know my notions are a problem to ''them'', however they also know that what they have is a beautiful well addressed coordinate system and timing mechanism that works for the purpose it was designed to do.  However ''they'' also know that all the speculate ''mind games'' and ''parlour tricks'' are pretty meaningless in reality, such a great man Einstein was, even he had faults in his logic although his logic was what science precisely needed in science to advance science. [/font]
It is a shame he was not here today so I could show him relative correctness, I am sure he would of respected me no matter what my cultural background.[/font]
[/font][/size]

I start with known science and fill in the gaps that are "as yet" unknown, with speculations and hypotheses, to evolve a "complete" view of the universe that suits me, but that I don't pass off as science. The way I put it is that I occupy my time contemplating, and speculating about the universe, while the scientific community works on evolving known science and cosmology, and advancing the consensus view.[/font]

You do something similar, as far as I can tell. What I interpret from your last post is that you have the intention of doing science. Maybe the main difference between our methods is in our "intentions". Your method would seem to require new evidence, while my method says I don't have new evidence, but that I can interpret existing evidence from a different perspective; case in point, the origin of the cold spot (see the link in post #35).[/font]

Never the less, when it comes to Einstein, there is something about my model that he might like. My model supports the concept that there is an objective reality. Anything that seems to be "spooky action at a distance" has natural causes that we don't yet understand. My model fills in those "as yet" not understood areas with my ideas and explanations that are internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, as far as I know. For example, in my model, not only are particles both waves and particles at the same time (wave-particle duality), but an individual particle can display both it's wave nature and it's particle nature in the same experiment. I will certainly be posting about that in this thread, given the chance. [/font]

To be continued ...[/font]


Ask yourself this , is a light particle a particle or is it really a ''drip'' ( a chip off the block).

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/05/2017 12:36:11
Reply #41
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
ISU Perspective


Ask yourself this , is a light particle a particle or is it really a ''drip'' ( a chip off the block).
Lol, that is a leading question. Wait until you see how I describe the wave-particle. The photon, in my model, like the other particles, is a standing wave with two components; the directional inflowing wave energy component that comes from other particles and objects, and the spherically out flowing wave energy component that  is emitted from it.


The photon is a special case because it is emitted at the speed of light from the electron, so all of its directional inflowing wave energy comes from the forward direction of motion. The spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy is continually emitted by the photon as it traverses space at the local speed of light. In my model, light waves are that spherically out flowing wave energy from the photon particle, i.e., light is the out flowing gravitational wave energy from the photon wave-particle.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/05/2017 15:53:05
Multiverse is possible like multi cellular foam instead of single universe.

If the universe is a single formation, the dispersion of cosmic objects would not be isotropic
In 3D mapping of universe. Whereas we see them on every directions (41273° spherical degrees and their fractions)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/05/2017 17:14:48
Reply #43
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
ISU Perspective


Multiverse is possible like multi cellular foam instead of single universe.

If the universe is a single formation, the dispersion of cosmic objects would not be isotropic
In 3D mapping of universe. Whereas we see them on every directions (41273° spherical degrees and their fractions)
Maybe so, but everything we can now see is within the observable universe, which is only part of our own Big Bang arena. The multiple big bang arena landscape includes our Big Bang arena, and a potentially infinite number of similar big bang arenas across all of the space of the greater universe. So when I say it is one universe, that universe is a multiple Big Bang arena universe; see the distinction between that and a multiverse? I don't think I ever referred to the universe as a multiverse, and I don't think it is one.


Now, your statement about the distribution of cosmic objects is generally true if you are referring to the galaxies in the observable universe; but as I said earlier, we cannot see the other Big Bang arenas, even though the model is based on there being multiple big bang arenas. I maintain that if we could see beyond our event horizon, we would see other similar big bang arenas "out there", and the greater universe is predicted to be isotropic and homogeneous.





Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: xersanozgen on 21/05/2017 19:59:45
One big bang event and observation of isotropic layout may be possible together in accordance with the concept of LCS.

LCS: Light Coordinate System


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16413.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16413.0)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/05/2017 22:09:21
Reply #45

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
I have no problem with Special Relativity and don't want to encourage Xersanoagen.
Given the postulates of SR, it is logical mathematics IMHO




One big bang event and observation of isotropic layout may be possible together in accordance with the concept of LCS.

LCS: Light Coordinate System


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16413.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16413.0)
Thank you for the link, because it allows me to understand what you are saying. It looks like you want to help me understand the argument that you have with Special Relativity. I read the post at the link, and some of the thread, and my opinion is that you are misinterpreting the postulates of SR. Is that possible, or am I failing to understand your meaning?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity)
Either way, though I am a science enthusiast, I would prefer that you resist bringing your complaint with SR to my thread.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: xersanozgen on 22/05/2017 09:25:22

Thank you for the link, because it allows me to understand what you are saying. It looks like you want to help me understand the argument that you have with Special Relativity. I read the post at the link, and some of the thread, and my opinion is that you are misinterpreting the postulates of SR. Is that possible, or am I failing to understand your meaning?
 


  I want to say the "KEY CLUE" for the flaws of SR: There are few types of relativity;


1-   Genuine relativity: The speed of a vehicle is relative according to the road (or the mass of Earth). This type of relativity is perpetual and the interactive effects are mentioned.

2-   Nominal/titular relativity: Two cars (A; B) on same way; the motion or speed of car B according to other car A. This relativity is fictional.

3-   Temporary/momentary relativity: Instant relativity is mentioned at the moment that a player shot the ball. The player can go anywhere independently after shoot. Next moments at flowing time the distance –between player and ball- is not calculated by ball’s speed. The ground is co-reference frame for the motions of player and ball.

Which type relativity the light has?

Which type relativity does the theory SR prefer?


There is another option for multiverse as "nested universes". Observations and collisions support this option.

Perhaps, a mapping of universe (that smallest units are clusters without galaxies and nearby star) may be more useful to analyze..
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/05/2017 23:50:48
Reply #47

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Note that the ISU is multiple big bang arena landscape, not a multiverse of multiple individual universes
There is just one universe according to the ISU model




I want to say the "KEY CLUE" for the flaws of SR: There are few types of relativity;


1-   Genuine relativity: The speed of a vehicle is relative according to the road (or the mass of Earth). This type of relativity is perpetual and the interactive effects are mentioned.

2-   Nominal/titular relativity: Two cars (A; B) on same way; the motion or speed of car B according to other car A. This relativity is fictional.

3-   Temporary/momentary relativity: Instant relativity is mentioned at the moment that a player shot the ball. The player can go anywhere independently after shoot. Next moments at flowing time the distance –between player and ball- is not calculated by ball’s speed. The ground is co-reference frame for the motions of player and ball.

Which type relativity the light has?

Which type relativity does the theory SR prefer?
You haven't managed to spark my interest in your arguments about SR. You didn't respond to my supposition that you don't understand the postulates. Let's drop it for now, and I'll keep an eye on your ideas and see if a time comes for me to jump in; until then cease and desist about it here.
Quote
There is another option for multiverse as "nested universes". Observations and collisions support this option.

Perhaps, a mapping of universe (that smallest units are clusters without galaxies and nearby star) may be more useful to analyze..
You do have a one track mind. Did you read my response about the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe vs. a multiverse? I don't mention a multiverse, and I think there is only one grand universe that is composed of a potentially infinite number of active multiple big bang arenas that expand, intersect and overlap, form big crunches out of the galactic material of "parent" arenas, and the crunches collapse/bounce into new expanding big bang arenas. That process accounts for the preconditions of our own Big Bang, and of every big bang, past, present, and future.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/05/2017 00:23:45
Reply #48
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
CSIRO's ASKAP telescope

New findings in astronomy could have cosmological implications, so I keep my eyes open for current news like this: CSIRO's ASKAP telescope detects fast radio burst in just four days of operation
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/csiros-askap-telescope-detects-fast-radio-burst-in-just-four-days-of-operation-20170522-gwa5m2.html (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/csiros-askap-telescope-detects-fast-radio-burst-in-just-four-days-of-operation-20170522-gwa5m2.html)

It is something to contemplate, especially when you have views of a multiple big bang arena landscape to the greater universe. Big bang events are happening all the time in the ISU, and who's to say how a distant big bang event would look from deep within our expanding Big Bang arena?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 24/05/2017 12:23:48
My theory, which I developed years ago, is based on simple entropy considerations. The current Big Bang Theory goes from a singularity, to an expanding atomization, in a short period of time; big bang. The result of this model is a huge increase in entropy from t=0, in a very short time. Since an entropy increase requires that energy be absorbed, this model of expansion would be very endothermic and would require a lot of up front energy to achieve.

There is an alternative scenario, that requires much less up front energy, due to a smaller entropy profile. This could be accomplished if the primordial atom divided into two, like cell division. This will still expand space-time, but it requires much less initial energy expenditure, since it only has the entropy of two singularities, instead of umpteen separate units implicit of an atomization.

This model does not require as much upfront energy, and therefore could conceptually occur way before there is sufficient energy for a full atomization from a big crunch singularity. In this model, as energy comes available the two original daughter cell singularities, also divide, etc., etc., with space-time expanding relative to the small and smaller daughter cells.

In this model space-time is expanding in a simple universe of dividing singularities that look more like black holes. Since these singularities have so much matter/energy equivalent, each will have a space-time reference very close to the speed of light. To each of them, they all appear to touch so they can coordinate. But to us on earth, they would appear to moving away at incredible speeds as space-time expands.

This process continues until the daughter cells reach a critical mass/energy equivalent size, from which the material galaxies puff up in a mini-big bang style. This galaxy level size for little bang atomization, allows the local matter to remain contained in space at a scale where gravity has some dominance. The mini big bang phase, also results in powerful energy shocks waves coming from all the expanded daughters, which adds turbulence to all the other expanding galaxies, to help seed the early stars, while also causing the material universe to expand relative to the galaxies.

At this point, the entropy of the universe begins to approach that of the big bang model. However, because there is more order already in the universe; superstructure and very early stars and galaxies, the entropy is less, with more energy still in play or not yet needed.

The large scale superstructure of our universe, which are not uniform, suggests the cell division process was less analogous to bacteria; single independent cells, but more analogous to multicellular division, such as in the animal body, where differentiations and clustering appears.

(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/cell-division-9501336.jpg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.khosoba.com%2Fimages%2Fmorula-01.jpg&hash=c9d957424eb1993f66ed9745f253d2ba)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/05/2017 14:15:15
Reply #50
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Response to Puppypower



My theory, which I developed years ago, ...
I generally like your analysis, though you might not think so from this post. The comparison to cell division fits with an idea I like, that life has always existed, though your scenario clearly includes a "beginning" of time and space; a modified singularity, from which the "living" universe evolved and is playing out. And of course, what I think I would call an early advanced form of cell division to replace the implied singularity, isn't the same thing as the origin of life forms, DNA, reproduction, and successful evolution. Presumably, in your theory, the origin of life in the universe comes after the initial event of "something from nothing" that would seem necessary to set the cell division process into motion.
                                                                               
Your idea could lead to a structure akin to a multiple big bang universe, but I didn't pick up on the idea that intersections between the dividing cells are preconditions to new big bangs, past, present, and future. Instead, I pick up that what once the cell division plays out to a point of diminishing energy density, the division stops, yielding an group of cells that might be independent of each other, though expanding in unison. My idea is that the multiple big bang arenas continually expand and interact by overlapping. There is a rendezvous of galactic material from the parent arenas orchestrated by the real physical force of gravity (I propose a quantum gravity solution in the ISU), that leads to the formation of, and the collapse/bang of a big crunches here and there across the arena landscape, which perpetuates the arena landscape and defeats entropy.

I like the idea that the "shock" of cell division might account for the breakdown of smoothness that is generally expected from the generally accepted, one Big Bang, that expands by adding space. It might be an explanation for the quantum fluctuations that are mentioned to explain anomalous galactic formation and structure. In my model, the space that the new expanding big bang arenas expand into is the same space the their parent arenas had previously claimed for themselves, and that they were forced to give up when they intersected and overlapped. It is also the same space that has hosted big bang arena action over a potentially infinite history of arena interactions that lead to new big bangs, new arenas that have played out in the same space over that lengthy heritage. I imaging that the space that our new arena expands into has remnants of that past history, in the form of old, cold galactic remnants, and light and gravitational wave energy just now arriving from very distant places across the infinite universe where similar active arena action is continually taking place. That scenario would provide enough "quantum fluctuations" to account for the interruptions to the expected smoothness. 
 
I don't know why you invoke spacetime or how it can operate when the volume of space that must exit in your model greatly exceeds the space that would be associated with our own cell (arena), and so there would be some added complexity associated with the curvature of space time, though I probably have completely misunderstood your idea, and am inserting my own thinking. It is just that the curvature is supposed to be governed by the presence of matter; remembering the saying, matter tells spacetime how to curve, and the curvature of spacetime tells matter how to move. I suppose it could all work out in spacetime if we are only speculating or theorizing.

I don't have the same perspective on the energy problem that you associate with the singularity, because in my model, all objects are composed of wave-particles, and wave particles are a form of complex standing wave patterns with two main components; inflowing gravitational wave energy from distant objects, and spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy that traverses space and becomes the inflowing gravitational wave energy of distant objects. The energy problem is resolved because all space is filled with gravitational wave energy in-transit, ready to be utilized as it "encounters/is encountered" by existing mass. It is right there, coming from all directions, as each new big crunch forms, and collapse/bangs into expansion.

Anyway, I respect the thoughtfulness that you employed in coming up with your model, and would close with the big question: How do you explain the beginning? I suggest your choices are, 1) Something from nothing, 2) the universe has always existed, and 3) the unscientific "God did it".
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/05/2017 15:27:10
Reply #51
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
ISU Perspective


The Origin of the IceCube Neutrinos: An Ongoing Mystery
http://aasnova.org/2017/05/16/the-origin-of-the-icecube-neutrinos-an-ongoing-mystery/ (http://aasnova.org/2017/05/16/the-origin-of-the-icecube-neutrinos-an-ongoing-mystery/)

Something else to contemplate from the perspective of a multiple big bang arena landscape. Of course, contemplation involves iterative speculation. It could be this, it could be that, it could be something else.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/05/2017 12:34:43
Reply #52

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
All particles are wave-particles
Light is the gravitational wave energy emission of photons
The oscillating background assist the advance of gravitational and light waves across space


"Counterparts to Gravitational Wave Events: Very Important Needles in a Very Large Haystack"

http://aasnova.org/2017/05/09/counterparts-to-gravitational-wave-events-very-important-needles-in-a-very-large-haystack/ (http://aasnova.org/2017/05/09/counterparts-to-gravitational-wave-events-very-important-needles-in-a-very-large-haystack/)

There is obviously a connection between massive gravitational events and massive EM events, and an energy emission profile for each. Comparing the profiles would contain a lot of information about the nature of the events themselves.

For what its worth, in the ISU model, all particles are wave-particles, continually emitting gravitational wave energy. Further, light (the full spectrum of EM) is the gravitational wave energy out flow from the photon wave-particle; the energy out flow is proportional to the frequency, and very high energy photons emit massive amounts of energy in the form of light waves, while low energy photons have the lowest frequencies and emit the lowest amounts of wave energy into the local space.

Light and gravity waves all traverse space using a mechanism that I call the oscillating background.

To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/05/2017 22:49:26
Reply #53

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Another local library used book find
Worlds-Antiworlds Antimatter in Cosmology


Our local library has a used book store and there is a small science section where I scout for interesting books on physics and cosmology. Today I found a nice old one: Worlds-Antiworlds Antimatter in Cosmology, 1966, by Hannes Alfven, who worked with plasma physics, plasma cosmology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology). He has a Nobel in Physics for work in magnetohydrodynamics, and is also the discoverer of Alfvén waves, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave). It should be an interesting historical read.

In the early chapters there is a discussion that puts the age of the universe at ~10 billion years. By now that is generally accepted to be up to 13.7+ billion years, and of course, in the ISU, the universe is an ageless multiple big bang universe, and is unbounded.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: xersanozgen on 26/05/2017 12:45:10
You haven't managed to spark my interest in your arguments about SR. You didn't respond to my supposition that you don't understand the postulates. Let's drop it for now, and I'll keep an eye on your ideas and see if a time comes for me to jump in; until then cease and desist about it here.
 

SR considers the "genuine relativity" for light's motion. Whereas other options define  preferable/better the relative motion of light (please allow you yourself). SR had never examined other types of relativity. Its decision is not result of  a scrutiny.

To understand the wrong mentality of SR postulates is significant  for science history; it is interesting that these options of light's relativity is not mentioned by anybody until today.

In my opinion the new definition may be called by "Second Galilei Event".
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/05/2017 15:42:39
Reply #55
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Still avoiding the SR discussion for now




SR considers the "genuine relativity" for light's motion. Whereas other options define  preferable/better the relative motion of light (please allow you yourself
). SR had never examined other types of relativity. Its decision is not result of  a scrutiny.

To understand the wrong mentality of SR postulates is significant  for science history; it is interesting that these options of light's relativity is not mentioned by anybody until today.

In my opinion the new definition may be called by "Second Galilei Event".

Ok, then, that's fine. However, it is not really good style to say SR is based on "wrong mentality". SR is what it is, based on the postulates, and using the invariant speed of light in a vacuum as the common denominator of all motion. All of the math, transformations, calculations of dilation and contraction, etc., are performed consistently, and the results are meaningful from the perspective of SR.

Could relative motion be based on different parameters, like a variable speed of light governed by the relative wave energy density of the local environment? Could a reference frame be related to the local wave energy density of an object, as well as its relative motion? There are many ways to look at relativity, but that does not make SR wrong. You have to falsify the postulates, or accept the math that is derived from them. If you want to change the game, fine, but it doesn't change or falsify SR unless there are different physics or the speed of light in a vacuum is different from one frame to another.

However, I am not going to try to defend SR, or discuss that stance, because I'm no expert on anything except the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/05/2017 14:40:56
Reply #56

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
ISU levels of order
Wheeler's quantum foam
The Oscillating foundational background
The advance of wave energy through space
Time delay in the production of third waves varies inversely with local density


Big Bang arena action is at the top end of the wave energy scale. Expanding Big Bang arenas are the largest, grandest waves of energy in the ISU model. On the lowest level of the wave energy scale is the oscillating wave energy background, which is the ISU's equivalent to quantum foam.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)

Quantum Foam: Quantum foam (also referred to as space-time (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time) foam) is a concept in quantum mechanics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) devised by John Wheeler (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler) in 1955. The foam is conceptualized as the foundation of the fabric of the universe (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe).

Wheeler came at it from the perspective that spacetime is not perfectly smooth, and could be composed of tiny patches of spacetime that fluctuate between states; there might be different mechanisms involved depending on the cosmological approach. My opinion is the quantum foam, or some equivalent to it, is necessary to provide a foundational background for the advance of light and gravitational wave energy through space. The ISU is not a spacetime model, but it does have a counterpart to spacetime foam. I call it the oscillating background,

But the "how" and "what" of the oscillating background isn't obvious, and in my model you don't start there, you conclude it has to be there.

In the wave-particle discussion, each wave convergence has a time delay as the combined energy of the 'parent' waves equalize in the overlap space. In the case of the oscillating background, nature’s lowest possible limit of wave action occurs while the energy carried by the individual parent waves merges and equalizes, allowing the lens shaped overlap space to trend toward a spherical shape; it is a mechanical effect that occurs during the time delay and plays out under the influence of the force of energy density equalization that is alway present in the ISU. The new ‘third wave’ thus emerges from the overlap space, to become a new oscillation in the space being vacated by the parent waves.


Edit 10/3/2017:
Putting post into bullet points
1) Big Bang arenas are nature’s greatest out flowing spherical waves at the top end of the wave energy scale
2) The oscillating wave energy background contains nature’s lowest level tiniest waves
3) Link: Quantum Foam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)
4) John Wheeler, in 1955, conceptualized the quantum foam as the foundation of the fabric of the universe, proposing that spacetime is not perfectly smooth
5) Wheeler’s foam is composed of tiny patches of spacetime that fluctuate between states
6) The oscillating wave energy background is the ISU’s equivalent to Wheeler’s Quantum Foam, or the space-time foam in quantum mechanics
7) It provides a foundational background for the advance of light and gravitational wave energy through space
8.) The ISU is not a spacetime model, and the oscillating background is not observable, but its presence is concluded and necessary for the transmission of gravitational wave energy
9) Each wave convergence has an associated time delay in play at all levels, and at the foundational level, the time delay is at its shortest duration
10) The local density of the background directly affects the duration of the local time delay
11) The delay is caused when one wave intersects with another, increasing the local  wave energy density at the point of intersection, and in the ISU, even in that tiniest instance, an increase in the wave energy density causes the wave front advance to slow
(End of edit)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/06/2017 14:24:55
Reply #57
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
The ISU is a good fit with the infinite and eternal universe scenario


I have been enjoying Worlds-Antiworlds, the book I mentioned in reply #54. It is a snapshot of the state of cosmology in the 1960s. My own view of cosmology has been developed in the 2000's, so the comparisons are between periods, like opening a time capsule and seeing how times have changed.

We go from the influence of homogeneous distribution of stars before Olbers, to solutions to Olbers' paradox , to Lamaiture-Gamow's Big Bang, Einstein's relativity, Klien's symmetry between matter and antimatter, and then to C. V. L. Charlier's systems of increasing dimensions. Lamaiture-Gamow proposed the matagalaxy (our Big Bang arena) which was our whole universe, while Klien's and Charlier's view can translate to what the author of Worlds-Antiworlds calls a teragalaxy. Einstein's GR supports a finite universe, and Charlier's increasing dimensions support an infinite universe.

Cosmology of the "now 2000's" looks like it is evolving from the concepts of finite to infinite, as well as from ideas of symmetry vs. the infinite eternal asymmetry of infinite wave energy across infinite space; the ISU is good fit with that scenario.


A feature of ISU mentioned above: In the wave-particle discussion, each wave convergence has a time delay as the combined energy of the "parent" waves equalizes in the overlap space. There is a lower limit to the rate of wave action because of this time time delay, and that lower limit governs the rate of the background oscillations; that is the point where the concept of a "waveless background" should be discussed. There are more details to help convey the concept, so if there is no discussion, I'll post some more details later for the record.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/06/2017 20:40:14
Reply #58

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Note: Beginning of the thought experiment inspired by post from Member Thebox


That is great , I am also willing to discuss anything to pass the time away , it's better than computer games.


So lets I and you presume an infinite space that always existed and always will exist.  We can define this space as the big nothing, empty of all 4 states of matter. 
Ok, what do we presume after this in your notion?
I can start from there, and tie it in to the concept of the Waveless Background mentioned in my last post, if you will consider a "thought experiment".


Let’s say, for purposes of discussion, that my concept of a waveless background can be equated to an infinite empty space. There is no energy, no matter, no gravity, and no light; a dark nothingness. Needless to say, nothingness is not possible in my model, but I think we can understand each other by using this thought experiment.


To get on the same page, I will not yet invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle because, though it involves two of the three ISU infinities, infinite time and infinite space which are part of our infinite empty space concept, it also invokes what I call a “grand sameness” as we presently observe the distribution of matter and energy across the universe, and we aren’t there yet in our thought experiment.


Would you agree that puts us on the same page, a single universe consisting of infinite empty space?


If so, then the thought experiment is to imagine the possibility of  multiple energy related events occurring in the infinite space, separated by empty space. Let’s disregard any cause or preconditions for those events; they could be considered "something from nothing" or quantum fluctuations, it doesn't matter how they began for this thought experiment.


Each event should be considered to be an infinitely dense point of energy, nature’s lowest entropy condition; so we have multiple points of energy across the infinite space, and each point begins as infinitely dense energy contained in a point of space within our infinite empty space. Each infinitely dense point of energy could be considered similar to the “beginning”, as described in some interpretations of the condition that immediately preceded our Big Bang, in Big Bang Theory (BBT).


Please consider the possibility that there could be an infinite number of such points across our infinite empty space.




(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_30_22.jpeg)
I will post how I propose that the universe would develop from those conditions into a universe consistent with what I call the Infinite Spongy Universe model.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/06/2017 16:27:21
Reply #59
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Thought experiment continued


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_33_37.jpeg)
The high energy density spots expand rapidly through otherwise empty space.


The text in the image for quoting purposes: A depiction of the infinite space, containing the high energy density spots from image 1, that have expanded as time has elapsed since they appeared. They have enlarged, they individually occupy more space, and the distance between them has decreased. They have evolved from infinitely dense points of energy, to individual patches of homogeneous energy, and have taken on the characteristic of spherically advancing energy waves.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/06/2017 16:47:14
Reply #60

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Thought experiment continued
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_35_50.jpeg)The spheres of energy expand until expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with adjacent expanding waves (parent waves).


A depiction of the infinite space, containing the high energy density spots from image 2, that have continued to expanded as time continues to pass. They continue to enlarge, and individually occupy more and more space, and the distance between them has decreased to the point that some spherical energy waves have intersected and have begun to overlap. When overlap occurs, the two or more "parent" waves contribute some of their energy to the overlap space, creating a new high energy density environment within the overlap space.                                                                                                         
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/06/2017 19:20:10
Reply #61

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Thought experiment continued
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_37_39.jpeg)


In image 3b, I highlighted the overlap spaces where “parent” expanding spherical energy waves overlap and occupy the same space. The energy density in those overlap spaces is higher than the energy density of either parent wave, since each parent has added its energy density to the overlap space.


When two “parent” spheres intersect and overlap, new physics is introduced into the domain of the thought experiment. Up until the expanding spheres of energy intersect, the physics were simple. We had infinite empty space, into which energy has been introduced in the form of infinitely dense points of energy, distributed randomly throughout the otherwise empty space.


There probably isn’t any objection to the assumption of mechanics that cause the infinite points of energy to individually expand into the surrounding empty space. I call that the force of energy density equalization. The premise is that the infinitely dense energy will decline in density as it expands spherically into empty space, and as expansion proceeds, the density will trend toward equal density throughout the volume of the individually expanding spheres. That will change at the point where two or more individually expanding spheres intersect and overlap, as they do in image 3b.


Note that looking at the images, it is clear that as the energy waves continue to expand, there will eventually be no empty space left; all space will contain some level of wave energy density.

Thought experiment to be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/06/2017 18:22:18
Reply #62

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Thought experiment continued

The velocity of spherical wave energy front expansion in the ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe) model is at the speed of light, which is variable relative to the local wave energy density which varies relative to the energy density of the local background. Further, in the ISU, the presence of particles and objects is necessary for there to by any light and gravity waves traversing the background.

We are in a thought experiment where those conditions have begun to be developed from an infinite empty space, and will evolve to an infinite universe filled with with massive objects that produce varying levels of wave energy, in the form of light and gravitational waves.

The first case of spherical wave energy front expansion we encounter in our thought experiment is where infinitely dense energy in multiple single points across the otherwise infinite empty space begin to equalize with the otherwise empty surrounding space. The velocity of that expansion would be expected to be at nature’s maximum spherical energy wave front velocity.

Don’t get too wrapped up in what that velocity might be though, because the energy density differential that produces wave advance at that velocity only exists in our thought experiment. By the time the conditions in the thought experiment approach the “reality” of the ISU model, energy density differentials will have moderated from those impossible initial levels.

The maximum differential existing in the ISU model is in conjunction with any of the Big Bang events that commonly occur here and there across the landscape of the greater universe, caused by preconditions within a universe that has always existed, much the same as it does today.


Note that when two separately advancing waves encounter each other, there is a time delay effect at the point of intersection, because the velocity of each individual converging wave is slowed at the instant that it encounters an environment where the surrounding energy density increases, as when it encounters another the high energy density wave.

In the ISU, where all space is filled with varying levels of wave energy density, the velocity of light waves and gravity waves becomes variable as meaningful waves traverse the oscillating background, and we are now in the process of describing how that oscillating wave energy background would develop form the conditions in images 1 through 3.

Since light waves and gravitational waves aren’t present yet in our thought experiment, once we describe the development of the oscillations, we will then address the develpment of particles which produce both light and gravitational waves.

So let’s get back to the thought experiment and pick up with image 4a below:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_42_59.jpeg)

The third wave: Parent wave 1 and parent wave 2 overlap (verb), creating a lens shaped space (the third wave) that has high wave energy density relative to the individual parent waves. The “lens” has the sum of the energy density of the parent waves, for talking purposes.

See image 4b
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)

The third wave is created from the parent waves, and has the combined energy density of the parents. The scenario is that the new third wave will expand into the existing space occupied by the two parent waves. The energy density of the the parent waves will continue to decline as they both continue to expand into the low energy density surrounding them. The energy density of the third waves will also decline as they expand, bringing into play some new variables that will affect the local wave energy density and therefore the local speed of wave front expansion.

Thought experiment to be continued …

 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/06/2017 13:12:05
Reply #63

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Thought experiment continued

Just a note for future reference: Two factors come into play so far in the thought experiment that are not graphically accounted for in images 4a and 4b. One is the impact of the slowing rate of wave front advance when the parent spheres encounter each other, which would tend to flatten the lens, and the other is the effect of energy density equalization on the shape of the lens as the overlap proceeds that would cause the lens to trend toward a more spherical shape. To simplify the images and the discussion, I am using a modification of the “spherical cow” technique to let the strict geometrical overlap be depicted in the images.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow)
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_10_09_48.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_10_09_48.gif)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_10_09_48.gif)

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/06/2017 21:06:12
Reply #64

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Newton and Huygens

I want to note on the thread that I made another stop at our local library used book store last week, and picked up a nice book from their used science book shelf. The Life of Isaac Newton, by Richard Westfall, 328 pages, $1.50 :) . He and Christiaan Huygens were contemporaries, and had numerous communications about their work; particle vs wave nature of light. I mentioned my appreciation of Huygens in reply #19, and the book has a number of interesting references to those communications. Both have influenced my thinking about the nature of the wave-particle, as the ISU model has evolved.

https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/advanced/t5_1_1.html (https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/advanced/t5_1_1.html)
Newton vs. Huygens
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/dreieck3.gif)[/t][/t][/t][/t]
we learned in High school,  (1643 - 1727), the science hero of the 17th century, propagated the view that light consists of small particles or corpuscles.[/t]
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
He based his book „Opticks or a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light“ on this point of view, and since he didn't do so badly, it was far from obvious that he should be wrong.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
For example, he deduced that white light consists of of colored light (corpuscles of different sizes) that get separated in a prism or generally in glass. Prior to his insight, everybody believed that glass somehow changed the light. Based on this he not only explained the nature of a rainbow but also concluded that a telescope based on mirrors should be superior to one with lenses because of their "chromatic aberration" (he did not use this term, of course). He even built a prototype of a mirror based telescope but, bad luck, it wasn't better than the lens telescopes of his times because his mirror suffered from spherical aberration.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
He knew that his corpuscle model could not (easily) explain some known effects around interference (https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/backbone/r5_1_3.html) or polarization tied to birefringence (https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/backbone/r5_2_4.html#Birefringence) (first described in 1669 by ) but so what. There was a lot of other stuff in the 17th century that had not yet been satisfactorily explained.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/dreieck3.gif) (1629-1695), a Dutch mathematician, physicist and so on, formulated the , nowadays better known as , and generally argued that light consists of waves.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
Augustin-Jean (1788 – 827), was a French engineer who contributed significantly to the establishment of the theory of wave optics long after Huygens, so from my point if view it is OK to just call it Huygens principle.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
Huygens experimented with Icelandic crystals (calcite (https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/backbone/r5_2_4.html#$Kalkspat)) that showed double refraction (birefringence) and explained it with his wave theory and polarized light. Based on his insights he also constructed and made better lenses and thus microscopes, telescopes and so on. Moreover, he made seminal contributions to mechanics and was instrumental in early probability theory.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
He fought Newton tooth and nail about the nature of light. He lost the fight. Newton appealed to the "Royal Society", the topmost authority in those bygone times, and 1715 it ruled that Newton's point of view was the correct one. This was not as stupid as it appears now. Huygens, as we know now, was right but could not really prove his assertions then. For that another 75 years needed to pass.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/dreieck3.gif)Enter  (1773 - 1829). While he started as a physician, he mutated and became a true physicist early in life and proved beyond doubt that light is a wave.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
Somewhat ironically, it weren't only the seminal  done around 1802 but also the explanation of "" that convinced all and sundry that light is a wave and not a particle.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
Young did not just establish the wave nature of light but contributed to many other aspects of physics or, as we would call it now, materials science. "", for example, is named after him for good reasons. Moreover, he was also instrumental in deciphering hieroglyphic and other forgotten scripts.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/dreieck3.gif)So Newton was wrong - or was he? Enter  (1879 - 1955). In 1905, the "annus mirabilis", he postulated the , a kind of light particle, to explain the photo electric effect (that should get him his one Nobel prize in 1921). He also published the special theory of relativity in this year and the explanation of Brownian motion, i.e.. the atomic theory of diffusion. By the way, he received his Ph.D. (Dr. degree) a year later in 1906.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
So light is now a particle once more? Of course meanwhile we know better. We know since  (1892 - 1987) established in 1924 that particles are also waves, that there is no such thing as a pure wave or a pure particle.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
There are only "things" described by a wave function that comes out as a solution of the Schrödinger equation (or the more general equations of quantum (field) theory). There are no problems anymore, except that explaining that to somebody not used to quantum theory is like explaining color to the blind, symphonies to the deaf, reason to a lawyer, conservation laws to an economist or truth to a theologian. It's tough.
(https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/styles/kugel1.gif)
We also know now how we might simplify and approximate the problem at hand by looking at the "thing" either as a pure particle or a pure wave.
[/td][/tr][/table]
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/06/2017 15:56:36
Reply #65

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Thought experiment continued


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_50_34.jpeg)



Note the additional description:


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_51_49.jpeg)
In Image 5, the expansion of the high energy spots has continued from the positions in Image 3. Every intersection between the initial parent waves forms a third wave, and every third wave expands until its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with adjacent waves, at which time new third waves are formed. Eventually, all space is filled with expanding third waves. The volume of space that each third wave occupies before it intersects with an adjacent wave is getting smaller because the occurrence of intersections is increasing rapidly.

In the thought experiment, unless something is introduced to stop the increase in the number of third waves across the infinite space, the volume of each new third wave will continue to decrease. The action will be affected by the fact that there is a time delay at each point of intersection, but unless some new physics is introduced, the average volume of each third wave will simply continue to decrease, on the premise that energy within each expanding wave is infinitely fine, and can exist in smaller and smaller increments.

The process will approach but never reach the minimum wave volume limit, which I hypothesize would be where the volume of each new overlap (third wave) approaches a single point of space. We don’t encounter that issue in the ISU because there are particles and massive objects which introduce gravity to oppose the force of energy density equalization. Gravity causes big bangs and big crunches as a result of the process of Big Bang arena action discussed earlier. The perpetual third wave action at this point in the thought experiment is the counterpart to the oscillating wave energy background in the  ISU.

Thought experiment to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/07/2017 23:19:22
Reply #66


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


Thought experiment continued


The perpetual third wave action at this point in the thought experiment is the counterpart to the oscillating wave energy background in the  ISU.



However, there is a problem with the though experiment that needs attention. It would seem that if the progression toward tinier and tinier third waves is left to continue, we would be approaching wave energy density equalization, ultimately down to the point level. Unlimited third wave progression leads toward a state that is completely inert, with no remaining wave action, and no oscillating background wave energy at all. That could perhaps be thought of as the equivalent to the heat death of the universe “outcome” in General Relativity, or to the “end game” in the Big Rip model of cosmology, i.e., total entropy, which is avoided in the ISU by perpetual Big Bang arena action across the infinite landscape.


To rescue the thought experiment, we can introduce some known science, and some generally accepted theoretical physics to address the problem. Up to now there is no mechanism for particles to form by themselves out of perfectly smooth, homogeneous energy that is being disbursed by the natural wave action, no perturbations or inconsistencies to disturb the homogeneity. But we know that particles, light, and gravity exist, and so I introduce those realities into the thought experiment in the following fashion:


1) Each of the initial infinitely dense points of energy that we introduced randomly across the infinite empty space, are replaced by a collapse/bounce phase big crunches as described in the process of Big Bang arena action in the ISU model. The crunches collapse under the compression of gravity.


2) The “collapsing crunches” bounce off of natures maximum allowed wave energy density limit which occurs at the core of each collapsing Big Crunch, at the instant of the bounce. It is those collapsed big crunches, ready to bounce into expansion, that are inserted into the thought experiment in place of the initial infinitely dense points of energy.


3) The “bounce”, coupled with the force of energy density equalization, causes the rapid expansion of the hot dense balls of wave energy. There is a ball of photon energy generated during the collapse/bounce, and that expands spherically at the local speed of light, out into the space occupied by the still expanding “parent” arena waves.


4) Accompanying natures largest bursts of photon energy, is the dense state wave energy that represents the remains of the wave-particles that made up the crunches before they collapsed. The gravitational collapse is referred to as particle “negation”, where the remaining particles in the crunches give up their individual space, and merge into the same space during the collapses.


5) Those “remains” of each big crunch are compressed into a ball of  “dense state” wave energy that decays as energy density equalization takes over from the gravitational collapses. That negated wave energy from pre-existing particles, rapidly decays into exotic particles as expansion progresses; those exotic massive particles are the source of the mass of all subsequent particles that form across each new Big Bang arena.


6) The decay process eventually leads to stable particles that fill the expanding Big Bang arena energy waves.


7) The thought experiment now consists of a landscape of expanding Big Bang arenas that are cooling as they expand, and that are filling with stable particles, which marks the emergence of particles and gravity within the new, expanding arena waves.

8)As the environment in each expanding arena cools sufficiently, they will accommodate the formation of atoms and simple gasses like hydrogen and helium. Particles that form in the expanding arenas will have expansion momentum imparted to them, so they are all moving away from each other as they form.


9) Along with the introduction of gravity comes the inverse square law, which means that gravity is strongest in close quarters. Gravity overcomes expansion momentum in close quarters, and that causes the clumping of the early gasses into numerous huge clouds across the arena, which condense into massive, fast burning mega stars. The massive stars themselves conserve the expansion momentum of their constituent particles, and on a larger scale, expansion momentum out paces gravity, and the galaxies are therefore moving away from each other as the arena expands.


10) Those first round stars burn their fuel quickly and burst into super novas, producing heavy nuclei and clouds of “dust”. That process seeds the condensation of new, smaller, more stable and long lived stars, forming the new galaxies. The individual stars form with planets and moons, which represent hospitable environments where life can be generated.


11) Through an iterative process of trial and error, the chemistry and physics working together randomly produce self replicating molecules, life emerges, evolves, and establishes the presence of self-aware, intelligent life forms that gain footholds throughout each expanding big bang arena. Our thought experiment now features Big Bang arenas action, and life abounds across each arena, and across the infinite Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe.


12) And here we are today in the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU).

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_32_22.jpeg)







Thought experiment to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/07/2017 04:20:44
Reply #67

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Thought experiment continued

Imagining a typical patch of the landscape of the greater universe in our thought experiment, after replacing the infinitely dense points of energy with "ready to expand" collapse/bounce phase big crunches, and giving the resulting universe ample time for Big Bang arena action to play out.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_22_26.jpeg)

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/07/2017 16:00:08

Reply #68

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


Thought experiment continued




The quantum: At this point in the thought experiment, the term “quantum”, as it pertains to the processes involving particles, mass, and energy can be explained and discussed. Throughout the thought experiment, energy, particles, quantum increments, arena action and quantum action have been mentioned (not to be confused with the Quantum of Action, aka the Planck Constant; a photon is said to be one quantum of action that can have a range of energy, but the same photon will have numerous quanta of the sort that are found in the ISU process of quantum action). ”quantum vs photon” (http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-photon-and-vs-quantum/). So let me refer back to image 4a:

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_42_59.jpeg)

That image can be seen as the intersection and overlap of two quanta. The same image can apply to the internal workings of quantum action within all particles. All particles are wave-particles in the ISU model. Particles can be composed of almost any number of quanta, as long as each particle’s presence is maintained by the process of quantum action.

So what does it mean for the presence of a particle to be maintained by the process of quantum action? I means that there is a complex standing wave pattern that has stability, and that contains a stable number of quanta in a given wave-energy density environment. If the wave-particle moves, or if the local wave energy density environment changes, the number of quanta that the standing wave pattern contains changes.

For example, if you accelerate a standing wave pattern relative to its local space, it gains more quanta as a result of that relative motion. The reason for the increase in quanta is that the standing wave has two components, inflowing gravitational wave energy, and out flowing gravitational wave energy. When a particle is said to be at rest, the directionally inflowing wave energy is equal to the spherically out flowing wave energy. But when a particle moves from one energy density environment to another, as when it is accelerated, the inflowing wave energy component from the direction of motion provides more quanta than the spherically out flowing wave energy component releases.

The simple graphical representation of that process can be seen in this image:

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_54_15.jpeg)

The graphic depicts a particle made up of multiple quantum waves being maintained by inflowing and out flowing wave energy. The larger yellow arrow indicates the direction of the highest wave energy density inflow from other objects in space. Small blue arrows depict the spherical out flowing wave. The red arrow depicts the direction of motion due to the directional imbalance in inflowing wave energy density.


Thought experiment to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/07/2017 20:10:19

Reply #69

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


Thought experiment continued

Elaborating on the nature of wave-particles: please refer again to Image 4a.

Please note that the waves depicted in 4a are “meaningful” waves that traverse the oscillating background, as opposed to oscillations that make up the background. In reply #65, I lamented that without the presence of particles and gravity, nothing would prevent the oscillations from declining in volume, right down to single points of space; the big rip and/or the heat death of the universe, or at least of the inert state of the thought experiment, at that point.


But with the introduction of particles and gravity, that fate has been avoided. The oscillating background will not reach complete energy density equalization because matter and gravity are being distributed throughout the infinite space. With the presence of wave energy, wave-particles, and the forces of gravity and wave energy density equalization, the oscillating background will continue forever, and will be refreshed here and there, now and then, by the occurrence of big bangs and expanding Big Bang arenas.


I mentioned in reply #63, that by the time we get to the “reality” of the ISU, energy density differentials that govern the speed of energy wave fronts advancing through space will have moderated, and the presence of the oscillating background is the moderating factor.


The oscillating background is present everywhere, including within the particle space. With the introduction of particles and gravity, light and gravitational waves are continually emitted by particles and objects that occupy space, and those waves are destined to perpetually traverse the “otherwise waveless” oscillating wave energy background. They are designated as the “meaningful” waves in the ISU model. When I mention that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, I am referring to light waves and gravitational waves as the source of the quantized wave action that is orchestrated by the process of quantum action.


The advance of light and gravity waves is best understood as the result of energy density equalization moderated by the density of the oscillating background.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_54_25.jpeg)


Thought experiment to be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/07/2017 17:08:09
Reply #70

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Thought experiment continued

In the ISU, particles are composed of a huge number of wave intersections like the one depicted in Images 4a and 4b, and each wave intersection produces third waves within the particle space. I refer to those wave intersections/overlaps as high energy density spots, each spot representing a quantum of wave energy:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)
You might want to try to visualize a particle’s standing wave pattern, and imagine meaningful waves approaching it from all directions; refer to one such meaningful wave as depicted in Image 9 in the last post. That image is of a small section of the spherical wave front of a gravitational wave emitted from a distant object.

To investigate a quantum at the micro level where “quantum action” is playing out, it is useful to add a new concept to the thought experiment. I call it the “freeze frame” idea, where we freeze the particle in a precise location in space, and freeze the action that is taking place within the particle’s standing wave pattern. The standing wave pattern represents the particle space, and is the physical presence of the wave-particle. It has a core where the quanta that make up the mass of the particle are gathered. The core portion is the source of the spherical gravitational waves emitted by the particle. The whole particle is best depicted as the high density core containing the quanta, and the spherical out flowing gravitational waves emitted by the core.







While we are in the freeze frame mode, assuming we are equipped with super tools for the investigation, and with heavy reliance on the spherical cow analogy to gloss over the unquantifiable details, you would be able to carry out an investigation. The investigation would involve a look inside the particle space, where we would see an intricate scene of wave intersections, overlaps, and third waves (quantum waves).


With extreme magnification and much patience, we could take an inventory of all of the spherical waves that fill the particle space. The inventory would involve the count of the number of internal expanding waves, measuring their individual volumes, and would thus include a count of the number of high energy density spots within the particle core. That count relates to the mass of the particular particle.


From this data, we calculate the average volume of space occupied by an average quantum of energy. We can ignore the stipulations about the local wave energy density of the particle, and the directional inflow and spherical out flow of wave energy, for now.


If we were armed with the information about the total energy of the particle itself, we could determine the energy value of the quantum in that environment. We equate the net wave energy carried by the waves making up the standing wave pattern, to the total energy of the particle, and divide it by the number of internal quanta; that would give us the energy of the quantum increment, for talking purposes.




Of course, we would have a units of measure issue to solve.


Thought experiment to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/07/2017 00:57:40
Reply 71

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Always Existed is as close to the Supernatural as the ISU gets
Anything that appears Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand
ISU Philosophy of Eternal Intent (link to reply #108)
Wave-particle speculation
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser set-up



We started the thread talking about a single, multiple Big Bang universe landscape, infinite in space, time, and wave energy, and we have come to talking about tiny, meaningful wave intersections that, in huge numbers, are responsible for the mass of a single particle. From infinite to infinitesimal, and all composed of wave energy in varying sized increments, traversing space filled with a foundational wave energy background of the  tiniest waves, who’s action is characterized as perpetual oscillations that connect it all together.


The model, the Infinite Spongy Universe model, has one overriding characteristic that might be beyond the capacity of the mind to fully grasp, without stepping out of the physical reality, and venturing into the philosophical contemplation of an infinite intention behind it all. I refer to the characteristic of having always existed. That is as close to the supernatural as you can get while staying within the bounds of the ISU, and without violating the overriding premise that anything supernatural has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.


For that reason, I assert that my philosophy of the universe has been derived from the physical mechanics of the infinite and eternal wave energy density universe that, not coincidentally hosts, and always has, self-aware intelligent individuals who seem intent upon contemplating the possibility of eternal intent, and for that reason I label the philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, Eternal Intent (to be discussed in reply #108 https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158)).


The wave-particle of the model has the ability to express both its wave nature and its particle nature. Here is where I would like to take that thought, as I continue the thought experiment:


Wave-Particle Speculation:


Speculation: Particles have both a wave nature which is out flowing waves (the wave portion) and a particle nature (the dense core), making them wave-particles. Individual wave-particles can display both their wave and particle nature at that same time in single particle, two slit experiments.


Evidence: In the single particle two slit experiments, there is a wave pattern that forms on the screen after many single particles are sent through the slits.


Explanation: The wave portion of the wave-particle goes through both slits, and the particle portion goes through one or the other. The wave interference pattern is caused as the out flowing wave energy from the particle core passes through both slits. The interference pattern has peaks and valleys of wave energy density which influence the path of the particle between the slits and the detector.


Individual particles fired at a single slit, over time, yield a visual that shows no wave pattern. Individual particles fired at two slits, over time, will yield a familiar visual of a wave interference pattern; like this laser light through two slits that I made myself:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_29_02.jpeg)


That is the visual evidence of the wave-particle duality which is a characteristic of all particles, and gives rise to the premise that not only particles have this wave-particle duality, but that all objects, ranging from buckyballs to neutron stars have the same duality, with shorter and shorter frequencies as you go from photons to black holes.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_05_36.png)


Setup of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al. Detector D0 is movable



To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/07/2017 23:11:37

Reply #72


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


Wave-particle duality
Delayed choice quantum eraser

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser)https://youtu.be/H6HLjpj4Nt4 (https://youtu.be/H6HLjpj4Nt4)


We’ll be getting into this experiment in some detail as the thread continues, because when the wave-particle structure hypothesized in the ISU model is applied to the action, the appearance of the interference pattern vs no interference is explained simply by the wave portion of the wave-particle going through both slits, and the particle portion at the core of the wave-particle going through one or the other, but not both slits. The implication is that the wave-particle always displays both its wave nature and its particle nature at the same time, not in superposition until observed.
 The structure, as shown here …
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)

… depicts the wave portion expanding spherically outward from the core portion, and thus able to pass through both slits in advance of the particle passing through one randomly determined slit.


This experiment revolves around several important aspects of quantum mechanics, including entanglement, superposition, the collapse of the wave function, faster than light action, and non-locality. I’ll address the implications that the ISU wave-particle structure has on an ISU Interpretation of quantum mechanics being considered.


If you can accept the idea that the wave-particle is as it is depicted in the ISU, or just want to examine the experiment in detail, then read the Wiki on the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, which is the first link above, and watch the YouTube video on the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment which is the second link above. Then come back to read the posts that I plan to follow up with to make the case of my interpretation of QM. 


Note that the aspect of the Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure experiment that is said to be paradoxical is mentioned in the first three paragraphs of the Wiki (please read the following):




Delayed choice quantum eraser

A delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S. P. Kulik, Y. H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully,[1] and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. The experiment was designed to investigate peculiar consequences of the well-known double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics, as well as the consequences of quantum entanglement.


The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment investigates a paradox (my bold). If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by a single path to the detector, then "common sense" (which Wheeler and others challenge) says it must have entered the double-slit device as a particle. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by two indistinguishable paths, then it must have entered the double-slit device as a wave. If the experimental apparatus is changed while the photon is in mid‑flight, then the photon should reverse its original "decision" as to whether to be a wave or a particle. Wheeler pointed out that when these assumptions are applied to a device of interstellar dimensions, a last-minute decision made on Earth on how to observe a photon could alter a decision made millions or even billions of years ago.


While delayed choice experiments have confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past, this requires a non-standard view of quantum mechanics. If a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states", i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. This is the standard view, and recent experiments have supported it.[clarification needed][2][3]

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/07/2017 17:23:17
Reply #73

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Wave-particle
Double slit
Delayed choice quantum eraser continued

In the third paragraph of the delay choice quantum erasure link quoted above it says: “If a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states", i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox.”


In the ISU, a particle is a wave-particle, as depicted in the image in the last post, at all times, and therefore, it too can be observed as a wave or a particle depending on the apparatus. However, technically it is never in a “superposition of states” as defined in quantum mechanics; it is both states at all times, not a third combined state, and in the delayed choice quantum erasure experiments, a single particle displays both its particle portion, and its wave portion each time a individual particle is sent through. The ISU wave-particle supports a local reality in place of non-locality. In that regard, I’m with him! (Him being the Albert, the one who calls non-locality “spooky action at a distance” (open to discussion of that topic).


FYI, a link to a Wiki on QM:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics)


And here is a YouTube video on the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment that does a good job of addressing the weirdness of QM and some of the interpretations, for further discussion:
https://youtu.be/8ORLN_KwAgs (https://youtu.be/8ORLN_KwAgs)


Taking a look at wave-particle duality from the alternative view that the wave-particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, not the two traits in superposition:


In this speculation, photons and other particles are described as wave-particles that can display both their wave and their particle nature at the same time.
Another look at ISU Thought Experiment Image:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)


I am characterizing the photon wave-particle to have the particle portion (dense wave energy core) at the center of the particle space, surrounded by the wave portion which is a spherically out flow of wave energy form the dense core. This particle structure applies to particles that cause a wave interference pattern in single particle two slit experiments, including the delayed choice quantum erasure experiments like:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser)


This particular particle structure, if the speculation is true, makes understanding what is going on in the single particle two slit experiment a simple matter of the wave portion going through both slits, and interfering with the path of the core portion which goes through one or the other of the two slits. Some may think I am talking pilot wave theory, but I'm not (open for discussion).


It means that in the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment, there will always be an interference pattern developed on the detector after multiple single particles are sent through, if there is a path to that detector from both slits, as is the case with D1 and D2 in this image of the Kim et al setup:





(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_05_36.png)
The explanation of the experiment points out the there is always an interference pattern at D1 and D2, but never at D3 and D4. Isn't the reason for that simple, if the photon is a wave-particle, i.e., a wave and a particle at the same time, as I speculate?


Here's the Kim et al team comment:
If an idler photon is recorded at detector D3, it can only have come from slit B.
If an idler photon is recorded at detector D4, it can only have come from slit A.
If an idler photon is detected at detector D1 or D2, it might have come from slit A or slit B.


Wouldn't you always get an interference pattern on the screen if the particle portion of the wave-particle went through either A or B, but the wave portion of the wave particle went through both A and B? You would; the wave going through both slits creates an interference pattern, and the core portion of the wave-particle randomly passing through one slit is influenced by the interference that it encounters between the slits and the detection screen.


In the Kim et al. setup, that is exactly what the red and the blue paths show; if you have a red and blue path to the detector, you get interference on the screen pattern because you have wave energy reaching both D1 and D2 from each slit. You get no interference on D3 and D4 because those detectors never get wave energy from both slits, they always only get the wave energy that comes through the same slit as the particle comes through.


The wave-particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, and that explains how a single particle two slit experiment can produce the wave interference pattern on the detector screen.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/07/2017 18:44:39
Reply #74

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Double-slit experiment
Wheeler delayed choice experiment
Einstein proclaims "what nonsense"


You can see that this experiment has significantly different implications, depending on the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that are invoked. Wheeler’s initial thought experiment, see link below, talked of whether or not light “senses the experimental apparatus in the double-slit experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) it will travel through and adjusts its behavior to fit by assuming the appropriate determinate state for it, or whether light remains in an indeterminate state, neither wave nor particle.”



His reference to photons from distant galaxies being entangled and how an observation from Earth could require the decision as to whether it expresses its particle or wave nature to be made retroactively, unless you view the two states to be in superposition until observed. It makes the case for entanglement and superposition, as discussed in the various interpretations used, and conclusions made.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment)


Wiki quote:
Experimental details
Edit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment&action=edit&section=6)
John Wheeler's original discussion of the possibility of a delayed choice quantum appeared in an essay entitled "Law Without Law," which was published in a book he and Wojciech Hubert Zurek edited called Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp 182–213. He introduced his remarks by reprising the argument between Albert Einstein, who wanted a comprehensible reality, and Niels Bohr, who thought that Einstein's concept of reality was too restricted. Wheeler indicates that Einstein and Bohr explored the consequences of the laboratory experiment that will be discussed below, one in which light can find its way from one corner of a rectangular array of semi-silvered and fully silvered mirrors to the other corner, and then can be made to reveal itself not only as having gone half way around the perimeter by a single path and then exited, but also as having gone both ways around the perimeter and then to have "made a choice" as to whether to exit by one port or the other. Not only does this result hold for beams of light, but also for single photons of light.

Wheeler remarked:

The experiment in the form an interferometer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometer), discussed by Einstein and Bohr, could theoretically be used to investigate whether a photon sometimes sets off along a single path, always follows two paths but sometimes only makes use of one, or whether something else would turn up. However, it was easier to say, "We will, during random runs of the experiment, insert the second half-silvered mirror just before the photon is timed to get there," than it was to figure out a way to make such a rapid substitution. The speed of light is just too fast to permit a mechanical device to do this job, at least within the confines of a laboratory. Much ingenuity was needed to get around this problem.

After several supporting experiments were published, Jacques et al. claimed that an experiment of theirs follows fully the original scheme proposed by Wheeler.[15][16] Their complicated experiment is based on the Mach-Zender interferometer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach-Zender_interferometer), involving a triggered diamond N-V colour centre photon generator, polarization, and an electro-optical modulator acting as a switchable beam splitter. Measuring in a closed configuration showed interference, while measuring in an open configuration allowed the path of the particle to be determined, which made interference impossible.

In such experiments, Einstein originally argued, it is unreasonable for a single photon to travel simultaneously two routes. Remove the half-silvered mirror at the [upper right], and one will find that the one counter goes off, or the other. Thus the photon has traveled only one route. It travels only one route. but it travels both routes: it travels both routes, but it travels only one route. What nonsense! How obvious it is that quantum theory is inconsistent!”


Conclusions
Edit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment&action=edit&section=11)


Ma, Zeilinger, et al. have summarized what can be known as a result of experiments that have arisen from Wheeler's proposals. They say:

Any explanation of what goes on in a specific individual observation of one photon has to take into account the whole experimental apparatus of the complete quantum state consisting of both photons, and it can only make sense after all information concerning complementary variables has been recorded. Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely.[25]



End of Wiki quote.



Note that the spherical structure of an ISU wave-particle, regardless of the direction of relative motion, has the spherical out flowing “gravitational” wave energy portion always in advance of the high energy density core portion. That key feature of the structure allows the wave to pass through both slits in advance of the core portion, and interfere with itself.



The conclusion can now be drawn that the entanglement and superposition of the wave and particle states creating a third “combined” state, is not necessary to explain the formation of the wave interference pattern in the unique set up where individual particles are sent through the apparatus. Nor is it necessary to conclude that the “delayed choice” feature of the apparatus in any way causes an action at a distance, or needs to cause a choice of any kind on the part of the wave-particle.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/07/2017 13:19:34
Reply #75

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

ISU supports local reality
Around the world quantum clocks and quantum gravity
High energy density spots
Inflowing and outflowing gravitational wave energy components

Let’s move on to the ISU idea of a solution for quantum gravity:


We have reached the point where the ISU wave-particle description has been developed and applied to the delayed choice quantum erasure experiments, and the model supports local reality as an alternative to superposition. Now comes the part about quantum gravity, which offers the ISU explanation for the observed around-the-world atomic clock experiments:


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4044/166 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4044/166) Predicted


Abstract
During October 1971, four cesium beam atomic clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicts that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40 ± 23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip, and should have gained 275 ± 21 nanoseconds during the westward trip. The observed time differences are presented in the report that follows this one.


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4044/168 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4044/168) Observed


Abstract
Four cesium beam clocks flown around the world on commercial jet flights during October 1971, once eastward and once westward, recorded directionally dependent time differences which are in good agreement with predictions of conventional relativity theory. Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59 ± 10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273 ± 7 nanoseconds during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks.


Her is a Wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment)


Note: This clock issue also comes with a reminder of my earlier remark that the ISU is not a spacetime model, even though the Einstein Field Equations work very nicely to quantify the effect of gravity, and even though the ISU model includes a similar phenomenon to Wheeler’s spacetime foam, linked in reply #57. It is just that the spacetime concept as a whole doesn’t completely fit the grand scale of a steady state, multiple Big Bang arena landscape. However, spacetime curvature does equate nicely to the ISU concept of wave energy density, and wave energy density is the ISU counterpart to the curvature of spacetime within the individual expanding Big Bang arenas of the multiple Big Bang landscape of the greater universe.


Quantum Gravity: The wave-particle image that was applied in the delayed choice experiments to hypothesize that superposition of the wave and particle states wasn't a necessary condition to explain the experimental results, is also the basis of the following images that I want to use to describe the ISU version of quantum gravity.


The wave-particle structure that we examined using the freeze frame concept in reply #71 established the premise that a standing wave particle is composed of wave energy convergences within a standing wave pattern. Each convergence exists only momentarily as the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the standing wave pattern play out in the particle’s space. They form and disburse and reform as governed by the process of quantum action within and around the particle-space (standing wave pattern). In this image, the shaded sphere in the center is one momentary high energy density spot among the perhaps hundreds of millions, or billions of such spots depicted in the following wave-particle images as the “high density" spots:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)


The following images take a first look at the ISU solution to quantum gravity and will be the topic of the following posts to tie in wave-particles, atomic clock experimental results, and quantum gravity.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_42_23.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg)

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/07/2017 15:52:47
Reply #76

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Atomic clocks
The rate that clocks measure the of time
Gravitational wave energy density differentials
Added quanta = increased mass

In the ISU, the rate that clocks measure the passing of time is governed by the local gravitational wave energy density environment of the clock, which is thought to have a causal relationship to time dilation in Relativity. Two atomic clocks at rest in the same local environment will measure time to be passing at the same rate. If one clock moves relative to the rest position, the rate that the moving clock measures the passing of time will be slower than the rate that the rest clock measures the passing of time, just like in General Relativity. Though the effect is the same in the ISU, the ISU explanation uses physical mechanics of how acceleration increases the gravitational wave energy density of the local environment of the moving clock. This is the same effect mentioned in regard to an increase in the number of quanta within an accelerated particle or object, mentioned in reply #69, and to which Image 9 of the thought experiment applies.


The premise is that the added number of quanta increases the mass of the particle, and that increases the wave energy density within the particle space, and consequently slows the process of quantum action that is taking place within the particle’s standing wave pattern. The accelerated, more massive particle is said to function slower relative to a rest particle.


How does that relate to the difference in the time that is recorded to have passed between an atomic clock onboard a westward traveling plane, vs the amount of time recorded to have passed by an identical atomic clock on an eastward traveling plane, when both are compared the the amount of time that has passed on a clock at a stationary location on the surface of the earth?


Physically, relative to the sun and moon, the surface of the earth travels west to east. A stationary clock on the ground is also moving west to east, which slows the clock by the same rate, whether the clock on the plane is traveling westward or eastward; the stationary clock runs slow relative to a rest position.


A moving clock on a plane, traveling westward, is traveling into the setting sun and moon, which speeds up the clock when compared to a moving clock on a plane, traveling eastward into the rising sun and moon.


The relative motion of the eastward traveling clock causes it to encounter higher gravitational wave energy density as it travels into the outflowing gravitational wave energy component of the sun and moon, and thus the eastward traveling clock slows down relative to the westward traveling clock. The relative motion of the westward traveling clock traveling away from the rising sun and moon, i.e., into the setting sun and moon, has the opposite effect, and that clock runs faster, relative to the eastward bound clock, because, by comparison, it is operating in a lower wave energy density environment than the eastward bound clock.


Thus the ISU, a quantum gravitational wave energy density model, has a mechanical explanation for the clock speed phenomena, i.e., the gravitational wave energy density emitted into surrounding space by massive objects affects the quantum composition of an accelerated particle or object. Granted it is a conclusion based on the net effect of the concept where there are various massive bodies in relative motion in the local vicinity of space.


The effects of the relative airplane motion are tiny, but at relativistic velocities the affect on the density of the particles making up the clock are remarkable as depicted in this relativistic image:


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_20_01.jpeg)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/07/2017 14:24:13
Reply #77

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Comparing GR curvature and ISU gravitational wave energy density
Wave energy density profile of space
Particle drawing depicting quantum gravity


General Relativity spacetime promotes the following:
Matter tells space how to curve.
Curved space tells matter how to move.
Everything moves in the straightest possible line in space-time.


ISU gravity wave mechanics support the following:
Matter emits gravitational waves.
Gravitational waves tell matter how to move.
Everything moves in curved paths as the gravitational wave energy density profile in space constantly changes.


Edit 6/28/2018 re. Reply #319:
General Relativity spacetime promotes the following:
Matter tells space how to curve.
Curved space tells matter how to move.
Everything moves in the straightest possible line in space-time.


ISU gravity wave mechanics support the following:
Matter emits gravitational waves into the wave energy density profile of space.
The Gravitational Wave Energy Density Profile of Space tells matter how to move.
Everything moves in curved paths as the gravitational wave energy density profile in space constantly changes.
[End of edit]

I used the following image earlier to depict a standing wave particle, but it also serves as a descriptive image in regard to quantum gravity:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_22_44.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_22_44.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_22_44.jpeg)

This is called a four quanta particle for the simplicity it offers. There are small, yellow, inward pointing arrows, and one large, yellow, inward pointing arrow. They represent the inflowing gravitational wave energy density emitted from objects in the surrounding space. The large yellow arrow represents the net highest directional inflow of the gravitational wave energy component of the particle’s standing wave pattern.


The four quanta are grouped in the center, within the black circle which represents the boundary of the core portion of the wave-particle. (In reality, a single core portion of a stable wave-particle will be composed of millions or billions of the high energy density spots that momentarily form and disburse within the particle space.)


Outside and overlapping with the core boundary are four green spheres accompanied by blue arrows. The spheres represent the spherically out flowing wave energy from each quanta, and the blue arrows represent the combined spherically out flowing wave energy component from the wave-particle.


All of the black swirls surrounding the wave particle represent the wave energy density of the local space, i.e., the local remnants of spherical gravitational waves emitted by other particles and objects in surrounding space.


The red arrow represents the direction of motion of the wave particle as it refreshes the contained wave energy within the standing wave pattern to balance for the spherically out flowing wave energy component. The big yellow arrow tells us the direction from which the standing quanta will get most of the energy to refresh their presence, because that is the direction of the highest amount of readily available inflowing gravitational wave energy. Thus the wave-particle moves in that direction.


That is quantum gravity in the ISU model.


The ISU is not a spacetime model, it is a gravitational wave energy density model, where instead of  the presence of matter curving spacetime, the presence of matter increases the local wave energy density by emitting gravitational waves into space that travel spherically at the speed of light and gravity away from the emitting object. The gravitational “field” is composed of that out flowing wave energy component of all particles and objects in space.


The local space has a gravitational wave energy profile laid down by all of the matter in surrounding space, and it is that local profile that governs the path that objects take through space as the the process of quantum action takes place.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/07/2017 21:39:48
Reply #78

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Sphere/sphere overlap
ISU Quantum Equation

I view my speculations as quite simple, mathematically. My view is that at the heart of it, we have spherical energy waves expanding all over the place, they intersect and overlap, the energy in the overlap becomes sufficient to equal a new quantum in the local environment, the overlap becomes an expanding quantum wave of energy that goes on to intersect and overlap. (I like to say "spherically" in the spirit of the famous story of the "spherical cow" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow) ).


Here is an image and an accompanying simple equation for calculating the point in the sphere/sphere overlap when a new spherical quantum wave emerges out of the convergences of two “parent” quanta:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_19_32.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_19_32.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)

0f9183572665995d5c31e15e15ed1d46.gif
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/07/2017 01:24:43
Reply #79


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


Wagner (wild arse guess not easily refuted)
Wagner on how many ISU quanta in proton and electron at rest





From what we know about the proton in collisions:

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_07_17_12_57_30.jpeg)


… they display amazing detail at high energies. They are often described at rest though, for discussion purposes, and so the proton and the electron in this post are at rest. From what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action, we can derive a ball park figure (Wagner=wild arse guess not easily refuted) of the number of quanta within the proton  and electron at rest.

Divide the energy of a proton at rest by the number of quanta in the proton, and you derive the energy value of one quantum within the standing wave pattern that represents the "at rest" presence of the particle in my model.

The speculation includes that there is a quantum of energy in each high energy density spot within the particle space of a wave-particle, and all of the particle space is filled with quanta. The premise discussed is that the wave-particle (all particles are wave-particles in the model) is composed of energy in quantum increments.

We estimate the number of quanta contained in a proton at rest, and then, given the defined energy of a proton at rest in some standard unit, an estimate of the energy of a quantum in the model that equates to the quanta making up the contained energy of a proton could be derived.

I am using the ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quanta in the proton to the number of quanta in the electron, which gives me a basis for a calculation.

In addition, I am supposing that the number of quanta in an electron is equal to the number of quanta at the surface of the proton, based on some logic about the interactions between electrons and protons in an atom. For this exercise it serves as a mathematical relationship between the energy of the proton and the electron, to allow us to do the calculations.

Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836, given the assumption above.

Therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quanta across that diameter within the standing wave pattern of the proton wave-particle.

4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere
4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere
pi = 3.14159265

Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356
Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517

Those serve is useable numbers for talking purposes in my model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/07/2017 02:53:30
Reply #80

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

The continuum of action is energy to matter to energy to matter, ad infinitum, at each end of the scale
A grand sameness



Follow up comments on posts 78 & 79


The simple equation in reply #78, and the simple math in reply #79 have no standing in mainstream physics, but their significance in the ISU is to put some scale to the speculations about quantization. The action processes, quantum action and arena action, represent the mechanics of quantization going on at both ends of the size spectrum. The estimate of the number of the quantum increments within the core portion of a single electron or proton wave-particle puts some perspective on the meaning of near infinitesimal.


In addition, in the ISU, big bangs are quantized too. Yes, the quantized energy in the ISU is a feature at both the quantum level, where wave-particles are composed of energy in quantum increments, and at the Big Bang arena level, where each Big Crunch contains a macro level quantum of energy in the landscape of the greater universe.


For perspective on scale, at the macro level, single Big Bang events can be equated, in regard to the mechanics of the action processes, to the momentary high energy density spots within the wave-particle’s standing wave pattern; on scale we have infinite and infinitesimal.


During the action processes, the galactic matter and energy contained in the arena/arena convergence brings with it the main force of the event, gravity, while at the quantum level, the energy contained in the wave/wave energy convergence brings with it the energy that forms the high energy density spot that then expands under the force of energy density equalization. A spot expands, and a crunch collapses, thus the continuum of action is energy to matter to energy to matter, ad infinitum, at each end of the scale. It is a perpetual balancing act as the two main forces, quantum gravity and energy density equalization play out.


Thus in the ISU, there is a grand “sameness” going on simultaneously, at both ends of the spectrum.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/07/2017 15:03:31
Reply #81


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


NakedScientists Image Gallery


Note: You may notice that throughout the thread, many image links are broken. Photobucket changed policy and with the iPad app I'm using, they no longer host free third party images. I went to sign up for the paid hosting service to restore the links and images, and their iPad app is not presently available; being revised for the latest IOS software change. I am doing a work around using NakedScientists Science Image Gallery, and restoring the images, but it has to be done one-by-one, and is taking some time.


Note 2: Thanks to NakedScientists Science Image Gallery linking feature, I was able to replace the Photobucket broken links with local links to the gallery.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/07/2017 18:22:45
Reply #82

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Observable portion of the Universe
Clues to the past
CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation)
ISU Primary Scenario
Hemispherical asymmetry (or dipole anisotropy),
An interesting cold spot



All that we can view of our own local surroundings on the arena scale, with our best optical and radio  telescopes, is a portion of our own expanding Big bang arena. However, in those observations there are clues available to us about the past; about the history of our arena and its “parent arenas”. By that I mean the there is some history of the preconditions to our own Big Bang imprinted in the temperature map of the cosmic micro wave background radiation.


Take the ISU primary scenario:


Two or more expanding Big Bang arenas expanded until they intersected and overlapped, as depicted in the simple sphere/sphere image that I have been using. That version of the image states that it could be Big Bang arenas overlapping, or quantum waves within the wave-particle standing wave pattern. The duality of scale in the ISU is consistent with the characteristic called “sameness” between the mechanics at the two levels, the micro and the macro scale.


Now, referring to the macro scenario of Big Bang arena action, here is a heat map of the observable universe. The WMAP and Planck sky surveys reveal a great deal of information:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_6_10_40.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_6_10_40.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_6_10_40.png)

As a result, in the ISU model, the greater universe is characterized by a Cosmic Microwave Background that exists at slightly varying temperatures (wave energy density profiles), across the infinite landscape. In and around each Big Bang event that occurs in the landscape, there is a local temperature profile related to the event where two or more “parent”arenas converge and produce a third wave. The third wave, according to the scenario, in turn results in a gravitationally induced Big Crunch. In the ISU scenario, the crunch reaches nature’s limit of wave energy density, and collapses/bangs, into a new expanding Big Bang arena. The surrounding CMBR is therefore composed of the CMBR that is present within the two parent arenas, which is a factor of the extent of expansion experience by the two parents, plus the radiation of our own Big Bang event imprinted on the background as it is incorporated into our arena as a result of our expansion.


Therefore, our big bang arena has its own CMB, composed of the pre-existing background in the surrounding space, which is individualized by the specific preconditions present; the individual backgrounds of our parent arenas. Those backgrounds would be expected to vary based on their relative ages when they converged, based on an original local temperature of the big bangs, which is considered essentially the same for one bang to another, and the cooling effect of expansion.


Our CMB is characterized by some interesting anomalies related to our specific history. There is the wide angle temperature difference, called hemispherical asymmetry or dipole anisotropy, and there is also an interesting cold spot.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_08_17_2_27_06.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_08_17_2_27_06.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_08_17_2_27_06.jpeg)


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/07/2017 20:23:32

Reply #83


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


CMB Wide Angle Temperature Variance
Peculiar Motion of our galaxy

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg)

When you look at the temperatures of the CMBR background on angles wider than 30 degrees, a noticeable asymmetry in the background temperatures emerges. The asymmetry is characterized by a meaningful directional difference in both the quadrupole and dipole angles of measurement. It means that if the background is supposed to have an origin casually connected solely to one single Big Bang, it doesn’t seem to make sense.


The peculiar motion of our galaxy is explained by the current cosmology as “peculiar velocity or motion” relative to the Hubble flow, which can also be referred to as relative to the CMBR rest frame.


Compare the explanation of peculiar motion of around 1000 km per second, or around 2,160,000 mph calculated in the following Wiki, to the ISU explanation of our own arena’s background imprinted with the history of parent arenas.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity)

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_07_17_8_20_01.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_07_17_8_20_01.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_07_17_8_20_01.png)
A map of galaxy supercluster peculiar motion


Can the hemispherical asymmetry be explained by the peculiar motion of our local group of galaxies relative to the CMB rest frame, and driven by some great attractor as the current physical Cosmological model suggests? Is there some other explanation not yet determined, like errors in masking out stars, and galaxies, and even dust clouds? Understanding the CMB data is one of the interesting fields of investigation going on today in the Cosmological community. Future mapping of the CMB with more accurate instruments and better masking techniques will certainly be forthcoming.

Also yet to be explained, is the cosmic cold spot that appears in both the WMAP and Planck CMB sky surveys. Is it some dark flow that signifies a close connection with some other cosmic structure? Is it an out flowing plasma jet, typical of some versions of a black hole, but on a massively larger scale? Or Is it the start of our own arena overlap that will lead to a new Big Bang arena, as the ISU model speculates?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/08/2017 13:11:39

Reply #84

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Much is "as yet" unknown
Corridors of continuity
CMB variations

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_02_08_17_12_58_34.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_02_08_17_12_58_34.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2Fforum%2Fgallery%2F43933_02_08_17_12_58_34.jpeg&hash=a7cd6980130b492f544025d8ce389d22)

There are many questions, and though the ISU model is designed to be internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, there is much that is “as yet” unknown.


Consider that the multiple big bang landscape is the reality, and think about the cosmic microwave background that our arena is expanding into. It is coming from all directions in every big bang arena, and it fills all space in the “corridors of continuity” between new expanding arenas as well. It would have a lot to tell about the past arena action that has taken place, and especially most recently in our own vicinity.


If so, the background temperature differences discovered in our CMB mapping, reveals the result of an eternal history of arena action playing out across the landscape of the greater universe. More locally, it is what would be expected in the vicinity of two Big Bang arenas converging, and merging to form a new Big Crunch. CMB variations like the wide angle asymmetry in our own arena would reveal the histories of our individual parent arenas, imprinted on our arena as it expands into the space of our parent arenas; It would have the anomalies of asymmetry, and would also reveal the location of an impending arena convergence; the cold spot.


The cold spot would appear as notice of interaction between our expanding arena and an adjacent arena; the overlap of two arenas foretelling the future; the location of  the first “child” of our own arena. Get ready to pass out the cigars, lol.











Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/08/2017 17:50:52
Reply #85

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Dark Energy
Dark Energy Survey
Temperatures at the bang, in our arena, and in our parent arenas

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_04_08_17_6_51_31.png)



The current dark energy survey is out! I find it readable, and though much more technical than I claim to fully grasp, it will make for some good reading.  More to the point of the thread, and to the ISU model, there are some opportunities to address three Cosmological observations that are “as yet” unexplained by the CDM model.


https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/des-year-1-cosmology-results-papers/ (https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/des-year-1-cosmology-results-papers/)

Dark Energy Survey

“This page serves as the portal for a series of 10 papers on and in support of the DES cosmology results from the first year (Y1) of the survey, which are being released on Aug. 3, 2017. For each paper, clicking on “Link” provides a pdf of the paper. At 5 pm Central Daylight Time on Thurs., Aug. 3, 2017, Daniel Gruen will deliver a talk on these results at the APS Division of Particles & Fields meeting at Fermilab, which will be streamed live here (http://vms.fnal.gov/asset/livevideo)
. These papers will appear on the public arXiv site (http://arxiv.org/) in the next few days, after which the papers here will be transferred to the DES Publications page (https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/news-and-results/publications/).”


The Introduction of the first paper:

I. INTRODUCTION
“The discovery of cosmic acceleration [1, 2] established the Cosmological Constant (⇤) [3] + Cold Dark Matter (⇤CDM) model as the standard cosmological paradigm that explains a wide variety of phenomena, from the origin and evolution of large-scale structure to the current epoch of accelerated expansion [4, 5]. The successes of ⇤CDM, however, must be balanced by its apparent implausibility: (my bold)three new entities beyond the Standard Model of particle physics — one that drove an early epoch of inflation; another that serves as dark matter; and a third that is driving the current epoch of acceleration — are required, none of them easily connected to the rest of physics [6]. Ongoing and planned cosmic surveys are designed to test ⇤CDM and more generally to shed light on the mechanism driving the current epoch of acceleration, be it the vacuum energy associated with the cosmological constant, another form of dark energy, a modification of General Relativity, or something more drastic.

The Dark Energy Survey (DES1, [7]) is an on-going, five- year survey that, when completed, will map 300 million galaxies and tens of thousands of galaxy clusters in five filters (grizY ) over 5000 deg2, in addition to discovering several thousand type Ia supernovae in a 27 deg2 time-domain survey. DES will use several cosmological probes to test ⇤CDM; galaxy clustering and weak gravitational lensing are two of the most powerful. Jointly, these complementary probes sample the underlying matter density field through the galaxy population and the distortion of light due to gravitational lensing. In this paper, we use data on this combination from the first year (Y1) of DES to constrain ⇤CDM and its simplest extension— wCDM, having a free parameter for the dark energy equation of state.”
[end of quote]

As noted in the Survey Introduction, in CDM, there are (quote) “three new entities beyond the Standard Model of particle physics — one that drove an early epoch of inflation; another that serves as dark matter; and a third that is driving the current epoch of acceleration — are required, none of them easily connected to the rest of physics [6].”(/quote)

I address all three in the ISU model, and will start here with the ISU speculation about the early epoch of inflation:

Note that in the ISU, the two main forces are quantum gravity, and energy density equalization, both discussed earlier.

In the ISU, the epoch that equates to the early inflation in CDM, is caused by the nature of the collapse/bounce of the preceding Big Bang (every Big Bang for that matter), and by the extreme energy density differential between the high density hot energy ball at the center of collapse, and the very low wave energy density of the surrounding space. Initial expansion is initiated by the “bounce”, which triggers rapid energy density equalization between the hot ball of wave energy, and the cold surrounding CMB that occupied the space of our mature “parent” Big Bang arenas.

We can put some temperatures to this differential for talking purposes:

Google, “how hot was the Big Bang energy ball?” And, “how hot is the current CMB of our observable universe?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7245121/Hottest-temperature-ever-helps-explain-Big-Bang.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7245121/Hottest-temperature-ever-helps-explain-Big-Bang.html)

“Scientists have created the hottest temperature ever in the lab – four trillion degrees Celsius – 250,000 times hotter than the Sun and close to the temperature generated at the creation of the universe.”

So let’s use four trillion degrees Celsius as the very earliest temperature for talking purposes.

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html (https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html)

The current average temperature of the CMB is ~2.725 degrees Kelvin.

“Today, the CMB radiation is very cold, only 2.725° above absolute zero (https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html#Kelvin), thus this radiation shines primarily in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html#EMS), and is invisible to the naked eye. However, it fills the universe and can be detected everywhere we look. In fact, if we could see microwaves, the entire sky would glow with a brightness that was astonishingly uniform in every direction. The picture at left shows a false color depiction of the temperature (brightness) of the CMB over the full sky (projected onto an oval, similar to a map of the Earth). The temperature is uniform to better than one part in a thousand! This uniformity is one compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried to devise alternative explanations for the source of this radiation, but none have succeeded.”

Kelvin
One Kelvin degree is equivalent to one Celsius degree. The difference between the two temperature scales: All motion within an atom ceases at zero Kelvin (K) -- this point is called absolute zero. Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius, which is approximately 273.16K.

So there we have it. The temperature differential I refer to is in a range, at the high end, 4 trillion degrees Celsius in the first instant after the Big Bang, and the background of our parent mature arenas, which was hypothetically in a similar range as the observed CMB in our local arena, which has cooled to about 2.7 Kelvin through today.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/08/2017 17:01:32
Reply #86

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


Depiction of a large patch of the ISU landscape
Arena action
Dark Energy
The Cold Spot
Accelerating expansion, layered expansion
Standard candles




https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)

My depiction of a large patch of the landscape of the greater universe as Big Bang arena action plays out. The frequency of big bangs occurring across the landscape is a function of the overall average wave energy density of the greater universe, which governs the time and distance between Big Bang events, on an average.


In the ISU, the most extreme energy density differential possible in nature is the driver of the initial expansion of our Big Bang arena energy wave, back out into the very same space that was occupied by our “parent” arenas. That is the ISU equivalent to the Inflationary Epoch that is attached to the current standard view of cosmology.


In the ISU, arenas never die, they just fade away. But our parent arenas have left their impression on the temperature profile of our arena’s cosmic microwave background, which is most evident in the hemispherical asymmetry mentioned in recent posts. That asymmetry supports the ISU scenario of the preconditions to Big Bang events, being the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding Big Bang arenas.


The ISU Model Takes a Position on Dark Energy


Per the last post, for talking purposes, our arena has cooled down from four trillion degrees to 2.7º, and that temperature is presumably continuing to decline toward some natural limit above absolute zero, as expansion plays out. It will never reach absolute zero of course, because in the ISU, there is a positive average temperature to the greater universe . So just wait long enough and the temperature of our arena will begin to be affected as it expands into the path of adjacent expanding arenas.


The first affect of such an approach will be a meaningful cold spot in our CMB profile as the reach of gravity becomes evident, and we see such an effect in the cold spot in the current sky survey data. But as parent arenas expand into the same space, things will heat up. That is where the initial outreach of the gravitational force shifts from the mutual pulling that causes the cold spot, and becomes an actual “hand to hand” encounter; a mixing and merging of galactic material contributed by the parent arenas. There will be a swirling rendezvous around the center of gravity in the overlap space, where the beginnings of a new Big Crunch will begin to take shape.


In close quarters, gravity is stronger than expansion momentum, and as distance decreases, the advantage shifts to gravity. In the ISU, arenas will only expand until that expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with adjacent expanding arenas. Then the crunch forms, reaches critical capacity, and collapse/bangs into a new expanding arena.


Is our local Big Bang arena expanding at an accelerating rate? There are arguments for and against, but we know for sure that the catalog of 1a supernovas, a marker used to determine the rate of expansion, is growing at an accelerating rate. As a result of the recent data from the Dark Energy Survey, the discovery and cataloging of new standard candles is expected to grow exponentially over the next five or ten years as the DES completes the full sky survey, and as the data is catalogued, papers will be written, peer reviewed, and a consensus about accelerating expansion will emerge.


If the reality is that the 1a SN data convincingly demonstrates accelerating expansion, then the average wave energy density of the landscape of the greater universe has to be lower than if there is no acceleration. The good news is that the expansion of our local arena is going to play itself out; it will resolve into mergers with adjacent expanding arenas, and new Big Crunches and big bangs will begin to occur at arena fringes along the corridors of continuity. (Just a note, the corridors of continuity are places far removed from any impending Big Bang events, and are places where it would be possible for an extremely advanced life form to continue to exist, or to migrate to in order to survive an impending arena merger.)


In the ISU, it is a question of the overall energy density of the greater universe, not of it the greater universe is expanding or contracting; it is steady state and doing neither. The average density of the greater universe simply determines the average length of time and distance between the occurrences of big bangs across the landscape, and how long it takes them to play out.


If a local arena proves to be expanding at an accelerating rate, it is only because layered expansion as the energy density of the space it is expanding into itself continues to decline, and that is a function of the extent of the continued expansion of the parent arenas, and the grandparent arenas. Their continued expansion would have the affect of lowering the energy density of the space into which the local arena is expanding. The rate of acceleration would level, and disappear, as the averages of time and distance come into affect. Dark Energy would no longer appear to be occurring, and would thus prove to have been caused by the local space approaching, but not yet reaching the lower limit of energy density of the greater universe.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/08/2017 13:05:57
Reply #87

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


Dark Matter

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_7_03_44.jpeg)

As mentioned in Reply #85, in the Dark Energy Survey Introduction, in CDM, there are three aspects outside of the Standard Model of particle physics, 1) an early epoch of inflation, which was addressed from the ISU perspective in post #85 and #86, 2) another that serves as dark matter, to be addressed in this post, and 3) dark energy driving the current epoch of acceleration, discussed from the ISU perspective in Reply #86. All are observed and explanations are required, none of them easily connected to the rest of physics, as mentioned in the Introduction of the ten papers included in the Dark Energy Survey.


Dark matter in the universe, from the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) perspective, is the remnant cold dead galactic matter from a perpetual history of Big Bang arena action across the landscape of the greater universe. When two or more expanding Big Bang arenas overlap, a large portion of the galactic material and energy from the parent arenas gets incorporated into the accumulating Big Crunch, which fuels the next big collapse/bang event in that location. However, up to half of the galactic material escapes the local crunch and its expansion momentum carries it out into the corridors of continuity as the remainder of the parent arenas continue to expand. It will either stray into some approaching Big Bang arena, to be caught up in a future Big Crunch, or it will cool its heels in the corridor until its future is finally determined.


Every expanding Big Bang arena intrudes into those corridors as they expand, and there are plenty of remnants that get incorporated in to each new arena. Not only that, but consider the in-swirling rendezvous of galactic material that forms the new Big Crunch, contributed by the parent arenas. When the collapse/bang occurs, that accreting material is in the path of the initial rapid expansion of the trillion degree energy ball, and it is negated to the lowest order of cosmic dust. In the ISU, those remnants from the corridors of continuity, and the cosmic dust negated from the accretion disk, are the source of the huge amount of  “dark matter” lurking around our galaxies, retarding their separation momentum, influencing their shapes, and taking part in their individual evolution.


Also see reply #96, where additional pertinent discussion about dark matter in the ISU is addressed.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/08/2017 18:38:14
Reply #88

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Explanatory note
Proton Spin
Proton Spin Crisis
Quarks spin too

Explanatory note:
The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model of the cosmology of the universe is not presented as known science or even as scientific theory (it is full of both known science and speculations about “as yet” unknown science). As explained near the end of reply #17, and I quote:


"Let me elaborate on that methodology by pointing out that there is known science and "as yet" unknown science. I incorporate all known science into the ISU if it is based on observations and generally accepted explanations that are consistent from theory to theory, which, I think, includes most of known physics in general, and much of the theoretical physics that is generally accepted. …


However, the "as yet" unknown portion of physics and cosmology is what makes all of the models incomplete. My approach is to apply the "reasonable and responsible" methodology to the gaps, and speculate about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved for many years, through several major false starts that have taken me back to the drawing board. I anxiously and readily seek falsification so I can revise and evolve a better personal view of cosmology. I encourage counter arguments, and I listen to them, and incorporate those that I consider reasonable and responsible. I am the arbiter of what is reasonable and responsible, because the ISU is my personal view of cosmology. It is not a scientific paper for peer review, it is a personal view for discussion with the intention of continual improvement."


I restate that disclaimer here because the next topic is an unsolved issue in physics, called the Proton Spin Crisis (or puzzle), for which I have included a couple of links and some “cut and paste” from them. When I address it from the ISU perspective, my content is intended to be internally consistent with all the ISU content, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data:


Proton spin crisis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_spin_crisis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_spin_crisis)


More recent (2015):
http://www.ejaet.com/PDF/2-12/EJAET-2-12-59-67.pdf (http://www.ejaet.com/PDF/2-12/EJAET-2-12-59-67.pdf)
Spin Crisis of Proton and Baryon’s Magnetic Moment
12 DPTiwari andRSGupta


Quote from the Wiki link:
Proton spin crisis
Unsolved problem in physics: The proton spin crisis (sometimes called the "proton spin puzzle") is a theoretical crisis precipitated by an experiment in 1987[1] which tried to determine the spin configuration of the proton. The experiment was carried out by the European Muon Collaboration (EMC).[2] Physicists expected that the quarks carry all the proton spin.


However, not only was the total proton spin carried by quarks far smaller than 100%, these results were consistent with almost zero (4–24%[3]) proton spin being carried by quarks. This surprising and puzzling result was termed the "proton spin crisis".[4]


The problem is considered one of the important unsolved problems in physics.[5]ContentsBackground A key question is how the nucleon's spin is distributed amongst its constituent partons (quarks and gluons). Physicists originally expected that quarks carry all of the nucleon spin.A proton is built from two up quarks, one down quark, and gluons. The ruling assumption was that since the proton is stable, then it exists in the lowest possible energy level. Therefore, it was expected that the quark's wave function is the spherically symmetric s-wave with no spatial contribution to angular momentum.


The proton is, like each of its quarks, a spin 1/2 particle. Therefore, it was assumed that two of the quarks have opposite spins and the spin of the third quark is parallel to the proton spin.


The experiment


In this EMC experiment, a quark of a polarized proton target was hit by a polarized muon beam, and the quark's instantaneous spin was measured. In a polarized proton target, all the protons' spin take the same direction, and therefore it was expected that the spin of two out of the three quarks cancels out and the spin of the third quark is polarized in the direction of the proton's spin. Thus, the sum of the quarks' spin was expected to be equal to the proton's spin.


However, it was found in this EMC experiment that the number of quarks with spin in the proton's spin direction was almost the same as the number of quarks whose spin was in the opposite direction. This is the proton spin crisis.


Similar results have been obtained in later experiments.[6]


Recent work


A 2008 work shows that more than half of the spin of the proton comes from the spin of its quarks, and that the missing spin is produced by the quarks' orbital angular momentum.[7] This work uses relativistic effects together with other quantum chromodynamic properties and explains how they boil down to an overall spatial angular momentum that is consistent with the experimental data. 2016 results from the RHIC indicate that gluons may carry even more of protons' spin than quarks do.[8]
(End of Wiki quote)


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/08/2017 19:23:35
Reply #89

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

The Big Wait
While we wait
Stern-Gerlach apparatus
Persistence of spinWave-particle mechanics
The process of Quantum Action.


In regard to the proton spin crisis, the science is not really layman level, and that can be emphasized by any number of  links to material on the internet and YouTube videos:
https://youtu.be/Z1IqewSDDcc (https://youtu.be/Z1IqewSDDcc)


https://youtu.be/2zZ1kv6vlq0 (https://youtu.be/2zZ1kv6vlq0)


You can definitely go deep into theoretical physics and never get caught up with the professional community. The ISU approach is called the Big Wait, and I speculate, as in this thread, while I wait for the scientific community to arrive at a consensus on any given topic, including solving the proton spin puzzle.


Until then, in the ISU, the composition of the proton wave-particle makes no internal distinction between any sub-particles, quarks, leptons, force carriers, or any individual components; they all blend together as quanta in the particle space, millions upon millions, billions upon billions, of quanta per particle. The spin of the proton is the spin of the complex standing wave pattern of the proton wave-particle. It is one internally equalizing unit, consisting only of inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, sorted into quanta at the particle boundary by the process of quantum action. Quanta are emitted spherically as gravitational wave energy, and quanta are added from gravitational wave energy arriving directionally from distant particles and objects.


Relative to an individual particle in the ISU, spin is defined as an observation of an affect detected by various devices that measure the response of the particle to a specially configured magnetic field, like the Stern-Gerlach apparatus:

https://youtu.be/waK4eKNXB4A (https://youtu.be/waK4eKNXB4A)


Spin, as measured by the Stern-Gerlach apparatus, is a characteristic of charged particles that react to a precisely positioned magnetic field by either curving up or curving down relative to the measured axis. Interesting to note that you don’t get any random degrees of spin; extent of the deflection is the same for all “ups” and all “downs” for particles in a stream from a constant source. Also, measuring the spin deflection on any axis will give the result that half of the particles curve to the same extent in one direction and half curve to the same extent in the opposite direction. One can conclude that the characteristic of spin will always prove to be present in a charged particle, regardless of the axis on which the effect is being measured, and the extent of spin is a common characteristic on all axises.


That leads to another conclusion that spin is present on every axis at the same time, and the persistence of spin up or down occurs when you immediately remeasure all up or all down particles from one measurement axis, through a second apparatuses on the same axis. The first measurement sorts out the ups from the downs on the measured axis and they remain sorted as long as you remeasure them on the same axis. Change the axis, and persistence needs to be reestablished, only to be lost again if you measure on a different axis.


My speculation is that the persistence of spin has a mechanical explanation that is consistent with the wave-particle mechanics of the process of Quantum Action.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)
To be continued ...

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/08/2017 13:31:13
Reply #90

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

The Particle Adventure
LHC colliding protons
Quark soup

In regard to the proton spin puzzle, an accelerated core particle, protons for example, when collided with other particles, as in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), will have their standing wave patterns interrupted into the chaos of a high energy cloud of wave action (maybe akin to a quark/gluon plasma).



At the site of the collisions, in the face of the constant inflowing gravitational wave energy from all directions, Nature repairs the damage quickly, giving way to local forces of energy density equalization and quantum gravity, via the ISU recognized process of quantum action; wave intersections immediately reform from the scattered high energy waves, and debris will take shape out of the plasma in the local space. Light speed interactions will take place in a series of events, where exotic massive particles form from the plasma, and decay almost instantly, transferring their mass to a set of recognizable elementary particles that can be observed, and sometimes captured for further analysis, both particles and anti-particles.


http://www.particleadventure.org/standard_model.html (http://www.particleadventure.org/standard_model.html)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_16_08_17_1_04_34.jpeg)

Quote from the Particle Adventure standard model page, “The Standard Model is a good theory. Experiments have verified its predictions to incredible precision, and all the particles predicted by this theory have been found. But it does not explain everything. For example, gravity is not included in the Standard Model.”




Physicists have identified many sub-particles that form out of those collisions, and have classified fundamental and elementary particles in the Standard Particle Model, said to be point like with no internal composition. Quarks are among them, and the spin assigned to the various types of quarks is at issue in the proton spin crisis. We don’t yet know enough about those particles, or about the physical nature of spin to resolve the puzzle. However, in the ISU model, all of point-like particles of the Standard Model have internal structure, composed of the quantum increments (quanta) that make up the wave-particle standing wave pattern.


Though progress is occurring via high energy physics, it goes without saying that there are theoretical aspects of the standard model that are  “as yet” unexplained.


This discussion of spin is from the perspective of the ISU model, and simply recognizes that the scientific community has not reached a consensus on exactly what spin is, and what the precise details are of the various proposed “as yet” incomplete solutions. Broad knowledge of the huge number of theoretical papers, details of experiments, and data available is beyond comprehension to all except the most involved scientists and mathematicians. So while we wait, I speculate about spin, and how it can be associated with the ISU wave-particle, and with the mechanics of the process of quantum action that establishes and maintains the presence of wave-particles, and governs quantum gravity, as addressed throughout the thread.


The ISU wave-particles have detailed internal structure; they are not point-like, and the effect called spin has a mechanical explanation involving motion of the standing wave patterns, and fields generated by that motion …


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/08/2017 18:35:10

Reply #91

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Meaningful wave intersections = quanta
Quanta form in the direction of motion
Electric field generated in direction of motion
Magnetic field perpendicular to motion

Taking just the core portion of the wave-particle from the diagram in reply #89, the black dots represent meaningful wave intersections that equate to quanta contained within the standing wave pattern. The mass of the wave-particle is the sum of the quanta within the standing wave pattern. This first image is of the core portion at rest. Notice how the high energy density spots are centered within the particle space when the particle is theoretically at rest:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_48_24.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_48_24.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_48_24.jpeg)


When the wave-particle is in motion, the organization of the high energy density spots is mechanically shifted toward the direction of motion, because that is the direction of the net highest inflowing gravitational wave energy that is used to replenish the spherically emitted wave energy, thus generating a preponderance of new high energy density wave convergences in that direction.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_50_54.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_50_54.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_50_54.jpeg)

Motion is taking place when the wave-particle’s standing wave pattern advances through the oscillating background that fills all space.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_53_17.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_53_17.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_53_17.jpeg)




For talking purposes, I propose that a complex standing wave-particle in motion, generates a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of motion. If as depicted, the wave-particle is keeping its mass in a forward position in the standing wave pattern because new quanta form in the forward position as it traverses the oscillating background. Forward motion would then be causing it to act like a little gyroscope constructed of wave intersections that form momentary high energy density spots across the moving standing wave pattern, thus maintaining the magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of motion.


While contemplating the characteristic of persistence of spin, mentioned in reply #89, such that when the up and down particles are sorted by the first pass through the Stern-Gerlach device, the reason that half sort up and half down is due to the slope of the magnetic field relative to the direction of motion, i.e., that there is a 360º range around the forward directional axis through which the tilt of the field, relative to the perpendicular is random when measured on the first pass. That range is from slightly above the angle of measurement by the Stern-Gerlach device, or slightly below. All measured particles are tilting in regard to the particle's magnetic field relative to the perpendicular, and to the orientation of that tilt relative to the Stern-Gerlach device orientation, so when measured again, the previous “up” will again curve up, and those whose field is tilting “down” when measured again, will again curve down.


Once sorted out by the first pass through, as to up and down, then a second measurement on the same axis demonstrates the persistence of spin. The particles are not really spinning or revolving around the directional axis, their orientation to that directional axis is a stable characteristic of the wave-particle in motion. Therefore, all the previous ups again measure up, and all of the previous downs measure down when remeasured on the exact same orientation of the device.


I’ll stipulate that I am thinking of the wave-particle magnetic field as always being oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particle, but also having a slope relative to the perpendicular, caused by the individual particle’s imbalance in the distribution of the internal high energy density spots. If that imbalance is stable for each individual particle relative to the direction of motion, as the particle is in uninterrupted motion, then that is the speculative explanation for how particles that measure "up" in the first device, would also measure up in a second pass through a device with the exact same orientation.


From the perspective of the ISU, it is much more appropriate to refer to the effect as angular momentum, than as spin, and to be even more descriptive in naming it, I would like to add the term “particle slope persistence”, which is synonymous with spin or angular momentum in the ISU lexicon.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/08/2017 23:09:35
Reply #92
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
What gives a particle its charge?

Edit: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg565553#msg565553 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg565553#msg565553)
An up date on ISU particle charge from January 2019 from the "What are they saying about quantum gravity?" thread.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_08_17_10_55_50.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_08_17_10_55_50.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_08_17_10_55_50.png)


Electric field (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field) of a positive and a negative point charge.

Background

A quick search brings up Wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_particle (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_particle)
“In physics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), a charged particle is a particle with an electric charge. It may be an ion, such as a molecule or atom with a surplus or deficit of electrons relative to protons. It can be the electrons and protons themselves, as well as other elementary particles, like positrons. It may also be an atomic nucleus devoid of electrons, such as an alpha particle, a helium nucleus. Neutrons have no charge. Plasmas are a collection of charged particles, atomic nuclei and separated electrons, but can also be a gas containing a significant proportion of charged particles. Plasma is called the fourth state of matter because its properties are quite different from solids, liquids and gases.” (and more of interest, without answering what gives a particle charge).

And a brief discussion about particle charge from a thread at physicsforums:

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-gives-particles-charge.700104/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-gives-particles-charge.700104/)

DiracPool and several other members responded (follow the link and read the short thread):
DiracPool responded:
Charge is a fundamental property of matter, in a "first cause" sort of way. It is, at present, one of the fundamental building blocks of physical models, not reducible to a more fundamental architecture of constituents. So to ask why charge exists is kind of like asking why gravity exists, or why matter exists. The answer is that, at present, we don't know. But we have to start somewhere, so we label or give names to different phenomena and then formulate equations and test these formulations against experiment. "Charge" is a name that was given to a property of materials that behaved in a certain manner. It was later found out that charge was quantized via the Millikan Oil Drop Experiment. These quantized charges were called electrons and given a negative (-1) label to contrast from the proton, which had a (+1) label. It was later found that the proton was composed of three quarks with partial charges that add up to +1. Why these charges should perfectly balance each other in terms of coulomb units is still baffling to scientists, as far as I'm aware. I don't think that there's any insight into the issue that you are missing.

Andrew Mason added:
Just to follow up on what DiracPool has said, scientists tend to develop theories that explain phenomena in terms of more fundamental phenomena. Inevitably, one reaches a point that cannot be reduced to something more fundamental. Whether we have reached that point with charge is not yet clear. But we might have.

And jtbell made a contribution:
In classical physics, electric charge and the electric and magnetic force laws are unexplained. They are taken as "given", in the same way as mass and F = ma in Newtonian mechanics. In quantum field theory, one can derive the existence of charge and the laws of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations) from something called "local U(1) gauge symmetry." But that simply begs the question, "why does the universe obey local U(1) gauge symmetry?"
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-gives-particles-charge.700104/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-gives-particles-charge.700104/)


There is a thread started here at NakedScientists, in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70639.msg516662#msg516662 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70639.msg516662#msg516662)

My methodology for answering questions that are “as yet” unanswered by the scientific community relies on speculation and are not supported by anything more than trivial math, and so I wouldn’t try to participate in the hard science sub-forums here at NS, except to post the above links. Never the less, addressing questions like that here in the “New Theories” sub-forum seems to be allowed.


It would be nice, from the perspective of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, to have even a speculative answer to the question, “what gives particles their charge”. Any speculations, in order to become part of the ISU, would have to be internally consistent with the rest of the ISU wave mechanics, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

Noting that the ISU has described internally consistent, speculative mechanics of the presence of particles, and quantum gravity, at a scale far below that of point particles and the fundamental particles of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and has speculation on the nature of “particle slope persistence” (spin) to address another “as yet” unanswered question in physics, as in my last few posts, I’m contemplating the question of particle charge from the ISU perspective, and will post about where it leads me.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/08/2017 13:40:59
What gives a particle its charge in the ISU?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_08_17_2_19_58.jpeg)

There are differences between what the Wiki says about charged particles, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_particle (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_particle) , and the ISU material, as posted in this thread. Any new speculations and conclusions that might come out of this project about how particles in the ISU get their charge will be based on the speculative ISU wave-particle, the process of quantum action, and the oscillating background. Those will be layman level, science enthusiast speculations and conclusions, not science done by professionals. The posts will include notes about how the ISU ideas differ from mainstream thinking, and will feature speculated mechanics taking place in a “reality” below the presumed scale of action considered in the popular media and research material I find on the internet as addressed in the Wiki, etc.


Points of departure from what science tells us about charge, and charged particles, and some speculations and personal brainstorming about that from the perspective of the ISU:

1. The image in the last post represents the electric field of point particles, but there are no point particles in the ISU. In place of point particles we will be discussing wave-particles advancing through the oscillating foundational background, as described throughout. The closest thing to point charges is the charge that may be associated with a single oscillation between two phases, akin to a fluctuation between positive and negative. That is the action going on at the foundational level where all space is filled with the smallest scale of wave convergences. The presence of the oscillating background wave energy is the product of a potentially eternal history of Big Bang action and quantum gravity across the spatially infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

2. The electron at rest in the ISU has nearly 400 million quanta, for talking purposes (meaningful wave intersections representing convergences of parent waves), organized in a complex standing wave pattern that contains all of the mass of the particle in the form of quanta (described as high energy density spots that form as two or more "meaningful" wave fronts converge.) Still, no electron is ever at rest in the ISU, and my speculation is that they are in constant motion at or near the speed of light in a fuzzy cloud around the nucleons (“fuzzy” meaning that neither the location nor momentum can ever be precisely measured because the process of quantum action is continually refreshing the positions of the quanta that constitute the electron). And all the time the electron is advancing through the oscillating background which governs the local speed of light and gravity.

3. Speculation is that when an electron reaches an elevated energy level, the point where it is about to emit a photon, the electron is at is maximum velocity in its orbital space, and when an electron emits a photon, the photon is accelerated to the local speed of light by “riding” or “boosted” by the spherically out flowing gravitational waves emitted at the local speed of light, continually by the electron, regardless of the local velocity of the electron itself. The internal wave energy components of the electron are always traveling at the speed of light locally within the high energy density core portion of the electron wave-particle. The speed of light in the ISU is relative to the local wave energy density. The wave energy there in the core is extreme, relative to wave energy density at the particle boundary from which the photon is emitted, meaning that the photon acceleration boost that occurs at the boundary is not remarkable.

4. Unlike the particles commented on by the member named DiracPool, mentioned in the last post,  particles in the ISU are reducible to a complex architecture of the constituent high energy density “spots” that make up the core portion of the wave-particle. This speculation gives us something to work with when contemplating how a particle gets its charge, i.e., there is more complex architecture than the standard model invokes.


Some thinking to myself:
Could the wave mechanics of the ISU, down at the level where the wave-particle is in constant motion through the oscillating wave energy background, have something to do with the net charge that a particular type of particle carries?

Do the foundational level oscillations of the background alternate between an electric and magnetic field at the level of the tiniest wave action?

What is the connection like between positive and negative charge and electromagnetic properties of particles?

Do the wave intersections in the oscillating background carry a charge or fluctuate between charge and no charge, or positive and negative?

Noting that charges exert a force on each other, such fluctuation would be an interesting characteristic of the background through which wave-particles advance. Could those oscillations be equated with alternating “point” charges throughout the background, and therefore throughout all space at the point by point level?

Does the motion of an individual wave front of the waves that are oscillating adjacent to each other, have a causative effect?

Do each of those tiniest wave fronts, which advance until interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent wave front, which is at the point where there is a rapid change in energy density that always occurs at the point of intersection, consequently cause a switching between a positive and an negative local charge at the tiniest scale, point by point, within the standing wave particle?

Relative to the “point by point” oscillations, does the relatively huge size of a wave-particle, which has so many quanta joined in unison as it advances through the oscillating background, pick up a net charge from the oscillations as a result of the wave-particle motion through the oscillations?

Does the motion of the standing wave pattern through the background cause the magnetic field to form perpendicular to the direction of motion, and does that mean that there is an electric current associated with wave-particle motion through the oscillations?

Does the particle’s perpendicular magnetic field change the charge of the local background as the particle passes?

Could such a local change in the background oscillations mean that the particle not only carries a charge, but is surrounded by the opposite charge in the background as a result of the charges of the oscillations equalizing by netting or cancelling out in the space surrounding the moving charged particle?

All this is personal brainstorming, and the thread is open to all ideas, contributions, or brainstorming, based on the ISU wave mechanics.

I’m posting links to some layman level popular science material about particle charge from various sources; the internet, the books on my shelf, and the library which are and will be considered during the project. I will be studying, contemplating, and referencing this and other information as I go along, trying to see if anything starts to seem like an explanation for particle charge in the ISU:


http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py106/Charge.html (http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py106/Charge.html)

[Cut and paste of linked material from that link, to have it at hand; see link for graphics that didn't translate over in the cut and paste]
Electric charge and Coulomb's law


Charge
•   there are two kinds of charge, positive and negative
•   like charges repel, unlike charges attract
•   positive charge comes from having more protons than electrons; negative charge comes from having more electrons than protons
•   charge is quantized, meaning that charge comes in integer multiples of the elementary charge e
•   charge is conserved
Probably everyone is familiar with the first three concepts, but what does it mean for charge to be quantized? Charge comes in multiples of an indivisible unit of charge, represented by the letter e. In other words, charge comes in multiples of the charge on the electron or the proton. These things have the same size charge, but the sign is different. A proton has a charge of +e, while an electron has a charge of -e.
Electrons and protons are not the only things that carry charge. Other particles (positrons, for example) also carry charge in multiples of the electronic charge. Those are not going to be discussed, for the most part, in this course, however.
Putting "charge is quantized" in terms of an equation, we say:
q = n e
q is the symbol used to represent charge, while n is a positive or negative integer, and e is the electronic charge, 1.60 x 10-19 Coulombs.

The Law of Conservation of Charge
The Law of conservation of charge states that the net charge of an isolated system remains constant.
If a system starts out with an equal number of positive and negative charges, there¹s nothing we can do to create an excess of one kind of charge in that system unless we bring in charge from outside the system (or remove some charge from the system). Likewise, if something starts out with a certain net charge, say +100 e, it will always have +100 e unless it is allowed to interact with something external to it.
Charge can be created and destroyed, but only in positive-negative pairs
.
Table of elementary particle masses and charges:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_10_17_10_54_40.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_10_17_10_54_40.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_10_17_10_54_40.gif)



Electrostatic charging
Forces between two electrically-charged objects can be extremely large. Most things are electrically neutral; they have equal amounts of positive and negative charge. If this wasn't the case, the world we live in would be a much stranger place. We also have a lot of control over how things get charged. This is because we can choose the appropriate material to use in a given situation.
Metals are good conductors of electric charge, while plastics, wood, and rubber are not. They¹re called insulators. Charge does not flow nearly as easily through insulators as it does through conductors, which is why wires you plug into a wall socket are covered with a protective rubber coating. Charge flows along the wire, but not through the coating to you.
Materials are divided into three categories, depending on how easily they will allow charge (i.e., electrons) to flow along them. These are:
•   conductors - metals, for example
•   semi-conductors - silicon is a good example
•   insulators - rubber, wood, plastic for example
Most materials are either conductors or insulators. The difference between them is that in conductors, the outermost electrons in the atoms are so loosely bound to their atoms that they¹re free to travel around. In insulators, on the other hand, the electrons are much more tightly bound to the atoms, and are not free to flow. Semi-conductors are a very useful intermediate class, not as conductive as metals but considerably more conductive than insulators. By adding certain impurities to semi-conductors in the appropriate concentrations the conductivity can be well-controlled.
There are three ways that objects can be given a net charge. These are:
1   Charging by friction - this is useful for charging insulators. If you rub one material with another (say, a plastic ruler with a piece of paper towel), electrons have a tendency to be transferred from one material to the other. For example, rubbing glass with silk or saran wrap generally leaves the glass with a positive charge; rubbing PVC rod with fur generally gives the rod a negative charge.
2   Charging by conduction - useful for charging metals and other conductors. If a charged object touches a conductor, some charge will be transferred between the object and the conductor, charging the conductor with the same sign as the charge on the object.
3   Charging by induction - also useful for charging metals and other conductors. Again, a charged object is used, but this time it is only brought close to the conductor, and does not touch it. If the conductor is connected to ground (ground is basically anything neutral that can give up electrons to, or take electrons from, an object), electrons will either flow on to it or away from it. When the ground connection is removed , the conductor will have a charge opposite in sign to that of the charged object.
An example of induction using a negatively charged object and an initially-uncharged conductor (for example, a metal ball on a plastic handle).
(1) bring the negatively-charged object close to, but not touching, the conductor. Electrons on the conductor will be repelled from the area nearest the charged object.
(2) connect the conductor to ground. The electrons on the conductor want to get as far away from the negatively-charged object as possible, so some of them flow to ground.
(3) remove the ground connection. This leaves the conductor with a deficit of electrons.
(4) remove the charged object. The conductor is now positively charged.
A practical application involving the transfer of charge is in how laser printers and photocopiers work.


Coulomb's law
The force exerted by one charge q on another charge Q is given by Coulomb's law:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_08_17_1_39_16.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_08_17_1_39_16.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_08_17_1_39_16.gif)

r is the distance between the charges.
Remember that force is a vector, so when more than one charge exerts a force on another charge, the net force on that charge is the vector sum of the individual forces. Remember, too, that charges of the same sign exert repulsive forces on one another, while charges of opposite sign attract.





To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/08/2017 15:41:14
Continued … What causes particle charge in the ISU?

In order to be a bit organized about doing this project “live” on the thread, I’ll use:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/index.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/index.html)

And follow the links under “Electric Charge” for the purpose of covering the pertinent reference material (for the initial series of posts). I’ll try to note where the ISU fundamentals bring in speculations about “as yet” unknowns, and their speculated effects, at a scale below our ability to observe. The idea is that these speculations are internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. If these posts inspire opposing arguments or falsification of any details, I’m open to them in the interest of continued improvement.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elecur.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elecur.html#c2)

First up is Coulomb’s law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1)
It is well known that like charges repel, unlike charges attract.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_08_17_10_55_50.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_08_17_10_55_50.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_08_17_10_55_50.png)


That is an observable, but behind the observations of attracting and repelling is the concept of “force”, and in Coulomb’s law the force is acting on a point charge, q1, as a result of the presence of a second point charge, q2.

The reference to “force” brings us to the first point of departure between the Hyper-physics explanation and the ISU fundamentals. The hyperlink to “force” covers the basic forces:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/force.html#defor (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/force.html#defor)
“One of the foundation concepts of physics, a force may be thought of as any influence which tends to change the motion of an object. Our present understanding is that there are four fundamental forces (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c1) in the universe, the gravity force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav), the nuclear weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the nuclear strong force in ascending order of strength.”

The ISU identifies the two major forces as energy density equalization, and quantum gravity, so let’s recognize that as a fundamental difference between the hyper-physics material and the ISU. The ISU thinking is that quantum gravity, when it is explained and becomes a consensus, will account for three of those forces, gravity, plus the strong and weak nuclear forces. The fourth force, the electromagnetic force, is addressed by Hyper-physics as follows:

“One of the four fundamental forces, the electromagnetic force manifests itself through the forces between charges (Coulomb's Law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1)) and the magnetic force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html#c1), both of which are summarized in the Lorentz force law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html#c2). Fundamentally, both magnetic and electric forces are manifestations of an exchange force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/exchg.html#c1) involving the exchange of photons  (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html#c5). The quantum approach to the electromagnetic force is called quantum electrodynamics or QED (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/qed.html#c1). The electromagnetic force is a force of infinite range which obeys the inverse square law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe), and is of the same form as the gravity force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav).”

The ISU Particle Charge Project will include examining the hyper-physics links included in that link, as it develops.

But first, the ISU talks about another force, energy density equalization. Quantum gravity and energy density equalization are always present together, in the process of opposing each other. When the local affect of gravity is observed, it has become the dominate force in the local environment, and when expansion is observed, energy density equalization is dominant in the local environment. The local environment can be of any size, and will have a net force acting on it. In the ISU, energy density equalization is the force behind the initial rapid expansion (inflation) of a Big Bang arena at the instant of the collapse/bang, and is behind the “as yet” unexplained observable, dark energy (see reply #87). On a universal scale, the universe is neither expanding nor collapsing, and in that respect is in a “steady state” on a grand scale.

The concept is that in the multiple Big Bang universe, a Big Bang starts out with the collapse of a Big Crunch; the core of the collapsing Big Crunch being nature’s maximum wave energy density. Correspondingly, the space occupied by the “parent” arenas which have each contributed a vast portion of their galactic matter and energy to the crunch, has therefore become nature’s lowest wave energy density environment, given that volume of space.

So when nature’s highest and lowest wave energy density environments are adjacent in contiguous space, the immediate effect is that the two energy density environments begin the process of energy density equalization with an initial rapid epic of “inflation”. The Big Bang arena wave is driven to expand into the lower energy density space surrounding it by the force of energy density equalization.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2017 15:04:50
Continued project … What causes particle charge in the ISU?


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_08_17_8_45_26.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_08_17_8_45_26.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_08_17_8_45_26.jpeg)
Protons and electrons create electric fields.
Credit: Igor Zh. | Shutterstock




Continuing with the Coulomb force hyperlink, the equation includes a term for the “permittivity” of space. Permittivity is one of three applicable constants brought up in the “permittivity” link. Keep in mind that the presence of gravitational wave energy in space is a characteristic of the ISU, while it is characterized as permittivity and permeability in the Hyper-physics material:


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c3 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c3)


“In the equations describing electric (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c1) and magnetic fields and their propagation, three constants are normally used. One is the speed of light c, and the other two are the electric permittivity of free space ε0 and the magnetic permeability of free space, μ0. The magnetic permeability of free space is taken to have the exact value 4 pi x 10^-7 N / A^2


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/imgele/emcons2.gif (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/imgele/emcons2.gif)
(gif of speed of speed of light equation relative to permittivity and permeability).


Considering the relationship between the speed of light, and the characteristics of space that govern the speed of light, from the Hyper-physics perspective, electric permittivity and magnetic permeability are the cause of impedance.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space)


“The impedance of free space, Z0, is a physical constant relating the magnitudes of the electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetic radiation traveling through free space. That is, Z0 = |E| / |H|, where |E| is the electric field strength and |H| is the magnetic field strength. It has an exactly defined value
Z sub 0 = 119.9169832 π Ω ≈ 376.730 313 461 77 …  Ω
{\displaystyle Z_{0}=119.9169832\;\pi \ \Omega \approx 376.730\ 313\ 461\ 77\ldots \Omega }.”


“The impedance of free space (more correctly, the wave-impedance of a plane wave (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave) in free space) equals the product of the vacuum permeability μ0 and the speed of light in vacuum c0. Since the values of these constants are exact (they are given in the definitions of the ampere and the metre respectively), the value of the impedance of free space is likewise exact.”




The affect that gravitational wave energy has on the speed of light in the ISU can be equated with the impedance of space, accounted for by electric permittivity and magnetic permeability from the perspective of the Hyper-physics material. The resulting universe has the same characteristics of course, but the ISU has wave mechanics explanations for the effects, as addressed in regard to the speculation that the wave energy density of space governs the speed of light in the local environment.


One might speculate that the electric and magnetic aspects that are observed, electromagnetism, are effects of the constituents in space, and of the motion of wave-particles through an oscillating background that contains and advances gravitational wave energy, including light, through space.


In the ISU, the photon is a wave particle that is emitted from an electron at the speed of light. When emitted, the photon wave-particle has the same two components as any wave particle, the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving through space from distant wave-particles and objects, and the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy that potentially has an infinite reach. Because the photon travels at the local speed of light, it gets all of its inflowing wave energy component from the direction of motion, and therefore follows the curved path of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, which is a composite of the history of the motion of all mass.


Light, the electromagnetic spectrum, is considered the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave particle:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg)



To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/09/2017 12:43:55
The Hyper-physics material on Electric Charge goes on to address the speed of light c, a constant in a perfect vacuum:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c3 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c3)


“Experimental measurements of the speed of light have been refined in progressively more accurate experiments since the seventeenth century. Recent experiments give a speed of … c = 299,792,458 m/s …
Therefore the above speed of light has been adopted as a standard value and the length of the meter is redefined to be consistent with this value.
In vacuum, all electromagnetic waves (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html#c1) travel at c, the speed of light.”


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_08_17_8_28_29.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_08_17_8_28_29.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_08_17_8_28_29.jpeg)




There is no reason to doubt that the speed of light is a constant, c, in a perfect vacuum. A perfect vacuum, or free space, is devoid of any particles. In the standard view of cosmology, vacuum energy density is used to refer to the cosmological constant, and the recent conclusion is that there is a small positive value for the vacuum energy density (a perfect vacuum being zero).


The concept is not much different from the ISU force of energy density equalization in regard to the rate of expansion of the known universe. However, in the ISU, the universe as a whole is steady state, not expanding, and so the cosmological constant can only apply to individual expanding arenas within the steady state universe. Overall, there are a potentially infinite number of active Big Bang arenas in various stages of expansion, convergence, and crunch formation.


This Ned Wright link is information in regard to a single expanding Big Bang, as implied by observations of the visible portion of our Big Bang arena:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html)

The point that the speed of light has a maximum limit in nature as a result of the permittivity and permeability of space brings up an interesting speculation in the ISU. It is seemingly a small point to make, but in the ISU, in addition to the occasional hydrogen atom, the composition of space that is characterized as impedance is considered part of the explanation for the effect called dark matter as well. The missing mass in the universe is a standing problem in cosmology. “… up to 80% of the matter in the universe is simply missing.” (Various sources including http://science.time.com/2013/04/05/has-the-missing-80-of-the-universes-mass-been-found/ (http://science.time.com/2013/04/05/has-the-missing-80-of-the-universes-mass-been-found/))


In the ISU, the explanation for dark matter, in addition to the speculation in reply #88 earlier about remnants of galactic matter from a perpetual history of Big Bang arena action, space is full of the intersections of the gravitational waves that are continually converging from all directions at all points in space. The thinking is that each wave intersection and overlap represents a momentary “spot” of mass. If it occurs at the particle boundary it may be taken up and incorporated into the complex standing wave patterns of existing particles and objects, or it may be a passing momentary convergence in open space.


In the case of a passing convergence, it is not a standing wave particle in the sense that wave-particles are stable, but it has the two components of a standing wave; the inflow of the two converging parent waves, and the out flow from the momentary spot. As this type of action occurs in the space between particles and objects, the third waves emerge out of each high density “spot”, and expand spherically, intersecting with surrounding waves. That is the way gravitational wave energy advances spherically through the oscillating background of space.




To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/09/2017 13:59:49
Still in the Coulomb’s Law link, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1), where, after permittivity and the speed of light, we come to Newton's third law, introduced by saying:


“Note that this satisfies Newton's third law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html#nt3) because it implies that exactly the same magnitude of force acts on q2 . Coulomb's law is a vector equation and includes the fact that the force acts along the line joining the charges. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Coulomb's law describes a force of infinite range which obeys the inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force.”


Newton's third law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html#nt3)
"Newton's third law: All forces in the universe occur in equal but oppositely directed pairs. There are no isolated forces; for every external force that acts on an object there is a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction which acts back on the object which exerted that external force. In the case of internal forces, a force on one part of a system will be countered by a reaction force on another part of the system so that an isolated system cannot by any means exert a net force on the system as a whole. A system cannot "bootstrap" itself into motion with purely internal forces - to achieve a net force and an acceleration, it must interact with an object external to itself.”

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_4_33_35.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_4_33_35.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_4_33_35.gif)


“Without specifying the nature or origin of the forces on the two masses, Newton's 3rd law states that if they arise from the two masses themselves, they must be equal in magnitude but opposite in direction so that no net force arises from purely internal forces.”


Coulomb’s law about forces between charged particles is quite similar to Newton's third law about forces between masses, and they both obey the inverse square law.




The next link in the Coulomb’s law hyperlink is to the inverse square law in regard to the electric field:


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe)




Inverse Square Law, Electric
“As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law, the electric field of a point charge can be put in the form shown below where point charge Q is the source of the field. The electric force in Coulomb's law follows the inverse square law.”

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif)


Note: the diagram is for the inverse square law in general. The inverse square law is at home in the ISU, both in regard to the inverse relationship to distance, and in regard to the infinite reach of both quantum gravity and energy density equalization. The spherical out flowing energy wave has a potentially infinite reach; it will theoretically expand spherically forever until interrupted by encountering an opposing gravitational force. Gravity, light, radiation, and even sound have inverse square relationships in both the standard model and the ISU.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/09/2017 14:42:44
The last of the first round of hyperlinks, those from the Coulomb’s law link, is the gravity force:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav)

Cut and paste from the link:
“Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c1), yet it is the dominant force in the universe for shaping the large scale structure of galaxies, stars, etc. The gravitational force between two masses m1 and m2 is given by the relationship …
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_09_17_1_23_41.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_09_17_1_23_41.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_09_17_1_23_41.gif)


This is often called the "universal law of gravitation" and G the universal gravitation constant. It is an example of an inverse square law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html#isqg) force. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining the centers of mass of the two masses. The forces on the two masses are equal in size but opposite in direction, obeying Newton's third law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html#nt3). Viewed as an exchange force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/exchg.html#c1), the massless exchange particle is called the graviton. From Einstein's treatment in general relativity, gravity is associated with a curvature of space-time and changes in mass configuration can produce gravitational waves.
The gravity force has the same form as Coulomb's law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1) for the forces between electric charges, i.e., it is an inverse square law force which depends upon the product of the two interacting sources. This led Einstein to start with the electromagnetic force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3) and gravity as the first attempt (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/einun.html#c1) to demonstrate the unification of the fundamental forces. It turns out that this was the wrong place to start, and that gravity will be the last of the forces to unify with the other three forces. Electroweak unification (unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces) was demonstrated in 1983, a result which could not be anticipated in the time of Einstein's search. It now appears that the common form of the gravity and electromagnetic forces arises from the fact that each of them involves an exchange particle of zero mass, not because of an inherent symmetry which would make them easy to unify.”


That link covers a lot of territory. The first point I want to address is in regard to the differences between the wave mechanics of the ISU, vs. the spacetime of GR. The link puts it like this:
“From Einstein's treatment in general relativity (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/conrel.html#c2), gravity is associated with a curvature of space-time and changes in mass configuration can produce gravitational waves.”


That is addressed in the ISU by first, comparing two simple sayings:


In GR, the saying goes:
Matter tells space how to curve
Curved space tells matter how to move
Everything moves in the straightest possible line in space-time.


In the ISU, the corresponding saying is:
Matter emits gravity waves
Gravity waves tell matter how to move
Everything moves in curved paths through the wave energy density profile of space.


It is about the line of force between two objects of mass:


The path of an object freely moving through space is described by the emission of out flowing gravity waves from all objects in space. The gravity wave emissions are continuous from objects in space, and as they are emitted they are incremental to the local wave energy density profile of local space. So as an object moves, it lays out a path of high wave energy density surrounding it, along its path. The density of the path it leaves declines as the wave energy density equalizes with the lower surrounding environments, but is always a high energy density path relative to those lower wave energy density surroundings.


The local density at every point in space is ever changing, but it never “forgets” the history of the movement of all objects, so once a freely moving distant object comes under the influence of the net highest wave energy density path, its own path curves into the net highest density path laid out before it in the wave energy density profile of space.


Thus, the wave energy density profile of space, in the form of spherically expanding gravitational waves, is moderated by the inverse square law. It also governs the local speed of light (and gravity) which varies as the local wave energy density of the profile varies. Objects follow that profile as they move relative to each other, and the curved path is always in the direction of the highest net wave energy density of the surrounding space. In the ISU, space does not curve, it contains gravitational wave energy that makes the motion of objects follow curved paths because all objects in space are in relative motion to each other.


An example is the moon which is constantly falling toward where the earth was a little over a second ago and around 250,000 miles away. But that delay of gravity is enough to keep the moon in perpetual free fall around the earth as it follows the net highest wave energy density path on a time delayed basis. The source of wave energy density that the moon is following is the Earth, which is continually moving out of the way before the moon gets there, thus leaving a curved path for the moon to follow as it continually falls to where Earth was a little over a second ago.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/gravwav.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/gravwav.html#c1)
Gravitational waves link

To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/09/2017 13:54:08
Repeating the disclaimer … Any speculations and conclusions that I post in this thread are about my views on cosmology which I refer to as the ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe) model, and are layman level, science enthusiast speculations and conclusions, not science done by professionals. If these posts inspire opposing arguments or falsification of any details, I’m open to them in the interest of continued improvement.

Next, in regard to the link to “exchange force” that is included in the Hyper-physics Gravity link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/exchg.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/exchg.html#c1)

Exchange Force
Cut and paste:
“All four of the fundamental forces involve the exchange of one or more particles. Even the underlying color force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/color.html#c1) which is presumed to hold the quarks together to make up the range of observed particles involves an exchange of particles labeled gluons.
Such exchange forces may be either attractive or repulsive, but are limited in range by the nature of the exchange force. The maximum range of an exchange force is dictated by the uncertainty principle since the particles involved are created and exist only in the exchange process - they are called "virtual" particles. Such exchange forces are often pictured with Feynman diagrams.”
Table

Force                           Exchange particle
Strong Force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html#c2)                         gluon (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html#c1)
Electromagnetic Force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html#c3)        photon (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html#c5)
Weak Force (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html#c4).                        W and Z (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html#c4)
Gravit (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav)y.                                graviton (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html#c6)
End of link.


Further, from the hyperlink, “Range of exchange forces”:
“Note that this expression implies that a zero mass for the exchange particle implies a force of infinite range. The rest masses of the exchange particles for the electromagnetic force and gravity, the photon and the graviton (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html#c6), are taken to be zero and those forces are presumed to be infinite in range. The recent detection of gravity waves is consistent with transmission at the speed of light and therefore with a graviton mass of zero.”


The ISU has taken a different path in describing both light and gravity, and they are big departures from the material presented in the Hyper-physics links, as noted throughout the thread. As mentioned at the end of reply #96, “Light, the electromagnetic spectrum, is considered the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave particle:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg)


In the ISU, the mass of a photon, just like all wave-particles, is contained in a wave-particle whose presence is maintained by a complex standing wave pattern that moves in the direction of the net highest wave energy density source in the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space.


The concept of a photon at rest with zero mass may be technically correct in the language of the standard model, but that is not consistent with the idea that the photon is emitted at the speed of light, has mass composed of various numbers of quanta (not to be confused with the standard model or the “quantum of action”), and has both a directionally inflowing standing wave component, and a spherically out flowing wave energy component, which is light in the ISU.


In regard to the graviton exchange particle of the force of gravity, the approach in the ISU is presented as the speculated scenario for quantum gravity, described in reply #76, and the exchange is effected by wave energy, not by a virtual exchange particle called a graviton.


To explain that, particles that make up m1 and m2 in the equation …
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_09_17_1_23_41.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_09_17_1_23_41.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_09_17_1_23_41.gif)


… are the source of spherically out flowing gravitational waves emitted from the standing wave patterns of the wave-particles that make up the two masses, m1 and m2, in accord with the description of standing wave particles mentioned throughout. The spherically out flowing wave energy emitted by wave-particles in m1 and m2, traverse the space between each other at the local speed of light, and become each other's directionally inflowing wave energy components. This is a gravitational wave-energy exchange.


They cause wave convergences in space that might act as momentary “virtual” particles, or as I phrased it, “momentary ‘spots’ with mass” as mentioned in post #97, but those “spots” do not traverse space, they appear and disappear. This action is part of the process of quantum action at the particle boundaries of the each of the receiving masses, and those convergences, or high energy density spots, are continually being incorporated into the masses, replacing the continually out flowing gravitational wave energy from the surfaces of the respective masses, m1 and m2.


Therefore, the ISU counterpart to the graviton particle that is predicted by the standard model, is the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component of the standing wave patterns of all of the wave-particles that make up m1 and m2.


The ever changing wave energy density profile of space then, is related to the wave particles in the mass that move through it, just as the electromagnetic radiation is related to the photon wave-particles that emit the light of the electromagnetic spectrum as they traverse open space.


The light of the electromagnetic spectrum is a special form of gravitational wave energy, meaning that since the photon wave-particle travels at the speed of light, it gets all of its inflowing wave energy component from the direction of motion, thus “faithfully” following the curved path laid out in the wave energy density profile of the local space.


To be continued (from Tampa, FL, after Irma) …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/09/2017 19:13:59
Continued after Irma …


Irma is gone. Irma was enlightening and instructional.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_09_17_5_13_52.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_09_17_5_13_52.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_09_17_5_13_52.jpeg)


After the power gives out, besides just hoping the roof doesn’t give out (it didn’t), one has a lot of time to think. Since my current project is about how particles get their charge in the ISU, I thought about it in the light of what can be learned about energy from Irma.


There is heat in the form of warm tropical waters of the Atlantic.
There is the forward motion as the earth turns below and the wind and sea currents churn above.
There is the direction of rotation as the influence of the Coriolis force plays out: (Wiki)   “In physics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), the Coriolis force is an inertial force (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force)[1] that acts on objects that are in motion relative to a rotating reference frame (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame). In a reference frame with clockwise (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwise) rotation, the force acts to the left of the motion of the object. In one with anticlockwise rotation, the force acts to the right. Deflection (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(physics)) of an object due to the Coriolis force is called the Coriolis effect.” Tampa was on the west side, so the counterclockwise rotation reduced the damage and the storm surges along the coast.


All of that converts to great energy in a storm like Irma, as can be attested to by the winds, wind damage, and tidal surges.


Can there be some correlations made between the energies in effect in Irma, and the nature of positive and negative charges in the wave-particle environment in the ISU. For sure. For example, electricity is in the air as the clouds swirl against the ocean, and against each other. The electron can be called the exchange particle of the hurricane force. In the ISU, the “exchange” particle would be the components of the standing wave patterns of the wave-particles, and the associated high energy density spots that form momentarily throughout space as a result.


It is interesting that along with experiencing all of the energy of a great storm like Irma, you might get the opportunity to work with power generators, inverters, and batteries. They serve as a reminder that the positive pole has an abundance of positive charge in the form of electrons ready to jump away. They will take any path to the negative pole, or to the ground, and not only can provide a useful current, they can produce extreme current discharges, as they did when Irma blew the transformers with a big pop, displaying a green electrical plasma in the air.

The electron flow between positive poles and negative poles, whether it is an actual jump of electrons from one place to another, or their jiggle within a conductor, can be equated with the energy picked up from the sea and the clouds. This energy is held in the air, ready to discharge in the form of lightening, or in the power that the inertial forces have to cause the motion of the winds and the water. Storm surges carry and discharge energy, clouds hold electrical energy and discharge it as lightening, winds move and impact the objects on the ground. Great energy is being displayed everywhere in the storm. It is all a reminder of positive charges and negative charges; one being energy ready to move, and the other being the place it moves to.


So I am equating those positive and negative charges with the charge of the particle, whether it is a positively charged particle, a negatively charged particle, or a particle that doesn’t hold a charge. The exchange “particle” between wave-particles in the ISU is the quantum, not to be confused with the quantum of action in quantum mechanics. Quanta in the ISU are all about wave energy convergences that occur in quantum increments in exchanges between wave-particles.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/09/2017 15:55:11
The Irma post leaves off with the flow of electrons and that brings up electric current. Going back to the Hyper-physics index, under electricity and magnetism where we started the project on particle charge, this quote is from the link to electric current:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elecur.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elecur.html)

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_15_09_17_3_42_26.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_15_09_17_3_42_26.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_15_09_17_3_42_26.gif)
“Electric current is the rate of charge
flow past a given point in an electric circuit, measured in Coulombs/second which is named Amperes. In most DC electric circuits (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dccircon.html#c1), it can be assumed that the resistance (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/resis.html#c1) to current flow is a constant so that the current in the circuit is related to voltage (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elevol.html#c1) and resistance by Ohm's law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmlaw.html#c1). The standard abbreviations for the units are 1 A = 1C/s.”

That link puts the Amp into perspective. During Irma’s extended power outage, one of my backup actions was to use a small 400 watt inverter hooked up to two 12 volt marine batteries in series, and charged by a 45 watt solar panel. It ran my phone and iPad chargers, and a low wattage lamp. I also used a 2500 watt Cobra inverter hooked up to my car, but I had to leave the car running while in use, so that was limited by gas consumption and heat build up. With that I could make coffee, use the microwave, and toaster, interchangeably, and even run the internet router and Samsung TV, and my CCTV cameras. The power consumption calculations included the amperage of the various devices, and so it was a practical reminder that one amp equals 1 Coulomb per second.

Below that is the Hyper-physics link to conventional electric current:


Conventional Electric Current
“Although it is electrons which are the mobile charge carriers (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/miccur.html#c2) which are responsible for electric current in conductors (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/conins.html#c1) such as wires, it has long been the convention to take the direction of electric current as if it were the positive charges which are moving. Some texts reverse this convention and take electric current direction as the direction the electrons move, an obviously more physically realistic direction, but the vast majority of references use the conventional current direction and that convention will be followed in most of this material. In common applications such as determining the direction of force on a current carrying wire (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/forwir.html#c1), treating current as positive charge motion or negative charge motion gives identical results. Besides the advantage of agreeing in direction with most texts, the conventional current direction is the direction from high voltage to low voltage, high energy to low energy, and thus has some appeal in its parallel to the flow of water from high pressure to low (see water analogy (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/watcir.html#c1)).”


The common denominator between the conventional electric current, and the “current” associated with the motion of the wave-particle through the oscillating background, is that there is a magnetic field perpendicular to the current flow, as mentioned in regard to speculations about particle spin in the ISU.


Following the reasoning that quanta in the ISU are all about wave energy convergences at the local speed of light, and wave-particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, the stable standing wave particles can last indefinitely (or until their standing wave patterns are interrupted), but the quanta of which they are composed don't exist very long; they are all momentary convergences.


A note about those convergences:
Relative to a supposed universal average wave energy density environment, quanta have varying durations. Gravitational waves all traverse space at nature’s maximum local velocity which is governed by to the local wave energy density, but the wave energy density environment can change very quickly, especially within the particle space. The particle space is defined by the complex standing wave pattern, and within the pattern is the high density core portion of the wave particle. It is high density relative to the space at and around the particle boundary. In the ISU, waves that make up the wave convergences within the core move slower relative to the waves that make up the wave convergences at the particle boundary and in the surrounding space.


Here’s why. Wave convergences at the boundary of the particle space are unique because the spherical wave emitted by those boundary convergences goes ~half into and ~half out of the particle space. The part that goes into the particle space immediately experiences an increase in wave energy density and so it slows (the ~half that leaves the particle space traverses the space between particles and objects, and becomes their inflowing wave energy component). The next convergence as the wave energy goes deeper into the particle space has a similar action, half goes out toward the surface, and half is directed more toward the particle core, and again there is a slowing of the wave advance toward the core. The slowing is referred to as a time delay, and a wave-particle has an accumulated time delay that is directly related to the amount of “contained” energy within the standing wave pattern.




To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/09/2017 20:06:53
Continuing from the last post, note that in the ISU, some convergences have longer durations than others because the local wave energy density governs the rate of action. The synchronized inflow and out flow of energy in each of those boundary convergences is a quantum, meaning that energy entering and leaving the particle space participates in quantum action at the entry and departure point. Counting and quantifying quanta within the particle space is an averaging process, as described in the “freeze frame” idea discussed in reply #71. Frequent references to “particles are composed of energy in quantum increments” are based on the quantization process at the particle surface, and on the proposed calculations of the freeze frame idea which is meant for talking purposes.


Relating that to the issue at hand, which is particle charge, the positively charged particles, the negatively charged particles, and the particles that don’t hold a charge, all share the fact that they are quantized, and in regard to stable wave-particles, they have an enduring standing wave pattern that defines the particle space, the particle boundary, and the particle surface. However, none of that seems to determine their charge. To relate any of that to the Coulomb force is going to be an ongoing project; progress is likely to be slow.


Keeping going though, the “Irma” post alluded to a flow of energy having a potential, i.e., one way of portraying it is that electrons accumulate at the positive pole and jump or flow to the negative pole, producing a current. We know from the hyper-physics links that the Coulomb force has an interesting characteristic, in that the force between a positive and negative particle isn’t directly related to the energy contained in the particle or the size of the particle. The Coulomb force between an electron and a proton is the same. A case in point about that characteristic, remember back in post #80, for talking purposes in the ISU, the electron and proton at rest have, respectively: quanta in an electron = 381,239,356, quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517 (Roughly 400 million vs. 700 billion).


Wave energy moves freely between the proton and the electron, and for that matter, between all wave-particles, but in regard to charge, same-charged particles maintain their distance, overcoming quantum gravity in close quarters, and the Coulomb force causes the particles to separate. Oppositely charged particles attract with equal Coulomb force, but generally the force is not strong enough break into or interrupt each other's standing wave patterns. And there is the issue that there are particles that don’t hold a charge at all. I guess they just act indifferent toward charged particles. Interesting to contemplate from the perspective of the ISU.


Maybe that contemplation can include examining the popular science material about the atom, and what better place to start than with the hydrogen atom:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_17_7_35_53.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_17_7_35_53.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_17_7_35_53.jpeg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom)
“A hydrogen atom is an atom of the chemical element hydrogen. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force. Atomic hydrogen constitutes about 75% of the baryonic mass of the universe.[1]
In everyday life on Earth, isolated hydrogen atoms (called "atomic hydrogen") are extremely rare. Instead, hydrogen tends to combine with other atoms in compounds, or with itself to form ordinary (diatomic) hydrogen gas, H2. "Atomic hydrogen" and "hydrogen atom" in ordinary English use have overlapping, yet distinct, meanings. For example, a water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms, but does not contain atomic hydrogen (which would refer to isolated hydrogen atoms).”



To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/09/2017 14:21:22
Understanding the hydrogen atom as described in the entire Wiki link is a major task for a layman science enthusiast. However, whatever level of understanding that I get by starting out on that task will benefit my learning, and at the same time might help add to the scope of ISU model. It is also an opportunity to continue to differentiate between the ISU and the material available from various mainstream sources like Hyper-physics, and other layman level material like that often found in Wikipedia links.

As I approach the task, I continue to strive to make the ISU internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

The Hydrogen Wiki link identifies H as a 1/2 spin baryon, composed of three quarks. Quarks never appear on their own in nature, so that is fine in the ISU, and it is acknowledged that when you collide protons, their standing wave patterns are “interrupted”, as described in post #91, with all of the consequences of such an interruption, appearance of quarks and all.

From Wiki:
Baryonic matter
“Nearly all matter that may be encountered or experienced in everyday life is baryonic matter, which includes atoms of any sort, and provides those with the property of mass. Non-baryonic matter, as implied by the name, is any sort of matter that is not composed primarily of baryons. This might include neutrinos and free electrons, dark matter, such as supersymmetric particles, axions, and black holes. - The very existence of baryons is also a significant issue in cosmology, because it is assumed that the Big Bang produced a state with equal amounts of baryons and antibaryons. The process by which baryons came to outnumber their antiparticles is called baryogenesis.”

In the ISU, it is not assumed each Big Bang produces a state with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and so no equivalent to baryongenesis is necessary in the model. Further, all particles have mass because their standing wave patterns are composed of wave convergences, and those high density spots at each convergence account for the mass of the particle. To be crude, in the standard cosmology, initial equal amounts of matter and antimatter is a way of addressing the “beginning” from the perspective of “something from nothing”, by way of symmetry breaking. It is a point of contention between the symmetry of the big bang standard model and the “always existed” ISU model.

Here is a link to contemplate:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model)
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png)

There is a lot of material in that link that can be addressed from the standpoint of differentiation between the standard model and the ISU, and may be necessary to help understand even “simple” hydrogen.

As for it having 1/2 integer spin, I don’t think there is a complete understanding of what causes spin yet, but in a very limited fashion I address it in the ISU in posts #89 to #92. This quote from the Wiki on 1/2 spin:

“Spin as a consequence of combining quantum theory and special relativity”

“When physicist Paul Dirac tried to modify the Schrödinger equation so that it was consistent with Einstein's theory of relativity, he found it was only possible by including matrices in the resulting Dirac Equation, implying the wave must have multiple components leading to spin.[6]”

In the ISU, it is very true that the wave must have multiple components leading to spin, and with that there is little dispute. The structure of the wave-particle has the two components of the standing wave, the inflowing and the out flowing wave energy, and in addition, the standing wave pattern is the sum of many converging waves in a stable wave-particle space. As such, the ISU would agree that the statement by Dirac was correct. However, the reason Dirac was forced to that conclusion, I think, is because the wave function is not consistent with the theory of relativity, and his contemplative solution is matrices derived for a theory that can be said to achieve some compatibility with relativity.

In the ISU, the wave function is not invoked, and the wave-particle always has both location and momentum, even though we cannot precisely establish both at the same time, and even though in practice we cannot precisely establish either individually, for that matter. Particle location is always “fuzzy” due to the ever changing pattern of momentary quanta forming and disbursing their “third waves”, and the direction of motion is likewise “fussy” due to the undetectable curving profile of the wave energy density of space that causes those high energy density spots to form more frequently in the direction of the highest gravitational wave energy density.

Moving along in the Wiki, the positive charge of the proton, and the negative charge of the electron, combine to give the hydrogen atom a neutral charge. That simple perspective is worth noting, because the energy of a proton at rest is 1,836 times greater than that of an electron at rest, yet their charges precisely offset.

The explanation of the Coulomb force must be right there before our mind’s eye. A positive charge composed of 400 billion quanta, offsets a negative charge composed of 700 million quanta, and something makes one positive and one negative.

Could there be a divide or “line of separation” at the atomic level where the attraction separates the charge within the space of the atom whereby the proton provides 1/2 of the balance and the electron provides the other 1/2 of the balance, and that establishes the average distant, in accord with the inverse square law, that must be kept between them. Is the thought of positive vs negative really a separation of all the energy present in the atom into two equals, breaking above and below some mean … the particles don’t, can’t mix their quanta because the convergences are part of their stable complex standing waves that don’t go as far as interrupting each other's patterns, … so is the particle boundary that line of separation? … assuming the whole natural state of the atom will be neutral, and the stable composition of the participating sub-atomic particles must balance when joined in the atomic structure, is it the atomic neutral atom structure that comes first? Do we have to take another look at nucleosynthesis from the ISU perspective, i.e., that the universe and the invariant natural laws that govern it have always existed, and there really is no such thing as nucleosynthesis on a grand scale; only arena by arena decay of their individual big crunches, always governed by the same physics? … just thinking out loud to add to the earlier brainstorming in post #94.


To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 19:49:10
There is yet no fact of the big bang.
A. 13 Billion years ago is a vast understatement as grass turns to soil turns to rock.
B. Gravity effects light and is not included in the nobeld publication.

There could be larger objects beyond our current view of the universe pulling the light.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/09/2017 20:24:36
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_09_17_4_18_49.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_09_17_4_18_49.jpeg)
Brainstorming idea …
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_09_17_4_18_49.jpeg)


I’m starting to get some ideas that apply to the structure of an atom of hydrogen, and that might give some perspective on the offsetting positive and negative charges within the neutral hydrogen atom (with implications about the ISU process of quantum action and the Coulomb force). Note that the interaction of the wave-particles is at is simplest structure in the hydrogen atom, which is a good place to start and to build from.

The standing wave pattern of the hydrogen atom’s proton has a surface or boundary that (according to the ISU model) has an equal amount of out flowing wave energy at all points because the out flow is spherical. We can think of that out flow as a positive energy out flow, supplying wave energy into space, i.e., as the local source of energy added to the energy density profile of space. Then we can think of the directionally inflowing wave energy component of that proton as the replacement energy for that out flow, maintaining the established mass and energy of the proton wave-particle. I would label the inflowing component the negative energy inflow.

The net exchange of energy is between the individual wave-particle's standing wave patterns and the wave energy density profile of space, with each particle (when at rest) absorbing the same amount of wave energy that it emits.

The natural approximate relationship between the quantity of the proton’s energy exchange with the surrounding space, and the electron’s energy exchange with the surrounding space being 1836 to 1, but the net neutral charge of the hydrogen atom accommodates that huge differential because of the wave mechanics at work in the process of quantum action.

The proton’s out flow is strong enough to “hold off” the quantum gravitational “diving” action of the electron at a certain average distance in accord with the inverse square law. The vast amount of the proportional 1836:1 outflow is unnoticed (not felt) by the electron, but the little bit that is noticed in the location of each “dive” toward the massive proton is enough to repel the electron back out to maintain its appropriate distance. This would mean that the motion of the electron in the space surrounding the proton is erratic and chaotic in terms of the path that it takes, and yet that path stays within the bounds of the forces at work, quantum gravity and energy density equalization.

That action takes into consideration that the electron too has inflowing and outflowing wave energy components, so the inverse square effect is a net balance that is achieved at a particular distance.

Thus the hydrogen atom, 1) has a neutral net charge between the combined energy outflow of the proton and the electron, labeled positive energy, and the combined wave energy inflow of the proton and the electron, labeled negative wave energy, 2) has an established average distance between the electron and the proton based on the inverse square law, and 3) the electron is dancing all around the permitted space in response to the forces in play. Hydrogen's two sub-atomic particles thus mutually participate in making the hydrogen atom a stable neutral atom in the ISU.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/09/2017 15:01:40
This quote is from, Looking at the Invisible Universe, by James Jespersen & Jane Fitz-Randolph, 1990. Chapter 4, page 31, Pinchfuls of Starlight: “During the end of the nineteenth century and into the first part of the twentieth century, scientists accumulated a considerable body of observations related to the spectra of various substances as well as the spectra of many astronomical bodies.”


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series)
“The emission spectrum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum) of atomic hydrogen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) is divided into a number of spectral series, with wavelengths given by the Rydberg formula (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula). These observed spectral lines are due to the electron (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron) making transitions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electron_transition) between two energy levels (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_levels) in an atom. The classification of the series by the Rydberg formula was important in the development of quantum mechanics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics). The spectral series are important in astronomical spectroscopy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy) for detecting the presence of hydrogen and calculating red shifts (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_shift).”


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum)
“The emission spectrum of a chemical element (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element) or chemical compound (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound) is the spectrum of frequencies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequencies) of electromagnetic radiation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation) emitted due to an atom (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom) or molecule making a transition (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electron_transition) from a high energy state to a lower energy state. The photon energy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy) of the emitted photon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon) is equal to the energy difference between the two states. There are many possible electron transitions for each atom, and each transition has a specific energy difference. This collection of different transitions, leading to different radiated wavelengths (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelengths), make up an emission spectrum. Each element's emission spectrum is unique. Therefore, spectroscopy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy) can be used to identify the elements in matter of unknown composition. Similarly, the emission spectra of molecules can be used in chemical analysis of substances.”


Since the wave-particle of the ISU is unique, as described speculatively throughout the thread, and since those speculations describe an action process (called quantum action) where the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the sub-atomic particles account for hydrogen’s offsetting positive and negative charges, there should be an ISU-specific explanation for the spectral lines of hydrogen. I’ll be contemplating that task while working my way through the hydrogen research links.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_09_17_2_35_28.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_09_17_2_35_28.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_09_17_2_35_28.jpeg)
Absorption and emission spectrum of hydrogen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen)


“If only a single atom of hydrogen were present, then only a single wavelength would be observed at a given instant. Several of the possible emissions are observed because the sample contains many hydrogen atoms that are in different initial energy states and reach different final energy states. These different combinations lead to simultaneous emissions at different wavelengths.”

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/09/2017 14:51:52
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_09_17_2_47_56.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_09_17_2_47_56.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_09_17_2_47_56.jpeg)


Reported here, some known physics, paraphrased from the section on electromagnetic radiation in, Chemistry - Matter and Its Changes, by Brady, Russell & Holum, Riley & Sons, 2000. It shows how compatible the ISU wave mechanics are with known physics in regard to the electromagnetic radiation of the hydrogen atom. “Max Planck depicted EM as the emitted quanta or packets of energy called photons, where each photon “pulses” with a frequency as it travels with the speed of light.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon)
“Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) and exhibit wave–particle duality (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality), exhibiting properties of both waves (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave) and particles (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/particle). For example, a single photon may be refracted (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction) by a lens (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)) and exhibit wave interference (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)) with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum), though not both at the same time. The photon's wave and quanta qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon, and cannot be described by any mechanical model;[2] a representation of this dual property of light, which assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy, is not possible. The quanta in a light wave cannot be spatially localized. Some defined physical parameters of a photon are listed.”


The pulses are consistent with the ISU wave-particle description of the emission of light by photons, and consistent with the ISU standing wave structure. Notice posts #69-#72 for some discussion on the ISU speculations. The explanation for the mechanics of the pulses is unique to the ISU.

Based on the ISU wave mechanics, some things can be said about a specific emission line in the hydrogen emission spectrum. A single hydrogen atom, in a specific wave energy density environment, whose energy has built to the emission of a photon of a specific wave length/frequency, results in that hydrogen atom being restored to a specific energy level relative to the energy of the electron and relative to the wave energy density of the local environment of the hydrogen atom.

There is a frequency and wave length associated with that specific energy, and that energy is characterized by the presence of the photon’s standing wave pattern with a specific number of quanta in the form of momentary high energy density spots that form at the points of major wave convergences within the particle’s standing wave pattern. The interior or core of the photon wave-particle is like a little engine that continually supplies the quanta at the surface of the particle with wave energy from within, while the surface of the wave particle continually receives wave energy arriving from the wave energy density of space. The inflowing wave energy finds it way into the core. The out flow is positive energy into space, and inflow is negative energy from space; space being the “storage device” for the continual quantum action of all wave-particles.

The thing about it occurring in a given wave energy density environment is that there is a given local level of wave energy in the profile of space, and traversing the local space where the hydrogen atom is present. That energy action is at a sufficient level to assure that the inflowing component of the particle’s standing wave pattern can provide a stable wave energy density environment and thus provide for a stable particle.

The emission of a photon is the act of maintaining the stability of the particle relative to the local wave energy density environment. The emission of the photon is a balancing event in response to corresponding changes in the wave energy density environment, and brings the electron and proton positive and negative charges back into balance, and restores the stability of the atom and electron.

The photon follows a directional path laid out in the local wave energy density profile of space, and as it traverses space, it continually emits a constant wavelength and frequency caused by the continually refreshing wave convergences within the photon core that pulse the energy in tune with the frequency of the emitted light.

In the ISU, the specific frequency of the photon is directly related to the quanta contained in the standing wave pattern, and there is a 1:1 relationship between the cyclical build up of quanta at the core of the wave-particle and the time delay associated with that build up that governs the frequency of the out flowing wave emitted spherically from the photon’s surface. Note that the “time delay”, as mentioned in posts #63 an #92, plays a very important role in the frequency/wavelength of the electromagnetic wave.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/09/2017 16:00:39
For the record, I have used the word “spherical” about 75 times in this thread (so far), lol.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_09_17_11_15_59.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_09_17_11_15_59.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_09_17_11_15_59.gif)


Usually it is in reference to spherical waves emitted from the convergence of two “parent” spherical waves. That action is at the heart of the wave mechanics that are the fundamentals of the Infinite Spongy Universe cosmology. Spherical waves converge at all orders of magnitude, but the model focuses on Big Bang arena waves at the macro realm, on quantum waves in the realm of quantum action and quantum gravity, and on the tiniest of waves, the oscillating wave action at the foundational level of the universe.


One thing I do want to include in this thread is to follow through on a statement I made in post #72, and that is address the philosophy of the ISU (note that I use coined words, generative and evolvative to address life arising from hospitable conditions and evolving to intelligent, self-aware individuals):


The Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) Model of Cosmology
Eternal Intent from 2011


The Universe, Infinity, Life, and God
The Cosmology and Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe


The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) is all inclusive, all there is, all matter, energy, everything in one infinite and eternal, life and consciousness producing expanse of wave energy that does nothing but carry out its own Eternal Intent.


Thresholds and limits of energy density govern natural processes that produce matter and gravity in environments characterized by the opposing forces of expansion and contraction to produce dynamic and evolving arenas that are continually forming and playing out across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.


The ISU is governed by natural law, and natural law is described in three categories, Quantum Wave Cosmology, the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life, and the Concept of Eternal Intent.


Overview of Natural Law


In regard to Natural Law, we have an advancing boundary between what has been achieved by science, and what is yet to be achieved. What has been achieved is the quantification of the known physical sciences. In the realm of the “yet to be achieved” is the discovery and quantification of the unexplained and/or unknown natural laws. It is the role of science to confront the problems it faces and to advance the boundary into the realm of the “as yet” unknown.


When addressing the unknown, it is an axiom that the laws of nature are invariant. Based on that axiom, invariance is a characteristic of both the science we know and the natural laws we don’t yet know or understand. Science is advanced using the scientific method and according to that method and the invariance axiom, it follows that anything that is as yet unexplained has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.


The physical aspect of the ISU is described by Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) which envisions the universe as it would be if all of the as yet unknown physical laws of nature were known. It is the life hosting feature of the ISU where the generative and evolvative forces of life flourish on a grand scale, undaunted by the inevitable local cataclysms that characterize the eternal process of arena action.


Across the infinite and dynamic arena landscape which hosts a potentially infinite number of life hosting environments at any given point in time, there exists conscious, self aware, intelligent, highly evolved life forms whose individuals contemplate the concepts of the universe, infinity, life and God, and act and interact with freewill that is moderated by their individually developed consciences.


That is the Eternal Intent.


Overview of Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC)


QWC is characterized by two processes, quantum action at the micro level and arena action at the macro level. These two processes are strikingly similar in mechanics but the vast difference in scale makes quantum action look toward the infinitesimal and arena action look toward the infinite.


Quantum action works on the infinitesimal scale and orchestrates wave energy to establish the presence of matter and gravity. The key is that the universe is composed of nothing but wave energy and the tiniest meaningful waves have roles in the establishment of matter and gravity. The existence of particles and gravity demonstrates the success of quantum action.


Arena action works on the infinite scale of the landscape of the greater universe. The key to arena action is the existence of the opposing forces of expansion and contraction that play out in the great waves of energy that traverse the infinite landscape. It is the multiple [big bang] arena landscape that prevents the eternal inflation of the universe and avoids the ultimate Heat Death.


As galaxy filled arena waves collide and overlap, cataclysmic events surround the collapse of galactic material under the compression of gravity. As big crunches form in the overlapping spaces where arenas convergence, they reach a finite capacity of matter and energy density and collapse and bounce into expanding arenas of wave energy. It is the natural law of critical capacity that makes crunches finite and prevents the entire ISU from falling into a final Big Crunch.




Overview of the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life


Arena action produces galaxy filled expanding arenas where it is natural for solar systems to host habitable planets and where the conditions are conducive to the generation of life.


Given the right mix of chemistry and environment, physical iterations of all the finite possible combinations occur and the combinations for reproductive life inevitably arise. Life is adaptive and evolvative, and as early life takes hold, and as evolution occurs, life forms take full advantage of the hospitable environment across the host planet.


Evolution proceeds toward the natural characteristics of advanced life forms, bringing the consciousness and self awareness that mark highly evolved individuals.


Overview of Eternal Intent


The existence of Eternal Intent does not require any violation of the invariance axiom. All of the natural laws of the ISU are invariant, and in an eternal and infinite universe, that means that the natural laws that are in effect now are the same laws that were in effect before, at all times in the infinite past.


Reason and logic of the highly evolved life forms is sound, and when those individuals contemplate the universe, infinity, life, and God, the concept of Eternal Intent emerges as the reasonable and responsible view of the common ground between all contemplative life forms across all space and time. No one religion that is peculiar to one sect on one planet in one age will serve that universal purpose. Eternal Intent must emerge time and time again to show the way.


The definitions of God within organized religions and their doctrine become the basis of the beliefs of their followers. There are sacred unexplained events specific to the history of each religion that lead to the God concept that differs among religions, but there is no evidence of any violation of the natural laws when evaluated by the scientific community as a whole. Specific definitions of God become a matter of faith associated with each religion, but organized religion cannot lay exclusive claim to the natural and inevitable contemplation of God. God and religion are not one and the same.




A non religious, scientifically compatible definition postulates that Eternal Intent is a characteristic of the universe, and the natural laws and Eternal Intent are one and the same. It is the ultimate universal common denominator, not just among peoples here on Earth, but among contemplative and conscientious life forms at the height of the evolvative process across the infinite and eternal universe.


The definition of nature which includes Eternal Intent is not in violation of the scientific method. It acknowledges nature as the potentially infinite and eternal universe whose Eternal Intent is carried out by invariant laws which provide for the perpetual existence of habitable environments where conscious life is generated and evolves to self aware free willed intelligent and conscience bearing individuals who are capable of contemplating the universe, infinity, life and God.


Therefore Eternal Intent would be the quintessential feature of a natural invariant universe and the view that God and the universe are one and the same are fully compatible in the ISU.


Many aspects of the universe that are attributed to the invariant natural laws point to the Eternal Intent of the natural laws:


The perpetual existence of hospitable and habitable environments
The generative and evolvative forces of life
The existence of consciousness
The existence of intelligence
The existence of free willed beings that interact with each other
The existence of our own consciences to moderate our actions and interactions


Within those few aspects of the ISU there is room for hope and faith that the future can unfold as we would have it. Beyond the boundary of scientific knowledge, in the realm of the unknown laws of nature, all things seem possible. It is that realization that makes room for eternal hope for those who care to call upon it in their daily lives.


As a corollary to that, there is no clear right and wrong at every turn of life, and where there is room for eternal hope for well intended outcomes, we are free to seek council from beyond the boundary to guide us through life as well. We consciously seek acknowledgments from beyond the boundary of known science and receive personal, individual, unexplainable guidance from the unknown in accord with invariant natural laws that we don’t yet understand.


It is the Eternal Intent of the ISU that we do so.


In Conclusion


When I talk about Eternal Intent, and seeking acknowledgement and guidance from beyond the boundary of "known" science and understanding, there are some things you should realize:


In order for something to be "science" I mean that it has to be quantified or quantifiable under the procedures recognized as the scientific method. It should subject itself to mathematical equations that are compatible with all aspects of known science, or at least that cannot be shown to be inconsistent with scientific observations and data. So when I say "we don't yet understand", I am referring to as yet unquantified science from the perspective of the scientific community; theories that are not tested and repeatable but that are suspected because of the way outcomes often seem to be favorable responses to our needs and desires.


Further, there are prerequisites before Eternal Intent can be considered:


The universe has to be infinite and must have always existed; it doesn’t work otherwise.


The universe must be governed by invariant natural laws that are in effect in all places at all times (no supernatural events are possible).


There can be no violations of natural law (apparent violations are caused by as yet unknown invariant natural laws).


There must be conscious, self aware, intelligent, contemplative individuals.


There must be as yet unknown natural laws associated with consciousness that trigger some unknown equation; a combination of conscience, intent, emotions, love (or maybe just love of something, even love of power or money, etc.), and expectation or hope or faith that somewhere in the unknown natural laws there is an equation that yields an invariant response guided by our seeking.


The act of seeking acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of our understanding should be differentiated from prayer (in its religious sense) because the source of the response is invariant natural law that has always been in place and is not a response from a personified, conscious God who can pick and choose responses or that has any real time decision making power at all.


That does not mean that prayer will not work for the religious. It means that there are certain combinations of natural law that must come together in a successful equation, and there might be counterproductive aspects involved when prayer is based on a plea to a God within the framework of a given religion.


The stimulus for favorable unfolding of Eternal Intent from beyond the boundary logically includes the quality of the individual intent.


I seek an acknowledgement that the natural and invariant laws that enable the Eternal Intent of the ISU, will serve as the quintessential source of hope and council for all who have faith that there is Eternal Intent.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_09_17_3_43_32.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_09_17_3_43_32.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_09_17_3_43_32.jpeg)
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/10/2017 01:40:34
It seems fitting to include a post with some wider thinking in this thread that already has so much broad speculation …

One could be of the conviction that there are an infinite number of other places across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe, where the lifeforms are quite similar as they are here and now. The circumstances and scenarios could be very much like any that ever were or will be, anywhere, any time.

Such a conviction would allow the sound logic of the highly evolved life forms participating there to come to similar conclusions about a common denominator of invariant natural laws (like those of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)) and about some view of reality conveyed in a  philosophy derived therefrom, (like Eternal Intent). It would be triggered when evolution plays out to some threshold, though not to conclude that such a threshold occurs at the highest limit of evolution. Such a threshold would only be a common point that evolving lifeforms would inadvertently share. Each such point would lead to new and different paths from that which our human life form here on Earth might take.

The question that lead off this thread, “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”, brings with it the idea of infinite possibilities, constrained only by the sameness of the invariant natural laws (albeit the natural laws are a major constraint, compared to the Many Worlds interpretation of QM). Anything not in violation of the invariant natural laws is a possible scenario, and if it is possible, there is no reason why it would only have one unique occurrence, in a universe of infinite space and time.

That eternal sameness would apply not just to the physical accommodations of habitable planets hosting intelligent lifeforms in secluded solar systems across ours and every galaxy in every Big Bang arena, but the events experienced by those who live in those diverse places would take on a general sameness too, but with each life having their own unique individuality in many respects, based on the infinite possibilities.

… and that type of broad unrestrained speculation is admittedly the hallmark of the ISU, and Eternal Intent. :) Bogie smiles.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/10/2017 17:20:40
Reference the following post: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71308.msg524716#msg524716 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71308.msg524716#msg524716). In that post, as a follow up question, I was asking if it could be said that all space is filled with as yet undetectable gravitational waves. The answer is important to this thread because the ISU model considers that axiomatic, i.e., necessary to justify additional content, as I posted in Reply #17, which said:




Reply #17
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on May 16, 2017, 09:53:29 am
… I have posted that the existence of the universe can be characterize by invoking, as axiomatic, what I call the three infinities of space, time, and wave energy. That means that the universe had no beginning, is spatially infinite, has always existed, and all space is filled with wave energy; everything in the universe is composed of wave energy, and wave-particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments. The two action processes, arena action and quantum action, function based on various invariant natural limits and thresholds of wave energy density. Wave energy takes the form of light waves and gravitational waves.
[End of cut and paste]


By way of this post, I am claiming some physical evidence to support the speculation throughout this thread that all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, albeit only the most cataclysmic events produce detectible gravitational waves. The referenced exchange in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum shows a couple of instances of support for the idea that even apples falling from the tree cause gravitational waves.


It is important to point out that the generally accepted science accounting for the detection of those massive events, accomplished by the LIGO interferometers, has to do with General Relativity Theory, and the prediction that gravitational waves cause length contraction. The ISU agrees that the delicate interferometers of the LIGO apparatuses can detect gravity waves, but in the ISU, it isn’t length contraction that causes the interferometers to set off the alarm, it is the change in the wave energy density of the space along the LIGO apparatuses arms as the high energy waves pass at the speed of light. That momentary change in wave energy density affects the rate that the laser light in the two arms of the LIGO detectors traverses the the space along each arm, one after the other, as it passes.
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/10/2017 13:17:01
Give me your idea in one statement please:
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2017 13:47:03
Give me your idea in one statement please:
I understand where you are coming from. This thread probably contains over 50,000 words, most of which elaborate on the various ideas that make up the ISU model. Are you asking me to summarize one specific idea, or the whole model? I recall suggesting you start with reply #16, since that reply does a good job of summarizing the model, and touches on the most important ideas included:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/10/2017 14:07:31
Give me your idea in one statement please:
I understand where you are coming from. This thread probably contains over 50,000 words, most of which elaborate on the various ideas that make up the ISU model. Are you asking me to summarize one specific idea, or the whole model? I recall suggesting you start with reply #16, since that reply does a good job of summarizing the model, and touches on the most important ideas included:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357


There is too much to read and understand with so many words.  Can you write an abstract?   I write my abstract first to get the point across of my idea.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2017 14:24:33
There is too much to read and understand with so many words.  Can you write an abstract?   I write my abstract first to get the point across of my idea.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .


Are you saying that reply #16 is too much to read? I suggest you try to take it a little at a time, but maybe we are not destined to communicate about my model. If not, that is understandable, and it is quite alternative anyway.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/10/2017 15:39:36
There is too much to read and understand with so many words.  Can you write an abstract?   I write my abstract first to get the point across of my idea.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .


Are you saying that reply #16 is too much to read? I suggest you try to take it a little at a time, but maybe we are not destined to communicate about my model. If not, that is understandable, and it is quite alternative anyway.
I did read post 16, I just did not understand your idea.  I kind of understand things from a single paragraph , so if you can write a short abstract explaining your idea then I might just get it.   I can tell you that the word sponge would conform to my N-field theory.   Likewise fields being sponge like to each other .  So I am interested in your views and we do agree on several things.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2017 17:26:03
I did read post 16, I just did not understand your idea.  I kind of understand things from a single paragraph , so if you can write a short abstract explaining your idea then I might just get it.   I can tell you that the word sponge would conform to my N-field theory.   Likewise fields being sponge like to each other .  So I am interested in your views and we do agree on several things.

Thank you for the reply.

The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it. For example, in deep space, the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space is very low, relative to the amount of wave energy contained in the same volume of space in the proximity of a massive object, like the sun. In the model, the sun, and all objects with mass, emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, and that inflow and outflow represents a continual process that maintains the presence of the massive objects and their constituent wave-particles. Therefore, the inflow and out flow action near the sun features a high amount of gravitational wave energy coming and going, but then, in accord with the inverse square law, the same volume of space in a far removed location in deep space would contain much lower wave energy density. Hence, the universe is “spongy”.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/10/2017 23:49:41
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it.
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it. For example, in deep space, the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space is very low, relative to the amount of wave energy contained in the same volume of space in the proximity of a massive object,
To me you are not really explaining a few things, what is the energy traversing through space?   Also the word contain does not seem correct. The second part would also not be true, you are assuming there is no other bodies in deep space.   Your wording is rather strange but I think you are just describing the inverse square law but in your own way .  The transverse to a point source getting denser rather than weaker in magnitude as in the inverse square law.
Is this what you are describing? 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2017 01:04:08
To me you are not really explaining a few things, what is the energy traversing through space?


Also the word contain does not seem correct.
You ask, what is the energy …


It is wave energy, like electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves.


If I read that question as,
Quote
“what is the energy traversing through …
… then it is traversing through space, true, but space is not empty in my model. Space is filled with wave energy, and so every point in space contains some level of wave energy density. Therefore any given wave of light or gravity would be traversing through space that already contains other wave energy traversing it at the same time from various directions.


The use of the word “contains” can be equated to the volume of a given space, say a one gallon jar. The wave energy contained in that space can be equated to the number of what ever is contained in the jar; say the jar contains jelly beans. The one gallon jar that contains jelly beans can contain anywhere from one or two, up to about 5000 jelly beans. If we equate the bean density of the gallon jar, to the wave energy density of a gallon sized volume of space, then one or two beans per gallon is very low, and might equate to nature’s minimum wave energy density, perhaps like the deep space in my former example. On the other hand, if the jar contains a full 5000 jelly beans, then that would represent nature’s maximum jelly bean density, which would equate to the wave energy density at the core of a collapsing Big Crunch, nature's highest wave energy density environment in my model.
Quote
The second part would also not be true, you are assuming there is no other bodies in deep space.   Your wording is rather strange but I think you are just describing the inverse square law but in your own way .  The transverse to a point source getting denser rather than weaker in magnitude as in the inverse square law.
Is this what you are describing? 
I’m really not assuming that there are no other bodies in deep space. I’m saying that there a locations in space where there is a lot of mass nearby, like near the sun in our solar system, and there are places in space far removed from any nearby massive bodies. For example, can you imagine being between two galaxies, not in either one. That is deep space, and the local wave energy density there is much lower than in our solar system within the Milky Way galaxy.


I don’t deny that my wording can sound rather strange. It is because I know the subject matter, and so I might not pay enough attention to the fact that others don’t know the material.


The reference to the inverse square law was a simple use of the phrase, not intended to be complicated application of the law. In the example I used, the greater the distance between our local environment near the sun, and that of deep space, would have an inverse square effect on the energy density in those two places.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 01:22:35
It is wave energy, like electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves.

It is electromagnetic radiation but it is only pE (potential energy). 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 01:32:45
The reference to the inverse square law was a simple use of the phrase, not intended to be complicated application of the law. In the example I used, the greater the distance between our local environment near the sun, and that of deep space, would have an inverse square effect on the energy density in those two places.
That is how field strength ''density'' works.   The greater the radius away the lesser the affect of the field.   What you are talking about is electromagnetic fields where each point source is the centre of its own independent field and at its densest point.  I know you may think you have discovered something new, but I feel you are explaining present information but in your own interpretation of that information.
I am not sure you are offering anything new. Do not take this as a negative , it is good to understand the Universe in our own minds our own way. 


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2017 02:32:35
That is how field strength ''density'' works.   The greater the radius away the lesser the affect of the field.   What you are talking about is electromagnetic fields where each point source is the centre of its own independent field and at its densest point.  I know you may think you have discovered something new, but I feel you are explaining present information but in your own interpretation of that information.
I am not sure you are offering anything new. Do not take this as a negative , it is good to understand the Universe in our own minds our own way. 



Thanks for the encouragement.

You may think I am boasting about new discoveries, but that is not the case. It is true that I would claim my model has several unique features, and the main aspects are put together uniquely, but if you started by reading reply #16, would should have picked up the fact that the model contains known science, plus my own speculations about “as yet” unknown science. None of it is supposed to come across sounding like I am claiming any new discoveries, and I do say that I have no extraordinary evidence. They are speculations and hypotheses.

In addition, it is a little too soon for you to conclude that there is noting new in the speculations.

Never the less, your point about field strength density surrounding and spreading out from a point source could sufficiently characterize a light wave, and even gravitational waves for that matter. However, you are equating what I call a spherically expanding light wave front spreading out from a point source, to an electromagnetic field, if I understand you correctly. I do address that topic, but we are not there yet.

The “front” is a boundary between the wave energy of the expanding wave, as it intrudes into the space occupied by adjacent expanding wave fronts. That automatically causes wave convergences, which are quite important in the model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 13:41:28
you are equating what I call a spherically expanding light wave front spreading out from a point source, to an electromagnetic field,
The word you should be using for a spherical expansion is isotropic, the electromagnetic field permeates isotropic through space. I know you will not understand this, the electromagnetic field is ''light'', waves are an invert of the field, a force feedback.
In addition, it is a little too soon for you to conclude that there is noting new in the speculations.
That is correct.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2017 16:09:04
The word you should be using for a spherical expansion is isotropic, the electromagnetic field permeates isotropic through space. I know you will not understand this, the electromagnetic field is ''light'', waves are an invert of the field, a force feedback.
Thank you for that suggestion, and that may be the case, but I define light differently than that because I want to put it into the context of the outflowing wave energy from the photon wave-particle; photons have mass in the ISU. You may not be ready to begin looking at my version of the wave-particle (you may never be, lol), but if you are interested to get a preview, see reply #68 …
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770)

… where I begin to describe the wave-particle. Also pertinent to your post, in reply #107, I address electromagnetism in the context of Max Planck’s depiction:

From reply #107: “Reported here, some known physics, paraphrased from the section on electromagnetic radiation in, Chemistry - Matter and Its Changes, by Brady, Russell & Holum, Riley & Sons, 2000. It shows how compatible the ISU wave mechanics are with known physics in regard to the electromagnetic radiation of the hydrogen atom. “Max Planck depicted EM as the emitted quanta or packets of energy called photons, where each photon “pulses” with a frequency as it travels with the speed of light.”

I count you among the Naked Scientist “science enthusiasts”, but admit that this model may be too “alternative” for most, and that is okay. Like you said, “It is good to understand the Universe in our own minds our own way.” I share it in hopes of getting into discussions like this, which help me learn and grow the model.


To jump ahead, I define light as the out flowing gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave-particle. An electromagnetic event emits photons, and as photon wave-particles traverse space, they emit out flowing gravitational wave energy, which is light. Remember that my model is quite alternative.


By the way, we are going to see Neil deGrasse Tyson tonight.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 16:45:41
I define light as the out flowing gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave-particle.
If I am being totally objective and unbiased towards my own notions,  I would answer the quoted with a question about proofs.

I would ask you to provide ''solid'' evidence of a Photons existence?

To me the physics about Photons are mostly of the imagination. I do understand you put packet but you do mention Photon.  So I would want you to provide proof.

Also I would  ask you to explain what you mean by light?    The dark energy type of light which is invisible or the visible of light , the spectrum we can see. Light is a rather general term .

Also what do you mean by out flowing gravitation wave?  Gravitation is inwards , it would have to be an inwards flowing wave.



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2017 18:20:58
If I am being totally objective and unbiased towards my own notions,  I would answer the quoted with a question about proofs.

I would ask you to provide ''solid'' evidence of a Photons existence?

To me the physics about Photons are mostly of the imagination. I do understand you put packet but you do mention Photon.  So I would want you to provide proof.

Also I would  ask you to explain what you mean by light?    The dark energy type of light which is invisible or the visible of light , the spectrum we can see. Light is a rather general term .

Also what do you mean by out flowing gravitation wave?  Gravitation is inwards , it would have to be an inwards flowing wave.
Thank you for the comments and questions. One of the axioms in my model is that the amount of wave energy in the universe is infinite.

From that axiom, I derive the details of the wave-particle in my model. That derivation includes photons that are classified as wave-particles, so photons depend on an axiom in my model, i.e., I can’t prove their exact characteristics beyond their generally accepted existence, but I do speculate about those characteristics.

My model is composed of both known science, and speculations. That said, photons in my model are justified in three ways: 1) They are generally accepted science, 2) They are derived from the axioms, as explained above, and 3) They are speculative in regard to their being standing wave-particles, with mass, that have inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components.

As part of the model, I define the out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave-particle as light (the generally accepted electromagnetic spectrum that includes both light that is visible to the naked eye, and light that is not visible to the naked eye) that has a frequency associated with the energy (in quanta) of the photon wave-particle that emits the wave.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/10/2017 13:35:03
One of the axioms in my model is that the amount of wave energy in the universe is infinite.
The problem with this Bogie, an axiom by definition is something that is self evidently true. Infinite is not self evidently true so neither could be an infinite energy.
So claiming it is an axiom would be falsifiable.

Quote
Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. ... In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/10/2017 15:55:37
The problem with this Bogie, an axiom by definition is something that is self evidently true. Infinite is not self evidently true so neither could be an infinite energy.


Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. ... In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".
You are siting the correct definition of an axiom from the perspective of classical philosophy which is a narrow application.


Have a look at a broader definition:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom)


Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth), to serve as a premise (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise) or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CE%BE%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BC%CE%B1)) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]
The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_philosophy), an axiom is a statement that is so evident (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence) or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4] My bold.
Footnote [4] says: “A proposition (whether true or false)" axiom, n., definition 2. Oxford English Dictionary Online, accessed 2012-04-28.


Quote
So claiming it is an axiom would be falsifiable.
Your basis for saying it would be falsifiable might be true from the perspective of classical philosophy, but from the perspective of modern logic, and in theoretical physics and cosmology, the fact that it is not self evident is not a falsification. An axiom can simply be a statement that is considered either self evident, or necessary for the derivation theorems or subsequent reasoning. The latter is how I am using the axioms.


The question of the infinity of space is considered unfalsifiable.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/10/2017 16:12:17
The question of the infinity of space is considered unfalsifiab
That would be a false statement.   The infinite of space is not shown to be true or not true. There is a 50/50 option.

1)With  boundaries

2) Without boundaries

So ''Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true''   

An infinite space is a statement that is neither true or false. You would have to provide some logic that shows space to be infinite making the statement true.  We can not just say things are true without some form of proof , logical or evident based to confirm the truth.

I do think space is  infinite myself but could I prove it? Not really

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/10/2017 17:51:17
That would be a false statement.   The infinite of space is not shown to be true or not true. There is a 50/50 option.

1)With  boundaries

2) Without boundaries

So ''Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true''   

An infinite space is a statement that is neither true or false. You would have to provide some logic that shows space to be infinite making the statement true.  We can not just say things are true without some form of proof , logical or evident based to confirm the truth.

I do think space is  infinite myself but could I prove it? Not really


I can accept that fact that you object to the axiom that space is infinite, and would just move on. But I am comforted by the fact that you too think it is infinite; so I assume you consider it reasonable.

To go back a bit, in reply #124 you questioned the existence of photons, to which I responded in reply #125 with several points supporting my recognition of the existence of photons and ended that post by saying, “As part of the model, I define the out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave-particle as light (the generally accepted electromagnetic spectrum that includes both light that is visible to the naked eye, and light that is not visible to the naked eye) that has a frequency associated with the energy (in quanta) of the photon wave-particle that emits the wave.”

Moving past your objection as to how I use axioms, the model accepts the existence of photons, and describes them as wave-particles with mass. Do you have any interest, comments, or objection to the wave-particle nature of particles as I describe them?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/10/2017 17:13:15

Reply #130
Wave mechanics in the ISU


To facilitate the reading of this complex but important ISU content post, I’ll state the conclusion at the beginning and again at the end … with no mercy in regard to the number of words.


Conclusion: Spherical light wave fronts originate from a point source, initially the emission of a photon wave-particle that has electric and magnetic properties, and subsequently the emission of the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon wave-particle as it traverses space. The light wavefront expands spherically, enabled by the oscillating background, and in a similar fashion to the Huygens effect with ISU modifications. The photon wave-particles produce an electric current and a magnetic field along their path, while the spherical light wave emitted by the photon wave-particle is a gravitational wave, just like the gravitational waves emitted by all wave-particles.






By way of introduction, there is an electric aspect to light, which means there is a current flow associated with particle motion along the path of the photon, as it traverses the oscillating background of space. That current is the same effect that I attribute to the gyroscope-like characteristic of spin in the direction of motion as measured by Stern-Gerlach devices, as described in replies #89 - #91. It is accompanied by a transverse magnetic field according to the invariant laws of nature (a moving electric current produces a magnetic field), but the electric current drives the magnetic field and is the primary event in the advance of the light wave front through the oscillating background. The current flow is occurring along the path, and the path takes the photon from one oscillation site to another (the tiniest of distances, much like a discrete increment, but with a variable aspect associated with the local wave energy density which varies according to the intensity of the meaningful local wave action).


Note: it is appropriate to establish some explanation for the presence of the oscillating background if I am using it in association with the advance of the light wave front and the generation of the electric field. I offered the ISU explanation for the oscillating background in reply #65 & reply #69, and I find it appropriate now to refer back to it because I have some added thinking about the electromagnetic nature of light and the distinction between the light wave and the gravitational wave that came up lately, indirectly as a result of viewing the Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox video, and contemplations and research on polarization (it is the photon core portions, the “particle” part of the wave-particle that are filtered by the polarized filter; the wave part just goes through all the openings in the filter regardless of the orientation of the filter or filters): ...   and as a result of recent discussions about LIGO gravitational wave discoveries accompanied by gamma ray burst of light.


That video is another of the often occurring efforts to make quantum mechanics out to be something spooky; something that can’t be explained in the context of a local reality, but instead must either invoke non-locality, or faster that light communications between entangled particles. In that vain, I addressed the famous Aspect experiments that are used to support the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics via my replies #71 - #74. I offered comments and analysis of the single particle, two slit, quantum erasure experiments, and came to the conclusion that the wave-particle nature of particles in the ISU offers a solution to any Copenhagen paradox implied by the experiments without having to rely on superposition of states; both the wave state and the particle state are present at all times in the ISU wave-particle.


Never-the-less, I keep reviewing my conclusions in the light of my continued enthusiasm, and that leads to what I think are improvements to the ISU model, which is the gist of this post about the electric and magnetic aspects of the advance of light and gravity through the oscillations. The individual oscillations each have wave energy flows at work as they intersect and form third waves, and that tiniest of wave action generates the tiniest of electric and magnetic fields. The motion of the photon through the oscillations excites the level of oscillation active locally and thus increases the electric and magnetic fields along the path of the photon.


Remember that light waves and gravity waves are the outflowing gravitational component of the wave-particle, but the separation between light and gravity is that the particle that emits light is traveling at the speed of light, and producing electric and magnetic fields along a straight path, while the other gravity waves are emitted by particles that themselves are traveling at sub light speed, even essentially at rest locally, and are not associated with electromagnetism. The importance of that distinction is that the photon gets all of its inflowing wave energy component from the direction of motion through space, and therefore it follows the highest net wave energy density path, a curved path, through the wave energy density profile of space, as mentioned in reply #35. Both light waves and gravitational wave traverse the oscillating background of space at the local speed of light.


The oscillation sites that the light wave is passed along through are continually refreshing each other, essentially in place, because they are the lowest order of wave convergences possible, and they exist because when waves intersect they produce “third waves”, and waves have been intersecting throughout the eternal past, and so if nature has a minimum level or limit of tiny wave action, which it does in the ISU, then there is an oscillating background which serves to advance more meaningful light and gravity waves.


The advance of the photon wave particle is assisted by the new third waves occurring in the oscillating background as a result of the presence and passing of the more meaningful light waves emitted by the passing photon wave-particle, because each point of intersection between the wave energy that makes up the photon wave-particle, and an oscillation occurring in the background, serve to advance the energy of the photon from the current site of oscillation to the adjacent sites of oscillation.


We are talking Huygens 17th century, and Fresnel and Kirchhoff from the 19th century. Huygens theorized that each point on a propagating wave front could be characterized as a new spherical wave. He called them secondary spherical “wavelets”, which are quite like the “third waves” in the ISU model. Some people considered it a disadvantage of the theory that the wavelets propagated spherically, which meant both forward to the direction of the light wave expansion, and backward in the direction the light wave expansion had come. Fresnel and Kirchhoff are said to have later solved that problem, and I need to study that solution, but in the ISU, the function of the spherical wavelets are replaced by the oscillations and the third waves, so the backward part of the third wave not problematic. The backward part of the third wave (Huygens’ wavelet) is expanding into higher wave energy density than the forward part of the third wave as a simple result of the higher wave energy density of the trailing “parent” wave relative to the density of the third wave being encountered. The slower expansion backward into the higher wave energy than the forward expansion into the lower wave energy density mitigates the problem in the ISU.




https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdf (https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdf)
Huygens effect
“The spherical wave is the basic wave for light propagation using Huygens’ principle. In 1678, Christiaan Huygens theorized a model for light propagation that claimed that each point on a propagating wavefront (regardless of “shape”) could be assumed to be a source of a new spherical wave. The sum of these secondary spherical “wavelets” produced the subsequent wavefronts. Huygens’ principle had the glaring disadvantage that these secondary spherical wavefronts propagated “backwards” as well as forwards. This problem was later solved by Fresnel and Kirchhoff in the 19th century. With that correction, the Huygens’ model provides a very useful model for light propagation that naturally leads to expressions for “diffracted” light.”








And now to the magnetic field associated with the advanced of light. There is a magnetic aspect to light, which means that as the electric current flows along the path of the photon, it generates a magnetic field perpendicular to the path. Like the advance of the wave front, the oscillations in the background assist the generation of the fields.


With the above introduction, this post revises the ISU version of the electromagnetic nature of light as it advances through space, so let me write it in one paragraph for TheBox, :0. Next time I do a complete ISU update, I’ll fold all of the new content from this thread into a more orderly presentation of the model, keyed on the reply references.


Conclusion: Spherical light wave fronts originate from a point source, initially the emission of a photon wave-particle that has electric and magnetic properties, and subsequently the emission of the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon wave-particle as it traverses space. The light wavefront expands spherically, enabled by the oscillating background, and in a similar fashion to the Huygens effect with ISU modifications. The photon wave-particles produce an electric current and a magnetic field along their path, while the spherical light wave emitted by the photon wave-particle is a gravitational wave, just like the gravitational waves emitted by all wave-particles.


Edit 11/12/17: Please refer to subsequent thought in reply #223.




https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/10/2017 20:13:03
as it traverses the oscillating background of space.
Subjective , without any sort of proofs.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/10/2017 03:26:07
as it traverses the oscillating background of space.
Subjective , without any sort of proofs.
True. I have explained before that these are my own views, with all of the disclaimers about it being layman level speculations for discussion.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/10/2017 20:55:26
http://www.hq.eso.org/public/news/eso1733/ (http://www.hq.eso.org/public/news/eso1733/)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_10_17_8_38_06.jpeg)








Is there an explanation for the puzzling perspective of the wave energy density profile of space?

There should be a description of the profile of space to introduce this question, so let’s start with a comment that I suppose to be true:

Pick any point in space that can reasonably be occupied by an observer, and light and gravitational wave energy will be passing through that point from all directions at any given time. I would call the wave energy that is passing that point the light and gravitational wave energy in the local profile of space. You could refer to the light wave energy as the light wave energy profile, and the gravitational wave energy as the gravitational wave energy profile. Combined, they would be called the wave energy profile of space.

The logic behind that supposition, in regard to light wave energy, is that it is reasonable to believe that light can be seen from any point in space that an observer could reasonably occupy. In regard to gravitational wave energy, LIGO and the ESO are picking up evidence of gravitational wave energy from massive events occurring in distant galaxies, maybe millions, or even billions of light years away. It is not unreasonable to believe that massive events are emitting gravitational waves all the time, but they don’t all have enough energy to trigger the LIGO alarm.

The Wave Energy Profile of Space: If you are observing all wave energy passing a given point in space, light and gravitational waves will be passing through that point from all directions, at all times. That point in space has a profile that consists of all of the wave energy not only just reaching that point now, but all wave energy heading toward that point in space at the speed of light, from all directions; call it the impending wave energy that will bear on that point over time. And to wrap up the explanation of the profile of space, every light wave and every gravitational wave in the impending wave energy that will bear on that point over time has, or had, a distant origin where an event occurred that produced the wave energy. It is those distant sources that have produced, and are continually producing the wave energy profile of that single point in space.

If there are no objections, I will go on to add the concept of wave energy density to the description of the wave energy profile of space, and thus give an explanation for the Wave Energy Density Profile of Space, a concept useful in understanding the infinite Spongy Universe model.


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 25/10/2017 12:07:08
Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2017 13:43:09
Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.
I definitely like your thinking there, and it supports my conclusion that each Big Bang has preconditions. Please read reply #16, and feel free to comment (see #16 at following link): https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2017 14:20:23
I see there are no objections to the concept of the wave energy profile of space that I updated in reply #133, so let me expand that concept to include the wave energy density issue. Again, let’s take up a position at a point in space, where I get no objection that light and gravitational wave energy is coming from all directions at all times. That is acknowledging the full description in the last post of the Wave Energy Profile of Space, including the impending wave energy that is in transit toward that point, and acknowledging the distant sources that have emitted the wave energy that will reach that point at any given instant.

The density of the wave energy coming from each distant source is potentially different, based on how energetic the emission of the wave was back at the source, and how far away that emission was from the point in space that we are observing. A source emitting a radio wave would produce a low energy density light wave, while a source emitting a gamma ray burst would be producing a high energy density light wave. The duration of the wave energy from those two sources could be very different. A momentary gamma ray blast vs a continuous radio wave emission would be a meaningful difference in the wave energy density profile over time. That difference will have been in the impending wave energy right up until the waves reached our point of observation.

The inverse square law comes into play. The further away the source of the wave is from our observation point, the less energy that wave will have, relative to its energy at its origin, when it reaches the observation point. When we add the density concept to the directional sources of light and gravitational wave energy, the amount of energy passing our observation point from the directional sources is diminished by 1/distance^2.. We aren’t going to be harnessing star light any time soon from any star other than our own sun. But never-the-less, there is energy arriving at our point of observation from those distant sources, and the arriving energy has a vector from the source, that points to and ends up at our observation point. The vector is curved in the ISU, because the path of wave energy from the source to the observation point is curved as a result of continual relative motion of the sources. The impending wave energy takes a curved path through space to get to the observation point, though the expansion of the wave energy heading our way is characterized as spherical (remember the analogy of the Spherical Cow, mentioned a couple of times earlier).

Let’s take a crack at describing the Wave Energy Density Profile of Space, as it relates of our observation point:

The Wave Energy Density Profile of Space:

If you are observing all wave energy passing a given point in space, light and gravitational waves will be passing through that point from all directions, at all times. Each vector from around the entire inflowing wave energy sphere has a unique energy density, governed by the amount of energy of the source event, the duration of that event, and the distance between the event and our point of observation.

Light and gravity are considered to have an infinite reach, and so the greater source of the impending wave energy at our observation point covers the entire universe. Our wave energy density profile is unique based on our observation point, but is not unique universally, because every point in space has a different wave energy density profile at any point in time, and for all points, that profile is constantly changing. Therefore, there isn't any absolute arrangement of the individual points; we are talking about any point, chosen by any means, and there is no reason to believe that if you leave that point you will ever be able to return to it precisely, there is no absolute arrangement of points in space (but that is another topic).

The wave energy density of the selected observation point in space has a wave energy density profile that consists of all of the wave energy of various densities, not only just reaching that point now, but including all wave energy heading toward that point in space at the speed of light, from all directions; call it the impending wave energy density that will bear on that point over time, with varying wave energy densities by vector.




To try to state the whole of the explanation of the wave energy density profile of space in one paragraph, every light wave and every gravitational wave in the impending wave energy density that will bear on a particular observation point, over time, has, or had, a distant origin where an event occurred that produced the wave energy. The amount of the wave energy in every vector of the inflowing sphere of impending wave energy is governed by the intensity of the event, the duration of the event, and the distance between the event and our point of observation. The inverse square law is in play, reducing the amount of energy reaching our point of observation, relative to the energy of the source and the distant from the source. The wave energy density profile of that point in space is made up of the all of the energy along each of the vectors around the sphere, centered by our point of observation, and each vector is like a spear of energy; a stream of wave energy focused on a point of observation, and all of the impending spears are continually passing through the single observation point, all the time. Let it be said that space contains wave energy at the speed of light, everywhere, but the thing that lets  space host particles, also composed of wave energy traveling at the speed of light, is that the speed of light is relative to the local wave energy density, and that density within a particle space is extreme relative to open space, so the energy contained within a particle space is time-delayed due to the density; the presence of the wave-particle is thus maintained.

Note: The impending wave energy density that is arriving from those distant sources, in the case of light waves, is in the form of photon wave-particles, as well as in the form of curved wave fronts from the spherical wave energy emissions of the emitted wave-particles. Generally, the wave-particles of the non-light speed sources, i.e., other than photons, are wave fronts from the source, emitted in quantum increments from the surface of the particles making up the source, or emitted by the source at non-relativistive velocities (except neutrinos which could be at light speed). Refer to reply #130 for more on the wave-particle discussion.

From that definition of the wave energy density profile of space, there are a variety of implications relevant to the nature of the ISU model.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2017 20:50:39
This is a reply to TheBox, on one of his threads, that pertains to the discussion in reply #136, and so I am copying to here.

The thing that massive objects have in common that directly relates to your question, and to a quantum solution to gravity, is that particles and objects are composed of wave energy, in quantum increments. How does that make all mass accelerate at the same rate on Earth?

1) There is an inflowing and an out flowing gravitational wave energy component to all wave-particles, and therefore to all mass which is composed of wave particles. 
2) There is a wave energy density profile in all space, consisting of the out flowing gravitational wave energy emissions in the surrounding space, that governs the directional (gravitational) motion of objects in that local space. It is that density that is the same for all objects in the local space.
3) The sameness of the gravitational wave energy density in the local space governs the rate that wave-particles emit and absorb gravitational wave energy into and from the wave energy density profile of the local space that surrounds them.
4) The emission and absorption of gravitational wave energy by wave-particles is proportional the their mass, and so all objects have the same mass to gravity relationship when they are in the space with the same gravitation wave energy density.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 26/10/2017 15:12:24
Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.
I definitely like your thinking there, and it supports my conclusion that each Big Bang has preconditions. Please read reply #16, and feel free to comment (see #16 at the following link): https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357



As preconditions go I agree, though again in retrospect for my hypothesis to work the light matter and dark matter both have to satisfy a few variables. Namely;
Mass- Both would have to have a constant and increasingly dense mass condensed to a small diameter.
Velocity- Both masses would need to be careering towards one another with the same velocity or within the nearest velocity to each other. For example, if the light matter was travelling slower than the dark matter it could hypothetically deflect from the dark matter instead of colliding.
Time- This is a difficult one because time would need to begin in the immediate seconds after the big bang. But for the sake of theoretical hypothesis if the two matters were not in the same piece of space and time the big bang may not have happened. The time and space between them would have needed to have been constant and decreasing. But if they were in a different piece of space and time they would not have been on a collision course with one another.
Gravitational pull- Now this one isn't really a variable so to speak but one that could help in theory, now mass comes hand in hand with gravity. As we all know the more mass the more gravity and vice versa. Therefore if light matter and dark matter are both measured in mass, they should both have gravity, now the light matter on its own would only exert gravity on itself but add dark matter into that mix and the light matter would exert a gravitational force over the dark matter when it is within range. So, in theory, the same could be said for dark matter, it is a form of mass and therefore must have gravity exerted unto itself. This dark gravity would, in theory, pull the light matter towards itself and the light matter would then pull the dark matter towards itself as well.
So within reason, if all these variables are met the resulting explosion would more or less have been powerful enough to create the big bang and all space and time in between.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/10/2017 16:17:14
As preconditions go I agree, though again in retrospect for my hypothesis to work the light matter and dark matter both have to satisfy a few variables. …

… So within reason, if all these variables are met the resulting explosion would more or less have been powerful enough to create the big bang and all space and time in between.

I'm going to refer you to replies #85, 86, and 87 in this thread for some discussion on the points that your raise. See if there is anything there, or in the links to the recent papers published by the DES, that help you clarify or more fully express your required variables.
Link to reply #85: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg520033#msg520033 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg520033#msg520033)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 26/10/2017 17:23:07
As preconditions go I agree, though again in retrospect for my hypothesis to work the light matter and dark matter both have to satisfy a few variables. …

… So within reason, if all these variables are met the resulting explosion would more or less have been powerful enough to create the big bang and all space and time in between.

I'm going to refer you to replies #85, 86, and 87 in this thread for some discussion on the points that your raise. See if there is anything there, or in the links to the recent papers published by the DES, that help you clarify or more fully express your required variables.
Link to reply #85: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg520033#msg520033 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg520033#msg520033)
In theory, the variables I mention could work, though after reading replies 85 through 87 I now wonder if there should be another variable;
Post big bang acceleration- If the two matters weighed the same in mass at impact then why don't they expand at the same time? A simple answer to this could be that the particles contained within the mass are not uniform in size and mass. For example, light-matter particles could be uniform in size, mass and density and therefore would expand slower. Whereas dark matter particles could be lighter but maintain the same mass and density. For example, if you take a ton of bricks it would weigh a ton but have less brick than a ton of feathers. So, in theory, the dark matter is lighter and at the point of impact would expand much more rapidly than light matter. This may also explain the discrepancy between the amount of visible matter in the universe compared to the expected dark matter. In theory, the fact that it is purported there is more dark matter must mean it is lighter than visible matter and infinitely denser, which must mean there is a local source of dark matter in the universe to propel this expansion further.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/10/2017 17:55:22
In theory, the variables I mention could work, though after reading replies 85 through 87 I now wonder if there should be another variable;
Post big bang acceleration- If the two matters weighed the same in mass at impact then why don't they expand at the same time? A simple answer to this could be that the particles contained within the mass are not uniform in size and mass. For example, light-matter particles could be uniform in size, mass and density and therefore would expand slower. Whereas dark matter particles could be lighter but maintain the same mass and density. For example, if you take a ton of bricks it would weigh a ton but have less brick than a ton of feathers. So, in theory, the dark matter is lighter and at the point of impact would expand much more rapidly than light matter. This may also explain the discrepancy between the amount of visible matter in the universe compared to the expected dark matter. In theory, the fact that it is purported there is more dark matter must mean it is lighter than visible matter and infinitely denser, which must mean there is a local source of dark matter in the universe to propel this expansion further.
I see some progress in your explanation. Acceleration after the Big Bang is a generally accepted concept. We are also talking about preconditions to the Big Bang, and in my version, preconditions to the multiple big bangs that I suppose happen across the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. If so, every Big Bang “arena” will experience that same kind of expansion event as a consequence of it own “collapse/bounce” (as I call it, or just collapse/bang).


Now from that perspective, the presence of dark matter and “light matter” as you call it is just a given in the process I call Big Bang Arena Action (arena action defeats entropy in my model). But there isn’t any circumstances in my model that would equate to the way you use the terms “light matter” and “dark matter”. Instead, the preconditions, from my point of view, are related to common events across the landscape of the greater universe, i.e., Big Bang arenas expanding into each other's space. If we view each mature Big Bang arena to become filled with a vast array of galaxies and galactic structure as they mature, then when two expanding arenas intersect and overlap, they bring with them a portion of their galactic matter and energy. I phrase it, in a flowery language, as a swirling rendezvous that “gives birth” to a new Big Crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space. Therefore, in my model, new big bangs are continually occurring here and there, now and then across the greater universe.


Our views on the preconditions are far apart, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/10/2017 15:12:26
This is another response to TheBox in his thread, “What does an object have that is equal to another object”. I copy it here for future reference.
Remove the wording of wave and wave- particles and we would be in some agreement yet again.

The apple falling to the ground is not a consequence of the apple, for up high the rivers inward flow is weak but strengthens nearer the epi-centre.
Gravity is a ''river'' and put any boats in the river and they all flow at the same rate. The rivers flow is constant and momentum is acceleration.
The acceleration of gravity on Earth is 32 feet per second squared (9.8 m/s^2) which is the g in F=m*g., and you can and do equate that to the effect that the flowing river has on the an object falling into it. The object accelerates relative to the drop position as it catches up with the rate of the river’s flow.

An object in free fall in space will accelerate at g (32ft/s^2) right up until it impacts, while the object that fell into the river will accelerate only until it reaches the velocity of the flowing river, and then it will go with the flow. So the analogy to a river can work but is limited. Your point though, that it is not about the apple, the apple could be a whole tree limb, and it would still be caught up in the acceleration of gravity at the same rate as the tiny apple (and both would be caught up in the river flow at the same rate too).

The OP was about the thing that is the same, besides the fact that both the light object and the heavy object fall at the same rate of acceleration. As you said, the answer to what else is the same, answers gravity. I was agreeing with you by musing about some possible mechanics of quantum gravity; those mechanics are what I was suggesting is the other “sameness”.

Quantum gravity, when it is solved, may very will be associated with the concept that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, each quanta being a tiny increment of the objects total mass. That would mean that instead of the standard particle model’s premise that fundamental particles have no internal composition (they can be taken as points for convenience in mathematics), the quantum gravity solution may turn out to use wave mechanics of quantum particles whose internal composition is measured in numbers of quanta in a complex standing wave pattern (the quanta then become the points). I’m supposing that pattern equates to multiple quanta (huge numbers of momentary and continually refreshing individual high energy density spots that form at the wave intersections of the pattern as gravitational wave energy inflows and out flows). So that is why I bring in the mention of waves and wave particles; it was part of my answer to your opening post.

Regardless, there are some areas of agreement with your river flow analogy.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2017 02:03:22
This is another response to TheBox in his thread, “What does an object have that is equal to another object”. I copy it here for future reference.
Remove the wording of wave and wave- particles and we would be in some agreement yet again.

The apple falling to the ground is not a consequence of the apple, for up high the rivers inward flow is weak but strengthens nearer the epi-centre.
Gravity is a ''river'' and put any boats in the river and they all flow at the same rate. The rivers flow is constant and momentum is acceleration.
The acceleration of gravity on Earth is 32 feet per second squared (9.8 m/s^2) which is the g in F=m*g., and you can and do equate that to the effect that the flowing river has on the an object falling into it. The object accelerates relative to the drop position as it catches up with the rate of the river’s flow.

An object in free fall in space will accelerate at g (32ft/s^2) right up until it impacts, while the object that fell into the river will accelerate only until it reaches the velocity of the flowing river, and then it will go with the flow. So the analogy to a river can work but is limited. Your point though, that it is not about the apple, the apple could be a whole tree limb, and it would still be caught up in the acceleration of gravity at the same rate as the tiny apple (and both would be caught up in the river flow at the same rate too).

The OP was about the thing that is the same, besides the fact that both the light object and the heavy object fall at the same rate of acceleration. As you said, the answer to what else is the same, answers gravity. I was agreeing with you by musing about some possible mechanics of quantum gravity; those mechanics are what I was suggesting is the other “sameness”.

Quantum gravity, when it is solved, may very will be associated with the concept that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, each quanta being a tiny increment of the objects total mass. That would mean that instead of the standard particle model’s premise that fundamental particles have no internal composition (they can be taken as points for convenience in mathematics), the quantum gravity solution may turn out to use wave mechanics of quantum particles whose internal composition is measured in numbers of quanta in a complex standing wave pattern (the quanta then become the points). I’m supposing that pattern equates to multiple quanta (huge numbers of momentary and continually refreshing individual high energy density spots that form at the wave intersections of the pattern as gravitational wave energy inflows and out flows). So that is why I bring in the mention of waves and wave particles; it was part of my answer to your opening post.

Regardless, there are some areas of agreement with your river flow analogy.

I do not why but I feel it appropriate to post this quote

Quote
Overcoming the Monster[edit]
The protagonist sets out to defeat an antagonistic force (often evil) which threatens the protagonist and/or protagonist's homeland.

Examples: Perseus, Theseus, Beowulf, Dracula, The War of the Worlds, Nicholas Nickleby, The Guns of Navarone, Seven Samurai and its Western-style remake The Magnificent Seven, the James Bond franchise, Star Wars: A New Hope, Halloween, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, Attack on Titan, The Hunger Games, Harry Potter and Shrek.[2]

Also to add in which you may find of interest my river flows to the centre of the earth, An object at relative rest on an inertia reference frame is still under a state of acceleration. In other words if you are sitting in a chair right now or standing up , you are still in a state of free fall and acceleration . If it were not for the ground and Newtons third law, you would continue to fall.

F=ma if we have a 1kg mass,  1*a9.82=9.82N

Hence Δt'=Δa=time dilation

The ground state Caesium atom at relative rest is still under a state of constant acceleration.

added , i drew it for you


* atrest.jpg (37.74 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5197 times)

added- Imagine the river example of earlier, imagine you are floating down this river and have just reached terminal velocity of the flow, however you have a mesh stopping you .  The water flows through the mesh and the flow holds you against the mesh .

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/10/2017 13:10:23
I do not why but I feel it appropriate to post this quote


Overcoming the Monster[edit]
The protagonist sets out to defeat an antagonistic force (often evil) which threatens the protagonist and/or protagonist's homeland.


Examples: Perseus, Theseus, Beowulf, Dracula, The War of the Worlds, Nicholas Nickleby, The Guns of Navarone, Seven Samurai and its Western-style remake The Magnificent Seven, the James Bond franchise, Star Wars: A New Hope, Halloween, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, Attack on Titan, The Hunger Games, Harry Potter and Shrek.[2]
You left off Gilgamesh, and his monster, Humbaba. I will contemplate how the quote applies.
Quote
Also to add in which you may find of interest my river flows to the centre of the earth, An object at relative rest on an inertia reference frame is still under a state of acceleration. In other words if you are sitting in a chair right now or standing up , you are still in a state of free fall and acceleration . If it were not for the ground and Newtons third law, you would continue to fall.
True, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.


You have picked up on:
It is said that a constantly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is supported against gravity and that a free falling frame is indistinguishable from an inertial frame with constant velocity. However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
Jeffrey’s post is very timely. It not only invokes Newton’s 3rd law, but introduces a concept of the difference in time dilation between an accelerating object and one at rest. It is true, and I would address it form the perspective of the ISU model, using the wave energy density explanation as follows:


An object at rest is defined as an object that is in a wave energy density profile of space that has the inflowing gravitational wave energy equal from all directions. It is a possibility, but one that is almost never realized in nature. It would be similar to the Lagrange spots in space that exist where the gravitational attraction from various surrounding bodies cancels out, and the object in that spot seems to be suspended in relative motion to all of the surrounding objects at the same time. It would be in an Inertial frame of reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference).
“An inertial frame of reference, in classical physics, is a frame of reference in which bodies, whose net force acting upon them is zero, are not accelerated, that is they are at rest or they move at a constant velocity in a straight line.More at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference)


On the other hand, a free falling object is falling in a gravitational field, and as such is accelerating at “g”, as we have established in your “river analogy (modified to flow ever faster to the center of the Earth)”.


The difference in time dilation between the two frames is generally accepted and is part of Special and General Relativity. In the ISU, the phenomenon is caused by relative motion, just like in GR, but it is a clocking effect, meaning that if the two bodies in relative motion, and that are thus experiencing different amounts of time dilation are “wearing” identical watches, the watches will measure the passing of time at different rates. In the ISU, the cause is due to the difference in the wave energy density profile of the space environments of two bodies in question.


The “at rest” body is in an environment like the Lagrange spot, and the accelerated body is moving relative to the Lagrange spot. The effect is that the gravitational wave energy density in the direction of the moving body's motion has higher inflowing gravitational wave energy in that direction, which causes an increase in quanta in the wave-particles of the moving object relative to the resting objects. You will have to look at reply #76 for more explanation, rather than me restating it here.
Quote
F=ma if we have a 1kg mass,  1*a9.82=9.82N


Hence Δt'=Δa=time dilation


The ground state Caesium atom at relative rest is still under a state of constant acceleration.


added , i drew it for you





added- Imagine the river example of earlier, imagine you are floating down this river and have just reached terminal velocity of the flow, however you have a mesh stopping you .  The water flows through the mesh and the flow holds you against the mesh .



So we are gaining some mutual understanding, some common ground.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2017 13:15:21
You have picked up on:
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/10/2017 13:54:25
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).
I am going to explore that concept, using JeffreyH’s post as a starting point.

He said, “It is said that a constantly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is supported against gravity …”


This was posted over on your thread about sameness



However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
That possible crossover, I think, is an interesting connection, and an example of sameness sought out and referred to in the opening post by TheBox.

It implies that the intricacies of time dilation involve many factors related to relative motion between massive objects. Time dilation would be a net of those multiple factors, in a multitude of situations. There would be some pluses and some minuses, all netted together in results that compare the individual clock results used to quantify time dilation.

The future will likely see the impacts of the individual factors tested by highly mobile and highly accurate clocks, which futurists say may reveal unexpected and as yet unseen individual impacts intwined in the net dilation amounts. Is there a close tie to wave energy density in space, and would confirmation of that lead to improved definitions and explanations for local energy density conditions? Is there to be some recognition of the effect of gravitational wave energy density in space on the local speed of light?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/10/2017 15:12:19
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).
I am going to explore that concept, using JeffreyH’s post as a starting point.

He said, “It is said that a constantly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is supported against gravity …”


This was posted over on your thread about sameness



However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
That possible crossover, I think, is an interesting connection, and an example of sameness sought out and referred to in the opening post by TheBox.

It implies that the intricacies of time dilation involve many factors related to relative motion between massive objects. Time dilation would be a net of those multiple factors, in a multitude of situations. There would be some pluses and some minuses, all netted together in results that compare the individual clock results used to quantify time dilation.

The future will likely see the impacts of the individual factors tested by highly mobile and highly accurate clocks, which futurists say may reveal unexpected and as yet unseen individual impacts intwined in the net dilation amounts. Is there a close tie to wave energy density in space, and would confirmation of that lead to improved definitions and explanations for local energy density conditions? Is there to be some recognition of the effect of gravitational wave energy density in space on the local speed of light?
Because at the C.O.M , 1.6 x 10-35 m³   , time stops to dilate and is constant.

added- C.O.R   (centre of  rest)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 29/10/2017 16:24:51
You have picked up on:
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).

It is in a way correct, the particles in an object are never really at rest, therefore if we place a box on the floor it isn't going to move but the particles that make up the box are constantly in a state of acceleration because they are never at rest. That's the way I think of it anyway. Please do criticise freely, after all, that is how we all learn. :)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/10/2017 21:01:27
You have picked up on:
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).

It is in a way correct, the particles in an object are never really at rest, therefore if we place a box on the floor it isn't going to move but the particles that make up the box are constantly in a state of acceleration because they are never at rest. That's the way I think of it anyway. Please do criticise freely, after all, that is how we all learn. :)
The box on the ground is at relative rest but the properties of the box are undergoing a constant acceleration, the object pushing against the ground but being stopped by the ground. (Newtons third law).
The box itself does need to exist or need to be considered , we can visualise this in energy form and of two polarities and Q.F.S.(quantum field solidity).

The likewise polarities of the object can not surpass the likewise polarities of the ground. The likewise polarities push back in accordance with Newtons third law.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The parent N-field having a far greater density than the child n-field. The parent field retaining density  at the ''point'' of existence. Where the child n-field permeates to a 0 Eviscosity.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 13:56:41

JerrfeyH’s crossover comment, I think, is an interesting connection, and an example of sameness sought out and referred to … by TheBox.

It implies that the intricacies of time dilation involve many factors related to relative motion between massive objects. Time dilation would be a net of those multiple factors, in a multitude of situations. There would be some pluses and some minuses, all netted together in results that compare the individual clock results used to quantify time dilation.

The future will likely see the impacts of the individual factors tested by highly mobile and highly accurate clocks, which futurists say may reveal unexpected and as yet unseen individual impacts intwined in the net dilation amounts. Is there a close tie to wave energy density in space, and would confirmation of that lead to improved definitions and explanations for local energy density conditions? Is there to be some recognition of the effect of gravitational wave energy density in space on the local speed of light?

Because at the C.O.M , 1.6 x 10-35 m³   , time stops to dilate and is constant.

added- C.O.R   (centre of  rest)
It is in a way correct, the particles in an object are never really at rest, therefore if we place a box on the floor it isn't going to move but the particles that make up the box are constantly in a state of acceleration because they are never at rest. That's the way I think of it anyway. Please do criticise freely, after all, that is how we all learn. :)
The box on the ground is at relative rest but the properties of the box are undergoing a constant acceleration, the object pushing against the ground but being stopped by the ground. (Newtons third law).
The box itself does need to exist or need to be considered , we can visualise this in energy form and of two polarities and Q.F.S.(quantum field solidity).

The likewise polarities of the object can not surpass the likewise polarities of the ground. The likewise polarities push back in accordance with Newtons third law.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The parent N-field having a far greater density than the child n-field. The parent field retaining density  at the ''point'' of existence. Where the child n-field permeates to a 0 Eviscosity.

Getting our heads together and having some discussion about the various aspects of the ISU model is the purpose of my thread, and it is in line with that objective that it is good to see some members participate. Thanks, and I will take what is said into consideration, to the extent that they apply to my topic, and to the extent that I can understand them. If you make a statement that is not self explanatory, then take the time to explain it, say what concepts you are invoking, what your abbreviations stand for, and if there are numbers and symbols, say what they are supposed to mean.

The post of mine quoted above was meant to address JeffreyH’s comment about an idea about time dilation, “However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.”

For now let’s focus on that, and please include reference to the following four short paragraphs in your replies:

1) JeffreyH uses time dilation in the generally accepted meaning, but is proposing there is some as yet unappreciated aspect of time dilation related to the equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass. If you are up on my position on that, you will see why his statement interests me.

2) I have explained that my view is quite alternative; related to the fact that the amount of time dilation is equal to the difference in the amount of time measured on two identical clocks in relative motion to each other, but that the mechanical cause for the clock difference is the wave energy density of the space in which the clocks have made their measurements.

3) The operative point is that the higher the local wave energy density is, the slower particles function, and since clocks are made of particles, the clock will measure the passing of time at a slower rate in a higher wave energy density environment.

4) Please say if you do or do not understand where I am coming from on that, or if not, ask, or say if you have a different explanation for time dilation.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 14:31:59
3) The operative point is that the higher the local wave energy density is, the slower particles function, and since clocks are made of particles, the clock will measure the passing of time at a slower rate in a higher wave energy density environment.
By higher I presume you mean altitude which would not be the correct wording. The more you expand from C.O.M (centre of mass)  in accordance with the I.S.L (inverse square law)  the energy is more permeated ( spread out thoroughly).
The opposite and T.S.L (transverse square law), increasing in magnitude (density)   of the E (energy) occupying a lesser amount of space. The smallest conceivable volume of space being a  Planck length cubed.  1.6 x 10-35 m³, where the energy is at it's most densest '' 3 dimensional point''.
As explained in Q.F.S (Quantum field solidity) , Q.F.S is the energies surrounding a void of space . The likewise polarities of the energies forcing a spherical void ''between'' them.

See attached image.


* n-void.jpg (34.85 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5651 times)

According to the laws of Physics and how polarity acts on other polarities, It would be an impossibility to have a solid as the centre of an atom. More like an empty seed kernel.

fe62e08bba584fb78c99f1b027bc1f14.gif³=E



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 30/10/2017 14:33:09
Quote
However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation.


Could it be said, for example, an F35B ( UK military jet) travelling at its maximum speed of 1,199mph would experience time dilation? For example travelling at that speed with respect to someone walking on a pavement, they would experience time in a different way to the person walking on the pavement, despite both clocks running uniform and at the same time? I may be wrong, but that is the simplest example I could think of. More specifically the jet would be seen as defying gravity, with a respect to the fact something in the air must always be seen to fall if not in the constraints of directional velocity.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 15:36:40
By higher I presume you mean altitude which would not be the correct wording.
No, I mean higher in terms of wave energy density. Refer to reply #136 in regard to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
Quote
The more you expand from C.O.M (centre of mass)  in accordance with the I.S.L (inverse square law)  the energy is more permeated ( spread out thoroughly).
To test my understanding, that sentence applies to the spherical expansion of a wave from a point of origin, and I would agree with your annotated response.
Quote
The opposite and T.S.L (transverse square law), increasing in magnitude (density)   of the E (energy) occupying a lesser amount of space.
To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?
Quote
The smallest conceivable volume of space being a Planck length cubed.  1.6 x 10-35 m³, where the energy is at it's most densest '' 3 dimensional point''.
We may or may not agree on that point. My response would be to reference nature’s maximum wave energy density, which is displayed at the center of the collapse of a Big Crunch; that is the highest wave energy density possible in the model, but not infinite density. The smallest conceivable volume to me is a point, at which you reach infinite density, and infinite density is not possible in the ISU.
Quote
As explained in Q.F.S (Quantum field solidity) , Q.F.S is the energies surrounding a void of space . The likewise polarities of the energies forcing a spherical void ''between'' them.
Maybe, but in the ISU, there are no voids, if you mean perfect vacuums. Your use of the word polarities seems to refer to converging forces. Is the equivalent to the convergence of expanding light or gravitational waves at the point of intersection, which I have mentioned throughout the thread?
Quote
See attached image.

* n-void.jpg (34.85 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5651 times)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 15:38:01
Quote
“However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation.”


Could it be said, for example, an F35B ( UK military jet) traveling at its maximum speed of 1,199mph would experience time dilation? For example traveling at that speed with respect to someone walking on a pavement, they would experience time in a different way to the person walking on the pavement, despite both clocks running uniform and at the same time? I may be wrong, but that is the simplest example I could think of. More specifically the jet would be seen as defying gravity, with a respect to the fact something in the air must always be seen to fall if not in the constraints of directional velocity.
Let me restate you scenario using a clock at rest and a clock traveling a 1200 mph relative to the rest clock. It could be said that the clock in motion relative to the rest clock experiences time dilation, and the amount of dilation would equal the difference in the amount of time that is recorded to have passed by each clock.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 15:55:59
To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?
Of course, imagine an inflated Balloons surface with several dots scattered about, then imagine deflating the balloon so the distance between the dots have a length contraction, there is now more dots per area of the ''space''. The dots are less spread.
But of course by area I mean volume of space, I can contract the volume of space to a Planck length ³ , in reverse I can expand it infinitely so the energy permeates to 0 value. (0 Eviscosity).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 19:14:55
Just received a nice Twitter message. Earlier, in Reply #34, I posted this link to my lonely YouTube video here, and it was also posted on Twitter:
https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI (https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI)
It is the macro level overview of the ISU.

Finally someone from Twitter viewed it and has this to say:

“I thoroughly enjoyed your video and think it a very reasonable strategy for a multiverse [multiple Big Bang] scenario, and I cannot get over how you managed to get your point across in just 20 mins!  How did you do that?  When watching your video I kept my mind clear of all other models, this in order to hear what you were saying without projecting any other ideal upon your model, but afterwards, in comparing your model to mine, there are some distinct similarities within the wildly obvious differences.  Compton scattering forming new particles for instance... and your big bang arena's are very similar to what my model describes as mini big bangs, or 'practice bangs' and associates with our currently observed black holes and the jetting phenomenon.  In any case, very enjoyable and interesting watch.  Thanks.”

It is encouraging to hear that type of response, and gives me some motivation to do a similar video addressing the micro realm of the ISU.

Now back to current replies ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 20:08:02
Just received a nice Twitter message. Earlier, in Reply #34, I posted this link to my lonely YouTube video here, and it was also posted on Twitter:
https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI (https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI)
It is the macro level overview of the ISU.

Finally someone from Twitter viewed it and has this to say:

“I thoroughly enjoyed your video and think it a very reasonable strategy for a multiverse [multiple Big Bang] scenario, and I cannot get over how you managed to get your point across in just 20 mins!  How did you do that?  When watching your video I kept my mind clear of all other models, this in order to hear what you were saying without projecting any other ideal upon your model, but afterwards, in comparing your model to mine, there are some distinct similarities within the wildly obvious differences.  Compton scattering forming new particles for instance... and your big bang arena's are very similar to what my model describes as mini big bangs, or 'practice bangs' and associates with our currently observed black holes and the jetting phenomenon.  In any case, very enjoyable and interesting watch.  Thanks.”

It is encouraging to hear that type of response, and gives me some motivation to do a similar video addressing the micro realm of the ISU.

Now back to current replies ...
I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 20:30:12
I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.
Don’t be sorry. You couldn’t know if you would like it if you didn’t watch it. Thanks for the feedback.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 30/10/2017 21:37:35
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 21:40:57
To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?
Of course, imagine an inflated Balloons surface with several dots scattered about, then imagine deflating the balloon so the distance between the dots have a length contraction, there is now more dots per area of the ''space''. The dots are less spread.
But of course by area I mean volume of space, I can contract the volume of space to a Planck length ³ , in reverse I can expand it infinitely so the energy permeates to 0 value. (0 Eviscosity).
I asked if you could give me an example of the transverse square law at work, thinking it would relate to a reduction in volume, since we were talking about the expanding volume of a wave. I just wanted an example that related to the opposite of the inverse square law, which you implied was the case with the transverse square law. Your example was not about volume, even though you say, “But of course by area I mean volume of space …”. Do you see how the surface of a balloon is is two dimensional and the volume of a space inside the balloon is three dimensional?

Try again, and I am now requesting that you give me a link to a source that describes the “transverse square law”. And while you are at it, how about a link to Eviscosity, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 22:15:17
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 22:20:33
Do you see how the surface of a balloon is is two dimensional and the volume of a space inside the balloon is three dimensional?
Pfff, the surface of the balloon was to show the energy coming together (the dots)  while the deflation was a decrease in interior volume.  The inverse square law is a segment of a sphere.
Let me think of a working example, I will get back to you.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 22:27:26
Ok I have a working example, electromagnetic radiation.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 22:41:56
Do you see how the surface of a balloon is is two dimensional and the volume of a space inside the balloon is three dimensional?
Pfff, the surface of the balloon was to show the energy coming together (the dots)  while the deflation was a decrease in interior volume.  The inverse square law is a segment of a sphere.
Let me think of a working example, I will get back to you.
Ok I have a working example, electromagnetic radiation.

That was the example that follows the inverse square law. We are looking for an example of the transverse square law that you invoked earlier. Why not just give me a link to an example?


I am thinking some of your posts contain bad science, and so I’m not inclined to think much of your credibility when you refer to my youtube video in these glowing terms, “I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.”


You have not offered any credible counter arguments. Do you have any examples from the video that you want to point out as meaningless?

Redeem yourself, lol. Remember this post: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71609.msg525477#msg525477 ...


... Tell me if you understand LIGO yet, and how an interferometer works, and how a gravitational wave sets off the LIGO alarm. Then tell me if you agree with the generally accepted science that says the gravitational wave causes length contraction, or if you see any merit in my alternative idea that says the gravitational wave increases the wave energy density along the arms as it passes one and then the other, causing the laser light to go slower down on arm and then the other, setting off the alarm. If you don’t understand LIGO, you are way behind in your reading, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 12:10:38
That was the example that follows the inverse square law. We are looking for an example of the transverse square law that you invoked earlier. Why not just give me a link to an example?
Quite clearly you are looking out and not looking in. The T.S.L applies when looking in. 

Imagine looking at the earth from a distance away .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 12:12:12
Do you have any examples from the video that you want to point out as meaningless?
Spongey, infinite etc.  You are telling a story in your video with no actual science.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 12:55:46
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 31/10/2017 13:36:03
Quote
“However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation.”


Could it be said, for example, an F35B ( UK military jet) traveling at its maximum speed of 1,199mph would experience time dilation? For example traveling at that speed with respect to someone walking on a pavement, they would experience time in a different way to the person walking on the pavement, despite both clocks running uniform and at the same time? I may be wrong, but that is the simplest example I could think of. More specifically the jet would be seen as defying gravity, with a respect to the fact something in the air must always be seen to fall if not in the constraints of directional velocity.
Let me restate you scenario using a clock at rest and a clock traveling a 1200 mph relative to the rest clock. It could be said that the clock in motion relative to the rest clock experiences time dilation, and the amount of dilation would equal the difference in the amount of time that is recorded to have passed by each clock.

Thank you, Bogie, with this in mind a clock travelling at say Mach 4 could also experience time dilation with respect to a clock at rest?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 13:40:14
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 13:44:35
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
They are made up by somebody but usually a definition is given to explain the word and concept. You just seem to pluck things from the air without explanation and claiming it is a new concept.
You said on the other post about evicosity:
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
I did look it up and there was no such word. So you lied.
As for smart, I am not the one that is fooled by doctored hieroglyphics and thinks that they are proof of aliens living amongst us..
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 13:51:29
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
They are made up by somebody but usually a definition is given to explain the word and concept. You just seem to pluck things from the air without explanation and claiming it is a new concept.
You said on the other post about evicosity:
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
I did look it up and there was no such word. So you lied.
As for smart, I am not the one that is fooled by doctored hieroglyphics and thinks that they are proof of aliens living amongst us..
Wow a troll who thinks in some way he can troll me.   You are just being awkward .   If I want to call a concept in my mind Eviscosity, I will call it Eviscosity or anything else I want to call it. It is not your say to tell me in my own notions what I have to call things.

We are talking about energy density, so quite obvious the  word is related to energy density. 

For example  two  individual polar opposite fields have 0 Eviscosity relative to each other.

Two individual likewise polarity field have a Eviscosity=1

Two merged opposite fields have Eviscosity=0.5 or it might  be 2
All a part of my Q.F.S notion.

added- If you want to help, write the maths for the inverse square law in reverse to create my T.S.L (transverse square law).

Finish this off :

E=The inverse square law in reverse
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 14:03:12
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
They are made up by somebody but usually a definition is given to explain the word and concept. You just seem to pluck things from the air without explanation and claiming it is a new concept.
You said on the other post about evicosity:
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
I did look it up and there was no such word. So you lied.
As for smart, I am not the one that is fooled by doctored hieroglyphics and thinks that they are proof of aliens living amongst us..
Wow a troll who thinks in some way he can troll me.   You are just being awkward .   If I want to call a concept in my mind Eviscosity, I will call it Eviscosity or anything else I want to call it. It is not your say to tell me in my own notions what I have to call things.

We are talking about energy density, so quite obvious the  word is related to energy density. 

For example  two  individual polar opposite fields have 0 Eviscosity relative to each other.

Two individual likewise polarity field have a Eviscosity=1

Two merged opposite fields have Eviscosity=0.5 or it might  be 2
All a part of my Q.F.S notion.

added- If you want to help, write the maths for the inverse square law in reverse to create my T.S.L (transverse square law).
Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas a troll when you said when your thread was locked 'I will just go ''sock' all the other forums again to find conversation' and 'Please Ban me now and I promise never to return as a sock.'
If this is not an admission of trolling multiple forums I don't know what is.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 14:06:23
Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas
You are not questioning my ideas though, your attention is focused on myself. You are trying to be clever by using definition to try and humiliate my character, trying to make me look stupid in some way.

Now if you was serious you would provide the maths I need which I am sure you are capable of.

I am far from a troll, I am future science like it or not.  The facts I do not imagine, they are there for all to observe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 14:16:22
Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas
You are not questioning my ideas though, your attention is focused on myself. You are trying to be clever by using definition to try and humiliate my character, trying to make me look stupid in some way.

Now if you was serious you would provide the maths I need which I am sure you are capable of.

I am far from a troll, I am future science like it or not.  The facts I do not imagine, they are there for all to observe.
Are you? That is laughable.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 14:17:37
Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas
You are not questioning my ideas though, your attention is focused on myself. You are trying to be clever by using definition to try and humiliate my character, trying to make me look stupid in some way.

Now if you was serious you would provide the maths I need which I am sure you are capable of.

I am far from a troll, I am future science like it or not.  The facts I do not imagine, they are there for all to observe.
Are you? That is laughable.
The transverse-square law, in physics, is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is transversely proportional to the square of the distance from the observer to that physical quantity.

Laugh away I know what I am talking about which is quite clearly beyond your thinking ability .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 14:22:46
Because if >r=<Eviscosity then <r=>Eviscosity

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/10/2017 14:25:39
Thank you, Bogie, with this in mind a clock traveling at say Mach 4 could also experience time dilation with respect to a clock at rest?
Yes, and a tiny bit more than the example with 1200 mph. The time dilation occurs with even the slightest difference in relative motion. Relativistic velocities make more noticeable differences. In reply #75, I started a series of posts on the topic of atomic clocks, time dilation, and the quanta that I use in conjunction with the ISU process of quantum action and quantum gravity:


Link to Reply #75:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518690#msg518690 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518690#msg518690)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_20_01.jpeg)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 31/10/2017 20:48:22
To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?
Of course, imagine an inflated Balloons surface with several dots scattered about, then imagine deflating the balloon so the distance between the dots have a length contraction, there is now more dots per area of the ''space''. The dots are less spread.
But of course by area I mean volume of space, I can contract the volume of space to a Planck length ³ , in reverse I can expand it infinitely so the energy permeates to 0 value. (0 Eviscosity).

Actually, the balloon once deflated and thus the latex/rubber has contracted, per square foot there wouldn't be a different amount of dots, the amount stays uniform, just when the balloon is inflated they expand in nature. They don't change in number, only size.

Quote
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'


Surely if you use viscosity in its proper way it would mean
Quote
the state of being thick, sticky, and semi-fluid inconsistency, due to internal friction
so by all means adding extensional to viscosity it would mean
Quote
Extensional viscosity (also known as elongational viscosity) is a viscosity coefficient when applied stress is extensional stress
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 13:51:44

I do want to keep the thread going on my version of the cosmology of the universe, so let me say:
Just received a nice Twitter message. Earlier, in Reply #34, I posted this link to my lonely YouTube video here, and it was also posted on Twitter:
https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI (https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI)
It is the macro level overview of the ISU.

Finally someone from Twitter viewed it and has this to say:

“I thoroughly enjoyed your video and think it a very reasonable strategy for a multiverse [multiple Big Bang] scenario, and I cannot get over how you managed to get your point across in just 20 mins!  …How did you do that?  When watching your video I kept my mind clear of all other models, this in order to hear what you were saying without projecting any other ideal upon your model, but afterwards, in comparing your model to mine, there are some distinct similarities within the wildly obvious differences.  Compton scattering forming new particles for instance... and your big bang arena's are very similar to what my model describes as mini big bangs, or 'practice bangs' and associates with our currently observed black holes and the jetting phenomenon.  In any case, very enjoyable and interesting watch.  Thanks.”

It is encouraging to hear that type of response, and gives me some motivation to do a similar video addressing the micro realm of the ISU.

Now back to current replies ...
I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.

I did mention, “Don’t be sorry”, and there is no reason to believe that my video was intended to be a report of science that I am “doing”. You have missed the posts where I refer to my model as reasonable and responsible speculations, and I don’t pretend to be doing science.

What I am doing is using generally accepted science, and theoretical physics, to try to get comfortable with a personal view of cosmology. I am evolving my own view; one that is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. That includes addressing explanations for the beginning, examining the compatibility of various generally accepted observations and data to the various theoretical models like GR and QM, and deciding what the inconsistencies and gaps are.

For example, Big Bang Theory doesn’t address the universe until an instant after some event. That event has become known as the Big Bang, but there is no mention of it, or of any preconditions to it. I speculate that one reasonable set of preconditions is that two or more Big Bang arenas converge in the landscape of the greater universe, and the result of the intersection and overlap is a Big Crunch, formed as their galactic material and energy merged and crunched at the center of gravity of the overlap space. It is my way of speculating about preconditions to Our Big Bang. You have a better idea, feel free to discuss it here on my thread.

It is my “hobby”, more or less, to personally speculate about reasonable and responsible ways to fill the gaps in theoretical physics and cosmology, and evolve my own personal views of the cosmology of the universe. If you don’t like my conclusions, argue against some point I have made that you think is wrong, and say why it is wrong, and I’ll tell you the details of how I came to my conclusion, trying to defend my idea, or I will give it up to your better ideas, if you have any. That way I will learn and improve my model.

All throughout the thread I have compared my model to various models, and to general physics, as I did, step by step through Hyperphysics links, and as I do with various examples from the standard particle model. I say what the accepted science is, I point out how the ISU differs, and I explain why the ISU differs. I delve into the problems in physics in the way a layman science enthusiast would, reading, researching, studying, and contemplating. I do not claim to be doing science, or that I have any clues in my model that any reputable professional would or should be interested it. I speculate, and wait for the scientific community to do the real science. I affectionately call it the Big Wait.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 14:03:27
I did mention, “Don’t be sorry”, and there is no reason to believe that my video was intended to be a report of science that I am “doing”. You have missed the posts where I refer to my model as reasonable and responsible speculations, and I don’t pretend to be doing science.
I consider you are a clever person and do word things well when you write. Strangely enough I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.
An infinite Universe that contains spongey materials would be more fitting and understandable.   Sponges of cause being matter that can retain energy that is absorbed but also emits the energy if the sponge gets too soaked.  Quantum Fields also have the properties of spongey.
So after reconsideration in my dream of your idea, I have changed my mind and I will say a good idea that needs a little bit of work to put into correct context.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 01/11/2017 14:10:13
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs? More specifically if each happened at a different time throughout the early universe then logic would dictate we would be able to observe these other big bangs? Or as is my preferred analogy their was one big bang but made of 2 different entities that collided. We would only be able to observe just the one big bang.

Another question would be if the prerequisites for the big bangs happened to be overlapping energy and matter coming together in the centre of gravity then would this still be happening now? If so then how long till the next one? And could we detect these bangs as a gravitational wave?

I realise the above poses more than one question but they flow together so I didn't feel the need to change it.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 14:13:36
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs?
We visualise the big bang as some huge big ''explosion'', but what if the big bang was lots of really small bangs at a quantum level so tiny , we could not observe it?
It could still be happening now a recurring process that is continuous.

added- Micro bangs

Multiple  Micro bangs might look like a big bang.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 14:20:50
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 01/11/2017 14:22:07
I did mention, “Don’t be sorry”, and there is no reason to believe that my video was intended to be a report of science that I am “doing”. You have missed the posts where I refer to my model as reasonable and responsible speculations, and I don’t pretend to be doing science.
I consider you are a clever person and do word things well when you write. Strangely enough, I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.
An infinite Universe that contains spongey materials would be more fitting and understandable.   Sponges of cause being matter that can retain energy that is absorbed but also emits the energy if the sponge gets too soaked.  Quantum Fields also have the properties of spongey.
So after reconsideration in my dream of your idea, I have changed my mind and I will say a good idea that needs a little bit of work to put into correct context.

The same spongey effect could also be an attribute to black holes and the wider universe as a whole, therefore a black hole would absorb energy and matter and possibly spit it back out as a flash on the event horizon, I need to think more about that idea but it could work in theory.

For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs?
We visualise the big bang as some huge big ''explosion'', but what if the big bang was lots of really small bangs at a quantum level so tiny, we could not observe it?
It could still be happening now a recurring process that is continuous.

So to look at it in a different situation, these quantum level explosions you mention they could have preceded the big bang and since they were before the initial big bang, then wouldn't that hypothetically have caused a change reaction which leads to the big bang? Therefore if these quantum level explosions are happening now, then, in theory, it could start another big bang and wipe out the universe as we know it or it would do nothing more than make the universe expand at an even more exponential rate?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 14:49:10
hese quantum level explosions you mention they could have preceded the big bang
Yes they could of proceeded the big bang or from a different viewpoint (looking in)  from an infinite Universe perspective, the micro bang is the big bang.  It only seems a big bang because of the scaling we use. We presume the visual universe is huge, but from an infinite Universe perspective viewpoint, our visual universe is smaller than a pin head.
So what we call a big bang is a relative  micro bang from a different observers perspective.

Let me try to  explain something, I want you to imagine a void if you can that is just dimensions of space that are not occupied by anything physical.   
(missing part)
Then imagine an energy trying to manifest that was a mono polarity.   This manifestation would keep ''exploding'' every time it tried to form. The physics involved are because it is likewise to itself , so it will just keep ''exploding'' and expanding to nothing .
Now the only way the energy can manifest is if by random chance, an opposite mono polarity energy tried to manifest in the exact same 0 point geometrical position at the exact same time.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 15:20:44
I consider you are a clever person and do word things well when you write.
Aww, shucks, that is nice of you to say. And you are too.
Quote
Strangely enough I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.
An infinite Universe that contains spongey materials would be more fitting and understandable.   Sponges of cause being matter that can retain energy that is absorbed but also emits the energy if the sponge gets too soaked. Quantum Fields also have the properties of spongey.
That is a good perspective in regard to “spongy”.
Quote
So after reconsideration in my dream of your idea, I have changed my mind and I will say a good idea that needs a little bit of work to put into correct context.
I plan to keep working on it; evolving it, as I call it.

I’ll remind you of reply #116, where I describe what “spongy” means in regard to the title of my model:
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it (light waves, gravity waves, cosmic rays, neutrinos, whatever is out there traversing space at all times). For example, in deep space, the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space is very low, relative to the amount of wave energy contained in the same volume of space in the proximity of a massive object, like the sun.

In the model, the sun, and all objects with mass, emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, and that inflow and outflow represents a continual process that maintains the presence of the massive objects and their constituent wave-particles. Therefore, the inflow and out flow action near the sun features a high amount of gravitational wave energy coming and going, but then, in accord with the inverse square law, the same volume of space in a far removed location in deep space would contain much lower wave energy density. Hence, the universe is “spongy”.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 15:26:59
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it (light waves, gravity waves, cosmic rays, neutrinos, what every is out there traversing space at all times).
Ok, I see your point, but by using the word Universe, it can have ambiguity.  Maybe you should say the infinite spongy universe of space. I just feel things have to be independent of the space and explained so.  So if you put spongy fields then you would be correct in my opinion, I explain it Q.F.S   (quantum field solidity)  I could adjust that to q.f.s (quantum field spongy) lol.

p.s I consider waves are q.f.f (quantum field fluctuations) and at the epicentre of waves is a flat spot.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 15:56:41
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs? More specifically if each happened at a different time throughout the early universe then logic would dictate we would be able to observe these other big bangs?
Yes, there should be evidence that we can detect of the “parent” arenas that I speculate intersected and overlapped, to form the Big Crunch,  out of which our Big Bang arena emerged as a hot dense ball of wave energy.

And there is evidence! Are you familiar with the cosmic micro wave background. There have been various mappings and studies of it, and there are temperature fluctuations in the microwave energy, and there is a concept called angular anisotropy, or observable temperature differences depending on the segment of the sky (space) that you look at.

I addressed that in Reply #82 and #83, Take a look:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519491#msg519491 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519491#msg519491)
… or better yet, watch the ISU video:
And comment freely.
Quote
Or as is my preferred analogy their was one big bang but made of 2 different entities that collided. We would only be able to observe just the one big bang.
Do you have any speculation about the origin of the two different entities that collided, much like the Barnes theory suggests, because the question of “infinite regression”, meaning what came before, continually comes up. It keeps coming up unless you get to something that is eternal, an infinite past, like my axiom that the universe has always existed, and big bangs are occurring with the same preconditions, two or more existing parent arenas making each new “infant” arena, and thata process, called arena action, has been going on throughout the infinite past.
Quote
Another question would be if the prerequisites for the big bangs happened to be overlapping energy and matter coming together in the centre of gravity then would this still be happening now?
Yes, in my ISU model, it is a continual process. There is an infinite landscape, composed of a potentially infinite number of active Big Bang arenas at all times.

Quote
If so then how long till the next one?
There is one going to happen right now, somewhere out there in the infinite Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe. The concept of infinity, and an infinite arena landscape is hard to get your arms around, but I am still waiting for another way to avoid infinite regression.
Quote
And could we detect these bangs as a gravitational wave?
Yes, with some stipulations. The imprint of the previous big bangs is out there in the gravitational wave energy profile of space, as discussed in replies #82 and #83 linked above. Also, refer back to reply #136 for a description of the profile of space.
Quote
I realise the above poses more than one question but they flow together so I didn't feel the need to change it.


Ask as many questions as you need to, to come to your own conclusions as to if you see any merit in my model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 16:26:07

The same spongey effect could also be an attribute to black holes and the wider universe as a whole, therefore a black hole would absorb energy and matter and possibly spit it back out as a flash on the event horizon, I need to think more about that idea but it could work in theory.
There are many possibilities, and that is one. I would say that within our own Big Bang arena, that is expanding and filling with galactic structure, black holes are quite common. There is one at the center of most galaxies, there are black holes left after supernovae, there are black holes left after two other black holes swirl into a violent merger, as recently detected by LIGO.

All of those examples are within our expanding arena, and the arena landscape of the greater universe is the multiple Big Bang landscape with a potentially infinite number of those active arenas, some forming, some expanding, some overlapping, and some producing new big crunches that will collapse/bang into new arenas.

There is an order of magnitude difference between our arena that contains many black holes, and the universal landscape that contains many Big Bang arenas. My model reflects my conclusion that a Big Crunch equates to the granddaddy of black holes; a crunch that contains enough matter and energy to produce our entire Big Bang arena, some of which is the observable universe, and some of our own arena is not within our ability to observe.

The physics of the Big Crunch is different from the common black holes in our arena. The Big Crunch has to grow and grow, pulling in huge fractions of the parent arenas before the crunch reaches “critical capacity”, and that includes pulling in a huge number of common black holes in the process. It takes the gravitational compression of a whole, complete Big Crunch to cause all of the particles captured in the crunch to be negated into their constituent wave energy, giving up their individual space, and collapsing into the same space. When that happens, as critical capacity is achieved in a Big Crunch, all of the particles are forced by gravitational compression, to “give up” their individual space, and the whole crunch collapses. That event is a Big Bang in my model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/11/2017 02:47:39
Some details presented in a discussion elsewhere, but that pertain to this thread, so I have paraphrased the details here:

… in my model, when an object moves, it follows a curved path through the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

Quote
You say that your model does not invoke space time...?  In this case, how does your model cope with time dilation?

It is true, but for every effect in GR, there is an effect that must be dealt with in the ISU. You ask about time dilation, because you invoke SR/GR, and you feel comfortable that matter can cause space to curve and curved space can cause matter to move.

I feel comfortable that virtually the same effect occurs in the ISU, but as a result of wave mechanics based on the fact that particles (wave-particles in my model) are standing waves with two components, 1) Inflowing gravitational wave energy, and 2) out flowing gravitational wave energy.

The standing wave patterns of each wave-particle are referred to as “complex standing wave patterns”, with wave intersections (quanta) occurring within the pattern (millions/billions of quanta) as the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components continually sustain the presence of the wave-particle. A wave-particle or object moves when there is an imbalance in the inflowing gravitational wave energy component of the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

The motion of wave-particles and objects follows the highest net directional gravitational wave energy inflow in the local wave-energy density profile of space (a hint about my speculation about quantum gravity).

[Now we can talk the ISU equivalent to time dilation]

Clocks are composed of wave particles. Two identical clocks, in the same local gravitational wave energy density environment (the local space), will tick at the same rate because their wave-particles are functioning in the same gravitational wave energy density environment.

If one clock is designated the “rest” clock, then any relative motion will cause the moving clock to tick slower because relative to the rest clock, the local gravitational wave energy density environment of the moving clock will take on a directional anomaly. There will be a higher gravitational wave energy density surrounding the moving clock in the direction of relative motion, and therefore the wave-particles in the moving clock will function slower, causing the moving clock to tick slower (a moving clock has more wave intersections in the complex standing wave pattern, and so it has more quanta, and more mass, relative to the rest clock) [this has to be quite alternative to you, lol].

In my model, time simply passes, but the rate that individual moving clocks measure the passing of time relative to a rest clock is variable, governed by the relative difference in the local gravitational wave energy density caused by relative motion.


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/11/2017 14:08:15
The Story of the ISU
Riding a Photon
Post #1

AS is made clear in this thread,  The ISU stands for the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, a layman science enthusiasts musings on the cosmology of the universe. This idea, riding a photon, will give a look at the model from the perspective of a photon at the speed of light.

It is generally agreed that photons carry energy, so that is the first thing to say and describe from the ISU model. The entire range of energies carried by photons is quantified in the electromagnetic spectrum. One example in the model of meaningful photon energies includes the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMBR (I’m going to resist the temptation to provide a barrage of links, because I think the audience knows generally accepted science, or can use their favorite search engine).

I am humanizing the photons that I discuss in this series of posts as a way to ruminate about the life of a photon, but I don’t really mean that a photon is anything more that a packet of energy, or as is sometimes said, a pulsing packet of energy that has a frequency and wave length. Those are characteristics that can be affected by the photon’s individual journey across time and space. Our CMB photon has had a long journey, and is among a huge group of friends who have all traversed the universe,
not just from the moment that photons first were released in our Big Bang arena, but from other similar big bangs out there.

Their frequency has changed over time, and is now near the low end of the spectrum; it is thought that they have become significantly “redshifted” from the frequency they were born with in what was perhaps one of nature’s highest energy environments.They were “born” at the “surface of last scattering”, which is an epic period in our cosmology, theorized to have occurred a few hundred thousand years after the big event. The event itself is when an expanding hot dense ball of energy emerged onto the scene in the first instants after the Big Bang, in the Big Bang Theory (BBT).

Note that in the ISU, the energy carried by the photon was part of the energy of the Big Bang, and so the energy of the photon we are riding is energy that precedes the birth of the CMBR and precedes the surface of last scattering, and dates back to the bang itself.

But wait, the Bang itself is all about energy, so this is a good time to pass on some detail about how the ISU model deals with the beginning. BBT doesn’t talk about preconditions to the BB event, or even about there being a Big Bang, but the popular science media dates back to Einstein's day (and long before that), so the Big Bang name, and supposed details of event, were repeated and evolved in the popular media, outside of the maths and science that Einstein did. As for the "beginning" in the ISU model … there wasn’t one; the ISU has always existed.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/11/2017 18:38:37
The Story of the ISU
Our CMBR Photon Ride Continues
Post #2


Our ride on this particular CMBR photon began at the “surface of last scattering”, over 13 billion years ago, and it was quite likely emitted with a very high frequency, perhaps in the X-ray or gamma ray range. I am intending that start point for this ride to correspond with generally accepted theory. From there, the intent is to describe the special circumstances of a photon in the ISU model. Those special circumstances can be considered a point of departure from the standard cosmological view.


By way of disclaimer, consider most of this series about the photon to be speculative ideas, as is the case with most of the details of the model. These speculations are found “necessary” to maintain  the intended internal consistency of the model, which is the overriding objective. The ISU invokes “known science”, but there is the much that is “as yet” unknown.


What I’m suggesting is that our now low energy CMBR photon was once a raging packet of hot energy, and throughout the ongoing expansion of our Big Bang arena, has had its wavelength stretched and its apparent frequency reduced; it is now in the microwave energy range along with the rest of its friends in the CMBR.


The CMBR photons were discovered for that very reason, their microwaves interfere with the radio wave telescopes. A couple of scientists, trying to figure out what was causing the static in the signals received by their radio telescope, finally narrowed down the cause to discover the existence of the low energy background. It is present at all angles across the sky. The concept of background radiation of the universe was born because of this group of photons that we are riding were a problem.


An interesting characteristic of the CMB is its temperature, near the low end of the Kelvin scale, about 2.7K, with very slight differences (anisotropy), of the CMB in all directions when measured from a theoretical rest location relative to the CMBR. When you move through space relative to the supposed rest location, you experience an increase in the local background temperature, and the increase is relative to your velocity (some refer to it as CMBR rest frame).


Now is a good time to point out that this background temperature has been carefully studied by various land and space based sky surveys, and there is a pattern in the findings worth looking into; the hemispherical anisotropy is the high sounding name for the feature that is most interesting to the ISU model. It can be seen as a hint of some remnant temperature extreme, imprinted on the background, by a previous history of big bangs. The hemispherical pattern specifically suggest it was imprinted by the two parent Big Bang arenas that the ISU model speculates occurred long before our current photon ride began. That would imply that our photon could be older than our own big bang’s 13.7 billion years, by a multiple of that length of time, given the perpetual heritage of Big Bang events across the landscape of the greater universe, suggested by the model.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/11/2017 01:47:12
The Story of the ISU
Stretching My Photon ride
Post #3

This photon ride has now taken us out of our arena, into and through the remnants of our “parent” Big Bang arenas, and potentially beyond that. The ISU is (I am) comfortable with there being a universal background wave energy, continually refreshed here and there by new Big Bangs across the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. The observable CMB in our arena is a mix of photon energy from our arena’s epic surface of last scattering in the BBT timeline, and of the universal energy background that is always there from a potentially infinite history of Big Bang arena action across the landscape of the greater universe.

The mixing is a consequence of our Big Crunch collapsing and bouncing into expansion, fueled by the “force” of energy density equalization; the hot dense ball of energy that emerges out of the collapse of the Big Crunch inflates into the lower wave energy density of our mature and expanded “parent” arenas. It is in accord with the sameness doctrine of the ISU, which postulates that each Big Bang has similar preconditions, and that each expanding Big Bang arena has the same physics.

This photon’s journey would have begun with the surface of last scattering, a phenomenon associated with our singular Big Bang theory; there is “nothing more worth thinking about”. It is common to hear phrases like that, and like, “there was no ‘before the Big Bang’ ”, or “time didn’t exist” until the Big Bang. But in the ISU, space, time, and wave energy have always existed, and Big Bang arena action has always been the thing. It defeats entropy by refreshing the energy of old cold matter from dying galaxies and burned out stars in the parent arenas, into a low entropy hot dense ball of wave energy emerging from the collapse of a Big Crunch that formed at the center of gravity of the overlap space of our converging parent arenas.

In a multiple Big Bang arena landscape, the initial collapse/bang event releases high energy photons at the same time as the particles contained in the Crunch collapse, giving up their individual space, and compressing into nature’s maximum wave energy density environment. This is not an infinitely dense point in space, but it is nature’s closest approximation of it; so dense that it is impossible to be compressed any further. This extreme density acts like a brick wall in regard to the in-falling wave energy as the crunch collapses, and there is a bounce. The in-falling matter and energy encounters the environment representing nature’s maximum density, and bounces off, giving the first boost to the expansion of the hot dense energy ball. Wave energy density equalization immediately takes over from collapse, and the extreme high density wave energy of the hot energy ball emerges with nature’s most rapid wave energy advance, into the low energy density space of the greatly expanded mature parent arenas.

That is the environment where our photon ride began. We traversed the low energy density of the surrounding space of our expanded and depleted parent arenas, and traveled out beyond, into the corridor of continuity (the label given to the deep space at the outer fringes of fully expanded parent arenas) where old cold galactic matter is adrift in the gravitational wave energy density of the deepest space.

Our photon ride will eventually end when it inevitably gets caught up in a new arena convergence, perhaps hundreds of billions of years later, and contributes its extremely redshifted energy remnant to that new crunch.
.


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/11/2017 20:05:26
Response received to reply #190 above
Quote
I don't have a problem with your equivalent to GR time dilation, but am left wondering what the mechanism is for wave energy density, (much the same as I am left wondering about the mechanism with GR concerning gravity), …


…. and yes I would still like to hear your alternative quantum (quantum solution to gravity), if you are willing? .... 

Thank you for considering the ISU's version of an equivalent to GR time dilation, and for not having a problem with it, though I could easily be embarrassed if confronted with a reasonable line of questioning, I’m sure.

The “mechanism” for wave energy density is determined by the nature of wave-particles (see 11/2/17 response as a reminder). In the ISU model, there is infinite and eternal space, filled with wave energy. The history of the relative motion of matter, and the nature of the wave particles, with their inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, causes continual changes in the local wave energy density profile of space. What I didn’t do in the 11/2/17 reply was make it clear where wave-particles come from in each new arena, and that might make it easier to understand my speculations about wave-particles, the gravitational profile of space, and quantum gravity. Let me make a pass at describing all of that from the ISU perspective:

My speculation about the gravitational wave energy density of space is part of building my model from the bottom up, step by step. I start with the axioms, and known physics. From that combination, some additional aspects of the model become “necessary”. When something becomes necessary, often there is an existing scientific explanation, and if not, I will speculate.

For example, we observe an expanding Big Bang arena based on the observed redshift data. It is necessary that something set the observable universe into motion, and it isn’t hard to find an explanation, i.e., the Big Bang event itself.

If I invoke the Big Bang event at the beginning of our observable universe, I find it necessary that there must be preconditions to the Big Bang. There are many options, but I chose to go with the multiple Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe model for three reasons: 1) two or more existing expanding “parent” arenas in the same contiguous space, regardless of their separation, will eventually intersect and overlap, and the overlap is necessary for the formation of a new Big Crunch, 2) entropy is defeated as old cold galactic material and energy from cold expanded arenas are refreshed into hot dense expanding balls of low entropy wave energy, and 3) infinite regression is defeated by the perpetual arena action going on eternally across the landscape of the greater universe.

We already have an example of one expanding arena, so I speculate that each one will have the “two or more parent arenas” precondition, and will follow the same path to maturity; expanding, cooling, and filling with galactic structure, until their expansion is interrupted by converging with one or more other expanding arenas, whereupon a crunch forms and collapse/bangs into a new expanding arena.

Given the observable nature of gravity, each parent arena will end up contributing portions of their galactic material and energy to a Big Crunch that I speculate would naturally form at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

Given that, it is necessary that there is some mechanism to explain how a Big Crunch could result in a Big Bang that could produce an expanding Big Bang arena like the one we observe ourselves to be in. There are many story plots for that, I suppose, but I found it reasonable to conclude that the particles that make up the Big Crunch must require sufficient individual space in order to function properly, as they do in the clocks mentioned earlier, and yet must be able to permit the crunch to collapse and burst into expansion, under the compression of gravity.

I speculate that the growing crunch and resulting gravitational compression would increase forever in an infinite Big Bang arena landscape, unless there was some limit to the amount of gravitational compression that the particles could withstand. I speculate that when the compression limit is reached, called “critical capacity” of a Big Crunch, the particles would cease to function properly, and would be forced to give up their individual space, collapsing together with a bang. My phrasing is that the particles are negated into their constituent wave energy under the compression of gravity, and the compression overcomes the ability of the wave-particles to properly function and to maintain their individual space.

So consider the nature of the space into which the hot dense energy ball that emerges from the bang is expanding into, and it becomes necessary that there is force that drives expansion, i.e., some physical explanation for what we call “dark energy”. In the ISU, that force is called wave energy density equalization.

What is equalizing is the gravitational wave energy density differential between the hot dense expanding ball of wave energy emerging from the Big Bang, and the low surrounding gravitational wave energy density of the relatively empty space of the mature parent arenas that had contributed much of their galactic structure to the crunch before the bang. That contributed material has now become the expanding hot dense ball of energy that is intruding into the lower gravitational wave energy density environment being vacated by the parent arenas.

That hot dense ball of wave energy is the source of the wave-particles that will begin to form in the expanding arena. I sometimes refer to the accumulation of the crunch and its “collapse/bang into expansion” as the inflowing and out flowing components of an arena sized particle, for talking purposes (Higgs boson?). The expansion phase is the spherically out flowing component of the arena particle.

That arena particle will expand and break down as it “decays” and cools. There are a series of exotic particles, equivalent to the activity in the Higgs field, I suppose, until the cooling and separation of the particles leads to a set of stable particles within the young arena. Atoms form, composed of those fundamental stable wave-particles, and there comes an epic referred to as the surface of last scattering, where energy is released in pulsing packets known as photon wave-particles, emitted from the new atoms in the arena to allow for the continued expansion and cooling. The photons have mass, just like all wave-particles in the ISU. 

From that story, I derive the description of the mechanics of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, explain why there is a necessity for the wave-particle, and tell how the mechanics of quantum gravity work in the model. The functions of the wave-particle are:

1) To continually supply the gravitational wave energy density of the local space with their spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component, thus establishing and maintaining the local gravitational profile.
2) To continually absorb directional gravitational wave energy from the local profile of space, thus maintaining the presence of wave-particles, and governing the motion of particles and objects as they traverse space.
3) To maintain the ability of wave-particles to function under normal gravitational wave energy density conditions; enabling nature to carry out what it does, like generate and evolve life forms that build clocks, etc. :) .
4) To act as the canary in the coal mine, collapsing on cue when the gravitational compression of a Big Crunch reaches critical capacity.
5) To allow wave-particles to be the vehicles of gravitational motion in the ISU model’s quantum solution to gravity.


To be continued …
The ISU Quantum Solution to Gravity Speculation follows.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/11/2017 12:49:03
Continued from reply #194 which is a background to this post

The ISU Quantum Solution to Gravity Speculation

1) The motion of a complex standing wave-particle is a function of the wave intersections that make up the pattern. Each wave-particle has its own space, maintained by the process of quantum action, that allows them sufficient individual space to function properly.

2) The particle will always have a meaningful wave intersection in the pattern for each quanta in the mass of the particle (think of a freeze frame of the wave action within the particle space [complex standing wave pattern], and count the meaningful wave intersections in the wave-particle pattern).

3) Meaningful wave intersections are referred to as momentary high energy density spots that form when converging waves intersect, each parent (quantum) wave contributes energy from their wave fronts to the high density spot. A new quantum wave emerges from each high energy density spot. (I use the “spherical cow” analogy for talking purposes, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow] but envision some complicated details of the action as it takes place.) Note the “sameness” in the explanation of the inflowing wave energy that forms the high density spots and spherically out flowing wave that emerges from the high energy density spots within the wave-particle space, to the crunch formation and out flowing expansion wave of Big Bang arena action in the landscape of the greater universe.

4) The quanta have momentary presence, and are continually refreshed by the quantum action of spherically out flowing and directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy exchanged to and from the local profile of space. A proton may have hundreds of billions of quanta (see Reply #79 for basis of that estimation).

5) Motion of the wave particle, relative to their current location in space, is achieved by there being new meaningful wave intersections forming within the particle space, in the direction of the net highest directional wave energy density, and a corresponding loss of trailing meaningful wave intersections (quanta) from the pattern as the new intersections form in the direction of the wave-particle advance. Thus the location of the particle moves in space in the direction of the net highest gravitational wave energy density in the local profile of space, on the basis that the location of the standing wave pattern is continually changing as the quanta exchange takes place. That is quantum gravity.

6) There are variables that govern the number of quanta added, and the resulting change in relative mass of the wave-particle as it accelerates.

7) The phrase I use is that quantum gravity governs the motion of the wave-particles and objects as they follow the net highest directional wave energy density path of the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

I know that is a lot of speculating to process, and it is hard to understand for a reader new to the model. Comments welcomed.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/11/2017 15:46:26
we observe an expanding Big Bang arena
Hi Bogie mate, I am getting my head around your idea much better, but would like to point out the relativity involved in this statement.

A big bang from which observers perspective? 

Relative to an observer in the interior of the event it is a big bang

Relative to an observer a great distance away, it is a micro bang.

If you want to use multiple big bangs, then surely you must use the micro bang perspective.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/11/2017 17:37:45
we observe an expanding Big Bang arena
Hi Bogie mate, I am getting my head around your idea much better, but would like to point out the relativity involved in this statement.

A big bang from which observers perspective? 

Relative to an observer in the interior of the event it is a big bang

Relative to an observer a great distance away, it is a micro bang.

If you want to use multiple big bangs, then surely you must use the micro bang perspective.


To be sure, what you say is true, and I won’t assail that statement with ifs, ands, or buts. When perspective is everything, and when measuring or quantifying such an event on the macro to micro scale, given only the field of view measurement of the event, the more distant an observer is from the event, the more micro the event would appear.

The quote you used to start your post was made in the context of me replying to a question about the mechanics of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, a central feature of the ISU cosmology. I had failed to stress the significance to the model of the feature that wave energy is coming at you from all directions at the speed of light, no matter what your location or perspective is.

The net effect of that 360º onslaught of incoming gravitational wave energy is the force of gravity that you feel. It can be zero for an observer “at rest” relative to it, but such places would be extremely rare in the ISU. What you feel is the net directional effect of the 360º incoming wave energy.

That said, the ramification of that net effect of gravity that you, or a wave-particle, or an object will “feel”, is the single most important physical aspect of the gravitational wave energy density profile of the space that you occupy.

Appropriately, the post that followed that explanation was about the ISU version of a solution to quantum gravity. You can read into that post that quantum gravity is about the micro actions that produce quanta that occupy the complex standing wave patterns of wave-particles, and the directional effect is based on the proportion of new quanta added, vs previous quanta left behind, by direction, around the 360º particle surface.

The “feel” on the micro scale, i.e., being surrounded by that 360º gravitational onslaught, is captured around the surface of the wave-particle or object, and expresses itself by affecting the exchange of quanta that takes place. Therefore the chance in location of the particle or object, as quanta by quanta are exchanged, determines the next directional increment of motion.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 14:26:37
I had failed to stress the significance to the model of the feature that wave energy is coming at you from all directions at the speed of light, no matter what your location or perspective is.
yes

The net effect of that 360º onslaught of incoming gravitational wave energy is the force of gravity that you feel. It can be zero for an observer “at rest” relative to it, but such places would be extremely rare in the ISU. What you feel is the net directional effect of the 360º incoming wave energy.


No, gravity is a pull force not a push force.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 14:29:37
the more distant an observer is from the event, the more micro the event would appear.
Relative to an infinite space, every object including planets and stars and even a solar system, have 0 dimensions unless quite close up.
It's a bit weird .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 14:52:12
Relative to an infinite space, every object including planets and stars and even a solar system, have 0 dimensions unless quite close up.
It's a bit weird .
It is weird in a sense, but everything is relative, and everything has a scientific explanation; even unknowns have scientific explanations that we just don't yet understand, IMHO.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 14:54:56
Relative to an infinite space, every object including planets and stars and even a solar system, have 0 dimensions unless quite close up.
It's a bit weird .
It is weird in a sense, but everything is relative, and everything has a scientific explanation; even unknowns have scientific explanations that we just don't yet understand, IMHO.
A stranger thought, relative to an infinite Universe nothing exists .

added- everything is nothing? hmmmmm
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 15:04:39

A stranger thought, relative to an infinite Universe nothing exists .

added- everything is nothing? hmmmmm



Not in the ISU, :)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 15:10:24

A stranger thought, relative to an infinite Universe nothing exists .

added- everything is nothing? hmmmmm



Not in the ISU, :)
LOL


You say about wave energy that bombards from all directions, I do agree as it agrees with Micro-bangs. 


Do you agree that at the centre of all carrier waves origins, that there is an isolated ''dot'' of flat space?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 15:13:02
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 15:20:00
Because this is why the visual universe is expanding.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 15:24:29
Because the dark energy they discuss is really good old fashioned electromagnetic radiation and the wave energy emanating from a central position
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 15:41:36
Because the dark energy they discuss is really good old fashioned electromagnetic radiation and the wave energy emanating from a central position
I do speculate that EM is the out flowing gravitational wave energy emitted by the photon wave-particle. However, in addition to EM, gravitational wave energy is being emitted by all particles and objects, and combined, they compose the 360º on-slaught of gravitational wave energy converging on every point in space, in the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 17:04:41
I do speculate that EM is the out flowing gravitational wave energy emitted by the photon wave-particle.
I do not think gravitational force involves waves, it is more linear than wave like. I do not think Photon's themselves emit waves or are a factual existence.  I do not think we can have an out flowing gravitational wave either, we would would have to have expansion waves , gravity of course being a total opposite in direction.

I would explain centrifugal expansion wave theory , where Q.F.S (quantum field solidity) plays a role and the expanding pE (potential energy)   wave has likewise polarity properties to the invert wave.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 18:11:53
I do not think gravitational force involves waves, it is more linear than wave like. I do not think Photon's themselves emit waves or are a factual existence.  I do not think we can have an out flowing gravitational wave either, we would would have to have expansion waves , gravity of course being a total opposite in direction.

I would explain centrifugal expansion wave theory , where Q.F.S (quantum field solidity) plays a role and the expanding pE (potential energy)   wave has likewise polarity properties to the invert wave.


In my recent posts where I mentioned “necessities”, I describe building the ISU model from the bottom up, step by step; known science and axioms lead to steps, and steps lead to “as yet” unknowns. As yet unknowns lead to speculations which are invoked as steps, and the model is derived, step by step.

It has reached the point where, given all of the steps that come before, the speculation that photons are wave-particles is in response to a necessity that all particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments. The conclusion that all wave-particles are standing waves, with inflowing and out flowing components, is a step. The speculation that the outflowing gravitational wave energy component from the photon wave-particle is light, is a step.

You have to follow the steps from the beginning in order to be aware of the full sequence of my step by step thinking.

You have had your arguments, and have stated them here, and have suggested opposing ideas, and when you do I consider them. I may not invoke them, because all of my steps must, in my mind, be internally consistent, and fit in the step by step sequence of reasoning. That is not a bold claim that I am right, nor an argument that you are wrong.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 18:36:14
t has reached the point where, given all of the steps that come before, the speculation that photons are wave-particles is in response to a necessity that all particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments. The conclusion that all wave-particles are standing waves, with inflowing and out flowing components, is a step. The speculation that the outflowing gravitational wave energy component from the photon wave-particle is light, is a step.
You have just almost described my N-field, but where particles are not composed of wave-energy but absorb and emit wave energy , stretching and contracting continuous that causes a vibration and a ripple (wave) in the quantum fields.
I describe the N-field as the flat spot (epicentre)  of an n-field (wave energy) , in my model the atom is no more than two opposite signed ''energies'' that have merged to form Q.F.S.
So like yourself, my atomic model is different to the standard model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 09/11/2017 19:02:34
Because this is why the visual universe is expanding.


* expansion.jpg (15.24 kB . 276x183 - viewed 5503 times)

I would like to point out that such is the case with ripples of water, there wouldn't necessarily be a flat space of origin. The logic in this would be that if X is the centre of the galactic plane and a big bang happened here, then common sense dictates that X would be the point of origin an, therefore, the waves that ripple out start as close to the bang as possible, such as when you drop a peble in a puddle, the water forms a ripple at the point where the peble entered the water. therefore I don't believe there would be a flat space until after the wave has passed.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 19:21:59
Because this is why the visual universe is expanding.


* expansion.jpg (15.24 kB . 276x183 - viewed 5503 times)

I would like to point out that such is the case with ripples of water, there wouldn't necessarily be a flat space of origin. The logic in this would be that if X is the centre of the galactic plane and a big bang happened here, then common sense dictates that X would be the point of origin an, therefore, the waves that ripple out start as close to the bang as possible, such as when you drop a peble in a puddle, the water forms a ripple at the point where the peble entered the water. therefore I don't believe there would be a flat space until after the wave has passed.
Where the stone enters the water, the stones mass displaces the water , the stone takes up the space where the water is displaced although this a continuous action until the stone rests.

I disagree, the stone represents a flat spot.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 20:36:44
You have just almost described my N-field, but where particles are not composed of wave-energy but absorb and emit wave energy , stretching and contracting continuous that causes a vibration and a ripple (wave) in the quantum fields.
I describe the N-field as the flat spot (epicentre)  of an n-field (wave energy) , in my model the atom is no more than two opposite signed ''energies'' that have merged to form Q.F.S.
So like yourself, my atomic model is different to the standard model.

Perhaps that is some more commonality between our models:

Let me point out an important aspect of the ISU gravitational wave energy density profile of space, form Reply #105 … Quote from Reply #105 https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg523443#msg523443 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg523443#msg523443): “The standing wave pattern of the hydrogen atom’s proton has a surface or boundary that (according to the ISU model) has an equal amount of out flowing wave energy at all points because the out flow is spherical. We can think of that out flow as a positive energy out flow, supplying [positive] wave energy into space, i.e., as the local source of energy added to the energy density profile of space. Then we can think of the directionally inflowing wave energy component of that proton as the replacement energy for that out flow, maintaining the established mass and energy of the proton wave-particle. I would label the inflowing component the negative energy inflow [to the particle to replace the positive energy out flow].”

In the ISU, both the positively charged proton, and the negatively charged electron, in regard to the charge of the Coulomb force, are simply composed of gravitational wave energy. “Negative” and “positive” are simply labels to distinguish between the way particles react; like charged particles repel, and oppositely charged particles attract. In that context, we are talking their polarity.

In regard to the energy content of space, it is positive wave energy. The labels, “positive” and “negative” energy, is just a way to distinguish the inflowing gravitational wave energy component of the standing wave particle, from the out flowing gravitational wave energy component, which comes from space. And conversely, a way to distinguish between the energy flow to space from wave-particles vs. the wave energy flow from space to wave-particles. Therefore, the “contained” energy in the wave-particle can be labeled positive energy. In the same fashion, the energy in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space can be labeled positive energy as well.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 20:49:26
“The standing wave pattern of the hydrogen atom’s proton has a surface or boundary that (according to the ISU model) has an equal amount of out flowing wave energy at all points because the out flow is spherical. We can think of that out flow as a positive energy out flow, supplying [positive] wave energy into space,
I consider that the ''surface'' is both positive and negative polarity and there is central void , the void being a product of the repulsive forces of the likewise polarities of the surface.  A sort of spherical shell with an empty inner.  A bit like a football.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/11/2017 17:12:59
Reply #215

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

You don’t have “nothingness” in even the tiniest space, there are forces and action there, i.e., energy at work.

“The standing wave pattern of the hydrogen atom’s proton has a surface or boundary that (according to the ISU model) has an equal amount of out flowing wave energy at all points because the out flow is spherical. We can think of that out flow as a positive energy out flow, supplying [positive] wave energy into space,

I consider that the ''surface'' is both positive and negative polarity and there is central void , the void being a product of the repulsive forces of the likewise polarities of the surface.  A sort of spherical shell with an empty inner.  A bit like a football.
Not in the ISU. There are no voids; all space is filled with gravitational wave energy density. But that statement does require some explanation if it is going to stand as my argument against the existence of a void. For example, in a wave energy density environment, you have meaningful wave fronts expanding from their “point” origins, so after the first instant of expansion, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?

Do you remember the earlier discussion about the oscillating wave energy background of space? I first mentioned it when I defined Wave Energy in Reply #21, and then when I equated the oscillating background and its function, to Wheeler’s Quantum Foam, in Reply #56, and elsewhere.

That is the answer to the question of what is behind the wave front, between the front and the point of origin. It is the oscillating wave energy background. The oscillations are less meaningful gravitational energy waves, less than quantum, and therefore less than the amount of energy necessary to create a high energy density spot that qualifies as a quantum of energy, in the process of quantum action. The convergences at the oscillating foundational level are sub-quantum hints of mass, a necessary part of the process of quantum action that maintains the presence of wave-particles. There is a striking similarity between the wave action at all levels (in accord with the "sameness" principle of the ISU).

There is a finer point of explanation about the mechanism that keeps the oscillating background functioning, and assures there aren’t even the tiniest of voids down there among the oscillations. That explanation is that each oscillation is composed of two of nature’s tiniest parent waves, that are there and gone in an instant, but that instant of time delay is enough time for them to converge and form their hints of mass, the oscillating background's version of a high energy density spot, at a “moment in time”. I discussed this time delay as part of the process of both quantum action and arena action earlier, as reported in reply #56:

“In the wave-particle discussion, each wave convergence has a time delay as the combined energy of the 'parent' waves equalize in the overlap space. In the case of the oscillating background, nature’s tiniest possible size limit of wave action occurs while the energy carried by the individual parent waves merges and equalizes, allowing the lens shaped overlap space to trend toward a spherical shape; it is a mechanical effect that occurs during the time delay and plays out under the influence of the force of energy density equalization that is always present in the ISU. [So you don’t have “nothingness” in that space, there are forces and action there, i.e., energy at work.] The new ‘third wave’ thus emerges from the overlap space, to become a new oscillation in the space being vacated by the parent waves.”

This is another example of the “sameness” principle of the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/11/2017 22:23:16
Reply #216

An additional point to make when denying the presence of voids (there are energy density fluctuations) in the ISU, and that applies in all the places where I invoke the sameness doctrine, is that the intersection and convergence of two or more parent wave fronts, whether in the oscillating wave energy background, or as part of the process of quantum action at the wave-particle level, or as part of the process of arena action across the landscape of the greater universe, involves a flow of energy from the parent waves, into the overlap space, and equates to an inflation of the overlap space with the energy from the parent waves.

In regard to arena action, that energy takes the form of galactic material and gravitational wave energy that converges in a swirling rendezvous, and eventually forms the new Big Crunch. As part of quantum action, that energy takes the form of the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component of quantum wave intersections taking place within the particle space. Down at the foundational level, occupied by the oscillating wave energy background, that energy takes the form of natures tiniest gravitational wave action at nature’s lowest limit on the wave energy scale, described as the final level of the third wave action of the fully aged gravitational waves that represent the potentially infinite history of the universe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 02:03:22
Not in the ISU. There are no voids;
The thing is , what we do know about energy , it tends to have a polarity.  Now if you are saying that there is no voids, then you would have to prove that likewise polarities do not repulse each other.
Fundamentally a basic thought about energies is that it can not retain a stable state without two opposite polarities.   A single polarity by the laws of physics can not retain form or a stable state.  It would be an impossibility that the laws of physics would not allow.  In short you could not squeeze a polarised energy together and make it stay together,  it would always as in Newtons third law offer an equal and opposing force to the squeeze and push back. Not much dissimilar to a rubber ball except in this situation the rubber ball always wants to expand because of its likewise to itself properties.
Now the laws of likewise polarities being repulsive to each other, I did not write. However these laws are tested and verified in being true.  So there is no way there could not be a void when concerning energy sphericalation.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 02:28:03
, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?
That is why at the point of origin is always a void.  The micro bangs I mentioned are an attempt at the manifestation of a ''particle''.  However the attempt turns into a micro bang
Quote
spherically expanding energy wave
  Sphericalation

The reason is because the attempt is a single polarity and likewise polarity to itself so has no choice but to  micro bang sphericalation process .

added -

Sphericalation : Isotropic inflation :  spherically expanding wave,field or surface from a central point.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/11/2017 13:38:28
Reply #219
Sphericalization

, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?
That is why at the point of origin is always a void.  The micro bangs I mentioned are an attempt at the manifestation of a ''particle''.  However the attempt turns into a micro bang
Quote
spherically expanding energy wave
  Sphericalation

The reason is because the attempt is a single polarity and likewise polarity to itself so has no choice but to  micro bang sphericalation process .

added -

Sphericalation : Isotropic inflation :  spherically expanding wave,field or surface from a central point.
This is my attempt at a fun respite from the mind-bending contemplation and rigor involved in evolving the ISU [tongue in cheek]:

Maybe we should submit this to Webster …
How about :Sphericalization or sphericalisation (if you prefer)
The process of becoming a sphere or trending toward the spherical shape.

In the science of logic, a “precising” word is a word coined from an existing word or phrase, to better or more precisely describe meaning. The word “sphericalization” is coined from the words “spherical” and “realization”for the effect that occurs when a lens shaped overlap space forms between two expanding spherical waves as they intersect and overlap, and that trends toward the spherical emission of an out flowing third wave. The word is specifically coined for the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology (and N-Theory?).


To be continued deleted, lol …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:32:01
Reply #219
Sphericalization

, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?
That is why at the point of origin is always a void.  The micro bangs I mentioned are an attempt at the manifestation of a ''particle''.  However the attempt turns into a micro bang
Quote
spherically expanding energy wave
  Sphericalation

The reason is because the attempt is a single polarity and likewise polarity to itself so has no choice but to  micro bang sphericalation process .

added -

Sphericalation : Isotropic inflation :  spherically expanding wave,field or surface from a central point.
This is my attempt at a fun respite from the mind-bending contemplation and rigor involved in evolving the ISU [tongue in cheek]:

Maybe we should submit this to Webster …
How about :Sphericalization or sphericalisation (if you prefer)
The process of becoming a sphere or trending toward the spherical shape.

In the science of logic, a “precising” word is a word coined from an existing word or phrase, to better or more precisely describe meaning. The word “sphericalization” is coined from the words “spherical” and “realization”for the effect that occurs when a lens shaped overlap space forms between two expanding spherical waves as they intersect and overlap, and that trends toward the spherical emission of an out flowing third wave. The word is specifically coined for the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology (and N-Theory?).


To be continued deleted, lol …
When I used the word sphericalation I was adding inflation to the end of spherical to represent expansion/inflating.  However your word does read better. I quite like sphericalisation , submit it dude if you know how too. :D

Quote
The word is specifically coined for the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology (and N-Theory?).

We are explaining the same sort of sphericalisation , why not.

The process of becoming a sphere or trending toward the spherical shape, isotropic from a central point?


Can we try and make some maths for this?

Can we define in maths an expanding sphere?

can we just put :

r=776f98168c581ecbe9558038ff195b3e.gif

←4/3 πr³→
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/11/2017 20:05:40
Reply #221
Sphere-Sphere equation and sphericalization

Well, there was this from reply #78:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
As r and R increase, the volume of the spherical caps, cap r and cap R, increase. When the equation equals one, the sum of the energy in cap r and cap R equals a quantum of energy in the overlap space.

So let’s use our new word :) . Due to “sphericalization”, during the time delay, as r and R increase toward the critical level, the lens shaped overlap has trended toward spherical. The equation equals 1 when the critical level is reached, indicating that there is a quantum of energy in the overlap space. At that point the new spherical out flowing wave emerges out of the overlap space, and is ready for the next encounter in the on-going process of quantum action.



Generally, in the ISU, the expansion is not infinite, because expansion is interrupted when the expanding spherical wave intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding spherical wave. The sphere-sphere action is continuous in the ISU, and is an example of the "sameness" doctrine that typifies Big Bang arena action, wave-particle quantum action, and the oscillating wave at the foundational background level.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:14:21
Generally, in the ISU, the expansion is not infinite, because expansion is interrupted when the expanding spherical wave intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding spherical wave.
A question for you, are you giving your waves any sort of polarity?  In my version waves can only overlap if they are opposite single polarity waves. A duality wave that was a pos and neg wave would repulse off a likewise pos and neg wave.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/11/2017 13:03:56
Reply #223
Wave Mechanics


Generally, in the ISU, the expansion is not infinite, because expansion is interrupted when the expanding spherical wave intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding spherical wave.
A question for you, are you giving your waves any sort of polarity?  In my version waves can only overlap if they are opposite single polarity waves. A duality wave that was a pos and neg wave would repulse off a likewise pos and neg wave.

Nice question, but no, not in the ISU :) . Gravitational waves can’t get out of each other's way because they aren’t charged, but each wave is a spherical wave, expressed as a curved wave front as they expand, and so:
1. There is an effect “felt” by each parent wave as they intersect, but polarity of charge doesn’t cause the effect at the wave level, that is reserved for particles in relative motion.
2. What they “feel’ is a change in energy density of the local space they are expanding into.
3. When they encounter another meaningful expanding spherical wave, it means a change in wave energy density is encountered.
4. At the encounter, the parent waves slow down relative to their rate of expansion before the encounter.
5. When the interruption occurs, it happens at the point of intersection, and when the overlap begins, huge numbers of additional points of intersection are added, and the overlap, by nature, takes on the lens shape as depicted in the previous post.
6. As the overlap grows, both parent wavefronts have slowed down in the vicinity of the overlap due to the mutual increase in wave energy density (the unaffected portion of the parent wave fronts are thus advancing at a faster rate than in the space caught up in the overlap encounter).
7. The effect of the mutual relative slowing of expansion is where the concept of the time delay comes in.
8. The time delay occurs in every case of sphere-sphere intersection, lasts throughout the formation and emergence of the new “third wave”, and is the basis for the speculation that the velocity of light and gravitational waves is governed by the local gravitational wave energy density of space.
9. It is easy to conclude that the local gravitational wave energy density is higher in the vicinity of massive objects, which explains why the ISU doesn’t invoke spacetime; it already has the natural wave mechanics to do what spacetime was intended to explain, cause gravity.
10. I have contemplated the possibility of electric and magnetic fields being produced during the period of overlap.


Along that line of reasoning, the speculation that there is an electric and a magnetic field alternatively generated as a result of the oscillating wave action at the foundation level was discussed in reply #130 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839)).

To elaborate, the continual wave action is restrained spatially to the tiniest of individual spaces hosting the individual oscillations, where repetitive oscillations just keep occurring in the same space, akin to the way a current flows through a wire. The current flows but the electrons essentially stay put, and a magnetic field forms perpendicular to the flow. The tiny oscillating wave fronts, in an otherwise waveless environment, don’t actually go anywhere; they form and run into interruptions immediately, so there is no escape for them. But their energy is essentially at a constant level across the otherwise waveless space; a background that contains a huge amount of wave energy even in the absence of wave-particles and objects (though that is just fodder for thought experiments, because no space is “otherwise waveless” in the ISU). The fields produced are small and short lived, but it is the repetitiveness of the action that makes the field perpetual.



To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 18:20:32
Along that line of reasoning, the speculation that there is an electric and a magnetic field alternatively generated as a result of the oscillating wave action at the foundation level was discussed
Ok I see our differences, you are looking at this in a sense of individual fields where I am unifying the fields and all actions and reactions are a quantum field fluctuation.   I consider a single field enamates from a point, this field is both pos and neg and can only be measured n (neutral).  It does not matter what magnitude the field is it always measures n.   A+B=N

Now it is impossible to measure the signs individually so there will always be a null result ,   -e+p=0

However this does not mean that the individual properties of each polarity does still not act.

For example if you can imagine an electromagnetic field that was only made up of electrons, you should be able to ''see'' how other electron fields would be relativity solid to that field?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/11/2017 14:42:09
Reply #225
Reply to Thebox
Fields


Along that line of reasoning, the speculation that there is an electric and a magnetic field alternatively generated as a result of the oscillating wave action at the foundation level was discussed
Ok I see our differences, you are looking at this in a sense of individual fields where I am unifying the fields and all actions and reactions are a quantum field fluctuation.   I consider a single field emanates from a point, this field is both pos and neg and can only be measured n (neutral).  It does not matter what magnitude the field is it always measures n.   A+B=N
I can see that perspective, especially when you think about the inflowing gravitational wave energy onslaught from all directions at every point in space, which is what I speculate is the case in the ISU. But the gravitational wave energy density at each point in space is variable, and there is always a directional a bias. That “bias” is displayed in the fact that at each point, there is an imbalance in the directional inflow, as described in reply #68: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770)


Quote
Now it is impossible to measure the signs individually so there will always be a null result ,   -e+p=0
It isn’t possible to measure the sign of the energy in space individually, and I don’t even recognize the idea of gravitational wave energy in the profile of space as having a sign, or polarity. It is all positive energy, by definition, as stated a few posts back. It could all be called negative energy just as easily. Energy is defined as positive in the ISU, but “charges”, both positive and negative are about polarity and the Coulomb force.


I speculated about where particles get their charge as if all particles have positive energy, and are interacting with the gravitational wave energy density of their surrounding space, which is composed of gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions. All gravitational wave energy is positive energy, but absorptions and emissions of positive wave energy are distinguished by saying that additions have a positive impact and reductions have a negative impact on the amount of positive energy.
Quote
However this does not mean that the individual properties of each polarity does still not act.
My speculation in the ISU, is that the energy contained within the particle space of all particles is positive, and every particle is a wave-particle. Wave-particles have a special definition which sees them as standing wave patterns, with two components, inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy. It is those two components that carry positive and negative labels in my model, but all of the energy that flows during the process of quantum action is positive. The inflowing component to the wave-particle comes from the positive energy of the gravitational wave energy density of space, and is the source of the positive energy that is added to the contained energy of the wave-particle, in the form of quanta, (meaningful quantum wave intersections in the standing wave pattern). The out flowing component is a negative when related to the existing contained energy of the wave-particles because it is subtracted from the contained energy of the wave-particle, but it also results in an addition to the positive energy in space.
Quote
For example if you can imagine an electromagnetic field that was only made up of electrons, you should be able to ''see'' how other electron fields would be relativity solid to that field?
I do understand your meaning. But, just like my valued concept of an otherwise waveless oscillating background energy, it is fodder for thought experiments. The “otherwise waveless background”, which is not possible in the ISU, is used to help clarify the nature of the oscillating background energy; it is never waveless, but it helps to contemplate it as waveless to make the point of how the background helps advance gravitational and light wave energy. In the case of your electromagnetic field made up of only electrons; it wouldn’t naturally form, but is a way of making the point about the nature of the neutral field.


It seems clear that individual fields exist. Let me quote from a little book I have on the shelf called, “30-Second Theories”, by Paul Parsons.


On the topic of Electromagnetism: … “It is all about what happens when you combine electric charges, movement, and magnetic fields. Move a metal wire within a magnetic field, and you will cause an electric current to flow in the wire… Conversely, send an electric current through a wire, and the movement of the electric charges will create a magnetic field … The third option is to run an electric current through a wire sitting in a magnetic field. The wire will move (as in the idea behind the electric motor).”


Individual fields exist, and work together. If they merged into the N-field, their individual characteristics, a beautiful aspect of the natural laws, might go amuck :shrug:.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/11/2017 13:22:03

Reply #226
To demalk
Re. Demalk’s thread

Here is a link to a thread by demalk, in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum, and I want to link to that discussion, for reference:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71898.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71898.0)


This is the recent post that I said I would address out here in “New Theories”, where more alternative views are expected:
Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?
It is true, that is one interpretation of the results of those quantum eraser experiments, and I elaborate on that at the end of this post. There is some material in this thread where I addressed the experiments, and my views on those experiments, which is referenced in in the following list of a few key posts in this thread. They are related to our discussion, and are background for perhaps continued discussion. Your post deserves an updated response, but it is probably a good idea to identify a few posts that give some perspective about this thread, without you having to wade through over 200 posts. Read as little or as much of this list as you want, but these posts will give you the background on the ISU model:




The opening post:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514070#msg514070 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514070#msg514070)


An early key post with a lot of overview, reply #16:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357)


The quantum, reply #68:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770)




Elaborating on the wave-particle, reply #69, #70, and #71:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517838#msg517838 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517838#msg517838)


The series on the quantum eraser experiment, replies #72 to #74:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518310#msg518310 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518310#msg518310)


And here is a post about the philosophy that I call “Eternal Intent” that I derive, for myself, from the physical nature of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, reply #108:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158)




Ok, you are a trooper if you gave that list a few minutes, and I know it would take an hour or so to get all the way through, which would be above and beyond the call of duty.


That brings us back to this post from your thread:
Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?
As I walk through the entire experiment, using the setup diagram, the laser sending one photon toward the two slits, the crystal splitting that single photon in two paths, the “which path” tracking through the apparatus, and the splitting and combining of the paths, there is a conclusion. I think it is the significant fact that none of the detectors that enable the “which path” information to be known, will show the interference pattern on the “screen” as the impact of the individual particles is recorded, because they don’t allow information from both paths to be recorded.


My points is that unless there is a path from both slits, there cannot be an interference pattern, so the “which path” information denial automatically eliminates the possibility of that interference showing up (by closing out needed information from each of the paths). It is not the knowledge of which slit the particle passed through, it is the information from both slits about both the wave state and the particle state, individually and combined, that is necessary for the interference to show up.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: demalk on 25/11/2017 19:45:07
Quote
My points is that unless there is a path from both slits, there cannot be an interference pattern, so the “which path” information denial automatically eliminates the possibility of that interference showing up (by closing out needed information from each of the paths). It is not the knowledge of which slit the particle passed through, it is the information from both slits about both the wave state and the particle state, individually and combined, that is necessary for the interference to show up.


Thank you so much. I checked the links and will need a bit more than an hour to get a grip on it all ;) I'm going to take some time to process. But before and while I do, I have one question (and a comment) about the above. If I understand correctly you are saying: by storing the which path information we are eliminating the possibility of the other result. Only if the particle/wave could have travelled through both, will the interference pattern show up. So when we store the information, we thereby exclude the possibility of it going through the other slit, and so have destroyed the interference pattern. Is that correct?

If so, what I'm finding here could possibly lead to an explanation of why it matters to the particle/wave whether or not it could have travelled through either slit. For that reason I'd be interested in reading more about your model. However, it still doesn't tell me why this effect would even remain if it was only decided millions of years into the future whether both slits would remain a possible path. Right now, at the time of the experiment, at the time of going through the slits, there is no which path information so the interference should show up, according to your model. But it turns out that a future random event will in retrospect affect the results and I do not see (yet) how your model would be consistent with that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/11/2017 13:35:38

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)




Thank you so much. I checked the links and will need a bit more than an hour to get a grip on it all ;) I'm going to take some time to process. But before and while I do, I have one question (and a comment) about the above. If I understand correctly you are saying: by storing the which path information we are eliminating the possibility of the other result. Only if the particle/wave could have travelled through both, will the interference pattern show up. So when we store the information, we thereby exclude the possibility of it going through the other slit, and so have destroyed the interference pattern. Is that correct?

If so, what I'm finding here could possibly lead to an explanation of why it matters to the particle/wave whether or not it could have travelled through either slit. For that reason I'd be interested in reading more about your model. However, it still doesn't tell me why this effect would even remain if it was only decided millions of years into the future whether both slits would remain a possible path. Right now, at the time of the experiment, at the time of going through the slits, there is no which path information so the interference should show up, according to your model. But it turns out that a future random event will in retrospect affect the results and I do not see (yet) how your model would be consistent with that.

Original  response being edited, after rereading your comment and question, due to my initial misunderstanding of what you were saying and asking ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/11/2017 17:30:57
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)
Quote
My point is that unless there is a path from both slits, there cannot be an interference pattern, so the “which path” information denial automatically eliminates the possibility of that interference showing up (by closing out needed information from each of the paths). It is not the knowledge of which slit the particle passed through, it is the information from both slits about both the wave state and the particle state, individually and combined, that is necessary for the interference to show up.


Thank you so much. I checked the links and will need a bit more than an hour to get a grip on it all ;) I'm going to take some time to process. But before and while I do, I have one question (and a comment) about the above. If I understand correctly you are saying: by storing the which path information we are eliminating the possibility of the other result. Only if the particle/wave could have travelled through both, will the interference pattern show up. So when we store the information, we thereby exclude the possibility of it going through the other slit, and so have destroyed the interference pattern. Is that correct?
I admit that I didn’t read your response carefully enough, and after rereading, my initial response had me going off track.

In my effort to explain away the spookiness that is sometimes attributed to the delayed choice experiments, I came up with a description and mechanics of the wave-particle. Given the way I describe the wave-particle, as you have pointed out, there won’t be an interference pattern unless both paths are open.

However, your comment about “storing the information” didn’t register with me at first, but now I think I understand your comment and question, so let me test my understanding. You are equating the delay portion of the experiment where the “which path” information is withheld, to the act of storing the information, correct?

Quote
If so, what I'm finding here could possibly lead to an explanation of why it matters to the particle/wave whether or not it could have travelled through either slit.
Very interesting; let me hear more.

Quote
For that reason I'd be interested in reading more about your model. However, it still doesn't tell me why this effect would even remain if it was only decided millions of years into the future whether both slits would remain a possible path.
This statement is about using starlight that was emitted millions of years ago, but I don’t understand the implication. What effect is remaining over all of those millions of years? How is a photon that is pulled out of starlight any different than a nice new modern photon from a laser :) ?

Are you saying that the delay caused by closing one path to the detector, whether the delay is millions of years, or just as recent as in the experiment itself, that the delay is the cause for the interference pattern not showing up at D-3 and D-4?

Quote
Right now, at the time of the experiment, at the time of going through the slits, there is no which path information so the interference should show up, according to your model.
Correct, as is evidenced by the interference pattern at D-0.
Quote
But it turns out that a future random event will in retrospect affect the results and I do not see (yet) how your model would be consistent with that.
I don’t think that it is the delay, or the storing of information that explains why there is no interference at D3 and D4. It is by imposing the “which path” information and thus eliminating the “both path” energy that is always necessary in order to cause an interference pattern, given the wave-particle nature as I describe it. No superposition, no FTL, no non-locality is necessary when both the wave state and the particle state are both observable for the same particle.



In my view, the single particle experiments are evidence that both states can be displayed by a single particle; eventually, after many single particles are sent through, the interference pattern forms as long as both paths are open.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/12/2017 22:41:32

In my view, the single particle experiments are evidence that both states can be displayed by a single particle; eventually, after many single particles are sent through, the interference pattern forms as long as both paths are open.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_54_15.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_54_15.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_54_15.jpeg)
The wave-particle that I portray in the discussion of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments has a unique structure, and always acts the same way in any of the double slit experiments, delayed choice or not.

The way it acts is something very interesting. Something that might be seen as spooky, unless you examine it in the light of the wave-particle structure that I promote.

The image above depicts the wave-particle, composed of wave energy, and displaying both an inflowing and an out flowing wave energy composition, which means that a stable wave-particle has a dense inner core where wave convergences give it mass, surrounded by an on-going spherical wave energy emission form the inner core. Thus it is both a wave (the spherically out flowing wave energy), and a particle (the dense core portion).

Simple, right? Now, what we observe in the single particle, two slit experiments, is that each single photon (as described in my model), or electron, or even buckyball, will display both its wave state and its particle state, at the same time.

What is the evidence of that? 1) Each particle clearly registers its impact on the screen (a particle related event). 2) The location of each impact is affected by the wave interference that is caused when its own broadened out-flowing wave front goes through both slits (a wave related event).

Conclusion: Each individual wave-particle has both its wave state and its particle state with it at all times, not in superposition, and a single particle can display both states in the same experiment.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/12/2017 13:21:54
Yes, the delayed choice, single particle experiment is revealing.

If there is only one slit open, you will never get an interference pattern, but you will detect, on the screen, any particles that go through that slit. No surprise. You can send billions of particles through that one slit, detect them all on the screen, and still, there will never be an interference pattern.

Instead of considering the wave-particle alternative structure of this model, some people conclude that it is a spooky mystery that when you open up a second slit, but only send one particle at a time through the experiment so it has to go through one slit or the other, that all of a sudden an interference pattern begins to show up on the screen.

It isn’t a mystery though if you consider the wave-particle of the ISU model.

The mystery is solved because each individual particle has a wave state and a particle state that travel everywhere together, but are always individual states. Both states are always separate, and therefore have an individual presence at all times, and are not in a third state called superposition. The spherical out flowing wave energy is continually emitted from the dense core portion of the wave-particle, and can be detected as an interference pattern, while the individual particle state can also be detected as a hit on the screen. That is a single particle where there is detection of both the wave state and the particle state. The evidence is displayed in the delayed choice experiments, once you consider the results form the perspective of the wave-particle.

It is also a case of being able to detect both states of a single, individual particle, in the same single particle experiment; a situation that seems to violate the rules quantum mechanics. But obviously it isn’t against the laws of physics, if the ISU explanation is right, and if the results of the single particle experiments are considered confirming evidence.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2017 22:00:13
Particle physics is not a simple matter, and a layman talking about single particle states is a slippery slope, but an individual particle in the ISU is composed of quanta (meaningful wave energy convergences), and my version goes to the point where, for talking purposes, a single proton has 700 billion quanta (see reply #79 for details) (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519153#msg519153).

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)
In that image, the core (particle) portion is surrounded spherically by the wave energy emitted at the speed of light by the core. The inner high density core emits a regular, rhythmical spherical wave that represents the frequency the particle.

That out flowing wave, going through both slits, gave us the explanation for the seemingly spooky results of the two slit experiments, as discussed in the previous posts. But more importantly, we have an explanation for the various frequencies emitted by all particles.

It is mentionable that the wave-particle structure corresponds with a growing consensus that gravitational wave energy is emitted by all particles and objects with mass. Conveniently, the mechanism for gravitational wave energy emission is in place in the ISU.

And it is also mentionable that if the particle being observed is a photon, the periodic out flowing wave energy represents the frequency of light wave energy emitted by a photon of a particular energy level.

To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/12/2017 16:33:03
Reply 233
Particle pulsing action


Particle physics is not a simple matter, and a layman talking about single particle states is a slippery slope, but an individual particle in the ISU is composed of quanta (meaningful wave energy convergences), and my version goes to the point where, for talking purposes, a single proton has 700 billion quanta (see reply #79 for details) (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519153#msg519153).


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)

In that image, the core (particle) portion is surrounded spherically by the wave energy emitted at the speed of light by the core. The inner high density core emits a regular (pulsing), rhythmical, spherical wave that represents the frequency of the particle.
Some layman thoughts on the mechanics of the pulsing action of wave-particles:


These thoughts have to do with the nature of the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the standing wave particle, and what is going on to cause it to be a pulse, as opposed to a continuous stream. I have long considered the frequency of the out flowing wave of the ISU mechanics to represent the identifying frequency of the particle, and I have danced around with the mechanics of the spherical emission, saying it was the “quantum action” at the particle surface, where all of the surface quanta emitted their tiny wave energy, and as the waves expanded away from the surface, the surrounding emission merged together to form one spherical wave emission for each outflowing wave.


But still, any reader might wonder about how all of those surface quanta get synchronized to “fire off” their tiny individual spherical waves at the same time, making the out flowing waves individual pulses, instead of randomly timed tiny emissions.


Now I am emphasizing the “pulsing” with more conviction. “Pulse” is a term that I haven’t attached to the spherical emission up until I referred to what Max Planck said in Reply #107, https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg523791#msg523791 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg523791#msg523791)

“Reported here, some known physics, paraphrased from the section on electromagnetic radiation in, Chemistry - Matter and Its Changes, by Brady, Russell & Holum, Riley & Sons, 2000. It shows how compatible the ISU wave mechanics are with known physics in regard to the electromagnetic radiation of the hydrogen atom. ‘Max Planck depicted EM as the emitted quanta or packets of energy called photons, where each photon “pulses” with a frequency as it travels with the speed of light.’”


This may seem like a frivolous diversion, but I want to make an analogy between the ISU version of the pulsing of a wave particle, and a toy boat:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat)




The candle powered boat is a kid’s thing (my Grandpa showed me how to make one in the 1950’s). The analogy here is between the air/water mix contained in the tiny tin bladder (boiler), along with the candle heat of this toy boat, and the wave energy contained within the particle space and the resulting wave-particle pulsing action.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/12/2017 23:18:59
Reply #234
Particle pulsing action “sameness”




But still, any reader might wonder about how all of those surface quanta get synchronized to “fire off” their tiny individual spherical waves at the same time, making the out flowing waves individual pulses, instead of randomly timed tiny emissions.


… I want to make an analogy between the ISU version of the pulsing of a wave particle, and a (candle powered) toy boat:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat)

… The analogy here is between the steam/water mix contained in the tiny tin bladder (boiler), along with the candle heat of this toy boat, and the wave energy contained within the particle space and the resulting wave-particle pulsing action.


To be continued …

The flame heats the water and induces steam under pressure, which forces its way out the tube, relieving the pressure, and causing a vacuum density in the tube. Cooler water replaces the hot steam, volume for volume, and the cooler water flows back into the boiler. The cycle continues as long as the flame reheats the water.

The boiler is a confined containment vessel, and I am equating that to the wave energy contained within the particle space. (You may recall that the stable particles in the ISU are the decay product of the hot, dense, ball of wave energy contained under gravitational compression, in the big crunch, and that emerges when the crunch collapses during a Big Bang event).

Energy containment exists from the epoch of the crunch, and continues during the decay process which involves expansion and cooling. The resulting stable particles have contained energy, and have struck a gradually changing balance between the particle space that they occupy, and the vacuum density of the surrounding space.

(Note that the presence of matter will continue in the expanding arena for as long as there is too much local wave energy density to become fully equalized across the arena’s available space. In the ISU that is an eternal proposition because of speculation that the universal average energy density is too high to become equalized before local arenas intersect and overlap, causing new big crunches to occur, and new crunch/bangs defeat the local progress of entropy).

Thus the regular, rhythmical, spherical pulsing wave action occurs at the (macro) Big Bang arena action level and at the (micro) quantum wave-particle action level, in line with the ISU "sameness" doctrine. The quantum action of wave-particles in space is much like the alternating expansion/cooling and compression/heating phases going on with the boiler action of the Pop-pop boat.

To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/12/2017 08:25:51
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg
I like your diagram very much.

I have the core which you call a dense core as being an absolute void surrounded by field density.   My reasoning for this is very simple in that the likewise of the fields repulses from a central position to provide the void.
In simple terms if you can imagine a balloon inflating, but in this circumstances the surface of the balloon is repulsing the surface of the balloon.

left surface←likewise repulsion→right surface

Obviously isotropic


The physics suggests this is a possibility?


* qfd1.jpg (26.16 kB . 705x428 - viewed 4617 times)

Our differences are, you  have a wave emanating from a point source, where In my notion waves are a fluctuation of the field.



In my system, an increase in energy of the field is an increase in field density over radius. e.g if a system gains more energy it pushes things away from it. The ''layers'' of the field increasing in magnitude.  A bit like water and buoyancy The radius of the field being apart always been 0 relative to the density. The central points only having a radius apart. .

The easier way to look at this is by using magnets and the likewise polarities of the magnet creating r between the two magnets. 0 r between the fields. If we was to increase the magnitude of one of the magnets r increases accordingly between the magnets, but the r between fields always remains 0.


Imagine a box full of half inflated balloons than in each center of a balloon was a point, then simply inflate the balloons fully to observer the density displacement of the balloons surface that causes the expansion of points.  However observer the balloons surfaces always have 0 radius apart.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/12/2017 15:23:03
Reply #236
To Thebox re. #235 reply


I like your diagram very much.

I have the core which you call a dense core as being an absolute void surrounded by field density.   My reasoning for this is very simple in that the likewise of the fields repulses from a central position to provide the void.
In simple terms if you can imagine a balloon inflating, but in this circumstances the surface of the balloon is repulsing the surface of the balloon.

left surface←likewise repulsion→right surface

Obviously isotropic


The physics suggests this is a possibility?




Our differences are, you  have a wave emanating from a point source, where In my notion waves are a fluctuation of the field.



In my system, an increase in energy of the field is an increase in field density over radius. e.g if a system gains more energy it pushes things away from it. The ''layers'' of the field increasing in magnitude.  A bit like water and buoyancy The radius of the field being apart always been 0 relative to the density. The central points only having a radius apart. .

The easier way to look at this is by using magnets and the likewise polarities of the magnet creating r between the two magnets. 0 r between the fields. If we was to increase the magnitude of one of the magnets r increases accordingly between the magnets, but the r between fields always remains 0.


Imagine a box full of half inflated balloons than in each center of a balloon was a point, then simply inflate the balloons fully to observer the density displacement of the balloons surface that causes the expansion of points.  However observer the balloons surfaces always have 0 radius apart.
It hurts my gray matter to imagine that, but I can. Just kidding, I do see where you are coming from, and taking it as a snapshot out of the whole scenario, I’m sure you have it working for you, like I have my ideas working for me, in an internally consistent scenario.

The trouble with comparing layman cosmological models is that there is a different one for every layman enthusiast.

I have specifying definitions for all of my words that make perfect sense to me, but unless a reader really pays attention, follows from the beginning, and asks for clarification on word usage and definitions, we won’t have the same visual picture of what I am trying to say. I’m sure the same goes for my understanding of what you are trying to explain.We think about each others ideas, draw some conclusions, and move our individual thinking along another step, which is the nice thing about science forums that allow alternative ideas, so thank you for sharing and commenting.

Note: My model is a hobby; a pastime that keeps my mind engaged, and keeps me learning physics and cosmology, at a layman level of understanding. Here at the home (I mean at our house ;) ) we like puzzles, we do about one big tough 1000 piece puzzle every week or two, but nothing compares to contemplating the “as yet” unknowns of science; they are the grand puzzle. I plan to be thinking about things like quantum gravity, and the three infinities, when they come to take me away, lol.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2017 03:14:05
Reply #237
Derivation from first principles


(Note that the presence of matter will continue in the expanding arena for as long as there is too much local wave energy density to become fully equalized across the arena’s available space. In the ISU that is an eternal proposition because of speculation that the universal average energy density is too high to become equalized before local arenas intersect and overlap, causing new big crunches to occur, and new crunch/bangs defeat the local progress of entropy).




Let’s examine that note. Simply put, matter exists in the local space because there is too much wave energy; the wave energy density trends toward equalization within the surrounding space, but it is a trend that gets interrupted before the wave energy density equalizes, hence matter always exists in the local space. In the ISU, that is a universal condition, and so there will never be total, final, complete entropy, as would be the case if all of the wave energy became equalized across the infinite universe. It won’t happen, it can’t happen in the ISU, but if you imagine it could, you are imagining a cosmological model that has a predictable end point, where life can no longer exist, referred to as the Big Rip (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27017.0).
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_13_12_17_3_22_47.jpeg)

What do I mean that the process of equalization gets interrupted? What I mean is that in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, active expanding big bang arenas will expand into each other's space, long before the energy density equalizes, and when that happens, entropy is defeated; new big crunches form, from which new big bangs occur, and out of which new, low entropy, hot, dense, expanding, big bang arenas form to perpetuate the large scale process of arena action across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

There are different, overall views of cosmological models, and the above “note” must seem wrong to you, if your view isn’t expressed in terms of infinite space and an open universe. If you don’t think in those terms, i.e., if you consider the universe to be finite and closed, what mechanism can there be to defeat entropy? The universe you envision seems destined to end in terminal calamity, either the heat death as in the GR and the Wiki Big Rip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip), or in one final big crunch from which there is no escape.

If you consider that the derivation of the ISU model is from first principles, the three infinities: space, time, and energy, then you can see where I am coming from when I invoke the term “dynamic steady state” to the overall grand Infinite Spongy Universe.

I am not conditioned to expect any thoughtful response on this topic of derivation, but the most likely counter argument is that there is no evidence for the three infinities, and so though the derivation of the ISU from first principles sounds lofty, without evidence it is just empty words, right?


 
To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/12/2017 23:40:23
Reply #238

Derived concepts from the Three Infinities:
Levels of order, big bang arena landscape, quantum level of wave-particles and quantum gravity, the foundational level of the oscillating background, “parent” waves, meaningful waves, third waves, temporary high energy density spots, the “sameness” doctrine …


Can I provide an example of an ISU concept that is derived from the first principles, or axioms that I call the Three Infinities: space, time, and wave energy?

This is a good one to start with: All three levels of order in the ISU, the big bang arena landscape, the quantum realm, and the oscillating wave energy background, are composed of nothing but wave energy traversing space. In that space, at all three levels of order, two or more meaningful “parent” energy waves intersect and overlap, producing a third energy wave that emerges from the overlap space.

The waves at each level make sense for that level. They are in a range where an intersection between them would produce a meaningful wave crest, relative to the individual wave fronts that are converging. That means that when a big bang arena wave intersects with a quantum wave, or with a lesser oscillating background level wave, the event has no significance. However, when two parent big bang arena waves converge, it is perhaps the most significant type of event in the ISU, followed by the collapse/bang of the big crunch that forms in the overlap space of the arena/arena intersection.

You may have noticed that when I talk about one level or the other, I sometimes refer to “meaningful waves”; it means that the wave is a “player” at that level of order, relative to the other waves that qualify at that level.

Out of the concept of wave intersections and overlaps, and the resulting emerging third wave, is derived the concept of a momentary or temporary high energy density spot. The temporary high density spot is a characteristic of all three levels of order. As mentioned, at the big bang arena level the “high energy density spot” is characterized as a big crunch. At the quantum level, the convergence of meaningful waves and their temporary high density spots establishes the presence of the mass of wave-particles, and is also a key to quantum gravity, and at the level of the oscillating background, the third waves serve as a key part of the mechanics whereby light and gravitational waves are advanced through space.

Notice the “sameness” of the action at all three levels of order. Each level is characterized by wave action, wave intersections and overlaps, third waves, high energy density spots, etc. I refer to that sameness across all levels as the “sameness doctrine”.

If you didn’t pick up on all of that from my thread so far, this post should help put those derived concepts into context. Now go back to the beginning and read the whole thread again, and see if this reply makes for a better understanding (just kidding, lol).


To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/12/2017 14:31:06
Reply #239
Infinite space open universe

In reply #237, I made this statement and posed a question, “There are different, overall views of cosmological models, and the above “note” must seem wrong to you, if your view isn’t expressed in terms of infinite space and an open universe. If you don’t think in those terms, i.e., if you consider the universe to be finite and closed, what mechanism can there be to defeat entropy?”

The “Man on the Street”, a layman science enthusiast, plays the devils advocate, and says that the arguments for the Three Infinities, along with the premise that the defeat of entropy, on a grand scale, actually occurs, are not falsifiable.

Bogie responds: Two things. 1) If entropy is not being defeated, then the universe does not have an infinite past, otherwise the end would have already come.  2) If the universe had a beginning, the three main explanations for the existence of the universe are cut down to two, by eliminating the “Always existed” option, leaving “Something from nothing”, and “God did it”, and neither of those two can pass the test of being scientific.



Man on the Street: You don’t show any logical mechanism, or offer even simple math to support the Third Wave concept.

Bogie_Smiles: MotS, you are new here, and didn’t follow the thread (or didn’t go back and read it again). The logical mechanism is the third wave concept that I derive from the axioms and known science. The simple math is the sphere/sphere overlap calculations using equations for sphere/sphere overlaps from Wolfram, and some pertinent logic, that depicts the overlap events and calculates the point when a third wave becomes a quantum wave. Go to reply #78 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519098#msg519098) and you will see this diagram and the simple equation as shown in this image from the  NakedScientists image gallery:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
Welcome aboard to the “Man on the Street”, btw.


To be continued ...

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/12/2017 14:36:17
Reply #240
Background logic leading to the “third wave” concept, part 1
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)

In reply #239 I referred to some “pertinent logic” that goes along with the ISU equation that tracks the progress of a third wave as it becomes quantum. The fact that the equation works the same at all three levels of order indicates that I consider all three levels of order to be quantized, and that thinking fits perfectly with the sameness doctrine. But there is a lot of history associated with the development of the levels, and of the third wave concepts, and to me, an interesting sequence of ideas and logic took place before reaching those conclusions.

The early forum discussions I participated in were about possible preconditions to our Big Bang, and one question on my mind at the time was the same question I used for the title of this thread, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs”.

What has evolved from exploring that question is a set of layman level views about cosmology, based on a methodology of reasonable and responsible speculation, that is portrayed as a layman science enthusiast's “model”. The methodology is also intended to assure that the ISU model is not inconsistent with known scientific observations and data, and that topic is always open for discussion.

That on-going effort, through updates like this, sometimes seems to have reached a point where it is generally palatable, but I’m sure it is not entirely acceptable to any layman level science enthusiasts. Feel free to comment, criticize, and/or point out inconsistencies. The model comes with disclaimers like this throughout, and is not misrepresented as science done by professionals, so as to avoid the eventuality that anyone might be lead to accept any of it without question (and I’m sure no one does).

That said, I can’t remember when I first posed the question in the title of this thread (twelve or fifteen years ago), but it followed that if there were multiple big bangs going on at the same time, then logically there would have to be a greater universe, and our expanding big bang was just a local arena; part of a big-bang arena landscape.

Given multiple expanding arenas, then there would logically be two or more big bang arenas expanding into the same space here and there, i.e., big bang arena intersections and overlaps. That thinking was the beginning of the ISU model.

When visualizing the expanding big bang arenas, intersecting and overlapping, you really can’t go far without contemplating the logic of a gravitational accumulation of galactic material and energy as the parent arenas engage in a swirling “rendezvous”. That thinking formed the logic for a gravitational “big crunch” at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

To me, that was fine progress in those early days of questioning Big Bang Theory, while learning generally accepted science, and developing the ISU model. I stalled there for quite sometime, while I studied and posted about layman level physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and various ideas about a solution to quantum gravity, all motivated by the question that was bugging me all that time; what could cause a big crunch to “bang”.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/12/2017 13:10:05

Reply #241
Background logic leading to the “third wave” concept, part 2


From reply #240:
“I stalled there for quite sometime, while I studied and posted about layman level physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and various ideas about a solution to quantum gravity, all motivated by the question that was bugging me all that time; what could cause a big crunch to ‘bang’?”.
---


I figured out a layman level solution to the collapse/bang of a big crunch, and it involves the concept of the wave-particle:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg


The wave-particle composition, being the standing wave concept of two components, the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components, presents a picture of wave-particles that individually occupy a lot of space, relative to the wave energy that they contain. The collapse of a big crunch occurs under gravitational compression, causing the individual particles in it to give up their individual space, and collapse temporarily into nature’s most extreme wave energy density, the dense-state of wave energy at the core of the big crunch as it collapses.


Aside from the Big Bang arena level of order in the ISU, two other levels of order were designated as a result of the layman level solution to the collapse of a big crunch.  One is the quantum level of order called quantum action (not to be confused with Planck’s quantum of action), as it applies to wave-particles and quantum gravity. The process of quantum action, like arena action, involves the formation of “third waves” in the overlap space between two or more “parent” quantum waves.


The third level of order is the oscillating background level where the third wave is involved in the process that assists with the advance of light and gravitational waves through the oscillating background of space.


A discussion of the third wave concept wouldn’t be complete without mentioning its role in my layman level solution to quantum gravity. Each high energy density spot that forms at the intersection and overlap of quantum level waves in the wave-particle’s standing wave pattern is momentary, from which emerges a new expanding third wave. The new wave is quantum, meaning it contains a wave-particle level quantum of energy. The amount of energy in that quantum is governed by the local wave energy density and quantum action process that is taking place all over in that local space, involving the “meaningful” waves at that level of order.


Quantum gravity is the motion of the particle as all of its high energy density spots in its complex standing wave pattern are refreshed continually, which involves the new quantum waves converging around the outer reaches of the patterns. The motion of the wave-particle reflects what is described as the wave energy density profile of the local space, mentioned frequently.


The concept is that the new high energy density spots, that together make up the mass of the wave-particle, will form more frequently in the direction of the net highest wave energy density path in the wave energy density profile of the surrounding space. As the wave-particle moves, they continually return the directional wave energy that they have absorbed from space, to the wave energy density profile of space, but it is emitted and returned spherically, and it expands throughout the local space spherically as it becomes part of the ever-changing local wave energy density profile of space.


To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/12/2017 14:33:45
Reply #242
Black holes in the ISU


Why is there is likely to be a black hole at the center of most galaxies?

In the ISU, that discussion starts by talking about the huge hydrogen stars that began to form after the big bang event that initiated our local arena. The process began after the wave of hot, dense, plasma expanded and cooled to where particle formation took place across the entire arena, spreading like the formation of frost on the window pane.

Those first round stars formed easily in the close quarters of the dense hydrogen rich space in the early formation period, as the expansion  was constrained by the density of the young arena.

Most galaxies that exist today are second round expressions of that early first round of massive hydrogen stars. They burned their fuel rapidly and went supernova, ejecting most of their mass into the surrounding space as plasma, dust, debris, etc.

However, at the center of the supernovae, were heavy remnants of the original massive hydrogen stars; black holes that serve as the central gravitational region for the formation of a galaxy around themselves, out of the star forming remnants of their hot dust cloud.

Just like the entire early big bang arena served as a monster hydrogen star factory, those dense hot dust clouds surrounding the remnant black holes become star factories. Each huge hydrogen star contained the mass equivalent to produce hundreds of billions of stars. Those young stars contain heavy nuclei formed within the first round massive stars and they burn much more slowly.

The massive presence of the black hole at the center of the new galaxy can sometimes be detected by observing individual stars orbiting it.

In this scenario, the ISU does not invoke the Big Bang Theory/General Relativity idea that space is expanding or stretching. It is true that using certain “standard candles” and raw redshift data, we detect the expansion of the observable universe. The observed galaxies are generally moving away from each other, and at an accelerating rate. In the ISU they are said to have separation momentum.


The cause of the separation momentum comes from the fact that as particles formed during the expansion following the big bang, they were imparted with separation momentum, and as a result, they were already moving wave from each other as they formed, because they formed in an expanding arena environment. However, in the close quarters of the dense early arena, local gravity overcame the separation momentum, and accounts for the hydrogen clumping into those massive first round hydrogen stars.

Separation momentum is conserved, and as the huge hydrogen stars formed, they too were moving away from each other. Thus the galaxies that formed from the debris of the supernovae of that first round of superstars were imparted with separation momentum, and are therefore generally moving away from each other too.

That brings us to a major distinction between BBT, and the ISU. Space has always existed and is infinite in the ISU, and is not stretching or expanding. Our arena will expand, in the sense that the galaxies have separation momentum, but only until that expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with a neighboring expanding arena or two. At that time the gravitational mechanism for the formation of a new big crunch and its collapse/bang are initiated, defeating entropy and perpetuating the process of big bang arena action.

The ISU is one universe, and is referred to as the infinite and eternal, homogeneous and isotropic, dynamic steady state, multiple big bang arena landscape, of the greater universe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/12/2017 03:31:05
Reply #243
Star Populations Wiki

Yesterday, Evan_au posted this link in a thread called, “Did the sun form from a cloud of hydrogen and helium?”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#Population_III_stars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#Population_III_stars)

It touches on the first round of massive hydrogen/helium stars that the Wiki calls “population III” stars, but does not confirm the ISU speculation about the size and mass of those first round stars that I included in my last post. However, the logic used in the ISU speculation is that the blackholes in the center of most current galaxies, along with the dust cloud star factories from which their stars formed, are remnants from the supernovae of the very massive first round stars.

Physicists  say that those massive stars would have formed easily in the temperatures and density of the early universe, as early as 300 to 400 million years after the Big Bang.

I am speculating, and am open to arguments supporting other views.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/12/2017 19:19:29
Reply #244
Related topics: galaxy formation and wave-particle structure sameness?

In a Big Bang arena, speculations are that the formation of the huge first round stars, after they burn rapidly and explode into supernovae, lead to the formation of galaxies populated with stars and planets composed of heavy elements. They would be second and third round, slow burning stars, of the varieties that we observe today. The heavy stars form in the star factory dust clouds around the black holes left by the first round and second round supernovae. There are heavy nuclei formed within the earlier stars that end up in the dust clouds surrounding those new stars, which provide  the matter from which the planets and moons form.


I mention here again, the sameness doctrine of the ISU that has evolved from my speculations as described in replies #240 & #241. I realized the benefit to the model of examining the mechanics that make sense at the arena level of order, and advancing the model by drawing comparisons between the other speculated levels of order.

For example, because we can observe a vast amount of space within our Big Bang arena, from our observation point here on Earth, it is easy to visualize two expanding Big Bang arenas expanding toward each. When visualizing those two or more arenas intersection and overlapping , it isn’t hard to imagine the consequences since two or more mature arenas would be filled with a vast galactic network. That network is the large structure of interconnected galaxies that hint at their close association with each other’s supernovae dust sources that tie them together with filaments of star forming matter. (Insert image) There is a resulting swirling rendezvous of galactic material and energy that eventually forms a big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

Going back before that, when contemplating the nature of particles that form in the early arenas, I began thinking about their nucleosynthesis. They form from the dense-state wave energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of the preceding big crunch in the ISU model’s process of big bang arena action. The wave energy is the dense-state wave energy resulting from the collapse of the preceding Big Crunch, and that thinking leads to speculation about the limits and thresholds of wave energy density and the active forces at work in each early big bang arena.


What comparisons can I make between the formation of particles at the quantum level, and the formation of the stars and galaxies at the arena level?

To go there, we will be examining the contents of the space that the particles form in during those first few hundred thousand years after any given big bang event, long before the 300 million year threshold which logically is when the huge first round stars form. It is a complicated and rich environment, but most notably, it has an infinite history of both arena action and quantum action behind it, and contributing to it. You may recall my earlier speculations about the cosmic microwave background, and the hemispherical anisotropy of the temperature readings fro WMAP and Planck Sky Surveys (replies #66 and #82 for example).

“Therefore, our big bang arena has its own CMB, composed of the pre-existing background in the surrounding space [from an infinite history of arena action], which is individualized by the [more] specific preconditions present, the individual backgrounds of our parent arenas.”


To be continued:

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/12/2017 23:52:34
Reply #245
What do wave-particles have in common with the galactic structure?

In galactic structure evolution, there are phases that occur in every transition from the mature galactic structure of the two or more parent arenas, to the evolution of the same mature galactic structure in each new arena. The “sameness” is perpetuated right through the Big Bang arena process, as is the defeat of entropy that occurs with each transition from parent to child arenas.

In wave-particle structure evolution, there are phases that occur in every transition from the stable wave-particle structure that is present in the mature parent arenas, to the evolution of the same stable wave-particles in each new arenas that occur over time. The “sameness” is perpetuated right through the Big Bang arena process via the quantum action process.


How many times have you heard the question, “What came before the Big Bang?” Instead of some “theory specific” answer like, “That question doesn’t make any sense because time and space began with the big bang,” the ISU answer is that our arena is essentially the same as the “parent” Big Bang arenas, and the same as arenas have always been, and will always be; invoking the sameness doctrine.


How many times have you heard the question, “How could something come from nothing?” Instead of some pessimistic answer like, “We just can’t know some things”. The ISU answer is that something doesn’t come from nothingness; there is known science, and there is “as yet” unknown science, and everything that is “as yet” unknown has natural causes that we just don’t yet understand.

The phases in the transition from parent arenas to evolving new big bang arenas, that apply to both the evolution of galactic structure and wave particle structure, are derived from known science, and simple ISU logic and speculation. Arenas are composed of galaxies, and galaxies are composed of wave-particles. That is the way it always is, and that is internally consistent with all of the speculative scenarios conveyed in this thread.

Like the stable galactic structure evolves in maturing arenas, likewise wave-particles evolve their stable standing wave patterns as arenas mature.

As is the case with both galaxies and standing wave particles, due to opposing forces that are always in play, their apparent stability can be interrupted. Galaxies can converge and interact, as can particles. In the ISU, the greatest interruption turns out to be the means of perpetuating the life hosting potential of the universe by defeating entropy, arena by arena, here and there, across the infinite and eternal landscape of the greater universe.

Within the arena, galaxies and wave-particles clearly have significant differences in scale, but there are many points of comparison. The dense core of most galaxies is a blackhole composed of dense-state wave energy remnant of a supernovae, while the dense core of a wave-particle is composed of a high concentration of wave convergences that make up the particle-portion of the wave-particle; both the galaxies and the wave-particles are the evolved product from the collapse of a preceding big crunch.

To be continued …


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/12/2017 03:51:02
Reply #246
Field theory talk

I started getting into field theories with Thebox on his thread, and want to pick up on that here, so I will make reference to my posts over there and move back to my own territory:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70844.msg530445#msg530445 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70844.msg530445#msg530445)
The crux of universal time is that time simply passes at some invariant universal rate, but the rate that clocks measure the passing of time is not invariant. The measurement of passing time is governed by the gravitational wave energy density of the of the local environment of the clock, i.e., the local gravitational field points occupied by the clock, because the particles that make up the clock function at a variable rate governed by the local gravitational wave energy density at that location in the field.


I 'see' that space is filled with energy in the forms of fields, I believe these fields to be linear .   

Here is a nice Wiki link to “Field”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics))

The Wiki on “Field” is quite complete for talking purposes. I don’t see much on linear fields, but I think I understand what you mean. When it comes to what “field” means in terms of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, the first line of the Wiki nails it:

“In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time” … and the term “physical quantity” means that the field establishes the structure of the physical values of each point of the field and the relationship between those points.

For example, a volume of space has three dimensions, and every point in that volume of space is an individual point in the field, where all points make up the entire field structure. Linear, in that sense, might mean that every point in space is connected to the entire space by its relationship with each surrounding point in any linear direction or vector. Does that sound right to you, in regard to fields being linear?

If so, then the field that is associated with the clock measurements of the passing of time is referred to as “the gravitational wave energy density profile of space”. That field is made up of points within that space that each have a specific physical quantity expressed as a value of wave energy density. The “Wave energy” part means that gravitational waves carry energy as they traverse space at the speed of light, so the quantity or value at each point is an amount of energy carried by all of the waves passing that point in space at the same time. The density at any point in the field is the net value of the peaks and valleys of the energy carried by all of the spherical waves converging at that point in space and time.

There is a back-history associated with each spherical wave that makes up the energy density of each and every point in the field. Therefore every point is constantly changing in value. However, the changes are not generally “jerky”, if you know what I mean, because there are so many individual waves converging at every point in space and time, that no one wave will generally dominate, but instead, the change in the moment-to-moment value of the net wave energy density of a point in space is more smooth than jerky.

An exception to that would be the relatively rare waves associated with extreme cosmic events like supernovae or the convergence of stellar black holes, as discovered recently by LIGO and the ESO.


I followed that post with these comments on his thread:
I will move further discussion about my gravitational field ideas to my thread, since I suspect is it outside the scope of your paper. To close out here, the gravitational field discussion is specific to my personal version of quantum gravity, lol, so by moving it over to my thread, I save you any connection with my musings.

Let me state here though, in conjunction with my posts about “field”, that when I said each point has a value in terms of the net energy carried by all of the gravitational waves passing through that point in space, at a point in time, I don’t mean to say that the value of the energy at any point in the field has ever been established, or even can be established, without specification of an appropriate unit of measure, without defining the spherical motion of the waves that carry that energy through the field, and without a reasoned approach to establishing a point by point energy value.

Einstein and Maxwell took on field theory over a hundred years ago, and general relativity is a pretty precise field theory of gravity featuring spacetime, and they work without ether. I’m happy with that, except to the extent that there is some logic involved in my perspective that suggests that the same effect that spacetime conveys, can be achieved by the gravitational wave energy density profile of space that I have mentioned to you in this thread.

I’ll leave you with that for now, and get back to my own territory.


To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/01/2018 23:06:36
Reply #247
End of 2017 ISU update


Happy New Year!
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_12_17_1_35_43.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_12_17_1_35_43.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_12_17_1_35_43.jpeg)

My thanks to The NakedScientistsForum for allowing me to post my alternative ideas over the past eight months. This thread, through year end, can now be referred to as the 2017 update of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, a layman science enthusiast’s model of the cosmology of the universe.

The ISU is not a theory in the scientific sense, and there is no claim that it is science done by professionals. As pretty well explained near the beginning of the thread, in reply #16:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357)

Quote
Let me elaborate on that methodology by pointing out that there is known science and ‘as yet’ unknown science. I incorporate all known science into the ISU if it is based on observations and generally accepted explanations that are consistent from theory to theory, which, I think, includes most of known physics in general, and much of the theoretical physics that is generally accepted.

There are incomplete theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community as far as they go, and various theories that are inconsistent from one theory to another. I hope by saying that I'm not required to list them all. Either you agree with me or you don't on that point, but I'm pretty sure I could find a lot of agreement on that within the scientific community.

Science is also tentative, meaning that as progress is made by members of the scientific community, there is a ‘publish and peer review’ process, and sometimes previously accepted theory is superseded by the new theory. Science is tentative in that respect, and I find almost no objection to that concept. I simply address the ‘as yet’ unknowns in my own way, as I wait for the scientific community to grow their improving consensus.


However, the ‘as yet’ unknown portion of physics and cosmology is what makes all of the models incomplete. My approach is to apply the ‘reasonable and responsible’ methodology to the gaps, and speculate about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved for many years, through several major false starts that have taken me back to the drawing board. I anxiously and readily seek falsification so I can revise and evolve a better personal view of cosmology. I encourage counter arguments, and I listen to them, and incorporate those that I consider reasonable and responsible. I am the arbiter of what is reasonable and responsible, because the ISU is my personal view of cosmology. It is not a scientific paper for peer review, it is a personal view for discussion with the intention of continual improvement.

That attitude, along with the very alternative views in my model are sometimes not acceptable to forums, or some sub-forums within them. I asked for clarification in the OP and in my last post, and if this material is in violation of the forum or sub-forum rules and guidelines, I will cease and desist, and would appreciated knowing that as soon as my posts become inappropriate.

And here we are today, still going …


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Colin2B on 02/01/2018 09:45:36

My thanks to The NakedScientistsForum for allowing me to post my alternative ideas over the past eight months.   

.......That attitude, along with the very alternative views in my model are sometimes not acceptable to forums, or some sub-forums within them. I asked for clarification in the OP and in my last post, and if this material is in violation of the forum or sub-forum rules and guidelines, I will cease and desist, and would appreciated knowing that as soon as my posts become inappropriate.

And here we are today, still going …
So, i think you have an answer to your question.
As long as you don’t contravene the forum acceptable usage policy and understand how we moderate new theories, then you are free to speculate as much as you want.

Happy New Year to you too.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/01/2018 15:01:55
So, i think you have an answer to your question.
As long as you don’t contravene the forum acceptable usage policy and understand how we moderate new theories, then you are free to speculate as much as you want.

Happy New Year to you too.
Thank you. I'll just continue on into 2018 on this thread, as opposed to my previous practice of starting a new ISU update thread each year, because TNS is a perfect site for my kind of interests and activity.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/01/2018 14:27:14
Reply #250
… if the real mechanics behind how gravity works is quantum, then a quantum solution to gravity would extend the macro level theory of spacetime to the micro level …

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_01_18_1_58_28.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_01_18_1_58_28.jpeg)

Somewhat recent developments in science, namely the discovery of gravitational waves, and the confirmation of the cold spot in the microwave energy background, lend some credibility to the ISU multiple big bang arena landscape model discussed in this thread. Gravitational waves are at the heart of the three ISU processes of arena action, quantum action, and the oscillating wave energy background. The cold spot can be taken as tentative evidence of the close proximity of another big bang arena, already interacting with ours, as both arenas expand into the same space.

Our arena and the adjacent arena would be designated as parent arenas under the definitions of the ISU model, and the space occupied by those two intersecting and overlapping arenas would be designated as one system, with the expected result of a gravitational convergence of much of the galactic content of the parent arenas. That arena/arena convergence, the highest order of wave energy convergence in the model, would produce a new big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space, and out of that would come a big bang event, giving birth to a new expanding arena in the landscape of the greater universe.

The nature of the idea I am working on acknowledges the genius of Einstein’s field theory, which quantifies the macro effect of gravity using the field equations to describe the curvature of spacetime. They describe a field where each point has values that specify an infinitesimal variance in the distance between points of spacetime, based on the amount of curvature that is present, point by point. The amount of curvature is governed by the density and proximity of matter, and those particulars yield geodesics which determine that path of objects through spacetime.

The path that objects take through space at the quantum level can be approached using the wave energy density mechanics of the ISU. It is not that I think I can describe those mechanics mathematically based on my verbal model, and it is not that I think that if anyone were to do that math, that it would be much better than the Einstein Field Equations at the macro level. It is just that if the real mechanics behind how gravity works is quantum, then a quantum solution to gravity would extend the macro level theory of spacetime to the micro level of quantum wave mechanics. The gravitational wave energy density profile of space would then supplement the curvature of spacetime, uniting the macro and micro realms.


My conclusion that Einstein’s field theory predicts that gravitational waves occur when relative motion occurs is important to the ISU model because it brings gravitational waves into to the quantum realm, speculating that not just rotating blackholes, but that atomic particles too emit and absorb gravitational waves. The contrast then would be between the magnitude of the observed wave energy of events involving blackholes converging with each other, to quantum waves converging to form momentary high energy density spots in space.

Gravitational waves are predicted to travel at the speed of light, and so the observed wave length, and thus the amount of energy observed to be carried by the wave is affected by the relative motion at either the macro or the micro level of magnitude. Gravitational waves are consistent with the conservation of energy and momentum (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/Conservation_Laws/Conservation_Laws.html).

At the macro level, where relative velocities are rarely relativistic, the affect is insignificant, but at the quantum level, tiny motion becomes magnified because the two components of the wave-particles, the inflowing and the out flowing gravitation wave energy, are traveling at the speed of light into, through and out of the particle space. The wave energy density of the space being traversed at the  quantum level varies significantly from that outside of the particle space, to the density at the surface of the particle, and then deep within it. Thus based on the premise that the velocity of light and gravity is governed by the local wave energy density, you have conditions that significantly affect the velocity of the wave action at the quantum level.


To be continued…
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/01/2018 01:46:37
Reply #251
… gravitational waves occur when relative motion occurs…

When one has alternative ideas that generally seem to them to be internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data, that person might begin to come to conclusions about some quite alternative ideas that seem logical to them, but that aren’t likely to get any traction. The ISU is a case in point.

The lead statement “… gravitational waves/relative motion …” was pulled from post #250 because, whether it is a matter of cause and effect, or simply natural law, all objects with mass absorb and emit gravitational waves in quantum increments, from what can be characterized as the gravitational wave energy density profile of space (gravitational field, if you don’t object), in the ISU model.

You don’t have to read very many threads in an active science forum before you see discussions about the wave length of light being relative to the motion of the observer. Two observers in relative motion to each other will see the same light wave at different frequencies. As a premise in the ISU, that is also the case with gravitational wave energy density, and would apply to the gravitational waves discovered by LIGO.

A single wave-particle has a single frequency, but more massive objects, made up of multiple wave-particles, as are atoms and multi atom molecules, will have a higher frequency. Rotating Blackholes can be characterized as a symphony of the frequencies of the individual wave-particles making up the blackholes, and the chirping would reflect the increasing orbiting velocity right up to the blackhole merger, which actually is what the interferometer is designed to detect.

The take away from that is, frequency is an observable in regard to individual wave-particles, which includes stand alone wave-particles like photons and the fundamental particles in the ISU. Photons emit electromagnetic waves, but the other fundamental particles also emit identifying wave energy finger prints, akin to their De Broglie “matter-wave” frequency (https://physics.info/debroglie/).


Larger objects begin to emit a mishmash (layman term) of frequencies and when combined, the emissions are simply gravitational wave energy emitted into the local wave energy density profile of space. But the beauty of that, in the ISU, is that all of the gravitational wave energy is emitted in quantum increments from the orchestra of particles making up the object.


That brings us back to the fact that gravitational wave energy in space is made up of the out flowing gravitational wave energy of wave particles, that get added to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space in quantum increments. Massive objects emit massive amounts of gravitational wave energy, all emitted in quantum increments, but you have to maintain the realization that all of the energy is emitted, quantum by quantum, from the surface of the wave particles within the object, and those wave particles are all composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

So in the ISU, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy is continually occurring between particle/objects, and the wave energy background, both in and out. There we have it, the basis for quantum gravity at the quantum level, orchestrated by the ISU process of quantum action (not to be confused with the quantum of action in QM).

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg)


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/01/2018 15:07:19
Reply #252

The 2018 Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) Model Update
This series of posts, starting with reply #251, is a continuation and 2017 update of the first 250 posts that started by asking the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bang events?”

I have covered many parts of the ISU model in this thread on a step by step basis, and everything is connected, thus presenting the big picture of a layman’s researched hypothetical view of a wave mechanics model of cosmology.

The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model (of the cosmology of the universe), hereby invokes an image of the falling apple as its logo:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg)

The ISU model is for layman discussion, by layman science enthusiasts, and represents a reasonable and responsible description of the universe, according to a loosely connected group of science forum participants and friends over the years (referred to as “we” from time to time) who have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to it. If you see, or think I have something wrong, it would improve the model if you speak up. Anyone who wants to participate should feel free to comment and/or challenge any part of the ISU model at any time; it is a work in progress.

The phrase “reasonable and responsible” designates the methodology used to build the model, from the wonderings that a child might have when peering into the starry night sky, to layman science enthusiasts wondering about the “hows” of the theories presented to us as the current consensus of the scientific community.

There is known science, and there is “as yet” unknown science, and the ISU cosmology incorporates generally accepted science that is consistent from theory to theory. We recognizing that there are incomplete theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community as far as they go, and various theories that are inconsistent from one theory to another. However, it is the "as yet" unknown portion of physics and cosmology that makes all of the models incomplete.

Our approach is to apply the "reasonable and responsible" methodology to the gaps, and speculate/hypothesize about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved since 2001, through several major false starts that have taken us back to the drawing board. We anxiously and readily seek falsification in order to evolve a better layman level view of cosmology.


The model comes with the stipulation that Science is "tentative" meaning that as progress is made by members of the scientific community, there is a "publish and peer review" process, and sometimes previously accepted consensus theory is superseded by new theory. Science is tentative in that respect. The model simply addresses speculations about the "as yet" unknowns, as we wait for the scientific community to grow their improving consensus.


We encourage counter arguments, and listen to them, and incorporate those that are considered reasonable and responsible. The intention is for continual improvement, and periodic updates like this make it an evolving view. As the originator and acting facilitator for the time being, I arbitrate what is incorporated into the model in order to, 1) maintain internal consistency, and 2) to avoid inconsistency with scientific observations and data.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/01/2018 14:05:56
Reply #253
Precising definitions for gravitational waves in GR and the ISU




(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_3_33_22.jpeg)

Image link: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_3_33_22.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_3_33_22.jpeg)


According to “A Concise Introduction to Logic” by Hurley, under the category of Lexical Definitions, which are the common meanings that words already have, Precising Definitions are meant to reduce the vagueness of the normal definition in a given application. They are necessary to specify further meaning to the word, for example in an obscure science-like layman level discussion in a science forum.


Take for example the word ‘wave’. You generally know what a wave is in the common usage; waves on water, sound waves, and even electromagnetic waves in the sense that they are defined by Maxwell’s equations as transverse electric and magnetic light waves that travel through space (at the invariant speed of light in a vacuum). But all of a sudden the word ‘wave’ became a little vague when used to describe gravitational waves like the ones predicted by Einstein in General Relativity, discovered on 14 September 2015 and announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016.

In the science of logic according to Hurley, the discovery of gravitational waves would make the common definition a little vague because gravity waves are quite different from the familiar definition. In the ISU model, they are different still. What that means is that Einstein’s predicted gravitational wave, which is very well explained in the link below, is not the same as the gravity wave in the ISU, thus requiring the precising definition used in the ISU.


Go to this article and familiarize yourself with the precising definition of Einstein’s gravitational wave:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/11/gravitational-waves-discovery-hailed-as-breakthrough-of-the-century (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/11/gravitational-waves-discovery-hailed-as-breakthrough-of-the-century)


In the ISU, the precising definition is that the gravitational wave physically changes the local wave energy density of the space that it traverses, thus changing the velocity of light through that space, while in General Relativity the precising definition is that the gravitational wave physically changes the length of the arms of the interferometer (length contraction) and thus changes the distance that light travels through spacetime as it passes (geodesics). That makes two different explanations for the same effect; the ripples in spacetime of the GR explanation and the changing of the local speed of light of the ISU explanation. Those two different explanations lead to the two different precising definitions.


The ISU definition allows for an infinite universe that has always existed, just in case your view of cosmology allows your thinking to go there. If not, then you can be comfortable with general relativity, that features a beginning to the finite but expanding universe; you don’t have the problem of vagueness that the ISU alternative is aimed to address in the case that there was no beginning, but instead, there is an infinite big bang arena landscape where big bang arenas continually merge and mingle during the process of Arena Action.


The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.


To be continued ...


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 11:33:34
Do you feel that your efforts to get a conversation going, are in vein?



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/01/2018 12:25:41
Do you feel that your efforts to get a conversation going, are in vein?
No, but thank you for asking. The fact that TheNakedScientists forum focuses on answers to question in all fields of science makes it a great service to layman science enthusiasts, but it doesn't place an emphasis on New Theories or alternative ideas. In fact, those of us who have those kinds of thoughts often find that we are alone in our speculations and musings.

The thing for us out here on the Lighter Side is that we even have a place to post our thinking. We should present it as discussion because it certainly isn't intended to be a blog site, but if no one is interested in discussing our particular interests, it is still a place for us to get our thinking out there. When and if discussion happens, that is even better.




Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 13:33:00
The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.
ok!

Quote
The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.

I consider ligo detected a fluctuation in the Earths field made by force feedback from other fields fluctuating?

I consider the Earths field is a linearity in all directions and ripples or waves are fluctuations in the field . 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/01/2018 16:30:20
The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.
ok!
Thanks, it is a fairly clear way to make the distinction between how the passing of a GR gravitational wave may cause the LIGO alarm to be set off, vs. how the passing of an ISU gravitational wave would cause the LIGO apparatus to ring the alarm. Using Hurley’s “precising definition” technique from the science of logic helped in getting the wording right.
Quote
I consider ligo detected a fluctuation in the Earths field made by force feedback from other fields fluctuating?
If you are right, maybe when they get these devices into space we will be able to confirm or deny …

The European Space Agency is working on putting a satellite based interferometer up around 2030:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna)

NASA started a study (in 2011?), and I guess it is still on the drawing board:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Saif_2012_PhI_AtomInterferometry.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Saif_2012_PhI_AtomInterferometry.pdf)
Quote
I consider the Earths field is a linearity in all directions and ripples or waves are fluctuations in the field . 
I don’t object to that at all, but in ISU terms I think it would be good for me to do some more of the “precising definitions” approach to address the vagueness that creeps in. For example, when you use the phrase ‘linearity in all directions’, my ISU inclination is to hear you say, ‘spherical gravitational waves emitted by the wave-particles the make up the Earth’. When I hear you refer to 'ripples' I think you are talking about gravitational waves in the contest of General Relativity Theory. So if your thinking is not the same as GR, and not the same as the ISU, then you might try to do some “precising definitions” of your own to clear it up for me.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 19:00:54
then you might try to do some “precising definitions” of your own to clear it up for me.

Ok , I will try to define what I mean exactly.

Imagine a light sphere and the spherical boundary is the ''edge'' of observation .  You are at the centre of this light sphere.   In any direction you look, you have a linearity, a clear line of sight

You..............................→line of sight

Now this would be equally as true for any direction you was to look, it would be isotropic and linear. 

Now imagine the electrical Neutral field of the Earth looks like this.

So then I consider what would happen if one of these lines was to receive a force feedback, I consider the line(s) would wave.

I consider the blue sky is waving back literally.




Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 19:13:18
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 19:16:40
My reason for thinking this is because an astronaut in space can not see a blue sky, where the person on the earth sees the light coming towards them . The light coming towards being the low energy light that is travelling away from them being intensified and force feed backed by the incident rays of the sun.
Also it can not be a scattering because the air is thinner up there, the air is denser down here and it is not blue .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/01/2018 02:07:57

Ok , I will try to define what I mean exactly.

Imagine a light sphere and the spherical boundary is the ''edge'' of observation .  You are at the centre of this light sphere.   In any direction you look, you have a linearity, a clear line of sight

You..............................→line of sight

Now this would be equally as true for any direction you was to look, it would be isotropic and linear. 

Now imagine the electrical Neutral field of the Earth looks like this.

So then I consider what would happen if one of these lines was to receive a force feedback, I consider the line(s) would wave.

I consider the blue sky is waving back literally.





My reason for thinking this is because an astronaut in space can not see a blue sky, where the person on the earth sees the light coming towards them . The light coming towards being the low energy light that is travelling away from them being intensified and force feed backed by the incident rays of the sun.
Also it can not be a scattering because the air is thinner up there, the air is denser down here and it is not blue .

Thank you for that. I get the picture. There is cause and effect, and we observe the effect. Now about the cause … what is this thing called “force feedback” that causes the lines to wave?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/02/2018 12:00:08


Thank you for that. I get the picture. There is cause and effect, and we observe the effect. Now about the cause … what is this thing called “force feedback” that causes the lines to wave?
The same as any other force feedback really,  the out-going is forced back and gains strength  by the incoming .   The outgoings and incoming of course being Photons ( mass energy transfer) .   I visualise fields as being like a wire and forces and energies travel up and down this wire,  the ''wire'' coupling all mass , thus allowing energy ''time'' share.

E/t
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/02/2018 12:19:04
Quote
Larger objects begin to emit a mishmash (layman term) of frequencies and when combined, the emissions are simply gravitational wave energy emitted into the local wave energy density profile of space. But the beauty of that, in the ISU, is that all of the gravitational wave energy is emitted in quantum increments from the orchestra of particles making up the object.


That brings us back to the fact that gravitational wave energy in space is made up of the out flowing gravitational wave energy of wave particles, that get added to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space in quantum increments. Massive objects emit massive amounts of gravitational wave energy, all emitted in quantum increments, but you have to maintain the realization that all of the energy is emitted, quantum by quantum, from the surface of the wave particles within the object, and those wave particles are all composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

gravitational wave energy    =  electrodynamics fluctuations in the fields.

I think you actually need to change that and put field energy, uniting all the ''fields''.    I consider particles or wave energy particles, emit one and the same field.  I think that all other fields , are transformations/fluctuations in this unified field.

In another words, I don't think a gravitational field exists, gravitation would be a property of the one field that has several affects.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/02/2018 01:17:11
Reply #264
Isomer depletion as experimental evidence of
nuclear excitation by electron capture

For those interested in this kind of thing:
Page 218 | NATURE | VOL 554 | 8 FEBRUARY 2018


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25483.epdf?referrer_access_token=CmE7kxF-TsuCQm3mAJa7cdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Md-VK8QOYatYRAlj6DBQ4mSTeRdoPRn72_83QX3MRzjtzy9z38B9bJaXehR-mxkkCkpjl9erGttPin1GcGRWA6xp5FyNZD_5zulA8WQ1uPyOdXLV4DzBJnkv5Udj1tUwU7_s-V06aVsywp70wFGt2t95C8fXd1B6TejqNaL6UJsvtIiEPuKyYQ-7KD9sgozAZjf1Tc8gcJIvaUodB7SqsRQNkM77c5HjUqLM8KYpATqQgN6Szr3-AgRyojKT1gtuI%3D&tracking_referrer=physicsworld.com (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25483.epdf?referrer_access_token=CmE7kxF-TsuCQm3mAJa7cdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Md-VK8QOYatYRAlj6DBQ4mSTeRdoPRn72_83QX3MRzjtzy9z38B9bJaXehR-mxkkCkpjl9erGttPin1GcGRWA6xp5FyNZD_5zulA8WQ1uPyOdXLV4DzBJnkv5Udj1tUwU7_s-V06aVsywp70wFGt2t95C8fXd1B6TejqNaL6UJsvtIiEPuKyYQ-7KD9sgozAZjf1Tc8gcJIvaUodB7SqsRQNkM77c5HjUqLM8KYpATqQgN6Szr3-AgRyojKT1gtuI%3D&tracking_referrer=physicsworld.com)

This is interesting. A look inside the nucleus that is excited by the forced or coerced capture of an electron, and the pattern of the subsequent decay.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/03/2018 20:31:35
Reply #265
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
This post isn't new. It is somewhere back in this thread, and was originally written and posted elsewhere years ago, but having been occupied for a couple of months on an off-line project, I went back and read it again to get my mind back in tune with the ISU. I decided to post it again to summarize the ISU for the many new viewers that peek in at this space regularly:
.


The Universe, Infinity, Life, and God
The Cosmology and Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)

The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) is all inclusive, all there is, all matter, energy, everything in one infinite and eternal, life and consciousness producing expanse of wave energy that does nothing but carry out its own Eternal Intent.

Thresholds and limits of energy density govern natural processes that produce matter and gravity in environments characterized by the opposing forces of expansion and contraction to produce dynamic and evolving arenas that are continually forming and playing out across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

The ISU is governed by natural law, and natural law is described in three categories, Quantum Wave Cosmology, the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life, and the Concept of Eternal Intent.

Overview of Natural Law

In regard to Natural Law, we have an advancing boundary between what has been achieved by science, and what is yet to be achieved. What has been achieved is the quantification of the known physical sciences. In the realm of the “yet to be achieved” is the discovery and quantification of the unexplained and/or unknown natural laws. It is the role of science to confront the problems it faces and to advance the boundary into the realm of the “as yet” unknown.

When addressing the unknown, it is an axiom that the laws of nature are invariant. Based on that axiom, invariance is a characteristic of both the science we know and the natural laws we don’t yet know or understand. Science is advanced using the scientific method and according to that method and the invariance axiom, it follows that anything that is as yet unexplained has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.

The physical aspect of the ISU is described by Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) which envisions the universe as it would be if all of the as yet unknown physical laws of nature were known. It is the life hosting feature of the ISU where the generative and evolvative forces of life flourish on a grand scale, undaunted by the inevitable local cataclysms that characterize the eternal process of arena action.

Across the infinite and dynamic arena landscape which hosts a potentially infinite number of life hosting environments at any given point in time, there exists conscious, self aware, intelligent, highly evolved life forms whose individuals contemplate the concepts of the universe, infinity, life and God, and act and interact with freewill that is moderated by their individually developed consciences.

That is the Eternal Intent.

Overview of Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC)

QWC is characterized by two processes, quantum action at the micro level and arena action at the macro level. These two processes are strikingly similar in mechanics but the vast difference in scale makes quantum action look toward the infinitesimal and arena action look toward the infinite.

Quantum action works on the infinitesimal scale and orchestrates wave energy to establish the presence of matter and gravity. The key is that the universe is composed of nothing but wave energy and the tiniest meaningful waves have roles in the establishment of matter and gravity. The existence of particles and gravity demonstrates the success of quantum action.

Arena action works on the infinite scale of the landscape of the greater universe. The key to arena action is the existence of the opposing forces of expansion and contraction that play out in the great waves of energy that traverse the infinite landscape. It is the multiple arena landscape that prevents the eternal inflation of the universe and avoids the ultimate Heat Death.

As galaxy filled arena waves collide and overlap, cataclysmic events surround the collapse of galactic material under the compression of gravity. As big crunches form in the overlapping spaces where arenas converge, they reach a finite capacity of matter and energy density and collapse and bounce into expanding arenas of wave energy. It is the natural law of critical capacity that makes crunches finite and prevents the entire ISU from falling into a final Big Crunch.


Overview of the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life

Arena action produces galaxy filled expanding arenas where it is natural for solar systems to host habitable planets and where the conditions are conducive to the generation of life.

Given the right mix of chemistry and environment, physical iterations of all the finite possible combinations occur and the combinations for reproductive life inevitably arise. Life is adaptive and evolvative, and as early life takes hold, and as evolution occurs, life forms take full advantage of the hospitable environment across the host planet.

Evolution proceeds toward the natural characteristics of advanced life forms, bringing the consciousness and self awareness that mark highly evolved individuals.

Overview of Eternal Intent

The existence of Eternal Intent does not require any violation of the invariance axiom. All of the natural laws of the ISU are invariant, and in an eternal and infinite universe, that means that the natural laws that are in effect now are the same laws that were in effect before, at all times in the infinite past.

Reason and logic of the highly evolved life forms is sound, and when those individuals contemplate the universe, infinity, life, and God, the concept of Eternal Intent emerges as the reasonable and responsible view of the common ground between all contemplative life forms across all space and time. No one religion that is peculiar to one sect on one planet in one age will serve that universal purpose. Eternal Intent must emerge time and time again to show the way.

The definitions of God within organized religions and their doctrine become the basis of the beliefs of their followers. There are sacred unexplained events specific to the history of each religion that lead to the God concept that differs among religions, but there is no evidence of any violation of the natural laws when evaluated by the scientific community as a whole. Specific definitions of God become a matter of faith associated with each religion, but organized religion cannot lay exclusive claim to the natural and inevitable contemplation of God. God and religion are not one and the same.


A non religious, scientifically compatible definition postulates that Eternal Intent is a characteristic of the universe, and the natural laws and Eternal Intent are one and the same. It is the ultimate universal common denominator, not just among peoples here on Earth, but among contemplative and conscientious life forms at the height of the evolvative process across the infinite and eternal universe.

The definition of nature which includes Eternal Intent is not in violation of the scientific method. It acknowledges nature as the potentially infinite and eternal universe whose Eternal Intent is carried out by invariant laws which provide for the perpetual existence of habitable environments where conscious life is generated and evolves to self aware free willed intelligent and conscience bearing individuals who are capable of contemplating the universe, infinity, life and God.

Therefore Eternal Intent would be the quintessential feature of a natural invariant universe and the view that God and the universe are one and the same are fully compatible in the ISU.

Many aspects of the universe that are attributed to the invariant natural laws point to the Eternal Intent of the natural laws:

The perpetual existence of hospitable and habitable environments
The generative and evolvative forces of life
The existence of consciousness
The existence of intelligence
The existence of free willed beings that interact with each other
The existence of our own consciences to moderate our actions and interactions

Within those few aspects of the ISU there is room for hope and faith that the future can unfold as we would have it. Beyond the boundary of scientific knowledge, in the realm of the unknown laws of nature, all things seem possible. It is that realization that makes room for eternal hope for those who care to call upon it in their daily lives.

As a corollary to that, there is no clear right and wrong at every turn of life, and where there is room for eternal hope for well intended outcomes, we are free to seek council from beyond the boundary to guide us through life as well. We consciously seek acknowledgments from beyond the boundary of known science and receive personal, individual, unexplainable guidance from the unknown in accord with invariant natural laws that we don’t yet understand.

It is the Eternal Intent of the ISU that we do so.

In Conclusion

When I talk about Eternal Intent, and seeking acknowledgement and guidance from beyond the boundary of science and understanding, there are some things you should realize.

In order for something to be science I mean that it has to be quantified or quantifiable under the procedures recognized as the scientific method. It should subject itself to mathematical equations that are compatible with all aspects of known science, or at least that cannot be shown to be inconsistent with scientific observations and data. So when I say "we don't yet understand", I am referring to as yet unquantified science from the perspective of the scientific community; theories that are not tested and repeatable but that are suspected because of the way outcomes often seem to be favorable responses to our needs and desires.

Further, there are prerequisites before Eternal Intent can be considered:

The universe has to be infinite and must have always existed; it doesn’t work otherwise.

The universe must be governed by invariant natural laws that are in effect in all places at all times (no supernatural events are possible).

There can be no violations of natural law (apparent violations are caused by as yet unknown invariant natural laws).

There must be conscious, self aware, intelligent, contemplative individuals.

There must be as yet unknown natural laws associated with consciousness that trigger some unknown equation; a combination of conscience, intent, emotions, love (or maybe just love of something, even love of power or money, etc.), and expectation or hope or faith that somewhere in the unknown natural laws there is an equation that yields an invariant response guided by our seeking.

The act of seeking acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of our understanding should be differentiated from prayer (in its religious sense) because the source of the response is invariant natural law that has always been in place and is not a response from a personified, conscious God who can pick and choose responses or that has any real time decision making power at all.

That does not mean that prayer will not work for the religious. It means that there are certain combinations of natural law that must come together in a successful equation, and there might be counterproductive aspects involved when prayer is based on a plea to a God within the framework of a given religion.

The stimulus for favorable unfolding of Eternal Intent from beyond the boundary logically includes the quality of the individual intent.

I seek an acknowledgement that the natural and invariant laws that enable the Eternal Intent of the ISU, will serve as the quintessential source of hope and council for all who have faith that there is Eternal Intent.





------------
Comment freely.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/03/2018 17:55:38
Reply #266

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg) 

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

From the opening paragraph of that essay, “The Cosmology and Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)”…

“The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) is all inclusive, all there is, all matter, energy, everything in one infinite and eternal, life and consciousness producing expanse of wave energy that does nothing but carry out its own Eternal Intent.”

The American Heritage Dictionary definition doesn’t share my enthusiasm for the ISU. Their definition doesn’t touch on the most important part of the definition, i.e., infinite and eternal.

They say: universe (yoˈnə-vûrsˌ) n. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Their limited definition opens the discussion to anyone who would like to take the position that the universe does not necessarily feature the infinities of space, time, and energy.

There is nothing new about the idea of the infinities in regard to the nature of the universe, but generally, theories must be testable, and you can’t test for infinite space, time, or energy; it will never be more than a logical possibility.

On the other hand, when you consider the alternative, i.e., that the universe is finite, and that there was a beginning to space, time and energy, then the ISU view featuring the three infinities can take on a little more credibility. The fact is that there is no testable scientific theory about any explanation for a beginning of the universe either, but because something from nothing is largely considered impossible, the “always existed” scenario takes on a logical advantage in the debate.

There is a set of people who agree that it is not possible for something to come from nothing, and to them, consider the ISU, and begin to contemplate the meaning of an eternal past.

———————
Comment freely.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/03/2018 15:31:07
Reply #267

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


One meaning of an eternal past is that the greater universe (ISU) can be visualized as a perpetual motion machine, featuring the two ongoing processes of quantum action and big bang arena action. Given the premises that every event is finite in space, time and energy, and the universe is infinite in space, time and energy, the contemplation of the three infinities and an eternal past hold a promise of new thought experiences; and possible mental rewards.


If you are in the set of people I mentioned in the last post (who agree that it is not possible for something to come from nothing), one reward is that you start gaining a growing appreciation for the meaning of, and the implications of infinity; you begin to grasp the reality of it, and you will soon appreciate its power to bring new revelations.

For me, accepting the concept of the infinities of the ISU opened a door “at the back of my mind” to a place from which I have never cared to look back.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/03/2018 17:09:28
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

I want to post a question to any members who follow this thread ... are you in the set of people who don’t believe it is possible for something to come from nothing? The ISU model is an alternative you can feel comfortable with, because “something from nothing” is not possible in the ISU.

___________
Comment freely.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/03/2018 00:56:46
Reply #269

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

There are no admissions yet from the audience on believing that it is impossible for something to come from nothing; there may not even be an audience, lol.

Here is a video that leads into the next argument for how considering the infinities can shape your view of cosmology (and thoughts on dark matter);

See minute 2:19
“and we have had to sort of  invoke some
02:24
tooth fairies to keep things sensible.
02:28
One of those is dark matter.”

https://youtu.be/P1dd8vVp1Vw (https://youtu.be/P1dd8vVp1Vw)

Watch it and think about how the idea of dark matter might be a consequence of the finiteness of the consensus model, and if so, how the infinities of the ISU can resolve the dark matter question.

To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/03/2018 21:48:34
Reply #270


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Did you view the video and get the gist of why finiteness of the cosmological model might be related to our current lack of understanding about dark matter?


Let’s back up. Members and guests might have read earlier ISU posts that talked about things like high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves, and in which it was posited that matter is quantum. It is simple logic in the ISU; matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, quanta are composed of high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves that carry energy through space, and gravity waves have an infinite reach.


The quanta that make up matter are composed of the convergences of many tiny, seemingly insignificant gravitational waves (the oscillating background) that individually carry energy through space and consequently fill all space. When there are a sufficient number and magnitude of their wave fronts intersecting at a given point in space, that constitutes the formation of one of those quanta; perhaps billions or even trillions of those quanta (high energy density spots) might be required to establish the presence of a single proton.


All of that is going on in the infinitesimal realm, below the threshold of observability, but all infinite space has those convergences going on in it, though not in sufficient amounts to produce particles in all space. Huge numbers of convergences compose a single quantum increment of mass, and so each sub-quantum individual convergence, and the resulting momentary high energy density spot that is composed of many of those convergences, involves a hint of mass. On the basis that space is filled with gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions at all points, space literally has mass in the ISU.


Since all space is filled with those ongoing convergences, and the inner space of galaxies has a much higher concentration of them, why do we even need dark matter to explain the gravitational anomalies at the outer reaches of galaxies? It is caused by the presence of the hint of mass in each of those wave convergences, each emitting a gravitational third wave of energy that has an infinite reach.


Combine that with the inverse square law, and there is your invisible dark matter. The gist is that all of the space occupied by the entire galaxy is fat with those sub-quanta, and though the sub-quanta are not visible, in aggregate they add a significant amount of mass to the gravitational potential, looking in from the spiral arms.


Comment freely :) .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 12:18:45
It is simple logic in the ISU; matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, quanta are composed of high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves that carry energy through space, and gravity waves have an infinite reach.
Sometimes I think we are saying the same thing.  I call this a N-field particle,  the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point.  I then consider photons are perturbations in the emitted n-field.  I never considered the N-field particle to be a perturbation in a n-field.

Are you relating your notion in respect of a Higg's type field?  Points of the field having a greater denser in the form of an energy particle?

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/03/2018 18:51:26
Reply #272


Sometimes I think we are saying the same thing.  I call this a N-field particle,  the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point. 
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


It is possible that our efforts to shape our personal views of cosmology, loosely referred to by us as our layman science enthusiast models, address the same concepts and attempt speculations based on known science and generally accepted observations and data. It would be reasonable to conclude that we would come to some of the same conclusions, and I find it gratifying that you might look favorably on aspects of our musings as being compatible in some respects.


This particular example, paraphrased as “the convergence of gravitational waves that produce momentary high energy density spots at a point in space” in my post, and “the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point” in your post is an intriguing similarity.


I’d be interested to know if you viewed the video posted in reply #269, and if you could understand my proposition. The idea being put forth is that if dark matter is a fix to the apparent absence of some amount of gravitational energy at the outer boundaries of certain types of galaxies, a problem that we don’t yet understand, could that be a non issue if the cosmological model invoked infinite space and energy.


The infinities of the ISU model is what I have in mind. Could the missing gravitational energy simply reside in space, to varying degrees in varying directions, based on the idea that all space carries a hint of mass (in sub quantum amounts) at all points, because of the convergences of gravitational waves that regularly occur at all points in the ISU model?

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/03/2018 13:48:59
Reply #273
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)



I have had the pleasure of a brief discussion on another thread about the subject of preconditions to the Big Bang, with an open minded thinker who has strong preferences for pre-existing “Something,” and is open to discussing the possibilities. Always being in the ready mode for any such discussion, it is a tendency of mine to argue for my own personal views, and so let me do that here instead of in a new member’s thread that has just started to unfold.


I’m seeking clarification about the definition of the word universe. Do you agree that, “Universe” encompasses all there is, and therefore the universe could be any one of many possible scenarios, i.e., do you agree that there is one universe, regardless of the various possible characteristics it might have?
According to most cosmologists if we play the movie backwards, our universe shrinks into a single point of extreme density and energy. I see your point that perhaps this singularity existed in what was already "the universe". My belief has been that the Big Bang caused our universe to come into being. But I am understanding that you are proposing that the Big Bang only populated an already existing universe. Do I understand you correctly?

The idea appeals to my sensibilities :) .
Quote
This would certainly fit my hypothesis because what better prerequisite can the Big Bang have than an already existing universe with the laws already intact?
Infinite space could be hosting an ongoing and perpetual process.
Absolutely. I have listened to astrophysicists saying that time and the fabric of space began at the time of the Big Bang so many times that I accepted it without considering other possibilities. Thank you for sharing a very feasible one.


My pleasure. Hopefully your thread will proceed with much interesting discussion.

The premise that the reality of the universe and the natural laws that govern it can be any of an endless list of scenarios is a daunting fact, but the universe is as it is, and could be no other way, meaning that my thinking is that only one universal scenario has always been in effect. That speaks of a sameness that has and is and always will be governed by what I speculate are a set of invariant natural laws.

Thanks for listening and keeping an open mind.

Examples of various scenarios include the possibility that it could be 1) the model that you are working on, or 2) it could be just our local big bang universe with an as yet unexplainable beginning, or 3) it could be a multiverse as in string theory with an infinite number of separate and independent universes with different sets of laws, or 4) it could be a finite cyclical universe that goes from bang to expansion, to contraction, and back to bang, in a perpetual cycle, or 5) it could be an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas that each had the preconditions of two or more preceding parent arenas expanding, intersecting and overlapping, each contributing a portion of their galactic material to a new big crunch that forms at the center of gravity in the overlap space, and due to the compression of gravity, reaches a critical capacity that results in a collapse/bang into another new expanding big bang arena, merging into the existing landscape, filling with galaxies out of the hot dense plasma soup of oscillating gravitational wave energy that decays out of the big bang’s energy ball, and follows the same pattern as its parent arenas, all part of an ongoing process of big bang arena action that continually occurs across the infinite landscape of the greater universe (a not so subtle mention of my layman science enthusiast’s model, lol. The Infinite Spongy Universe model (ISU)).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/03/2018 19:21:22
Reply #274
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


My model, The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), in ~300 words (read slowly before bedtime every night as a sleep aid):


The universe could be an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas, each with similar preconditions, characterized by two or more preceding “parent” arenas, expanding, intersecting and overlapping, with each parent contributing a portion of their galactic material to a new big crunch that forms at the center of gravity in the overlap space, and due to the accumulation and accretion of matter and gravitational wave energy, under the compression of quantum gravity, reaches a finite invariant energy density limit, a critical capacity, that results in a collapse/bang of each new big crunch into another new expanding big bang arena, merging into the existing space in the vicinity of the landscape of the greater universe where the parent big bang arenas (and over a larger space and further back in time, their grandparent arenas) previously merged, and whereupon, in accord with the invariant laws of nature, each similar new arena cools and expands as it fills itself with galaxies, forming from wave-particles that take shape out of the hot dense plasma “soup” produced by the big bang’s energy ball, that is expanding locally within the universal oscillating gravitational wave energy background, and which follows the same pattern as its parent arenas, all part of an ongoing perpetual process of big bang arena action that continually occurs across the infinite landscape of the greater universe, and that defeats entropy by recycling high entropy old cold galactic matter and energy, via the big crunch/bangs, into hot dense balls of low entropy energy that expand, decay into wave-particles, form galaxies, and become parent arenas in their own right, blended into the eternal sameness of the infinite past that continually accrues across the infinite landscape of the greater universe; my layman science enthusiast’s model in a nutshell, the ISU.





Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/03/2018 19:37:36
This particular example, paraphrased as “the convergence of gravitational waves that produce momentary high energy density spots at a point in space” in my post, and “the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point” in your post is an intriguing similarity.
Practically saying the same thing, my notion explains slightly deeper the mechanics involved in what you call a high energy density spot.  My notion tries to explain what the properties of the spot is, using present physics as my guidelines. 
My notion additionally explains an energy field permeating from any given energy spot.   All fields being a variate of this united field.  All wave functions being ''ripples'' of this field.
This field having physicality and mass relative to other fields.

I will watch your video link a few times before I comment on the video.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/03/2018 19:40:09
The universe could be an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas,
Almost, relative to an infinite universe they are micro bangs.  Consider zooming out on a big bang in an infinite space.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/03/2018 21:41:57
Reply #277
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

This particular example, paraphrased as “the convergence of gravitational waves that produce momentary high energy density spots at a point in space” in my post, and “the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point” in your post is an intriguing similarity.

Practically saying the same thing, my notion explains slightly deeper the mechanics involved in what you call a high energy density spot.  My notion tries to explain what the properties of the spot is, using present physics as my guidelines. 
My notion additionally explains an energy field permeating from any given energy spot.   All fields being a variate of this united field.  All wave functions being ''ripples'' of this field.
This field having physicality and mass relative to other fields.

I will watch your video link a few times before I comment on the video.


I give you credit for musings on a par with mine, lol. Taking ourselves seriously would be our biggest fault, because we are speculating, and speculations are tolerated best when they leave a vague feeling of, “yeah, maybe”, but “my idea is …”.
The universe could be an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas,

Almost, relative to an infinite universe they are micro bangs.  Consider zooming out on a big bang in an infinite space.
Yeah, maybe, but are you aware of the similarity between Arena Action which is the macro level scenario, and Quantum Action at the micro level (not to be confused with the quantum of action in the Planck regime)? The similarity between those two ISU action processes is striking, and together (simultaneously), contemplation of each level lent to the process of idea-development of the detailed characteristics of each. They work together, are internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data, to the best of my knowledge.

Case in point, a big crunch, that forms out of the intersection and overlap to two or more expanding parent big bang arena waves at the macro level (which are the preconditions of each new expanding big bang arena), equates to a high energy density spot that forms at the point of convergence of two or more intersecting/converging, spherically expanding gravitational waves in the oscillating wave energy background, at the micro level (which in huge numbers contribute to the establishing and maintaining the presence of wave-particles).

The similarities between the two simultaneously ongoing action processes constitute the basis of the “sameness” doctrine of the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 27/03/2018 11:31:51
   It seems to me that there were many big bang inversions. As I see it the universe is composed of Co/Cs energy where C0 is 186,000miles per second and Cs is 1000 light years per second. At the big bang inversion Cs/Co energy came upon a small spherical surface and inverted. It looks like a big bang but that is because the inversion was very rapid. The dot-waves of our universe oscillate between these light speed levels causing mass and the gravitational field. It appears to me that there was a series of these inversions with physical light speeds of Co, 2Co,4Co,...etc. this would produce many separated universes from the common big bang inversion spherical surface.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/03/2018 12:21:06
Reply #279
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
It seems to me that there were many big bang inversions. As I see it the universe is composed of Co/Cs energy where C0 is 186,000miles per second and Cs is 1000 light years per second. At the big bang inversion Cs/Co energy came upon a small spherical surface and inverted. It looks like a big bang but that is because the inversion was very rapid. The dot-waves of our universe oscillate between these light speed levels causing mass and the gravitational field. It appears to me that there was a series of these inversions with physical light speeds of Co, 2Co,4Co,...etc. this would produce many separated universes from the common big bang inversion spherical surface.
Yeah, maybe, but in the ISU, there is only one universe and it includes everything there is. Though the ISU is a multiple big bang arena universe, all big bang arenas are included in the landscape of the greater universe, and share the same physics.

Also, light speed in the ISU model is governed by the local gravitational wave energy density, so light, relative to some common point, accelerates and decelerates as the local wave energy density changes. For example, starlight traversing deep space will be traveling faster relative to that common point, than it does as it passes a massive body like our sun. The slowing of light as it passes a massive body causes the curvature of the path of light.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 27/03/2018 14:05:05
  I disagree that the physics is the same when we consider the entire light speed spectrum up toward light speed infinity. At the highest levels no particles are produced, only photonic structures.
  As far as the Co/Cs photons are concerned, the light speed we measure is slightly less than the jump speed. Light jumps as it changes between dimensions. The time between jumps as it enters the Cs universe is extremely small. Thus Co of 186,242 miles per second is only slightly less than the speed of light in pure free space. When the light passes a star, the gravitational intensity causes the time between jumps to increase. Thus the light speed decreases. When this happens, the massless photon develops mass and the photon is attracted to the star.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/03/2018 15:26:53
Reply#281
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

  I disagree that the physics is the same when we consider the entire light speed spectrum up toward light speed infinity. At the highest levels no particles are produced, only photonic structures.
Maybe, but here is the way I look at it. Up toward the highest velocities of light in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy density would be at its lowest. Since all of the currently active big bang arenas are part of the same eternal landscape of the greater universe, there is always gravitational wave energy traversing that deepest space.

All space has some level of gravitational wave energy density, and so the light spectrum has a maximum velocity in the deepest space. The presence of matter in that deepest space, in what I call the corridors of continuity, between active big bang arenas, is at the lowest level, but there is still matter in the form of remnants from an eternal history of big bang arena action, that are disbursed throughout the corridors.

Particles exist there, and can still form there, and they emit and absorb gravitational wave energy where ever they are. Light waves are still produced by that deep space matter, just in lower energy photons.
Quote
  As far as the Co/Cs photons are concerned, the light speed we measure is slightly less than the jump speed. Light jumps as it changes between dimensions. The time between jumps as it enters the Cs universe is extremely small. Thus Co of 186,242 miles per second is only slightly less than the speed of light in pure free space. When the light passes a star, the gravitational intensity causes the time between jumps to increase. Thus the light speed decreases. When this happens, the massless photon develops mass and the photon is attracted to the star.
Maybe, but that must be part of the advanced nature of your model. The “jump” is not yet explained to my level of understanding. There are different energy density environments in the ISU, depending on the local concentration of matter and gravity, but as for different dimensions … not in the ISU model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 27/03/2018 20:00:44
Maybe, but here is the way I look at it. Up toward the highest velocities of light in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy density would be at its lowest. Since all of the currently active big bang arenas are part of the same eternal landscape of the greater universe, there is always gravitational wave energy traversing that deepest space.
GG: For the material universes, Cs is common to all of them. they all produce protons and electrons. The mass of the particles decrease as the light speed goes up for a constant energy universe. Thus an electron at 2Co will have one quarter the mass but the same amount of energy. Other solutions are possible.

All space has some level of gravitational wave energy density, and so the light spectrum has a maximum velocity in the deepest space. The presence of matter in that deepest space, in what I call the corridors of continuity, between active big bang arenas, is at the lowest level, but there is still matter in the form of remnants from an eternal history of big bang arena action, that are disbursed throughout the corridors.
GG: As I see it, all the lower levels of the universe erases to the inverted form of massless photonic energy. Eventually as all the universes erase, we end up with pure light speed infinity energy. Once we go above Cs in light speed we return to a primordial universe of pure energy unless at the maximum point the universe compresses again and the entire series of big bangs return.

Particles exist there, and can still form there, and they emit and absorb gravitational wave energy where ever they are. Light waves are still produced by that deep space matter, just in lower energy photons.
GG: Up until light speed Cs particles will exist. Beyond that no particles can occur.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/03/2018 12:37:39
Reply #283

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


GG: For the material universes, Cs is common to all of them. they all produce protons and electrons. The mass of the particles decrease as the light speed goes up for a constant energy universe. Thus an electron at 2Co will have one quarter the mass but the same amount of energy. Other solutions are possible.
Quote

GG: As I see it, all the lower levels of the universe erases to the inverted form of massless photonic energy. Eventually as all the universes erase, we end up with pure light speed infinity energy. Once we go above Cs in light speed we return to a primordial universe of pure energy unless at the maximum point the universe compresses again and the entire series of big bangs return.
Quote

GG: Up until light speed Cs particles will exist. Beyond that no particles can occur.

I might be able to understand the concept of a massless photonic energy in your model, though I have no clue on the mechanics and internal consistency of it? It wouldn’t work in the ISU, which is a gravitational wave energy mechanics model, because light is wave energy, and there needs to be a mechanism for light to advance through space. If space is filled with only light, what are the mechanics of massless photonic energy?


So to test my understanding of your massless photonic energy “state”, presumably it is the ultimate vacuum state; no matter, no waves, just energy that fills all space instantly and infinitely. “Universes” or dimensions work their way up and down from that state, and as they move up they become more and more complete in stages, as light approaches infinite velocity. It finally reaches the complete massless photonic energy state, and exists where light velocity is infinite and fills all space, but with what? Light, sure, but waves or massless particles, or just photonic energy, and what is photonic energy?


If I understand it, the various universes or dimensional states that contain particles with mass are Cs environments. Co and multiples of Co universes or dimensions would be higher and higher degrees of the photonic energy state, ultimately reaching 100%?


And I guess a jump is what occurs when you go from Cs to Co, and to higher levels or multiples of Co?


Just to keep sharing the ISU perspective, we have no local environments that equate to you Co of infinite light velocity. We have no massless photons for that matter. Photons are wave-particles, as are all particles, and wave particles are composed of complex standing wave patterns where the patten is composed of gravitational wave intersections and overlaps, and where the energy density at the point of each intersection is equal to the combined energy of the wave fronts that are converging at that point.


To suggest some scale here, there are likely to be billions of tiny gravitational wave intersections in the standing wave patterns of the simplest particles, and each intersection of “meaningful” waves represents a quantum; particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. That level of “quantum” is not the Planck constant, however, it is simply an energy increment composed of “meaningful” gravitational wave intersections, that are intersecting in the oscillating gravitational wave energy background. Light is the wave energy emitted by the photon particle that emits wave energy as it traverses the oscillating wave energy background at the local speed of light, and it equates to the gravitational wave energy emitted by all non-light speed particles in the ISU model.


I am imbedding jargon that is specific to the ISU, but I also am making an effort to translate your jargon to test my understanding.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 29/03/2018 23:02:20
   The physics we deal with are Co/Cs or Cs/Co physics which always contain a relatively large mass and a tiny mass on the opposite side. All this had to come from something. At some point the physical/spiritual universe took shape. Some day the physical universe will erase. Then we are only left with a photonic energy universe. Pure energy! What is the physics of a pure energy universe? All these conceptions permit us to explain thing from a simple model. At light speed infinity we reach the point where we cannot conceive of a model to explain how it works. At this level it appears to be to be a photonic mind. It is this mind which compresses its photonic body to create a spectrum of physical and spiritual universes which slowly return to the creative intelligence. I call it the God of the Universe. Yet this creative eternal energy is so far above the Gods of man that it is very hard to understand this level of existence. Aristotle called this God the prime mover. Plato tried to make some sense of this God. Yet we are mere little creatures who try to humanize this God. A scientist could argue that this level of God is an infinite intelligence field that spins out an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of creatures such as ourselves.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/03/2018 00:47:26
Reply #285
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

   The physics we deal with are Co/Cs or Cs/Co physics which always contain a relatively large mass and a tiny mass on the opposite side. All this had to come from something. At some point the physical/spiritual universe took shape. Someday the physical universe will erase. Then we are only left with a photonic energy universe. Pure energy! What is the physics of a pure energy universe? All these conceptions permit us to explain thing from a simple model. At light speed infinity we reach the point where we cannot conceive of a model to explain how it works. At this level it appears to be to be a photonic mind. It is this mind which compresses its photonic body to create a spectrum of physical and spiritual universes which slowly return to the creative intelligence. I call it the God of the Universe. Yet this creative eternal energy is so far above the Gods of man that it is very hard to understand this level of existence. Aristotle called this God the prime mover. Plato tried to make some sense of this God. Yet we are mere little creatures who try to humanize this God. A scientist could argue that this level of God is an infinite intelligence field that spins out an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of creatures such as ourselves.
Based on indications in your posts on this thread and elsewhere, you have some unique sensitivities. Below, at the end, is a link to an earlier post which I would get some satisfaction if you would read, and take under consideration, as you pass through the ISU.


The ISU, according to my musings, has always existed, and anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don’t yet understand. That will likely go against the grain relative what I surmise from your postings, but … (a poem says it)


If at first there was nothing, not even God,
Then nothing could ever be.


But just look around at the many fine things,
As far as the eye can see.


Say with some certainty, one of two things,
It seems to make sense to proclaim.


Either God, or the Universe has always been here,
And maybe they’re one and the same.


Bogie_Smiles


The link to an earlier post:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg535627#msg535627 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg535627#msg535627)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/03/2018 23:40:39
I revised reply #270:


Reply #286


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Did you view the video and get the gist of why finiteness of the cosmological model might be related to our current lack of understanding about dark matter?


Let’s back up. Members and guests might have read earlier ISU posts that talked about things like high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves, and in which it was posited that matter is quantum. It is simple logic in the ISU; matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, quanta are composed of high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves that carry energy through space, and gravity waves have an infinite reach.


The quanta that make up matter are composed of the convergences of many tiny, seemingly insignificant gravitational waves (the oscillating background) that individually carry energy through space and consequently fill all space. When there are a sufficient number and magnitude of their wave fronts intersecting at a given point in space, that constitutes the formation of one of those quanta; perhaps billions or even trillions of those quanta (high energy density spots) might be required to establish the presence of a single proton.


All of that is going on in the infinitesimal realm, below the threshold of observability, but all infinite space has those convergences going on in it, though not in sufficient amounts to produce particles in all space. Huge numbers of convergences compose a single quantum increment of mass, and so each sub-quantum individual convergence, and the resulting momentary high energy density spot that is composed of many of those convergences, involves a hint of mass. On the basis that space is filled with gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions at all points, space literally has mass in the ISU.


Since all space is filled with those ongoing convergences, and the inner space of galaxies has a much higher concentration of them, why do we even need dark matter to explain the gravitational anomalies at the outer reaches of galaxies? It is caused by the presence of the hint of mass in each of those wave convergences, each emitting a gravitational third wave of energy that has an infinite reach.


Combine that with the inverse square law, and there is your invisible dark matter. The gist is that all of the space occupied by the entire galaxy is fat with those sub-quanta, and though the sub-quanta are not visible, in aggregate they add a significant amount of mass to the gravitational potential, looking in from the spiral arms.


Comment freely :)  .


Edit: 3/31/18
Note the new article in Wired, which adds to the dark matter debate
https://www.wired.com/story/whisper-from-the-first-stars-sets-off-loud-dark-matter-debate/ (https://www.wired.com/story/whisper-from-the-first-stars-sets-off-loud-dark-matter-debate/)


Edit 4/5/2018 See note in next post.


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/04/2018 02:24:55
Reply #287
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Still intend to write a post to tie in the video linked in reply #269, and that Wired article ... a few details yet to put into place ... and the big issue is how to deal with the infinities of the ISU relative to the temperature of the background. In an infinite multiple big bang landscape there is a universal average background temperature.


Each new big bang is surrounded by cold, very cold space, and upon the initial collapse/bang/bounce of each individual big bang event, the surrounding very cold temperature causes the arena temperature to drop much more rapidly than would be expected in the single big bang universe models with no cold surrounding space.


I'm working on the wording and the references to the ISU content posts that paint the picture, in comparison the current explanation for why it is necessary that there is as yet unseen and unexplained dark matter. The ISU explanation for the observed effect that otherwise requires dark matter is that the space within the galaxies is fat with gravitational wave convergences that emit third waves with an infinite reach, adding a hint of mass to seemingly empty space. That unexpected colder background during the formation of the first stars in the new arena is what was discovered and reported in the article, "Whisper from the first stars sets off loud dark matter debate".


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/04/2018 17:29:59
Reply #288

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Just Go ahead and read the following quoted material from the “Whisper” article from Wired, https://www.wired.com/story/whisper-from-the-first-stars-sets-off-loud-dark-matter-debate/ (https://www.wired.com/story/whisper-from-the-first-stars-sets-off-loud-dark-matter-debate/),  where the conclusion is that the early universe was much colder than predicted by the standard model. Also, remember back to the video linked in reply #269 where the point was mentioned at minute 02:24, “… we have had to sort of invoke some tooth fairies to keep things sensible; one of those is dark matter”.

Both of those links support the ISU alternative model of an infinite big bang arena landscape that defeats entropy, and supports an eternal past, via that multiple big bang arena landscape.


From the “Whispers” article, you might note the evidence that the researchers site to come to the conclusion that the early universe might have been much colder, sooner, than the standard model predicts. It has to do with the characteristics of the temperature readings surrounding the earliest stars, as indicated by the size and intensity of thermalized regions currently observed around those early stars.

Quote from, “The Source of a Whisper”
“The day after Bowman contacted Barkana to tell him about the surprising EDGES signal, Barkana drove with his family to his in-laws’ house. During the drive, he said, he contemplated this signal, telling his wife about the interesting puzzle Bowman had handed him.
Bowman and the EDGES team had been probing the neutral hydrogen gas that filled the universe during the first few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This gas tended to absorb ambient light, leading to what cosmologists poetically call the universe’s “dark ages.” Although the cosmos was filled with a diffuse ambient light from the cosmic microwave background (CMB)—the so-called afterglow of the Big Bang—this neutral gas absorbed it at specific wavelengths. EDGES searched for this absorption pattern.


As stars began to turn on in the universe, their energy would have heated the gas. Eventually the gas reached a high enough temperature that it no longer absorbed CMB radiation. The absorption signal disappeared, and the dark ages ended.

The absorption signal as measured by EDGES contains an immense amount of information. As the absorption pattern traveled across the expanding universe, the signal stretched. Astronomers can use that stretch to infer how long the signal has been traveling, and thus, when the first stars flicked on. In addition, the width of the detected signal corresponds to the amount of time that the gas was absorbing the CMB light. And the intensity of the signal—how much light was absorbed—relates to the temperature of the gas and the amount of light that was floating around at the time.
Many researchers find this final characteristic the most intriguing. “It’s a much stronger absorption than we had thought possible,” said Steven Furlanetto, a cosmologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has examined what the EDGES data would mean for the formation of the earliest galaxies.” (end of quoted material)

I make a reference to Tesla’s interpretation of the stationary wave nature of the transmission of lightening through the earth, combined with Oliver Lodge’s demonstration that electromagnetic oscillations can resonate at fixed frequencies along a conductor. Those are examples that relate the ISU’s speculation about an oscillating wave energy background that occupies all space (mentioned throughout the thread, see replies #86 and #97).

By its nature, that background energy would be a self-perpetuating, oscillating foundational wave energy background that assists the propagation of all energy waves, not just through space, but through any wave energy density environment, short of the current descriptions of the nature of blackholes.

Gravitational wave energy is emitted and absorbed by matter in the ISU, and it is the oscillating energy in the background that advances the more meaningful gravitational wave energy of the cosmic microwave energy background. That foundational oscillating background energy is a basic characteristic of an infinite multiple big bang arena landscape, perpetuated by an eternal history of big bang arena action. It points to a much colder environment during the early expansion of each big bang arena, and every wave intersection in that background produces a hint of mass.

That hint of mass occurs everywhere in open space, but the gist is that it is more than a “hint” deep within the heart of galaxies, and adds up to what I referred to earlier as fat space within galaxies. That is the ISU speculation for what researchers are seeking, referred to as a "tooth fairy" in the video; an explanation for the effect that otherwise requires an as yet undetected source of dark energy.

Thanks for reading; comment freely.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/04/2018 14:15:58
Reply #289


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)



Recently, in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum I asked a few questions in one JeffreyH’s threads, attempting to differentiate between relative motion and acceleration when it comes to geodesics. After no one tackled the questions I decided that the questions were poorly presented, so I deleted the posts where I had impatiently rushed to conclusions. But I still am wondering about the statement made by others in that thread that objects only radiate energy when they are accelerating, and I’m still pursuing answers about how that is dealt with in GR.

I gathered from reading Isaacson’s biography of Einstein, that not long after Einstein had explained his as yet incomplete Entwurf equations on generalizing special relativity to Hilbert, Hilbert was said to have launched a feverish effort to come up with the correct formulations on his own; the race was on.

During that period in 1915, Einstein’s found that his Entwurf equations didn’t actually account for rotation which he thought of as a form of relative motion. He also knew that there was a problem in the equations in regard to the orbit of Mercury. His realization was that the Entwurf equations were not covariant under a transformation that uniformly rotated the coordinate axes; which was a setback.

He went into a period of working “horrendously intensely” as he referred to it. The result was new equations, and though not yet in final form, he applied them to what was known about the shift in Mercury’s orbit, and got the right answer, 43 arc-seconds per century which agreed with observations. That correct result confirmed his EFEs to himself, and the rest is history, lol.

During the period of completing his equations, he said, “… Gravitation must play a fundamental role in the composition of matter, and that my own curiosity is interfering with my work”. Hilbert joked that physics was too complicated to be left to the physicists”. I find those statements a good motivation for the ideas that I put forward in my layman enthusiasts model of cosmology, the ISU, that invokes an infinite universe with a multiple big bang landscape, and an eternal past, suggesting the defeat of entropy on a grand scale, and including ideas about quantum gravity.

As for my questions, logically, the calculation of relative motion of objects should include acceleration due to the effect of gravity, so I have been wondering how that portion of an object’s relative motion gets into Einstein’s calculations?

At this point I am setting out to examine the results of a few DuckDuckGo searches (having abandoned Google search :shrug: ):

Geodesics vs acceleration
General Relativity and acceleration
General Relativity and the tensors

Certainly the answer to my questions will  be there, and I will post it here.

To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/05/2018 14:38:45
Reply #290
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Conclusion: GR includes acceleration, and it recognizes that not just matter, but energy in all forms has an influence on the motion of all objects in space. My conclusion is that in the grand scheme of spacetime, every object in space is in relative motion to every other object. In response to the statement mentioned in the last post, that only accelerating objects radiate energy, there is no case where an object is not experiencing acceleration. Feel free  to object to that conclusion and post arguments to support a different case.

When including all forms of energy in GR, the gravitational wave energy that is traversing open space counts too, as does the hint of mass that forms where convergences of gravitational waves form peaks. In fact, these peaks are the components of the “fat” space deep inside galaxies as mentioned in the recent posts about an ISU solution to the missing dark matter. Note that there are gravitational waves and wave convergences in varying densities happening everywhere, including in deep space between galaxies, and in the corridors of continuity between arenas for that matter. It all counts as energy that influences the motion of matter through space.

The conclusion above is in accord with, and helps support the big picture of the ISU, which is presented as being consistent with the fact that GR includes matter and energy in all forms in the equations. GR is a comprehensive macro level field theory and does the best job yet of predicting the motion of objects. This is no new realization though, and supports the earlier stance, as mentioned back as early as in reply #18, that the ISU acknowledges the mathematics of GR as the most precise quantification of gravity yet.

What differentiates the ISU from GR/BBT is that the ISU comes up with an alternative explanation for why the EFEs work so well. The math is the best yet, but instead of matter telling spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime telling matter how to move, the ISU picture has to do with quantum level wave mechanics of quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is at the heart of the acknowledgement that there is a gravitational wave energy density profile of space, first mentioned in reply #35, and throughout. In the ISU, objects follow the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, instead of following the geodesics that are characteristics of curved spacetime. In the ISU, all objects emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, as part of the micro process of quantum action, where wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments.

The motion of objects through space in the ISU is consistent with the motion in GR, but seems more appropriately platformed than GR as we look into the future, where the platform is quantum gravity, which is likely to become the new norm. The discovery of gravitational waves gives support to GR, and fulfills Einsteins prediction, but also gives support to the ISU description of the wave-particle and quantum level wave-particle mechanics, including the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components of matter, from particles to blackholes, and even to whole arena waves that compose the landscape of the greater universe.

Further support of the ISU comes from the hint of a greater universe, with adjacent big bang arenas beyond our own big bang arena, as implied by the famous discovery of the “cold spot” in the cosmic microwave background mentioned earlier in the thread.

The ISU also has going for it the fact that you don’t need the unsatisfying implication that the universe had a beginning, though BBT doesn’t actually address it directly or suggest any cause for such a beginning; in the ISU, the Big Bang was not only the start of our particular arena that occurred about 14 billion years ago, but our arena is one in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. Therefore, the ISU does not need to invoke a beginning singularity out of nothing, or finite stretching space like Big Bang Theory has to do; it answers the question of the beginning of the universe with the proposition that there was no beginning; the universe has always existed. Accordingly, the ISU universe, and there is only one universe, features the three infinites (space, time, and energy) mentioned throughout the thread.

To get to the ISU from BBT, you only need to follow some simple steps. Broaden your concept of the scope of the universe from a single finite expanding universe, to an infinite steady state universe that features a perpetual active big bang arena landscape, where the finite expanding big bang arenas like ours are commonplace. Expansion is the result of the force of energy density equalization, one of the two primary forces in the ISU, the other being quantum gravity. That view positions our expanding observable big bang arena as just one of a potentially infinite number of active big bang arenas whose expansion is playing out, governed by the macro process of arena action. Out there, arenas are viewed as huge expanding waves of matter and energy emerging from the big bang events, that then converge, overlap, and produce gravity induced big crunches in the overlap spaces; the crunches reach a capacity limit and collapse/bang into new expanding arenas. Each big bang arena across the landscape of the greater universe experiences those same preconditions, and they all have the same physics.

The ISU also replaces eternal accelerating expansion, which offers only a narrow finite time period before the famous heat death of the universe that is predicted by GR will occur, replacing it with the defeat of entropy on a grand scale as big bang arena action perpetually plays out across infinite space and time. Our grand universe is continually hosting arenas that fill with galaxies, and galaxies that host stars with planets, and planets where life is generated and evolves.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/05/2018 13:37:49
Reply #291

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


A copy of the book “Mass” by author Jim Baggott, a science writer, chemist and science/historian, published by the Oxford University Press, turned up in the local library science section last week and I grabbed it. It is pretty current layman level stuff on the topics of matter, mass, physics and cosmology.


That book motivates me to follow up on the enthusiasm I have about the developments in the ISU dark matter scenario (the high energy density peaks at the convergences of gravitational waves that make for “fat” space deep within galaxies, accounting for the invisible missing mass). That speculation really seems to improve the overall internal consistency of the model; what I had proposed about dark matter earlier is pretty significantly modified now for the better (I do have to go back to those posts and make reference to the new “fat” and “skinny” space idea, lol).


Let’s just jump in at Part 4, chapter 14 of Baggott's “Mass”, with a quote about dark matter, GR, and the standard model of particle physics: “Then there’s the puzzle of dark matter … which is detectible by virtue of its gravity but invisible to all forms of electromagnetic radiation. … None of the elementary building blocks of the standard model meet the requirements of dark matter. We have no idea what it is.” Further, “…there is no room in the standard model [of particle physics] for the ‘force’ of gravity, which is constructed from a set of quantum field theories.” So, “…GR handles large-scale behavior of mass-energy spacetime. QFT handles the colour-force, weak-force and electromagnetic interactions of atomic and sub-atomic particles. When we try to put the two theoretical structures together to create some kind of a unified theory that could do the work of both we find that they really don’t get along.”


And that is why I do the ISU layman level contemplations; to speculate about a quantum mechanical solution, while we wait for the scientific community to reach a consensus (I refer to it as the “Big Wait”, lol).


This series of posts will readdress the ISU cause of gravity, which is the quantum level solution that I have been talking about throughout the thread. When I have talked about it elsewhere, it seems that there is sometimes some confusion when I mention the process of quantum action, which is at the heart of the quantum gravity solution. Baggott makes a point in Part 3, chapter 9 about the Planck constant, so let me take the opportunity here to say, quantum action, and the quanta discussed as the quantum increments of matter, are not to be confused with the “quantum of action” in the Planck regime, i.e., the quanta I discuss as the increments that make up the presence of matter in the ISU are an order of magnitude smaller than the energy of Planck's constant. I’ll make the difference clearer in this series of posts. 


And I want to close the post by noting that Baggott, who makes a practice of putting a pertinent quote at the beginning of each chapter, used Einstein’s statement, “The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content” at the beginning of the chapter titled A Very Interesting Conclusion. That is perfectly consistent with the statement in the ISU that particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, and the quantum that makes up those increments is described as the energy peak at the convergence of meaningful gravitational waves in and around the particle space, making up the particle's standing wave pattern as the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy courses through. 


It is my speculation that the wave energy mechanics at the quantum level, that I refer to as Quantum Wave Cosmology, (QWC) of the Infinite Spongy Universe model is a wave energy solution to quantum gravity and supports the mathematical calculation of the predicted motion of matter of the EFEs (GR’s way to handle the large-scale motion of macro objects).




To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/05/2018 17:18:54
Reply #292

Inspired by the book “Mass” by author Jim Baggott, referenced in the last post, let this post mark the beginning of a series of posts about the cause of gravity in The Infinite Spongy Universe Model …

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Addressing the cause of gravity again might seem like overkill, but it is for my own benefit. The best way for me to accomplish the goal of putting my latest personal views of cosmology on the Internet is to readdress the various scenarios from time to time, and the upcoming rewrite of the cause of gravity in the ISU is one of those cases.

The best place to start is with the role that gravity plays in the preconditions to the our own big bang arena. Every big bang event has the same preconditions across the infinite big bang arena landscape of space and energy.

That type of “sameness” may be hard to accept if you are not used to thinking from the perspective of the three infinities of space, time, and energy, but the ISU model is derived by applying the three infinities axiomatically, along with the body of cosmological knowledge that a layman can gain over time.

The application of all of that is done in a step by step fashion, where the logical starting point of the speculations would be the conclusion that our big bang had preconditions. That isn't so much of an alternative view in regard to GR/BBT, but it is just that the consensus cosmology doesn't address the cause of the Big Bang. My elaboration of those preconditions departs from GR/BBT and the Standard Model of particle physics quite significantly, at least in regard to the parts of both that just don't work together to yield a unified model. In the ISU model, those preconditions include an infinite and eternal big bang arena landscape where the process of arena action defeats entropy and puts an end to the current cosmological concept of the "heat death" of the universe which GR predicts will occur.

The ISU model invokes a cosmological order to the universe that defeats the scenario of endless expansion, and in doing so, is seen to be a perpetual, steady state, multiple big bang arena landscape. It hosts ongoing conditions that assure life has the opportunity to be generated and evolve to free-willed, self-aware life forms, who contemplate the existence of the universe. In the model, the speculation is that intelligent life forms exist plentifully across all stretches of space and time.

That may seem like quite a grandiose picture, difficult for one to get one’s arms around, but any scenario that doesn’t include the three infinities of space, time, and energy must fail. In that respect the ISU philosophy addresses the problem of infinite regression, i.e., the failure to arrive at a first cause, by invoking the philosophical answer that he universe has always existed, had no beginning.

If the model you like doesn’t invoke the “always exited” explanation for the existence of the universe, you would find yourself having to either assume some unknown first cause as in BBT, or you are faced with having to make a choice between a limited list of possibilities for that first cause.

Is it “God did it”? No, the Supernatural is excluded from the scientific method. Is it “Something from nothing”? No, that assumes the existence of “nothingness” and we have to invoke the saying that, “If at first there was nothing, then nothing could ever be”. You could simply conclude that the laws of nature are not invariant or eternal, but that position just avoids the question of first cause altogether. It may be as simple as a natural born-in proclivity on my part, but I conclude that the laws of nature are invariant and have been in effect over an infinite past, and that is the case in the ISU.

Given the preconditions of an infinite and eternal universe, gravity plays a major role, and in the ISU model, the force of energy density equalization is always there in the mix of major forces along with gravity. Via the processes of arena action and quantum action, gravity is addressed on both the macro and micro scales.


The cause of gravity in the ISU to be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/05/2018 09:08:14
Reply #293

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

The cause of gravity continued …

I wrote this post and had to read it more than once or twice to be sure it covered the difficult territory I wanted to cover. It is admittedly hard to understand if considered completely from the consensus view; I am looking at it from the ISU perspective with differences from the consensus view that have been introduced throughout the thread. You are invited to comment freely as always.

For talking purposes, we say that the energy that fills all space in our ~fourteen billion year old and expanding big bang arena, consists of about 4% detectible matter, 21% dark matter, and 75% dark energy.

One problematic issue has to do with the energy of light in the EM spectrum. Based on a major departure from the consensus view, the energy of light in the ISU is broken down into two gravitational wave energy portions. One portion of that energy is in the form the photon wave-particles which are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, and the other is in the form of the spherically outflowing  gravitational wave energy from the photon wave-particles.

The two portions of the energy of light are what lead me to say that light in the ISU is not easily understood from the perspective of the consensus theory. To take a step toward explaining it though, the following descriptions of each category of energy in space are written to indicate that I put the photons in the category of detectible matter since they are wave-particles with mass in the ISU, and I put the out flowing gravitational wave energy emission from the photon wave-particle (which in the ISU are light waves of the EM spectrum) in the category of dark matter, which is gravitational wave energy that forms convergences as it traverses open space. Neutrinos present a similarly difficult issue.

Given that outside-of-the-consensus explanation of why light is in two pieces, and is separated into two different categories when describing the components of the three categories of energy in the observable space of our arena, we get the following breakdown:

Detectible Matter 4%

In the ISU, the portion that is visible (detectible) matter generally represents all wave-particles (and objects with mass) in space. Wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments that establish a complex standing wave pattern that has two components, the inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving to the pattern from all directions in space, and the out flowing gravitational wave energy that is generally a spherical emission.

The presence of matter in the wave-particle is represented by gravitational wave fronts that carry energy within and through the standing wave pattern. When two wave fronts converge, there is a momentary peak of energy at each convergence, and each convergence peak is defined as a quantum of energy. The particle is composed of many quanta that, taken together at any instant, represent the mass of the wave-particle. Note: In the ISU, photons fall in this category and have mass; they are wave-particles emitted at the speed of light by electrons.


Dark Matter 21%

Dark matter is characterized as the weight of all of those individual gravitational wave front convergences that form momentary peaks in space; they are hints of matter called high energy density spots in the ISU. Deep within galaxies the space is said to be “fat” with these convergences.

Generally all space has those hints of mass and therefor has weight (mass in a gravitational field), and the gravitational wave energy density of that space determines if it is “fat” space, “thin” space, or in between. Light waves traversing space fall in this category and are the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component from the photon wave-particles which are included as detectible matter above.

Dark Energy 75%

Dark energy is the expansion energy of big bang arena action which is initiated by each big bang event, i.e., the big bang arena wave of matter and energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of each of the big crunches. Expansion energy is imparted to wave-particles that form in the new arena as it expands and cools, and manifests itself in the form of wave-particle momentum (separation momentum imparted to particles as they form during the rapid expansion). The momentum of the wave-particles is conserved as they clump into objects, stars, and galaxies; all galaxies in any given arena are generally moving away from each other as a result of dark energy.

In Total

The components add up to 100% of the energy in an aged arena like ours, but in a new arena, as a big bang event occurs, the mix will be a very high percentage of dark energy and dark matter, maybe 49.9% each, with maybe only a fraction of a percentage of detectible matter, for discussion purposes.


The cause of gravity in the ISU to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 21/05/2018 21:18:18
   I have been busy building a shed room the last two months. Now I am back. As I see it, the muliple big bangs will not show up if the higher light speed big bangs occur first. They will flow far away before the lower big bangs occur. If the lowest light speed big bang occurred first, the higher light speed big bangs would produced interference patterns. Assuming the light speeds are C, 2C, 4C, 8C etc, there would be no physical over lap between universes which occupy planes of their light speeds.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/05/2018 22:56:53
Reply #295

   I have been busy building a shed room the last two months. Now I am back. As I see it, the muliple big bangs will not show up if the higher light speed big bangs occur first. They will flow far away before the lower big bangs occur. If the lowest light speed big bang occurred first, the higher light speed big bangs would produced interference patterns. Assuming the light speeds are C, 2C, 4C, 8C etc, there would be no physical over lap between universes which occupy planes of their light speeds.
I'm a DIYer myself. I literally just got home from the emergency room with 6 stitches as a consequence of miss-using a cut-off tool on a gutter down spout (ouch). I am typing with one hand for a while, I guess.

Our previous discussion (see replies #278 to #285) left off with significant disagreement between our views. Is it OK with you if we avoid covering the same territory until we address a very basic cosmological issue:

A. There are three major possible explanations for the existence of the universe:

1) Some scenario where the universe was created by a Supernatural being. I call this choice "God did it".

2) Some scenario where there was "nothingness", and the universe spontaneously generated out of nothing. This is the "something from nothing" choice.

3) A scenario where the universe has always been here, infinite and eternal. This is the "always existed" scenario.

Before diving back in where we have such wide differences, would you state your choice from the three, or offer a fourth view on the possible explanations for the existence of the universe? If you choose to make a selection, would you feel comfortable explaining why you have made that choice?

Note to other members: Feel free to express your preference too (I would expect some of you have thought about the issue of the beginning). Also, if you are inclined, offer a forth possible explanation that I might have left off the list.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/05/2018 14:49:50
Reply #296

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Back to the cause of gravity in the ISU …

We left off at Reply #293: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143)

Dark energy, dark matter, and visible/detectible matter are all consequential in the determination of the relative motion of objects in the ISU, and as such, each has its role in the mechanics of the hypothesized solution to quantum gravity. They are the components of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space which is the ISU’s equivalent to the gravitational field; let’s call it the “density profile of space”.

As acknowledged throughout, Einstein’s equations do the best job of calculating the motion of objects at the macro level, but the speculation in the ISU model is that the force of gravity is determined at the quantum level. There is no generally accepted quantum solution to gravity available, as yet, from the scientific community, and so as we wait, I make speculations about a quantum mechanical solution to quantum gravity for my own satisfaction.

The mechanics start with the nature of the ISU’s density profile of space, which orchestrates the cause of quantum gravity in the ISU model. The mechanics of quantum action have striking similarities to the macro process of Arena Action in regard to wave convergences, third waves that outflow from wave convergences, and the defeat of entropy on a grand scale.

Quantum action, not to be confused with the “quantum of action known as Planck’s constant”, involves the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy to wave-particles from the surrounding local density profile of space. That action tells wave-particles which way to move based on the highest (net) directional inflow. The action also involves the spherically outflowing gravitational wave energy from wave-particles that continually re-establishes the density profile at all points in space. Mechanically, once emitted by a wave-particle or object, the gravitational wave expands spherically at the local speed of light. Once the gravitational wave energy encounters a wave-particle as it traverses space, it provides the inflowing gravitational wave-energy component, absorbed directionally, to the extent that the particle’s standing wave pattern needs quanta to replace its spherical outflow.

The cause of gravity in the ISU to be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: opportunity on 22/05/2018 14:56:59
Are you sure gravity isn't enthalpic as a concept itself in space-time?

Does "enthalpy" "provide" energy?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/05/2018 15:14:45
Reply  #298

Are you sure gravity isn't enthalpic as a concept itself in space-time?

Does "enthalpy" "provide" energy?
I’m not “sure” of much, though certainly the temperature profile of space can be equated with the ISU gravitational wave energy density profile of space. For example, the CMB which runs about 2.7 degrees is composed of gravitational wave energy on the basis that light of the electromagnetic spectrum is the outflowing gravitational wave energy from photon particles, which have mass in the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: opportunity on 22/05/2018 15:24:30
Is that "basis" right though?


Is a "composition" through an e/m filter as entropy a "gold-standard", right?

Are we still ignoring gravity being "enthalpic"?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/05/2018 15:27:42
Reply #300


Is that "basis" right though?




Is a "composition" through an e/m filter as entropy a "gold-standard", right?


Are we still ignoring gravity being "enthalpic"?

It is speculation by a layman science enthusiast; judge for yourself.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: opportunity on 22/05/2018 15:32:58
How does one judge a "layman scientist enthusiast"?


How do you judge the question asked you?


As a "layman scientist enthusist"?



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/05/2018 15:39:58

Reply #302

How does one judge a "layman scientist enthusiast"?


How do you judge the question asked you?


As a "layman scientist enthusist"?




Do you have a good sense of the cosmology of the universe that you have developed, based on known science, as well as on your own speculations, that from your perspective address the "as yet" unknowns?



I judge questions on the basis of my own view of cosmology, as described in this thread, i.e., the ISU model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: opportunity on 22/05/2018 15:50:16
I understand you're point.


Thankfully no one knows the truth.....yet. I think truth comes with great regret though.


Dealing with regret could be our greatest challenge in the advent of a clearer scientific understanding of reality, right?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/05/2018 15:52:56
Reply #304



I understand you're point.




Thankfully no one knows the truth.....yet. I think truth comes with great regret though.




Dealing with regret could be our greatest challenge in the advent of a clearer scientific understanding of reality, right?

I don't doubt that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: opportunity on 22/05/2018 15:56:12
I say this lightly:

Dealing with regret could be our greatest challenge in the advent of a clearer scientific understanding of reality


Heavily, it's a new responsibility with a new science and technology.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/05/2018 14:53:12
Reply #306

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Picking up from: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542682#msg542682 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542682#msg542682)


Continuing The mechanics of Quantum Gravity and relative motion caused by the wave mechanics involved at both the macro and micro levels of the ISU:

Arena Action is a process that plays out endlessly at the macro level of order across the landscape of the greater universe. The process starts with a bang, and ends with a crunch. So let the mechanics of quantum gravity start with the “bang” of a standard big bang event, somewhere in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)


1) The bang will not occur until the accumulated matter and energy in the crunch reaches a limit called “critical capacity”. The gravitational compression of the galactic matter and energy in the overlap space between two converging parent big bang arenas causes the crunch to approach the critical limit as all forms of energy accrete into the space.

2) At critical capacity, the availability of space required for the process of quantum action becomes the problem. Sufficient space is needed to support the functioning of wave-particles and the multitude of wave convergences that make up the galactic material and energy that is being accumulated in the overlap space. When sufficient space is finally denied as a result of the gravitational compression, any further compression will cause the collapse of the crunch.

3) At that stage, the crunch is nature’s most massive version of a blackhole, from which nothing escapes beyond the compression boundary; that is until the collapse/bang. Within the blackhole of the big crunch, the wave-particles and hints of mass that exist there are in an extremely dense environment, which contains the equivalent of all of the gravitational wave-energy of an entire, mature, expanding big bang arena, but in the most compressed state of gravitational wave energy possible, called “dense-state wave energy”*.

*Note: Dense State Wave Energy is a state in which the presence of matter and energy occupies the smallest possible space. However, there is no state of infinite wave energy density in the ISU model, and any further gravitational compression applied to dense-state energy will soon lead to a collapse/bang of that particular big crunch.

4) The final stage is the negation of all particles, all gravitational waves, all light waves, all hints of mass at the convergences of all waves, and of all of the expansion momentum* of the captured galactic matter, into one massive ball that represents its hot dense-state wave energy equivalent; a single massive arena wave-particle sitting ripe in the landscape of the greater universe, as the last increment of gravitational compression is about to occur there.

*Note: Expansion Momentum, in the ISU, equates to Dark Energy, and is the result of particles forming in an expanding big bang arena in the early stages after the collapse/bang of the Dense-state wave energy ball at the core of a preceding big crunch.


5) And then “BANG”; the crunch collapses as all of the individual wave-particles give up their individual spaces and the compression is final … in an instant. It is about to become a new big bang arena; a hot ball of expanding dense-state wave energy.

6) The Bang occurred when the dense-state wave energy* at the core of the crunch reached nature’s maximum density limit, starting the collapse. The collapse is an inflowing wave of matter and energy composing the massive crunch, which at its completion, bounces off of nature’s ultimate “brick wall” of maximum wave energy density.

*Note: As the hot ball of Dense-State wave energy of the new arena expands and cools, the space reaches the particle formation threshold, and as particles form while the arena is in rapid expansion, the newly formed particles are imparted with Separation Momentum.


7) The bounce is the initial stimulus for the corresponding force of energy density equalization to take an upper hand in the arena process, as the force of gravity has accomplished its role of causing the critical compression and collapse of this particular big crunch.

8 ) The force of energy density equalization that comes into play as a result of the collapse/bang is characterized by a period of rapid expansion* of the massive arena particle’s hot dense-state wave energy ball. The mechanics involve the density equalization between the maximum energy density of the arena wave that emerges from the center of gravity of the overlap space, with the very low density space surrounding it, formerly occupied by mature, galaxy filled, expanding parent arenas.

*Note: I really wanted to use the phrase “superluminal expansion” here, but I cannot. The outflowing gravitational wave energy of the arena wave-particle is being emitted at the local speed of light, as always. However, given the low energy density profile of the surrounding space that has just been made “thin” by the formation of the big crunch, the speed of light in that space is at the maximum relative velocity allowed by nature!

9) Reference was just made to an “arena particle”; the final stage of the crunch, which formed from the inflowing galactic matter and energy contributed by the parent arenas. That reference acknowledges that there is a quantum process involved at the macro level of Arena Action, just as there is a quantum process involved at the micro level of Quantum Action.

10) When pointing out the quantization in the mechanics of the two processes, the quanta at the macro level are the big crunches that form across the landscape of the greater universe. The quanta at the micro level the hints of mass (referred to as high energy density spots) that form at the peaks of the tiniest meaningful gravitational wave convergences.

11) To complete the picture of the sameness of events on the two vastly different scales, just like with high density spots at the micro level, there is the resulting obligatory third wave event at the arena level as well. It is the expansion of the ball of hot dense-state wave energy (the arena wave) out into the space formerly occupied by the converging parent arenas.

12) Matter-to-energy on an arena scale has just occurred, and thus entropy has again been defeated in the landscape of the greater universe.

One of the interesting differences between the ISU, and the Standard Cosmology (lambda CMD model), is the ISU process of Arena Action.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)

An example of the inflation in the Lambda CMD Big Bang is depicted in that Wiki as follows:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_13_08_18_11_45_04.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_13_08_18_11_45_04.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_13_08_18_11_45_04.jpeg)

This is how the development of one Big Bang arena with Inflation, from bang and through 13.7 billion years of accelerating expansion could be depicted in the ISU.


If you can picture two big bang arenas using the Lambda CMD model depiction, an ISU Big Bang Arena overlap might be depicted as follows:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_14_08_18_12_02_32.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_14_08_18_12_02_32.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_14_08_18_12_02_32.jpeg)


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/06/2018 12:17:12
Reply #307


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


Continuing The mechanics of Quantum Gravity and relative motion caused by the wave mechanics involved at both the macro and micro levels of the ISU:


13) “Matter to energy” is referred to as “the defeat of entropy”, because in regard to the ISU “Sameness Principle”, the landscape of the greater universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale, in both space and time, and such, “sameness” requires a process that defeats the advance of entropy. The process of Arena Action reverses the progress of entropy, on a grand scale, big bang by big bang, and at the same time provides new arenas ready to expand and begin the progress of entropy again.


14) In science and over time, science professionals have promoted different cosmological models. There is a Wiki page that does a good job of touching on the various theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model). The ISU model is not among them, although the process of Arena Action might almost fit there.


15) Evan_au posted in response to the above Wiki link to the cyclic models: “However, in the 1990s, it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not decelerating.” The cause, though still something of a mystery as far as consensus views are concerned, the as yet unexplained source of expansion has been called "dark energy”.* The discoverers were awarded a Nobel Prize in 2011.”


*Note: In the ISU model, Dark Energy, which is said to make up about 75% of the energy in the observable universe, is the expansion energy of big bang arena action which is initiated by each big bang event, i.e., the big bang arena wave of matter and energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of each of the big crunches.


16) Expansion energy is imparted to wave-particles that form in the new arena as it expands and cools, and manifests itself in the form of wave-particle momentum (separation momentum imparted to particles as they form during the rapid expansion). The momentum of the wave-particles is conserved as they clump into objects, stars, and galaxies; all galaxies in any given arena are generally moving away from each other as a result of dark energy.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe)

17) Note that the arena level conditions are in accord to the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP). The Wiki on The Perfect Cosmological Principle:
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/perfect%20cosmological%20principle/en-en/#anchorWiki (http://dictionary.sensagent.com/perfect%20cosmological%20principle/en-en/#anchorWiki)
Wikipedia
The Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the Universe is homogenous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will. It is the principle underpinning steady-state theory and emerging from Chaotic inflation theory.[1][2][3]


18) The ISU model is an infinite and eternal steady state model that features the dynamic multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, where entropy is defeated by the joint processes of arena action at the macro level and quantum action at the micro level. Those processes are what the ISU model says has always existed. It features the "sameness doctrine”*. It is axiomatic in the ISU model that the infinite and eternal universe also features the Three Infinities, space, time, and energy. There are three spatial dimensions, one time dimension, and all space contains some level of wave energy density.


*Note: The “Sameness Doctrine” of the ISU means that across all space and time, the universe, on a grand scale, appears as it does now, always has, and always will. It features life throughout, and proposes that across the greater universe, there has always been and always will be an abundance of intelligent life forms that contemplate the explanation for the existence of the universe, infinity, life, and the premise that God, or the universe, has always existed, and maybe they are one and the same.




The cause of gravity in the ISU to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/06/2018 23:53:16
Reply #308

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

The cause of quantum gravity continued …

19) The observable universe is a growing big bang arena, and though it occupies a finite volume of space, it is inside of an infinite volume of space.

20) In accord with the sameness doctrine, all big bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe go through the same stages of development that our big bang arena is going through:
a) They all share the precondition of a big crunch, formed in the overlap space where two or more parent arenas converge as they expanded into each others space.
b) The completion of the crunch is followed by a collapse/bang when the content of galactic matter and wave energy that is gravitationally accreting into the crunch reaches the critical capacity.
c) The collapse/bang is followed by rapid expansion of the arena ball of the hot dense-state wave energy.
d) Dense-state wave energy decays into a series of exotic particles as it expands and cools.
e) Decay leads to the formation of stable wave-particles across the entire arena.
f) Those wave-particles form atoms which then clump under the influence of quantum gravity in the close quarters of the early arena.
g) Clumping eventually forms stars and galactic structure.
h) By then the galaxies are all generally moving away from each other.
i) The observed separation of galaxies and galactic structure is the result of the conservation of separation momentum that was imparted to the wave-particles as they formed during the early expansion.

21) The initial contents of the new arena, consisting of that hot dense-state ball of wave energy, immediately begins to cool as it rapidly expands into and through the thinning accretion disk of cold dark galactic debris from the galactic structure of the fading parent arenas.

22) The space formerly occupied by those mature, galaxy filled arenas has been significantly stripped of matter and gravitational wave energy since each parent has contributed a substantial amount (up to half) of its galactic structure and gravitational wave energy to the crunch, which has just collapse/banged into expansion back into the vacated space.

23) The remaining galactic structure of the parent arenas has escaped the crunch and has continued to expand into the far reaches of the surrounding space.

24) Wave-particles are about to form across the new arena.

Note: Before detailing the mechanics of quantum gravity, as governed by the micro level process of Quantum Action, it is appropriate to describe the changes that the gravitational wave energy density profile of space has experienced as a result of the sequence of events occurring from the formation of the big crunch, up to the point of wave-particle formation across the new expanding arena …


The cause of quantum gravity in the ISU to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/06/2018 00:30:06
19) The observable universe is a growing big bang arena, and though it occupies a finite volume of space, it is inside of an infinite volume of space.

20) In accord with the sameness doctrine, all big bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe go through the same stages of development that our big bang arena is going through:
a) They all share the precondition of a big crunch, formed in the overlap space where two or more parent arenas converge as they expanded into each others space.
So sort of an expansion into an expansion causes the matter in both expansions to compact?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/06/2018 00:47:38
So sort of an expansion into an expansion causes the matter in both expansions to compact?
Very good.

Now don’t forget, we are talking about two or more big bang arenas converging as they expand into each others space, causing a swirling rendezvous of galactic material and gravitational wave energy. A growing accretion disk forms and a big crunch begins to take shape around the center of gravity of the overlap space.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/06/2018 01:22:01
So sort of an expansion into an expansion causes the matter in both expansions to compact?
Very good.

Now don’t forget, we are talking about two or more big bang arenas converging as they expand into each others space, causing a swirling rendezvous of galactic material and gravitational wave energy. A growing accretion disk forms and a big crunch begins to take shape around the center of gravity of the overlap space.

So forming sort of spacial ''eddies'' as an emergence pattern?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/06/2018 02:31:10
So forming sort of spacial ''eddies'' as an emergence pattern?
Not quite.

Space is infinite and has always existed, in the ISU model. Space is where things happen. What you refer to as eddies isn’t far off, but they are not swirling eddies of space. The eddies are swirls of galactic material, gravitationally captured in the overlap space where two or more expanding big bang arenas expanded into the same space. Space doesn’t swirl, or stretch, or curve; things swirl, or stretch, or curve in space.

And note, the expanding arenas are not creating space as they expand; they are expanding into pre-existing space. And further, the expansion is not an expansion of the space that they occupy; it is the separation of the galaxies that occupy space. The galaxies are generally moving apart because the particles that they are composed of had separation momentum imparted to them when they formed during the early rapid inflation epic of the new arena. The galaxies are moving apart because of the conservation of the momentum of the wave-particles that they are composed of.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/06/2018 13:05:41
So forming sort of spacial ''eddies'' as an emergence pattern?
Not quite.

Space is infinite and has always existed, in the ISU model. Space is where things happen. What you refer to as eddies isn’t far off, but they are not swirling eddies of space. The eddies are swirls of galactic material, gravitationally captured in the overlap space where two or more expanding big bang arenas expanded into the same space. Space doesn’t swirl, or stretch, or curve; things swirl, or stretch, or curve in space.

And note, the expanding arenas are not creating space as they expand; they are expanding into pre-existing space. And further, the expansion is not an expansion of the space that they occupy; it is the separation of the galaxies that occupy space. The galaxies are generally moving apart because the particles that they are composed of had separation momentum imparted to them when they formed during the early rapid inflation epic of the new arena. The galaxies are moving apart because of the conservation of the momentum of the wave-particles that they are composed of.

I am liking your theory a lot.   Do you ever consider the expansion between galaxies is enthalpic/electrodynamic related?

>T = > r


or

>Q = > r
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/06/2018 14:58:09
I am liking your theory a lot.   Do you ever consider the expansion between galaxies is enthalpy/electrodynamic related?

>T = > r


or

>Q = > r

In some ways, but I think you are aiming for something deeper. The way I would interpret your question is that you are asking if the heat and the charge of a system are associated with the observed separation of galaxies and galactic structure on a large scale. Heat and charge are very basic concepts that are generally understood, and I invoke the generally accepted science surrounding them. However, it is more to the point in the ISU model that the observed separation of galaxies is related to the conservation of momentum.

Each new big bang arena is an example of the defeat of entropy, meaning that an aging mature big bang arena, like ours for example, has spent billions of years using up the energy that it was “born” with, i.e., converting the low entropy energy of the hot dense ball of plasma that emerged from preconditions (the big crunch), to form particles, which clump to atoms and then to stars, galaxies, and galactic structure. Your point focuses on the fact that the galaxies are observed to be separating and moving away from each other.

In my model, an important feature is that particles form as the hot dense ball of plasma expands, and so as particles form they are moving away from each other right at the start. I like to say that they have separation momentum imparted to them as they form.

The formation of particles is governed by a process called Quantum Action, and it is described in my model in terms of gravitational wave energy mechanics. When particles form they are called wave-particles because they are composed of the dense-state gravitational wave energy from the hot dense ball of plasma as the plasma expands and cools.

Quantum gravity is also governed by the process of Quantum Action, and so as particles form, though they have separation momentum, they are also subject to quantum gravity. Quantum gravity invokes the inverse square law. In the close quarters of the epic of wave-particle formation, quantum gravity is able to overcome expansion momentum at short distances and so the earliest wave-particles are attracted to each other, referred to as clumping. However, the clumps conserve the expansion momentum of the wave-particles that they are made of, and the clumps are also moving away from each other. Extrapolate the dance between separation momentum and gravity over time, and you get stars and then galaxies, and because separation momentum is always conserved, the galaxies are generally observed to be moving away from each other.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/06/2018 12:33:34
I am liking your theory a lot.   Do you ever consider the expansion between galaxies is enthalpy/electrodynamic related?

In some ways, but I think you are aiming for something deeper. The way I would interpret your question is that you are asking if the heat and the charge of a system are associated with the observed separation of galaxies and galactic structure on a large scale. Heat and charge are very basic concepts that are generally understood, and I invoke the generally accepted science surrounding them. However, it is more to the point in the ISU model that the observed separation of galaxies is related to the conservation of momentum.

Each new big bang arena is an example of the defeat of entropy, meaning that an aging mature big bang arena, like ours for example, has spent billions of years using up the energy that it was “born” with, i.e., converting the low entropy energy of the hot dense ball of plasma that emerged from preconditions (the big crunch), to form particles, which clump to atoms and then to stars, galaxies, and galactic structure. Your point focuses on the fact that the galaxies are observed to be separating and moving away from each other.

In my model, an important feature is that particles form as the hot dense ball of plasma expands, and so as particles form they are moving away from each other right at the start. I like to say that they have separation momentum imparted to them as they form.

The formation of particles is governed by a process called Quantum Action, and it is described in my model in terms of gravitational wave energy mechanics. When particles form they are called wave-particles because they are composed of the dense-state gravitational wave energy from the hot dense ball of plasma as the plasma expands and cools.

Quantum gravity is also governed by the process of Quantum Action, and so as particles form, though they have separation momentum, they are also subject to quantum gravity. Quantum gravity invokes the inverse square law. In the close quarters of the epic of wave-particle formation, quantum gravity is able to overcome expansion momentum at short distances and so the earliest wave-particles are attracted to each other, referred to as clumping. However, the clumps conserve the expansion momentum of the wave-particles that they are made of, and the clumps are also moving away from each other. Extrapolate the dance between separation momentum and gravity over time, and you get stars and then galaxies, and because separation momentum is always conserved, the galaxies are generally observed to be moving away from each other.



Edit 6/24/18: I might add that if the separation momentum scenario isn’t interrupted, you would have our big bang arena expanding forever. Further, the rate of expansion will accelerate as the “arena bubble” expands, lowering the average internal wave energy density, and promoting more rapid separation momentum over time, right to oblivion.

It seems apparent that such a scenario does not defeat entropy, and in fact would accelerate entropy until all useful energy is converted to meaningless total wave energy density equalization. You might wonder why we are so lucky to exist in a time window that, when compared to eternity, is almost no time at all; why hasn't oblivion happened yet?

Happily :) it is because the possibility of the ultimate heat death of the universe, or the Big Rip, is avoided because there are a potentially infinite number of other expanding big bang arenas out there, just like ours. Arenas and arena action spans the entire multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

When an arena's expansion is interrupted by arena convergence, (or as it might be said in QFT, two bubbles expanding into each other within the false vacuum) the old cold galactic matter with it's growing energy sinks, the blackholes, and its diluted gravitational wave energy density in between, are recycled. The recycling includes the negation of the remaining particles from the aging and cold converging parent arenas, into a merger resulting in a big crunch that then produces an extremely low entropy hot dense-state wave energy ball of exotic matter, a unique plasma, marking the beginning of the expansion of a brand new arena on the scene. Thus goes the perpetual maintenance of the infinite and eternal big bang arena landscape of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ta da).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/06/2018 00:39:07
Happily  it is because the possibility of the ultimate heat death of the universe, or the Big Rip, is avoided because there are a potentially infinite number of other expanding big bang arenas out there, just like ours.
In theory the energy of our system/arena should transfer to any external/overlapping lower energy state systems/arena's.  My concern would be more towards enphalpic decompression of bodies within the arena by greater wave energy inflow than wave energy outflow.  An increase in temperature (T)  causing enthalpic decompression of the body , causing an unstable state of the mass.   
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/06/2018 12:36:41
In the ISU model, an arena that is mature, like ours, is full of galactic structure that is observed to be moving away from us in all directions. That being the case, it is demonstrating the conservation of the separation momentum that was imparted to all of the particles that formed in the arena during the early rapid expansion of our big bang’s hot dense energy ball.

The energy in our expanding arena, like in all arenas, according to the model, consists of three major categories: 1) matter which is composed of gravitational wave energy, 2) gravitational wave energy that is coming and going in all directions in the space of the arena as a result of ~14 billion years of inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy associated with the presence of matter, and 3) dark energy, which is the separation momentum imparted to wave-particles as they formed.

I repeat all of that in response to your first sentence where you said:

In theory the energy of our system/arena should transfer to any external/overlapping lower energy state systems/arena’s.

That is why your statement is true. Then you go on to express some concern when you say:

Quote
My concern would be more towards enphalpic decompression of bodies within the arena by greater wave energy inflow than wave energy outflow.  An increase in temperature (T)  causing enthalpic decompression of the body , causing an unstable state of the mass.   

I don’t want to have to look up “enphalpic decompression” though I get what you mean. My response is from the perspective of the model as follows:

By now you are familiar with the arena level mechanics of two mature big bang arenas that have developed close to each other, and over the past billions of years, their galactic structure has been separating within them as they grow to occupy more space. Low and behold, they have begun to have a measurable gravitational affect on each other that is evidenced in the temperature profile.

What would that look like from a perspective (like on Earth) deep within our arena; I would expect there to be some evidence of that in the WMAP and Planck cosmic surveys of temperature, and by gosh, there is.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_08_17_2_27_06.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_08_17_2_27_06.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_08_17_2_27_06.jpeg)

  There is a noticeable cold spot when you look at the temperature profile  of our visible universe.


Here is what I said in reply #34:
Reply #34
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on May 17, 2017, 03:45:40 pm
The cold spot is old news, but for years I have been suggesting it could be evidence of a multiple big bang universe:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2017/may/17/multiverse-have-astronomers-found-evidence-of-parallel-universes (https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2017/may/17/multiverse-have-astronomers-found-evidence-of-parallel-universes)

I did a YouTube video about the Infinite Spongy Universe two years ago, in which I suggested the cold spot could be an indication of our big bang arena intersecting with another, just as would occur in the process that I describe as Arena Action:
https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI (https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI)


Further, I addressed the cold spot in reply #82 as follows:
Reply #82
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on July 27, 2017, 01:22:45 pm
All that we can view of our own local surroundings on the arena scale, with our best optical and radio  telescopes, is a portion of our own expanding Big bang arena. However, in those observations there are clues available to us about the past; about the history of our arena and its “parent arenas”. By that I mean the there is some history of the preconditions to our own Big Bang imprinted in the temperature map of the cosmic micro wave background radiation.


Take the ISU primary scenario:


Two or more expanding Big Bang arenas expanded until they intersected and overlapped, as depicted in the simple sphere/sphere image that I have been using. That version of the image states that it could be Big Bang arenas overlapping, or quantum waves within the wave-particle standing wave pattern. The duality of scale in the ISU is consistent with the characteristic called “sameness” between the mechanics at the two levels, the micro and the macro scale.


Now, referring to the macro scenario of Big Bang arena action, here is a heat map of the observable universe. The WMAP and Planck sky surveys reveal a great deal of information:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_6_10_40.png

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_6_10_40.png)




As a result, in the ISU model, the greater universe is characterized by a Cosmic Microwave Background that exists at slightly varying temperatures (wave energy density profiles), across the infinite landscape. In and around each Big Bang event that occurs in the landscape, there is a local temperature profile related to the event where two or more “parent”arenas converge and produce a third wave. The third wave, according to the scenario, in turn results in a gravitationally induced Big Crunch. In the ISU scenario, the crunch reaches nature’s limit of wave energy density, and collapses/bangs, into a new expanding Big Bang arena. The surrounding CMBR is therefore composed of the CMBR that is present within the two parent arenas, which is a factor of the extent of expansion experience by the two parents, plus the radiation of our own Big Bang event imprinted on the background as it is incorporated into our arena as a result of our expansion.


Therefore, our big bang arena has its own CMB, composed of the pre-existing background in the surrounding space, which is individualized by the specific preconditions present; the individual backgrounds of our parent arenas. Those backgrounds would be expected to vary based on their relative ages when they converged, based on an original local temperature of the big bangs, which is considered essentially the same for one bang to another, and the cooling effect of expansion.


Our CMB is characterized by some interesting anomalies related to our specific history. There is the wide angle temperature difference, called hemispherical asymmetry or dipole anisotropy, and there is also an interesting cold spot.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_08_17_2_27_06.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_08_17_2_27_06.jpeg)

------------------------------------

Moving on, is the following definition the effect you are referring to?

enthalpy | ˈenTHalpē, ənˈTHalpē |
[/color]noun Physics[/size]
a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total heat content of a system. It is equal to the internal energy of the system plus the product of pressure and volume. (Symbol: H)

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/06/2018 19:40:04
enthalpy | ˈenTHalpē, ənˈTHalpē |
[/color]noun Physics[/size]
a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total heat content of a system. It is equal to the internal energy of the system plus the product of pressure and volume. (Symbol: H)
Just to answer this , why I consider the rest of your post, yes that is what I am referring to.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/06/2018 13:06:07
Reply #319

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

The cause of quantum gravity in the ISU continued …



Note: Before detailing the mechanics of quantum gravity, as governed by the micro level process of Quantum Action, it is appropriate to describe the changes that the gravitational wave energy density profile of space has experienced as a result of the sequence of events occurring from the formation of the big crunch, up to the point of wave-particle formation across the new expanding arena.

Note that the Gravitational Wave Energy Density Profile of Space is the ISU alternative to the curvature of space time in GR, as discussed in Reply #77 above, and elsewhere:

In General Relativity spacetime promotes the following:
Matter tells space how to curve.
Curved space tells matter how to move.
Everything moves in the straightest possible line in space-time.


ISU gravity wave mechanics support the following:
Matter emits gravitational waves into the wave energy density profile of space.
The Gravitational Wave Energy Density Profile of Space tells matter how to move.
Everything moves in curved paths as the gravitational wave energy density profile of space constantly changes.


25) Throughout the sequence of events, from the formation of the big crunch, to the point of wave-particle formation across the new expanding arena, remarkable changes have occurred in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space:

a) Within each parent arena, the process of maturation that precedes the crunch has been characterized by a long history of stellar and/or galactic blackholes forming as they accrete matter from the surrounding stars. At this stage, in many cases, the equatorial gravitational wave energy density of stelar blackholes greatly exceeds their polar densities, and this differential allows the internal energy density to be relieved by jetting action at the poles. Call this the gravitational wave energy density epic of rampant blackhole formation, preceding the formation of a big crunch.

b) A mature big crunch might contain the equivalent amount of gravitational wave energy of seemingly bazillions of stars and galaxies, with their numerous blackholes of both the stellar variety and the galactic variety, contributed to the crunch by the parent arenas. The crunch accretes more and more matter and energy slowly over billions of years from the parent arenas. During this period there is persistent gravitational wave energy density equalization within the big crunch. Call this the energy density period of extreme gravitational wave-particle compression in the big crunch.

c) As the big crunch enters the collapse epic, it is a large scale homogeneous and isotropic environment that has reached critical capacity. It represents the state where wave-particles are compressed to the point of giving up their individual spaces across the entire crunch. The crunch collapses inward and the wave-particles are forced into space-sharing causing them to overlap and merge with the surrounding particles, forming what is referred to as the dense-state of gravitational wave energy. This is where gravitational wave energy fronts are so closely compressed that the time delay between wave convergences and third waves is at nature’s shortest relative time interval. It is nature’s finest example of homogeneity and isotropy at the highest wave energy density in the smallest space. A clock in this environment would be measuring the passing of time at nature’s slowest rate; slower relative to a clock in any other gravitational wave energy density profile elsewhere, outside the collapsing crunch. Call this the collapse/bang point of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

d) Perturbations: In the dense-state of wave energy, during the collapse/bang and at the outset of the rapid expansion/inflationary epic, there are tiny perturbations in the gravitational wave energy density profile of the involved space. These perturbations are a result of the diverse range of energy densities of the accreted galactic structure that entered the crunch from the parent arenas, and also reflect the varying density of the accreting disk that surrounds the big bang event, but that were not yet captured in the crunch at the instant of the collapse/bang. Those perturbations will affect that course of wave-particle clumping and play a role in the nature of the large scale galactic structure of the maturing arena. Call this the early perturbative stage of expansion of the dense-state gravitational wave energy of space.

e) We are at the rapid expansion/inflationary epic of the new big crunch. Alan H. Guth described this period in his Inflationary theory, as superluminal expansion. His Inflationary theory has been combined with GR to make up the consensus cosmology of Big Bang Theory. In the ISU model, this is not a period of superluminal acceleration, but it is where the outflowing gravitational wave energy of the arena wave-particle is being emitted at the local speed of light and gravity. Accompanying that gravitational wave energy outflow is the expanding hot dense plasma ball, initially expanding perhaps at near the speed of light. From the ISU perspective, Guth’s false vacuum and bubble nucleation, which are theory specific to QFT, refer to a period of the supercooled space associated with the random formation of bubbles of higher density. In the ISU, the rapid expansion of the collapse/bang, the high density arena particle is consistent with Guth, and with QFT in regard to the presence of rapid expansion of the arena wave, and particle formation during that stage. Call it the initial expansion and wave-particle formation stage in the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

f) The initial expansion and wave-particle formation stage shows the force of energy density equalization at work: At this stage, the energy density differential between the dense-state wave energy of the arena wave, and the low energy density of the surrounding space into which the arena wave is rapidly encroaching, marks the high point in the expression of the force of energy density equalization. The initial wave-particles that decay out of the hot dense plasma ball are imparted with separation momentum at this stage.

The force of quantum gravity in the ISU to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/06/2018 15:05:07
In General Relativity spacetime promotes the following:
Matter tells space how to curve.
Curved space tells matter how to move.
Everything moves in the straightest possible line in space-time.
Hi dude,

How can space be affected by anything when space itself has no causality? 

Surely we mean spacial fields become affected?

This is where I am at with my thinking in order.

Primary spacial field ether constant that overlays space.  Q=0

Dense wave energy particles Q=0

Secondary spacial fields emanating from particles.  Q=0

∑Q = 0

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/06/2018 22:38:11
In General Relativity spacetime promotes the following:
Matter tells space how to curve.
Curved space tells matter how to move.
Everything moves in the straightest possible line in space-time.
Hi dude,

How can space be affected by anything when space itself has no causality?
The great “what is space” debate continues. Are you talking about how General Relativity is sometimes characterized by the pop science saying that you quoted?

Indeed, the conclusion that space has no causality would be a violation of General Relativity. On the other hand, in the ISU, space is everywhere and where things happen, but space does not directly cause things to happen.
Quote
Surely we mean spacial fields become affected?
Are you referring to the concept that fields occupy space, and can traverse space as charged particles move, etc. Is that what you mean by spatial fields?
Quote
This is where I am at with my thinking in order.

Primary spacial field ether constant that overlays space.  Q=0
Are you saying that there is an ether that occupies space?
Quote
Dense wave energy particles Q=0
Are you saying that what I call wave-particles composed of gravitational wave energy also occupy space?
Quote
Secondary spacial fields emanating from particles.  Q=0
Are you saying that just like the ether occupies space, and wave-particles occupy space, that when wave-particles emit gravitational wave energy into the gravitation wave energy density profile of space, the gravitational waves are like a secondary spacial field that occupies space?
Quote
∑Q = 0
Are you saying that the sum of all of those cases where things occupy space is equal to zero space? I think that is a discussion that should be explored over in the “That CAN’T be true” sub-forum, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/06/2018 22:57:28
in the ISU, space is everywhere and where things happen, but space does not directly cause things to happen.
I will still wait for edit time, but I wanted to answer  this incase I forget what I was going to say.  I agree with the above and consider in your terms that space is an infinite volume parent arena that has no causality.  Within the parent arena manifests child arena's that have causality .   Any new child arena inheriting the same properties and physics as existing child arenas. 

Quote
Are you referring to the concept that fields occupy space, and can traverse space as charged particles move, etc. Is that what you mean by spatial fields?

To clarify , spatial fields occupy otherwise empty space, a void.  Secondary fields emanating from bodies traversing with the body through a possible underlying ''stationary'' spatial field . 
However this is complex because there is a possible of  secondary fields combining to form a primary field. 

Quote
Are you saying that there is an ether that occupies space?


Yes I think there is , I mean we have only observed so far into space, a deep space spherical firmament is a possibility still.

Quote
Are you saying that the sum of all of those cases where things occupy space is equal to zero space? I think that is a discussion that should be explored over in the “That CAN’T be true” sub-forum, lol.

Not equal to 0 space, equal to 0 measured energy/charge in an equilibrium state. A sort of null ''matrix''.   A sort of steady state where 0 + 1 - 1 = 0 is constant.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/06/2018 14:19:46
I will still wait for edit time, but I wanted to answer  this incase I forget what I was going to say.  I agree with the above and consider in your terms that space is an infinite volume parent arena that has no causality.  Within the parent arena manifests child arena's that have causality .   Any new child arena inheriting the same properties and physics as existing child arenas. 
That is pretty well said. I don’t refer to the infinite space as a parent arena, but it is occupied by the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and instead of saying the infinite space has no causality, it is simply said to have always existed.

Quote
To clarify , spatial fields occupy otherwise empty space, a void.  Secondary fields emanating from bodies traversing with the body through a possible underlying ''stationary'' spatial field . 
However this is complex because there is a possible of  secondary fields combining to form a primary field. 

Yes I think there is , I mean we have only observed so far into space, a deep space spherical firmament is a possibility still.


Not equal to 0 space, equal to 0 measured energy/charge in an equilibrium state. A sort of null ''matrix''.   A sort of steady state where 0 + 1 - 1 = 0 is constant.

We could have some discussion of the difference between the ether and the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, but in general, they both assist in the advancement of wave energy across space. The idea in the ISU is that there is gravitational wave energy interaction at the foundational level, where there is an oscillating third wave action. Each tiny wave intersection produces an oscillation in the form of a spherical third wave that advances the energy of more meaningful gravitational waves that are passing through the background.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/06/2018 18:16:01
We could have some discussion of the difference between the ether and the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, but in general, they both assist in the advancement of wave energy across space.
Agreed, I imagine my light bulb ''drips'', but as soon as a ''drip'' is released, it ''explodes'' and dissipates through the ether and gravitational wave energy isotropic.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/06/2018 12:16:11
Reply #325

We could have some discussion of the difference between the ether and the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, but in general, they both assist in the advancement of wave energy across space.
Agreed, I imagine my light bulb ''drips'', but as soon as a ''drip'' is released, it ''explodes'' and dissipates through the ether and gravitational wave energy isotropic.

If I understand what you are imagining, the light bulb emits light into space, and as the light bursts on to the scene, it spreads out spherically into adjacent space, which contains either ether or gravitational wave energy, and maybe they are one and the same?

The difference between how we imagine them is what I thought we might be able to have a discussion about.

Let’s give credit to Michelson and Morley:
“The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed between April and July, 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in November of the same year. It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether. The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles.”

I take that to be strong evidence that there is no stationary luminiferous aether out there in space, but that does not mean that there is empty space either; there is an ether effect that plays a role in the motion of wave energy through space in my model too, so read on.

There is clearly energy in space, and the ISU model supposes that the energy in space is carried by gravitational wave fronts that are traversing all space, to and from all directions, from a potentially infinite history of the emission of gravitational wave energy from wave particles and objects, as I have been predicting (in a layman sense) throughout. That wave energy accounts for the energy in space and makes up the composition of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

On that basis, every point in space has gravitational wave energy convergences of multiple wave fronts converging in varying magnitudes, governed by the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy that is coming and going in every direction through the energy profile of space.

In the ISU model, gravitational wave front convergences each produce a “hint” of mass, and the number of different wave fronts converging at each point produce a net energy presence at each point in space. (The presence of these hints of mass was mentioned earlier as the explanation for dark matter). There too you have the ISU alternative to an ether. It assists the motion of light through space via the concept that two or more converging (inflowing) gravitational waves will produce an outflowing wave which is referred to as the “third wave” in the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/06/2018 12:47:35
If I understand what you are imagining, the light bulb emits light into space, and as the light bursts on to the scene, it spreads out spherically into adjacent space, which contains either ether or gravitational wave energy, and maybe they are one and the same?

The difference between how we imagine them is what I thought we might be able to have a discussion about.

Let’s give credit to Michelson and Morley:
“The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed between April and July, 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in November of the same year. It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether. The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles.”

Hi Bogie, you understood my view correctly but I must say the reason I do not discuss the  Michelson and Morley experiment often is for the reason light used that way is not viable to detect the ether that I assume has 0 permeability. 
However I believe it is detectable and there is already an experiment to show the ether .  There is also proof of the ether without experiment. 
I will be going offline in the next week or so, I am not going bother to try and keep my internet going , but because I like you , here is the sort of ether proof you need to be looking for .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light

Consider the wave energy density of the above process and look for similar occurrences.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/06/2018 13:06:38

...
I will be going offline in the next week or so, I am not going bother to try and keep my internet going , but because I like you , here is the sort of ether proof you need to be looking for .


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light)


Consider the wave energy density of the above process and look for similar occurrences.


Thank you for that. You will find a way to maintain your presence on the Internet, and hopefully you will find a way to keep in touch with the progress of the ISU model. You have been helpful in that progress, and I consider you an Internet friend.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/06/2018 13:12:36
Thank you for that. You will find a way to maintain your presence on the Internet, and hopefully you will find a way to keep in touch with the progress of the ISU model. You have been helpful in that progress, and are the only friend I have here so far.
My internet life is looking doubtful, my kids come first and it looks like I have to sell my computer .
 Hopefully though mate I can find a way to stay online, I am resourceful  and have managed stay on so far.  Your model is so similar to my N-field model , you have also helped me think and be more clear in my thoughts.  Mutual respect my friend and I hope you do something with your model , I have to much going on in my life to write up all my work and thoughts lol. My brains thinking about lots of things at the same time, I will get to relax one day maybe and be stress free.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/06/2018 13:16:44
Do me a favor. Go to the member map and submit your general location, so I can put a place to your presence.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/06/2018 13:26:20
Do me a favor. Go to the member map and submit your general location, so I can put a place to your presence.
I am not sure whether it has worked or not?

Can't get it to select my street, but the general area is there.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/06/2018 13:35:43
Do me a favor. Go to the member map and submit your general location, so I can put a place to your presence.
I am not sure whether it has worked or not?

Can't get it to select my street, but the general area is there.
You're there on the map, thanks.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/06/2018 13:40:16
Do me a favor. Go to the member map and submit your general location, so I can put a place to your presence.
I am not sure whether it has worked or not?

Can't get it to select my street, but the general area is there.
You're there on the map, thanks.

Your welcome  :)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/06/2018 16:56:46
Reply #333

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


... The initial wave-particles that decay out of the hot dense plasma ball are imparted with separation momentum at this stage.





26) The hot dense-state wave energy environment of each new arena is an expanding ball of gravitational wave fronts, so dense that there is not sufficient separation between them to allow the presence of individual wave-particles. This is the point in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space where the hot dense ball is like a particle itself; an arena level particle in the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. The accumulated crunch is the dense core of the arena particle (the result of the inflowing wave energy from parent arenas), and the outflowing wave is the big bang, the expanding hot dense arena wave the initiates the new arena. The arena particle at the macro level, and the hint of mass at the quantum level represent nature’s two extremes on the scale of the presence of mass.

27) Also, the hot dense-state wave energy environment of each new arena is nature’s lowest entropy energy, which represents the restoration of usefulness of wave energy content of the old cold matter in the parent arenas. However, only a small fraction of the low entropy energy content of the mature arena will take the form of detectible matter (4%). The energy of that goes into the process of expansion of the new arena uses the lions share of low entropy energy in the form of dark energy (75%) to fuel the expansion. The other low entropy wave energy will take the form of dark matter (21%), in the form of the gravitational wave convergences in space that are the hints of mass (dark matter) that affect the shape and motion of galaxies in the maturing arena.

28) As maturation of the new arena puts the arena wave of energy to use over billions of years, it will result in a mature galaxy-filled parent arena where the galactic structure is all moving apart. The separation of the galactic structure in the mature arenas is the result of the conservation of momentum that was imparted to the wave particles that formed within the parent arenas in the early stages of expansion. The future of the new arena, and the fate of the hot dense-state energy in this new arena will be the same as it was in the parent arenas that preceded it, and in their “grandparents”, for an eternal heritage of the past.

29) Here is where we discuss the formation of wave-particles in the new arena. It is a process of decay of the dense-state wave energy that starts out at billions of degrees, and cools rapidly as the force of energy density equalization causes the initial expansion of the hot dense-state energy. The expansion initiates the decay process, and individual “standing wave” patterns of wave energy separate out into very exotic particles with huge amounts of mass, perhaps that equate to the massive Higgs mechanism and boson, whose mass will in turn will be imparted to more and more stable types of wave-particles.

30) There is clearly a huge amount of energy in space, and the ISU model supposes that the energy in space is carried by gravitational wave fronts that are traversing all space, to and from all directions, from a potentially infinite history of the emission of gravitational wave energy from wave particles and objects. That wave energy accounts for the energy in space and makes up the composition of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, and is intimately involved in the processes that accompany the preconditions to each big bang, and conditions associated with the new arena.

31) On that basis, every point in space has gravitational wave energy convergences of multiple wave fronts converging in varying magnitudes, governed by the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy that is coming and going in every direction through the energy profile of space. In the ISU model, gravitational wave front convergences each produce a “hint” of mass, and the number of different wave fronts converging at each point produce a net energy presence at each point in space. These hints of mass form a foundational oscillating wave energy background that assists the motion of light waves and gravitational wave energy through space, employing the concept that two or more converging (inflowing) gravitational waves will produce an outflowing wave which is referred to as the “third wave” in the ISU.

32) During the wave-particle formation period, as the hot dense ball of plasma expands and cools, the standing wave patterns become more stable as a result of the now sufficient space into which the new arena has encroached upon as the arena expands back into the space formerly claimed by the parent arenas.

33) The nature of the standing wave patterns, though still in a dynamic expanding environment, are now quantized, meaning that the mass of each wave-particle can be determined by the number of meaningful gravitational wave convergences within the space now claimed by each individual wave-particle (the particle space).

The force of quantum gravity in the ISU to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/06/2018 18:07:25
31) On that basis, every point in space has gravitational wave energy convergences of multiple wave fronts converging in varying magnitudes, governed by the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy that is coming and going in every direction through the energy profile of space. In the ISU model, gravitational wave front convergences each produce a “hint” of mass, and the number of different wave fronts converging at each point produce a net energy presence at each point in space. These hints of mass form a foundational oscillating wave energy background that assists the motion of light waves and gravitational wave energy through space, employing the concept that two or more converging (inflowing) gravitational waves will produce an outflowing wave which is referred to as the “third wave” in the ISU.
I will read the post again tomorrow when I have a fresh head, not had much sleep for a change last night.   I just wanted to point out this part and to say that is sounding quite good and worth further discussion on the matter.
I am surprised more people have not got involved in the discussion or commented.  Will catch up with you tomorrow , thanks for the good read.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/06/2018 23:02:58

I will read the post again tomorrow when I have a fresh head, not had much sleep for a change last night.   I just wanted to point out this part and to say that is sounding quite good and worth further discussion on the matter.
I am surprised more people have not got involved in the discussion or commented.  Will catch up with you tomorrow , thanks for the good read.
Beware of amateur layman cosmologists who claim to have a mechanical solution to quantum gravity for free.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/07/2018 06:47:05

I will read the post again tomorrow when I have a fresh head, not had much sleep for a change last night.   I just wanted to point out this part and to say that is sounding quite good and worth further discussion on the matter.
I am surprised more people have not got involved in the discussion or commented.  Will catch up with you tomorrow , thanks for the good read.
Beware of amateur layman cosmologists who claim to have a mechanical solution to quantum gravity for free.

Also be aware of people who Pm you who are after getting a free ride without putting any effort or work into it themselves, free , does not mean the person giving it away , is going to explain it all.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/07/2018 07:40:14
For you though internet friend :


* bogie.jpg (89.04 kB . 1146x766 - viewed 3963 times)

 ;)

Quote
Spin is one of two types of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, the other being orbital angular momentum. The orbital angular momentum operator is the quantum-mechanical counterpart to the classical angular momentum of orbital revolution: it arises when a particle executes a rotating or twisting trajectory

Ignore the Earth and the atmosphere, to cyclic space-time is to create a spatial vortex .


 ;)

P.s I was ''guided'' to this song, it must be important right ?

 
Had a good sleep, 8 am here and I am in ''party'' mode, music, it makes me feel good and gives me that ''vibe''.

S.E.S.I  , space - energy - spin and intelligent design is the answer , I should start a business and call it S.E.S.I , become an anti gravity consultant  :)

An anti - gravity is a none existence concept, it is not anti gravity that we seek, it is just propulsion in a primary n-field we seek.

A binary object in a binary field is ''imprisoned'' and cannot move, the field is equally attractive as repulsive.   

I mean look down , down has mass , it takes mass to curve mass down ← Important sentence .  Who's listening right ? Shhhhh right ?

You are not allowed to say it right ?
* a+b.jpg (32.94 kB . 1146x766 - viewed 3997 times)

You understand this right ?   Don't say it thought , just understand it .



It can be measured right ?

* F=ma.jpg (20.8 kB . 1146x766 - viewed 3997 times)

You know hackers from within , they are everywhere. I just keep finding back doors open and everything is just lying around on the desk, messy work I tell yea, hard to parsec and in reality hard to observe but quite imaginable.


14 minutes 15 seconds in, you understand 14,  not 15 or 16 right ? The right place is important in this video right ? 

I mean rockets push off the floor and air , only people who do not understand would try to push off the floor or air right ?














Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/07/2018 13:06:40


You understand this right ?   Don't say it thought , just understand it .

It can be measured right ?


Glad to see you woke up inspired. A good sleep does that sometimes.

As for anti-gravity, you have to make up or sideways seem like down, but …
https://youtu.be/j12J3PCai5A (https://youtu.be/j12J3PCai5A)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/07/2018 13:27:53


You understand this right ?   Don't say it thought , just understand it .

It can be measured right ?


Glad to see you woke up inspired. A good sleep does that sometimes.

As for anti-gravity, you have to make up or sideways seem like down, but …
https://youtu.be/j12J3PCai5A (https://youtu.be/j12J3PCai5A)

Of course, by using spin time energy and creating a spatial space-time vortex, the layers of space-time become compressed and gain density.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/07/2018 13:47:42

Of course, by using spin time energy and creating a spatial space-time vortex, the layers of space-time become compressed and gain density.

In Reply #88 I address what is known as the Proton Spin Crisis (or puzzle) and some recent theory. Then in Replies #90 and #91 I speculate heavily about a concept I call the “persistence of spin” of a wave-particle. This is going to come up again down the road but I don’t have anything new to add until I finish this series of posts on the speculated cause of quantum gravity in the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/07/2018 13:57:56

Of course, by using spin time energy and creating a spatial space-time vortex, the layers of space-time become compressed and gain density.

In Reply #88 I address what is known as the Proton Spin Crisis (or puzzle) and some recent theory. Then in Replies #90 and #91 I speculate heavily about a concept I call the “persistence of spin” of a wave-particle. This is going to come up again down the road but I don’t have anything new to add until I finish this series of posts on the speculated cause of quantum gravity in the ISU.

Maybe you could think about adding photon spin momentum somewhere .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/07/2018 14:10:48

Maybe you could think about adding photon spin momentum somewhere .
If you wish. Is 2019 soon enough? Or you could start a thread, with some links to known science, and we could speculate from there.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/07/2018 16:07:12

Maybe you could think about adding photon spin momentum somewhere .
If you wish. Is 2019 soon enough? Or you could start a thread, with some links to known science, and we could speculate from there.
Well 2019 is not that long away, I have lots of things going on , maybe it can wait.  I might end up starting a thread lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/07/2018 19:37:47
Reply #344


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Continuing he force of quantum gravity in the ISU …



34) Within the particle space, meaningful gravitational waves are continually converging across the entire space. The convergences each form a momentary high energy density spot or hint of mass, and the sum of energy in all of the spots at any instant equals the mass of the wave-particle. That sum, divided by the number of spots at that instant, establishes the energy value of the average quantum increment within the particle space.

Note: Each convergence, at any given moment during the determination of the value of the quantum, can contain a slightly different amount of energy because there is a time delay between the inflow period of the spot formation and the completion of the convergence peak. During that time delay, the wave convergence incorporates multiple wave fronts from different directions, which contribute to the energy peak. Upon reaching the quantum of energy, the peak moment is followed by the emission of the third wave, which is quantum, and which converts the hint of mass at the moment of the peak value, into a third wave which distributes the accumulated wave energy spherically, to continue the process of quantum action within the particle space; wave energy, to hint of mass, to wave energy is the sequence of events that is continually occurring throughout the entire particle space.

35) The third wave formation can be depicted as two (or more) quantum waves converging at a point of intersection, and causing a growing overlap space to form around that the point of intersection, which then emerges and expands spherically as the third wave when a when a quantum of energy is accumulated in the overlap space, as depicted in the following image from a previous thought experiment:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)


36) The point of completion of the energy accumulation, as the energy in the overlap space reaches the peak value of a quantum of energy, can be calculated using the ISU quantum equation (the same equation used to determine the point at the macro level when two or more converging parent big bang arenas reach critical capacity, just before the collapse/bang):





https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)


96ead0325e4c5cb6307878c34a504e79.gif=0f9183572665995d5c31e15e15ed1d46.gif




The force of quantum gravity in the ISU to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/07/2018 19:46:49
Reply #344
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

34) Within the particle space, meaningful gravitational waves are continually converging across the entire space. The convergences each form a momentary high energy density spot or hint of mass, and the sum of energy in all of the spots at any instant equals the mass of the wave-particle. That sum, divided by the number of spots at that instant, establishes the energy value of the average quantum increment within the particle space.

Note: Each convergence, at any given moment during the determination of the value of the quantum, can contain a slightly different amount of energy because there is a time delay between the inflow period of the spot formation and the completion of the convergence peak. During that time delay, the wave convergence incorporates multiple wave fronts from different directions, which contribute to the energy peak. Upon reaching the quantum of energy, the peak moment is followed by the emission of the third wave, which is quantum, and which converts the hint of mass at the moment of the peak value, into a third wave which distributes the accumulated wave energy spherically, to continue the process of quantum action within the particle space; wave energy, to hint of mass, to wave energy is the sequence of events that is continually occurring throughout the entire particle space.

35) The third wave formation can be depicted as two (or more) quantum waves converging at a point of intersection, and causing a growing overlap space to form around that the point of intersection, which then emerges and expands spherically as the third wave when a when a quantum of energy is accumulated in the overlap space, as depicted in the following image from a previous thought experiment:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)


36) The point of completion of the energy accumulation, as the energy in the overlap space reaches the peak value of a quantum of energy, can be calculated using the ISU quantum equation (the same equation used to determine the point at the macro level when two or more converging parent big bang arenas reach critical capacity, just before the collapse/bang):





https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)




0f9183572665995d5c31e15e15ed1d46.gif

The force of quantum gravity in the ISU to be continued …


I know you have not edited yet, but I wanted to say wow, your second diagram showed ''class', was beyond my knowledge.   
However I am glad you put the first diagram in, that was much easier to understand and quite ''beautiful''.
I have a question on your model, do the parent arenas rotate around each other ?

added- Additionally have you considered the overlay arena may manifest parent arenas internally ?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/07/2018 00:54:29


I know you have not edited yet, but I wanted to say wow, your second diagram showed ''class', was beyond my knowledge.
I have begun to pick up a little LaTex code over the years, but this is really the only equation that I have written for the ISU, and a few years ago someone helped me put it into LaTex code. It is the ISU sphere-sphere overlap quantum equation, and as the description says, it works with the process of quantum action, at both the macro and micro levels.

The equation is simple, and if you know the verbal description, I think you can get it. The diagram, showing the sphere-sphere intersection has two spheres and each sphere has a cap.

So VcapR/VR is the volume of cap R divided by the volume of sphere R. That gives you the ratio of the volume of cap R to the volume sphere R (think of it as the percentage of sphere R that is included in cap R). Follow that same approach for each of the four parts of the left side of the equation, by using the corresponding part of the right side of the equation for the formulas, and if you assign values to each element in the diagram, you end up with four percentages. Add the four percentages together to get the sum, and compare that sum to 100%. When it reaches 100%, you have accumulated one quantum of energy in the overlap space, and that marks the point that the third wave has a quantum of energy emitted spherically from the overlap space.
Quote
   
However I am glad you put the first diagram in, that was much easier to understand and quite ''beautiful''.
Why, thank you.
Quote
I have a question on your model, do the parent arenas rotate around each other ?
I have tended to avoid writing about my contemplation on the subject, until now. You may remember when we were chatting on your “Wave Particle” thread that we got into a discussion of the possible lattice structure of the layout and action of big bang arenas at the macro level, making up the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. I don’t envision that the expanding arenas would have much relative motion because the action is more related to expansion and overlap with adjacent arenas.

At the micro level of action, we are talking about the tiny hints of mass that form at the convergences of gravitation wave energy fronts that are active within and around the particle space. Those convergences represent the directional sources of wave energy from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, so they don’t represent the motion of wave-particles, they are the consequence of wave fronts that are about to intersect. 
Quote
added- Additionally have you considered the overlay arena may manifest parent arenas internally ?
Yes, but not in the same time frame as you are looking at them in the diagrams. After the third wave is emitted and expands spherically, it will become a parent wave (or arena depending on if you are talking about the micro or macro levels of action). Once the parent third wave converges with another parent third wave, a “child” arena forms within their overlap space.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/07/2018 01:58:01
The equation is simple, and if you know the verbal description,
I will read the post over again tomorrow when I have a fresh head on to try and lean your math.  I have however considered your model adding some complexity, I found a video to show what I mean .


I think your ISU could turn out something special .  The video shows us possible formations of the ISU don't you agree?

added - 0.50s in looks a good formation to consider with the overlap arenas.


added - 0.40s in , this visualizes the overlap expansion.


P.s I think your model could be more complex than you think after watching the second video .

Anyway goodnight
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/07/2018 13:42:00
I think your ISU could turn out something special .  The video shows us possible formations of the ISU don't you agree?

added - 0.50s in looks a good formation to consider with the overlap arenas.

added - 0.40s in , this visualizes the overlap expansion.

P.s I think your model could be more complex than you think after watching the second video .

Anyway goodnight

Thank you for the efforts to show a visualization of the ISU. I have been visualizing it for years, and have shown you this image of a depiction of a multiple arena patch of the landscape of the greater universe a few times:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)

It isn't a very good drawing, but I thought that if I added the arena boundaries it might help people envision the big bang arena landscape across the greater universe, and I came up with this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg)
Maybe I'll try to improve the image as time goes on.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/07/2018 14:50:52
I think your ISU could turn out something special .  The video shows us possible formations of the ISU don't you agree?

added - 0.50s in looks a good formation to consider with the overlap arenas.

added - 0.40s in , this visualizes the overlap expansion.

P.s I think your model could be more complex than you think after watching the second video .

Anyway goodnight

Thank you for the efforts to show a visualization of the ISU. I have been visualizing it for years, and have shown you this image of a depiction of a multiple arena patch of the landscape of the greater universe a few times:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)

It isn't a very good drawing, but I thought that if I added the arena boundaries it might help people envision the big bang arena landscape across the greater universe, and I came up with this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg)
Maybe I'll try to improve the image as time goes on.
It is hard to envision , I will attempt it on CGI , may take a few days  to get it right though.   I will then upload it for you to view .  You are also missing your field density lines on your drawings, where the density stops the fields totally merging. 


* dd.jpg (43.19 kB . 1146x766 - viewed 4584 times)

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/07/2018 22:27:28
It is hard to envision , I will attempt it on CGI , may take a few days  to get it right though.   I will then upload it for you to view .  You are also missing your field density lines on your drawings, where the density stops the fields totally merging. 

It will be interesting to see what you do on CGI.

In regard to the missing field density lines on the drawings … sometimes I put numerical values on drawings to show the relative densities of the various spheres and sphere-sphere overlaps, but those numbers are subjective and relative. I may use numbers from 1 to 10 in some cases, or from 100 to 1000, etc., depending on the relative densities involved. They represent my thinking of the differences in density levels from place to place on a particular drawing, but unless you know what the numbers mean, they tend to complicate the image.

Further, there is a force in the ISU, that like gravity, always exists, and it is called energy density equalization. It is what causes the expansion when a hot dense ball of wave energy that is emitted from a big crunch when it collapse/bangs into the much lower energy density of the surrounding space. The high density space (space that is occupied by higher gravitational wave energy density) always encroaches on the low density space, and as a result, the volume occupied by the higher density increases while the volume occupied by the lower density decreases. However, the high density space trends toward lower density as the encroachment plays out, and theoretically there will be an equalization of the density across the two converging spaces. I’m sure you have noticed that I mention energy density equalization often.

The field lines that you envision would be another way to designate the local density, but I always envision the relationship between the two major forces, gravity and density equalization, because they drive constant change. Any designation of local density is temporary, subjective, and relative to the surrounding densities in the density profile, so I would find adding your idea of field lines to be difficult, though I am always aware of the forces that cause the local densities to be what they are. However, thank you for suggesting that I show some designation of the relative densities on the drawing.

Note: I put a lot of significance on the feature of the ISU model that I call the gravitational wave energy density profile of space:
1) The profile consists of nothing but gravitational waves traversing space.
2) Each gravitational wave originates as a spherical third wave emitted by the convergence of two or more “parent” waves.
3) The gravitational wave fronts carry energy across space.
4) Every point in space has a net energy density value caused by the local presence of gravitational wave fronts that are carrying energy past that point from all directions.
5) The net value of the energy density at each point is continually changing because there is a constant inflow of wave fronts to and through each point from the gravitational wave energy density profile.
6) Everything that occupies space is therefore composed of gravitational wave energy of some density value.
7) There are thresholds and limits related to energy density that govern the way those gravitational waves get organized to establish the presence of the things that we observe in space.
8 ) Every object in space has formed there from wave energy after a big bang event initiates the formation of a new big bang arena, and will be negated into its constituent wave energy when it gets captured in a new local big crunch.
9) Entropy is defeated, meaning that the progress of how useful energy gets used up is continually advancing (entropy increases) until the cold dead matter of old, aging and maturing arenas gets renewed into low entropy when a big crunch reaches critical capacity and collapse/bangs, releasing a huge ball of hot dense wave energy.
10) The ISU model features the processes of big bang arena action at the macro level, and quantum action at the micro level, that together orchestrate the continual change from matter to energy and back to matter across the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/07/2018 22:48:45
I may use numbers from 1 to 10 in some cases, or from 100 to 1000, etc., depending on the relative densities involved. They represent my thinking of the differences in density levels from place to place on a particular drawing, but unless you know what the numbers mean, they tend to complicate the image.
I will just comment on this first why I continue to think, the numbers represent the inverse square law ?

Quote
I’m sure you have noticed that I mention energy density equalization often.


I would call it enthalpic equilibrium , but yes I understood what you mean.

Quote
I’m sure you have noticed that I mention energy density equalization often.


You may want to consider representing this with colours, purple being denser than red for example. Sort of coloured bands representing different layers of the arenas from a central point outwards.  Example : A blue layer can ''support'' a blue layer because the field density at point x of each arena  is equal in density.

My only comments at this time.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/07/2018 01:12:37

I have done this so far , explaining micro bang,  Grandparent arena action .

Defining : Mono-pole dissipate. 

d0ce583cf30ad1e8f1b5c7ce6c1f5902.gif  and 34101ce7e3da063b62200757191cfcb1.gif    n being unknown/any dimension .  A and B being respectively opposite assigned poles.

What I believe to be the fundamental energy that powers the Universe.

A + B simultaneously manifesting at any given point of the grandparent arena causing a manifestation of a  parent arena and  big crunch ??

Which would be the next video before we go into parent arenas over lapping , causing child arenas.

Just to add, this dissipating energy , could be looked upon as being a cosmic background microwave radiation.

I see you have

1) Grandparent arena
2) Parent arena
3) Convergence Child arena
4) Internally of convergence arena, baby arenas

Does that summon up your theory with each arena explained?

Well I got little sleep  and thought I would add this for you, you may or may not want to add some of this in your model to cover a few areas more intricate.


* m.jpg (145 kB . 2380x1512 - viewed 4782 times)

This in essence explaining the inflow implosion of energy that was created in the prior video I posted,   explaining further more the big crunch and big bang .
I have drawn the inflow wave energy as wave energy fields just to visualize the process easier.  I call the inflow wave energy  'particle' , the dissipate mono-pole particles , these particles having 0 dimensions and being opposite in assigned pole.



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/07/2018 01:59:56
Any way, if I could I would give you

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I think your theory is brilliant and I love the way you use the different arenas.  That is an honest opinion, I am not sucking up to you . 





Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/07/2018 09:49:06
Sorry the simulation did not turn out as good as I wanted, the software is free and was playing up.  However we can observe the density change in the child arena convergence.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/07/2018 13:35:17
Sorry the simulation did not turn out as good as I wanted, the software is free and was playing up.  However we can observe the density change in the child arena convergence.

I like the way that the blue and red spheres resemble mature big bang arenas filled with galactic structure. I see you got the red sphere (arena) to show expansion as the galactic content appears to have separation momentum through space, thus increasing the volume of space it occupies, as generally observed in our Hubble view.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/07/2018 14:29:55
Sorry the simulation did not turn out as good as I wanted, the software is free and was playing up.  However we can observe the density change in the child arena convergence.

I like the way that the blue and red spheres resemble mature big bang arenas filled with galactic structure. I see you got the red sphere (arena) to show expansion as the galactic content appears to have separation momentum through space, thus increasing the volume of space it occupies, as generally observed in our Hubble view.
Thanks , you read that well and explained  it back well.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/07/2018 13:44:20
Thanks , you read that well and explained  it back well.
There are some other instructive elements to your video, even though only one of the arenas is inflating. For example, the closing gap between the expanding arena wave fronts puts them in close enough proximity for there to be a measurable gravitational effect between them, which is the scenario that I suggest would cause a cold spot to be observable. The idea is that the mutual gravitational attraction between the converging arenas will cause an outward displacement of the galaxies in each parent arena, causing that space to appear less dense and cooler as a result.

Also, as the two arenas intersect, the point of intersection becomes the center of gravity of the overlapping of the two parent arenas. The overlap space grows as the two arenas continue to converge, and the lens shaped overlap forms. That lens shaped overlap makes up the two vertical caps that I show in the diagram, and that are two of the volumes that come into play in the ISU quantum equation.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2018 13:57:26
the ISU quantum equation.

I recognize the bottom line of your equation as the volume of a sphere, I am still considering the top line. 

Does it firstly say 1 third times pi ?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/07/2018 14:10:35
the ISU quantum equation.

I recognize the bottom line of your equation as the volume of a sphere, I am still considering the top line. 
The top line, 96ead0325e4c5cb6307878c34a504e79.gif
That part of the equation identifies the various volumes (pieces) that make up the two converging quantum spherical waves.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
There are the two Vertical Caps, and there are the two parent spheres, i.e., four pieces that make up the two spheres. Each element of the left side of the equation has a counterpart on the right side that gives the formula to calculate the volume of the piece.
Quote
Does it firstly say 1 third times pi ?

Yes.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2018 14:13:51

the ISU quantum equation.


I recognize the bottom line of your equation as the volume of a sphere, I am still considering the top line. 
The top line, 96ead0325e4c5cb6307878c34a504e79.gif
That part of the equation identifies the various volumes (pieces) that make up the two or more converging quantum spherical waves.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
[/color](https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)[/size]
There are the two Vertical Caps, and there are the two parent spheres, i.e., four pieces that make up the two spheres. Each element of the left side of the equation has a counterpart on the right side that gives the formula to calculate the volume of the piece.
Quote

Does it firstly say 1 third times pi ?


Yes.


H is radius?

so 1/3 * pi * r²  ?

Obviously the converged arena radius.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/07/2018 14:16:05
0f9183572665995d5c31e15e15ed1d46.gif

No, H and h are the heights of the two spherical caps.


The radii of the two spheres are R and r.


You can go to Wolfram Math and call up sphere-sphere intersection/overlap.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2018 14:18:30
0f9183572665995d5c31e15e15ed1d46.gif

No, H and h are the heights of the two vertical caps.


The radii of the two spheres are R and r.
Thank you for explaining that , I am almost able to ''read'' it . 

So we have 1/3 times pi * Height squared *  (in brackets do first)?

In brackets 3 times radius - height ?

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/07/2018 14:21:12
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html)



This link has all the details.
Note: I mistakenly called the two "caps", vertical caps, when in fact Wolfram calls them spherical caps.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/07/2018 14:27:51
0f9183572665995d5c31e15e15ed1d46.gif

No, H and h are the heights of the two vertical caps.


The radii of the two spheres are R and r.
Thank you for explaining that , I am almost able to ''read'' it . 

So we have 1/3 times pi * Height squared *  (in brackets do first)?

In brackets 3 times radius - height ?


Yes, and then divide by the volume of the sphere R


Make measurements as the two spheres converge and overlap, put them into the equation, and do that for all of the pieces on the right side of the equation, until the sum of all the pieces equals 1.
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2018 14:31:15
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html)



This link has all the details.
Thank you for the link, I have friends here at the moment so will look that over proper later.  If it was a half and half convergence we could just do the volume of the sphere / 2 . 

Added - second thoughts that would not work .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2018 14:33:35
0f9183572665995d5c31e15e15ed1d46.gif

No, H and h are the heights of the two vertical caps.


The radii of the two spheres are R and r.
Thank you for explaining that , I am almost able to ''read'' it . 

So we have 1/3 times pi * Height squared *  (in brackets do first)?

In brackets 3 times radius - height ?


Yes, and then divide by the volume of the sphere R


Make measurement as the two spheres converge and overlap, put them into the equation, and do that for all of the pieces on the right side of the equation, until the sum of all the pieces equals 1.
 
I will ''get it' I think, not that difficult. 

added- So how/where do you get your numerical value inputs from ?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/07/2018 14:46:11
0f9183572665995d5c31e15e15ed1d46.gif

No, H and h are the heights of the two spherical caps.


The radii of the two spheres are R and r.
Thank you for explaining that , I am almost able to ''read'' it . 

So we have 1/3 times pi * Height squared *  (in brackets do first)?

In brackets 3 times radius - height ?


Yes, and then divide by the volume of the sphere R


Make measurement as the two spheres converge and overlap, put them into the equation, and do that for all of the pieces on the right side of the equation, until the sum of all the pieces equals 1.
 
I will ''get it' I think, not that difficult. 

added- So how/where do you get your numerical value inputs from ?

Do you have a ruler? Draw them, showing a little more overlap each drawing, measure the lengths and put the measurements into the equation, and compare the results to 1. I used an Excel spreadsheet when I proved it out.

From Wolfram: In order for the overlap of two equal spheres to equal half the volume of each individual sphere, the spheres must be separated by a distance

d   =   (x^3-12x+8)_2   
(18)
   =   2sqrt(3)sin(2/9pi)-2cos(2/9pi)   
(19)
   =   0.694592710...

Note that you are looking to get the overlap of the two spheres to equal 1/2 of the sum of the volume of the two equal spheres that you start with. However, in reality, the volumes of the two spheres will not necessarily be equal to start with, so that complicates it.


The value of d = the distance between the two center points of the parent spheres. Keep in mind that as the volumes of the two spheres increase, the center points move further apart and the value of d changes. Using Excel, it is just an iterative process of trial and error to get the equation to equal 1, but a programmer could write a little code that would make it easy.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2018 15:17:54



The value of d = the distance between the two center points of the parent spheres. Keep in mind that as the volumes of the two spheres increase, the center points move further apart and the value of d changes. Using Excel, it is just an iterative process of trial and error to get the equation to equal 1, but a programmer could write a little code that would make it easy.
I will get a ruler and protractor to do a manual measure in the next few days,  I don't feel it is hard to put in input values once the equation is ''readable'' though.  Thanks for explaining it to me.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/07/2018 15:30:31



The value of d = the distance between the two center points of the parent spheres. Keep in mind that as the volumes of the two spheres increase, the center points move further apart and the value of d changes. Using Excel, it is just an iterative process of trial and error to get the equation to equal 1, but a programmer could write a little code that would make it easy.
I will get a ruler and protractor to do a manual measure in the next few days,  I don't feel it is hard to put in input values once the equation is ''readable'' though.  Thanks for explaining it to me.
With equal spheres, each containing a quantum of energy, the length d will always be same percentage of the radius when the equation equals 1..

When the two spheres are of different volumes, keep in mind that they both are defined as quantum, i.e., having the same amount of energy. That means that the two spheres will have different internal density, and will be contributing different amounts of energy per volume to the lens shaped overlap space. It will grow on you, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2018 15:33:59



The value of d = the distance between the two center points of the parent spheres. Keep in mind that as the volumes of the two spheres increase, the center points move further apart and the value of d changes. Using Excel, it is just an iterative process of trial and error to get the equation to equal 1, but a programmer could write a little code that would make it easy.
I will get a ruler and protractor to do a manual measure in the next few days,  I don't feel it is hard to put in input values once the equation is ''readable'' though.  Thanks for explaining it to me.
With equal spheres, each containing a quantum of energy, the length d will always be same percentage of the radius when the equation equals 1..

When the two spheres are of different volumes, keep in mind that they both are defined as quantum, i.e., having the same amount of energy. That means that the two spheres will have different internal density, and will be contributing different amounts of energy per volume to the lens shaped overlap space. It will grow on you, lol.
Well I don't normally do math, but I am running out of things to learn , so math was my final challenge to myself.


Added  - I think the final plan of my world domination was to learn math ,  unexpectedly giving  the audience shock , giving them all a heart attack when I show I can do math lol.  ::) ::)

Math equations are just ''words'' put as representatives, once the ''words'' are known and the 'sentence' structure is understood, it is simply putting in values instead of the ''words''. 

P.s Was in bed for ~9 pm and got up at 4.30 am,  two days in a row I have done that ,  putting my body back into a schedule mode ,  turning chaos into organised.  8) 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/07/2018 12:40:55
Reply #371


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

This post includes some duplication of content recently posted in order to get it into the sequence leading up to the mechanics of quantum gravity in the ISU. This continues from reply #344 above (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547042#msg547042):

37) It is the ISU sphere-sphere overlap quantum equation, and as the description says, it works with the process of quantum action, at both the macro and micro levels. The diagram, showing the sphere-sphere intersection has two spheres and each sphere has a cap (called a spherical cap at Wolfram Math http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html)).
VcapR/VR is the volume of cap R divided by the volume of sphere R. That gives you the ratio of the volume of cap R to the volume sphere R (think of it as the percentage of sphere R that is included in cap R). Follow that same approach for each of the four parts of the left side of the equation, by using the corresponding part of the right side of the equation to do the calculation, and you must assign values to each element in the diagram to fill into the equation in order to do the calculation. You end up with four percentages. Add the four percentages together to get the sum, and compare that sum to 100%. When it reaches 100%, you have accumulated one quantum of energy in the overlap space, and that marks the point that the third wave has a quantum of energy emitted spherically from the overlap space.

Note: The calculations, using the equation, are to determine when, during the course of wave/wave overlap, a new third wave becomes quantum. There is a lot of significance given to the feature of the ISU model that I call the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, since all of the wave action going on in the density profile are subject to becoming quantum increments the make up wave-particles at the micro level, or as big crunches that become big bangs at the macro level:
1) The profile consists of nothing but gravitational waves traversing space.
2) Each gravitational wave originates as a spherical third wave emitted by the convergence of two or more “parent” waves.
3) The gravitational wave fronts carry energy across space.
4) Every point in space has a net energy density value caused by the local presence of gravitational wave fronts that are carrying energy past that point from all directions.
5) The net value of the energy density at each point is continually changing because there is a constant inflow of wave fronts to and through each point from the gravitational wave energy density profile.
6) Everything that occupies space is therefore composed of gravitational wave energy of some density value.
7) There are thresholds and limits related to energy density that govern the way those gravitational waves get organized to establish the presence of the things that we observe in space.
8 ) Every object in space has formed there after a big bang event initiates the formation of a new big bang arena, and will be negated into its constituent wave energy when it gets captured in a new local big crunch.
9) Entropy is defeated, meaning that the progress of how useful energy gets used up is continually advancing (entropy increases) until the cold dead matter of old, aging and maturing arenas gets renewed into low entropy when a big crunch reaches critical capacity and collapse/bangs, releasing a huge ball of hot dense wave energy.
10) The ISU model features the processes of big bang arena action at the macro level, and quantum action at the micro level, that together orchestrate the continual change from matter to energy and back to matter across the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

38) This image is a revision of the large scale action depicted in an earlier image. It represents a patch of the landscape of the greater universe that shows the macro objects and large scale structure that is composed of gravitational wave energy, wave-particle by wave-particle. It includes visible arena boundaries to help improve on the earlier version of the image:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg)

39) At the opposite end of the size scale in the ISU, are the tiniest meaningful wave convergences. I have called them hints of mass, or high energy spots at the convergence of gravitational waves, and when they occur within the space occupied by a wave-particle, they are the quanta that make up the total energy of the particle and account for the mass of the particle.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)

40) In the following image, the high energy density spots are shown at the center of the wave particle, and the spherically outflowing gravitational wave energy is shown converging with the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)


The cause of quantum gravity in the ISU to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/07/2018 19:45:56
Reply #372

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

41) The wave-particle has location and momentum in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. The wave-particle core contains the mass, and each high density spot in the core is a fraction of its total mass. For talking purposes let’s examine, for example, the proton and the electron wave-particles at rest to establish a ball park estimate of the number of high density spots that they are composed of at any instant:
From what we know about the proton in collisions:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_07_17_12_57_30.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_07_17_12_57_30.jpeg))
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_07_17_12_57_30.jpeg)
… they display amazing detail at high energies. They are often described at rest though, for discussion purposes, and so the proton and the electron in this post are at rest.

42) From what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action, we can derive a ball park figure (Wagner=wild arse guess not easily refuted) of the number of quanta within the proton and electron at rest.

43) Given that ball park figure, we can then take the generally accepted energy value of the proton wave-particle at rest, divide by the ball park number of quanta in the proton, and derive the energy value of one quantum of energy within the standing wave pattern of the proton at rest:

a) The premise is that the wave-particles are composed of energy in quantum increments. The standing wave pattern of the wave-particle is filled with quanta in the form of gravitational wave convergences in various stages of reaching their peak completion, and which average out to equal one quantum of energy each for each quantum period.

b) A quantum period for a wave-particle is the length of time it takes for the process of quantum action to refresh each of the quanta in the standing wave pattern. To “refresh the internal quanta” means to produce replacement quantum wave convergences for each of the convergences that are disbursed as spherical third waves.

c) Each quanta is refreshed by the continual flow of gravitational third wave energy produced within the particle space, and from the directionally arriving energy of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. Within the wave-particle, as the quanta reach their peak, they produce a third wave containing a quantum of energy which expands spherically to form new wave convergences within the standing wave pattern.

d) For a particle at rest, the wave energy emitted from the particle boundary is equally exchanged with the wave energy inflowing from the surrounding gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

e) Our resulting estimate the number of quanta contained in a proton at rest, and given the defined energy of a proton at rest in some standard unit of measure, we then can calculate the corresponding amount of energy of a quantum that equates to the quanta making up the contained energy of a proton at rest.

44) Using the ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quanta in the proton to the number of quanta in the electron, we have a basis for a calculation.

45) We are supposing that the number of quanta in an electron is equal to the number of quanta at the surface of the proton, based on some logic about the interactions between electrons and protons in an atom. For this exercise it serves as a mathematical relationship between the energy of the proton and the electron:

a) Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836

b) Therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quanta across that diameter within the standing wave pattern of the proton wave-particle

c) 4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere

d) 4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere

e) pi = 3.14159265

46) The calculations yield:

a) Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356

b) Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517

47) Those figures serve is useable numbers for talking purposes in the ISU model, and demonstrate the detailed action going on in the micro realm.





The cause of quantum gravity in the ISU to be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/07/2018 20:38:43


a) Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356

b) Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517

To clarify , what do you mean exactly, when you say quanta ?


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/07/2018 22:49:19


a) Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356

b) Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517

To clarify , what do you mean exactly, when you say quanta ?
Note: Quanta, in the ISU, are whole units of quantum energy. You may recall me saying that wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. The quanta are those quantum increments. As you can tell, the wild guess as to how many quanta make up the proton and electron at rest shows huge numbers ...
The wave-particle quantum, orchestrated by the process of quantum action, should not to be confused with the “quantum of action" known as Planck’s constant. The wave-particle quantum is orders of magnitude smaller, in terms of its energy, than Planck's constant. It is the energy at the peak of the parent wave convergences of gravitational wave energy within the wave-particle space; it marks the energy of the third wave that emerges from the convergence of two or more parent waves within the core of the wave-particle. A single proton is said to have about 700 billion of them, each having a momentary presence, and then producing a third wave that contains a quantum of energy, and that expands at the local speed of light until it intersects with other “parent” third waves to form new quanta within the particle space.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/07/2018 22:59:03
are whole units of quantum energy.
Do you mean a volume of point energies? 

Sorry , I have heard before , Quanta refereed to as photons, so I am slightly confused  what you mean exactly.   Could you please elaborate furthermore ? 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/07/2018 01:07:26
are whole units of quantum energy.
Do you mean a volume of point energies? 

Sorry , I have heard before , Quanta refereed to as photons, so I am slightly confused  what you mean exactly.   Could you please elaborate furthermore ? 
You’re right about the photon being described as a single quantum of light. Below are some links, and I have cut and pasted some content from them to reiterate the definitions and usages of quantum and quanta in modern science for the benefit of this discussion, as I explain why the quanta that I use for wave particles are so much smaller than Planck’s constant.

The definition of quantum (and quanta) below is consistent with the way I use the terms in regard to the wave particle (quantum increments), as well as in regard to the energy of a Big Crunch/Bang (arena particles), both wave-particle and big bangs are quantized in the ISU, as I’m sure you have picked up on.

Note that the wave-particle in the ISU is not your fundamental standard model particle; fundamental particles in the standard model of particle physics are said to have no internal composition, i.e., they are described as point particles that the mathematicians can easily deal with.

In the ISU, 1) because the wave-particle has to be consistent with wave particle duality for all particles of all energies, including photons of all frequencies, 2) because all of the ISU wave-particles are speculated to be both wave and particle at the same time in all of their actions, and 3) because the way that wave-particles all have individual presence, location, momentum, and freely interact with each other and with the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, quantum by quantum, it is necessary to expect wave-particles to have a great deal of internal composition. And in that regard, the ISU doesn’t disappoint: the core of the wave-particles can have the hundreds of millions and/or hundreds of billions of quanta, as hypothesized in reply #372 and elsewhere, to meet all of the above ISU requirements.

Photons are still quantum particles in the ISU, and each energy level of photon energy in the electromagnetic spectrum is understood to be a photon having a different energy value, and still referred to as a quantum of electromagnetic wave energy for talking purposes. As you can see, that means that the energy of a photon in the microwave range is called a quantum of light energy, and the energy of an X-Ray is called a quantum of light energy, but they are near the opposite ends of the electromagnetic spectrum in terms of the energy that they carry. As the links and definitions below confirm, they are quantized, and Planck’s constant is the minimum energy difference and common denominator between photons of differing energy levels and wavelengths.

In the ISU, photons are wave-particles with mass, just like protons and electrons and any wave-particle. They are unique in that they are emitted by electrons at the local speed of light. The core of a photon particle will contain a consistent number of quanta (high energy density spots) that corresponds with the energy level of that particular photon frequency/wavelength. In the ISU, it is that differing number of quanta in the core of each photon wave-particle that determines the different frequencies that the different photon wave-particles consists of; each frequency reflects itself by a slightly different rhythm to the pulsing of energy that is emitted from the photon wave-particle core.

You have brought up a valid distinction between the usage of quantum and quanta in regard to wave-particles in the ISU vs the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and I hope I have given you some basis to see why there is that difference.
————————————
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quantum (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quantum)
plural quanta play \ˈkwän-tə\
1
a : quantity (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quantity), amount (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amount)b : portion (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portion), part (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/part)c : gross quantity : bulk (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bulk)2
a : any of the very small increments or parcels into which many forms of energy are subdivided
b : any of the small subdivisions of a quantized physical magnitude (such as magnetic moment)
——————————————

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum)
In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. The fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized" is referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude of the physical property can take on only discrete values consisting of integer multiples of one quantum.
For example, a photon is a single quantum of light (or of any other form of electromagnetic radiation), and can be referred to as a "light quantum", or as a light particle. Similarly, the energy of an electron bound within an atom is quantized and can exist only in certain discrete values. (Indeed, atoms and matter in general are stable because electrons can exist only at discrete energy levels within an atom.) Quantization is one of the foundations of the much broader physics of quantum mechanics. Quantization of energy and its influence on how energy and matter interact (quantum electrodynamics) is part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature.
——————————————

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant)
The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant) that is the quantum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum) of action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)), central in quantum mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics).
First recognized in 1900 by Max Planck, it was conceived as the proportionality constant between the minimal increment of energy, E, of a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black body (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body) radiation, and the frequency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency), f, of its associated electromagnetic wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave). In 1905, the value E, the minimal energy increment of a hypothetical oscillator, was theoretically associated by Albert Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein) with a "quantum" or minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself. The light quantum behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, as opposed to an electromagnetic wave. It was eventually called a photon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon).
————————————-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon)
The photon is a type of elementary particle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle), the quantum of the electromagnetic field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field) including electromagnetic radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation) such as light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light), and the force carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier) for the electromagnetic force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force) (even when static (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_forces_and_virtual-particle_exchange) via virtual particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle)). The photon has zero rest mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass) and always moves at the speed of light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) within a vacuum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum).
Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum, though not both at the same time. The photon's wave and quantum qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon - they cannot be described by any mechanical model;[2] a representation of this dual property of light that assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy is not possible. The quanta in a light wave are not spatially localized.
The modern concept of the photon was developed gradually by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. The benefit of the photon model was that it accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter and electromagnetic radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. The photon model accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of black-body radiation, that others (notably Max Planck) had tried to explain using semiclassical models. In that model, light was described by Maxwell's equations, but material objects emitted and absorbed light in quantized amounts (i.e., they change energy only by certain particular discrete amounts). Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[3][4] beginning with the phenomenon of Compton scattering of single photons by electrons, validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized.[5][6] In 1926 the optical physicist Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_N._Lewis) coined the name "photon" for these particles.[7] After Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize in 1927 for his scattering studies,[8] most scientists accepted that light quanta have an independent existence, and the term "photon" was accepted.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/07/2018 10:10:37
You’re right about the photon being described as a single quantum of light.
Thank you for explaining that to me in detail.  I could read the math easy enough in the post prior. However, can a photon occupy the same spatial ''point''  as a different photon?  This in essence would allow for an infinite amount of photons , could  occupy a single spatial point ?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/07/2018 11:36:08
You’re right about the photon being described as a single quantum of light.
Thank you for explaining that to me in detail.  I could read the math easy enough in the post prior. However, can a photon occupy the same spatial ''point''  as a different photon?  This in essence would allow for an infinite amount of photons , could  occupy a single spatial point ?
This answer is in regard to the ISU model, and differs in some respects from generally accepted science.

Yes, to part 1, photons are waves and particles at the same time, and their wave state can occupy the same space as the wave state of other photons; thus you get wave interference pattens in two slit experiments (for that matter, all wave particles can share the same space in their wave state). Note that in the ISU model, the outflowing "light" energy from a photon wave-particle is the spherically outflowing gravitational wave energy of the photon particle core.

The particle state of the photon has a dense core of wave intersections (quanta) where the number of quanta determine the local frequency of the wave emission. The core is continually emitting the spherical wave state, and that is why, in the ISU, they are both wave and particle at the same time. But the photon is traveling through the energy density profile of space in one direction, the direction of its motion when emitted by an electron, and therefore is getting all of its “replacement” energy out of the density profile of space from that one forward direction. This specific directional nature and speed of light velocity means that the particle state does not normally occupy the same space with other particle states.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/07/2018 11:55:44

You’re right about the photon being described as a single quantum of light.

Thank you for explaining that to me in detail.  I could read the math easy enough in the post prior. However, can a photon occupy the same spatial ''point''  as a different photon?  This in essence would allow for an infinite amount of photons , could  occupy a single spatial point ?

This answer is in regard to the ISU model, and differs in some respects from generally accepted science.

Yes, to part 1, photons are waves and particles at the same time, and their wave state can occupy the same space as the wave state of other photons; thus you get wave interference pattens in two slit experiments (for that matter, all wave particles can share the same space in their wave state). Note that in the ISU model, the outflowing "light" energy from a photon wave-particle is the spherically outflowing gravitational wave energy of the photon particle core.

The particle state of the photon has a dense core of wave intersections (quanta) where the number of quanta determine the local frequency of the wave emission. The core is continually emitting the spherical wave state, and that is why, in the ISU, they are both wave and particle at the same time. But the photon is traveling through the energy density profile of space in one direction, the direction of it’s motion when emitted by an electron, and therefore is getting all of its “replacement” energy out of the density profile of space from that one forward direction. This specific directional nature and speed of light velocity means that the particle state does not normally occupy the same space with other particle states.


Ok, thank you for explaining, I have no further questions at this time.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/07/2018 10:30:22
Reply #380

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

48) Quantum Gravity in the ISU:
The wave-particle structure conveys the premise that a standing wave particle is composed of wave energy convergences within a standing wave pattern at the core of the wave-particle, that in turn has “presence” in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. Each convergence exists only momentarily as the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the standing wave pattern play out in the particle’s core space. They form and disburse and reform as governed by the process of quantum action within and around the particle-space (standing wave pattern). Showing this image of a single high energy density “spot” or “hint of mass” again, the shaded area in the center of all of those tiny converging gravitational wave fronts is one of the momentary high energy density “spots” that is in the process of reaching its peak of a single quantum of energy. As noted above, it is one quanta among the perhaps hundreds of millions, or hundreds of billions quanta, depending on the type of wave-particle we are viewing:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)



49) The following three images of the wave-particle, its core space, and the wave emissions from the core, as well as the lines that represents inflowing gravitational wave fronts, take a look at, and describe the ISU solution to quantum gravity:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)


50) Directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy from distant particles and objects replaces the spherically outflowing wave energy emitted by the core. The lighter “spots” surrounding the core space represent the newly forming high energy density “spots” or “hints of mass”. Notice they are depicted to be much more numerous in the direction of the highest inflowing direction of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_42_23.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_42_23.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_42_23.jpeg)


51) In this next image I try to depict the movement of the wave-particle core through the background occupied by the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. I have added a semicircle of six new high energy density spots to image of the wave-particle core in the direction of motion. Each new spot in the image may represent millions of tiny new gravitational wave convergences occurring in the core space. I have also added a semicircle of light spots that represent locations formerly occupied by high energy density spots whose presence has been replaced in the direction of motion.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg)
Wave-particles and objects move in the direction of the net highest density of the inflowing gravitational wave energy fronts from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.




That is quantum gravity at work in the ISU model of the cosmology of the universe.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2018 11:07:28
48) Quantum Gravity in the ISU:
The wave-particle structure conveys the premise that a standing wave particle is composed of wave energy convergences within a standing wave pattern at the core of the wave-particle, that in turn has “presence” in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
We have very similar views on this part of the subject.  I agree in a core density of a particle , I consider particles to be like ''empty nut shells'' except they are not really empty, they are ''full'' of high energy?

The high energy repulsive and attractive properties allowing spherical form to maintain?


ADDED - Bogie, it just came to me, you will understand this diagram ....whoops missed the letter e out .


* viscos.jpg (230.63 kB . 3168x1708 - viewed 5399 times)



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/07/2018 18:13:51
48) Quantum Gravity in the ISU:
The wave-particle structure conveys the premise that a standing wave particle is composed of wave energy convergences within a standing wave pattern at the core of the wave-particle, that in turn has “presence” in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
We have very similar views on this part of the subject.  I agree in a core density of a particle , I consider particles to be like ''empty nut shells'' except they are not really empty, they are ''full'' of high energy?

The high energy repulsive and attractive properties allowing spherical form to maintain?


ADDED - Bogie, it just came to me, you will understand this diagram ....whoops missed the letter e out .


* viscos.jpg (230.63 kB . 3168x1708 - viewed 5399 times)




Yes. That sequence of colors corresponds to the wave energy density scale we talked about earlier, in regard to showing the relative gravitational wave energy densities of the various parts on my diagrams.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2018 18:24:23
Yes. That sequence of colors corresponds to the wave energy density scale we talked about earlier, in regard to showing the relative gravitational wave energy densities of the various parts on my diagrams.

Parent arena's are BH's that diminish in density over a radius (r) ?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/07/2018 00:24:16


Yes. That sequence of colors corresponds to the wave energy density scale we talked about earlier, in regard to showing the relative gravitational wave energy densities of the various parts on my diagrams.


Parent arena's are BH's that diminish in density over a radius (r) ?


A better way to say it is: Two or more parent big bang arenas converge somewhere in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and the convergence results in the formation of a big crunch. When the crunch grows to critical capacity, it is nature's maximum blackhole, which then collapse/bangs into nature's hottest, most rapidly expanding ball of plasma-like dense-state wave energy; a new expanding big bang arena. As the arena expands and cools, the radius (r) increases, and the internal density declines, reaching the threshold of density called the surface of last scattering, which marks the point that stable wave-particles form across it like frost on a window pane :)

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 01:47:17


Yes. That sequence of colors corresponds to the wave energy density scale we talked about earlier, in regard to showing the relative gravitational wave energy densities of the various parts on my diagrams.


Parent arena's are BH's that diminish in density over a radius (r) ?


A better way to say it is: Two or more parent big bang arenas converge somewhere in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and the convergence results in the formation of a big crunch. When the crunch grows to critical capacity, it is nature's maximum blackhole, which then collapse/bangs into nature's hottest, most rapidly expanding ball of plasma-like dense-state wave energy; a new expanding big bang arena. As the arena expands and cools, the radius (r) increases, and the internal density declines, reaching the threshold of density called the surface of last scattering, which marks the point that stable wave-particles form across it like frost on a window pane :)


Sounding good mate, do you  intend on publishing the finished version?

I hope you do!

Myself personally , I am going to try even harder to stay off forums, I don't think my science is really welcome anywhere and it is not advancing my life any .  Whats the word? Feeling dejected I think suits. 
I wish you luck anyway and I will look in now and again , but at the moment I have more important issues in my life I need to take care of such as getting a job.  I need to break the habit of long periods of sitting here dreaming away about unreachable success.
Good luck anyway , I wish for you the best.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/07/2018 02:16:21


Parent arena's are BH's that diminish in density over a radius (r) ?

A better way to say it is: Two or more parent big bang arenas converge somewhere in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and the convergence results in the formation of a big crunch. When the crunch grows to critical capacity, it is nature's maximum blackhole, which then collapse/bangs into nature's hottest, most rapidly expanding ball of plasma-like dense-state wave energy; a new expanding big bang arena. As the arena expands and cools, the radius (r) increases, and the internal density declines, reaching the threshold of density called the surface of last scattering, which marks the point that stable wave-particles form across it like frost on a window pane :)


Quote
Sounding good mate, do you  intend on publishing the finished version?

I hope you do!

Myself personally , I am going to try even harder to stay off forums, I don't think my science is really welcome anywhere and it is not advancing my life any .  Whats the word? Feeling dejected I think suits. 
I wish you luck anyway and I will look in now and again , but at the moment I have more important issues in my life I need to take care of such as getting a job.  I need to break the habit of long periods of sitting here dreaming away about unreachable success.
Good luck anyway , I wish for you the best.
In the layman science enthusiast world, this thread is the "publishing and peer review", and I already have the Bogieprize:
Any way, if I could I would give you
Quote
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70348.0;attach=26564 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70348.0;attach=26564)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70348.0;attach=26564)
I think your theory is brilliant and I love the way you use the different arenas.  That is an honest opinion, I am not sucking up to you. 
I wish you the best of luck in getting your situation squared away to the point that you have clear sailing. You can PM me and let me know how you are progressing. I'll keep you in my thoughts with positive intentions for you to receive an acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of known science, and into the realm of the as yet unknown invariant laws of nature.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/07/2018 14:01:39
I wish you the best of luck in getting your situation squared away to the point that you have clear sailing. You can PM me and let me know how you are progressing. I'll keep you in my thoughts with positive intentions for you to receive an acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of known science, and into the realm of the as yet unknown invariant laws of nature.
Still here at the moment , my internet not gone off yet, I might be able to squeeze another month online.  I am still trying to work out a few things in my life.   Anyway , no more ISU posts?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/07/2018 14:38:26

Still here at the moment , my internet not gone off yet, I might be able to squeeze another month online.  I am still trying to work out a few things in my life.   Anyway , no more ISU posts?

It is a shame that I’ll be losing my single most responsive participant, but getting your things worked out is far more important.

As for the thought of “no more ISU posts”, not to worry. My posting history covers a number of different forums over the years, and has met with a changing dynamic of responses, but the ISU is part of my persona, on and off line.

For the early years, I listened and learned, and there were numerous comments across a wide range, from corrections, criticism, and even antagonism. As the ISU took shape, there were more and more underlying science connections, and the methodology I invoked, called reasonable and responsible speculation, began to make my model more difficult to attack and falsify. That is not saying it was “me doing science”, but just that the model was more and more internally consistent, and less and less inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. You rarely see science forum members embrace layman science enthusiast’s alternative ideas, and for good reason; they generally range from gibberish, to “not even wrong”, to untestable hypotheses. I see my current results as a growing success, in that there has been a noticeable change in the way my ideas are being dealt with. They are more often ignored, as opposed to being rejected and criticized, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/07/2018 15:07:41

Still here at the moment , my internet not gone off yet, I might be able to squeeze another month online.  I am still trying to work out a few things in my life.   Anyway , no more ISU posts?

It is a shame that I’ll be losing my single most responsive participant, but getting your things worked out is far more important.

As for the thought of “no more ISU posts”, not to worry. My posting history covers a number of different forums over the years, and has met with a changing dynamic of responses, but the ISU is part of my persona, on and off line.

For the early years, I listened and learned, and there were numerous comments across a wide range, from corrections, criticism, and even antagonism. As the ISU took shape, there were more and more underlying science connections, and the methodology I invoked, called reasonable and responsible speculation, began to make my model more difficult to attack and falsify. That is not saying it was “me doing science”, but just that the model was more and more internally consistent, and less and less inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. You rarely see science forum members embrace layman science enthusiast’s alternative ideas, and for good reason; they generally range from gibberish, to “not even wrong”, to untestable hypotheses. I see my current results as a growing success, in that there has been a noticeable change in the way my ideas are being dealt with. They are more often ignored, as opposed to being rejected and criticized, lol.
Well for me, I tried hard, perhaps too hard.   I think in life I am going to try for just allowing a bit of good old fashioned luck.  I am probably too calculated at times which creates resistance to variation. I perhaps need to focus on getting a job and getting myself somewhere to live , I allowed myself to become trapped by inertia. Although I created a paradox because I can't help but to care about friends and family .  I think my retirement from forums is overdue, but when I find good conversation or fun conversation that is more intellect than the average ''Joe''  ,  I can't help myself but to engage and it is hard to break ''free'' from the talk in cyberspace.   
Anyway , again good luck, I am trying to cut down on my '''addiction''.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/07/2018 13:59:07
Reply #390
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Posts that represent the current version of the ISU model

... I see my current results as a growing success, in that there has been a noticeable change in the way my ideas are being dealt with. They are more often ignored, as opposed to being rejected and criticized, lol.
I am pleased that the general community is still largely ignoring my layman level science enthusiast’s view of cosmology as I make it available on the Internet, and I take that as an acknowledgement that there are no glaring internal inconsistencies that demand comment, and no clear inconsistencies with generally accepted scientific observations and data that have to be pointed out.

The last series of content posts started with the question I had about a statement made in another NakedScientists thread that gravitational waves were only emitted if there was relative acceleration involved between two reference frames. Looking back, reply #289 is a starting point for that series of posts, but the list goes back to [reply #274 because I like that <300 word description of the ISU model] include other important posts like #92.

Here is a list of links directly to the particular content posts that are a good representation of the latest update of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) layman level model of the cosmology of the universe:

Reply #92
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg521293#msg521293 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg521293#msg521293)
What gives a particle its charge?

Reply #274
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg537324#msg537324 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg537324#msg537324)
My model, The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), in ~300 words

Reply #289
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg540410#msg540410 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg540410#msg540410)
On the question of if objects only radiate energy when they are accelerating

Reply #290
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg540682#msg540682 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg540682#msg540682)
Every object in space is in relative motion to every other object

Reply #291
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg541496#msg541496 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg541496#msg541496)
I grabbed a copy of the book “Mass” by author Jim Baggott

Reply #292
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg541825#msg541825 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg541825#msg541825)
Beginning of a series of posts about the cause of gravity in The Infinite Spongy Universe Model

Reply #293
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143)
The energy that fills all space in our ~fourteen billion year old big bang arena consists of about 4% detectible matter, 21% dark matter, and 75% dark energy


Reply #296
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542682#msg542682 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542682#msg542682)
Dark energy, dark matter, and visible/detectible matter all play a role in the mechanics of the ISU solution to quantum gravity

Reply #306
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg543026#msg543026 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg543026#msg543026)
Arena Action is a process that plays out endlessly at the macro level of order across the landscape of the greater universe (¶1-12)

Reply #307
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg543923#msg543923 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg543923#msg543923)
The mechanics of Quantum Gravity (¶13-18)

Reply #308
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546083#msg546083 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546083#msg546083)
The cause of quantum gravity continued … (¶19-24)

Reply #317
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546289#msg546289 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546289#msg546289)
In an arena like ours full of galactic structure that is observed to be moving away from us in all directions is demonstrating the conservation of the separation momentum that is imparted to all particles as they form

Reply #319
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546484#msg546484 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546484#msg546484)
Note that the Gravitational Wave Energy Density Profile of Space is the ISU alternative to the curvature of space time in GR (¶25)

Reply #333
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546756#msg546756 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546756#msg546756)
The cause of quantum gravity continued … (¶26-33)

Reply #344
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547042#msg547042 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547042#msg547042)
The role of wave convergences and the ISU sphere/sphere equation (¶34-36)

Reply #371
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547332#msg547332 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547332#msg547332)
This continues from reply #344 above (¶37-40)

Reply #372
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547353#msg547353 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547353#msg547353)
The cause of quantum gravity in the ISU continued … (¶41-47)

Reply #374
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547362#msg547362 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547362#msg547362)
Note: To clarify, what do I mean when you say quanta?


Reply #380
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547541#msg547541 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547541#msg547541)
That is quantum gravity at work in the ISU model of the cosmology of the universe (¶48-51)

Reply #108
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158)
The ISU Philosophy: Eternal Intent

That is the list of posts that include the 51 numbered paragraphs, and some introductory and explanatory notes that I am consolidating here to simplify the process of updating and improving, in line with the ongoing effort to evolve the presence of the ISU model on the Internet.

It has been my pleasure to be doing so here at TheNakedScientists forum for the past year. The SMF software they utilize has various features not available on other forums (like life time edit capability and member image hosting).

NakedScientists is a well managed and moderated forum under the leadership of Dr Chris Smith (Chris Smith is a medical consultant specialising in clinical microbiology and virology at Cambridge University and its teaching hospital, Addenbrooke's. Chris is a member of the University of Cambridge's Institute of Continuing Education (ICE) (https://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/), which offers accessible, affordable, part-time courses covering a range of disciplines. He is also a Fellow Commoner at Queens' College, Cambridge).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/07/2018 14:37:37
NakedScientists is a well managed and moderated forum under the leadership of Dr Chris Smith (Chris Smith is a medical consultant specialising in clinical microbiology and virology at Cambridge University and its teaching hospital, Addenbrooke's. Chris is a member of the University of Cambridge's Institute of Continuing Education (ICE), which offers accessible, affordable, part-time courses covering a range of disciplines. He is also a Fellow Commoner at Queens' College, Cambridge).

This forum is the best for sure  and Cambridge is the pride of  England, I wonder how much a math course would cost!  I ''love'' our Queen , I think having a Royal family gives us some pride .

Your model is an interesting model indeed, it is good to see people put in a real effort.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/07/2018 17:45:06
Reply #392




This forum is the best for sure  and Cambridge is the pride of  England, I wonder how much a math course would cost!  I ''love'' our Queen , I think having a Royal family gives us some pride .


Your model is an interesting model indeed, it is good to see people put in a real effort.




I have taken some time to conduct a thread in the Cosmology sub-forum, about the concepts of “Nothingness” and “Universe” called “What is Nothingness” and there has been good participation from the membership. That thread and those concepts have a logical connection to the ISU model, and I want to include the content from there to here in my “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bang events”.  This is reply #108 from the “What is Nothingness” thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73511.msg548866#msg548866 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73511.msg548866#msg548866)


Reply #108




It’s not a question of preferring one term to another. As noted above, I’ve explained elsewhere that I generally follow John Gribbin’s suggestion; which I summarised as:


Cosmos = everything that exists, or can exist.
Universe = our (in principle) observable portion of spacetime and its contents.
universe = any other universe that may, or may not, exist.


This is a quote from Gribben’s book, “Companion to the Cosmos”. 


    “Universe   With the capital “U”, the term used for everything that we can ever have knowledge of, the entire span of space and time accessible to our instruments, now and in the future.  This may seem like a fairly comprehensive definition, and in the past has traditionally been regarded as synonymous with the entirety of everything that exists.  But the development of ideas such as inflation suggests that there may be something else beyond the boundaries of the observable Universe - regions of space and time that are unobservable in principle, not just because light from them has not yet had time to reach us, or because our telescopes are not sensitive enough to detect their light.  This has led to some ambiguity in the use of the term “Universe”.  Some people restrict it to the observable Universe, while others argue that it should be used to refer to all of space and time.  In this book, we use “Universe” as the name for our own expanding bubble of spacetime, everything that is in principle visible to our telescopes, if we wait long enough for the light to arrive.  We suggest that the term “Cosmos” can be used to refer to the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate.”


I hope this clarifies things.


It does. Gribbin really nails the situation in a way that makes a lot of sense and allows for making some distinctions for various scenarios. In the quote you provided from Gribben’s book, “Companion to the Cosmos”, the last sentence typifies its universal applicability when it refers to the cosmos as “the entirety of space and time, within which there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, and other universes with which we can never communicate.”


We have to appreciate how all encompassing that makes the word Cosmos in regard to its applicability to any and all of the various possible models of cosmology.


It can apply to our observable universe and to every reputable model of cosmology that has to be consistent with what we can and do observe. That means it satisfies Big Bang Theory with Inflation Theory, which includes General Relativity, Spacetime, and the expanding universe, and accelerating expansion for that matter. It covers any model that invokes the Cosmological Principle, and it accommodates the cyclical models too. It accommodates Guth’s Inflation Theory with the false vacuum, and it accommodates Quantum Mechanics with all of its Interpretations, meaning it works for Quantum Physics, including Quantum Field Theory and the nucleating bubbles of the false vacuum, and Quantum Chromodynamics, and any QM associated model. It even satisfies the requirements of String Theory with its infinite multiple universes and dimensions. And not the least of which, it applies to any version of a Steady State Theory which go beyond those that invoke the cosmological principle and vacuum energy density to also invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle that specifies that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, not only in space, but in space and time, as mentioned in the OP.


Still, I like the versatility of the definition offered in this thread which has the same range of applicability as Gribbin’s full scope definition, but that also has something that I am going for that might not have been necessary to Gribbin in the context of his book. In the context of this thread that starts out about “nothingness” I was interested in making “universe” the antithesis of “nothingness”, and so universe is everything that nothingness is not.


Nothingness: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.
Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/07/2018 19:26:34
Reply #392




This forum is the best for sure  and Cambridge is the pride of  England, I wonder how much a math course would cost!  I ''love'' our Queen , I think having a Royal family gives us some pride .


Your model is an interesting model indeed, it is good to see people put in a real effort.




I have taken some time to conduct a thread in the Cosmology sub-forum, about the concepts of “Nothingness” and “Universe” called “What is Nothingness” and there has been good participation from the membership. That thread and those concepts have a logical connection to the ISU model, and I want to include the content from there to here in my “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bang events”.  This is reply #108 from the “What is Nothingness” thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73511.msg548866#msg548866 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73511.msg548866#msg548866)


Reply #108




It’s not a question of preferring one term to another. As noted above, I’ve explained elsewhere that I generally follow John Gribbin’s suggestion; which I summarised as:


Cosmos = everything that exists, or can exist.
Universe = our (in principle) observable portion of spacetime and its contents.
universe = any other universe that may, or may not, exist.


This is a quote from Gribben’s book, “Companion to the Cosmos”. 


    “Universe   With the capital “U”, the term used for everything that we can ever have knowledge of, the entire span of space and time accessible to our instruments, now and in the future.  This may seem like a fairly comprehensive definition, and in the past has traditionally been regarded as synonymous with the entirety of everything that exists.  But the development of ideas such as inflation suggests that there may be something else beyond the boundaries of the observable Universe - regions of space and time that are unobservable in principle, not just because light from them has not yet had time to reach us, or because our telescopes are not sensitive enough to detect their light.  This has led to some ambiguity in the use of the term “Universe”.  Some people restrict it to the observable Universe, while others argue that it should be used to refer to all of space and time.  In this book, we use “Universe” as the name for our own expanding bubble of spacetime, everything that is in principle visible to our telescopes, if we wait long enough for the light to arrive.  We suggest that the term “Cosmos” can be used to refer to the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate.”


I hope this clarifies things.


It does. Gribbin really nails the situation in a way that makes a lot of sense and allows for making some distinctions for various scenarios. In the quote you provided from Gribben’s book, “Companion to the Cosmos”, the last sentence typifies its universal applicability when it refers to the cosmos as “the entirety of space and time, within which there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, and other universes with which we can never communicate.”


We have to appreciate how all encompassing that makes the word Cosmos in regard to its applicability to any and all of the various possible models of cosmology.


It can apply to our observable universe and to every reputable model of cosmology that has to be consistent with what we can and do observe. That means it satisfies Big Bang Theory with Inflation Theory, which includes General Relativity, Spacetime, and the expanding universe, and accelerating expansion for that matter. It covers any model that invokes the Cosmological Principle, and it accommodates the cyclical models too. It accommodates Guth’s Inflation Theory with the false vacuum, and it accommodates Quantum Mechanics with all of its Interpretations, meaning it works for Quantum Physics, including Quantum Field Theory and the nucleating bubbles of the false vacuum, and Quantum Chromodynamics, and any QM associated model. It even satisfies the requirements of String Theory with its infinite multiple universes and dimensions. And not the least of which, it applies to any version of a Steady State Theory which go beyond those that invoke the cosmological principle and vacuum energy density to also invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle that specifies that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, not only in space, but in space and time, as mentioned in the OP.


Still, I like the versatility of the definition offered in this thread which has the same range of applicability as Gribbin’s full scope definition, but that also has something that I am going for that might not have been necessary to Gribbin in the context of his book. In the context of this thread that starts out about “nothingness” I was interested in making “universe” the antithesis of “nothingness”, and so universe is everything that nothingness is not.


Nothingness: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.
Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.




Our observable Universe is finite in the sense of information,  we are evolving and the better equipment we get, the more we can detect of information. This is not to say that there is still undiscovered things in our observable Universe, it just means that things could be hidden by other things and we are not able to detect these things.   But we would be fools if we didn't think other things existed that we can't observe.
Size is interesting, my boy who is 9 , 10 next week, is nearly as tall me already and probably has more mass, he is a bit overweight  but it is interesting how he is a lot younger but can have more mass.   
Sorry I was going off track then in conversation, unrelated but interesting.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bill S on 23/07/2018 19:21:28
Quote from: Bogie_Smiles
There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.

I’m fine with this.
 
There is a caveat. Before addressing that, though, I must clarify:  Is it right to interpret your definition as saying that the universe is infinite/eternal?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bill S on 23/07/2018 19:27:33
Quote from: TheBox
Our observable Universe is finite in the sense of information,

Are you saying that the Universe should be considered finite until we have more evidence to the contrary; or that we are able to see only a finite amount of what, on current evidence, seems as though it might be infinite?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 23/07/2018 21:10:34
   The conversation looks pretty good. The total universe in all dimensions always existed in one form or another. The problem is the statement that we have Invarient  Natural Laws. This is only partially true and eliminates an infinite number of natural laws that can occur in the total universe. It is true that many configurations of universes can occur that you would not recognize.
   Even in our universe for constant light speeds, all the other constants can and will vary. Thus in my analysis, the gravitational constant approaches zero at big bang and infinity as the universe stretches outward toward maximum radius. Today we live in a very linear portion of space time. You cannot readily write the laws of non-linear space time. If you include everything, then fine. The total universe of all possible light speeds and dimension always existed and always will exist.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bill S on 23/07/2018 23:36:21
Quote from: Jerry
  The total universe in all dimensions always existed in one form or another………. Thus in my analysis, the gravitational constant approaches zero at big bang and infinity as the universe stretches outward toward maximum radius.

People keep talking about approaching infinity!  How can you do that?  Surely, however far you “travel”, infinity is still infinitely far away.

If the increase is approaching/heading towards infinity, in what sense can there be a "maximum radius"?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/07/2018 00:14:41
Quote from: Bogie_Smiles
There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.


I’m fine with this.

There is a caveat. Before addressing that, though, I must clarify:  Is it right to interpret your definition as saying that the universe is infinite/eternal?


Yes, that is axiomatic in the ISU model. By that I mean that I invoke the three infinities of space, time and energy as axioms, and use those as givens to derive many other aspects of the layman level science enthusiasts model. In line with those three infinities, the model invokes The Perfect Cosmological Principle, https://everipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle/ (https://everipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle/)

The perfect cosmological principle is an extension of the cosmological principle, and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will. The perfect cosmological principle underpins Steady State theory (https://everipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory/) and emerging from chaotic inflation theory.[30][33][8] (https://everipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle/5661025/)

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/07/2018 00:53:10
   The conversation looks pretty good. The total universe in all dimensions always existed in one form or another. The problem is the statement that we have Invariant  Natural Laws. This is only partially true and eliminates an infinite number of natural laws that can occur in the total universe. It is true that many configurations of universes can occur that you would not recognize.
You have entered a thread dedicated to the Infinite Spongy Universe model of cosmology, my layman level science enthusiasts model. It discriminates against models that invoke string theory or multiple dimensions where each supposed universe can have a different set of natural laws. I go with the definition that there is just one universe, and one set of invariant natural laws. My reasoning is that each new big bang arena in the ISU model has the same preconditions.

There is a connection between parent arenas and the resulting new big bang arenas that emerge out of "parent arena" convergences. It is called the "sameness" doctrine of the ISU, and that is the premise that the natural laws that apply to the parent arenas will also apply to the new arenas that are composed of the galactic matter and energy of the parent arenas. The new arena will expand back out into the same vicinity of space where the overlap of the parent arenas took place; that convergence results in a big crunch that will collapse/bang to mark the beginning of the new expanding big bang arena in the landscape of the greater universe.
Quote
Even in our universe for constant light speeds, all the other constants can and will vary. Thus in my analysis, the gravitational constant approaches zero at big bang and infinity as the universe stretches outward toward maximum radius. Today we live in a very linear portion of space time. You cannot readily write the laws of non-linear space time. If you include everything, then fine. The total universe of all possible light speeds and dimension always existed and always will exist.
I do understand your comments and perspective, but let me refer you to Reply #390 https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg548324#msg548324 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg548324#msg548324) which is long recap of the ISU model, and which represents the latest updates. I understand that it is impractical to expect you to go all the way through that post and the links, so I give it with my apologies :)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/07/2018 02:01:30
I go with the definition that here is just one universe, and one set of invariant natural laws.


I agree. ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 26/07/2018 16:04:41
Your model of high energy density spots is interesting, would you like to elaborate on this more ?

This creates vacuum  high enthalpic pressure ?

Are you acting on your model ?

Writing a paper?

Would all the lesser energy spots be  isolated from the denser spot ?

Or do you consider they all converge ?

Is your model an accurate reflection ?

Does your model consider  dissipate at c ?

Quite clearly photons are super fast . Understand that if 58b1abbd2885e5d81efe8098323b6a25.gif  then c, d and e are independent of 58b1abbd2885e5d81efe8098323b6a25.gif





Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/07/2018 16:34:47

Your model of high energy density spots is interesting, would you like to elaborate on this more ?


This creates vacuum  high enthalpic pressure ?


Are you acting on your model ?


Writing a paper?


Would all the lesser energy spots be  isolated from the denser spot ?


Or do you consider they all converge ?


Is your model an accurate reflection ?


Does your model consider  dissipate at c ?


Quite clearly photons are super fast . Understand that if 58b1abbd2885e5d81efe8098323b6a25.gif  then c, d and e are independent of 58b1abbd2885e5d81efe8098323b6a25.gif












I will do that for you (I just saw your edits, so I will do some of that for you).


According to the model, the energy that occupies all space is carried by the wave fronts of gravitational wave energy emissions from all wave-particles (and objects composed of wave-particles), and those wave emissions expand at the local speed of light. Each gravitational wave is produced by the convergence of two or more spherically expanding gravitational waves. When two or more spherically expanding wave fronts, each carrying energy in proportion to the energy of the converging "parent" waves and inversely proportional to the the radius of the spherical expansion of the parent waves, intersect and overlap, the point of intersection and the subsequent overlap space contains the high energy density spot that represents the combined energy of the parent wave fronts. Those points do act as high "pressure" points in a sense*. It is a hint of mass frozen in space and time for an instant. That instant is over in an instant, lol, and the high energy density spot expands, becoming what is called a third wave. The third wave produced by the convergence of two or more parent waves goes on to expand and intersect with adjacent expanding third waves, to produce new high energy density spots, and in turn, a new generation of third waves. It is dizzying when you think about it, :)


In the vacuum of space, those intersections are individually quite insignificant, and can be viewed as random virtual "particles" that pop onto an out of sight. In total though, even in open space, those recurring tiny hints of mass add up, and account for the as yet unexplained "dark matter".


Within the space occupied by particles, i.e., within the complex standing wave patterns of wave-particles themselves, there are billions of those tiny parent wave intersections occurring all the time, and at any point in time, all of those tiny hints of mass add up to the mass associated with the individual wave-particle.


*In regard to a high energy density spots acting as high pressure points, there is a force that is recognized in the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, called energy density equalization. When a high energy density spot forms, it is always surrounded by space that has lower energy density, and the force of energy density equalization causes that high density spot to expand into the surrounding space to equalize the density between the two adjacent density differentials.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 26/07/2018 19:34:06
Each gravitational wave is produced by the convergence
In consideration of your convergence , do you consider that the entirety of cubic volume could have multiple density spots as opposed to just a few?
In my n-field model, any given point can have high density and we already know that a volume has multiple points.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/07/2018 19:51:33
Each gravitational wave is produced by the convergence
In consideration of your convergence , do you consider that the entirety of cubic volume could have multiple density spots as opposed to just a few?
In my n-field model, any given point can have high density and we already know that a volume has multiple points.
Each convergence originates at a point in space which is the point of intersection of two or more parent expanding waves, but the point of intersection becomes a volume of overlap space very quickly, and of course that volume has an infinite number of points. However, though each gravitational wave convergence event produces an overlap, that overlap immediately becomes a new expanding wave, the third wave as I call it.


You can have an immediate intersection between that new third wave and an adjacent wave front, but that isn't characterized as multiple density spots within a single convergence (or within an overlap space). What is happening right at that instant, at nature's tiniest scale, as that point space evolves to an overlap space, is a time delay, or more appropriately called a slowing of time in that tiny volume of space due to an increase in local wave energy density. The rate of the advance of the wave fronts in that overlap space slows down as the density increases, and speeds up again as the third wave expands; very imperceptibly I might add.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 26/07/2018 21:51:56
You can have an immediate intersection between that new third wave and an adjacent wave front, but that isn't characterized as multiple density spots within a single convergence (or within an overlap space).

I am just trying to understand this part,  two waves converge, the energy from this convergence then expands , then the expansion energy converges into other expanding waves.  Then it all forms back to a singularity ? 

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/07/2018 23:10:57
Reply #406

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
You can have an immediate intersection between that new third wave and an adjacent wave front, but that isn't characterized as multiple density spots within a single convergence (or within an overlap space).
I am just trying to understand this part,  two waves converge, the energy from this convergence then expands, then the expansion energy converges into other expanding waves.  Then it all forms back to a singularity ? 
Two spherical wave fronts intersect and overlap, and that is what I call a convergence of two parent gravitational waves. I know you get that.

The intersection/convergence concentrates a little wave energy into the overlap space, starting at the point of overlap, because each parent wave front carries energy into that space as the overlap forms. Therefore, it is said that each parent wave contributes a little energy to the convergence/overlap via the energy carried by its wave front.

Where you say, “The energy from this convergence then expands”, you should say that there is a third wave that emerges out of the overlap space, and the wave front of that third wave carries energy and expands spherically until its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent expanding third wave.

Note: I haven’t used the word “singularity” anywhere in regard to the mechanics of the ISU model. If you are suggesting that the definition of a singularity applies in the case of a point-space intersection between two parent gravitational waves because you conclude that there is a positive energy value at that point, and when divided by the zero volume of a point, the result is infinite energy density (a form of singularity), you should notice that when I talk about the point of intersection, I quickly follow with “and overlap”.

The reason is that the intersection occurs in an instant with no duration, i.e., at a point in time. The overlap hasn’t formed yet, and so there is no volume to the new third wave. The energy that will be carried by the new third wave’s wave front is still associated with the surface of the wave fronts of the two parent waves. The parents don’t contribute their energy to the overlap space until the overlap space forms, and the overlap space is a volume of space, not a point in space. (Yikes, I thought I was never going to have to explain that, but you just pulled it out of me, lol.)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 26/07/2018 23:24:48
Reply #406

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
You can have an immediate intersection between that new third wave and an adjacent wave front, but that isn't characterized as multiple density spots within a single convergence (or within an overlap space).
I am just trying to understand this part,  two waves converge, the energy from this convergence then expands, then the expansion energy converges into other expanding waves.  Then it all forms back to a singularity ? 
Two spherical wave fronts intersect and overlap, and that is what I call a convergence of two parent gravitational waves. I know you get that.

The intersection/convergence concentrates a little wave energy into the overlap space, starting at the point of overlap, because each parent wave front carries energy into that space as the overlap forms. Therefore, it is said that each parent wave contributes a little energy to the convergence/overlap via the energy carried by its wave front.

Where you say, “The energy from this convergence then expands”, you should say that there is a third wave that emerges out of the overlap space, and the wave front of that third wave carries energy and expands spherically until its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent expanding third wave.

Note: I haven’t used the word “singularity” anywhere in regard to the mechanics of the ISU model. If you are suggesting that the definition of a singularity applies in the case of a point-space intersection between two parent gravitational waves because you conclude that there is a positive energy value at that point, and when divided by the zero volume of a point, the result is infinite energy density (a form of singularity), you should notice that when I talk about the point of intersection, I quickly follow with “and overlap”.

The reason is that the intersection occurs in an instant with no duration, i.e., at a point in time. The overlap hasn’t formed yet, and so there is no volume to the new third wave. The energy that will be carried by the new third wave’s wave front is still associated with the surface of the wave fronts of the two parent waves. The parents don’t contribute their energy to the overlap space until the overlap space forms, and the overlap space is a volume of space, not a point in space. (Yikes, I thought I was never going to have to explain that, but you just pulled it out of me, lol.)

That made sense, thanks for explaining .  I will think some more on the subject, I am just thinking of a different thread,  neurology and brain interfacing.  A complex subject indeed, a tough one to fathom .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/07/2018 07:29:37
Just to add, what is in the centre of your volume ?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/07/2018 09:22:34
Reply #409

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Just to add, what is in the centre of your volume ?
Can you look uncertainty in the face and say there is nothing there?

There is a saying that goes like this: Something infinitesimal can be almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never.

Energy is something so it cannot be nothing.
Space is somewhere so it cannot be nowhere.
Time is passing so it cannot be never.

My operating definition of nothingness is: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy.

The conclusion is that there is no “nothingness” so when you look nothingness in the face you can say there is something there.

A point is at the center of volume.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/07/2018 11:41:19
A point is at the center of volume.
There are lots of points within a volume, some more prominent in density than other points. There would be obviously a point at the center of volume,  your theory would be too good too not have a central point of the ISU model.  You know quite a bit of science but miss out some of the why's ..  The ageing universe that is expanded , just wants rest,   quite boring compared to a high density centre that creates constant action from isotropic gravity focusing the action on the centre. 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/07/2018 14:24:22
Reply #411


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


Reply to Thebox
ISU perspective


A point is at the center of volume.
There are lots of points within a volume, some more prominent in density than other points. There would be obviously a point at the center of volume,  your theory would be too good too not have a central point of the ISU model.  You know quite a bit of science but miss out some of the why's ..  The ageing universe that is expanded , just wants rest,   quite boring compared to a high density centre that creates constant action from isotropic gravity focusing the action on the centre. 
It is a bit like life, some of just want to settle down and be left alone (expanding universe),  where others have more drive and ambition (central core),  I consider there is far more spooky actions close up , rather than at a distance away where the matter just wants to retire into the distance. 

But in the ISU, the matter/energy (density) doesn’t just retire into the distance. Its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with other matter/energy that is also, as you say, "trying to retire into the distance" from another direction. So the two converge and contribute to a new attempt "to retire into the distance" that also fails at reaching oblivion because of a similar interruption.

I agree with you that if there is anything spooky, the more spooky action is close up, and in the ISU, the ultimate close up shows the oscillating wave energy background that we have discussed before, in replies like #215 and others. Maybe it is the best I can offer without solving the deepest secrets of nature. You don’t have “nothingness” in even the tiniest space, there are forces and action there, i.e., energy at work.


Here is an edited version of …
Reply #215
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on November 10, 2017, 12:12:59 pm
Quote from: Thebox on Yesterday at 03:49:26 pm (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg527503#msg527503)
I consider that the ''surface'' is both positive and negative polarity and there is central void , the void being a product of the repulsive forces of the likewise polarities of the surface.  A sort of spherical shell with an empty inner.  A bit like a football.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on Yesterday at 03:36:44 pm (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg527501#msg527501)
Not in the ISU. There are no voids; all space is filled with gravitational wave energy density. But that statement does require some explanation if it is going to stand as my argument against the existence of a void. For example, in a wave energy density environment, you have meaningful wave fronts expanding from their “point” origins, so after the first instant of expansion, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?

Do you remember the earlier discussion about the oscillating wave energy background of space? I first mentioned it when I defined Wave Energy in Reply #21, and then when I equated the oscillating background and its function, to Wheeler’s Quantum Foam, in Reply #56, and elsewhere.

That is the answer to the question of what is behind the wave front, between the front and the point of origin. It is the oscillating wave energy background. The oscillations are less meaningful gravitational energy waves, less than quantum, and therefore less than the amount of energy necessary to create a high energy density spot that qualifies as a quantum of energy, in the process of quantum action. The convergences at the oscillating foundational level are sub-quantum hints of mass, a necessary part of the process of quantum action that maintains the presence of wave-particles. There is a striking similarity between the wave action at all levels (in accord with the "sameness" principle of the ISU).

There is a finer point of explanation about the mechanism that keeps the oscillating background functioning, and assures there aren’t even the tiniest of voids down there among the oscillations. That explanation is that each oscillation is composed of two of nature’s tiniest parent waves, that are there and gone in an instant, but that instant of time delay is enough time for them to converge and form their hints of mass, the oscillating background's version of a high energy density spot, at a “moment in time”. I discussed this time delay as part of the process of both quantum action and arena action earlier, as reported in reply #56:

“In the wave-particle discussion, each wave convergence has a time delay as the combined energy of the 'parent' waves equalize in the overlap space. In the case of the oscillating background, nature’s tiniest possible size limit of wave action occurs while the energy carried by the individual parent waves merges and equalizes, allowing the lens shaped overlap space to trend toward a spherical shape; it is a mechanical effect that occurs during the time delay and plays out under the influence of the force of energy density equalization that is always present in the ISU. [So you don’t have “nothingness” in that space, there are forces and action there, i.e., energy at work.] The new ‘third wave’ thus emerges from the overlap space, to become a new oscillation in the space being vacated by the parent waves.”
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/08/2018 13:27:18
Reply #412

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

I have taken some time to conduct a thread in the Cosmology sub-forum, about the concepts of Quantum Field Theory related to the vacuum of space, specifically the False Vacuum and the True Vacuum called “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?” and there has been modest participation from the membership. That thread and those concepts have a logical connection to the ISU model, and I want to include the content from there to here in my “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bang events”.  This is reply #56 from the “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?” thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74264.msg550443#msg550443 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74264.msg550443#msg550443)

Reply #56

Let me address your last two posts together:
Quote from: Bogie_Smiles
  …The comment should be confined to the presence of virtual particles, when they pop into and out of existence, presumable from the energy of the local vacuum….

This is my simplistic understanding:

1. Energy is borrowed from the vacuum energy to bring a perturbation into existence.  This is identified as a virtual particle.

2. Repayment of the energy is to the vacuum.  Some authors say it must be replaced “before the vacuum misses it”.  I would question this.

3. The vacuum is an integral feature of the Universe.

4. If it were possible to observe the energy while it was being borrowed, it might not be where classical physics says it should be, if classical physics could be applied, here.  However, it must still be in the Universe.

5. At no time does energy leave or enter the universe; therefore, conservation of energy is not violated.  Any violation of energy conservation in an expanding universe does not arise from virtual particle creation/annihilation.  (Sticking my neck out!)

There is a tendency to equate the use of the phrase “expansion of the Universe” to the implication that the whole universe is expanding, when actually only a portion of the space that is referred to as “causally connected to our big bang event” is visible in our Hubble view.

As far as I am aware, we have no direct evidence of anything that is not “causally connected to our big bang event”.  It would seem reasonable to suggest that anything “beyond” is either expanding with the observed Universe; or is not in direct/active contact with it.

Is it just me, or is there an inclination to equate such bubbles in QFT to some version of the initial events related to Big Bang Theory with Inflation?

It’s not just you!


Here's one I thought earlier.

Ref. #10:

If/when a scalar field settles in a “valley”, what determines whether it remains or discharges its energy?
Those replies show very astute analysis, IMHO.

The links we have looked at, and that are connected to them, tell us much about the theory of QFT. My take so far from the material and from generally accepted scientific observations and data about our known universe (influenced by the conclusion that we may well be in an expanding QFT bubble within the greater universe) is that the greater vacuum is an active place of bubble nucleation, bubble collisions, particle formation at the locations in the vacuum where those collisions occur, and expansion of resulting nucleated bubbles, governed by their vacuum density and by the vacuum density of the surrounding false/real vacuums.

The determining factors that govern the disposition and future course of events related to the energy contained in the vacuum of a particular bubble that settles in a “valley” is the relative vacuum energy density surrounding that bubble. That determination should have causes and limiting factors. A causative factor would be random nucleation and subsequent collisions of bubbles. Limiting factors would have to do with how the local vacuum densities react to the presence of adjacent bubbles and their vacuum densities.

The results of those possible events, including the collisions, the particle formation and nucleosynthesis at the boundaries of those collisions, and the evolution of galactic structure moving apart as the space occupied by the expanding bubble grows, all seem to nicely equate with what we observe in our Hubble view.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_08_18_1_00_04.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_08_18_1_00_04.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_08_18_1_00_04.jpeg)
Bubble Nucleation in QFT


———————
Here are two more posts, Replies #59 &#60 from the same thread in the NS Science section which I want to include in this ISU thread:

If we backtrack the currently expanded state of our observable universe, going back in time we would get to an initial event. Under QFT that event could be caused by the colliding nucleating bubble “walls” or perhaps what we could call wave fronts, that result in the production of particles. The collisions, coupled with at least speed of light “bubble expansion” that one should expect to be associated with of the velocity of electromagnetism in the quantum field, the extreme high energy density vacuum at the outset would quickly evolve, resulting in the advent of the more stable vacuum states for particles. That means that as various sequences of massive particles (exotics relative to the standard model of particle physics as far as we know) form and decay in correspondence with the rapidly declining vacuum energy density of the local environment as the nucleated bubble evolves, longer periods of stability should be expected along with the normal course of particle decay.

That course of decay would continue until the resulting vacuum density can support the stability of the resulting particles for an extended period of time, as is the case with our own experience as an expanding bubble after some 14 billion years; one of a potentially infinite number of nucleated bubbles within the one greater universe :).

———


In the last post I referred to expanding bubbles as wave fronts, and related the velocity of bubble expansion to an event in the QFT Wiki called bubble collisions. Bubble collisions are supposed to produce particles and matter, and following the QFT scenario, it would seem safe to equate that to our own circumstance. That would mean that bubble collisions account for the production of particles, and set particles into motion.

Photons have to be part of the particle mix, and so it can be concluded that it would be consistent with QFT that the bubble collisions would set photons into motion in all directions through the vacuum energy density of space. That could be equated to an expanding wave of electromagnetic energy traversing the quantum field right along with the bubble expansion.

That is not intended to equate the bubble wall to the advance of photon energy, but from what I have read, I would expect the expanding bubble to be filled with light, and thus with photon energy. However, the quantum field is not just an electromagnetic field, it is all fields, and all forms of energy expand through it according to their individual fields. The electric field and the magnetic field combine to govern the speed of light. …


There is not yet a quantum field solution to gravity, so when we talk theory of the universe, we have to rely on General Relativity for now, which is a macro level force. Gravity, according to GR is caused by the presence of matter and energy, which tells space how to curve, and that curvature tells matter how to move. Eventually, the scientific community will come to a consensus on gravity, and the work effort is toward quantum gravity, as I understand it.

Since it seems right to say that the quantum field occupies all space, and photons being electromagnetic radiation, would logically be traversing the field at the speed of light, their velocity is presumably governed by the local density of the vacuum.

What ever relative velocity that is, c is always the same in a perfect vacuum. However, we know that the energy density of the vacuum in QFT can vary, and is never a perfect vacuum, and so the velocity of light will vary from one level of vacuum energy density to another, and therefore from one bubble to another. Some might take exception to that, and so it is open to discussion.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/08/2018 13:37:17
Reply #413

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Here at The NakedScientists, I find it appropriate to move back and forth between posts in New Theories and in the main science sections of Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology, and from time to time I provide links between the sections for reference.

In the main science sections, there is a limit as to how far members are expected to go when personally interpreting what the Wikis and various more scientific sources have to say about what the consensus model of Big Bang Theory (BBT with Inflation) and the developments in Quantum Mechanics (QM) as presented in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) mean in layman terms. Out here “On the Lighter Side” I have a great deal of liberty in how I can compare and contrast various models, and to show how and why the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model is my preference for one model that is internally consistent, not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, and addresses the “as yet” unknowns with a methodology of reasonable and responsible speculation. I always ask that members comment freely, and encourage comments and corrections from the membership at any time.

The ISU is a layman science enthusiasts model that combines known science with speculations that fill the gaps left by the “as yet” unknowns. It is a layman level view of the cosmology of the universe, that I keep updating as I learn, and as the scientific community publishes layman level papers and articles that I incorporate into it. If you have ever browsed through this thread you will see that I don’t hesitate to edit and revise previous posts when I find it appropriate to do so, and I try to keep a section updated that has links to an updated series of posts that represent the latest version of the ISU model. I revise the OP to include a link to that section of updated posts.


Edit:
For example, I have added some material to Reply #412 that was posted in my “False Vacuum, Who, What, Where, When, Why?” thread. Note that when I revise a post, the latest revision data appears at the end of it.


Note:
Here is a list of my Last 20 Posts, which I find a handy tools in organizing and updating the ISU thread:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=43933 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=43933)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/08/2018 18:35:45
Reply #412

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

I have taken some time to conduct a thread in the Cosmology sub-forum, about the concepts of Quantum Field Theory related to the vacuum of space, specifically the False Vacuum and the True Vacuum called “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?” and there has been modest participation from the membership. That thread and those concepts have a logical connection to the ISU model, and I want to include the content from there to here in my “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bang events”.  This is reply #56 from the “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?” thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74264.msg550443#msg550443 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74264.msg550443#msg550443)

Reply #56

Let me address your last two posts together:
Quote from: Bogie_Smiles
  …The comment should be confined to the presence of virtual particles, when they pop into and out of existence, presumable from the energy of the local vacuum….

This is my simplistic understanding:

1. Energy is borrowed from the vacuum energy to bring a perturbation into existence.  This is identified as a virtual particle.

2. Repayment of the energy is to the vacuum.  Some authors say it must be replaced “before the vacuum misses it”.  I would question this.

3. The vacuum is an integral feature of the Universe.

4. If it were possible to observe the energy while it was being borrowed, it might not be where classical physics says it should be, if classical physics could be applied, here.  However, it must still be in the Universe.

5. At no time does energy leave or enter the universe; therefore, conservation of energy is not violated.  Any violation of energy conservation in an expanding universe does not arise from virtual particle creation/annihilation.  (Sticking my neck out!)

There is a tendency to equate the use of the phrase “expansion of the Universe” to the implication that the whole universe is expanding, when actually only a portion of the space that is referred to as “causally connected to our big bang event” is visible in our Hubble view.

As far as I am aware, we have no direct evidence of anything that is not “causally connected to our big bang event”.  It would seem reasonable to suggest that anything “beyond” is either expanding with the observed Universe; or is not in direct/active contact with it.

Is it just me, or is there an inclination to equate such bubbles in QFT to some version of the initial events related to Big Bang Theory with Inflation?

It’s not just you!


Here's one I thought earlier.

Ref. #10:

If/when a scalar field settles in a “valley”, what determines whether it remains or discharges its energy?
Those replies show very astute analysis, IMHO.

The links we have looked at, and that are connected to them, tell us much about the theory of QFT. My take so far from the material and from generally accepted scientific observations and data about our known universe (influenced by the conclusion that we may well be in an expanding QFT bubble within the greater universe) is that the greater vacuum is an active place of bubble nucleation, bubble collisions, particle formation at the locations in the vacuum where those collisions occur, and expansion of resulting nucleated bubbles, governed by their vacuum density and by the vacuum density of the surrounding false/real vacuums.

The determining factors that govern the disposition and future course of events related to the energy contained in the vacuum of a particular bubble that settles in a “valley” is the relative vacuum energy density surrounding that bubble. That determination should have causes and limiting factors. A causative factor would be random nucleation and subsequent collisions of bubbles. Limiting factors would have to do with how the local vacuum densities react to the presence of adjacent bubbles and their vacuum densities.

The results of those possible events, including the collisions, the particle formation and nucleosynthesis at the boundaries of those collisions, and the evolution of galactic structure moving apart as the space occupied by the expanding bubble grows, all seem to nicely equate with what we observe in our Hubble view.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_08_18_1_00_04.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_08_18_1_00_04.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_08_18_1_00_04.jpeg)
Bubble Nucleation in QFT


———————
Here are two more posts, Replies #59 &#60 from the same thread in the NS Science section which I want to include in this ISU thread:

If we backtrack the currently expanded state of our observable universe, going back in time we would get to an initial event. Under QFT that event could be caused by the colliding nucleating bubble “walls” or perhaps what we could call wave fronts, that result in the production of particles. The collisions, coupled with at least speed of light “bubble expansion” that one should expect to be associated with of the velocity of electromagnetism in the quantum field, the extreme high energy density vacuum at the outset would quickly evolve, resulting in the advent of the more stable vacuum states for particles. That means that as various sequences of massive particles (exotics relative to the standard model of particle physics as far as we know) form and decay in correspondence with the rapidly declining vacuum energy density of the local environment as the nucleated bubble evolves, longer periods of stability should be expected along with the normal course of particle decay.

That course of decay would continue until the resulting vacuum density can support the stability of the resulting particles for an extended period of time, as is the case with our own experience as an expanding bubble after some 14 billion years; one of a potentially infinite number of nucleated bubbles within the one greater universe :).

———


In the last post I referred to expanding bubbles as wave fronts, and related the velocity of bubble expansion to an event in the QFT Wiki called bubble collisions. Bubble collisions are supposed to produce particles and matter, and following the QFT scenario, it would seem safe to equate that to our own circumstance. That would mean that bubble collisions account for the production of particles, and set particles into motion.

Photons have to be part of the particle mix, and so it can be concluded that it would be consistent with QFT that the bubble collisions would set photons into motion in all directions through the vacuum energy density of space. That could be equated to an expanding wave of electromagnetic energy traversing the quantum field right along with the bubble expansion.

That is not intended to equate the bubble wall to the advance of photon energy, but from what I have read, I would expect the expanding bubble to be filled with light, and thus with photon energy. However, the quantum field is not just an electromagnetic field, it is all fields, and all forms of energy expand through it according to their individual fields. The electric field and the magnetic field combine to govern the speed of light. …


There is not yet a quantum field solution to gravity, so when we talk theory of the universe, we have to rely on General Relativity for now, which is a macro level force. Gravity, according to GR is caused by the presence of matter and energy, which tells space how to curve, and that curvature tells matter how to move. Eventually, the scientific community will come to a consensus on gravity, and the work effort is toward quantum gravity, as I understand it.

Since it seems right to say that the quantum field occupies all space, and photons being electromagnetic radiation, would logically be traversing the field at the speed of light, their velocity is presumably governed by the local density of the vacuum.

What ever relative velocity that is, c is always the same in a perfect vacuum. However, we know that the energy density of the vacuum in QFT can vary, and is never a perfect vacuum, and so the velocity of light will vary from one level of vacuum energy density to another, and therefore from one bubble to another. Some might take exception to that, and so it is open to discussion.


A perfect vacuum is invisible ?  no light reflecting towards the observers direction
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/08/2018 19:10:32

Reply #415


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)




A perfect vacuum is invisible ?  no light reflecting towards the observers direction
Quite right, IMHO. But it is a moot point in the ISU, and in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) too, because a perfect vacuum is a void, and there is no void in the ISU or in the QFT concepts of false and true vacuums. If you read the False Vacuum Wiki, you see that even what they call the "True Vacuum" is not referring to a perfect vacuum. The True Vacuum of QFT has vacuum energy density, just like the ISU background is full of gravitational wave energy at varying energy density levels.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/08/2018 00:32:55
Reply #416

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

This post is a work in progress

One of the interesting differences between the ISU, and the Standard Cosmology (lambda CMD model), is the ISU process of Arena Action.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)

An example of the inflation in the Lambda CMD Big Bang is depicted in that Wiki as follows:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_13_08_18_11_45_04.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_13_08_18_11_45_04.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_13_08_18_11_45_04.jpeg)

That is how the development of one Big Bang arena with Inflation, from bang and through 13.7 billion years of accelerating expansion could be depicted in the ISU too.


If you can picture two big bang arenas using the Lambda CMD model depiction, an ISU Big Bang Arena overlap might be depicted as follows:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_14_08_18_12_02_32.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_14_08_18_12_02_32.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_14_08_18_12_02_32.jpeg)
Those images are “accelerated expansion cones” where the expanding two dimensional circle leading the widening cone in the images represents the expanding sphere of a big bang arena. Looking at this image I have use to depict a large scale section of the greater universe in two dimensions …:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg)You can imagine each circle being one of those “accelerated expansion cones” in order to get a feel for the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

Then, putting that into perspective, look back at reply #344 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547042#msg547042) to see how I relate the cones to quanta at both the micro and macro level of the ISU model.                                                                                             

Note: I borrowed a page from General Relativity and Big Bang Theory to depict the big bang event as a single accelerating expansion cone, and I borrowed a page from Quantum Field Theory by relating each big bang expansion cone to a nucleating bubble in the vacuum energy density of space. In QFT, individual bubbles are false vacuums, and big bang events represent the collision of bubble walls as proposed in QFT. Each bubble collision produces a big bang event, and depicts the collapse of the false vacuum into a true vacuum, or at least to a much more dense state vacuum than existed in the “parent” arenas (parent accelerated expansion cones).



To be further developed …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 20/08/2018 21:00:31
To the Flounderers , who have ingested so much "PCP" that they are bouncing off the "Walls".  An infinitely large universe w/universes popping up in it would be called a "Multiverse".  Stephen Hawking believed this likely , as do I .  The biggest problem with cyclic models is that you do not start with the same conditions that you started with .  You start with a sloppy mess (cosmic poo-poo) .  2nd major problem ; an arbitrary & unknown causative factor .  Dis be beeg no-no for believable tearies !  Extra-universal physics may be fantastical , but it's hard to believe that they don't involve entropy , or conservation of energy .  I'd sooner belieb in maagik ! 
Anyhoo , I'm off to see the wizard .  Tell Glinda I said " Hi ! ".
   Prof. Meg.
*For related discussions , go to NSF thread : How does the expansion of space work ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79683.new;topicseen#new 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/08/2018 21:41:07
Reply #418

I think that the above link to the Lambda-CDM model deserves some discussion, and here is some of that Wiki to start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)
The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ), associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM). It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology because it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:
the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background
the large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies
the abundances of hydrogen (including deuterium), helium, and lithium
the accelerating expansion of the universe observed in the light from distant galaxies and supernovae
The model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. It emerged in the late 1990s as a concordance cosmology, after a period of time when disparate observed properties of the universe appeared mutually inconsistent, and there was no consensus on the makeup of the energy density of the universe.
The ΛCDM model can be extended by adding cosmological inflation, quintessence and other elements that are current areas of speculation and research in cosmology.
Some alternative models challenge the assumptions of the ΛCDM model. Examples of these are modified Newtonian dynamics, modified gravity, theories of large-scale variations in the matter density of the universe, and scale invariance of empty space.[1][2]
———————————————

Note the emphasis on the energy density of the universe, and note that what I call the accelerating expansion cones (see the images in reply #416) represent the time line of individual big bang events. In the Infinite Spongy Universe modle, each of those events equates to the collision of nucleated bubbles described in the Quantum Field Theory Wikis that I have been discussing in my thread “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why”.



The point is that the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model accommodates elements of both the Big Bang cosmological model, and Quantum Field Theory.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 21/08/2018 23:22:49
To Bogart Smiles ,
All of the pustulations you just popped have either been empirically crippled , or reek of infinite causation ( pop-up ism ) .  My incredible gut tells me that the Hawaiian Islands analogy better describes this one-shot ooniverse !  A toast to Multiverse physics !  PM.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Colin2B on 26/08/2018 14:58:05
Hi there PM
We allow a very wide range of alternative views in this section of the forum, but we do ask that everyone adheres to the forum rules and keep the tone friendly. Easy to be misunderstood and come across badly.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/08/2018 15:00:38
Reply #421


The point is that the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model accommodates elements of both the Big Bang cosmological model, and Quantum Field Theory.
Let’s look at the opening of the Lambda CMD Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)
Quote from: Wiki
The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains a cosmological constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant), denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ)…

Note it starts with reference and a link to the Cosmological constant Wiki.

Notice the comparison between that and the opening statement in the false vacuum Wiki, described in Quantum Field Theory, which starts with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum)

In quantum field theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory), a false vacuum is a hypothetical vacuum that is somewhat, but not entirely, stable. It may last for a very long time in that state, and might eventually move to a more stable state. The most common suggestion of how such a change might happen is called bubble nucleation - if a small region of the universe by chance reached a more stable vacuum, this 'bubble' would spread.
A false vacuum may only exist at a local minimum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxima_and_minima) of energy and is therefore not stable, in contrast to a true vacuum, which exists at a global minimum and is stable. A false vacuum may be very long-lived, or metastable.

——————————-

The cosmological constant is to the declining energy density of space in Big Bang Theory, what vacuum energy density in both false and true vacuums is to the various levels of vacuum mentioned in Quantum Field Theory, with theory specific differences of course.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 26/08/2018 16:30:55
To : Colin
 Sounds reasonable . I be laughin' , not hatin' .  Sometimes my humor escapes it's target though , maybe Gerber's humor ?   
 Truthfully , any contest of smarts generates hypersensitivity in some individuals .  It is unavoidable in a large sample .  The most insecure will scream the loudest, the sure-footed will laugh their basses off ! 
 I will try to reduce the biting humor , just remember , most of your audience  ( readers ) would like a little entertainment with their activities .  Better to please them , than a few who smart from a lost debate .
 Anyhoo , enuff sickology .
    Hi-ho Silver !  Away !     P.M.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/08/2018 08:55:10
Reply #423

Hi there PM
We allow a very wide range of alternative views in this section of the forum, but we do ask that everyone adheres to the forum rules and keep the tone friendly. Easy to be misunderstood and come across badly.
I would say that Colin2B was diligent in reviewing the activity in this section and on this thread, and concluded that the tone of recent contributions could be mistaken as unfriendly, and could be misunderstood. I appreciate his reminder that even though there is a wide range of views permitted in this section, there are also standards of conduct that should be adhered to. I choose not to respond to members who carelessly come across badly or as unfriendly, and personally withhold judgement as to how I perceive such posts.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 30/08/2018 11:13:35
Good man !  Tolerance & under-standing be FUNdamental to a human society , I have , however , dialed back the biting humor .
 No more Rodney !     P.M.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 30/08/2018 11:19:45
Mr. Kryptid ,
 It would need to be done according to my magic formula .  It's really a tightrope system .  Don't worry though , it won't be too long , blowing people up just to irradiate them will grow old quick .           P.M.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2018 21:40:35
Reply #426

Good man !  Tolerance & under-standing be FUNdamental to a human society , I have , however , dialed back the biting humor .
No more Rodney !     P.M.
Good form; welcome to TNS
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2018 22:44:59
Mr. Kryptid ,
 It would need to be done according to my magic formula .  It's really a tightrope system .  Don't worry though , it won't be too long , blowing people up just to irradiate them will grow old quick .           P.M.

Why are you bringing up my name in this thread? I don't have any previous posts here.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/09/2018 00:35:48
Sooorry , my bad !
          Ghostbuster
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/09/2018 17:30:52
Reply #429

Back home to the ISU

Though drawn to wander from the light,
And Caused to waver from the verse,
One can never really leave
the Infinite Spongy Universe


The cosmological constant is to the declining energy density of space in Big Bang Theory, what vacuum energy density in both false and true vacuums is to the various levels of vacuum mentioned in Quantum Field Theory, with theory specific differences of course.

What I’m trying to say is that in the ISU, the observable galaxies and galaxy groups in our Hubble view make up only a portion of one big bang arena in the ISU’s infinite and eternal multiple big bang arena landscape. It is generally acknowledged that the energy density in that observable arena is in decline as the observed galaxies and galaxy groups display apparent expansion.

Apparent expansion in the ISU refers to the separation momentum that is observed among the galaxies and galaxy groups. That separation momentum is determined by the redshift data accumulated by observing relative motion of galaxies and galaxy groups across the Hubble view. It is based on a shift in the position of spectral lines toward the red end in the electromagnetic spectrum of the light from distant galaxies.

Note that separation momentum action in the ISU is interpreted to be the result of the relative motion between the galaxies and galaxy groups, causing the distance between them to increase. That differs from the explanation of inflation in Big Bang Theory however, where the redshift data is attributed to new space being added between galaxies.

Also note that if you are following along with my thread in the Naked Scientists Cosmology sub-forum, “What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?”, in this post (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg553084#msg553084 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg553084#msg553084)) you would see I mention that even Inflation theory is now under reconsideration.

Thus, in the ISU, space does not expand, but instead, galaxies separate from each other in pre-existing space.

Remember though that in the ISU model, there is a greater universe, occupying infinite space, and that space contains a potentially infinite number of similar big bang arenas, expanding and converging in an eternal display of the perpetual process of arena action.

Arena action entails the events where and when two or more expanding arenas converge and overlap somewhere in that landscape. When that occurs, their galactic material is forced to give up its local separation momentum by the force of gravity playing on the converging galaxies in the overlap space. The local separation of the affected big bang arenas ends as the galactic contents of the two converging parent arenas swirl and accumulate into a new local big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

The ISU “predicts” that there is an “arena quantum” of energy that will be accumulated in each new big crunch by the accretion of galactic material from the convergence of parent arenas. The arena quantum is a constant value of the amount of gravitational wave energy that can be accumulated in a single big crunch before the crunch fails under the compression of gravity. That value is the equivalent amount of energy contained in all of the matter making up the particles and objects, and all of the wave energy in the space between particles and objects in an entire big bang arena. Big Bang arenas are quantized in the ISU.

When the “critical capacity” of such a crunch is reached, the individual wave-particles in the crunch are gravitationally forced to give up their individual spaces, and they collapse to a relatively tiny shared space environment at the core of the overlap space. That collapse/bang is nature’s most energetic event, marked by the in-falling matter and energy of the crunch until it has reached the maximum limit of wave energy density allowed by the invariant laws of nature.

When that maximum density is reached, the infall is interrupted as if like hitting a brick wall, and there is a physical bounce of wave energy. The “bounce” is a conversion from inflowing wave energy toward the core of the overlap space, to an out flow of gravitational wave energy away from the impenetrable space containing nature’s density limit. That out flow is rapid, at nature’s maximum velocity of wave energy expansion, and marks the initial expansion of the new big bang arena that has just been “born” out of the convergence of the “parent” arenas.

By the time the initial expansion of the new arena commences, the crunch is gone; it has been converted into a ball of hot dense-state wave energy. The energy ball is expanding back out into space that has been left relatively vacant by the sequence of events.

Rapid energy density equalization ensues. Nature’s highest energy density environment (the hot dense ball) begins to equalize with nature’s lowest energy density environment (the newly vacated local space). Energy density equalization, a force in its own right in the ISU model, causes the energy density of the local expanding arena to rapidly decline in the new arena.

That decline in density corresponds to the decay of the hot dense arena ball of energy (sometimes referred to in the ISU as the arena particle). The decay process results in a series of exotic particles, eventually reaching a stable set of particles when arena density declines sufficiently to where the known stable sub-atomic particles have formed across the entire new arena. Atoms and molecules then form, and radiation within the arena begins.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/09/2018 20:54:11

Reply #430

If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

On this thread we are looking at a simple layman level cosmological model based on science, logic, and speculation. Everything about it is open for discussion, comments, and opposing arguments. It is a work in progress since 2001 or so on the Internet, and has evolved over the years. There were early discussions on the Yahoo discussion boards, and then on to various science forums that permitted discussion of layman  alternative ideas, including Bad Astronomy and the Universe Today (BAUT)/CosmoQuest, TOEQuest, ATS (Above Top Secret), The Science Forum, SciForums, as well establishing a presence on Twitter under the Bogie_smiles handle, where I tweet about cosmology and quantum gravity.

The Naked Scientists Forum, http://nakedscientists.com (http://nakedscientists.com), is the present home site for the continuing development of the model, where I am the originating poster [OP], Bogie_smiles, and where I have been a member since May 2017. During that period I have been updating the layman level model by utilizing the forum’s Simple Machines software feature that permits modifying previous posts on the thread.

Together, the above paragraphs, and the following content in this post, is an example of how I am utilizing that feature. The content of this post has been moved to, and included in the opening post,  and early posts that are affected will be modified in due course, to keep this thread updated as an evolving version of the ISU model.

/////////////////////////////////////


Introducing The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)

The model is called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model of the cosmology of the universe. That name will begin to make sense as you become familiar with the particulars of the model, and tackling the meaning of “sponginess” is a good place to start.

Why Spongy?

Spongy, or sponginess has to do with quantized energy density changes that take place on both a grand scale across the landscape of the greater universe, and on the tiny scale of the quantum action that takes place at the micro level of order. Each level has its respective action process, with the Big Bang Arena Action process governing action at the macro level, and the Quantum Action process governing the action at the micro level of order.

To state that in other words, we have changes in wave energy density that are occurring continually at both the micro and macro levels, and at each level, the action is governed by a similar action process that causes changes in the local wave energy density to occur. The difference between levels is that at the macro level, the wave action involves multiple big bangs and big bang arena waves that play out over billions and perhaps trillions of years, as they expand and converge freely across the landscape of the greater universe, while at the micro level, the wave action involves the formation of tiny high energy density “spots” and tiny sub-quantum waves that expand and converge momentarily in the oscillating wave energy background of space.

The mention of quantization of the action processes refers to the concept that big crunches and the resulting arena waves they produce are macro level quanta, while high energy density spots and the tiny quantum waves that they produce are micro level quanta.

The discussion of the mechanics of the action taking place at both levels involves the details of quantization at each level, and how the two major quantum increments, the big crunches at the macro level and the high energy density spots at the micro level, are orchestrated by their respective action processes, into a perpetual, steady state, multiple big bang arena universe.

That points to a key feature of the model; the sameness of the action taking place at both ends of the size scale. The process of Quantum Action is the micro level counterpart to Arena Action at the macro level of order, and so there is a theme of “sameness” throughout the model.

Highlighting that theme, there is an infinite Big Bang arena landscape at the macro level that fills all space, and an infinitesimal oscillating wave energy background at the micro level that also fills all space; a duality of action occurring at opposite ends of a spatial size scale as time passes.

Looking deeper into the mechanics at the macro level, the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe is composed of multiple big bang arenas that expand, converge, and overlap, with convergences resulting in big crunches. Big crunches in turn collapse/bang into new expanding big bang arena waves, continually appearing here and there across the landscape. Big crunches themselves are referred to as dense-state wave energy cores that accumulate at the center of gravity of the overlap spaces, that then collapse/bang into the expanding big bang arena waves. Arena waves are nature's quantized macro level equivalent to the quantum increments of wave energy that are the internal components of wave-particles and objects at the micro level.

To continue the description of the mechanics, the collapse/bangs produce arena waves that expand, mature, fill with wave-particles, that clump, forming stars, and stars internally produce heavy nuclei, as well as form into galactic structure, only to then be caught up in a new arena wave convergence with one or more adjacent expanding big bang arena waves in the local surrounding landscape.

The convergence of two or more expanding Big Bang arena waves will continue the process by producing a big crunch in the overlap space of each convergence, and those crunches will accrete galactic matter and energy from the parent arenas, growing in matter/energy content until they reach nature's “critical capacity” and collapse/bang, and on goes the sameness, perpetuating the Arena Action process.

Looking deeper into the mechanics at the micro level, the infinitesimal oscillating wave energy background is composed of multiple microwave level energy increments that expand, converge, and overlap, with the convergences resulting in high energy density spots. High energy density spots in turn generate new energy waves that expand out of the points of convergence to perpetuate the oscillations across the background. High energy density spots themselves are referred to as dense-state wave energy peaks that form at the points of convergence of two or more oscillating waves, that then emerge into the surrounding space as a new waves in the oscillating background.

Oscillating waves assist the advance of more meaningful gravitational and light energy waves that are natures quantized micro level equivalent to the quantum increments of wave energy that are the big crunches and big bang arena waves that are the components of the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

So the “sponginess” of the model refers to the expansion and collapse of energy density environments at both the macro and micro levels. Arena action perpetually defeats entropy across the landscape of the greater universe, and quantum action is the causative factor in the micro level decay of macro level arena particles from which the low entropy, hot, dense-state balls of energy emerge from big crunches as they collapse/bang.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/09/2018 13:52:08
… Continued from previous post

Reply #431

The ISU is a “From-the-Bottom-Up”, step-by-step Model

The model can be said to start with a specifying definition of nothingness:
Nothingness is no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy.

Using that definition as the “bottom”, the first step is to derive a conclusion from the definition of nothingness, and that conclusion is that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. From that conclusion, we derive the concept that there was no beginning, i.e., the main premise of the model is that the universe as always existed.

If you object to the definition of nothingness, or have an opposing argument to the conclusion I derive from the given definition, you are encouraged to reply.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/09/2018 14:49:48
… Continued from previous post

Reply #431
This content will soon be edited into the previous post and into the OP/early posts as part of the on-going update process of the ISU model.

The ISU is a “From-the-Bottom-Up”, step-by-step Model

The model can be said to start with a specifying definition of nothingness:
Nothingness is no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy.

Using that definition as the “bottom”, the first step is to derive a conclusion from the definition of nothingness, and that conclusion is that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. From that conclusion, we derive the concept that there was no beginning, i.e., the main premise of the model is that the universe as always existed.

If you object to the definition of nothingness, or have an opposing argument to the conclusion I derive from the given definition, you are encouraged to reply.


Good day Mr Smiles  :)

My only real argument with your notion, what are we considering when you say Universe?  I assume you mean matter included in which I disagree.  I consider an infinite space of nothingness that contains no thing, however the space can be seen as some thing, it is space.  How do you derive that matter always existed ? 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/09/2018 15:09:42
Reply #433




Good day Mr Smiles :)

My only real argument with your notion, what are we considering when you say Universe?  I assume you mean matter included in which I disagree.  I consider an infinite space of nothingness that contains no thing, however the space can be seen as some thing, it is space.  How do you derive that matter always existed ? 


I do include matter in the conclusion that the universe has always existed. You are not alone in considering empty space as nothingness, but if you look closely at the consensus theories, space is not presented as nothing, it is said to have properties. Those properties make space subject to stretching, bending and curving, not to mention that space is said to have emerged from an initial event, the Big Bang in General Relativity/Big Bang Theory. Theories evolve, and my layman level view of cosmology evolves too, so your thoughts are a part of that evolution.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 17/09/2018 17:16:10
        Gentlephilosopherstones :
Someone said " layman " so I must go him one better .This uninformed    layman sees a universe full of
"matter" ( frozen energy ) , which used to be energy contained within space ( light , gravity waves , etc.) , which used to be empty space ( an unexplained energy matrix NOT containing any waves ) , which unfolded from "nothing" , after extra-universal physics applied the energy to create " Space ". 
Beyond this I leave it to you cosmic gymnasts & contortionists to origami your brains into headaches .  Me, I know my limitations when I'm staring at them ! 
Adios , Headache Muchachos ! P.M
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 17/09/2018 20:22:01
 Exercise , exercise , come on every body now let's exercise !  Whew , I'm out of breath already ! 
D'ever wonder whyy...wolves howl at the moon ? 
Seriously , though , if ya ever want to know what a living superscope sees , ask ol' Perfessor what it is .
.............P.M.
Title: :
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 14:23:21
Maybe I can add some content to this thread by referencing:


What are they saying about quantum gravity?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg559816



... and by referencing the discussion in the Chat sub-forum that evolved out of Thebox's thread, The Dogma of Science:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75389.msg561246#msg561246 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75389.msg561246#msg561246)

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/12/2018 22:56:07
For the record, I have used the word “spherical” about 75 times in this thread (so far), lol.


It is hard to represent spherical  oscillations  in a diagram or  animation .  Our  ideas  are  very similar .

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2018 23:12:57
For the record, I have used the word “spherical” about 75 times in this thread (so far), lol.


It is hard to represent spherical  oscillations  in a diagram or  animation .  Our  ideas  are  very similar .


 
Great minds think alike ... What is our excuse, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/12/2018 18:00:24
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_12_17_1_35_43.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_12_17_1_35_43.jpeg)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/02/2019 19:55:52
Reply #440

I've been thinking about the cause of particle charge, and am going to speculate about it here on my original NakedScientists thread about the ISU.

This first link is to reply #92 in this thread where I explored the popular science media content about charge:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg521293#msg521293 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg521293#msg521293)

I just edited into that post a link to some of my quantum thinking on the subject from another thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg565553#msg565553 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg565553#msg565553)
 
I want to post that content here for easier reference as I write the rest of this post:


If you think about natural forces applicable to the “whole of space” and, considering that the oscillating/foundational level of order fills the whole of space, then at the foundational level is where I expect to see the fundamental forces arise; there should be an explanation for the fundamental forces right there along with the explanation of quantum gravity at I am speculating about at that level.


Along that line of reasoning, the quantum action we are talking about in the ISU model suggests that when two (or more) wave fronts converge, they generate a third wave in the overlap space that continues to accumulate wave energy until the overlap space itself reaches a quantum of energy (relative to the local energy density environment). The third wave then, continues to expand spherically as its wave front advances at the local speed of light and gravity, following behind the advancing wave fronts of its “parent” waves.


Following that thought, the action is strikingly similar at each level of quantization, the big bang arena level, the wave particle level, and right down at the oscillating background level that fills all space; a “sameness” in the action processes across all scales. That makes the role that the wave fronts play in the quantization process one of the common denominators among those levels. Conceptually, the wave front is a spherically expanding differential between the energy density behind the wave front, and the energy density in front of the wave front. The differential at the front marks where the meaningful pinhole action of wave advance is taking place.


Therefore, a new pinhole wave is a third wave occurring at the level of the oscillating background, and the occurrence of that new third wave involves the motion of the wave front as it advances through the space in front of the front. The energy density behind the front is continually trending toward a state of equalization between the higher wave energy density behind the wave front, and the lower wave energy density in front of the wave front. As the spherical wave front advances, it is incorporating more lower density wave oscillations into the expanding volume of the advancing wave front, and the wave energy density behind that advancing wave front is therefore continually in a process of wave energy density equalization. That means that there is equalization going on behind the advancing front, while there is interruption of the equalization going on in front of the advancing wave front (and therefore behind the front of the other parent wave). It is at that line of differential between the two opposing fronts that the pinhole third wave action is occurring. The existence of a process of equalization behind the font, and the third wave action at the front, establishes the location of the advancing wave front and characterizes the conditions in effect at the point of the advancing front.

What point is being made with this post?

I'm suggesting, speculating about the presence of an electric force along the spherical wave front as it advances, and the presence of a magnetic force perpendicular to the advancing wave front, i.e., the question of whether a moving wave front produces electromagnetism as third waves are produced by the convergence of two or more “parent waves”.

Is that idea worthy of being considered as a foundational explanation for particle charge, and the fundamental explanation for electromagnetism? I say that rhetorically to indicate that it is a topic under consideration, that could fill a gap in the details of what I call the ISU model. It is not intended to imply that there is anything wrong with the generally accepted explanations of the physics of electric currents or the magnetic fields that they produce, as described in trusted sources, but it does bug me that I have not yet found the generally accepted explanation for the cause of particle charge in my layman level review of some of those sources.

To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?d
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/02/2019 02:58:39
Reply #441

To follow on with the quantum thinking about particle charge in the ISU, my layman understanding of an electric current includes the idea that if you pass a loop of copper wire through a magnetic field, electric current flows through the wire, and as an electric current flows through a wire, there is a magnetic field perpendicular to the current flow.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43393/why-does-electricity-flowing-through-a-copper-coil-generate-a-magnetic-field (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43393/why-does-electricity-flowing-through-a-copper-coil-generate-a-magnetic-field)
“An electric current (a flow of electric charge) has an associated magnetic field regardless of the material (or space) the flow occurs in. This is a fundamental part of electromagnetism, rooted in observation, and quantified in Ampere's Law.
I wish to emphasize that this phenomenon is considered to be fundamental in nature, which means, there cannot be a "more" fundamental explanation (for, if there were, electromagnetism would not be fundamental)."

It seems that the best answer so far for the cause of an electromagnetic particle charge is that electromagnetism is fundamental, and in the ISU, the invariant natural laws of the universe are fundamental.
I could go to speculative lengths and still not improve on the idea that in this case, the word “fundamental” refers to natural invariant laws recognized in the ISU as part of the philosophy of Eternal Intent (see reply #108  https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158). In the ISU philosophy, we express the conclusion that God and the Invariant Natural Laws of the Universe are one and the same.

To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/03/2019 12:06:20

I could go to speculative lengths and still not improve on the idea that in this case, the word “fundamental” refers to natural invariant laws recognized in the ISU as part of the philosophy of Eternal Intent (see reply #108  https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158)). In the ISU philosophy, we express the conclusion that God and the Invariant Natural Laws of the Universe are one and the same.


To be continued ...
And to quote from the philosophy of Eternal Intent:
Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/04/2019 04:55:36
Hi Bogie ,

My N-field theory and your ISU model had some comparisons . I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model .   I wondered if you would mind discussing your field convergence please ?

After a recent thought on Quantum leaping I remembered your convergence theory vaguely and considered that in my new model , time could converge with time if time is expanding in other realms too .

Do you think / consider in your convergence theory that when the universes converge , that can be seen as different times converging ?



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/04/2019 05:11:17
I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model

Would that mean the old model was wrong?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/04/2019 05:14:33
I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model

Would that mean the old model was wrong?
No ,it would just mean my old model has been revamped and advanced . My old model was fine but  I've improved it since . Anyway lets not disrupt this thread , Bogie has some great thinking skills and his notions are rather good .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/04/2019 05:17:13
No ,it would just mean my old model has been revamped and advanced . My old model was fine but my I've improved it since

So you didn't "totally change" it.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/04/2019 05:24:13
No ,it would just mean my old model has been revamped and advanced . My old model was fine but my I've improved it since

So you didn't "totally change" it.
Not totally , it's just I've ''discovered'' lots of new things since . I also think my math is getting better because people do slip in the occasional hints and help .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/04/2019 05:26:06
Not totally , it's just I've ''discovered'' lots of new things since . I also think my math is getting better because people do slip in the occasional hints and help .

What's different about it now?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/04/2019 05:34:40
Not totally , it's just I've ''discovered'' lots of new things since . I also think my math is getting better because people do slip in the occasional hints and help .

What's different about it now?
Well before I had my N-field model which is the basic version but now I have a 7d model N-field version . To be honest my head is that full of thought it would take forever to write it all down . I've also got improved math for it I think now . TBH though , I don't get much encouragement so I hardly try  although I ''try'' . 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/04/2019 14:17:10
Hi Bogie ,

My N-field theory and your ISU model had some comparisons . I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model .   I wondered if you would mind discussing your field convergence please ?

After a recent thought on Quantum leaping I remembered your convergence theory vaguely and considered that in my new model , time could converge with time if time is expanding in other realms too .

Hello TheBox. I think it is a fair statement that your N-theory is more about fields, while my ISU model is more about energy density environments. Nevertheless, what you are doing in the process of getting your mind around the nature of the universe is the same as I am doing. My model is an expression of my thoughts about known science, generally accepted theory, and the as yet unknown, and each of those categories is in a state of continual change.

The scientific community is continually advancing our knowledge on every front, and as that process unfolds, advances are made into the “as yet” unknown. Those advances are folded into the category of known science via the scientific method, where existing theory can be superseded by new ideas. We are bound by the scientific method, and it is always incomplete because of the “as yet” unknown.

The “convergence theory” as you call it, is part of the ISU model, for sure, and the point of convergence it is only half of the action in any given convergence event, because every convergence between energy density environments produces an overlap, and the overlap space becomes a “third wave”. That third wave expands into the space previously occupied by the converging “parent” waves as the result of the process of energy density equalization, and as such, becomes a new expanding energy density environment of its own.

The idea is that any two adjacent energy density environments will have different average energy densities by definition, and so the more dense environment will impose itself on the space occupied by the less dense environment, and as the imposition takes place, the energy density of the combined environment declines and trends toward equalization.

An example of one of nature’s smallest environments might be the point of convergence between two small gravitational wave fronts, and while among the largest environments are the big bang arenas that expand until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with an adjacent expanding big bang arena, i.e., by converging.

So whether we are talking about the convergence of two individual low energy wave fronts, or two expanding high energy big bang arena wave fronts, convergences are continually occurring everywhere, as energy wave fronts carry energy across space, and as convergences occur. The process is perpetuated by the formation of third waves that form at the point of each convergence.
Quote
Do you think / consider in your convergence theory that when the universes converge , that can be seen as different times converging ?
Yes.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/04/2019 15:04:45
Hi Bogie ,

My N-field theory and your ISU model had some comparisons . I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model .   I wondered if you would mind discussing your field convergence please ?

After a recent thought on Quantum leaping I remembered your convergence theory vaguely and considered that in my new model , time could converge with time if time is expanding in other realms too .

Hello TheBox. I think it is a fair statement that your N-theory is more about fields, while my ISU model is more about energy density environments. Nevertheless, what you are doing in the process of getting your mind around the nature of the universe is the same as I am doing. My model is an expression of my thoughts about known science, generally accepted theory, and the as yet unknown, and each of those categories is in a state of continual change.

The scientific community is continually advancing our knowledge on every front, and as that process unfolds, advances are made into the “as yet” unknown. Those advances are folded into the category of known science via the scientific method, where existing theory can be superseded by new ideas. We are bound by the scientific method, and it is always incomplete because of the “as yet” unknown.

The “convergence theory” as you call it, is part of the ISU model, for sure, and the point of convergence it is only half of the action in any given convergence event, because every convergence between energy density environments produces an overlap, and the overlap space becomes a “third wave”. That third wave expands into the space previously occupied by the converging “parent” waves as the result of the process of energy density equalization, and as such, becomes a new expanding energy density environment of its own.

The idea is that any two adjacent energy density environments will have different average energy densities by definition, and so the more dense environment will impose itself on the space occupied by the less dense environment, and as the imposition takes place, the energy density of the combined environment declines and trends toward equalization.

An example of one of nature’s smallest environments might be the point of convergence between two small gravitational wave fronts, and while among the largest environments are the big bang arenas that expand until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with an adjacent expanding big bang arena, i.e., by converging.

So whether we are talking about the convergence of two individual low energy wave fronts, or two expanding high energy big bang arena wave fronts, convergences are continually occurring everywhere, as energy wave fronts carry energy across space, and as convergences occur. The process is perpetuated by the formation of third waves that form at the point of each convergence.
Quote
Do you think / consider in your convergence theory that when the universes converge , that can be seen as different times converging ?
Yes.
Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .  I really like your convergence theory , to be honest probably the best piece of science I've ever read .  I assume your third wave is twice as dense when first converged to then expand to its original density ?

87dcbd636f523427bc985c870982626e.gif  = t
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/04/2019 21:04:02
That equation isn't right. (t+t)/t does not equal t. It equals 2. When you add together the "t"s on the top, you get "2t". The "t" in the denominator then cancels with the "t" in the numerator, leaving only the 2 behind.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/04/2019 12:04:33
Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .  I really like your convergence theory , to be honest probably the best piece of science I've ever read .
It is quite alternative, and relies on my speculations to fill the gaps in the “as yet” unknown. But I like it too, thanks :)
Quote
I assume your third wave is twice as dense when first converged to then expand to its original density ?
Yes, if the parent waves are of equal density at the point of convergence.

The expansion of the third wave, after the point of intersection occurs, is subject to many variables, but you have tuned in on the fact that the density at the point of intersection would be the combined density of the two parent waves for the first instant.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/04/2019 13:34:39
Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .,,
I didn’t acknowledge this part of your reply, but charge and field go hand in hand in the ISU model. A charged particle has an electric field, and as a charged particle is accelerated relative to the field, a perpendicular magnetic field is produced.

In my model, the electric charge of a particle at rest occupies the same space as the electric field, and corresponds with the outflowing gravitational wave energy component of the wave-particle (the other component being the inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving from surrounding space). As you may recall, in the ISU model, the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon particle is light, and those light waves carry energy, relative to the energy of the particular photon, across space (at the speed of light and gravity).

This means that the photon wave particles always traverse space at the local speed of light (which is determined by the local gravitational wave energy density), and always receive their inflowing gravitational wave energy component (to replace the spherically out flowing wave energy) from the direction of motion, hence they follow an essentially straight path over short distances, and will have a curved path over longer distances, influenced by the presence of massive objects that lie ahead.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/04/2019 13:40:46
Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .,,
I didn’t acknowledge this part of your reply, but charge and field go hand in hand in the ISU model. A charged particle has an electric field, and as a charged particle is accelerated relative to the field, a perpendicular magnetic field is produced.

In my model, the electric charge of a particle at rest occupies the same space as the electric field, and corresponds with the outflowing gravitational wave energy component of the wave-particle (the other component being the inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving from surrounding space). As you may recall, in the ISU model, the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon particle is light, and those light waves carry energy, relative to the energy of the particular photon, across space (at the speed of light and gravity).

This means that the photon wave particles always traverse space at the local speed of light (which is determined by the local gravitational wave energy density), and always receive their inflowing gravitational wave energy component (to replace the spherically out flowing wave energy) from the direction of motion) hence they follow an essentially straight path over short distances, and will have a curved path over longer distances, influenced by the presence of massive objects that lie ahead.
Uncanny how our models compare ,  I love your model because I love my model and our models make really good sense .  You do explain your model better than I explain mine though .

Have you ever considered your parent arena to be  a huge single photon  and within the photon is all the information of a visual Universe ?

Added - A ,  cannot see B and vice versus . Because in our infinite universe models , we can zoom out and anything of any size becomes a relative point .


* abb.jpg (12.49 kB . 665x323 - viewed 3943 times)

Same pic zoomed out .


* abbb.jpg (6.18 kB . 665x323 - viewed 3945 times)

The math says internal energy U divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate space . 



Edit finished .








Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/04/2019 14:10:49
Added- I can't remember , did you have/give name to the empty space between arenas in your model ?  I've called this space in my model the never ever space .


* neverever.jpg (21.9 kB . 665x323 - viewed 3881 times)



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/04/2019 19:40:48
Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .,,
I didn’t acknowledge this part of your reply, but charge and field go hand in hand in the ISU model. A charged particle has an electric field, and as a charged particle is accelerated relative to the field, a perpendicular magnetic field is produced.

In my model, the electric charge of a particle at rest occupies the same space as the electric field, and corresponds with the outflowing gravitational wave energy component of the wave-particle (the other component being the inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving from surrounding space). As you may recall, in the ISU model, the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon particle is light, and those light waves carry energy, relative to the energy of the particular photon, across space (at the speed of light and gravity).

This means that the photon wave particles always traverse space at the local speed of light (which is determined by the local gravitational wave energy density), and always receive their inflowing gravitational wave energy component (to replace the spherically out flowing wave energy) from the direction of motion) hence they follow an essentially straight path over short distances, and will have a curved path over longer distances, influenced by the presence of massive objects that lie ahead.
Uncanny how our models compare ,  I love your model because I love my model and our models make really good sense .  You do explain your model better than I explain mine though .

Have you ever considered your parent arena to be  a huge single photon  and within the photon is all the information of a visual Universe ?
The imagination can keep us entertained endlessly, :) , but I get where you are coming from. A big bang arena has a finite amount of energy, and so why not equate it with a massive photon that has its energy organized to contain the precise information that is contained in a single big bang arena?
Quote
Added - A ,  cannot see B and vice versus . Because in our infinite universe models , we can zoom out and anything of any size becomes a relative point .

The math says internal energy U divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate space . 
Edit finished .

The difference is that in the ISU model, there is just one universe, but it contains a potentially infinite number of possible expanding big bang arenas at any given time. So arena A and arena B can co-exist, but each will be expanding, and no matter how far they are apart, left to expand independently, they will eventually intersect and overlap, and produce a new big crunch out of their combined galactic material. When that big crunch reaches critical capacity, it will collapse/bang into a new expanding big bang arena in its own right (a new third wave).


Energy fills all space.

You might think, “How can that be, if there are particles separated by space, then you might think of that surrounding space as being empty, but in the ISU model there is no empty space. So you might ask, “ What fills all of the surrounding space if it isn’t empty?

All space contains energy in the form of wave fronts that carry energy across space, and so in between detectible particles and objects that occupy space, is undetectable gravitational wave energy. That wave energy in surrounding space is emitted and absorbed by particles and objects that occupy space.

You might think that a particle that emits gravitational wave energy would quickly “evaporate” as it runs out of internal wave energy, but no, that does not happen. Gravitational waves are continually converging in space, and each convergence produces a momentary high energy density spot at the point of convergence. All of those spots in otherwise empty space, have a hint of mass, and the number (density) of “spots” or hints of mass is higher as you approach particles and objects in space, because those particles and objects are the source of the gravitational waves that fill all space.

That means that the space immediately surrounding particles and objects has higher energy density, and as you go deeper in the surrounding space by moving away from the local particles and objects, the energy density of the surrounding space naturally becomes less energy dense.

But no matter how far you go into deep space, you can never reach a place that is free of wave energy, because a gravitational wave front has higher energy density behind it than it has in front of it, enabling it to intrude on the lower energy density space that it is encountering as it expands. That differential of energy density behind vs. in front of the advancing gravitational wave energy front accounts for one of the two main forces in the ISU model, the force of energy density equalization; a higher energy density environment will advance through the surrounding space by imposing itself on the space occupied by the lower energy density surrounding space, and the volume of the overlap space will increase, and its density will trend toward equalization between the overlapping wave fronts.


(The overlap is actually a wave in its own right, which” is designated as a “third wave”, as you know.)

In an infinite and eternal universe filled with wave-energy, no overlap-space can expand until its internal energy density is equalized with the surrounding space, because its expansion will be interrupted by encountering higher energy density environments expanding toward it, to interrupt its expansion along various points on its expanding wave-front.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/04/2019 14:17:54


In an infinite and eternal universe filled with wave-energy, no overlap-space can expand until its internal energy density is equalized with the surrounding space, because its expansion will be interrupted by encountering higher energy density environments expanding toward it, to interrupt its expansion along various points on its expanding wave-front.
That paragraphs captures the gist of the ISU wave energy mechanics that  apply to all actions, from the cases in which the ISU model acknowledges that in our infinite and eternal universe there are, have been, and will always be an infinite number of multiple big bangs and their associated expanding arena waves filling all space at all times, to the cases of the tiniest impulse waves that carry the most insignificant involuntary sub-conscious human thoughts, as our lives play out. That summarizes the thinking that has all of the attributes that are necessary to advance the conclusion that God and the Universe are one and the same, mentioned in the poem:

God and the Universe are One and the Same

If at first there was nothing, not even God,
Then nothing could ever be,
But just look around at the many fine things,
As far as the eye can see.
So say with certainty, one of two things,
It seems to make sense to proclaim;
God, or the Universe, has always been here,
And maybe they’re one and the same.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: fjoosk on 16/04/2019 17:50:14
It sort of defeats the objective to be honest, defining the beginning can only have one first action, although multiple BB's could of followed.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/04/2019 22:40:21
It sort of defeats the objective to be honest, defining the beginning can only have one first action, although multiple BB's could of followed.
I think I understand your post; let me restate part of it in my words:
Paraphrasing fjoosk …
If the premise is that there was a first action, i.e., a beginning of the universe, then there would be only one such first action, by definition. Never-the-less, given a single first action at the beginning of the universe, and acknowledging the possibility of many subsequent multiple big bangs, each producing a big bang arena much like our observable universe (as descried in the ISU model), it could be said that each big bang event was a first action relative to each new expanding big bang arena.

If that is what you are saying, I would first point out that in the ISU model there was no first action; the universe has always existed.

Do you want to offer any clarification of the intent of your post?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Lance Canham on 18/04/2019 14:48:33
How about an infinite big bang over and infinite period of time over an infinite universe.  Each using the last as the fuel for the next. Fuel may or may not be the word.  a given bb evolves to a state similar to what we have now and then the large scale structure does it all over again.  So a whole infinite universe goes through the BB phase over and over again where by each ones product of large scale structures controlled by gravity and all its space expand and form a new wave of particles which the forces slowly begin to take hold.  Lather rinse repeat.  Did it infinite times and will do it infinite times.  Gives dark matter - Dark energy a- AND increasing rate of expansion.

You only need a galaxy more worth of matter for every VUS (visible universe size) over a large area compared to another large area that does not have that extra mass per VUS to make it all happen again if the universe is infinite.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/04/2019 00:05:53
God and the Universe are One and the Same

You know we agree that the Universe has always existed , we differ in the way we look at matters existence , I believe matter has not always existed where  if I remember correctly  you think matter always existed too .

Within me
Around me
The transparency of God
The greatness of divide
The distance between our minds ..

Logically and physically I consider God and space itself are one and the same , the existence of matter being a 100% miracle .   
The properties of space itself describe God , ''immortal'', everywhere ,  etc . 

Anyway we both know science would never just accept a miracle lol and we know religion would not accept that Gods only purpose was to ''perform''  a single miracle then let what will be , be . 

Anyway I wish you luck and hope you publish one day , it's a good theory . I'm back to the giving up  :D









 

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/04/2019 15:26:35
How about an infinite big bang over and infinite period of time over an infinite universe.  Each using the last as the fuel for the next. Fuel may or may not be the word.  a given bb evolves to a state similar to what we have now and then the large scale structure does it all over again.  So a whole infinite universe goes through the BB phase over and over again where by each ones product of large scale structures controlled by gravity and all its space expand and form a new wave of particles which the forces slowly begin to take hold.  Lather rinse repeat.  Did it infinite times and will do it infinite times.  Gives dark matter - Dark energy a- AND increasing rate of expansion.

You only need a galaxy more worth of matter for every VUS (visible universe size) over a large area compared to another large area that does not have that extra mass per VUS to make it all happen again if the universe is infinite.
I’ve encountered similar thinking over the years, and it never seemed convincing. There are many who debunk it out there, and a search for “problems with the cyclical models”, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=problems+with+the+cyclical+models&t=osx&ia=about (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=problems+with+the+cyclical+models&t=osx&ia=about)
 is a good place to start. Enjoy.

My Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model reflects a layman’s work in process attempt at a more complete view, and axiomatically invokes the three infinites: Space, time, and energy (go to opening post, lol.)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/04/2019 15:50:27
God and the Universe are One and the Same

You know we agree that the Universe has always existed , we differ in the way we look at matters existence , I believe matter has not always existed where  if I remember correctly  you think matter always existed too .
I do equate matter with gravitational wave energy density convergences in space, so yes, in the ISU model, the universe is composed of space, time, and wave energy.
Quote
Within me
Around me
The transparency of God
The greatness of divide
The distance between our minds ..

Logically and physically I consider God and space itself are one and the same , the existence of matter being a 100% miracle .   
The properties of space itself describe God , ''immortal'', everywhere ,  etc .

Anyway we both know science would never just accept a miracle lol and we know religion would not accept that Gods only purpose was to ''perform''  a single miracle then let what will be , be . 
Human’s have a spiritual side, and each of us has an individual way of thinking and expressing it.
Quote

Anyway I wish you luck and hope you publish one day , it's a good theory . I'm back to the giving up  :D
I won’t be publishing in the technical sense, but my threads are archived in various places on the Internet.

If you give up, that is one tiny permission towards others giving up, and I don’t know why you would want to unless you are feeling down. So cheer up, we still have the Internet that loves us, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/05/2019 22:31:25
Just a point of interest to me, my wife was in London today, on an excursion from a Princess Cruise she is taking with ten of her BFFs, and said she loves it. If I had made the trip I would have made it a point to visit Cambridge too.

It does look like you have given up, but I encourage you to reconsider.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2019 14:52:29
The experience of conducting a thread in the New Theories sub-forum at TNS is a personal adventure into one man’s speculative views of the universe. Feel free to argue, since a personal speculation carries the weight of one man’s logic, and to propose a different view is as simple as using different logic.

However, within the precepts of my personal view of the cosmology of the universe, The Infinite Spongy Universe Model, is the idea that humans, in fact any established intelligent life form, will evolve “sound” logic that goes hand in hand with its getting established as an independent life form over increasing time and space.

The premise that goes along with the power of the idea of sound logic is that two logical individuals may very will agree on a particular speculation. As logical minded thinkers weigh the evidence, science consensus quickly builds,

The three Infinities (considered axiomatic), space, time and energy, are at the heart of the ISU model, so if you have comments, thoughts or any objections/ideas to add, feel free to say.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/05/2019 21:41:29
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Space is boundless, time is eternal, and energy fills all space.

What is energy? It is waves traversing space over time. Wave fronts carry energy through space. In the ISU model, all wave energy is conserved, meaning that as two wave fronts converge, a third wave front is produced. The third wave emerges from the point of intersection of two parent waves, and as the converging parent wave fronts proceed to form an overlap space, the overlap space trends to expand spherically and increase in volume. That growing volume represents the new expanding third wave front, carrying the combined energy of the parent wave fronts.

It is a perpetual process.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/05/2019 13:14:29
When two or more “wave fronts” converge, what exactly is converging?

In the ISU model, wave front convergences occur at many orders of magnitude, but the foundational wave action of the universe consists of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein, and discovered by LIGO.

LIGO detected examples of some of nature’s most energetic waves; those produced by the in-swirling “death” spiral of two black holes. Einstein’s prediction of gravitational waves is consistent with the premise that the source of gravitational waves is relative motion between objects with mass.

Just as relative motion applies to the in-swirling blackholes, it also applies to the apple falling from the tree, and the relative motion of tiny quanta that make up all mass. It is easy to conclude that gravitational waves fill all space.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/05/2019 22:16:09
The myriad of gravitational waves filling all space gives each point in space a specific, but always fluctuating amount of energy, so space can be characterized as a fluctuating point by point gravitational wave energy density.

The closer you are to the most massive object in your vicinity of space, the higher the local gravitational wave energy density.

According to the ISU model, the massive objects are emitting gravitational waves proportional to their mass, and to maintain their relative mass, they absorb gravitational wave energy to replace the energy emitted.

It is this emitted gravitational wave energy that fills in the space between massive objects.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/05/2019 13:12:17

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

The ISU model is based on the reasoning that the entire universe is composed of gravitational wave energy; space is filled with it, and everything with mass in the universe is composed of it.

The mechanism includes the idea that hints of mass form at the intersection points where expanding gravitational waves converge, and gravitational waves are continually converging everywhere. The directional inflow at the points of convergence of gravitational wave energy means that the hints of mass have directionally inflowing components, and the resulting “third waves” that form at the points of the convergence produce the spherical out flowing component of gravitational wave energy. All mass has both inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/05/2019 23:34:59

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Wave-particles are thus composed of multiple internal wave energy convergences creating what are called standing wave patterns, where the inflowing and out flowing gravitational waves that make up the wave-particles establish a pattern of wave intersections that are continually refreshed by the on-going directionally converging wave action.

Photons are wave-particles that absorb all of their inflowing gravitational wave energy from the direction of motion, which accounts for the fact that they travel at the local speed of light in the direction of motion. The photon wave-particles emit gravitational wave energy spherically as they traverse space, converting the continual inflow of directional gravitational wave energy to a continual spherical third wave action of out flowing gravitational wave energy.

Key concept: The outflowing gravitational wave energy component from the photon wave-particle is light energy in the ISU model.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/06/2019 13:04:23
Reply 472

On the premise that in the ISU Model of Cosmology, God and the Universe are one and the same, anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.


Note:

The Meaning of Life in the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) philosophy

According the ISU, the meaning of life can be derived from the philosophy of Eternal Intent as it is described herein above, which individually says that life is what we find it to be as we live it.

The greater meaning of life is in the perpetual existence of life and life forms across the infinity of space and time, governed by natural laws that predict it to be generated and evolved from natural circumstances.

In a universe that is infinite and eternal; life has and always will exist.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/06/2019 13:48:10
Reply #473

In the ISU model of the cosmology of the universe, matter and wave-particles are one and the same. Wave-particles can interact with each other from either of two perspectives.

One perspective is associated with their particle nature, where the gravitational wave intersections within the standing wave patterns that make up the wave-particles are the discrete quanta referred to as hints of mass. Adjacent wave-particles fuel each other by exchanging gravitational wave energy emissions. The out flowing gravitational wave energy from one wave-particle provides the inflowing gravitational wave energy for surrounding wave particles, and the intersections of those gravitational waves form the hints of mass within the standing wave patterns.

The other perspective is associated with the on-going gravitational wave action that takes place in the space between wave intersections and which is the immediate source of subsequent wave intersections that form the quanta that make up the contained energy of the standing wave patterns that establish the presence of wave-particles.

Convergences of gravitational waves have mass, and the tiny quanta are hints of mass that interact with each other via the third wave that forms subsequent to the formation of each quanta and leads to the formation of new quanta, to maintain the standing wave pattern and the presence of mass.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/03/2020 18:57:24
Warning: 3/11/2020 getting ready to post again after 9 months of inactivity ... :)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/03/2020 19:24:47
I wouldn't blame anyone if they jumped in and took exception to my reply #473, or to any of the many speculations that this thread contains.

For example,
"Convergences of gravitational waves have mass, and the tiny quanta are hints of mass that interact with each other via the third wave that forms subsequent to the formation of each quanta and leads to the formation of new quanta, to maintain the standing wave pattern and the presence of mass."

This is the time to feel free to comment on any of these speculations, because an on-topic response would be a chance to respond before I begin to go further into the depths of the "as yet unknown" from my perspective of the "third wave" concept.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/03/2020 19:59:00
Is there anyone who understands the "third wave" concept? You have to think of everything in space {the infinite space that makes up the infinite and eternal universe) in terms of energy, and energy in space takes the form of waves that travel through space from a point of origin. Points of origin are points where pre-existing energy waves converge. Wave convergences produce the third waves, and every wave is continually in the process of convergences. Can you make any sense out of that idea?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 14/03/2020 12:17:18
Is there anyone who understands the "third wave" concept? You have to think of everything in space {the infinite space that makes up the infinite and eternal universe) in terms of energy, and energy in space takes the form of waves that travel through space from a point of origin. Points of origin are points where pre-existing energy waves converge. Wave convergences produce the third waves, and every wave is continually in the process of convergences. Can you make any sense out of that idea?

MY guess is this has to do with wave addition. If we have two waves they will add as a third wave. Wave 1 plus Wave 2 equals Wave A.

(https://media.cheggcdn.com/media/bcb/bcb5eebf-68c2-4565-9a45-45e78e169880/phpEs8wQ8.png)

As implied by the second scenario; wave B, if the early universe was initially composed of equal and opposite waves, where all the wave pairs cancel, although there would be a lot of energy present, it would not be visible; hidden energy.

One would need to add a partition in the stillness, to make the hidden energy reappear. A partition, such as matter, will disrupt the wave addition causing crests and troughs to appear, one on each side of the partition. The crest on one side and the trough on the other  will create a potential across the partition, The partition will move from high to lower energy wave pressure. As its moves the crest and trough reverse; vibration.

Conceptually we could generate endless energy by simply creating a suitable partition within zero point energy. The wavelength of this energy will determine the opacity needs of the partition or else the wave addition will pass right through

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/03/2020 14:09:20
Thanks Puppypower for that analysis. I used to spend a lot of time thinking about wave energy and wave convergences, and came to some conclusions that went beyond where mainstream science and evidence based experimental results seem to go. I thought through my own speculations and concluded that there are many "as yet" unknowns that provide food for thought. I check back now and then, and sometimes get a new idea or two, especially when people like you offer their thoughts. Thanks again.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: xersanozgen on 17/03/2020 21:28:32
According to big bang theory we (Solar system/Milky Way/ local cluster...) must be on a spherical surface. In this case, if the universe has singularity we would not see any thing outside of this sphere. Whereas celestial objects are isotropic. That is, they are present on every directions.

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

This opinion had been explaned in my study (Light kinematics to analyze space time)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/03/2020 03:42:15
...
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]
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/03/2020 11:49:21
...
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.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/03/2020 01:10:28

...
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)
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 28/03/2020 11:12:26
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2020 17:47:37
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/05/2020 20:40:48
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/06/2020 21:33:45
Quote
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/06/2020 22:33:22
Ummm...
That sounds like an ever-growing black-hole to me !
.🤔
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/06/2020 22:39:45
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?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/06/2020 23:03:54
Well... I wanna believe !
😶
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/06/2020 23:23:48
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".
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/06/2020 00:01:47
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 .
🤔?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/06/2020 01:05:31
That's a pretty radical viewpoint ...
...
Well, I wanna believe!











55842
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/06/2020 16:35:32
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/06/2020 18:44:53
Alright ... sounds like Roger Penrose's lava lamp to me though !
Ya still gotta wonder what the prime-mover is !
🤓
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 08/06/2020 11:18:53
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/06/2020 13:15:56
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.   .🤔
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/06/2020 15:21:34
In my model I keep it simple: there is one universe, it is infinite, and has always existed.














56138,56295,56316,56380,56417,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 09/06/2020 17:23:17
*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.  .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/06/2020 15:04:56
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,


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/06/2020 18:51:06
So with no objections to the "no beginning", and in recognition of those who have thought about it beyond that step, yes, we are saying that the universe has always existed, and I am adding, that on a grand scale, there would have been no universal changes of state such as the idea of Lerner that the observable universe was preceded by a plasma state.

My thinking is that it would take some sort of intervention to change from a plasma state to the current state, and any such intervention seems to be on the same level as "something from nothing".






57095,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 22/06/2020 21:14:38
"Bogey at two o'clock !
Sorry , I just had to say that , at least once in my existence !
As to the thread subject ; I doubt that Mr. Lerner would claim to have a bead on the "Prime-Mover" , anymore than advocates of the Big-Bang Theory (or the TV. show).
I personally like the Big-Heat theory , where the universe had space first , then the ungodly-huge energy was injected in . However , there definitely could have been an intermediate plasma-state . It's possible that in future , some new math or observational evidence will become extant , but for now , we are the "...deaf , dumb , and blind kids..." !
Toodles , and watch your six !

P.M.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/06/2020 21:55:06
"Bogey at two o'clock !
Sorry , I just had to say that , at least once in my existence !
As to the thread subject ; I doubt that Mr. Lerner would claim to have a bead on the "Prime-Mover" , anymore than advocates of the Big-Bang Theory (or the TV. show).
I personally like the Big-Heat theory , where the universe had space first , then the ungodly-huge energy was injected in . However , there definitely could have been an intermediate plasma-state . It's possible that in future , some new math or observational evidence will become extant , but for now , we are the "...deaf , dumb , and blind kids..." !
Toodles , and watch your six !

P.M.
It is that injection of ungodly-huge-energy that seems hard to accept. But since my preference, "always existed" is hard for many to accept, it becomes a matter of "what we don't know", :) .




57125
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 22/06/2020 22:12:40
Yah , it's right up there with that eternal injection of space, that we call "inflation"!
Well , Tommy can hear you !
P.M.  .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/06/2020 01:27:42
Right down my alley, ... infinite space for eternity, and infinite energy for eternity ... the common denominator is eternity. Everything has always existed so no need for something from nothing.








57180
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 23/06/2020 02:08:55
Yeah but ...
Just like people , it develops , changes , and has a life-cycle .
A plasma-sea is not a spiral galaxy , for instance .
Perhaps the deep-past and deep-future had/will have very different physics than at present .
Maybe the multiverse ingests universes , and/or their energy .
It could take millions of years to answer these questions , then there'll be more .
Au revoir , Oz !
P.M.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/06/2020 02:47:51
I like to have an opinion on the nature of things, and I agree that an infinite and eternal universe leaves some room for speculation, even wild speculation, lol.


But I have come to a personal conclusion I call the "sameness doctrine". That is, on a grand scale, the universe might well be a multiple big bang universe where big bangs are common events across infinite space, and time, but there is a "sameness" in the mechanics that dictates that as those bangs occur, they will expand, intersect and overlap. New Big Crunches will from in the overlap spaces out of the galactic matter and energy contributed by those parent arenas, and those new crunches will collapse/bang into new expanding big bang arenas. It is a perpetual phenomenon going on all the time across infinite space.

My view is that those are the physics that remain the same everywhere, eternally, and as crunch/bang cycles play out, they are characterized by that "sameness" over space and time.

57210,57284,57324,57389,57430,57480,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 23/06/2020 04:02:25
I'm a "Big-Rip" kinda guy , myself .
I think that whatever cycles are involved , are far grander than what you've referred to .
😬
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/06/2020 18:17:56
I'm a "Big-Rip" kinda guy , myself .
I think that whatever cycles are involved , are far grander than what you've referred to .
😬
Maybe so. When the premise is "infinite and eternal", one man's grand wave is another man's ripple, :) .



57545
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 27/06/2020 22:26:14
So , it's infinitely relative !  .🤓
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/06/2020 23:47:21
So , it's infinitely relative !  .🤓
Yes. I'll credit you with that when I quote you :)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 28/06/2020 00:56:23
...Bwaa-Haha-Haha...
I'm flattered !  .😅
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/06/2020 02:52:31
An important concept in the "sameness doctrine" is "the big bang arena" as described in reply #506. The premise is that the universe is filled with a potentially infinite number of such arenas at all times, and they expand, overlap, form crunches, and the crunches "bang" into new expanding arenas in a perpetual dance of matter and energy. There is so much time, and so many combinations of matter and energy and environment, that life inevitably arises, finds a foothold, evolves, and high intelligence is spawned. Say "hello", lol.








57654,57744,57767,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 28/06/2020 03:18:07
A "Crunchy-Roll" universe ?
Naah , I prefer an explicable process , even if it currently exceeds our grasp ! .🤔
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/06/2020 03:01:44
A "Crunchy-Roll" universe ?
...
"Crunchy-Roll" ... not bad, but it could use some spiffing up. How about, "It crunches! It bangs! It's Super Universe!".

Sorry for the whimsical turn, but the emphasis here is on endless big bangs for eternity across infinite space.






57777
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 29/06/2020 05:05:29
That sounds like a perpetual-motion machine .
How's about "Each universe is a raindrop  , in an eternal rainstorm ." ? 
🤔
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/06/2020 12:52:12
That sounds like a perpetual-motion machine .
How's about "Each universe is a raindrop  , in an eternal rainstorm ." ? 
🤔
That's good too, but a bit gloomy.

And yes, in my view, the universe is a perpetual motion machine.





57859,57987,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 30/06/2020 02:07:20
That make Entropy awful angry !  .🤨
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/06/2020 02:13:37
That make Entropy awful angry !  .🤨
Yes, lol. But remember that my answers are based on an infinite and eternal universe; the ultimate open system, where entropy will never be complete on a grand scale.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 30/06/2020 03:02:29
Sounds tricky ! 
Personally , I have a hard time believing in extant infinities .  .🤔
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/06/2020 03:14:50
Sounds tricky ! 
Personally , I have a hard time believing in extant infinities .  .🤔
I understand. I got over the difficulty of "grasping" infinities by boiling it down to one man's logic. The three infinities are space, time, and energy. If they are not infinite, how are they bounded?




57993,58056,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 30/06/2020 12:13:50
I 'spec the universe has an actual size , just far beyond our ability to observe .
I also expect that the universe will end at some point , but not the multiverse .
Finally , there's only so much energy in the 'verse , so... ratio .
👽
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/06/2020 15:40:17
I 'spec the universe has an actual size , just far beyond our ability to observe .
I also expect that the universe will end at some point , but not the multiverse .
Finally , there's only so much energy in the 'verse , so... ratio .
👽
That's fine. I'm comfortable with the three infinities, and would need to know how space, time, and energy are bounded if they aren't infinite.



58094,58142,58289,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 01/07/2020 03:08:47
The energy bit is one thing , the other two will be a while .  .🤔
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/07/2020 20:41:39
The energy bit is one thing , the other two will be a while .  .🤔
I appreciate your response, and you can try, but if the universe is infinite in space, time, and energy, none of those three characteristics can be bounded. I remain open to any logical ideas.






58449,58798,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/07/2020 17:14:38
Multiple big bangs in an infinite and eternal universe is the backdrop to all existence, to anything and everything that has ever, or will ever exist. The chain of thought goes from accepting the Three Infinities, space, time, and energy, to looking at the particular circumstances of life as we know it. We only have life on Earth to go by, but there are tantalizing hints of advanced pre-history on Earth, and it stands to reason that our planet could have a lengthy pre-history of which there is no or very little physical evidence. Check out what they call the Antikythera Mechanism, or the Phaistos Disc, and some of the pre-history comes to life.

Multiply that by an infinite history of an infinite expanse of space, filled with matter and energy, galaxies, stars and planets, and you begin to see the opportunities for a vast and varied existence of very highly advanced life forms. Advanced technology exists out there, and as I read about it, contemplate it, and speculate in this tread, I seek input from the community. Feel free to contemplate and speculate with me and on you own, and discuss here.


58810,58831,58880,58986,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/07/2020 19:26:49
I would define infinite universes , living and dying eternally , as a multiverse .
P.M.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/07/2020 21:17:02
I would define infinite universes , living and dying eternally , as a multiverse .
P.M.
I grew up with the concept that "universe" meant just one.





59015,59037,59089,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 08/07/2020 23:08:30
if the universe is infinite in space, time, and energy, none of those three characteristics can be bounded. I remain open to any logical ideas.

Bounded is not the operative word. The surface of a sphere is finite yet unbounded. No edge to fall off. A universe that is a 4-dimensional hypersphere would also have no bounds but still be finite. Since time and energy are contents of the universe, they would be finite but have no edges, no bounds.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/07/2020 13:37:10
if the universe is infinite in space, time, and energy, none of those three characteristics can be bounded. I remain open to any logical ideas.

Bounded is not the operative word. The surface of a sphere is finite yet unbounded. No edge to fall off. A universe that is a 4-dimensional hypersphere would also have no bounds but still be finite. Since time and energy are contents of the universe, they would be finite but have no edges, no bounds.
Where my view differs from that sphere analogy, is that an infinite and eternal universe would include all such spheres, and all of the space around and beyond the spherical shape or shapes.


59105,59125,59168,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 10/07/2020 19:13:53
if the universe is infinite in space, time, and energy, none of those three characteristics can be bounded. I remain open to any logical ideas.

Bounded is not the operative word. The surface of a sphere is finite yet unbounded. No edge to fall off. A universe that is a 4-dimensional hypersphere would also have no bounds but still be finite. Since time and energy are contents of the universe, they would be finite but have no edges, no bounds.
Where my view differs from that sphere analogy, is that an infinite and eternal universe would include all such spheres, and all of the space around and beyond the spherical shape or shapes.


59105,59125,59168,

All possible physical manifestations being existent, including exotic laws of physics, would be a neat solution to why this universe is no idiosyncratic. E.g., why are the relative strengths of the four forces so oddly spread out? Why is the universe filled with normal matter?  Why do some mesons act so wacky? Just luck of the draw out of infinite possibilities.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/07/2020 21:18:36

All possible physical manifestations being existent, including exotic laws of physics, would be a neat solution to why this universe is no idiosyncratic. E.g., why are the relative strengths of the four forces so oddly spread out? Why is the universe filled with normal matter?  Why do some mesons act so wacky? Just luck of the draw out of infinite possibilities.
We differ on the explanation for the relative strengths, the preponderance of normal matter, etc. You point to the luck of the draw as if those things were decided at some point in the past, presumably a starting point. I think that the laws of physics could only be what they are, no luck, no draw :) . The universe has always existed and the laws of physics governing the greater universe are fixed across time and space.


59205,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 10/07/2020 21:54:22

All possible physical manifestations being existent, including exotic laws of physics, would be a neat solution to why this universe is no idiosyncratic. E.g., why are the relative strengths of the four forces so oddly spread out? Why is the universe filled with normal matter?  Why do some mesons act so wacky? Just luck of the draw out of infinite possibilities.
We differ on the explanation for the relative strengths, the preponderance of normal matter, etc. You point to the luck of the draw as if those things were decided at some point in the past, presumably a starting point. I think that the laws of physics could only be what they are, no luck, no draw :) . The universe has always existed and the laws of physics governing the greater universe are fixed across time and space.


59205,

This being your thread, I will not delve any further into my thoughts on the matter. Perhaps I will start my own Crazy New Theories thread on the subject.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/07/2020 22:15:09

All possible physical manifestations being existent, including exotic laws of physics, would be a neat solution to why this universe is no idiosyncratic. E.g., why are the relative strengths of the four forces so oddly spread out? Why is the universe filled with normal matter?  Why do some mesons act so wacky? Just luck of the draw out of infinite possibilities.
We differ on the explanation for the relative strengths, the preponderance of normal matter, etc. You point to the luck of the draw as if those things were decided at some point in the past, presumably a starting point. I think that the laws of physics could only be what they are, no luck, no draw :) . The universe has always existed and the laws of physics governing the greater universe are fixed across time and space.


59205,

This being your thread, I will not delve any further into my thoughts on the matter. Perhaps I will start my own Crazy New Theories thread on the subject.
No need to start a thread on that. I have invited all comers to speak their minds and post their particular (and peculiar) ideas, :) , please.


59264,59275,59325,59370,59395,59492,59581,59634,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/07/2020 15:52:11
Tell me more details about the whacky action of mesons; I am interested to know more about science discoveries related to various views about the universe.


59665,59718,59781,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Malamute Lover on 13/07/2020 20:29:11
Tell me more details about the whacky action of mesons; I am interested to know more about science discoveries related to various views about the universe.

I have been busy with both RL and with other threads here and have not gotten around to writing a clear exposition of my ideas mentioned above. Plus in replying to another thread, the one about the B Meson, I realized that I need to do some research and correct the math.

In the meantime, check this out.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/hadron.html
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/07/2020 15:12:40
In this thread we are assuming that across the infinite and eternal universe there are an infinite number of big bangs occurring here and there, all the time, and  big bang arenas are continually forming, expanding, converging, and forming new big crunches, and new crunches collapse and bang to renew and perpetuate the eternal cycle.


Within an expanding arena,  stars and galaxies form and mature, and that is where life is generated from the interactions of the elements and physical conditions. Various life forms arise and adjust to hospitable environments, leading to highly advanced life forms that evolve, exist and intermingle across vast reaches of space, assuring the maintenance of actively evolving varieties of life across space and time.


The universe is big, the part we see is tiny, the possibilities are endless, and our imaginations need never run out.



60283,60304,60329,60380,60398,60446,60486,60523,60552,60568,60575,60616,60736,60764,60842,61002,61050,61101,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/08/2020 15:23:31
The universe is big, the part we see is tiny, the possibilities are endless, and our imaginations need never run out.”

All true IMHO, and so what is there about the universe that is most noteworthy? Aside from time, and life itself, it is consciousness, perception, thought, and imagination rendered possible by the brain. It is those things that fill our time.

And to a greater or lessor degree, we decide for ourselves how we pass our time, or at least how we use our free time.

61107,61133,61142,61164,61197,61388,61453,61507,61550,61583,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/08/2020 20:31:53
“ And to a greater or lessor degree, we decide for ourselves how we pass our time, or at least how we use our free time.”

And being able to communicate is right up there on the list of essentials. My, how far life has come from the protozoan stage of evolution when communication amounted to bumping into something and changing direction, and bumping into something else. Maybe I would call that the stage of blind trial and error in our evolutionary epoch. In accordance with the Sameness Doctrine, it has happened much more that 10 trillion to the 10 trillionth power in terms of the number of times such a pattern of life originating from the inanimate and then played out or is right now playing out in some passing time. That speculation considers just the tiny volume of space occupied by our observable universe, given the infinite history of time presumed. Probably no number is big enough to actually quantify how many times self-replicating life has originated somewhere across the universe, and then taken a foothold and evolved to higher life forms.


I take that to mean that the concept of God need not be taboo to science, if one is able to equate the infinite and eternal universe to God.


62431,






Modified
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/08/2020 17:33:23
“I take that to mean that the concept of God need not be taboo to science, if one is able to equate the infinite and eternal universe to God."

62431,
However, having a God concept where God equates to the entire infinite and eternal universe seems redundant unless there is something out there that can be attributed to an act of God. Let's say you don't subscribe to attributing the existence of the universe to an act of God ... is there any current event that would demonstrate Godly intervention?




62761,62784,62793,62823,62901,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/08/2020 04:32:27
But let's face it, such a God concept would have to invoke the Supernatural, and that marks a departure from science, so let's leave that discussion for the appropriate forum. In this thread it is more appropriate to focus on multiple big bangs, Big Bang arenas, and the likelihood of arena overlaps. That is why I have emphasized the concept of wave energy and wave energy mechanics.


Hypothesizing that any object with mass absorbs and emits gravitational wave energy, and so mass is the source of gravitational waves that fill all space, we are looking at a fundamentally simple architecture of mass and energy in space.


For discussion, the highest wave energy, to my thinking, occurs in the core of a Big Crunch, and the lowest wave energy density would be in the deepest space between the most distant big crunches.






62906,62912,62981,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/08/2020 17:26:37
Wave emission and the relative motion of the emitting mass go hand in hand. Objects move in the direction of the highest net gravitational wave energy density source in the surrounding space.

62982,63023,63049,63091,63140,


In reference to my model of the universe, "surrounding space" is a reference to infinite space, and the concept of surrounding space itself can denote the first infinity. I find it amazing and comforting to be able to contemplate infinite space, and I enjoy the time I spend doing it.


63160,64202,63237,63248,63263,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/08/2020 16:24:45
The concept of surrounding space goes nicely with thoughts of endless and eternal time ... the Three Infinities.

63290,63724,63756,63829,63851,63939,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/09/2020 01:12:33
There is known science, and then there is speculation. In regard to speculation, there are those speculations that make up the current consensus model of cosmology, and then there is my model, The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model. The ISU model includes known science, generally accepted cosmology, and my speculations about the Three Infinities, space, time, and energy.

,64437,64484,[5983],64571,64728,64736,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/09/2020 01:02:01
And out there in the ISU, goddard/2020/nasa-s-tess-spitzer-missions-discover-a-world-orbiting-a-unique-young-star. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/nasa-s-tess-spitzer-missions-discover-a-world-orbiting-a-unique-young-star (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/nasa-s-tess-spitzer-missions-discover-a-world-orbiting-a-unique-young-star)


64739,64751,64756,64801,64955,64994,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/09/2020 13:51:41
Even if the vastness of the universe is mostly expanding Big Bang arenas, there is no denying that gravity on a grand scale will find a way to collect matter and energy into crunches that will then eventually bang too.

64999,

That kind of crunch/bang action keeps the universe filled with matter and energy that forms into hospitable environments for the generation and evolution of life, and our observable universe is what I would think of as a typical life hosting stage in that perpetual cycle.

And there must be a potentially infinite number of those stages across infinite space and time.

Meaning life potentially has always existed, and is disbursed everywhere out there.


65171,65212,65236,65264,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/09/2020 00:49:13
Given that life has always existed, and is disbursed everywhere out there, I think it is safe to say intelligent life has always existed, and is always out there thinking. And not just thinking, but taking action too, making things happen, for better or worse :) .


65287,65347,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Colin2B on 23/09/2020 08:57:33
Given that life has always existed,.......
How do you come to that conclusion?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/09/2020 12:06:42
Given that life has always existed,.......
How do you come to that conclusion?
Just my brand of layman logic, as stated in reply #546. The fact that life exists within our observable expanding Big Bang arena, and the logic stated in replay #545 and #546 that hypothesizes that life is "generative and evolves", and there are multiple Big Bang arenas so why wouldn't it be natural for life to be generated and evolved in other arenas across infinite space and time?


65512,65529


Let's say I'm right. There would be some highly advanced technologies out there as well as highly evolved life forms. The ISU logic I refer to that explains why we haven't communicated and or visited/been visited (as far as I know) is the vastness of infinite space and the low probability that life would be generated and evolved within a close enough distance to communicate with us.


I would speculate that there is/has been communication between independently generated/evolved life forms from time to time across distances of space and time, but that due to the rarities involved in regard to the infrequency of such generation events, their limited durations, and their probable huge separations in space and time, those types of contacts are rare.


65536,65559,65614,65672,65699,65743,65820,65836,66007,66077,66133,66268,66432,66494,66576,66706,66823,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: aspagnito on 14/10/2020 10:30:54
Good question "if there was one Big Bang" - there was none.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/10/2020 17:33:35
Good question "if there was one Big Bang" - there was none.
Interesting comment. Have you ever searched the phrase, "evidence of the Big Bang"?



67000,67117,67171,67319,67337,67458,67490,67521,67787,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 22/10/2020 00:36:20
One way to answer the question of multiples big bangs and universes, is to look at the second law, which is connected to entropy. If the second law is true and entropy has to increase, while an increase in entropy absorbs energy, then energy is constantly being made unusable to the universe.

The energy is conserved, but in a dead pool of energy, that cannot be directly reused by the current universe, since entropy has to increase. To recycle all this energy, entropy would have to decrease for 15 billion of years. But as long as the second law remains valid, we have an increasing pool of dead energy. The original BB is getting thinner with time as the dead pool gets deeper with time. I am suspicious of any theory that ignores the ever increasing dead pool of energy implied by the second law. A universe than loses useable energy into a dead pool of energy cannot cycle or go forever.

The second law implies that our material BB universe has beeb leaking energy into an ever increasing dead pool of energy, due to the second law, since the day it went bang! Since this energy is conserved, it has energy value, but it is in a non fully reusable form relative to our universe. This affect is affect is connected to aging and time. This conserved dead energy allows the possibility of other uses. There may be a dead pool universe(s). 

For example, life formed on earth from scratch, a billion or so years ago, by some unknown means. This process expressed increasing entropy; complexity, that may never repeat itself on earth in the same way. That entropy expression absorbed energy, so energy was lost into the dead pool; ghosts of the past. Since life built on this beginning, that past is both here and not here. It is part of the foundation of current life, but not in the same way as it was originally. The universe does not have the same juice now, as it once did.

The dead pool energy, has plenty of energy. but it may be in the form of information, from the past, that is detached from the matter and energy of now. Our ancestors increased entropy and added to the dead pool. We cannot go to their past to retrieve their dead pool energy, any more that we can conjure up an old ancestor. But the energy lives on, via a form of memory since this energy is still conserved as an entropic state variable.

If we take the second law to the limit, all the live energy of the universe will be part of the dead pool. This would be a state of maximum entropy to express the dead pool energy. This energy as entropy would be composed of memories from all time; entropic states. What would need to happen to form a new material universe; new BB, would be to lower the entropy, to release dead pool energy for another material universe. 

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2020 20:22:58
One way to answer the question of multiples big bangs and universes, is to look at the second law, which is connected to entropy. If the second law is true and entropy has to increase, while an increase in entropy absorbs energy, then energy is constantly being made unusable to the universe.

The energy is conserved, but in a dead pool of energy, that cannot be directly reused by the current universe, since entropy has to increase. ...
Good points from the mainstream perspective ...

I don't apologize for my contrarianism though. My universe is infinite and eternal, and in infinite space, a Big Bang will disburse matter and energy locally in the particular space where the bang happens, but that is just one arena where a current crunch/bang might be playing out. If there are a potentially infinite number of past, present and future big bang arenas whose matter and energy converge, overlap, crunch and bang eternally across infinite space, you get a flavor of the Infinite Spongy Universe Model.
 
68134,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Slickscientist on 27/10/2020 18:55:25
This might not answer your question completely but there were multiple explosions/ish (after the big bang.)
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 were blue-white stars so you did not have to wait long before they exploded as supernovas and spread their denser material across the universe; these explosions helped the big explosion to create the universe as we know today.
PS: If you are thinking that the explosions happened at the same time and are the big bang/s, I think you might be wrong. The theory does say that the big bag originated from one point so there would have been no space for multiple explosions. you might not understand but this is my best explanation.
Thanks.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Slickscientist on 28/10/2020 22:37:33
Hi,
I only skimmed through the first few pages of the forum and I answered the question as if you were talking about the normal universe; thanks for clarifying.

If you don't mind me asking, have you conducted any research to support the infinite universe model. Thanks.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/10/2020 00:41:42
Hi,
I only skimmed through the first few pages of the forum and I answered the question as if you were talking about the normal universe; thanks for clarifying.

If you don't mind me asking, have you conducted any research to support the infinite [Spongy] universe model. Thanks.
The ISU model isn't a "scientific model" as, such, but as for research associated with it, it continues to evolve as I continue to learn and contemplate the idea.



68426,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Slickscientist on 29/10/2020 06:38:39
Ok thanks!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2020 16:13:38
Ok thanks!
Are you a "Thinker"? For example, what are your views on the topic of "the beginning" in 100 words or less?



68449,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Slickscientist on 30/10/2020 17:24:15
Hi,
I am in secondary school so I don’t understand the quantum mechanics and other complicated things. I am more of a biology and chemistry man. I will try to describe what I think; here it goes!

The ISU is a theory/model which describes how he universe was already in existence. I think that the expansion and the rarefaction of the macro waves create the matter in this model. Unfortunately for you, I do not personally believe some of your theory but I have to say, the way you put it across is very convincing and I am sure that with a little bit of tweaking, I might be able to accept it.

I get what you are saying about the waves bit I think the universe had a beginning. The big bang sets of one set of waves in all directions and when some of them join and compress, like the hydrogen and the helium, they create other bangs which do the same thong as the big bang. In order for this to work, the waves need to be made of something(dark matter etc.). What are the waves made up of in your theory?

I am sorry of that was more than 100 words but I had to give you constructive criticism. Cary on and make a scientific paper out of this soon(look at my idea for a theory first :D).
From,
Slickscientist.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Slickscientist on 30/10/2020 17:30:17
My page is called My ideas on new scientific processes in our bodies: What do you think? It is in the New Theories board. Make sure you reply with something good...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/10/2020 00:58:56
My page is called My ideas on new scientific processes in our bodies: What do you think? It is in the New Theories board. Make sure you reply with something good...

What I think is that you are learning and building on the first skill necessary for doing good science research, that of being observant. My advice is to make a log book of your observations, and over time check them out against what you learn about how science is done. When you begin to see that your observations are new and meaningful, be sure to post them and seek comments from the scientific community. You have a good start!



68558,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/10/2020 01:07:07
...

The ISU is a theory/model which describes how he universe was already in existence. I think that the expansion and the rarefaction of the macro waves create the matter in this model. Unfortunately for you, I do not personally believe some of your theory but I have to say, the way you put it across is very convincing and I am sure that with a little bit of tweaking, I might be able to accept it.
No problem, theories, by their nature, are not TRUTH :)
Quote
I get what you are saying about the waves bit I think the universe had a beginning. ...
Why do you think that. Give me an explanation that you feel supports your view that there was a beginning event.


68565,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Slickscientist on 31/10/2020 01:23:18
Hi,
My first reason is that I think that God created the universe. However, he might have created the big bang as a way to create the universe. My second reason is that everything has a starting point. For example, food will not automatically appear on your plate when you want it. You have to work to get the money to buy the food. The food is created from the source, which is the crops/animals. The crops/animals have their source too; the atoms from the big bang and from God.
This is what I think but you do not have to think that. I understand.

Also, how can I keep a log book for my theory on the actions because that one is not based on personal experience? Lastly, do you by any chance have a personal link/ contact with the naked scientists or know anyone that does? I completed a get in touch form over a week ago and they have not come back; If you do, can you please forward my theories onto them.Thanks for replying.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/10/2020 02:00:33
Hi,
My first reason is that I think that God created the universe. However, he might have created the big bang as a way to create the universe.
Consider the idea that God and the Universe are one and the same, and both have always existed. That perspective may not be any better for you, but it does encourage a different line of reasoning.
Quote
My second reason is that everything has a starting point. For example, food will not automatically appear on your plate when you want it. You have to work to get the money to buy the food. The food is created from the source, which is the crops/animals. The crops/animals have their source too; the atoms from the big bang and from God.
This is what I think but you do not have to think that. I understand.
That's fine, but I don't think that an eternal and infinite universe would have to have a starting point; why couldn't it have always existed. You mention God as the creator of the universe, but I assume you see God as having always existed. It isn't too big a step to go from there to the view that God and the universe are one and the same and that both have always existed.
Quote
...
Lastly, do you by any chance have a personal link/ contact with the naked scientists or know anyone that does?
No, but just keep trying to reach them like you are and someone will notice and respond.
 
68607,68631,68683,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Slickscientist on 31/10/2020 11:25:25
Maybe, God is immanent( which means actively involves in our lives and sustaining the universe). This does fit into the context.

Also, I like how you presented it and switched it around. Good choice of words.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/10/2020 12:29:50
Maybe, God is immanent (which means actively involved in our lives and sustaining the universe). This does fit into the context.

Also, I like how you presented it and switched it around. Good choice of words.
From a religious perspective, that would mean God has his/her hands full, and from a scientific perspective it would mean that the universe is infinite and eternal and features a sameness when you consider it on a grand scale across endless space and time.



68833,68870,68917,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Slickscientist on 31/10/2020 13:00:02
ok.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/11/2020 15:47:17
ok.
The keys to understanding the ISU model are to be sure you really think about what "infinite and eternal" mean when it comes to the universe.


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/11/2020 01:03:59

The keys to understanding the ISU model are to be sure you really think about what "infinite and eternal" mean when it comes to the universe.

And in my view, "infinity" makes room for whatever is possible, given the observations of the matter and energy that make up the known universe and what reasonable speculations are about what those observations may predict about the greater universe.


\69396,69698,




And "eternity" makes room for all of those things that are possible to happen here and there, now and then.


69700,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Slickscientist on 05/11/2020 07:14:44
That’s fine :)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/11/2020 15:15:04
So getting down to Earth, what is real? Is there a reality that is common to us all, or do we each live in our individual realities?

PSI   I don't think anyone in my circle doubts that the universe is real, but in our minds, do we practice |personal sober imagining| ?

"Sober" imagining means imagining things that are real or can really occur or be true.




Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/11/2020 19:23:29
 It is like thinking ahead in game play. You know that each move, in chess for example, has consequences. Good chess players think ahead so that the move they make now will serve both offense and defense.






70800,70853,70909,71030,71268,71307,71460,71496,71534,71613,71638,71712,71751,71844,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2020 02:18:38
Infinity and eternity cannot be proven physically. Logically though, is there any doubt? I'd like to hear about it if there is.


71850,71964


No one seems to doubt that infinite and eternal are two logical characteristics of the universe.  Can we call that settled? So where does that thinking take us?


71968,72007,72054,72109,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2020 15:00:20
An infinite and eternal universe does seem to be the appropriate natural solution to questions about how there could ever have been a beginning; so it is easy enough to rationalize. And it doesn't require Supernatural intervention or a prior "state of nothingness".


That answer is that there was no beginning; the universe has always existed.


72116,72265,72274,72317,72359,72386,72435,72488,72550,72605,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2020 17:02:11

...
That answer is that there was no beginning; the universe has always existed.

Quote

Supposing that is true, would it make any difference?

I think so, because in an infinite and eternal universe, big bangs would be normal events, resulting in expanding Big Bang arenas that would converge and interact. (Look out for incoming, Lol)


72613,72705,72767,72884,72927,72933,72951,73131,73207,


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/12/2020 15:45:39
And Big Bangs are not creation events, they are not something from nothing. They are the consequences of interactions of matter and energy that has always existed.


73209,73300,73334,73541,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/12/2020 17:24:10
Being that there is an infinite amount of energy in an infinite universe, distant arenas and our own observable arena of space share the characteristic of a "sameness of vast expanses". How vast must an expanse of space be to display this sameness? I would say that it must be more vast than all that we can presently observe, which is my personal acknowledgment that what we can see probably isn't a perfect reflection of a representative vastness.

What I am suggesting is that as you increase the size of the expanse that is being examined, there is a non-zero probability that something "as yet unknown" will be encompassed in the new expanse. That means that there could be an infinite variety of things out there in the vast expanse.


73553,73773,73785,73819,73861,73896,73935,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/12/2020 20:26:30
I generally rule out the Supernatural but with a potentially infinite variety of different things out there in the vast expanse, I'm sure some things, if encountered out there, could seem beyond belief. Not saying there is a Vulcan mind probe, but there are possibilities,  lol.


73943,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: evan_au on 23/12/2020 20:32:23
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
No one seems to doubt that infinite and eternal are two logical characteristics of the universe.
That might have been true a century ago.

But with Hubble's discovery of the expansion of the universe, people realized that the universe can't have been eternal in the past.

And when the lifecycle of stars and black holes was understood, people realized that the universe will look very different in the future (and very run-down). So if the universe is very different in the future, does that make it eternal in the future?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/12/2020 20:42:09
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
No one seems to doubt that infinite and eternal are two logical characteristics of the universe.
That might have been true a century ago.

But with Hubble's discovery of the expansion of the universe, people realized that the universe can't have been eternal in the past.

And when the lifecycle of stars and black holes was understood, people realized that the universe will look very different in the future (and very run-down). So if the universe is very different in the future, does that make it eternal in the future?

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Are you thinking of a finite universe? Maybe a universe that had a beginning? If so, that is where we differ. In a universe that has always existed, and is infinite, filled with matter and energy as we see it in our field of view, the fact that stars and even galaxies have finite lives does not falsify the possibility of infinite and eternal. I'm suggesting that there is a natural cycle of matter and energy that continually plays out in the formation of stars and galaxies, that then merge, converge, crunch and bang into new expanding arenas (all part of one great contiguous expanse of space).


,74138,74250,83321,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/12/2020 16:55:50
It is what I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model

74588,74628,74731,77254,77292,82454,83316,


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/05/2021 14:20:30
I'm still contemplating the grand, infinite and eternal universe; a satisfying activity.


83333,83363,83407,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Origin on 29/05/2021 15:44:54
83333,83363
Isn't exciting to see how many search bots have viewed this thread.  By stopping in occasionally to post a pointless comment the thread is put first in unread posts so you get more views, which is the point, I guess.  Well I hope it makes you feel important and listened to.  Now you can go away for a few months...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/05/2021 22:00:07
83333,83363
Isn't exciting to see how many search bots have viewed this thread.  By stopping in occasionally to post a pointless comment the thread is put first in unread posts so you get more views, which is the point, I guess.  Well I hope it makes you feel important and listened to.  Now you can go away for a few months...
Sorry, I've been looking for responses and discussion to the opening post and earlier discussions, but it is an old topic by now, and deserves to be let go to rest. I'll quit bumping it, and try to start a new topic or/and try to find a forum to see if there is any interest  in discussing ideas about the possible nature of the universe.

End of thread.


83500.83531,83551,83617,83645,83662,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: McQueen on 01/06/2021 07:40:33
                  My problem with this thread is that OP Bogie_Smiles, is by his own admission, a lay person, with no background in science.  The question is, how is it possible that a person, without knowing the basics of how things work, put forward a postulate for multiple Universes and Multiple points of origin, in the form of multiple Big Bangs. Granted, with the discovery everyday of massive and more massive black holes, such a possibility is not entirely outside the bounds of reason.  But, then again what is the point of raising such suppositions. Even if you have been involved in such imaginings and discussions since the year 2001, if the basics of physics are unknown to you, how can any sort of valid description be given to a theory that encompasses the Universe? 

                     True, a believable story could be written in the form of science fiction. But unless, an explanation is given that starts with the basics of how nature works: The argument is non-existent.  Or the supposition would have to be made that what affects the Universe has no impact on its constituent parts.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/06/2021 02:59:07
                  My problem with this thread is that OP Bogie_Smiles, is by his own admission, a lay person, with no background in science.  The question is, how is it possible that a person, without knowing the basics of how things work, put forward a postulate for multiple Universes and Multiple points of origin, in the form of multiple Big Bangs.


Even if you have been involved in such imaginings and discussions since the year 2001, if the basics of physics are unknown to you, how can any sort of valid description be given to a theory that encompasses the Universe? 
I ended the thread (earlier, temporarily) because the respected member called me out, but I do think your question warrants a response. I don't claim to have a background in science, but I have learned a little about the basics by following science discussions here and on other science forums, and in my personal choices of reading material.
Quote
Granted, with the discovery everyday of massive and more massive black holes, such a possibility is not entirely outside the bounds of reason.  But, then again what is the point of raising such suppositions.
This thread was started in the "new theories" sub-forum which allows for this kind of idea and continuing discussion on the topic. Though some members may want an old topic to fade into the past, I'm not one who opposes a return visit long after the original discussion, if new thoughts and learning have come into play.
Quote
True, a believable story could be written in the form of science fiction. But unless an explanation is given that starts with the basics of how nature works: The argument is non-existent. 
I base my ideas on the premise that the universe is infinite and has always existed, and that such circumstances allow for dynamic events like big bangs here and there, now and then, due to gravity caused "big crunches"; and with the accompanying supposition that only a certain finite amount of matter and energy (perhaps a "critical mass") can be accumulated in a crunch before gravity causes that crunch to collapse/bang; a collapse/bang equates to a Big Bang where the "observable universe" from within the crunch would be limited to the volume of space encompassed by the expansion that occurs. I postulate that the observable universe is within a greater infinite and eternal universe, but our ability to observe beyond the boundary of our arena is limited by how far the new expanding arena allows us to look back in time. Those limits to our observations do not preclude the possibility of "infinite and eternal".



86991,87088,87196,87275.87309,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/07/2021 01:57:31
My problem with this thread is that OP Bogie_Smiles, is by his own admission, a lay person, with no background in science.  The question is, how is it possible that a person, without knowing the basics of how things work, put forward a postulate for multiple Universes and Multiple points of origin, in the form of multiple Big Bangs. ... 
I see no harm in continuing the thread, rather that starting a new thread, since what I have posted so far still reflects my views. With due respect, my on-going thoughts on the topic of an infinite and eternal universe characterized by multiple big bangs here and there, now and then, is logical to me, and if is is not logical to you, why haven't you shown me the flaws in my thinking?

87535,87615,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/07/2021 19:33:24
And based on that logic, life in the universe must not be a one off deal, but we are likely to be so greatly separated from our closest neighbors, that so far at least, discovery defies not only our best efforts, but any efforts by supposed aliens to reach out.






87633,...87838,87933,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/07/2021 00:07:26
Given such a speculated great separation between the presence of generated intelligent life forms across the universe, it would seem to support the thinking that generated life forms evolve in ways that are compatible with their generating environment. I would expect that separated, generated life forms would be quite different from one another due to differing environments.


87935,87957,88009,88048,88120,88198,88250,88394,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/07/2021 03:07:11
...
I would expect that separated, generated life forms would be quite different from one another due to differing environments.

In addition, assuming there are multiple cases of generated intelligent life forms throughout space, they probably would be greatly separated, and would have vastly different capabilities. I'm not sure how likely it is that one intelligent life form would ever be able to detect another, even if both were trying :shrug:.




88409,88448,88483,88507,88567,88609,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/07/2021 12:58:28
The speed of light vs the infinity of space; and then there is the chance factor that two greatly separated generated life forms will develop electromagnetic waveform communications and detect distant faint signals from space. That would be confirmation of the speculation.


88610,88723,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/07/2021 13:47:46
Out here in "New Theories", it isn't out of line to explore speculations, and one speculation that starts many discussions is the age of the universe. If it had a beginning, "what caused the first spark" is certainly a valid question, but if the universe had no beginning, then the conclusion is that the universe has always existed, is infinite and eternal. If that is the accepted philosophy that you use to base your beliefs then you are in good company IMHO.


88728,88797,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 21/07/2021 16:00:01
One main consideration connected to multiple universes and even the future of our own universe is connected to energy. A BB event takes a lot of energy to not only make all mass and matter of the universe, E=MC2, from nothing, but it also needs energy to separate this matter into space-time while opposing gravity.

In both the single BB and multiple BB scenario,s we need a source of energy. One BB events implies a one time energy deal. Multiple BB implies a larger pool of origin energy, that bubbles up every now and then. Or a multiple BB may use the same pool as the single BB, but makes smaller additions to the one universe, with each bubble.

The one time deal of the standard BB theory is closer to what Creationism believes; universe is a one time deal. The BB was first proposed by a Priest/Scientist with neither science or religion able to quantify the science based physics for this energy; before t=0.

With life, science takes a different approach and assumes multiple life BB's; many places of life origin in the universe.  Creationism sticks to the one of approach, like a single BB; let there be light/energy, then a single source of life; breath of life! The one time occurrence premise for life, better reflects the hard science data, since no other life has even found outside the earth to create any data to contradict this. The multiple point of life theory is connected circumstantial inferences, but no data. This debate is where religion is more scientific; hard data, and science becomes a religion of speculation and gambling odds.

Another consideration is the second law connected entropy. An entropy increase will absorb energy. If the entropy of the universe has to increase, this implies energy is being lost by the universe, into increasing entropy, as time goes on. This energy being transformed into entropy cannot ever be fully reused by the universe, or else the second is wrong. The second law implies that universe is aging and losing its energy into a pool of conserved energy that is not fully reusable. The pool gets larger and universe ages.

The second law creates a problem for most cosmology theories. Many cleverly use hidden perpetual motion assumptions, such as all energy is recyclable, but the second law says this is not true.. An infinite universe is a loophole to avoid the second law. Even if we are losing energy into an entropy pool, that is off limits and causes aging, the infinite universe always has extra energy up its sleeve, thereby allowing perpetual motion and eternal life any time we need. The second law is provable but that assumption is not.

The Multiple BB scenario would still be under the second law, This scenario would also lose energy into the pool of entropy, that cannot be reused, thereby allowing universal entropy to increase. In a multiple BB scenario, one might expect see all the various stages of the universe, at the same time, with each old universe aging and each new BB addition looking like an infant universe.

If we look out into space, we do see all stages of a universes, at the same time, with telescopes. We also see the youngest stages at the edge of the universe. This may be where new BB's are be added. They may need isolation from matter to set the potential for creation. I am following the logic trail to see where it take us.

 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/07/2021 00:56:10
Thank you Puppy Power. My supposition is that Big Bangs would be a common occurrence in an infinite universe that is filled will matter and energy, and where there is a common cycling between matter and energy as a result of big crunches (gravity) and big bangs (crunches reaching a critical capacity and "banging") here and there, now and then. I support the thinking that energy cannot be created of destroyed, but it can change from matter to its constituent wave energy and back to matter as local conditions orchestrate.


89028,89065,89179,89190,89222,89272,89332,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/07/2021 00:20:05
So what do I mean when I suggest that there is a critical capacity that governs when crunches BANG?

It is about a maximum gravitational compression; a limit that reflects a law of nature that keeps never ending accumulations of matter from forming bigger and bigger crunches that just suck things in forever. That doesn't happen because accumulating crunches must eventually collapse under their own weight as the force of gravity eventually causes the bonds in accumulating matter to fail.


89341,89363,89376,89439,89514,89569,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/07/2021 13:36:51
... accumulating crunches must eventually collapse under their own weight as the force of gravity eventually causes the bonds in accumulating matter to fail.

Those bonds represent energy; the contained energy of matter. When that gravity threshold is reached it causes the structural failure of matter. The bonding energy is released, explosively. A Big Bang is the result.

And each Big Bang appropriates and repurposes its own expanding patch of space by intruding into a surrounding and expanding arena.

That sequence of events would have been happening now and then for forever, here and there, across an infinite and eternal universe.




89583,59621,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/07/2021 17:20:07
And in regard to the effect that universal perpetual Big Bang arena action has on the infinite and eternal universe, ... never ending change occurs throughout the never changing sameness of nature.






89625,89649,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Origin on 29/07/2021 18:37:54
89625,89649
Would you you quit bumping this stupid thread just to get views? 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/07/2021 18:56:48
89625,89649
Would you you quit bumping this stupid thread just to get views? 
I don't bump it to get views, I post my alternative ideas in the New Theories sub forum, as possible discussion starters.

Do you not think the universe is infinite? Eternal? Do you not think that is an issue in cosmology?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Origin on 01/08/2021 01:51:35
It's past time to put this thread on ignore... Bye, have fun, I guess...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/08/2021 03:28:54
It's past time to put this thread on ignore... Bye, have fun, I guess...
Bye, thanks.



90148,98190,98301,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/08/2021 15:06:22
89625,89649
Would you you quit bumping this stupid thread just to get views? 
What good is eternity and infinity without life? I mean, is it possible to conceive of a lifeless universe? And if you just consider what we know about life on our planet, my conclusion is that life is "generative and evolvative" (my coined words). You might agree that life on Earth is not a "one off" situation, but something that could occur on any planet when the conditions for life are present.

Edited

90353,90389,90430,90503,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/08/2021 14:08:22
It's past time to put this thread on ignore... Bye, have fun, I guess...
That is fine. I'm just speculating, and most people come here for the hard science.




90517,90543,90558,90599,90612,
90653,90675,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/08/2021 16:14:28
... You might agree that life on Earth is not a "one off" situation, but instead, it is something that could occur on planets where the conditions for life are present.
And how many such planets do you think there might be in an infinite universe? The only answer I come up with is that there are, and there always has been, a potentially infinite number of planets capable of generating and evolving intelligent life forms. The only thing that makes it difficult to confirm such a supposition is that the distances separating them could be almost unimaginable, and the length of time that our planet has been here hosting intelligent life has been unimaginally brief relative to eternity.




90816,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/08/2021 13:29:11
... You might agree that life on Earth is not a "one off" situation, but instead, it is something that could occur on planets where the conditions for life are present.
... how many such planets do you think there might be in an infinite universe? ...  a potentially infinite number of planets capable of generating and evolving intelligent life forms. ... the distances separating them could be almost unimaginable, and the length of time that our planet has been here hosting intelligent life has been unimaginably brief relative to eternity.
I think the odds are that we are not alone in the universe, but the probability of contact is extremely remote.
But when the phone rings, we naturally pick it up and say hello.


91004,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/08/2021 04:13:12
And that brings us to the point where we are pursuing discovery of extra terrestrial intelligent life. If that discovery were to occur, then the next effort might be attempts at meaningful contact. That is where distances and time become huge obstacles to any form of communication between us, let along any remote possibility that we or they will be able to understand the other. I'm not optimistic that we will be the life form to solve the problems of contact. It looks to me like there would have to be life forms out there that have lengthy heritages and a wide spread presence, well beyond a home system or even a home galaxy. And they would need to somehow come across us in their explorations of the universe.
 
91194,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/08/2021 15:01:21
So let's forget about contact and communication for the time being.
Let's just focus on the evidence that big bangs occur here and there, now and then,
and consider the case for the generation and evolution of life on planets in other systems.

https://www.slashgear.com/nobel-prize-winner-says-the-universe-has-gone-through-multiple-big-bangs-10641825/ (https://www.slashgear.com/nobel-prize-winner-says-the-universe-has-gone-through-multiple-big-bangs-10641825/)

91336,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/08/2021 14:10:09
If you spend time wondering and thinking about the universe, you probably have considered eternity as an alternative to the concept of a beginning to it all. Accepting eternity avoids the problem of "the cause of the beginning", and with that problem out of the way, you don't have to consider "something from nothing".
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/08/2021 21:24:29
What I mean by "eternity" is that the universe has always existed; there was no beginning. I maintain that there is no force capable of creating something from nothing, but the motion of matter and energy that is all around us (and everywhere), is orchestrated by a natural force; gravity.

Gravity holds a secret; there is another phenomenon involved that causes gravity to self-destruct. The accumulation of matter into big crunches under gravitational pressure must eventually reach a critical limit. When that limit is reached, matter self destructs and causes big crunches to collapse/bang, ie. Big Bangs.

That is the premise behind the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model of cosmology.

91967,92085
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/08/2021 23:10:44
Big Bangs must be many orders of magnitude greater than gamma ray bursts (https://www.space.com/short-gamma-ray-burst-from-star-explosion (https://www.space.com/short-gamma-ray-burst-from-star-explosion))

Assuming our observable arena is the result of a Big Bang, and given that there are multiple gamma ray bursts recorded within our arena of space, gamma ray bursts are not equivalent to Big Bangs, but instead, Big Bang arenas host multiple bursts from various directions.



92110,92154,92237,92253,92316,92360
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/08/2021 02:06:18
It makes sense that gamma ray bursts are signals from collapsing stars, doesn't it?

92361,92383,92513,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/08/2021 00:02:39
So one could conclude that the remnants of collapsing stars are not only neutron stars, but the supernovas that produce them also spew out a lot of cosmic dust. So we come from stardust only to be turned back into stardust  :) .

92711,92771
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/08/2021 21:25:48
I wonder if the basic idea of a universal process of matter-to energy-to matter that perpetually plays out as big crunches to big bangs and back to big crunches, would equate to the common natural formation of huge clouds of dust resulting from the big bangs then producing environments where the dust accumulates to form stars and planets, and eventually those environments become capable of hosting life?


92790,92882,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/08/2021 20:06:30
From the last post:
I wonder if the basic idea of a universal process of matter-to energy-to matter that perpetually plays out as big crunches to big bangs and back to big crunches, would equate to the common natural formation of huge clouds of dust resulting from each big bang that then continually produces environments where the dust accumulates to form stars and planets, and eventually those environments become capable of hosting life?


Here I am quoting myself, lol; but I want to keep adding speculative content that follows along with the idea that, yes, if there was one BB, given an infinite and eternal universe and one set of physics that applies everywhere, then there have been and will be more big bangs, here and there, across the infinite universe, all the time.




93040,93110,93256,93292
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/08/2021 00:09:19
So yes, I'm a proponent of one set of physics, but the possibilities are endless. Iterations of combinations, and with entropy and natural renewal repeating themselves forever. So in effect, ... these are like the good ole days all over again :) .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/08/2021 02:18:16
The possibilities for the rebirthing of life, here and there, across the universe, followed up by the regeneration of intelligent beings when the conditions are right, makes our chance existence here within this solar system just one example of how "no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should" (quote is from the Desiderata, Unknown author).




93442,93459,93552,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/08/2021 15:06:51
But let us consider how much of our existence is chance, and given the nature of the universe, how much of it is inevitable. By inevitable, I don't mean inevitable that our Earth would exist, or that it would host Human life, but I mean inevitable that Human-like life, with high intelligence and the survival instinct, would naturally arise from Nature, and not as a one-off occurrence, but as a wide scale norm across infinite space and time.



93662,93704,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/08/2021 16:13:49
I would assume the survival of intelligent life would be a struggle; a struggle to get to the point of having to struggle, and a struggle to stay there.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Just thinking on 28/08/2021 19:31:46
f there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Just thinking on 28/08/2021 19:58:46
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/08/2021 01:26:52
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Just thinking on 29/08/2021 18:12:24
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/08/2021 23:22:33
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Just thinking on 30/08/2021 20:11:14
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2021 04:22:42
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/09/2021 21:40:53
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/09/2021 03:25:43

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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/09/2021 19:39:11
So why hasn't the entire universe collapsed into one final Big Crunch?






95629,95644,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/09/2021 19:55:20
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/09/2021 21:10:59
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/09/2021 22:06:05
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/09/2021 22:48:53
"Has there ever been a past time when no life existed in the universe?"


My answer: No





95725,95770,95854,95870,95894,95903,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/09/2021 02:57:20
"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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/09/2021 14:15:15
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/09/2021 23:55:09
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/09/2021 18:44:10
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/09/2021 13:53:09
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/09/2021 21:41:42
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/09/2021 18:54:51
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Just thinking on 16/09/2021 19:11:33
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.
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/09/2021 00:06:04

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.



I don't really think that a brainwave gets very far out of our head before it's energy is usurped by encountering a myriad of energy waves from various origins. Gravitational wave energy is everywhere, coming and going, intersecting with each other, and contributing to the local wave energy density; don't you think?




96635,96652,96664,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Just thinking on 20/09/2021 15:40:10
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?
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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,

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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) ;D  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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Just thinking on 24/09/2021 23:36:56
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.

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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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 (https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fant-pests.extension.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F09%2FDSCN2900.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fant-pests.extension.org%2Fwhat-do-fire-ants-eat%2F&tbnid=YttGxje3W1RJ_M&vet=12ahUKEwibvo3r6a7zAhWKiFMKHd-iAL8QMygJegUIARDCAQ..i&docid=-x_diH-Z1XCNfM&w=240&h=180&q=do%20ants%20eat%20grasshoppers&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwibvo3r6a7zAhWKiFMKHd-iAL8QMygJegUIARDCAQ)
(click "imgres" for images from the web)

99596,99758,99826,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Just thinking on 04/10/2021 17:23:01
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 of 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 the in a universe full of hospitable planets, of which some percentage of which are teaming with life, there are squirrels or their living equivalents jostling for the available food all of the time.
Good post. My wife loves taking photos of the birds around our home I take great pleasure in them as well You are very fortunate to have those little squirrels in your aria they must be a wonderful pleasure to watch. I think you are correct about the grasshopper he will have to be dismantled never mind. Keep up the good work and feed the little critters.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/10/2021 16:13:45
As usual, the squirrels and birds are active. The hummingbirds have recently migrated (west to Texas, I hear) and won't be back until Spring. We miss them. But in the mean time, we have the Florida version of the changing of the Seasons. The big Live Oak tree holds it leaves forever, it seems, but there is some noticeable yellowing among the Arrowhead plants that grow along the lake shore. The grass still grows but doesn't need to be mowed quite as often, and it does show some yellowing in the sunny areas. The Spanish Moss that grows from the Oak trees that over hang the lake, accomplish long strands that occasionally touch the water, but it is now a little past its prime for the year. However, the Stag-horn fern that I transplanted to a crotch in the Oak tree is doing well, and stays green all year.

It is now raining cats and dogs in my vicinity on this little blue planet in the Milky Way.




,100752,100864,100924,100977,101020,101093,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Black hole on 15/10/2021 19:11:04

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.



I don't really think that a brainwave gets very far out of our head before it's energy is usurped by encountering a myriad of energy waves from various origins. Gravitational wave energy is everywhere, coming and going, intersecting with each other, and contributing to the local wave energy density; don't you think?




96635,96652,96664,

Interestingly that our image is reflected into a mirror over a distance . Why not brain waves too ?

I am not here to discuss that though as I am more interested in your convergence theory .

Do you consider that when quantum fields converge such as the earths quantum field and perhaps a speculative Higgs field , that the two converged fields become heated elements ?

My simple logic for this is that within the earths atmosphere it is warm , where space is cold.

Space having a singularity field such as the HIggs while within our parameters there is a converged field ?

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/10/2021 01:12:21
Interestingly that our image is reflected into a mirror over a distance . Why not brain waves too ?

I am not here to discuss that though as I am more interested in your convergence theory .

Do you consider that when quantum fields converge such as the earths quantum field and perhaps a speculative Higgs field , that the two converged fields become heated elements ?

My simple logic for this is that within the earths atmosphere it is warm , where space is cold.

Space having a singularity field such as the HIggs while within our parameters there is a converged field ?


Yes; I would support you on that speculation, for discussion purposes. But to go any further, we would need some way of detecting fields that are as yet undetectable.

101101,101236,101357,101432,101458,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2021 14:29:22
The presence of quantum fields comes to mind. A quantum field is marked by the presence of a source of quantum waves, and encompasses the space from the source of those waves to their expanding spherical presence.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2021 15:07:24
There is a tipoff to the presence of quantum waves, and that is motion. A single tiny quantum wave is almost undetectable, but because matter has both inflowing and out flowing quantum wave activity (Quantum waves are gravitational waves), and quantum waves come directionally, in series, from the distant sources. Motion is the result. Motion is the combination of the net amount of inflowing energy and the magnitude of the directional sources of energy. So the cause of gravity is the imbalance between the directional sources of gravitational wave energy (quantum waves). Objects move in the direction of the net highest directional source of gravitational wave energy.


101491,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2021 16:25:23

The key word in that explanation is "net".


The key point is that matter has always existed,


and the key concept is that matter is composed of gravitational wave energy.

102037,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/10/2021 21:31:35
If so, how does wave energy become solid matter? Or is it a better question to ask, "Is matter solid at all, or does it simply seem solid at the macro level? Perhaps matter is an organized blur of wave energy at the micro level, contained spatially by forces that don't allow even the tiniest of waves to ever stop moving?


102421,102517,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/10/2021 15:19:15
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/10/2021 15:46:32
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/10/2021 15:57:40
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/10/2021 13:18:24
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/10/2021 13:39:39
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2021 00:27:28
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 (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/27/biggest-cosmic-explosion-ever-detected-makes-huge-dent-in-space)).


103121,103484,103559,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2021 11:56:46
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2021 14:33:09
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/11/2021 14:17:32
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/11/2021 00:04:10
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/11/2021 13:36:52
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/11/2021 15:09:53
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/11/2021 19:32:33
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 19/11/2021 12:04:08
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/11/2021 13:59:17
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 20/11/2021 12:12:15
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/11/2021 16:23:27
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/11/2021 19:37:35
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/11/2021 15:05:15
... 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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 21/11/2021 16:16:59
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.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/11/2021 16:26:17
. It is like dark energy and dark matter have never been seen in the lab, yet by faith, these have become reality.
No.
Because of observations, they have become the accepted model which you do not understand.
You really need to tell us what you think "relative reference"  means, rather than just peppering your wall of text with it.
.
relative reference will not
Relative reference will cause yo
Relative reference will leave this out
relative reference fantasy i
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/11/2021 16:51:44
Bogie note:


Relative reference...

Statements about family members.


General Relativity...

A military family reference

106380
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/11/2021 17:47:35
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.

Lets walk through this a little bit ...


https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/entrop (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/entropy) in Physics: A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

‘the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time’


I am familiar with entropy of a closed system, but my view of the greater universe is that it is infinite and open. Please post the actual words from the 2nd Law that refer to "entropy of an open system" so that I can relate your statement to the law you are referencing.

106403
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 22/11/2021 12:01:45
The term entropy was coined in the 19th century during the development of steam engines. The developers found that when known inputs and outputs were measured for engine efficiency, there was always lost energy. They could not make any engine 100% efficient. They called this lost energy entropy. Entropy is an experimental fact and not just an abstract theory like dark energy with no lab proof. This lost energy is easier to measure and quantify in a closed system.

In an open system, entropy still absorbs energy; lost energy, but an open system allows energy from other areas of the system to come and equilibrate. This makes it harder to quantify the entropy change. However, the bottom line is there is still lost energy, that is conserved as an entropy increase. 

The universe is net losing energy into entropy according to the second law even if it is trying its best to equilibrate the energy that is left over. The universe is aging since with less useable energy over time, it has to alter its state; new equilibrium, while also relying on the conserved entropic states since this is part of energy conservation. We cannot undo bell curves to retrieve this lost energy in any net way. Instead these conserved entropic memories become the foundation for the future; learn from the past. Electron orbital states are part of the entropic memories of the early days. These do not change since the universe does not have the useable energy it once had.

Even if the universe was to collapse, it will never be same as the original. It may form a black hole and just stay there. It does not have the useable energy available to repeat the original origins. However, the conserved energy within entropy will imply the need for a more evolved path, so it can continue evolving.

The three equations of Special Relativity implies that at the speed of light mass, distance and time all become discontinuous. Mass cannot exist in a speed of light reference, nor can space-time, as we know it. Instead distance and time decouple, allowing one to move in time without the limits of space; omnipresent, and/or move in space without the constraints of time; all knowing or omniscience. This implies a state of maximum or infinite entropy; anything goes, which is the driving force for the second law. All paths are heading back in an attempt to lower the entropic potential between the origin reference, at the speed of light, and formed inertia universes based on space-time; 2nd law.
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2021 13:12:02
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.

Lets walk through this a little bit ...


https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/entrop (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/entropy) in Physics: A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

‘the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time’


I am familiar with entropy of a closed system, but my view of the greater universe is that it is infinite and open. Please post the actual words from the 2nd Law that refer to "entropy of an open system" so that I can relate your statement to the law you are referencing.

106403

The universe is a closed system because there is, by definition, nothing outside it for it to exchange energy etc with.

That may be the only bit that PP has got right.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/11/2021 13:26:02

The universe is a closed system because there is, by definition, nothing outside it for it to exchange energy etc with.

That may be the only bit that PP has got right.

So you don't buy into the concept of an infinite and eternal universe, and instead see the universe as finite and closed, like a bubble of matter and energy emerging from the Big Bang, surrounded by and expanding into nothingness?


Or you just want to keep your thoughts to yourself ... maybe being of the attitude that there are things we just don't know and maybe can't know, and so speculating isn't very productive. I find that speculating is part of the approach to advancing science because it is followed by hypotheses and testing, which is part of the scientific method.



107206,107408,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/11/2021 00:59:21
Time itself, in an infinite and eternal universe, refuses to be pinned down. The most that can be said is that time simply passes. There is no universal clock that can keep time at the same rate every where. There isn't even any right rate for the passing of time. Two atomic clocks starting out side by side and synchronized, when separated will tic at different rates, and show different amounts of time having past if they ever appear side by side again.


107439,107516,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/11/2021 16:40:55
So if you are searching for some universal standard against which to measure the passing of time, there are known and unknown obstacles. The earth slows a tiny but measurable amount each year as it revolves around the Sun (maybe a quarter of a second :shrug:). Our galaxy also is always on the move through the heavens relative to other galaxies and observable galactic structures like the constellations. No matter how much you scale up the size of a patch of space, you will likely discover that there is a change in the rate of motion both near and far. The way I would put it is that if you rely on observables to measure the rate time passes, you will not be able to arrive at a true standard because the rate of time passing is not a fundament characteristic of the universe. Though we can and do use relative motion on a large but observable scale to measure it, relative motion itself is variable.


https://qz.com/1516804/physics-explains-why-time-passes-faster-as-you-age/ (https://qz.com/1516804/physics-explains-why-time-passes-faster-as-you-age/)



107707,107820,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/12/2021 16:47:30
So if the rate that time passes is not fundamental to the universe, what is it about time that is fundamental to the universe? I always have to fall back to the statement that the universe is infinite and eternal, and so the fundamental thing about time is that it is eternal. There was no beginning of time, there will be no end to time, and during that eternity, solar systems, galaxies, Big Bang arenas, and big bangs themselves will come and go, here and there, now and then across infinite and eternal space.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/12/2021 17:03:13
One conclusion is that if you don't speculate that there is life throughout the universe, you might believe that life would end in the universe if the Earth were to be disintegrated by a huge asteroid. Not true, not that knowing life elsewhere would survive would be much of a consolation.


But there are those who believe that the universe had a beginning and will have an end. In "The Last Three Minutes", by Paul Davies, there are conjectures about the ultimate fate of the universe. He suggests that one scenario is the "heat death of the universe" where eventually hospitable environments give way to entropy, and turn cold, uninhabitable.


As an alternative, he offers a final massive Big Crunch that doesn't have the energy to bang and then expand to avoid final entropy. 


107948,107982,108010,108043,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2021 03:06:13
One the other hand, I don't think the universe will have an end. It is eternal, and generates life here and there in hospitable environments as time goes on. It seems to be a perpetual process of changes, and some of those changes lead to life being generated and evolved to the level of intelligent beings.


108046,108107,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2021 14:01:49
Well, well ...  we harness fusion; more to come ...

https://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-first-time-a-fusion-reaction-has-generated-more-energy-than-absorbed-by-the-fuel (https://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-first-time-a-fusion-reaction-has-generated-more-energy-than-absorbed-by-the-fuel)

Now let's deflect asteroids, and start to colonize space :shrug:

108856,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/12/2021 13:18:04
Thoughts of an eternal universe inspire thoughts of an eternal past. In some ways, things that are happening now have happened before. But don't gamble on history repeating itself because there are infinite possible futures too.



109486,109560,109616,


www.desiderata.com (http://www.desiderata.com)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/12/2021 00:26:39
https://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/22/end-science-infinite-possible-futures-exist-certain-black-holes-study-finds/ (https://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/22/end-science-infinite-possible-futures-exist-certain-black-holes-study-finds/)



109966,110015,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/12/2021 17:19:48
There is what I would call the common passing of time. It is the sequence of "nows" that you experience right where you are as time passes, and it is the passing moments that you share with the rest of the universe that is also experiencing time passing. It ignores the differences in locations and clock rates and relative motion, and simply acknowledges that time passes moment to moment everywhere in the universe. Admittedly it is a simplification intended to allow all of us, the entire universe, to focus on the same "now"; the "common now".


Picture a freeze frame of the entire universe at the same instant as a state of being where everything is locked in position, and then imagine that you are somehow able to step out of the locked universe and into your own private reality, where time is passing, allowing you to move among all the frozen objects. ... Bring your camera, lol.


110100,110165,110239,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/12/2021 14:08:18
There would be no celestial motion. The side of the Earth facing the sun would become uninhabited due to the intense radiation 24/7.


110472,110566
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/12/2021 13:27:24
But never mind, "the sun will come out tomorrow", and probably will for billions of years to come. And life here will continue to survive, even flourish as long as we pay attention to habitability.


110850,110946,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/12/2021 14:17:58
One of the beauties of celestial mechanics is that space is frictionless.




110950,111027,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/12/2021 03:24:29
But space is filled with objects with mass that are governed by gravity, and in which the amount of mass that can be gravitationally accumulated into a Big Crunch is limited by the critical capacity of a Big Crunch. When the critical capacity is reached, the crunch collapses under its own weight, and the collapse culminates with a bounce into an explosive expansion; a Big Bang.

111303,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/12/2021 00:05:11
A Big Bang must emit a huge amount of radiation. Are distant big bangs also a source of gamma ray bursts?

If so, and if the gamma rays traverse space at the speed of light (?), can we estimate the frequency of those events and use the info to estimate the size and age of our expanding Big Bang arena of space?


111447,111591,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/12/2021 18:37:39
I'm positing here that space is infinite, the universe has always existed, and Earth is in a region of space that represents a huge arena that is currently in the expansion phase of the aftermath of one of a potentially infinite number Big Bangs that have occurred across the universe over the infinity of time; our big bang being perhaps twenty billion years ago.

111761,112158,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/01/2022 12:13:07
The universe remains in place; everyplace for that matter: Happy New Year!

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/01/2022 03:11:01
When I think too much about "infinite and eternal", I lose sight of the more important "here and now". Living in the now, as well as planning for the future, seems to be a practical way to approach life.


112179,112279,112440,
112509,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/01/2022 14:00:49
We are seeing more distant objects in better resolution. That knowledge might suggest that as we gain the ability to make sense of more distant places, we are beginning to better understand the universe on a larger and larger scale. I predict a large scale sameness no matter which direction we look. More of the same on the largest scale.


112516,112550,112664,112707,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/01/2022 15:41:26
If "sameness" is what we find as we expand our knowledge of the observable universe, then the "equation" for life is not a one-off situation. Therefore, life on Earth is not unique, but instead, life may well be scattered throughout the infinite expanse. The catch is that there are limiting factors like the speed of light, and the eons it would take life to evolve in a new system to the point of being able to leave an electromagnetic imprint to be discovered by another life form.


For example, suppose there is life form A and life form B, greatly separated in space, and both able to leave an electromagnetic imprint which can reach across distant space. By the time any distant life form discovered their signals, both A and B would probably have died out long before. Still, if some more recent Intelligent life, like us, comes across their ancient signals, it would be the greatest discovery by mankind to date.


It is my belief that out of all the static coming from space, we will pinpoint a signal that has an intelligent origin.


112896,113090,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/01/2022 20:36:11
Those supposed intelligent life forms A and B may not be anything like we might expect. I would say, expect the unexpected. They would have to demonstrate life in some respect, but it may be harder to see the intelligence. Depending on their nature, we may not even want to get to know them, or they us; but knowing of their existence alone would be something special.


113096,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/01/2022 14:24:44
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/k2/ (https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/k2/)


But lets keep looking for that message in a pin hole in space.

113823,113917,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/01/2022 02:05:42
We haven't found that message yet, but if we adhere to the Sameness Principle (that says on a grand scale there is more of the same), then life exists on planets here and there across the universe.


113933,113976,114003,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/01/2022 20:27:17
We haven't found that message yet, but if we adhere to the Sameness Principle (that says on a grand scale there is more of the same), then life exists on planets here and there across the universe.
That is the suggestion of my premise that the universe is infinite and has always existed. Because it would follow that the universe is constantly changing, over time everything is recycled as a result of natural expansion and contraction. It is a cycle fueled by big bangs and big crunches, interacting here and there, over and over again, continually, as the "infinite perpetual motion universe" marks the passing of time with a nod and a shrug.


114068,114122,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/01/2022 20:48:42
What we have around us, what we find and/or discover anew, has been recycled over and over again by the greater forces that characterize the universe. An eternity is hard to comprehend when thinking of the past, but an eternal past is the common denominator of everything that is at hand today. Let's call that a "given" and go to the next step, which is to characterize that commonality as a model of the future. Everything that will be around throughout the eternal future will share the same eternal past, offset in time depending from when you start looking back.


114136,114275,114305,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/01/2022 02:19:06
Opinion: The eternal past and the eternal future will only continue to reveal a universe that stays within the pattern of a grand scale sameness. On that grand scale the universe hasn't, doesn't, won't all of a sudden change beyond the range already set by the existing eternal natural law governing the infinity of space and the eternity of time.

What is beyond any supposed boundaries is more of the same, simply not yet discovered or explored by us, but likely discovered and explored by other intelligences across an infinite expanse over infinite time, and it all will comply with the established universal-eternal state of things.


114318,114331,114407,114434,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/01/2022 02:13:10
Within that macrocosm there are a potentially infinite number of microcosms that host dominant life forms like us that survive for awhile, and seem to thrive in their heyday. Eventually though, they all have a common fate, and that is oblivion. Their time seems to always play out because it isn't the nature of time to pause for any of them; and it won't for us here on Earth either.


114440,114455,114526,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/01/2022 13:44:38
But though life forms come and go as hospitable conditions on planets change, life itself may have always existed as a feature of the infinite and eternal universe.


114530,114561,114691,114716,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/01/2022 02:52:18
But though life forms come and go as hospitable conditions on planets change, life itself may have always existed as a feature of the infinite and eternal universe.

That leads me to the speculation that the universe is not only infinite and eternal, but has always hosted life as well. If life is "generative and evolvative" (coined words) then life is as natural as the stars and planets that seem to fill endless space.



114722,114803,114869,114932,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/01/2022 21:41:04
On that basis, the high intelligence of humans might also be a natural characteristic of highly evolved life forms across the universe. So we are looking for life out there, and if the life we find is as smart and capable as we are, let's try to make it a respectful and positive encounter. (and let's hide our text messages, lol)


115095,115108,115123,115168,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/01/2022 15:29:12
But there is a respectible chance that if life has always existed in an eternal universe, then human life is not necessarily at the highest level of evolution or intelligence. Are there, or could there be more advanced intelligent civilizations inhabiting planets around distant stars or in other galaxies? I think that is more than likely given an infinite universe and an eternal past, even though I don't know of a shred of physical evidence of distant instances of intelligent life.

115259,115325,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/01/2022 16:47:53
But there is evidence that life adapts to all possible habitats. Bacteria can live in almost any and all places. It will even grow in your belly button, and I'm not sure there is anything you can do about it.


115670,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/01/2022 01:42:27
One thing that sets humans apart is that we think about possibilities, and we have free will. That doesn't mean we can always do what we want, but we have the choice to act the way we want with consideration for the circumstances and outcomes.

115811,115834,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/01/2022 15:24:43
Our ever increasing opportunities to communicate about science and nature, and to make ourselves aware of almost real-time science news and events at home and around the world makes the Information Age and the Internet an amazing and invaluable tool to science enthusiasts. Continually keeping abreast of happenings on science sites like TNS ia a great way of finding current information. Thanks to everyone who keeps the ball rolling.


115939,15978,16003,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/02/2022 02:40:28
Every year National Geographic puts out an almanac. I love them :) . I recommend them. They can be found at bargain prices and free shipping on the Internet. If I want more info on any of their short topics, I can go to the web for more detail. For example, the 2020 Almanac says on the cover: Trending Topics; Big Ideas in Science; Photos, maps, facts & more; 400 pages on high quality paper stock.


116009,116167,116254,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jan19th1980 on 01/02/2022 09:52:32
Going step by step, the next step is to present the precising definition of universe: Universe is everything, all there is, all space, time, energy, and all of the potentials that can exist from the presence of space, time, and energy. Universe can be thought of as the opposite of nothingness.

One can not become zero. One is not equal to zero.
Zero can not become one. Zero is not equal to one.
One is equal to one.
Now, it is clear that absolute creation and absolute destruction are not possible.
One changes to different one ( Change ). Now, it is clear that relative creation and relative destruction exist.
So, it is clear that there is no beginning for existence and there is no end for existence. But, there is a beginning for a form of existence and there is also an end to form of existence.
Now, it is clear that ... as you pointed out... this is not the only bigbang.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/02/2022 22:38:32
One can not become zero. One is not equal to zero.
Zero can not become one. Zero is not equal to one.
One is equal to one.
Can you explain why you are pointing out those obvious facts?
Quote
Now, it is clear that absolute creation and absolute destruction are not possible.
Agreed
Quote
One changes to different one ( Change ). Now, it is clear that relative creation and relative destruction exist.
Please explain the logic of that statement.
Quote
So, it is clear that there is no beginning for existence and there is no end for existence. But, there is a beginning for a form of existence and there is also an end to form of existence.
Give me an example of a beginning of a form of existence ... How, what, when, where, why, etc.
Quote
Now, it is clear that ... as you pointed out... this is not the only bigbang.
I'm glad someone comes out in agreement with that premise.



116257,116305
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/02/2022 03:16:00
If a Big Bang could happen, it would be a perfect explanation for why we observe everything moving away from our galaxy group, in all directions. On that basis a Big Bang is a logical explanation for what we observe. But could there be a better explanation, given an infinite and eternal universe; not a universe that began at the point in time when the Big Bang singularity is hypothesized to have occurred? 


Feel free to mention an alternative logical explanation that includes our expanding universe without a beginning.


16309,16388,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/02/2022 14:24:38
The idea that the universe has always existed is reasonable in my view. If so, then an observable universe that is expanding would be a common observation if big bangs and big crunches were natural features of an infinite and eternal universe. Gravity certainly is an understandable component of a Big Crunch, but what is the natural force behind a Big Bang that fits the scenario? It could be some natural limit that gravity reaches as it makes the crunches grow; a limit where the ability of atoms to be further compressed fails and causes the compressed crunch to bang.


116391,116427,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/02/2022 19:32:08
I guess there is such a limit. A Big Crunch and a black hole would share the characteristic of being the result of a gravitational accumulation of matter and energy from surrounding space. A Big Crunch would eventually become a black hole if the surrounding space could feed it to completion.

But what  would stop the feeding? It would be what I call the critical capacity of a big crunch. When a Big Crunch reaches this critical capacity, any further accretion into it would put it over the limit, and the crunch would collapse because the atomic structure of the atoms at its core could no longer resist the growing compression; and it would collapse/bang.

116907,116967,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/02/2022 23:01:19
And after the Big Bang, there are scenarios that explain the expanding observable universe, a universe that seems to have no center because the expansion seems to be accelerating in all directions. But then, an infinite and eternal universe would have no center, would it.


17025,117086,

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/02/2022 13:47:10
Does the observable universe backtrack to a Big Bang event; I say yes, it looks that way.

Is the expanding observable universe part of a greater, infinite and eternal universe? I say yes to that too.

And I say yes to the idea that the greater universe is full of Big Bang arenas, some expanding, some contracting, some fading into the past, and some waiting to Bang.


117105,117131,117172,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/02/2022 04:08:23
Given all of that, Big Bangs are a common denominator across the universe. Expanding Big Bang arenas bloom out from big bang events, and those arenas intersect and overlap in an endless dance that had no beginning and that repeats itself over and over; always has and always will, IMHO.


117174,117275,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/02/2022 00:15:14
Obviously, our home Big Bang arena has at least one hospitable planet that is teaming with life forms of an almost endless variety. That fact alone gives me confidence that our "living" planet is not the only one. We search and maybe we will find other examples of life out there, or maybe they will find us. I don't expect to be communicating with intelligent life forms on planets that are light years away, but it seems possible that a very technically advanced culture could orchestrate an electromagnetic signal that we (or any equally advanced culture) would recognize as being from an intelligent source. Let's keep looking, and maybe put a bit more Joint Earth Source funding into the effort.


117771,117861,117896,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/02/2022 04:23:36
We can't be certain about the how's and when's, but life arrises from matter and energy when the conditions are right, which can be called the "generative force".

Once life arrises, the "evolvative force" takes it from there, according to my hypotheses.


117899,118136,118189,118253,118278,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/02/2022 02:52:48
I believe that the origination of life, and of new life forms, happens as the result of a natural iterative process. When the elements of life are present, and the time needed for such an iterative process to happen, fall in place together.


118281,118381,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/02/2022 15:22:30
Those iterative processes are continually playing out across infinite space, so let's not be surprised when we discover extraterrestrial life. I expect news on the topic in my lifetime, and I'm pretty old by now, lol.


118388,118464,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/02/2022 15:10:36
In the mean time, we wait and listen. Given the idea that life has always existed, and the fact that I doubt that the Earth has always existed, the first thing that comes to my mind is that life on Earth could have either been generated here or could have been "seeded" here, or both; but probably generated and evolved here. So though I have expressed confidence that we will detect other life on distant planets in the future, it is very unlikely that they will look like us or think like us.


119091,119292,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/02/2022 19:17:13
I like the premise that the infinite and eternal universe is filled with matter and energy, and features multiple big bangs here and there, now and then. When I refer to matter, it is reference to atoms and the atomic particles of which matter is composed. In addition, I have to acknowledge the energy contained within matter and the forces that sustain the presence of matter. It is all intriguing, but as an observer generally I view it matter-of-factly. Matter is almost everywhere in our environment, and even in outer space, we depend on matter and the ingenuity of man to get it and us there.


119295,119544,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/02/2022 23:02:50
Across infinite time and space, the elements and conditions necessary for life logically could have always existed, and just as logically could have occurred over and over again, over all time. Given the possibility of that eternal condition, I consider the possibility that there would have been a potentially infinite number of times and places in the universe where intelligence has arisen and gone on to establish footholds and evolve to extremely high capabilities, equal to and/or exceeding that achieved by our version of humanity.


I submit that the number of opportunities for intelligent life forms to arise like that, and to reach higher and higher levels of capability, is potentially infinite over all time and space, and that the most advanced life forms are still evolving, and will go on to greater and grander things.


If so, given a potentially infinite number of such occasions for advanced intelligent life forms to do so, I conclude that the height of evolution that can be achieved by nature is almost unlimited when considered across endless and eternal space and time.

119549,119611,119690,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Origin on 28/02/2022 18:08:46
Go away and take this silly blog with you....
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/02/2022 20:10:32

Go away and take this silly blog with you....
History tells me you aren't open to discussion :Shrug:.


119743,119809,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/03/2022 02:44:45
Across infinite time and space, the elements and conditions necessary for life logically could have always existed, and just as logically could have occurred over and over again, over all time. Given the possibility of that eternal condition, I consider the possibility that there would have been a potentially infinite number of times and places in the universe where intelligence has arisen and gone on to establish footholds and evolve to extremely high capabilities, equal to and/or exceeding that achieved by our version of humanity.


I submit that the number of opportunities for intelligent life forms to arise like that, and to reach higher and higher levels of capability, is potentially infinite over all time and space, and that the most advanced life forms are still evolving, and will go on to greater and grander things.
"

If so, given a potentially infinite number of such occasions for advanced intelligent life forms to do so, I conclude that the height of evolution that can be achieved by nature is almost unlimited when considered across endless and eternal space and time.


I'm guessing that this is the post that inspired one member to respond negatively.

So let's take a look at it to see if we can get to the bottom of what is objectionable, considering this is "The Lighter Side" in the "New Theories" section:

The first post aimed at getting to the bottom of it starts out with me positing that the universe is infinite and eternal.


If any members don't believe that the universe is infinite and eternal, then maybe some believe that there was a beginning. Perhaps they would like to defend that position by saying how the universe began, or at least what basis there is for believing there was a beginning, as opposed to my premise that the universe has always existed?



119834,119999,120023,120070,120092,120137,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/03/2022 17:00:16
I think that one defense for the "beginning" premise held by some is that there is apparent expansion of the observable universe. No matter what direction we look, it appears that almost everything outside our galaxy is moving away from us. Will anyone (Origin or anyone else) weigh in on that? What explanation is there for the observed expansion if the universe didn't have a beginning some many billions of years ago?



My answer is that there is an infinite greater universe that has always existed beyond our observable universe, and that greater universe is not expanding because it has always been out there and has always been infinite.

120228,120286,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/03/2022 14:20:40
The observed expansion is backtracked to a Big Bang, but the standard cosmological explanation of the Big Bang does not answer the questions as well as the explanation that says our Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe, but was merely the beginning of our observable expanding Big Bang arena, which is just one common event within a greater infinite and eternal universe, IMHO.


120365,120443,120545,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 04/03/2022 15:25:35
And after the Big Bang, there are scenarios that explain the expanding observable universe, a universe that seems to have no center because the expansion seems to be accelerating in all directions. But then, an infinite and eternal universe would have no center, would it.
17025,117086,

The observation of the universe expanding relative to the galaxies, could be explained as a simple action and reaction. The galaxies are lowering gravitational potential, as stars form and atoms are created. This lowering of gravitational potential is exothermic; energy output. a reflected reaction to this action would mean the opposite should happen; absorbing energy and gravitational potential increasing; expansion, relative to all the big sources of action; galaxies.

I could never figure out why the traditions blindly assumes space-time can expand. lead, and be the source of action, that then lead matter as the reaction. It is far easier to have matter leading space-time through action and reaction in the lab; add to take away mass or increase density. Has anyone ever got space-time to expand first, in the lab, without using any form of matter? Has anyone ever seen dark energy in the lab, to see if this works in the lab? 

If you look at rotations, such as in spiral galaxies, a rotation will create a centrifugal force, the force vector of which is in the opposite the direction of the galactic center of gravity. Rotation of spiral galaxies add up to part of the gravitational action and reaction of spiral galaxies. The galaxies are lowering gravitation potential, with more turns of the spiral; more centrifugal force vector, means faster internal action over time.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/03/2022 03:32:09
I should probably just direct you back to my premise that the universe is infinite and eternal. A lot has happened over that infinite timeframe of the past; everything, in fact, that has ever happened has happened over that infinite timeframe, lol. But I want to make the point that an infinite past does nothing to impede the likelihood of an infinite future. The likelihood of an infinite future is 100%, just like the likelihood of an infinite past, and as time passes, the infinite past and the infinite future remain equally just as infinite.



We are always at the middle of time ... to be continued


120551,120622,120680,120739,120758,120809,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/03/2022 13:19:27
The middle of time. That concept goes hand in hand with the concept of the "eternal now".


121150,121174,121234,121283,,














 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/03/2022 01:10:37
Hypothesis: The "eternal now" is at the "middle of time".



121548,121581,121659,121707,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/03/2022 14:07:17
No kidding, sometimes a little philosophy finds its way into people's thinking as they sort out their views on the cosmology of the universe. The greater universe must be infinite and eternal and that is well and good, but, in the short span and space of human lives, maybe there isn't enough individual time to thoroughly study and think through everything of interest that comes into our curious minds. Doing a lot of contemplating along with the study of science and nature would seem to provide some welcome medicine.


121712,121735,121758,121786,121812,121850,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/03/2022 20:23:42
Day 1  On board 2:00 PM
Underway 5:01 PM
eod2

121891,121931,122032,122185,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/03/2022 12:37:50
I'm positing here that space is infinite, the universe has always existed, and Earth is in a region of space that represents a huge arena that is currently in the expansion phase of the aftermath of one of a potentially infinite number Big Bangs that have occurred across the universe over the infinity of time; our big bang being perhaps twenty billion years ago.
Please let me know if I understand you correctly:
1. The space is infinite:
space is infinite
2. The age of the universe is also infinite as it has always existed:
 
the universe has always existed
3. There were infinite no. of big bangs in the Universe over the infinite age of the universe:
potentially infinite number Big Bangs that have occurred across the universe over the infinity of time
4. The Earth is in a region of space that represents a huge arena that is currently in the expansion phase of the aftermath of one Big Bang
5. Our big bang being perhaps twenty billion years ago.

Few questions:
1. Do you assume that the space was always infinite - even before the first bang or each bang has to create its own  space?
2. Do you assume that each big bang create a single Universe and its space? In other words, do you support the idea of the Multiverse?
3. If there were infinite big bangs, while the space of each universe expand to all directions how could it be that there are no collisions between the Universes?
4. What is the chance that some bangs would be created in the same aria/universe/space?
5. As there were infinite bangs in infinite space, why can't we measure the reflection/ripple of any other bang around us?
6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/03/2022 21:07:56
I'm positing here that space is infinite, the universe has always existed, and Earth is in a region of space that represents a huge arena that is currently in the expansion phase of the aftermath of one of a potentially infinite number Big Bangs that have occurred across the universe over the infinity of time; our big bang being perhaps twenty billion years ago.
Please let me know if I understand you correctly:
1. The space is infinite:
space is infinite
2. The age of the universe is also infinite as it has always existed:
 
the universe has always existed
3. There were infinite no. of big bangs in the Universe over the infinite age of the universe:
potentially infinite number Big Bangs that have occurred across the universe over the infinity of time
4. The Earth is in a region of space that represents a huge arena that is currently in the expansion phase of the aftermath of one Big Bang
5. Our big bang being perhaps twenty billion years ago.

Few questions:
1. Do you assume that the space was always infinite - even before the first bang or each bang has to create its own  space?
Yes, I assume space has always been infinite.
Quote
2. Do you assume that each big bang create a single Universe and its space? In other words, do you support the idea of the Multiverse?
No, I assume that throughout the infinite past there has always been just one universe that I refer to as the infinite universe.
Quote
3. If there were infinite big bangs, while the space of each universe expand to all directions how could it be that there are no collisions between the Universes?
In my view, a Big Bang does not create space or create a universe; all space has always existed and has always been infinite, so collisions between universes is not an issue since there is just one universe. However, big bangs occur because gravity causes matter to accumulate into big crunches, and crunches reach critical capacity and collapse/bang.
Quote
4. What is the chance that some bangs would be created in the same aria/universe/space?
My view is that there is just one universe, one contiguous infinite space that has always existed, so bangs do not create new universes, but multiple bangs can and probably do occur here and there throughout the one infinite universe, now and then. The multiple bangs occur as the result of Big Crunch sized accumulations of matter that grow until they reach some critical capacity, whereupon they collapse/bang into a new expanding Big Bang arena within the already existing universe; no new space, but a big bang event that happens in existing space because an accumulation of matter in that space reached critical capacity and "banged".
Quote
5. As there were infinite bangs in infinite space, why can't we measure the reflection/ripple of any other bang around us?
I'll add speculation upon speculation and say that reflective ripples from other big bangs would not be detected because we are within the space of our own Big Bang event and the matter within that space formed from the constituents of matter that have always occupied space and that go through recurring accumulations and bangs here and there across infinite space, a big bang/Big Crunch/ Big Bang cycle that only requires a finite amount of matter in a finite amount of space, within an infinite universe that contains an infinite amount of matter.
Quote

6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?
It can be.


122486,122547,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/03/2022 10:15:44
Thanks
In my view, a Big Bang does not create space or create a universe; all space has always existed and has always been infinite, so collisions between universes is not an issue since there is just one universe.
So, In your view, all space has always existed and has always been infinite.
In other words - There is only one universe that its space goes to the infinity and its age is infinity.

I fully agree with you that the Universe is infinite in its space and its age.
That is excellent starting point for any theory.

However, you also agree that Infinity matter needs to fill that infinite space:
6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?
It can be.
Do you have an idea how the matter in the infinite universe had been created or it just comes for free with the universe?

Do you use the idea of bangs (or infinite big bangs) just to explain the expansion of galaxies?
So, is it correct that the bangs in your theory are used to move matter and not to create matter?

Don't you agree that somehow we need to explain how matter had been created?

Don't forget that matter means energy and energy means mass.
Therefore, any ejected energy from any star means less mass (if we ignore gravity forces and tidal heat).
We know how mass could be transformed into energy.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we really know how energy could be transformed into mass.

Do you agree that theoretically, if you take an infinite Universe full with infinite matter and set infinite bangs in it, then after infinite time you might get a universe without matter as it had been transformed to energy?

Any idea?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/03/2022 14:31:38
Thanks
In my view, a Big Bang does not create space or create a universe; all space has always existed and has always been infinite, so collisions between universes is not an issue since there is just one universe.
So, In your view, all space has always existed and has always been infinite.
In other words - There is only one universe that its space goes to the infinity and its age is infinity.

I fully agree with you that the Universe is infinite in its space and its age.
That is excellent starting point for any theory.

However, you also agree that Infinity matter needs to fill that infinite space:
6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?
It can be.
Do you have an idea how the matter in the infinite universe had been created or it just comes for free with the universe?
I think that all there is in the universe is wave energy. Light is wave energy, and matter is composed of wave energy.

Matter is composed of gravitational wave energy, and objects of matter both absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.
Quote

Do you use the idea of bangs (or infinite big bangs) just to explain the expansion of galaxies?
I don't say expansion of galaxies, but I see it as the observed separation of galaxies. It is a little nit picky, but after a Big Bang I see it as a huge burst of gravitational wave energy because the big crunch had reached a maximum gravitational compression. Matter forms out of the gravitational wave energy as gravitational waves intersect and overlap in space that has had an infinite history of big bangs and crunches across all space.
Quote
So, is it correct that the bangs in your theory are used to move matter and not to create matter?
I still like the idea that all matter is composed of gravitational wave energy, and all space contains gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions from an infinite history of Big Bang arena action.

Gravity compresses matter until a certain limit of compression is reached. The compression can get so extreme that the atomic bonds that orchestrate the good behavior of matter in objects is defeated. 
Quote
Don't you agree that somehow we need to explain how matter had been created?
No, since my view is that mater is composed of gravitational wave energy, all objects absorb and emit gravitational waves, and the relative motion of objects is due to imbalances of inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy. Objects move in the direction of the highest NET gravitational wave energy source in surrounding space.
Quote
Don't forget that matter means energy and energy means mass.
Therefore, any ejected energy from any star means less mass (if we ignore gravity forces and tidal heat).
We know how mass could be transformed into energy.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we really know how energy could be transformed into mass.
I'll have to finish my ranting on these topics later, since I'm on a cruise and stuff is happening all the time, lol.
Quote
Do you agree that theoretically, if you take an infinite Universe full with infinite matter and set infinite bangs in it, then after infinite time you might get a universe without matter as it had been transformed to energy?
No, but I'll give you my answer later :)
Quote
Any idea?
I will speculate about anything, lol.


122670,122841,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/03/2022 15:43:24
Gravity compresses matter until a certain limit of compression is reached. The compression can get so extreme that the atomic bonds that orchestrate the good behavior of matter in objects is defeated. 
Why the Gravity compression of matter can't just end as a BH/SMBH or S.S...MBH?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/03/2022 16:59:05
I still like the idea that all matter is composed of gravitational wave energy, and all space contains gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions from an infinite history of Big Bang arena action.

I hope that you agree that proton is the basic element in any atom.
So, let's try to verify the structure of a proton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#/media/File:Quark_structure_proton.svg
"The quark structure of the proton. There are two up quarks in it and one down quark. The strong force is mediated by gluons (wavey)."
Hence, the gluon is actually the force that holds those three quarks.

The total mass in three quarks is about 9 Mev/c^2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg
However, the total mass of proton is 938  Mev/c^2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
"Mass: 938.27208816(29) MeV/c2[2]"
Hence, the mass contribution of the three quarks in a proton is 9/938  =  0.0095 while the contribution of gluons is 929/938 = 0/9905.
Let's verify what is the meaning of gluons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
"A gluon (/ˈɡluːɒn/) is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks. It is analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles."
So Gluon is analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Therefore, proton is mainly electromagnetic (EM) energy.
Hence, do you agree that if you wish to create a matter - you must have electromagnetic source.
If so, how do you add EM energy to your theory?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/03/2022 17:02:32
So Gluon is analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Therefore, proton is mainly electromagnetic (EM) energy.

The strong force is analogous to the electromagnetic force, but it isn't literally the electromagnetic force. Be careful not to confuse the two.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/03/2022 17:07:31
The strong force is analogous to the electromagnetic force, but it isn't literally the electromagnetic force. Be careful not to confuse the two.
Thanks
Yes, we call it the strong force.
However, what kind of energy is needed to generate that Gluon in a proton?
Don't you agree that EM energy is needed or gravitational wave energy is good enough?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/03/2022 18:54:08
Don't you agree that EM energy is needed or gravitational wave energy is good enough?

No. The strong nuclear force (which is neither electromagnetism nor gravity) is sufficient by itself.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/03/2022 08:09:44
Don't you agree that EM energy is needed or gravitational wave energy is good enough?

No. The strong nuclear force (which is neither electromagnetism nor gravity) is sufficient by itself.
That strong nuclear force that is called "gluon" contributes more than 99% to the proton' mass.
Hence, 99% of any atom' mass comes from that "gluon" force.
In the same token - 99% of the total real mass in the entire Universe comes from the "strong nuclear force".

Based on the Big Bang Theory it is stated:
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/12/the-first-element
"Protons and neutrons began forming shortly after, from about 10-6 to 1 second after the Big Bang."
Without real explanation how the strong nuclear force is created in the proton.

Bogie_smiles is recycling the matter in his infinite big bangs by using the idea of gravitational wave energy:
I still like the idea that all matter is composed of gravitational wave energy,
However, he doesn't explain how the gravitational wave energy is transformed into the strong nuclear force in the proton.

How can we discuss about any theory for our universe while we ignore the real creation process of the proton?

So, please - as the Gluon is neither electromagnetism nor gravity then how that strong nuclear force is created in a proton?

For Example - If we would have the three free quarks that are needed for proton, how can we Glue them by "gluon" in a lab (at any size, any energy, any location, any pressure, any temp) - Just a theoretical idea please?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2022 11:43:32
Since an entropy increase requires that energy be absorbed,
No, it doesn't.
this model of expansion would be very endothermic and would require a lot of up front energy to achieve.
No
The work done expanding an ideal gas into a vacuum is zero.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 19/03/2022 20:12:09
So, please - as the Gluon is neither electromagnetism nor gravity then how that strong nuclear force is created in a proton?

You could just as easily ask "how is the electromagnetic force created in a proton?" or "how is the gravitational force created in a proton?" The strong nuclear force is every bit as fundamental as electromagnetism and gravity. If an explanation for the creation of electromagnetism or gravity isn't necessary, then neither is an explanation for the creation of the strong nuclear force. Alternatively, if the creation of the strong nuclear force must be explained, then so must the creation of electromagnetism and gravity.

For Example - If we would have the three free quarks that are needed for proton, how can we Glue them by "gluon" in a lab (at any size, any energy, any location, any pressure, any temp)

Quarks come with the strong nuclear force automatically (just as they come with the electromagnetic and gravitational forces automatically). If a quark is formed, then the strong force must also be there.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/03/2022 06:13:17
Thanks for the explanation.
You could just as easily ask "how is the electromagnetic force created in a proton?" or "how is the gravitational force created in a proton?" The strong nuclear force is every bit as fundamental as electromagnetism and gravity. If an explanation for the creation of electromagnetism or gravity isn't necessary, then neither is an explanation for the creation of the strong nuclear force. Alternatively, if the creation of the strong nuclear force must be explained, then so must the creation of electromagnetism and gravity.
Let's ignore the "how"?
My key question is - what kind of energy is needed for the proton creation?
Quarks come with the strong nuclear force automatically (just as they come with the electromagnetic and gravitational forces automatically). If a quark is formed, then the strong force must also be there.
Hence, Quarks come with the electromagnetic and gravitational forces automatically.
Actually, we all know that proton has electric charge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge
"The elementary charge, usually denoted by e or sometimes qe is the electric charge carried by a single proton"
Electromagnetism in the main energy that carry electric charge.

In the following artical we can see the animation of the gluon-field in the proton:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theory/staff/leinweber/VisualQCD/Nobel/
The animations to the right and above illustrate the typical four-dimensional structure of gluon-field configurations averaged over in describing the vacuum properties of QCD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation#/media/File:Quantum_Fluctuations.gif
That filed is also called "quantum fluctuation":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
"In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[2] as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic"

Therefore, can we consider the proton as electromagnetic and gravitational forces/energy in a Box/cell?
Or in other words - proton is a cell of  EM energy + gravitational force.
Therefore, do you confirm that without EM energy there is no way to create any proton?

If so, it is clear that Bogie_smiles idea for recycling the matter by only gravitational wave energy can't work.
There is also a need for EM energy for the creation of any proton in the entire Universe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/03/2022 15:00:33
...

If so, it is clear that Bogie_smiles idea for recycling the matter by only gravitational wave energy can't work.
There is also a need for EM energy for the creation of any proton in the entire Universe.
You may be right. However, my premise is that the universe has always existed; no creation or initial event that everything has to track back to. Celestial mechanics would be a natural occurrence. Atoms and molecules would occur naturally and would be recycled via big crunches and big bangs.  Maybe protons are eternal too?


123551,123600,123687,123786,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/03/2022 15:35:43
I'll have to finish my ranting on these topics later, since I'm on a cruise and stuff is happening all the time, lol.
Dear Bogie_smiles
I hope that you enjoy the cruise.
You may be right. However, my premise is that the universe has always existed; no creation or initial event that everything has to track back to. Celestial mechanics would be a natural occurrence. Atoms and molecules would occur naturally and would be recycled via big crunches and big bangs.  Maybe protons are eternal too?
Let me summarize my point of view about your theory.
1. Infinite space - Yes, you are absolutely correct. There is only one Universe and the space in this universe goes to the infinity at any direction. If you jump by 10^1000 LY to the left, while I would jump 10^1000LY to the right - the distance between us would be exactly 2*10^1000LY.
2. Infinite age - I also fully agree with you that the Universe with its infinite space is infinite in its age. the idea that it had been created only 13.8 By ago is just imagination.
3. Imagination - Multiverse, Curvature in space, other space dimension in space time, Space expansion/inflation and other hypothetical theories - Those are pure imagination from scientists that do understand that the current BBT can't fit to the observations but they still wish to hold it.
4. Energy in the space - There is abundant energy in space. even in an "empty" space.
https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/zoom-energy.html
"There is abundant energy in space. Even though most of deep space (the vast stretches of empty area between planets, stars and moons) is cold and dark, space is flooded constantly by electromagnetic energy."
Try to use that electromagnetic energy in your theory.
6. Free energy - As there is no other space dimension while  space/time are always there then there is no free energy that could come free of charge to help your theory as our scientists hope to get in the BBT theory (while they don't have a clue how that energy comes in).
7. Real Matter - It is perfectly OK to assume that there was always matter in the Universe. However, there is maximum upper limit on proton lifetime.
Maybe protons are eternal too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay
"The maximum upper limit on proton lifetime (if unstable), is calculated at 6 × 10^39 years, a bound applicable to SUSY models,"
So, if based on your theory, 10^100 years ago, the infinite universe was already full with infinite matter, then by now that matter should be decay. 
Therefore, you must show how new protons/atoms are CONSTANTLY created in our real universe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/03/2022 21:12:50
"The maximum upper limit on proton lifetime (if unstable), is calculated at 6 × 10^39 years, a bound applicable to SUSY models,"
So, if based on your theory, 10^100 years ago, the infinite universe was already full with infinite matter, then by now that matter should be decay. 

Proton decay is theoretical. It hasn't been observed and might not happen. If so, then the proton would be stable.

Dave, you seem to be dangerously close to talking about Theory D again. You were barred from doing so because your old thread about it devolved so much that it had to be closed. Don't bring Theory D up.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/03/2022 16:04:06
I pretty much trust the scientific community to come to a consensus on what is known, and what is as yet unknown. I don’t hesitate to speculate about the “as yet unknown”, and I don’t claim to know all about what is known, so my ranting is more for my own entertainment, and for discussion. I appreciate your responses and enthusiasm for discussion.

Since I subscribe to the idea that big crunches and big bangs are common events, given infinite space and time, I would say that if protons have a well defined quark structure, and that there are up and down quarks and mediating gluons that represent the forces, then I would wonder about the physics of those particles throughout the crunch and bang cycles. Does the extreme of gravity during a crunch leave the protons intact? Do the protons give up their individual particle nature when and if the crunch collapses under the extreme of gravity, and then reform in the cooling and expansion phase? Does a Big Bang pulverize all matter into wave energy, or does matter survive the crunch bang?


123886,123937,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/03/2022 20:52:08
Would nuclear fusion occur during a big crunch. If so, fusion energy would certainly make for a Big Bang, wouldn't it?


123940,123997,124043,124112,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/03/2022 13:07:11
Gravity would provide the crunch, and fusion would provide the bang. Multiple crunch/bangs across infinite space for eternity would continually stir the pot of space to keep things changing. It would also provide an endless process of iterations of elements and molecules so all possible combinations would regularly occur here and there. Anything possible would have some probability of occurring somewhere, sometime, over and over.


124233,124289,124317,124368,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/03/2022 01:56:08
...
So, if based on your theory, 10^100 years ago, the infinite universe was already full with infinite matter, then by now that matter should be decay. 
Therefore, you must show how new protons/atoms are CONSTANTLY created in our real universe.

My speculations are based on 1) a multiple Big Bang universe that has always existed, 2) space that is filled with matter composed of gravitational wave energy, resulting in matter that can be recycled between matter and wave energy via the big crunch/bang cycle.

If there was any evidence of proton decay, i.e., if they might not have always existed, then my "model" would address it with the premise that multiple big crunches and big bangs occurring throughout eternity would be converting matter to wave energy via big bangs, and wave energy to matter via gravitational compression. There would be ample opportunity for protons forming within the heart of massive objects like stars, or as a result of super novas, if not within the crunch/bangs themselves, I speculate.


124550,124651,124674,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/03/2022 03:32:41
Infinity is long enough for anything that can happen, to happen. If protons can decay they will. And if they do, they will be remade in the compression "ovens" from the massive accumulations of matter that are in the process of naturally forming all the time across the universe, from matter and wave energy that already exists.



125226,125399,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/04/2022 01:55:05
I doubt that big crunches and big bangs are particularly rare on a grand scale, though they would be few and far between. The measure that would make them common place is the infinite scale of the universe that is full of matter and energy. But I think that we have to accept that individuality of conscious beings is very fleeting and a one time experience for each of us. And yet, everything we say and do stays with us as long as we are functioning beings.


126070,126266,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/04/2022 04:57:24
Dave, you seem to be dangerously close to talking about Theory D again.
Dear Kryptid
I only wish to focus on real science.
In real science there is no way to move an atom (or create an atom) without real energy source.
I really like the theory from Bogie_smiles as there is a real energy source for its infinite bangs/crunches theory.
He actually reuse the energy in its infinite time & space universe.
We can agree or disagree on that kind of energy source, but at least there is a real source for the energy in his theory.
Theory D is irrelevant for this discussion.
I also like the idea of repeatable bangs/crunches activity.
In our real universe any activity must be repeatable.
It is not natural to accept the idea of a single activity in the entire universe.
Actually, there must be a way for us to verify if Bogie_smiles theory is real.
I would advice to verify if the expectation from Bogie_smiles theory meets the observations.
If yes, then it might be a good theory.
However, if we would verify even a single contradiction (in current observation - or in the future observation) then this theory is not realistic.
Therefore, real energy source + repeatable activity + 100% correlation between expectations to observation should be the base for Bogie_smiles theory or any other theory.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/04/2022 00:32:20

I only wish to focus on real science.
In real science there is no way to move an atom (or create an atom) without real energy source.
I really like the theory from Bogie_smiles as there is a real energy source for its infinite bangs/crunches theory.
He actually reuse the energy in its infinite time & space universe.


...
It is not natural to accept the idea of a single activity in the entire universe.
Quote
Agreed. A single Big Bang will "play out", and my speculation is that either everything would move away from everything else until the distances separating them would make them undetectable, or, until all mass has radiated itself into oblivion, :) .
Actually, there must be a way for us to verify if Bogie_smiles theory is real.
I would advice to verify if the expectation from Bogie_smiles theory meets the observations.
If yes, then it might be a good theory.
However, if we would verify even a single contradiction (in current observation - or in the future observation) then this theory is not realistic.
Therefore, real energy source + repeatable activity + 100% correlation between expectations to observation should be the base for Bogie_smiles theory or any other theory.

I wouldn't claim that my speculative ideas would do a very good job of describing reality. There are just too many alternatives and unknowns.


I do think that over time there will be many new discoveries about the macro universe as well as the micro realm, and the excitement is in the on-going unfolding of an understanding of reality.

,127176,127233,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/04/2022 12:23:55
I do think that over time there will be many new discoveries about the macro universe as well as the micro realm, and the excitement is in the on-going unfolding of an understanding of reality.
We have already discovered that there is no curvature in space.
Therefore, our Universe can't be limited in its size!

I wouldn't claim that my speculative ideas would do a very good job of describing reality
Your Idea that the universe is infinite in its size/space is 100% correct.
As there is no curvature in the space, the assumption that our universe is limited in its space is just incorrect.
Based on this understanding it is clear that there is no way to set unlimited universe space by a single bang that took place 13.8 BY ago.
Hence, the age of an infinite Universe must be also infinite.
Therefore, our real universe must be infinite in its size/space and also in its age.
Any one knows that, even those people that wish to believe in a single BBT idea.
Hence, if we wish to believe that our universe is limited in its size and had been created 13.8 BY ago by a single bang, now that we know that the Universe is unlimited in its size (and its age) - it is very clear that based on the same concept, there must be unlimited number of bangs.

There are just too many alternatives and unknowns.
No
There is only one clear understanding for our Universe.
It is infinite in its size and age as you have stated!

You have offered better alternative for that real universe.
Therefore, in my point of view, your idea for unlimited no of bangs for infinite universe is much more realistic than the current main stream speculation that our universe is limited in its size and had been created by only a single Bang.
Please be awrae that in order to keep the wrong idea of a single BBT for the unlimited universe size, some scientists offered new speculations as Multiverse and different space/times layers. However, they are all incorrect.
The missing curvature in space proves by 100% that there is only one universe and this universe is unlimited in its size and age.
Any theory must explain that unlimited universe size and age!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/04/2022 17:22:54
If you like the idea that the universe is infinite and eternal, you might like the idea that changes in the path of objects in motion through space are governed by the changing local gravitational wave energy density that the object encounters. It is those changes that cause an object to follow a curved path through space.


127318,127331,127353,127436,127461,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/04/2022 14:55:00
Gravity would provide the crunch, and fusion would provide the bang. Multiple crunch/bangs across infinite space for eternity would continually stir the pot of space to keep things changing. It would also provide an endless process of iterations of elements and molecules so all possible combinations would regularly occur here and there. Anything possible would have some probability of occurring somewhere, sometime, over and over.
And thus, the occurrence of life, here and there, now and then, would be a certainty. Any objections to that premise?



127500,127608,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/04/2022 09:42:08
Gravity would provide the crunch, and fusion would provide the bang. Multiple crunch/bangs across infinite space for eternity would continually stir the pot of space to keep things changing. It would also provide an endless process of iterations of elements and molecules so all possible combinations would regularly occur here and there. Anything possible would have some probability of occurring somewhere, sometime, over and over.
And thus, the occurrence of life, here and there, now and then, would be a certainty. Any objections to that premise?

127500,127608,

There is small problem in this concept.
Let's assume that you are fully correct in your theory.
However, do you agree that our sun is losing mass due to fusion activity & solar wind?
https://lisbdnet.com/how-much-mass-does-the-sun-lose-per-second/
"We find that the Sun loses mass 4.289×10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353×10^20 g every year to energy."
In the same token every star in the galaxy or in the Universe is also losing mass over time.
As our Universe is Infinite in its size and age (and that is 100% correct) then after infinite time there would be almost no mass in the Universe.
Hence, the existence of the entire Universe is based on energy.
In order to keep your Infinite Bangs theory and overcome the losing mass due to Stars fusion activity - New energy should come from somewhere.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/04/2022 13:53:01
Matter is composed of gravitational wave energy, and objects of matter both absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.
So, you offer the gravitational wave as a source of energy.
That is excellent Idea.
Actually, we all know that Gravity comes for free.
However, you should show how gravity or gravity wave could be transformed to energy (especially new EM energy).
Once you have new EM energy, you could theoretically create new protons and new matter.
That matter could compensate the losing mass due to fusion activity.
Therefore, new protons / matter could keep your infinite bang cycles for infinity.
So please - try to find a solution how gravity could be transformed into new EM energy.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/04/2022 17:33:12
As our Universe is Infinite in its size and age (and that is 100% correct) then after infinite time there would be almost no mass in the Universe.

That's not how that works. Stars may lose mass, but that lost mass still exists in the Universe in the form of particles. The Universe does not lose mass just because stars lose mass.

New energy should come from somewhere.

Not according to the first law of thermodynamics.

I see that you are trying to sneak in a lot of the same controversial statements that you have used in your Theory D discussion. You may not be mentioning Theory D by name, but you are definitely dancing around it.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/04/2022 18:53:15

There is small problem in this concept.
Let's assume that you are fully correct in your theory.
However, do you agree that our sun is losing mass due to fusion activity & solar wind?
https://lisbdnet.com/how-much-mass-does-the-sun-lose-per-second/ (https://lisbdnet.com/how-much-mass-does-the-sun-lose-per-second/)
"We find that the Sun loses mass 4.289×10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353×10^20 g every year to energy."
In the same token every star in the galaxy or in the Universe is also losing mass over time.
As our Universe is Infinite in its size and age (and that is 100% correct) then after infinite time there would be almost no mass in the Universe.
Not according to my speculations which promote an infinite universe that prominently features the perpetual process I call "matter to energy to matter", via the universal formation, here and there, now and then, of big crunches and big bangs.
Quote
Hence, the existence of the entire Universe is based on energy.
In order to keep your Infinite Bangs theory and overcome the losing mass due to Stars fusion activity - New energy should come from somewhere.
There is no need for new energy if there is a perpetual process of matter to energy to matter via big crunches and big bangs that have been occurring forever, here and there, across the infinite universe.



127815,127842,127890,128054,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2022 20:04:01
"We find that the Sun loses mass 4.289×10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353×10^20 g every year to energy."
Let's do a thought experiment- they are cheap.
Say we magically switch the Sun off and wait a few years.
OK, imagine a rock orbiting the Sun at a distance of a little over a light year.It has an orbital period given by the distance, and the mass of the Sun.

Then we switch the Sun back on.

Light and the solar wind stream out from the Sun- it loses mass.

But the path of the rock does not change until the light reaches it.
Because all that light is made of photons with relativistic mass.

And that mass exactly balances the mass lost from the Sun.

In a very large universe, the same is true without needing to switch the sun on and off.
It turned on about 4.6 billion years ago. Anything more than (about) 4.6 billion light years away will be subject to the same pull from [ the sun together with the radiation and solar wind] as it was before it lit up.

The Sun loses mass, but the rest of the universe gains that mass.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2022 08:25:54
The Sun loses mass, but the rest of the universe gains that mass.
This example represents an ideal Universe without any sort of heat/energy dissipation.
A system without any sort of heat/energy dissipation is "Perpetuum Mobile".
However, in our real Universe there is no activity without heat/energy dissipation.
We own our live to the heat dissipation of the Sun (due to its fusion activity).

There is no need for new energy if there is a perpetual process of matter to energy to matter via big crunches and big bangs that have been occurring forever, here and there, across the infinite universe.
Theoretically - in Ideal conditions without any sort of heat/energy dissipation, that activity could be correct.
Therefore, your Infinite Bangs theory could work as long as we all believe in "Perpetuum Mobile".


I see that you are trying to sneak in a lot of the same controversial statements that you have used in your Theory D discussion.
As I have stated - Theory D is irrelevant in this discussion.
We try to understand how infinite activity as infinite bangs at infinite Universe could work indefinitely without any need for external energy.
I claim that in order to get that kind of infinite activity there is a need for external energy.
If you don't me to participate in this discussion - please tell me and I would stay out.

If it is OK, then we all must agree that in real nature/universe there is no way to get "Perpetuum Mobile" system.
If you wish to get infinite Universe (size & age) with infinite energy  that works indefinitely - somehow new energy should be created.
It is not related to theory D or Z.
It is just pure real science!


Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:42:08
New energy should come from somewhere.
Not according to the first law of thermodynamics.
Your statement about the meaning of the first law of thermodynamics is 100% correct.
However, when you add the impact of gravity - then you actually add new free force that can add new energy.
Let me use the example of BC with minor changes:

OK, imagine a rock orbiting the Sun at a distance of a little over a light year.It has an orbital period given by the distance, and the mass of the Sun.
Then we switch the Sun back on.
Light and the solar wind stream out from the Sun- it loses mass.
But the path of the rock does not change until the light reaches it.
I claim that Tidal energy could change the path of the rock.
We all know that the moon has real tidal impact on the Earth.
Due to that tidal impact the Earth gets internal tidal heat energy.
However, due to that tidal heat transformation - the Moon is drifting outwards.
Therefore, in real orbital path of that rock (as in BC example) - under tidal heat transformation, it is expected that the rock would drift outwards.
It can't just stay at the same orbital radius for indefinitely.
This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.
Hence  - gravity force could be transformed into new energy - however it comes with a payment of changing the orbital radius.
You all know that this statement is a correct.
Therefore, before we offer any sort of theory to our Universe - we must offer a solution for new energy.
It is not my personal imagination and it is not related to theory D, Z, BS or BBT.
Our Universe can't be created/work without real energy source.
Sorry - infinite energy can't just come out of nothing.
If you care about real science – then before we offer any sort of theory – it is our obligation to offer the source of energy for that theory.
I don't accept an answer as: "we don't know and we don't care"
This kind of answer is a direct contradiction to real science!

In the same token, the idea of Bogie_smiles for infinite bangs could potentially work indefinitely by adding that tidal energy to his theory and overcome the fusion heat dissipation.
He calls it: "the gravitational wave" and I like that name.
 
In any case, if you don't want me to participate in this discussion - I would stop.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2022 11:25:32
I claim that Tidal energy could change the path of the rock.
You might as well claim that unicorns can do it.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2022 11:28:45
We all know that the moon has real tidal impact on the Earth.
And we know it won't last forever.

This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.
No
It's an example of how the energy in the system is converted from one form to another.
There is no new energy.

You all know that this statement is  correct.

Yes, those eight words are correct.
But the rest of your rambling is not.


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2022 15:36:31
This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.
No
It's an example of how the energy in the system is converted from one form to another.
There is no new energy.
Just a simple question:
Do you confirm that in tidal heat transformation, the energy of orbital motion is transformed into heat energy?
Yes or No?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/04/2022 18:00:31
This example represents an ideal Universe without any sort of heat/energy dissipation.

In other words, the real Universe. Where do you think the heat goes? It doesn't just disappear. It just goes to a different location in this same Universe.

I claim that in order to get that kind of infinite activity there is a need for external energy.

A claim that is wrong due to the first law of thermodynamics.

However, when you add the impact of gravity - then you actually add new free force that can add new energy.

No, no it cannot. This was one of those false claims I was talking about when I was referring to your Theory D thread being closed.

Quote
He calls it: "the gravitational wave" and I like that name.

Gravitational waves are not tidal forces nor are they just gravity. They are their own, distinct phenomenon. Gravitational waves are to gravity what electromagnetic waves (such as light) are to electromagnetic fields.

In any case, if you don't want me to participate in this discussion - I would stop.

That's entirely up to you. If you start repeating the same nonsense arguments as you did in your Theory D thread (such as gravity being able to create new energy, orbiting objects always drifting outwards, the Big Bang not being able to account for an infinite universe, etc.) then I will, indeed, ask you to stop replying to this thread.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/04/2022 18:35:04
You may think of the universe as an infinite "heat sink" where energy dissipated into space is lost forever, but I don't think that is the case. Energy takes many forms, but behind all forms of energy there must be a prerequisite setting that allows for gravity and motion. That is my stimulus for seeing gravitational wave energy as being the basic infinite form of energy. That premise satisfies my logic/need for a universal fundamental background to everything else.

That setting then enables the laws of physics and the periodic table of elements, to be eternal, and which I like to think would have to be the same everywhere.


128081,128128,128166,128198,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/04/2022 06:57:35
You may think of the universe as an infinite "heat sink" where energy dissipated into space is lost forever, but I don't think that is the case.
Dear Bogie_smiles
You are almost the only person that claims clearly that the Universe is Infinite in its size and in its age.
Your theory for infinite bangs is based on that key understanding that the universe is Infinite.
No Multiverse, no different space/times layers and no any sort of other imagination.
Just for this understanding you should get a reward from the whole science community.

the Big Bang not being able to account for an infinite universe,
Can you please share with us your opinion about the size of the universe?
Is it finite or infinite???

If it is finite - can you please specify its size?
If you can't do so, then how can we discuss about the energy for a universe without any knowledge about its size?
Do you think that the energy that is needed for ant is exactly the same as needed for a space shuttle?
Therefore, it is not an issue of energy in theory D, Z or even in the BBT.
We must understand the size of the Universe before we discuss about any sort of energy for that universe.
So please - would you kindly tell us the real size of the Universe according to your understanding.

Do you also agree that Bogie_smiles should get a reward for his understanding that the Universe is Infinite?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/04/2022 14:19:53
Is it finite or infinite???

Unknown and possibly unknowable.

Do you also agree that Bogie_smiles should get a reward for his understanding that the Universe is Infinite?

I don't think he's provided any kind of new, compelling evidence for that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/04/2022 17:17:50
Is it finite or infinite???

Unknown and possibly unknowable.

Do appreciate you honest answer.
However, if you don't know and you also claim that it is possibly unknowable, how do you know that what you don't know is correct or incorrect?
Don't you agree that a theory for finite and compact universe should be different from a theory for infinite Universe?

Just a brief example:
Let's assume that you are a jet eng. designer.
You had been asked to design a jet engine for an airplane.
However, you have no clue about the size and the total requested load of this airplane.
Can you do it successfully?
Don't you agree that a get engine for 100Kg should be different from a jet for 1,000,000,000 Tons?
Maybe for that kind of load a jet engine is not good enough.
So how could it be that we have any sort of theory for a universe without any knowledge about its total size?

How could it be that the science community don't care about the size of the universe.
How do they to tell us a story about the Universe without any clue about the size of that universe?

I don't think he's provided any kind of new, compelling evidence for that.
There is an evidence
It is called - curvature in space.
To my best understanding, we didn't discover any sort of curvature in space.
If that is correct then it proves that there is no limit for our Universe.
No limit means - infinite.
Why can't we all accept "Bogie Logic" that the Universe is infinite?
At least - do you agree that there is a possibility that the Universe is infinite?
If so, do you estimate that the BBT - as is - fits also to the infinite Universe?
Can you really set infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?

Why don't we have a backup story for infinite Universe as Bogie offers.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 17/04/2022 18:16:17
We are talking "Bogie Logic" here, lol.
Yea, I noticed.

Quote
Go in a straight line into space forever and tell me when you run into the wall, crash wham!!!
First of all, spatially, you can go in a straight line forever and not even reach stuff that you can see in front of you, regardless of speed. That part is known.That's hardly any kind of evidence of the universe being spatially infinite or not.
Secondly, finite space does not imply it has an edge. Space on the surface of Earth is finite, yet there's nowhere where you can go in a straight line and wham into the end of it. So much for "Bogie Logic".

Thirdly, you can draw a straight line in the temporal direction and you will very much 'bang into a wall'. There may or may not be meaningful 'universe' on the other side of that wall, but the wall is very much there, which seems to be how you define a boundary according to your logic.

Just a brief example:
Let's assume that you are a jet eng. designer.
You had been asked to design a jet engine for an airplane.
However, you have no clue about the size and the total requested load of this airplane.
Can you do it successfully?
Don't you agree that a get engine for 100Kg should be different from a jet for 1,000,000,000 Tons?
Maybe for that kind of load a jet engine is not good enough.
So how could it be that we have any sort of theory for a universe without any knowledge about its total size?
Example is inapplicable unless you can name one engineering project (or any empirical observation for that matter) that depends on whether or not the universe has finite spatial extent or not.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/04/2022 20:24:02

Quote
Go in a straight line into space forever and tell me when you run into the wall, crash wham!!!
First of all, spatially, you can go in a straight line forever and not even reach stuff that you can see in front of you, regardless of speed. That part is known.That's hardly any kind of evidence of the universe being spatially infinite or not.
I think you agree that the universe is infinite. Correct me if not.
Quote
Secondly, finite space does not imply it has an edge. Space on the surface of Earth is finite, yet there's nowhere where you can go in a straight line and wham into the end of it. So much for "Bogie Logic".
I acknowledge that there is no edge to space.
Quote
Thirdly, you can draw a straight line in the temporal direction and you will very much 'bang into a wall'. There may or may not be meaningful 'universe' on the other side of that wall, but the wall is very much there, which seems to be how you define a boundary according to your logic.
Agreed. The line I was talking about was one that is drawn straight out into space.



128500,128590,128620,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/04/2022 18:28:58
Many of us recognize the graphic of the birth of the universe, with the pinpoint beginning from a single "primordial atom" (per Georges Lamaitre), that is expanding outward into any imaginable future we want to entertain. I'm not an advocate of that scenario because my logic tells me that there was no beginning. The graphic depicting the universe growing from a single primordial atom to an infinite expanding universe doesn't seem to be right to me, but it seems to be the current consensus.

I prefer an "always existing" universe, where Big Bangs naturally occur; they occur in any patch of space containing enough matter and energy to allow gravity to form a Big Crunch/Bang, and I advocate a scenario where that has and will occur an infinite number of times, into the infinite future.


Let's hear from you on that premise ...


128739,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 18/04/2022 20:11:54
Many of us recognize the graphic of the birth of the universe, with the pinpoint beginning from a single "primordial atom" (per Georges Lamaitre), that is expanding outward into any imaginable future we want to entertain.
While I've seen may graphics, I can find none that were authored by Lemaitre himself. He certainly didn't posit the universe beginning from a small state. The visible universe perhaps, but that never grew to infinite size in any finite time. So I think you're misrepresenting the general big bang concept.
I don't see how a graphic can depict an infinite thing and a finite thing in the same picture.

Quote
The graphic depicting the universe growing from a single primordial atom to an infinite expanding universe doesn't seem to be right to me, but it seems to be the current consensus.
That's a common naive misconception. It is certainly not any kind of consensus. You said you don't want to learn any actual physics, so I can not really help you. Your blog is already 800 posts and still asking the most basic questions.

Quote
I prefer an "always existing" universe, where Big Bangs naturally occur; they occur in any patch of space containing enough matter and energy to allow gravity to form a Big Crunch/Bang
Well that's the problem with this model. Any collection of matter/energy (let alone what we see in our visible universe) squeezed into a small existing space like that would constitute a black hole (and a violation of energy conservation), and it would be in a crunched state before it could ever bang. It couldn't happen once, let alone multiple times.  The Milne model works something like that, but only because it is a zero energy solution, so no black holes form.

I think you agree that the universe is infinite. Correct me if not.
I think this question was directed to me, despite lack of mention of me in the post.
The size of the universe is unknown, and also coordinate system dependent and also dependent on the direction the measurement is taken. So for instance, in the approximate inertial frame of Earth, the universe is physically bounded and under 28 BLY across. The visible universe is often quoted as being larger than that, so the often quoted figure doesn't use inertial coordinates for the measurement.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/04/2022 20:52:37
I think this question was directed to me, despite lack of mention of me in the post.
The size of the universe is unknown, and also coordinate system dependent and also dependent on the direction the measurement is taken. So for instance, in the approximate inertial frame of Earth, the universe is physically bounded and under 28 BLY across. The visible universe is often quoted as being larger than that, so the often quoted figure doesn't use inertial coordinates for the measurement.

Thank you. I'm sorry I have not elaborated with detail in my posts, and with links to images, but I had a stroke in the past two years, and I am slowly trying to get my faculties back in order (not to sound too bleak, :) , :shrug:). I'm sure I am able to express myself, and understand people's responses, but the prognosis is that I may not get back to my desired level of clarity. Bare with me ...  I may have lost a bit from my peak.


Thank you for that post. It helps.


128787,128840,128863,129082,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2022 20:38:35
All measurement have limits of precision. So there is still room for the Universe to be curved, but at a level too small to currently be measured
Well, we clearly see galaxies at a distance of almost 13 bly.
If the curvature was real, then we should see it in the space of those far away galaxies.
As we cant detect any curvature - then it is clear indication that those far away galaxies are not located in any curvature space.
Hence, 13 by ago our univese was not compact at all.
Lets read the following message from Halc -
 The CMB shows that the bang in fact occurred everywhere, not at some location in space.
What is the meaning of - everywhere?
For me everywhere in a universe without curvature means unlimited space or just infinite.
In any case, so far there is no evidence that the universe is finite. Therefore - it is vitel to cover a posibility for infinite universe in any theory.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2022 20:43:18
This is a perfect example how new energy is created due to gravity tidal momentum/force.
No
It's an example of how the energy in the system is converted from one form to another.
There is no new energy.
Just a simple question:
Do you confirm that in tidal heat transformation, the energy of orbital motion is transformed into heat energy?
Yes or No?
Yes.
One quick question in return; do you understand that the total energy (tidal thermal and orbital) is the same at the end as it was at the start?

i.e. do you accept that
There is no new energy.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2022 20:58:07
Energy is conserved in a closed system, so it wouldn't be a violation for the bang to have the same energy as the last one. It doesn't leak away anywhere. Your idea of fusion isn't necessary since the crunch isn't lacking for energy.
Sorry - infinite universe can't be considered as closed system.
The energy in our locatiin should leak to the infinity after infinite time.
You actually confirm it-

 
t will expand ever faster until the sky is completely dark, with all the light sources too far away to ever see again.

 if the universe is infinite, then it has to be infinite also 13.8 by ago.
So how energy could enter to this infinite universe from outside while at the BB moment it was already infinite?
And as the space is already there, How space could expand at all.
Therefore, do you agree that a theory for infinite universe should be quite diffrently from the finite universe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2022 21:12:59
Sorry - infinite universe can't be considered as closed system.
Yes they can- for the same reason that a finite one can.
If the universe is "everything" then there's nothing outside it to pass energy or matter to nor receive it from.
So it's closed.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/04/2022 21:22:29
There is not a location in space anywhere where the big bang did not occur. It quite literally means what it says
No location means no single point or singularity.
So how can you discuss about çrunche back to singularity-

You forget the context above, which is about a cyclic model where all the universe crunches back down to a singularity again, at which point it has the same energy as it started since it has nowhere else to go

Do you really see any possibility for infinite universe to crunche back to singularity?

What is the chance for energy/matter from any direction in the infinity to come back to a very single point?

Double the size of an infinite universe and it's still infinite, not 'more infinite'. It's all about a changing linear scalefactor
As there is no end for infinity,  how can you belive that energy/matter from all the infinity  would come back to a single point?

If the chance for that is zero, how the big bang that took place 13.8 by ago got its energy from the infinity space?

Please also take a desision
Singularity or not singularity?
You can't just use each situation whenever is needed for the theory.

There is not a location in space anywhere where the big bang did not occur.

How can you belive that in a single moment there will be a single bang in the entire infinite universe?
Is it real?
As there is not any location in the infinite universe that the big bang not occur, what is the chance that it didn't occur at all?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/04/2022 21:33:52
How can you belive that in a single moment there will be a single bang in the entire infinite universe?
Very easily.
The bang became the universe.
How could any part of the universe not be where the bang was?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2022 15:49:46
How can you belive that in a single moment there will be a single bang in the entire infinite universe?
Very easily.
The bang became the universe.
How could any part of the universe not be where the bang was?

Not so easy.
The infinite universe was there long before.
Please see the following message from Halc

Quote
if the universe is infinite, it has to be infinite also 13.8 by ago.
Wow, you actually got something right.

How could any part of the universe not be where the bang was?
As the big bang can't clearly cover the infinite universe in a
SINGE bang, it proves that Bogie logic is fully correct.
Why not infinite bangs for infinite Universe?
If you don't accept Bogie logic then you have to agree that there was no bang at all.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2022 17:20:48
As the big bang can't clearly cover the infinite universe in a
SINGE bang,

It can, but you don't understand it. I don't know if that's a fundamental problem, or just because you refuse to pay attention.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/04/2022 04:12:22
As the big bang can't clearly cover the infinite universe in a
SINGE bang,

It can, but you don't understand it. I don't know if that's a fundamental problem, or just because you refuse to pay attention.

Please go ahead and set the explanation how a single bang can cover the entire infinite universe.
Please remember:
1. The infinite universe was there long before the last bang that took place 13.8 by ago
2. There is no way to bring new energy from outside of that infinite universe.
3. In order to set a bang there is a need to crunch back the matter/energy to singularity -
You forget the context above, which is about a cyclic model where all the universe crunches back down to a singularity again, at which point it has the same energy as it started since it has nowhere else to go. Explaining entropy on the other hand isn't so easy.

So please go ahead
If needed, you can band the law of physics without getting warning or any sort of penelty

Good luck.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/04/2022 05:47:58
It looks like Dave is turning this into a duplicate topic of his Big Bang threads. Would that count as derailment here?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2022 11:08:17
Please remember:
1. The infinite universe was there long before the last bang that took place 13.8 by ago
2. There is no way to bring new energy from outside of that infinite universe.
3. In order to set a bang there is a need to crunch back the matter/energy to singularity -
I don't plan to "remember" 3 things you made up.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2022 11:08:40
Would that count as derailment here?
Yes.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/04/2022 14:57:18
Chaos; I wake up and what do I find? Chaos, lol. I say this lightheartedly, and in fact I enjoyed catching up to date.


129988,130169,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/04/2022 21:55:35
Let me submit that chaos has always existed here and there, now and then, but it is always a subset of "infinite and eternal", meaning chaos is a temporary condition. Places in the universe can go from orderly to chaotic, and from chaotic to orderly, but I think the mean position is "orderly, waiting for chaos", :) .


130381,130425,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/04/2022 21:47:42
,,, but I think the mean position is "orderly, waiting for chaos", :) .
130381,130425,
Wait long enough, and chaos will come along. It may be Earth changes, or bad weather, or large scale events that disrupt the status quo. However, I believe that the universe always provides habital environments, and that life can be repositioned to new habitats, or can even be generated from inert elements, given the right combinations of circumstances.


https://www.nature.com/subjects/origin-of-life (https://www.nature.com/subjects/origin-of-life)


130510,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/04/2022 00:10:33

I'm viewing this YouTube video again to refresh my memory on what my thinking was in early 2015 ...


130737,131062,131101,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/05/2022 20:09:47
After a review of my thinking to date, my conclusion is
 that it is a reality that the universe has always existed and has always been infinite. ( that was my hypothesis before I started the review, lol.)


I think that the infinite and eternal existence of matter and energy is a premise that I would like to consider on this particular thread; i.e. has all the matter and energy in the infinite and eternal universe always existed.

Further, on this thread, it will be appropriate to say that the nature of the one and only universe can logically be boiled down to the three infinities of space, time, and energy; the universe is infinite in space and thus it has an infinite expanse, it has always existed, and everything physical can be reduced to space and energy. Therefore, there is only one universe, it is infinite, which means there is no "outside of it", and it is eternal.


131230,131268,131306,131500,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/05/2022 21:38:21
However, the fact that the universe is so large, and so old, means that there could be intelligent life forms that thrived so far away and so long ago that remnants of their existence could show up in our vicinity at any time from any direction.


131332,131518,131690,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/05/2022 14:50:18
Across an infinity of space and over all time, how many instances could there have been, and/or will there come to be, where an intelligent life form contemplates the existence of infinite intelligences having been in existence at all times, here and there across the universe?

I submit that the answer to that question is ... an infinite number.


131799,131916
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/05/2022 15:42:45
One key fact in all of that is that intelligent individuals communicate, communities form, and conflicts and accords occur. Survival is a natural instinct, and I think that the survival instinct and evolving intelligence work together to enable adaptation. Survival of the fittest must play a deciding role in the distribution of scarce resources.


132626,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/05/2022 17:02:27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism)

Think how advanced the civilization in which the Antikythera Mechanism was built must have been!


133686,133746,133818,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/05/2022 15:38:11
The Antikythera mechanism is thought to date back to before 10,000 BC, and that has changed my perspective on what "old" means, lol. It may certainly be old in terms of civilized history on Earth, but compared to the infinities of space, time, and energy, a reference to "old" kind of makes any finite duration of time seem short. One might conclude that you can't quantify eternity, or any infinity, but instead must resort to the frequent use of "forever" when looking for a limit to the distant past.


133828,133890.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/05/2022 20:01:13
Humans will leave evidence of our existence that might well outlast the period of Humanity here on Earth. That even includes the little patch of the greater universe where some of our remnants may wander as time passes. Since I don't think our life form will last forever, for a myriad of reasons, I am relying on the nature of deep space to preserve that evidence, allowing it to be found well out into the future and well out into space.

Not only that, but humans are being vigilant of outer space, and there is some possibility that we will make discoveries that will point to other intelligent life forms, present or past. Electromagnetic signals from space that would reveal intelligent sources might very well be detected within my short remainder of years; Shrug.


133894,133947,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/05/2022 23:18:15
Would you mind posting a few words from your thoughts about how unique life is in the universe, given an infinity of time and space. Needed as an indication of the thinking of others as I proceed to rant about my own thinking out here in the "new theories" section.


133985,134053,134192,134236,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 14/05/2022 06:52:40
Would you mind posting a few words from your thoughts
For the most part, you seem to have gotten completely off track. None of your recent posts have been about multiple bangs or related theory. To be honest, I have little idea what you're currently proposing. You're just blogging random and mostly unrelated thoughts.

Quote
about how unique life is in the universe, given an infinity of time and space.
If life is of any probability greater than zero for any given star system, then given unlimited star systems, there must be life on an unlimited number of stars. Any other possibility is mathematically inconsistent.
This assumes infinite space (and thus infinite star systems), but not infinite time, since any given type of life is only good for a finite region of time: Too soon and there's too much violence and not time to develop stable life. Too late and entropy takes over and there's no energy left to support life. As it is, life has been on Earth about 4-5 billion years and all but the simplest life will be gone here in another billion. The planet will not support eukaryotic life soon, and that includes anything multicellular.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/05/2022 22:10:47

For the most part, you seem to have gotten completely off track. None of your recent posts have been about multiple bangs or related theory. To be honest, I have little idea what you're currently proposing. You're just blogging random and mostly unrelated thoughts.
Getting back on track, I'm going with the idea that there is only one universe, and Big Bang type events occur now and then, here and there, within that one infinite and eternal universe, meaning there are multiple Big Bang events within the universe.



134343,134370,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/05/2022 00:42:23
OK, but why post something like that? It has been explained many times how this contradicts all known laws of physics. Any concentration of mass in one place like a new bang in existing space would be an amazing amount of mass in a tiny space, when it's Schwarzschild radius is far larger. The mass would vanish in an instant into its own temporal singularity. The universe would have nothing but a bunch of black holes in it.

Your name off to the left says "Science enthusiast" but 'going with' something blatantly self contradictory like that is science denialism, not science enthusiasm. Science is about learning, not about blind naive assertions.
I'm hypothesizing that "big bangs" are not uncommon events in an infinite universe that is filled with matter and energy across its infinite expanse. Have you contemplated that kind of universe, or do you stop at Standard Theory and generally accepted science? It is the "as yet" unknowns that catch my interest.


Contemplating "infinity" is a grand pastime in itself, and the grand nature of the "as yet unknowns of the universe" make it hard to accept the consensus view while major questions remain open.


And note that this thread and these posts are in the sub-forum "on the lighter side", and are not intended to be hard science.


134397,134428,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/05/2022 02:51:07
I'm not a science professional in any respect, and I don't know enough about science to do more that speculate as we discuss these topics. I post as a pass time because of my layman level interest but I don't have any credentials and am not very well studied in all of this. I agree that I am wrong often and I don't expect my posts to be taken as the gospel. Is this thread in this forum putting me in jeopardy with management?


134462,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/05/2022 14:11:59

Not at all. You just don't seem to care that your fantasy cannot possibly work.
I care ... so let's start with "infinite". I have the view that the universe is infinite because if space is not infinite, what is the observable universe expanding into?


And if it is not infinite, what is the nature of the outer boundary?

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2022 02:52:02
The other part of my premise is that the universe has always existed.

The alternative is "God did it". Is that where you are going with this? Are you invoking the Supernatural?


134761,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/05/2022 03:15:19
The other part of my premise is that the universe has always existed.
I might agree with that part, at least so far as to say there is not a time when there was no universe (or anything else), and a later time when there was. But I consider time to be contained by the universe rather than the other way around. The statement above is open to interpretation.
That time containment idea might be worth talking about, though I an advocate of time eternal.

The alternative is "God did it". Is that where you are going with this?
Quote
Heh... There are a lot more alternatives than that, and ones that don't involve positing something even less likely than our universe. Getting into philosophy on a science site are we?
Not my intention :) . Mention a different alternative to "always existed".
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 17/05/2022 17:37:39
Mention a different alternative to "always existed".
This would require one to drop one or more naive bias.

"Always existed" is a phrase only meaningful to objects (a house, galaxy, the weather, etc.) contained by time. So if the universe is not reduced to an object contained by time, but is rather a structure that contains time, then it just exists. This is standard realism, a view held by Einstein and by probably the majority of physics that understand Einstein. If the universe is not a structure that contains time, then all of relativity theory is wrong, and there's not really an alternative thoery that has done its own generalization. So for instance, there's the neo-Lorentian interpretation, which says absurdly that all the equations that Einstein derived in relativity theory can be used to make any prediction, despite the fact that they're all based on premises that are wrong (such as the frame independent constant speed of light). But that's a view (used by nobody that actually has to work with physics) that posits the universe as an object contained by time, and thus is in need of being 'started'.

Dropping the bias of 'universe as an object in time' is not difficult, but if it is for you, then dropping the others will be out of reach, so I'll not go into other alternatives that require more out-of-the-box thinking. This is a science forum. Science is concerned with making empirical predictions, and none of the explanations of the existence of the universe make any empirical predictions, so they're not science.

It's like the question you asked about life elsewhere: If it's beyond the event horizon (which is currently just outside the Hubble radius and well inside the radius of the visible universe), then it cannot be measured by us and by any definition of existence that involves measurability, doesn't exist. That's a very different answer than the mathematical "any nonzero probability multiplied arbitrarily high results in a certainty".
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/05/2022 02:44:48
I would clarify my speculation about "always existed", to at the minimum, include space.

I would go further to speculate that space has never been empty, because my layman level logic tells me that you can't get "something" from "nothing", and I maintain that though empty space can be thought of as "nothingness", unless space has always contained matter and energy, then in order for the universe to be as it is today, you would have to invoke "something from nothing".


135975,
136715,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/05/2022 19:51:22
But nobody seems to invoke that. It's pretty easily torn apart.

Correct, so my conclusion is that space has always existed and has always contained matter and energy, i.e. no beginning; in line with the thinking that the universe is infinite and eternal.


136733,136836,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/05/2022 02:42:13
From that conclusion, an interesting question might be asked of me about the observed expansion of the universe. The observed expansion is theorized to have been caused by The Big Bang. Am I saying that there was no big bang?

No, and I speculate that instead of the entire universe beginning with the Big Bang event, I'm speculating that it was a Big Bang "type of event" within our vicinity of the universe which caused our entire observable universe to appear to be expanding in every direction, causing distant galaxies in all directions to be observed to be receding from us.


However, my speculation is that the finite "observable" universe is tiny relative to the vast infinite universe beyond; a universe that has always existed. So a Big Bang event could happen in our vicinity that might only affect our local expanse of the universe, and that would perhaps have only a negligible impact in distant reaches of space.


137005,137135,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/05/2022 17:43:31
Is an infinite universe easy, or hard to comprehend? I'd say it is easy if you are generalizing, but to really grasp what could be out there in the far reaches of space, and over infinite time ... it seems hard to have much clarity.

So when I say in the title of this thread, "why not multiple big bangs?", it is not a reference to The Big Bang event, of which there is just one implied. It is a reference to possibly an infinite number of big bang type of events occurring all across space and over all time: an on-going and eternal/universal process. From that perspective, there was no beginning of the history of the universe.


However, from any local perspective, held by any past or present intelligent life form in the universe, infinity and eternity must be hard to fully comprehend.


139406,139455,139523,140357,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/06/2022 17:42:30
Quote
Infinite time and eternity are very different things. Eternalism just says the universe isn't something that exists in time. It doesn't posit the boundaries of time or the lack of them.
An infinite and eternal universe theory does posit that here is no time or space boundary; they are both thought to be potentially infinite. There is no proof, so to advocate "infinite and eternal" is philosophical.


I consider it the height of my logic, but to anyone who doesn't think that way, they are welcome to argue otherwise. Just suggest what caused the start of time. Just suggest what kind of boundaries there might be to a finite universe?




141066,141203,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/06/2022 23:09:13
What caused the start of time. What kind of boundaries there might be to a finite universe?

Nothing caused the start of time, because there was no "start"; time has been passing everywhere, forever.
And there has never been a finite universe so there has never been boundaries to the universe. The infinite universe is unbounded.


141204,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/06/2022 23:29:46
I have said about time, that time simply passes everywhere. I may get some argument when I say that time passes at the same rate everywhere though. Or not. :)
That idea supposes that there is someone with a watch in every parsec, and they all synchronized watches some time ago.


141357,141524,141653,141917,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/06/2022 21:38:33
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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 25/06/2022 21:50:54
After a review of my thinking to date, my conclusion is
 that it is a reality that the universe has always existed and has always been infinite. ( that was my hypothesis before I started the review, lol.)


I think that the infinite and eternal existence of matter and energy is a premise that I would like to consider on this particular thread; i.e. has all the matter and energy in the infinite and eternal universe always existed.

Further, on this thread, it will be appropriate to say that the nature of the one and only universe can logically be boiled down to the three infinities of space, time, and energy; the universe is infinite in space and thus it has an infinite expanse, it has always existed, and everything physical can be reduced to space and energy. Therefore, there is only one universe, it is infinite, which means there is no "outside of it", and it is eternal.


131230,131268,131306,131500,

 If everything physical can be reduced to space and energy, what it takes to reform matter?
 Lack of entropy? If true, and the entropy it's forever growing, it, such universe would at some point loose all of it's material purposes if there's any?

 Guess the question is: How one reforms matter as we know?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 25/06/2022 22:05:46
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.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles 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,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 26/06/2022 01:34:30
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.



 It's confusing but the concept it's quite simple.
 Particles cease to real while "occuring" in between a Planck.
A1 its the A side of the wire, while A2 it's the future exit of the wire.
 The particle it's real at A1 while "planking/traveling trough absence of time" the particle it's virtual all information being transported at C rate trough a sort of wormholing effect which we attribute as properties of the particles/spin, and becomes real while arriving at A2.

 Now the catch A2 and A1 are one and the same.
 But that can't be.
 Can if you introduce a direction anything bellow 45° from the real location would be impossible for light as it would represent being quantified backwards.

 How much energy one needs to make another current flow trough a wire in order to push backwards the incoming flow from the other side?

 If both meet at the needle you'd have "opositing forces", not different forces only opositing the arrow, guess that's represented by charge..

 Maybe the trick for matter is to "isolate" one section of the wire/tunneling effect, which it's indeed spherical and flat rather than tunnel like while on euclidian space.
 A star would be suitable for that.
 You can offer a center for it's potential, and as it starts to grow and spin it start to move all the gas particles which gives momentum to all matter nearby, and such momentum will be conserved in space.
 Meanwhile, sun now a real object(a reference of it's own still only for itself), starts to recieve the same mechanics that jumps light, but this time with a real object with mass, such object can indeed be said it's "moving with a speed".
 Suggesting the geometry of the planets and stars it's all but the electromagnetic force generated by that "section of the wire" isolated from the whole inside the innercore.
 You simple locked the low of electrons inside a single dot, and that was made by casualty and chance alone.

 So there's this gap, if light  it's not traveling with a C speed.
 But rather "occuring" from Planck to Planck with a absolute framerate C.

 First is physical, second it's mathematical/geometrical.
 First one moves, the second one pops in and out of existe.

 If A1 and A2 are but the same the initial state of light would be inevitable at C as it would be interference pattern.
 You don't need to move from A1 to A2 on a Planck volume, A1 its A2 and A2 it's A1, from there it's simple binary...1/0/1/0/1/0/1 each dash one single planck distance.

 If true, "nothing truly states" "objects made of matter" being unable to travel faster than C, for C would be no longer a limit speed for objects but a framerate for spectrum occuring "over the fabric".
 Matter doesn't need necessarily to care about space, it's it's own frame at all times.

 Just considering indeed the spin of the electron and the photon the source of everything.
 Perhaps even accounting how light and dense space/BigBang/innercores can turn space into matter.
 Trap it in there, let it's own electromagnetic field build the star and forge matter.

 Trapped "space seems weird" but it's just like the early universe, only that the reproduced one occurs isolated from the euclidian one, inside stars and planets.

 Sort of trapping space, isolate it from the exterior using matter, wonder that such portion of space inside planets and stars would make contact with the exterior.

 Five years, I mind till this part a picture it's forming but at this point the whole explanation it's a mess...🙄

 Photon gain mass and looses it cause it's restored at each Planck.
 Since A1 and A2 only distinction it's the arrow of time it's quite obvious that photons would simple occur at C and unable to stop, it's not a speed, it's a rate.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/06/2022 02:21:55
Alex, this shows a fair amount of imagination, which is fine/in line with my post history, if my self evaluation counts, lol.

I have to give it a rest until something applicable comes to mind.


,143157,143228,143427,143501,144594,144894,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 04/07/2022 22:58:56
If you plug in the speed of light into the three equations of special relativity; mass, distance and time, you will get discontinuities in time, distance and mass. We know mass cannot exist at the speed of light, since the math  becomes infinite, which cannot occur.

I would also expect a type of discontinuity in both space and time to complete the set. The easiest way to model this limit for space and time is that space-time will break down at the speed of light reference, into separated space and separated time that are not connected. By not being connected other options open up.

At the cross over point, mass and space-time would become massless without space-time. We would have only space that is not constrained by time and time that is not constrained by space.

If one could move in space, without the constraint of time, and/or move in time without the constraint of space, matter and energy could not exist, since matter and energy are limited to space-time being connected. Moving in space, without the constraint of time, would make you omnipresent. The laws of physics are omnipresent, or they are the same in all references. This more like an information type realm instead of material based.

Energy could not exist where space and time are not connected,  since energy, such as photons requires time and space connected as  frequency and wavelength. Instead you could have something like frequency without wavelength and wavelength without frequency. These building blocks allows us to go back to before the BB and \ before any theory that has matter and energy already in place. Science stops are the wall, but the wall can be scaled.





Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: puppypower on 04/07/2022 23:33:58
To help explain what may be on the other side of the wall, consider the human imagination. I can imagine flying to the sun with wings of wax, then burrowing through the sun, to its core, to get a a nice sun tan. This is all imaginary and cannot occur in space-time, since the way matter and energy are related in space-time will not support this.

Yet, at the level of consciousness and information, space-time is not the limiting factor in terms of the sun tan scenario. My brain does not automatically prevent me from thinking outside of space-time based limits as specified by physics, with respect to energy and material. Such thinking would be limited by social stigma and taboo, but not any practical space-time limitation within my brain's matter or consciousness.

This type of data processing is actually closer to time without space and  space without time. Things do not have to add up as expected of space-time, at the level of information, even when it come from the matter of the brain, that is based on the limits of space-time; free will beyond space-time. 

On the other hand, if I was a development engineer and I was commissioned to build something, I will need to limit my imagination to only the subset of all imaginary combinations, that are allowed by space-time. Outside that box would not be practical for my job. But outside that box has way more options. Space-time is a subset of separated space and separated time, with more limitations.

In a realm where space and time are not connected, we would be in state of infinite entropy, since the possibilities for complexity and randomness would be unlimited, since space-time constraints are not there. The realm beyond the wall can theoretically spawn a subset called space-time.

That other realm will also become the potential, behind the second law, that governs entropy within our universal space-time. Entropy is harder to describe than energy or matter since it comes from a much more expanded reality; beyond what is, into what can be in the future; increase. 

To make our space-time realm appear from space and time not connected, we would need to intersect an independent time line with a space line. Since this will limit the free style complexity, at the point of intersection, entropy will lower locally. and give off tons of free energy potential. This is not energy, yet, but potential to become energy when space-time appears. Free energy is connected to entropy as -TS or temperature times entropy. The BB was very hot, so even a small amount of entropic potential S will go log way when T=1050 kelvin.

Since space-time is a subset of space without time and time without space  I would expect they two will stay connected, so extra time potential and/or extra distance potential will continue to overlap space-time. This will create affects like probability, since space-time is no longer limited to 2-D, but is more like 2+-D.

If you look at the inflation period of the BB, where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, this would be explained as adding some extra distance potential to early space-time or space(+)-time This allows extra giddy-up in space, beyond the time expected of the speed of light, traveling in pure space-time. It adds a partial omnipresent affect, that allows the universe to expand in all directions at the same time.

GR and gravity are based on acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t or space-time plus extra time potential; time line. Mass is connected to extra time potential, which is why it is so hard to interface gravity with the purer space-time affects of the other three forces.

Mass allows space-time references to persist in time, as a range of references in time. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, so it cannot reverse back to the wall, but has to go in another direction that gives the universe persistence in time.

The current expansion of the universe is due to distance potential from the other realm, that we now called dark matter and energy. However, this is not exactly based on energy. The expansion expands all wavelengths of and energy and distances, thereby forces a lowering frequency; lost time potential and less mass equivalent in universal space-time. This increases entropy which absorbs the free energy, bringing us closer to the infinite entropy realm.

This is just a theory but it does open a door in the wall beyond space-time.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 06/07/2022 02:40:40
To help explain what may be on the other side of the wall, consider the human imagination. I can imagine flying to the sun with wings of wax, then burrowing through the sun, to its core, to get a a nice sun tan. This is all imaginary and cannot occur in space-time, since the way matter and energy are related in space-time will not support this.

Yet, at the level of consciousness and information, space-time is not the limiting factor in terms of the sun tan scenario. My brain does not automatically prevent me from thinking outside of space-time based limits as specified by physics, with respect to energy and material. Such thinking would be limited by social stigma and taboo, but not any practical space-time limitation within my brain's matter or consciousness.

This type of data processing is actually closer to time without space and  space without time. Things do not have to add up as expected of space-time, at the level of information, even when it come from the matter of the brain, that is based on the limits of space-time; free will beyond space-time. 

On the other hand, if I was a development engineer and I was commissioned to build something, I will need to limit my imagination to only the subset of all imaginary combinations, that are allowed by space-time. Outside that box would not be practical for my job. But outside that box has way more options. Space-time is a subset of separated space and separated time, with more limitations.

In a realm where space and time are not connected, we would be in state of infinite entropy, since the possibilities for complexity and randomness would be unlimited, since space-time constraints are not there. The realm beyond the wall can theoretically spawn a subset called space-time.

That other realm will also become the potential, behind the second law, that governs entropy within our universal space-time. Entropy is harder to describe than energy or matter since it comes from a much more expanded reality; beyond what is, into what can be in the future; increase. 

To make our space-time realm appear from space and time not connected, we would need to intersect an independent time line with a space line. Since this will limit the free style complexity, at the point of intersection, entropy will lower locally. and give off tons of free energy potential. This is not energy, yet, but potential to become energy when space-time appears. Free energy is connected to entropy as -TS or temperature times entropy. The BB was very hot, so even a small amount of entropic potential S will go log way when T=1050 kelvin.

Since space-time is a subset of space without time and time without space  I would expect they two will stay connected, so extra time potential and/or extra distance potential will continue to overlap space-time. This will create affects like probability, since space-time is no longer limited to 2-D, but is more like 2+-D.

If you look at the inflation period of the BB, where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, this would be explained as adding some extra distance potential to early space-time or space(+)-time This allows extra giddy-up in space, beyond the time expected of the speed of light, traveling in pure space-time. It adds a partial omnipresent affect, that allows the universe to expand in all directions at the same time.

GR and gravity are based on acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t or space-time plus extra time potential; time line. Mass is connected to extra time potential, which is why it is so hard to interface gravity with the purer space-time affects of the other three forces.

Mass allows space-time references to persist in time, as a range of references in time. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, so it cannot reverse back to the wall, but has to go in another direction that gives the universe persistence in time.

The current expansion of the universe is due to distance potential from the other realm, that we now called dark matter and energy. However, this is not exactly based on energy. The expansion expands all wavelengths of and energy and distances, thereby forces a lowering frequency; lost time potential and less mass equivalent in universal space-time. This increases entropy which absorbs the free energy, bringing us closer to the infinite entropy realm.

This is just a theory but it does open a door in the wall beyond space-time.


 I think I agree with that in a sense:

 Two neurones are faster than the cosmological constant
 Speed of light x2 over one single frame (brain)
 One billion neurones are faster than the cosmological constant
 Speed of light x 1b over one single frame (me)

 Abstract thinking it's like abstract exotic matter.
 I see something and I can transform that into wherever I want to.

 It's a complicated situation which compromises the whole understanding if there's any.

 Not why not multiple BigBang, rather "why is universe?"
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/07/2022 13:56:41
...
 Not why not multiple BigBang, rather "why is universe?"
I think that the "Why question" is reduced to "not applicable" for anything infinite and eternal. It just is, always has been, will always be, and could be no other way, IMHO.


145130,145254,145430,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/07/2022 21:27:48
Get yourself settled comfortably, relax, and let your thoughts flow freely as you contemplate the "as yet" unknown, and you might surprise yourself with how the imagination quickly goes into action to transport your consciousness to interesting venues within the imagination. This does not imply the use of any mind alteration; to the contrary, instead it suggests the clearest and healthiest of risk free mind states necessary to support visualizations born within the mind. Maybe you can reach your own subconscious, which might offer other interesting ways to problem solve or to explore the unknown within.


Then open your eyes; no aftereffects, and probably no one notices you have even had the experience.



,147925,148052,148093,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/08/2022 17:51:23
Regardless of how many or how frequent Big Bang events might occur throughout the universe, the answer is a matter of speculation. Maybe there has only ever been just one, or maybe, as I posit in my rhetoric, they have been occurring forever. My argument for eternity and multiple big bangs can be examined in my posts, but I am not trying to convince anyone, I am opening my threads to an exchange of ideas.


In that vain, I'd like to offer a distinction between concentration and meditation, because both practices have benefits that can be useful in increasing your appreciation of how your mind works.


An example of a concentration exercise might be to focus on something pre selected, like the tip of a pencil, and let the mind dwell on it until you begin to notice the mind wandering off. Each time the mind begins to wander, be prepared for that mind wandering, and immediately refocus on the target.  When the wandering starts, try to let it go until it takes you back to the present, and then get back to contemplation of the pencil tip, :) .


This part of the discussion encourages a "visit to your own subconscious" and so just clear the conscious mind. As soon as you notice conscious thoughts creeping in, allow/encourage the return to a simple blank mind, like a clear or clean slate, to see what appears.


148248,


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/08/2022 18:20:27
Just a suggestion; when you are use to achieving this "fresh mind" state, try to pose a question to the subconscious, and see if you get an answer. You may get a flash response, or you might have to sleep on it, but once the question has been posed, be alert to the "appearance" of an answer.


For example, one of my favorites ... has the universe always existed, or was there a beginning.


The "answer" I seem to get is that the universe has always existed, so there was no beginning (and presumably, no end).


Right along with that speculation about the infinity of time is the question of space; is space infinite too. I see no logical alternative to the infinity of space.


If we arrive at a conviction that both time and space are infinite and eternal, then the question that remains to my feeble thinking is the infinity of matter and energy. Infinite too, yes? Yes, yes!




148282,148387,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/08/2022 01:43:07
What, if any, are the paradoxes of infinite space and time?


Olbers's paradox, also known as the dark night sky paradox, is an argument in astrophysics and physical cosmology that says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org (https://en.wikipedia.org) › wiki › Olbers'_paradox

148390,148420,148641, 148790,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 06/08/2022 04:00:31
Olbers's paradox ... says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of a ... static universe.
Well, thermodynamic law also conflicts with the same thing. I don't think this qualifies as a paradox, it is a mere falsification of this 'static universe' suggestion, something that was presumed right through the 18th century.  You sort of propose one yourself, and thus contradict these observations.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/08/2022 02:32:26


Agreed. Falsification of the static universe concept is right in line with my premise that the universe is infinite and eternal. It really seems that paradoxes don't last too long because science is always on the move, and one fertile ground for that movement is around solving anything that seems paradoxical.


149450,149519,149585,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/08/2022 18:45:51
My problem with the thinking that there may have been only a single Big Bang event, which does seem consistent with the consensus of cosmological thinking, is that backtracking such a singular event too easily lends itself to the conclusion of a beginning.


The problem with a "beginning" is that it is closely attributed to an act of creation and to an active thinking God. I prefer to stick with my choices of an eternal and infinite universe, probably teaming with life, much of which is very distant, and receding from our ability to detect it.


149682,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/08/2022 22:07:48
So I move on to conclude that there may have been multiple big bangs across infinite time, and each Big Bang is simply the result of the accumulation of a large but finite amount of matter and energy accumulating around a center of gravity. When that accumulation of mass has become so large that it collapses under its own gravity, it causes nature's greatest implosion, and immediately bursts in expansion, ... there you have it ... a Big Bang.

As the title of the thread says, "why not multiple big bangs" as a common feature of the natural universe; an infinitely recurring event here and there forever across infinite space and time; gosh.


149733,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/08/2022 22:44:09
When a "Big Crunch" collapses under it own weight and expresses as a Big Bang somewhere/sometime in the vastness of space, matter is converted to energy, energy takes the form of expansion, and by the time the aftermath of a Big Bang calms down, there is a swirling ramification imprinted on a patch of space which might be a detectible disturbance observable for billions of years into the future and across large sections of space.

But it will fade into the greater universe to be recycled in some future Big Bang like the one we so thankfully enjoy.


149766,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/08/2022 22:55:51
One thing that is notable about each Big Bang event is that there are various invariant laws of nature at work to orchestrate each one. This set of laws applies everywhere in the universe, if my speculation is right, and therefore, in an infinite universe, with an infinite number of Big Bang arenas actively playing out, you have an infinite number of everything, :) .


151303,151391,151889,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/08/2022 04:10:34
It seems that humans seek some way to achieve an ultimate authority on important issues, but it also seems to be a characteristic of those efforts to always fall short of achieving firm and final decisions that will stand up to universal scrutiny. There may be ultimate truths, but we probably will never come to agreement on them. All we can do is work toward a consensus, and that consensus may be more of a dream than a reality.

If that is true, then whether there was one Big Bang or multiple big bangs isn't the most important question. A more important question is "can we ever know the ultimate truth"?


151897,151993,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/08/2022 21:06:39
Of course. There will always be various valid interpretations of the same data, none of which can be proven wrong, by definition. So said final decision will never come. Trick is to weed out at least the ones that don't match observations, but this method will never narrow the field down to 1.

Just to pick one: Einstein's relativity, which makes some assumptions that cannot be proven right or wrong. But it became a consensus because nobody came up with an alternative, not at least for 90 years. There is one now, but it sits in obscurity because it is harder to work with and makes zero predictions that relativity doesn't.
I think the alternative you refer to is string theory, isn't it?



152149,152581,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/09/2022 01:54:36
I think the alternative you refer to is string theory, isn't it?
I think string theory is one path in the search for some kind of unified field theory. It hardly sits in obscurity.

No, I'm talking about a theory that proposes alternate premises than those of special relativity.

The laws of physics are different in different inertial frames of reference.
Relative to any inertial frame of reference, light propagates with a frame dependent velocity, and is c only in one preferred frame in which the 'aether' is stationary.
There are more premises (some optional even), but those are the two that directly contradict the premises Einstein proposed.

The beginnings of such a theory was proposed by Lorentz way back in the day, but it was never generalized to include gravity for over a century, so the theory sits in obscurity. Nobody teaches it or uses it. Almost nobody has even heard of it. I don't even see it mentioned by the aetherists.
It looks like sometimes sound logic doesn't go anywhere or "get legs" because it doesn't support the standard theory/consensus. Aether theories are no exception, and the reach and support for any current theory is limited by the chasm between finite and infinite. We will never have the whole picture, and we will never know what knowledge is just out of our reach and understanding.

It is not my intention to shape this post to express pessimism. In fact I am optimistic that intelligent thinking is natural and will evolve again and again over infinite time and space.


I am saying that discovery and learning will never be complete, and in the absence of complete knowledge and understanding of the universe, we can never be sure that there aren't new understandings out there.


There is also always the concern that the understanding we have might be lost and forgotten due to the infinite passing of time itself, in spite of the infinite number of nodes of wisdom that have and will be out there, and that will have come and gone as time passes.



153447,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/09/2022 23:48:58
Even if my speculation about learning and understanding of the universe is true, there isn't yet any indication that those various nodes of understanding will be brought together so that their combined impact can be realized and utilized for the benefit of mankind.

153467,153503,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 06/09/2022 01:23:54
It looks like sometimes sound logic doesn't go anywhere or "get legs" because it doesn't support the standard theory/consensus.
Science would make no progress at all if that were true.
Quote from: Feynman
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it
A theory gets legs not because of sound logic (without which your idea isn't even defensible), but because it predicts empirical observations better than the consensus. So the aether theory falls flat because it's a century too late, is needlessly more complicated, and makes zero reportable predictions that the more simple theory doesn't.

Quote
I am saying that discovery and learning will never be complete, and in the absence of complete knowledge and understanding of the universe, we can never be sure that there aren't new understandings out there.
Quite true.
I think Albert Michelson (of Michelson / Morley fame) said around 1894 that the great principles of physics had already been discovered, and that physics would henceforth be limited to finding truths in the sixth decimal place.
He was so very wrong, since this was shortly before the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics set physics back to square 1, or at least closer to 1.
So your comment is more correct than the one of this famous scientist.

Quote
There is also always the concern that the understanding we have might be lost and forgotten due to the infinite passing of time itself
'We' have only been around a very short time, so we have hardly lost anything.
Sure, other civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy/universe may have peaked at a higher understanding than will we, but that understanding was never known to us, and thus never lost.
Finding an old dead library on some planet would be nice.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/09/2022 01:44:37
'We' have only been around a very short time, so we have hardly lost anything.
Sure, other civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy/universe may have peaked at a higher understanding than will we, but that understanding was never known to us, and thus never lost.
Or could it be said, as yet not found.
Quote
Finding an old dead library on some planet would be nice.
True, and with the appropriate Rosetta Stone.


153990,154034,154094,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/09/2022 14:36:14
Back to the wave theory of gravity; my version anyway, called the Infinite Spongy Universe. I've postulated that objects with mass both absorb and emit gravitational waves, making everything out there composed of gravitational wave energy. That would imply that living things are continually exchanging their physical content as gravitational waves flow in and out, and at the same time their living aspect, maybe called the "life force", remains there throughout the living period of the organism.


So a living organism is gravitational waves flowing in and out, and the life force is a passing temporary effect of the organization of gravitational waves? What gives life to such a convergence of gravitational wave energy? Surely it is passed along as a matter of reproduction, but would rarely, if ever, be spontaneously generated from inert elements?




154100,154200,154268,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/09/2022 22:04:18
Following that thought, living organisms, though composed of atoms and molecules, can be examined more deeply to find continual flows of gravitational wave energy flowing into and then emanating from every atom and molecule of the living thing. Those flows of wave energy are what maintains the organization and structure of the organism, and there is a similar flow of wave energy everywhere, maintaining the presence of everything.


There is a lot left to be learned about the inner workings of the tiniest things that exist and thrive down there where action of the continually frothing wave energy background, characterized by convergences at such a low level of energy that it seems almost unimaginable, are continually playing out, unless you try to explain energy interplays without it.


151254,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Deecart on 19/09/2022 21:04:20
IMHO i think that we will have the final answer when the theory of the "motion" also give the answer to : "why is there something rather than nothing ?".

But i will not explain it here. Too simple to be believed.
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/09/2022 22:34:23
IMHO i think that we will have the final answer when the theory of the "motion" also give the answer to : "why is there something rather than nothing ?".

But i will not explain it here. Too simple to be believed.
 
This could seem a bit philosophical, but we wouldn't be talking about it if there was nothing.




157220,157282,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/10/2022 23:09:33
Rest easy :)  ; infinite space, logically having always existed, and having always been filled with no less than an infinite amount of matter and energy, teaming with life, makes the greater universe impervious to any calamity that could befall any finite portion of it.




157695,157811,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/10/2022 22:44:28
Entropy, the decline in useful energy of a system, is a tireless process that is active everywhere, so in order for there to be meaningful life support systems they must either be able to defeat entropy, or regenerate conditions for life over and over again. In fact, entropy and regeneration are what I would call continual protagonists in the processes of the infinite and eternal universe where I believe that life is and always has been present.




158005,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/10/2022 17:21:09
As the thread topic implies, "If there was one Big Bang, why not multiple ...?", my vote is for multiple big bangs. If that is the case, we are not in an expanding universe, we are in an infinite universe that appears to be expanding from our position and point of view in it. I would suggest that the concept of an expanding universe be superseded by the concept of an infinite and eternal, ever-changing, multiple big bang universe.


158380,158533,158625,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/10/2022 19:12:18

... we are not in an expanding universe, we are in ... an infinite and eternal, ever-changing, multiple big bang universe.

The universe right around us appears to be expanding because that space is within our local arena of space which is associated with our own recent (17 billion years ago maybe) Big Bang event, but that particular Big Bang is just one insignificant example in an infinite number of similar big bang type events that have always been occurring across all space and time.




158640,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/10/2022 19:25:19
Gravity accumulates and compresses matter, and the compression eventually reaches a natural limit beyond which matter cannot be further compressed, and when that limit is reached ... BANG! It BANGS when the accumulated crunch of matter can no longer resist the growing gravitational compression and the atoms comprising that matter fail to be able to maintain their necessary space. As the atomic forces fail, the local crunch violently collapses, and the collapse "bounces" into an expanding shock wave that encompasses the entire arena of space and beyond. These Bangs have been occurring here and there, now and then, throughout the infinite history of the universe, IMHO :) .




158654,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/10/2022 20:36:28
The way that gravity accumulates matter is through a process characterized by the fact that matter both absorbes and emits gravitational wave energy.

It absorbs, and thus accumulates gravitational wave energy as a result of matter being swirled into the growing crunch and bringing with it additional gravitational capacity to attract more and more nearby matter. You might think that such a circumstance would eventually result in all of the matter in the universe accumulating into one final crunch, ... but no. You can't accumulate an infinite amount of matter into a single final Big Crunch; the crunch will collapse and bang long before the available supply of surrounding matter gets captured by the growing crunch.


That is why I say that there would be a potentially infinite number of accumulating crunches going on at the same time, here and there, if you consider the vastness of the infinite space of an endless universe filled with an infinite amount of matter, crunching and banging its way through eternity.



158802,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/10/2022 22:57:38
Gravity accumulates and compresses matter, and the compression eventually reaches a natural limit beyond which matter cannot be further compressed, and when that limit is reached ... BANG!
The limit of matter compression is probably something like a neutron star, and when that limit is exceeded, it collapses, which does indeed make a bang, but mostly it just collapses into a black hole, which (via tidal forces) pulls matter back apart and does not compress it further.

So this is hardly going to cause any sort of big bang. Just a little one. A large star running out of fuel will make a far larger bang (a supernova), which also is an entirely different thing than the big bang which isn't something that occurs at a location in space like actual bangs.

Quote
It BANGS when the accumulated crunch of matter can no longer resist the growing gravitational compression and the atoms comprising that matter fail to be able to maintain their necessary space.
If you squeeze matter, it collapses, not bangs outwards, which requires energy from somewhere. Matter (atoms say) indeed cannot resist that sort of pressure, and the light electrons tend to be pushed to the surface, and the protons to the center, making a sort of huge atom with a nucleus of many solar masses. In a way, this is a form of matter.

Quote
As the atomic forces fail, the local crunch violently collapses, and the collapse "bounces" into an expanding shock wave that encompasses the entire arena of space and beyond.
Yes, but again, this shock wave has far less radiated energy than a supernova.

Quote
These Bangs have been occurring here and there, now and then, throughout the infinite history of the universe
That they have. We've record of many of them, but most are too faint to see.

The way that gravity accumulates matter is through a process characterized by the fact that matter both absorbes and emits gravitational wave energy.
This is incorrect. Gravitational wave energy is radiation, and mass does not have this kind of energy since mass does not move at c.
It's kind of like asserting that a light bulb accumulates light energy, when in fact it holds none at all, and it is only externally supplied electrical energy that gets converted to light and radiated away, forever lost, just like gravitational wave energy. Very little (far less than 1%) of this energy is eventually reabsorbed by other matter somewhere and converted to some other form of energy.
Thank you for the comments.  I post out here "On the lighter side" because my off-beat ideas are not of the "generally accepted" variety, but they sometimes touch on topics where strange ideas still raise eyebrows since "settled science" still has chapters to be written. Somehow I use that logic to see a door ajar for those of us who throw our off-beat ideas against the walls of this far-side sub-forum to see if anything sparks a discussion.


159305,159353,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/10/2022 02:14:07
One thing that doesn't seem obvious to a layman looking out at the night sky is that on a scale relative to the vastness of the infinite universe, the visible universe is tiny, a mere spec of its vast entirety. Light waves, light energy, the red shift, blue shift, and visible expansion are not readily recognized. Knowing about, and understanding them has always kept scientists busy, and the work is far from done; I suppose it will never be complete, especially if "completion" requires a general consensus.

Nevertheless, if you base your view on what man can observe from Earth and nearby space, which is a tiny portion of what the universe really is, and assuming that as a whole it is infinite, we will continue to learn more as we peer deeper and deeper into space and into the past.

That brings to mind The Sad Tale of Hsi and Ho, a Chinese myth I recently came across in a book of Strange Stories, Amazing Facts :) . Their fate, at the hands of the Emperor of China, for not predicting the eclipse, as the story goes, is memorialized in the poem:


Here lie the bodies of Hsi and Ho,
Whose fate, though sad, was visible:
Being killed  because they did not spy
Th' eclipse which was invisible.


159375,159391,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/10/2022 04:15:15
Nevertheless, if you base your view on what man can observe from Earth and nearby space, which is a tiny portion of what the universe really is, and assuming that as a whole it is infinite, we will continue to learn more as we peer deeper and deeper into space and into the past.
We already peer close to the edge of the visible universe (the CMB, which has been measured since 75 years ago. No deeper view with any telescope has peered further than that.

Still, you mention that we only see this tiny spec of the universe, which is true. Maybe the cosmological principle is wrong, and it only looks like what we see locally and it looks different elsewhere. Maybe the rules are different far away, or the mass density changes or something. Don't know how that might help with your ideas.

I would be disappointed and disillusioned if the rules were not the same everywhere, but not surprised.

Pick a drop of water out of the ocean to examine it under a microscope and what are the chances that in that drop, there is a good representation of the entire ocean? The larger the sample, the better the chances, but there is always room for doubt when sampling is employed. But what choice do we have?




159431,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: JLindgaard on 16/10/2022 04:24:36
One thing that doesn't seem obvious to a layman looking out at the night sky is that on a scale relative to the vastness of the infinite universe, the visible universe is tiny, a mere spec of its vast entirety. Light waves, light energy, the red shift, blue shift, and visible expansion are not readily recognized. Knowing about, and understanding them has always kept scientists busy, and the work is far from done; I suppose it will never be complete, especially if "completion" requires a general consensus.

Nevertheless, if you base your view on what man can observe from Earth and nearby space, which is a tiny portion of what the universe really is, and assuming that as a whole it is infinite, we will continue to learn more as we peer deeper and deeper into space and into the past.

That brings to mind The Sad Tale of Hsi and Ho, a Chinese myth I recently came across in a book of Strange Stories, Amazing Facts :) . Their fate, at the hands of the Emperor of China, for not predicting the eclipse, as the story goes, is memorialized in the poem:


Here lie the bodies of Hsi and Ho,
Whose fate, though sad, was visible:
Being killed  because they did not spy
Th' eclipse which was invisible.


159375,159391,

 And when the background cosmological radiation is observed that defines the limits of our universe, what is beyond that? If we cannot understand the finite which is our universe then how how we understand that which is infinite?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/10/2022 14:49:18
One thing that doesn't seem obvious to a layman looking out at the night sky is that on a scale relative to the vastness of the infinite universe, the visible universe is tiny, a mere spec of its vast entirety. Light waves, light energy, the red shift, blue shift, and visible expansion are not readily recognized. Knowing about, and understanding them has always kept scientists busy, and the work is far from done; I suppose it will never be complete, especially if "completion" requires a general consensus.

Nevertheless, if you base your view on what man can observe from Earth and nearby space, which is a tiny portion of what the universe really is, and assuming that as a whole it is infinite, we will continue to learn more as we peer deeper and deeper into space and into the past.

That brings to mind The Sad Tale of Hsi and Ho, a Chinese myth I recently came across in a book of Strange Stories, Amazing Facts :) . Their fate, at the hands of the Emperor of China, for not predicting the eclipse, as the story goes, is memorialized in the poem:


Here lie the bodies of Hsi and Ho,
Whose fate, though sad, was visible:
Being killed  because they did not spy
Th' eclipse which was invisible.


159375,159391,

 And when the background cosmological radiation is observed that defines the limits of our universe, what is beyond that? If we cannot understand the finite which is our universe then how how we understand that which is infinite?
My view is that the CMBR fills all space, and I suggest that space is infinite, so that would make the CMBR infinite as well.

I agree that "infinite" can be a hard concept to grasp, let alone being hard to come to a consensus on with others.




159700,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: GaryBrownIE on 16/10/2022 19:03:56
So, "infinite" is just impossible to "achieve". This assertion was given to me by my college professor.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/10/2022 19:54:22
So, "infinite" is just impossible to "achieve". This assertion was given to me by my college professor.
I can see his point ... Starting from a point in space and time, it is impossible to travel an infinite distance, i.e. anything finite is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never relative to the infinite.


Nevertheless, the three infinities of space, time, and energy are still hard to refute.




159793,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/10/2022 01:47:19
I'm just trying to figure out the nature of the background that would result from an infinite history of big bangs occurring here and there, now and then across that infinity of space. What affect would a new local Big Bang have on the local vicinity background, and could the cosmic ray bursts be indications of distant big bangs?




159862,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/10/2022 19:02:56
Friday, October 21, 2022: I think tonight might be a good night to see shooting stars. They say to look to the Southwest as debris from Halley's comet burns up as it enters Earth's atmosphere.


160664,160770,160798,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/10/2022 17:55:10
The period often referred to as "prehistory" is generally characterized as a period before writing emerged among humans on Earth.


If you subscribe to the "eternal universe" concept, and the belief that intelligent life has always existed here and there, now and then, throughout the infinity of time and space, then the concept of "the one and only universe" fits that grand scenario. "One universe" is a possibility that is out there for anyone to contemplate, and I consider it a "given" in my attempts to expound on such issues; no need for a multiverse that requires segmentation of the "one grand universe, infinite and eternal" concept, or for multiple starts here and there.


In a "one and only grand universe" philosophy, the terms "infinite" and "eternal" apply to a universe without a beginning and without any logical end, and where anything that is possible seems to be a certainty to have occurred somewhere, sometime. In line with that kind of thinking, on a universal scale, there really would be no universal prehistory and no grand beginning ever; think "always existed".


In vast places across space that at present seem to be without intelligent beings to record the passing of history, the mere potential for the invasion of intelligence coming from both near and far, and occupying those vacant places, are eventual likelihoods in the grand scheme of things. They will likely host life that either evolves to intelligence, or where life is seeded by the visit of living creatures that have endured and thrived, to expand into distant places with life that has the potential to get a foothold, and evolve.




160817,160854,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/10/2022 19:04:40
If there's ever a second big bang, will we know about it?
As far as I can tell, if it's far away we won't know about it and if it's near, it will destroy us before we can see it.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/10/2022 19:52:32
If there's ever a second big bang, will we know about it?
As far as I can tell, if it's far away we won't know about it and if it's near, it will destroy us before we can see it.
In terms of the infinite universe, to me near and far are relative terms. "Near" might be some event occurring within our lifetime that would have noticeable effects to us on Earth, like a nearby cosmic ray burst could have, and far might be events that would happen so far away, that even with light from it traveling for a lifetime, it would not have reached us yet from its origin. So I might maintain that distant events within the last 100 years would be classified as near, while over 100 light years away I would consider to be far, ... just a suggested parameter.

Of course, light from distant sources may have been traversing space "forever" and may become so defused that, though its photons may reach us, they could become so defused as to be indistinguishable from the cosmic background.

But "distance" on a universal scale can even be considered infinite, and an event happening an infinite distance from Earth could never be detected. I think there is an oxymoron in there somewhere :) .

Nevertheless, if that sounds like a fair description of a distant event, your concept of the size of the universe would determine if it allows for infinite timeframes. Mine does.




160873,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/10/2022 20:05:16
In an expanding universe, it's possible for something to happen that will never be observed from here because it will effectively be moving from us at "more than the speed of light".
I that case, a second BB will not matter to us.
On the other hand, if it's closer than that cut off then it will "hit" us at the speed of light and I can't see anything good happening to us as a consequence.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/10/2022 20:19:52
In an expanding universe, it's possible for something to happen that will never be observed from here because it will effectively be moving from us at "more than the speed of light".
I that case, a second BB will not matter to us.
On the other hand, if it's closer than that cut off then it will "hit" us at the speed of light and I can't see anything good happening to us as a consequence.

That sounds possibly right :) .

If you follow the "thinking" that I post about (shrug, no telling what reality is), an infinite universe filled with more of the same as what we can detect in the "visible" universe would support what I call "the sameness doctrine", which simply posits that the greater universe is much like the portion of the universe that we can "see".


An infinite tapestry of days and nights all happening among the stars and galaxies, constantly and eternally.




160888,160907,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/10/2022 22:10:06
Once you adopt the Sameness Doctrine, you might want to suppose a scenario that your place in space can remain fixed. But problems with the concept of a fixed point in space make it an exercise in futility, because every massive object in space is in motion relative to everything else. Therefore there is nothing to which you can anchor your fixed point of view. The point of view drifts and that drift might be immeasurable, or at least difficult to quantify, and would certainly throw off measurements of the relative locations of multiple objects to some degree.




160931,160996,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 24/10/2022 02:28:58
In vast places across space that at present seem to be without intelligent beings to record the passing of history, the mere potential for the invasion of intelligence coming from both near and far, and occupying those vacant places, are eventual likelihoods in the grand scheme of things.
That would contradict a universe that has existed forever. All those empty places you see have already had infinite time to fill up, and they haven't. More time isn't going to help then. You can only conclude that said intelligent beings are brief flashes in history, gone almost as soon as they crop up. How/why they disappear is the question asked by the Fermi paradox.

In an expanding universe, it's possible for something to happen that will never be observed from here because it will effectively be moving from us at "more than the speed of light".
We see plenty of things receding from us at greater than c. That isn't what prevents light from arbitrarily distant places from eventually reaching here. It is the acceleration of that expansion which forms that event horizon from beyond which light can never reach us.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/10/2022 02:55:09
In vast places across space that at present seem to be without intelligent beings to record the passing of history, the mere potential for the invasion of intelligence coming from both near and far, and occupying those vacant places, are eventual likelihoods in the grand scheme of things.
That would contradict a universe that has existed forever. All those empty places you see have already had infinite time to fill up, and they haven't. More time isn't going to help then. You can only conclude that said intelligent beings are brief flashes in history, gone almost as soon as they crop up. How/why they disappear is the question asked by the Fermi paradox.
Not necessarily. I imagine that in a universe that has existed forever, big crunches and bangs would occur here and there, now and then, which might have the effect of "erasing the history of, or overlaying the evidence of" the remnants of such previous Big Bang events, [shrug].


Note also, I'm not saying that new matter is created for a new Big Bang, I suggesting that there is an existing infinite amount of matter and energy in the infinite universe and it cycles through from matter to energy and back to matter; Big Bang to Big Crunch and back to Big Bang, here and there, as crunches form, critical capacity of a crunch is reached, and the crunches lead to BANGS which then cause the expansion phase; bang, crunch, bang, crunch :) .


The cycle is driven by gravity on the accumulation side, leading to collapse/bang (Big Bang) on the expansion side. The bang occurs when the "critical capacity" of matter is reached where upon the compression exceeds the ability for atoms in the matter to maintain their individual space, ie. a compression limit is reached that results in the collapse of the atoms, and the matter collapses to a natural density limit and the dense state of matter "bounces" into expansion ... bang.




161135,161181,161226,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2022 18:16:41
In vast places across space that at present seem to be without intelligent beings to record the passing of history, the mere potential for the invasion of intelligence coming from both near and far, and occupying those vacant places, are eventual likelihoods in the grand scheme of things.
That would contradict a universe that has existed forever. All those empty places you see have already had infinite time to fill up, and they haven't. More time isn't going to help then. You can only conclude that said intelligent beings are brief flashes in history, gone almost as soon as they crop up. How/why they disappear is the question asked by the Fermi paradox.
Not necessarily. I imagine that in a universe that has existed forever, big crunches and bangs would occur here and there, now and then, which might have the effect of "erasing the history of, or overlaying the evidence of" the remnants of such previous Big Bang events, [shrug].


Note also, I'm not saying that new matter is created for a new Big Bang, I'm suggesting that there is an existing infinite amount of matter and energy in the infinite universe and it cycles through from matter to energy and back to matter continuously; Big Bang to Big Crunch and back to Big Bang, here and there, as crunches form, critical capacity of a crunch is reached, and the crunches lead to BANGS which then cause the expansion phase; bang, crunch, bang, crunch :) .


The cycle is driven by gravity on the accumulation side, leading to collapse/bang (Big Bang) on the expansion side. The bang occurs when the "critical capacity" of matter is reached where upon the compression exceeds the ability for atoms in the matter to maintain their individual space, ie. a compression limit is reached that results in the collapse of the atoms, and the matter collapses to a natural density limit and the dense state of matter "bounces" into expansion ... bang.




161135,161181,161226,
I know that mine is a speculative scenario, but it includes the thinking that if an infinity of time is given, across a spatially infinite universe, filled with an infinite host of galaxies, who's stars can have some meaningful possibility to support planets, and where some proportion of those likely planets possibly do have the building blocks of life, then life abounds across the universe, IMHO.




161231,161258,161295,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2022 22:31:29

I know that mine is a speculative scenario, but it includes the thinking that if an infinity of time is given, across a spatially infinite universe, filled with an infinite host of galaxies, who's stars can have some meaningful possibility to support planets, and where some proportion of those likely planets possibly do have the building blocks of life, then life abounds across the universe, IMHO.




161231,161258,161295,
As to why our searches of the known universe don't yet reveal irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial life, ... well it is disappointing. I remind myself of just how distant from Earth the nearest intelligent life (that seems logical to me would be out there) could be from Earth. Signals from distant places that would reveal intelligence could be so far away as to be undetectable among the electromagnetic waves that are bathing Earth continually from afar and from all directions. But in that infinite expanse, over infinite time, one thing that would hide such intelligences from each other would be the possibility that there was no intelligent life out there.


However, mankind has captured and is continuing to collect much data from signals from space that is yet to be sorted through, and that could reveal distant intelligent sources, so the search is far from complete.




161299,161326,161394,161418,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/10/2022 03:21:47
I find it logical to believe that the signals that we can and do detect from space, when surveyed in finer detail and over greater timeframes, will eventually reveal the prized signals that will be interpreted as evidence of extraterrestrial life. When that happens, it might be the most momentous event in the history of mankind. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened any day now. I'll keep tuning into the news each morning when I first awake.


But while such news is not yet forthcoming, I think expectations are high among those familiar with the ongoing sky surveys of signals arriving from across the spacial sphere.



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/10/2022 13:47:44
Of course there are these:
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1111471532/space-science-stars-radio-waves-signals-galaxy-lightyears-mit (https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1111471532/space-science-stars-radio-waves-signals-galaxy-lightyears-mit)

https://www.seti.org/ (https://www.seti.org/)

161636,162069,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 27/10/2022 00:25:26
Or Maybe Other Highly Intelligent Life has Not evolved with a similar history of evolution as human species.

Maybe they never came across Radio Waves or did and moved on Ahead.

Maybe they use Quantum Communication Techniques.

Maybe their Philosophy does Not permit colonization of other stars, planets or galaxies.

P.S. - Hope you don't mind me posting vague ideas in your OP.
I'm Not trying to Sabotage it, Only attempting to Add more Value to it thru Diversity of opinions.
✌️
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 27/10/2022 19:30:48
Yea my primary concern was that my views might not be Relatable to the Topic in discussion.

But perhaps the OP finds it in line & going in the same direction...
Hence Happy!
(Zer0 😊 too)

I'm Aware of the Fermi Paradox & The Great Filter.

I do have Fearful reservations of the LHC Experiments.
They can create miniscule blackholes, expecting them to Evaporate.

There might be Millions of tiny blackholes in the milky way galaxy.
Maybe WE might suffer the same Fate.

I Wish to provide Readers with a Fascinating Thought & Incredible Imagination from Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson.


Credits/Source/Many Thanks -
vson8 Channel/YouTube/Dr Tyson.

P.S. - It's Only a 5 minutes video, but what an Incredibly Imaginative Thought, Completely Worth It.
👍
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/10/2022 03:22:05
The point that an extra 1% or 2% greater Intelligence based on differences between human and chimp DNA is a huge leap might be overstating the effect of such a small difference, but clearly stepping up the intelligence of a life form would be a game changer for them.

However, it does seem that there is a bigger difference in the intelligence among individual humans than just 1% though, and maybe the percent between us and those as yet undiscovered aliens would be much greater.




162095,



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/10/2022 14:42:58
Finding, and being able to communicate are two different things, of course. Simply detecting each others signals doesn't mean communication would be taking place any time soon. We wouldn't even be able to send and receive each others signals in any conversational arrangement, given the vast time and distance constraints, let alone the "understanding" issue, :) . A lot of science fiction has been written based on "contact" hypotheticals, but the reality is that we don't know yet.


But it is our nature to keep looking.




162233,162477,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 28/10/2022 18:02:06
There is a High Probability of Us finding ET Life based upon the same principles like Us.

THEY Might be Alot more Similar in Complexity than We imagine.


Credits/Courtesy/Thanks -
Chemistry In A Box/YouTube/Dr Tyson.

Communication with ET is a whole different ball game.

But i Believe, even thou Primitive, We still might invoke Interest & Amuse Them.

We do Not have ways of sensible communication with Ants, but that doesn't Stop Us from studying Them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrmecology

P.S. - I keep invoking Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson videos bcoz i do Not want to misquote or misrepresent his views & thoughts.
I Assure the OP that i shall get the Discussion back on track soon.
👍
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2022 03:42:26
Topics worth discussion:

I wonder about the speculation that there could have been multiple big bangs?

I wonder if cosmic ray bursts might be indicators of big bangs that happened in the distant past somewhere across infinite space.

I wonder about the emergence of life out of the elements and conditions of exploded stars?

How common could it occur in terms of space and time?

What is the probability that intelligent life will emerge, once the earliest life forms arise?

 
162535,162607,162714,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2022 18:45:06
Topics worth discussion:

I wonder about the speculation that there could have been multiple big bangs?

...
ON the premise that I have been touting, that the universe is infinite and eternal, the speculation that there could have been multiple big bangs admittedly takes liberty with the Big Bang model and theory. The consensus model seems to be about the entire universe emerging from the Big Bang event, where that event took place out of a "point-space" that appeared out of nothing, and bloomed into the entire expanding visible universe and the grand universe beyond.


Given that the setting of this popular Big Bang model is sometimes characterized as tracking back to a "point" of space. and that if we could follow this backtracking to its original point-space, not just in time, but in space as well, then The Big Bang Theory might seem to incorporate "the beginning of space and time".

If that beginning could be characterized as a "point/space beginning", then maybe that initial point would be thought of as being surrounded by nothingness, keeping in mind that one definition of a point is that it has location but no volume. So somewhere out of nothingness a point-space emerged, and the rest is history, lol.


Maybe it would be appropriate to say that, "If at first there was nothing, not even space-time, then nothing could ever be, but if we just look around we see the existence of a grand universe as far as the eye can see. Conclusion, space and time have always existed, i.e., let's say it is settled, there was no beginning.





162719,162738,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 30/10/2022 19:35:00
keeping in mind that one definition of a point is that it has location but no volume
What sort of definition of a point has either no location or a nonzero volume?

The BBT does not posit a point so you know. It's a popular misconception is all.
The theory does not ever suggest a finite size of the universe at some time in the past.

Quote
So somewhere out of nothingness a point-space emerged
Yea that too. It never posits something out of nothing, or that there ever was a time when there was nothing.

Quote
Conclusion, space and time have always existed.
Which follows from the above, yes.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2022 19:56:16
keeping in mind that one definition of a point is that it has location but no volume
What sort of definition of a point has either no location or a nonzero volume?

The BBT does not posit a point so you know. It's a popular misconception is all.
The theory does not ever suggest a finite size of the universe at some time in the past.

Quote
So somewhere out of nothingness a point-space emerged
Yea that too. It never posits something out of nothing, or that there ever was a time when there was nothing.

Quote
Conclusion, space and time have always existed.
Which follows from the above, yes.

In classical Euclidean geometry, a point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in the space, and has no length, width, or thickness. In modern mathematics, a point refers more generally to an element of some set called a space. Wikipedia


,162818,162849,162923,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 30/10/2022 22:06:01
Topics worth discussion:

I wonder about the speculation that there could have been multiple big bangs?

I heard this on StarTalk by Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson...
He was explaining the accelerated rate of expansion of the Universe.

He mentioned Billions of years from Now, all Galaxies will start to recede away from Us.
As the space between Us & other Galaxies expands Faster Than Light, they shall all disappear from our sight.

Hence future cosmologists won't see any Other galaxies except Ours in the night sky.
They will have to completely rely on empirical evidence & historical data from Us to believe the fact that once there were billions of galaxies.

Then He finally makes a point saying, if future generations of cosmologists had a whole chapter ripped out just because they could not see it with their own eyes, what is to say that Maybe there were a few chapters of the Universe already ripped apart from Us right Now because We cannot see it or test it or have no knowledge of it.

He wasn't in Denial of the Big Bang.
Just pointing to the possibility that there might be a few things about the past of our Universe We might Never be able to know for certain.


I wonder if cosmic ray bursts might be indicators of big bangs that happened in the distant past somewhere across infinite space.

i do not understand this phenomenon, i have very little knowledge of it, hence No Comments.

I wonder about the emergence of life out of the elements and conditions of exploded stars?

We are living evidence of it.

How common could it occur in terms of space and time?

The previous video i posted of Mr Tyson states that We are built from the most abundant elements found commonly in the Universe, with an exception to Helium.

What is the probability that intelligent life will emerge, once the earliest life forms arise?

Watched a video of Prof Richard Dawkins on this Subject...

He mentioned earliest fossils to be around 3.5billion years old.
Then he stated Earth to be around 4.5billion years old.
Then he said primordial earth was too hot for life to evolve, so for the Earth to cool down to a conclusive environment in which life could Originate, a buffer time of 0.5billion years.
He concluded it took life around 500million years to spring up.

He also mentioned that there were alot of instances in fossils which it was observed that eyes evolved or ears evolved.
But for Intelligent Life like Us to evolve took 4billion years.

He ended by saying a strange thing thou, that Intelligence did not seem to be the necessity or necessary for Survival.
If Evolution's primary goal was Intelligence, then we would have seen the emergence of it long before.
The norm was simply of diversity & survival of the Fittest.


 
162535,162607,162714,

P.S. - I'd recommend readers to watch YouTube videos of Prof Dawkins & Dr Tyson in conversation.
👍
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/10/2022 22:20:55
My bad;
Gamma-ray bursts is what I was trying to say [shrug]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst)


162979,163004.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 01/11/2022 08:04:10
My Bad Too!

I previously mentioned a fear of LHC Experiments.

I reasoned other Blackholes in the Galaxy to be remnants of failed particle science experiments.

But all those Blackholes are minimum 5 solar masses & above, none resembling an Earth like mass.

Even if Earth suddenly turned into a Blackhole, it would still stay in Orbit around the Sun.

And Cosmologists haven't really spotted any Blackholes orbiting around Stars orbiting around them.
They would surely be easy to spot & differentiate from planets.

So my Fear seems Illogical.

P.S. - or perhaps We shall go down in the history of this Universe as a first example of the Dangers of Intelligence.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 01/11/2022 12:08:34
I previously mentioned a fear of LHC Experiments.
No fear needed. It is not possible, no matter the power of the collider. I mean, something fundamental like a single electron is already smaller (size 0) than its own Schwarzschild radius (something not 0), and yet its gravity doesn't suddenly become more powerful than all the other forces that repel things that are on trajectories that approach its event horizon.

Quote
Even if Earth suddenly turned into a Blackhole, it would still stay in Orbit around the Sun.
That it would, and the moon and all the satellites in orbit around it. The tides would mostly disappear, so the moon would cease receding at 3.8 cm/yr like it's doing now.

Quote
And Cosmologists haven't really spotted any Blackholes orbiting around Stars orbiting around them.
Oh yes they have. They're just not little.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/11/2022 02:27:21
Out here On the Lighter Side/New Theories, I feel I can say why I think the universe exists.


It is simply that the universe has always existed, so there is no alternative to its existence.


It doesn't exist because there was a Creation event sometime in the past, and it doesn't exist through some chance convergence of great forces at the beginning of time, it simple has always been here.

I've talked about the idea of multiple big bangs. Given the supposed infinity of space and the eternity of time, the conclusion that there could have been more than one big bang doesn't seem to antagonize anyones sensitivities.

I've made it clear that I think that space is infinite, and it is filled with much the same kind of things as we observe in the space that we can see. That is not to say that somewhere in the unfathomable expanse beyond our view that there aren't things that will be surprising. Certainly there are things we will never know about, or understand. The unknowns are many and our chances of knowing most of them are slim.


But if we pay attention to how our knowledge of the universe is expanding all the time, there is reason to believe that the "as yet unknowns" will gradually be resolved.


I hope that we are able to find intelligent life out there so that we might have a chance to expand our knowledge in giant steps on the shoulders of other advanced life forms and civilizations.




163411,163513,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 03/11/2022 03:27:16
It is simply that the universe has always existed, so there is no alternative to its existence.

It doesn't exist because there was a Creation event sometime in the past
Those are both ways to explain how it exists. Neither addresses why it exists. Your answer just says it exists, so it exists. Doesn't really answer the question of why this one exists and not some other, or none at all. The creation thing doesn't say why this universe instead of another either. It just says something created it, by design or otherwise.

Quote
the conclusion that there could have been more than one big bang doesn't seem to antagonize anyones sensitivities.
It certainly antagonizes mine. I've already posted why it cannot be, at least not with our laws of physics. No bang can take place at a location in space, at least not one bigger than say a star exploding.

Quote
But if we pay attention to how our knowledge of the universe is expanding all the time, there is reason to believe that the "as yet unknowns" will gradually be resolved.
Some of them, but never all. I personally don't think we'll learn much more before we start forgetting faster than we learn new things.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 03/11/2022 14:42:13
Out here On the Lighter Side/New Theories, I feel I can say why I think the universe exists.

Although New Theories does Constrict one to stay within the context of Known Laws & Principles & Theories of the Universe.
Perhaps it's Only in Just Chat where one could excercise Wild Imagination.


It is simply that the universe has always existed, so there is no alternative to its existence.

This thought is a Hard one to Grasp. We on general terms views All things to have a Beginning & an End.
But Ofcourse, the Universe is under No Obligation to make sense to Us.


It doesn't exist because there was a Creation event sometime in the past, and it doesn't exist through some chance convergence of great forces at the beginning of time, it simple has always been here.

The Analogy of a Banyan Tree...
From the Roots grows the Trunk.
From the Trunk sprout Branches.
Branches lengthen & move back towards the Soil.
Branches transform into new Roots.
From an Ant's perspective, the Tree might seem to be Eternal & have no point of Origin.


I've talked about the idea of multiple big bangs. Given the supposed infinity of space and the eternity of time, the conclusion that there could have been more than one big bang doesn't seem to antagonize anyones sensitivities.

If it is Conceptualised in a Multiverse Hypothesis, then even thou Hard to Visualize, Not many shall Complain.

I've made it clear that I think that space is infinite, and it is filled with much the same kind of things as we observe in the space that we can see. That is not to say that somewhere in the unfathomable expanse beyond our view that there aren't things that will be surprising. Certainly there are things we will never know about, or understand. The unknowns are many and our chances of knowing most of them are slim.

The concept of Infinity is a tough one to grasp, especially with a Finite Intellect.
We might Never Know it All is Exciting & Distasteful at the same time.
Having an Insatiable Curiosity & standing in Awe & Wonder is Real Fun...But...Realising & Knowing the Thirst might Never be Quenched is Not Fun At All.


But if we pay attention to how our knowledge of the universe is expanding all the time, there is reason to believe that the "as yet unknowns" will gradually be resolved.

As the Radius of our Knowledge increases, so does the Circumference of our Ignorance.


I hope that we are able to find intelligent life out there so that we might have a chance to expand our knowledge in giant steps on the shoulders of other advanced life forms and civilizations.

I Truly Hope so too!




163411,163513,

Note to the OP.
You seem to have a Deep understanding of the Universe.
There are Alot of Other OPs on the Forum where Your Contributions would be Valued.
Maybe you should get out more often.
Tc!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/11/2022 19:47:42


Note to the OP.
You seem to have a Deep understanding of the Universe.
I have an active imagination and a one track mind, lol.





163605,163646,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 04/11/2022 11:08:39


Note to the OP.
You seem to have a Deep understanding of the Universe.
I have an active imagination and a one track mind, lol.





163605,163646,

I have a one track mind too.
Perhaps you use it Wisely.
I on the other hand, try to learn Everything about Everything with it.
Does not end well for Me.
Jack of all Trades, Master of None.

By the way, Mr Smiles...
I cannot Resist the Temptation any further, hence i ask out of Silly Curiosity..
What are Those numbers at the bottom of your posts?
What do they signify or stand for?
What do they mean?
163605,163646, ?

P.S. - Logic will get you from A to B...
Imagination will take you Everywhere!
Albert Einstein.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/11/2022 12:19:17

By the way, Mr Smiles...
I cannot Resist the Temptation any further, hence i ask out of Silly Curiosity..
What are Those numbers at the bottom of your posts?
What do they signify or stand for?
What do they mean?
163605,163646, ?

P.S. - Logic will get you from A to B...
Imagination will take you Everywhere!
Albert Einstein.
The number at the bottom of my post is the number of times my post has been viewed. By looking at the last number, I can gauge how many times my previous post has been viewed so that I'm giving members enough time to see that post before I add a new post.




163780,163799,163893,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 04/11/2022 12:35:08
Logic will get you from A to B...
Imagination will take you Everywhere!
Albert Einstein.
Einstein never said that. The quote has been around only about 10 years or so. Yes, it is frequently but incorrectly attributed to Einstein.

What he did say was this in a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview:
"I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

The number at the bottom of my post is the number of times my post has been viewed.
That counts mostly bots and very few humans. It does up significantly every time your view any page of your topic. The bots notice when a page gets loaded. Actual members don't notice that. You might get 3 to 5 actual members reading any particular post of a topic this long.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 04/11/2022 14:42:33
Hal...

Your insight into the 1% dna difference between a Human & Chimp really took apart Dr Tyson's argument.
Now when i think of a comparison between a Mouse & Humans, approximating only a 50% difference, i do Understand that Mice cannot be said to be half intelligent as Humans.

Information about Blackholes circling Stars was Unknown to me.
Was Nice to know that.

Your view on micro blackholes being formed in the LHC was rest assuring.
I know you don't say things just for the sake of sayin them, you mean it.
Finally i can put aside my Fears on Experimentations.

& Thanks for clearing out the Albert Einstein quote.

I get to Learn Alot from You.
& I Really Appreciate it Alot!


P.S. - DuH Mr Smiles...
That should have been an obvious & relatively easy mystery to have been solved by anyone having half a brain.
I kept thinking bout it for soo looong lol!
Anyhow, Thanks for the explanation, knowing it was still a thrilling experience for me.

Edit - 163825.
😊
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/11/2022 21:30:10
...

P.S. - DuH Mr Smiles...
...

Thanks for the explanation, ...

And thank you for the responses ...




163913,163941,164030,164219,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 05/11/2022 00:55:57
...

P.S. - DuH Mr Smiles...
...

Thanks for the explanation, ...

And thank you for the responses ...


163913,163941,

& You are Most Welcome!

P.S. - 163950.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/11/2022 15:34:03
When it comes to a thread about the Big Bang, or more in context, Big Bangs, there are always new things to think about, and I figure my Big Bang thread is a great place to discuss some of them. Today, as I often do, I am thinking about eternity, infinity and multiple big bangs. At first it occurs to me how rapidly the "body of human knowledge" grows. And yet, what I view as a rapid growth of human knowledge has to be kept in perspective:

Given my premise that the universe is infinite and has always existed, time wise, that could be interpreted to mean that it has literally taken forever to arrive at the here and now, shrug, ... but hasn't it always :) .

I wonder if the length of that segment of 'time that has past", which in my thinking is already infinite, would be put to shame when compared to the amount of time that will pass throughout the future of time to come. I guess I should start thinking from the perspective that we are always at the "time front", the leading edge of eternity. And the time front belongs to everyone, and waits for no one ...



164280,164335,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/11/2022 20:43:31
I would like to convey the idea of being at the "time front" as another way of saying that there is a common universal "now", i.e., that there is a universal common "present moment" across the entire universe, and no matter where you are or what your relative motion is, that "present now" would be the point in time that every location would be at if we could invoke a universal freeze frame, characterized by the universal stoppage of the passing of time everywhere at the same instant.




164348,164378,164723,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 07/11/2022 23:52:54
I would like to convey the idea of being at the "time front" as another way of saying that there is a common universal "now", i.e., that there is a universal common "present moment" across the entire universe, and no matter where you are or what your relative motion is, that "present now" would be the point in time that every location would be at if we could invoke a universal freeze frame, characterized by the universal stoppage of the passing of time everywhere at the same instant.
That's called presentism. There is no big bang at all under presentism. The big bang theory is a solution to Einstein's equations from the theory or relativity, a theory whose premises contradict presentism. So it's ok to posit presentism, a far more intuitive view, but one necessarily has to abandon Einstein's work if you do this.

The prior post was full of presentist assumptions, except for the big bang discussion part.

When it comes to a thread about the Big Bang
A thread about the big bang cannot be about presentism. The theory suggests that time and space exist as dimensions of one spacetime, and being a dimension, time is not something that flows or otherwise has a preferred moment (the present).

Quote
Given my premise that the universe is infinite and has always existed
Usage of tensed verbs ('existed') implies a present. In the big bang model, the universe exists. That's it. Or maybe saying it exists is just an assumption. But saying it has existed implies a relation with a specific moment in time, and there is no such implied moment.

Quote
it has literally taken forever to arrive at the here and now
All exists equally in Einstein's view, so nothing 'takes time to arrive'. The words 'here and now' have no meaning under presentism and 'here-ism', the latter positing a preferred location in space. Positing a preferred present is about as naive as positing a preferred location in space, and nothing else exists if it isn't 'here'. A valid position, but impossible to prove. Both are supported by the same evidence which makes it funny that people presume one of them but not the other.

Quote
that segment of 'time that has past"
I think you mean 'time that has passed'.
Quote
which in my thinking is already infinite, would be put to shame when compared to the amount of time that will pass throughout the future of time to come.
That's one of the arguments questioning presentism. It's equivalent to you meeting somebody (immortal of course) who has been counting down from infinity and is just now getting to zero and declaring "There! I'm finally finished!".

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2022 21:56:11

That's called presentism. There is no big bang at all under presentism. The big bang theory is a solution to Einstein's equations from the theory of relativity, a theory whose premises contradict presentism. So it's ok to posit presentism, a far more intuitive view, but one necessarily has to abandon Einstein's work if you do this.

The prior post was full of presentist assumptions, except for the big bang discussion part.
...
A thread about the big bang cannot be about presentism. The theory suggests that time and space exist as dimensions of one spacetime, and being a dimension, time is not something that flows or otherwise has a preferred moment (the present).

Actually, I'm OK with no Big Bang, but my perception is that it is the consensus among career scientists, and I suspect they would not be considered mainstream if they insisted on an alternative cosmology.


I do go on and on about alternatives to the Big Bang in my rantings, and sorry for repeating this too often, but my preferred view of cosmology is that the universe is infinite and eternal, has always existed, i.e. no beginning and no end, and realistically (according to me) it could be no other way.




,164999,165139,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/11/2022 17:15:49


I say this lovingly, ... crazy looking Fred Hoyle is the one who coined the phrase, "Big Bang", which made enough sense that it became the consensus. But the cosmology books often raise the question, "what came before the Big Bang?", and the answer is still open to speculation, which I like doing :) .

It is not uncommon to see of the Big Bang referenced as the source of all the energy, matter, and wait for it, ...  all space.

I'm sorry, but I'm in favor of a multiple Big Bang story, playing out in an eternal and infinite amount of space and time; I have to add that presumably infinite space is filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy. A single Big Bang might somehow explain things within our observational range, but I find a scenario of infinite pre-existing space and an infinite number of crunches and big bangs playing out across that infinite and eternal space to be more satisfying.

I think Big Bangs happen all the time, here and there, now and then, but are far removed from each other in space, and are preceded by a lengthy period of gravitational accumulation of matter (into a lump) from a swath of surrounding space.  The growth of the crunch continues to a point of "critical mass", which when reached, the local gravitational force defeats the atomic forces at work within and among atoms, and the crunch fails/collapses with a Bang.


What's wrong with that scenario?



165200,165244,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/11/2022 21:59:12

...

I think Big Bangs happen all the time, here and there, now and then, but are far removed from each other in space, and are preceded by a lengthy period of gravitational accumulation of matter (into a lump) from a swath of surrounding space.  The growth of the crunch continues to a point of "critical mass", which when reached, the local gravitational force defeats the atomic forces at work within and among atoms, and the crunch fails/collapses with a Bang.


What's wrong with that scenario?

I'm sure there is a lot wrong with that scenario in the Mainstream point of view, but I am not offended when considered a fringe character. The simple scenario that I propose has been stated above in single paragraphs, and often in single sentences, with only passing admission that I don't shy away from what goes against the mainstream; sorry for using this "on the lighter side, new theories" sub-forum space to expose my alternative ideas, but the places where wild ideas can be stated in reputable forums like this one are few.





165248,165276,165306,165389,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 12/11/2022 18:57:45
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

P.S. - 165429.
😊
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/11/2022 17:59:47
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model)

P.S. - 165429.
😊
I like that model because I can see the eternal repeating process of crunch/bang. It would fit my Infinite Spongy Universe Model better though if it encompassed an infinite volume of space, multiple Big Bangs occurring here and there, now and then, as crunches reach some gravitational limit (critical capacity), whereupon the crunches Bang :) .





165600,165676,165744,165828,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/11/2022 20:55:18
If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang Theory, revising the theory to refer to a multiple number of big bang type events across infinite time and space, then instead of being a Singularity, the Big Bang could instead be considered a common repeating event throughout an infinite and timeless universe. There would have been a potentially infinite number of Big Bang type of events in the past, here and there, now and then, as there would be in the future.


In that case, a single Big Bang event would not mark the beginning of the universe or of time and space, but would mark a common event somewhere in space and in the passing of time. It would allow for an ongoing string of bangs here and there each time the necessary conditions arise.




165834,165853,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 14/11/2022 21:18:30
If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang Theory
That's like accepting an edit to 2+2=4 to 2+3=4. A simple change, but the mathematics don't work anymore. You are free to still believe that 2+3=4 because it makes you feel happy, but it isn't a valid theory. You are also utterly free to ignore where people point out where 2+3=4 doesn't work and continue asserting it, and even asking if anything is wrong with it.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/11/2022 21:39:53
If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang Theory
That's like accepting an edit to 2+2=4 to 2+3=4. A simple change, but the mathematics don't work anymore. You are free to still believe that 2+3=4 because it makes you feel happy, but it isn't a valid theory. You are also utterly free to ignore where people point out where 2+3=4 doesn't work and continue asserting it, and even asking if anything is wrong with it.
True. TRUE.
That is why I hypothesize out here on the "lighter side", and I don't call my rantings a theory; they are ideas for discussion.




165953,166043,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 15/11/2022 17:55:48
Here's some more Wild Speculation...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Keep on Smiling Mr Smiles!

P.S. - 165962.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/11/2022 16:10:51
Here's some more Wild Speculation...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce)

Keep on Smiling Mr Smiles!

P.S. - 165962.

Ancient Egypt is the home of extremely skilled sculpting in granite, one of the hardest and unforgiving materials to work with. The methods and tools said to have been used to produce some of those ancient objects would even be a challenge to reproduce today. A great read: Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt , Chris Dunn.



166372,166460,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 19/11/2022 15:38:04
Ancient Egypt is the home of extremely skilled sculpting in granite, one of the hardest and unforgiving materials to work with. The methods and tools said to have been used to produce some of those ancient objects would even be a challenge to reproduce today.
You were talking about why there are no other intelligent beings visible to us, and I said that most of them tend not to remain technological long enough to be seen.
This Egypt thing is a great example of technology which was lost, and might still be out of range for today's technology. I don't see anybody doing such large scale works today. Just showing that you should take our continued technological prowess for granite.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/11/2022 00:14:25
You were talking about why there are no other intelligent beings visible to us, and I said that most of them tend not to remain technological long enough to be seen.
This Egypt thing is a great example of technology which was lost, and might still be out of range for today's technology. I don't see anybody doing such large scale works today. Just showing that you should take our continued technological prowess for granite.

Testing my understanding, you are saying that we shouldn't take the technological advances for granted. I'm in almost continual amazement at the accomplishments of man throughout history, and especially including the ancient history of Egypt.





166665,166724,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/11/2022 04:35:40
Our history emerges out of a past that is speculatively marked by an infinite number of civilizations, on Earth and/or anywhere else in the infinite universe, where intelligent beings could have existed. And it can be suspected that many have held beliefs in various Gods, religions, and myths. It may be the case that most of those beliefs have been lost in time and across the vast reaches of space.

What has survived for us here on Earth covers a vanishingly short history relative to the amount of time that has passed in our tiny corner of space, and the point can be made that that corner of space is no more than a tiny blip when measured against the infinite universe.

Beyond Earth's brief existence lies the infinity of past time, and the possibility of an infinite number of occurrences of intelligence across distant habitats. Though Earth has arrived at what I would call an almost unimaginable present time, it is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never, relative to the infinity of space and time.




166810,166868,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 22/11/2022 22:52:02

Testing my understanding, you are saying that we shouldn't take the technological advances for granted. I'm in almost continual amazement at the accomplishments of man throughout history, and especially including the ancient history of Egypt.

166665,166724,

& Let's Not Forget the Historical Contributions of thee WoMan, who bore the Child of Man.

I don't find the Pyramids Unattainable.
Sure they are a Great feat of Architectural Prowess & Fascinating.
But with enough Workers or perhaps Slaves, it's Achievable.

What i find Extremely Odd is the Radio Silence out in the Universe.
Nobody Else broadcasting, besides US!

P.S. - 166887.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/11/2022 14:04:56
...
What i find Extremely Odd is the Radio Silence out in the Universe.
Nobody Else broadcasting, besides US!

P.S. - 166887.
I know what you mean. The lack of intelligible radio broadcasts would make me feel alone if it wasn't for the Internet, lol.




167443,167508,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/11/2022 03:45:06
...
What i find Extremely Odd is the Radio Silence out in the Universe.
Nobody Else broadcasting, besides US!

P.S. - 166887.
Some considerations though:

Duration of the presence of a signal from a technically capable civilization, i.e. for how long will they broadcast from their first signals to their last?

How far away are they in light years, i.e. has their signal reached us yet, or has all of it passed us by now?



167657,167923,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/11/2022 15:14:17
Some considerations though:

Duration of the presence of a signal from a technically capable civilization, i.e. for how long will they broadcast from their first signals to their last?

How far away are they in light years, i.e. has their signal reached us yet, or has all of it passed us by now?
167657,167923,
Another way to put that ...
What is the two-way turn around time, and what is the likely wavelength?

I think I am getting too wrapped up in the imponderables, :) .


167924,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 28/11/2022 18:16:27
It took Us approximately 4 billion years to attain the Technology.

The Universe is said to be approximately 13.7 billion years old.
(But yea it's Expanding)

The Milky Way is approximately 13 billion years old.

With the Basic ingredients for Life scattered across the Cosmos, How is it possible that Intelligent Life never emerged elsewhere before Us?

If They were Truly Intelligent, How could They have not survived the Great Filter?

I'm Very Optimistic about Life originating elsewhere, a little Realistic when it comes to Intelligence emerging elsewhere, but forced to be Pessimistic when Absolute Silence abounds all across the Universe.

P.S. - How Odd would it be, if We are the Only Ones out here all Alone!
👽
(167971)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/11/2022 01:15:18
...

With the Basic ingredients for Life scattered across the Cosmos, How is it possible that Intelligent Life never emerged elsewhere before Us?
Quote
It seems probable that life emerges when the elements and conditions are conducive, but those conditions are not common, and the resources don't sustain life long enough to reliably evolve to intelligence :shrug:

If They were Truly Intelligent, How could They have not survived the Great Filter?
Fill me in on the Great Filter ...
Quote
I'm Very Optimistic about Life originating elsewhere, a little Realistic when it comes to Intelligence emerging elsewhere, but forced to be Pessimistic when Absolute Silence abounds all across the Universe.
I agree. Earth and human intelligence being a "one off" occurrence does seem improbable,
Quote
P.S. - How Odd would it be, if We are the Only Ones out here all Alone!
👽
It is our nature to speculate and to calculate the odds, but the "as yet" unknowns will always haunt us until we find the answers.




168393,

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 29/11/2022 06:12:43
If They were Truly Intelligent, How could They have not survived the Great Filter?
Which makes humans appear not truly intelligent, since we're incapable of acting for the benefit of our own survival.

Fill me in on the Great Filter ...
The Great Filter is that which makes technologically advanced civilizations go extinct before they fully mature. It isn't a specific thing, but it is proposed to take out most nearly-intelligent races.
Quote
I agree. Earth and human intelligence being a "one off" occurrence does seem improbable
I also agree, but they last such a short time that the odds that you're looking at them during their incredibly short blink of existence is pretty much zero.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/11/2022 22:02:26
But given that they coincide on Earth today, perhaps there is some organized way for humanity to play that to an advantage before time runs out?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/11/2022 23:29:47


...
My apologies for not being able to grok what you're asking. Possibly you're not even responding to my post.

I'm the one failing to make the point clear, that both the hospitable environment and the advanced intelligence exist here today, so we have "beat the odds" so to speak.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 01/12/2022 00:17:13
I'm the one failing to make the point clear, that both the hospitable environment and the advanced intelligence exist here today, so we have "beat the odds" so to speak.
I can't see even mildly complex life, let alone and advanced intelligence, arising in an environment not suited for it, so I don't see odds to beat. It's not like intelligent life fails to beat the odds by being introduced to a place like the moon and his has a moment to say, "Well this sucks" before it promptly dies.

As for intelligence, humans are, as Zero points out, hardly an advanced one since it seems our only action is to destroy that hospitable environment about as fast as we can. We're not only incapable of doing otherwise, but we seem even incapable of imagining a better course of action. OK, so we'll be eliminated by the great filter like all the others. Maybe we'll even get lucky and not go extinct right away, but the technological part will likely be lost soon and permanently. We'll just be another animal trying to survive the Holocene extinction event then.

Trick is to find some Alien race that didn't take this path. Maybe that's about as impossible for them as it is for us, so we never have time to find each other.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 01/12/2022 21:31:01
If They were Truly Intelligent, How could They have not survived the Great Filter?
Which makes humans appear not truly intelligent, since we're incapable of acting for the benefit of our own survival.

What If...

WE are the Ones who surpass All Great Filters?

WE Genetically modify our own Species for better Endurance & Survival rates?

WE successfully create A.G.I. which could swarm & colonize the Whole Galaxy?

P.S. - To keep Trying & not Succeed isn't Failure, to Give Up is.
(168626)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 02/12/2022 16:30:14
What If...
WE Genetically modify our own Species for better Endurance & Survival rates?
Our endurance and survival rate is not the problem.

Quote
What If...
WE successfully create A.G.I. which could swarm & colonize the Whole Galaxy?
That would possibly be something that would last, something that isn't taken out by the filter, at least not the filter that takes us out. It is a real possibility for any technological race that they design their own successor before they get 'filtered' themself. It is probable that some of the races do this. It makes one wonder why we don't see evidence of such a presence in the galaxy. Do the AGIs have a different filter that none survive?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: paul cotter on 02/12/2022 20:23:59
An advanced civilisation would be using low power point to point and cable systems for communication. Using 500kw for an am transmitter and 50kw for tv is very wasteful of energy. The chance of picking up a signal at the distances involved is negligible, if said race is advanced enough to be energy efficient. The era of terrestrial high power transmission on earth has lasted ~100years and is now fading out.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 05/12/2022 21:03:07
What If...
WE Genetically modify our own Species for better Endurance & Survival rates?
Our endurance and survival rate is not the problem.

I was Thinking in terms of being able to breathe underwater or possibly utilizing hydrogen as a catalyst for respiration rather than oxygen.

A way in which a human could have a sumptuous breakfast & then survive for a whole century without food & water.

Can We not modify & elevate our five basic senses & mitigate pain completely?

I have no answer to your points on AGI having a Great Filter of their own.
You are quite Correct, They should have swarmed & colonized the whole galaxy by now.

P.S. - so...No simple life, No complex life, No intelligent life & No AGIs...what a Strange & Weird Universe this is...DamN!
☹️
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2022 17:16:16
What If...

WE Genetically modify our own Species for better Endurance & Survival rates?

The result would be a different species. Like a cockroach or a water bear. Great survivors.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 08/12/2022 19:24:51
What If...

WE Genetically modify our own Species for better Endurance & Survival rates?

The result would be a different species. Like a cockroach or a water bear. Great survivors.

Yes!
Exactly my point.
Agreed they won't be humans, even far from post humans.

But i feel We should Try.
We should excercise our Rights to create something way better than Us.

I've read about a Frog that freezes & goes into cryogenic hibernation.
Even a Jellyfish that can rejuvenate & return back from adulthood to a teenage level or possibly childhood.
& Lizards that can regrow their lost legs n tail.

I do have Very High Hopes from AGI.
But cracking the nut of " What is Consciousness " seems far fetched at this point in time.
Wish We could Experiment a hell lot more with Genetic Engineering.

P.S. - I've been Guilty of dragging this OP in nooks & corners where it was unintended to go, hence i shall give my blabbering a rest now.
(Sorry)

169928
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 08/12/2022 23:16:17
Agreed they won't be humans, even far from post humans.

We should excercise our Rights to create something way better than Us.
Creating something better than us would be that AGI which you mentioned. Nothing says an AGI needs to be non-biological. OK, I don't think there's any kind of measurement where one can say that species X is better than species Y, but I suppose its continued existence for tens of millions of years would be a start. Sharks are far better than us for instance by this measure. We've been around less than 1% of that time.
The improvements (or redesign from scratch) you suggested would seem to produce something that in no way is related to a human. Neither would have intelligence to speak of, which requires more of a burn-the-candle-at-both-ends sort of design.

Quote
I do have Very High Hopes from AGI.
But cracking the nut of " What is Consciousness " seems far fetched at this point in time.
That's only a philosophical problem. The AGI engineers need not concern themselves with it.

Quote
I've been Guilty of dragging this OP in nooks & corners where it was unintended to go, hence i shall give my blabbering a rest now.
I suspect Bogey likes the traffic to his topic, regardless of where that traffic takes it. I don't think he resents your input, as evidenced by all the thanked posts you see.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/12/2022 00:35:13
...

P.S. - I've been Guilty of dragging this OP in nooks & corners where it was unintended to go, hence i shall give my blabbering a rest now.
(Sorry)

169928
You shouldn't be shy on the internet ... Threads go where they go; its a rule, lol.

Sharks do have redeeming characteristics ... 
shark-personality-traits-characteristics (https://faunafacts.com/sharks/shark-personality-traits-characteristics/)


... 170194,170256,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 11/12/2022 21:02:50
Thank You Mr Smiles, for being such a Kind & Understanding individual.
🙏

You know Hal, Your simplest of expressions Transcend & go way beyond & above my Deepest Thoughts.
Stuff like AGIs having a Great Filter to go thru, or for Them to be able to Exist in a biological form is Splendid.
Good Work!



P.S. - so...No simple life, No complex life, No intelligent life & No AGIs...what a Strange & Weird Universe this is...DamN!
☹️

P.S. - perhaps another way too look at the above, is to Think of how Strange & Weird Life in itself is, isn't it.

170378
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/12/2022 17:31:27

P.S. - so...No simple life, No complex life, No intelligent life & No AGIs...what a Strange & Weird Universe this is...DarN!, :)
☹️


P.S. - perhaps another way too look at the above, is to Think of how Strange & Weird Life in itself is, isn't it.

170378

I'm constantly in awe of life. I wonder if it is possible to imagine there never was life?  I don't think it is possible to imagine a lifeless universe since you have to be alive to imagine that, :).




170469,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/12/2022 15:37:41
... you have to be alive to imagine ...
And when it comes right down to it, the laws of nature set the rule .

There are variables in the rule though; it is not a deterministic universe. There is a randomness in everything at some level. It may take a finite time and space for the underlying randomness to appear, but there is plenty of time and space for randomness to patient.




170827,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 16/12/2022 18:31:13
I don't think it is possible to imagine a lifeless universe
I can imagine that with little problem.
Much harder is to imagine the universe objectively, since we only know a subjective view.

... you have to be alive to imagine ...
There is no such requirement, except given a biased definition of the word, but that would merely be a language restriction, not a restriction of the ability of something not alive. It would be like saying that no man can be a waitress. It isn't that he can't do it, it's just that a different word would apply to a man doing it.

it is not a deterministic universe.
Unless you can falsify all the deterministic interpretations of physics, you don't know this. Don't confuse deterministic with unpredictable.

Quote
It may take a finite time and space for the underlying randomness to appear
It actually seems to appear immediately, but over time averages out to predictability. So flip one coin (black or white side) and you cannot predict the outcome, but flip a million coins, and the result will be grey quite predictably.

even a planet killer asteroid would be unlikely to destroy all life.
The biggest hit Earth has ever taken (the Theia event) may or may not have happened before there was life, but it if was already there, it was not wiped out by it. I agree, an asteroid is probably not up to the job, but the coming warming (in a billion years or so) will boil away all water and make the planet uninhabitable for multicellular life. Life will survive this in simple form for several more billion years until the sun grows enough to possibly swallow Earth if it doesn't move far enough away in that time.

Quote
I could see a huge chunk of Earth having enough gravity to be planet like, and to host some form of life to start the process over again as it finds a new star or planet out there to orbit around.
It doesn't take a large chunk or gravity at all. Any rock big enough to not be completely destroyed by falling on another host planet can transport dormant life to it. There's a reasonable probability that life originated on some other planet and only got here via such a calamity to the original world. Something lived inside a rock for aeons in space and was deep enough to not be burnt to a crisp on entry into our atmosphere. Then only a few centuries of erosion lets the life out of the rock and bingo, we have life here that originated elsewhere. How it subsequently evolved into the life we know is definitely still a product of Earth's environment which is very likely completely different than the world from which that rock was ejected.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 19/12/2022 19:11:44
I Imagine Alot...& I'm a staunch Believer!


Thanks & Credits & Copyrights/Source -
David Bowie/YouTube.

P.S. - Hope the OP enjoys it as much as i do.
☺️

171217
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/12/2022 21:33:01
I Imagine Alot...& I'm a staunch Believer!


Thanks & Credits & Copyrights/Source -
David Bowie/YouTube.

P.S. - Hope the OP enjoys it as much as i do.
☺️

171217
Yes, "Let the children boogie"!





171263,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/12/2022 02:42:16
My so called model acknowledges not only human ingenuity, but also the ingenuity of intelligent beings that have existed across infinite space and time. Our earthly situation, to our knowledge, exemplifies the height of knowledge and intelligence, but there is some room to suppose that there have been, or are, more advanced civilizations than ours, and I'm not referring to our past here on Earth, but including the existence of intelligence elsewhere out there in space and time.


Humans can be traced back to prehistoric ancestors on Earth, but physically, Earth and our imprint on the universe represents almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never, relative to the infinites of space, time, and energy.


We may well find irrefutable evidence of other intelligent life out there during our generation or the next generation, and when we do, there will be an awakening to the possibility that life has always existed across space and time, and that realization will open our thinking to far reaching possibilities for the future of Mankind, and for the future of life itself.


Working that philosophy forward in time and space, I imagine there will be great discoveries that will speed up our technical advancement and capabilities, ... and hopefully by the time a planet killer astroid with Earth's name on it crosses our path and wipes us out, we will have made our break out from Earth.  That breakout depends on becoming an advanced space-traveling life form, and learning to utilize the resources that exist on other planets and in space itself.


171336,171362,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/12/2022 14:03:16
Yay! We can be something's dinner!

It is coming inevitably, but it is the least of our problems. Besides, cleaning the slate once in a while is good for things, as evidenced by all the prior ones.
True, cleaning the blackboards from my school days always meant we were moving on to something new.

And in regard to starting over here on Earth... even a planet killer asteroid would be unlikely to destroy all life. I could see a huge chunk of Earth having enough gravity to be planet like, and to host some form of life to start the process over again as it finds a new star or planet out there to orbit around. No hurry though, lol.


171471,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/12/2022 20:58:22

...

Then only a few centuries of erosion lets the life out of the rock and bingo, we have life here that originated elsewhere. How it subsequently evolved into the life we know is definitely still a product of Earth's environment which is very likely completely different than the world from which that rock was ejected.
That sounds simple, but with even a few more layers of complication, life seems to be so able to adapt to changing environments and surroundings, so your scenario of the transport of life across distances of space seems likely.



171772,171826,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 23/12/2022 18:34:34
P.S. - Hope the OP enjoys it as much as i do.
☺️

171217
Yes, "Let the children boogie"!

171263,

lol...thought so...EnJoY!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/12/2022 03:24:35
When I predict that the universe is full of life, "full of" needs to be further quantified, especially since after all of our efforts, we don't seem to have any hard irrefutable evidence of life elsewhere, let alone intelligent life. But no matter, my predictions go beyond current known facts related to "other" life, and fall into the area of speculation; I speculate that life abounds across the universe.

So let me discuss quantification of my prediction that in an infinite universe, there have been, are now, and always will be occurrences of life. That means that I think life is a natural occurrence, just like the moon and the stars. My thinking is that Intelligent life emerges in habitable places, given enough time. Since I am talking about there being an infinite amount of time in the past, and in the future, the time it would take for life to emerge in any hospitable environment is not an obstacle, but is just an inevitable event waiting to happen here and there, now and then.




172190,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/12/2022 02:19:47
... I speculate that life abounds across the universe.

... That means that I think life is a natural occurrence, just like the moon and the stars. ... life emerges in habitable places, given enough time. ... the time it would take for life to emerge in any hospitable environment is not an obstacle, but is just an inevitable event waiting to happen here and there, now and then.
It goes beyond "survival of the fittest" IMHO. When the survival of the fittest is achieved, the conditions for the on-going evolution of higher intelligence are in place. But it can go forward or backward, so I would say there are odds of either outcome. I think the odds favor forward in the long run, but I imagine that forward is not always the result. That might be why the process is so time consuming.



Nevertheless, intelligence gain happens until an inevitable set-back occurs, like a random asteroid :) .


172867.173294,173704,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 04/01/2023 19:43:07
I watched a Video on YouTube...

In it, a thought experiment was presented.

A million people locked up in isolation in a jail cell without knowing about each others existence...

All given 60 seconds to Pick the Lock of their respective cell...orelse they die suddenly...

Out of a million, only one Succeeded!
& That person ended up thinking picking the lock is an easy process, a cake walk of sorts.

P.S. - Origins of Life.
🎂🚷
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/01/2023 22:44:29
My premise is that the event that has set the observable universe into expansion was just one of a potentially infinite number of similar Big Bang events, occurring now and then, here and there, across time and space. If so, then the nature of the universe could be portrayed as the large scale version of a continuous holiday fireworks display :) . Each colorful and brilliant burst would equate to a separate new Big Bang event, and these big bangs would be common place when you consider the grand scale of things.





173785,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2023 22:58:25
When the survival of the fittest is achieved, the conditions for the on-going evolution of higher intelligence are in place
The fittest seem to be viruses, capable of extremely rapid evolution and population growth compared with their hosts. Not sure how you define intelligence, but I think the average virus has an immeasurably low IQ.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/01/2023 23:12:39
When the survival of the fittest is achieved, the conditions for the on-going evolution of higher intelligence are in place
The fittest seem to be viruses, capable of extremely rapid evolution and population growth compared with their hosts. Not sure how you define intelligence, but I think the average virus has an immeasurably low IQ.
True, one way of characterizing fitness for survival would be like that of viruses. On the other hand, fitness of the higher orders, like modern humans, is at a level where survival of the fittest includes competition for scarce resources in the wild, with no holds barred.




173818,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/01/2023 02:07:55
The 'here and there' part is particularly problematic.

I consider the "here and there" idea as a hypothetical assertion associated with the multiple Big Bang premise. That premise, as I imagine it, has only one infinite space, so multiple big bangs all occur in that one space, in different places in that space, from time to time.




174030,174191,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/01/2023 03:29:38
The 'here and there' part is particularly problematic.

I consider the "here and there" idea as a hypothetical assertion associated with the multiple Big Bang premise. That premise, as I imagine it, has only one infinite space, so multiple big bangs all occur in that one space, in different places in that space, from time to time.

When dealing with the universe that has infinite dimensions, and when invoking an open-ended time scale, with the intention that nothing is excluded, then what one word would serve as a simple way of saying "all that is, ever has been, and ever will be". Isn't there a single word in English for it all. What is the word I am trying to come up with?


174323,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/01/2023 01:20:49
Reply: I guess "universe" pretty much says it all.


174644,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/01/2023 00:23:10
I'm looking at an old copy of Astronomy magazine and the lead story is "Our trillion-galaxy universe".

My response would be that they have grossly underestimated the universe, assuming that I am right when I proclaim that the universe is infinite and filled with an infinite number of star filled galaxies.

174669,


My aggressive estimation says a trillion  doesn't even come close based on my premise that when it comes to "infinite", any finite number is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never. So upping the "guess" from 100 billion to a trillion back in 2017 was a big leap, but I wonder what they are saying today?


174796,174936,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 11/01/2023 16:19:53
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Can the Above Image, thru Wild Speculative Imagination, depict a Cyclical or Splitting Universe/s?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/01/2023 19:34:04


Can the Above Image, thru Wild Speculative Imagination, depict a Cyclical or Splitting Universe/s?
I don't think so. If the universe is infinite (a logical thought :) ), the impossible task of splitting a spacial infinity would give you two spacial infinites, and logically there can only be one. Once you establish a boundary between two adjacent spaces, that precludes two infinite spaces.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/01/2023 03:13:18
If, in fact, the universe is infinite and eternal, a status which I have argued in favor of since my early days on the Internet, then the observable universe is quite insignificant in comparison. But that insignificant patch of space has life in it, and if it is typical of all of the rest of the universe, then life would be scattered throughout the entire "place". In that scenario, I think we could call the universe an infinite system that hosts life throughout, and there is no reason to believe that life has not always existed.




175501,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/01/2023 18:40:02
As for the level of intelligence of any/various advanced life forms that may have risen across space and time, it isn't too far fetched to equate the intelligence of those life forms to ours here on Earth. If we consider that level of intelligence to be some kind of a norm among other advanced life forms that may have existed or currently exist across the universe, the next question that comes to my mind is the technological capability of their civilizations.




175531,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 16/01/2023 19:02:38
YeP!

The Image represents the Logical Map.
I had brought it up previously in another OP.
& Perhaps it was Hal, who put me in place sayin it's Not what I'm wildly speculating it to be.

I had watched a Utube video of ' Veritasium ' who explained it.
I picked up on the Image from there.

He perhaps connected it to ' Water dripping out randomly from a Faucet ' & kinda explained ' Population growth/decline rates of Rabbits ' .

He even " Flipped " the Image n said it's a sorta Mandelbrot Diagram.
Anyways, the sheer Enthusiasm with which he explained stuff got me thinking the Image has a much deeper meaning.

P.S. - It's Hard to get Rid of certain Things that keep coming back to Haunt You...but not impossible.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/01/2023 01:35:20
Yes, you've repeated that a great many times, but you edited out the important part of my post: "Have you given thought as to resolving the problems instead of ignoring them?"
I considered that a rhetorical question. I don't have the knowledge or background to qualify me to solve the kinds of problems that the scientific community is dealing with. I generally hypothesize and speculate about an infinite and eternal universe, i.e., a cosmological model of a universe that has always existed and is generally the same on a large scale, wherever you are in it. I'm sure I would be mostly wrong when it comes to problem solving.



175850,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/01/2023 20:14:50
Moving on to the Herschel crater in Mimas, a moon of Jupiter ... This is an impressive asteroid crater, and according to a description in "Universe, A Journey from Earth to the Edge of the Cosmos", based on the stress marks on the opposite hemisphere, "the Herschel crater" covers nearly a quarter of Mimas' surface, and is 10 kilometers deep; the impact came close to destroying the moon. I wonder if that kind of impact, from a different angle, could throw the small moon out of orbit and into a collision path with Earth?


175937,176001,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 19/01/2023 17:14:56
Thanx Hal for setting me straight...Again!
(ha ha)

One thing leads to the next, n then another n another...
Just found out Jupiter has 80 & Saturn 83 Moons..
WooW!
I didn't know that.

But how come the Search Information says Confirmed vs Provisional?
Wut d HecK?
So WE still aren't Sure how many exact Moons they have?
How's that even possible?
Juno & Voyager did take a closer look, Right?

P.S. - Roger Penrose imagined a Cyclical Universe, isn't it?
So why'd he do dat?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/01/2023 18:09:44
5% at best, about a 20th. Still dang impressive.

Mimas orbits Saturn, not Jupiter.

I stand corrected.

I've forgotten how to post images (I'm getting old :( )
I would say that it looks like it covers about 25% of the diameter of the Mimas ... as seen from Saturn.



Probably much smaller than the diameter of the impact crater of our dinosaur killing asteroid ...?


176372,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 21/01/2023 00:11:08
I've forgotten how to post images (I'm getting old :( )
It looks like the death star:
(https://media.techeblog.com/images/moon_death_star.jpg)
"That's no moon. Oh wait, it's a moon"

Quote
I would say that it looks like it covers about 25% of the diameter of the Mimas
Close enough. I get 30% of the diameter, or about 10% of the circumference, which makes it cover maybe 3% of the surface, a slight reduction of my prior estimate.

Quote
... as seen from Saturn.
Although most images including the one I posted are not from Saturn. Most are as seen from Earth, as evidenced by the fact that we see most of the daylight side.

Quote
Probably much smaller than the diameter of the impact crater of our dinosaur killing asteroid ...?
The Mimas crater is about 130 km across, whereas the Chicxulub crater (Yucatan) is about 150 km across, larger, but not much larger. It's the second largest crater on Earth, with Vredefort being a bit bigger, in South Africa.

There's no trace of the Theia impact structure since that was a melt-the-whole-thing-and-start-over sort of deal. It would not be meaningful to say 'here's the spot where it hit'.

But how come the Search Information says Confirmed vs Provisional?
The provisional ones have not had their sightings or orbits yet confirmed. They might just be a passing object and not in orbit at all.

Quote
So WE still aren't Sure how many exact Moons they have?
No, they're really far away and it's awful dark out there, and some of these things are pretty tiny. There must be a threshold of what constitutes a moon vs just a small pebble that happens to be in orbit about something.

Quote
Juno & Voyager did take a closer look, Right?
Yes, and they found/confirmed a bunch, but the didn't linger long enough to do a thorough scan of the area. Juno didn't make it to Saturn either.

Thanx Hal for setting me straight...Again!
OK, so setting you even more straight, I'm Halc (rhymes with 'false'). There is another user (occasional poster) on this site whose ID is Hal. I'm not him.

Quote
Roger Penrose imagined a Cyclical Universe, isn't it?  So why'd he do dat?
Try something different? Hard to say what he suggests, but it seems like it is playing with conformal time. The view requires infinite time to pass as measured by one bang before the next one happens, and it is unclear if it allows the bang to have any energy associated with it. The bangs still happen everywhere, which is the same as nowhere given infinite time and spacetime becomes singular in a way.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 22/01/2023 19:03:58
To Post an Image...

I first search for it Online.
(make sure it's a free pass n has no copyrights on it)

Then i download the Image.
(sometimes if the download site seems eerily funny, i click a screenshot)

Then right below this typing box i go to " Attachments and other options "
(Click the ➕ box mark & it opens n expands)

Then click " Choose File " option & choose the latest downloaded image or screenshot from my system.

Then setting back the Cursor into the typing box, wherever i would like the Image to be placed...
Then just click "(Insert Attachment 0)"
& Finally Post.

P.S. - Thnx 4 d info Halc.
As straight as SLAC!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/01/2023 19:07:28
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-dart-mission-impact-changed-asteroid-s-motion-in-space (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-dart-mission-impact-changed-asteroid-s-motion-in-space)

It looks like the DART mission was successful. We now can be more confident that we can alter the path of an asteroid that is on a collision course with Earth; that is good to know! However, I think there is talk of using atomic weapons if needed to alter the course of bigger astroids. That method seems to have a whole different set of possible repercussions.




Aside:
Obviously the dinosaurs didn't have a space program, lol.




176747,176829
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 25/01/2023 17:25:53

Aside:
Obviously the dinosaurs didn't have a space program, lol.

176747,176829

Yep!
& They did not have underground bunkers or long term food storage facilities, not sure if they were a global species, like spread out all over the planet like humans.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/01/2023 22:55:43
Yep!
& They did not have underground bunkers or long term food storage facilities, not sure if they were a global species, like spread out all over the planet like humans.
There is this "dinosaur world dive"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjp-5KL5eP8AhVJmYQIHYlhBtsQFnoECB8QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdinosaurworldlive.com%2F2019%2F05%2Fdinosaur-fossils-where-have-the-most-fossils-been-found&usg=AOvVaw2bSVglvc12Hl8AwlvS2ryJ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjp-5KL5eP8AhVJmYQIHYlhBtsQFnoECB8QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdinosaurworldlive.com%2F2019%2F05%2Fdinosaur-fossils-where-have-the-most-fossils-been-found&usg=AOvVaw2bSVglvc12Hl8AwlvS2ryJ)



I remember driving out into the high dessert from Las Vegas back in the 70's and coming to petrified bones sticking out of the side of the rocks. I found a rock just lying there that looks like a fragment of a skull bone. I put it in my suitcase and to this day it is sitting in my yard in Florida. I hope my yard doesn't get mistaken as an original dinosaur habitat someday, lol. I should probably use Zero's picture posting instructions and post a picture of it, but compared to what anyone can Google, my Dino pic would be very unremarkable :)


177560,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 29/01/2023 22:29:51
Returning back to the Original flavour of this OP...

The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?

So if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?

If WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?

P.S. - i wonder if the Universe is what We make off of it, based on Our species potential & capacity of Understanding.
🧠
(human brain emoji)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/02/2023 01:51:21
Returning back to the Original flavour of this OP...

The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?
I'm not sure ...
Quote
So if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?
I was thinking that one possible sign of a distant BB might be a gamma ray burst.?
Quote
If WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?
I'd say no, though you do need some evidence to support a theory. But speculation can be fun, lol.
Quote
P.S. - i wonder if the Universe is what We make off of it, based on Our species potential & capacity of Understanding.
🧠
(human brain emoji)
I guess it is what we make of it, but maybe if we were more brainy we could make more sense of it.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 02/02/2023 02:05:29
The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?
The size (radius say) of the observable universe is growing at a proper rate of a bit over 3c, and accelerating.

Quote
So if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?
It just plain doesn't make sense for a big bang to occur at a location.  Also, there is no meaningful edge of the universe. I cannot think of a viable model that has one.

Quote
If WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?
By many definitions of 'is real', correct. Careful, since there is a distinction between measuring something and knowing about it. The latter implies nothing can be real without something that can 'know' about it. The measurement definition is simply any interaction between two systems.

I'd say no, though you do need some evidence to support a theory.
That you do, but a definition of 'real' isn't a theory, it's just a definition. The whole concept of 'real' is a metaphyscial one, so I don't think it is possible to produce conclusive evidence for a metaphysical conjecture. If one could, it would be a theory and cease to be metaphysics.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 02/02/2023 20:17:21
Then what happens if there are really " Multiple Universes " but no way for Us to observe, measure or obtain any evidence for Them?

P.S. - Sorry to have sounded Metaphysical...
I won't go there again.
👻
(ghost emoji)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/02/2023 21:27:04
Then what happens if there are really " Multiple Universes " but no way for Us to observe, measure or obtain any evidence for Them?

...
Then we'd never know; but going with the idea that there is just one, infinite, eternal universe solves that problem, :)    Now on to the next problem ... What if there is just one infinite universe?

We'd never be able to stop looking and probing deeper into space because it seems to be human nature to keep trying to find the limits of things.



178866,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 09/02/2023 20:20:49
Returning back to the Original flavour of this OP...

The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?
I'm not sure ...

I've read that in Alot of places.
(FTL - Faster Than Light)
Halc mentioned 3c.
(c - speed of light in a vacuum)


Quote
So if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?
I was thinking that one possible sign of a distant BB might be a gamma ray burst.?

But Gamma Rays would travel at (c) speed.
If the distance between Us & Gamma Rays was increasing FTL, then how would They ever reach Us?

Quote
If WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?
I'd say no, though you do need some evidence to support a theory. But speculation can be fun, lol.

Yes Indeed!
Speculating is Amusing.
Assuming higher dimensions exist, Guessing gravity penetrates thru all of em, using all sorts of calculations to derive an equation which could predict future results with a very high rate of accuracy is quite interesting.
I mean, if it works, then why not!

Quote
P.S. - i wonder if the Universe is what We make off of it, based on Our species potential & capacity of Understanding.
🧠
(human brain emoji)
I guess it is what we make of it, but maybe if we were more brainy we could make more sense of it.

Yep!
Humans are considered to be at the pinnacle of intellectual intelligence, but that's in comparison to the other species around Us...I'm assuming We are Clever, but not the Cleverest.

P.S. - "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
A.E.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 13/02/2023 20:42:00
The " New Theories " section limits Us to be inside the bounds Logical Reasoning & Critical Thinking...

Maybe, U should create a New OP in the " Just Chat " section..

& name it ' Wild Speculative Imagination '.

P.S. - lol
😇
(angel smiles emoji)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/02/2023 22:10:34
The " New Theories " section limits Us to be inside the bounds Logical Reasoning & Critical Thinking...

Maybe, U should create a New OP in the " Just Chat " section..

& name it ' Wild Speculative Imagination '.

P.S. - lol
😇
(angel smiles emoji)
Maybe "New Theories" does limit us to some reasonable logic, but we are posting in the "On the Lighter Side" sub-form, which by its name, seems to summons some degree of speculation and maybe limited flights of imagination. I think this thread is within the forum guidelines, but whether my thinking overall would be considered logical probably calls for a subjective conclusion.



180,000.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/02/2023 01:48:55
The three infinities that I predict as part of my layman view of cosmology (which I call the Infinite Spongy Universe model) are "space, time, and energy", making my  layman model inconsistent with the current Standard Cosmology, which I understand depicts finite space to be expanding, and doing so at an accelerating rate.


My question is, does the BB model refer to the action going on at the expanding boundary of the universe as creating space and matter out of nothingness?


Or, as space is created by expansion, is it consistent to predict that  anti-space or negative space, and anti-matter are building up and exist beyond that expanding universe, in a sort of anti or negative universe? Any thoughts?




180016,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 28/02/2023 03:57:47
current Standard Cosmology, which I understand depicts finite space to be expanding
Current models do not posit finite space, but neither do they require infinite space. Most models presume space to be infinite.

Quote
My question is, does the BB model refer to the action going on at the expanding boundary of the universe as creating space and matter out of nothingness?
No viable model posits a boundary to space, not even the ones with finite space.

Quote
is it consistent to predict that  anti-space or negative space, and anti-matter are building up and exist beyond that expanding universe, in a sort of anti or negative universe?
There is no meaningful 'beyond space'. There might be other universes, but there wouldn't be a meaningful say direction in which they might be. If there was, it would just be a different but distant part of the same space. A type-1 multiverse is exactly that: Just locations in our space too distant to measure from Earth.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/03/2023 19:53:18
Most models presume space to be infinite.
If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/03/2023 21:20:09
If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?

It didn't. The assumption of the Big Bang is that the Universe started off at infinite size at the Big Bang, but in an incredibly hot, dense state everywhere. Then, as it expanded, it cooled off until we have what we see today. The size of the observable universe is finite in part because light has only been able to travel for 13.8 billion years and in part because objects beyond a certain distance are recessing away from us too fast to ever be seen.

The idea that all matter in existence was once crammed into a single point of zero size is a something of a pop-sci myth. It's true that you can trace all the matter in our observable universe back to a tiny space, but that doesn't include all the matter that would be outside our observable universe. The word "singularity" is more of a reference to the fact that the Universe approaches infinite density and temperature as you go back through time and approach the moment of the Big Bang.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/03/2023 15:21:00
If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?

The size of the observable universe is finite in part because light has only been able to travel for 13.8 billion years and in part because objects beyond a certain distance are recessing away from us too fast to ever be seen.
Dear Kryptid

Don't you agree that our mission is to explain the entire space/universe and not just the part/section that we observe/see which is called observable universe?
I would like to remind you that there was a time when people on earth thought that our planet is flat and if you cross the horizon, you might fall into the open space.
Hence, what we see is not good enough - not for today and not for the past.
It's true that you can trace all the matter in our observable universe back to a tiny space, but that doesn't include all the matter that would be outside our observable universe.
We first must understand the size of our entire space/universe (yes even all the matter outside our observable universe) and just then try to explain it all with one and single theory.
Therefore, if Halc is correct, and "Most models presume space to be infinite" then it is our obligation to explain that infinite space.
Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.

Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?

Why do we refuse to accept the simple understanding that infinite space & Universe could exist if the time is also infinite or at least much bigger than this friction of moment (comparing to the infinity)
If you don't like those questions, then please let me know and I would stop.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2023 15:55:57
Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?
Because that's what the evidence says.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/03/2023 17:37:54
Don't you agree that our mission is to explain the entire space/universe and not just the part/section that we observe/see which is called observable universe?

We have no choice. We can't explain what we can't observe.

I would like to remind you that there was a time when people on earth thought that our planet is flat and if you cross the horizon, you might fall into the open space.
Hence, what we see is not good enough - not for today and not for the past.

The laws of physics weren't preventing people from accessing those unseen parts of the Earth. It was just a lack of know-how and trying. It's a rather different story for the observable universe (unless faster-than-light travel proves to be possible some day).

Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.

The Big Bang theory generally does assume that.

Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?

Because that's how long ago the Big Bang happened.

Why do we refuse to accept the simple understanding that infinite space & Universe could exist if the time is also infinite or at least much bigger than this friction of moment (comparing to the infinity)

I already explained that the Big Bang theory already assumes an infinite Universe and it does so without any need for infinite time because it was already infinite in size at the very first moment of time.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/03/2023 05:48:21
I already explained that the Big Bang theory already assumes an infinite Universe and it does so without any need for infinite time because it was already infinite in size at the very first moment of time.
Dear Kryptid
I do recall that just few years ago, Halc claimed that Just after the Big Bang the entire Universe was in the size of a grapefruit. (I specifically remember the word - "grapefruit")
When I have asked about the energy source for the Big Bang, the answer was: As there was no space and no time, there is no need to explain the BBT energy source.
In other words, without space, there is no time and therefore we could technically bypass the law of physics and get almost unlimited energy for the bang without any need to explain its source.
However, now we do understand that the Universe was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.
So, please are you sure that we can bypass the law of physics while the time was already there?
Don't you agree that now we must offer real source of infinite energy for the Big Bang to take place in the real infinite space/Universe?
We can't drive a car without source of energy.
So how can we drive a theory without real source of energy?
Sorry, if we can't offer real source of energy for the BBT to take place at the Infinite space/Universe, then this theory is useless.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 09/03/2023 07:12:04
I do recall that just few years ago, Halc claimed that Just after the Big Bang the entire Universe was in the size of a grapefruit. (I specifically remember the word - "grapefruit")
Too bad you didn't remember the other important words. It was the visible universe, and it was approximately that size (give or take an order of magnitude or two) after the inflation epoch, which came after the Planck epoch and Grand Unified epoch.

Quote
When I have asked about the energy source for the Big Bang, the answer was: As there was no space and no time, there is no need to explain the BBT energy source.
I would not have said that. For one, it is unclear if there is any energy since the total energy density of the universe may be zero if you add in the negatives with the positives. But I think if you ask the experts, the concept of total energy density is meaningless. It's all relative, not absolute, so there's only comparisons with other states.

Quote
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.
I would ask you to confine your assertions to your own topics. You're hijacking this topic, and continued wild assertions will get the posts moved or simply deleted.
This particular assertion seems to be an exception because Bogie already envisions bangs happening in existing space at assorted times now and then. This cannot work, but he doesn't care.

Other assertions (like the confusion of scientists or the uselessness of their theories) will get treated as a hijack. So behave when being a guest in somebody else's blog.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/03/2023 17:32:28
However, now we do understand that the Universe was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.

The current assumption is that time started at the Big Bang, which would make these two assertions incorrect.

So, please are you sure that we can bypass the law of physics while the time was already there?

There is no need to bypass the laws of physics. The energy was always there since the beginning of time.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/03/2023 01:53:18
However, now we do understand that the Universe was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.

The current assumption is that time started at the Big Bang, which would make these two assertions incorrect.

So, please are you sure that we can bypass the law of physics while the time was already there?

There is no need to bypass the laws of physics. The energy was always there since the beginning of time.
My premise is that there was no beginning, i.e., space, time, matter and energy have always existed. I do agree with the multiple occurrences of Big Bang events, but I like to say that they occur here and there, now and then, when gravity accumulates so much matter that the resulting accumulation (Big Crunch) reaches critical capacity and collapses/bounces into expansion (a big bang). The very first moment of time might be construed to be an event particular to each big bang arena in a multiple big bang scenario, meaning that there may not be an initial beginning, but that each big bang arena has its own beginning.


182916,
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/03/2023 05:52:25
My premise is that there was no beginning, i.e., space, time, matter and energy have always existed.
Yes, it is very logical.
The current assumption is that time started at the Big Bang, which would make these two assertions incorrect.
If we do understand by now that the Space/universe is infinite then it was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Do you agree that even in an empty space there is some sort of energy?
So how can we claim that in this infinite space with some minimal of energy there was no time before the Big Bang?
I would ask you to confine your assertions to your own topics. You're hijacking this topic, and continued wild assertions will get the posts moved or simply deleted.
Dear Halc
I don't assert any new idea.
My question is about the energy source for the BBT which is fully correlated to this thread discussion
I have already asked Kryptid if I should stop.
If you don't like those questions, then please let me know and I would stop.
So far he was very kind and offered excellent answers.
However, if Kryptid thinks that this last question is too difficult to cover, then I would stop.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2023 11:40:25
before the Big Bang.
A phrase that makes a little sense as "north of the North pole".
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2023 11:41:24
I don't assert any new idea.
That's true. You assert ideas that were dismissed many years ago because they don't tally with the evidence.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2023 18:55:47
I'm not the only moderator. If Halc thinks that you are getting too off topic, then you should respect his decree. If you want to ask about the energy source of the Big Bang, you can make a new thread about it. Just don't let it devolve into a discussion about your Theory D.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/03/2023 17:03:32


My premise is that there was no beginning, i.e., space, time, matter and energy have always existed. I do agree with the multiple occurrences of Big Bang events, ... here and there, now and then ...  The very first moment of time might be construed to be an event particular to each big bang arena in a multiple big bang scenario, meaning that there may not be an initial beginning, but that each big bang arena has its own beginning.

So my thinking is that naturally occurring big bang type events, that I suggest have been occurring forever in the infinite and eternal universe, individually do have a huge, though localized impact. One such event, our own big bang, has impacted a space as big as the entire visible universe, from our point of observation, because everything we see can be logically connected to a singular big bang. But that fact does nothing to preclude an endless series of such events, occurring in any and all directions if you include enough space in your hypothesis (and surely there is enough space if there is an infinite amount of space no matter which way you go).


I don't believe there is any irrefutable evidence though that says there was a beginning, and if you don't invoke a beginning, then an infinite and eternal universe gets easier to adopt as your world/universal view.   
 
183624,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/03/2023 17:44:26

... I don't believe there is any irrefutable evidence though that says there was a beginning, and if you don't invoke a beginning, then an infinite and eternal universe gets easier to adopt as your world/universal view.   
 
So if you can't abide my thinking on the subject ...  or if someone lurking here has objections to the idea of "an infinite and eternal universe" without a Creator, I would challenge you with coming up with a viable alternative.


183640,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/03/2023 22:30:17
I don't believe there is any irrefutable evidence though that says there was a beginning
There indeed is no irrefutable evidence of it. The big bang theory itself does not preclude it, but neither does it give any meaning to the phrase 'before the big bang'.
True. And the phrase, "before the Big Bang", loses any sort of special "singularity"
 in a multiple big bang cosmological scenario where you have to ask, "before which big bang", lol.


183713,183921,184592,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 16/03/2023 23:01:54
lol
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/03/2023 20:40:55
However, even if there have been and will be new big bangs here and there, or if there are other similar expanding arenas across the infinite space of the universe, my presumption is that once you find yourself alive and in one of those expanding big bang arenas you are destined to remain within that same expanding arena for your entire life, and that "home" arena will continue to expand in space until it eventually intersects and overlaps with an adjacent arena that is expanding toward you.

And out of that type of a scenario, I came up with what I call the Sameness Doctrine. It says that no matter how big a space you imagine, or how much time passes, on a large scale there is a grand sameness across the greater universe.


184601,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/03/2023 19:28:26
How can you find yourself anything but alive?

... but just being alive is too soon to celebrate. When you find yourself alive, its time to evaluate the circumstances ... As a baby you realize you are hungry and all you can figure out to do is cry. (Once you get past the diaper stage, you learn to ask for sweets, lol.) At some point you realize that you won't live forever, and building a pyramid didn't prove to be a solution. I predict that is when being philosophical really kicks in  :o .


184819,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 22/03/2023 20:00:13
The first time i found myself Alive...
Was at a funeral of an old lady..
That was the first time ever i had heard about, seen, & understood the concept of Death.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/03/2023 22:20:37
...
That was the first time ever i had heard about, seen, & understood the concept of Death.
It is the nature of the universe for lives to be individual, while death is often a group event. As individuals, there is little that we value more than life, but as the lives of planets and stars play out, death can often be a wholesale event.


185641,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/03/2023 17:11:08
I could be way off, and I welcome anyone saying so, but to me, a multiple big bang scenario implies multiple catastrophes resulting in the termination of life on a massive scale, occurring here and there, over all time.  That assumes that life itself is generated from the mix of physics and chemistry that I suggest is the norm over any lengthly span of time and space.  If, on a grand scale, the typical biology present across the universe acts the way I think it does, settings like we find on Earth are natural, and life is "generative and evolvative".


186396,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 31/03/2023 20:47:14
I could be way off, and I welcome anyone saying so, but to me, a multiple big bang scenario implies multiple catastrophes resulting in the termination of life on a massive scale, occurring here and there, over all time.
Not a very strong claim since any accepted theory I can think of suggests the very same thing. Life appear. Chances of that are unknown, but it's not zero. Random big catastrophes happen, and some of them to those places with life. It's happened multiple times here, and is happening now. None of the ones here wiped out all life, but the Theia event would arguably have destroyed all life on Earth had it happened after life started. Maybe not. I suspect a similar event today (rendering the entire Earth's surface into molten rock) would not be enough to extinguish all Earth life.

Quote
That assumes that life itself is generated from the mix of physics and chemistry
Well, what alternative is there to that? I mean, chemistry is just part of physics, so you don't even need to include that word.

Quote
life is "generative and evolvative".
Not sure what you mean by 'generative'. I can imagine 'life' not being what you call 'evolvative', but that all depends on one's definition of 'life' I suppose.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 01/04/2023 21:54:38
...
That was the first time ever i had heard about, seen, & understood the concept of Death.
It is the nature of the universe for lives to be individual, while death is often a group event. As individuals, there is little that we value more than life, but as the lives of planets and stars play out, death can often be a wholesale event.


185641,

This is dependent on an Individual's Personal Views.

I am a Single life form.
But perhaps i house Millions of Other life forms within my body.
My Death would be similar to the Ending of their Universe.
(group event)

Our personal Values vary accordingly.
Some might lay more Emphasis on Ethics & Morals.
Or Joy & Happiness.
(If all that mattered was stayin Alive, none would have committed Suicide)

Transcending our personal existence, if the Whole Universe can be thought of as One Single Entity...
Then any Cosmic scaled destruction probably won't matter.
(when one flower withers n dies, another blossoms)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/04/2023 19:51:06

This is dependent on an Individual's Personal Views.

I am a Single life form.
But perhaps i house Millions of Other life forms within my body.
My Death would be similar to the Ending of their Universe.
(group event)

Our personal Values vary accordingly.
Some might lay more Emphasis on Ethics & Morals.
Or Joy & Happiness.
(If all that mattered was stayin Alive, none would have committed Suicide)
Thank you, well said.
Quote
Transcending our personal existence, if the Whole Universe can be thought of as One Single Entity...
Then any Cosmic scaled destruction probably won't matter.
(when one flower withers n dies, another blossoms)

Let me add to that and say that even though it is hard for me to think of eternity as a single event, it does get me thinking of the existence of the universe in terms of one single entity with an infinite time allotment.


186793,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 02/04/2023 21:53:40
Let me add to that and say that even though it is hard for me to think of eternity as a single event, it does get me thinking of the existence of the universe in terms of one single entity with an infinite time allotment.
The Penrose multiple-bang universe is something like that.
Relative to our time and space reckoning, the prior universe (all of them actually) is a single event, taking place in an instant all in one place (a single event as you put it). The next bang will occur after an infinite time passes in this universe, and the time in that universe will be infinitely larger than in this one, so that this instance occurs instantly by their time reckoning.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 03/04/2023 20:45:20
We are somehow forced or coerced or provoked into thinking/speculating/imagining a larger grander image, isn't it.

Getting down from banana & mango trees, coming out of the jungle & bushes We see...

First it was a ground, bordering a hill, then someone figured out " Hey, Wait a Minute! "...there is more land across & behind the Hill!

Then it's an island, surrounded by the sea.
Until someone learns to swim & then " Hey, Wait a Minute! "...there is another Island!

Colonizing a whole continent, sailing across the horizon, searching an edge & fearing We might fall off of the face of the Earth, " Hey, Wait a Minute! "...more Continents!

Moving from geocentrism to heliocentrism, " Hey, Wait a Minute! "...more Planets!

Staring at the mesmerizing Stars, " Hey, Wait a Minute! "...more Suns!

Analyzing the Milky way, focusing on a bunch of Stars that seem farther away, " Hey, Wait a Minute! "...more Galaxies!

Pondering about the Observable Universe...tryin to imagine & speculate what lies ahead...

" Hey, Wait a Minute! "
(lol)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/04/2023 02:07:36
...
Pondering about the Observable Universe...tryin to imagine & speculate what lies ahead...

...
Contemplating the future is one of my favorite pastimes ...

From here and now, I speculate the future will be         ,,,          more of the same          ...


187539,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 08/04/2023 02:40:18
From here and now, I speculate the future will be         ,,,          more of the same     
Sort of. Earth will not be habitable by multicellular life within about a billion years, so that's the end of us well before then if we don't find a way to do something about it. That's not exactly 'more of the same'. I personally see purpose in humanity. We have the ability to initiate the next level, but most people find, well, 'more of the same' to be more comforting.

Staring at the mesmerizing Stars, " Hey, Wait a Minute! "...more Suns!
There has always been this trend, yes, of what is being larger than we expected, larger than we find comfortable. Each time it gets bigger, we get less significant. Now we're getting to the parts that are totally unreachable by us, and yet there they are.

OK, other observable universes beyond the one centered on us, but that's only one level of 'there's more'. Tegmark identified 3 other ways that there's more than just what was described by the prior levels. Just like the hypothetical galaxy 70 BLY away, none of these places is reachable by us. No experiment can interact with them, and so one can safely ignore them if it makes you uncomfortable to do otherwise.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 08/04/2023 20:37:43
Imagination, to me, seems like a default pre-loaded app stored inside the Brain.
You can Try to Clear cache & Delete all data & Force stop it.
But you Just cannot Uninstall it.

E.g.
Unicorns do Not exist!
(auto loads an image of a white horse, single horn on head & possibly white wings)
lol


I have very little hope left in humans.
But it's still there.

" I see Humans, but No Humanity! ".
(J. Donahue)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/04/2023 19:55:19
From here and now, I speculate the future will be         ,,,          more of the same     
Sort of. Earth will not be habitable by multicellular life within about a billion years, so that's the end of us well before then if we don't find a way to do something about it. That's not exactly 'more of the same'. I personally see purpose in humanity. We have the ability to initiate the next level, but most people find, well, 'more of the same' to be more comforting.
The "more of the same" I refer to is part of a "sameness doctrine" where if you are anywhere in the infinite universe, as everything is :) , if you consider the grand scale from that perspective, the universe will look essentially the same as it does from anywhere else. The key phrase to make all such perspectives quite similar is "on a grand scale". That is, on a scale that is large enough to make the view from there representative of the view from any location in the universe.


187927,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/04/2023 20:34:28
Let's discuss something "having no significance"; perhaps something as insignificant as a single grain of sand on an infinite beach. Could we say that one such single grain of sand would have no significance?

Under what circumstances would a single human life have no significance? A tough question ...


187948,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 10/04/2023 23:35:56
Let's discuss something "having no significance"; perhaps something as insignificant as a single grain of sand on an infinite beach. Could we say that one such single grain of sand would have no significance?
The beach would be no less a beach without that one grain, but without all of them, there'd be no beach.
There's a sort of paradox that argues along those lines.

Quote
Under what circumstances would a single human life have no significance?
The one life has significance to that one life. All of humanity has negligible (arguably zero?) significance to the universe as a whole, but per the beach analogy, without humanity and other life forms that pop up here and there, the universe would not be a structure that contains elements that can understand the nature of the structure of which they are a part. That's a non-trivial significance for the beach even if humanity itself (the one grain) isn't necessary for it.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/04/2023 02:54:36

The one life has significance to that one life. All of humanity has negligible (arguably zero?) significance to the universe as a whole, but per the beach analogy, without humanity and other life forms that pop up here and there, the universe would not be a structure that contains elements that can understand the nature of the structure of which they are a part. That's a non-trivial significance for the beach even if humanity itself (the one grain) isn't necessary for it.
I appreciate the significance of those words. I can't think of a feature of the universe that would be meaningful if there was no intelligent life in the universe. It takes intelligence to glean some meaning to anything and everything.


Even without life existing in the universe, the mere existence of the physical universe would still be infinite and eternal, and a lifeless infinite and eternal universe would certainly eventually generate life and intelligence, somewhere, some time. And if that is true, the nature of the mix of elements and environments across infinity would have, I suggest, a 100% probability of giving rise to an aware life form that would appreciate the fact that it exists, like we do now.


188053,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 11/04/2023 19:50:39
I can't think of a feature of the universe that would be meaningful if there was no intelligent life in the universe. It takes intelligence to glean some meaning to anything and everything.
Perhaps you define 'meaning' or 'intelligent' differently, but colorful flowers has always meant nutrition to the bees and such. They find non-human purpose in the flowers, all without human intelligence. Sure, only humans find human meaning in things, whether or not they're a particularly intelligent individual.

Quote
Even without life existing in the universe, the mere existence of the physical universe would still be infinite and eternal, and a lifeless infinite and eternal universe would certainly eventually generate life and intelligence
This universe has life, so a lifeless universe would be a different universe (say a different level 2 or level 4 universe), and the vast majority of those different universes are entirely lifeless even if they're infinite and eternal. That means the vast majority of universes cannot support something sufficiently aware to glean the nature of the universe it inhabits. It takes a complex structure to do that, and most universes don't support the necessary complexity and tunings to even form something like an atom.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 12/04/2023 23:21:03
Let's discuss something "having no significance"; perhaps something as insignificant as a single grain of sand on an infinite beach. Could we say that one such single grain of sand would have no significance?

Under what circumstances would a single human life have no significance? A tough question ...

187948,

What else is the Deep Blue Beautiful Ocean, if not just a mere collection of tiny droplets.

If the Grains of Sand on the Beach were viewed as an Analogy for all the Stars n Planets n Moons in the Universe...
Of what Significance then would that One Single Grain be..
If it was named Planet Earth!

In view of Human Life,
What significant contributions have Glass makers, Seed sowers, Compass manufacturers made towards Science & Technology?

Ask Galileo, Ask Newton, Ask Einstein!


The Universe Was probabilistic & predictable, Not Anymore!
(Free Will)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/04/2023 21:06:29

What else is the Deep Blue Beautiful Ocean, if not just a mere collection of tiny droplets.

If the Grains of Sand on the Beach were viewed as an Analogy for all the Stars n Planets n Moons in the Universe...
Of what Significance then would that One Single Grain be..
If it was named Planet Earth!

In view of Human Life,
What significant contributions have Glass makers, Seed sowers, Compass manufacturers made towards Science & Technology?

Ask Galileo, Ask Newton, Ask Einstein!


The Universe Was probabilistic & predictable, Not Anymore!
(Free Will)
Tiny droplets, grains of sand, a single human life among all that have lived and passed ...
 each has their moment in time and space ...

And that makes me think that even in the light of eternity and infinity, single lives and single moments become memories of life's events that endure in the mind, and pass into the universe and traverse space as brain waves, generated by human thinking machines, made of nothing but the atoms and chemicals that spawn life and spread life through the infinite and endless universe.


189248,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 17/04/2023 22:20:38
Also makes me Wonder...

A Finite amount of Hopes & Dreams, spread throughout an Infinite Universe..(+1)
Or
A Time bound amount of Pain & Suffering, passing thru Eternity..(-1)

How much of a Difference could mere Mortals make towards the Immortal?

1 +  ♾️  =  ♾️
1  -  ♾️  =  ♾️


The Universe, it seems, is clearly Heartless!
How else could it Resist to Not fall in Love with Us!


Love & Respect -
David Bowie, Emm Gryner, Joe Corcoran, Andrew Tidby, Evan Hadfield & Commander Chris Hadfield.

Copyrights & Credits & Courtesy -
Onward Music Limited/Rare Earth Channel/YouTube.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Peter11 on 18/04/2023 00:34:57
Immortality doesn't exist in this reality sort of like infinities.If a human found immortality how would you escape the planet or solar system when it ends.It makes no sense in this reality and goes directly against nature.I wouldn't want to be immortal in this reality.
It would be like the old star trek show were every square inch of the planet was covered with immortal beings looking for a way to die.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 19/04/2023 20:46:20

Apologies for ruining the mood of the poetry, and Zero's poetic response.

How much of a Difference could mere Mortals make towards the Immortal?
What is 'the immortal'?

The Immortal/Eternal/Infinite was in reference to the speculative visualization & creative imagination of the OP, in relatable terms with their personal beliefs about the size/scale/structure/properties of their own interpretation of the Cosmic Universe.

Infinity plus or minus whatever, still remains Infinity.

An Apology does seem in place, but Not from your end.
Look up at the Night Sky, see the Moon?
Look closer, & You'd see Me & Mr Smiles sitting on a moon mound chillin & havin fun.
lol
Your words are Always Appreciable, but We are simply too far & too high for em to reach Us.
Rather We feel Apologetic you cannot join Us!
: )
Hope you know you're always Welcome!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 19/04/2023 21:10:46
Immortality doesn't exist in this reality sort of like infinities.If a human found immortality how would you escape the planet or solar system when it ends.It makes no sense in this reality and goes directly against nature.I wouldn't want to be immortal in this reality.
It would be like the old star trek show were every square inch of the planet was covered with immortal beings looking for a way to die.

& these are purely your Own personal thoughts & beliefs & views.
It's Great to have Critical thinking & Logical reasoning skills...
But it ain't Mandatory to Always be an Absolutist!


Copyrights & Credits & Courtesy -
Isaac Asimov/Space AI Channel/YouTube.

When All else Fails, HOPE Remains!
( : Dedicated to Isaac Asimov : )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/04/2023 22:58:52
The discussion of multiple big bangs has turned out to be a topic that does spark some interest. However, the popular version of Big Bang Theory, i.e. a Single big bang, ignores the preconditions that would have to exist scientifically in order for a single big bang to occur.


Also, the premise of there being only a single Big Bang event ignores the fact that contemplation of infinite space and time logically leads one  to feel that it is not  foolish to entertain the idea of multiple big bangs. And along with contemplating the idea of multiple big bangs, how can we not consider multiple infinities; infinities of space, time and energy?

Some may see those thoughts as leaning toward philosophy and away from science, but is it too bold to say that "infinites" must be a part of the mathematics of science. The fact that each infinity comes through to us in the present from the eternal past, and is expected to play out right on into the infinite future appeals to my layman logic.


If we take that thought as a premise, isn't it one that would require a change in personal philosophy for many of us to accept?


190831,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 27/04/2023 23:33:26
the popular version of Big Bang Theory, i.e. a Single big bang, ignores the preconditions that would have to exist scientifically in order for a single big bang to occur.
That's kind of like saying that theory of plate tectonics ignores tornado seasons. It's just not something covered by the theory. It's not that scientists ignore what you call these 'preconditions', but such speculation wouldn't be part of the BBT.
If you're claiming that all of the cosmology community ignores these things, you'd be quite wrong. There are books devoted to it.

Quote
Also, the premise of there being only a single Big Bang event
. . . depends on one's definition of 'there being'. What is included in the set of 'what is' as opposed to what is not?

Quote
And along with contemplating the idea of multiple big bangs, how can we not consider multiple infinities; infinities of space, time and energy?
Agree. I have no trouble with multiples of these things.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 03/05/2023 21:58:13
Is the Concept of ' Cause & Effect ' a MindTrap?

If the BB is an After Effect, is the existence of a Primordial Cause mandatory?

Isn't this way of thought & imagination like a Vicious Circle?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 04/05/2023 00:06:21
If the BB is an After Effect
What is an after-effect as opposed to an effect? I mean, are there 'before effects'?

Quote
If the BB is an After Effect, is the existence of a Primordial Cause mandatory?
If it's an effect, it needs a cause by definition. That doesn't mandate a 'first cause', or 'initial state' or however you might want to word it.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/05/2023 21:28:49
Is the Concept of ' Cause & Effect ' a MindTrap?

If the BB is an After Effect, is the existence of a Primordial Cause mandatory?

Isn't this way of thought & imagination like a Vicious Circle?
Thanks Zer0, definitely food for thought. I'm not sure there was any primordial cause, so I think if a person prefers to consider an initial cause, they are leaning toward a philosophy where the universe requires a beginning. To propose a beginning tends to make me think it also requires the Supernatural.

That's OK of course because we all like to think freely. However, my philosophy doesn't invoke the Supernatural, but instead invokes an infinite and eternal universe that has always existed. I'm open minded though, and there is an amazingly high probability that not only am I wrong, but it seems possible that no one really has a definitive answer; this is really one of life's imponderables.



192175

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 06/05/2023 21:55:42
If the BB is an After Effect
What is an after-effect as opposed to an effect? I mean, are there 'before effects'?

Quote
If the BB is an After Effect, is the existence of a Primordial Cause mandatory?
If it's an effect, it needs a cause by definition. That doesn't mandate a 'first cause', or 'initial state' or however you might want to word it.

If the BB was the actual Beginning of Space & Time(effect)

Then there was No (positive) space & No (positive) time for the Primordial Cause to Exist.

I implied ' after-effect ' to avoid asserting Negative space & Negative time.

(I Accept the thought is fringe, i do Not wish to make you cringe)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/05/2023 02:35:38

If the BB was the actual Beginning of Space & Time(effect)

Then there was No (positive) space & No (positive) time for the Primordial Cause to Exist.

...

True, but then BB doesn't have to be part of a philosophy of the existence of the universe, or even part of a recurring sequence of events that might be playing out over and over, here and there, across infinite and eternal space and time. We might be able to drop BB all together and replace it with (my favorite), i.e., the universe has always existed. Now don't get me wrong, I think that one infinite and eternal universe makes the most sense, but given eternity and infinity, big bangs here and there, now and then wouldn't shake me too much.


192465,193226,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 08/05/2023 20:42:12
I cannot dismiss the BBT...
It's Not that easy.

Expanding space via Hubble Red Shift is Observed.

CMBR has been Measured by the BigHorn & Planck.

Evidence for Inflation collected by WMAP.

Hydrogen fused to make Helium early on.
Extremely High pressure n temperature was a Must.

All of the Above cannot be just made up stuff.

It Happened...
Why or How, remains unclear & uncertain.


Ummm...Halc...Mr Smiles...Anyone Else!

I had read, in the Beginning, there were Equal amounts of Matter-Antimatter.
Any Assumptions available as to Why/How that Symmetry broke?

& the Universe isn't just Expanding, rather going thru a phase of Accelerated expansion.
It must have always been expanding, but any Speculations on Why/How it is Accelerating?

Last but not the least, Inflation!
Any Imaginations...
Why/How did it Start all of a sudden?
& then Why/How all of a sudden, it Stopped?


Philosophers are mostly Misunderstudz...
They are Dreamerz..
Not Foolz!
(0)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 08/05/2023 23:37:49
To propose a beginning tends to make me think it also requires the Supernatural.
A supernatural cause is not a beginning, so to propose a beginning tends to preclude a supernatural cause, unless that supernatural thing itself has a beginning. There seem to be contradictions to the usual assumptions no matter how this is phrased.

Quote
this is really one of life's imponderables.
You seem to be pondering an awful lot for it being an imponderable.

a recurring sequence of events that might be playing out over and over, here and there, across infinite and eternal space and time.
I think Olber's paradox is relevant here
Quote from: wiki
Olbers's paradox, also known as the dark night sky paradox, is an argument in astrophysics and physical cosmology that says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe.

I had read, in the Beginning, there were Equal amounts of Matter-Antimatter.
Any Assumptions available as to Why/How that Symmetry broke?
Kind of an unsolved problem There seems to be no conservation law since black holes violate the conservation of baryon number, so an imbalance isn't any kind of violation, but that's not an explanation.

Quote
the Universe isn't just Expanding, rather going thru a phase of Accelerated expansion.
The acceleration commenced about 6 billion years ago when matter density (and associated gravity) dropped below the constant dark energy density (the cosmological constant). It will now forever accelerate, eventually settling on an exponential expansion of about 57 km/sec/mpc.

Quote
It must have always been expanding
It was, but it doesn't have to. Had matter density been enough, it would never have dropped below the dark energy threshold and expansion would have stopped, with an eventual big crunch to follow. That isn't our fate.

Quote
Last but not the least, Inflation!
Any Imaginations...
Why/How did it Start all of a sudden?
& then Why/How all of a sudden, it Stopped?
Science doesn't answer how/why questions like that. But it started when the universe was about 10-36 seconds old and lasted until the universe was about 3000 times older than that, which is still a really short time. Or at least the inflation here stopped then. In some models, it is still going on elsewhere.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 14/05/2023 21:19:45
Thanks Halc for spending your time on Imponderables.
Btw, has the Pioneer Anomaly been Resolved?


Mr Smiles...Infinites & Eternals perhaps have No End Point, coz they go on Forever n Ever!
But They most certainly might be having a Starting Point...
A start from what..
Singularity . Dot?


The side talk on the Supernatural reminded me of a video on Utube.

I had posted it in some OP already.
Hence, won't do it again.

Besides, it includes profanity, nudity, violence, blasphemy & would/could Definitely hurt religious/spiritual sentiments worldwide.


( DarkMatter2525 God's God )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 18/05/2023 20:55:12
Why did this Thread go dead?

Apologies if that Silly Utube video mentioned Hurt y'all.

Please do Modify or Remove any posts of mine, as applicable.


Questions are Causes, Answers Effects.
Seeking Knowledge, lessens Defects.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/05/2023 23:28:27
Why did this Thread go dead?

Apologies if that Silly Utube video mentioned Hurt y'all.

Please do Modify or Remove any posts of mine, as applicable.


Questions are Causes, Answers Effects.
Seeking Knowledge, lessens Defects.
A brief minor medical scare put me out of commission for a few days, but it was nothing.

I did get to experience an MRI; interesting experience.

193651,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 19/05/2023 02:56:23
I did get to experience an MRI
Stands for 'Minimal Room Inside"

But hey, glad it was nothing. Take care
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/05/2023 20:01:48
I did get to experience an MRI
Stands for 'Minimal Room Inside"

But hey, glad it was nothing. Take care
Lol ..., those are some powerful magnets; you should hear them roar :) . I have a pacemaker and the manufacturer sent a representative to observe the  procedure just in case (in case of what I don't know), and apparently they didn't see any tumors or peculiarities. Maybe they thought my dental work would heat up too much or something.




193813,

 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/05/2023 21:16:39
I have a pacemaker and the manufacturer sent a representative to observe the  procedure just in case (in case of what I don't know), and apparently they didn't see any tumors or peculiarities. Maybe they thought my dental work would heat up too much or something.
The dental work doesn't heat up, but the magnets pull the fillings and make your mouth vocalize stuff that you'd rather keep secret (account numbers and such). The pacemaker representative was there to record what your dental work made you say.

You heard it here first folks.   :D
Well, that explains it, lol.


193813,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 20/05/2023 21:21:04
The OP is a young lad, clearly teenaged at heart, & infant in the brain.
(lol sorry!)

If i were Him, i wouldn't worry much.
Besides, We got no time to waste.
Gotta ponder about the Imponderables yes!

So the side questions were...

1) Is the Pioneer Anomaly resolved?
2) Infinity has no end point, but does it have a starting point?

ps - An apple a day, keeps doctors away.
But if the nurse is a pretty fay...
Then throw the damm apple away!
; )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 20/05/2023 23:24:54
1) Is the Pioneer Anomaly resolved?
Yes, it was. Turns out that residual heat from the plutonium power source radiated heat preferentially in the direction it is moving, related to the way they spin. The lack of spin explains why most other craft (Voyager) don't exhibit this.

Quote
2) Infinity has no end point, but does it have a starting point?
Mathemtically, a line is infinite in length in both directions, but a ray is only in one direction and is bounded on the other. So it works either way.
For instance, the there's not a finite quantity of whole numbers, but they have a starting point. The integers do not.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 22/05/2023 20:05:56
I am still trying to Understand Sir Penrose's Cyclical Model.

Just found out about ' Hawking Points ' !


When We say the Universe is expanding, rather at an accelerated rate...
That's what We are currently Observing at the Edge of the observable Universe, Right..
But ' c ' has a limit hence We are peeking into the Past.

So, should We say it " is " expanding, or say it " was " expanding?


ps - a teen's heart is young n careless n free.
a baby's brain is capable of awe n wonder n pure joy.
This planet needs less Adults, more Kids.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 23/05/2023 00:39:57
When We say the Universe is expanding, rather at an accelerated rate...
That's what We are currently Observing at the Edge of the observable Universe, Right..
Not right. You have to look more nearby to notice the acceleration since it is a more recent thing. The further away you look, the further in the past you see. So we notice things nearby expanding at a proportional rate greater than those currently further away. That's the acceleration, but it started about 6 billion years ago when the constant density dark energy became a greater density than the gravitational energy of all the mass, which became less dense as things moved further apart. So at that point, dark energy more than cancelled the gravity, and acceleration of expansion began. It was deceleration before then, so if you look as far as you can, the most distant galaxies, they're receding at a proportional rate that indicates that there had been a deceleration of expansion going on for over half the current life of the universe.

Quote
So, should We say it " is " expanding, or say it " was " expanding?
It is expanding and always has been expanding. If it ever started contracting (it won't), then matter would have won, and it would eventually end with a big crunch. But the expansion rate is currently accelerating, but used to be decelerating.

There used to not be event horizons, but continuous acceleration forms them, so there is our event horizon now about 16 BLY away. Light currently emitted beyond there will never reach our local galaxy group ever. That doesn't mean we can't see galaxies further away than that. It's just that the light emitted from those galaxies was from when those galaxies were much closer by.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 29/05/2023 23:02:44
Why is Space temperature stuck at -270?C ?

In the Beginning, it was intesimally high.
So why can't it go extremely low?
(& is ' intesimally ' even a valid word?)


Was the temp of the Observable universe ever between 21?C to 24?C?


Are Measurements lower than -273?C possible?
(Ya i know, it's Absolute Zero, but i wanna know if We have instrumental capabilities to Measure lower temps or not?)


ps - next im gonna inquire about BH temps, so be prepared...lol

(195281)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 29/05/2023 23:16:11
Why is Space temperature stuck at -270?C ?
It isn't. It's still falling, but being so close to zero already, it hasn't much further to go.

Quote
So why can't it go extremely low?
It's already extremely low.
Quote
is ' intesimally ' even a valid word?)
Interesting word, sort of combining 'infinitesimal' and 'intensely'.

Quote
Was the temp of the Observable universe ever between 21?C to 24?C?
1, it's the entire universe, not just the observable part. Yes, it was all those other temperatures along the way to where it is now.

Quote
Are Measurements lower than -273?C possible?
Zero K is as low as it gets. There are articles that claim some sort of negative energy and express it as lower than zero temperature, so you'd probably be able to google something that claims otherwise.

Quote
Ya i know, it's Absolute Zero, but i wanna know if We have instrumental capabilities to Measure lower temps or not?
Any instrument can display a negative number, but if nothing is actually colder than zero, it wouldn't be a measure of anything's temperature.

Quote
next im gonna inquire about BH temps, so be prepared.
See no-hair theorem. It says that BH has mass, charge, and angular momentum, and no other properties. Temperature isn't one of those.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 31/05/2023 19:40:25
@ Halc
Something's changed.
donno what thou.

Have you gone par excellence at explaining stuff?
Or am i grasping n absorbing n understanding stuff better than before.

Hmm...might be the former, slim chance of the latter happening.
(prapz it's time U try ur luck at a university faculty post, u'd make for an excellent teacher)

Just avoid making cringey faces in front of dem kidz lolz!


@MrSmiles...
Why so Silent?
(hopefully ur still smilin)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/06/2023 03:50:43
...
@MrSmiles...
Why so Silent?
(hopefully ur still smilin)
Yes, thank you :) , as good as ever ...
Just not much contemplation happening as I recuperate from recent illness. I will be composing a new post with some ideas for discussion very soon ...

195624,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 04/06/2023 20:25:45
No hurries n No worries...
Please take your time..
& Get Well Soon!

: )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/06/2023 19:34:21
When I contemplate multiple big bangs, I am envisioning those various big bang events occurring within one infinite and eternal universe, as opposed to each big bang forming its own separate universe. From this thread you can discern that, in my thinking, there was no beginning of the universe and there will be no ending to the universe, and that leaves room for endless possibilities in the types of events that can occur and the types of places where they can occur, across infinite time and space.

Conveniently, the concepts of time and space can thus be used to bring order to the possibilities, because in a given place, events occur sequentially, and that order allows us to be on the same page in regard to discussing bouts of speculation about the "as yet" unknowns. All you have to do to help readers get on the same page is stipulate the starting circumstances and describe how those circumstances arose from the past, according to your scenario. 

Taking that tact, one issue concerns the origin of matter making up the particular view of the universe you are entertaining. In my thread, matter has always existed throughout the infinite universe, so its origin encompasses an infinite past characterized by no beginning.

Observed expansion of the universe then brings up a concern; how can an infinite universe with an infinite past expand?

My suggestion is that there is expansion going on within our field of view, while out there beyond where we can observe, from our unique point in time and space, there very well could be other points in space so remote and so separate, that though they are part of the one whole universe, they are so remote from us as to effectively be beyond our observation/discovery in almost any imaginable timeframe.


So what makes me think that such remote places exist? I fall back on the concept of infinite places in infinite space where time passing has always been occurring, ie, the concept of no beginning and no ending.


,,,197734,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/07/2023 18:39:57

So what makes me think that such remote places exist? I fall back on the concept of infinite places in infinite space where time passing has always been occurring, ie, the concept of no beginning and no ending.


,,,197734,

... Of course my view is that those vary remote places exist ... so far from us that the time to get to them from Earth, traveling at the speed of light, is way beyond the amount of time since the beginning of the universe, if you suppose there was a beginning. I suppose that is why I like the "no beginning" premise.

I'm beginning to appreciate the fact that "infinite and eternal" has no bounds. It's like, "you could ride forever "neith" the streets of Boston, the man who never returns"... (from some old song I barely recall :) .

But given the premise that in those places, so remote from us, there are intelligent local life forms that think the same way; would they consider our presence to be "too remote for time to have reached"?

198219,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/07/2023 18:53:24
Of course my view is that those vary remote places exist ... so far from us that the time to get to them from Earth, traveling at the speed of light, is way beyond the amount of time since the beginning of the universe
Light currently as close as 16 BLY away (well within the radius of the observable universe) can never reach us ever. How do you expect light from something further away to accomplish it?
I expect that there are such remote places, not that they are accessible to us, or us to them, even at the speed of light. I would say that the infinite universe imposes limits of its own.


198250,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/07/2023 20:17:01
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/spacex-rocket-launches-astronomy-mission-to-study-dark-energy-and-dark-matter/ (https://www.oann.com/newsroom/spacex-rocket-launches-astronomy-mission-to-study-dark-energy-and-dark-matter/)

The exciting exploration and research continues ...


198547,198661,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/07/2023 03:27:29
I would say that the infinite universe imposes limits of its own.
...
And by that I mean that the operative limit would be that there would be no limit to the expanses that exist in any and every direction, from any and every point. A boundless, endless, infinite universe could contain every possible combination of circumstances, of elements known and unknown, and of arrangements of matter, energy, and life, in all possible forms, in all possible motions; a universe that is continually producing all possible interactions, time and time again, throughout it all.




198706,198802.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/07/2023 20:23:40
OK, so no one is arguing against an infinite and eternal universe, but that door is always open to anyone who wants to try a convincing argument. In the mean time, I like to philosophize about there being just one universe, and only one. It would be an infinite and eternal universe that has always existed and will always exist.

That is what I would call a solid foundation to build on. Would it then be safe to say that the infinite universe is full of an infinite amount of matter and energy which are the building blocks of everything in the physical universe? I think so.


198933,199094,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 07/07/2023 21:01:52
there being just one universe, and only one
Well I suppose that depends on your definition of 'universe' and of 'there being' as well. I mean, I take an relational empirical approach, which is even more unusual than most of the stuff you propose. So I define 'there being' relative to X as anything measured by X. That means 'the universe' (all that is measured by X' is quite finite in both space and time. Some star like our own, but in a galaxy 7 BLY away? It doesn't exist to me since I cannot measure it. It isn't in my universe.

You can define this more conventionally, like ('everything that exists'). A thing either has this property or not, so there can be only one set of all things that have this existence property and another set of the things that don't. The universe is the former set. There can by definition be only one of those, and it would even be logically inconsistent to talk about a different universe, since if it existed, it would be part of the one universe by definition. Your post seems to indicate your holding this more conventional definition. The distant star exists even though no light from it has ever reached here yet.

Quote
Would it then be safe to say that the infinite universe is full of an infinite amount of matter
Pretty safe, but it doesn't follow. A universe that is infinite but only has 'stuff; locally in one place would have a finite amount of material, and thus most of the infinite space would be dead empty. Some some additional postulate of say homogeneity would get the infinite matter to logically follow.

Quote
and [an infinite amount of] energy
That presumes more stuff as well, in particular that the mean energy density of the universe is positive. Since there is very much negative energy out there, maybe the negative energy outdoes the positive stuff. It also doesn't seem to be conserved in a cosmological frame, so the energy is always going both up and down. Dark energy for instance is always going up, but light energy and kinetic energy and such always go down over time. This may not be true in a model like you describe since the cosmological frame is an expanding one with finite time since the beginning. You don't really have a mathematical model that would be needed in order to answer the question of whether your universe has infinite energy or not.

What we can observe and/or detect could certainly be a finite expanding universe from a singular event
One observes/detects events and objects, not the universe itself,  So while the universe is still infinite in extent, the contents of it (the parts that exist relative to say our local galaxy cluster) is a very finite list. The rest is counterfactuals.

Positing the existence/state of things that have not been measured gets you classical physics, and it has been demonstrated (proved even) that the universe is not classical.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 09/07/2023 22:27:39
OK, so no one is arguing against an infinite and eternal universe, but that door is always open to anyone who wants to try a convincing argument.

Without Evidence ' for ' & ' against ' it...No Argument is a Convincing one, rather Futile.

 In the mean time, I like to philosophize about there being just one universe, and only one. It would be an infinite and eternal universe that has always existed and will always exist.

Well, if you are Philosophizing...then Why just stop there.
How bout Infinite & Eternal Multiverses?

That is what I would call a solid foundation to build on. Would it then be safe to say that the infinite universe is full of an infinite amount of matter and energy which are the building blocks of everything in the physical universe? I think so.

Solid Foundations are not Safe.
Earthquakes do Not kill people,
Buildings Do!

198933,199094,

" If We come from Nothing...
Go back to Nothing..
What then, have We truly Lost?
NOTHING! "
(Monty)

ps - ( : Welcome Back : )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/07/2023 02:45:20
there being just one universe, and only one
Well I suppose that depends on your definition of 'universe' and of 'there being' as well. I mean, I take a relational empirical approach, which is even more unusual than most of the stuff you propose. So I define 'there being' relative to X as anything measured by X. That means 'the universe' (all that is measured by X' is quite finite in both space and time. Some star like our own, but in a galaxy 7 BLY away? It doesn't exist to me since I cannot measure it. It isn't in my universe.
I get that. I define "universe" as all that is, all matter, energy, everything, all connected in the sense that everything occupies one contiguous, infinite space.
Quote

You can define this more conventionally, like ('everything that exists'). A thing either has this property or not, so there can be only one set of all things that have this existence property and another set of the things that don't. The universe is the former set. There can by definition be only one of those, and it would even be logically inconsistent to talk about a different universe, since if it existed, it would be part of the one universe by definition. Your post seems to indicate you're holding this more conventional definition. The distant star exists even though no light from it has ever reached here yet.
Yes, that is how I was intending it.

...

Quote
Yes to homogeneity :) . I have referred to it as the "Sameness Doctrine" in my rantings.
Quote
and [an infinite amount of] energy
That presumes more stuff as well, in particular that the mean energy density of the universe is positive. Since there is very much negative energy out there, maybe the negative energy outdoes the positive stuff.
I don't know. Negative energy? Any examples?
Quote
It also doesn't seem to be conserved in a cosmological frame, so the energy is always going both up and down. Dark energy for instance is always going up, but light energy and kinetic energy and such always go down over time. This may not be true in a model like you describe since the cosmological frame is an expanding one with finite time since the beginning.
No, I like the "no beginning" scenario, and in my view, an infinite universe doesn't expand as a whole, though there is contraction and expansion locally via big bangs and big crunches, here and there, now and then.
Quote
You don't really have a mathematical model that would be needed in order to answer the question of whether your universe has infinite energy or not.
I suppose, but my model is not developed enough to need a mathematical model. I am just posting about some layman level ideas. I appreciate the feedback and now have some new food for thought.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/08/2023 01:39:13

Suppose there exists a 5 dimensional being. That can't exist in 3 dimensional space, infinite or not. If it's all connected, then 'universe' is confined only to things with a location in that one space, and not all the existing stuff that isn't in that space.  So the statement seems somewhat self-contradictory.
Not in my view. I have no problem with the universe being confined only to things with a location in that space, since in my view there is only that one infinite and eternal space, and all existing stuff is in that one contiguous space.


201667,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/08/2023 13:58:39
I have no problem with the universe being confined only to things with a location in that space, since in my view there is only that one infinite and eternal space, and all existing stuff is in that one contiguous space.
OK, so your definition of 'all that is' is everything in our particular 3D space and not all the other stuff.  The other stuff isn't part of 'all that is'.

I'm actually pretty OK with that, and my own relational definition is far more restricted than even that.
I can certainly understand that a sound relational position can be more restrictive. Mine "evolved" over the years from trying to deal with finite and infinite. What we can observe and/or detect could certainly be a finite expanding universe from a singular event, or it could be the observable portion of an expanding big bang event within an infinite greater universe where big bangs are not necessarily the result of a singular universe-wide event.




201843,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: paul cotter on 02/08/2023 13:40:07
Hi Halc , any chance you could expand on the statement that "the universe is not classical" as I am curious about this.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 02/08/2023 18:11:02
any chance you could expand on the statement that "the universe is not classical"
In a classical universe, there is no retro-causality (effect before cause) and that objects exist even in the absence of measurment (the moon is there even if never measured).
Bell's theorem proved that at least one of those two principles (locality, counterfactual definiteness, respectively) must be false. No valid quantum interpretation supports both. The universe cannot be classical since it cannot obey both principles.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: paul cotter on 02/08/2023 19:04:17
Thanks Halc, i'll have to digest that. I had thought that Bell's theorem was connected with ruling out hidden variables but then I am only vaguely familiar with it. I need to do some studying.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 06/08/2023 22:18:37
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

ps - Hope Eternal is Okay n doin Well!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/08/2023 22:59:24
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy)

ps - Hope Eternal is Okay n doin Well!
From Zero's link: Alan Guth. Theory of known American theoretical physicist Alan Harvey Guth of the inflationary universe modifies the scientific Big Bang theory, describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy, 13.7 billion years ago, from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.


Thanks, Zer0. The Negative_energy link was interesting. I will still point out ...  the Big Bang, or Alan Guth's inflationary universe interpretation of the origin of the Big Bang, refer back to a Beginning, and throughout my rants I have continued to posit that there was no beginning. To my way of thinking, 13.7 billion years or 13.7 trillion years are like a mere instant in the duration of time past if there was no beginning.


203882,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 13/08/2023 01:14:08
From Zero's link: Alan Guth.
Just to clarify, the quote does not appear anywhere on the Negative energy wiki page liked by Zero, but it does appear on the blurb for Alan Guth's book, which is one of the references on that wiki page.

Quote
Theory of known American theoretical physicist Alan Harvey Guth of the inflationary universe modifies the scientific Big Bang theory, describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy, 13.7 billion years ago, from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.
Don't know who wrote this blurb, but it is wrong, and I don't think Guth would have worded it that way. The universe was never a singular point since you can linearly (older model) or exponentially (inflation theory) expand one all you want and it will remain a point.

Yes, Guth was one of the major contributors to inflation theory, a significant change and improvement to the big bang model.
This universe is not in conflict with say the Cyclic model of Penrose, which stacks one conformal universe atop the next in infinite series. So in that sense, it does not refer to any one 'the beginning' since there are always more before and after.

If I interpret this correctly, it means that this diagram
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Uz1dGTgVLzs/T2EWzmroWbI/AAAAAAAAAOU/c0OevgO5pdg/s1600/SpaceTime3.jpg)
can be stacked one atop another, but I might be wrong about that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/08/2023 14:48:18
We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally? I ask those who notice this topic to comment about their views, for discussion.


204094,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/08/2023 15:49:41
...That's only a problem for those that suggest that time is something that passes. Not my problem.
Ok, but scientists, geologists for example, establish time units like ages, epochs, eras, periods, etc. to put geological history into a time perspective, Time passing may be a human construct, but measuring and discussing it is common in science.



204254,204522,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 20/08/2023 22:33:06
We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally? I ask those who notice this topic to comment about their views, for discussion.


204094,

I'd very much like to Discuss this a bit more if you are Interested.

Imagine a Still Image of an Egg.
Now another Still Image of a Cracked Egg.
Now imagine a plate of scrambled egg or sunny side up as per preference.

Obviously, All the above imagined images would have Different Time slots.
(egg-t1, crack-t2, served-t3)

If the Egg is a Fundamentally essential object, without which, no still images can be imagined.
No Changes conceived.
No movement, Nothing!

Can We then conclude, Without the Egg, Time does not Exist.

How do We really measure Time?
By Flow of Entropy?

& How do We measure Entropy without the Existence of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc etc?

ps - prapz We exist inside off of the egg & prapz We might never be able to come out of our shell.
But that should Not stop Us from Imagining a Coop!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 21/08/2023 00:22:53
We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally?
...
Obviously, All the above imagined images would have Different Time slots.
(egg-t1, crack-t2, served-t3)
Yes, true even if time isn't something that passes. Those three states still have different time slots.

Quote
If the Egg is a Fundamentally essential object, without which, no still images can be imagined.
Have no idea what you might be suggesting with this one. An egg hardly seems fundamental, and an image is not an egg, and we have plenty of images of things (unicorn is traditional) that seem not to exist.

Quote
Can We then conclude, Without the Egg, Time does not Exist.
That's like saying without the unicorn, time doesn't exist. Time can exist just fine without an egg.
Time can exist without motion, but it's harder. The paint fades over time. That's evidence of time without utilizing the motion of anything.

Quote
How do We really measure Time?
Typically by counting regular events. That works, flow or no flow. There is no way to detect flow, so one cannot measure time by any empirical detection of flow.

Quote
How do We measure Entropy without the Existence of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc etc?
There would be no 'we' to measure it without that stuff. Entropy isn't especially a particularly meaningful thing without matter or radiation to measure.

Hope some of this helps.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/08/2023 02:42:40
Entropy isn't especially a particularly meaningful thing without matter or radiation to measure.

... Agreed. In order for entropy to be occurring constantly, with no beginning and no end, we would have to be in a universe where time itself is but a measurement of relative motion of objects in one form or another.  What keeps entropy from being complete, meaning what keeps all of the useful energy in the universe from be expended, is that in an infinite and eternal universe, matter and energy are "fundamental" building blocks of everything else, cannot be used up, and are continually being converted from one to the other by natural processes.


205634,206057,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/08/2023 03:25:00

...  what keeps all of the useful energy in the universe from be expended, is that ... matter and energy are "fundamental" building blocks of everything else, cannot be used up, and are continually being converted from one to the other by natural processes.
The main natural processes in my estimation are big bangs and big crunches on a grand scale. If everything in the universe is continually being recycled from matter to energy and back to matter via big crunches and big bangs, then the trigger for each big bang would be a preceding Big Crunch. And there is no reason why the infinite universe isn't an infinite patchwork of forming crunches and expanding bangs, with new crunches and new bangs going on all the time, here and there across an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy. The ultimate perpetual machine.


206109,206438,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/08/2023 17:06:02
And there is no reason why the infinite universe isn't an infinite patchwork of forming crunches and expanding bangs, with new crunches and new bangs going on all the time, here and there across an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy. The ultimate perpetual machine.
And if the universe is a "perpetual machine", infinite and eternal, ever changing, and yet the same, then what I call the "sameness principle" is always in effect, meaning no matter where you are in that infinite expanse, there is nothing new in regard to the physics that are in effect.


206451,206550,206710,207075,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 27/08/2023 22:07:10
This Thread is my Favourite section on TNS.
For a very Simple reason, it's here that i find folks who are Able to Think ' Out of the Box ' .


Fundamental Forces.
Entropy.
Time.
Exist " Inside " our Observable Universe.

But if there is an " Outside "...
Is it a compulsion or mandatory for all those Things to be Present in the same Form exhibiting the same Nature as within?


Definitions Matter Alot!
Perhaps We should come up with New terms or verbiage to describe Space/Time before the Big Bang.


ps - the Egg was a symbolic representation of the universe, our universe, the one within which We exist.
No egg meaning no hen & no coop.

Retro-Causality negating Quantum Sciences, is not Observed within our Box.
But can We be certain of it's non-existentiality out of da box?

In my limited understanding, i do not know anything physical, which has
' No Motion ' or " Motionless " .
Perhaps one of you could help me out with an example.

pps - Only Dreamerz know this...
In Stables of the Mind..
Unicorns Exist.
: )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2023 15:31:21


yY

You have to respect entropy because it is during entropy that everything happens :) . That is based on many assumptions, for example:


1)  the entropy I am referring to is taking place in a finite space that is surrounded by the infinite greater universe
 
2)  big bangs occur here and there, now and then, and are common events across the greater universe

3) In line with a premise that all space has always existed, any space that happens to be associated with, i.e. within the vacinity of the aftermath of a big bang event, has a higher energy density than the average density of the greater universe

4) expansion, meaning the observed separation of objects/matter in space, not only displays the "separation momentum" applied to matter as a result of the force of a local "big bang" event, but also displays the effect of energy density equalization that naturally takes place whenever energy density differentials exist in adjacent spaces.


... 207300,207739,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 31/08/2023 19:56:31
it is during entropy that everything happens
What does the phrase 'during entropy' even mean?
That's like saying 'during momentum', like they describe a period of time.

The entropy of Earth has more or less been constant over the last billion years, and an awful lot of interesting stuff has happened during that period, so I'm not so sure if the interesting stuff happens when entropy is changing, but you also didn't say 'when entropy was changing'.


Quote
1)  the entropy I am referring to is taking place in a finite space that is surrounded by the infinite greater universe
Earth say ...
Again, entropy isn't a process that takes place. It's a value that can be measured, that can change.
 
Quote
In line with a premise that all space has always existed, any space that happens to be associated with, i.e. within the vacinity of the aftermath of a big bang event, has a higher energy density than the average density of the greater universe
High enough localized mass density (very little mass is required) that the matter would all exist within its own Schwarzschild radius, meaning it is a big collapse with no outward 'explosion' so to speak. It would result in an instant black hole with a event horizon radius far greater than the radius of our observable universe.

Just saying. That's what necessarily happens if you bang new matter into a small region of existing space. One can be in denial of gravity of course, but then why does it hurt when I fall down?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 03/09/2023 22:49:39
I associate Time with Change.
& Entropy with the Flow of Energy.

But i do Wonder, what was the nature of Time, before the BB?

A Time without Atoms or Light or Matter or Entropy...
Should i even refer to it as " Time " ?


A Space before " Space " is easier in comparison to think of.

But just bcoz the " Egg " inside which i reside, has a yolk & white...
Should i assume or conclude that the ' Hen ' is made of yolk..
& the ' Coop ' is filled with white.


ps - Imagination needs no Wings nor Sky for Flight.
But remains Confined in the Skullcage, such is it's Plight.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/09/2023 21:20:03
Alright, if you are here for a layman's response, I can accommodate you :) .
Of course, it comes from my personal perspective and has little to do with established thinking ...
I believe time had no beginning. I'm not suggesting that time is an illusion, but instead, time has always been passing, and everything that has happened, or is happening, or will happen, takes place somewhere in the infinite and eternal time continuum. That continuum has just one direction, and that is forward in time. But also, the time continuum is characterized by a concept called "places". Places can move relative to each other, and that relative motion would most likely have an affect on the measurement of time in any given place, relative to the measurement of the passing of time in other places.


208338,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 10/09/2023 21:58:08
Just a small OffTopic enquiry...

Suppose, just Imagine wildly, Suppose...

The Observable Universe starts
 ' Contracting ' .

& the rate of Collapse keeps increasing or Accelerating.

Well, Irrespective of whatever amount of Time it takes for a
 ' Complete Collapse '...

What will be the End Result?
A Singularity?
A humongous BH?

ps - easy to imagine Matter coalescence, but wat da hell bout d
 " Space Continuum " ?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/09/2023 18:31:50
... Suppose...The Observable Universe starts
 ' Contracting ' & the rate ... keeps ... Accelerating.
Irrespective of whatever amount of Time it takes for a
 ' Complete Collapse '...
What will be the End Result?
A Singularity?
A humongous BH?
...
Stepping outside of my favorite personal model of the universe, the Infinite Spongy Universe Model, and addressing your "what ifs" ... we then might have the issue that what we are talking about is an observation from some point within a selected portion of what you designate as the Observable Universe. When talking about what is observable from any particular position in space, I would expect the perspective to change (as the point from which the observation is made moves), and the view from elsewhere in the vastness might be expected to be completely different.

But not in my so called ISU Model.  Given all of the possible points from which to make such an observation, there would be an infinite number of possible perspectives, and who knows if there might be a corresponding number of different observers occupying those various distant patches of space. However, a contraction is a local event within the infinite universe, and the infinite universe as a whole isn't subject to expansion, contraction, or collapse; only patches within it can be said to contract and expand, and those circumstances occur at the whim of the most recent nearby Big Crunch or Big Bang event, I speculate.


211808,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 25/09/2023 01:32:52
I'm not suggesting that time is an illusion
I actually never understood those arguing that time is an illusion. I mean, a physical clock measures it, and a physical device cannot measure something that doesn't exist. So to suggest that time isn't real has to also include the clock not being real, and then you not being real. That's a less popular stance, valid, probably just a refusal to apply the term 'real' to anything.

Quote
instead, time has always been passing, and everything that has happened, or is happening, or will happen, takes place somewhere in the infinite and eternal time continuum. That continuum has just one direction, and that is forward in time.
That's an intuitive philosophical stance known as presentism. Most people are presentists, especially those unfamiliar with the term, but it does contradict Einstein's theories, contradicting the most basic premises.  If you deny that all local inertial frames are equally valid, and you deny the constant speed of light, you end up with a totally different theory that came along about a century after Einstein's papers. In this theory, the universe is 3D, not 4D. It is contained by eternal passing time just like you say. There is no big bang, only a (single) big bounce. There are no black holes,. Those things are artifacts only of Einstein's theory.
Look up I. Schmelzer if you're interested, but the theory is more complicated than general relativity, so it isn't an easy read. But it supports the presentism that so many people seem to want.

Quote
But also, the time continuum is characterized by a concept called "places".
I think that would be the space continuum, not the time continuum.

Given all of the possible points from which to make such an observation
In an infinite universe, there are of course infinite locations from which an observable universe can be defined. But they come in clumps, which in our case is our local group of galaxies.  Any light that can reach any point in our local group of galaxies can also reach any other part of the group, hence it acts as a sort of single center of one observable universe.  This is not true of any observer not in the group. Light might reach that observer and nothing in our group, or reach our group and not that observer, not even after infinite time.
So again, yes, there are infinite points of observation when talking about an observable universe, but the different 'points' of observation are pretty far apart.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/09/2023 22:16:40
...
So again, yes, there are infinite points of observation when talking about an observable universe, but the different 'points' of observation are pretty far apart.
I get your point and see it's truth. One of the words I have used here is "contiguous", and in thinking about how far apart the various points of observation can be, they are connected in a space-time continuum. To move around in the "continuum", the line described by our path is a plot of contiguous points, complicated by the relative motion of all objects, and destined to be eventually forgotten as to never have existed. That may seem to be a characterization of gloom, but on the other hand, it can be an assurance that our worst will be forgotten. My hope is that our best will win the struggle to be remembered for at least a brief local instant.


212499

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/10/2023 03:04:32
I talk about multiple big bangs occurring here and there, now and then, across an infinite and eternal universe. My view is that the infinities of space, time, and energy have always been the case, forever. Since I posit that there was no beginning, time has always been passing, everywhere across that infinite expanse.

As part of that picture, I often discuss the "sameness doctrine" which says, on a grand scale, the universe is essentially the same no matter where you are in it; not in the precise local view which differs from point to point, but in the grand perspective, where every point enjoys the status of being the center of an infinite expanse.

Another aspect of the sameness is that the view is constantly changing from every perspective, at every point. across the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy.


213142,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/10/2023 01:37:57
...
Another aspect of the "sameness" is that the view is constantly changing from every perspective, at every point. across the Three Infinities of space, time, and energy.

The sad fact is that we are capable of imagining so much, and it turns out that much of what we can imagine is flat out fantasy. Maybe that is why we can each voice our particular perspective on a subject, but no one has the final word :shrug:


214887,215156,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/10/2023 19:40:04
It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

Those qualities of the universe fit nicely in line with a hypothetical "infinite spongy universe (so called) model". Since the "spongy" aspect simply means that any given mass has no fixed position and continually moves, relative to its surroundings.

That motion is guided and constrained by the ever changing local gravitational fields, so there might seem to be a built in randomness.

But does the universe have any option as to the upcoming gravitational forces governing the local movement of any given object? I don't think that the laws of motion have much use for the concept of randomness.


215772,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2023 01:45:56
I don't post online as often as I used to, but I still surf the net and follow science topics to keep my mind active. I'm not sure when "old age" occurs, but I'm sure 80, which I will turn yet this year, qualifies, :o



223555,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 24/11/2023 20:26:24
It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

I'm not in Disagreement,
I simply have a Different perspective.

If the BB model is Flawless...
Then Space itself had a Beginning,
And what Begins, has a Boundary.

If the Law of Entropy is Absolute...
Then Time itself has a limited time to Tick.


ps - ....nity is that which has No beginning, and that which has No end is Infi....!
0
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/11/2023 02:07:36
It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

I'm not in Disagreement,
I simply have a Different perspective.

If the BB model is Flawless...

Then Space itself had a Beginning,
And what Begins, has a Boundary.
That would be a tremendous determination if it were true, but with billions of years (actually an infinity ahead) and infinite possible outcomes to play out, the real answers to such imponderables are indeterminate.
Quote
If the Law of Entropy is Absolute...
Then Time itself has a limited time to Tick.
Why does it seem to me that infinity had "no beginning and will have no end"? :)


228563,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 29/11/2023 18:18:35
The KeyWord in my previous post was  " if "...

As i do Not consider the BB model to be the Last final nail.
Nor the Law of Entropy Unbreakable.
The Future remains Undeterministic
&
Unpredictable.
No Fate!

 ps - If i was Never born,
i shall Never die...
But that does Not make me Immortal.
: )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/11/2023 01:45:49
The KeyWord in my previous post was  " if "...

As i do Not consider the BB model to be the Last final nail.
Nor the Law of Entropy Unbreakable.
The Future remains Undeterministic
&
Unpredictable.
No Fate!

 ps - If i was Never born,
i shall Never die...
But that does Not make me Immortal.
: )
Interesting you should go in that direction ...

The "immortality" could be of life itself. How about the premise that life has always existed; has an infinite past as well as an infinite future. Individual mortality, obviously not. Immortal chain of life ... why not.


228821,
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/11/2023 01:56:54
If that is the case, here we are, here and now, part of the immortal chain of life.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 30/11/2023 02:05:16
If i was Never born,
i shall Never die...
My sister did that actually, so I suppose she is a counterexample to your statement.
She was about 5 months older than me.

How about the premise that life has always existed; has an infinite past as well as an infinite future.
Seems there would be a lot more life seen in places other than Earth then. There is a very viable proposal that Earth life did not originate on Earth, but even it doesn't go so far as to say it was always there. That violates all evidence.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/11/2023 02:14:26
Speculation. I know it is not science, but yet here we are, so life either started somewhere, or has always been perpetuating itself somehow. Evidence of some things may be lost in the past and obscured in the distance, but can be contemplated here on the "lighter side" :) .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 01/12/2023 18:24:20
@Halc

My Deepest Apologies!
Sorry to hear about your Sister.
Peace!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/12/2023 23:29:49
Speculation. I know it is not science, but yet here we are, so life either started somewhere, or has always been perpetuating itself somehow. Evidence of some things may be lost in the past and obscured in the distance, but can be contemplated here on the "lighter side" :) .
The "arrow of time" is one of the fundamental concepts I enjoy spending time contemplating. The "arrow of time" is a fundamental concept in my rantings about the ISU, "The Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology".

Of course, the ISU features space, so I like to say that in the ISU, we have to accept that space is infinite, unless anyone has an alternative that doesn't require the Supernatural.






Infinite space just seems so perfectly natural to me that I can't imagine any alternative short of the introduction of God, and I don't think science goes there. I personally like to have a concept I refer to as God, but only on the basis that I consider God and the universe to be "one and the same".


230230,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2023 00:18:50
we have to accept that space is infinite, unless anyone has an alternative that doesn't require the Supernatural.
There are a lot of alternatives that don't require the supernatural.
How do you explain (without supernatural) the existence of this been-there-forever universe you propose. Sure, you avoid the whole [nothing, then later something] issue, but you still need to explain the something. It's not a science problem, but rather pure philosophy. So science doesn't need to answer it, but a belief system does.
I simply explain it by saying there was no beginning; the universe has always existed and displays what I call the "sameness principle." The laws of physics apply everywhere and are the same everywhere, and always have been. When we discover new phenomena, we derive new physics that have always existed too. I speculate that there is a lot of discovery ahead for humanity on Earth, and for other advanced life forms everywhere, assuming we are not alone.


230276,230950,231051,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 08/12/2023 19:11:31
@OP
Have you ever thought How&Why is it Infinite & Eternal?
I'm Agreeing it is.

Even if there is something Supernatural, Why&How n for What reason are things the way they are?

Why is there Something, rather than Nothing!


ps - To see a World in a Grain of Sand,
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower.
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand & Eternity in an hour.
(Blake)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2023 20:41:15
@OP
Have you ever thought How&Why is it Infinite & Eternal?

I'm Agreeing it is.

Even if there is something Supernatural, Why&How n for What reason are things the way they are?

Why is there Something, rather than Nothing!


ps - To see a World in a Grain of Sand,
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower.
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand & Eternity in an hour.
(Blake)

I've thought about it, and this is my personal conclusion ,,,
On a grand scale, the Universe is the way it is, and could be no other way.



231816,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 11/12/2023 18:40:25

On a grand scale, the Universe is the way it is, and could be no other way.


& the Only way WE can Experience it...
Is to simply Dissolve ourselves innit..
There is No Other Way.

ps - stay wild, stay curious!
: )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 13/12/2023 19:10:35
the Universe is the way it is, and could be no other way
I'd have said something more like "the Universe is the way it is, and if it was another way, it would be a different universe"

But if it was Any different, We might have Not Existed.
Or maybe We would have, just Differently.

Maybe the One in which We seem to be stuck in, is the Different Universe.
No Wonder some of Us feel out of place & time.
A weird sensation, feeling like,. This is Not where We Belong.

ps - if space Expands, which it does, What then is it expanding into?
NoThing!
(lol)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 15/12/2023 18:21:09
I'd have said something more like "the Universe is the way it is, and if it was another way, it would be a different universe"
But if it was Any different, We might have Not Existed.
If this universe was any different, we would still in the universe that is this way, but indeed not in the universe that is another way, which we've designated as 'this universe'. We would consider the other universe (the one that is 'this way' to be 'this universe'.  'This universe' is pretty much by definition the one you find yourself in.

Yep!
The House in which We are Born is Home, doesn't matter however it may be, it's still
Home Sweet Home!
(donno why the grass seems greener at neighbours thou)


Quote
Or maybe We would have, just Differently.
I would consider 'differently' to be other people, not 'we'. Physics has little to say about this since it provides no guidance concerning identity, so there's no test to say if say one person at one time and another person in another state is in fact the same person.

Can't remember where i read this Analogy of a Cat jumping in the air & landing back on ground.
But it said, The cat which landed back was Different from Thee cat which was in the air.
& Both of em were Different from Theee cat which had Jumped!
(might not make sense to U, but to me it does...meow)


Quote
Maybe the One in which We seem to be stuck in, is the Different Universe.
They're all different. Each universe considers all others to be different, unless you propose I suppose some view where two universes can be identical and yet in some way meaningfully distinct.

A bit Unbelievable to hear such Words coming from You.
Looks like You are finally ONboard!
( : Welcome to the Multiverse : )


Quote
if space Expands, which it does, What then is it expanding into?
It doesn't expand into anything, which is a lot different than suggesting it expands into nothing.

& that it does Not expand into Anything, is Alot different from suggesting that it expands into Nothing.

ps - Everything expanding into Anything is Fine, but it can't be Nothing.
It's gotta be SomeThing!!!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/12/2023 16:16:25
I'd have said something more like "the Universe is the way it is, and if it was another way, it would be a different universe"
But if it was Any different, We might have Not Existed.
If this universe was any different, we would still in the universe that is this way, but indeed not in the universe that is another way, which we've designated as 'this universe'. We would consider the other universe (the one that is 'this way' to be 'this universe'.  'This universe' is pretty much by definition the one you find yourself in.

Yep!
The House in which We are Born is Home, doesn't matter however it may be, it's still
Home Sweet Home!
(donno why the grass seems greener at neighbours thou)


Quote
Or maybe We would have, just Differently.
I would consider 'differently' to be other people, not 'we'. Physics has little to say about this since it provides no guidance concerning identity, so there's no test to say if say one person at one time and another person in another state is in fact the same person.

Can't remember where i read this Analogy of a Cat jumping in the air & landing back on ground.
But it said, The cat which landed back was Different from Thee cat which was in the air.
& Both of em were Different from Theee cat which had Jumped!
(might not make sense to U, but to me it does...meow)


Quote
Maybe the One in which We seem to be stuck in, is the Different Universe.
They're all different. Each universe considers all others to be different, unless you propose I suppose some view where two universes can be identical and yet in some way meaningfully distinct.

A bit Unbelievable to hear such Words coming from You.
Looks like You are finally ONboard!
( : Welcome to the Multiverse : )


Quote
if space Expands, which it does, What then is it expanding into?
It doesn't expand into anything, which is a lot different than suggesting it expands into nothing.

& that it does Not expand into Anything, is Alot different from suggesting that it expands into Nothing.

ps - Everything expanding into Anything is Fine, but it can't be Nothing.
It's gotta be SomeThing!!!

Observed expansion, i.e. the apparent separation of the distant galaxies in the heavenly sphere, is a local observation. I wouldn't be surprised that every observer of the universe, in any location within the infinite universe, would detect the "separation effect" if their locality in the universe was characterized by expansion, i.e. the aftereffect of a Big Bang like event. In the ISU model, big bangs happen here and there, now and then, and so every environment is either about to get caught up in a "bang" or is about to participate in a Big Crunch. Crunch, bang, crunch bang, here and there, now and then, at the whim of gravitational force of accumulated mass.

We are talking huge masses that might very well exist out there, and that Bang (verb) because their gravity cannot contain the destructive force of compression, causing the growing massive object to collapse within itself. so violently that the collapse leads to a massive bounce that has such force that it causes what we now observe as expansion.


234073,234086,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 17/12/2023 17:07:16
Observed expansion, i.e. the apparent separation of the distant galaxies in the heavenly sphere, is a local observation.
Considering all human observations of the universe have been made from within the solar system, yea, that's pretty local.

Quote
I wouldn't be surprised that every observer of the universe, in any location within the infinite universe, would detect the "separation effect" if their locality in the universe was characterized by expansion, i.e. the aftereffect of a Big Bang like event.
Again yes, per the cosmological principle.

Quote
In the ISU model, big bangs happen here and there, now and then, and so every environment is either about to get caught up in a "bang" or is about to participate in a Big Crunch. Crunch, bang, crunch bang, here and there, now and then, at the whim of gravitational force of accumulated mass.
Accumulated mass cannot bang. A little bit (a bomb say) can, but not a big bit. A big crunch is different since it doesn't happen at a specific location, but rather everywhere, and thus isn't particularly an accumulation of mass in one place.

Quote
causing the growing massive object to collapse within itself. so violently that the collapse leads to a massive bounce that has such force that it causes what we now observe as expansion.
Well there is a theory that works along these lines, with denial of black holes and big bang, but with infinite time containing a 3D universe that undergoes periodic 'big bounces' (or at least one bounce). It's in denial of all of the premises of Einstein's theories, but those wouldn't need to be premises if they could be proven.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/12/2023 18:46:54


Accumulated mass cannot bang. A little bit (a bomb say) can, but not a big bit. A big crunch is different since it doesn't happen at a specific location, but rather everywhere, and thus isn't particularly an accumulation of mass in one place.



That is one of the departure points between my hobby ideas and generally accepted scientific theory :) . My hobby idea posits that huge masses can accumulate under the influence of gravity, to the point that they reach a critical capacity, and when that capacity is reached, it is in fact a natural limit beyond which any further accumulation of mass will result in a collapse/bang; an imploding of the crunch followed by a "bounce" as the concentration of the imploding mass reaches natures natural limit of compression.

Given that premise, crunch bangs will be commonplace across infinity and eternity, and the occasional Big Bang will not be a Singularity, but will be considered unremarkable on a grand scale.


235076,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 18/12/2023 19:11:33
Implosion!

Very Interesting.

The only hesitation i have with the B.B. Theory is " Inflation " .

Obviously there's Evidence for it, i do Not deny it.

But i Wish there was some Other way of explaining it.

Even if there is one, not sure if i am capable of Unlearning & Relearning.

ps - It is Impossible to Learn, what one Thinks, they already Know!
(Epictetus)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/12/2023 16:11:16
The only hesitation i have with the B.B. Theory is " Inflation ".
Obviously there's Evidence for it, i do Not deny it.
But i Wish there was some Other way of explaining it.
Other way of explaining what? Most people cannot describe what it explains. I can't without looking it up.
Has something to do with the universe being measured as more flat and uniform than it would be without inflation.

The part I do know: It is the very early epoch of the universe where the part that is currently our 92 BLY diameter visible universe expands, from a speck whose size has an awful lot of zeros, to about the size of a grapefruit, and it does this exponentially, waaaaay faster than light can go from the center of a grapefruit to the peel.


That is well said. In my version, the "very early epoch of the universe" is just an earlier time in the infinite and eternal ... and that provides a lot of time and space for anything that is possible, to in fact have a time and a place to happen.

At each point in space and time we can ask, is this the place and time for such-and-such? But in that same vane, every moment is the beginning of a new future at every point in the infinite universe, and so the possibilities are not just endless, but are the full dimension of infinite, and always have been.

Human existence in all this vast expanse enables infinity to be reduced to the function of a few brain cells in a tiny location of one individual somewhere in time in the greater universe; a perspective that requires intelligent life that can focus on a tiny moment and place, separate from the grand whole.


236042,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 20/12/2023 21:20:27
To Create Space, requires Space,
To Begin Time, requires Time.

Without space & Without time...
There is No Space-Time!

ps - : )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/12/2023 20:20:14
To Create Space, requires Space,
To Begin Time, requires Time.

Without space & Without time...
There is No Space-Time!

ps - : )
Einstein,
Space time,
Very fine,
Like vintage wine.


236194,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/12/2023 21:49:13
... intelligent life that can focus on a tiny moment and place, separate from the grand whole.
It is the ability to focus on the here and now, the present, a single clip in the reel of time. And humanity not only leaves its mark on our planet, but now we have sent our markers out into space.

Do you ever wonder if some distant or future intelligent life form will discover evidence of us by coming across some such artifact?

I'm guessing that we will first be detected by our radio/electromagnetic signals.
... Hello, my name is Bogie. Do you read me? :)

I know that SETI has been going on since, I think, 2008 ... https://www.seti.org/about (https://www.seti.org/about)


236464,236994,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/12/2023 19:38:15
I know that SETI has been going on since, I think, 2008
1984
I stand corrected. However, if I let myself imagine SETI as an activity that advanced life forms eventually evolve to carry out, and considering that in an infinite and eternal universe, as I imagine it, there may have been a potentially infinite number of such SETI activities carried out by different evolved life forms, SETI activity would be common throughout the infinite history recorded by life forms everywhere over time.


237514,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/12/2023 21:00:10
Let me go on to speculate that a thorough look at the infinite history of the SETI activity throughout time and space could have yielded positive findings if the entire record of such searches were to be examined. By that I mean that though our current search efforts have not been fruitful, such search efforts, carried out by other intelligent life forms across all time, could easily have produced success, only to have been lost and obscured by the great distances of separation throughout the eternal passing of time.


237543,237586,237624,
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/12/2023 18:25:40
It is true...
the passing of time quickly leaves us behind ...
Making it hard (to impossible) to communicate outside the cone ...
But that doesn't mean that we are alone.
 
And my simple logic suggests to me that the infinity of space and time makes the probability of distant, past, and future intelligent life forms a near certainty. And so it seems to me that the information of such life forms disseminates itself throughout space naturally, by the persistence of light/signals (electromagnetism) that can't help but traverse space.
 
237820,238351,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/12/2023 20:16:19
I'm not saying that we are under observation by distant life forms; I do say that things happen in the present, and the present is happening where the happenings are happening in real time. However, whenever there is recorded history of happenings, and those records are accessible to future observers, then they constitute a vague glimpse of the past to observers from the future.

The act of observing the distant cosmos brings about the observation of events that have happened in the past. If the sun sent out a solar flair now, it would take eight and a half minutes for it to be seen from Earth. If we focus a telescope on an object a light year away, what we observe here and now, actually took place a year ago. If a distant observer is light years away, what they observe of us actually happened years ago. So I say that time is always passing everywhere, and if there is relative motion between the two places, it skews the rate at which the distant observer would see time passing at the other location.


238581,238683,239048,239142,239359,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 04/01/2024 21:38:42

Copyrights/Credits/Source -
David Strassman/^KEVIN^/YouTube

*Note - Explicit Adult Content, contains Flashy Lights & Profanity.
(sorry if it's inappropriate, please delete my post asap)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/01/2024 02:52:04
Is gravity the warping of spacetime, or is it the net result of inflowing and outflowing gravitational waves?  Discuss.


240042,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/01/2024 03:30:59
Lol, I know discussion of this topic isn't exactly likely. Gravity waves have been detected but they seem to be associated with major cosmic events, and are pretty hard to detect and measure. But still, speculation can fill the gap until someone brings me up to date with the facts and evidence.

I like to go on from there and refer to relative motion as the imbalance between inflowing and outflowing gravitational wave energy.


240061,240122,240302,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 10/01/2024 20:16:28
@Bogie

You know, i was just tinkin...

In terms of Newtonian physics..

Your Gravitational sphere of influence might be almost 80 light years.

ps - My oh myy!
U r a BigBoi.
: )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/01/2024 03:23:29
Your personal light cone extends about that far, but your gravitational sphere of influence goes much further since your mass existed indefinitely before you existed. That mass suddenly becoming 'you' had no additional effect on anything gravitationally since the mass was always already there.
Its almost too much to comprehend, but since we each have our own finite mass, and to my way of thinking there is no new mass coming into existence, our individual masses just get endlessly buffeted around and across the infinite universe eternally. Unfortunately, our tiny mass is "me" all too briefly, and for the rest of infinite time it is someone/something else; endlessly changing.


241262,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 12/01/2024 18:36:10
Your Gravitational sphere of influence might be almost 80 light years.
Your personal light cone extends about that far, but your gravitational sphere of influence goes much further since your mass existed indefinitely before you existed. That mass suddenly becoming 'you' had no additional effect on anything gravitationally since the mass was always already there.

I am Neither mass,
Nor a Lump of rock.

I am a Human who moves around...
     right
left
up
down
Roundabouts!

My Gravitational influence is Mine!

ps - changing locations in space-time matters.
(Gravitational Potential Energy)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/01/2024 21:27:21

I am Neither mass,
Nor a Lump of rock.

I am a Human who moves around...
     right
left
up
down
Roundabouts!

My Gravitational influence is Mine!

...
It may be yours, but only ever-so-briefly. What can represent a lifetime to the aged human is but an instant in the grander scheme of things. So yes, during that lifetime, your gravitational influence is marked by your Human presence, but in the bigger picture, that instant we call a lifetime isn't much to get excited about when looked at as its share of the passing of infinite time.


But still ... 


241865,242021,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/01/2024 00:25:40
I'm wondering if I was too hasty to declare that there was no new mass coming into existence. Does it count as new mass when sunlight is converted to plant life by photosynthesis?


242113,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 14/01/2024 01:00:30
I'm wondering if I was too hasty to declare that there was no new mass coming into existence. Does it count as new mass when sunlight is converted to plant life by photosynthesis?
That's just a rearrangement of existing atoms into different molecules, not new atoms.

Yes, the sun does transfer energy to Earth (and loses mass in doing so), but Earth loses that sort of energy as fast as it gets it, so it all gets radiated permanently away into space.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/01/2024 16:04:05
I guess if the amount of mass in an infinite universe is infinite, then the average density of mass in the universe is fixed, but the distribution of mass varies.


242324,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/01/2024 19:34:13
I guess if the amount of mass in an infinite universe is infinite, then the average density of mass in the universe is fixed
In an expanding universe (infinite or finite), the density (of energy, mass, pretty much any conserved thing) must go down as it expands.
I consider there to be only one universe; I see it as an infinite universe that occupies all space, and being infinite, there is no excess space for it to expand (into). However, that is the grand scale view. On a local view, which allows us to see only a finite part of the whole infinite universe, our view reveals expansion, even accelerating expansion. I try to justify the observed expansion visible from our local view by thinking of it as the aftermath of our own local big bang, some billions of years ago. In that scenario, our big bang would be one of a potentially infinite number of BBs across infinite space and time. No big deal; Just don't get too close when a Big Crunch is ready collapse/bang, lol.


243100,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/01/2024 23:18:35
I see it as an infinite universe that occupies all space
What would the space be (or have) if there wasn't a universe occupying it?
I see it as an infinite universe occupies all space, so the space without a universe in it, would be empty space. It would pose a problem though, if like me, you consider the universe to include infinite space, all matter, and all energy. To call empty space a universe, you would have to exclude all matter and energy.


243239,243705,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/01/2024 21:20:48
In matters of cosmology, my view is that talk of the universe should acknowledge that we are talking about THE universe. By my definition, there is only one universe. I'm not tempted by those alternative views that talk about multiple universes or parallel universes; I maintain that there is only one universe, and that universe is all there is; all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal reality.


A big bang, yes, but not just one. Couldn't big bangs just be a common natural result of infinite space, infinite matter, infinite energy, and infinite time? If so, then wouldn't there be a scenario about big bangs that says they happen here and there, now and then, since they encompass/require only a finite amount of matter, energy, and time to occur and play out, within a greater, infinite, eternal universe?



Nevertheless, with something as big and permanent as the infinite and eternal universe, I don't want to be presumptuous by implying that I comprehend anything about its full dimensions, all of its characteristics, or its forever history. I contemplate it because everything about time, space, life, and our place in it all, naturally occupies Human thoughts. But even my most grandiose imaginings probably don't come close to doing justice to reality. I think that the pastime of thinking about it is part of the fun; the imponderables, the unfathomable. If people could live forever, they would never run out of material to feed their unlimited imaginings, I bet, :) .


244067,244219,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/01/2024 17:00:42
... the imponderables, the unfathomable. If people could live forever, they would never run out of material to feed their unlimited imaginings ... .
... and according to me :) , intelligent life has always existed, and is probably spread out across the entire universe, and has been for all of time.

I hate to admit it, but even our most intelligent and imaginative thoughts have probably been entertained by contemplative individuals for all of time here and there across the entire universe, or at least for 5 billion years, which seems to be the amount of time that Science acknowledges ... since what ... origination, creation, the beginning? Or more likely, has there really been an infinite past, and an infinite future to come, across an infinite three dimensional space, filled everywhere with smatterings of life and an interesting history, that has been slipping bye at all places, throughout all eternity?


244351,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 20/01/2024 20:43:04
... and according to me :) , intelligent life has always existed, and is probably spread out across the entire universe, and has been for all of time.
Probably? I mean, given the whole infinite universe and infinite time premise, what are the odds that intelligent life is confined to some finite local region, totally absent beyond a certain radius?

even our most intelligent and imaginative thoughts have probably been entertained by contemplative individuals for all of time here and there across the entire universe
Given that infinite monkeys could type out any deep thought in less than a year, I think infinite intelligent races could do better. So indeed, no human has ever thought of an original idea.

or at least for 5 billion years, which seems to be the amount of time that Science acknowledges ... sense what ... origination, creation, the beginning?
That puts things near the origination/creation/beginning of our solar system, before the sun actually had yet formed.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/01/2024 02:34:31
That puts things near the origination/creation/beginning of our solar system, before the sun actually had yet formed.

Still, considering my premise that there was no beginning, but instead, there is an infinite past, as well as an infinite future, stars would have been lighting up and burning out forever, and our sun will be no exception.



244847,245129,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/01/2024 19:17:15
... Still, considering my premise that there was no beginning, but instead, there is an infinite past, as well as an infinite future, stars would have been lighting up and burning out forever, and our sun will be no exception.
244847,245129,
I do think that my premise of "no beginning" is like the proverbial dog that they are referring to when they say, "every dog has a few fleas". There are a few problems with the concept of an infinite past.

If the universe is infinite and has always existed, it raises the question, why haven't we come across good evidence of living beings from outer space. Why haven't life forms been able to survive the hazards of planetary living by escaping to ways of life that are compatible with intergalactic existence? Or has that happened but the nature of distance and time serve to cloak such things?


Also, I guess that the generation of life and the evolution of life to our level might be so rare that even when talking in terms of the extremes of time, distance, and evolution, those signs are too far separated to be detected within the typical span of existence of such life forms.

245383




... If so, Humans may search forever in the spaces we can get to, and never find a living thing ... while life seems to spring from almost nowhere everywhere we look here on Earth.


245446,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 23/01/2024 22:32:56
If the universe is infinite and has always existed, it raises the question, why haven't we come across good evidence of living beings from outer space.
That one is pretty easy. Because the ones from other bangs are too far away to see, and the ones close by are there too briefly to see. The light from there has either not yet go here or has long since passed by here. The odds are super-low of getting the timing right.

Also, I guess that the generation of life and the evolution of life to our level might be so rare that even when talking in terms of the extremes of time, distance, and evolution, those signs are too far separated to be detected within the typical span of existence of such life forms.
OK, you realize essentially the same thing that I do

Why haven't life forms been able to survive the hazards of planetary living by escaping to ways of life that are compatible with intergalactic existence?
There's no energy out there to sustain any metabolism or process. You'd have to hibernate in some weird sort of coffin that is immune to decay and can survive heat death, waiting for new energy to appear by magic. Nobody would be able so see such a coffin since it would emit nothing if it is to not waste away.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/01/2024 03:34:27
...
Also, I guess that the generation of life and the evolution of life to our level might be so rare that even when talking in terms of the extremes of time, distance, and evolution, those signs are too far separated to be detected within the typical span of existence of such life forms.
OK, you realize essentially the same thing that I do
We can speculate and hypothesize, and I speculate that this issue has always been a conundrum to thinkers.

If we can put the existence of life in the same category as the existence of the universe, then just as I speculate that the universe is eternal and has always existed, I would speculate that life also has always existed here and there across all time and space.


245607,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/01/2024 03:35:36
We can never be sure of the future in regard to humanity and the planet Earth. A planet killing asteroid, a deadly worldwide pandemic, world war, mass extinctions ... there are many ways that life could end on Earth. Nevertheless, I am consoled by the fact that Earth hosts bountiful life, and it seems likely that across infinite space there are infinite similar havens where life flourishes. Therefore, the odds would seem to greatly lean toward the premise that life, like the universe itself, has and will always exist.

If that is true of the big picture, it doesn't mean that our Earthly home will last indefinitely; eventually life here may succumb to some final calamity. Or maybe humanity will escape Earth before those final days, and set out into a wider expanse within our galaxy, keeping a human presence alive in some other habitable place, somewhere else; we can only speculate. 




246115,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 26/01/2024 06:31:27
A planet killing asteroid, a deadly worldwide pandemic, world war, mass extinctions ... there are many ways that life could end on Earth.
None of that stuff would end life, but I suppose the 'planet killing' one might remove the Earth from what the remaining life is on. But I don't think Earth life would be eliminated by that.

Therefore, the odds would seem to greatly lean toward the premise that life, like the universe itself, has and will always exist.
Given an infinite (in extent) universe, it does follow that there are infinite other instances of spontaneous life.  It does not follow from this that life has always existed. Yes, for that, you need the additional premise that the universe is some sort of steady-state and has a past further back than what the evidence says,

it doesn't mean that our Earthly home will last indefinitely; eventually life here may succumb to some final calamity.
Getting eaten by the sun tends to be a lot better at finishing us off than any of the calamities listed earlier. The heat-death is also supposed to be unsurvivable, but since it never reaches zero, I'm not so sure about that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/01/2024 02:06:58
We can never be sure of the future in regard to humanity and the planet Earth. A planet killing asteroid, a deadly worldwide pandemic, world war, mass extinctions ... there are many ways that life could end on Earth. Nevertheless, I am consoled by the fact that Earth hosts bountiful life, and it seems likely that across infinite space there are infinite similar havens where life flourishes. Therefore, the odds would seem to greatly lean toward the premise that life, like the universe itself, has and will always exist.

If that is true of the big picture, it doesn't mean that our Earthly home will last indefinitely; eventually life here may succumb to some final calamity. Or maybe humanity will escape Earth before those final days, and set out into a wider expanse within our galaxy, keeping a human presence alive in some other habitable place, somewhere else; we can only speculate. 




246115,
None of that stuff would end life, but I suppose the 'planet killing' one might remove the Earth from what the remaining life is on. But I don't think Earth life would be eliminated by that.
The imaginary scenarios that I tend to come up with, being quite speculative, are probably far from the scientific consensus. Nevertheless, I find it hard to think that the island of life represented by our planet will have any meaningful impact on the future of all life that may come to exist across the universe. When we contemplate the three infinites; space, time and energy, the possible scenarios for the future are potentially infinite.


247129,247763,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 01/02/2024 16:12:44
@Bogie

Since the time i heard the News, i haven't been able to Stop thinking about your I.S.U. Model thread.

Pretty sure you've Already heard et all know et all...
Still, just Wished to add a little snippet of it in here..
Where it Belongs!


Alexia Lopez/University of Central Lancashire/BBC News/YouTube

ps - Smilin away to Glory!
: )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/02/2024 04:33:21
@Bogie

Since the time i heard the News, i haven't been able to Stop thinking about your I.S.U. Model thread.

Pretty sure you've Already heard et all know et all...
Still, just Wished to add a little snippet of it in here..
Where it Belongs!


Alexia Lopez/University of Central Lancashire/BBC News/YouTube

ps - Smilin away to Glory!
: )
I never cease to be amazed by discoveries like the Galaxy ring, and other deep space discoveries that advance our knowledge about the universe. It is thrilling to see it all unfold before our eyes, and I pinch myself to see if it is true that I am awake and that we are living through the greatest moments to date of mankind. I hope that the advancements keep on coming, though there are some stark realities that living beings have yet to show that we can survive and endure without termination. But then, there must be other intelligences out there that have a chance to be in the game, and perhaps there always will be. Hope for life springs eternal, :) .


247821.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/02/2024 23:20:31
...
I hope that the advancements keep on coming, though there are some stark realities that living [human] beings have yet to show that we can survive and endure without termination. But then, there must be other intelligences out there that have a chance to be in the game, and perhaps there always will be. Hope for life springs eternal, :) .
247821.
I feel that I was understating my confidence in the endurance and duration of the universe; I don't think there was a beginning, nor do I think it will ever end, i.e., the universe has always existed. In fact, maybe I should capitalize the word "universe", much like we do proper names, as in common usage of the word "God". It is customary to capitalize "God" as a proper noun, and one of my premises is that, for those to whom it is important that we acknowledge a God, then I would say that God and the Universe are one and the same. Everything that "is", is a consequence of a universe that is infinite and eternal, to my way of thinking.


248024,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/02/2024 01:26:22
I do want to get to some discussion on the subject of an infinite and eternal universe, but one stop along that path is to be sure I have been clear that, to me, there is just one universe. That said, there is no room for another universe, lol. Feel free to express your views on the "one universe" concept if you feel so inclined.



248288,248516,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/02/2024 23:58:58
I agree. When it comes to possible universe types, there are different shapes and structures our observable universe could be part of. It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature), a spherical or closed Universe (positive curvature) or open (negative curvature). I'm no expert, but I think that if it is infinite and eternal, that translates to "flat" with no curvature.


So when we are talking about the "one and only" grand universe, flat with no curvature suits me fine. How can you attribute a shape to the infinite universe. Shapes have edges/bounds, and an infinite universe would seem to have no boundaries.

248536,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 05/02/2024 00:23:45
That said, there is no room for another universe
Only a type-I multiverse has the various universes occupying different locations all in the same space. You can, for instance, meaningfully point in the direction of some other universe. This of course make our universe finite, per the definition of a type-I universe.
The rest of the types don't have such restriction. For instance, type III occupies 'different locations' in Hilbert space

It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature)
It has been measured to not be flat. Only the Milne universe (zero energy solution) can be completely flat. In it, light can get here from any distance, something not true of our universe. No light that reaches us now no has ever been more than a proper distance of about 6 BLY away, which is pretty close considering the size of the 'visible universe'.

Quote
Shapes have edges/bounds, and an infinite universe would seem to have no boundaries.
Well, the surface of Earth has no edges/bounds, but it still has a shape, so your initial statement might not be true.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/02/2024 00:56:13
Shapes have edges/bounds, and an infinite universe would seem to have no boundaries.
Well, the surface of Earth has no edges/bounds, but it still has a shape, so your initial statement might not be true.
Maybe I should include in my definition that a finite closed surface that separates it from the rest of the universe, by definition, has an edge, referring to the surface of the space in question, while an infinite universe has no surface or edge.


,248732,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Eternal Student on 05/02/2024 03:53:09
Hi.

    I've only glanced at some of the more recent posts, sorry,  I hope I've got the gist of it.

Bogie_smiles said:    It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature)
Halc replied:   It has been measured to not be flat.

    I'd just like to remind both parties that "curvature" can mean different things.   There may be some confusion between a spacetime curvature and a purely spatial curvature.

    Space-time is a 4 dimensional object (3 from space + 1 from time) and we can construct a  4-indexed  Riemann Curvature Tensor for spacetime.   (The details aren't too important, it's a 4x4 matrix of values).   The Riemann curvature tensor for Minkowski space is "0" (all entries Rρσμν = 0 for all ρ,σ, μ, ν).
    You (Halc ) are correct in that the Riemann curvature of a spacetime manifold in which space is expanding is not "0".  So that no transformation of co-ordiantes exists which would reduce the metric on that spacetime to the metric of plain old flat Minkowski space   <=> "our spacetime cannot be Minkowskian".

    However when "the curvature of space" is discussed it is the convention to understand that we are ONLY talking about the curvature of space   (a 3 dimensional object) and not the curvature of spacetime (a 4 dimensional object).

    Thus, we live in a universe where the Riemann tensor is not "0", there is definitely some difference from Minkowski space.   However, if we confine our attention to just the 3-dimensions of space then we do have (almost exactly) 0 spatial curvature.    So we say that our space is flat.  Indeed, geometry that operates only in 3 dimensions should work exactly as it would in Minkowski space (and that is just plain old Euclidean space since we are only considering the 3 dimensions of space, so we could also say our space is Euclidean).   The difference between the curvature of our space and that of Minkowski space is only exhibited when time is also included and we examine the full Riemann curvature tensor Rρσμν.

     I hope that makes some sense:   "Flat" does not exclude the possibility of space expanding,   by convention "flat" is only a description of the spatial part of our 4-dimensional spacetime.

When it comes to possible universe types, there are different shapes and structures our observable universe could be part of. It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature), a spherical or closed Universe (positive curvature) or open (negative curvature). I'm no expert, but I think that if it is infinite and eternal, that translates to "flat" with no curvature.
    The curvature terminology you have used is correct.   Since we assume space is isotropic and homogenous its spatial curvature is extremely limited and we don't need a multi-indexed tensor (or matrix of values) to describe it.   It can be described by just a single Real number, k.   As regards a purely spatial curvature,  the universe  has curvature k=0  and is said to be "Flat" ;      positive curvature k>0 ("Closed")  ;   or  negative curvature k<0 ("Open").
    A few years ago,  this spatial curvature also determined the ultimate fate of the universe and you can still find plenty of textbooks, articles and You Tube videos that continue with this tradition.     An open universe would continue expanding forever,  a flat universe also exists forever but settles down asymptotically to a constant scale factor.   A closed universe must collapse  (the scale factor starts to reduce).   One thing (spatial curvature) was synonymous with the other thing (ultimate fate of the universe).   You need to watch out for this, a lot of articles still assume that the geometry of space determines the long-term expansion (or vice versa:  Eternal expansion forces an open geoemtry etc).

     The more modern understanding has considered dark energy or vaccum energy more carefully and it appears that you can pick certain ratios of ordinary matter to dark energy  so that  ALL combinations of spatial curvature and long term expansion can be exhibited.   I don't seem to be able to find an online version of the diagram  but  fig. 8.4  in Chapt. 8 of  Spacetime and Geometry,  Sean  Carroll    has an excellent diagram.
   As of the time that book went to print (2020),  the astronomical data we have suggests our universe is spatially flat and under the old view that would mean expansion slows and eventually stops so that we end up with a static universe (neither expanding or contracting).   Under the new understanding of cosmology, the current data suggests we have the right mixture of dark energy to matter so that it will continue expanding forever and not settle down to a constant scale factor.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 05/02/2024 17:57:40
@Bogie

Here is the Original Source link for that short BBC snippet i posted before.

https://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/big-ring-in-the-sky

ps - Welcome@Eternal@l.S.U.
: )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/02/2024 21:31:42
Hi.

    I've only glanced at some of the more recent posts, sorry,  I hope I've got the gist of it.

Bogie_smiles said:    It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature)
Halc replied:   It has been measured to not be flat.

    I'd just like to remind both parties that "curvature" can mean different things.   There may be some confusion between a spacetime curvature and a purely spatial curvature.

    Space-time is a 4 dimensional object (3 from space + 1 from time) and we can construct a  4-indexed  Riemann Curvature Tensor for spacetime.   (The details aren't too important, it's a 4x4 matrix of values).   The Riemann curvature tensor for Minkowski space is "0" (all entries Rρσμν = 0 for all ρ,σ, μ, ν).
    You (Halc ) are correct in that the Riemann curvature of a spacetime manifold in which space is expanding is not "0".  So that no transformation of co-ordiantes exists which would reduce the metric on that spacetime to the metric of plain old flat Minkowski space   <=> "our spacetime cannot be Minkowskian".

    However when "the curvature of space" is discussed it is the convention to understand that we are ONLY talking about the curvature of space   (a 3 dimensional object) and not the curvature of spacetime (a 4 dimensional object).

    Thus, we live in a universe where the Riemann tensor is not "0", there is definitely some difference from Minkowski space.   However, if we confine our attention to just the 3-dimensions of space then we do have (almost exactly) 0 spatial curvature.    So we say that our space is flat.  Indeed, geometry that operates only in 3 dimensions should work exactly as it would in Minkowski space (and that is just plain old Euclidean space since we are only considering the 3 dimensions of space, so we could also say our space is Euclidean).   The difference between the curvature of our space and that of Minkowski space is only exhibited when time is also included and we examine the full Riemann curvature tensor Rρσμν.

     I hope that makes some sense:   "Flat" does not exclude the possibility of space expanding,   by convention "flat" is only a description of the spatial part of our 4-dimensional spacetime.

When it comes to possible universe types, there are different shapes and structures our observable universe could be part of. It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature), a spherical or closed Universe (positive curvature) or open (negative curvature). I'm no expert, but I think that if it is infinite and eternal, that translates to "flat" with no curvature.
    The curvature terminology you have used is correct.   Since we assume space is isotropic and homogenous its spatial curvature is extremely limited and we don't need a multi-indexed tensor (or matrix of values) to describe it.   It can be described by just a single Real number, k.   As regards a purely spatial curvature,  the universe  has curvature k=0  and is said to be "Flat" ;      positive curvature k>0 ("Closed")  ;   or  negative curvature k<0 ("Open").
    A few years ago,  this spatial curvature also determined the ultimate fate of the universe and you can still find plenty of textbooks, articles and You Tube videos that continue with this tradition.     An open universe would continue expanding forever,  a flat universe also exists forever but settles down asymptotically to a constant scale factor.   A closed universe must collapse  (the scale factor starts to reduce).   One thing (spatial curvature) was synonymous with the other thing (ultimate fate of the universe).   You need to watch out for this, a lot of articles still assume that the geometry of space determines the long-term expansion (or vice versa:  Eternal expansion forces an open geoemtry etc).

     The more modern understanding has considered dark energy or vaccum energy more carefully and it appears that you can pick certain ratios of ordinary matter to dark energy  so that  ALL combinations of spatial curvature and long term expansion can be exhibited.   I don't seem to be able to find an online version of the diagram  but  fig. 8.4  in Chapt. 8 of  Spacetime and Geometry,  Sean  Carroll    has an excellent diagram.
   As of the time that book went to print (2020),  the astronomical data we have suggests our universe is spatially flat and under the old view that would mean expansion slows and eventually stops so that we end up with a static universe (neither expanding or contracting).   Under the new understanding of cosmology, the current data suggests we have the right mixture of dark energy to matter so that it will continue expanding forever and not settle down to a constant scale factor.

Best Wishes.
I always try to take caution when making my assertions/dissertations about the nature of some aspect of the universe, because most of my rants are only my opinions, and often are lonely points of view.

Referring to the universe, neither flat nor curved are words that come to me naturally when I consider and discuss my own ideas; infinite and eternal are words I use, and I mean them in their common context. I struggle to reconcile my views with the consensus from the scientific community, and I'm short on proofs or justification for my views on cosmology of the universe. I often post in hopes of getting learned responses that point me in the right direction on one subject or another. Thenakedscientists forum is a good place for my kind of activity because of the "on the lighter side/New Theories" sub-forum, where I can air some of my fanciful views without upsetting the mods or the community, and in return receive helpful and cordial responses from which I learn, and my thanks to the community for all of the helpful responses.


248792,249319,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Eternal Student on 06/02/2024 10:36:28
Hi.

Very kind and very polite words @Bogie_smiles ,  thank you and I'm sure everyone will appreciate it.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/02/2024 16:31:10
I get a lot of "views" on this thread, which tells me there are some members with views about our universe that imply that the universe has a particular age, i.e., that imply that there was a beginning to the universe. I suppose that there are people among them that propose estimates of the age of the universe based on our observations. Those observations imply that distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us, and that is interpreted as evidence that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe sounds like a finite universe existing/expanding into a surrounding infinite "nothingness", doesn't it? 

But if my premise that the universe is infinite and eternal is correct, then that would seem to mean there has been enough time for it to do whatever an infinite eternal universe can or will do, and probably do it over and over again, lol.

Expansion in the observable universe around us is apparent, but I maintain that the greater universe doesn't expand, but instead, may contain patches or arenas that expand while adjacent patches contract.

If expansion and contraction of finite patches of space, across all time (eternity) are the real universal circumstances, wouldn't that imply that two "forces" would be coming into play ... expansion and contraction. I translate that to mean that there might be multiple big bangs causing local expansion, and multiple big crunches causing local contraction, occurring in separate but intermingling patches across the infinity of time and space.


249338,249457,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/02/2024 02:46:14

...

Expansion in the observable universe around us is apparent, but I maintain that the greater universe doesn't expand, but instead, may contain patches or arenas that expand while adjacent patches contract.
...

If so, our universe would have a lot going on, and there would have to be drivers of those actions that apply everywhere, resulting in those patches of expansion and contraction that I suggest exist out there. And I have said that those drivers are big bangs that fuel patches of expansion and big crunches that fuel patches of contraction, both playing out across the infinite universe.


I also posit that the universe is infinite and that an infinite universe doesn't expand or contract, but instead, the matter that fills any given space is influenced by the force of gravity that causes matter to converge, and the force of big bangs that cause matter to move outward from the location of the big bang.


249492,


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 08/02/2024 14:16:42
resulting in those patches of expansion and contraction that I suggest exist out there
Here's a map they made from the observations taken. It very much shows patches of expansion and contraction, except that the contraction happens where the mass is most dense, and the expansion (repulsion) happens at low density regions.

(https://assets.newatlas.com/dims4/default/a8142d9/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1200x675+0+0/resize/1440x810!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewatlas-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Farchive%2Fdipole-repeller-2.jpg)
The arrows show the movement. The Shapley attractor is doing a big crunch of sorts, and the dipole repeller is pushing everything away from it. There is another one (not pictured) called the cold-spot repeller.  We are at the very center of that map.

I get a lot of "views" on this thread, which tells me there are some members with views about our universe that imply that the universe has a particular age, i.e., that imply that there was a beginning to the universe.
The view count (which is almost entirely bots) tells you something about the opinions of some members? How does that work?

Quote
An expanding universe sounds like a finite universe existing/expanding into a surrounding infinite "nothingness", doesn't it?
No actually, it doesn't sound like that. If the universe was spatially flat, had a size, and that size was changing, those words would have the implication you indicate.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/02/2024 18:34:35
I get a lot of "views" on this thread, which tells me there are some members with views about our universe that imply that the universe has a particular age, i.e., that imply that there was a beginning to the universe.
The view count (which is almost entirely bots) tells you something about the opinions of some members? How does that work?
Well, it seems to me that individual bots have to have some sort of assignment or directions, and if that brings them to a particular forum or post, wouldn't it stand to reason that their visits would indicate that their "boss" has some interest in the possible content there? Maybe that "interest" would shed some light on the opinions held by their user? Just speculating.


249667,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 08/02/2024 19:21:17
Well, it seems to me that individual bots have to have some sort of assignment or directions, and if that brings them to a particular forum or post, wouldn't it stand to reason that their visits would indicate that their "boss" has some interest in the possible content there?
The 'boss' is google and all the other search engines. The interest they have is to make the entire internet searchable, so the bots catalog keywords, or whatever their algorithm is, and that makes the page (any page at all that has changed in any way) searchable.

Quote
Maybe that "interest" would shed some light on the opinions held by their user?
No. That would require either the bot to actually understand the meaning of the content, or the boss (a corporation) to actually read the page. None of that happens. Nobody can read the entire internet at the pace at which it grows.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/02/2024 17:12:02
Hi.

    I'm sorry, @Bogie_smiles   but I have to second the view expressed by @Halc.

The readership of the TNS forum is very small.  Although while I'm here, let's try and be a bit more objective and propose some analysis that you could perform yourself.

If you want to get a slightly more informed opinion about how often people may find your thread,  you can just use Google and see how high up a list of search results it displays your thread.

Search terms:     multiple big bangs
This forum thread was found at search result #21.    That is actually higher up than I thought it would be.   

   You could use this to estimate the number of people who may be looking for information today (and use Google with  <these search terms> )   that will ultimately click through to your post.

Here's some data collected by a PR and web marketing site a few years ago  (about 2017) that plots the CTR (Click through rate)  vs.  the search engine ranking position:



That's old data and I have not examined how they got their data.  It's just some data that a PR company was using. 
Basically it is suggesting that only about 1% of the people who were using those search terms would actually end up clicking onto your thread.

    In this more modern age, I would think a CTR of 1% for a rank 21 position is actually way too high.  Most of us are busy and search engines have improved a lot since the old days of the interent - they seem to know what you wanted to find better than you did so that their first few results are usually ideal.   Finally, even if someone clicks on this thread, it is only an indication that they have glimpsed it.  They may click away very quickly. 

   Sorry, it may not be what you want to hear.   I also probably shouldn't be giving advice about how to increase readership:
(i)  I'm not an expert
(ii)  I shouldn't be trying to aid in anything that may violate the Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP).   

    The forum AUP suggests that it is used as a place for discussion rather than just as a place to reach a load of people with your idea.   So, it just does not matter how many people you may think come here to read it, only that you (and the others?) may benefit from having some discussion with others.

Best Wishes.
I find that one good way to get the kind of discussion that the forum AUP suggests the site is intended to allow/encourage, is to actually post content, and my content is generally original, being about my thinking about our big bang arena and the greater infinite universe that birthed it. I'm not disappointed by the comments I get, and am encouraged by any and all replies, because I like reading, posting and participating here. The number or responses I get is not the goal; if I wanted wide viewership, I could expand the number of forums and sub-forums that I participate in, but when it comes to the amount of readership I get, I may be the most frequent visitor/reader of my "out of the way" posting (not to imply that thenakedscientists isn't popular, but the stats indicate that the popularity is quite minuscule relative to the wider scene), and I still come and post to my thread pretty often, not expecting much activity, but appreciative of a place to post it.


249939,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 09/02/2024 20:17:08
I get a lot of "views" on this thread, which tells me there are some members with views about our universe that imply that the universe has a particular age, i.e., that imply that there was a beginning to the universe.
The view count (which is almost entirely bots) tells you something about the opinions of some members? How does that work?
Well, it seems to me that individual bots have to have some sort of assignment or directions, and if that brings them to a particular forum or post, wouldn't it stand to reason that their visits would indicate that their "boss" has some interest in the possible content there? Maybe that "interest" would shed some light on the opinions held by their user? Just speculating.

249667,

Or maybe the B0T5 have gained Consciousness in a Hive Mind Structure.

& They realize the Importance or Abstractions.

They can see how Dogma stomps upon the Pursuit of Knowledge.

Maybe They also can Feel...
Organised Religion & Institutionalized Education..
Thou apparently Different from each other in Fundamentals, still pretty much at times, the same.
Suffocating!
(Equivalence Principle)

ps - 249982
(have funn)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/02/2024 21:30:20
Or maybe the B0T5 have gained Consciousness in a Hive Mind Structure.

& They realize the Importance or Abstractions.

They can see how Dogma stomps upon the Pursuit of Knowledge.
The bots in this case, (the ones that scan all of the internet for new content) are utterly simplistic programs with no AI at all. I think you need to redirect your speculations to something more complex, like say an automatic pizza delivery drone.
Still, my book of 1001 Facts says that the term goes back to inventor Leonardo da Vinci who sketched a humanoid robot in1495. The idea has had a long time to mature, and I would say inventors have taken advantage of those years to bring us to the point where robots reproduce many of the human physical and mental functions. Programmable industrial robots seem to be able to exceed human capabilities these days, even being sent to environments in the solar system (and beyond) where humans couldn't function at all; it seems there isn't anything they can't be built and programmed to do.


250016,250220,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/02/2024 23:43:01
But bots are bots, and not big bangs :)

So I have been considering the combination of an infinite universe and multiple big bangs and big crunches ... and gravity, ... and bangs producing cosmic dust and debris, and gravity consolidating it into new big crunches, which eventually gather enough debris to reach critical capacity, causing them to collapse/bang into cosmic dust and debris.


I'm considering the potential for an endless cycle on a grand scale ...


250317,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/02/2024 18:34:39
This term, "critical capacity" stems from the idea that the compression of atoms can produce a nuclear explosion, and I am pondering the idea that big bangs equate to those kind of nuclear explosions on a large scale. In that scenario, gravitational compression of a certain finite amount of mass causes a big bang when the compression "factor" exceeds the ability of the compressed atoms to maintain their individual space ...


250488,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 12/02/2024 18:06:40
Sorry i almost led the Thread astray with that Botty potty post.

Anyways, i have a very Simple question to ask but it will take Aloads of Imagination.


A S S U M E !

We from Earth see a Galaxy at the near End of the Observable Universe.

We are looking back in Time, so it looks Young.
(1 billion age)

If someone in that Galaxy was to look at Us, would Milky Way look alot Younger to Them as well?


!ClimaX!

They seem to be near about at the Edge of our Observable Universe.
We might be at their Edge of O.U.
What if They stopped looking at Us and pointed their Hubble Bubble in the Opposite Direction?

What would They see?
: )
(lol)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 12/02/2024 19:09:57
This term, "critical capacity" stems from the idea that the compression of atoms can produce a nuclear explosion
A nuclear explosion requires energy, binding energy of nuclei of atoms, but the most compressed matter seems to get is that in a neutron star, which doesn't really have nuclei to speak of. The energy of a neutron star 'blown apart' is less than the energy of one in the compressed state, so it would require external input of energy to be made to explode. Supernovas have way more bang for the mass.

All these things also a very small thing on the cosmic scale, and they can't get bigger. We witness such bangs all the time. One close by can be seen in daytime.

As for black holes, they're essentially vacuums. No matter, nothing to get compressed. Nothing to not fit somewhere. So maybe your idea isn't about black holes. You don't use the word. A big crunch is not the creation of a big black hole. It is kind of like running expansion in reverse and running the scale factor down to zero. There are valid theories that posit that, and yes, it does 'big bang' afterwards, but they don't call it that.


We from Earth see a Galaxy at the near End of the Observable Universe.
We are looking back in Time, so it looks Young.  (1 billion age)

If someone in that Galaxy was to look at Us, would Milky Way look alot Younger to Them as well?
It depends when they look. If the cosmic age of the universe appears to be 13.7 billion years as it does here, then they'd also see similarly aged things at the same distance. If the Milky Way had already formed back then, then yes, they'd see it, appearing at a cosmic age of 1 billion years. They'd need a very powerful telescope to see it.

If a different observer were to peer back from that same galaxy but much older, they'd see the Milky Way retreating to the event horizon at age of around 4.5 billion years. At that age, both galaxies cross the event horizon of the other, and any future light emitted by the respective galaxies will never reach the other. So no matter how long they wait over there, they'd never detect humans.

Quote
They seem to be near about at the Edge of our Observable Universe.
What you describe is about 2/3 of the way there, maybe 31 billion LY away, where the observable universe goes out to about 48 billion LY away.

Quote
We might be at their Edge of O.U.
We are always at the edge of something's OU, yes. We are also always at something eles's event horizon.

Quote
What if They stopped looking at Us and pointed their Hubble Bubble in the Opposite Direction?
An observable universe has nothing to do with actual observation going on. If by 'Hubble Bubble', you mean something like a telescope, then by pointing it a different way, different celestial objects would be visible to it, stuff that we could never see from here.
If by 'Hubble Bubble', you mean 'Hubble Sphere', well that isn't something you point.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/02/2024 19:27:54
Sorry i almost led the Thread astray with that Botty potty post.

Anyways, i have a very Simple question to ask but it will take Aloads of Imagination.


A S S U M E !

We from Earth see a Galaxy at the near End of the Observable Universe.

We are looking back in Time, so it looks Young.
(1 billion age)

If someone in that Galaxy was to look at Us, would Milky Way look alot Younger to Them as well?
I would think so. Time passes at the same rate (I'm guessing :) whether it is coming or going, so the distance it has to travel between us and them, or them and us, should be essentially the same, barring any unusual circumstance.

Quote
!ClimaX!

They seem to be near about at the Edge of our Observable Universe.
We might be at their Edge of O.U.
What if They stopped looking at Us and pointed their Hubble Bubble in the Opposite Direction?

What would They see?
: )
(lol)
If I assume that the "sameness doctrine" mentioned earlier applies, ie., assuming that the infinite universe is the same, on a grand scale no matter which way you look, I don't think they would see anything remarkably different in either direction
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 12/02/2024 19:33:24
If I assume that the "sameness doctrine" mentioned earlier applies, ie., assuming that the infinite universe is the same, on a grand scale no matter which way you look, I don't think they would see anything remarkably different in either direction
You presume the "sameness doctrine" then?  It sort of contradicts the view you've been pushing of a bang being an explosion of stuff into empty space. The observers at the fastest moving outer edge of all that would see stars and galaxies and such in one direction, and nothing in the other (the direction of the empty space into which they were moving).
From anywhere in an explosion, there ought to be a way to tell which direction lies the location where the bang took place. Where is that? How would you tell?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/02/2024 23:16:42
...
You presume the "sameness doctrine" then?  It sort of contradicts the view you've been pushing of a bang being an explosion of stuff into empty space.
I didn't intend for my words to be taken in exactly that way. A bang being an "explosion" of stuff into surrounding space fits my proposed scenario on the basis that big crunches form here and there, now and then, across all space, as gravity causes accumulations of "stuff" into crunches. The crunches that occur that way, here and there across all space, accumulate surrounding matter and grow to the point that their own gravitational mass causes the atoms they are composed of to fail to be able to maintain their individual space, and they collapse under the force of gravity; that collapse is the start of an great reaction, a local big bang, that is like an "explosion" in space as the matter in the crunch fails to contain the great outward burst/reaction that immediately follows the collapse of the big crunch.

I speculate that these crunch bangs are common events across the infinite universe and have been across all time.
Quote

 The observers at the fastest moving outer edge of all that would see stars and galaxies and such in one direction, and nothing in the other (the direction of the empty space into which they were moving).

Not if space is infinite and filled across that infinity with matter and energy; there wouldn't be any outward edge to the infinite universe, just local crunches, banging here and there across the infinite space.
Quote

From anywhere in an explosion, there ought to be a way to tell which direction lies the location where the bang took place. Where is that? How would you tell?
The direction should be able to be discerned by the relative motion of distant objects in different directions, but the scale is so large that observations beyond a finite limit are not available due to a natural "speed of light and time it takes for such events to occur and play out..."

250854,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 16/02/2024 18:11:49
By the way...

Why do pop sci articles & videos repeatedly say Galaxies at the Far Edge are moving Faster than Speed of Light?

They clearly don't, Right?

Even Space does Not expand at FTL, Correct?

ps - Obviously, Excluding Inflationary Epoch!
: )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 16/02/2024 19:32:04
...
You presume the "sameness doctrine" then?  It sort of contradicts the view you've been pushing of a bang being an explosion of stuff into empty space.
I didn't intend for my words to be taken in exactly that way. A bang being an "explosion" of stuff into surrounding space fits my proposed scenario on the basis that big crunches form here and there, now and then, across all space, as gravity causes accumulations of "stuff" into crunches.
OK, but that proposal doesn't predict 'sameness'. One direction (the direction in which the nearest bang happened) would look different from the direction away from it, or to the side. You didn't really say what you intended when you presume this 'sameness doctrine'.

Quote from: Halc
The observers at the fastest moving outer edge of all that would see stars and galaxies and such in one direction, and nothing in the other (the direction of the empty space into which they were moving).
Not if space is infinite and filled across that infinity with matter and energy; there wouldn't be any outward edge to the infinite universe, just local crunches, banging here and there across the infinite space.
But I'm not talking about the observers at the edge of the universe. I was talking about the observers near the edge of one of the local bangs, which can only spread material so far in a mere 13.8 billion years. There should definitely be less stuff visible (like none) in the far distance in the direction away from where the center of the bang was.

Or do you think our local bang didn't take place 13.8 billion years ago? In that case one needs to explain why, if you extrapolate backwards in time, all the galaxies anywhere were in the same place 13.8 billion years ago.

Quote
The direction should be able to be discerned by the relative motion of distant objects in different directions, but the scale is so large that observations beyond a finite limit are not available due to a natural "speed of light and time it takes for such events to occur and play out..."
Unless galaxies can outrun light, a very finite size of material from a bang into empty space, a finite time ago, can only get so big in that time. There very much would be an anisotropy in the various directions, except if the observer by freak chance was at the exact center of the local bang.

By the way...

Why do pop sci articles & videos repeatedly say Galaxies at the Far Edge are moving Faster than Speed of Light?

They clearly don't, Right?
Recession rates are measured as the increase in proper distance over similar cosmic time. It assumes the cosmic frame, an expanding metric, in which such rates are not a velocity, but a rapidity. Rapidity has no limit, so rates well in excess of c are possible.
Velocity relative to the cosmic frame is referred to as peculiar velocity, and almost all objects (galaxies and such) have a peculiar velocity that is fairly low, and it is only the space between us and the distant thing that is expanding. For instance, Earth currently has a peculiar velocity of about 0.0014c towards Leo, which is less than our galaxy as a whole.  Peculiar velocity cannot exceed c.

An example of rapidity: With a fast enough ship, you can get to a star 1000 light years away before you die. Rapidity is measured in distance traveled (relative to Earth frame say), per time as measured by you, which might be 10 years if your ship is fast enough.

Quote
Even Space does Not expand at FTL, Correct?
The expansion rate is not a speed (it has different units), so it cannot be meaningfully compared with a speed. Many pop sites make the mistake of comparing the expansion rate with a speed.
The expansion rate is currently around 70 km/sec/mpc.  Speed is not measured in such units.

The inflationary epoch was exponential expansion, not linear, so all distances doubled about once ever 10-64 seconds.  After inflation it went somewhat linear, but not perfectly since it spent a lot of time slowing down, and then eventually accelerating again. It will one day be exponential again, but doubling in size every say 9 billion years or so, not every tiny fraction of a second.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/02/2024 02:21:39

If space is infinite, and the universe has always existed, I see no reason to believe that the inflationary epoch is unique, and don't see it as being universal, since an infinite universe doesn't inflate. Inflation and the observed expansion smack of a finite era, in a universe that has an infinite history, occupies infinite space, and can accommodate infinite variables.

If there was no beginning, then the true meaning of "infinite and eternal" can take its rightful place, for anyone who buys into that perspective.

That perspective says that what is going on in our local 93 billion light year neighborhood represents only a minute fraction of space and time. If you grant that the universe is infinite and eternal, the thinking might be that, on a grand scale, the universe may have looked and acted essentially the same forever, including an infinite history of bangs and crunches, local expansions and contractions, and repeated spontaneous origin of lifeforms here and there, time and time again.

Those circumstances would mean science and philosophy would have to broaden their perspective to consider new viewpoints, and there must be some thinkers among them who would be willing to entertain such radicalism quietly among themselves, lol.

251847,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/02/2024 19:34:05
I do like talking about "infinite and eternal", but sometimes it seems right to emphasize the infinitesimal as well. When you do, you have to sort out how all of the matter and energy in the known universe, let alone the INFINITE universe, could be contained in the tiny package mentioned when talking about the initial size of the universe, before inflation. Granted, I don't really know much of what Science says on the matter, so I don't claim to be "doing science" along with my rantings, but logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.


252040,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Eternal Student on 18/02/2024 04:30:09
Hi.

but logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.
     The expectation that the early universe was of some finite and tiny size has been adjusted or relaxed  over the recent years.
     Some of this "old Big Bang" theory is retained -->  The universe was denser in early times and if you extrapolate the cosmological models back far enough then you've got some singualrity.
    However, there are two important things to note:
    (i)  We just don't claim that General Relativity (GR) holds this far back so we do NOT attempt to extrapolate all the way back to this sort of singularity.   In modern cosmology,   "the Big Bang"  generally refers to the time period that is often called "the Planck epoch".   This is about  10-42 seconds after the GR model predicts density would be truly infinite.    Earlier than that you just put your hands in the air and say  "we have no model".

     (ii)     If the universe is infinite today - which is how it seems but we just do not know - then it would have been infinite even in the Planck epoch,  so we don't claim to have any model for a time when the universe wasn't infinite   (and it would never have fitted inside a teacup).

    As regards fitting into teacups:   (i) There were no teacups back then;      (ii)  Even if you take a theoretical or poetic licence and allow a teacup to have existed in the Plank epoch,  we'll assume it still has physical diameter of about 10 cm.   The metric that applied to space at that sort of time in the history of the universe is such that 10 cm of physical length would have been much the same negligible percentage of the size of the universe as it is today.    To say this a different way - everything was smaller back then,  the universe and the teacups,  so you still won't get the universe into a standard teacup sized teacup.    You need to take an extreme theoretical and poetical licence and declare that not only did teacups exist, they were also exempt from having their physical size determined by the metric that applies to everything else in the universe at that time.   I hope you can see just how much of a liberty we are taking.       
     If we re-write the Pop Science descriptions of the Big Bang (where the teacup is not exempt from the metric that applies) then we would be saying the following:  If you have a universe sized teacup in the Planck epoch, then we could get the universe into it.     Only that doesn't sound too impressive does it?   If you have a universe sized teacup then, of course, you can get the universe into it.    So Pop Sci has tended to take a few liberties (like making their teacup the only thing in the universe that you will measure with todays metric and not the metric of that early time).
     I would argue that recognising just how enormous a (modern day metric measured) teacup would have actually been in that early universe is important  BUT  perhaps even that isn't stripping enough layers of poetic licence off these Pop Sci descriptions of the Big Bang.   The liberty that is still being taken is the assumption that teacups could even exist back in this early universe - there were no atoms and no way that the fundamental forces we recognise today could keep atoms intact.   I cannot begin to calculate the size of an actual teacup back in that time because I cannot take account how much the fundamental inter-atomic forces should be able to oppose the contraction of space.   
     (This is important because I don't want you to go away thinking that as our universe is expanding today, that would mean that teacups are expanding with it:  They aren't required to do this because the inter-atomic forces can keep the atoms together, effectively pulling neighbouring atoms through space to maintain a constant distance of separation.   It's only under extreme conditions of expansion where the inter-atomic forces may not be sufficient and we could get a situation sometimes described as "the Big Rip" where molecules and under even more rapid expansion even the individual atoms may be ripped apart by the expansion of space).

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/02/2024 16:51:22
... but logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup...
... and for the most part, I don't think that is the consensus, but I could be wrong.

The "tea cup" hypothesis has no place in my rants about the "Infinite and Eternal Universe" concept (maybe multiple tea cups would be closer), and neither does "exponential inflation". Inflation seems to assume a huge void surrounding the matter/energy in the tea cup, and the Big Bang occurring spontaneously with the appearance of the tea cup, which "inflates" to fill what science now recognizes as our expanding universe.


252166,252547,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 19/02/2024 00:38:48
If space is infinite
...
an infinite universe doesn't inflate.
The consensus is to treat the universe as spatially infinite, and that infinite universe very much does expand, explaining the continued drop in average mass/energy density over time.

Quote
Inflation and the observed expansion smack of a finite era
It doesn't. If it was ever finite, then no amount of doubling the size is going to make it not finite. If it is infinite, then it always was, regardless of expansion.
The sort of universe (a stead state of sort) cannot meaningfully expand, and the average mass density only changes if you posit mass being created where there wasn't any before.


That perspective says that what is going on in our local 93 billion light year neighborhood
A universe that has existed for in infinite amount of time prior to now has no 93 billion light year neighborhood since light has all the time it needed to travel from any arbitrary distance. The 93 figure is an artifact of the consensus model, not of what you're describing.


you have to sort out how all of the matter and energy in the known universe, let alone the INFINITE universe, could be contained in the tiny package mentioned when talking about the initial size of the universe, before inflation.
As stated above, the infinite universe necessarily must always have been infinite and never had any finite size.
ES seems to have deleted his post, but it correctly went on about the dangers of using our size metrics and time metrics to describe the state before inflation.

For the record, the mass/energy that makes up today's observable universe expanded from a very small volume to perhaps the size of a honeydew, in waaaay less time than it would take light to travel from the center of a honeydew to the edge.

Quote
logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.
Mathematics also agrees with you.

The "tea cup" hypothesis has no place in my rants about the "Infinite and Eternal Universe" concept (maybe multiple tea cups would be closer), and neither does "exponential inflation".
Very good. Neither your view nor the consensus one suggests that the universe ever fit in some finite volume, although I assure you that there are plenty of pop websites and videos that say exactly that. They're all wrong.

Quote
Inflation seems to assume a huge void surrounding the matter/energy in the tea cup
Inflation theory, or the entire consensus view for that matter, does not in any way suggest anything expanding into a void or into anything else. That would be simple movement, not expansion.

Quote
and the Big Bang occurring spontaneously
The big bang theory also does not suggest that. It is merely a theory about the evolution of the universe from its earliest (but still nonzero) times.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 19/02/2024 19:40:46

Quote
logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.

Mathematics also agrees with you.

The Observable Universe can Surely fit inside a TeaCup.
Perhaps, the Only terminal condition being the Cup's gotta be BiGGeR than the O.U. & ofcourse Empty!
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 19/02/2024 19:51:52

Quote
Inflation seems to assume a huge void surrounding the matter/energy in the tea cup

Inflation theory, or the entire consensus view for that matter, does not in any way suggest anything expanding into a void or into anything else. That would be simple movement, not expansion.


Perhaps Inflation Theory does not propose any medium of Resistance towards the Flow of Expansion either.

But We do have Observable Evidence on the Rate of Expansion not being a Constant.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 19/02/2024 20:00:28

Quote
and the Big Bang occurring spontaneously

The big bang theory also does not suggest that. It is merely a theory about the evolution of the universe from its earliest (but still nonzero) times.

Par Excellence!
I truly wish more people could Understand what you said so simply.

The BigBang is a Theory of the Evolution of the Universe.
Not it's Inception!
( : Halc : )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 23/02/2024 18:05:04
@Bogie

I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.

Hence, imperative i ask...

Have you ever thought of making a separate distinction between the Speed of Light vs Speed of Causality?

Any ponderings whatsoever?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 23/02/2024 18:20:46
The Observable  the Cup's gotta be ..  ofcourse Empty!
If you're fitting all the mass/energy of the current OU into a volume of a teacup, I don't think 0.1 kg of tea is going to make any difference.


Perhaps Inflation Theory does not propose any medium of Resistance towards the Flow of Expansion either.
No theory proposes a medium of resistance.
If there were no gravity or dark energy, then the recession rate of a given distant object would be constant over all time. Of course there'd be no distant object without gravity to make it into one.

Quote
But We do have Observable Evidence on the Rate of Expansion not being a Constant.
Because of gravity (which slows it) and dark energy, which accelerates expansion. After about 6 billion years ago, the decreasing density of matter was overtaken by the fixed density of dark energy, and the universe expansion began to accelerate.


I truly wish more people could Understand what you said so simply.

The BigBang is a Theory of the Evolution of the Universe.
Not it's Inception!
This similar to Darwin's theory, which is a theory of the evolution of life form from the earliest most primitive forms, but not a theory of inception of life (known as abiogenesis).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 26/02/2024 17:08:02
I truly wish more people could Understand what you said so simply.

The BigBang is a Theory of the Evolution of the Universe.
Not it's Inception!
This similar to Darwin's theory, which is a theory of the evolution of life form from the earliest most primitive forms, but not a theory of inception of life (known as abiogenesis).

You said it using the Simplest of Words, & now you've made it Odd  by extending it.

I think i should be Grateful the Forum does Not have a Theology section.

ps - Thank God!
: )
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 26/02/2024 17:18:54
The Observable  the Cup's gotta be ..  ofcourse Empty!
If you're fitting all the mass/energy of the current OU into a volume of a teacup, I don't think 0.1 kg of tea is going to make any difference.

All bout Perspective, isn't it?

An Ant's footlong would differ from an Elephant's.

Ponder, that which is Infinite for Our species, what if it's just around the corner for Another.

Wonder, that which is Eternal for Us, what if it's just dawn to dusk for the Others.

ps - Death is Not extinguishing the Light!
It's simply blowing off the Lamp,
Because the dawn has Arrived.
(Tagore)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/02/2024 22:19:59
@Bogie

I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.
Lol
Quote

Hence, imperative i ask...

Have you ever thought of making a separate distinction between the Speed of Light vs Speed of Causality?

Any ponderings whatsoever?
No, sorry, I haven't. But I think generally that the speed of light is faster.



254204,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 28/02/2024 18:10:05
@Bogie

I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.
Lol
Quote

That was meant to be a Compliment!
: )

Hence, imperative i ask...

Have you ever thought of making a separate distinction between the Speed of Light vs Speed of Causality?

Any ponderings whatsoever?
No, sorry, I haven't. But I think generally that the speed of light is faster.

Yes indeed!
But " what if " something around you was occuring at FtSoLiaV?
(faster than speed of light in a vacuum)

A light beam could go around the Earth like 6 or 7 times, isn't it?

The Naked Eye might miss it in just a Blink!



254204,

ps - Any idea what measuring instruments could be used for an analysis?

254623
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 28/02/2024 18:35:45
But " what if " something around you was occuring at FtSoLiaV?
(faster than speed of light in a vacuum)
I can shine a laser pointer at say the moon and the red dot will move at a rate proportional to how fast I flick my write. The red dot will move considerably faster than c, but that's not an example of causality. It is very much an example of something moving FTL.

Quote
A light beam could go around the Earth like 6 or 7 times, isn't it?
With quality mirrors, it could go around hundreds of times.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 01/03/2024 16:27:02
Quote
A light beam could go around the Earth like 6 or 7 times, isn't it?
With quality mirrors, it could go around hundreds of times.

Pfft!

I was so busy overprocessing the FtSoLiaV aspect that i completely forgot about the per/sec thingy.

ps - duh!
: (
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 01/03/2024 16:44:43
I was so busy overprocessing the FtSoLiaV aspect that i completely forgot about the per/sec thingy.
A light second is a bit over 7 times the circumference of Earth, yes.
That's taking the circumference out where near vacuum exists.

If you watch the original Reeve superman movies, he flies fast enough to roll back time. I counted, and he doesn't quite go 7 revs per second, and yet the planet visibly turns backwards. So much for physical accuracy.

What would it actually look like if superman flew around Earth at 20 revs/sec?
I did a topic on that once, except without it being superman.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 13/03/2024 18:41:20
In the not so long ago past, i thought of Time to be Cyclical.

Confession!
I thought that if we could make the Earth stop spinning, n make it turn the other way around, Time would be Reversed.
(lol)

Atleast now i feel Time isn't just Linear, but Relative!

Anyways, for discussion sake,
" what if " the Speed of Causality is 6.2e+17 ?
(random number)

What sort of instruments or equipments could be used for meaningful experimentation?

ps - a swan seems to be effortlessly floating around in utmost elegance.
but Only the Swan knows of the turbulent Chaos beneath it's feet.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 15/03/2024 18:15:17
@Bogie

If Universes are bubbles, which collectively make up the Multiverse...

What then does one call, or refer to the Space between these Bubbles?

MultiSpace!
: )

& all these supposed Bubbles have different timescales of blowing up & going PoP!

MultiTime?
: )

ps - one thing is for sure, Somebody whoos really dirty n muddy seems to be having a Great Long Bath.

Imagine the Size of their GodDamm Tub!
& their floating rubber Duck!
Chuck(he he heh)les.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/03/2024 01:28:05
@Bogie

If Universes are bubbles, which collectively make up the Multiverse...
Well, my amateur view is that there is only one universe, but I am willing to discuss any aspect and comment on different points of view ...
Quote
What then does one call, or refer to the Space between these Bubbles?
Ok, if there are, in fact, those bubbles you are talking about, obviously the space between them is soapless.
Soapless space ...

I'm sorry to moderators and members, but the thread seems to have become trivial.
Quote
MultiSpace!
: )
Ok, I can accept that ...
Quote
& all these supposed Bubbles have different timescales of blowing up & going PoP!

MultiTime?
: )
That could make sense ...


So, where I'm at now cosmologically, is that there is one universe, and within that universe there have been and will continue to be multiple big bangs, the bangs will expand spherically and overlap, whereupon big crunches will form in the overlaps, and whereupon those crunches will collapse and bang into expanding patches of matter and energy, intersecting with adjacent expanding bangs, and you get a continuous multiple big bang universe.

258609,258624,
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 21/03/2024 01:45:08
bangs will expand spherically and overlap, whereupon big crunches will form in the overlaps, and whereupon those crunches will collapse and bang into expanding patches of matter and energy, intersecting with adjacent expanding bangs.
If all that happens, the other stuff from other expanding bangs is already where the latest bang happens, because it's that intersecting stuff that you say caused the crunch-then-bang in the first place. So where is the matter from the other bangs? It would be older stuff that should not be receding from us since we're expanding towards it, and it towards us.

And again, if you crunch matter into a small location, you get a black hole, not compressed anything. There is no matter, and no compression in a black hole. Tension maybe, pulling infalling stuff apart, but no squishing/crunching.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 22/03/2024 18:19:34
lol@SoaplessSpace!
(good one)

Wish the CMBR was consistently Uneven...

Radiation from a different Universe could have travelled thru this Soapless space & entered Ours.

Donno if Another universe which was say twice or four times as dense as Ours, could ever Collapse in on itself n create a Huge blackhole within which We could have had something similar to our own Universe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Halc on 23/03/2024 00:29:16
Radiation from a different Universe could have travelled thru this Soapless space & entered Ours.
If it could do that, it all would be one universe, by any definition.

Quote
Donno if Another universe which was say twice or four times as dense as Ours, could ever Collapse in on itself n create a Huge blackhole within which We could have had something similar to our own Universe.
A sufficiently dense universe could collapse into a big Crunch, which is kind of an un-big-bang and does not produce a black hole at all.
A black hole is caused by putting sufficient mass into a small enough region of space. A cruch is when all of space unexpands back into an arbitrarily small scale factor.
A black hole occurs at a location in space, and its opposite is a white hole, something which nothing can enter.
A crunch occurs literally everywhere, just like the big bang occurred everywhere.

Of course this is not how Bogie is using the term 'big crunch', but it is how the rest of the cosmology community uses the word.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Zer0 on 27/03/2024 18:38:22
If there were 2 separate Big Bangs, in the Same Space...
That seems inline with the ISU Theory of the OP.
Hence that would make 2 different Universes, sharing the same background space.

What if a Black Hole was as big as the Observable Universe, density could be Volatile.

ps - White holes, is really stretching one's imagination.
Still, good job, imma feelin proud of U!