[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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/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, 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.

[trevorjohnson32]

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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.

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?

[mrsmith2211]

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?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #4




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.

[trevorjohnson32]

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #6

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.

[trevorjohnson32]

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?

[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

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #9

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #10

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

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).

[PmbPhy]

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?

[PmbPhy]

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).

[trevorjohnson32]

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. 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.

[trevorjohnson32]

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #16

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

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #17

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

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 ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #18


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 ...

[guest39538]

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.