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.
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:
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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
You can read more about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model)
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.
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.
... 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.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?
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).
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.
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.QuoteYou attributed one of Trevor's statements to me; that was not a quote from my post.
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.QuoteIn 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.
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.QuoteThe 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.
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.QuoteOk. 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.
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.
I interpret "always has and always will" to be a reference to infinite time, at least.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.QuoteThis 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.
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?
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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]
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. ...
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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''.
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.
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][/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
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]
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.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
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.
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.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
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.
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.
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: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.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
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.
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 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?
There is no empty space, and never has been. I presume The Perfect Cosmological Principle, as stated earlier, which states that:
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]
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)
No, I couldn't, lol.
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?
[/font][/size]QuoteThe 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.I'm trying to get the quotes and fonts right, so let's see how that goes.
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]
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, good.
Ok, ty I am getting upto speed on the thread.
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.
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 .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.
(There is a possibility we are inside a nuclear generator because size is relative that is why I mention boundaries)
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
[/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.
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]
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.
[/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]
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.
Ask yourself this , is a light particle a particle or is it really a ''drip'' ( a chip off the block).
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.
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)
One big bang event and observation of isotropic layout may be possible together in accordance with the concept of LCS.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?
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?
I want to say the "KEY CLUE" for the flaws of SR: There are few types of relativity;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.
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.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.
Perhaps, a mapping of universe (that smallest units are clusters without galaxies and nearby star) may be more useful to analyze..
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.
My theory, which I developed years ago, ...
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".
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".
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?
|
The perpetual third wave action at this point in the thought experiment is the counterpart to the oscillating wave energy background in the ISU.
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:
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.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.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.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .
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.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.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.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .
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.
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.
To me you are not really explaining a few things, what is the energy traversing through space?You ask, what is the energy …
Also the word contain does not seem correct.
“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 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.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.
Is this what you are describing?
It is wave energy, like electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves.
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.
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.Thanks for the encouragement.
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.
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.
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 …
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.
If I am being totally objective and unbiased towards my own notions, I would answer the quoted with a question about proofs.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.
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.
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.
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".
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.You are siting the correct definition of an axiom from the perspective of classical philosophy which is a narrow application.
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".
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 unfalsifiabThat would be a false statement. The infinite of space is not shown to be true or not true. There is a 50/50 option.
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.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.
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
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.as it traverses the oscillating background of space.Subjective , without any sort of proofs.
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
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. …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.
… 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.
In theory, the variables I mention could work, though after reading replies 85 through 87 I now wonder if there should be another variable;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. …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.
… 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.
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;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).
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.
Remove the wording of wave and wave- particles and we would be in some agreement yet again.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.
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.
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.I do not why but I feel it appropriate to post this quoteRemove the wording of wave and wave- particles and we would be in some agreement yet again.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.
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.
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.
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]
I do not why but I feel it appropriate to post this quoteYou left off Gilgamesh, and his monster, Humbaba. I will contemplate how the quote applies.
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.True, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.
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:
F=ma if we have a 1kg mass, 1*a9.82=9.82NSo we are gaining some mutual understanding, some common ground.
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 .
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.
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago . Everyone said I was wrong.I am going to explore that concept, using JeffreyH’s post as a starting point.
(I know otherwise).
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.
…
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.
Because at the C.O.M , 1.6 x 10-35 m³ , time stops to dilate and is constant.Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago . Everyone said I was wrong.I am going to explore that concept, using JeffreyH’s post as a starting point.
(I know otherwise).
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 samenessThat possible crossover, I think, is an interesting connection, and an example of sameness sought out and referred to in the opening post by TheBox.
…
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.
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?
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).
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).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. :)
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).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 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.
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).
However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
See attached image.
n-void.jpg (34.85 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5671 times)
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.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.
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.
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: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.
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.Don’t be sorry. You couldn’t know if you would like it if you didn’t watch it. Thanks for the feedback.
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.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?
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).
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.
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.
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?Quite clearly you are looking out and not looking in. The T.S.L applies when looking in.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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?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.
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 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.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?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.
It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
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.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 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.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?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.
It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
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..
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.'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.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 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.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?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.
It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
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..
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 ideasYou 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.
Are you? That is laughable.Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideasYou 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.
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.Are you? That is laughable.Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideasYou 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.
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:
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).
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
the state of being thick, sticky, and semi-fluid inconsistency, due to internal frictionso by all means adding extensional to viscosity it would mean
Extensional viscosity (also known as elongational viscosity) is a viscosity coefficient when applied stress is extensional stress
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.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: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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
hese quantum level explosions you mention they could have preceded the big bangYes 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.
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.
Strangely enough I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.That is a good perspective in regard to “spongy”.
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.I plan to keep working on it; evolving it, as I call 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 (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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? ....
we observe an expanding Big Bang arenaHi Bogie mate, I am getting my head around your idea much better, but would like to point out the relativity involved in this statement.
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.we observe an expanding Big Bang arenaHi 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.
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.
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.
Relative to an infinite space, every object including planets and stars and even a solar system, have 0 dimensions unless quite close up.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.
It's a bit weird .
A stranger thought, relative to an infinite Universe nothing exists .Relative to an infinite space, every object including planets and stars and even a solar system, have 0 dimensions unless quite close up.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.
It's a bit weird .
A stranger thought, relative to an infinite Universe nothing exists .
added- everything is nothing? hmmmmm
LOL
A stranger thought, relative to an infinite Universe nothing exists .
added- everything is nothing? hmmmmm
Not in the ISU, :)
Because the dark energy they discuss is really good old fashioned electromagnetic radiation and the wave energy emanating from a central positionI 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.
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 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.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.
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.
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.
Because this is why the visual universe is expanding.
expansion.jpg (15.24 kB . 276x183 - viewed 5513 times)
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.Because this is why the visual universe is expanding.
expansion.jpg (15.24 kB . 276x183 - viewed 5513 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.
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.
“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?“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;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.
, 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
spherically expanding energy waveSphericalation
This is my attempt at a fun respite from the mind-bending contemplation and rigor involved in evolving the ISU [tongue in cheek]:, 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 bangQuotespherically expanding energy waveSphericalation
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.
Reply #219When 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
SphericalizationThis is my attempt at a fun respite from the mind-bending contemplation and rigor involved in evolving the ISU [tongue in cheek]:, 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 bangQuotespherically expanding energy waveSphericalation
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.
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 becontinueddeleted, lol …
The word is specifically coined for the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology (and N-Theory?).
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: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.
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 discussedOk 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
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)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 discussedOk 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
Now it is impossible to measure the signs individually so there will always be a null result , -e+p=0It 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
I admit that I didn’t read your response carefully enough, and after rereading, my initial response had me going off track.QuoteMy 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?
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.
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 :) ?
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.
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.
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).Some layman thoughts on the mechanics of the pulsing action of wave-particles:
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.
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 …
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpegI like your diagram very much.
I like your diagram very much.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.
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.
…
(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).
…
I 'see' that space is filled with energy in the forms of fields, I believe these fields to be linear .
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.
So, i think you have an answer to your question.
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.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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.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!
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 …
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
The idea appeals to my sensibilities :) .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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GG: Up until light speed Cs particles will exist. Beyond that no particles can occur.
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.
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.
Are you sure gravity isn't enthalpic as a concept itself in space-time?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.
Does "enthalpy" "provide" energy?
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"?
How does one judge a "layman scientist enthusiast"?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?
How do you judge the question asked you?
As a "layman scientist enthusist"?
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?
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.So sort of an expansion into an expansion causes the matter in both expansions to compact?
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?Very good.
So forming sort of spacial ''eddies'' as an emergence pattern?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?Not quite.
I am liking your theory a lot. Do you ever consider the expansion between galaxies is enthalpic/electrodynamic related?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 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.
>T = > r
or
>Q = > r
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.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.
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.
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.
enthalpy | ˈenTHalpē, ənˈTHalpē |Just to answer this , why I consider the rest of your post, yes that is what I am referring to.
[/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)
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.
In General Relativity spacetime promotes the following:Hi dude,
Matter tells space how to curve.
Curved space tells matter how to move.
Everything moves in the straightest possible line in space-time.
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?In General Relativity spacetime promotes the following:Hi dude,
Matter tells space how to curve.
Curved space tells matter how to move.
Everything moves in the straightest possible line in space-time.
How can space be affected by anything when space itself has no causality?
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?
This is where I am at with my thinking in order.Are you saying that there is an ether that occupies space?
Primary spacial field ether constant that overlays space. Q=0
Dense wave energy particles Q=0Are you saying that what I call wave-particles composed of gravitational wave energy also occupy space?
Secondary spacial fields emanating from particles. Q=0Are 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?
∑Q = 0Are 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.
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.
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?
Are you saying that there is an ether that occupies space?
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.
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.
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 .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.
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.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.
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.”
...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.
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 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 .
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?
You're there on the map, thanks.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.
Your welcome :)You're there on the map, thanks.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.
... The initial wave-particles that decay out of the hot dense plasma ball are imparted with separation momentum at this stage.
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.
Beware of amateur layman cosmologists who claim to have a mechanical solution to quantum gravity for free.
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.
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.Beware of amateur layman cosmologists who claim to have a mechanical solution to quantum gravity for free.
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.
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
You understand this right ? Don't say it thought , just understand it .
It can be measured right ?
Of course, by using spin time energy and creating a spatial space-time vortex, the layers of space-time become compressed and gain density.
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.
Maybe you could think about adding photon spin momentum somewhere .
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.
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.
Maybe you could think about adding photon spin momentum somewhere .
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.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.
Maybe you could think about adding photon spin momentum somewhere .
Reply #344I know you have not edited yet, but I wanted to say wow, your second diagram showed ''class', was beyond my knowledge.
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)
The force of quantum gravity in the ISU to be continued …
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.
I know you have not edited yet, but I wanted to say wow, your second diagram showed ''class', was beyond my knowledge.
Why, thank you.
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 ?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.
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.
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
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.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.It will be interesting to see what you do on CGI.
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 ?
I’m sure you have noticed that I mention energy density equalization often.
I’m sure you have noticed that I mention energy density equalization often.
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.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.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.
the ISU quantum equation.
The top line,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 ?
H is radius?The top line,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.
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.
Thank you for explaining that , I am almost able to ''read'' it .
No, H and h are the heights of the two vertical caps.
The radii of the two spheres are R and r.
Yes, and then divide by the volume of the sphere RThank you for explaining that , I am almost able to ''read'' it .
No, H and h are the heights of the two vertical caps.
The radii of the two spheres are R and r.
So we have 1/3 times pi * Height squared * (in brackets do first)?
In brackets 3 times radius - height ?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html)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 .
This link has all the details.
I will ''get it' I think, not that difficult.Yes, and then divide by the volume of the sphere RThank you for explaining that , I am almost able to ''read'' it .
No, H and h are the heights of the two vertical caps.
The radii of the two spheres are R and r.
So we have 1/3 times pi * Height squared * (in brackets do first)?
In brackets 3 times radius - height ?
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.
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.I will ''get it' I think, not that difficult.Yes, and then divide by the volume of the sphere RThank you for explaining that , I am almost able to ''read'' it .
No, H and h are the heights of the two spherical caps.
The radii of the two spheres are R and r.
So we have 1/3 times pi * Height squared * (in brackets do first)?
In brackets 3 times radius - height ?
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.
added- So how/where do you get your numerical value inputs from ?
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.
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.
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..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.
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.
Well I don't normally do math, but I am running out of things to learn , so math was my final challenge to myself.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..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.
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.
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.
a) Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356
b) Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517
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 ...
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 ?
are whole units of quantum energy.Do you mean a volume of point energies?
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.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.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.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 ?
Ok, thank you for explaining, I have no further questions at this time.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.
48) Quantum Gravity in the ISU: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 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.
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.48) Quantum Gravity in the ISU: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 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.
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 5411 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.
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) ?
Sounding good mate, do you intend on publishing the finished version?
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 :)
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 :)
Parent arena's are BH's that diminish in density over a radius (r) ?
Sounding good mate, do you intend on publishing the finished version?In the layman science enthusiast world, this thread is the "publishing and peer review", and I already have the Bogieprize:
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.
Any way, if I could I would give youI 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.Quotehttps://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.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?
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?
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.
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.
... 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.
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).
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:
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.
Reply #108It 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.”
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.
Reply #392Our 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.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:
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.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73511.msg548866#msg548866 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73511.msg548866#msg548866)Reply #108It 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.”
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.
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.
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,
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.
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/)Quote from: Bogie_SmilesThere 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?
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.
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 :)
I go with the definition that here is just one universe, and one set of invariant natural laws.
Your model of high energy density spots is interesting, would you like to elaborate on this more ?I will do that for you (I just saw your edits, so I will do some of that for you).
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 then c, d and e are independent of
Each gravitational wave is produced by the convergenceIn consideration of your convergence , do you consider that the entirety of cubic volume could have multiple density spots as opposed to just a few?
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.Each gravitational wave is produced by the convergenceIn 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.
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).
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.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 ?
Reply #406That 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 .
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)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.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 ?
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.)
Just to add, what is in the centre of your volume ?Can you look uncertainty in the face and say there is nothing there?
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.
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.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.
Reply #56
Let me address your last two posts together:Those replies show very astute analysis, IMHO.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?
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
Reply #412A perfect vacuum is invisible ? no light reflecting towards the observers direction
(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:Those replies show very astute analysis, IMHO.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?
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 < 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.
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.
A perfect vacuum is invisible ? no light reflecting towards the observers direction
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:
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)…
Hi there PMI 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.
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.
Good man ! Tolerance & under-standing be FUNdamental to a human society , I have , however , dialed back the biting humor .Good form; welcome to TNS
No more Rodney ! P.M.
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.
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.
… 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 ?
For the record, I have used the word “spherical” about 75 times in this thread (so far), lol.
Great minds think alike ... What is our excuse, lol.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 .
And to quote from the philosophy of Eternal Intent:
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 ...
I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model
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 .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 my I've improved it since
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 .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 .
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'' .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?
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 ?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 ?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.QuoteDo 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 .It is quite alternative, and relies on my speculations to fill the gaps in the “as yet” unknown. But I like it too, thanks :)
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.
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.
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 .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.
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?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 .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.
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 .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).
The math says internal energy U divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate space .
Edit finished .
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:
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.
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:
God and the Universe are One and the Same
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.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)
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 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.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 meHuman’s have a spiritual side, and each of us has an individual way of thinking and expressing it.
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 .
I won’t be publishing in the technical sense, but my threads are archived in various places on the Internet.
Anyway I wish you luck and hope you publish one day , it's a good theory . I'm back to the giving up :D
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?
...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]
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]
This detection indicates that the universe is like multi- cellular foam; so multiverse instead of universe.
...
...No reason to doubt that.
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.
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.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.
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.
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".
Ummm...
That sounds like an ever-growing black-hole to me !
.🤔
Well... I wanna believe !I'll support you on your right to believe :)
😶
That's a pretty radical viewpoint ...Well, I wanna believe!
...
That's a pretty radical viewpoint ...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.
As a non-physicist , I cannot refute such a possibility , but am unaware of it being propounded by world-class ones .
🤔?
"Bogey at two o'clock !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", :) .
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.
I'm a "Big-Rip" kinda guy , myself .Maybe so. When the premise is "infinite and eternal", one man's grand wave is another man's ripple, :) .
I think that whatever cycles are involved , are far grander than what you've referred to .
😬
So , it's infinitely relative ! .🤓Yes. I'll credit you with that when I quote you :)
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!".
...
That sounds like a perpetual-motion machine .That's good too, but a bit gloomy.
How's about "Each universe is a raindrop , in an eternal rainstorm ." ?
🤔
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.
Sounds tricky !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?
Personally , I have a hard time believing in extant infinities . .🤔
I 'spec the universe has an actual size , just far beyond our ability to observe .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.
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 .
👽
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.
I would define infinite universes , living and dying eternally , as a multiverse .I grew up with the concept that "universe" meant just one.
P.M.
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.
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.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.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.
59105,59125,59168,
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.
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.
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.
59205,
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.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.
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.
59205,
This being your thread, I will not delve any further into my thoughts on the matter. Perhaps I will start my ownCrazyNew Theories thread on the subject.
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 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."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?
62431,
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?Given that life has always existed,.......How do you come to that conclusion?
Good question "if there was one Big Bang" - there was none.Interesting comment. Have you ever searched the phrase, "evidence of the Big Bang"?
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.Good points from the mainstream perspective ...
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. ...
...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.
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 ...
Hi,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.
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.
Ok thanks!Are you a "Thinker"? For example, what are your views on the topic of "the beginning" in 100 words or less?
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!
...No problem, theories, by their nature, are not TRUTH :)
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. ...Why do you think that. Give me an explanation that you feel supports your view that there was a beginning event.
Hi,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.
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.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.
This is what I think but you do not have to think that. I understand.
...No, but just keep trying to reach them like you are and someone will notice and respond.
Lastly, do you by any chance have a personal link/ contact with the naked scientists or know anyone that does?
Maybe, God is immanent (which means actively involved in our lives and sustaining the universe). This does fit into the context.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.
Also, I like how you presented it and switched it around. Good choice of words.
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.
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.
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.
...
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,
No one seems to doubt that infinite and eternal are two logical characteristics of the universe.That might have been true a century ago.
Thank you for the thoughtful response.Quote from: Bogie_smilesNo 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?
83333,83363Isn'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.83333,83363Isn'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...
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 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.
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?
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.
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".
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?
...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:.
I would expect that separated, generated life forms would be quite different from one another due to differing environments.
... 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.
89625,89649Would 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.89625,89649Would you you quit bumping this stupid thread just to get views?
It's past time to put this thread on ignore... Bye, have fun, I guess...Bye, thanks.
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.89625,89649Would you you quit bumping this stupid thread just to get views?
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.
... 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.
I think the odds are that we are not alone in the universe, but the probability of contact is extremely remote.... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
"Has there ever been a past time when no life existed in the universe?"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.
My answer: No
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
96635,96652,96664,
Interestingly that our image is reflected into a mirror over a distance . Why not brain waves too ?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.
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 ?
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.
... chunks of matter get propelled away from the point of a Big Bang event, ...Some thoughts behind that statement about the ISU model:
. It is like dark energy and dark matter have never been seen in the lab, yet by faith, these have become reality.No.
relative reference will not
Relative reference will cause yo
Relative reference will leave this out
relative reference fantasy i
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 ...
The universe is a closed system because there is, by definition, nothing outside it for it to exchange energy etc with.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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.Can you explain why you are pointing out those obvious facts?
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.Agreed
One changes to different one ( Change ). Now, it is clear that relative creation and relative destruction exist.Please explain the logic of that statement.
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.
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.
Go away and take this silly blog with you....History tells me you aren't open to discussion :Shrug:.
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'm guessing that this is the post that inspired one member to respond negatively.
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.
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,
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:
space is infinite2. The age of the universe is also infinite as it has always existed:
the universe has always existed3. 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 time4. 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
Yes, I assume space has always been infinite.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 infinite2. The age of the universe is also infinite as it has always existed:
the universe has always existed3. 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 time4. 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?No, I assume that throughout the infinite past there has always been just one universe that I refer to as the infinite universe.
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.
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".
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.
It can be.
6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?
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.
6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?Do you have an idea how the matter in the infinite universe had been created or it just comes for free with the universe?
It can be.
ThanksI think that all there is in the universe is wave energy. Light is wave energy, and matter is composed of wave energy.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?Do you have an idea how the matter in the infinite universe had been created or it just comes for free with the universe?
It can be.
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.
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?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.
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.
Don't forget that matter means energy and energy means 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.
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?No, but I'll give you my answer later :)
Any idea?I will speculate about anything, lol.
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?
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.
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.Thanks
Don't you agree that EM energy is needed or gravitational wave energy is good enough?
That strong nuclear force that is called "gluon" contributes more than 99% to the proton' mass.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.
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.
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
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)
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"?
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.
...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?
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.
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
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
...
It is not natural to accept the idea of a single activity in the entire universe.QuoteAgreed. 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 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.
I wouldn't claim that my speculative ideas would do a very good job of describing realityYour Idea that the universe is infinite in its size/space is 100% correct.
There are just too many alternatives and unknowns.No
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?
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,
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.
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.
New energy should come from somewhere.
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.
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.
Hence, the existence of the entire Universe is based on energy.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.
In order to keep your Infinite Bangs theory and overcome the losing mass due to Stars fusion activity - New energy should come from somewhere.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Your statement about the meaning of the first law of thermodynamics is 100% correct.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:42:08Not according to the first law of thermodynamics.
New energy should come from somewhere.
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.I claim that Tidal energy could change the path of the rock.
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.You might as well claim that unicorns can do it.
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
You all know that this statement is correct.
Just a simple question: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.
This example represents an ideal Universe without any sort of heat/energy dissipation.
I claim that in order to get that kind of infinite activity there is a need for external energy.
However, when you add the impact of gravity - then you actually add new free force that can add new energy.
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.
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
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???
Do you also agree that Bogie_smiles should get a reward for his understanding that the Universe is Infinite?
Do appreciate you honest answer.Is it finite or infinite???
Unknown and possibly unknowable.
I don't think he's provided any kind of new, compelling evidence for that.There is an evidence
We are talking "Bogie Logic" here, lol.Yea, I noticed.
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.
Just a brief example: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.
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?
I think you agree that the universe is infinite. Correct me if not.QuoteGo 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".I acknowledge that there is no edge to space.
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.
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.
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.
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/BangWell 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.
I think this question was directed to me, despite lack of mention of me in the post.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.
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.
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 measuredWell, we clearly see galaxies at a distance of almost 13 bly.
Yes.Just a simple question: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.
Do you confirm that in tidal heat transformation, the energy of orbital motion is transformed into heat energy?
Yes or No?
There is no new energy.
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.
t will expand ever faster until the sky is completely dark, with all the light sources too far away to ever see again.
Sorry - infinite universe can't be considered as closed system.Yes they can- for the same reason that a finite one can.
There is not a location in space anywhere where the big bang did not occur. It quite literally means what it saysNo location means no single point or 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
Double the size of an infinite universe and it's still infinite, not 'more infinite'. It's all about a changing linear scalefactorAs there is no end for infinity, how can you belive that energy/matter from all the infinity would come back to a single point?
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?Very easily.
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?
Quoteif 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
As the big bang can't clearly cover the infinite universe in a
SINGE bang,
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.
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.
Please remember:I don't plan to "remember" 3 things you made up.
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 -
Would that count as derailment here?Yes.
,,, but I think the mean position is "orderly, waiting for chaos", :) .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.
130381,130425,
Would you mind posting a few words from your thoughtsFor 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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
That time containment idea might be worth talking about, though I an advocate of time eternal.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.
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".
Mention a different alternative to "always existed".This would require one to drop one or more naive bias.
But nobody seems to invoke that. It's pretty easily torn apart.
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.
What caused the start of time. What kind of boundaries there might be to a finite universe?
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,
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,
Hmmm, I'll have to take a closer look at this, later.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.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.
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 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.
Not why not multiple BigBang, rather "why is universe?"
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.
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.I think the alternative you refer to is string theory, isn't it?
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.
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.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.Science would make no progress at all if that were true.
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 itA 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.
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.
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.
'We' have only been around a very short time, so we have hardly lost anything.Or could it be said, as yet not found.
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.True, and with the appropriate Rosetta Stone.
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 ?".This could seem a bit philosophical, but we wouldn't be talking about it if there was nothing.
But i will not explain it here. Too simple to be believed.
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.
... we are not in an expanding universe, we are in ... an infinite and eternal, ever-changing, multiple big bang universe.
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.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.QuoteIt 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.QuoteAs 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.QuoteThese Bangs have been occurring here and there, now and then, throughout the infinite history of the universeThat 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.
I would be disappointed and disillusioned if the rules were not the same everywhere, but not surprised.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.
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,
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.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?
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.
If there's ever a second big bang, will we know about 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.
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 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".That sounds possibly right :) .
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.
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.
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].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.
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.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].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.
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,
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.
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,
Topics worth discussion: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.
I wonder about the speculation that there could have been multiple big bangs?
...
keeping in mind that one definition of a point is that it has location but no volumeWhat sort of definition of a point has either no location or a nonzero volume?
So somewhere out of nothingness a point-space emergedYea that too. It never posits something out of nothing, or that there ever was a time when there was nothing.
Conclusion, space and time have always existed.Which follows from the above, yes.
keeping in mind that one definition of a point is that it has location but no volumeWhat 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.QuoteSo somewhere out of nothingness a point-space emergedYea that too. It never posits something out of nothing, or that there ever was a time when there was nothing.QuoteConclusion, space and time have always existed.Which follows from the above, yes.
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,
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.
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.
And Cosmologists haven't really spotted any Blackholes orbiting around Stars orbiting around them.Oh yes they have. They're just not little.
It is simply that the universe has always existed, so there is no alternative to its existence.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.
It doesn't exist because there was a Creation event sometime in the past
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.
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.
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,
I have an active imagination and a one track mind, lol.
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.
Note to the OP.
You seem to have a Deep understanding of the Universe.
163605,163646,
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.
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.
Logic will get you from A to B...Einstein never said that. The quote has been around only about 10 years or so. Yes, it is frequently but incorrectly attributed to Einstein.
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.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.
...And thank you for the responses ...
P.S. - DuH Mr Smiles...
...
Thanks for the explanation, ...
...And thank you for the responses ...
P.S. - DuH Mr Smiles...
...
Thanks for the explanation, ...
163913,163941,
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.
When it comes to a thread about the Big BangA 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).
Given my premise that the universe is infinite and has always existedUsage 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.
it has literally taken forever to arrive at the here and nowAll 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.
that segment of 'time that has past"I think you mean 'time that has passed'.
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!".
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).
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.
...
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?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model)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 :) .
P.S. - 165429.
😊
If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang TheoryThat'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.If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang TheoryThat'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.
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.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.
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.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.
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,
...I know what you mean. The lack of intelligible radio broadcasts would make me feel alone if it wasn't for the Internet, lol.
What i find Extremely Odd is the Radio Silence out in the Universe.
Nobody Else broadcasting, besides US!
P.S. - 166887.
...Some considerations though:
What i find Extremely Odd is the Radio Silence out in the Universe.
Nobody Else broadcasting, besides US!
P.S. - 166887.
Some considerations though:Another way to put that ...
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,
...Fill me in on the Great Filter ...
With the Basic ingredients for Life scattered across the Cosmos, How is it possible that Intelligent Life never emerged elsewhere before Us?QuoteIt 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?
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,
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.
👽
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.
I agree. Earth and human intelligence being a "one off" occurrence does seem improbableI 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.
...
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.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.
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...Our endurance and survival rate is not the problem.
WE Genetically modify our own Species for better Endurance & Survival rates?
What If...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?
WE successfully create A.G.I. which could swarm & colonize the Whole Galaxy?
What If...Our endurance and survival rate is not the problem.
WE Genetically modify our own Species for better Endurance & Survival rates?
What If...
WE Genetically modify our own Species for better Endurance & Survival rates?
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.
Agreed they won't be humans, even far from post humans.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.
We should excercise our Rights to create something way better than Us.
I do have Very High Hopes from AGI.That's only a philosophical problem. The AGI engineers need not concern themselves with it.
But cracking the nut of " What is Consciousness " seems far fetched at this point in time.
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.
...You shouldn't be shy on the internet ... Threads go where they go; its a rule, lol.
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
P.S. - so...No simple life, No complex life, No intelligent life & No AGIs...what a Strange & Weird Universe this is...DamN!
☹️
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
... you have to be alive to imagine ...And when it comes right down to it, the laws of nature set the rule .
I don't think it is possible to imagine a lifeless universeI can imagine that with little problem.
... 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.
It may take a finite time and space for the underlying randomness to appearIt 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.
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.
I Imagine Alot...& I'm a staunch Believer!Yes, "Let the children boogie"!
Thanks & Credits & Copyrights/Source -
David Bowie/YouTube.
P.S. - Hope the OP enjoys it as much as i do.
☺️
171217
Yay! We can be something's dinner!True, cleaning the blackboards from my school days always meant we were moving on to something new.
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.
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.
...
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.
P.S. - Hope the OP enjoys it as much as i do.Yes, "Let the children boogie"!
☺️
171217
171263,
... I speculate that life abounds across the universe.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.
... 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.
When the survival of the fittest is achieved, the conditions for the on-going evolution of higher intelligence are in placeThe 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.When the survival of the fittest is achieved, the conditions for the on-going evolution of higher intelligence are in placeThe 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.
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.
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.
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.
Can the Above Image, thru Wild Speculative Imagination, depict a Cyclical or Splitting Universe/s?
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.
5% at best, about a 20th. Still dang impressive.I stand corrected.
Mimas orbits Saturn, not Jupiter.
I've forgotten how to post images (I'm getting old :( )It looks like the death star:
I would say that it looks like it covers about 25% of the diameter of the MimasClose 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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aside:
Obviously the dinosaurs didn't have a space program, lol.
176747,176829
Yep!There is this "dinosaur world dive"
& 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.
Returning back to the Original flavour of this OP...I'm not sure ...
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?I was thinking that one possible sign of a distant BB might be a gamma ray burst.?
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.
P.S. - i wonder if the Universe is what We make off of it, based on Our species potential & capacity of Understanding.I guess it is what we make of it, but maybe if we were more brainy we could make more sense of it.
🧠
(human brain emoji)
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.
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.
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.
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?
...
Returning back to the Original flavour of this OP...I'm not sure ...
The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?
I've read that in Alot of places.
(FTL - Faster Than Light)
Halc mentioned 3c.
(c - speed of light in a vacuum)QuoteSo 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?QuoteIf 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!QuoteP.S. - i wonder if the Universe is what We make off of it, based on Our species potential & capacity of Understanding.I guess it is what we make of it, but maybe if we were more brainy we could make more sense of it.
🧠
(human brain emoji)
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.
The " New Theories " section limits Us to be inside the bounds Logical Reasoning & Critical Thinking...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.
Maybe, U should create a New OP in the " Just Chat " section..
& name it ' Wild Speculative Imagination '.
P.S. - lol
😇
(angel smiles emoji)
current Standard Cosmology, which I understand depicts finite space to be expandingCurrent models do not posit finite space, but neither do they require infinite space. Most models presume space to be infinite.
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.
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.
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?
If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?
Dear KryptidIf 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.
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, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?Because that's what the evidence says.
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.
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)
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")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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.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.
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
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.
before the Big Bang.A phrase that makes a little sense as "north of the North pole".
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.
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).
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 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.
... 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.
True. And the phrase, "before the Big Bang", loses any sort of special "singularity"I don't believe there is any irrefutable evidence though that says there was a beginningThere 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'.
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 .
...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.
That was the first time ever i had heard about, seen, & understood the concept of Death.
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.
That assumes that life itself is generated from the mix of physics and chemistryWell, what alternative is there to that? I mean, chemistry is just part of physics, so you don't even need to include that word.
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.
...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.
That was the first time ever i had heard about, seen, & understood the concept of Death.
185641,
Thank you, well said.
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...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.
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.The Penrose multiple-bang universe is something like that.
...Contemplating the future is one of my favorite pastimes ...
Pondering about the Observable Universe...tryin to imagine & speculate what lies ahead...
...
From here and now, I speculate the future will be ,,, more of the sameSort 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.
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.From here and now, I speculate the future will be ,,, more of the sameSort 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 intelligenceThis 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.
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,
Tiny droplets, grains of sand, a single human life among all that have lived and passed ...
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)
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'?
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.
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.
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?
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.
If the BB is an After EffectWhat is an after-effect as opposed to an effect? I mean, are there 'before effects'?
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.
Is the Concept of ' Cause & Effect ' a MindTrap?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.
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?
If the BB is an After EffectWhat is an after-effect as opposed to an effect? I mean, are there 'before effects'?QuoteIf 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.
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.
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.
...
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.
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
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.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.
Any Assumptions available as to Why/How that Symmetry broke?
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.
It must have always been expandingIt 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.
Last but not the least, Inflation!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.
Any Imaginations...
Why/How did it Start all of a sudden?
& then Why/How all of a sudden, it Stopped?
Why did this Thread go dead?A brief minor medical scare put me out of commission for a few days, but it was nothing.
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.
I did get to experience an MRIStands for 'Minimal Room Inside"
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.I did get to experience an MRIStands for 'Minimal Room Inside"
But hey, glad it was nothing. Take care
Well, that explains it, lol.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
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.
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.
When We say the Universe is expanding, rather at an accelerated rate...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.
That's what We are currently Observing at the Edge of the observable Universe, Right..
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.
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.
So why can't it go extremely low?It's already extremely low.
is ' intesimally ' even a valid word?)Interesting word, sort of combining 'infinitesimal' and 'intensely'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...Yes, thank you :) , as good as ever ...
@MrSmiles...
Why so Silent?
(hopefully ur still smilin)
... 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.
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,
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.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 universeLight 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 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.
...
there being just one universe, and only oneWell 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.
Would it then be safe to say that the infinite universe is full of an infinite amount of matterPretty 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.
and [an infinite amount of] energyThat 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 eventOne 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.
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,
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.there being just one universe, and only oneWell 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.
Yes, that is how I was intending it.
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 to homogeneity :) . I have referred to it as the "Sameness Doctrine" in my rantings.I don't know. Negative energy? Any examples?Quoteand [an infinite amount of] energyThat 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy)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.
ps - Hope Eternal is Okay n doin Well!
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.
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.
...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.
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,
Yes, true even if time isn't something that passes. Those three states still have different time slots.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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
it is during entropy that everything happensWhat does the phrase 'during entropy' even mean?
1) the entropy I am referring to is taking place in a finite space that is surrounded by the infinite greater universeEarth say ...
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 universeHigh 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.
... Suppose...The Observable Universe startsStepping 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.
' 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?
...
I'm not suggesting that time is an illusionI 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.
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.
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 observationIn 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.
...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.
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.
...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:
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.
It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?
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.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...Why does it seem to me that infinity had "no beginning and will have no end"? :)
Then Time itself has a limited time to Tick.
The KeyWord in my previous post was " if "...Interesting you should go in that direction ...
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.
: )
If i was Never born,My sister did that actually, so I suppose she is a counterexample to your statement.
i shall Never die...
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.
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".
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.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.
@OPI've thought about it, and this is my personal conclusion ,,,
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)
On a grand scale, the Universe is the way it is, and could be no other way.
the Universe is the way it is, and could be no other wayI'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"
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.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.
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)QuoteOr 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)QuoteMaybe 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 : )Quoteif 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.
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.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.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.
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)QuoteOr 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)QuoteMaybe 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 : )Quoteif 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.Considering all human observations of the universe have been made from within the solar system, yea, that's pretty local.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only hesitation i have with the B.B. Theory is " Inflation ".Other way of explaining what? Most people cannot describe what it explains. I can't without looking it up.
Obviously there's Evidence for it, i do Not deny it.
But i Wish there was some Other way of explaining it.
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.
To Create Space, requires Space,Einstein,
To Begin Time, requires Time.
Without space & Without time...
There is No Space-Time!
ps - : )
... 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.
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.I know that SETI has been going on since, I think, 20081984
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.
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.
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.
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!
...
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.
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.I guess if the amount of mass in an infinite universe is infinite, then the average density of mass in the universe is fixedIn an expanding universe (infinite or finite), the density (of energy, mass, pretty much any conserved thing) must go down as it expands.
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.I see it as an infinite universe that occupies all spaceWhat would the space be (or have) if there wasn't a universe occupying it?
... 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.
... 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 universeGiven 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.
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.
... 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.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.
244847,245129,
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.
...We can speculate and hypothesize, and I speculate that this issue has always been a conundrum to thinkers.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
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.
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.
@BogieI 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, :) .
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 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.
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.
That said, there is no room for another universeOnly 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.
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'.
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.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.
Bogie_smiles said: It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature)
Halc replied: It has been measured to not be flat.
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").
Hi.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.
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.
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.
...
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.
...
resulting in those patches of expansion and contraction that I suggest exist out thereHere'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.
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?
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.
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.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?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.
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.
Hi.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.
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.
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.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?
249667,
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.Or maybe the B0T5 have gained Consciousness in a Hive Mind Structure.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.
& They realize the Importance or Abstractions.
They can see how Dogma stomps upon the Pursuit of Knowledge.
This term, "critical capacity" stems from the idea that the compression of atoms can produce a nuclear explosionA 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.
We from Earth see a Galaxy at the near End of the Observable Universe.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sorry i almost led the Thread astray with that Botty potty post.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.
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!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
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 directionYou 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).
...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.
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.
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.
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).
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..."
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?
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.
... 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.
If space is infiniteThe 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.
...
an infinite universe doesn't inflate.
Inflation and the observed expansion smack of a finite eraIt 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.
That perspective says that what is going on in our local 93 billion light year neighborhoodA 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.
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.
Inflation seems to assume a huge void surrounding the matter/energy in the tea cupInflation 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.
and the Big Bang occurring spontaneouslyThe 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.
Quotelogic 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!
QuoteInflation 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.
Quoteand 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 : )
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.
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.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).
The BigBang is a Theory of the Evolution of the Universe.
Not it's Inception!
I truly wish more people could Understand what you said so simply.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).
The BigBang is a Theory of the Evolution of the Universe.
Not it's Inception!
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.
@BogieLol
I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.
No, sorry, I haven't. But I think generally that the speed of light is faster.
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?
@BogieLol
I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.QuoteNo, sorry, I haven't. But I think generally that the speed of light is faster.
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?
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,
But " what if " something around you was occuring at FtSoLiaV?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.
(faster than speed of light in a vacuum)
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.
QuoteA 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!
: (
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.
@BogieWell, 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 ...
If Universes are bubbles, which collectively make up the Multiverse...
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.
MultiSpace!Ok, I can accept that ...
: )
& all these supposed Bubbles have different timescales of blowing up & going PoP!That could make sense ...
MultiTime?
: )
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.
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.
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.
I had always thought " Conservation of Energy " as a Law is Unbreakable.It is only a law in an inertial frame. Newtonian physics has energy conservation. General relativity, and in particular, the ΛCDM model, does not.
But when Space stretches, Energy seems to dissipate/dissolve.Objects in motion tend to slow down. Light loses energy, eventually fading to arbitrarily long wavelengths. These lead to energy loss.
Is it still there?Total energy of the universe is undefined, and later it is still undefined, so it is probably not meaningful to ask if one infinity is the same as another.
Say if Space starts to collapse, Energy concentrations would go up?Yes, all the things I mentioned would go the other way. Rocks would speed up in the absence of force. Light blue shifts. Dark energy and gravitational potential go down.