Naked Science Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


Introducing The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)

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

Why Spongy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Edit 9/18/2018

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

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

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


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


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

The universe as always existed.


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

Reply to mrsmith2211
Cyclic models

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/quote]

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


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

Edit: 9/18/2018

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

Reasonable and Responsible Methodology

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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



I believe that everything is composed of wave energy.
Quote

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


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

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


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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

To be continued ...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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





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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stars are ''born''.

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

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

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

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


Quote from: Thebox

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


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

Stars are ''born''.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

To be continued ...


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


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

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

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

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

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

To be continued ...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

To be continued ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

To be continued ...[/font]


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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued ...[/font]


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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





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

LCS: Light Coordinate System


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

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




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

LCS: Light Coordinate System


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Which type relativity the light has?

Which type relativity does the theory SR prefer?


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

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

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




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


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

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

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

Which type relativity the light has?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Thought experiment continued

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thought experiment to be continued …

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

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

Thought experiment continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thought experiment continued


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



Note the additional description:


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

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

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

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


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


Thought experiment continued


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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







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

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

Thought experiment continued

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

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

Reply #68

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


Thought experiment continued




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Reply #69

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


Thought experiment continued

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

Thought experiment continued

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

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







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


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


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


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




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


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

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

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



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


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


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


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


Wave-Particle Speculation:


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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



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

Reply #72


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


Wave-particle duality
Delayed choice quantum eraser

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


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

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


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


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


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




Delayed choice quantum eraser

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


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


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

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

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

Wave-particle
Double slit
Delayed choice quantum eraser continued

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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





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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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



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


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


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

Wheeler remarked:

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

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

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


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


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

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



End of Wiki quote.



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



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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


That is quantum gravity in the ISU model.


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


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

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

Sphere/sphere overlap
ISU Quantum Equation

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


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


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

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

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


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


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





From what we know about the proton in collisions:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Follow up comments on posts 78 & 79


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


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


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


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


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


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


NakedScientists Image Gallery


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


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

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

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



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


Take the ISU primary scenario:


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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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

Reply #83


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


CMB Wide Angle Temperature Variance
Peculiar Motion of our galaxy

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

Reply #84

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

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

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

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


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


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


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











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

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

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

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



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


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

Dark Energy Survey

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


The Introduction of the first paper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




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

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

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


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


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


The ISU Model Takes a Position on Dark Energy


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


Dark Matter

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

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


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


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


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

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

Explanatory note
Proton Spin
Proton Spin Crisis
Quarks spin too

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The experiment


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


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


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


Recent work


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

The Particle Adventure
LHC colliding protons
Quark soup

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



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


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

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

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




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


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


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


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


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

Reply #91

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

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

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


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

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


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




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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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



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


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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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


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


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

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



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


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


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




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


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


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

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


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


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




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


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


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

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


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


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




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


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




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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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


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


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


Maybe that contemplation can include examining the popular science material about the atom, and what better place to start than with the hydrogen atom:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_17_7_35_53.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_17_7_35_53.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_17_7_35_53.jpeg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom)
“A hydrogen atom is an atom of the chemical element hydrogen. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force. Atomic hydrogen constitutes about 75% of the baryonic mass of the universe.[1]
In everyday life on Earth, isolated hydrogen atoms (called "atomic hydrogen") are extremely rare. Instead, hydrogen tends to combine with other atoms in compounds, or with itself to form ordinary (diatomic) hydrogen gas, H2. "Atomic hydrogen" and "hydrogen atom" in ordinary English use have overlapping, yet distinct, meanings. For example, a water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms, but does not contain atomic hydrogen (which would refer to isolated hydrogen atoms).”



To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/09/2017 14:21:22
Understanding the hydrogen atom as described in the entire Wiki link is a major task for a layman science enthusiast. However, whatever level of understanding that I get by starting out on that task will benefit my learning, and at the same time might help add to the scope of ISU model. It is also an opportunity to continue to differentiate between the ISU and the material available from various mainstream sources like Hyper-physics, and other layman level material like that often found in Wikipedia links.

As I approach the task, I continue to strive to make the ISU internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

The Hydrogen Wiki link identifies H as a 1/2 spin baryon, composed of three quarks. Quarks never appear on their own in nature, so that is fine in the ISU, and it is acknowledged that when you collide protons, their standing wave patterns are “interrupted”, as described in post #91, with all of the consequences of such an interruption, appearance of quarks and all.

From Wiki:
Baryonic matter
“Nearly all matter that may be encountered or experienced in everyday life is baryonic matter, which includes atoms of any sort, and provides those with the property of mass. Non-baryonic matter, as implied by the name, is any sort of matter that is not composed primarily of baryons. This might include neutrinos and free electrons, dark matter, such as supersymmetric particles, axions, and black holes. - The very existence of baryons is also a significant issue in cosmology, because it is assumed that the Big Bang produced a state with equal amounts of baryons and antibaryons. The process by which baryons came to outnumber their antiparticles is called baryogenesis.”

In the ISU, it is not assumed each Big Bang produces a state with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and so no equivalent to baryongenesis is necessary in the model. Further, all particles have mass because their standing wave patterns are composed of wave convergences, and those high density spots at each convergence account for the mass of the particle. To be crude, in the standard cosmology, initial equal amounts of matter and antimatter is a way of addressing the “beginning” from the perspective of “something from nothing”, by way of symmetry breaking. It is a point of contention between the symmetry of the big bang standard model and the “always existed” ISU model.

Here is a link to contemplate:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model)
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png)

There is a lot of material in that link that can be addressed from the standpoint of differentiation between the standard model and the ISU, and may be necessary to help understand even “simple” hydrogen.

As for it having 1/2 integer spin, I don’t think there is a complete understanding of what causes spin yet, but in a very limited fashion I address it in the ISU in posts #89 to #92. This quote from the Wiki on 1/2 spin:

“Spin as a consequence of combining quantum theory and special relativity”

“When physicist Paul Dirac tried to modify the Schrödinger equation so that it was consistent with Einstein's theory of relativity, he found it was only possible by including matrices in the resulting Dirac Equation, implying the wave must have multiple components leading to spin.[6]”

In the ISU, it is very true that the wave must have multiple components leading to spin, and with that there is little dispute. The structure of the wave-particle has the two components of the standing wave, the inflowing and the out flowing wave energy, and in addition, the standing wave pattern is the sum of many converging waves in a stable wave-particle space. As such, the ISU would agree that the statement by Dirac was correct. However, the reason Dirac was forced to that conclusion, I think, is because the wave function is not consistent with the theory of relativity, and his contemplative solution is matrices derived for a theory that can be said to achieve some compatibility with relativity.

In the ISU, the wave function is not invoked, and the wave-particle always has both location and momentum, even though we cannot precisely establish both at the same time, and even though in practice we cannot precisely establish either individually, for that matter. Particle location is always “fuzzy” due to the ever changing pattern of momentary quanta forming and disbursing their “third waves”, and the direction of motion is likewise “fussy” due to the undetectable curving profile of the wave energy density of space that causes those high energy density spots to form more frequently in the direction of the highest gravitational wave energy density.

Moving along in the Wiki, the positive charge of the proton, and the negative charge of the electron, combine to give the hydrogen atom a neutral charge. That simple perspective is worth noting, because the energy of a proton at rest is 1,836 times greater than that of an electron at rest, yet their charges precisely offset.

The explanation of the Coulomb force must be right there before our mind’s eye. A positive charge composed of 400 billion quanta, offsets a negative charge composed of 700 million quanta, and something makes one positive and one negative.

Could there be a divide or “line of separation” at the atomic level where the attraction separates the charge within the space of the atom whereby the proton provides 1/2 of the balance and the electron provides the other 1/2 of the balance, and that establishes the average distant, in accord with the inverse square law, that must be kept between them. Is the thought of positive vs negative really a separation of all the energy present in the atom into two equals, breaking above and below some mean … the particles don’t, can’t mix their quanta because the convergences are part of their stable complex standing waves that don’t go as far as interrupting each other's patterns, … so is the particle boundary that line of separation? … assuming the whole natural state of the atom will be neutral, and the stable composition of the participating sub-atomic particles must balance when joined in the atomic structure, is it the atomic neutral atom structure that comes first? Do we have to take another look at nucleosynthesis from the ISU perspective, i.e., that the universe and the invariant natural laws that govern it have always existed, and there really is no such thing as nucleosynthesis on a grand scale; only arena by arena decay of their individual big crunches, always governed by the same physics? … just thinking out loud to add to the earlier brainstorming in post #94.


To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 19:49:10
There is yet no fact of the big bang.
A. 13 Billion years ago is a vast understatement as grass turns to soil turns to rock.
B. Gravity effects light and is not included in the nobeld publication.

There could be larger objects beyond our current view of the universe pulling the light.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/09/2017 20:24:36
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_09_17_4_18_49.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_09_17_4_18_49.jpeg)
Brainstorming idea …
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_09_17_4_18_49.jpeg)


I’m starting to get some ideas that apply to the structure of an atom of hydrogen, and that might give some perspective on the offsetting positive and negative charges within the neutral hydrogen atom (with implications about the ISU process of quantum action and the Coulomb force). Note that the interaction of the wave-particles is at is simplest structure in the hydrogen atom, which is a good place to start and to build from.

The standing wave pattern of the hydrogen atom’s proton has a surface or boundary that (according to the ISU model) has an equal amount of out flowing wave energy at all points because the out flow is spherical. We can think of that out flow as a positive energy out flow, supplying wave energy into space, i.e., as the local source of energy added to the energy density profile of space. Then we can think of the directionally inflowing wave energy component of that proton as the replacement energy for that out flow, maintaining the established mass and energy of the proton wave-particle. I would label the inflowing component the negative energy inflow.

The net exchange of energy is between the individual wave-particle's standing wave patterns and the wave energy density profile of space, with each particle (when at rest) absorbing the same amount of wave energy that it emits.

The natural approximate relationship between the quantity of the proton’s energy exchange with the surrounding space, and the electron’s energy exchange with the surrounding space being 1836 to 1, but the net neutral charge of the hydrogen atom accommodates that huge differential because of the wave mechanics at work in the process of quantum action.

The proton’s out flow is strong enough to “hold off” the quantum gravitational “diving” action of the electron at a certain average distance in accord with the inverse square law. The vast amount of the proportional 1836:1 outflow is unnoticed (not felt) by the electron, but the little bit that is noticed in the location of each “dive” toward the massive proton is enough to repel the electron back out to maintain its appropriate distance. This would mean that the motion of the electron in the space surrounding the proton is erratic and chaotic in terms of the path that it takes, and yet that path stays within the bounds of the forces at work, quantum gravity and energy density equalization.

That action takes into consideration that the electron too has inflowing and outflowing wave energy components, so the inverse square effect is a net balance that is achieved at a particular distance.

Thus the hydrogen atom, 1) has a neutral net charge between the combined energy outflow of the proton and the electron, labeled positive energy, and the combined wave energy inflow of the proton and the electron, labeled negative wave energy, 2) has an established average distance between the electron and the proton based on the inverse square law, and 3) the electron is dancing all around the permitted space in response to the forces in play. Hydrogen's two sub-atomic particles thus mutually participate in making the hydrogen atom a stable neutral atom in the ISU.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/09/2017 15:01:40
This quote is from, Looking at the Invisible Universe, by James Jespersen & Jane Fitz-Randolph, 1990. Chapter 4, page 31, Pinchfuls of Starlight: “During the end of the nineteenth century and into the first part of the twentieth century, scientists accumulated a considerable body of observations related to the spectra of various substances as well as the spectra of many astronomical bodies.”


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series)
“The emission spectrum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum) of atomic hydrogen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) is divided into a number of spectral series, with wavelengths given by the Rydberg formula (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula). These observed spectral lines are due to the electron (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron) making transitions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electron_transition) between two energy levels (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_levels) in an atom. The classification of the series by the Rydberg formula was important in the development of quantum mechanics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics). The spectral series are important in astronomical spectroscopy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy) for detecting the presence of hydrogen and calculating red shifts (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_shift).”


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum)
“The emission spectrum of a chemical element (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element) or chemical compound (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound) is the spectrum of frequencies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequencies) of electromagnetic radiation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation) emitted due to an atom (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom) or molecule making a transition (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electron_transition) from a high energy state to a lower energy state. The photon energy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy) of the emitted photon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon) is equal to the energy difference between the two states. There are many possible electron transitions for each atom, and each transition has a specific energy difference. This collection of different transitions, leading to different radiated wavelengths (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelengths), make up an emission spectrum. Each element's emission spectrum is unique. Therefore, spectroscopy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy) can be used to identify the elements in matter of unknown composition. Similarly, the emission spectra of molecules can be used in chemical analysis of substances.”


Since the wave-particle of the ISU is unique, as described speculatively throughout the thread, and since those speculations describe an action process (called quantum action) where the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the sub-atomic particles account for hydrogen’s offsetting positive and negative charges, there should be an ISU-specific explanation for the spectral lines of hydrogen. I’ll be contemplating that task while working my way through the hydrogen research links.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_09_17_2_35_28.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_09_17_2_35_28.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_09_17_2_35_28.jpeg)
Absorption and emission spectrum of hydrogen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen)


“If only a single atom of hydrogen were present, then only a single wavelength would be observed at a given instant. Several of the possible emissions are observed because the sample contains many hydrogen atoms that are in different initial energy states and reach different final energy states. These different combinations lead to simultaneous emissions at different wavelengths.”

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/09/2017 14:51:52
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_09_17_2_47_56.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_09_17_2_47_56.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_09_17_2_47_56.jpeg)


Reported here, some known physics, paraphrased from the section on electromagnetic radiation in, Chemistry - Matter and Its Changes, by Brady, Russell & Holum, Riley & Sons, 2000. It shows how compatible the ISU wave mechanics are with known physics in regard to the electromagnetic radiation of the hydrogen atom. “Max Planck depicted EM as the emitted quanta or packets of energy called photons, where each photon “pulses” with a frequency as it travels with the speed of light.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon)
“Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) and exhibit wave–particle duality (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality), exhibiting properties of both waves (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave) and particles (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/particle). For example, a single photon may be refracted (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction) by a lens (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)) and exhibit wave interference (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)) with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum), though not both at the same time. The photon's wave and quanta qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon, and cannot be described by any mechanical model;[2] a representation of this dual property of light, which assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy, is not possible. The quanta in a light wave cannot be spatially localized. Some defined physical parameters of a photon are listed.”


The pulses are consistent with the ISU wave-particle description of the emission of light by photons, and consistent with the ISU standing wave structure. Notice posts #69-#72 for some discussion on the ISU speculations. The explanation for the mechanics of the pulses is unique to the ISU.

Based on the ISU wave mechanics, some things can be said about a specific emission line in the hydrogen emission spectrum. A single hydrogen atom, in a specific wave energy density environment, whose energy has built to the emission of a photon of a specific wave length/frequency, results in that hydrogen atom being restored to a specific energy level relative to the energy of the electron and relative to the wave energy density of the local environment of the hydrogen atom.

There is a frequency and wave length associated with that specific energy, and that energy is characterized by the presence of the photon’s standing wave pattern with a specific number of quanta in the form of momentary high energy density spots that form at the points of major wave convergences within the particle’s standing wave pattern. The interior or core of the photon wave-particle is like a little engine that continually supplies the quanta at the surface of the particle with wave energy from within, while the surface of the wave particle continually receives wave energy arriving from the wave energy density of space. The inflowing wave energy finds it way into the core. The out flow is positive energy into space, and inflow is negative energy from space; space being the “storage device” for the continual quantum action of all wave-particles.

The thing about it occurring in a given wave energy density environment is that there is a given local level of wave energy in the profile of space, and traversing the local space where the hydrogen atom is present. That energy action is at a sufficient level to assure that the inflowing component of the particle’s standing wave pattern can provide a stable wave energy density environment and thus provide for a stable particle.

The emission of a photon is the act of maintaining the stability of the particle relative to the local wave energy density environment. The emission of the photon is a balancing event in response to corresponding changes in the wave energy density environment, and brings the electron and proton positive and negative charges back into balance, and restores the stability of the atom and electron.

The photon follows a directional path laid out in the local wave energy density profile of space, and as it traverses space, it continually emits a constant wavelength and frequency caused by the continually refreshing wave convergences within the photon core that pulse the energy in tune with the frequency of the emitted light.

In the ISU, the specific frequency of the photon is directly related to the quanta contained in the standing wave pattern, and there is a 1:1 relationship between the cyclical build up of quanta at the core of the wave-particle and the time delay associated with that build up that governs the frequency of the out flowing wave emitted spherically from the photon’s surface. Note that the “time delay”, as mentioned in posts #63 an #92, plays a very important role in the frequency/wavelength of the electromagnetic wave.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/09/2017 16:00:39
For the record, I have used the word “spherical” about 75 times in this thread (so far), lol.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_09_17_11_15_59.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_09_17_11_15_59.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_09_17_11_15_59.gif)


Usually it is in reference to spherical waves emitted from the convergence of two “parent” spherical waves. That action is at the heart of the wave mechanics that are the fundamentals of the Infinite Spongy Universe cosmology. Spherical waves converge at all orders of magnitude, but the model focuses on Big Bang arena waves at the macro realm, on quantum waves in the realm of quantum action and quantum gravity, and on the tiniest of waves, the oscillating wave action at the foundational level of the universe.


One thing I do want to include in this thread is to follow through on a statement I made in post #72, and that is address the philosophy of the ISU (note that I use coined words, generative and evolvative to address life arising from hospitable conditions and evolving to intelligent, self-aware individuals):


The Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) Model of Cosmology
Eternal Intent from 2011


The Universe, Infinity, Life, and God
The Cosmology and Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe


The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) is all inclusive, all there is, all matter, energy, everything in one infinite and eternal, life and consciousness producing expanse of wave energy that does nothing but carry out its own Eternal Intent.


Thresholds and limits of energy density govern natural processes that produce matter and gravity in environments characterized by the opposing forces of expansion and contraction to produce dynamic and evolving arenas that are continually forming and playing out across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.


The ISU is governed by natural law, and natural law is described in three categories, Quantum Wave Cosmology, the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life, and the Concept of Eternal Intent.


Overview of Natural Law


In regard to Natural Law, we have an advancing boundary between what has been achieved by science, and what is yet to be achieved. What has been achieved is the quantification of the known physical sciences. In the realm of the “yet to be achieved” is the discovery and quantification of the unexplained and/or unknown natural laws. It is the role of science to confront the problems it faces and to advance the boundary into the realm of the “as yet” unknown.


When addressing the unknown, it is an axiom that the laws of nature are invariant. Based on that axiom, invariance is a characteristic of both the science we know and the natural laws we don’t yet know or understand. Science is advanced using the scientific method and according to that method and the invariance axiom, it follows that anything that is as yet unexplained has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.


The physical aspect of the ISU is described by Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) which envisions the universe as it would be if all of the as yet unknown physical laws of nature were known. It is the life hosting feature of the ISU where the generative and evolvative forces of life flourish on a grand scale, undaunted by the inevitable local cataclysms that characterize the eternal process of arena action.


Across the infinite and dynamic arena landscape which hosts a potentially infinite number of life hosting environments at any given point in time, there exists conscious, self aware, intelligent, highly evolved life forms whose individuals contemplate the concepts of the universe, infinity, life and God, and act and interact with freewill that is moderated by their individually developed consciences.


That is the Eternal Intent.


Overview of Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC)


QWC is characterized by two processes, quantum action at the micro level and arena action at the macro level. These two processes are strikingly similar in mechanics but the vast difference in scale makes quantum action look toward the infinitesimal and arena action look toward the infinite.


Quantum action works on the infinitesimal scale and orchestrates wave energy to establish the presence of matter and gravity. The key is that the universe is composed of nothing but wave energy and the tiniest meaningful waves have roles in the establishment of matter and gravity. The existence of particles and gravity demonstrates the success of quantum action.


Arena action works on the infinite scale of the landscape of the greater universe. The key to arena action is the existence of the opposing forces of expansion and contraction that play out in the great waves of energy that traverse the infinite landscape. It is the multiple [big bang] arena landscape that prevents the eternal inflation of the universe and avoids the ultimate Heat Death.


As galaxy filled arena waves collide and overlap, cataclysmic events surround the collapse of galactic material under the compression of gravity. As big crunches form in the overlapping spaces where arenas convergence, they reach a finite capacity of matter and energy density and collapse and bounce into expanding arenas of wave energy. It is the natural law of critical capacity that makes crunches finite and prevents the entire ISU from falling into a final Big Crunch.




Overview of the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life


Arena action produces galaxy filled expanding arenas where it is natural for solar systems to host habitable planets and where the conditions are conducive to the generation of life.


Given the right mix of chemistry and environment, physical iterations of all the finite possible combinations occur and the combinations for reproductive life inevitably arise. Life is adaptive and evolvative, and as early life takes hold, and as evolution occurs, life forms take full advantage of the hospitable environment across the host planet.


Evolution proceeds toward the natural characteristics of advanced life forms, bringing the consciousness and self awareness that mark highly evolved individuals.


Overview of Eternal Intent


The existence of Eternal Intent does not require any violation of the invariance axiom. All of the natural laws of the ISU are invariant, and in an eternal and infinite universe, that means that the natural laws that are in effect now are the same laws that were in effect before, at all times in the infinite past.


Reason and logic of the highly evolved life forms is sound, and when those individuals contemplate the universe, infinity, life, and God, the concept of Eternal Intent emerges as the reasonable and responsible view of the common ground between all contemplative life forms across all space and time. No one religion that is peculiar to one sect on one planet in one age will serve that universal purpose. Eternal Intent must emerge time and time again to show the way.


The definitions of God within organized religions and their doctrine become the basis of the beliefs of their followers. There are sacred unexplained events specific to the history of each religion that lead to the God concept that differs among religions, but there is no evidence of any violation of the natural laws when evaluated by the scientific community as a whole. Specific definitions of God become a matter of faith associated with each religion, but organized religion cannot lay exclusive claim to the natural and inevitable contemplation of God. God and religion are not one and the same.




A non religious, scientifically compatible definition postulates that Eternal Intent is a characteristic of the universe, and the natural laws and Eternal Intent are one and the same. It is the ultimate universal common denominator, not just among peoples here on Earth, but among contemplative and conscientious life forms at the height of the evolvative process across the infinite and eternal universe.


The definition of nature which includes Eternal Intent is not in violation of the scientific method. It acknowledges nature as the potentially infinite and eternal universe whose Eternal Intent is carried out by invariant laws which provide for the perpetual existence of habitable environments where conscious life is generated and evolves to self aware free willed intelligent and conscience bearing individuals who are capable of contemplating the universe, infinity, life and God.


Therefore Eternal Intent would be the quintessential feature of a natural invariant universe and the view that God and the universe are one and the same are fully compatible in the ISU.


Many aspects of the universe that are attributed to the invariant natural laws point to the Eternal Intent of the natural laws:


The perpetual existence of hospitable and habitable environments
The generative and evolvative forces of life
The existence of consciousness
The existence of intelligence
The existence of free willed beings that interact with each other
The existence of our own consciences to moderate our actions and interactions


Within those few aspects of the ISU there is room for hope and faith that the future can unfold as we would have it. Beyond the boundary of scientific knowledge, in the realm of the unknown laws of nature, all things seem possible. It is that realization that makes room for eternal hope for those who care to call upon it in their daily lives.


As a corollary to that, there is no clear right and wrong at every turn of life, and where there is room for eternal hope for well intended outcomes, we are free to seek council from beyond the boundary to guide us through life as well. We consciously seek acknowledgments from beyond the boundary of known science and receive personal, individual, unexplainable guidance from the unknown in accord with invariant natural laws that we don’t yet understand.


It is the Eternal Intent of the ISU that we do so.


In Conclusion


When I talk about Eternal Intent, and seeking acknowledgement and guidance from beyond the boundary of "known" science and understanding, there are some things you should realize:


In order for something to be "science" I mean that it has to be quantified or quantifiable under the procedures recognized as the scientific method. It should subject itself to mathematical equations that are compatible with all aspects of known science, or at least that cannot be shown to be inconsistent with scientific observations and data. So when I say "we don't yet understand", I am referring to as yet unquantified science from the perspective of the scientific community; theories that are not tested and repeatable but that are suspected because of the way outcomes often seem to be favorable responses to our needs and desires.


Further, there are prerequisites before Eternal Intent can be considered:


The universe has to be infinite and must have always existed; it doesn’t work otherwise.


The universe must be governed by invariant natural laws that are in effect in all places at all times (no supernatural events are possible).


There can be no violations of natural law (apparent violations are caused by as yet unknown invariant natural laws).


There must be conscious, self aware, intelligent, contemplative individuals.


There must be as yet unknown natural laws associated with consciousness that trigger some unknown equation; a combination of conscience, intent, emotions, love (or maybe just love of something, even love of power or money, etc.), and expectation or hope or faith that somewhere in the unknown natural laws there is an equation that yields an invariant response guided by our seeking.


The act of seeking acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of our understanding should be differentiated from prayer (in its religious sense) because the source of the response is invariant natural law that has always been in place and is not a response from a personified, conscious God who can pick and choose responses or that has any real time decision making power at all.


That does not mean that prayer will not work for the religious. It means that there are certain combinations of natural law that must come together in a successful equation, and there might be counterproductive aspects involved when prayer is based on a plea to a God within the framework of a given religion.


The stimulus for favorable unfolding of Eternal Intent from beyond the boundary logically includes the quality of the individual intent.


I seek an acknowledgement that the natural and invariant laws that enable the Eternal Intent of the ISU, will serve as the quintessential source of hope and council for all who have faith that there is Eternal Intent.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_09_17_3_43_32.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_09_17_3_43_32.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_09_17_3_43_32.jpeg)
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/10/2017 01:40:34
It seems fitting to include a post with some wider thinking in this thread that already has so much broad speculation …

One could be of the conviction that there are an infinite number of other places across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe, where the lifeforms are quite similar as they are here and now. The circumstances and scenarios could be very much like any that ever were or will be, anywhere, any time.

Such a conviction would allow the sound logic of the highly evolved life forms participating there to come to similar conclusions about a common denominator of invariant natural laws (like those of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)) and about some view of reality conveyed in a  philosophy derived therefrom, (like Eternal Intent). It would be triggered when evolution plays out to some threshold, though not to conclude that such a threshold occurs at the highest limit of evolution. Such a threshold would only be a common point that evolving lifeforms would inadvertently share. Each such point would lead to new and different paths from that which our human life form here on Earth might take.

The question that lead off this thread, “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”, brings with it the idea of infinite possibilities, constrained only by the sameness of the invariant natural laws (albeit the natural laws are a major constraint, compared to the Many Worlds interpretation of QM). Anything not in violation of the invariant natural laws is a possible scenario, and if it is possible, there is no reason why it would only have one unique occurrence, in a universe of infinite space and time.

That eternal sameness would apply not just to the physical accommodations of habitable planets hosting intelligent lifeforms in secluded solar systems across ours and every galaxy in every Big Bang arena, but the events experienced by those who live in those diverse places would take on a general sameness too, but with each life having their own unique individuality in many respects, based on the infinite possibilities.

… and that type of broad unrestrained speculation is admittedly the hallmark of the ISU, and Eternal Intent. :) Bogie smiles.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/10/2017 17:20:40
Reference the following post: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71308.msg524716#msg524716 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71308.msg524716#msg524716). In that post, as a follow up question, I was asking if it could be said that all space is filled with as yet undetectable gravitational waves. The answer is important to this thread because the ISU model considers that axiomatic, i.e., necessary to justify additional content, as I posted in Reply #17, which said:




Reply #17
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on May 16, 2017, 09:53:29 am
… I have posted that the existence of the universe can be characterize by invoking, as axiomatic, what I call the three infinities of space, time, and wave energy. That means that the universe had no beginning, is spatially infinite, has always existed, and all space is filled with wave energy; everything in the universe is composed of wave energy, and wave-particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments. The two action processes, arena action and quantum action, function based on various invariant natural limits and thresholds of wave energy density. Wave energy takes the form of light waves and gravitational waves.
[End of cut and paste]


By way of this post, I am claiming some physical evidence to support the speculation throughout this thread that all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, albeit only the most cataclysmic events produce detectible gravitational waves. The referenced exchange in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum shows a couple of instances of support for the idea that even apples falling from the tree cause gravitational waves.


It is important to point out that the generally accepted science accounting for the detection of those massive events, accomplished by the LIGO interferometers, has to do with General Relativity Theory, and the prediction that gravitational waves cause length contraction. The ISU agrees that the delicate interferometers of the LIGO apparatuses can detect gravity waves, but in the ISU, it isn’t length contraction that causes the interferometers to set off the alarm, it is the change in the wave energy density of the space along the LIGO apparatuses arms as the high energy waves pass at the speed of light. That momentary change in wave energy density affects the rate that the laser light in the two arms of the LIGO detectors traverses the the space along each arm, one after the other, as it passes.
 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/10/2017 13:17:01
Give me your idea in one statement please:
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2017 13:47:03
Give me your idea in one statement please:
I understand where you are coming from. This thread probably contains over 50,000 words, most of which elaborate on the various ideas that make up the ISU model. Are you asking me to summarize one specific idea, or the whole model? I recall suggesting you start with reply #16, since that reply does a good job of summarizing the model, and touches on the most important ideas included:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/10/2017 14:07:31
Give me your idea in one statement please:
I understand where you are coming from. This thread probably contains over 50,000 words, most of which elaborate on the various ideas that make up the ISU model. Are you asking me to summarize one specific idea, or the whole model? I recall suggesting you start with reply #16, since that reply does a good job of summarizing the model, and touches on the most important ideas included:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357


There is too much to read and understand with so many words.  Can you write an abstract?   I write my abstract first to get the point across of my idea.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2017 14:24:33
There is too much to read and understand with so many words.  Can you write an abstract?   I write my abstract first to get the point across of my idea.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .


Are you saying that reply #16 is too much to read? I suggest you try to take it a little at a time, but maybe we are not destined to communicate about my model. If not, that is understandable, and it is quite alternative anyway.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/10/2017 15:39:36
There is too much to read and understand with so many words.  Can you write an abstract?   I write my abstract first to get the point across of my idea.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .


Are you saying that reply #16 is too much to read? I suggest you try to take it a little at a time, but maybe we are not destined to communicate about my model. If not, that is understandable, and it is quite alternative anyway.
I did read post 16, I just did not understand your idea.  I kind of understand things from a single paragraph , so if you can write a short abstract explaining your idea then I might just get it.   I can tell you that the word sponge would conform to my N-field theory.   Likewise fields being sponge like to each other .  So I am interested in your views and we do agree on several things.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2017 17:26:03
I did read post 16, I just did not understand your idea.  I kind of understand things from a single paragraph , so if you can write a short abstract explaining your idea then I might just get it.   I can tell you that the word sponge would conform to my N-field theory.   Likewise fields being sponge like to each other .  So I am interested in your views and we do agree on several things.

Thank you for the reply.

The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it. For example, in deep space, the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space is very low, relative to the amount of wave energy contained in the same volume of space in the proximity of a massive object, like the sun. In the model, the sun, and all objects with mass, emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, and that inflow and outflow represents a continual process that maintains the presence of the massive objects and their constituent wave-particles. Therefore, the inflow and out flow action near the sun features a high amount of gravitational wave energy coming and going, but then, in accord with the inverse square law, the same volume of space in a far removed location in deep space would contain much lower wave energy density. Hence, the universe is “spongy”.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/10/2017 23:49:41
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it.
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it. For example, in deep space, the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space is very low, relative to the amount of wave energy contained in the same volume of space in the proximity of a massive object,
To me you are not really explaining a few things, what is the energy traversing through space?   Also the word contain does not seem correct. The second part would also not be true, you are assuming there is no other bodies in deep space.   Your wording is rather strange but I think you are just describing the inverse square law but in your own way .  The transverse to a point source getting denser rather than weaker in magnitude as in the inverse square law.
Is this what you are describing? 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2017 01:04:08
To me you are not really explaining a few things, what is the energy traversing through space?


Also the word contain does not seem correct.
You ask, what is the energy …


It is wave energy, like electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves.


If I read that question as,
Quote
“what is the energy traversing through …
… then it is traversing through space, true, but space is not empty in my model. Space is filled with wave energy, and so every point in space contains some level of wave energy density. Therefore any given wave of light or gravity would be traversing through space that already contains other wave energy traversing it at the same time from various directions.


The use of the word “contains” can be equated to the volume of a given space, say a one gallon jar. The wave energy contained in that space can be equated to the number of what ever is contained in the jar; say the jar contains jelly beans. The one gallon jar that contains jelly beans can contain anywhere from one or two, up to about 5000 jelly beans. If we equate the bean density of the gallon jar, to the wave energy density of a gallon sized volume of space, then one or two beans per gallon is very low, and might equate to nature’s minimum wave energy density, perhaps like the deep space in my former example. On the other hand, if the jar contains a full 5000 jelly beans, then that would represent nature’s maximum jelly bean density, which would equate to the wave energy density at the core of a collapsing Big Crunch, nature's highest wave energy density environment in my model.
Quote
The second part would also not be true, you are assuming there is no other bodies in deep space.   Your wording is rather strange but I think you are just describing the inverse square law but in your own way .  The transverse to a point source getting denser rather than weaker in magnitude as in the inverse square law.
Is this what you are describing? 
I’m really not assuming that there are no other bodies in deep space. I’m saying that there a locations in space where there is a lot of mass nearby, like near the sun in our solar system, and there are places in space far removed from any nearby massive bodies. For example, can you imagine being between two galaxies, not in either one. That is deep space, and the local wave energy density there is much lower than in our solar system within the Milky Way galaxy.


I don’t deny that my wording can sound rather strange. It is because I know the subject matter, and so I might not pay enough attention to the fact that others don’t know the material.


The reference to the inverse square law was a simple use of the phrase, not intended to be complicated application of the law. In the example I used, the greater the distance between our local environment near the sun, and that of deep space, would have an inverse square effect on the energy density in those two places.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 01:22:35
It is wave energy, like electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves.

It is electromagnetic radiation but it is only pE (potential energy). 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 01:32:45
The reference to the inverse square law was a simple use of the phrase, not intended to be complicated application of the law. In the example I used, the greater the distance between our local environment near the sun, and that of deep space, would have an inverse square effect on the energy density in those two places.
That is how field strength ''density'' works.   The greater the radius away the lesser the affect of the field.   What you are talking about is electromagnetic fields where each point source is the centre of its own independent field and at its densest point.  I know you may think you have discovered something new, but I feel you are explaining present information but in your own interpretation of that information.
I am not sure you are offering anything new. Do not take this as a negative , it is good to understand the Universe in our own minds our own way. 


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2017 02:32:35
That is how field strength ''density'' works.   The greater the radius away the lesser the affect of the field.   What you are talking about is electromagnetic fields where each point source is the centre of its own independent field and at its densest point.  I know you may think you have discovered something new, but I feel you are explaining present information but in your own interpretation of that information.
I am not sure you are offering anything new. Do not take this as a negative , it is good to understand the Universe in our own minds our own way. 



Thanks for the encouragement.

You may think I am boasting about new discoveries, but that is not the case. It is true that I would claim my model has several unique features, and the main aspects are put together uniquely, but if you started by reading reply #16, would should have picked up the fact that the model contains known science, plus my own speculations about “as yet” unknown science. None of it is supposed to come across sounding like I am claiming any new discoveries, and I do say that I have no extraordinary evidence. They are speculations and hypotheses.

In addition, it is a little too soon for you to conclude that there is noting new in the speculations.

Never the less, your point about field strength density surrounding and spreading out from a point source could sufficiently characterize a light wave, and even gravitational waves for that matter. However, you are equating what I call a spherically expanding light wave front spreading out from a point source, to an electromagnetic field, if I understand you correctly. I do address that topic, but we are not there yet.

The “front” is a boundary between the wave energy of the expanding wave, as it intrudes into the space occupied by adjacent expanding wave fronts. That automatically causes wave convergences, which are quite important in the model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 13:41:28
you are equating what I call a spherically expanding light wave front spreading out from a point source, to an electromagnetic field,
The word you should be using for a spherical expansion is isotropic, the electromagnetic field permeates isotropic through space. I know you will not understand this, the electromagnetic field is ''light'', waves are an invert of the field, a force feedback.
In addition, it is a little too soon for you to conclude that there is noting new in the speculations.
That is correct.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2017 16:09:04
The word you should be using for a spherical expansion is isotropic, the electromagnetic field permeates isotropic through space. I know you will not understand this, the electromagnetic field is ''light'', waves are an invert of the field, a force feedback.
Thank you for that suggestion, and that may be the case, but I define light differently than that because I want to put it into the context of the outflowing wave energy from the photon wave-particle; photons have mass in the ISU. You may not be ready to begin looking at my version of the wave-particle (you may never be, lol), but if you are interested to get a preview, see reply #68 …
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770)

… where I begin to describe the wave-particle. Also pertinent to your post, in reply #107, I address electromagnetism in the context of Max Planck’s depiction:

From reply #107: “Reported here, some known physics, paraphrased from the section on electromagnetic radiation in, Chemistry - Matter and Its Changes, by Brady, Russell & Holum, Riley & Sons, 2000. It shows how compatible the ISU wave mechanics are with known physics in regard to the electromagnetic radiation of the hydrogen atom. “Max Planck depicted EM as the emitted quanta or packets of energy called photons, where each photon “pulses” with a frequency as it travels with the speed of light.”

I count you among the Naked Scientist “science enthusiasts”, but admit that this model may be too “alternative” for most, and that is okay. Like you said, “It is good to understand the Universe in our own minds our own way.” I share it in hopes of getting into discussions like this, which help me learn and grow the model.


To jump ahead, I define light as the out flowing gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave-particle. An electromagnetic event emits photons, and as photon wave-particles traverse space, they emit out flowing gravitational wave energy, which is light. Remember that my model is quite alternative.


By the way, we are going to see Neil deGrasse Tyson tonight.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 16:45:41
I define light as the out flowing gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave-particle.
If I am being totally objective and unbiased towards my own notions,  I would answer the quoted with a question about proofs.

I would ask you to provide ''solid'' evidence of a Photons existence?

To me the physics about Photons are mostly of the imagination. I do understand you put packet but you do mention Photon.  So I would want you to provide proof.

Also I would  ask you to explain what you mean by light?    The dark energy type of light which is invisible or the visible of light , the spectrum we can see. Light is a rather general term .

Also what do you mean by out flowing gravitation wave?  Gravitation is inwards , it would have to be an inwards flowing wave.



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2017 18:20:58
If I am being totally objective and unbiased towards my own notions,  I would answer the quoted with a question about proofs.

I would ask you to provide ''solid'' evidence of a Photons existence?

To me the physics about Photons are mostly of the imagination. I do understand you put packet but you do mention Photon.  So I would want you to provide proof.

Also I would  ask you to explain what you mean by light?    The dark energy type of light which is invisible or the visible of light , the spectrum we can see. Light is a rather general term .

Also what do you mean by out flowing gravitation wave?  Gravitation is inwards , it would have to be an inwards flowing wave.
Thank you for the comments and questions. One of the axioms in my model is that the amount of wave energy in the universe is infinite.

From that axiom, I derive the details of the wave-particle in my model. That derivation includes photons that are classified as wave-particles, so photons depend on an axiom in my model, i.e., I can’t prove their exact characteristics beyond their generally accepted existence, but I do speculate about those characteristics.

My model is composed of both known science, and speculations. That said, photons in my model are justified in three ways: 1) They are generally accepted science, 2) They are derived from the axioms, as explained above, and 3) They are speculative in regard to their being standing wave-particles, with mass, that have inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components.

As part of the model, I define the out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave-particle as light (the generally accepted electromagnetic spectrum that includes both light that is visible to the naked eye, and light that is not visible to the naked eye) that has a frequency associated with the energy (in quanta) of the photon wave-particle that emits the wave.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/10/2017 13:35:03
One of the axioms in my model is that the amount of wave energy in the universe is infinite.
The problem with this Bogie, an axiom by definition is something that is self evidently true. Infinite is not self evidently true so neither could be an infinite energy.
So claiming it is an axiom would be falsifiable.

Quote
Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. ... In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/10/2017 15:55:37
The problem with this Bogie, an axiom by definition is something that is self evidently true. Infinite is not self evidently true so neither could be an infinite energy.


Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. ... In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".
You are siting the correct definition of an axiom from the perspective of classical philosophy which is a narrow application.


Have a look at a broader definition:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom)


Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth), to serve as a premise (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise) or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CE%BE%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BC%CE%B1)) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]
The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_philosophy), an axiom is a statement that is so evident (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence) or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4] My bold.
Footnote [4] says: “A proposition (whether true or false)" axiom, n., definition 2. Oxford English Dictionary Online, accessed 2012-04-28.


Quote
So claiming it is an axiom would be falsifiable.
Your basis for saying it would be falsifiable might be true from the perspective of classical philosophy, but from the perspective of modern logic, and in theoretical physics and cosmology, the fact that it is not self evident is not a falsification. An axiom can simply be a statement that is considered either self evident, or necessary for the derivation theorems or subsequent reasoning. The latter is how I am using the axioms.


The question of the infinity of space is considered unfalsifiable.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/10/2017 16:12:17
The question of the infinity of space is considered unfalsifiab
That would be a false statement.   The infinite of space is not shown to be true or not true. There is a 50/50 option.

1)With  boundaries

2) Without boundaries

So ''Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true''   

An infinite space is a statement that is neither true or false. You would have to provide some logic that shows space to be infinite making the statement true.  We can not just say things are true without some form of proof , logical or evident based to confirm the truth.

I do think space is  infinite myself but could I prove it? Not really

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/10/2017 17:51:17
That would be a false statement.   The infinite of space is not shown to be true or not true. There is a 50/50 option.

1)With  boundaries

2) Without boundaries

So ''Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true''   

An infinite space is a statement that is neither true or false. You would have to provide some logic that shows space to be infinite making the statement true.  We can not just say things are true without some form of proof , logical or evident based to confirm the truth.

I do think space is  infinite myself but could I prove it? Not really


I can accept that fact that you object to the axiom that space is infinite, and would just move on. But I am comforted by the fact that you too think it is infinite; so I assume you consider it reasonable.

To go back a bit, in reply #124 you questioned the existence of photons, to which I responded in reply #125 with several points supporting my recognition of the existence of photons and ended that post by saying, “As part of the model, I define the out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave-particle as light (the generally accepted electromagnetic spectrum that includes both light that is visible to the naked eye, and light that is not visible to the naked eye) that has a frequency associated with the energy (in quanta) of the photon wave-particle that emits the wave.”

Moving past your objection as to how I use axioms, the model accepts the existence of photons, and describes them as wave-particles with mass. Do you have any interest, comments, or objection to the wave-particle nature of particles as I describe them?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/10/2017 17:13:15

Reply #130
Wave mechanics in the ISU


To facilitate the reading of this complex but important ISU content post, I’ll state the conclusion at the beginning and again at the end … with no mercy in regard to the number of words.


Conclusion: Spherical light wave fronts originate from a point source, initially the emission of a photon wave-particle that has electric and magnetic properties, and subsequently the emission of the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon wave-particle as it traverses space. The light wavefront expands spherically, enabled by the oscillating background, and in a similar fashion to the Huygens effect with ISU modifications. The photon wave-particles produce an electric current and a magnetic field along their path, while the spherical light wave emitted by the photon wave-particle is a gravitational wave, just like the gravitational waves emitted by all wave-particles.






By way of introduction, there is an electric aspect to light, which means there is a current flow associated with particle motion along the path of the photon, as it traverses the oscillating background of space. That current is the same effect that I attribute to the gyroscope-like characteristic of spin in the direction of motion as measured by Stern-Gerlach devices, as described in replies #89 - #91. It is accompanied by a transverse magnetic field according to the invariant laws of nature (a moving electric current produces a magnetic field), but the electric current drives the magnetic field and is the primary event in the advance of the light wave front through the oscillating background. The current flow is occurring along the path, and the path takes the photon from one oscillation site to another (the tiniest of distances, much like a discrete increment, but with a variable aspect associated with the local wave energy density which varies according to the intensity of the meaningful local wave action).


Note: it is appropriate to establish some explanation for the presence of the oscillating background if I am using it in association with the advance of the light wave front and the generation of the electric field. I offered the ISU explanation for the oscillating background in reply #65 & reply #69, and I find it appropriate now to refer back to it because I have some added thinking about the electromagnetic nature of light and the distinction between the light wave and the gravitational wave that came up lately, indirectly as a result of viewing the Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox video, and contemplations and research on polarization (it is the photon core portions, the “particle” part of the wave-particle that are filtered by the polarized filter; the wave part just goes through all the openings in the filter regardless of the orientation of the filter or filters): ...   and as a result of recent discussions about LIGO gravitational wave discoveries accompanied by gamma ray burst of light.


That video is another of the often occurring efforts to make quantum mechanics out to be something spooky; something that can’t be explained in the context of a local reality, but instead must either invoke non-locality, or faster that light communications between entangled particles. In that vain, I addressed the famous Aspect experiments that are used to support the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics via my replies #71 - #74. I offered comments and analysis of the single particle, two slit, quantum erasure experiments, and came to the conclusion that the wave-particle nature of particles in the ISU offers a solution to any Copenhagen paradox implied by the experiments without having to rely on superposition of states; both the wave state and the particle state are present at all times in the ISU wave-particle.


Never-the-less, I keep reviewing my conclusions in the light of my continued enthusiasm, and that leads to what I think are improvements to the ISU model, which is the gist of this post about the electric and magnetic aspects of the advance of light and gravity through the oscillations. The individual oscillations each have wave energy flows at work as they intersect and form third waves, and that tiniest of wave action generates the tiniest of electric and magnetic fields. The motion of the photon through the oscillations excites the level of oscillation active locally and thus increases the electric and magnetic fields along the path of the photon.


Remember that light waves and gravity waves are the outflowing gravitational component of the wave-particle, but the separation between light and gravity is that the particle that emits light is traveling at the speed of light, and producing electric and magnetic fields along a straight path, while the other gravity waves are emitted by particles that themselves are traveling at sub light speed, even essentially at rest locally, and are not associated with electromagnetism. The importance of that distinction is that the photon gets all of its inflowing wave energy component from the direction of motion through space, and therefore it follows the highest net wave energy density path, a curved path, through the wave energy density profile of space, as mentioned in reply #35. Both light waves and gravitational wave traverse the oscillating background of space at the local speed of light.


The oscillation sites that the light wave is passed along through are continually refreshing each other, essentially in place, because they are the lowest order of wave convergences possible, and they exist because when waves intersect they produce “third waves”, and waves have been intersecting throughout the eternal past, and so if nature has a minimum level or limit of tiny wave action, which it does in the ISU, then there is an oscillating background which serves to advance more meaningful light and gravity waves.


The advance of the photon wave particle is assisted by the new third waves occurring in the oscillating background as a result of the presence and passing of the more meaningful light waves emitted by the passing photon wave-particle, because each point of intersection between the wave energy that makes up the photon wave-particle, and an oscillation occurring in the background, serve to advance the energy of the photon from the current site of oscillation to the adjacent sites of oscillation.


We are talking Huygens 17th century, and Fresnel and Kirchhoff from the 19th century. Huygens theorized that each point on a propagating wave front could be characterized as a new spherical wave. He called them secondary spherical “wavelets”, which are quite like the “third waves” in the ISU model. Some people considered it a disadvantage of the theory that the wavelets propagated spherically, which meant both forward to the direction of the light wave expansion, and backward in the direction the light wave expansion had come. Fresnel and Kirchhoff are said to have later solved that problem, and I need to study that solution, but in the ISU, the function of the spherical wavelets are replaced by the oscillations and the third waves, so the backward part of the third wave not problematic. The backward part of the third wave (Huygens’ wavelet) is expanding into higher wave energy density than the forward part of the third wave as a simple result of the higher wave energy density of the trailing “parent” wave relative to the density of the third wave being encountered. The slower expansion backward into the higher wave energy than the forward expansion into the lower wave energy density mitigates the problem in the ISU.




https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdf (https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdf)
Huygens effect
“The spherical wave is the basic wave for light propagation using Huygens’ principle. In 1678, Christiaan Huygens theorized a model for light propagation that claimed that each point on a propagating wavefront (regardless of “shape”) could be assumed to be a source of a new spherical wave. The sum of these secondary spherical “wavelets” produced the subsequent wavefronts. Huygens’ principle had the glaring disadvantage that these secondary spherical wavefronts propagated “backwards” as well as forwards. This problem was later solved by Fresnel and Kirchhoff in the 19th century. With that correction, the Huygens’ model provides a very useful model for light propagation that naturally leads to expressions for “diffracted” light.”








And now to the magnetic field associated with the advanced of light. There is a magnetic aspect to light, which means that as the electric current flows along the path of the photon, it generates a magnetic field perpendicular to the path. Like the advance of the wave front, the oscillations in the background assist the generation of the fields.


With the above introduction, this post revises the ISU version of the electromagnetic nature of light as it advances through space, so let me write it in one paragraph for TheBox, :0. Next time I do a complete ISU update, I’ll fold all of the new content from this thread into a more orderly presentation of the model, keyed on the reply references.


Conclusion: Spherical light wave fronts originate from a point source, initially the emission of a photon wave-particle that has electric and magnetic properties, and subsequently the emission of the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon wave-particle as it traverses space. The light wavefront expands spherically, enabled by the oscillating background, and in a similar fashion to the Huygens effect with ISU modifications. The photon wave-particles produce an electric current and a magnetic field along their path, while the spherical light wave emitted by the photon wave-particle is a gravitational wave, just like the gravitational waves emitted by all wave-particles.


Edit 11/12/17: Please refer to subsequent thought in reply #223.




https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/10/2017 20:13:03
as it traverses the oscillating background of space.
Subjective , without any sort of proofs.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/10/2017 03:26:07
as it traverses the oscillating background of space.
Subjective , without any sort of proofs.
True. I have explained before that these are my own views, with all of the disclaimers about it being layman level speculations for discussion.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/10/2017 20:55:26
http://www.hq.eso.org/public/news/eso1733/ (http://www.hq.eso.org/public/news/eso1733/)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_10_17_8_38_06.jpeg)








Is there an explanation for the puzzling perspective of the wave energy density profile of space?

There should be a description of the profile of space to introduce this question, so let’s start with a comment that I suppose to be true:

Pick any point in space that can reasonably be occupied by an observer, and light and gravitational wave energy will be passing through that point from all directions at any given time. I would call the wave energy that is passing that point the light and gravitational wave energy in the local profile of space. You could refer to the light wave energy as the light wave energy profile, and the gravitational wave energy as the gravitational wave energy profile. Combined, they would be called the wave energy profile of space.

The logic behind that supposition, in regard to light wave energy, is that it is reasonable to believe that light can be seen from any point in space that an observer could reasonably occupy. In regard to gravitational wave energy, LIGO and the ESO are picking up evidence of gravitational wave energy from massive events occurring in distant galaxies, maybe millions, or even billions of light years away. It is not unreasonable to believe that massive events are emitting gravitational waves all the time, but they don’t all have enough energy to trigger the LIGO alarm.

The Wave Energy Profile of Space: If you are observing all wave energy passing a given point in space, light and gravitational waves will be passing through that point from all directions, at all times. That point in space has a profile that consists of all of the wave energy not only just reaching that point now, but all wave energy heading toward that point in space at the speed of light, from all directions; call it the impending wave energy that will bear on that point over time. And to wrap up the explanation of the profile of space, every light wave and every gravitational wave in the impending wave energy that will bear on that point over time has, or had, a distant origin where an event occurred that produced the wave energy. It is those distant sources that have produced, and are continually producing the wave energy profile of that single point in space.

If there are no objections, I will go on to add the concept of wave energy density to the description of the wave energy profile of space, and thus give an explanation for the Wave Energy Density Profile of Space, a concept useful in understanding the infinite Spongy Universe model.


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 25/10/2017 12:07:08
Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2017 13:43:09
Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.
I definitely like your thinking there, and it supports my conclusion that each Big Bang has preconditions. Please read reply #16, and feel free to comment (see #16 at following link): https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2017 14:20:23
I see there are no objections to the concept of the wave energy profile of space that I updated in reply #133, so let me expand that concept to include the wave energy density issue. Again, let’s take up a position at a point in space, where I get no objection that light and gravitational wave energy is coming from all directions at all times. That is acknowledging the full description in the last post of the Wave Energy Profile of Space, including the impending wave energy that is in transit toward that point, and acknowledging the distant sources that have emitted the wave energy that will reach that point at any given instant.

The density of the wave energy coming from each distant source is potentially different, based on how energetic the emission of the wave was back at the source, and how far away that emission was from the point in space that we are observing. A source emitting a radio wave would produce a low energy density light wave, while a source emitting a gamma ray burst would be producing a high energy density light wave. The duration of the wave energy from those two sources could be very different. A momentary gamma ray blast vs a continuous radio wave emission would be a meaningful difference in the wave energy density profile over time. That difference will have been in the impending wave energy right up until the waves reached our point of observation.

The inverse square law comes into play. The further away the source of the wave is from our observation point, the less energy that wave will have, relative to its energy at its origin, when it reaches the observation point. When we add the density concept to the directional sources of light and gravitational wave energy, the amount of energy passing our observation point from the directional sources is diminished by 1/distance^2.. We aren’t going to be harnessing star light any time soon from any star other than our own sun. But never-the-less, there is energy arriving at our point of observation from those distant sources, and the arriving energy has a vector from the source, that points to and ends up at our observation point. The vector is curved in the ISU, because the path of wave energy from the source to the observation point is curved as a result of continual relative motion of the sources. The impending wave energy takes a curved path through space to get to the observation point, though the expansion of the wave energy heading our way is characterized as spherical (remember the analogy of the Spherical Cow, mentioned a couple of times earlier).

Let’s take a crack at describing the Wave Energy Density Profile of Space, as it relates of our observation point:

The Wave Energy Density Profile of Space:

If you are observing all wave energy passing a given point in space, light and gravitational waves will be passing through that point from all directions, at all times. Each vector from around the entire inflowing wave energy sphere has a unique energy density, governed by the amount of energy of the source event, the duration of that event, and the distance between the event and our point of observation.

Light and gravity are considered to have an infinite reach, and so the greater source of the impending wave energy at our observation point covers the entire universe. Our wave energy density profile is unique based on our observation point, but is not unique universally, because every point in space has a different wave energy density profile at any point in time, and for all points, that profile is constantly changing. Therefore, there isn't any absolute arrangement of the individual points; we are talking about any point, chosen by any means, and there is no reason to believe that if you leave that point you will ever be able to return to it precisely, there is no absolute arrangement of points in space (but that is another topic).

The wave energy density of the selected observation point in space has a wave energy density profile that consists of all of the wave energy of various densities, not only just reaching that point now, but including all wave energy heading toward that point in space at the speed of light, from all directions; call it the impending wave energy density that will bear on that point over time, with varying wave energy densities by vector.




To try to state the whole of the explanation of the wave energy density profile of space in one paragraph, every light wave and every gravitational wave in the impending wave energy density that will bear on a particular observation point, over time, has, or had, a distant origin where an event occurred that produced the wave energy. The amount of the wave energy in every vector of the inflowing sphere of impending wave energy is governed by the intensity of the event, the duration of the event, and the distance between the event and our point of observation. The inverse square law is in play, reducing the amount of energy reaching our point of observation, relative to the energy of the source and the distant from the source. The wave energy density profile of that point in space is made up of the all of the energy along each of the vectors around the sphere, centered by our point of observation, and each vector is like a spear of energy; a stream of wave energy focused on a point of observation, and all of the impending spears are continually passing through the single observation point, all the time. Let it be said that space contains wave energy at the speed of light, everywhere, but the thing that lets  space host particles, also composed of wave energy traveling at the speed of light, is that the speed of light is relative to the local wave energy density, and that density within a particle space is extreme relative to open space, so the energy contained within a particle space is time-delayed due to the density; the presence of the wave-particle is thus maintained.

Note: The impending wave energy density that is arriving from those distant sources, in the case of light waves, is in the form of photon wave-particles, as well as in the form of curved wave fronts from the spherical wave energy emissions of the emitted wave-particles. Generally, the wave-particles of the non-light speed sources, i.e., other than photons, are wave fronts from the source, emitted in quantum increments from the surface of the particles making up the source, or emitted by the source at non-relativistive velocities (except neutrinos which could be at light speed). Refer to reply #130 for more on the wave-particle discussion.

From that definition of the wave energy density profile of space, there are a variety of implications relevant to the nature of the ISU model.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2017 20:50:39
This is a reply to TheBox, on one of his threads, that pertains to the discussion in reply #136, and so I am copying to here.

The thing that massive objects have in common that directly relates to your question, and to a quantum solution to gravity, is that particles and objects are composed of wave energy, in quantum increments. How does that make all mass accelerate at the same rate on Earth?

1) There is an inflowing and an out flowing gravitational wave energy component to all wave-particles, and therefore to all mass which is composed of wave particles. 
2) There is a wave energy density profile in all space, consisting of the out flowing gravitational wave energy emissions in the surrounding space, that governs the directional (gravitational) motion of objects in that local space. It is that density that is the same for all objects in the local space.
3) The sameness of the gravitational wave energy density in the local space governs the rate that wave-particles emit and absorb gravitational wave energy into and from the wave energy density profile of the local space that surrounds them.
4) The emission and absorption of gravitational wave energy by wave-particles is proportional the their mass, and so all objects have the same mass to gravity relationship when they are in the space with the same gravitation wave energy density.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 26/10/2017 15:12:24
Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.
I definitely like your thinking there, and it supports my conclusion that each Big Bang has preconditions. Please read reply #16, and feel free to comment (see #16 at the following link): https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357



As preconditions go I agree, though again in retrospect for my hypothesis to work the light matter and dark matter both have to satisfy a few variables. Namely;
Mass- Both would have to have a constant and increasingly dense mass condensed to a small diameter.
Velocity- Both masses would need to be careering towards one another with the same velocity or within the nearest velocity to each other. For example, if the light matter was travelling slower than the dark matter it could hypothetically deflect from the dark matter instead of colliding.
Time- This is a difficult one because time would need to begin in the immediate seconds after the big bang. But for the sake of theoretical hypothesis if the two matters were not in the same piece of space and time the big bang may not have happened. The time and space between them would have needed to have been constant and decreasing. But if they were in a different piece of space and time they would not have been on a collision course with one another.
Gravitational pull- Now this one isn't really a variable so to speak but one that could help in theory, now mass comes hand in hand with gravity. As we all know the more mass the more gravity and vice versa. Therefore if light matter and dark matter are both measured in mass, they should both have gravity, now the light matter on its own would only exert gravity on itself but add dark matter into that mix and the light matter would exert a gravitational force over the dark matter when it is within range. So, in theory, the same could be said for dark matter, it is a form of mass and therefore must have gravity exerted unto itself. This dark gravity would, in theory, pull the light matter towards itself and the light matter would then pull the dark matter towards itself as well.
So within reason, if all these variables are met the resulting explosion would more or less have been powerful enough to create the big bang and all space and time in between.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/10/2017 16:17:14
As preconditions go I agree, though again in retrospect for my hypothesis to work the light matter and dark matter both have to satisfy a few variables. …

… So within reason, if all these variables are met the resulting explosion would more or less have been powerful enough to create the big bang and all space and time in between.

I'm going to refer you to replies #85, 86, and 87 in this thread for some discussion on the points that your raise. See if there is anything there, or in the links to the recent papers published by the DES, that help you clarify or more fully express your required variables.
Link to reply #85: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg520033#msg520033 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg520033#msg520033)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 26/10/2017 17:23:07
As preconditions go I agree, though again in retrospect for my hypothesis to work the light matter and dark matter both have to satisfy a few variables. …

… So within reason, if all these variables are met the resulting explosion would more or less have been powerful enough to create the big bang and all space and time in between.

I'm going to refer you to replies #85, 86, and 87 in this thread for some discussion on the points that your raise. See if there is anything there, or in the links to the recent papers published by the DES, that help you clarify or more fully express your required variables.
Link to reply #85: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg520033#msg520033 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg520033#msg520033)
In theory, the variables I mention could work, though after reading replies 85 through 87 I now wonder if there should be another variable;
Post big bang acceleration- If the two matters weighed the same in mass at impact then why don't they expand at the same time? A simple answer to this could be that the particles contained within the mass are not uniform in size and mass. For example, light-matter particles could be uniform in size, mass and density and therefore would expand slower. Whereas dark matter particles could be lighter but maintain the same mass and density. For example, if you take a ton of bricks it would weigh a ton but have less brick than a ton of feathers. So, in theory, the dark matter is lighter and at the point of impact would expand much more rapidly than light matter. This may also explain the discrepancy between the amount of visible matter in the universe compared to the expected dark matter. In theory, the fact that it is purported there is more dark matter must mean it is lighter than visible matter and infinitely denser, which must mean there is a local source of dark matter in the universe to propel this expansion further.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/10/2017 17:55:22
In theory, the variables I mention could work, though after reading replies 85 through 87 I now wonder if there should be another variable;
Post big bang acceleration- If the two matters weighed the same in mass at impact then why don't they expand at the same time? A simple answer to this could be that the particles contained within the mass are not uniform in size and mass. For example, light-matter particles could be uniform in size, mass and density and therefore would expand slower. Whereas dark matter particles could be lighter but maintain the same mass and density. For example, if you take a ton of bricks it would weigh a ton but have less brick than a ton of feathers. So, in theory, the dark matter is lighter and at the point of impact would expand much more rapidly than light matter. This may also explain the discrepancy between the amount of visible matter in the universe compared to the expected dark matter. In theory, the fact that it is purported there is more dark matter must mean it is lighter than visible matter and infinitely denser, which must mean there is a local source of dark matter in the universe to propel this expansion further.
I see some progress in your explanation. Acceleration after the Big Bang is a generally accepted concept. We are also talking about preconditions to the Big Bang, and in my version, preconditions to the multiple big bangs that I suppose happen across the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. If so, every Big Bang “arena” will experience that same kind of expansion event as a consequence of it own “collapse/bounce” (as I call it, or just collapse/bang).


Now from that perspective, the presence of dark matter and “light matter” as you call it is just a given in the process I call Big Bang Arena Action (arena action defeats entropy in my model). But there isn’t any circumstances in my model that would equate to the way you use the terms “light matter” and “dark matter”. Instead, the preconditions, from my point of view, are related to common events across the landscape of the greater universe, i.e., Big Bang arenas expanding into each other's space. If we view each mature Big Bang arena to become filled with a vast array of galaxies and galactic structure as they mature, then when two expanding arenas intersect and overlap, they bring with them a portion of their galactic matter and energy. I phrase it, in a flowery language, as a swirling rendezvous that “gives birth” to a new Big Crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space. Therefore, in my model, new big bangs are continually occurring here and there, now and then across the greater universe.


Our views on the preconditions are far apart, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/10/2017 15:12:26
This is another response to TheBox in his thread, “What does an object have that is equal to another object”. I copy it here for future reference.
Remove the wording of wave and wave- particles and we would be in some agreement yet again.

The apple falling to the ground is not a consequence of the apple, for up high the rivers inward flow is weak but strengthens nearer the epi-centre.
Gravity is a ''river'' and put any boats in the river and they all flow at the same rate. The rivers flow is constant and momentum is acceleration.
The acceleration of gravity on Earth is 32 feet per second squared (9.8 m/s^2) which is the g in F=m*g., and you can and do equate that to the effect that the flowing river has on the an object falling into it. The object accelerates relative to the drop position as it catches up with the rate of the river’s flow.

An object in free fall in space will accelerate at g (32ft/s^2) right up until it impacts, while the object that fell into the river will accelerate only until it reaches the velocity of the flowing river, and then it will go with the flow. So the analogy to a river can work but is limited. Your point though, that it is not about the apple, the apple could be a whole tree limb, and it would still be caught up in the acceleration of gravity at the same rate as the tiny apple (and both would be caught up in the river flow at the same rate too).

The OP was about the thing that is the same, besides the fact that both the light object and the heavy object fall at the same rate of acceleration. As you said, the answer to what else is the same, answers gravity. I was agreeing with you by musing about some possible mechanics of quantum gravity; those mechanics are what I was suggesting is the other “sameness”.

Quantum gravity, when it is solved, may very will be associated with the concept that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, each quanta being a tiny increment of the objects total mass. That would mean that instead of the standard particle model’s premise that fundamental particles have no internal composition (they can be taken as points for convenience in mathematics), the quantum gravity solution may turn out to use wave mechanics of quantum particles whose internal composition is measured in numbers of quanta in a complex standing wave pattern (the quanta then become the points). I’m supposing that pattern equates to multiple quanta (huge numbers of momentary and continually refreshing individual high energy density spots that form at the wave intersections of the pattern as gravitational wave energy inflows and out flows). So that is why I bring in the mention of waves and wave particles; it was part of my answer to your opening post.

Regardless, there are some areas of agreement with your river flow analogy.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2017 02:03:22
This is another response to TheBox in his thread, “What does an object have that is equal to another object”. I copy it here for future reference.
Remove the wording of wave and wave- particles and we would be in some agreement yet again.

The apple falling to the ground is not a consequence of the apple, for up high the rivers inward flow is weak but strengthens nearer the epi-centre.
Gravity is a ''river'' and put any boats in the river and they all flow at the same rate. The rivers flow is constant and momentum is acceleration.
The acceleration of gravity on Earth is 32 feet per second squared (9.8 m/s^2) which is the g in F=m*g., and you can and do equate that to the effect that the flowing river has on the an object falling into it. The object accelerates relative to the drop position as it catches up with the rate of the river’s flow.

An object in free fall in space will accelerate at g (32ft/s^2) right up until it impacts, while the object that fell into the river will accelerate only until it reaches the velocity of the flowing river, and then it will go with the flow. So the analogy to a river can work but is limited. Your point though, that it is not about the apple, the apple could be a whole tree limb, and it would still be caught up in the acceleration of gravity at the same rate as the tiny apple (and both would be caught up in the river flow at the same rate too).

The OP was about the thing that is the same, besides the fact that both the light object and the heavy object fall at the same rate of acceleration. As you said, the answer to what else is the same, answers gravity. I was agreeing with you by musing about some possible mechanics of quantum gravity; those mechanics are what I was suggesting is the other “sameness”.

Quantum gravity, when it is solved, may very will be associated with the concept that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, each quanta being a tiny increment of the objects total mass. That would mean that instead of the standard particle model’s premise that fundamental particles have no internal composition (they can be taken as points for convenience in mathematics), the quantum gravity solution may turn out to use wave mechanics of quantum particles whose internal composition is measured in numbers of quanta in a complex standing wave pattern (the quanta then become the points). I’m supposing that pattern equates to multiple quanta (huge numbers of momentary and continually refreshing individual high energy density spots that form at the wave intersections of the pattern as gravitational wave energy inflows and out flows). So that is why I bring in the mention of waves and wave particles; it was part of my answer to your opening post.

Regardless, there are some areas of agreement with your river flow analogy.

I do not why but I feel it appropriate to post this quote

Quote
Overcoming the Monster[edit]
The protagonist sets out to defeat an antagonistic force (often evil) which threatens the protagonist and/or protagonist's homeland.

Examples: Perseus, Theseus, Beowulf, Dracula, The War of the Worlds, Nicholas Nickleby, The Guns of Navarone, Seven Samurai and its Western-style remake The Magnificent Seven, the James Bond franchise, Star Wars: A New Hope, Halloween, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, Attack on Titan, The Hunger Games, Harry Potter and Shrek.[2]

Also to add in which you may find of interest my river flows to the centre of the earth, An object at relative rest on an inertia reference frame is still under a state of acceleration. In other words if you are sitting in a chair right now or standing up , you are still in a state of free fall and acceleration . If it were not for the ground and Newtons third law, you would continue to fall.

F=ma if we have a 1kg mass,  1*a9.82=9.82N

Hence Δt'=Δa=time dilation

The ground state Caesium atom at relative rest is still under a state of constant acceleration.

added , i drew it for you


* atrest.jpg (37.74 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1625 times)

added- Imagine the river example of earlier, imagine you are floating down this river and have just reached terminal velocity of the flow, however you have a mesh stopping you .  The water flows through the mesh and the flow holds you against the mesh .

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/10/2017 13:10:23
I do not why but I feel it appropriate to post this quote


Overcoming the Monster[edit]
The protagonist sets out to defeat an antagonistic force (often evil) which threatens the protagonist and/or protagonist's homeland.


Examples: Perseus, Theseus, Beowulf, Dracula, The War of the Worlds, Nicholas Nickleby, The Guns of Navarone, Seven Samurai and its Western-style remake The Magnificent Seven, the James Bond franchise, Star Wars: A New Hope, Halloween, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, Attack on Titan, The Hunger Games, Harry Potter and Shrek.[2]
You left off Gilgamesh, and his monster, Humbaba. I will contemplate how the quote applies.
Quote
Also to add in which you may find of interest my river flows to the centre of the earth, An object at relative rest on an inertia reference frame is still under a state of acceleration. In other words if you are sitting in a chair right now or standing up , you are still in a state of free fall and acceleration . If it were not for the ground and Newtons third law, you would continue to fall.
True, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.


You have picked up on:
It is said that a constantly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is supported against gravity and that a free falling frame is indistinguishable from an inertial frame with constant velocity. However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
Jeffrey’s post is very timely. It not only invokes Newton’s 3rd law, but introduces a concept of the difference in time dilation between an accelerating object and one at rest. It is true, and I would address it form the perspective of the ISU model, using the wave energy density explanation as follows:


An object at rest is defined as an object that is in a wave energy density profile of space that has the inflowing gravitational wave energy equal from all directions. It is a possibility, but one that is almost never realized in nature. It would be similar to the Lagrange spots in space that exist where the gravitational attraction from various surrounding bodies cancels out, and the object in that spot seems to be suspended in relative motion to all of the surrounding objects at the same time. It would be in an Inertial frame of reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference).
“An inertial frame of reference, in classical physics, is a frame of reference in which bodies, whose net force acting upon them is zero, are not accelerated, that is they are at rest or they move at a constant velocity in a straight line.More at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference)


On the other hand, a free falling object is falling in a gravitational field, and as such is accelerating at “g”, as we have established in your “river analogy (modified to flow ever faster to the center of the Earth)”.


The difference in time dilation between the two frames is generally accepted and is part of Special and General Relativity. In the ISU, the phenomenon is caused by relative motion, just like in GR, but it is a clocking effect, meaning that if the two bodies in relative motion, and that are thus experiencing different amounts of time dilation are “wearing” identical watches, the watches will measure the passing of time at different rates. In the ISU, the cause is due to the difference in the wave energy density profile of the space environments of two bodies in question.


The “at rest” body is in an environment like the Lagrange spot, and the accelerated body is moving relative to the Lagrange spot. The effect is that the gravitational wave energy density in the direction of the moving body's motion has higher inflowing gravitational wave energy in that direction, which causes an increase in quanta in the wave-particles of the moving object relative to the resting objects. You will have to look at reply #76 for more explanation, rather than me restating it here.
Quote
F=ma if we have a 1kg mass,  1*a9.82=9.82N


Hence Δt'=Δa=time dilation


The ground state Caesium atom at relative rest is still under a state of constant acceleration.


added , i drew it for you





added- Imagine the river example of earlier, imagine you are floating down this river and have just reached terminal velocity of the flow, however you have a mesh stopping you .  The water flows through the mesh and the flow holds you against the mesh .



So we are gaining some mutual understanding, some common ground.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2017 13:15:21
You have picked up on:
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/10/2017 13:54:25
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).
I am going to explore that concept, using JeffreyH’s post as a starting point.

He said, “It is said that a constantly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is supported against gravity …”


This was posted over on your thread about sameness



However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
That possible crossover, I think, is an interesting connection, and an example of sameness sought out and referred to in the opening post by TheBox.

It implies that the intricacies of time dilation involve many factors related to relative motion between massive objects. Time dilation would be a net of those multiple factors, in a multitude of situations. There would be some pluses and some minuses, all netted together in results that compare the individual clock results used to quantify time dilation.

The future will likely see the impacts of the individual factors tested by highly mobile and highly accurate clocks, which futurists say may reveal unexpected and as yet unseen individual impacts intwined in the net dilation amounts. Is there a close tie to wave energy density in space, and would confirmation of that lead to improved definitions and explanations for local energy density conditions? Is there to be some recognition of the effect of gravitational wave energy density in space on the local speed of light?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/10/2017 15:12:19
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).
I am going to explore that concept, using JeffreyH’s post as a starting point.

He said, “It is said that a constantly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is supported against gravity …”


This was posted over on your thread about sameness



However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
That possible crossover, I think, is an interesting connection, and an example of sameness sought out and referred to in the opening post by TheBox.

It implies that the intricacies of time dilation involve many factors related to relative motion between massive objects. Time dilation would be a net of those multiple factors, in a multitude of situations. There would be some pluses and some minuses, all netted together in results that compare the individual clock results used to quantify time dilation.

The future will likely see the impacts of the individual factors tested by highly mobile and highly accurate clocks, which futurists say may reveal unexpected and as yet unseen individual impacts intwined in the net dilation amounts. Is there a close tie to wave energy density in space, and would confirmation of that lead to improved definitions and explanations for local energy density conditions? Is there to be some recognition of the effect of gravitational wave energy density in space on the local speed of light?
Because at the C.O.M , 1.6 x 10-35 m³   , time stops to dilate and is constant.

added- C.O.R   (centre of  rest)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 29/10/2017 16:24:51
You have picked up on:
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).

It is in a way correct, the particles in an object are never really at rest, therefore if we place a box on the floor it isn't going to move but the particles that make up the box are constantly in a state of acceleration because they are never at rest. That's the way I think of it anyway. Please do criticise freely, after all, that is how we all learn. :)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/10/2017 21:01:27
You have picked up on:
Well actually I posted about objects at rest being under a state of constant acceleration years ago .   Everyone said I was wrong.
(I know otherwise).

It is in a way correct, the particles in an object are never really at rest, therefore if we place a box on the floor it isn't going to move but the particles that make up the box are constantly in a state of acceleration because they are never at rest. That's the way I think of it anyway. Please do criticise freely, after all, that is how we all learn. :)
The box on the ground is at relative rest but the properties of the box are undergoing a constant acceleration, the object pushing against the ground but being stopped by the ground. (Newtons third law).
The box itself does need to exist or need to be considered , we can visualise this in energy form and of two polarities and Q.F.S.(quantum field solidity).

The likewise polarities of the object can not surpass the likewise polarities of the ground. The likewise polarities push back in accordance with Newtons third law.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The parent N-field having a far greater density than the child n-field. The parent field retaining density  at the ''point'' of existence. Where the child n-field permeates to a 0 Eviscosity.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 13:56:41

JerrfeyH’s crossover comment, I think, is an interesting connection, and an example of sameness sought out and referred to … by TheBox.

It implies that the intricacies of time dilation involve many factors related to relative motion between massive objects. Time dilation would be a net of those multiple factors, in a multitude of situations. There would be some pluses and some minuses, all netted together in results that compare the individual clock results used to quantify time dilation.

The future will likely see the impacts of the individual factors tested by highly mobile and highly accurate clocks, which futurists say may reveal unexpected and as yet unseen individual impacts intwined in the net dilation amounts. Is there a close tie to wave energy density in space, and would confirmation of that lead to improved definitions and explanations for local energy density conditions? Is there to be some recognition of the effect of gravitational wave energy density in space on the local speed of light?

Because at the C.O.M , 1.6 x 10-35 m³   , time stops to dilate and is constant.

added- C.O.R   (centre of  rest)
It is in a way correct, the particles in an object are never really at rest, therefore if we place a box on the floor it isn't going to move but the particles that make up the box are constantly in a state of acceleration because they are never at rest. That's the way I think of it anyway. Please do criticise freely, after all, that is how we all learn. :)
The box on the ground is at relative rest but the properties of the box are undergoing a constant acceleration, the object pushing against the ground but being stopped by the ground. (Newtons third law).
The box itself does need to exist or need to be considered , we can visualise this in energy form and of two polarities and Q.F.S.(quantum field solidity).

The likewise polarities of the object can not surpass the likewise polarities of the ground. The likewise polarities push back in accordance with Newtons third law.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The parent N-field having a far greater density than the child n-field. The parent field retaining density  at the ''point'' of existence. Where the child n-field permeates to a 0 Eviscosity.

Getting our heads together and having some discussion about the various aspects of the ISU model is the purpose of my thread, and it is in line with that objective that it is good to see some members participate. Thanks, and I will take what is said into consideration, to the extent that they apply to my topic, and to the extent that I can understand them. If you make a statement that is not self explanatory, then take the time to explain it, say what concepts you are invoking, what your abbreviations stand for, and if there are numbers and symbols, say what they are supposed to mean.

The post of mine quoted above was meant to address JeffreyH’s comment about an idea about time dilation, “However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.”

For now let’s focus on that, and please include reference to the following four short paragraphs in your replies:

1) JeffreyH uses time dilation in the generally accepted meaning, but is proposing there is some as yet unappreciated aspect of time dilation related to the equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass. If you are up on my position on that, you will see why his statement interests me.

2) I have explained that my view is quite alternative; related to the fact that the amount of time dilation is equal to the difference in the amount of time measured on two identical clocks in relative motion to each other, but that the mechanical cause for the clock difference is the wave energy density of the space in which the clocks have made their measurements.

3) The operative point is that the higher the local wave energy density is, the slower particles function, and since clocks are made of particles, the clock will measure the passing of time at a slower rate in a higher wave energy density environment.

4) Please say if you do or do not understand where I am coming from on that, or if not, ask, or say if you have a different explanation for time dilation.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 14:31:59
3) The operative point is that the higher the local wave energy density is, the slower particles function, and since clocks are made of particles, the clock will measure the passing of time at a slower rate in a higher wave energy density environment.
By higher I presume you mean altitude which would not be the correct wording. The more you expand from C.O.M (centre of mass)  in accordance with the I.S.L (inverse square law)  the energy is more permeated ( spread out thoroughly).
The opposite and T.S.L (transverse square law), increasing in magnitude (density)   of the E (energy) occupying a lesser amount of space. The smallest conceivable volume of space being a  Planck length cubed.  1.6 x 10-35 m³, where the energy is at it's most densest '' 3 dimensional point''.
As explained in Q.F.S (Quantum field solidity) , Q.F.S is the energies surrounding a void of space . The likewise polarities of the energies forcing a spherical void ''between'' them.

See attached image.


* n-void.jpg (34.85 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1924 times)

According to the laws of Physics and how polarity acts on other polarities, It would be an impossibility to have a solid as the centre of an atom. More like an empty seed kernel.

fe62e08bba584fb78c99f1b027bc1f14.gif³=E



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 30/10/2017 14:33:09
Quote
However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation.


Could it be said, for example, an F35B ( UK military jet) travelling at its maximum speed of 1,199mph would experience time dilation? For example travelling at that speed with respect to someone walking on a pavement, they would experience time in a different way to the person walking on the pavement, despite both clocks running uniform and at the same time? I may be wrong, but that is the simplest example I could think of. More specifically the jet would be seen as defying gravity, with a respect to the fact something in the air must always be seen to fall if not in the constraints of directional velocity.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 15:36:40
By higher I presume you mean altitude which would not be the correct wording.
No, I mean higher in terms of wave energy density. Refer to reply #136 in regard to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
Quote
The more you expand from C.O.M (centre of mass)  in accordance with the I.S.L (inverse square law)  the energy is more permeated ( spread out thoroughly).
To test my understanding, that sentence applies to the spherical expansion of a wave from a point of origin, and I would agree with your annotated response.
Quote
The opposite and T.S.L (transverse square law), increasing in magnitude (density)   of the E (energy) occupying a lesser amount of space.
To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?
Quote
The smallest conceivable volume of space being a Planck length cubed.  1.6 x 10-35 m³, where the energy is at it's most densest '' 3 dimensional point''.
We may or may not agree on that point. My response would be to reference nature’s maximum wave energy density, which is displayed at the center of the collapse of a Big Crunch; that is the highest wave energy density possible in the model, but not infinite density. The smallest conceivable volume to me is a point, at which you reach infinite density, and infinite density is not possible in the ISU.
Quote
As explained in Q.F.S (Quantum field solidity) , Q.F.S is the energies surrounding a void of space . The likewise polarities of the energies forcing a spherical void ''between'' them.
Maybe, but in the ISU, there are no voids, if you mean perfect vacuums. Your use of the word polarities seems to refer to converging forces. Is the equivalent to the convergence of expanding light or gravitational waves at the point of intersection, which I have mentioned throughout the thread?
Quote
See attached image.

* n-void.jpg (34.85 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1924 times)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 15:38:01
Quote
“However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation.”


Could it be said, for example, an F35B ( UK military jet) traveling at its maximum speed of 1,199mph would experience time dilation? For example traveling at that speed with respect to someone walking on a pavement, they would experience time in a different way to the person walking on the pavement, despite both clocks running uniform and at the same time? I may be wrong, but that is the simplest example I could think of. More specifically the jet would be seen as defying gravity, with a respect to the fact something in the air must always be seen to fall if not in the constraints of directional velocity.
Let me restate you scenario using a clock at rest and a clock traveling a 1200 mph relative to the rest clock. It could be said that the clock in motion relative to the rest clock experiences time dilation, and the amount of dilation would equal the difference in the amount of time that is recorded to have passed by each clock.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 15:55:59
To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?
Of course, imagine an inflated Balloons surface with several dots scattered about, then imagine deflating the balloon so the distance between the dots have a length contraction, there is now more dots per area of the ''space''. The dots are less spread.
But of course by area I mean volume of space, I can contract the volume of space to a Planck length ³ , in reverse I can expand it infinitely so the energy permeates to 0 value. (0 Eviscosity).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 19:14:55
Just received a nice Twitter message. Earlier, in Reply #34, I posted this link to my lonely YouTube video here, and it was also posted on Twitter:
https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI (https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI)
It is the macro level overview of the ISU.

Finally someone from Twitter viewed it and has this to say:

“I thoroughly enjoyed your video and think it a very reasonable strategy for a multiverse [multiple Big Bang] scenario, and I cannot get over how you managed to get your point across in just 20 mins!  How did you do that?  When watching your video I kept my mind clear of all other models, this in order to hear what you were saying without projecting any other ideal upon your model, but afterwards, in comparing your model to mine, there are some distinct similarities within the wildly obvious differences.  Compton scattering forming new particles for instance... and your big bang arena's are very similar to what my model describes as mini big bangs, or 'practice bangs' and associates with our currently observed black holes and the jetting phenomenon.  In any case, very enjoyable and interesting watch.  Thanks.”

It is encouraging to hear that type of response, and gives me some motivation to do a similar video addressing the micro realm of the ISU.

Now back to current replies ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 20:08:02
Just received a nice Twitter message. Earlier, in Reply #34, I posted this link to my lonely YouTube video here, and it was also posted on Twitter:
https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI (https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI)
It is the macro level overview of the ISU.

Finally someone from Twitter viewed it and has this to say:

“I thoroughly enjoyed your video and think it a very reasonable strategy for a multiverse [multiple Big Bang] scenario, and I cannot get over how you managed to get your point across in just 20 mins!  How did you do that?  When watching your video I kept my mind clear of all other models, this in order to hear what you were saying without projecting any other ideal upon your model, but afterwards, in comparing your model to mine, there are some distinct similarities within the wildly obvious differences.  Compton scattering forming new particles for instance... and your big bang arena's are very similar to what my model describes as mini big bangs, or 'practice bangs' and associates with our currently observed black holes and the jetting phenomenon.  In any case, very enjoyable and interesting watch.  Thanks.”

It is encouraging to hear that type of response, and gives me some motivation to do a similar video addressing the micro realm of the ISU.

Now back to current replies ...
I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 20:30:12
I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.
Don’t be sorry. You couldn’t know if you would like it if you didn’t watch it. Thanks for the feedback.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 30/10/2017 21:37:35
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 21:40:57
To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?
Of course, imagine an inflated Balloons surface with several dots scattered about, then imagine deflating the balloon so the distance between the dots have a length contraction, there is now more dots per area of the ''space''. The dots are less spread.
But of course by area I mean volume of space, I can contract the volume of space to a Planck length ³ , in reverse I can expand it infinitely so the energy permeates to 0 value. (0 Eviscosity).
I asked if you could give me an example of the transverse square law at work, thinking it would relate to a reduction in volume, since we were talking about the expanding volume of a wave. I just wanted an example that related to the opposite of the inverse square law, which you implied was the case with the transverse square law. Your example was not about volume, even though you say, “But of course by area I mean volume of space …”. Do you see how the surface of a balloon is is two dimensional and the volume of a space inside the balloon is three dimensional?

Try again, and I am now requesting that you give me a link to a source that describes the “transverse square law”. And while you are at it, how about a link to Eviscosity, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 22:15:17
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 22:20:33
Do you see how the surface of a balloon is is two dimensional and the volume of a space inside the balloon is three dimensional?
Pfff, the surface of the balloon was to show the energy coming together (the dots)  while the deflation was a decrease in interior volume.  The inverse square law is a segment of a sphere.
Let me think of a working example, I will get back to you.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 22:27:26
Ok I have a working example, electromagnetic radiation.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/10/2017 22:41:56
Do you see how the surface of a balloon is is two dimensional and the volume of a space inside the balloon is three dimensional?
Pfff, the surface of the balloon was to show the energy coming together (the dots)  while the deflation was a decrease in interior volume.  The inverse square law is a segment of a sphere.
Let me think of a working example, I will get back to you.
Ok I have a working example, electromagnetic radiation.

That was the example that follows the inverse square law. We are looking for an example of the transverse square law that you invoked earlier. Why not just give me a link to an example?


I am thinking some of your posts contain bad science, and so I’m not inclined to think much of your credibility when you refer to my youtube video in these glowing terms, “I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.”


You have not offered any credible counter arguments. Do you have any examples from the video that you want to point out as meaningless?

Redeem yourself, lol. Remember this post: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71609.msg525477#msg525477 ...


... Tell me if you understand LIGO yet, and how an interferometer works, and how a gravitational wave sets off the LIGO alarm. Then tell me if you agree with the generally accepted science that says the gravitational wave causes length contraction, or if you see any merit in my alternative idea that says the gravitational wave increases the wave energy density along the arms as it passes one and then the other, causing the laser light to go slower down on arm and then the other, setting off the alarm. If you don’t understand LIGO, you are way behind in your reading, lol.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 12:10:38
That was the example that follows the inverse square law. We are looking for an example of the transverse square law that you invoked earlier. Why not just give me a link to an example?
Quite clearly you are looking out and not looking in. The T.S.L applies when looking in. 

Imagine looking at the earth from a distance away .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 12:12:12
Do you have any examples from the video that you want to point out as meaningless?
Spongey, infinite etc.  You are telling a story in your video with no actual science.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 12:55:46
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 31/10/2017 13:36:03
Quote
“However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation.”


Could it be said, for example, an F35B ( UK military jet) traveling at its maximum speed of 1,199mph would experience time dilation? For example traveling at that speed with respect to someone walking on a pavement, they would experience time in a different way to the person walking on the pavement, despite both clocks running uniform and at the same time? I may be wrong, but that is the simplest example I could think of. More specifically the jet would be seen as defying gravity, with a respect to the fact something in the air must always be seen to fall if not in the constraints of directional velocity.
Let me restate you scenario using a clock at rest and a clock traveling a 1200 mph relative to the rest clock. It could be said that the clock in motion relative to the rest clock experiences time dilation, and the amount of dilation would equal the difference in the amount of time that is recorded to have passed by each clock.

Thank you, Bogie, with this in mind a clock travelling at say Mach 4 could also experience time dilation with respect to a clock at rest?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 13:40:14
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 13:44:35
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
They are made up by somebody but usually a definition is given to explain the word and concept. You just seem to pluck things from the air without explanation and claiming it is a new concept.
You said on the other post about evicosity:
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
I did look it up and there was no such word. So you lied.
As for smart, I am not the one that is fooled by doctored hieroglyphics and thinks that they are proof of aliens living amongst us..
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 13:51:29
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
They are made up by somebody but usually a definition is given to explain the word and concept. You just seem to pluck things from the air without explanation and claiming it is a new concept.
You said on the other post about evicosity:
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
I did look it up and there was no such word. So you lied.
As for smart, I am not the one that is fooled by doctored hieroglyphics and thinks that they are proof of aliens living amongst us..
Wow a troll who thinks in some way he can troll me.   You are just being awkward .   If I want to call a concept in my mind Eviscosity, I will call it Eviscosity or anything else I want to call it. It is not your say to tell me in my own notions what I have to call things.

We are talking about energy density, so quite obvious the  word is related to energy density. 

For example  two  individual polar opposite fields have 0 Eviscosity relative to each other.

Two individual likewise polarity field have a Eviscosity=1

Two merged opposite fields have Eviscosity=0.5 or it might  be 2
All a part of my Q.F.S notion.

added- If you want to help, write the maths for the inverse square law in reverse to create my T.S.L (transverse square law).

Finish this off :

E=The inverse square law in reverse
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 14:03:12
As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.
As pointed out before , this is a new theories section so don't always expect conventional words that you know.
New theories yes. Made up words no. You earlier claimed on another thread that this word existed to explain a specific phenomena. You don't have a very good relationship with the truth do you?
You are really not very smart are you?  All words are made up to define something, new things have no definition therefore have new words and meanings to define that new something.

It would be like me saying to Minowski, space-time is a made up a word so you can't use that.
They are made up by somebody but usually a definition is given to explain the word and concept. You just seem to pluck things from the air without explanation and claiming it is a new concept.
You said on the other post about evicosity:
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'
I did look it up and there was no such word. So you lied.
As for smart, I am not the one that is fooled by doctored hieroglyphics and thinks that they are proof of aliens living amongst us..
Wow a troll who thinks in some way he can troll me.   You are just being awkward .   If I want to call a concept in my mind Eviscosity, I will call it Eviscosity or anything else I want to call it. It is not your say to tell me in my own notions what I have to call things.

We are talking about energy density, so quite obvious the  word is related to energy density. 

For example  two  individual polar opposite fields have 0 Eviscosity relative to each other.

Two individual likewise polarity field have a Eviscosity=1

Two merged opposite fields have Eviscosity=0.5 or it might  be 2
All a part of my Q.F.S notion.

added- If you want to help, write the maths for the inverse square law in reverse to create my T.S.L (transverse square law).
Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas a troll when you said when your thread was locked 'I will just go ''sock' all the other forums again to find conversation' and 'Please Ban me now and I promise never to return as a sock.'
If this is not an admission of trolling multiple forums I don't know what is.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 14:06:23
Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas
You are not questioning my ideas though, your attention is focused on myself. You are trying to be clever by using definition to try and humiliate my character, trying to make me look stupid in some way.

Now if you was serious you would provide the maths I need which I am sure you are capable of.

I am far from a troll, I am future science like it or not.  The facts I do not imagine, they are there for all to observe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 14:16:22
Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas
You are not questioning my ideas though, your attention is focused on myself. You are trying to be clever by using definition to try and humiliate my character, trying to make me look stupid in some way.

Now if you was serious you would provide the maths I need which I am sure you are capable of.

I am far from a troll, I am future science like it or not.  The facts I do not imagine, they are there for all to observe.
Are you? That is laughable.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 14:17:37
Funny how you call anybody who questions your ideas
You are not questioning my ideas though, your attention is focused on myself. You are trying to be clever by using definition to try and humiliate my character, trying to make me look stupid in some way.

Now if you was serious you would provide the maths I need which I am sure you are capable of.

I am far from a troll, I am future science like it or not.  The facts I do not imagine, they are there for all to observe.
Are you? That is laughable.
The transverse-square law, in physics, is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is transversely proportional to the square of the distance from the observer to that physical quantity.

Laugh away I know what I am talking about which is quite clearly beyond your thinking ability .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 14:22:46
Because if >r=<Eviscosity then <r=>Eviscosity

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/10/2017 14:25:39
Thank you, Bogie, with this in mind a clock traveling at say Mach 4 could also experience time dilation with respect to a clock at rest?
Yes, and a tiny bit more than the example with 1200 mph. The time dilation occurs with even the slightest difference in relative motion. Relativistic velocities make more noticeable differences. In reply #75, I started a series of posts on the topic of atomic clocks, time dilation, and the quanta that I use in conjunction with the ISU process of quantum action and quantum gravity:


Link to Reply #75:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518690#msg518690 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518690#msg518690)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_20_01.jpeg)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 31/10/2017 20:48:22
To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?
Of course, imagine an inflated Balloons surface with several dots scattered about, then imagine deflating the balloon so the distance between the dots have a length contraction, there is now more dots per area of the ''space''. The dots are less spread.
But of course by area I mean volume of space, I can contract the volume of space to a Planck length ³ , in reverse I can expand it infinitely so the energy permeates to 0 value. (0 Eviscosity).

Actually, the balloon once deflated and thus the latex/rubber has contracted, per square foot there wouldn't be a different amount of dots, the amount stays uniform, just when the balloon is inflated they expand in nature. They don't change in number, only size.

Quote
'Well actually if you looked it up, it would stand for extensional viscosity although I am using it a sense of energy viscosity.'


Surely if you use viscosity in its proper way it would mean
Quote
the state of being thick, sticky, and semi-fluid inconsistency, due to internal friction
so by all means adding extensional to viscosity it would mean
Quote
Extensional viscosity (also known as elongational viscosity) is a viscosity coefficient when applied stress is extensional stress
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 13:51:44

I do want to keep the thread going on my version of the cosmology of the universe, so let me say:
Just received a nice Twitter message. Earlier, in Reply #34, I posted this link to my lonely YouTube video here, and it was also posted on Twitter:
https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI (https://youtu.be/NSO-RvKXUKI)
It is the macro level overview of the ISU.

Finally someone from Twitter viewed it and has this to say:

“I thoroughly enjoyed your video and think it a very reasonable strategy for a multiverse [multiple Big Bang] scenario, and I cannot get over how you managed to get your point across in just 20 mins!  …How did you do that?  When watching your video I kept my mind clear of all other models, this in order to hear what you were saying without projecting any other ideal upon your model, but afterwards, in comparing your model to mine, there are some distinct similarities within the wildly obvious differences.  Compton scattering forming new particles for instance... and your big bang arena's are very similar to what my model describes as mini big bangs, or 'practice bangs' and associates with our currently observed black holes and the jetting phenomenon.  In any case, very enjoyable and interesting watch.  Thanks.”

It is encouraging to hear that type of response, and gives me some motivation to do a similar video addressing the micro realm of the ISU.

Now back to current replies ...
I watched your video, to be honest it means nothing and you explain nothing. Lots of words and lots of trying to be science like. Subjective I am sorry to say.

I did mention, “Don’t be sorry”, and there is no reason to believe that my video was intended to be a report of science that I am “doing”. You have missed the posts where I refer to my model as reasonable and responsible speculations, and I don’t pretend to be doing science.

What I am doing is using generally accepted science, and theoretical physics, to try to get comfortable with a personal view of cosmology. I am evolving my own view; one that is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. That includes addressing explanations for the beginning, examining the compatibility of various generally accepted observations and data to the various theoretical models like GR and QM, and deciding what the inconsistencies and gaps are.

For example, Big Bang Theory doesn’t address the universe until an instant after some event. That event has become known as the Big Bang, but there is no mention of it, or of any preconditions to it. I speculate that one reasonable set of preconditions is that two or more Big Bang arenas converge in the landscape of the greater universe, and the result of the intersection and overlap is a Big Crunch, formed as their galactic material and energy merged and crunched at the center of gravity of the overlap space. It is my way of speculating about preconditions to Our Big Bang. You have a better idea, feel free to discuss it here on my thread.

It is my “hobby”, more or less, to personally speculate about reasonable and responsible ways to fill the gaps in theoretical physics and cosmology, and evolve my own personal views of the cosmology of the universe. If you don’t like my conclusions, argue against some point I have made that you think is wrong, and say why it is wrong, and I’ll tell you the details of how I came to my conclusion, trying to defend my idea, or I will give it up to your better ideas, if you have any. That way I will learn and improve my model.

All throughout the thread I have compared my model to various models, and to general physics, as I did, step by step through Hyperphysics links, and as I do with various examples from the standard particle model. I say what the accepted science is, I point out how the ISU differs, and I explain why the ISU differs. I delve into the problems in physics in the way a layman science enthusiast would, reading, researching, studying, and contemplating. I do not claim to be doing science, or that I have any clues in my model that any reputable professional would or should be interested it. I speculate, and wait for the scientific community to do the real science. I affectionately call it the Big Wait.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 14:03:27
I did mention, “Don’t be sorry”, and there is no reason to believe that my video was intended to be a report of science that I am “doing”. You have missed the posts where I refer to my model as reasonable and responsible speculations, and I don’t pretend to be doing science.
I consider you are a clever person and do word things well when you write. Strangely enough I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.
An infinite Universe that contains spongey materials would be more fitting and understandable.   Sponges of cause being matter that can retain energy that is absorbed but also emits the energy if the sponge gets too soaked.  Quantum Fields also have the properties of spongey.
So after reconsideration in my dream of your idea, I have changed my mind and I will say a good idea that needs a little bit of work to put into correct context.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 01/11/2017 14:10:13
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs? More specifically if each happened at a different time throughout the early universe then logic would dictate we would be able to observe these other big bangs? Or as is my preferred analogy their was one big bang but made of 2 different entities that collided. We would only be able to observe just the one big bang.

Another question would be if the prerequisites for the big bangs happened to be overlapping energy and matter coming together in the centre of gravity then would this still be happening now? If so then how long till the next one? And could we detect these bangs as a gravitational wave?

I realise the above poses more than one question but they flow together so I didn't feel the need to change it.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 14:13:36
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs?
We visualise the big bang as some huge big ''explosion'', but what if the big bang was lots of really small bangs at a quantum level so tiny , we could not observe it?
It could still be happening now a recurring process that is continuous.

added- Micro bangs

Multiple  Micro bangs might look like a big bang.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 14:20:50
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 01/11/2017 14:22:07
I did mention, “Don’t be sorry”, and there is no reason to believe that my video was intended to be a report of science that I am “doing”. You have missed the posts where I refer to my model as reasonable and responsible speculations, and I don’t pretend to be doing science.
I consider you are a clever person and do word things well when you write. Strangely enough, I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.
An infinite Universe that contains spongey materials would be more fitting and understandable.   Sponges of cause being matter that can retain energy that is absorbed but also emits the energy if the sponge gets too soaked.  Quantum Fields also have the properties of spongey.
So after reconsideration in my dream of your idea, I have changed my mind and I will say a good idea that needs a little bit of work to put into correct context.

The same spongey effect could also be an attribute to black holes and the wider universe as a whole, therefore a black hole would absorb energy and matter and possibly spit it back out as a flash on the event horizon, I need to think more about that idea but it could work in theory.

For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs?
We visualise the big bang as some huge big ''explosion'', but what if the big bang was lots of really small bangs at a quantum level so tiny, we could not observe it?
It could still be happening now a recurring process that is continuous.

So to look at it in a different situation, these quantum level explosions you mention they could have preceded the big bang and since they were before the initial big bang, then wouldn't that hypothetically have caused a change reaction which leads to the big bang? Therefore if these quantum level explosions are happening now, then, in theory, it could start another big bang and wipe out the universe as we know it or it would do nothing more than make the universe expand at an even more exponential rate?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 14:49:10
hese quantum level explosions you mention they could have preceded the big bang
Yes they could of proceeded the big bang or from a different viewpoint (looking in)  from an infinite Universe perspective, the micro bang is the big bang.  It only seems a big bang because of the scaling we use. We presume the visual universe is huge, but from an infinite Universe perspective viewpoint, our visual universe is smaller than a pin head.
So what we call a big bang is a relative  micro bang from a different observers perspective.

Let me try to  explain something, I want you to imagine a void if you can that is just dimensions of space that are not occupied by anything physical.   
(missing part)
Then imagine an energy trying to manifest that was a mono polarity.   This manifestation would keep ''exploding'' every time it tried to form. The physics involved are because it is likewise to itself , so it will just keep ''exploding'' and expanding to nothing .
Now the only way the energy can manifest is if by random chance, an opposite mono polarity energy tried to manifest in the exact same 0 point geometrical position at the exact same time.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 15:20:44
I consider you are a clever person and do word things well when you write.
Aww, shucks, that is nice of you to say. And you are too.
Quote
Strangely enough I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.
An infinite Universe that contains spongey materials would be more fitting and understandable.   Sponges of cause being matter that can retain energy that is absorbed but also emits the energy if the sponge gets too soaked. Quantum Fields also have the properties of spongey.
That is a good perspective in regard to “spongy”.
Quote
So after reconsideration in my dream of your idea, I have changed my mind and I will say a good idea that needs a little bit of work to put into correct context.
I plan to keep working on it; evolving it, as I call it.

I’ll remind you of reply #116, where I describe what “spongy” means in regard to the title of my model:
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it (light waves, gravity waves, cosmic rays, neutrinos, whatever is out there traversing space at all times). For example, in deep space, the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space is very low, relative to the amount of wave energy contained in the same volume of space in the proximity of a massive object, like the sun.

In the model, the sun, and all objects with mass, emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, and that inflow and outflow represents a continual process that maintains the presence of the massive objects and their constituent wave-particles. Therefore, the inflow and out flow action near the sun features a high amount of gravitational wave energy coming and going, but then, in accord with the inverse square law, the same volume of space in a far removed location in deep space would contain much lower wave energy density. Hence, the universe is “spongy”.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 15:26:59
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it (light waves, gravity waves, cosmic rays, neutrinos, what every is out there traversing space at all times).
Ok, I see your point, but by using the word Universe, it can have ambiguity.  Maybe you should say the infinite spongy universe of space. I just feel things have to be independent of the space and explained so.  So if you put spongy fields then you would be correct in my opinion, I explain it Q.F.S   (quantum field solidity)  I could adjust that to q.f.s (quantum field spongy) lol.

p.s I consider waves are q.f.f (quantum field fluctuations) and at the epicentre of waves is a flat spot.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 15:56:41
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs? More specifically if each happened at a different time throughout the early universe then logic would dictate we would be able to observe these other big bangs?
Yes, there should be evidence that we can detect of the “parent” arenas that I speculate intersected and overlapped, to form the Big Crunch,  out of which our Big Bang arena emerged as a hot dense ball of wave energy.

And there is evidence! Are you familiar with the cosmic micro wave background. There have been various mappings and studies of it, and there are temperature fluctuations in the microwave energy, and there is a concept called angular anisotropy, or observable temperature differences depending on the segment of the sky (space) that you look at.

I addressed that in Reply #82 and #83, Take a look:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519491#msg519491 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519491#msg519491)
… or better yet, watch the ISU video:
And comment freely.
Quote
Or as is my preferred analogy their was one big bang but made of 2 different entities that collided. We would only be able to observe just the one big bang.
Do you have any speculation about the origin of the two different entities that collided, much like the Barnes theory suggests, because the question of “infinite regression”, meaning what came before, continually comes up. It keeps coming up unless you get to something that is eternal, an infinite past, like my axiom that the universe has always existed, and big bangs are occurring with the same preconditions, two or more existing parent arenas making each new “infant” arena, and thata process, called arena action, has been going on throughout the infinite past.
Quote
Another question would be if the prerequisites for the big bangs happened to be overlapping energy and matter coming together in the centre of gravity then would this still be happening now?
Yes, in my ISU model, it is a continual process. There is an infinite landscape, composed of a potentially infinite number of active Big Bang arenas at all times.

Quote
If so then how long till the next one?
There is one going to happen right now, somewhere out there in the infinite Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe. The concept of infinity, and an infinite arena landscape is hard to get your arms around, but I am still waiting for another way to avoid infinite regression.
Quote
And could we detect these bangs as a gravitational wave?
Yes, with some stipulations. The imprint of the previous big bangs is out there in the gravitational wave energy profile of space, as discussed in replies #82 and #83 linked above. Also, refer back to reply #136 for a description of the profile of space.
Quote
I realise the above poses more than one question but they flow together so I didn't feel the need to change it.


Ask as many questions as you need to, to come to your own conclusions as to if you see any merit in my model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 16:26:07

The same spongey effect could also be an attribute to black holes and the wider universe as a whole, therefore a black hole would absorb energy and matter and possibly spit it back out as a flash on the event horizon, I need to think more about that idea but it could work in theory.
There are many possibilities, and that is one. I would say that within our own Big Bang arena, that is expanding and filling with galactic structure, black holes are quite common. There is one at the center of most galaxies, there are black holes left after supernovae, there are black holes left after two other black holes swirl into a violent merger, as recently detected by LIGO.

All of those examples are within our expanding arena, and the arena landscape of the greater universe is the multiple Big Bang landscape with a potentially infinite number of those active arenas, some forming, some expanding, some overlapping, and some producing new big crunches that will collapse/bang into new arenas.

There is an order of magnitude difference between our arena that contains many black holes, and the universal landscape that contains many Big Bang arenas. My model reflects my conclusion that a Big Crunch equates to the granddaddy of black holes; a crunch that contains enough matter and energy to produce our entire Big Bang arena, some of which is the observable universe, and some of our own arena is not within our ability to observe.

The physics of the Big Crunch is different from the common black holes in our arena. The Big Crunch has to grow and grow, pulling in huge fractions of the parent arenas before the crunch reaches “critical capacity”, and that includes pulling in a huge number of common black holes in the process. It takes the gravitational compression of a whole, complete Big Crunch to cause all of the particles captured in the crunch to be negated into their constituent wave energy, giving up their individual space, and collapsing into the same space. When that happens, as critical capacity is achieved in a Big Crunch, all of the particles are forced by gravitational compression, to “give up” their individual space, and the whole crunch collapses. That event is a Big Bang in my model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/11/2017 02:47:39
Some details presented in a discussion elsewhere, but that pertain to this thread, so I have paraphrased the details here:

… in my model, when an object moves, it follows a curved path through the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

Quote
You say that your model does not invoke space time...?  In this case, how does your model cope with time dilation?

It is true, but for every effect in GR, there is an effect that must be dealt with in the ISU. You ask about time dilation, because you invoke SR/GR, and you feel comfortable that matter can cause space to curve and curved space can cause matter to move.

I feel comfortable that virtually the same effect occurs in the ISU, but as a result of wave mechanics based on the fact that particles (wave-particles in my model) are standing waves with two components, 1) Inflowing gravitational wave energy, and 2) out flowing gravitational wave energy.

The standing wave patterns of each wave-particle are referred to as “complex standing wave patterns”, with wave intersections (quanta) occurring within the pattern (millions/billions of quanta) as the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components continually sustain the presence of the wave-particle. A wave-particle or object moves when there is an imbalance in the inflowing gravitational wave energy component of the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

The motion of wave-particles and objects follows the highest net directional gravitational wave energy inflow in the local wave-energy density profile of space (a hint about my speculation about quantum gravity).

[Now we can talk the ISU equivalent to time dilation]

Clocks are composed of wave particles. Two identical clocks, in the same local gravitational wave energy density environment (the local space), will tick at the same rate because their wave-particles are functioning in the same gravitational wave energy density environment.

If one clock is designated the “rest” clock, then any relative motion will cause the moving clock to tick slower because relative to the rest clock, the local gravitational wave energy density environment of the moving clock will take on a directional anomaly. There will be a higher gravitational wave energy density surrounding the moving clock in the direction of relative motion, and therefore the wave-particles in the moving clock will function slower, causing the moving clock to tick slower (a moving clock has more wave intersections in the complex standing wave pattern, and so it has more quanta, and more mass, relative to the rest clock) [this has to be quite alternative to you, lol].

In my model, time simply passes, but the rate that individual moving clocks measure the passing of time relative to a rest clock is variable, governed by the relative difference in the local gravitational wave energy density caused by relative motion.


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/11/2017 14:08:15
The Story of the ISU
Riding a Photon
Post #1

AS is made clear in this thread,  The ISU stands for the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, a layman science enthusiasts musings on the cosmology of the universe. This idea, riding a photon, will give a look at the model from the perspective of a photon at the speed of light.

It is generally agreed that photons carry energy, so that is the first thing to say and describe from the ISU model. The entire range of energies carried by photons is quantified in the electromagnetic spectrum. One example in the model of meaningful photon energies includes the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMBR (I’m going to resist the temptation to provide a barrage of links, because I think the audience knows generally accepted science, or can use their favorite search engine).

I am humanizing the photons that I discuss in this series of posts as a way to ruminate about the life of a photon, but I don’t really mean that a photon is anything more that a packet of energy, or as is sometimes said, a pulsing packet of energy that has a frequency and wave length. Those are characteristics that can be affected by the photon’s individual journey across time and space. Our CMB photon has had a long journey, and is among a huge group of friends who have all traversed the universe,
not just from the moment that photons first were released in our Big Bang arena, but from other similar big bangs out there.

Their frequency has changed over time, and is now near the low end of the spectrum; it is thought that they have become significantly “redshifted” from the frequency they were born with in what was perhaps one of nature’s highest energy environments.They were “born” at the “surface of last scattering”, which is an epic period in our cosmology, theorized to have occurred a few hundred thousand years after the big event. The event itself is when an expanding hot dense ball of energy emerged onto the scene in the first instants after the Big Bang, in the Big Bang Theory (BBT).

Note that in the ISU, the energy carried by the photon was part of the energy of the Big Bang, and so the energy of the photon we are riding is energy that precedes the birth of the CMBR and precedes the surface of last scattering, and dates back to the bang itself.

But wait, the Bang itself is all about energy, so this is a good time to pass on some detail about how the ISU model deals with the beginning. BBT doesn’t talk about preconditions to the BB event, or even about there being a Big Bang, but the popular science media dates back to Einstein's day (and long before that), so the Big Bang name, and supposed details of event, were repeated and evolved in the popular media, outside of the maths and science that Einstein did. As for the "beginning" in the ISU model … there wasn’t one; the ISU has always existed.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/11/2017 18:38:37
The Story of the ISU
Our CMBR Photon Ride Continues
Post #2


Our ride on this particular CMBR photon began at the “surface of last scattering”, over 13 billion years ago, and it was quite likely emitted with a very high frequency, perhaps in the X-ray or gamma ray range. I am intending that start point for this ride to correspond with generally accepted theory. From there, the intent is to describe the special circumstances of a photon in the ISU model. Those special circumstances can be considered a point of departure from the standard cosmological view.


By way of disclaimer, consider most of this series about the photon to be speculative ideas, as is the case with most of the details of the model. These speculations are found “necessary” to maintain  the intended internal consistency of the model, which is the overriding objective. The ISU invokes “known science”, but there is the much that is “as yet” unknown.


What I’m suggesting is that our now low energy CMBR photon was once a raging packet of hot energy, and throughout the ongoing expansion of our Big Bang arena, has had its wavelength stretched and its apparent frequency reduced; it is now in the microwave energy range along with the rest of its friends in the CMBR.


The CMBR photons were discovered for that very reason, their microwaves interfere with the radio wave telescopes. A couple of scientists, trying to figure out what was causing the static in the signals received by their radio telescope, finally narrowed down the cause to discover the existence of the low energy background. It is present at all angles across the sky. The concept of background radiation of the universe was born because of this group of photons that we are riding were a problem.


An interesting characteristic of the CMB is its temperature, near the low end of the Kelvin scale, about 2.7K, with very slight differences (anisotropy), of the CMB in all directions when measured from a theoretical rest location relative to the CMBR. When you move through space relative to the supposed rest location, you experience an increase in the local background temperature, and the increase is relative to your velocity (some refer to it as CMBR rest frame).


Now is a good time to point out that this background temperature has been carefully studied by various land and space based sky surveys, and there is a pattern in the findings worth looking into; the hemispherical anisotropy is the high sounding name for the feature that is most interesting to the ISU model. It can be seen as a hint of some remnant temperature extreme, imprinted on the background, by a previous history of big bangs. The hemispherical pattern specifically suggest it was imprinted by the two parent Big Bang arenas that the ISU model speculates occurred long before our current photon ride began. That would imply that our photon could be older than our own big bang’s 13.7 billion years, by a multiple of that length of time, given the perpetual heritage of Big Bang events across the landscape of the greater universe, suggested by the model.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/11/2017 01:47:12
The Story of the ISU
Stretching My Photon ride
Post #3

This photon ride has now taken us out of our arena, into and through the remnants of our “parent” Big Bang arenas, and potentially beyond that. The ISU is (I am) comfortable with there being a universal background wave energy, continually refreshed here and there by new Big Bangs across the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. The observable CMB in our arena is a mix of photon energy from our arena’s epic surface of last scattering in the BBT timeline, and of the universal energy background that is always there from a potentially infinite history of Big Bang arena action across the landscape of the greater universe.

The mixing is a consequence of our Big Crunch collapsing and bouncing into expansion, fueled by the “force” of energy density equalization; the hot dense ball of energy that emerges out of the collapse of the Big Crunch inflates into the lower wave energy density of our mature and expanded “parent” arenas. It is in accord with the sameness doctrine of the ISU, which postulates that each Big Bang has similar preconditions, and that each expanding Big Bang arena has the same physics.

This photon’s journey would have begun with the surface of last scattering, a phenomenon associated with our singular Big Bang theory; there is “nothing more worth thinking about”. It is common to hear phrases like that, and like, “there was no ‘before the Big Bang’ ”, or “time didn’t exist” until the Big Bang. But in the ISU, space, time, and wave energy have always existed, and Big Bang arena action has always been the thing. It defeats entropy by refreshing the energy of old cold matter from dying galaxies and burned out stars in the parent arenas, into a low entropy hot dense ball of wave energy emerging from the collapse of a Big Crunch that formed at the center of gravity of the overlap space of our converging parent arenas.

In a multiple Big Bang arena landscape, the initial collapse/bang event releases high energy photons at the same time as the particles contained in the Crunch collapse, giving up their individual space, and compressing into nature’s maximum wave energy density environment. This is not an infinitely dense point in space, but it is nature’s closest approximation of it; so dense that it is impossible to be compressed any further. This extreme density acts like a brick wall in regard to the in-falling wave energy as the crunch collapses, and there is a bounce. The in-falling matter and energy encounters the environment representing nature’s maximum density, and bounces off, giving the first boost to the expansion of the hot dense energy ball. Wave energy density equalization immediately takes over from collapse, and the extreme high density wave energy of the hot energy ball emerges with nature’s most rapid wave energy advance, into the low energy density space of the greatly expanded mature parent arenas.

That is the environment where our photon ride began. We traversed the low energy density of the surrounding space of our expanded and depleted parent arenas, and traveled out beyond, into the corridor of continuity (the label given to the deep space at the outer fringes of fully expanded parent arenas) where old cold galactic matter is adrift in the gravitational wave energy density of the deepest space.

Our photon ride will eventually end when it inevitably gets caught up in a new arena convergence, perhaps hundreds of billions of years later, and contributes its extremely redshifted energy remnant to that new crunch.
.


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/11/2017 20:05:26
Response received to reply #190 above
Quote
I don't have a problem with your equivalent to GR time dilation, but am left wondering what the mechanism is for wave energy density, (much the same as I am left wondering about the mechanism with GR concerning gravity), …


…. and yes I would still like to hear your alternative quantum (quantum solution to gravity), if you are willing? .... 

Thank you for considering the ISU's version of an equivalent to GR time dilation, and for not having a problem with it, though I could easily be embarrassed if confronted with a reasonable line of questioning, I’m sure.

The “mechanism” for wave energy density is determined by the nature of wave-particles (see 11/2/17 response as a reminder). In the ISU model, there is infinite and eternal space, filled with wave energy. The history of the relative motion of matter, and the nature of the wave particles, with their inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, causes continual changes in the local wave energy density profile of space. What I didn’t do in the 11/2/17 reply was make it clear where wave-particles come from in each new arena, and that might make it easier to understand my speculations about wave-particles, the gravitational profile of space, and quantum gravity. Let me make a pass at describing all of that from the ISU perspective:

My speculation about the gravitational wave energy density of space is part of building my model from the bottom up, step by step. I start with the axioms, and known physics. From that combination, some additional aspects of the model become “necessary”. When something becomes necessary, often there is an existing scientific explanation, and if not, I will speculate.

For example, we observe an expanding Big Bang arena based on the observed redshift data. It is necessary that something set the observable universe into motion, and it isn’t hard to find an explanation, i.e., the Big Bang event itself.

If I invoke the Big Bang event at the beginning of our observable universe, I find it necessary that there must be preconditions to the Big Bang. There are many options, but I chose to go with the multiple Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe model for three reasons: 1) two or more existing expanding “parent” arenas in the same contiguous space, regardless of their separation, will eventually intersect and overlap, and the overlap is necessary for the formation of a new Big Crunch, 2) entropy is defeated as old cold galactic material and energy from cold expanded arenas are refreshed into hot dense expanding balls of low entropy wave energy, and 3) infinite regression is defeated by the perpetual arena action going on eternally across the landscape of the greater universe.

We already have an example of one expanding arena, so I speculate that each one will have the “two or more parent arenas” precondition, and will follow the same path to maturity; expanding, cooling, and filling with galactic structure, until their expansion is interrupted by converging with one or more other expanding arenas, whereupon a crunch forms and collapse/bangs into a new expanding arena.

Given the observable nature of gravity, each parent arena will end up contributing portions of their galactic material and energy to a Big Crunch that I speculate would naturally form at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

Given that, it is necessary that there is some mechanism to explain how a Big Crunch could result in a Big Bang that could produce an expanding Big Bang arena like the one we observe ourselves to be in. There are many story plots for that, I suppose, but I found it reasonable to conclude that the particles that make up the Big Crunch must require sufficient individual space in order to function properly, as they do in the clocks mentioned earlier, and yet must be able to permit the crunch to collapse and burst into expansion, under the compression of gravity.

I speculate that the growing crunch and resulting gravitational compression would increase forever in an infinite Big Bang arena landscape, unless there was some limit to the amount of gravitational compression that the particles could withstand. I speculate that when the compression limit is reached, called “critical capacity” of a Big Crunch, the particles would cease to function properly, and would be forced to give up their individual space, collapsing together with a bang. My phrasing is that the particles are negated into their constituent wave energy under the compression of gravity, and the compression overcomes the ability of the wave-particles to properly function and to maintain their individual space.

So consider the nature of the space into which the hot dense energy ball that emerges from the bang is expanding into, and it becomes necessary that there is force that drives expansion, i.e., some physical explanation for what we call “dark energy”. In the ISU, that force is called wave energy density equalization.

What is equalizing is the gravitational wave energy density differential between the hot dense expanding ball of wave energy emerging from the Big Bang, and the low surrounding gravitational wave energy density of the relatively empty space of the mature parent arenas that had contributed much of their galactic structure to the crunch before the bang. That contributed material has now become the expanding hot dense ball of energy that is intruding into the lower gravitational wave energy density environment being vacated by the parent arenas.

That hot dense ball of wave energy is the source of the wave-particles that will begin to form in the expanding arena. I sometimes refer to the accumulation of the crunch and its “collapse/bang into expansion” as the inflowing and out flowing components of an arena sized particle, for talking purposes (Higgs boson?). The expansion phase is the spherically out flowing component of the arena particle.

That arena particle will expand and break down as it “decays” and cools. There are a series of exotic particles, equivalent to the activity in the Higgs field, I suppose, until the cooling and separation of the particles leads to a set of stable particles within the young arena. Atoms form, composed of those fundamental stable wave-particles, and there comes an epic referred to as the surface of last scattering, where energy is released in pulsing packets known as photon wave-particles, emitted from the new atoms in the arena to allow for the continued expansion and cooling. The photons have mass, just like all wave-particles in the ISU. 

From that story, I derive the description of the mechanics of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, explain why there is a necessity for the wave-particle, and tell how the mechanics of quantum gravity work in the model. The functions of the wave-particle are:

1) To continually supply the gravitational wave energy density of the local space with their spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component, thus establishing and maintaining the local gravitational profile.
2) To continually absorb directional gravitational wave energy from the local profile of space, thus maintaining the presence of wave-particles, and governing the motion of particles and objects as they traverse space.
3) To maintain the ability of wave-particles to function under normal gravitational wave energy density conditions; enabling nature to carry out what it does, like generate and evolve life forms that build clocks, etc. :) .
4) To act as the canary in the coal mine, collapsing on cue when the gravitational compression of a Big Crunch reaches critical capacity.
5) To allow wave-particles to be the vehicles of gravitational motion in the ISU model’s quantum solution to gravity.


To be continued …
The ISU Quantum Solution to Gravity Speculation follows.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/11/2017 12:49:03
Continued from reply #194 which is a background to this post

The ISU Quantum Solution to Gravity Speculation

1) The motion of a complex standing wave-particle is a function of the wave intersections that make up the pattern. Each wave-particle has its own space, maintained by the process of quantum action, that allows them sufficient individual space to function properly.

2) The particle will always have a meaningful wave intersection in the pattern for each quanta in the mass of the particle (think of a freeze frame of the wave action within the particle space [complex standing wave pattern], and count the meaningful wave intersections in the wave-particle pattern).

3) Meaningful wave intersections are referred to as momentary high energy density spots that form when converging waves intersect, each parent (quantum) wave contributes energy from their wave fronts to the high density spot. A new quantum wave emerges from each high energy density spot. (I use the “spherical cow” analogy for talking purposes, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow] but envision some complicated details of the action as it takes place.) Note the “sameness” in the explanation of the inflowing wave energy that forms the high density spots and spherically out flowing wave that emerges from the high energy density spots within the wave-particle space, to the crunch formation and out flowing expansion wave of Big Bang arena action in the landscape of the greater universe.

4) The quanta have momentary presence, and are continually refreshed by the quantum action of spherically out flowing and directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy exchanged to and from the local profile of space. A proton may have hundreds of billions of quanta (see Reply #79 for basis of that estimation).

5) Motion of the wave particle, relative to their current location in space, is achieved by there being new meaningful wave intersections forming within the particle space, in the direction of the net highest directional wave energy density, and a corresponding loss of trailing meaningful wave intersections (quanta) from the pattern as the new intersections form in the direction of the wave-particle advance. Thus the location of the particle moves in space in the direction of the net highest gravitational wave energy density in the local profile of space, on the basis that the location of the standing wave pattern is continually changing as the quanta exchange takes place. That is quantum gravity.

6) There are variables that govern the number of quanta added, and the resulting change in relative mass of the wave-particle as it accelerates.

7) The phrase I use is that quantum gravity governs the motion of the wave-particles and objects as they follow the net highest directional wave energy density path of the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

I know that is a lot of speculating to process, and it is hard to understand for a reader new to the model. Comments welcomed.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/11/2017 15:46:26
we observe an expanding Big Bang arena
Hi Bogie mate, I am getting my head around your idea much better, but would like to point out the relativity involved in this statement.

A big bang from which observers perspective? 

Relative to an observer in the interior of the event it is a big bang

Relative to an observer a great distance away, it is a micro bang.

If you want to use multiple big bangs, then surely you must use the micro bang perspective.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/11/2017 17:37:45
we observe an expanding Big Bang arena
Hi Bogie mate, I am getting my head around your idea much better, but would like to point out the relativity involved in this statement.

A big bang from which observers perspective? 

Relative to an observer in the interior of the event it is a big bang

Relative to an observer a great distance away, it is a micro bang.

If you want to use multiple big bangs, then surely you must use the micro bang perspective.


To be sure, what you say is true, and I won’t assail that statement with ifs, ands, or buts. When perspective is everything, and when measuring or quantifying such an event on the macro to micro scale, given only the field of view measurement of the event, the more distant an observer is from the event, the more micro the event would appear.

The quote you used to start your post was made in the context of me replying to a question about the mechanics of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, a central feature of the ISU cosmology. I had failed to stress the significance to the model of the feature that wave energy is coming at you from all directions at the speed of light, no matter what your location or perspective is.

The net effect of that 360º onslaught of incoming gravitational wave energy is the force of gravity that you feel. It can be zero for an observer “at rest” relative to it, but such places would be extremely rare in the ISU. What you feel is the net directional effect of the 360º incoming wave energy.

That said, the ramification of that net effect of gravity that you, or a wave-particle, or an object will “feel”, is the single most important physical aspect of the gravitational wave energy density profile of the space that you occupy.

Appropriately, the post that followed that explanation was about the ISU version of a solution to quantum gravity. You can read into that post that quantum gravity is about the micro actions that produce quanta that occupy the complex standing wave patterns of wave-particles, and the directional effect is based on the proportion of new quanta added, vs previous quanta left behind, by direction, around the 360º particle surface.

The “feel” on the micro scale, i.e., being surrounded by that 360º gravitational onslaught, is captured around the surface of the wave-particle or object, and expresses itself by affecting the exchange of quanta that takes place. Therefore the chance in location of the particle or object, as quanta by quanta are exchanged, determines the next directional increment of motion.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 14:26:37
I had failed to stress the significance to the model of the feature that wave energy is coming at you from all directions at the speed of light, no matter what your location or perspective is.
yes

The net effect of that 360º onslaught of incoming gravitational wave energy is the force of gravity that you feel. It can be zero for an observer “at rest” relative to it, but such places would be extremely rare in the ISU. What you feel is the net directional effect of the 360º incoming wave energy.


No, gravity is a pull force not a push force.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 14:29:37
the more distant an observer is from the event, the more micro the event would appear.
Relative to an infinite space, every object including planets and stars and even a solar system, have 0 dimensions unless quite close up.
It's a bit weird .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 14:52:12
Relative to an infinite space, every object including planets and stars and even a solar system, have 0 dimensions unless quite close up.
It's a bit weird .
It is weird in a sense, but everything is relative, and everything has a scientific explanation; even unknowns have scientific explanations that we just don't yet understand, IMHO.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 14:54:56
Relative to an infinite space, every object including planets and stars and even a solar system, have 0 dimensions unless quite close up.
It's a bit weird .
It is weird in a sense, but everything is relative, and everything has a scientific explanation; even unknowns have scientific explanations that we just don't yet understand, IMHO.
A stranger thought, relative to an infinite Universe nothing exists .

added- everything is nothing? hmmmmm
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 15:04:39

A stranger thought, relative to an infinite Universe nothing exists .

added- everything is nothing? hmmmmm



Not in the ISU, :)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 15:10:24

A stranger thought, relative to an infinite Universe nothing exists .

added- everything is nothing? hmmmmm



Not in the ISU, :)
LOL


You say about wave energy that bombards from all directions, I do agree as it agrees with Micro-bangs. 


Do you agree that at the centre of all carrier waves origins, that there is an isolated ''dot'' of flat space?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 15:13:02
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 15:20:00
Because this is why the visual universe is expanding.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 15:24:29
Because the dark energy they discuss is really good old fashioned electromagnetic radiation and the wave energy emanating from a central position
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 15:41:36
Because the dark energy they discuss is really good old fashioned electromagnetic radiation and the wave energy emanating from a central position
I do speculate that EM is the out flowing gravitational wave energy emitted by the photon wave-particle. However, in addition to EM, gravitational wave energy is being emitted by all particles and objects, and combined, they compose the 360º on-slaught of gravitational wave energy converging on every point in space, in the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 17:04:41
I do speculate that EM is the out flowing gravitational wave energy emitted by the photon wave-particle.
I do not think gravitational force involves waves, it is more linear than wave like. I do not think Photon's themselves emit waves or are a factual existence.  I do not think we can have an out flowing gravitational wave either, we would would have to have expansion waves , gravity of course being a total opposite in direction.

I would explain centrifugal expansion wave theory , where Q.F.S (quantum field solidity) plays a role and the expanding pE (potential energy)   wave has likewise polarity properties to the invert wave.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 18:11:53
I do not think gravitational force involves waves, it is more linear than wave like. I do not think Photon's themselves emit waves or are a factual existence.  I do not think we can have an out flowing gravitational wave either, we would would have to have expansion waves , gravity of course being a total opposite in direction.

I would explain centrifugal expansion wave theory , where Q.F.S (quantum field solidity) plays a role and the expanding pE (potential energy)   wave has likewise polarity properties to the invert wave.


In my recent posts where I mentioned “necessities”, I describe building the ISU model from the bottom up, step by step; known science and axioms lead to steps, and steps lead to “as yet” unknowns. As yet unknowns lead to speculations which are invoked as steps, and the model is derived, step by step.

It has reached the point where, given all of the steps that come before, the speculation that photons are wave-particles is in response to a necessity that all particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments. The conclusion that all wave-particles are standing waves, with inflowing and out flowing components, is a step. The speculation that the outflowing gravitational wave energy component from the photon wave-particle is light, is a step.

You have to follow the steps from the beginning in order to be aware of the full sequence of my step by step thinking.

You have had your arguments, and have stated them here, and have suggested opposing ideas, and when you do I consider them. I may not invoke them, because all of my steps must, in my mind, be internally consistent, and fit in the step by step sequence of reasoning. That is not a bold claim that I am right, nor an argument that you are wrong.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 18:36:14
t has reached the point where, given all of the steps that come before, the speculation that photons are wave-particles is in response to a necessity that all particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments. The conclusion that all wave-particles are standing waves, with inflowing and out flowing components, is a step. The speculation that the outflowing gravitational wave energy component from the photon wave-particle is light, is a step.
You have just almost described my N-field, but where particles are not composed of wave-energy but absorb and emit wave energy , stretching and contracting continuous that causes a vibration and a ripple (wave) in the quantum fields.
I describe the N-field as the flat spot (epicentre)  of an n-field (wave energy) , in my model the atom is no more than two opposite signed ''energies'' that have merged to form Q.F.S.
So like yourself, my atomic model is different to the standard model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: atbsphotography on 09/11/2017 19:02:34
Because this is why the visual universe is expanding.


* expansion.jpg (15.24 kB . 276x183 - viewed 2128 times)

I would like to point out that such is the case with ripples of water, there wouldn't necessarily be a flat space of origin. The logic in this would be that if X is the centre of the galactic plane and a big bang happened here, then common sense dictates that X would be the point of origin an, therefore, the waves that ripple out start as close to the bang as possible, such as when you drop a peble in a puddle, the water forms a ripple at the point where the peble entered the water. therefore I don't believe there would be a flat space until after the wave has passed.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 19:21:59
Because this is why the visual universe is expanding.


* expansion.jpg (15.24 kB . 276x183 - viewed 2128 times)

I would like to point out that such is the case with ripples of water, there wouldn't necessarily be a flat space of origin. The logic in this would be that if X is the centre of the galactic plane and a big bang happened here, then common sense dictates that X would be the point of origin an, therefore, the waves that ripple out start as close to the bang as possible, such as when you drop a peble in a puddle, the water forms a ripple at the point where the peble entered the water. therefore I don't believe there would be a flat space until after the wave has passed.
Where the stone enters the water, the stones mass displaces the water , the stone takes up the space where the water is displaced although this a continuous action until the stone rests.

I disagree, the stone represents a flat spot.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 20:36:44
You have just almost described my N-field, but where particles are not composed of wave-energy but absorb and emit wave energy , stretching and contracting continuous that causes a vibration and a ripple (wave) in the quantum fields.
I describe the N-field as the flat spot (epicentre)  of an n-field (wave energy) , in my model the atom is no more than two opposite signed ''energies'' that have merged to form Q.F.S.
So like yourself, my atomic model is different to the standard model.

Perhaps that is some more commonality between our models:

Let me point out an important aspect of the ISU gravitational wave energy density profile of space, form Reply #105 … Quote from Reply #105 https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg523443#msg523443 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg523443#msg523443): “The standing wave pattern of the hydrogen atom’s proton has a surface or boundary that (according to the ISU model) has an equal amount of out flowing wave energy at all points because the out flow is spherical. We can think of that out flow as a positive energy out flow, supplying [positive] wave energy into space, i.e., as the local source of energy added to the energy density profile of space. Then we can think of the directionally inflowing wave energy component of that proton as the replacement energy for that out flow, maintaining the established mass and energy of the proton wave-particle. I would label the inflowing component the negative energy inflow [to the particle to replace the positive energy out flow].”

In the ISU, both the positively charged proton, and the negatively charged electron, in regard to the charge of the Coulomb force, are simply composed of gravitational wave energy. “Negative” and “positive” are simply labels to distinguish between the way particles react; like charged particles repel, and oppositely charged particles attract. In that context, we are talking their polarity.

In regard to the energy content of space, it is positive wave energy. The labels, “positive” and “negative” energy, is just a way to distinguish the inflowing gravitational wave energy component of the standing wave particle, from the out flowing gravitational wave energy component, which comes from space. And conversely, a way to distinguish between the energy flow to space from wave-particles vs. the wave energy flow from space to wave-particles. Therefore, the “contained” energy in the wave-particle can be labeled positive energy. In the same fashion, the energy in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space can be labeled positive energy as well.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 20:49:26
“The standing wave pattern of the hydrogen atom’s proton has a surface or boundary that (according to the ISU model) has an equal amount of out flowing wave energy at all points because the out flow is spherical. We can think of that out flow as a positive energy out flow, supplying [positive] wave energy into space,
I consider that the ''surface'' is both positive and negative polarity and there is central void , the void being a product of the repulsive forces of the likewise polarities of the surface.  A sort of spherical shell with an empty inner.  A bit like a football.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/11/2017 17:12:59
Reply #215

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

You don’t have “nothingness” in even the tiniest space, there are forces and action there, i.e., energy at work.

“The standing wave pattern of the hydrogen atom’s proton has a surface or boundary that (according to the ISU model) has an equal amount of out flowing wave energy at all points because the out flow is spherical. We can think of that out flow as a positive energy out flow, supplying [positive] wave energy into space,

I consider that the ''surface'' is both positive and negative polarity and there is central void , the void being a product of the repulsive forces of the likewise polarities of the surface.  A sort of spherical shell with an empty inner.  A bit like a football.
Not in the ISU. There are no voids; all space is filled with gravitational wave energy density. But that statement does require some explanation if it is going to stand as my argument against the existence of a void. For example, in a wave energy density environment, you have meaningful wave fronts expanding from their “point” origins, so after the first instant of expansion, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?

Do you remember the earlier discussion about the oscillating wave energy background of space? I first mentioned it when I defined Wave Energy in Reply #21, and then when I equated the oscillating background and its function, to Wheeler’s Quantum Foam, in Reply #56, and elsewhere.

That is the answer to the question of what is behind the wave front, between the front and the point of origin. It is the oscillating wave energy background. The oscillations are less meaningful gravitational energy waves, less than quantum, and therefore less than the amount of energy necessary to create a high energy density spot that qualifies as a quantum of energy, in the process of quantum action. The convergences at the oscillating foundational level are sub-quantum hints of mass, a necessary part of the process of quantum action that maintains the presence of wave-particles. There is a striking similarity between the wave action at all levels (in accord with the "sameness" principle of the ISU).

There is a finer point of explanation about the mechanism that keeps the oscillating background functioning, and assures there aren’t even the tiniest of voids down there among the oscillations. That explanation is that each oscillation is composed of two of nature’s tiniest parent waves, that are there and gone in an instant, but that instant of time delay is enough time for them to converge and form their hints of mass, the oscillating background's version of a high energy density spot, at a “moment in time”. I discussed this time delay as part of the process of both quantum action and arena action earlier, as reported in reply #56:

“In the wave-particle discussion, each wave convergence has a time delay as the combined energy of the 'parent' waves equalize in the overlap space. In the case of the oscillating background, nature’s tiniest possible size limit of wave action occurs while the energy carried by the individual parent waves merges and equalizes, allowing the lens shaped overlap space to trend toward a spherical shape; it is a mechanical effect that occurs during the time delay and plays out under the influence of the force of energy density equalization that is always present in the ISU. [So you don’t have “nothingness” in that space, there are forces and action there, i.e., energy at work.] The new ‘third wave’ thus emerges from the overlap space, to become a new oscillation in the space being vacated by the parent waves.”

This is another example of the “sameness” principle of the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/11/2017 22:23:16
Reply #216

An additional point to make when denying the presence of voids (there are energy density fluctuations) in the ISU, and that applies in all the places where I invoke the sameness doctrine, is that the intersection and convergence of two or more parent wave fronts, whether in the oscillating wave energy background, or as part of the process of quantum action at the wave-particle level, or as part of the process of arena action across the landscape of the greater universe, involves a flow of energy from the parent waves, into the overlap space, and equates to an inflation of the overlap space with the energy from the parent waves.

In regard to arena action, that energy takes the form of galactic material and gravitational wave energy that converges in a swirling rendezvous, and eventually forms the new Big Crunch. As part of quantum action, that energy takes the form of the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component of quantum wave intersections taking place within the particle space. Down at the foundational level, occupied by the oscillating wave energy background, that energy takes the form of natures tiniest gravitational wave action at nature’s lowest limit on the wave energy scale, described as the final level of the third wave action of the fully aged gravitational waves that represent the potentially infinite history of the universe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 02:03:22
Not in the ISU. There are no voids;
The thing is , what we do know about energy , it tends to have a polarity.  Now if you are saying that there is no voids, then you would have to prove that likewise polarities do not repulse each other.
Fundamentally a basic thought about energies is that it can not retain a stable state without two opposite polarities.   A single polarity by the laws of physics can not retain form or a stable state.  It would be an impossibility that the laws of physics would not allow.  In short you could not squeeze a polarised energy together and make it stay together,  it would always as in Newtons third law offer an equal and opposing force to the squeeze and push back. Not much dissimilar to a rubber ball except in this situation the rubber ball always wants to expand because of its likewise to itself properties.
Now the laws of likewise polarities being repulsive to each other, I did not write. However these laws are tested and verified in being true.  So there is no way there could not be a void when concerning energy sphericalation.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 02:28:03
, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?
That is why at the point of origin is always a void.  The micro bangs I mentioned are an attempt at the manifestation of a ''particle''.  However the attempt turns into a micro bang
Quote
spherically expanding energy wave
  Sphericalation

The reason is because the attempt is a single polarity and likewise polarity to itself so has no choice but to  micro bang sphericalation process .

added -

Sphericalation : Isotropic inflation :  spherically expanding wave,field or surface from a central point.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/11/2017 13:38:28
Reply #219
Sphericalization

, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?
That is why at the point of origin is always a void.  The micro bangs I mentioned are an attempt at the manifestation of a ''particle''.  However the attempt turns into a micro bang
Quote
spherically expanding energy wave
  Sphericalation

The reason is because the attempt is a single polarity and likewise polarity to itself so has no choice but to  micro bang sphericalation process .

added -

Sphericalation : Isotropic inflation :  spherically expanding wave,field or surface from a central point.
This is my attempt at a fun respite from the mind-bending contemplation and rigor involved in evolving the ISU [tongue in cheek]:

Maybe we should submit this to Webster …
How about :Sphericalization or sphericalisation (if you prefer)
The process of becoming a sphere or trending toward the spherical shape.

In the science of logic, a “precising” word is a word coined from an existing word or phrase, to better or more precisely describe meaning. The word “sphericalization” is coined from the words “spherical” and “realization”for the effect that occurs when a lens shaped overlap space forms between two expanding spherical waves as they intersect and overlap, and that trends toward the spherical emission of an out flowing third wave. The word is specifically coined for the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology (and N-Theory?).


To be continued deleted, lol …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:32:01
Reply #219
Sphericalization

, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?
That is why at the point of origin is always a void.  The micro bangs I mentioned are an attempt at the manifestation of a ''particle''.  However the attempt turns into a micro bang
Quote
spherically expanding energy wave
  Sphericalation

The reason is because the attempt is a single polarity and likewise polarity to itself so has no choice but to  micro bang sphericalation process .

added -

Sphericalation : Isotropic inflation :  spherically expanding wave,field or surface from a central point.
This is my attempt at a fun respite from the mind-bending contemplation and rigor involved in evolving the ISU [tongue in cheek]:

Maybe we should submit this to Webster …
How about :Sphericalization or sphericalisation (if you prefer)
The process of becoming a sphere or trending toward the spherical shape.

In the science of logic, a “precising” word is a word coined from an existing word or phrase, to better or more precisely describe meaning. The word “sphericalization” is coined from the words “spherical” and “realization”for the effect that occurs when a lens shaped overlap space forms between two expanding spherical waves as they intersect and overlap, and that trends toward the spherical emission of an out flowing third wave. The word is specifically coined for the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology (and N-Theory?).


To be continued deleted, lol …
When I used the word sphericalation I was adding inflation to the end of spherical to represent expansion/inflating.  However your word does read better. I quite like sphericalisation , submit it dude if you know how too. :D

Quote
The word is specifically coined for the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology (and N-Theory?).

We are explaining the same sort of sphericalisation , why not.

The process of becoming a sphere or trending toward the spherical shape, isotropic from a central point?


Can we try and make some maths for this?

Can we define in maths an expanding sphere?

can we just put :

r=776f98168c581ecbe9558038ff195b3e.gif

←4/3 πr³→
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/11/2017 20:05:40
Reply #221
Sphere-Sphere equation and sphericalization

Well, there was this from reply #78:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
As r and R increase, the volume of the spherical caps, cap r and cap R, increase. When the equation equals one, the sum of the energy in cap r and cap R equals a quantum of energy in the overlap space.

So let’s use our new word :) . Due to “sphericalization”, during the time delay, as r and R increase toward the critical level, the lens shaped overlap has trended toward spherical. The equation equals 1 when the critical level is reached, indicating that there is a quantum of energy in the overlap space. At that point the new spherical out flowing wave emerges out of the overlap space, and is ready for the next encounter in the on-going process of quantum action.



Generally, in the ISU, the expansion is not infinite, because expansion is interrupted when the expanding spherical wave intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding spherical wave. The sphere-sphere action is continuous in the ISU, and is an example of the "sameness" doctrine that typifies Big Bang arena action, wave-particle quantum action, and the oscillating wave at the foundational background level.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:14:21
Generally, in the ISU, the expansion is not infinite, because expansion is interrupted when the expanding spherical wave intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding spherical wave.
A question for you, are you giving your waves any sort of polarity?  In my version waves can only overlap if they are opposite single polarity waves. A duality wave that was a pos and neg wave would repulse off a likewise pos and neg wave.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/11/2017 13:03:56
Reply #223
Wave Mechanics


Generally, in the ISU, the expansion is not infinite, because expansion is interrupted when the expanding spherical wave intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding spherical wave.
A question for you, are you giving your waves any sort of polarity?  In my version waves can only overlap if they are opposite single polarity waves. A duality wave that was a pos and neg wave would repulse off a likewise pos and neg wave.

Nice question, but no, not in the ISU :) . Gravitational waves can’t get out of each other's way because they aren’t charged, but each wave is a spherical wave, expressed as a curved wave front as they expand, and so:
1. There is an effect “felt” by each parent wave as they intersect, but polarity of charge doesn’t cause the effect at the wave level, that is reserved for particles in relative motion.
2. What they “feel’ is a change in energy density of the local space they are expanding into.
3. When they encounter another meaningful expanding spherical wave, it means a change in wave energy density is encountered.
4. At the encounter, the parent waves slow down relative to their rate of expansion before the encounter.
5. When the interruption occurs, it happens at the point of intersection, and when the overlap begins, huge numbers of additional points of intersection are added, and the overlap, by nature, takes on the lens shape as depicted in the previous post.
6. As the overlap grows, both parent wavefronts have slowed down in the vicinity of the overlap due to the mutual increase in wave energy density (the unaffected portion of the parent wave fronts are thus advancing at a faster rate than in the space caught up in the overlap encounter).
7. The effect of the mutual relative slowing of expansion is where the concept of the time delay comes in.
8. The time delay occurs in every case of sphere-sphere intersection, lasts throughout the formation and emergence of the new “third wave”, and is the basis for the speculation that the velocity of light and gravitational waves is governed by the local gravitational wave energy density of space.
9. It is easy to conclude that the local gravitational wave energy density is higher in the vicinity of massive objects, which explains why the ISU doesn’t invoke spacetime; it already has the natural wave mechanics to do what spacetime was intended to explain, cause gravity.
10. I have contemplated the possibility of electric and magnetic fields being produced during the period of overlap.


Along that line of reasoning, the speculation that there is an electric and a magnetic field alternatively generated as a result of the oscillating wave action at the foundation level was discussed in reply #130 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839)).

To elaborate, the continual wave action is restrained spatially to the tiniest of individual spaces hosting the individual oscillations, where repetitive oscillations just keep occurring in the same space, akin to the way a current flows through a wire. The current flows but the electrons essentially stay put, and a magnetic field forms perpendicular to the flow. The tiny oscillating wave fronts, in an otherwise waveless environment, don’t actually go anywhere; they form and run into interruptions immediately, so there is no escape for them. But their energy is essentially at a constant level across the otherwise waveless space; a background that contains a huge amount of wave energy even in the absence of wave-particles and objects (though that is just fodder for thought experiments, because no space is “otherwise waveless” in the ISU). The fields produced are small and short lived, but it is the repetitiveness of the action that makes the field perpetual.



To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 18:20:32
Along that line of reasoning, the speculation that there is an electric and a magnetic field alternatively generated as a result of the oscillating wave action at the foundation level was discussed
Ok I see our differences, you are looking at this in a sense of individual fields where I am unifying the fields and all actions and reactions are a quantum field fluctuation.   I consider a single field enamates from a point, this field is both pos and neg and can only be measured n (neutral).  It does not matter what magnitude the field is it always measures n.   A+B=N

Now it is impossible to measure the signs individually so there will always be a null result ,   -e+p=0

However this does not mean that the individual properties of each polarity does still not act.

For example if you can imagine an electromagnetic field that was only made up of electrons, you should be able to ''see'' how other electron fields would be relativity solid to that field?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/11/2017 14:42:09
Reply #225
Reply to Thebox
Fields


Along that line of reasoning, the speculation that there is an electric and a magnetic field alternatively generated as a result of the oscillating wave action at the foundation level was discussed
Ok I see our differences, you are looking at this in a sense of individual fields where I am unifying the fields and all actions and reactions are a quantum field fluctuation.   I consider a single field emanates from a point, this field is both pos and neg and can only be measured n (neutral).  It does not matter what magnitude the field is it always measures n.   A+B=N
I can see that perspective, especially when you think about the inflowing gravitational wave energy onslaught from all directions at every point in space, which is what I speculate is the case in the ISU. But the gravitational wave energy density at each point in space is variable, and there is always a directional a bias. That “bias” is displayed in the fact that at each point, there is an imbalance in the directional inflow, as described in reply #68: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770)


Quote
Now it is impossible to measure the signs individually so there will always be a null result ,   -e+p=0
It isn’t possible to measure the sign of the energy in space individually, and I don’t even recognize the idea of gravitational wave energy in the profile of space as having a sign, or polarity. It is all positive energy, by definition, as stated a few posts back. It could all be called negative energy just as easily. Energy is defined as positive in the ISU, but “charges”, both positive and negative are about polarity and the Coulomb force.


I speculated about where particles get their charge as if all particles have positive energy, and are interacting with the gravitational wave energy density of their surrounding space, which is composed of gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions. All gravitational wave energy is positive energy, but absorptions and emissions of positive wave energy are distinguished by saying that additions have a positive impact and reductions have a negative impact on the amount of positive energy.
Quote
However this does not mean that the individual properties of each polarity does still not act.
My speculation in the ISU, is that the energy contained within the particle space of all particles is positive, and every particle is a wave-particle. Wave-particles have a special definition which sees them as standing wave patterns, with two components, inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy. It is those two components that carry positive and negative labels in my model, but all of the energy that flows during the process of quantum action is positive. The inflowing component to the wave-particle comes from the positive energy of the gravitational wave energy density of space, and is the source of the positive energy that is added to the contained energy of the wave-particle, in the form of quanta, (meaningful quantum wave intersections in the standing wave pattern). The out flowing component is a negative when related to the existing contained energy of the wave-particles because it is subtracted from the contained energy of the wave-particle, but it also results in an addition to the positive energy in space.
Quote
For example if you can imagine an electromagnetic field that was only made up of electrons, you should be able to ''see'' how other electron fields would be relativity solid to that field?
I do understand your meaning. But, just like my valued concept of an otherwise waveless oscillating background energy, it is fodder for thought experiments. The “otherwise waveless background”, which is not possible in the ISU, is used to help clarify the nature of the oscillating background energy; it is never waveless, but it helps to contemplate it as waveless to make the point of how the background helps advance gravitational and light wave energy. In the case of your electromagnetic field made up of only electrons; it wouldn’t naturally form, but is a way of making the point about the nature of the neutral field.


It seems clear that individual fields exist. Let me quote from a little book I have on the shelf called, “30-Second Theories”, by Paul Parsons.


On the topic of Electromagnetism: … “It is all about what happens when you combine electric charges, movement, and magnetic fields. Move a metal wire within a magnetic field, and you will cause an electric current to flow in the wire… Conversely, send an electric current through a wire, and the movement of the electric charges will create a magnetic field … The third option is to run an electric current through a wire sitting in a magnetic field. The wire will move (as in the idea behind the electric motor).”


Individual fields exist, and work together. If they merged into the N-field, their individual characteristics, a beautiful aspect of the natural laws, might go amuck :shrug:.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/11/2017 13:22:03

Reply #226
To demalk
Re. Demalk’s thread

Here is a link to a thread by demalk, in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum, and I want to link to that discussion, for reference:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71898.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71898.0)


This is the recent post that I said I would address out here in “New Theories”, where more alternative views are expected:
Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?
It is true, that is one interpretation of the results of those quantum eraser experiments, and I elaborate on that at the end of this post. There is some material in this thread where I addressed the experiments, and my views on those experiments, which is referenced in in the following list of a few key posts in this thread. They are related to our discussion, and are background for perhaps continued discussion. Your post deserves an updated response, but it is probably a good idea to identify a few posts that give some perspective about this thread, without you having to wade through over 200 posts. Read as little or as much of this list as you want, but these posts will give you the background on the ISU model:




The opening post:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514070#msg514070 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514070#msg514070)


An early key post with a lot of overview, reply #16:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357)


The quantum, reply #68:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770)




Elaborating on the wave-particle, reply #69, #70, and #71:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517838#msg517838 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517838#msg517838)


The series on the quantum eraser experiment, replies #72 to #74:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518310#msg518310 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518310#msg518310)


And here is a post about the philosophy that I call “Eternal Intent” that I derive, for myself, from the physical nature of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, reply #108:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158)




Ok, you are a trooper if you gave that list a few minutes, and I know it would take an hour or so to get all the way through, which would be above and beyond the call of duty.


That brings us back to this post from your thread:
Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?
As I walk through the entire experiment, using the setup diagram, the laser sending one photon toward the two slits, the crystal splitting that single photon in two paths, the “which path” tracking through the apparatus, and the splitting and combining of the paths, there is a conclusion. I think it is the significant fact that none of the detectors that enable the “which path” information to be known, will show the interference pattern on the “screen” as the impact of the individual particles is recorded, because they don’t allow information from both paths to be recorded.


My points is that unless there is a path from both slits, there cannot be an interference pattern, so the “which path” information denial automatically eliminates the possibility of that interference showing up (by closing out needed information from each of the paths). It is not the knowledge of which slit the particle passed through, it is the information from both slits about both the wave state and the particle state, individually and combined, that is necessary for the interference to show up.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: demalk on 25/11/2017 19:45:07
Quote
My points is that unless there is a path from both slits, there cannot be an interference pattern, so the “which path” information denial automatically eliminates the possibility of that interference showing up (by closing out needed information from each of the paths). It is not the knowledge of which slit the particle passed through, it is the information from both slits about both the wave state and the particle state, individually and combined, that is necessary for the interference to show up.


Thank you so much. I checked the links and will need a bit more than an hour to get a grip on it all ;) I'm going to take some time to process. But before and while I do, I have one question (and a comment) about the above. If I understand correctly you are saying: by storing the which path information we are eliminating the possibility of the other result. Only if the particle/wave could have travelled through both, will the interference pattern show up. So when we store the information, we thereby exclude the possibility of it going through the other slit, and so have destroyed the interference pattern. Is that correct?

If so, what I'm finding here could possibly lead to an explanation of why it matters to the particle/wave whether or not it could have travelled through either slit. For that reason I'd be interested in reading more about your model. However, it still doesn't tell me why this effect would even remain if it was only decided millions of years into the future whether both slits would remain a possible path. Right now, at the time of the experiment, at the time of going through the slits, there is no which path information so the interference should show up, according to your model. But it turns out that a future random event will in retrospect affect the results and I do not see (yet) how your model would be consistent with that.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/11/2017 13:35:38

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)




Thank you so much. I checked the links and will need a bit more than an hour to get a grip on it all ;) I'm going to take some time to process. But before and while I do, I have one question (and a comment) about the above. If I understand correctly you are saying: by storing the which path information we are eliminating the possibility of the other result. Only if the particle/wave could have travelled through both, will the interference pattern show up. So when we store the information, we thereby exclude the possibility of it going through the other slit, and so have destroyed the interference pattern. Is that correct?

If so, what I'm finding here could possibly lead to an explanation of why it matters to the particle/wave whether or not it could have travelled through either slit. For that reason I'd be interested in reading more about your model. However, it still doesn't tell me why this effect would even remain if it was only decided millions of years into the future whether both slits would remain a possible path. Right now, at the time of the experiment, at the time of going through the slits, there is no which path information so the interference should show up, according to your model. But it turns out that a future random event will in retrospect affect the results and I do not see (yet) how your model would be consistent with that.

Original  response being edited, after rereading your comment and question, due to my initial misunderstanding of what you were saying and asking ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/11/2017 17:30:57
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)
Quote
My point is that unless there is a path from both slits, there cannot be an interference pattern, so the “which path” information denial automatically eliminates the possibility of that interference showing up (by closing out needed information from each of the paths). It is not the knowledge of which slit the particle passed through, it is the information from both slits about both the wave state and the particle state, individually and combined, that is necessary for the interference to show up.


Thank you so much. I checked the links and will need a bit more than an hour to get a grip on it all ;) I'm going to take some time to process. But before and while I do, I have one question (and a comment) about the above. If I understand correctly you are saying: by storing the which path information we are eliminating the possibility of the other result. Only if the particle/wave could have travelled through both, will the interference pattern show up. So when we store the information, we thereby exclude the possibility of it going through the other slit, and so have destroyed the interference pattern. Is that correct?
I admit that I didn’t read your response carefully enough, and after rereading, my initial response had me going off track.

In my effort to explain away the spookiness that is sometimes attributed to the delayed choice experiments, I came up with a description and mechanics of the wave-particle. Given the way I describe the wave-particle, as you have pointed out, there won’t be an interference pattern unless both paths are open.

However, your comment about “storing the information” didn’t register with me at first, but now I think I understand your comment and question, so let me test my understanding. You are equating the delay portion of the experiment where the “which path” information is withheld, to the act of storing the information, correct?

Quote
If so, what I'm finding here could possibly lead to an explanation of why it matters to the particle/wave whether or not it could have travelled through either slit.
Very interesting; let me hear more.

Quote
For that reason I'd be interested in reading more about your model. However, it still doesn't tell me why this effect would even remain if it was only decided millions of years into the future whether both slits would remain a possible path.
This statement is about using starlight that was emitted millions of years ago, but I don’t understand the implication. What effect is remaining over all of those millions of years? How is a photon that is pulled out of starlight any different than a nice new modern photon from a laser :) ?

Are you saying that the delay caused by closing one path to the detector, whether the delay is millions of years, or just as recent as in the experiment itself, that the delay is the cause for the interference pattern not showing up at D-3 and D-4?

Quote
Right now, at the time of the experiment, at the time of going through the slits, there is no which path information so the interference should show up, according to your model.
Correct, as is evidenced by the interference pattern at D-0.
Quote
But it turns out that a future random event will in retrospect affect the results and I do not see (yet) how your model would be consistent with that.
I don’t think that it is the delay, or the storing of information that explains why there is no interference at D3 and D4. It is by imposing the “which path” information and thus eliminating the “both path” energy that is always necessary in order to cause an interference pattern, given the wave-particle nature as I describe it. No superposition, no FTL, no non-locality is necessary when both the wave state and the particle state are both observable for the same particle.



In my view, the single particle experiments are evidence that both states can be displayed by a single particle; eventually, after many single particles are sent through, the interference pattern forms as long as both paths are open.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/12/2017 22:41:32

In my view, the single particle experiments are evidence that both states can be displayed by a single particle; eventually, after many single particles are sent through, the interference pattern forms as long as both paths are open.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_54_15.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_54_15.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_54_15.jpeg)
The wave-particle that I portray in the discussion of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments has a unique structure, and always acts the same way in any of the double slit experiments, delayed choice or not.

The way it acts is something very interesting. Something that might be seen as spooky, unless you examine it in the light of the wave-particle structure that I promote.

The image above depicts the wave-particle, composed of wave energy, and displaying both an inflowing and an out flowing wave energy composition, which means that a stable wave-particle has a dense inner core where wave convergences give it mass, surrounded by an on-going spherical wave energy emission form the inner core. Thus it is both a wave (the spherically out flowing wave energy), and a particle (the dense core portion).

Simple, right? Now, what we observe in the single particle, two slit experiments, is that each single photon (as described in my model), or electron, or even buckyball, will display both its wave state and its particle state, at the same time.

What is the evidence of that? 1) Each particle clearly registers its impact on the screen (a particle related event). 2) The location of each impact is affected by the wave interference that is caused when its own broadened out-flowing wave front goes through both slits (a wave related event).

Conclusion: Each individual wave-particle has both its wave state and its particle state with it at all times, not in superposition, and a single particle can display both states in the same experiment.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/12/2017 13:21:54
Yes, the delayed choice, single particle experiment is revealing.

If there is only one slit open, you will never get an interference pattern, but you will detect, on the screen, any particles that go through that slit. No surprise. You can send billions of particles through that one slit, detect them all on the screen, and still, there will never be an interference pattern.

Instead of considering the wave-particle alternative structure of this model, some people conclude that it is a spooky mystery that when you open up a second slit, but only send one particle at a time through the experiment so it has to go through one slit or the other, that all of a sudden an interference pattern begins to show up on the screen.

It isn’t a mystery though if you consider the wave-particle of the ISU model.

The mystery is solved because each individual particle has a wave state and a particle state that travel everywhere together, but are always individual states. Both states are always separate, and therefore have an individual presence at all times, and are not in a third state called superposition. The spherical out flowing wave energy is continually emitted from the dense core portion of the wave-particle, and can be detected as an interference pattern, while the individual particle state can also be detected as a hit on the screen. That is a single particle where there is detection of both the wave state and the particle state. The evidence is displayed in the delayed choice experiments, once you consider the results form the perspective of the wave-particle.

It is also a case of being able to detect both states of a single, individual particle, in the same single particle experiment; a situation that seems to violate the rules quantum mechanics. But obviously it isn’t against the laws of physics, if the ISU explanation is right, and if the results of the single particle experiments are considered confirming evidence.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2017 22:00:13
Particle physics is not a simple matter, and a layman talking about single particle states is a slippery slope, but an individual particle in the ISU is composed of quanta (meaningful wave energy convergences), and my version goes to the point where, for talking purposes, a single proton has 700 billion quanta (see reply #79 for details) (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519153#msg519153).

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)
In that image, the core (particle) portion is surrounded spherically by the wave energy emitted at the speed of light by the core. The inner high density core emits a regular, rhythmical spherical wave that represents the frequency the particle.

That out flowing wave, going through both slits, gave us the explanation for the seemingly spooky results of the two slit experiments, as discussed in the previous posts. But more importantly, we have an explanation for the various frequencies emitted by all particles.

It is mentionable that the wave-particle structure corresponds with a growing consensus that gravitational wave energy is emitted by all particles and objects with mass. Conveniently, the mechanism for gravitational wave energy emission is in place in the ISU.

And it is also mentionable that if the particle being observed is a photon, the periodic out flowing wave energy represents the frequency of light wave energy emitted by a photon of a particular energy level.

To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/12/2017 16:33:03
Reply 233
Particle pulsing action


Particle physics is not a simple matter, and a layman talking about single particle states is a slippery slope, but an individual particle in the ISU is composed of quanta (meaningful wave energy convergences), and my version goes to the point where, for talking purposes, a single proton has 700 billion quanta (see reply #79 for details) (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519153#msg519153).


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)

In that image, the core (particle) portion is surrounded spherically by the wave energy emitted at the speed of light by the core. The inner high density core emits a regular (pulsing), rhythmical, spherical wave that represents the frequency of the particle.
Some layman thoughts on the mechanics of the pulsing action of wave-particles:


These thoughts have to do with the nature of the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the standing wave particle, and what is going on to cause it to be a pulse, as opposed to a continuous stream. I have long considered the frequency of the out flowing wave of the ISU mechanics to represent the identifying frequency of the particle, and I have danced around with the mechanics of the spherical emission, saying it was the “quantum action” at the particle surface, where all of the surface quanta emitted their tiny wave energy, and as the waves expanded away from the surface, the surrounding emission merged together to form one spherical wave emission for each outflowing wave.


But still, any reader might wonder about how all of those surface quanta get synchronized to “fire off” their tiny individual spherical waves at the same time, making the out flowing waves individual pulses, instead of randomly timed tiny emissions.


Now I am emphasizing the “pulsing” with more conviction. “Pulse” is a term that I haven’t attached to the spherical emission up until I referred to what Max Planck said in Reply #107, https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg523791#msg523791 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg523791#msg523791)

“Reported here, some known physics, paraphrased from the section on electromagnetic radiation in, Chemistry - Matter and Its Changes, by Brady, Russell & Holum, Riley & Sons, 2000. It shows how compatible the ISU wave mechanics are with known physics in regard to the electromagnetic radiation of the hydrogen atom. ‘Max Planck depicted EM as the emitted quanta or packets of energy called photons, where each photon “pulses” with a frequency as it travels with the speed of light.’”


This may seem like a frivolous diversion, but I want to make an analogy between the ISU version of the pulsing of a wave particle, and a toy boat:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat)




The candle powered boat is a kid’s thing (my Grandpa showed me how to make one in the 1950’s). The analogy here is between the air/water mix contained in the tiny tin bladder (boiler), along with the candle heat of this toy boat, and the wave energy contained within the particle space and the resulting wave-particle pulsing action.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/12/2017 23:18:59
Reply #234
Particle pulsing action “sameness”




But still, any reader might wonder about how all of those surface quanta get synchronized to “fire off” their tiny individual spherical waves at the same time, making the out flowing waves individual pulses, instead of randomly timed tiny emissions.


… I want to make an analogy between the ISU version of the pulsing of a wave particle, and a (candle powered) toy boat:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat)

… The analogy here is between the steam/water mix contained in the tiny tin bladder (boiler), along with the candle heat of this toy boat, and the wave energy contained within the particle space and the resulting wave-particle pulsing action.


To be continued …

The flame heats the water and induces steam under pressure, which forces its way out the tube, relieving the pressure, and causing a vacuum density in the tube. Cooler water replaces the hot steam, volume for volume, and the cooler water flows back into the boiler. The cycle continues as long as the flame reheats the water.

The boiler is a confined containment vessel, and I am equating that to the wave energy contained within the particle space. (You may recall that the stable particles in the ISU are the decay product of the hot, dense, ball of wave energy contained under gravitational compression, in the big crunch, and that emerges when the crunch collapses during a Big Bang event).

Energy containment exists from the epoch of the crunch, and continues during the decay process which involves expansion and cooling. The resulting stable particles have contained energy, and have struck a gradually changing balance between the particle space that they occupy, and the vacuum density of the surrounding space.

(Note that the presence of matter will continue in the expanding arena for as long as there is too much local wave energy density to become fully equalized across the arena’s available space. In the ISU that is an eternal proposition because of speculation that the universal average energy density is too high to become equalized before local arenas intersect and overlap, causing new big crunches to occur, and new crunch/bangs defeat the local progress of entropy).

Thus the regular, rhythmical, spherical pulsing wave action occurs at the (macro) Big Bang arena action level and at the (micro) quantum wave-particle action level, in line with the ISU "sameness" doctrine. The quantum action of wave-particles in space is much like the alternating expansion/cooling and compression/heating phases going on with the boiler action of the Pop-pop boat.

To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/12/2017 08:25:51
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg
I like your diagram very much.

I have the core which you call a dense core as being an absolute void surrounded by field density.   My reasoning for this is very simple in that the likewise of the fields repulses from a central position to provide the void.
In simple terms if you can imagine a balloon inflating, but in this circumstances the surface of the balloon is repulsing the surface of the balloon.

left surface←likewise repulsion→right surface

Obviously isotropic


The physics suggests this is a possibility?


* qfd1.jpg (26.16 kB . 705x428 - viewed 1463 times)

Our differences are, you  have a wave emanating from a point source, where In my notion waves are a fluctuation of the field.



In my system, an increase in energy of the field is an increase in field density over radius. e.g if a system gains more energy it pushes things away from it. The ''layers'' of the field increasing in magnitude.  A bit like water and buoyancy The radius of the field being apart always been 0 relative to the density. The central points only having a radius apart. .

The easier way to look at this is by using magnets and the likewise polarities of the magnet creating r between the two magnets. 0 r between the fields. If we was to increase the magnitude of one of the magnets r increases accordingly between the magnets, but the r between fields always remains 0.


Imagine a box full of half inflated balloons than in each center of a balloon was a point, then simply inflate the balloons fully to observer the density displacement of the balloons surface that causes the expansion of points.  However observer the balloons surfaces always have 0 radius apart.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/12/2017 15:23:03
Reply #236
To Thebox re. #235 reply


I like your diagram very much.

I have the core which you call a dense core as being an absolute void surrounded by field density.   My reasoning for this is very simple in that the likewise of the fields repulses from a central position to provide the void.
In simple terms if you can imagine a balloon inflating, but in this circumstances the surface of the balloon is repulsing the surface of the balloon.

left surface←likewise repulsion→right surface

Obviously isotropic


The physics suggests this is a possibility?




Our differences are, you  have a wave emanating from a point source, where In my notion waves are a fluctuation of the field.



In my system, an increase in energy of the field is an increase in field density over radius. e.g if a system gains more energy it pushes things away from it. The ''layers'' of the field increasing in magnitude.  A bit like water and buoyancy The radius of the field being apart always been 0 relative to the density. The central points only having a radius apart. .

The easier way to look at this is by using magnets and the likewise polarities of the magnet creating r between the two magnets. 0 r between the fields. If we was to increase the magnitude of one of the magnets r increases accordingly between the magnets, but the r between fields always remains 0.


Imagine a box full of half inflated balloons than in each center of a balloon was a point, then simply inflate the balloons fully to observer the density displacement of the balloons surface that causes the expansion of points.  However observer the balloons surfaces always have 0 radius apart.
It hurts my gray matter to imagine that, but I can. Just kidding, I do see where you are coming from, and taking it as a snapshot out of the whole scenario, I’m sure you have it working for you, like I have my ideas working for me, in an internally consistent scenario.

The trouble with comparing layman cosmological models is that there is a different one for every layman enthusiast.

I have specifying definitions for all of my words that make perfect sense to me, but unless a reader really pays attention, follows from the beginning, and asks for clarification on word usage and definitions, we won’t have the same visual picture of what I am trying to say. I’m sure the same goes for my understanding of what you are trying to explain.We think about each others ideas, draw some conclusions, and move our individual thinking along another step, which is the nice thing about science forums that allow alternative ideas, so thank you for sharing and commenting.

Note: My model is a hobby; a pastime that keeps my mind engaged, and keeps me learning physics and cosmology, at a layman level of understanding. Here at the home (I mean at our house ;) ) we like puzzles, we do about one big tough 1000 piece puzzle every week or two, but nothing compares to contemplating the “as yet” unknowns of science; they are the grand puzzle. I plan to be thinking about things like quantum gravity, and the three infinities, when they come to take me away, lol.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2017 03:14:05
Reply #237
Derivation from first principles


(Note that the presence of matter will continue in the expanding arena for as long as there is too much local wave energy density to become fully equalized across the arena’s available space. In the ISU that is an eternal proposition because of speculation that the universal average energy density is too high to become equalized before local arenas intersect and overlap, causing new big crunches to occur, and new crunch/bangs defeat the local progress of entropy).




Let’s examine that note. Simply put, matter exists in the local space because there is too much wave energy; the wave energy density trends toward equalization within the surrounding space, but it is a trend that gets interrupted before the wave energy density equalizes, hence matter always exists in the local space. In the ISU, that is a universal condition, and so there will never be total, final, complete entropy, as would be the case if all of the wave energy became equalized across the infinite universe. It won’t happen, it can’t happen in the ISU, but if you imagine it could, you are imagining a cosmological model that has a predictable end point, where life can no longer exist, referred to as the Big Rip (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27017.0).
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_13_12_17_3_22_47.jpeg)

What do I mean that the process of equalization gets interrupted? What I mean is that in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, active expanding big bang arenas will expand into each other's space, long before the energy density equalizes, and when that happens, entropy is defeated; new big crunches form, from which new big bangs occur, and out of which new, low entropy, hot, dense, expanding, big bang arenas form to perpetuate the large scale process of arena action across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

There are different, overall views of cosmological models, and the above “note” must seem wrong to you, if your view isn’t expressed in terms of infinite space and an open universe. If you don’t think in those terms, i.e., if you consider the universe to be finite and closed, what mechanism can there be to defeat entropy? The universe you envision seems destined to end in terminal calamity, either the heat death as in the GR and the Wiki Big Rip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip), or in one final big crunch from which there is no escape.

If you consider that the derivation of the ISU model is from first principles, the three infinities: space, time, and energy, then you can see where I am coming from when I invoke the term “dynamic steady state” to the overall grand Infinite Spongy Universe.

I am not conditioned to expect any thoughtful response on this topic of derivation, but the most likely counter argument is that there is no evidence for the three infinities, and so though the derivation of the ISU from first principles sounds lofty, without evidence it is just empty words, right?


 
To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/12/2017 23:40:23
Reply #238

Derived concepts from the Three Infinities:
Levels of order, big bang arena landscape, quantum level of wave-particles and quantum gravity, the foundational level of the oscillating background, “parent” waves, meaningful waves, third waves, temporary high energy density spots, the “sameness” doctrine …


Can I provide an example of an ISU concept that is derived from the first principles, or axioms that I call the Three Infinities: space, time, and wave energy?

This is a good one to start with: All three levels of order in the ISU, the big bang arena landscape, the quantum realm, and the oscillating wave energy background, are composed of nothing but wave energy traversing space. In that space, at all three levels of order, two or more meaningful “parent” energy waves intersect and overlap, producing a third energy wave that emerges from the overlap space.

The waves at each level make sense for that level. They are in a range where an intersection between them would produce a meaningful wave crest, relative to the individual wave fronts that are converging. That means that when a big bang arena wave intersects with a quantum wave, or with a lesser oscillating background level wave, the event has no significance. However, when two parent big bang arena waves converge, it is perhaps the most significant type of event in the ISU, followed by the collapse/bang of the big crunch that forms in the overlap space of the arena/arena intersection.

You may have noticed that when I talk about one level or the other, I sometimes refer to “meaningful waves”; it means that the wave is a “player” at that level of order, relative to the other waves that qualify at that level.

Out of the concept of wave intersections and overlaps, and the resulting emerging third wave, is derived the concept of a momentary or temporary high energy density spot. The temporary high density spot is a characteristic of all three levels of order. As mentioned, at the big bang arena level the “high energy density spot” is characterized as a big crunch. At the quantum level, the convergence of meaningful waves and their temporary high density spots establishes the presence of the mass of wave-particles, and is also a key to quantum gravity, and at the level of the oscillating background, the third waves serve as a key part of the mechanics whereby light and gravitational waves are advanced through space.

Notice the “sameness” of the action at all three levels of order. Each level is characterized by wave action, wave intersections and overlaps, third waves, high energy density spots, etc. I refer to that sameness across all levels as the “sameness doctrine”.

If you didn’t pick up on all of that from my thread so far, this post should help put those derived concepts into context. Now go back to the beginning and read the whole thread again, and see if this reply makes for a better understanding (just kidding, lol).


To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/12/2017 14:31:06
Reply #239
Infinite space open universe

In reply #237, I made this statement and posed a question, “There are different, overall views of cosmological models, and the above “note” must seem wrong to you, if your view isn’t expressed in terms of infinite space and an open universe. If you don’t think in those terms, i.e., if you consider the universe to be finite and closed, what mechanism can there be to defeat entropy?”

The “Man on the Street”, a layman science enthusiast, plays the devils advocate, and says that the arguments for the Three Infinities, along with the premise that the defeat of entropy, on a grand scale, actually occurs, are not falsifiable.

Bogie responds: Two things. 1) If entropy is not being defeated, then the universe does not have an infinite past, otherwise the end would have already come.  2) If the universe had a beginning, the three main explanations for the existence of the universe are cut down to two, by eliminating the “Always existed” option, leaving “Something from nothing”, and “God did it”, and neither of those two can pass the test of being scientific.



Man on the Street: You don’t show any logical mechanism, or offer even simple math to support the Third Wave concept.

Bogie_Smiles: MotS, you are new here, and didn’t follow the thread (or didn’t go back and read it again). The logical mechanism is the third wave concept that I derive from the axioms and known science. The simple math is the sphere/sphere overlap calculations using equations for sphere/sphere overlaps from Wolfram, and some pertinent logic, that depicts the overlap events and calculates the point when a third wave becomes a quantum wave. Go to reply #78 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519098#msg519098) and you will see this diagram and the simple equation as shown in this image from the  NakedScientists image gallery:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)
Welcome aboard to the “Man on the Street”, btw.


To be continued ...

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/12/2017 14:36:17
Reply #240
Background logic leading to the “third wave” concept, part 1
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_48_14.jpeg)

In reply #239 I referred to some “pertinent logic” that goes along with the ISU equation that tracks the progress of a third wave as it becomes quantum. The fact that the equation works the same at all three levels of order indicates that I consider all three levels of order to be quantized, and that thinking fits perfectly with the sameness doctrine. But there is a lot of history associated with the development of the levels, and of the third wave concepts, and to me, an interesting sequence of ideas and logic took place before reaching those conclusions.

The early forum discussions I participated in were about possible preconditions to our Big Bang, and one question on my mind at the time was the same question I used for the title of this thread, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs”.

What has evolved from exploring that question is a set of layman level views about cosmology, based on a methodology of reasonable and responsible speculation, that is portrayed as a layman science enthusiast's “model”. The methodology is also intended to assure that the ISU model is not inconsistent with known scientific observations and data, and that topic is always open for discussion.

That on-going effort, through updates like this, sometimes seems to have reached a point where it is generally palatable, but I’m sure it is not entirely acceptable to any layman level science enthusiasts. Feel free to comment, criticize, and/or point out inconsistencies. The model comes with disclaimers like this throughout, and is not misrepresented as science done by professionals, so as to avoid the eventuality that anyone might be lead to accept any of it without question (and I’m sure no one does).

That said, I can’t remember when I first posed the question in the title of this thread (twelve or fifteen years ago), but it followed that if there were multiple big bangs going on at the same time, then logically there would have to be a greater universe, and our expanding big bang was just a local arena; part of a big-bang arena landscape.

Given multiple expanding arenas, then there would logically be two or more big bang arenas expanding into the same space here and there, i.e., big bang arena intersections and overlaps. That thinking was the beginning of the ISU model.

When visualizing the expanding big bang arenas, intersecting and overlapping, you really can’t go far without contemplating the logic of a gravitational accumulation of galactic material and energy as the parent arenas engage in a swirling “rendezvous”. That thinking formed the logic for a gravitational “big crunch” at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

To me, that was fine progress in those early days of questioning Big Bang Theory, while learning generally accepted science, and developing the ISU model. I stalled there for quite sometime, while I studied and posted about layman level physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and various ideas about a solution to quantum gravity, all motivated by the question that was bugging me all that time; what could cause a big crunch to “bang”.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/12/2017 13:10:05

Reply #241
Background logic leading to the “third wave” concept, part 2


From reply #240:
“I stalled there for quite sometime, while I studied and posted about layman level physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and various ideas about a solution to quantum gravity, all motivated by the question that was bugging me all that time; what could cause a big crunch to ‘bang’?”.
---


I figured out a layman level solution to the collapse/bang of a big crunch, and it involves the concept of the wave-particle:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg


The wave-particle composition, being the standing wave concept of two components, the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components, presents a picture of wave-particles that individually occupy a lot of space, relative to the wave energy that they contain. The collapse of a big crunch occurs under gravitational compression, causing the individual particles in it to give up their individual space, and collapse temporarily into nature’s most extreme wave energy density, the dense-state of wave energy at the core of the big crunch as it collapses.


Aside from the Big Bang arena level of order in the ISU, two other levels of order were designated as a result of the layman level solution to the collapse of a big crunch.  One is the quantum level of order called quantum action (not to be confused with Planck’s quantum of action), as it applies to wave-particles and quantum gravity. The process of quantum action, like arena action, involves the formation of “third waves” in the overlap space between two or more “parent” quantum waves.


The third level of order is the oscillating background level where the third wave is involved in the process that assists with the advance of light and gravitational waves through the oscillating background of space.


A discussion of the third wave concept wouldn’t be complete without mentioning its role in my layman level solution to quantum gravity. Each high energy density spot that forms at the intersection and overlap of quantum level waves in the wave-particle’s standing wave pattern is momentary, from which emerges a new expanding third wave. The new wave is quantum, meaning it contains a wave-particle level quantum of energy. The amount of energy in that quantum is governed by the local wave energy density and quantum action process that is taking place all over in that local space, involving the “meaningful” waves at that level of order.


Quantum gravity is the motion of the particle as all of its high energy density spots in its complex standing wave pattern are refreshed continually, which involves the new quantum waves converging around the outer reaches of the patterns. The motion of the wave-particle reflects what is described as the wave energy density profile of the local space, mentioned frequently.


The concept is that the new high energy density spots, that together make up the mass of the wave-particle, will form more frequently in the direction of the net highest wave energy density path in the wave energy density profile of the surrounding space. As the wave-particle moves, they continually return the directional wave energy that they have absorbed from space, to the wave energy density profile of space, but it is emitted and returned spherically, and it expands throughout the local space spherically as it becomes part of the ever-changing local wave energy density profile of space.


To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/12/2017 14:33:45
Reply #242
Black holes in the ISU


Why is there is likely to be a black hole at the center of most galaxies?

In the ISU, that discussion starts by talking about the huge hydrogen stars that began to form after the big bang event that initiated our local arena. The process began after the wave of hot, dense, plasma expanded and cooled to where particle formation took place across the entire arena, spreading like the formation of frost on the window pane.

Those first round stars formed easily in the close quarters of the dense hydrogen rich space in the early formation period, as the expansion  was constrained by the density of the young arena.

Most galaxies that exist today are second round expressions of that early first round of massive hydrogen stars. They burned their fuel rapidly and went supernova, ejecting most of their mass into the surrounding space as plasma, dust, debris, etc.

However, at the center of the supernovae, were heavy remnants of the original massive hydrogen stars; black holes that serve as the central gravitational region for the formation of a galaxy around themselves, out of the star forming remnants of their hot dust cloud.

Just like the entire early big bang arena served as a monster hydrogen star factory, those dense hot dust clouds surrounding the remnant black holes become star factories. Each huge hydrogen star contained the mass equivalent to produce hundreds of billions of stars. Those young stars contain heavy nuclei formed within the first round massive stars and they burn much more slowly.

The massive presence of the black hole at the center of the new galaxy can sometimes be detected by observing individual stars orbiting it.

In this scenario, the ISU does not invoke the Big Bang Theory/General Relativity idea that space is expanding or stretching. It is true that using certain “standard candles” and raw redshift data, we detect the expansion of the observable universe. The observed galaxies are generally moving away from each other, and at an accelerating rate. In the ISU they are said to have separation momentum.


The cause of the separation momentum comes from the fact that as particles formed during the expansion following the big bang, they were imparted with separation momentum, and as a result, they were already moving wave from each other as they formed, because they formed in an expanding arena environment. However, in the close quarters of the dense early arena, local gravity overcame the separation momentum, and accounts for the hydrogen clumping into those massive first round hydrogen stars.

Separation momentum is conserved, and as the huge hydrogen stars formed, they too were moving away from each other. Thus the galaxies that formed from the debris of the supernovae of that first round of superstars were imparted with separation momentum, and are therefore generally moving away from each other too.

That brings us to a major distinction between BBT, and the ISU. Space has always existed and is infinite in the ISU, and is not stretching or expanding. Our arena will expand, in the sense that the galaxies have separation momentum, but only until that expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with a neighboring expanding arena or two. At that time the gravitational mechanism for the formation of a new big crunch and its collapse/bang are initiated, defeating entropy and perpetuating the process of big bang arena action.

The ISU is one universe, and is referred to as the infinite and eternal, homogeneous and isotropic, dynamic steady state, multiple big bang arena landscape, of the greater universe.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/12/2017 03:31:05
Reply #243
Star Populations Wiki

Yesterday, Evan_au posted this link in a thread called, “Did the sun form from a cloud of hydrogen and helium?”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#Population_III_stars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#Population_III_stars)

It touches on the first round of massive hydrogen/helium stars that the Wiki calls “population III” stars, but does not confirm the ISU speculation about the size and mass of those first round stars that I included in my last post. However, the logic used in the ISU speculation is that the blackholes in the center of most current galaxies, along with the dust cloud star factories from which their stars formed, are remnants from the supernovae of the very massive first round stars.

Physicists  say that those massive stars would have formed easily in the temperatures and density of the early universe, as early as 300 to 400 million years after the Big Bang.

I am speculating, and am open to arguments supporting other views.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/12/2017 19:19:29
Reply #244
Related topics: galaxy formation and wave-particle structure sameness?

In a Big Bang arena, speculations are that the formation of the huge first round stars, after they burn rapidly and explode into supernovae, lead to the formation of galaxies populated with stars and planets composed of heavy elements. They would be second and third round, slow burning stars, of the varieties that we observe today. The heavy stars form in the star factory dust clouds around the black holes left by the first round and second round supernovae. There are heavy nuclei formed within the earlier stars that end up in the dust clouds surrounding those new stars, which provide  the matter from which the planets and moons form.


I mention here again, the sameness doctrine of the ISU that has evolved from my speculations as described in replies #240 & #241. I realized the benefit to the model of examining the mechanics that make sense at the arena level of order, and advancing the model by drawing comparisons between the other speculated levels of order.

For example, because we can observe a vast amount of space within our Big Bang arena, from our observation point here on Earth, it is easy to visualize two expanding Big Bang arenas expanding toward each. When visualizing those two or more arenas intersection and overlapping , it isn’t hard to imagine the consequences since two or more mature arenas would be filled with a vast galactic network. That network is the large structure of interconnected galaxies that hint at their close association with each other’s supernovae dust sources that tie them together with filaments of star forming matter. (Insert image) There is a resulting swirling rendezvous of galactic material and energy that eventually forms a big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

Going back before that, when contemplating the nature of particles that form in the early arenas, I began thinking about their nucleosynthesis. They form from the dense-state wave energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of the preceding big crunch in the ISU model’s process of big bang arena action. The wave energy is the dense-state wave energy resulting from the collapse of the preceding Big Crunch, and that thinking leads to speculation about the limits and thresholds of wave energy density and the active forces at work in each early big bang arena.


What comparisons can I make between the formation of particles at the quantum level, and the formation of the stars and galaxies at the arena level?

To go there, we will be examining the contents of the space that the particles form in during those first few hundred thousand years after any given big bang event, long before the 300 million year threshold which logically is when the huge first round stars form. It is a complicated and rich environment, but most notably, it has an infinite history of both arena action and quantum action behind it, and contributing to it. You may recall my earlier speculations about the cosmic microwave background, and the hemispherical anisotropy of the temperature readings fro WMAP and Planck Sky Surveys (replies #66 and #82 for example).

“Therefore, our big bang arena has its own CMB, composed of the pre-existing background in the surrounding space [from an infinite history of arena action], which is individualized by the [more] specific preconditions present, the individual backgrounds of our parent arenas.”


To be continued:

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/12/2017 23:52:34
Reply #245
What do wave-particles have in common with the galactic structure?

In galactic structure evolution, there are phases that occur in every transition from the mature galactic structure of the two or more parent arenas, to the evolution of the same mature galactic structure in each new arena. The “sameness” is perpetuated right through the Big Bang arena process, as is the defeat of entropy that occurs with each transition from parent to child arenas.

In wave-particle structure evolution, there are phases that occur in every transition from the stable wave-particle structure that is present in the mature parent arenas, to the evolution of the same stable wave-particles in each new arenas that occur over time. The “sameness” is perpetuated right through the Big Bang arena process via the quantum action process.


How many times have you heard the question, “What came before the Big Bang?” Instead of some “theory specific” answer like, “That question doesn’t make any sense because time and space began with the big bang,” the ISU answer is that our arena is essentially the same as the “parent” Big Bang arenas, and the same as arenas have always been, and will always be; invoking the sameness doctrine.


How many times have you heard the question, “How could something come from nothing?” Instead of some pessimistic answer like, “We just can’t know some things”. The ISU answer is that something doesn’t come from nothingness; there is known science, and there is “as yet” unknown science, and everything that is “as yet” unknown has natural causes that we just don’t yet understand.

The phases in the transition from parent arenas to evolving new big bang arenas, that apply to both the evolution of galactic structure and wave particle structure, are derived from known science, and simple ISU logic and speculation. Arenas are composed of galaxies, and galaxies are composed of wave-particles. That is the way it always is, and that is internally consistent with all of the speculative scenarios conveyed in this thread.

Like the stable galactic structure evolves in maturing arenas, likewise wave-particles evolve their stable standing wave patterns as arenas mature.

As is the case with both galaxies and standing wave particles, due to opposing forces that are always in play, their apparent stability can be interrupted. Galaxies can converge and interact, as can particles. In the ISU, the greatest interruption turns out to be the means of perpetuating the life hosting potential of the universe by defeating entropy, arena by arena, here and there, across the infinite and eternal landscape of the greater universe.

Within the arena, galaxies and wave-particles clearly have significant differences in scale, but there are many points of comparison. The dense core of most galaxies is a blackhole composed of dense-state wave energy remnant of a supernovae, while the dense core of a wave-particle is composed of a high concentration of wave convergences that make up the particle-portion of the wave-particle; both the galaxies and the wave-particles are the evolved product from the collapse of a preceding big crunch.

To be continued …


Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/12/2017 03:51:02
Reply #246
Field theory talk

I started getting into field theories with Thebox on his thread, and want to pick up on that here, so I will make reference to my posts over there and move back to my own territory:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70844.msg530445#msg530445 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70844.msg530445#msg530445)
The crux of universal time is that time simply passes at some invariant universal rate, but the rate that clocks measure the passing of time is not invariant. The measurement of passing time is governed by the gravitational wave energy density of the of the local environment of the clock, i.e., the local gravitational field points occupied by the clock, because the particles that make up the clock function at a variable rate governed by the local gravitational wave energy density at that location in the field.


I 'see' that space is filled with energy in the forms of fields, I believe these fields to be linear .   

Here is a nice Wiki link to “Field”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics))

The Wiki on “Field” is quite complete for talking purposes. I don’t see much on linear fields, but I think I understand what you mean. When it comes to what “field” means in terms of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, the first line of the Wiki nails it:

“In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time” … and the term “physical quantity” means that the field establishes the structure of the physical values of each point of the field and the relationship between those points.

For example, a volume of space has three dimensions, and every point in that volume of space is an individual point in the field, where all points make up the entire field structure. Linear, in that sense, might mean that every point in space is connected to the entire space by its relationship with each surrounding point in any linear direction or vector. Does that sound right to you, in regard to fields being linear?

If so, then the field that is associated with the clock measurements of the passing of time is referred to as “the gravitational wave energy density profile of space”. That field is made up of points within that space that each have a specific physical quantity expressed as a value of wave energy density. The “Wave energy” part means that gravitational waves carry energy as they traverse space at the speed of light, so the quantity or value at each point is an amount of energy carried by all of the waves passing that point in space at the same time. The density at any point in the field is the net value of the peaks and valleys of the energy carried by all of the spherical waves converging at that point in space and time.

There is a back-history associated with each spherical wave that makes up the energy density of each and every point in the field. Therefore every point is constantly changing in value. However, the changes are not generally “jerky”, if you know what I mean, because there are so many individual waves converging at every point in space and time, that no one wave will generally dominate, but instead, the change in the moment-to-moment value of the net wave energy density of a point in space is more smooth than jerky.

An exception to that would be the relatively rare waves associated with extreme cosmic events like supernovae or the convergence of stellar black holes, as discovered recently by LIGO and the ESO.


I followed that post with these comments on his thread:
I will move further discussion about my gravitational field ideas to my thread, since I suspect is it outside the scope of your paper. To close out here, the gravitational field discussion is specific to my personal version of quantum gravity, lol, so by moving it over to my thread, I save you any connection with my musings.

Let me state here though, in conjunction with my posts about “field”, that when I said each point has a value in terms of the net energy carried by all of the gravitational waves passing through that point in space, at a point in time, I don’t mean to say that the value of the energy at any point in the field has ever been established, or even can be established, without specification of an appropriate unit of measure, without defining the spherical motion of the waves that carry that energy through the field, and without a reasoned approach to establishing a point by point energy value.

Einstein and Maxwell took on field theory over a hundred years ago, and general relativity is a pretty precise field theory of gravity featuring spacetime, and they work without ether. I’m happy with that, except to the extent that there is some logic involved in my perspective that suggests that the same effect that spacetime conveys, can be achieved by the gravitational wave energy density profile of space that I have mentioned to you in this thread.

I’ll leave you with that for now, and get back to my own territory.


To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/01/2018 23:06:36
Reply #247
End of 2017 ISU update


Happy New Year!
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_12_17_1_35_43.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_12_17_1_35_43.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_12_17_1_35_43.jpeg)

My thanks to The NakedScientistsForum for allowing me to post my alternative ideas over the past eight months. This thread, through year end, can now be referred to as the 2017 update of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, a layman science enthusiast’s model of the cosmology of the universe.

The ISU is not a theory in the scientific sense, and there is no claim that it is science done by professionals. As pretty well explained near the beginning of the thread, in reply #16:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357)

Quote
Let me elaborate on that methodology by pointing out that there is known science and ‘as yet’ unknown science. I incorporate all known science into the ISU if it is based on observations and generally accepted explanations that are consistent from theory to theory, which, I think, includes most of known physics in general, and much of the theoretical physics that is generally accepted.

There are incomplete theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community as far as they go, and various theories that are inconsistent from one theory to another. I hope by saying that I'm not required to list them all. Either you agree with me or you don't on that point, but I'm pretty sure I could find a lot of agreement on that within the scientific community.

Science is also tentative, meaning that as progress is made by members of the scientific community, there is a ‘publish and peer review’ process, and sometimes previously accepted theory is superseded by the new theory. Science is tentative in that respect, and I find almost no objection to that concept. I simply address the ‘as yet’ unknowns in my own way, as I wait for the scientific community to grow their improving consensus.


However, the ‘as yet’ unknown portion of physics and cosmology is what makes all of the models incomplete. My approach is to apply the ‘reasonable and responsible’ methodology to the gaps, and speculate about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved for many years, through several major false starts that have taken me back to the drawing board. I anxiously and readily seek falsification so I can revise and evolve a better personal view of cosmology. I encourage counter arguments, and I listen to them, and incorporate those that I consider reasonable and responsible. I am the arbiter of what is reasonable and responsible, because the ISU is my personal view of cosmology. It is not a scientific paper for peer review, it is a personal view for discussion with the intention of continual improvement.

That attitude, along with the very alternative views in my model are sometimes not acceptable to forums, or some sub-forums within them. I asked for clarification in the OP and in my last post, and if this material is in violation of the forum or sub-forum rules and guidelines, I will cease and desist, and would appreciated knowing that as soon as my posts become inappropriate.

And here we are today, still going …


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Colin2B on 02/01/2018 09:45:36

My thanks to The NakedScientistsForum for allowing me to post my alternative ideas over the past eight months.   

.......That attitude, along with the very alternative views in my model are sometimes not acceptable to forums, or some sub-forums within them. I asked for clarification in the OP and in my last post, and if this material is in violation of the forum or sub-forum rules and guidelines, I will cease and desist, and would appreciated knowing that as soon as my posts become inappropriate.

And here we are today, still going …
So, i think you have an answer to your question.
As long as you don’t contravene the forum acceptable usage policy and understand how we moderate new theories, then you are free to speculate as much as you want.

Happy New Year to you too.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/01/2018 15:01:55
So, i think you have an answer to your question.
As long as you don’t contravene the forum acceptable usage policy and understand how we moderate new theories, then you are free to speculate as much as you want.

Happy New Year to you too.
Thank you. I'll just continue on into 2018 on this thread, as opposed to my previous practice of starting a new ISU update thread each year, because TNS is a perfect site for my kind of interests and activity.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/01/2018 14:27:14
Reply #250
… if the real mechanics behind how gravity works is quantum, then a quantum solution to gravity would extend the macro level theory of spacetime to the micro level …

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_01_18_1_58_28.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_01_18_1_58_28.jpeg)

Somewhat recent developments in science, namely the discovery of gravitational waves, and the confirmation of the cold spot in the microwave energy background, lend some credibility to the ISU multiple big bang arena landscape model discussed in this thread. Gravitational waves are at the heart of the three ISU processes of arena action, quantum action, and the oscillating wave energy background. The cold spot can be taken as tentative evidence of the close proximity of another big bang arena, already interacting with ours, as both arenas expand into the same space.

Our arena and the adjacent arena would be designated as parent arenas under the definitions of the ISU model, and the space occupied by those two intersecting and overlapping arenas would be designated as one system, with the expected result of a gravitational convergence of much of the galactic content of the parent arenas. That arena/arena convergence, the highest order of wave energy convergence in the model, would produce a new big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space, and out of that would come a big bang event, giving birth to a new expanding arena in the landscape of the greater universe.

The nature of the idea I am working on acknowledges the genius of Einstein’s field theory, which quantifies the macro effect of gravity using the field equations to describe the curvature of spacetime. They describe a field where each point has values that specify an infinitesimal variance in the distance between points of spacetime, based on the amount of curvature that is present, point by point. The amount of curvature is governed by the density and proximity of matter, and those particulars yield geodesics which determine that path of objects through spacetime.

The path that objects take through space at the quantum level can be approached using the wave energy density mechanics of the ISU. It is not that I think I can describe those mechanics mathematically based on my verbal model, and it is not that I think that if anyone were to do that math, that it would be much better than the Einstein Field Equations at the macro level. It is just that if the real mechanics behind how gravity works is quantum, then a quantum solution to gravity would extend the macro level theory of spacetime to the micro level of quantum wave mechanics. The gravitational wave energy density profile of space would then supplement the curvature of spacetime, uniting the macro and micro realms.


My conclusion that Einstein’s field theory predicts that gravitational waves occur when relative motion occurs is important to the ISU model because it brings gravitational waves into to the quantum realm, speculating that not just rotating blackholes, but that atomic particles too emit and absorb gravitational waves. The contrast then would be between the magnitude of the observed wave energy of events involving blackholes converging with each other, to quantum waves converging to form momentary high energy density spots in space.

Gravitational waves are predicted to travel at the speed of light, and so the observed wave length, and thus the amount of energy observed to be carried by the wave is affected by the relative motion at either the macro or the micro level of magnitude. Gravitational waves are consistent with the conservation of energy and momentum (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/Conservation_Laws/Conservation_Laws.html).

At the macro level, where relative velocities are rarely relativistic, the affect is insignificant, but at the quantum level, tiny motion becomes magnified because the two components of the wave-particles, the inflowing and the out flowing gravitation wave energy, are traveling at the speed of light into, through and out of the particle space. The wave energy density of the space being traversed at the  quantum level varies significantly from that outside of the particle space, to the density at the surface of the particle, and then deep within it. Thus based on the premise that the velocity of light and gravity is governed by the local wave energy density, you have conditions that significantly affect the velocity of the wave action at the quantum level.


To be continued…
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/01/2018 01:46:37
Reply #251
… gravitational waves occur when relative motion occurs…

When one has alternative ideas that generally seem to them to be internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data, that person might begin to come to conclusions about some quite alternative ideas that seem logical to them, but that aren’t likely to get any traction. The ISU is a case in point.

The lead statement “… gravitational waves/relative motion …” was pulled from post #250 because, whether it is a matter of cause and effect, or simply natural law, all objects with mass absorb and emit gravitational waves in quantum increments, from what can be characterized as the gravitational wave energy density profile of space (gravitational field, if you don’t object), in the ISU model.

You don’t have to read very many threads in an active science forum before you see discussions about the wave length of light being relative to the motion of the observer. Two observers in relative motion to each other will see the same light wave at different frequencies. As a premise in the ISU, that is also the case with gravitational wave energy density, and would apply to the gravitational waves discovered by LIGO.

A single wave-particle has a single frequency, but more massive objects, made up of multiple wave-particles, as are atoms and multi atom molecules, will have a higher frequency. Rotating Blackholes can be characterized as a symphony of the frequencies of the individual wave-particles making up the blackholes, and the chirping would reflect the increasing orbiting velocity right up to the blackhole merger, which actually is what the interferometer is designed to detect.

The take away from that is, frequency is an observable in regard to individual wave-particles, which includes stand alone wave-particles like photons and the fundamental particles in the ISU. Photons emit electromagnetic waves, but the other fundamental particles also emit identifying wave energy finger prints, akin to their De Broglie “matter-wave” frequency (https://physics.info/debroglie/).


Larger objects begin to emit a mishmash (layman term) of frequencies and when combined, the emissions are simply gravitational wave energy emitted into the local wave energy density profile of space. But the beauty of that, in the ISU, is that all of the gravitational wave energy is emitted in quantum increments from the orchestra of particles making up the object.


That brings us back to the fact that gravitational wave energy in space is made up of the out flowing gravitational wave energy of wave particles, that get added to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space in quantum increments. Massive objects emit massive amounts of gravitational wave energy, all emitted in quantum increments, but you have to maintain the realization that all of the energy is emitted, quantum by quantum, from the surface of the wave particles within the object, and those wave particles are all composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

So in the ISU, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy is continually occurring between particle/objects, and the wave energy background, both in and out. There we have it, the basis for quantum gravity at the quantum level, orchestrated by the ISU process of quantum action (not to be confused with the quantum of action in QM).

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg)


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/01/2018 15:07:19
Reply #252

The 2018 Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) Model Update
This series of posts, starting with reply #251, is a continuation and 2017 update of the first 250 posts that started by asking the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bang events?”

I have covered many parts of the ISU model in this thread on a step by step basis, and everything is connected, thus presenting the big picture of a layman’s researched hypothetical view of a wave mechanics model of cosmology.

The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model (of the cosmology of the universe), hereby invokes an image of the falling apple as its logo:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg)

The ISU model is for layman discussion, by layman science enthusiasts, and represents a reasonable and responsible description of the universe, according to a loosely connected group of science forum participants and friends over the years (referred to as “we” from time to time) who have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to it. If you see, or think I have something wrong, it would improve the model if you speak up. Anyone who wants to participate should feel free to comment and/or challenge any part of the ISU model at any time; it is a work in progress.

The phrase “reasonable and responsible” designates the methodology used to build the model, from the wonderings that a child might have when peering into the starry night sky, to layman science enthusiasts wondering about the “hows” of the theories presented to us as the current consensus of the scientific community.

There is known science, and there is “as yet” unknown science, and the ISU cosmology incorporates generally accepted science that is consistent from theory to theory. We recognizing that there are incomplete theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community as far as they go, and various theories that are inconsistent from one theory to another. However, it is the "as yet" unknown portion of physics and cosmology that makes all of the models incomplete.

Our approach is to apply the "reasonable and responsible" methodology to the gaps, and speculate/hypothesize about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved since 2001, through several major false starts that have taken us back to the drawing board. We anxiously and readily seek falsification in order to evolve a better layman level view of cosmology.


The model comes with the stipulation that Science is "tentative" meaning that as progress is made by members of the scientific community, there is a "publish and peer review" process, and sometimes previously accepted consensus theory is superseded by new theory. Science is tentative in that respect. The model simply addresses speculations about the "as yet" unknowns, as we wait for the scientific community to grow their improving consensus.


We encourage counter arguments, and listen to them, and incorporate those that are considered reasonable and responsible. The intention is for continual improvement, and periodic updates like this make it an evolving view. As the originator and acting facilitator for the time being, I arbitrate what is incorporated into the model in order to, 1) maintain internal consistency, and 2) to avoid inconsistency with scientific observations and data.


To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/01/2018 14:05:56
Reply #253
Precising definitions for gravitational waves in GR and the ISU




(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_3_33_22.jpeg)

Image link: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_3_33_22.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_3_33_22.jpeg)


According to “A Concise Introduction to Logic” by Hurley, under the category of Lexical Definitions, which are the common meanings that words already have, Precising Definitions are meant to reduce the vagueness of the normal definition in a given application. They are necessary to specify further meaning to the word, for example in an obscure science-like layman level discussion in a science forum.


Take for example the word ‘wave’. You generally know what a wave is in the common usage; waves on water, sound waves, and even electromagnetic waves in the sense that they are defined by Maxwell’s equations as transverse electric and magnetic light waves that travel through space (at the invariant speed of light in a vacuum). But all of a sudden the word ‘wave’ became a little vague when used to describe gravitational waves like the ones predicted by Einstein in General Relativity, discovered on 14 September 2015 and announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016.

In the science of logic according to Hurley, the discovery of gravitational waves would make the common definition a little vague because gravity waves are quite different from the familiar definition. In the ISU model, they are different still. What that means is that Einstein’s predicted gravitational wave, which is very well explained in the link below, is not the same as the gravity wave in the ISU, thus requiring the precising definition used in the ISU.


Go to this article and familiarize yourself with the precising definition of Einstein’s gravitational wave:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/11/gravitational-waves-discovery-hailed-as-breakthrough-of-the-century (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/11/gravitational-waves-discovery-hailed-as-breakthrough-of-the-century)


In the ISU, the precising definition is that the gravitational wave physically changes the local wave energy density of the space that it traverses, thus changing the velocity of light through that space, while in General Relativity the precising definition is that the gravitational wave physically changes the length of the arms of the interferometer (length contraction) and thus changes the distance that light travels through spacetime as it passes (geodesics). That makes two different explanations for the same effect; the ripples in spacetime of the GR explanation and the changing of the local speed of light of the ISU explanation. Those two different explanations lead to the two different precising definitions.


The ISU definition allows for an infinite universe that has always existed, just in case your view of cosmology allows your thinking to go there. If not, then you can be comfortable with general relativity, that features a beginning to the finite but expanding universe; you don’t have the problem of vagueness that the ISU alternative is aimed to address in the case that there was no beginning, but instead, there is an infinite big bang arena landscape where big bang arenas continually merge and mingle during the process of Arena Action.


The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.


To be continued ...


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 11:33:34
Do you feel that your efforts to get a conversation going, are in vein?



Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/01/2018 12:25:41
Do you feel that your efforts to get a conversation going, are in vein?
No, but thank you for asking. The fact that TheNakedScientists forum focuses on answers to question in all fields of science makes it a great service to layman science enthusiasts, but it doesn't place an emphasis on New Theories or alternative ideas. In fact, those of us who have those kinds of thoughts often find that we are alone in our speculations and musings.

The thing for us out here on the Lighter Side is that we even have a place to post our thinking. We should present it as discussion because it certainly isn't intended to be a blog site, but if no one is interested in discussing our particular interests, it is still a place for us to get our thinking out there. When and if discussion happens, that is even better.




Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 13:33:00
The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.
ok!

Quote
The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.

I consider ligo detected a fluctuation in the Earths field made by force feedback from other fields fluctuating?

I consider the Earths field is a linearity in all directions and ripples or waves are fluctuations in the field . 
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/01/2018 16:30:20
The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.
ok!
Thanks, it is a fairly clear way to make the distinction between how the passing of a GR gravitational wave may cause the LIGO alarm to be set off, vs. how the passing of an ISU gravitational wave would cause the LIGO apparatus to ring the alarm. Using Hurley’s “precising definition” technique from the science of logic helped in getting the wording right.
Quote
I consider ligo detected a fluctuation in the Earths field made by force feedback from other fields fluctuating?
If you are right, maybe when they get these devices into space we will be able to confirm or deny …

The European Space Agency is working on putting a satellite based interferometer up around 2030:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna)

NASA started a study (in 2011?), and I guess it is still on the drawing board:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Saif_2012_PhI_AtomInterferometry.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Saif_2012_PhI_AtomInterferometry.pdf)
Quote
I consider the Earths field is a linearity in all directions and ripples or waves are fluctuations in the field . 
I don’t object to that at all, but in ISU terms I think it would be good for me to do some more of the “precising definitions” approach to address the vagueness that creeps in. For example, when you use the phrase ‘linearity in all directions’, my ISU inclination is to hear you say, ‘spherical gravitational waves emitted by the wave-particles the make up the Earth’. When I hear you refer to 'ripples' I think you are talking about gravitational waves in the contest of General Relativity Theory. So if your thinking is not the same as GR, and not the same as the ISU, then you might try to do some “precising definitions” of your own to clear it up for me.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 19:00:54
then you might try to do some “precising definitions” of your own to clear it up for me.

Ok , I will try to define what I mean exactly.

Imagine a light sphere and the spherical boundary is the ''edge'' of observation .  You are at the centre of this light sphere.   In any direction you look, you have a linearity, a clear line of sight

You..............................→line of sight

Now this would be equally as true for any direction you was to look, it would be isotropic and linear. 

Now imagine the electrical Neutral field of the Earth looks like this.

So then I consider what would happen if one of these lines was to receive a force feedback, I consider the line(s) would wave.

I consider the blue sky is waving back literally.




Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 19:13:18
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2018 19:16:40
My reason for thinking this is because an astronaut in space can not see a blue sky, where the person on the earth sees the light coming towards them . The light coming towards being the low energy light that is travelling away from them being intensified and force feed backed by the incident rays of the sun.
Also it can not be a scattering because the air is thinner up there, the air is denser down here and it is not blue .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/01/2018 02:07:57

Ok , I will try to define what I mean exactly.

Imagine a light sphere and the spherical boundary is the ''edge'' of observation .  You are at the centre of this light sphere.   In any direction you look, you have a linearity, a clear line of sight

You..............................→line of sight

Now this would be equally as true for any direction you was to look, it would be isotropic and linear. 

Now imagine the electrical Neutral field of the Earth looks like this.

So then I consider what would happen if one of these lines was to receive a force feedback, I consider the line(s) would wave.

I consider the blue sky is waving back literally.





My reason for thinking this is because an astronaut in space can not see a blue sky, where the person on the earth sees the light coming towards them . The light coming towards being the low energy light that is travelling away from them being intensified and force feed backed by the incident rays of the sun.
Also it can not be a scattering because the air is thinner up there, the air is denser down here and it is not blue .

Thank you for that. I get the picture. There is cause and effect, and we observe the effect. Now about the cause … what is this thing called “force feedback” that causes the lines to wave?
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/02/2018 12:00:08


Thank you for that. I get the picture. There is cause and effect, and we observe the effect. Now about the cause … what is this thing called “force feedback” that causes the lines to wave?
The same as any other force feedback really,  the out-going is forced back and gains strength  by the incoming .   The outgoings and incoming of course being Photons ( mass energy transfer) .   I visualise fields as being like a wire and forces and energies travel up and down this wire,  the ''wire'' coupling all mass , thus allowing energy ''time'' share.

E/t
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/02/2018 12:19:04
Quote
Larger objects begin to emit a mishmash (layman term) of frequencies and when combined, the emissions are simply gravitational wave energy emitted into the local wave energy density profile of space. But the beauty of that, in the ISU, is that all of the gravitational wave energy is emitted in quantum increments from the orchestra of particles making up the object.


That brings us back to the fact that gravitational wave energy in space is made up of the out flowing gravitational wave energy of wave particles, that get added to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space in quantum increments. Massive objects emit massive amounts of gravitational wave energy, all emitted in quantum increments, but you have to maintain the realization that all of the energy is emitted, quantum by quantum, from the surface of the wave particles within the object, and those wave particles are all composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

gravitational wave energy    =  electrodynamics fluctuations in the fields.

I think you actually need to change that and put field energy, uniting all the ''fields''.    I consider particles or wave energy particles, emit one and the same field.  I think that all other fields , are transformations/fluctuations in this unified field.

In another words, I don't think a gravitational field exists, gravitation would be a property of the one field that has several affects.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/02/2018 01:17:11
Reply #264
Isomer depletion as experimental evidence of
nuclear excitation by electron capture

For those interested in this kind of thing:
Page 218 | NATURE | VOL 554 | 8 FEBRUARY 2018


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25483.epdf?referrer_access_token=CmE7kxF-TsuCQm3mAJa7cdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Md-VK8QOYatYRAlj6DBQ4mSTeRdoPRn72_83QX3MRzjtzy9z38B9bJaXehR-mxkkCkpjl9erGttPin1GcGRWA6xp5FyNZD_5zulA8WQ1uPyOdXLV4DzBJnkv5Udj1tUwU7_s-V06aVsywp70wFGt2t95C8fXd1B6TejqNaL6UJsvtIiEPuKyYQ-7KD9sgozAZjf1Tc8gcJIvaUodB7SqsRQNkM77c5HjUqLM8KYpATqQgN6Szr3-AgRyojKT1gtuI%3D&tracking_referrer=physicsworld.com (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25483.epdf?referrer_access_token=CmE7kxF-TsuCQm3mAJa7cdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Md-VK8QOYatYRAlj6DBQ4mSTeRdoPRn72_83QX3MRzjtzy9z38B9bJaXehR-mxkkCkpjl9erGttPin1GcGRWA6xp5FyNZD_5zulA8WQ1uPyOdXLV4DzBJnkv5Udj1tUwU7_s-V06aVsywp70wFGt2t95C8fXd1B6TejqNaL6UJsvtIiEPuKyYQ-7KD9sgozAZjf1Tc8gcJIvaUodB7SqsRQNkM77c5HjUqLM8KYpATqQgN6Szr3-AgRyojKT1gtuI%3D&tracking_referrer=physicsworld.com)

This is interesting. A look inside the nucleus that is excited by the forced or coerced capture of an electron, and the pattern of the subsequent decay.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/03/2018 20:31:35
Reply #265
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
This post isn't new. It is somewhere back in this thread, and was originally written and posted elsewhere years ago, but having been occupied for a couple of months on an off-line project, I went back and read it again to get my mind back in tune with the ISU. I decided to post it again to summarize the ISU for the many new viewers that peek in at this space regularly:
.


The Universe, Infinity, Life, and God
The Cosmology and Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)

The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) is all inclusive, all there is, all matter, energy, everything in one infinite and eternal, life and consciousness producing expanse of wave energy that does nothing but carry out its own Eternal Intent.

Thresholds and limits of energy density govern natural processes that produce matter and gravity in environments characterized by the opposing forces of expansion and contraction to produce dynamic and evolving arenas that are continually forming and playing out across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

The ISU is governed by natural law, and natural law is described in three categories, Quantum Wave Cosmology, the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life, and the Concept of Eternal Intent.

Overview of Natural Law

In regard to Natural Law, we have an advancing boundary between what has been achieved by science, and what is yet to be achieved. What has been achieved is the quantification of the known physical sciences. In the realm of the “yet to be achieved” is the discovery and quantification of the unexplained and/or unknown natural laws. It is the role of science to confront the problems it faces and to advance the boundary into the realm of the “as yet” unknown.

When addressing the unknown, it is an axiom that the laws of nature are invariant. Based on that axiom, invariance is a characteristic of both the science we know and the natural laws we don’t yet know or understand. Science is advanced using the scientific method and according to that method and the invariance axiom, it follows that anything that is as yet unexplained has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.

The physical aspect of the ISU is described by Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) which envisions the universe as it would be if all of the as yet unknown physical laws of nature were known. It is the life hosting feature of the ISU where the generative and evolvative forces of life flourish on a grand scale, undaunted by the inevitable local cataclysms that characterize the eternal process of arena action.

Across the infinite and dynamic arena landscape which hosts a potentially infinite number of life hosting environments at any given point in time, there exists conscious, self aware, intelligent, highly evolved life forms whose individuals contemplate the concepts of the universe, infinity, life and God, and act and interact with freewill that is moderated by their individually developed consciences.

That is the Eternal Intent.

Overview of Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC)

QWC is characterized by two processes, quantum action at the micro level and arena action at the macro level. These two processes are strikingly similar in mechanics but the vast difference in scale makes quantum action look toward the infinitesimal and arena action look toward the infinite.

Quantum action works on the infinitesimal scale and orchestrates wave energy to establish the presence of matter and gravity. The key is that the universe is composed of nothing but wave energy and the tiniest meaningful waves have roles in the establishment of matter and gravity. The existence of particles and gravity demonstrates the success of quantum action.

Arena action works on the infinite scale of the landscape of the greater universe. The key to arena action is the existence of the opposing forces of expansion and contraction that play out in the great waves of energy that traverse the infinite landscape. It is the multiple arena landscape that prevents the eternal inflation of the universe and avoids the ultimate Heat Death.

As galaxy filled arena waves collide and overlap, cataclysmic events surround the collapse of galactic material under the compression of gravity. As big crunches form in the overlapping spaces where arenas converge, they reach a finite capacity of matter and energy density and collapse and bounce into expanding arenas of wave energy. It is the natural law of critical capacity that makes crunches finite and prevents the entire ISU from falling into a final Big Crunch.


Overview of the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life

Arena action produces galaxy filled expanding arenas where it is natural for solar systems to host habitable planets and where the conditions are conducive to the generation of life.

Given the right mix of chemistry and environment, physical iterations of all the finite possible combinations occur and the combinations for reproductive life inevitably arise. Life is adaptive and evolvative, and as early life takes hold, and as evolution occurs, life forms take full advantage of the hospitable environment across the host planet.

Evolution proceeds toward the natural characteristics of advanced life forms, bringing the consciousness and self awareness that mark highly evolved individuals.

Overview of Eternal Intent

The existence of Eternal Intent does not require any violation of the invariance axiom. All of the natural laws of the ISU are invariant, and in an eternal and infinite universe, that means that the natural laws that are in effect now are the same laws that were in effect before, at all times in the infinite past.

Reason and logic of the highly evolved life forms is sound, and when those individuals contemplate the universe, infinity, life, and God, the concept of Eternal Intent emerges as the reasonable and responsible view of the common ground between all contemplative life forms across all space and time. No one religion that is peculiar to one sect on one planet in one age will serve that universal purpose. Eternal Intent must emerge time and time again to show the way.

The definitions of God within organized religions and their doctrine become the basis of the beliefs of their followers. There are sacred unexplained events specific to the history of each religion that lead to the God concept that differs among religions, but there is no evidence of any violation of the natural laws when evaluated by the scientific community as a whole. Specific definitions of God become a matter of faith associated with each religion, but organized religion cannot lay exclusive claim to the natural and inevitable contemplation of God. God and religion are not one and the same.


A non religious, scientifically compatible definition postulates that Eternal Intent is a characteristic of the universe, and the natural laws and Eternal Intent are one and the same. It is the ultimate universal common denominator, not just among peoples here on Earth, but among contemplative and conscientious life forms at the height of the evolvative process across the infinite and eternal universe.

The definition of nature which includes Eternal Intent is not in violation of the scientific method. It acknowledges nature as the potentially infinite and eternal universe whose Eternal Intent is carried out by invariant laws which provide for the perpetual existence of habitable environments where conscious life is generated and evolves to self aware free willed intelligent and conscience bearing individuals who are capable of contemplating the universe, infinity, life and God.

Therefore Eternal Intent would be the quintessential feature of a natural invariant universe and the view that God and the universe are one and the same are fully compatible in the ISU.

Many aspects of the universe that are attributed to the invariant natural laws point to the Eternal Intent of the natural laws:

The perpetual existence of hospitable and habitable environments
The generative and evolvative forces of life
The existence of consciousness
The existence of intelligence
The existence of free willed beings that interact with each other
The existence of our own consciences to moderate our actions and interactions

Within those few aspects of the ISU there is room for hope and faith that the future can unfold as we would have it. Beyond the boundary of scientific knowledge, in the realm of the unknown laws of nature, all things seem possible. It is that realization that makes room for eternal hope for those who care to call upon it in their daily lives.

As a corollary to that, there is no clear right and wrong at every turn of life, and where there is room for eternal hope for well intended outcomes, we are free to seek council from beyond the boundary to guide us through life as well. We consciously seek acknowledgments from beyond the boundary of known science and receive personal, individual, unexplainable guidance from the unknown in accord with invariant natural laws that we don’t yet understand.

It is the Eternal Intent of the ISU that we do so.

In Conclusion

When I talk about Eternal Intent, and seeking acknowledgement and guidance from beyond the boundary of science and understanding, there are some things you should realize.

In order for something to be science I mean that it has to be quantified or quantifiable under the procedures recognized as the scientific method. It should subject itself to mathematical equations that are compatible with all aspects of known science, or at least that cannot be shown to be inconsistent with scientific observations and data. So when I say "we don't yet understand", I am referring to as yet unquantified science from the perspective of the scientific community; theories that are not tested and repeatable but that are suspected because of the way outcomes often seem to be favorable responses to our needs and desires.

Further, there are prerequisites before Eternal Intent can be considered:

The universe has to be infinite and must have always existed; it doesn’t work otherwise.

The universe must be governed by invariant natural laws that are in effect in all places at all times (no supernatural events are possible).

There can be no violations of natural law (apparent violations are caused by as yet unknown invariant natural laws).

There must be conscious, self aware, intelligent, contemplative individuals.

There must be as yet unknown natural laws associated with consciousness that trigger some unknown equation; a combination of conscience, intent, emotions, love (or maybe just love of something, even love of power or money, etc.), and expectation or hope or faith that somewhere in the unknown natural laws there is an equation that yields an invariant response guided by our seeking.

The act of seeking acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of our understanding should be differentiated from prayer (in its religious sense) because the source of the response is invariant natural law that has always been in place and is not a response from a personified, conscious God who can pick and choose responses or that has any real time decision making power at all.

That does not mean that prayer will not work for the religious. It means that there are certain combinations of natural law that must come together in a successful equation, and there might be counterproductive aspects involved when prayer is based on a plea to a God within the framework of a given religion.

The stimulus for favorable unfolding of Eternal Intent from beyond the boundary logically includes the quality of the individual intent.

I seek an acknowledgement that the natural and invariant laws that enable the Eternal Intent of the ISU, will serve as the quintessential source of hope and council for all who have faith that there is Eternal Intent.





------------
Comment freely.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/03/2018 17:55:38
Reply #266

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg) 

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

From the opening paragraph of that essay, “The Cosmology and Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)”…

“The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) is all inclusive, all there is, all matter, energy, everything in one infinite and eternal, life and consciousness producing expanse of wave energy that does nothing but carry out its own Eternal Intent.”

The American Heritage Dictionary definition doesn’t share my enthusiasm for the ISU. Their definition doesn’t touch on the most important part of the definition, i.e., infinite and eternal.

They say: universe (yoˈnə-vûrsˌ) n. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Their limited definition opens the discussion to anyone who would like to take the position that the universe does not necessarily feature the infinities of space, time, and energy.

There is nothing new about the idea of the infinities in regard to the nature of the universe, but generally, theories must be testable, and you can’t test for infinite space, time, or energy; it will never be more than a logical possibility.

On the other hand, when you consider the alternative, i.e., that the universe is finite, and that there was a beginning to space, time and energy, then the ISU view featuring the three infinities can take on a little more credibility. The fact is that there is no testable scientific theory about any explanation for a beginning of the universe either, but because something from nothing is largely considered impossible, the “always existed” scenario takes on a logical advantage in the debate.

There is a set of people who agree that it is not possible for something to come from nothing, and to them, consider the ISU, and begin to contemplate the meaning of an eternal past.

———————
Comment freely.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/03/2018 15:31:07
Reply #267

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


One meaning of an eternal past is that the greater universe (ISU) can be visualized as a perpetual motion machine, featuring the two ongoing processes of quantum action and big bang arena action. Given the premises that every event is finite in space, time and energy, and the universe is infinite in space, time and energy, the contemplation of the three infinities and an eternal past hold a promise of new thought experiences; and possible mental rewards.


If you are in the set of people I mentioned in the last post (who agree that it is not possible for something to come from nothing), one reward is that you start gaining a growing appreciation for the meaning of, and the implications of infinity; you begin to grasp the reality of it, and you will soon appreciate its power to bring new revelations.

For me, accepting the concept of the infinities of the ISU opened a door “at the back of my mind” to a place from which I have never cared to look back.

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/03/2018 17:09:28
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

I want to post a question to any members who follow this thread ... are you in the set of people who don’t believe it is possible for something to come from nothing? The ISU model is an alternative you can feel comfortable with, because “something from nothing” is not possible in the ISU.

___________
Comment freely.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/03/2018 00:56:46
Reply #269

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

There are no admissions yet from the audience on believing that it is impossible for something to come from nothing; there may not even be an audience, lol.

Here is a video that leads into the next argument for how considering the infinities can shape your view of cosmology (and thoughts on dark matter);

See minute 2:19
“and we have had to sort of  invoke some
02:24
tooth fairies to keep things sensible.
02:28
One of those is dark matter.”

https://youtu.be/P1dd8vVp1Vw (https://youtu.be/P1dd8vVp1Vw)

Watch it and think about how the idea of dark matter might be a consequence of the finiteness of the consensus model, and if so, how the infinities of the ISU can resolve the dark matter question.

To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/03/2018 21:48:34
Reply #270


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Did you view the video and get the gist of why finiteness of the cosmological model might be related to our current lack of understanding about dark matter?


Let’s back up. Members and guests might have read earlier ISU posts that talked about things like high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves, and in which it was posited that matter is quantum. It is simple logic in the ISU; matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, quanta are composed of high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves that carry energy through space, and gravity waves have an infinite reach.


The quanta that make up matter are composed of the convergences of many tiny, seemingly insignificant gravitational waves (the oscillating background) that individually carry energy through space and consequently fill all space. When there are a sufficient number and magnitude of their wave fronts intersecting at a given point in space, that constitutes the formation of one of those quanta; perhaps billions or even trillions of those quanta (high energy density spots) might be required to establish the presence of a single proton.


All of that is going on in the infinitesimal realm, below the threshold of observability, but all infinite space has those convergences going on in it, though not in sufficient amounts to produce particles in all space. Huge numbers of convergences compose a single quantum increment of mass, and so each sub-quantum individual convergence, and the resulting momentary high energy density spot that is composed of many of those convergences, involves a hint of mass. On the basis that space is filled with gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions at all points, space literally has mass in the ISU.


Since all space is filled with those ongoing convergences, and the inner space of galaxies has a much higher concentration of them, why do we even need dark matter to explain the gravitational anomalies at the outer reaches of galaxies? It is caused by the presence of the hint of mass in each of those wave convergences, each emitting a gravitational third wave of energy that has an infinite reach.


Combine that with the inverse square law, and there is your invisible dark matter. The gist is that all of the space occupied by the entire galaxy is fat with those sub-quanta, and though the sub-quanta are not visible, in aggregate they add a significant amount of mass to the gravitational potential, looking in from the spiral arms.


Comment freely :) .
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 12:18:45
It is simple logic in the ISU; matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, quanta are composed of high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves that carry energy through space, and gravity waves have an infinite reach.
Sometimes I think we are saying the same thing.  I call this a N-field particle,  the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point.  I then consider photons are perturbations in the emitted n-field.  I never considered the N-field particle to be a perturbation in a n-field.

Are you relating your notion in respect of a Higg's type field?  Points of the field having a greater denser in the form of an energy particle?

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/03/2018 18:51:26
Reply #272


Sometimes I think we are saying the same thing.  I call this a N-field particle,  the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point. 
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


It is possible that our efforts to shape our personal views of cosmology, loosely referred to by us as our layman science enthusiast models, address the same concepts and attempt speculations based on known science and generally accepted observations and data. It would be reasonable to conclude that we would come to some of the same conclusions, and I find it gratifying that you might look favorably on aspects of our musings as being compatible in some respects.


This particular example, paraphrased as “the convergence of gravitational waves that produce momentary high energy density spots at a point in space” in my post, and “the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point” in your post is an intriguing similarity.


I’d be interested to know if you viewed the video posted in reply #269, and if you could understand my proposition. The idea being put forth is that if dark matter is a fix to the apparent absence of some amount of gravitational energy at the outer boundaries of certain types of galaxies, a problem that we don’t yet understand, could that be a non issue if the cosmological model invoked infinite space and energy.


The infinities of the ISU model is what I have in mind. Could the missing gravitational energy simply reside in space, to varying degrees in varying directions, based on the idea that all space carries a hint of mass (in sub quantum amounts) at all points, because of the convergences of gravitational waves that regularly occur at all points in the ISU model?

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/03/2018 13:48:59
Reply #273
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)



I have had the pleasure of a brief discussion on another thread about the subject of preconditions to the Big Bang, with an open minded thinker who has strong preferences for pre-existing “Something,” and is open to discussing the possibilities. Always being in the ready mode for any such discussion, it is a tendency of mine to argue for my own personal views, and so let me do that here instead of in a new member’s thread that has just started to unfold.


I’m seeking clarification about the definition of the word universe. Do you agree that, “Universe” encompasses all there is, and therefore the universe could be any one of many possible scenarios, i.e., do you agree that there is one universe, regardless of the various possible characteristics it might have?
According to most cosmologists if we play the movie backwards, our universe shrinks into a single point of extreme density and energy. I see your point that perhaps this singularity existed in what was already "the universe". My belief has been that the Big Bang caused our universe to come into being. But I am understanding that you are proposing that the Big Bang only populated an already existing universe. Do I understand you correctly?

The idea appeals to my sensibilities :) .
Quote
This would certainly fit my hypothesis because what better prerequisite can the Big Bang have than an already existing universe with the laws already intact?
Infinite space could be hosting an ongoing and perpetual process.
Absolutely. I have listened to astrophysicists saying that time and the fabric of space began at the time of the Big Bang so many times that I accepted it without considering other possibilities. Thank you for sharing a very feasible one.


My pleasure. Hopefully your thread will proceed with much interesting discussion.

The premise that the reality of the universe and the natural laws that govern it can be any of an endless list of scenarios is a daunting fact, but the universe is as it is, and could be no other way, meaning that my thinking is that only one universal scenario has always been in effect. That speaks of a sameness that has and is and always will be governed by what I speculate are a set of invariant natural laws.

Thanks for listening and keeping an open mind.

Examples of various scenarios include the possibility that it could be 1) the model that you are working on, or 2) it could be just our local big bang universe with an as yet unexplainable beginning, or 3) it could be a multiverse as in string theory with an infinite number of separate and independent universes with different sets of laws, or 4) it could be a finite cyclical universe that goes from bang to expansion, to contraction, and back to bang, in a perpetual cycle, or 5) it could be an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas that each had the preconditions of two or more preceding parent arenas expanding, intersecting and overlapping, each contributing a portion of their galactic material to a new big crunch that forms at the center of gravity in the overlap space, and due to the compression of gravity, reaches a critical capacity that results in a collapse/bang into another new expanding big bang arena, merging into the existing landscape, filling with galaxies out of the hot dense plasma soup of oscillating gravitational wave energy that decays out of the big bang’s energy ball, and follows the same pattern as its parent arenas, all part of an ongoing process of big bang arena action that continually occurs across the infinite landscape of the greater universe (a not so subtle mention of my layman science enthusiast’s model, lol. The Infinite Spongy Universe model (ISU)).
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/03/2018 19:21:22
Reply #274
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


My model, The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), in ~300 words (read slowly before bedtime every night as a sleep aid):


The universe could be an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas, each with similar preconditions, characterized by two or more preceding “parent” arenas, expanding, intersecting and overlapping, with each parent contributing a portion of their galactic material to a new big crunch that forms at the center of gravity in the overlap space, and due to the accumulation and accretion of matter and gravitational wave energy, under the compression of quantum gravity, reaches a finite invariant energy density limit, a critical capacity, that results in a collapse/bang of each new big crunch into another new expanding big bang arena, merging into the existing space in the vicinity of the landscape of the greater universe where the parent big bang arenas (and over a larger space and further back in time, their grandparent arenas) previously merged, and whereupon, in accord with the invariant laws of nature, each similar new arena cools and expands as it fills itself with galaxies, forming from wave-particles that take shape out of the hot dense plasma “soup” produced by the big bang’s energy ball, that is expanding locally within the universal oscillating gravitational wave energy background, and which follows the same pattern as its parent arenas, all part of an ongoing perpetual process of big bang arena action that continually occurs across the infinite landscape of the greater universe, and that defeats entropy by recycling high entropy old cold galactic matter and energy, via the big crunch/bangs, into hot dense balls of low entropy energy that expand, decay into wave-particles, form galaxies, and become parent arenas in their own right, blended into the eternal sameness of the infinite past that continually accrues across the infinite landscape of the greater universe; my layman science enthusiast’s model in a nutshell, the ISU.





Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/03/2018 19:37:36
This particular example, paraphrased as “the convergence of gravitational waves that produce momentary high energy density spots at a point in space” in my post, and “the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point” in your post is an intriguing similarity.
Practically saying the same thing, my notion explains slightly deeper the mechanics involved in what you call a high energy density spot.  My notion tries to explain what the properties of the spot is, using present physics as my guidelines. 
My notion additionally explains an energy field permeating from any given energy spot.   All fields being a variate of this united field.  All wave functions being ''ripples'' of this field.
This field having physicality and mass relative to other fields.

I will watch your video link a few times before I comment on the video.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/03/2018 19:40:09
The universe could be an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas,
Almost, relative to an infinite universe they are micro bangs.  Consider zooming out on a big bang in an infinite space.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/03/2018 21:41:57
Reply #277
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

This particular example, paraphrased as “the convergence of gravitational waves that produce momentary high energy density spots at a point in space” in my post, and “the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point” in your post is an intriguing similarity.

Practically saying the same thing, my notion explains slightly deeper the mechanics involved in what you call a high energy density spot.  My notion tries to explain what the properties of the spot is, using present physics as my guidelines. 
My notion additionally explains an energy field permeating from any given energy spot.   All fields being a variate of this united field.  All wave functions being ''ripples'' of this field.
This field having physicality and mass relative to other fields.

I will watch your video link a few times before I comment on the video.


I give you credit for musings on a par with mine, lol. Taking ourselves seriously would be our biggest fault, because we are speculating, and speculations are tolerated best when they leave a vague feeling of, “yeah, maybe”, but “my idea is …”.
The universe could be an infinite space with multiple big bang arenas,

Almost, relative to an infinite universe they are micro bangs.  Consider zooming out on a big bang in an infinite space.
Yeah, maybe, but are you aware of the similarity between Arena Action which is the macro level scenario, and Quantum Action at the micro level (not to be confused with the quantum of action in the Planck regime)? The similarity between those two ISU action processes is striking, and together (simultaneously), contemplation of each level lent to the process of idea-development of the detailed characteristics of each. They work together, are internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data, to the best of my knowledge.

Case in point, a big crunch, that forms out of the intersection and overlap to two or more expanding parent big bang arena waves at the macro level (which are the preconditions of each new expanding big bang arena), equates to a high energy density spot that forms at the point of convergence of two or more intersecting/converging, spherically expanding gravitational waves in the oscillating wave energy background, at the micro level (which in huge numbers contribute to the establishing and maintaining the presence of wave-particles).

The similarities between the two simultaneously ongoing action processes constitute the basis of the “sameness” doctrine of the ISU.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 27/03/2018 11:31:51
   It seems to me that there were many big bang inversions. As I see it the universe is composed of Co/Cs energy where C0 is 186,000miles per second and Cs is 1000 light years per second. At the big bang inversion Cs/Co energy came upon a small spherical surface and inverted. It looks like a big bang but that is because the inversion was very rapid. The dot-waves of our universe oscillate between these light speed levels causing mass and the gravitational field. It appears to me that there was a series of these inversions with physical light speeds of Co, 2Co,4Co,...etc. this would produce many separated universes from the common big bang inversion spherical surface.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/03/2018 12:21:06
Reply #279
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
It seems to me that there were many big bang inversions. As I see it the universe is composed of Co/Cs energy where C0 is 186,000miles per second and Cs is 1000 light years per second. At the big bang inversion Cs/Co energy came upon a small spherical surface and inverted. It looks like a big bang but that is because the inversion was very rapid. The dot-waves of our universe oscillate between these light speed levels causing mass and the gravitational field. It appears to me that there was a series of these inversions with physical light speeds of Co, 2Co,4Co,...etc. this would produce many separated universes from the common big bang inversion spherical surface.
Yeah, maybe, but in the ISU, there is only one universe and it includes everything there is. Though the ISU is a multiple big bang arena universe, all big bang arenas are included in the landscape of the greater universe, and share the same physics.

Also, light speed in the ISU model is governed by the local gravitational wave energy density, so light, relative to some common point, accelerates and decelerates as the local wave energy density changes. For example, starlight traversing deep space will be traveling faster relative to that common point, than it does as it passes a massive body like our sun. The slowing of light as it passes a massive body causes the curvature of the path of light.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 27/03/2018 14:05:05
  I disagree that the physics is the same when we consider the entire light speed spectrum up toward light speed infinity. At the highest levels no particles are produced, only photonic structures.
  As far as the Co/Cs photons are concerned, the light speed we measure is slightly less than the jump speed. Light jumps as it changes between dimensions. The time between jumps as it enters the Cs universe is extremely small. Thus Co of 186,242 miles per second is only slightly less than the speed of light in pure free space. When the light passes a star, the gravitational intensity causes the time between jumps to increase. Thus the light speed decreases. When this happens, the massless photon develops mass and the photon is attracted to the star.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/03/2018 15:26:53
Reply#281
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

  I disagree that the physics is the same when we consider the entire light speed spectrum up toward light speed infinity. At the highest levels no particles are produced, only photonic structures.
Maybe, but here is the way I look at it. Up toward the highest velocities of light in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy density would be at its lowest. Since all of the currently active big bang arenas are part of the same eternal landscape of the greater universe, there is always gravitational wave energy traversing that deepest space.

All space has some level of gravitational wave energy density, and so the light spectrum has a maximum velocity in the deepest space. The presence of matter in that deepest space, in what I call the corridors of continuity, between active big bang arenas, is at the lowest level, but there is still matter in the form of remnants from an eternal history of big bang arena action, that are disbursed throughout the corridors.

Particles exist there, and can still form there, and they emit and absorb gravitational wave energy where ever they are. Light waves are still produced by that deep space matter, just in lower energy photons.
Quote
  As far as the Co/Cs photons are concerned, the light speed we measure is slightly less than the jump speed. Light jumps as it changes between dimensions. The time between jumps as it enters the Cs universe is extremely small. Thus Co of 186,242 miles per second is only slightly less than the speed of light in pure free space. When the light passes a star, the gravitational intensity causes the time between jumps to increase. Thus the light speed decreases. When this happens, the massless photon develops mass and the photon is attracted to the star.
Maybe, but that must be part of the advanced nature of your model. The “jump” is not yet explained to my level of understanding. There are different energy density environments in the ISU, depending on the local concentration of matter and gravity, but as for different dimensions … not in the ISU model.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 27/03/2018 20:00:44
Maybe, but here is the way I look at it. Up toward the highest velocities of light in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy density would be at its lowest. Since all of the currently active big bang arenas are part of the same eternal landscape of the greater universe, there is always gravitational wave energy traversing that deepest space.
GG: For the material universes, Cs is common to all of them. they all produce protons and electrons. The mass of the particles decrease as the light speed goes up for a constant energy universe. Thus an electron at 2Co will have one quarter the mass but the same amount of energy. Other solutions are possible.

All space has some level of gravitational wave energy density, and so the light spectrum has a maximum velocity in the deepest space. The presence of matter in that deepest space, in what I call the corridors of continuity, between active big bang arenas, is at the lowest level, but there is still matter in the form of remnants from an eternal history of big bang arena action, that are disbursed throughout the corridors.
GG: As I see it, all the lower levels of the universe erases to the inverted form of massless photonic energy. Eventually as all the universes erase, we end up with pure light speed infinity energy. Once we go above Cs in light speed we return to a primordial universe of pure energy unless at the maximum point the universe compresses again and the entire series of big bangs return.

Particles exist there, and can still form there, and they emit and absorb gravitational wave energy where ever they are. Light waves are still produced by that deep space matter, just in lower energy photons.
GG: Up until light speed Cs particles will exist. Beyond that no particles can occur.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/03/2018 12:37:39
Reply #283

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


GG: For the material universes, Cs is common to all of them. they all produce protons and electrons. The mass of the particles decrease as the light speed goes up for a constant energy universe. Thus an electron at 2Co will have one quarter the mass but the same amount of energy. Other solutions are possible.
Quote

GG: As I see it, all the lower levels of the universe erases to the inverted form of massless photonic energy. Eventually as all the universes erase, we end up with pure light speed infinity energy. Once we go above Cs in light speed we return to a primordial universe of pure energy unless at the maximum point the universe compresses again and the entire series of big bangs return.
Quote

GG: Up until light speed Cs particles will exist. Beyond that no particles can occur.

I might be able to understand the concept of a massless photonic energy in your model, though I have no clue on the mechanics and internal consistency of it? It wouldn’t work in the ISU, which is a gravitational wave energy mechanics model, because light is wave energy, and there needs to be a mechanism for light to advance through space. If space is filled with only light, what are the mechanics of massless photonic energy?


So to test my understanding of your massless photonic energy “state”, presumably it is the ultimate vacuum state; no matter, no waves, just energy that fills all space instantly and infinitely. “Universes” or dimensions work their way up and down from that state, and as they move up they become more and more complete in stages, as light approaches infinite velocity. It finally reaches the complete massless photonic energy state, and exists where light velocity is infinite and fills all space, but with what? Light, sure, but waves or massless particles, or just photonic energy, and what is photonic energy?


If I understand it, the various universes or dimensional states that contain particles with mass are Cs environments. Co and multiples of Co universes or dimensions would be higher and higher degrees of the photonic energy state, ultimately reaching 100%?


And I guess a jump is what occurs when you go from Cs to Co, and to higher levels or multiples of Co?


Just to keep sharing the ISU perspective, we have no local environments that equate to you Co of infinite light velocity. We have no massless photons for that matter. Photons are wave-particles, as are all particles, and wave particles are composed of complex standing wave patterns where the patten is composed of gravitational wave intersections and overlaps, and where the energy density at the point of each intersection is equal to the combined energy of the wave fronts that are converging at that point.


To suggest some scale here, there are likely to be billions of tiny gravitational wave intersections in the standing wave patterns of the simplest particles, and each intersection of “meaningful” waves represents a quantum; particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments. That level of “quantum” is not the Planck constant, however, it is simply an energy increment composed of “meaningful” gravitational wave intersections, that are intersecting in the oscillating gravitational wave energy background. Light is the wave energy emitted by the photon particle that emits wave energy as it traverses the oscillating wave energy background at the local speed of light, and it equates to the gravitational wave energy emitted by all non-light speed particles in the ISU model.


I am imbedding jargon that is specific to the ISU, but I also am making an effort to translate your jargon to test my understanding.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 29/03/2018 23:02:20
   The physics we deal with are Co/Cs or Cs/Co physics which always contain a relatively large mass and a tiny mass on the opposite side. All this had to come from something. At some point the physical/spiritual universe took shape. Some day the physical universe will erase. Then we are only left with a photonic energy universe. Pure energy! What is the physics of a pure energy universe? All these conceptions permit us to explain thing from a simple model. At light speed infinity we reach the point where we cannot conceive of a model to explain how it works. At this level it appears to be to be a photonic mind. It is this mind which compresses its photonic body to create a spectrum of physical and spiritual universes which slowly return to the creative intelligence. I call it the God of the Universe. Yet this creative eternal energy is so far above the Gods of man that it is very hard to understand this level of existence. Aristotle called this God the prime mover. Plato tried to make some sense of this God. Yet we are mere little creatures who try to humanize this God. A scientist could argue that this level of God is an infinite intelligence field that spins out an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of creatures such as ourselves.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/03/2018 00:47:26
Reply #285
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

   The physics we deal with are Co/Cs or Cs/Co physics which always contain a relatively large mass and a tiny mass on the opposite side. All this had to come from something. At some point the physical/spiritual universe took shape. Someday the physical universe will erase. Then we are only left with a photonic energy universe. Pure energy! What is the physics of a pure energy universe? All these conceptions permit us to explain thing from a simple model. At light speed infinity we reach the point where we cannot conceive of a model to explain how it works. At this level it appears to be to be a photonic mind. It is this mind which compresses its photonic body to create a spectrum of physical and spiritual universes which slowly return to the creative intelligence. I call it the God of the Universe. Yet this creative eternal energy is so far above the Gods of man that it is very hard to understand this level of existence. Aristotle called this God the prime mover. Plato tried to make some sense of this God. Yet we are mere little creatures who try to humanize this God. A scientist could argue that this level of God is an infinite intelligence field that spins out an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of creatures such as ourselves.
Based on indications in your posts on this thread and elsewhere, you have some unique sensitivities. Below, at the end, is a link to an earlier post which I would get some satisfaction if you would read, and take under consideration, as you pass through the ISU.


The ISU, according to my musings, has always existed, and anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don’t yet understand. That will likely go against the grain relative what I surmise from your postings, but … (a poem says it)


If at first there was nothing, not even God,
Then nothing could ever be.


But just look around at the many fine things,
As far as the eye can see.


Say with some certainty, one of two things,
It seems to make sense to proclaim.


Either God, or the Universe has always been here,
And maybe they’re one and the same.


Bogie_Smiles


The link to an earlier post:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg535627#msg535627 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg535627#msg535627)
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/03/2018 23:40:39
I revised reply #270:


Reply #286


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Did you view the video and get the gist of why finiteness of the cosmological model might be related to our current lack of understanding about dark matter?


Let’s back up. Members and guests might have read earlier ISU posts that talked about things like high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves, and in which it was posited that matter is quantum. It is simple logic in the ISU; matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, quanta are composed of high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves that carry energy through space, and gravity waves have an infinite reach.


The quanta that make up matter are composed of the convergences of many tiny, seemingly insignificant gravitational waves (the oscillating background) that individually carry energy through space and consequently fill all space. When there are a sufficient number and magnitude of their wave fronts intersecting at a given point in space, that constitutes the formation of one of those quanta; perhaps billions or even trillions of those quanta (high energy density spots) might be required to establish the presence of a single proton.


All of that is going on in the infinitesimal realm, below the threshold of observability, but all infinite space has those convergences going on in it, though not in sufficient amounts to produce particles in all space. Huge numbers of convergences compose a single quantum increment of mass, and so each sub-quantum individual convergence, and the resulting momentary high energy density spot that is composed of many of those convergences, involves a hint of mass. On the basis that space is filled with gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions at all points, space literally has mass in the ISU.


Since all space is filled with those ongoing convergences, and the inner space of galaxies has a much higher concentration of them, why do we even need dark matter to explain the gravitational anomalies at the outer reaches of galaxies? It is caused by the presence of the hint of mass in each of those wave convergences, each emitting a gravitational third wave of energy that has an infinite reach.


Combine that with the inverse square law, and there is your invisible dark matter. The gist is that all of the space occupied by the entire galaxy is fat with those sub-quanta, and though the sub-quanta are not visible, in aggregate they add a significant amount of mass to the gravitational potential, looking in from the spiral arms.


Comment freely :)  .


Edit: 3/31/18
Note the new article in Wired, which adds to the dark matter debate
https://www.wired.com/story/whisper-from-the-first-stars-sets-off-loud-dark-matter-debate/ (https://www.wired.com/story/whisper-from-the-first-stars-sets-off-loud-dark-matter-debate/)


Edit 4/5/2018 See note in next post.


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/04/2018 02:24:55
Reply #287
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Still intend to write a post to tie in the video linked in reply #269, and that Wired article ... a few details yet to put into place ... and the big issue is how to deal with the infinities of the ISU relative to the temperature of the background. In an infinite multiple big bang landscape there is a universal average background temperature.


Each new big bang is surrounded by cold, very cold space, and upon the initial collapse/bang/bounce of each individual big bang event, the surrounding very cold temperature causes the arena temperature to drop much more rapidly than would be expected in the single big bang universe models with no cold surrounding space.


I'm working on the wording and the references to the ISU content posts that paint the picture, in comparison the current explanation for why it is necessary that there is as yet unseen and unexplained dark matter. The ISU explanation for the observed effect that otherwise requires dark matter is that the space within the galaxies is fat with gravitational wave convergences that emit third waves with an infinite reach, adding a hint of mass to seemingly empty space. That unexpected colder background during the formation of the first stars in the new arena is what was discovered and reported in the article, "Whisper from the first stars sets off loud dark matter debate".


To be continued ...
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/04/2018 17:29:59
Reply #288

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Just Go ahead and read the following quoted material from the “Whisper” article from Wired, https://www.wired.com/story/whisper-from-the-first-stars-sets-off-loud-dark-matter-debate/ (https://www.wired.com/story/whisper-from-the-first-stars-sets-off-loud-dark-matter-debate/),  where the conclusion is that the early universe was much colder than predicted by the standard model. Also, remember back to the video linked in reply #269 where the point was mentioned at minute 02:24, “… we have had to sort of invoke some tooth fairies to keep things sensible; one of those is dark matter”.

Both of those links support the ISU alternative model of an infinite big bang arena landscape that defeats entropy, and supports an eternal past, via that multiple big bang arena landscape.


From the “Whispers” article, you might note the evidence that the researchers site to come to the conclusion that the early universe might have been much colder, sooner, than the standard model predicts. It has to do with the characteristics of the temperature readings surrounding the earliest stars, as indicated by the size and intensity of thermalized regions currently observed around those early stars.

Quote from, “The Source of a Whisper”
“The day after Bowman contacted Barkana to tell him about the surprising EDGES signal, Barkana drove with his family to his in-laws’ house. During the drive, he said, he contemplated this signal, telling his wife about the interesting puzzle Bowman had handed him.
Bowman and the EDGES team had been probing the neutral hydrogen gas that filled the universe during the first few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This gas tended to absorb ambient light, leading to what cosmologists poetically call the universe’s “dark ages.” Although the cosmos was filled with a diffuse ambient light from the cosmic microwave background (CMB)—the so-called afterglow of the Big Bang—this neutral gas absorbed it at specific wavelengths. EDGES searched for this absorption pattern.


As stars began to turn on in the universe, their energy would have heated the gas. Eventually the gas reached a high enough temperature that it no longer absorbed CMB radiation. The absorption signal disappeared, and the dark ages ended.

The absorption signal as measured by EDGES contains an immense amount of information. As the absorption pattern traveled across the expanding universe, the signal stretched. Astronomers can use that stretch to infer how long the signal has been traveling, and thus, when the first stars flicked on. In addition, the width of the detected signal corresponds to the amount of time that the gas was absorbing the CMB light. And the intensity of the signal—how much light was absorbed—relates to the temperature of the gas and the amount of light that was floating around at the time.
Many researchers find this final characteristic the most intriguing. “It’s a much stronger absorption than we had thought possible,” said Steven Furlanetto, a cosmologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has examined what the EDGES data would mean for the formation of the earliest galaxies.” (end of quoted material)

I make a reference to Tesla’s interpretation of the stationary wave nature of the transmission of lightening through the earth, combined with Oliver Lodge’s demonstration that electromagnetic oscillations can resonate at fixed frequencies along a conductor. Those are examples that relate the ISU’s speculation about an oscillating wave energy background that occupies all space (mentioned throughout the thread, see replies #86 and #97).

By its nature, that background energy would be a self-perpetuating, oscillating foundational wave energy background that assists the propagation of all energy waves, not just through space, but through any wave energy density environment, short of the current descriptions of the nature of blackholes.

Gravitational wave energy is emitted and absorbed by matter in the ISU, and it is the oscillating energy in the background that advances the more meaningful gravitational wave energy of the cosmic microwave energy background. That foundational oscillating background energy is a basic characteristic of an infinite multiple big bang arena landscape, perpetuated by an eternal history of big bang arena action. It points to a much colder environment during the early expansion of each big bang arena, and every wave intersection in that background produces a hint of mass.

That hint of mass occurs everywhere in open space, but the gist is that it is more than a “hint” deep within the heart of galaxies, and adds up to what I referred to earlier as fat space within galaxies. That is the ISU speculation for what researchers are seeking, referred to as a "tooth fairy" in the video; an explanation for the effect that otherwise requires an as yet undetected source of dark energy.

Thanks for reading; comment freely.
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/04/2018 14:15:58
Reply #289


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)



Recently, in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum I asked a few questions in one JeffreyH’s threads, attempting to differentiate between relative motion and acceleration when it comes to geodesics. After no one tackled the questions I decided that the questions were poorly presented, so I deleted the posts where I had impatiently rushed to conclusions. But I still am wondering about the statement made by others in that thread that objects only radiate energy when they are accelerating, and I’m still pursuing answers about how that is dealt with in GR.

I gathered from reading Isaacson’s biography of Einstein, that not long after Einstein had explained his as yet incomplete Entwurf equations on generalizing special relativity to Hilbert, Hilbert was said to have launched a feverish effort to come up with the correct formulations on his own; the race was on.

During that period in 1915, Einstein’s found that his Entwurf equations didn’t actually account for rotation which he thought of as a form of relative motion. He also knew that there was a problem in the equations in regard to the orbit of Mercury. His realization was that the Entwurf equations were not covariant under a transformation that uniformly rotated the coordinate axes; which was a setback.

He went into a period of working “horrendously intensely” as he referred to it. The result was new equations, and though not yet in final form, he applied them to what was known about the shift in Mercury’s orbit, and got the right answer, 43 arc-seconds per century which agreed with observations. That correct result confirmed his EFEs to himself, and the rest is history, lol.

During the period of completing his equations, he said, “… Gravitation must play a fundamental role in the composition of matter, and that my own curiosity is interfering with my work”. Hilbert joked that physics was too complicated to be left to the physicists”. I find those statements a good motivation for the ideas that I put forward in my layman enthusiasts model of cosmology, the ISU, that invokes an infinite universe with a multiple big bang landscape, and an eternal past, suggesting the defeat of entropy on a grand scale, and including ideas about quantum gravity.

As for my questions, logically, the calculation of relative motion of objects should include acceleration due to the effect of gravity, so I have been wondering how that portion of an object’s relative motion gets into Einstein’s calculations?

At this point I am setting out to examine the results of a few DuckDuckGo searches (having abandoned Google search :shrug: ):

Geodesics vs acceleration
General Relativity and acceleration
General Relativity and the tensors

Certainly the answer to my questions will  be there, and I will post it here.

To be continued …

Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/05/2018 14:38:45
Reply #290
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Conclusion: GR includes acceleration, and it recognizes that not just matter, but energy in all forms has an influence on the motion of all objects in space. My conclusion is that in the grand scheme of spacetime, every object in space is in relative motion to every other object. In response to the statement mentioned in the last post, that only accelerating objects radiate energy, there is no case where an object is not experiencing acceleration. Feel free  to object to that conclusion and post arguments to support a different case.

When including all forms of energy in GR, the gravitational wave energy that is traversing open space counts too, as does the hint of mass that forms where convergences of gravitational waves form peaks. In fact, these peaks are the components of the “fat” space deep inside galaxies as mentioned in the recent posts about an ISU solution to the missing dark matter. Note that there are gravitational waves and wave convergences in varying densities happening everywhere, including in deep space between galaxies, and in the corridors of continuity between arenas for that matter. It all counts as energy that influences the motion of matter through space.

The conclusion above is in accord with, and helps support the big picture of the ISU, which is presented as being consistent with the fact that GR includes matter and energy in all forms in the equations. GR is a comprehensive macro level field theory and does the best job yet of predicting the motion of objects. This is no new realization though, and supports the earlier stance, as mentioned back as early as in reply #18, that the ISU acknowledges the mathematics of GR as the most precise quantification of gravity yet.

What differentiates the ISU from GR/BBT is that the ISU comes up with an alternative explanation for why the EFEs work so well. The math is the best yet, but instead of matter telling spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime telling matter how to move, the ISU picture has to do with quantum level wave mechanics of quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is at the heart of the acknowledgement that there is a gravitational wave energy density profile of space, first mentioned in reply #35, and throughout. In the ISU, objects follow the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, instead of following the geodesics that are characteristics of curved spacetime. In the ISU, all objects emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, as part of the micro process of quantum action, where wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments.

The motion of objects through space in the ISU is consistent with the motion in GR, but seems more appropriately platformed than GR as we look into the future, where the platform is quantum gravity, which is likely to become the new norm. The discovery of gravitational waves gives support to GR, and fulfills Einsteins prediction, but also gives support to the ISU description of the wave-particle and quantum level wave-particle mechanics, including the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components of matter, from particles to blackholes, and even to whole arena waves that compose the landscape of the greater universe.

Further support of the ISU comes from the hint of a greater universe, with adjacent big bang arenas beyond our own big bang arena, as implied by the famous discovery of the “cold spot” in the cosmic microwave background mentioned earlier in the thread.

The ISU also has going for it the fact that you don’t need the unsatisfying implication that the universe had a beginning, though BBT doesn’t actually address it directly or suggest any cause for such a beginning; in the ISU, the Big Bang was not only the start of our particular arena that occurred about 14 billion years ago, but our arena is one in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. Therefore, the ISU does not need to invoke a beginning singularity out of nothing, or finite stretching space like Big Bang Theory has to do; it answers the question of the beginning of the universe with the proposition that there was no beginning; the universe has always existed. Accordingly, the ISU universe, and there is only one universe, features the three infinites (space, time, and energy) mentioned throughout the thread.

To get to the ISU from BBT, you only need to follow some simple steps. Broaden your concept of the scope of the universe from a single finite expanding universe, to an infinite steady state universe that features a perpetual active big bang arena landscape, where the finite expanding big bang arenas like ours are commonplace. Expansion is the result of the force of energy density equalization, one of the two primary forces in the ISU, the other being quantum gravity. That view positions our expanding observable big bang arena as just one of a potentially infinite number of active big bang arenas whose expansion is playing out, governed by the macro process of arena action. Out there, arenas are viewed as huge expanding waves of matter and energy emerging from the big bang events, that then converge, overlap, and produce gravity induced big crunches in the overlap spaces; the crunches reach a capacity limit and collapse/bang into new expanding arenas. Each big bang arena across the landscape of the greater universe experiences those same preconditions, and they all have the same physics.

The ISU also replaces eternal accelerating expansion, which offers only a narrow finite time period before the famous heat death of the universe that is predicted by GR will occur, replacing it with the defeat of entropy on a grand scale as big bang arena action perpetually plays out across infinite space and time. Our grand universe is continually hosting arenas that fill with galaxies, and galaxies that host stars with planets, and planets where life is generated and evolves.

To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/05/2018 13:37:49
Reply #291

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)


A copy of the book “Mass” by author Jim Baggott, a science writer, chemist and science/historian, published by the Oxford University Press, turned up in the local library science section last week and I grabbed it. It is pretty current layman level stuff on the topics of matter, mass, physics and cosmology.


That book motivates me to follow up on the enthusiasm I have about the developments in the ISU dark matter scenario (the high energy density peaks at the convergences of gravitational waves that make for “fat” space deep within galaxies, accounting for the invisible missing mass). That speculation really seems to improve the overall internal consistency of the model; what I had proposed about dark matter earlier is pretty significantly modified now for the better (I do have to go back to those posts and make reference to the new “fat” and “skinny” space idea, lol).


Let’s just jump in at Part 4, chapter 14 of Baggott's “Mass”, with a quote about dark matter, GR, and the standard model of particle physics: “Then there’s the puzzle of dark matter … which is detectible by virtue of its gravity but invisible to all forms of electromagnetic radiation. … None of the elementary building blocks of the standard model meet the requirements of dark matter. We have no idea what it is.” Further, “…there is no room in the standard model [of particle physics] for the ‘force’ of gravity, which is constructed from a set of quantum field theories.” So, “…GR handles large-scale behavior of mass-energy spacetime. QFT handles the colour-force, weak-force and electromagnetic interactions of atomic and sub-atomic particles. When we try to put the two theoretical structures together to create some kind of a unified theory that could do the work of both we find that they really don’t get along.”


And that is why I do the ISU layman level contemplations; to speculate about a quantum mechanical solution, while we wait for the scientific community to reach a consensus (I refer to it as the “Big Wait”, lol).


This series of posts will readdress the ISU cause of gravity, which is the quantum level solution that I have been talking about throughout the thread. When I have talked about it elsewhere, it seems that there is sometimes some confusion when I mention the process of quantum action, which is at the heart of the quantum gravity solution. Baggott makes a point in Part 3, chapter 9 about the Planck constant, so let me take the opportunity here to say, quantum action, and the quanta discussed as the quantum increments of matter, are not to be confused with the “quantum of action” in the Planck regime, i.e., the quanta I discuss as the increments that make up the presence of matter in the ISU are an order of magnitude smaller than the energy of Planck's constant. I’ll make the difference clearer in this series of posts. 


And I want to close the post by noting that Baggott, who makes a practice of putting a pertinent quote at the beginning of each chapter, used Einstein’s statement, “The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content” at the beginning of the chapter titled A Very Interesting Conclusion. That is perfectly consistent with the statement in the ISU that particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, and the quantum that makes up those increments is described as the energy peak at the convergence of meaningful gravitational waves in and around the particle space, making up the particle's standing wave pattern as the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy courses through. 


It is my speculation that the wave energy mechanics at the quantum level, that I refer to as Quantum Wave Cosmology, (QWC) of the Infinite Spongy Universe model is a wave energy solution to quantum gravity and supports the mathematical calculation of the predicted motion of matter of the EFEs (GR’s way to handle the large-scale motion of macro objects).




To be continued …
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/05/2018 17:18:54
Reply #292

Inspired by the book “Mass” by author Jim Baggott, referenced in the last post, let this post mark the beginning of a series of posts about the cause of gravity in The Infinite Spongy Universe Model …

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg)

Addressing the cause of gravity again might seem like overkill, but it is for my own benefit. The best way for me to accomplish the goal of putting my latest personal views of cosmology on the Internet is to readdress the various scenarios from time to time, and the upcoming rewrite of the cause of gravity in the ISU is one of those cases.

The best place to start is with the role that gravity plays in the preconditions to the our own big bang arena. Every big bang event has the same preconditions across the infinite big bang arena landscape of space and energy.

That type of “sameness” may be hard to accept if you are not used to thinking from the perspective of the three infinities of space, time, and energy, but the ISU model is derived by applying the three infinities axiomatically, along with the body of cosmological knowledge that a layman can gain over time.

The application of all of that is done in a step by step fashion, where the logical starting point of the speculations would be the conclusion that our big bang had preconditions. That isn't so much of an alternative view in regard to GR/BBT, but it is just that the consensus cosmology doesn't address the cause of the Big Bang. My elaboration of those preconditions departs from GR/BBT and the Standard Model of particle physics quite significantly, at least in regard to the parts of both that just don't work together to yield a unified model. In the ISU model, those preconditions include an infinite and eternal big bang arena landscape where the process of arena action defeats entropy and puts an end to the current cosmological concept of the "heat death" of the universe which GR predicts will occur.

The ISU model invokes a cosmological order to the universe that defeats the scenario of endless expansion, and in doing so, is seen to be a perpetual, steady state, multiple big bang arena landscape. It hosts ongoing conditions that assure life has the opportunity to be generated and evolve to free-willed, self-aware l