[atbsphotography]

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

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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.

[Thebox]

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

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 1515 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 .

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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.

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 3^rd 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.
“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”


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.

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.

[Thebox]

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).

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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?

[Thebox]

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)

[atbsphotography]

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.

[Thebox]

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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.

[Thebox]

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 1811 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.

³=E

[atbsphotography]

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

By higher I presume you mean altitude which would not be the correct wording.

No, I mean higher in terms of wave energy density. Refer to reply #136 in regard to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

The more you expand from C.O.M (centre of mass)  in accordance with the I.S.L (inverse square law)  the energy is more permeated ( spread out thoroughly).

To test my understanding, that sentence applies to the spherical expansion of a wave from a point of origin, and I would agree with your annotated response.

The opposite and T.S.L (transverse square law), increasing in magnitude (density)   of the E (energy) occupying a lesser amount of space.

To clarify my understanding, can you give me an example of the transverse square law at work?

The smallest conceivable volume of space being a Planck length cubed.  1.6 x 10-35 m³, where the energy is at it's most densest '' 3 dimensional point''.

We may or may not agree on that point. My response would be to reference nature’s maximum wave energy density, which is displayed at the center of the collapse of a Big Crunch; that is the highest wave energy density possible in the model, but not infinite density. The smallest conceivable volume to me is a point, at which you reach infinite density, and infinite density is not possible in the ISU.

As explained in Q.F.S (Quantum field solidity) , Q.F.S is the energies surrounding a void of space . The likewise polarities of the energies forcing a spherical void ''between'' them.

Maybe, but in the ISU, there are no voids, if you mean perfect vacuums. Your use of the word polarities seems to refer to converging forces. Is the equivalent to the convergence of expanding light or gravitational waves at the point of intersection, which I have mentioned throughout the thread?

See attached image.

n-void.jpg (34.85 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1811 times)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

“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.

[Thebox]

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).

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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
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 ...

[Thebox]

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
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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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.

[The Spoon]

As pointed out elsewhere, 'eviscosity' is a word you have made up. Like 'n-field'.