[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #20


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.

[guest39538]

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are the best quantification of the effect of gravity as yet, and will be until if/when the curvature of space time is superseded, or at least supplemented, by a quantum solution to gravity.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''.

[guest39538]

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #23


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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #24

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.

[guest39538]

[/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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #26


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.

[guest39538]

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?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #28

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

[guest39538]

There is no empty space, and never has been. I presume The Perfect Cosmological Principle, as stated earlier, which states that:

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

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)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #30

Preconditions

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.

[guest39538]

[/font][/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?  [/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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #32

Everything is field comment

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

Ok, good.

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.

... 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.

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #33

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #34

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

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

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #35

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)

[guest39538]

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #37

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

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 ...

[guest39538]

[/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[/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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #39

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 ...