[guest39538]

[/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).

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #41

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.

[xersanozgen]

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)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #43

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.

[xersanozgen]

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

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #45


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

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
Either way, though I am a science enthusiast, I would prefer that you resist bringing your complaint with SR to my thread.

[xersanozgen]

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..
 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #47


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.

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #48

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

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?

[puppypower]

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #50

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".

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #51

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/

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #52


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/

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 ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #53


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. 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. 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.

[xersanozgen]

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".

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #55

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #56


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

Quantum Foam: Quantum foam (also referred to as space-time foam) is a concept in quantum mechanics devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is conceptualized as the foundation of the fabric of the 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
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)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #57

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.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #58


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.





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 …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #59

Thought experiment continued



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.