[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Continued after Irma …


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



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


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


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


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


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

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


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


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The Irma post leaves off with the flow of electrons and that brings up electric current. Going back to the Hyper-physics index, under electricity and magnetism where we started the project on particle charge, this quote is from the link to electric current:

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

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_15_09_17_3_42_26.gif

“Electric current is the rate of charge flow past a given point in an electric circuit, measured in Coulombs/second which is named Amperes. In most DC electric circuits, it can be assumed that the resistance to current flow is a constant so that the current in the circuit is related to voltage and resistance by Ohm's law. The standard abbreviations for the units are 1 A = 1C/s.”

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

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


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


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


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


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


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




To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Continuing from the last post, note that in the ISU, some convergences have longer durations than others because the local wave energy density governs the rate of action. The synchronized inflow and out flow of energy in each of those boundary convergences is a quantum, meaning that energy entering and leaving the particle space participates in quantum action at the entry and departure point. Counting and quantifying quanta within the particle space is an averaging process, as described in the “freeze frame” idea discussed in reply #71. Frequent references to “particles are composed of energy in quantum increments” are based on the quantization process at the particle surface, and on the proposed calculations of the freeze frame idea which is meant for talking purposes.


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


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


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


Maybe that contemplation can include examining the popular science material about the atom, and what better place to start than with the hydrogen atom:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_17_7_35_53.jpeg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom
“A hydrogen atom is an atom of the chemical element hydrogen. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force. Atomic hydrogen constitutes about 75% of the baryonic mass of the universe.[1]
In everyday life on Earth, isolated hydrogen atoms (called "atomic hydrogen") are extremely rare. Instead, hydrogen tends to combine with other atoms in compounds, or with itself to form ordinary (diatomic) hydrogen gas, H2. "Atomic hydrogen" and "hydrogen atom" in ordinary English use have overlapping, yet distinct, meanings. For example, a water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms, but does not contain atomic hydrogen (which would refer to isolated hydrogen atoms).”



To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Understanding the hydrogen atom as described in the entire Wiki link is a major task for a layman science enthusiast. However, whatever level of understanding that I get by starting out on that task will benefit my learning, and at the same time might help add to the scope of ISU model. It is also an opportunity to continue to differentiate between the ISU and the material available from various mainstream sources like Hyper-physics, and other layman level material like that often found in Wikipedia links.

As I approach the task, I continue to strive to make the ISU internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

The Hydrogen Wiki link identifies H as a 1/2 spin baryon, composed of three quarks. Quarks never appear on their own in nature, so that is fine in the ISU, and it is acknowledged that when you collide protons, their standing wave patterns are “interrupted”, as described in post #91, with all of the consequences of such an interruption, appearance of quarks and all.

From Wiki:
Baryonic matter
“Nearly all matter that may be encountered or experienced in everyday life is baryonic matter, which includes atoms of any sort, and provides those with the property of mass. Non-baryonic matter, as implied by the name, is any sort of matter that is not composed primarily of baryons. This might include neutrinos and free electrons, dark matter, such as supersymmetric particles, axions, and black holes. - The very existence of baryons is also a significant issue in cosmology, because it is assumed that the Big Bang produced a state with equal amounts of baryons and antibaryons. The process by which baryons came to outnumber their antiparticles is called baryogenesis.”

In the ISU, it is not assumed each Big Bang produces a state with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and so no equivalent to baryongenesis is necessary in the model. Further, all particles have mass because their standing wave patterns are composed of wave convergences, and those high density spots at each convergence account for the mass of the particle. To be crude, in the standard cosmology, initial equal amounts of matter and antimatter is a way of addressing the “beginning” from the perspective of “something from nothing”, by way of symmetry breaking. It is a point of contention between the symmetry of the big bang standard model and the “always existed” ISU model.

Here is a link to contemplate:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png


There is a lot of material in that link that can be addressed from the standpoint of differentiation between the standard model and the ISU, and may be necessary to help understand even “simple” hydrogen.

As for it having 1/2 integer spin, I don’t think there is a complete understanding of what causes spin yet, but in a very limited fashion I address it in the ISU in posts #89 to #92. This quote from the Wiki on 1/2 spin:

“Spin as a consequence of combining quantum theory and special relativity”

“When physicist Paul Dirac tried to modify the Schrödinger equation so that it was consistent with Einstein's theory of relativity, he found it was only possible by including matrices in the resulting Dirac Equation, implying the wave must have multiple components leading to spin.[6]”

In the ISU, it is very true that the wave must have multiple components leading to spin, and with that there is little dispute. The structure of the wave-particle has the two components of the standing wave, the inflowing and the out flowing wave energy, and in addition, the standing wave pattern is the sum of many converging waves in a stable wave-particle space. As such, the ISU would agree that the statement by Dirac was correct. However, the reason Dirac was forced to that conclusion, I think, is because the wave function is not consistent with the theory of relativity, and his contemplative solution is matrices derived for a theory that can be said to achieve some compatibility with relativity.

In the ISU, the wave function is not invoked, and the wave-particle always has both location and momentum, even though we cannot precisely establish both at the same time, and even though in practice we cannot precisely establish either individually, for that matter. Particle location is always “fuzzy” due to the ever changing pattern of momentary quanta forming and disbursing their “third waves”, and the direction of motion is likewise “fussy” due to the undetectable curving profile of the wave energy density of space that causes those high energy density spots to form more frequently in the direction of the highest gravitational wave energy density.

Moving along in the Wiki, the positive charge of the proton, and the negative charge of the electron, combine to give the hydrogen atom a neutral charge. That simple perspective is worth noting, because the energy of a proton at rest is 1,836 times greater than that of an electron at rest, yet their charges precisely offset.

The explanation of the Coulomb force must be right there before our mind’s eye. A positive charge composed of 400 billion quanta, offsets a negative charge composed of 700 million quanta, and something makes one positive and one negative.

Could there be a divide or “line of separation” at the atomic level where the attraction separates the charge within the space of the atom whereby the proton provides 1/2 of the balance and the electron provides the other 1/2 of the balance, and that establishes the average distant, in accord with the inverse square law, that must be kept between them. Is the thought of positive vs negative really a separation of all the energy present in the atom into two equals, breaking above and below some mean … the particles don’t, can’t mix their quanta because the convergences are part of their stable complex standing waves that don’t go as far as interrupting each other's patterns, … so is the particle boundary that line of separation? … assuming the whole natural state of the atom will be neutral, and the stable composition of the participating sub-atomic particles must balance when joined in the atomic structure, is it the atomic neutral atom structure that comes first? Do we have to take another look at nucleosynthesis from the ISU perspective, i.e., that the universe and the invariant natural laws that govern it have always existed, and there really is no such thing as nucleosynthesis on a grand scale; only arena by arena decay of their individual big crunches, always governed by the same physics? … just thinking out loud to add to the earlier brainstorming in post #94.


To be continued …

[paulggriffiths]

There is yet no fact of the big bang.
A. 13 Billion years ago is a vast understatement as grass turns to soil turns to rock.
B. Gravity effects light and is not included in the nobeld publication.

There could be larger objects beyond our current view of the universe pulling the light.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_09_17_4_18_49.jpeg
Brainstorming idea …



I’m starting to get some ideas that apply to the structure of an atom of hydrogen, and that might give some perspective on the offsetting positive and negative charges within the neutral hydrogen atom (with implications about the ISU process of quantum action and the Coulomb force). Note that the interaction of the wave-particles is at is simplest structure in the hydrogen atom, which is a good place to start and to build from.

The standing wave pattern of the hydrogen atom’s proton has a surface or boundary that (according to the ISU model) has an equal amount of out flowing wave energy at all points because the out flow is spherical. We can think of that out flow as a positive energy out flow, supplying wave energy into space, i.e., as the local source of energy added to the energy density profile of space. Then we can think of the directionally inflowing wave energy component of that proton as the replacement energy for that out flow, maintaining the established mass and energy of the proton wave-particle. I would label the inflowing component the negative energy inflow.

The net exchange of energy is between the individual wave-particle's standing wave patterns and the wave energy density profile of space, with each particle (when at rest) absorbing the same amount of wave energy that it emits.

The natural approximate relationship between the quantity of the proton’s energy exchange with the surrounding space, and the electron’s energy exchange with the surrounding space being 1836 to 1, but the net neutral charge of the hydrogen atom accommodates that huge differential because of the wave mechanics at work in the process of quantum action.

The proton’s out flow is strong enough to “hold off” the quantum gravitational “diving” action of the electron at a certain average distance in accord with the inverse square law. The vast amount of the proportional 1836:1 outflow is unnoticed (not felt) by the electron, but the little bit that is noticed in the location of each “dive” toward the massive proton is enough to repel the electron back out to maintain its appropriate distance. This would mean that the motion of the electron in the space surrounding the proton is erratic and chaotic in terms of the path that it takes, and yet that path stays within the bounds of the forces at work, quantum gravity and energy density equalization.

That action takes into consideration that the electron too has inflowing and outflowing wave energy components, so the inverse square effect is a net balance that is achieved at a particular distance.

Thus the hydrogen atom, 1) has a neutral net charge between the combined energy outflow of the proton and the electron, labeled positive energy, and the combined wave energy inflow of the proton and the electron, labeled negative wave energy, 2) has an established average distance between the electron and the proton based on the inverse square law, and 3) the electron is dancing all around the permitted space in response to the forces in play. Hydrogen's two sub-atomic particles thus mutually participate in making the hydrogen atom a stable neutral atom in the ISU.

To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

This quote is from, Looking at the Invisible Universe, by James Jespersen & Jane Fitz-Randolph, 1990. Chapter 4, page 31, Pinchfuls of Starlight: “During the end of the nineteenth century and into the first part of the twentieth century, scientists accumulated a considerable body of observations related to the spectra of various substances as well as the spectra of many astronomical bodies.”


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
“The emission spectrum of atomic hydrogen is divided into a number of spectral series, with wavelengths given by the Rydberg formula. These observed spectral lines are due to the electron making transitions between two energy levels in an atom. The classification of the series by the Rydberg formula was important in the development of quantum mechanics. The spectral series are important in astronomical spectroscopy for detecting the presence of hydrogen and calculating red shifts.”


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum
“The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted due to an atom or molecule making a transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state. The photon energy of the emitted photon is equal to the energy difference between the two states. There are many possible electron transitions for each atom, and each transition has a specific energy difference. This collection of different transitions, leading to different radiated wavelengths, make up an emission spectrum. Each element's emission spectrum is unique. Therefore, spectroscopy can be used to identify the elements in matter of unknown composition. Similarly, the emission spectra of molecules can be used in chemical analysis of substances.”


Since the wave-particle of the ISU is unique, as described speculatively throughout the thread, and since those speculations describe an action process (called quantum action) where the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the sub-atomic particles account for hydrogen’s offsetting positive and negative charges, there should be an ISU-specific explanation for the spectral lines of hydrogen. I’ll be contemplating that task while working my way through the hydrogen research links.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_09_17_2_35_28.jpeg

Absorption and emission spectrum of hydrogen


“If only a single atom of hydrogen were present, then only a single wavelength would be observed at a given instant. Several of the possible emissions are observed because the sample contains many hydrogen atoms that are in different initial energy states and reach different final energy states. These different combinations lead to simultaneous emissions at different wavelengths.”

To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_09_17_2_47_56.jpeg



Reported here, some known physics, paraphrased from the section on electromagnetic radiation in, Chemistry - Matter and Its Changes, by Brady, Russell & Holum, Riley & Sons, 2000. It shows how compatible the ISU wave mechanics are with known physics in regard to the electromagnetic radiation of the hydrogen atom. “Max Planck depicted EM as the emitted quanta or packets of energy called photons, where each photon “pulses” with a frequency as it travels with the speed of light.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
“Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum, though not both at the same time. The photon's wave and quanta qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon, and cannot be described by any mechanical model;[2] a representation of this dual property of light, which assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy, is not possible. The quanta in a light wave cannot be spatially localized. Some defined physical parameters of a photon are listed.”


The pulses are consistent with the ISU wave-particle description of the emission of light by photons, and consistent with the ISU standing wave structure. Notice posts #69-#72 for some discussion on the ISU speculations. The explanation for the mechanics of the pulses is unique to the ISU.

Based on the ISU wave mechanics, some things can be said about a specific emission line in the hydrogen emission spectrum. A single hydrogen atom, in a specific wave energy density environment, whose energy has built to the emission of a photon of a specific wave length/frequency, results in that hydrogen atom being restored to a specific energy level relative to the energy of the electron and relative to the wave energy density of the local environment of the hydrogen atom.

There is a frequency and wave length associated with that specific energy, and that energy is characterized by the presence of the photon’s standing wave pattern with a specific number of quanta in the form of momentary high energy density spots that form at the points of major wave convergences within the particle’s standing wave pattern. The interior or core of the photon wave-particle is like a little engine that continually supplies the quanta at the surface of the particle with wave energy from within, while the surface of the wave particle continually receives wave energy arriving from the wave energy density of space. The inflowing wave energy finds it way into the core. The out flow is positive energy into space, and inflow is negative energy from space; space being the “storage device” for the continual quantum action of all wave-particles.

The thing about it occurring in a given wave energy density environment is that there is a given local level of wave energy in the profile of space, and traversing the local space where the hydrogen atom is present. That energy action is at a sufficient level to assure that the inflowing component of the particle’s standing wave pattern can provide a stable wave energy density environment and thus provide for a stable particle.

The emission of a photon is the act of maintaining the stability of the particle relative to the local wave energy density environment. The emission of the photon is a balancing event in response to corresponding changes in the wave energy density environment, and brings the electron and proton positive and negative charges back into balance, and restores the stability of the atom and electron.

The photon follows a directional path laid out in the local wave energy density profile of space, and as it traverses space, it continually emits a constant wavelength and frequency caused by the continually refreshing wave convergences within the photon core that pulse the energy in tune with the frequency of the emitted light.

In the ISU, the specific frequency of the photon is directly related to the quanta contained in the standing wave pattern, and there is a 1:1 relationship between the cyclical build up of quanta at the core of the wave-particle and the time delay associated with that build up that governs the frequency of the out flowing wave emitted spherically from the photon’s surface. Note that the “time delay”, as mentioned in posts #63 an #92, plays a very important role in the frequency/wavelength of the electromagnetic wave.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

For the record, I have used the word “spherical” about 75 times in this thread (so far), lol.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_09_17_11_15_59.gif



Usually it is in reference to spherical waves emitted from the convergence of two “parent” spherical waves. That action is at the heart of the wave mechanics that are the fundamentals of the Infinite Spongy Universe cosmology. Spherical waves converge at all orders of magnitude, but the model focuses on Big Bang arena waves at the macro realm, on quantum waves in the realm of quantum action and quantum gravity, and on the tiniest of waves, the oscillating wave action at the foundational level of the universe.


One thing I do want to include in this thread is to follow through on a statement I made in post #72, and that is address the philosophy of the ISU (note that I use coined words, generative and evolvative to address life arising from hospitable conditions and evolving to intelligent, self-aware individuals):


The Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) Model of Cosmology
Eternal Intent from 2011


The Universe, Infinity, Life, and God
The Cosmology and Philosophy of the Infinite Spongy Universe


The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) is all inclusive, all there is, all matter, energy, everything in one infinite and eternal, life and consciousness producing expanse of wave energy that does nothing but carry out its own Eternal Intent.


Thresholds and limits of energy density govern natural processes that produce matter and gravity in environments characterized by the opposing forces of expansion and contraction to produce dynamic and evolving arenas that are continually forming and playing out across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.


The ISU is governed by natural law, and natural law is described in three categories, Quantum Wave Cosmology, the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life, and the Concept of Eternal Intent.


Overview of Natural Law


In regard to Natural Law, we have an advancing boundary between what has been achieved by science, and what is yet to be achieved. What has been achieved is the quantification of the known physical sciences. In the realm of the “yet to be achieved” is the discovery and quantification of the unexplained and/or unknown natural laws. It is the role of science to confront the problems it faces and to advance the boundary into the realm of the “as yet” unknown.


When addressing the unknown, it is an axiom that the laws of nature are invariant. Based on that axiom, invariance is a characteristic of both the science we know and the natural laws we don’t yet know or understand. Science is advanced using the scientific method and according to that method and the invariance axiom, it follows that anything that is as yet unexplained has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.


The physical aspect of the ISU is described by Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) which envisions the universe as it would be if all of the as yet unknown physical laws of nature were known. It is the life hosting feature of the ISU where the generative and evolvative forces of life flourish on a grand scale, undaunted by the inevitable local cataclysms that characterize the eternal process of arena action.


Across the infinite and dynamic arena landscape which hosts a potentially infinite number of life hosting environments at any given point in time, there exists conscious, self aware, intelligent, highly evolved life forms whose individuals contemplate the concepts of the universe, infinity, life and God, and act and interact with freewill that is moderated by their individually developed consciences.


That is the Eternal Intent.


Overview of Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC)


QWC is characterized by two processes, quantum action at the micro level and arena action at the macro level. These two processes are strikingly similar in mechanics but the vast difference in scale makes quantum action look toward the infinitesimal and arena action look toward the infinite.


Quantum action works on the infinitesimal scale and orchestrates wave energy to establish the presence of matter and gravity. The key is that the universe is composed of nothing but wave energy and the tiniest meaningful waves have roles in the establishment of matter and gravity. The existence of particles and gravity demonstrates the success of quantum action.


Arena action works on the infinite scale of the landscape of the greater universe. The key to arena action is the existence of the opposing forces of expansion and contraction that play out in the great waves of energy that traverse the infinite landscape. It is the multiple [big bang] arena landscape that prevents the eternal inflation of the universe and avoids the ultimate Heat Death.


As galaxy filled arena waves collide and overlap, cataclysmic events surround the collapse of galactic material under the compression of gravity. As big crunches form in the overlapping spaces where arenas convergence, they reach a finite capacity of matter and energy density and collapse and bounce into expanding arenas of wave energy. It is the natural law of critical capacity that makes crunches finite and prevents the entire ISU from falling into a final Big Crunch.




Overview of the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life


Arena action produces galaxy filled expanding arenas where it is natural for solar systems to host habitable planets and where the conditions are conducive to the generation of life.


Given the right mix of chemistry and environment, physical iterations of all the finite possible combinations occur and the combinations for reproductive life inevitably arise. Life is adaptive and evolvative, and as early life takes hold, and as evolution occurs, life forms take full advantage of the hospitable environment across the host planet.


Evolution proceeds toward the natural characteristics of advanced life forms, bringing the consciousness and self awareness that mark highly evolved individuals.


Overview of Eternal Intent


The existence of Eternal Intent does not require any violation of the invariance axiom. All of the natural laws of the ISU are invariant, and in an eternal and infinite universe, that means that the natural laws that are in effect now are the same laws that were in effect before, at all times in the infinite past.


Reason and logic of the highly evolved life forms is sound, and when those individuals contemplate the universe, infinity, life, and God, the concept of Eternal Intent emerges as the reasonable and responsible view of the common ground between all contemplative life forms across all space and time. No one religion that is peculiar to one sect on one planet in one age will serve that universal purpose. Eternal Intent must emerge time and time again to show the way.


The definitions of God within organized religions and their doctrine become the basis of the beliefs of their followers. There are sacred unexplained events specific to the history of each religion that lead to the God concept that differs among religions, but there is no evidence of any violation of the natural laws when evaluated by the scientific community as a whole. Specific definitions of God become a matter of faith associated with each religion, but organized religion cannot lay exclusive claim to the natural and inevitable contemplation of God. God and religion are not one and the same.




A non religious, scientifically compatible definition postulates that Eternal Intent is a characteristic of the universe, and the natural laws and Eternal Intent are one and the same. It is the ultimate universal common denominator, not just among peoples here on Earth, but among contemplative and conscientious life forms at the height of the evolvative process across the infinite and eternal universe.


The definition of nature which includes Eternal Intent is not in violation of the scientific method. It acknowledges nature as the potentially infinite and eternal universe whose Eternal Intent is carried out by invariant laws which provide for the perpetual existence of habitable environments where conscious life is generated and evolves to self aware free willed intelligent and conscience bearing individuals who are capable of contemplating the universe, infinity, life and God.


Therefore Eternal Intent would be the quintessential feature of a natural invariant universe and the view that God and the universe are one and the same are fully compatible in the ISU.


Many aspects of the universe that are attributed to the invariant natural laws point to the Eternal Intent of the natural laws:


The perpetual existence of hospitable and habitable environments
The generative and evolvative forces of life
The existence of consciousness
The existence of intelligence
The existence of free willed beings that interact with each other
The existence of our own consciences to moderate our actions and interactions


Within those few aspects of the ISU there is room for hope and faith that the future can unfold as we would have it. Beyond the boundary of scientific knowledge, in the realm of the unknown laws of nature, all things seem possible. It is that realization that makes room for eternal hope for those who care to call upon it in their daily lives.


As a corollary to that, there is no clear right and wrong at every turn of life, and where there is room for eternal hope for well intended outcomes, we are free to seek council from beyond the boundary to guide us through life as well. We consciously seek acknowledgments from beyond the boundary of known science and receive personal, individual, unexplainable guidance from the unknown in accord with invariant natural laws that we don’t yet understand.


It is the Eternal Intent of the ISU that we do so.


In Conclusion


When I talk about Eternal Intent, and seeking acknowledgement and guidance from beyond the boundary of "known" science and understanding, there are some things you should realize:


In order for something to be "science" I mean that it has to be quantified or quantifiable under the procedures recognized as the scientific method. It should subject itself to mathematical equations that are compatible with all aspects of known science, or at least that cannot be shown to be inconsistent with scientific observations and data. So when I say "we don't yet understand", I am referring to as yet unquantified science from the perspective of the scientific community; theories that are not tested and repeatable but that are suspected because of the way outcomes often seem to be favorable responses to our needs and desires.


Further, there are prerequisites before Eternal Intent can be considered:


The universe has to be infinite and must have always existed; it doesn’t work otherwise.


The universe must be governed by invariant natural laws that are in effect in all places at all times (no supernatural events are possible).


There can be no violations of natural law (apparent violations are caused by as yet unknown invariant natural laws).


There must be conscious, self aware, intelligent, contemplative individuals.


There must be as yet unknown natural laws associated with consciousness that trigger some unknown equation; a combination of conscience, intent, emotions, love (or maybe just love of something, even love of power or money, etc.), and expectation or hope or faith that somewhere in the unknown natural laws there is an equation that yields an invariant response guided by our seeking.


The act of seeking acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of our understanding should be differentiated from prayer (in its religious sense) because the source of the response is invariant natural law that has always been in place and is not a response from a personified, conscious God who can pick and choose responses or that has any real time decision making power at all.


That does not mean that prayer will not work for the religious. It means that there are certain combinations of natural law that must come together in a successful equation, and there might be counterproductive aspects involved when prayer is based on a plea to a God within the framework of a given religion.


The stimulus for favorable unfolding of Eternal Intent from beyond the boundary logically includes the quality of the individual intent.


I seek an acknowledgement that the natural and invariant laws that enable the Eternal Intent of the ISU, will serve as the quintessential source of hope and council for all who have faith that there is Eternal Intent.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_09_17_3_43_32.jpeg

 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

It seems fitting to include a post with some wider thinking in this thread that already has so much broad speculation …

One could be of the conviction that there are an infinite number of other places across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe, where the lifeforms are quite similar as they are here and now. The circumstances and scenarios could be very much like any that ever were or will be, anywhere, any time.

Such a conviction would allow the sound logic of the highly evolved life forms participating there to come to similar conclusions about a common denominator of invariant natural laws (like those of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)) and about some view of reality conveyed in a  philosophy derived therefrom, (like Eternal Intent). It would be triggered when evolution plays out to some threshold, though not to conclude that such a threshold occurs at the highest limit of evolution. Such a threshold would only be a common point that evolving lifeforms would inadvertently share. Each such point would lead to new and different paths from that which our human life form here on Earth might take.

The question that lead off this thread, “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”, brings with it the idea of infinite possibilities, constrained only by the sameness of the invariant natural laws (albeit the natural laws are a major constraint, compared to the Many Worlds interpretation of QM). Anything not in violation of the invariant natural laws is a possible scenario, and if it is possible, there is no reason why it would only have one unique occurrence, in a universe of infinite space and time.

That eternal sameness would apply not just to the physical accommodations of habitable planets hosting intelligent lifeforms in secluded solar systems across ours and every galaxy in every Big Bang arena, but the events experienced by those who live in those diverse places would take on a general sameness too, but with each life having their own unique individuality in many respects, based on the infinite possibilities.

… and that type of broad unrestrained speculation is admittedly the hallmark of the ISU, and Eternal Intent. Bogie smiles.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reference the following post: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71308.msg524716#msg524716. In that post, as a follow up question, I was asking if it could be said that all space is filled with as yet undetectable gravitational waves. The answer is important to this thread because the ISU model considers that axiomatic, i.e., necessary to justify additional content, as I posted in Reply #17, which said:




Reply #17
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on May 16, 2017, 09:53:29 am
… I have posted that the existence of the universe can be characterize by invoking, as axiomatic, what I call the three infinities of space, time, and wave energy. That means that the universe had no beginning, is spatially infinite, has always existed, and all space is filled with wave energy; everything in the universe is composed of wave energy, and wave-particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments. The two action processes, arena action and quantum action, function based on various invariant natural limits and thresholds of wave energy density. Wave energy takes the form of light waves and gravitational waves.
[End of cut and paste]


By way of this post, I am claiming some physical evidence to support the speculation throughout this thread that all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, albeit only the most cataclysmic events produce detectible gravitational waves. The referenced exchange in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum shows a couple of instances of support for the idea that even apples falling from the tree cause gravitational waves.


It is important to point out that the generally accepted science accounting for the detection of those massive events, accomplished by the LIGO interferometers, has to do with General Relativity Theory, and the prediction that gravitational waves cause length contraction. The ISU agrees that the delicate interferometers of the LIGO apparatuses can detect gravity waves, but in the ISU, it isn’t length contraction that causes the interferometers to set off the alarm, it is the change in the wave energy density of the space along the LIGO apparatuses arms as the high energy waves pass at the speed of light. That momentary change in wave energy density affects the rate that the laser light in the two arms of the LIGO detectors traverses the the space along each arm, one after the other, as it passes.
 

[guest39538]

Give me your idea in one statement please:

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Give me your idea in one statement please:

I understand where you are coming from. This thread probably contains over 50,000 words, most of which elaborate on the various ideas that make up the ISU model. Are you asking me to summarize one specific idea, or the whole model? I recall suggesting you start with reply #16, since that reply does a good job of summarizing the model, and touches on the most important ideas included:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357

[guest39538]

Give me your idea in one statement please:

I understand where you are coming from. This thread probably contains over 50,000 words, most of which elaborate on the various ideas that make up the ISU model. Are you asking me to summarize one specific idea, or the whole model? I recall suggesting you start with reply #16, since that reply does a good job of summarizing the model, and touches on the most important ideas included:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357

There is too much to read and understand with so many words.  Can you write an abstract?   I write my abstract first to get the point across of my idea.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

There is too much to read and understand with so many words.  Can you write an abstract?   I write my abstract first to get the point across of my idea.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .

Are you saying that reply #16 is too much to read? I suggest you try to take it a little at a time, but maybe we are not destined to communicate about my model. If not, that is understandable, and it is quite alternative anyway.

[guest39538]

There is too much to read and understand with so many words.  Can you write an abstract?   I write my abstract first to get the point across of my idea.
Then write the rest according to my abstract .

Are you saying that reply #16 is too much to read? I suggest you try to take it a little at a time, but maybe we are not destined to communicate about my model. If not, that is understandable, and it is quite alternative anyway.

I did read post 16, I just did not understand your idea.  I kind of understand things from a single paragraph , so if you can write a short abstract explaining your idea then I might just get it.   I can tell you that the word sponge would conform to my N-field theory.   Likewise fields being sponge like to each other .  So I am interested in your views and we do agree on several things.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I did read post 16, I just did not understand your idea.  I kind of understand things from a single paragraph , so if you can write a short abstract explaining your idea then I might just get it.   I can tell you that the word sponge would conform to my N-field theory.   Likewise fields being sponge like to each other .  So I am interested in your views and we do agree on several things.

Thank you for the reply.

The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it. For example, in deep space, the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space is very low, relative to the amount of wave energy contained in the same volume of space in the proximity of a massive object, like the sun. In the model, the sun, and all objects with mass, emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, and that inflow and outflow represents a continual process that maintains the presence of the massive objects and their constituent wave-particles. Therefore, the inflow and out flow action near the sun features a high amount of gravitational wave energy coming and going, but then, in accord with the inverse square law, the same volume of space in a far removed location in deep space would contain much lower wave energy density. Hence, the universe is “spongy”.

[guest39538]

The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it.

The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it. For example, in deep space, the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space is very low, relative to the amount of wave energy contained in the same volume of space in the proximity of a massive object,

To me you are not really explaining a few things, what is the energy traversing through space?   Also the word contain does not seem correct. The second part would also not be true, you are assuming there is no other bodies in deep space.   Your wording is rather strange but I think you are just describing the inverse square law but in your own way .  The transverse to a point source getting denser rather than weaker in magnitude as in the inverse square law.
Is this what you are describing? 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

To me you are not really explaining a few things, what is the energy traversing through space?


Also the word contain does not seem correct.

You ask, what is the energy …


It is wave energy, like electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves.


If I read that question as,

“what is the energy traversing through …

… then it is traversing through space, true, but space is not empty in my model. Space is filled with wave energy, and so every point in space contains some level of wave energy density. Therefore any given wave of light or gravity would be traversing through space that already contains other wave energy traversing it at the same time from various directions.


The use of the word “contains” can be equated to the volume of a given space, say a one gallon jar. The wave energy contained in that space can be equated to the number of what ever is contained in the jar; say the jar contains jelly beans. The one gallon jar that contains jelly beans can contain anywhere from one or two, up to about 5000 jelly beans. If we equate the bean density of the gallon jar, to the wave energy density of a gallon sized volume of space, then one or two beans per gallon is very low, and might equate to nature’s minimum wave energy density, perhaps like the deep space in my former example. On the other hand, if the jar contains a full 5000 jelly beans, then that would represent nature’s maximum jelly bean density, which would equate to the wave energy density at the core of a collapsing Big Crunch, nature's highest wave energy density environment in my model.

The second part would also not be true, you are assuming there is no other bodies in deep space.   Your wording is rather strange but I think you are just describing the inverse square law but in your own way .  The transverse to a point source getting denser rather than weaker in magnitude as in the inverse square law.
Is this what you are describing? 

I’m really not assuming that there are no other bodies in deep space. I’m saying that there a locations in space where there is a lot of mass nearby, like near the sun in our solar system, and there are places in space far removed from any nearby massive bodies. For example, can you imagine being between two galaxies, not in either one. That is deep space, and the local wave energy density there is much lower than in our solar system within the Milky Way galaxy.


I don’t deny that my wording can sound rather strange. It is because I know the subject matter, and so I might not pay enough attention to the fact that others don’t know the material.


The reference to the inverse square law was a simple use of the phrase, not intended to be complicated application of the law. In the example I used, the greater the distance between our local environment near the sun, and that of deep space, would have an inverse square effect on the energy density in those two places.

[guest39538]

It is wave energy, like electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves.

It is electromagnetic radiation but it is only pE (potential energy).