[guest39538]

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

That is how field strength ''density'' works.   The greater the radius away the lesser the affect of the field.   What you are talking about is electromagnetic fields where each point source is the centre of its own independent field and at its densest point.  I know you may think you have discovered something new, but I feel you are explaining present information but in your own interpretation of that information.
I am not sure you are offering anything new. Do not take this as a negative , it is good to understand the Universe in our own minds our own way. 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

That is how field strength ''density'' works.   The greater the radius away the lesser the affect of the field.   What you are talking about is electromagnetic fields where each point source is the centre of its own independent field and at its densest point.  I know you may think you have discovered something new, but I feel you are explaining present information but in your own interpretation of that information.
I am not sure you are offering anything new. Do not take this as a negative , it is good to understand the Universe in our own minds our own way. 

Thanks for the encouragement.

You may think I am boasting about new discoveries, but that is not the case. It is true that I would claim my model has several unique features, and the main aspects are put together uniquely, but if you started by reading reply #16, would should have picked up the fact that the model contains known science, plus my own speculations about “as yet” unknown science. None of it is supposed to come across sounding like I am claiming any new discoveries, and I do say that I have no extraordinary evidence. They are speculations and hypotheses.

In addition, it is a little too soon for you to conclude that there is noting new in the speculations.

Never the less, your point about field strength density surrounding and spreading out from a point source could sufficiently characterize a light wave, and even gravitational waves for that matter. However, you are equating what I call a spherically expanding light wave front spreading out from a point source, to an electromagnetic field, if I understand you correctly. I do address that topic, but we are not there yet.

The “front” is a boundary between the wave energy of the expanding wave, as it intrudes into the space occupied by adjacent expanding wave fronts. That automatically causes wave convergences, which are quite important in the model.

[guest39538]

you are equating what I call a spherically expanding light wave front spreading out from a point source, to an electromagnetic field,

The word you should be using for a spherical expansion is isotropic, the electromagnetic field permeates isotropic through space. I know you will not understand this, the electromagnetic field is ''light'', waves are an invert of the field, a force feedback.

In addition, it is a little too soon for you to conclude that there is noting new in the speculations.

That is correct.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The word you should be using for a spherical expansion is isotropic, the electromagnetic field permeates isotropic through space. I know you will not understand this, the electromagnetic field is ''light'', waves are an invert of the field, a force feedback.

Thank you for that suggestion, and that may be the case, but I define light differently than that because I want to put it into the context of the outflowing wave energy from the photon wave-particle; photons have mass in the ISU. You may not be ready to begin looking at my version of the wave-particle (you may never be, lol), but if you are interested to get a preview, see reply #68 …
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770

… where I begin to describe the wave-particle. Also pertinent to your post, in reply #107, I address electromagnetism in the context of Max Planck’s depiction:

From reply #107: “Reported here, some known physics, paraphrased from the section on electromagnetic radiation in, Chemistry - Matter and Its Changes, by Brady, Russell & Holum, Riley & Sons, 2000. It shows how compatible the ISU wave mechanics are with known physics in regard to the electromagnetic radiation of the hydrogen atom. “Max Planck depicted EM as the emitted quanta or packets of energy called photons, where each photon “pulses” with a frequency as it travels with the speed of light.”

I count you among the Naked Scientist “science enthusiasts”, but admit that this model may be too “alternative” for most, and that is okay. Like you said, “It is good to understand the Universe in our own minds our own way.” I share it in hopes of getting into discussions like this, which help me learn and grow the model.


To jump ahead, I define light as the out flowing gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave-particle. An electromagnetic event emits photons, and as photon wave-particles traverse space, they emit out flowing gravitational wave energy, which is light. Remember that my model is quite alternative.


By the way, we are going to see Neil deGrasse Tyson tonight.

[guest39538]

I define light as the out flowing gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave-particle.

If I am being totally objective and unbiased towards my own notions,  I would answer the quoted with a question about proofs.

I would ask you to provide ''solid'' evidence of a Photons existence?

To me the physics about Photons are mostly of the imagination. I do understand you put packet but you do mention Photon.  So I would want you to provide proof.

Also I would  ask you to explain what you mean by light?    The dark energy type of light which is invisible or the visible of light , the spectrum we can see. Light is a rather general term .

Also what do you mean by out flowing gravitation wave?  Gravitation is inwards , it would have to be an inwards flowing wave.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If I am being totally objective and unbiased towards my own notions,  I would answer the quoted with a question about proofs.

I would ask you to provide ''solid'' evidence of a Photons existence?

To me the physics about Photons are mostly of the imagination. I do understand you put packet but you do mention Photon.  So I would want you to provide proof.

Also I would  ask you to explain what you mean by light?    The dark energy type of light which is invisible or the visible of light , the spectrum we can see. Light is a rather general term .

Also what do you mean by out flowing gravitation wave?  Gravitation is inwards , it would have to be an inwards flowing wave.

Thank you for the comments and questions. One of the axioms in my model is that the amount of wave energy in the universe is infinite.

From that axiom, I derive the details of the wave-particle in my model. That derivation includes photons that are classified as wave-particles, so photons depend on an axiom in my model, i.e., I can’t prove their exact characteristics beyond their generally accepted existence, but I do speculate about those characteristics.

My model is composed of both known science, and speculations. That said, photons in my model are justified in three ways: 1) They are generally accepted science, 2) They are derived from the axioms, as explained above, and 3) They are speculative in regard to their being standing wave-particles, with mass, that have inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components.

As part of the model, I define the out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave-particle as light (the generally accepted electromagnetic spectrum that includes both light that is visible to the naked eye, and light that is not visible to the naked eye) that has a frequency associated with the energy (in quanta) of the photon wave-particle that emits the wave.

[guest39538]

One of the axioms in my model is that the amount of wave energy in the universe is infinite.

The problem with this Bogie, an axiom by definition is something that is self evidently true. Infinite is not self evidently true so neither could be an infinite energy.
So claiming it is an axiom would be falsifiable.

Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. ... In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The problem with this Bogie, an axiom by definition is something that is self evidently true. Infinite is not self evidently true so neither could be an infinite energy.


Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. ... In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

You are siting the correct definition of an axiom from the perspective of classical philosophy which is a narrow application.


Have a look at a broader definition:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom


Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]
The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4] My bold.
Footnote [4] says: “A proposition (whether true or false)" axiom, n., definition 2. Oxford English Dictionary Online, accessed 2012-04-28.

So claiming it is an axiom would be falsifiable.

Your basis for saying it would be falsifiable might be true from the perspective of classical philosophy, but from the perspective of modern logic, and in theoretical physics and cosmology, the fact that it is not self evident is not a falsification. An axiom can simply be a statement that is considered either self evident, or necessary for the derivation theorems or subsequent reasoning. The latter is how I am using the axioms.


The question of the infinity of space is considered unfalsifiable.

[guest39538]

The question of the infinity of space is considered unfalsifiab

That would be a false statement.   The infinite of space is not shown to be true or not true. There is a 50/50 option.

1)With  boundaries

2) Without boundaries

So ''Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true''   

An infinite space is a statement that is neither true or false. You would have to provide some logic that shows space to be infinite making the statement true.  We can not just say things are true without some form of proof , logical or evident based to confirm the truth.

I do think space is  infinite myself but could I prove it? Not really

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

That would be a false statement.   The infinite of space is not shown to be true or not true. There is a 50/50 option.

1)With  boundaries

2) Without boundaries

So ''Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true''   

An infinite space is a statement that is neither true or false. You would have to provide some logic that shows space to be infinite making the statement true.  We can not just say things are true without some form of proof , logical or evident based to confirm the truth.

I do think space is  infinite myself but could I prove it? Not really

I can accept that fact that you object to the axiom that space is infinite, and would just move on. But I am comforted by the fact that you too think it is infinite; so I assume you consider it reasonable.

To go back a bit, in reply #124 you questioned the existence of photons, to which I responded in reply #125 with several points supporting my recognition of the existence of photons and ended that post by saying, “As part of the model, I define the out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave-particle as light (the generally accepted electromagnetic spectrum that includes both light that is visible to the naked eye, and light that is not visible to the naked eye) that has a frequency associated with the energy (in quanta) of the photon wave-particle that emits the wave.”

Moving past your objection as to how I use axioms, the model accepts the existence of photons, and describes them as wave-particles with mass. Do you have any interest, comments, or objection to the wave-particle nature of particles as I describe them?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #130
Wave mechanics in the ISU


To facilitate the reading of this complex but important ISU content post, I’ll state the conclusion at the beginning and again at the end … with no mercy in regard to the number of words.


Conclusion: Spherical light wave fronts originate from a point source, initially the emission of a photon wave-particle that has electric and magnetic properties, and subsequently the emission of the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon wave-particle as it traverses space. The light wavefront expands spherically, enabled by the oscillating background, and in a similar fashion to the Huygens effect with ISU modifications. The photon wave-particles produce an electric current and a magnetic field along their path, while the spherical light wave emitted by the photon wave-particle is a gravitational wave, just like the gravitational waves emitted by all wave-particles.






By way of introduction, there is an electric aspect to light, which means there is a current flow associated with particle motion along the path of the photon, as it traverses the oscillating background of space. That current is the same effect that I attribute to the gyroscope-like characteristic of spin in the direction of motion as measured by Stern-Gerlach devices, as described in replies #89 - #91. It is accompanied by a transverse magnetic field according to the invariant laws of nature (a moving electric current produces a magnetic field), but the electric current drives the magnetic field and is the primary event in the advance of the light wave front through the oscillating background. The current flow is occurring along the path, and the path takes the photon from one oscillation site to another (the tiniest of distances, much like a discrete increment, but with a variable aspect associated with the local wave energy density which varies according to the intensity of the meaningful local wave action).


Note: it is appropriate to establish some explanation for the presence of the oscillating background if I am using it in association with the advance of the light wave front and the generation of the electric field. I offered the ISU explanation for the oscillating background in reply #65 & reply #69, and I find it appropriate now to refer back to it because I have some added thinking about the electromagnetic nature of light and the distinction between the light wave and the gravitational wave that came up lately, indirectly as a result of viewing the Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox video, and contemplations and research on polarization (it is the photon core portions, the “particle” part of the wave-particle that are filtered by the polarized filter; the wave part just goes through all the openings in the filter regardless of the orientation of the filter or filters):

...   and as a result of recent discussions about LIGO gravitational wave discoveries accompanied by gamma ray burst of light.


That video is another of the often occurring efforts to make quantum mechanics out to be something spooky; something that can’t be explained in the context of a local reality, but instead must either invoke non-locality, or faster that light communications between entangled particles. In that vain, I addressed the famous Aspect experiments that are used to support the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics via my replies #71 - #74. I offered comments and analysis of the single particle, two slit, quantum erasure experiments, and came to the conclusion that the wave-particle nature of particles in the ISU offers a solution to any Copenhagen paradox implied by the experiments without having to rely on superposition of states; both the wave state and the particle state are present at all times in the ISU wave-particle.


Never-the-less, I keep reviewing my conclusions in the light of my continued enthusiasm, and that leads to what I think are improvements to the ISU model, which is the gist of this post about the electric and magnetic aspects of the advance of light and gravity through the oscillations. The individual oscillations each have wave energy flows at work as they intersect and form third waves, and that tiniest of wave action generates the tiniest of electric and magnetic fields. The motion of the photon through the oscillations excites the level of oscillation active locally and thus increases the electric and magnetic fields along the path of the photon.


Remember that light waves and gravity waves are the outflowing gravitational component of the wave-particle, but the separation between light and gravity is that the particle that emits light is traveling at the speed of light, and producing electric and magnetic fields along a straight path, while the other gravity waves are emitted by particles that themselves are traveling at sub light speed, even essentially at rest locally, and are not associated with electromagnetism. The importance of that distinction is that the photon gets all of its inflowing wave energy component from the direction of motion through space, and therefore it follows the highest net wave energy density path, a curved path, through the wave energy density profile of space, as mentioned in reply #35. Both light waves and gravitational wave traverse the oscillating background of space at the local speed of light.


The oscillation sites that the light wave is passed along through are continually refreshing each other, essentially in place, because they are the lowest order of wave convergences possible, and they exist because when waves intersect they produce “third waves”, and waves have been intersecting throughout the eternal past, and so if nature has a minimum level or limit of tiny wave action, which it does in the ISU, then there is an oscillating background which serves to advance more meaningful light and gravity waves.


The advance of the photon wave particle is assisted by the new third waves occurring in the oscillating background as a result of the presence and passing of the more meaningful light waves emitted by the passing photon wave-particle, because each point of intersection between the wave energy that makes up the photon wave-particle, and an oscillation occurring in the background, serve to advance the energy of the photon from the current site of oscillation to the adjacent sites of oscillation.


We are talking Huygens 17th century, and Fresnel and Kirchhoff from the 19th century. Huygens theorized that each point on a propagating wave front could be characterized as a new spherical wave. He called them secondary spherical “wavelets”, which are quite like the “third waves” in the ISU model. Some people considered it a disadvantage of the theory that the wavelets propagated spherically, which meant both forward to the direction of the light wave expansion, and backward in the direction the light wave expansion had come. Fresnel and Kirchhoff are said to have later solved that problem, and I need to study that solution, but in the ISU, the function of the spherical wavelets are replaced by the oscillations and the third waves, so the backward part of the third wave not problematic. The backward part of the third wave (Huygens’ wavelet) is expanding into higher wave energy density than the forward part of the third wave as a simple result of the higher wave energy density of the trailing “parent” wave relative to the density of the third wave being encountered. The slower expansion backward into the higher wave energy than the forward expansion into the lower wave energy density mitigates the problem in the ISU.




https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdf
Huygens effect
“The spherical wave is the basic wave for light propagation using Huygens’ principle. In 1678, Christiaan Huygens theorized a model for light propagation that claimed that each point on a propagating wavefront (regardless of “shape”) could be assumed to be a source of a new spherical wave. The sum of these secondary spherical “wavelets” produced the subsequent wavefronts. Huygens’ principle had the glaring disadvantage that these secondary spherical wavefronts propagated “backwards” as well as forwards. This problem was later solved by Fresnel and Kirchhoff in the 19th century. With that correction, the Huygens’ model provides a very useful model for light propagation that naturally leads to expressions for “diffracted” light.”








And now to the magnetic field associated with the advanced of light. There is a magnetic aspect to light, which means that as the electric current flows along the path of the photon, it generates a magnetic field perpendicular to the path. Like the advance of the wave front, the oscillations in the background assist the generation of the fields.


With the above introduction, this post revises the ISU version of the electromagnetic nature of light as it advances through space, so let me write it in one paragraph for TheBox, :0. Next time I do a complete ISU update, I’ll fold all of the new content from this thread into a more orderly presentation of the model, keyed on the reply references.


Conclusion: Spherical light wave fronts originate from a point source, initially the emission of a photon wave-particle that has electric and magnetic properties, and subsequently the emission of the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon wave-particle as it traverses space. The light wavefront expands spherically, enabled by the oscillating background, and in a similar fashion to the Huygens effect with ISU modifications. The photon wave-particles produce an electric current and a magnetic field along their path, while the spherical light wave emitted by the photon wave-particle is a gravitational wave, just like the gravitational waves emitted by all wave-particles.


Edit 11/12/17: Please refer to subsequent thought in reply #223.




https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg

[guest39538]

as it traverses the oscillating background of space.

Subjective , without any sort of proofs.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

as it traverses the oscillating background of space.

Subjective , without any sort of proofs.

True. I have explained before that these are my own views, with all of the disclaimers about it being layman level speculations for discussion.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

http://www.hq.eso.org/public/news/eso1733/









Is there an explanation for the puzzling perspective of the wave energy density profile of space?

There should be a description of the profile of space to introduce this question, so let’s start with a comment that I suppose to be true:

Pick any point in space that can reasonably be occupied by an observer, and light and gravitational wave energy will be passing through that point from all directions at any given time. I would call the wave energy that is passing that point the light and gravitational wave energy in the local profile of space. You could refer to the light wave energy as the light wave energy profile, and the gravitational wave energy as the gravitational wave energy profile. Combined, they would be called the wave energy profile of space.

The logic behind that supposition, in regard to light wave energy, is that it is reasonable to believe that light can be seen from any point in space that an observer could reasonably occupy. In regard to gravitational wave energy, LIGO and the ESO are picking up evidence of gravitational wave energy from massive events occurring in distant galaxies, maybe millions, or even billions of light years away. It is not unreasonable to believe that massive events are emitting gravitational waves all the time, but they don’t all have enough energy to trigger the LIGO alarm.

The Wave Energy Profile of Space: If you are observing all wave energy passing a given point in space, light and gravitational waves will be passing through that point from all directions, at all times. That point in space has a profile that consists of all of the wave energy not only just reaching that point now, but all wave energy heading toward that point in space at the speed of light, from all directions; call it the impending wave energy that will bear on that point over time. And to wrap up the explanation of the profile of space, every light wave and every gravitational wave in the impending wave energy that will bear on that point over time has, or had, a distant origin where an event occurred that produced the wave energy. It is those distant sources that have produced, and are continually producing the wave energy profile of that single point in space.

If there are no objections, I will go on to add the concept of wave energy density to the description of the wave energy profile of space, and thus give an explanation for the Wave Energy Density Profile of Space, a concept useful in understanding the infinite Spongy Universe model.


To be continued ...

[atbsphotography]

Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.

I definitely like your thinking there, and it supports my conclusion that each Big Bang has preconditions. Please read reply #16, and feel free to comment (see #16 at following link): https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I see there are no objections to the concept of the wave energy profile of space that I updated in reply #133, so let me expand that concept to include the wave energy density issue. Again, let’s take up a position at a point in space, where I get no objection that light and gravitational wave energy is coming from all directions at all times. That is acknowledging the full description in the last post of the Wave Energy Profile of Space, including the impending wave energy that is in transit toward that point, and acknowledging the distant sources that have emitted the wave energy that will reach that point at any given instant.

The density of the wave energy coming from each distant source is potentially different, based on how energetic the emission of the wave was back at the source, and how far away that emission was from the point in space that we are observing. A source emitting a radio wave would produce a low energy density light wave, while a source emitting a gamma ray burst would be producing a high energy density light wave. The duration of the wave energy from those two sources could be very different. A momentary gamma ray blast vs a continuous radio wave emission would be a meaningful difference in the wave energy density profile over time. That difference will have been in the impending wave energy right up until the waves reached our point of observation.

The inverse square law comes into play. The further away the source of the wave is from our observation point, the less energy that wave will have, relative to its energy at its origin, when it reaches the observation point. When we add the density concept to the directional sources of light and gravitational wave energy, the amount of energy passing our observation point from the directional sources is diminished by 1/distance^2.. We aren’t going to be harnessing star light any time soon from any star other than our own sun. But never-the-less, there is energy arriving at our point of observation from those distant sources, and the arriving energy has a vector from the source, that points to and ends up at our observation point. The vector is curved in the ISU, because the path of wave energy from the source to the observation point is curved as a result of continual relative motion of the sources. The impending wave energy takes a curved path through space to get to the observation point, though the expansion of the wave energy heading our way is characterized as spherical (remember the analogy of the Spherical Cow, mentioned a couple of times earlier).

Let’s take a crack at describing the Wave Energy Density Profile of Space, as it relates of our observation point:

The Wave Energy Density Profile of Space:

If you are observing all wave energy passing a given point in space, light and gravitational waves will be passing through that point from all directions, at all times. Each vector from around the entire inflowing wave energy sphere has a unique energy density, governed by the amount of energy of the source event, the duration of that event, and the distance between the event and our point of observation.

Light and gravity are considered to have an infinite reach, and so the greater source of the impending wave energy at our observation point covers the entire universe. Our wave energy density profile is unique based on our observation point, but is not unique universally, because every point in space has a different wave energy density profile at any point in time, and for all points, that profile is constantly changing. Therefore, there isn't any absolute arrangement of the individual points; we are talking about any point, chosen by any means, and there is no reason to believe that if you leave that point you will ever be able to return to it precisely, there is no absolute arrangement of points in space (but that is another topic).

The wave energy density of the selected observation point in space has a wave energy density profile that consists of all of the wave energy of various densities, not only just reaching that point now, but including all wave energy heading toward that point in space at the speed of light, from all directions; call it the impending wave energy density that will bear on that point over time, with varying wave energy densities by vector.




To try to state the whole of the explanation of the wave energy density profile of space in one paragraph, every light wave and every gravitational wave in the impending wave energy density that will bear on a particular observation point, over time, has, or had, a distant origin where an event occurred that produced the wave energy. The amount of the wave energy in every vector of the inflowing sphere of impending wave energy is governed by the intensity of the event, the duration of the event, and the distance between the event and our point of observation. The inverse square law is in play, reducing the amount of energy reaching our point of observation, relative to the energy of the source and the distant from the source. The wave energy density profile of that point in space is made up of the all of the energy along each of the vectors around the sphere, centered by our point of observation, and each vector is like a spear of energy; a stream of wave energy focused on a point of observation, and all of the impending spears are continually passing through the single observation point, all the time. Let it be said that space contains wave energy at the speed of light, everywhere, but the thing that lets  space host particles, also composed of wave energy traveling at the speed of light, is that the speed of light is relative to the local wave energy density, and that density within a particle space is extreme relative to open space, so the energy contained within a particle space is time-delayed due to the density; the presence of the wave-particle is thus maintained.

Note: The impending wave energy density that is arriving from those distant sources, in the case of light waves, is in the form of photon wave-particles, as well as in the form of curved wave fronts from the spherical wave energy emissions of the emitted wave-particles. Generally, the wave-particles of the non-light speed sources, i.e., other than photons, are wave fronts from the source, emitted in quantum increments from the surface of the particles making up the source, or emitted by the source at non-relativistive velocities (except neutrinos which could be at light speed). Refer to reply #130 for more on the wave-particle discussion.

From that definition of the wave energy density profile of space, there are a variety of implications relevant to the nature of the ISU model.

To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

This is a reply to TheBox, on one of his threads, that pertains to the discussion in reply #136, and so I am copying to here.

The thing that massive objects have in common that directly relates to your question, and to a quantum solution to gravity, is that particles and objects are composed of wave energy, in quantum increments. How does that make all mass accelerate at the same rate on Earth?

1) There is an inflowing and an out flowing gravitational wave energy component to all wave-particles, and therefore to all mass which is composed of wave particles. 
2) There is a wave energy density profile in all space, consisting of the out flowing gravitational wave energy emissions in the surrounding space, that governs the directional (gravitational) motion of objects in that local space. It is that density that is the same for all objects in the local space.
3) The sameness of the gravitational wave energy density in the local space governs the rate that wave-particles emit and absorb gravitational wave energy into and from the wave energy density profile of the local space that surrounds them.
4) The emission and absorption of gravitational wave energy by wave-particles is proportional the their mass, and so all objects have the same mass to gravity relationship when they are in the space with the same gravitation wave energy density.

To be continued …

[atbsphotography]

Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.

I definitely like your thinking there, and it supports my conclusion that each Big Bang has preconditions. Please read reply #16, and feel free to comment (see #16 at the following link): https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357

As preconditions go I agree, though again in retrospect for my hypothesis to work the light matter and dark matter both have to satisfy a few variables. Namely;
Mass- Both would have to have a constant and increasingly dense mass condensed to a small diameter.
Velocity- Both masses would need to be careering towards one another with the same velocity or within the nearest velocity to each other. For example, if the light matter was travelling slower than the dark matter it could hypothetically deflect from the dark matter instead of colliding.
Time- This is a difficult one because time would need to begin in the immediate seconds after the big bang. But for the sake of theoretical hypothesis if the two matters were not in the same piece of space and time the big bang may not have happened. The time and space between them would have needed to have been constant and decreasing. But if they were in a different piece of space and time they would not have been on a collision course with one another.
Gravitational pull- Now this one isn't really a variable so to speak but one that could help in theory, now mass comes hand in hand with gravity. As we all know the more mass the more gravity and vice versa. Therefore if light matter and dark matter are both measured in mass, they should both have gravity, now the light matter on its own would only exert gravity on itself but add dark matter into that mix and the light matter would exert a gravitational force over the dark matter when it is within range. So, in theory, the same could be said for dark matter, it is a form of mass and therefore must have gravity exerted unto itself. This dark gravity would, in theory, pull the light matter towards itself and the light matter would then pull the dark matter towards itself as well.
So within reason, if all these variables are met the resulting explosion would more or less have been powerful enough to create the big bang and all space and time in between.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

As preconditions go I agree, though again in retrospect for my hypothesis to work the light matter and dark matter both have to satisfy a few variables. …

… So within reason, if all these variables are met the resulting explosion would more or less have been powerful enough to create the big bang and all space and time in between.

I'm going to refer you to replies #85, 86, and 87 in this thread for some discussion on the points that your raise. See if there is anything there, or in the links to the recent papers published by the DES, that help you clarify or more fully express your required variables.
Link to reply #85: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg520033#msg520033