[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #240
Background logic leading to the “third wave” concept, part 1


In reply #239 I referred to some “pertinent logic” that goes along with the ISU equation that tracks the progress of a third wave as it becomes quantum. The fact that the equation works the same at all three levels of order indicates that I consider all three levels of order to be quantized, and that thinking fits perfectly with the sameness doctrine. But there is a lot of history associated with the development of the levels, and of the third wave concepts, and to me, an interesting sequence of ideas and logic took place before reaching those conclusions.

The early forum discussions I participated in were about possible preconditions to our Big Bang, and one question on my mind at the time was the same question I used for the title of this thread, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs”.

What has evolved from exploring that question is a set of layman level views about cosmology, based on a methodology of reasonable and responsible speculation, that is portrayed as a layman science enthusiast's “model”. The methodology is also intended to assure that the ISU model is not inconsistent with known scientific observations and data, and that topic is always open for discussion.

That on-going effort, through updates like this, sometimes seems to have reached a point where it is generally palatable, but I’m sure it is not entirely acceptable to any layman level science enthusiasts. Feel free to comment, criticize, and/or point out inconsistencies. The model comes with disclaimers like this throughout, and is not misrepresented as science done by professionals, so as to avoid the eventuality that anyone might be lead to accept any of it without question (and I’m sure no one does).

That said, I can’t remember when I first posed the question in the title of this thread (twelve or fifteen years ago), but it followed that if there were multiple big bangs going on at the same time, then logically there would have to be a greater universe, and our expanding big bang was just a local arena; part of a big-bang arena landscape.

Given multiple expanding arenas, then there would logically be two or more big bang arenas expanding into the same space here and there, i.e., big bang arena intersections and overlaps. That thinking was the beginning of the ISU model.

When visualizing the expanding big bang arenas, intersecting and overlapping, you really can’t go far without contemplating the logic of a gravitational accumulation of galactic material and energy as the parent arenas engage in a swirling “rendezvous”. That thinking formed the logic for a gravitational “big crunch” at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

To me, that was fine progress in those early days of questioning Big Bang Theory, while learning generally accepted science, and developing the ISU model. I stalled there for quite sometime, while I studied and posted about layman level physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and various ideas about a solution to quantum gravity, all motivated by the question that was bugging me all that time; what could cause a big crunch to “bang”.

To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #241
Background logic leading to the “third wave” concept, part 2


From reply #240:
“I stalled there for quite sometime, while I studied and posted about layman level physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and various ideas about a solution to quantum gravity, all motivated by the question that was bugging me all that time; what could cause a big crunch to ‘bang’?”.
---


I figured out a layman level solution to the collapse/bang of a big crunch, and it involves the concept of the wave-particle:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg


The wave-particle composition, being the standing wave concept of two components, the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components, presents a picture of wave-particles that individually occupy a lot of space, relative to the wave energy that they contain. The collapse of a big crunch occurs under gravitational compression, causing the individual particles in it to give up their individual space, and collapse temporarily into nature’s most extreme wave energy density, the dense-state of wave energy at the core of the big crunch as it collapses.


Aside from the Big Bang arena level of order in the ISU, two other levels of order were designated as a result of the layman level solution to the collapse of a big crunch.  One is the quantum level of order called quantum action (not to be confused with Planck’s quantum of action), as it applies to wave-particles and quantum gravity. The process of quantum action, like arena action, involves the formation of “third waves” in the overlap space between two or more “parent” quantum waves.


The third level of order is the oscillating background level where the third wave is involved in the process that assists with the advance of light and gravitational waves through the oscillating background of space.


A discussion of the third wave concept wouldn’t be complete without mentioning its role in my layman level solution to quantum gravity. Each high energy density spot that forms at the intersection and overlap of quantum level waves in the wave-particle’s standing wave pattern is momentary, from which emerges a new expanding third wave. The new wave is quantum, meaning it contains a wave-particle level quantum of energy. The amount of energy in that quantum is governed by the local wave energy density and quantum action process that is taking place all over in that local space, involving the “meaningful” waves at that level of order.


Quantum gravity is the motion of the particle as all of its high energy density spots in its complex standing wave pattern are refreshed continually, which involves the new quantum waves converging around the outer reaches of the patterns. The motion of the wave-particle reflects what is described as the wave energy density profile of the local space, mentioned frequently.


The concept is that the new high energy density spots, that together make up the mass of the wave-particle, will form more frequently in the direction of the net highest wave energy density path in the wave energy density profile of the surrounding space. As the wave-particle moves, they continually return the directional wave energy that they have absorbed from space, to the wave energy density profile of space, but it is emitted and returned spherically, and it expands throughout the local space spherically as it becomes part of the ever-changing local wave energy density profile of space.


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #242
Black holes in the ISU


Why is there is likely to be a black hole at the center of most galaxies?

In the ISU, that discussion starts by talking about the huge hydrogen stars that began to form after the big bang event that initiated our local arena. The process began after the wave of hot, dense, plasma expanded and cooled to where particle formation took place across the entire arena, spreading like the formation of frost on the window pane.

Those first round stars formed easily in the close quarters of the dense hydrogen rich space in the early formation period, as the expansion  was constrained by the density of the young arena.

Most galaxies that exist today are second round expressions of that early first round of massive hydrogen stars. They burned their fuel rapidly and went supernova, ejecting most of their mass into the surrounding space as plasma, dust, debris, etc.

However, at the center of the supernovae, were heavy remnants of the original massive hydrogen stars; black holes that serve as the central gravitational region for the formation of a galaxy around themselves, out of the star forming remnants of their hot dust cloud.

Just like the entire early big bang arena served as a monster hydrogen star factory, those dense hot dust clouds surrounding the remnant black holes become star factories. Each huge hydrogen star contained the mass equivalent to produce hundreds of billions of stars. Those young stars contain heavy nuclei formed within the first round massive stars and they burn much more slowly.

The massive presence of the black hole at the center of the new galaxy can sometimes be detected by observing individual stars orbiting it.

In this scenario, the ISU does not invoke the Big Bang Theory/General Relativity idea that space is expanding or stretching. It is true that using certain “standard candles” and raw redshift data, we detect the expansion of the observable universe. The observed galaxies are generally moving away from each other, and at an accelerating rate. In the ISU they are said to have separation momentum.


The cause of the separation momentum comes from the fact that as particles formed during the expansion following the big bang, they were imparted with separation momentum, and as a result, they were already moving wave from each other as they formed, because they formed in an expanding arena environment. However, in the close quarters of the dense early arena, local gravity overcame the separation momentum, and accounts for the hydrogen clumping into those massive first round hydrogen stars.

Separation momentum is conserved, and as the huge hydrogen stars formed, they too were moving away from each other. Thus the galaxies that formed from the debris of the supernovae of that first round of superstars were imparted with separation momentum, and are therefore generally moving away from each other too.

That brings us to a major distinction between BBT, and the ISU. Space has always existed and is infinite in the ISU, and is not stretching or expanding. Our arena will expand, in the sense that the galaxies have separation momentum, but only until that expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with a neighboring expanding arena or two. At that time the gravitational mechanism for the formation of a new big crunch and its collapse/bang are initiated, defeating entropy and perpetuating the process of big bang arena action.

The ISU is one universe, and is referred to as the infinite and eternal, homogeneous and isotropic, dynamic steady state, multiple big bang arena landscape, of the greater universe.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #243
Star Populations Wiki

Yesterday, Evan_au posted this link in a thread called, “Did the sun form from a cloud of hydrogen and helium?”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#Population_III_stars

It touches on the first round of massive hydrogen/helium stars that the Wiki calls “population III” stars, but does not confirm the ISU speculation about the size and mass of those first round stars that I included in my last post. However, the logic used in the ISU speculation is that the blackholes in the center of most current galaxies, along with the dust cloud star factories from which their stars formed, are remnants from the supernovae of the very massive first round stars.

Physicists  say that those massive stars would have formed easily in the temperatures and density of the early universe, as early as 300 to 400 million years after the Big Bang.

I am speculating, and am open to arguments supporting other views.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #244
Related topics: galaxy formation and wave-particle structure sameness?

In a Big Bang arena, speculations are that the formation of the huge first round stars, after they burn rapidly and explode into supernovae, lead to the formation of galaxies populated with stars and planets composed of heavy elements. They would be second and third round, slow burning stars, of the varieties that we observe today. The heavy stars form in the star factory dust clouds around the black holes left by the first round and second round supernovae. There are heavy nuclei formed within the earlier stars that end up in the dust clouds surrounding those new stars, which provide  the matter from which the planets and moons form.


I mention here again, the sameness doctrine of the ISU that has evolved from my speculations as described in replies #240 & #241. I realized the benefit to the model of examining the mechanics that make sense at the arena level of order, and advancing the model by drawing comparisons between the other speculated levels of order.

For example, because we can observe a vast amount of space within our Big Bang arena, from our observation point here on Earth, it is easy to visualize two expanding Big Bang arenas expanding toward each. When visualizing those two or more arenas intersection and overlapping , it isn’t hard to imagine the consequences since two or more mature arenas would be filled with a vast galactic network. That network is the large structure of interconnected galaxies that hint at their close association with each other’s supernovae dust sources that tie them together with filaments of star forming matter. (Insert image) There is a resulting swirling rendezvous of galactic material and energy that eventually forms a big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

Going back before that, when contemplating the nature of particles that form in the early arenas, I began thinking about their nucleosynthesis. They form from the dense-state wave energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of the preceding big crunch in the ISU model’s process of big bang arena action. The wave energy is the dense-state wave energy resulting from the collapse of the preceding Big Crunch, and that thinking leads to speculation about the limits and thresholds of wave energy density and the active forces at work in each early big bang arena.


What comparisons can I make between the formation of particles at the quantum level, and the formation of the stars and galaxies at the arena level?

To go there, we will be examining the contents of the space that the particles form in during those first few hundred thousand years after any given big bang event, long before the 300 million year threshold which logically is when the huge first round stars form. It is a complicated and rich environment, but most notably, it has an infinite history of both arena action and quantum action behind it, and contributing to it. You may recall my earlier speculations about the cosmic microwave background, and the hemispherical anisotropy of the temperature readings fro WMAP and Planck Sky Surveys (replies #66 and #82 for example).

“Therefore, our big bang arena has its own CMB, composed of the pre-existing background in the surrounding space [from an infinite history of arena action], which is individualized by the [more] specific preconditions present, the individual backgrounds of our parent arenas.”


To be continued:

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #245
What do wave-particles have in common with the galactic structure?

In galactic structure evolution, there are phases that occur in every transition from the mature galactic structure of the two or more parent arenas, to the evolution of the same mature galactic structure in each new arena. The “sameness” is perpetuated right through the Big Bang arena process, as is the defeat of entropy that occurs with each transition from parent to child arenas.

In wave-particle structure evolution, there are phases that occur in every transition from the stable wave-particle structure that is present in the mature parent arenas, to the evolution of the same stable wave-particles in each new arenas that occur over time. The “sameness” is perpetuated right through the Big Bang arena process via the quantum action process.


How many times have you heard the question, “What came before the Big Bang?” Instead of some “theory specific” answer like, “That question doesn’t make any sense because time and space began with the big bang,” the ISU answer is that our arena is essentially the same as the “parent” Big Bang arenas, and the same as arenas have always been, and will always be; invoking the sameness doctrine.


How many times have you heard the question, “How could something come from nothing?” Instead of some pessimistic answer like, “We just can’t know some things”. The ISU answer is that something doesn’t come from nothingness; there is known science, and there is “as yet” unknown science, and everything that is “as yet” unknown has natural causes that we just don’t yet understand.

The phases in the transition from parent arenas to evolving new big bang arenas, that apply to both the evolution of galactic structure and wave particle structure, are derived from known science, and simple ISU logic and speculation. Arenas are composed of galaxies, and galaxies are composed of wave-particles. That is the way it always is, and that is internally consistent with all of the speculative scenarios conveyed in this thread.

Like the stable galactic structure evolves in maturing arenas, likewise wave-particles evolve their stable standing wave patterns as arenas mature.

As is the case with both galaxies and standing wave particles, due to opposing forces that are always in play, their apparent stability can be interrupted. Galaxies can converge and interact, as can particles. In the ISU, the greatest interruption turns out to be the means of perpetuating the life hosting potential of the universe by defeating entropy, arena by arena, here and there, across the infinite and eternal landscape of the greater universe.

Within the arena, galaxies and wave-particles clearly have significant differences in scale, but there are many points of comparison. The dense core of most galaxies is a blackhole composed of dense-state wave energy remnant of a supernovae, while the dense core of a wave-particle is composed of a high concentration of wave convergences that make up the particle-portion of the wave-particle; both the galaxies and the wave-particles are the evolved product from the collapse of a preceding big crunch.

To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #246
Field theory talk

I started getting into field theories with Thebox on his thread, and want to pick up on that here, so I will make reference to my posts over there and move back to my own territory:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70844.msg530445#msg530445
The crux of universal time is that time simply passes at some invariant universal rate, but the rate that clocks measure the passing of time is not invariant. The measurement of passing time is governed by the gravitational wave energy density of the of the local environment of the clock, i.e., the local gravitational field points occupied by the clock, because the particles that make up the clock function at a variable rate governed by the local gravitational wave energy density at that location in the field.

I 'see' that space is filled with energy in the forms of fields, I believe these fields to be linear .   

Here is a nice Wiki link to “Field”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

The Wiki on “Field” is quite complete for talking purposes. I don’t see much on linear fields, but I think I understand what you mean. When it comes to what “field” means in terms of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, the first line of the Wiki nails it:

“In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time” … and the term “physical quantity” means that the field establishes the structure of the physical values of each point of the field and the relationship between those points.

For example, a volume of space has three dimensions, and every point in that volume of space is an individual point in the field, where all points make up the entire field structure. Linear, in that sense, might mean that every point in space is connected to the entire space by its relationship with each surrounding point in any linear direction or vector. Does that sound right to you, in regard to fields being linear?

If so, then the field that is associated with the clock measurements of the passing of time is referred to as “the gravitational wave energy density profile of space”. That field is made up of points within that space that each have a specific physical quantity expressed as a value of wave energy density. The “Wave energy” part means that gravitational waves carry energy as they traverse space at the speed of light, so the quantity or value at each point is an amount of energy carried by all of the waves passing that point in space at the same time. The density at any point in the field is the net value of the peaks and valleys of the energy carried by all of the spherical waves converging at that point in space and time.

There is a back-history associated with each spherical wave that makes up the energy density of each and every point in the field. Therefore every point is constantly changing in value. However, the changes are not generally “jerky”, if you know what I mean, because there are so many individual waves converging at every point in space and time, that no one wave will generally dominate, but instead, the change in the moment-to-moment value of the net wave energy density of a point in space is more smooth than jerky.

An exception to that would be the relatively rare waves associated with extreme cosmic events like supernovae or the convergence of stellar black holes, as discovered recently by LIGO and the ESO.


I followed that post with these comments on his thread:
I will move further discussion about my gravitational field ideas to my thread, since I suspect is it outside the scope of your paper. To close out here, the gravitational field discussion is specific to my personal version of quantum gravity, lol, so by moving it over to my thread, I save you any connection with my musings.

Let me state here though, in conjunction with my posts about “field”, that when I said each point has a value in terms of the net energy carried by all of the gravitational waves passing through that point in space, at a point in time, I don’t mean to say that the value of the energy at any point in the field has ever been established, or even can be established, without specification of an appropriate unit of measure, without defining the spherical motion of the waves that carry that energy through the field, and without a reasoned approach to establishing a point by point energy value.

Einstein and Maxwell took on field theory over a hundred years ago, and general relativity is a pretty precise field theory of gravity featuring spacetime, and they work without ether. I’m happy with that, except to the extent that there is some logic involved in my perspective that suggests that the same effect that spacetime conveys, can be achieved by the gravitational wave energy density profile of space that I have mentioned to you in this thread.

I’ll leave you with that for now, and get back to my own territory.


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #247
End of 2017 ISU update


Happy New Year!
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_12_17_1_35_43.jpeg


My thanks to The NakedScientistsForum for allowing me to post my alternative ideas over the past eight months. This thread, through year end, can now be referred to as the 2017 update of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, a layman science enthusiast’s model of the cosmology of the universe.

The ISU is not a theory in the scientific sense, and there is no claim that it is science done by professionals. As pretty well explained near the beginning of the thread, in reply #16:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357

Let me elaborate on that methodology by pointing out that there is known science and ‘as yet’ unknown science. I incorporate all known science into the ISU if it is based on observations and generally accepted explanations that are consistent from theory to theory, which, I think, includes most of known physics in general, and much of the theoretical physics that is generally accepted.

There are incomplete theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community as far as they go, and various theories that are inconsistent from one theory to another. I hope by saying that I'm not required to list them all. Either you agree with me or you don't on that point, but I'm pretty sure I could find a lot of agreement on that within the scientific community.

Science is also tentative, meaning that as progress is made by members of the scientific community, there is a ‘publish and peer review’ process, and sometimes previously accepted theory is superseded by the new theory. Science is tentative in that respect, and I find almost no objection to that concept. I simply address the ‘as yet’ unknowns in my own way, as I wait for the scientific community to grow their improving consensus.


However, the ‘as yet’ unknown portion of physics and cosmology is what makes all of the models incomplete. My approach is to apply the ‘reasonable and responsible’ methodology to the gaps, and speculate about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved for many years, through several major false starts that have taken me back to the drawing board. I anxiously and readily seek falsification so I can revise and evolve a better personal view of cosmology. I encourage counter arguments, and I listen to them, and incorporate those that I consider reasonable and responsible. I am the arbiter of what is reasonable and responsible, because the ISU is my personal view of cosmology. It is not a scientific paper for peer review, it is a personal view for discussion with the intention of continual improvement.

That attitude, along with the very alternative views in my model are sometimes not acceptable to forums, or some sub-forums within them. I asked for clarification in the OP and in my last post, and if this material is in violation of the forum or sub-forum rules and guidelines, I will cease and desist, and would appreciated knowing that as soon as my posts become inappropriate.

And here we are today, still going …


To be continued …

[Colin2B]

My thanks to The NakedScientistsForum for allowing me to post my alternative ideas over the past eight months.   

.......That attitude, along with the very alternative views in my model are sometimes not acceptable to forums, or some sub-forums within them. I asked for clarification in the OP and in my last post, and if this material is in violation of the forum or sub-forum rules and guidelines, I will cease and desist, and would appreciated knowing that as soon as my posts become inappropriate.

And here we are today, still going …

So, i think you have an answer to your question.
As long as you don’t contravene the forum acceptable usage policy and understand how we moderate new theories, then you are free to speculate as much as you want.

Happy New Year to you too.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

So, i think you have an answer to your question.
As long as you don’t contravene the forum acceptable usage policy and understand how we moderate new theories, then you are free to speculate as much as you want.

Happy New Year to you too.

Thank you. I'll just continue on into 2018 on this thread, as opposed to my previous practice of starting a new ISU update thread each year, because TNS is a perfect site for my kind of interests and activity.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #250
… if the real mechanics behind how gravity works is quantum, then a quantum solution to gravity would extend the macro level theory of spacetime to the micro level …

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_01_18_1_58_28.jpeg


Somewhat recent developments in science, namely the discovery of gravitational waves, and the confirmation of the cold spot in the microwave energy background, lend some credibility to the ISU multiple big bang arena landscape model discussed in this thread. Gravitational waves are at the heart of the three ISU processes of arena action, quantum action, and the oscillating wave energy background. The cold spot can be taken as tentative evidence of the close proximity of another big bang arena, already interacting with ours, as both arenas expand into the same space.

Our arena and the adjacent arena would be designated as parent arenas under the definitions of the ISU model, and the space occupied by those two intersecting and overlapping arenas would be designated as one system, with the expected result of a gravitational convergence of much of the galactic content of the parent arenas. That arena/arena convergence, the highest order of wave energy convergence in the model, would produce a new big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space, and out of that would come a big bang event, giving birth to a new expanding arena in the landscape of the greater universe.

The nature of the idea I am working on acknowledges the genius of Einstein’s field theory, which quantifies the macro effect of gravity using the field equations to describe the curvature of spacetime. They describe a field where each point has values that specify an infinitesimal variance in the distance between points of spacetime, based on the amount of curvature that is present, point by point. The amount of curvature is governed by the density and proximity of matter, and those particulars yield geodesics which determine that path of objects through spacetime.

The path that objects take through space at the quantum level can be approached using the wave energy density mechanics of the ISU. It is not that I think I can describe those mechanics mathematically based on my verbal model, and it is not that I think that if anyone were to do that math, that it would be much better than the Einstein Field Equations at the macro level. It is just that if the real mechanics behind how gravity works is quantum, then a quantum solution to gravity would extend the macro level theory of spacetime to the micro level of quantum wave mechanics. The gravitational wave energy density profile of space would then supplement the curvature of spacetime, uniting the macro and micro realms.


My conclusion that Einstein’s field theory predicts that gravitational waves occur when relative motion occurs is important to the ISU model because it brings gravitational waves into to the quantum realm, speculating that not just rotating blackholes, but that atomic particles too emit and absorb gravitational waves. The contrast then would be between the magnitude of the observed wave energy of events involving blackholes converging with each other, to quantum waves converging to form momentary high energy density spots in space.

Gravitational waves are predicted to travel at the speed of light, and so the observed wave length, and thus the amount of energy observed to be carried by the wave is affected by the relative motion at either the macro or the micro level of magnitude. Gravitational waves are consistent with the conservation of energy and momentum.

At the macro level, where relative velocities are rarely relativistic, the affect is insignificant, but at the quantum level, tiny motion becomes magnified because the two components of the wave-particles, the inflowing and the out flowing gravitation wave energy, are traveling at the speed of light into, through and out of the particle space. The wave energy density of the space being traversed at the  quantum level varies significantly from that outside of the particle space, to the density at the surface of the particle, and then deep within it. Thus based on the premise that the velocity of light and gravity is governed by the local wave energy density, you have conditions that significantly affect the velocity of the wave action at the quantum level.


To be continued…

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #251
… gravitational waves occur when relative motion occurs…

When one has alternative ideas that generally seem to them to be internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data, that person might begin to come to conclusions about some quite alternative ideas that seem logical to them, but that aren’t likely to get any traction. The ISU is a case in point.

The lead statement “… gravitational waves/relative motion …” was pulled from post #250 because, whether it is a matter of cause and effect, or simply natural law, all objects with mass absorb and emit gravitational waves in quantum increments, from what can be characterized as the gravitational wave energy density profile of space (gravitational field, if you don’t object), in the ISU model.

You don’t have to read very many threads in an active science forum before you see discussions about the wave length of light being relative to the motion of the observer. Two observers in relative motion to each other will see the same light wave at different frequencies. As a premise in the ISU, that is also the case with gravitational wave energy density, and would apply to the gravitational waves discovered by LIGO.

A single wave-particle has a single frequency, but more massive objects, made up of multiple wave-particles, as are atoms and multi atom molecules, will have a higher frequency. Rotating Blackholes can be characterized as a symphony of the frequencies of the individual wave-particles making up the blackholes, and the chirping would reflect the increasing orbiting velocity right up to the blackhole merger, which actually is what the interferometer is designed to detect.

The take away from that is, frequency is an observable in regard to individual wave-particles, which includes stand alone wave-particles like photons and the fundamental particles in the ISU. Photons emit electromagnetic waves, but the other fundamental particles also emit identifying wave energy finger prints, akin to their De Broglie “matter-wave” frequency.


Larger objects begin to emit a mishmash (layman term) of frequencies and when combined, the emissions are simply gravitational wave energy emitted into the local wave energy density profile of space. But the beauty of that, in the ISU, is that all of the gravitational wave energy is emitted in quantum increments from the orchestra of particles making up the object.


That brings us back to the fact that gravitational wave energy in space is made up of the out flowing gravitational wave energy of wave particles, that get added to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space in quantum increments. Massive objects emit massive amounts of gravitational wave energy, all emitted in quantum increments, but you have to maintain the realization that all of the energy is emitted, quantum by quantum, from the surface of the wave particles within the object, and those wave particles are all composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

So in the ISU, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy is continually occurring between particle/objects, and the wave energy background, both in and out. There we have it, the basis for quantum gravity at the quantum level, orchestrated by the ISU process of quantum action (not to be confused with the quantum of action in QM).

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg



To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #252

The 2018 Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) Model Update
This series of posts, starting with reply #251, is a continuation and 2017 update of the first 250 posts that started by asking the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bang events?”

I have covered many parts of the ISU model in this thread on a step by step basis, and everything is connected, thus presenting the big picture of a layman’s researched hypothetical view of a wave mechanics model of cosmology.

The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model (of the cosmology of the universe), hereby invokes an image of the falling apple as its logo:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_01_18_2_50_57.jpeg



The ISU model is for layman discussion, by layman science enthusiasts, and represents a reasonable and responsible description of the universe, according to a loosely connected group of science forum participants and friends over the years (referred to as “we” from time to time) who have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to it. If you see, or think I have something wrong, it would improve the model if you speak up. Anyone who wants to participate should feel free to comment and/or challenge any part of the ISU model at any time; it is a work in progress.

The phrase “reasonable and responsible” designates the methodology used to build the model, from the wonderings that a child might have when peering into the starry night sky, to layman science enthusiasts wondering about the “hows” of the theories presented to us as the current consensus of the scientific community.

There is known science, and there is “as yet” unknown science, and the ISU cosmology incorporates generally accepted science that is consistent from theory to theory. We recognizing that there are incomplete theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community as far as they go, and various theories that are inconsistent from one theory to another. However, it is the "as yet" unknown portion of physics and cosmology that makes all of the models incomplete.

Our approach is to apply the "reasonable and responsible" methodology to the gaps, and speculate/hypothesize about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved since 2001, through several major false starts that have taken us back to the drawing board. We anxiously and readily seek falsification in order to evolve a better layman level view of cosmology.


The model comes with the stipulation that Science is "tentative" meaning that as progress is made by members of the scientific community, there is a "publish and peer review" process, and sometimes previously accepted consensus theory is superseded by new theory. Science is tentative in that respect. The model simply addresses speculations about the "as yet" unknowns, as we wait for the scientific community to grow their improving consensus.


We encourage counter arguments, and listen to them, and incorporate those that are considered reasonable and responsible. The intention is for continual improvement, and periodic updates like this make it an evolving view. As the originator and acting facilitator for the time being, I arbitrate what is incorporated into the model in order to, 1) maintain internal consistency, and 2) to avoid inconsistency with scientific observations and data.


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #253
Precising definitions for gravitational waves in GR and the ISU






Image link: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_3_33_22.jpeg


According to “A Concise Introduction to Logic” by Hurley, under the category of Lexical Definitions, which are the common meanings that words already have, Precising Definitions are meant to reduce the vagueness of the normal definition in a given application. They are necessary to specify further meaning to the word, for example in an obscure science-like layman level discussion in a science forum.


Take for example the word ‘wave’. You generally know what a wave is in the common usage; waves on water, sound waves, and even electromagnetic waves in the sense that they are defined by Maxwell’s equations as transverse electric and magnetic light waves that travel through space (at the invariant speed of light in a vacuum). But all of a sudden the word ‘wave’ became a little vague when used to describe gravitational waves like the ones predicted by Einstein in General Relativity, discovered on 14 September 2015 and announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016.

In the science of logic according to Hurley, the discovery of gravitational waves would make the common definition a little vague because gravity waves are quite different from the familiar definition. In the ISU model, they are different still. What that means is that Einstein’s predicted gravitational wave, which is very well explained in the link below, is not the same as the gravity wave in the ISU, thus requiring the precising definition used in the ISU.


Go to this article and familiarize yourself with the precising definition of Einstein’s gravitational wave:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/11/gravitational-waves-discovery-hailed-as-breakthrough-of-the-century


In the ISU, the precising definition is that the gravitational wave physically changes the local wave energy density of the space that it traverses, thus changing the velocity of light through that space, while in General Relativity the precising definition is that the gravitational wave physically changes the length of the arms of the interferometer (length contraction) and thus changes the distance that light travels through spacetime as it passes (geodesics). That makes two different explanations for the same effect; the ripples in spacetime of the GR explanation and the changing of the local speed of light of the ISU explanation. Those two different explanations lead to the two different precising definitions.


The ISU definition allows for an infinite universe that has always existed, just in case your view of cosmology allows your thinking to go there. If not, then you can be comfortable with general relativity, that features a beginning to the finite but expanding universe; you don’t have the problem of vagueness that the ISU alternative is aimed to address in the case that there was no beginning, but instead, there is an infinite big bang arena landscape where big bang arenas continually merge and mingle during the process of Arena Action.


The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.


To be continued ...

[guest39538]

Do you feel that your efforts to get a conversation going, are in vein?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Do you feel that your efforts to get a conversation going, are in vein?

No, but thank you for asking. The fact that TheNakedScientists forum focuses on answers to question in all fields of science makes it a great service to layman science enthusiasts, but it doesn't place an emphasis on New Theories or alternative ideas. In fact, those of us who have those kinds of thoughts often find that we are alone in our speculations and musings.

The thing for us out here on the Lighter Side is that we even have a place to post our thinking. We should present it as discussion because it certainly isn't intended to be a blog site, but if no one is interested in discussing our particular interests, it is still a place for us to get our thinking out there. When and if discussion happens, that is even better.

[guest39538]

The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.

ok!

The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.

I consider ligo detected a fluctuation in the Earths field made by force feedback from other fields fluctuating?

I consider the Earths field is a linearity in all directions and ripples or waves are fluctuations in the field . 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The ISU definition of the gravitational wave, the part about them changing the local speed of light, is based on the premise that the local speed of light is governed by the local wave energy density; how many different waves from all directions are passing through a particular point in space. When a major gravitational wave passes, like those detected by LIGO, it makes a measurable change in the local wave energy density, and thus a measurable change in the local speed of light as it passes. That change in the local speed of light, a momentary time delay, sets off the LIGO alarm, and a gravitational wave is recorded.

ok!

Thanks, it is a fairly clear way to make the distinction between how the passing of a GR gravitational wave may cause the LIGO alarm to be set off, vs. how the passing of an ISU gravitational wave would cause the LIGO apparatus to ring the alarm. Using Hurley’s “precising definition” technique from the science of logic helped in getting the wording right.

I consider ligo detected a fluctuation in the Earths field made by force feedback from other fields fluctuating?

If you are right, maybe when they get these devices into space we will be able to confirm or deny …

The European Space Agency is working on putting a satellite based interferometer up around 2030:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna

NASA started a study (in 2011?), and I guess it is still on the drawing board:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Saif_2012_PhI_AtomInterferometry.pdf

I consider the Earths field is a linearity in all directions and ripples or waves are fluctuations in the field . 

I don’t object to that at all, but in ISU terms I think it would be good for me to do some more of the “precising definitions” approach to address the vagueness that creeps in. For example, when you use the phrase ‘linearity in all directions’, my ISU inclination is to hear you say, ‘spherical gravitational waves emitted by the wave-particles the make up the Earth’. When I hear you refer to 'ripples' I think you are talking about gravitational waves in the contest of General Relativity Theory. So if your thinking is not the same as GR, and not the same as the ISU, then you might try to do some “precising definitions” of your own to clear it up for me.

[guest39538]

then you might try to do some “precising definitions” of your own to clear it up for me.

Ok , I will try to define what I mean exactly.

Imagine a light sphere and the spherical boundary is the ''edge'' of observation .  You are at the centre of this light sphere.   In any direction you look, you have a linearity, a clear line of sight

You..............................→line of sight

Now this would be equally as true for any direction you was to look, it would be isotropic and linear. 

Now imagine the electrical Neutral field of the Earth looks like this.

So then I consider what would happen if one of these lines was to receive a force feedback, I consider the line(s) would wave.

I consider the blue sky is waving back literally.

[guest39538]

feedback.jpg (37.76 kB . 1914x922 - viewed 4176 times)